# Resisting Climate Hysteria



## Mickel

Resisting climate hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen

July 26, 2009

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action



Link-  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria


----------



## Mickel

Debunking  Gore's Film-

An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore
British Court Ruling on Errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Resurrects Global Warming Debate
By MARCUS BARAM
Oct. 12, 2007 




Link http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1


----------



## Calliope

Mickel said:


> With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
> 
> 
> Link-  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria




A very rational and timely expose`of climate change hysteria Mickel. Unfortunately the alarmists have very short and selective attention spans and they won't read it. It has to be something lifted from the Age or the Guardian to get their attention.

On the other hand I seldom read their rubbish (except for a laugh.) So it's a Mexican stand-off.

By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.


----------



## Mickel

The latest in Climate Hysteria from the Qld State Labor Government will commence for sellers of any residential property from Jan 1 2010.

The Qld State Govt passed a law on Thurs night to compel all sellers to complete a "Sustainability Declaration".  Check the Govt website here - 

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/sustainable-housing/sustainability-declaration.html

Check out the Declaration here - http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/form/sustainable-housing/declaration.pdf

This law comes with severe penalties for non compliance and is overseen by Premier Bligh’s husband Greg Withers, the bureaucrat (assistant director-general), who’s in charge of the state government’s Office of Climate Change.

It is an attempt to brainwash all Queenslanders about their Climate Change agenda. Some commentators are also of the view that it would provide a rich stream of taxation for State Govts in the future.

But watch out in the other Australian States as a spokesperson for REIA stated on radio this morning that it is on the agenda of the Federal Govt.


----------



## Calliope

I posted this on another thread but it is more relevant here. They are ramping up the hysteria to get us primed for Copenhagen. I realise it is too long, but here goes.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/dykes-may-be-vital-in-stemming-venice-effect-20091113-iesa.html



> Dykes may be vital in stemming Venice effect
> MATTHEW MOORE URBAN AFFAIRS EDITOR
> November 14, 2009
> DYKES, seawalls and other barriers may have to be built to save thousands of coastal properties, many of them in Sydney and Melbourne, according to a landmark study.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> A very rational and timely expose`of climate change hysteria Mickel. Unfortunately the alarmists have very short and selective attention spans and they won't read it. It has to be something lifted from the Age or the Guardian to get their attention.
> 
> On the other hand I seldom read their rubbish (except for a laugh.) So it's a Mexican stand-off.
> 
> By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.




Hysteria you call it.   The rubbish is from your side of the argument.  The broard generalisations and weak anecdotal without support other than what you selectively take from the past is clear enough.   Your concern at changes that are being made to the detriment from your point to the real estate industry, coal et.al. exposes the bias.

Global warming and outright deterioration of the planet is clearly self evident without the need of science, (though an objective look at the science is compelling)we can see and feel it with our own senses.

Al Gore is not a scientist he merely puts forth his view as a concerned citizen.

Yes the planet, has been here before in different ways. (the Book "The Sixth Extinction" paints it clearly) but in those periods, the species have been decimated to the tune of 90%    You want us to go down that path.

And I will not go down the path of reminding of the huge number of clear and observable changes, but will say, that if even 10% of what appears to be happening, happens, then all efforts need to be put in place to safeguard our planet and species from any where near the projected outcomes.

And I believe this thread ought be linked into the thread headed "Climate Change...".


----------



## Wysiwyg

Mickel said:


> The latest in Climate Hysteria from the Qld State Labor Government will commence for sellers of any residential property from Jan 1 2010.



Good information, thanks. Does it mean that values will increase/decrease dependent on the sustainability features? Go with the flow and make that house more sustainable. 


> Why is this being introduced?
> 
> There is growing concern about the impacts of climate change and the need to improve existing housing stock. *Encouraging prospective buyers to make informed choices about the sustainability performance of residential buildings is becoming increasingly important.*
> 
> Properties with a greater number of sustainability features potentially have lower energy costs and use less water. They can also be more comfortable to live in and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> *Homes with access features may be more liveable for occupants during their **various life stages and the inclusion of safety features can reduce* *potential risks around the home*. The declaration aims to increase awareness about sustainable housing features when a property is marketed for sale.
> 
> It also promotes possible ongoing financial and environmental benefits that could be achieved with specific features.* It is anticipated that the* *declaration will help promote the sustainability of a home and become a key marketing tool for real estate agents and private sellers*.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Variation in Weather and normal changes in the environment have become the main tenets of a New Religion of the Left now that communism has been debunked as a religion without foundation.

All the usual suspects, Crusties, Basket Weavers, Fabians, The ABC and Greens are out there trolling the message.

Its worse than Scientology.

gg


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> And I believe this thread ought be linked into the thread headed "Climate Change...".




I don't think so. You are a "Climate Change Hysteria Denier". You obviously don't want to join the resistance movement. I think 2020's thread may be more to your liking.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Hysteria you call it.
> Yes the planet, has been here before in different ways. (the Book "The Sixth Extinction" paints it clearly) but in those periods, the species have been decimated to the tune of 90%    You want us to go down that path.




explod, mate, you have hit the nail on the head.

The one fact that everyone agrees on is that there are too many humans on the planet.

The Chinese brought in their 1 child policy.

This is an uncomfortable fact that no government or godbothering sect is willing to address.

gg


----------



## Vizion

Quite untrue Garpal, Lindsey Tanner spoke about just this problem last week and the way Australia might fit into the G20's forward planning to stabilise the worlds population.
As for the Nay Sayers to climate change :horse:

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229


----------



## Moderator

Those who have found their post(s) in this thread edited or deleted, this is why:



Joe Blow said:


> Please do not infringe the copyright of others on ASF.
> 
> I see a lot of people reproducing whole articles and/or not posting a link to or identifying the original source of quoted material.
> 
> The ASF code of conduct states:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are quoting another source you must do two things.
> 
> 1. Not quote the entire article as this infringes copyright. Please only quote a  small portion of it (maximum 10%) as this constitues 'fair use' or 'fair dealing'. See here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
> 
> 2. *Always* include a link to the original article. If the article is not on the internet you must specifically refer to the publication (title and issue/date) from which it came.
> 
> Posts may be removed or quoted material shortened by myself or one of the site moderators if this rule is ignored.
> 
> Thank you all for your co-operation.






Joe Blow said:


> We will be getting tougher on flagrant copyright violations from this moment on. If you are reproducing copyright information on ASF from another source you must do so within the realms of the law.
> 
> You *must* only reproduce a small portion of the article (10% or one or two paragraphs maximum) and you *must* link to the original source.
> 
> We will now be actively removing posts that contain:
> 
> 
> Copyrighted articles that are reproduced in full or beyond what is considered to be 'fair dealing'.
> Excerpts of articles that contain no link to the original source.
> 
> Please report posts that are violating copyright law by using the 'Report a Post' function.






Joe Blow said:


> This is still an issue that some people do not seem to be taking seriously.
> 
> There are a few points that I want to make absolutely clear.
> 
> 
> If you quote another source you *must* identify that source. If it's from the internet then a link will suffice. If it is an offline source then it must be identified by publication, name of article, author and page number. Posts with quotes from other sources that do not identify their source will be removed.
> 
> Please ensure that you separate the quoted part of your post from the rest of it. The best way of doing this is by using the 'quote' tags to identify the quoted part of your post: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/help/bb-codes#quote
> 
> Do not reproduce entire articles unless you have the permission of the copyright holder. If you do not then please only reproduce a small portion of the article and then supply a link to the entire article so those interested can click through and read it all.
> 
> Your co-operation in this matter is appreciated.




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


----------



## Wysiwyg

Plenty of government assistance available. 



> The Solar Homes and Communities Plan started helping Australian homes and communities reduce their energy use, help the environment and save on energy bills in 2000.
> 
> Since November 2007, the program has provided rebates of up to $8,000 for the installation of solar photovoltaic systems.





> Insulation for homeowners, renters & landlords.
> 
> The non-means tested package includes:
> 
> * ceiling insulation worth up to $1,200 for Australian Householders, including Owner-Occupiers, Landlords and Tenants of currently uninsulated homes or homes with very little ceiling insulation; OR
> * a $1,600 rebate for installing a solar hot water system or a $1,000 rebate for installing a heat pump hot water system, to replace an electric storage hot water system.





> Green Loans is a new Australian Government initiative to help Australians tackle climate change.
> 
> The Green Loans Program assists Australian families to install solar, water saving, and energy efficient products.
> 
> The Green Loans Program provides:
> 
> 1. detailed, quality Home Sustainability Assessments; and
> *2. access to Green Loans of up to $10,000, that are interest free for up to a maximum of four years, to make the changes recommended in the assessment*.





> Rebates for households to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems
> 
> Rebates of up to $500 are available to households for either:
> 
> * The purchase and installation of a new rainwater tank which is connected for internal reuse of the water for toilet and/or laundry use; or
> * The purchase and installation of a permanent greywater treatment system.


----------



## Wysiwyg

And the cities of tomorrow ....


> Solar Cities - a vision of the future
> 
> Australia's Solar Cities are Adelaide, Alice Springs, Blacktown, Central Victoria, Moreland, Perth and Townsville.
> 
> Each Solar City will integrate a unique combination of energy options such as energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses, the use of solar technologies, cost reflective pricing trials to reward people who use energy wisely, and community education about better energy usage in an increasingly energy-reliant world.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Vizion said:


> Quite untrue Garpal, Lindsey Tanner spoke about just this problem last week and the way Australia might fit into the G20's forward planning to stabilise the worlds population.
> As for the Nay Sayers to climate change :horse:
> 
> http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229




Viz, mate, one of the unfortunate elements of debate is that when the left run with an idea and someone disagrees with it all hell breaks loose.

The reaction against the "naysayers" goes over the top.

In this case we are dealing with science and propoganda and the left cannot deal with the libertarian philosophy of the former, but are comfortable with the totalitarian elements of the latter.

I rest my case.

gg


----------



## Mickel

explod said:


> Al Gore is not a scientist he merely puts forth his view as a concerned citizen.




Yes, a view largely debunked by a British High Court Judge.

Professor Lindzen, who was a lead author of one of the IPCC's papers and is respected by both sides of the argument has set out why CO2 will not warm the planet 3-5 degrees celsius as quoted in the IPCC's modeling. Therefore the the hysteria and ETS (and the whole Copenhagen Treaty) is NOT justified.


----------



## 2020hindsight

so mickel , is this going to be the hottest Nov on record for Sth Aust?
what about this summer? - is it gonna be another disaster for the people and wildlife of Victoria?

You seem pretty sure you know it's all gonna be ok - "settle down people! - no need to do anything! - just go home and turn the aircons up! - relax!" 

say, if you're wrong - can we send you the bill?


----------



## Wysiwyg

Excellent move by the government to move swiftly on this issue and make positive changes regarding both derived and consumed energy. Homo Ignoramus numbers are small with the species to eventually die off or evolve with the positive changes; and there will be positive changes.


----------



## Calliope

There is no doubt that the climate change hysterics have overplayed their hands;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ndermines-debate/story-e6frg71x-1225797519791

The Weekend Australian editorial. 



> That many Australians remain sceptical about the broader issues is no surprise. Nothing erodes a serious argument faster than exaggerated claims and half-baked science. Too much of the debate has been short on facts, and the green movement has eroded its credibility by stunts such as the World Wildlife Fund's Earth Hour, almost meaningless given Australia's 1 per cent contribution to global emissions.
> By unquestioningly publishing doomsday scenarios in their unbridled enthusiasm for green causes, some journalists have unwittingly undermined the case for an ETS and tipped some people towards scepticism.


----------



## Calliope

2020hindsight said:


> so mickel , is this going to be the hottest Nov on record for Sth Aust?
> what about this summer? - is it gonna be another disaster for the people and wildlife of Victoria?
> 
> You seem pretty sure you know it's all gonna be ok - "settle down people! - no need to do anything! - just go home and turn the aircons up! - relax!"
> 
> say, if you're wrong - can we send you the bill?




I sense a touch of hysteria here.


----------



## 2020hindsight

Calliope said:


> I sense a touch of hysteria here.



not really
just agreeing with the ghist of this post :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> I sense a touch of hysteria here.




I sense a touch of hysteria the other way. Even in those articles you quote from the Australian, they acknowledge that the reduction of Carbon Dioxide production is a good thing.

It is true that some of the left have a religious conviction rather like they do with no nuclear mines and I call them the dumb left. They are annoying, foolish and treat it as a cause a crusade and wonder why moderates are put off. 

But it appears to me there is a similar community operating on the right that believes nothing should be done, who are desperete to build a group of like minded people to hold up their world view despite the evidence and have all these conspiracy theories., the dumb right. They seem more apparent on this site.

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.


----------



## Vizion

Garpal me ole mukka  The most strident voices have been the naysayer's.

Can someone show me one study that shows the earth has not warmed, that the oceans have not risen, that the planet has greater biodiversity, that this planets varied species has flourished.

How about a study that shows carbon is not in greater quantities in the atmosphere, that the temperature in Australia is going down.
How about a study that shows our forest are in better condition, that the air is safer for our children to breathe. 

The chief scientist in my division spent two years as part of the Australian Antarctic Expedition from 95 to 97, I am going to listen the results gathered from their ice cores, before I listen to a few people here who do NOT believe we are causing damage to our planet. I don't care what anyone posts, there is NOT ONE FACT that supports the naysayers, it's a matter of degree's you are all arguing about. Meanwhile the damage keeps getting done...  

As I have stated once before, I would rather see us err on the side of safety & put into place right now, some safeguards. Give me one good reason we should not be acting now. Since when was prevention worse than a cure?

Does anyone here actually think burning fossil fuels is the way forward? I believe that there are some really intelligent people both on this forum & in this world & it's time we started using that pool of intelligence to try to wind back some of the damage we have done. Not argue about what degree of damage we have actually caused. 

Interesting fact, the time the planes stopped running after 911 the Earth's upper atmosphere's temperature, was cooler by half a degree. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Viz, we all want clean air, and a good life for our descendants, less pollution and less waste of our resources, and cleaner fuel.

I agree with you on that.

I like the bush and nature as much as the next.

However I have a great distrust of false belief, and an attribution of *all* change to the last 150 years of man's endeavours. Its a religion.

gg


----------



## Mickel

Knobby22 said:


> I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.




There is nothing wrong with that, I agree.

BUT, who says CO2 is pollution. We breathe it out, plant life(so cherished by the Greenies) depend on it for their existance.

Why won't Gore, P Wong et al debate the science of this as regards global warming so everyone can see the logic of what is proposed? The IPCC summaries have been corrupted so blatently that more and more scientists with knowledge and experience in the area are objecting to the hysteria based on the IPCC summaries.

And Gore and Wong wouldn't stand a chance in a logical debate.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.



Knobby, Wayne has been the chief proponent on this site with respect to reducing pollution.  I've not seen anyone disagree with him.

For me, and it appears others, the concern is that Mr Rudd and his government seem determined to thrust onto Australia an ETS which many, many respected people have suggested is deeply flawed.  I don't profess to have a complete understanding of the details but find it difficult to see how the handing out of free permits to pollute and/or allowing industries to buy permits to pollute will actually reduce CO2.  If someone can explain to me how this will happen I'm happy to be so educated.

Many business leaders have made the point that if the costs involved are crippling to their profitability they will be forced to move their businesses to countries where they continue to pollute with abandon.
If many businesses do this, the effect on our economy is obvious.

Further, I agree with those who suggest it makes little sense for Australia to legislate the ETS before knowing the outcome of Copenhagen, i.e. if Australia is the only country to implement such a scheme it will be pointless from other than a political point of view.

I also have some sympathy for the suggestion that Mr Rudd's enthusiasm may at least in part be due to his wish to further his position on the world stage (and that UN position he wants so badly).  

Most reasonable people take care to reduce pollution in any way they can.
It just seems to me a mistake to assume that anyone who is less than convinced CO2 is anthropogenic and/or is very doubtful about the usefulness of the proposed ETS (and concerned about its costs to ordinary Australians as well as business) is ipso facto a rabid polluter.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Many business leaders have made the point that if the costs involved are crippling to their profitability they will be forced to move their businesses to countries where they continue to pollute with abandon.
> If many businesses do this, the effect on our economy is obvious.
> 
> Further, I agree with those who suggest it makes little sense for Australia to legislate the ETS before knowing the outcome of Copenhagen, i.e. if Australia is the only country to implement such a scheme it will be pointless from other than a political point of view.




It is true that all countries should work together so no country does pollute with abondon. I have to say in China's defence they have received from the west some of the most noxious manufacturing processes as the western populace would not put up witth them.

Countries like France produce far less pollution than other countries and are still able to compete. Their excellent transport systems and use of nucleur and wind energy and careful planning has allowed this.

I agree the ETS cap/trade scheme Rudd and others espouse has many problems. I would prefer a flat carbon tax that operates world wide, say 0.5% for the first year then slowly increasing. 

Truthfully though, I have little hope as most businesses and politicians have no vision beyond a five year window.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.




I too think pollution is the scourge of the earth. Can you show me where I was ever opposed to pollution reduction?  I doubt if anyone practices pollution control more than I. My pollution footprint is tiny. However CO2 is not our enemy. It is or friend.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> I too think pollution is the scourge of the earth. Can you show me where I was ever opposed to pollution reduction?  I doubt if anyone practices pollution control more than I. My pollution footprint is tiny. However CO2 is not our enemy. It is our friend.




Yes, where would lemonade be without bubbles?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, where would lemonade be without bubbles.




Yes, and not only that, I am counting on it to play an important part in my "final exit" strategy, if I have to put it into play.


----------



## Calliope

God talks to Rudd (through Annabel Crabb);

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gods-memo-for-kevin-and-joe-20091113-ier6.html



> But I think the time has come for me to set some ground rules.
> 
> First of all - I am going to have to ask that you respect some basic intellectual property tenets. I'm happy for you to lift my ideas, but I'd like to see them acknowledged where possible. Like the loaves and the fishes, Kevin; it doesn't matter if you rebadged it as the Federal Stoves and Fridges Stimulus Scheme, it's still my concept.
> 
> Same thing with the coastal inundation idea, and the locust plagues and outbreaks of pestilence that you and Mr Garrett reference so freely in your speeches on the carbon pollution reduction scheme.
> 
> The Old Testament belongs to all of us, and you are welcome to its ideas.
> 
> I'd just like to be given a nod, is all I'm saying.
> 
> On the carbon pollution reduction scheme itself, I don't have much of an opinion.
> 
> I think it's kind of batty, but then again I arranged the original Great Flood, so I would say that, wouldn't I?


----------



## Julia

Good for Annabel Crabbe who is much more than just a very pretty face.

Seriously, it's good to see some change in the attitude of the media.
Up until recently they have (with a few exceptions via "The Australian") hung on the words of the climate change hysterics, attempting to make us all feel guilty for even drawing breath.

But, ever so gradually, a more cynical and sceptical view is beginning to be noticeable.

The media are largely responsible for public attitudes.  If they only report the pronouncements of the Left, offering constant doom mongering, then the average Australian will accept that.  Ditto if the contrary view were offered.
Just a reasonable balance would be good.

An example was the headlines today that coastal inundation is going to affect hundreds of thousands of households and businesses.
Only at the end of the report of the study (which of course once again just is based on computer modelling) is it pointed out that this - even if it happens - will be at least 100 years away.
I wonder if an opposing scientific view (and there will be plenty) will ever make it to print and/or broadcast?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Knobby22 said:


> It is true that some of the left have a religious conviction rather like they do with no nuclear mines and I call them the dumb left. They are annoying, foolish and treat it as a cause a crusade and wonder why moderates are put off.
> 
> But it appears to me there is a similar community operating on the right that believes nothing should be done, who are desperete to build a group of like minded people to hold up their world view despite the evidence and have all these conspiracy theories., the dumb right. They seem more apparent on this site.
> 
> I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.



Knobby,

Your post exposes naivety. 

The people pushing cc, gw never talk about pollution. All they talk about is Co2 or carbon. These are key words that program the repeaters and non-thinkers. Fear creation and a "we must act now" psychology of the new religious are making their propaganda fathers proud. Their chosen word is "denier"- another key word. This fails the credibility test. 

Some people talk about pollution reduction in a sensible like manner. You seem to understand the pollution problem as do I and many others. But when TAX is a result of any action  naturally one has to be suspicious.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> I agree the ETS cap/trade scheme Rudd and others espouse has many problems. I would prefer a flat carbon tax that operates *world wide*, say 0.5% for the first year then slowly increasing.



World wide is the key to making any of these CO2 reduction schemes work. 

But as soon as there's one coutnry exempt, that's where most of the polluting industry will end up - and that country will become the richest country on earth real fast, a reality which makes global enforcement rather difficult.


----------



## Smurf1976

Saw a classic example of what's wrong with this debate last night on TV.

An advertisement saying that we can all help by (1) using green bags at the supermarket (2) washing clothes in cold water and (3) using energy saving light bulbs.

Now, point 2 and 3 will reduce CO2 emissions under most circumstances certainly (assuming that point 2 doesn't result in replacement of clothes more often). But point 1, not using plastic bags, is outright nonsense in terms of CO2 emissions. Plastic bags may well have downsides, but to claim that not using them is a worthwhile means of reducing CO2 emissions is outright nonsense and a classic example of using CO2 to push another agenda and the sort of thing that puts thinking people at odds with the brainwashing tactics of the green movement.


----------



## wayneL

I hear that Al Bore has become the first person to become a billionaire from climate change alarmism.

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## justjohn

Geez ,fella;s I'm in big strife ,they say that the water is rising 2mm per year ,who's going to help me with the sand bags


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> World wide is the key to making any of these CO2 reduction schemes work.
> 
> But as soon as there's one coutnry exempt, that's where most of the polluting industry will end up - and that country will become the richest country on earth real fast, a reality which makes global enforcement rather difficult.




It could be done if there was enough will. Any company associating itself with a country that allowed this exemption could be black banned. The problem is that there is a difference between conservatism and reactionary thought, and reactionary seems to be in fashion at present.


----------



## Knobby22

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Knobby,
> 
> Your post exposes naivety.
> 
> The people pushing cc, gw never talk about pollution. All they talk about is Co2 or carbon. These are key words that program the repeaters and non-thinkers. Fear creation and a "we must act now" psychology of the new religious are making their propaganda fathers proud. Their chosen word is "denier"- another key word. This fails the credibility test.
> 
> .




There is definitely a non thinker section, but they are on both sides of the debate. Ignorance seems to be a valuable commodity in today's times! I am hoping the middle way succeeds. 

There is so much rubbish spouted from both sides and the general media that it is hard to see the core truths. I suggest a "New Scientist" subscription for those who wish to be informed.


----------



## Mr J

wayneL said:


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




That much? Explod described Gore as putting forward his view as a concerned citizen - yeah, concerned with money. Gore obviously doesn't believe it, or just doesn't care. I'm surprised people think of him as a credible source.


----------



## Agentm

2020hindsight said:


> so mickel , is this going to be the hottest Nov on record for Sth Aust?
> what about this summer? - is it gonna be another disaster for the people and wildlife of Victoria?
> 
> You seem pretty sure you know it's all gonna be ok - "settle down people! - no need to do anything! - just go home and turn the aircons up! - relax!"
> 
> say, if you're wrong - can we send you the bill?




cant you post without being condescending? i thought this forum was against this type of posting?


the weather patters in australia have changes, el nino and others, all relate to the ocean temperatures, and there is no link to the increase of carbon to the rising of the sea temperatures..

one thing that is evident, when you look at the regions where sea temperatures change and sea currents weaken, its directly effecting australian climate,  including your reference to the recent hot week in south autsrlaia, and your neglected reference to the wettest month in NSW last month.. 

that high that sits out in the tasman, its the guy that gives you the dry air from the north after expelling its moisture over the great dividing range and turning south  and really raising hell in victori and south australia.. that high sat there for months on end last summer.. and delivered massive rainfalls to the divide and huge bouts of dry air to the southern states..

please explain the connection of carbon to el nino?

lets see it demonstrated please?

imho the carbon issue is a byproduct of global warming, the real reason for global climate change is extremely obvious, but always totally ignored..

and it zero to do with carbon emmissions..


----------



## Sdajii

My background is biology, I studied climate modelling in the context of species distributions which my honours thesis centered around. No, I'm not claiming to be a climate change expert by any stretch of the imagination. I primarily looked at what would happen to species distribution IF climate change occurred, so obviously I have studied a bit about the mechanisms of climate along the way, but it was never my main focus.

My experience has been very interesting and telling though.

Biologists are (generally) very much convinced that climate change is the big devil which will surely destroy us all. They laugh at the stupidity of economists for thinking it is a trivial issue or a beneficial one (Biology being my background, I have been exposed to a lot of this mentality).

Economists are (generally) very much convinced that the climate change believers are 'alarmists', either fraudulent or stupid, and that the reality is climate change either does not exist, is of negligible importance, or is actually beneficial (economics being one of my interests, I am exposed to a lot of this mentality).

What the above (yes, slightly exaggerated to illustrate the point) has demonstrated to me so incredibly clearly, is that people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to. If they aren't particularly biased, they just believe whoever is most charismatic or whoever is most skilled at debating. This is probably familiar to all of us from many areas of life.

I have studied physics (only as elective subjects in biology courses - I am no expert and will point out I am not making that claim) and worked loosely with people who really are experts in terms of climate change. Interestingly, those people have mixed opinions, but the ones who say 'climate change is going to wipe us all out' get more attention. I would be a fool to claim I can understand what is going on with climate, as would most if not all of the members of this forum. How many people here are experts in the area? Do any of you who are making confident predictions actually think you know what you are talking about? Even the genuine experts on the topic don't agree, because it's just so difficult to work out. Unfortunately, by the time information gets from the scientists to the television screen, internet terminal or newspaper, it doesn't really represent the findings of the scientists. The reality is, we are just bickering like naive idiots when we say we know what we are talking about with climate change. The only thing we can be certain of is that we really don't know.

We know the climate has been changing massively for millions of years, and it has been colder and warmer many times before. We only have documented weather data for the last few thousand years, and it has only been properly documented for something in the vicinity of the last 100-500 years (depending on what you call proper documentation). Imagine trying to analyse a million-year pattern based on few hundred years of data! It is like trying to analyse decade long trends in a share price based on a few minutes of trading data. "I my god! It just went up 0.8% in two minutes! At this rate my $1,000 investment will make me the most wealthy man in the world by the end of the year!" or alternatively "The price hasn't changed for a few minutes, I suppose in 10 years it will still be the same".

It is very possible that climate change could wipe out most of the human population within the next 20 years. It is also possible (going by what we know) that nothing terribly noteworthy will happen in the next few thousand years.


----------



## wayneL

Agentm said:


> cant you post without being condescending? i thought this forum was against this type of posting?




It is. If you see a post you think is off, you can report it via the report post icon on every post.


----------



## Calliope

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your _curriculum vitae_.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your _curriculum vitae_.




I think this comment from Sdajji is the important one.

What the above has demonstrated to me so incredibly clearly, is that people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to.


----------



## Agentm

Calliope said:


> Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your _curriculum vitae_.




i thought it was obvious myself, i dont agree with all the points

i liked the contribution.. 

biologists have a view also, as do all, and its valid..

why not add comment and clearly spell out your qualification, i disagree with the post that you cannot self research it and have a valid opinion,

some people here may have interests in it  after having studied meteorology.. you can never tell

i have a logical mind, and if you want associate global weather patterns changes in with meteorolgy and then with carbon emmissions, then clearly do it, present the science..

carbon tax, reducing carbon, is pure guessing,,  is just a form of revenue raising, and scaremongering 

if global warming is happening, and we cannot dissassociate climate change from global warming, and somehow hook carbon as the root cause,, then how will taxing a carbon emmissions do zip for anyone?

imho there is too much confusion, too much associations with normal climate change to global warming and absolutely no common sense given to some of the most severe global impacts that really need to be addressed..


----------



## Mr J

Calliope said:


> Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your _curriculum vitae_.




In addition to what Knobby has said, Sdajii is pointing out that very few really know anything about it, and those that do (the experts) do not seem to form a concensus at all.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your _curriculum vitae_.




I believe what he is trying to get through to us is the fact, nobody really knows what lies ahead of us.

The so called experts in climate change are basing thier facts on very short periods for modelling as with his  comparison to  the stock market short and long term.

On the other hand the deniers of climate change caused by CO2 emissions,  are basing their facts on what has happened over the last 2000-3000 years ago and more recently in the past 500 years. 

I recall a visit to Adelaide in 1985 when temperatures were 38/39 degrees for the 3 days of our duration. Yes it was hot, very dry but bearable. The tropics can have 33 degrees and 80% humidity and it is very depressing.


----------



## wayneL

Sdajii said:


> Even the genuine experts on the topic don't agree, because it's just so difficult to work out. Unfortunately, by the time information gets from the scientists to the television screen, internet terminal or newspaper, it doesn't really represent the findings of the scientists. The reality is, we are just bickering like naive idiots when we say we know what we are talking about with climate change. The only thing we can be certain of is that we really don't know.



If only bodies like the IPCC would be honest enough to put it across like this (and the other side for that matter), people would probably be more willing to embrace caution on co2 emissions.

If only bodies like the IPCC would be more holistic on a range of issues, more environmental problems would be addressed.

If only bodies like the IPCC would lay off the alarmist propaganda, there would be less reactive anti-propaganda, less suspicion of an ulterior political agenda.

If only the likes of Gore weren't massively profiteering from CC fear, ordinary folks might get behind efforts to reduce co2.

Still, the exclusive focus on co2 I maintain is extremely wrong headed and counterproductive. Let's deal with more demonstrable and easily provable human induce climate change factors, such as land use and general pollution.

As it stands, ACC is a religion. It is no longer a subject of proper science.


----------



## Calliope

Mr J said:


> In addition to what Knobby has said, Sdajii is pointing out that very few really know anything about it, and those that do (the experts) do not seem to form a concensus at all.




Australia's leading alarmist is also a biologist. Unlike Sdajji, Tim Flannery knows all the answers.

Sorry if I seem to be unfair to Sdajji. Perhaps it is because he tried to rubbish me on another thread on a topic on which he is not an expert.


----------



## Sdajii

Yes, the point is, people just believe what they want to believe. I might have gone into enough personal detail to be painfully tedious, but the point was that I have fairly heavily mixed in two circles of very opposing sides, and each has an overall point of view which represents what they want to believe, or what they want everyone else to believe (economists want people to believe what will make them money, biologists want people to believe what will protect biodiversity). It has virtually no relation to what the facts actually are.

You can disagree with me if you like, but I don't think peoples' opinions are worth much if anything when it comes to highly complex issues they are not educated in (I count myself in the group of people who don't deserve a voiced opinion on climate change, even though I have studied the topic more than most, as it is still so little compared to what the experts have done).

When people discuss something I do know a reasonable amount about, such as genetics, I will see them fumble around with wrong assumptions and misinterpretation, then cringe at the certainty they have with whatever ideas they come up with. I am sure that anyone who was an expert in climate prediction would cringe at the silly attempts being made on online forums like this. Are people really able to kid themselves into thinking that after a little bit of personal research they are able to know better than those who have dedicated decades of their lives researching the matter? Is it just coincidence that (biased) economists and biologists happen to be on opposite sides of the fence while the meterologists are divided?

To satisfy Calliope and anyone else who thinks that any discussion of a topic is meaningless unless you hold an opinion you want to try to convince others of... the best I can say is that I believe (without doubt) that climate change is a normal part of the world. I believe (with reasonable certainty) that the world was heating up before humans started to have any significant impact on the planet - there is a lot of solid evidence for this. Humans are making some pretty massive changes to the planet, but how much we are changing the climate and in what way is not easy to calculate. We don't have a control planet to compare against, so we can not know exactly. It is quite likely that we were not too far away from a major ice age before humans started mucking around, and I would prefer problems due to a nice warm planet than a planet frozen solid, so we might have actually changed things for the better (but this part is of little more valuable than speculation).

Whatever it would have been like without human intervention, it looks like we are facing a time of fairly rapid climate change over the next few decades, and human influence has probably been a major cause of what will happen. Whatever the new steady state of the planet's climate turns out to be (it may be better or worse than current), the changeover will probably be very messy (for example, if rain stops falling in one area and starts in another, the existing infrastructure becomes useless and the required infrastructure is not there). During a change in the planet's climatic state, extreme weather events are likely, and that isn't good for anyone.

The above paragraph could be called my 'opinion', but I don't hold it with firm certainty or claim it is highly informed (though probably it is more informed than most others here, and I am more certain of it than anything else I have read in this thread).


----------



## Sdajii

Calliope said:


> Australia's leading alarmist is also a biologist. Unlike Sdajji, Tim Flannery knows all the answers.
> 
> Sorry if I seem to be unfair to Sdajji. Perhaps it is because he tried to rubbish me on another thread on a topic on which he is not an expert.




It's a lot easier to work out whether or not a dam should go ahead than to predict what the climate is going to do over the next few decades, and certain outcomes of the building of that dam are absolutely certain.

If you think I tried to rubbish you, and are carrying that grudge as you appear to be, you probably have a complex or ego issue you need to address.

On a far less mature note "Aww, diddums, are you upset because Sdaji rubbished you in another thread? Awww"


----------



## Calliope

Sdajii said:


> Whatever it would have been like without human intervention, it looks like we are facing a time of fairly rapid climate change over the next few decades, and human influence has probably been a major cause of what will happen. Whatever the new steady state of the planet's climate turns out to be (it may be better or worse than current), the changeover will probably be very messy (for example, if rain stops falling in one area and starts in another, the existing infrastructure becomes useless and the required infrastructure is not there). During a change in the planet's climatic state, extreme weather events are likely, and that isn't good for anyone.
> 
> The above paragraph could be called my 'opinion', but I don't hold it with firm certainty or claim it is highly informed (though probably it is more informed than most others here, and I am more certain of it than anything else I have read in this thread).




In other words your opinion is that things may get better or they may get worse. No argument there. The only thing I find contentious is that your opinions "are more informed than most others here." I see no evidence of this.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. I am not rubbishing you...just making fair comment.


----------



## Sdajii

Calliope said:


> In other words your opinion is that things may get better or they may get worse. No argument there. The only thing I find contentious is that your opinions "are more informed than most others here." I see no evidence of this.




I do not claim that they are. I haven't seen anyone else here saying they have studied much into the topic, it seems most here are primarily interested in other things, particularly the economy, and are interested in climate change in terms of what it might do to their primary interest (stock trading). I am not claiming to be an expert on the topic, I have clearly stated otherwise, and I am not trying to push my ideas about what is going to happen to the climate. I think I made a valid point about how people form their opinions, and point out that we shouldn't be too certain about our predictions. That is all I was trying to do.

Most people seem primarily interested in convincing other people of their predictions, while others, such as yourself, seem primarily interested in conflict.


----------



## Calliope

Sdajii said:


> On a far less mature note "Aww, diddums, are you upset because Sdaji rubbished you in another thread? Awww"




:topic Incidentally Sdajji, it wasn't your criticism that I objected to on the other thread. It was your sarcasm. You are right.. it is not mature.


----------



## derty

Well said Sdajji. At the end of the day both of the extremes in this argument end up being the "squeaky wheels". 

When those of us who have science backgrounds find it hard to comprehend and understand the issue I find it amusing that those who have little or no scientific education can form such steadfast and concrete views on climate change and it's causes. Basically this argument has largely come down to one of dogma and ideology. 

I'm sure no one here has an in-depth knowledge of the processes, data collection, interpretation and interdisciplinary collaboration required to begin to form a concrete conclusion. Therefore it comes down to faith in the proclamations of the "squeaky wheel" of your choice. Everyone is essentially a "repeater" (thanks Snake for bringing the term to my attention). As few people understand the issue, the side of the fence one stands on largely seems to be decided by ideology, which is easy to see in the slights thrown in the threads here at ASF. Anti AGW proponents claim the other side are alarmists, socialists, liberals e.t.c. While the Pro-AGW camp call the other side deniers, right wing conservatives e.t.c.

At the moment this argument is akin to; Does God exist?  There currently is no way to definitively prove that AGW is happening. People choose their side and dogmatically fight it out. 

The is a consolation that within a few decades it should be apparent if AGW is fact. I'm sure God will still be fought about.


----------



## Calliope

derty said:


> I find it amusing that those who have little or no scientific education can form such steadfast and concrete views on climate change and it's causes. Basically this argument has largely come down to one of *dogma and ideology*.




I agree. Common sense has gone out the window.


----------



## Sdajii

Derty: Exactly! Both sides yell their message loudly and people choose the message they like, or are already prone to believing for whatever reason. Only a tiny percentage of all people are capable of actually understanding the situation or making a meaningful judgement, almost certainly none of us here, and quite likely, no human alive today.

I like the idea of calling it religion or philosophy rather than science, but we do have some evidence to work on.

In issues like this, we have an extremely complex situation and no easy way to explain it, which is why there are people on both sides. If there was a clear answer, we would have found it, we would all accept it, and threads like this wouldn't exist. For the next few decades, until our technology allows a clear answer or the climate actually changes in an utterly extreme way, people will bicker and argue. A tiny few people will research it properly and the rest of the world will argue based primarily on who debates best, who yells loudest, and which message people most want to believe.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Thanks Derty.


> When those of us who have science backgrounds find it hard to comprehend and understand the issue



When the official story is so concrete - that which comes from alarmists and scaremongering - it is no wonder people are screaming and extremely suspicious, even non scientists.


----------



## Julia

derty said:


> Basically this argument has largely come down to one of dogma and ideology.
> 
> At the moment this argument is akin to; Does God exist?  There currently is no way to definitively prove that AGW is happening. People choose their side and dogmatically fight it out.
> 
> The is a consolation that within a few decades it should be apparent if AGW is fact. I'm sure God will still be fought about.




Great post, derty.  Sums it up perfectly.


----------



## noco

Sdajii said:


> Derty: Exactly! Both sides yell their message loudly and people choose the message they like, or are already prone to believing for whatever reason. Only a tiny percentage of all people are capable of actually understanding the situation or making a meaningful judgement, almost certainly none of us here, and quite likely, no human alive today.
> 
> I like the idea of calling it religion or philosophy rather than science, but we do have some evidence to work on.
> 
> In issues like this, we have an extremely complex situation and no easy way to explain it, which is why there are people on both sides. If there was a clear answer, we would have found it, we would all accept it, and threads like this wouldn't exist. For the next few decades, until our technology allows a clear answer or the climate actually changes in an utterly extreme way, people will bicker and argue. A tiny few people will research it properly and the rest of the world will argue based primarily on who debates best, who yells loudest, and which message people most want to believe.




It also boils down to which side of the argument gets the most media attention. In particular, the ABC is, imho biased towards the Labor Party who are hell bent on extracting heaps of dough out of our pockets without any benifit to the so called CLIMATE CHANGE. Very politically motivated if you ask me!

Having lived from the early 30's to now and experienced various climate changes during that period, the ALARMIST are talking about EXTREME WEATHER that happened in my younger days. What's new?

I'm no expert with any scientific back ground, but by hell a little common sense should prevail.

Where will all this lead to? Who will be the ADJUDICATOR to determine who is right and who is wrong? Can anyone give me an answer?


----------



## ghotib

I read this piece when Mickel posted it on the Scientists' Integrity thread, and I've spent a lot of time following it up. As usual, digging into the science has been challenging and rewarding. The challenges are greater now than they used to be because I've moved from high-speed cable Internet connection to temperamental wireless, so my summary has taken even longer than usual to produce. 

Although Professor Lindzen is a scientist with a professional interest and record in the science of climate, in this article he makes no attempt to present a scientific case. Maybe because he doesn't have enough space to discuss the science fully, he makes some statements about several of the scientific issues and then sets out his ideas about public policy and the motivations of some of those whose ideas are different. I've tried to find sources and discussion of his scientific statements. I didn't try to follow up his assertions about the economic, political, or business implications of policy attempts to reduce carbon emissions.

I tried not to think about what he means by "precipitous (i.e. steep?) climate action". I just noticed that I kept wanting to read it as "precipitate (i.e. hasty)". Maybe some of ASF's other language lovers might like to comment on that. 

1. Lindzen writes that "recent work suggests that natural variability in climate is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th century (Tsonis et al., 2007). This paper applied the mathematics of chaos to global climate data in a way that had not been done before and modelled abrupt changes in climate conditions such as that of the 1970s. They conclude that the 1970s shift, which is usually attributed to changes in the effect of aerosols (I'm paraphrasing like crazy and I'm also battling to keep my feeble grasp on all this. Better explanations and alternative formulations gratefully received) might instead be explained by changes in coupling strength between four indices of climate variability "superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend." Two of the same authors published another paper in February 2009 expanding on the same work. One of them, Kyle Swanson, wrote a guest blog on RealClimate explaining how they see their results fitting in the discussion of human-induced global warming. It's at http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...terrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/. From the conclusion:


> What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.



I take that to mean that this author would disagree with Lindzen's interpretation of their work.

2. The next papers cited are one by Lindzen himself and one by Douglass et al, both from 2007. Lindzen says that these show that actual warming does not show a distinctive pattern in warming of the atmosphere that climate models show. He also summarises a paper from Santer et al thus:


> Santer et al (2008) argue that stretching uncertainties in uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.) (_original punctuation_



I found a reprint of Lindzen's paper online http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...k3mGvI&sig=AFQjCNGveLv_OuDVgRf9qyAQrFaySZbAfA, but I couldn't find any citations or reactions for it. I think a fair one-sentence summary is that it's a restatement of Lindzen's hypothesis that the cooling effects of cloud behaviour and the movement of water vapour in the atmosphere are significantly understated in accepted climate models. This hypothesis has been addressed in many other places (google Lindzen IRIS). I think the idea is beautiful, but sadly it seems that observations don't back it up (see the next point on satellite observations) and its characterisation of the problems with water vapour in models is questionable.

The Douglass et al paper claimed to show a statistically significant discrepancy between observed temperature changes and modelled temperature changes. Santer et al examines their claims and finds that their statistical test is seriously misapplied. There's a fact sheet from this paper available http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_lJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf, which includes the following comment on uncertainties.


> Research groups involved in the development of newer sea surface temperature datasets have reported improvements in the treatment of information from buoys and satellites. This has led to slightly reduced estimates of the warming of the tropical ocean surface (relative to the warming in the earlier surface temperature datasets used by Douglass et al. and in the CCSP Report). Additionally, newly-developed satellite and radiosonde datasets now show larger warming of the tropical troposphere than was apparent in the datasets used by Douglass et al. The enhanced tropospheric warming is due to improvements in our ability to identify and adjust for biases introduced by changes over time in the instruments used to measure temperature.
> 
> Access to such a rich variety of independently produced datasets has provided us with a valuable perspective on the inherent uncertainty in observed estimates of recent climate change. Based on our current best estimates of these observational  uncertainties, there is no fundamental  discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends. In fact, many of the recently-developed observational datasets now show tropical temperature changes that are larger aloft than at the surface – behavior that is entirely consistent with climate model results.
> 
> One of the lessons from this work is that even with improved datasets, there are still important uncertainties in observational estimates of recent tropospheric temperature trends. These uncertainties may never be fully resolved, and are partly a consequence of historical observing strategies, which were geared
> towards weather forecasting rather than climate monitoring. We should apply what we learned in this study toward improving existing climate monitoring
> systems,  so that future model  evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity.



IMO that's a long way from saying that stretching uncertainties will make the data fit the models, or that the data should always need correcting to fit the models.

3. Next section refers to the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment; and I used to think the computer industry used a lot of acronyms). Lindzen cites 3 papers, of which the first is dated 1984 and describes the instruments in the satellites and how their data is intended to be used. I didn't follow that one very far. The second paper was published in 2006 shows details of upgraded data sets from ERBE. In the third paper Lindzen himself is lead author. He uses the ERBE data to show that temperature feedback in nature is significantly different from temperature feedback in climate models. Subsequent commentary demonstrated 3 major faults with this paper, which to my knowledge Lindzen has not yet addressed: 

(a) It compared ERBE with models of atmospheric temperature which use sea surface temperature as an input, rather than a result. This is not how things work in the real world, where atmosphere and ocean influence each other, and the ERBE data does not conflict with those models.
(b) There's a discrepancy between the data set described in the text and the data set used in the analysis.
(c) There is an unexplained quantity in the calculation of radiated heat which is required to produce the claimed results. At this stage this looks like outright fraud, but the paper is very recent and there might be an honest explanation. 

I've read a lot by and about Professor Lindzen over the last week or so. My overall impression is that he has done very good science in the past, but that most of his efforts now are directed towards promulgating the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not significantly related to increasing global temperature. He's not doing good science any more and this piece doesn't contribute anything useful to policy discussion because it's science is tokenistic. 

I don't expect any of this to be particularly convincing to anyone. I'm still trying to digest most of what I've read (not just over the last week; I've been floundering around in this pond for several years) and I'm a long way from being able to discuss it coherently. 

I think it's worth the effort because arguments about motivation and integrity of scientists don't tell us anything about how the climate behaves or how much human activity affects it, and that's what needs to drive policy. I hope my struggles will lead other people here to "do your own research" beyond opinion pieces. After all, none of us would invest on the basis of tip sheets, now would we?

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> Having lived from the early 30's to now and experienced various climate changes during that period, the ALARMIST are talking about EXTREME WEATHER that happened in my younger days. What's new?




God got rid of his sceptics with the Great Flood. He did it with a burst of 40 days  EXTREME WEATHER. It looks as though my grandchildren will have to wait 90 years before they can fish off my front verandah. It doesn't seem fair. I can't see them building an ark. They don't seem to be the slightest bit concerned. They are not into dogma or orthodox ideology.


----------



## Julia

Ghoti, I'm in awe of your efforts.   Goodonya.

Cheers
Julia


----------



## Mickel

Here is an interview with John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) where he states there are 30,000 scientists (including 9000 PHD's) who are resisting the climate hysteria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

Also, Al Gore testifing before congress- 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o&NR=1


----------



## 2020hindsight

thanks ghoti,
and by the way, not sure I ever thanked you for pointing out the cracks in that TV channel 4  "documentary" (or alleged documentary), "The Great Warming Swindle" - which , by the time the ABC's Tony Jones had interviewed Durkins - turned out to be massive cracks and blatant misrepresenations and/or lies.   cheers for all that.


----------



## basilio

Beautiful work Ghoti. 

Of course if working through the issues of global warming was as (relatively ) simple as scientists cross checking their research, updating their ideas, coming to very strong conclusions and having this accepted by the world community we wouldn't be arguing about "Climate Hysteria".

We are having this discussion because too many institutions and people simply do not want to believe that the planet is cooking and that our current way of life is largely responsible for it. I suspect that no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will be sufficient to change the views of people with a vested interest in the status quo. And it is also fair to say that accepting the  reality of global warming is a real downer and human nature being what it is prefers comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths

Shame about that....


----------



## Calliope

2020hindsight said:


> the ABC's Tony Jones had interviewed Durkins -




Say no more.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> We are having this discussion because too many institutions and people simply do not want to believe that the planet is cooking and that our current way of life is largely responsible for it. I suspect that no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will be sufficient to change the views of people with a vested interest in the status quo. And it is also fair to say that accepting the  reality of global warming is a real downer and human nature being what it is prefers comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths




No.

We are having this discussion to arrive at the facts.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I suspect that no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will be sufficient to change the views of people with a vested interest in the status quo.




Or those Guardian readers, so driven by their idealogical dogma, that they convince themselves they should be able dictate what others should believe. But "no amount of evidence'" can change the  hysterical beliefs of Fundamentalists.

Shame about that...


----------



## Mofra

Calliope said:


> But "no amount of evidence'" can change the  hysterical beliefs of Fundamentalists.



Don't need the first bit, this sentence sums up some on both sides quite nicely.


----------



## derty

basilo pointed out the inertia present in vested interests wrt the staus quo.

It should be also highlighted that both sides of the AGW argument have backing by extremely powerful vested interests. 

On the anti-AGW side the petroleum industry, the coal industry and most of the resources and industrial sector have a lot to lose if global ETS's or similar carbon trading/taxing system is introduced. The energy industries early work at sowing the seeds of doubt in the climate change argument certainly smacked of tobacco industry-like  techniques.

In the pro-AGW there are the entities that stand to profit substantially from the introduction of a carbon based trading system, there is the perceived attempt at centralisation of global power by the G8/20 and the scientific community riding high on the amount of research required to address the issue (I do seriously doubt the ability of the scientific community to stage a globally concerted swindle).

Both camps are certainly not without baggage and I certainly view both with scepticism at the moment.


----------



## Mr J

Mofra said:


> Don't need the first bit, this sentence sums up some on both sides quite nicely.




I don't think it does at all. Few people take the opposite stance to climate change, and it seems the majority of people who are "deniers" really occupy the middle-ground, having questions and wanting answers and proper discussion. I'm talking about the public here.


----------



## Mofra

Mr J said:


> I don't think it does at all. Few people take the opposite stance to climate change, and it seems the majority of people who are "deniers" really occupy the middle-ground, having questions and wanting answers and proper discussion. I'm talking about the public here.



I disagree - the majority of people in general who occupy the middle ground seek more information rather than just subscribe wholesale to one side of the debate or other.



derty said:


> Both camps are certainly not without baggage and I certainly view both with scepticism at the moment.



Bingo


----------



## Calliope

derty said:


> Both camps are certainly not without baggage and I certainly view both with scepticism at the moment.




Like you, I have no baggage on this question. I know nothing about the workings  of "The Science" and am not in a position to refute it.

My scepticism arises from the assertions, that a small excess of CO2 (a gas without which there would be no life on earth) will destroy our civilisation by flood, fire and famine...and that it is my fault.


----------



## Mr J

Mofra said:


> I disagree - the majority of people in general who occupy the middle ground seek more information rather than just subscribe wholesale to one side of the debate or other.




That is actually my point -  one "side" isn't really a side at all. I don't consider those who flat out deny climate change to be a side, because they are a very small minority. The battle seems to be waged against the majority in the middle, as they are unreasonably labelled "deniers" and attacked just for wanting more information.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Mr J said:


> *The battle seems to be waged against the majority in the middle, as they are unreasonably labelled "deniers" and attacked just for wanting more information.*



Good point.

Also,there is a lack of _logical _discourse due to propaganda and emotional attacks. Red herrings, straw men etc.


----------



## Calliope

It looks like Kev may have to carry the whole load of the hystericals on his own puny shoulders.


----------



## Surly

Is there such a term as a climate change agnostic?

If these same scientists that have trouble predicting tomorrows weather correctly convince me that I am more responsible than nature for an increase in C02 levels, they then need to convince that the net effect on the planet or human race is actually negative. Will there be more or less arable and livable land? Will the worlds food stocks increase or decrease? Will we have more or less usable water?

Or is it simply change and an opportunity to fear the populace into accepting a new tax regime?

cheers
Surly


----------



## basilio

> I know nothing about the workings of "The Science" and am not in a position to refute it.
> 
> My scepticism arises from the assertions, that a small excess of CO2 (a gas without which there would be no life on earth) will destroy our civilisation by flood, fire and famine...and that it is my fault.



 Calliope



> I don't consider those who flat out deny climate change to be a side, because they are a very small minority. The battle seems to be waged against the majority in the middle, as they are unreasonably labelled "deniers" and attacked just for wanting more information.



  Mr J

The subject of how our climate can be affected by changes in CO2 in the atmosphere has now been researched for over 100 years.  In the last 15-20 years  scientists and educators have been providing clearer and clearer explanations for how this happens, showing evidence to demonstrate the  increases in global temperature and discovering just how finely balanced our climate system actually is.

I can appreciate that at first glance the impact of a seemingly innocuous (and necessary ) gas like CO2 seems out of proportion. But if you think about it  even in commonsense terms an excess of salt will kill us (but we must have salt to survive) and we can even die from drinking too much water.

There is plenty of information MR J.  A simple place to start would be National Geographic.  NIce overview. 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html

Wikipedia has a very detailed analysis which is pretty challenging but at least takes you to all the questions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Finally there is an excellent overall story of how the scientists have  pieced together (and still not completed)  a picture of how  our climate is affected by  many factors including  mankinds intervention.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


----------



## Mofra

basilio,

That is a very good response, however new discoveries are always shedding light on the actual effects of increased proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere and I'm not sure the case is completely closed on what happens next. Sorry I don't have a source, but there are reports of plankton-type blooms in areas where the seas has received a large amount of water that was formally land ice, and these blooms are acting as a form of carbon sink.

There seems to be a massive scope for future research and whilst I certainly acknowledge that we can't continue to pollute the environment, I'm not sure making enormous adjustments to national or international policy based on incomplete research is the right couse of action at this stage.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Mofra said:


> There seems to be a massive scope for future research and *whilst I certainly acknowledge that we can't continue to pollute the environment, I'm not sure **making enormous adjustments to national or international policy based on incomplete research is the right couse of action at this stage.*




Hi, I would hope the answer to this following question will shed some light on the reasoning behind resistance to change of any magnitude.

Referring to the bold section, why does there have to be conclusive evidence of mans' global environmental impact to make sweeping practical changes? Or alternatively, why is there resistance to sweeping practical changes?



p.s. ideally these changes on a global scale would need no reasoning other than the path we are on is destructive and needs to be changed anyway.


----------



## Julia

Mofra said:


> There seems to be a massive scope for future research and whilst I certainly acknowledge that we can't continue to pollute the environment, I'm not sure making enormous adjustments to national or international policy based on incomplete research is the right couse of action at this stage.



Mofra, you've summed up here what many of us think, particularly in the light of almost no information being made generally available to the public as to how the ETS will ameliorate the global warming .

I read yesterday that dissent amongst the scientific community is increasing.


----------



## Sdajii

Calliope said:


> Like you, I have no baggage on this question. I know nothing about the workings  of "The Science" and am not in a position to refute it.
> 
> My scepticism arises from the assertions, that a small excess of CO2 (a gas without which there would be no life on earth) will destroy our civilisation by flood, fire and famine...and that it is my fault.




A small increase of many necessary things can be lethal. Small changes in the amount of a substance in a system can have massive effects, especially where that substance is of critical importance and it is normally very scarce. Without heat there would be no life on Earth, but if the temperature suddenly rose by 2-3% we would probably all die (I am talking 2-3%, not 2-3 degrees celcius).

As you say, CO2 is of critical importance, but it makes up only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, less than half a percent. Even argon is more than twice as abundant. Because it is so scarce, we don't have to add much to the atmosphere to increase its concentration in the atmosphere very dramatically. For example, the atmosphere is about 80% nitrogen, so if we produced a heap of that, we would only change the affect nitrogen has by a small amount, say, to 80.2% (less than a 1% change), but if we put out the same amount of CO2 (and we are producing more CO2 than nitrogen, oxygen or argon, the three gases which make up the majority of the atmosphere) into the atmosphere we would take it from 0.4% or so up to 0.6% or so (a 50% change). If CO2 is doing anything particularly relevant, the effect will be increased by 50%, not just altered by a small percentage. (No, I am not saying that's exactly how much we are putting out, just demostrating the point that when something is scarce it is much more easy to alter its relative abundance and multiply its presence by a large factor).

So exactly how much will this affect us and in what way? I don't know, but I am not foolish enough to say I know it won't be much. I am prepared to say I don't know, and am willing to postulate that no one knows for sure and that we can't rule out something extreme.

It is strange that you would openly say that you have no understanding of the 'science' behind this, and then immediately go on to say that you are capable of determining that since there isn't much CO2 in the air it can't be of much importance (even though you acknowledge in the same sentence that it is of absolute importance). Two extreme self contradictions in one sentence. Nice!


----------



## Mr J

Sdajii said:


> It is strange that you would openly say that you have no understanding of the 'science' behind this, and then immediately *go on to say that you are capable of determining that since there isn't much CO2 in the air it can't be of much importance* (even though you acknowledge in the same sentence that it is of absolute importance). Two extreme self contradictions in one sentence. Nice!




He didn't say that, he just questions whether what he perceives to be a small change could have such great consequences. Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.


----------



## Sdajii

Mr J said:


> He didn't say that, he just questions whether what he perceives to be a small change could have such great consequences. Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.




Surely, an attempt at interpreting the data implies some understanding of the physics ('science') at work. Exactly what constitutes a 'small' amount is not easy to understand, and even he points out he has no understanding of the situation.


----------



## Calliope

Sdajii said:


> It is strange that you would openly say that you have no understanding of the 'science' behind this,* and then immediately go on to say that you are capable of determining that since there isn't much CO2 in the air it can't be of much importance *(even though you acknowledge in the same sentence that it is of absolute importance). Two extreme self contradictions in one sentence. Nice!




I said no such thing. That is a deliberate lie. I would have thought that lying about other members posts on this forum would not be acceptable. Two extreme lies in the one sentence. Nasty!


----------



## Mickel

I remain sceptical of the need to have drastic change to limit global warming as 

1. The change is based on limiting CO2  (generally in the Western World) and

2. The IPCC "Science" accusing CO2 as the cause of Global Warming has been discredited by many scientists who, the IPCC stated, were supporting it.

3. Politicians, who saw a great opportunity to obtain new taxation without complaint, appear to have corrupted the science through targeted funding.

I list below links to a series of 5 U-Tube videos,each approx 10mins duration, in support of my position-

Global Warming  the Truth pt 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBijSd9hipU


pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQWPCmvcIA&feature=related

pt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMjUUYMDEdU&feature=related

pt 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niLiJRpoW2U&NR=1

pt 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDmgwLC0Ag&NR=1

Also, what is worrying for us Aussies, is that, if the Aust Senate passes the ETS Bill, we will appear to be one of the few countries at Copenhagen to have done so.

And has the Aust Government prepared for this with economic modeling to ensure that our economy won't collapse, given the above scenario? Well, they've assured us that our economy will continue to grow.
But, as Terry McCran has written (link below), that is not the case and our economy may well fall in a heap.

This is the link-   http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26333275-5013678,00.html

So I, and a growing number of others, remain sceptical with good reason. We would encourage an exhaustive scientific debate on the pros and cons of climate change, before we agree to any carbon or other new tax that is likely to destabilise our economy, at the very least.


----------



## Mofra

Wysiwyg said:


> Referring to the bold section, why does there have to be conclusive evidence of mans' global environmental impact to make sweeping practical changes? Or alternatively, why is there resistance to sweeping practical changes?



It is a good question (actually, excellent in theory) however in practical terms any chance comes with a trade off, and that would most likely come in the form of a direct impact on the standard of living of tens of millions of people, or an indirect impact via an increase in the cost of goods manufactured & transported by means of higher energy costs. 

People who are getting by on under US$2 per day already can little afford to have the cost of food rise for example, yet with the chance of production of certain arrable lands from food to alternate energy sources, we are already seeing an impact. Heck, even Italy have had protests at the cost increases in pasta!

Once technology advances to the point where the cost increases are minimal or at least bearable for energy production then any major changes will be much less forceful and much more palatable.


----------



## 2020hindsight

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2745742.htm
the new castrophopic rating ...
no hysteria - just sad that so many don't accept that things are changing (and fast) 
and all consistent with or even faster than IPCC forecasts.


----------



## wayneL

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2745742.htm
> the new castrophopic rating ...
> no hysteria - just sad that so many don't accept that things are changing (and fast)
> and all consistent with or even faster than IPCC forecasts.




How so? We'll have the science for that statement please.


----------



## 2020hindsight

what
the science that there's a new classification of fire risk
or that IPCC predicted things would get drier and hotter?


----------



## lasty

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2745742.htm
> the new castrophopic rating ...
> no hysteria - just sad that so many don't accept that things are changing (and fast)
> and all consistent with or even faster than IPCC forecasts.




Adelaide in Feb 2004 has just endured its 17th consecutive day with a maximum temperature at or above 30 °C. This is the longest spell of temperatures above this mark ever recorded in Adelaide, the previous record being 14 days in 1956 and 1930. 

The hottest day in Adelaide was 12 January 1939, when temperature reached 46.1 °C. 

"If the world wants to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels this really means returning to 1939 levels of emissions."
quoted by Roger Pielke.

Great so we reduce CO2 levels back to 1939 levels to see Adelaide fry again.

Perhaps its the IPCC hot wind full ****e that is driving up the temps !


----------



## Calliope

lasty said:


> Perhaps its the IPCC hot wind full ****e that is driving up the temps !




It is certainly driving up climate change hysteria, in spite of the best efforts of people like wayne and Mickel trying to calm it down.


----------



## wayneL

2020hindsight said:


> what
> the science that there's a new classification of fire risk
> or that IPCC predicted things would get drier and hotter?




So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.

There are various areas that are much colder and wetter than predicted and by that standard could be used to "prove" (LOL) that the next ice age is on its way.

It still says nothing about co2 - nothing!


----------



## Wysiwyg

Mofra said:


> Once technology advances to the point where the cost increases are minimal or at least bearable for energy production then any major changes will be much less forceful and much more palatable.



Yes this state of affairs will likely bring a flood of creative juices with regard to earth friendlier ways of living. A fine result from this debate is the raising of awareness globally of forthcoming changes to certain areas of lifestyle. The precise changes yet unknown should be nothing to fear and will be a great opportunity for companies to manufacture earth friendly (lower impact) objects, and more importantly, the consumer to prefer them. For it is ultimately the billions of consumers and not a handful of politicians and scientists that need to effect the most profound changes to their living habits. Resistance and 'letting go' of old ways will be a side effect for many.


----------



## Mofra

Wysiwyg said:


> For it is ultimately the billions of consumers and not a handful of politicians and scientists that need to effect the most profound changes to their living habits.



That in itself is an excellent summary - much of what has been achieved in human history has been _despite_ our leadership, rather than because of it.


----------



## Calliope

Mofra said:


> That in itself is an excellent summary - much of what has been achieved in human history has been _despite_ our leadership, rather than because of it.




I agree, and these achievements were usually drive by sceptics.


----------



## 2020hindsight

wayneL said:


> So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.



I believe I said that the fire risk problem is consistent with predictions


----------



## Mofra

wayneL said:


> So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.



On a side note, I did read a report over 12 months ago that some scientists expect global warming to make the UK up to 2 degrees celcius _cooler_ as melting land ice & polar cap ice disrupt currents in the North Sea & North Atlantic. 
Not sure you really needs things cooled in your part of the world though Wayne


----------



## Woodsy58

If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...


----------



## Wysiwyg

Woodsy58 said:


> If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...



The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP  had (has?) a passionate interest in the nuclear topic.


> Maralinga
> 
> I come from a land of wide open spaces
> Where the world turns around us and we just follow suit
> There's heat in the air and peace reigns supreme
> Got white flags on the clothes lines and the deals are new
> 
> In the wind, the ashes fly
> The poison crown, the charcoal ground
> 
> And if you can't see the smile in me
> That's where I want to be


----------



## lasty

Woodsy58 said:


> If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...




Not if the anti "Blue sky mining company" has anything to do with it.

Hair will grow on his head before a reactor will be put on Terra Australis.

Infact he has had fallout once.. he doesnt want it to happen again !


----------



## Calliope

Clive Hamilton, the Greens candidate for Higgins takes the Hysterical award for the week;



> CLIMATE deniers deserve greater moral censure than Holocaust deniers because their activities are more dangerous. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.



Perhaps Clive has a "Final Solution" in mind for the deniers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rmarry-a-sceptic/story-e6frg6zo-1225799031692


----------



## Julia

There should be an emoticon for a heavy sigh and a yawn in response to pronouncements by Clive Hamilton.

The Dear Leader comes pretty close in terms of levels of hysteria.


----------



## basilio

> World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century, scientists say
> 
> * Charles Miranda
> * From: Herald Sun
> * November 19, 2009 10:02AM
> 
> 
> THE world is spinning toward a catastrophic worst case climate change scenario with temperatures now certain to rise by 6 degrees by the end of the century.
> 
> That's the view of a leading international team of scientists who yesterday predicted the change in climate would now certainly have irreversible consequences rendering large parts of the globe inhabitable.
> 
> The scenario was first made public by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 but then it was made only as a worst case scenario.
> 
> But according to Professor Corinne Le Quere from the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University, that worst case was now all but inevitable.
> 
> "We're at the top of the IPCC scenario," she told Nature Geoscience.
> 
> Her study - backed by 31 top researchers from seven countries including Australia involved in the Global Carbon Project - found there had been a 29 per cent rise in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels between 2000 and 2008, with an annual increase of 3 per cent compared with 1 per cent the previous eight years.
> 
> She said there was no doubt carbon dioxide emissions from transport and industry and deforestation were squarely to blame for warming the atmosphere which would be 6 per cent higher around the world including near the poles; the EU had hoped to keep the rise to 2 per cent.




What absolute rubbish !! And how dare The Herald Sun give credence to these pointy headed geeks who are obviously hysterical and just havn't followed Andrew Bolt's clear and obvious denunciation of this scare mongering. Why are we supposed to believe 31 of worlds top researchers from around the world and their thousands of studies versus the considered, intellectual climate analysis of The Herald Suns own spinmeister ? Just doesn't make sense does it? Any minute now and some hysterical alarmist clown will start talking about heat records being smashed ( as distinct from slightly broken) in Southern Australia. Sad really...

And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.




Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.


----------



## Mofra

Calliope said:


> Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.



Agree, almost as leftist as the Herald-Sun is right-wing.


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.
> Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.




Calliope I'm just staggered... I pull up one of most challenging scientific reports on where we are going with global warming .... which is basically to hell with no return ticket.

I use a tabloid paper like the Herald Sun as the nominal messenger. I throw in an aside that the Guardian actually offers more detailed information on the report (and in fact highlights some possible criticisms)  and your response is to simply bag The Guardian?  

Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on? Or do you simply agree with my comments about  trashing the pointey headed geeks and accepting Andrew Bolts carefully considered climate analysis ? (and yes there is touch of sarcasm  in those comments)


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Calliope I'm just staggered... I pull up one of most challenging scientific reports on where we are going with global warming .... which is basically to hell with no return ticket.
> 
> I use a tabloid paper like the Herald Sun as the nominal messenger. I throw in an aside that the Guardian actually offers more detailed information on the report (and in fact highlights some possible criticisms)  and your response is to simply bag The Guardian?
> 
> Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on? Or do you simply agree with my comments about  trashing the pointey headed geeks and accepting Andrew Bolts carefully considered climate analysis ? (and yes there is touch of sarcasm  in those comments)




I am sorry Basilio that I have staggered you. That was not my intention. Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics. Naturally the Guardian is your choice of newspaper with your view that we are bound for hell, unless we take their advice. That seems a bit hysterical, and this thread is about resisting hysteria.

Incidentally I don't read the Herald Sun. I have an aversion to tabloids.


----------



## lasty

Of course there is a leftist hidden agenda.
In Australia's case its $7 billion towards Rudd's new career path at the UN.

Of course the "socialists" will think they have won however it will be the capitalists who will inevitably get hold of this via the ETS and screw them to the wall.

In the end it will turn out that the planet was going through one of its warmer cycles like history has told and man made contributions were not the cause but once again the poor man gets screwed and the gap widens even more.


----------



## Beej

lasty said:


> In the end it will turn out that the planet was going through one of its warmer cycles like history has told and man made contributions were not the cause but once again the poor man gets screwed and the gap widens even more.




And you know this how?? Did you read this part of the posted article:



> But according to Professor Corinne Le Quere from the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University, that worst case was now all but inevitable.
> 
> "We're at the top of the IPCC scenario," she told Nature Geoscience.
> 
> Her study - *backed by 31 top researchers from seven countries including Australia involved in the Global Carbon Project* - found there had been a 29 per cent rise in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels between 2000 and 2008, with an annual increase of 3 per cent compared with 1 per cent the previous eight years.
> 
> *She said there was no doubt carbon dioxide emissions from transport and industry and deforestation were squarely to blame for warming the atmosphere* which would be 6 per cent higher around the world including near the poles; the EU had hoped to keep the rise to 2 per cent.




Perhaps you could perform a peer review of  Professor Corinne Le Quere's work? Or maybe publish your own paper pointing out the flaws in her research/science/conclusions that none of the other 31 qualified and experienced researchers supporting the work were able to find?

If you were diagnosed with a brain tumour would you start lecturing your neurologist on how their MRI machine is a load of junk and that your head-aches and seisures are just a normal part of the human aging cycle????

Beej


----------



## basilio

> *Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on*?




Calliope (et al) , *regardless of which media format carries the report * do you have any comment on the report and the research that lies behind it ? It appears that your response to the report is to simply ignore it.

And it seems that you justify this position because you are a climate skeptic and therefore any information that may not support your position is not worthy of reading... Is that a fair summary of your position or have I missed something ?


----------



## Mofra

Calliope said:


> Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics.



That's an impossible view - you are actually suggesting that people form a viewpoint before knowing any facts, then choose reading material to suit their uninformed viewpoint?

Not exactly an enlightened view IMO


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Calliope (et al) , *regardless of which media format carries the report * do you have any comment on the report and the research that lies behind it ? It appears that your response to the report is to simply ignore it.
> 
> And it seems that you justify this position because you are a climate skeptic and therefore any information that may not support your position is not worthy of reading... Is that a fair summary of your position or have I missed something ?




If I see any reports of interest I post with very little comment. I let others form their own opinions.  I am not into preaching. I have long learned that you can't change minds by preaching on this on any other thread. You may have made some conversions, if so, good luck to you. Sorry you are confused but I can't help you there.


----------



## Calliope

Mofra said:


> That's an impossible view - you are actually suggesting that people form a viewpoint before knowing any facts, then choose reading material to suit their uninformed viewpoint




No you got that the wrong way round.


----------



## lasty

Beej said:


> And you know this how?? Did you read this part of the posted article:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could perform a peer review of  Professor Corinne Le Quere's work? Or maybe publish your own paper pointing out the flaws in her research/science/conclusions that none of the other 31 qualified and experienced researchers supporting the work were able to find?
> 
> If you were diagnosed with a brain tumour would you start lecturing your neurologist on how their MRI machine is a load of junk and that your head-aches and seisures are just a normal part of the human aging cycle????
> 
> Beej




If I had a brain tumour I wouldnt be isolating a "mobile Phone" as the cause and condemning Nokia either.


----------



## lasty

Greenland has been the focal point on climate change.

"From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[6] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as BrattahliÃ°, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[7] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years ”” which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly."

Its a shame the professor Corrinne le Querre and her 31 disciples cant work out WTF happened here and  perhaps correlated whats happening today rather than jumping to conclusions.


----------



## basilio

I’ve been thinking about this “Climate Hysteria”  thread and the way it has been kick started by  Professor Lindzen and others  with their in step  protestations about  the “hystericalness" of  those who are deeply concerned about global warming.

As I see it, it is firstly a very artful way to categorise and destroy the credibility of  those who are arguing that we do face a very serious problem. We commonly use the word hysteria to denote a totally irrational, crazy person (often a woman..) who needs a slap in the face, a bucket of cold water or a bex and a good liedown. These are the  general responses people would have to a “hysterical person”.

The most benign view would be considering the hysteria of a person who has just been through a totally traumatic situation. Horrific incident or accident,  funeral of their only child, sudden loss of all assets.  At least in this case we would acknowledge the reasons for the loss of control and deep emotion and hopefully support then through the situation.

But I don’t think the benign view is the context that Lindzen et al are using to depict those who find the evidence of climate change more and more disturbing. 

Let’s consider some thought experiments. It’s a lovely day on sunny Townsville. All calm, all bright. Then there is a cyclone warning stating that a category 5 hurricane is bearing down and that in 48 hours all hell will break loose.  You hear this and scurry outside to make sure that the town is on hurricane alert. After all  everyone has got the same message.

But then person after person just laughs at you , points up at the blue sky and says “Stop being hysterical . This is just a trumped up load of rubbish designed to get you out of town so the looters can come in “  Or whatever. At what stage would one become just a bit agitated about this seeming stupidity ? First person, second person, 100th ? 

Try another thought experiment. I’m on the beach  at Townsville again and  slowly but surely the sea starts to ebb away. Just keeps going out. 

_Wowee  !!  Look at all those fish caught in pools. Gotta get one of those! And look at old wreck that we can suddenly see. Quick let’s have a squiz._

If we understand our science and what is happening we know with absolute certainty that there will be monstrous tidal wave coming in a very short time. _“For gods sake let’s get the hell out of here. And we don’t have time to argue  !!!”_ Yes it might sound hysterical as well particularly if whole troops of people just don’t  know or want to believe the wave is coming.

Last thought experiment. I am a British shipowner in 1840 with my 30 year old cargo boat.  I have a particularly big load of  metal I want to ship so I load and load the boat until it is settling  rather looow in the water.  In fact real low. But the weather is fine, I have excellent insurance  and  that is that.. (And of course this is a number of years before we had to worry about those pesky Plimsoll line laws . damn socialists  !!)

I wave goodbye to the captain (who is busily writing his last will and testament) , my ship duly struggles off into the sunset and  2 days later it capsizes and sinks with all hands after a small swell roughs up the sea. 

“Oh what bad luck . Just couldn’t see that” I say as I fill out my insurance claim and send a bunch of flowers to the ships captains wife. 

So where are we going here? On all the mounting evidence from our scientific community we have plenty to worry about with global warming. And yet despite this case the evidence is routinely denied and the people who use the evidence to explain their concern are dismissed as hysterical  - as if they don’t make sense and clearly shouldn’t be listened to.  

That is the clear message sent out by Profesor Lindzen and others. And all against a backdrop of  the most recent analysis of what is happening and where we are going which is summarised by
*
“World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century”, scientists say*

Isn’t this just crazy ? Are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community, the millions of observations about  rapidly melting glaciers, increasing temperatures, escalating changes in plant and animal behaviour  are all just wrong and that  

*everything is going to all right …..
            because it just has to…*


----------



## lasty

basilio said:


> I’ve been thinking about this “Climate Hysteria”  thread and the way it has been kick started by  Professor Lindzen and others  with their in step  protestations about  the “hystericalness" of  those who are deeply concerned about global warming.
> 
> As I see it, it is firstly a very artful way to categorise and destroy the credibility of  those who are arguing that we do face a very serious problem. We commonly use the word hysteria to denote a totally irrational, crazy person (often a woman..) who needs a slap in the face, a bucket of cold water or a bex and a good liedown. These are the  general responses people would have to a “hysterical person”.
> 
> The most benign view would be considering the hysteria of a person who has just been through a totally traumatic situation. Horrific incident or accident,  funeral of their only child, sudden loss of all assets.  At least in this case we would acknowledge the reasons for the loss of control and deep emotion and hopefully support then through the situation.
> 
> But I don’t think the benign view is the context that Lindzen et al are using to depict those who find the evidence of climate change more and more disturbing.
> 
> Let’s consider some thought experiments. It’s a lovely day on sunny Townsville. All calm, all bright. Then there is a cyclone warning stating that a category 5 hurricane is bearing down and that in 48 hours all hell will break loose.  You hear this and scurry outside to make sure that the town is on hurricane alert. After all  everyone has got the same message.
> 
> But then person after person just laughs at you , points up at the blue sky and says “Stop being hysterical . This is just a trumped up load of rubbish designed to get you out of town so the looters can come in “  Or whatever. At what stage would one become just a bit agitated about this seeming stupidity ? First person, second person, 100th ?
> 
> Try another thought experiment. I’m on the beach  at Townsville again and  slowly but surely the sea starts to ebb away. Just keeps going out.
> 
> _Wowee  !!  Look at all those fish caught in pools. Gotta get one of those! And look at old wreck that we can suddenly see. Quick let’s have a squiz._
> 
> If we understand our science and what is happening we know with absolute certainty that there will be monstrous tidal wave coming in a very short time. _“For gods sake let’s get the hell out of here. And we don’t have time to argue  !!!”_ Yes it might sound hysterical as well particularly if whole troops of people just don’t  know or want to believe the wave is coming.
> 
> Last thought experiment. I am a British shipowner in 1840 with my 30 year old cargo boat.  I have a particularly big load of  metal I want to ship so I load and load the boat until it is settling  rather looow in the water.  In fact real low. But the weather is fine, I have excellent insurance  and  that is that.. (And of course this is a number of years before we had to worry about those pesky Plimsoll line laws . damn socialists  !!)
> 
> I wave goodbye to the captain (who is busily writing his last will and testament) , my ship duly struggles off into the sunset and  2 days later it capsizes and sinks with all hands after a small swell roughs up the sea.
> 
> “Oh what bad luck . Just couldn’t see that” I say as I fill out my insurance claim and send a bunch of flowers to the ships captains wife.
> 
> So where are we going here? On all the mounting evidence from our scientific community we have plenty to worry about with global warming. And yet despite this case the evidence is routinely denied and the people who use the evidence to explain their concern are dismissed as hysterical  - as if they don’t make sense and clearly shouldn’t be listened to.
> 
> That is the clear message sent out by Profesor Lindzen and others. And all against a backdrop of  the most recent analysis of what is happening and where we are going which is summarised by
> *
> “World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century”, scientists say*
> 
> Isn’t this just crazy ? Are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community, the millions of observations about  rapidly melting glaciers, increasing temperatures, escalating changes in plant and animal behaviour  are all just wrong and that
> 
> *everything is going to all right …..
> because it just has to…*




I enjoyed your read.
The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.A trend that should be monitored.


----------



## wayneL

lasty said:


> I enjoyed your read.
> The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
> Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.A trend that should be monitored.




Exactly.

In typically alarmist (and hysterical) fashion, parallels are drawn that cannot be logically drawn. A scenario is presented as fact that in actual fact dwells in the realm of hypothesis. Meanwhile, provably damaging pollution and other environmental concerns are ignored.

In addition, the chief alarmists don't practice what they preach, getting rich and living with enormous carbon footprints off the back of their alarmism.

A carbon impoverished lifestyle is always for someone else to live, not them.

Well they can just #### right of with that idea. 

If they lead from the front, maybe people might be less skeptical. When people  see Al Bore et al living in a teepee and riding a push-bike everywhere, maybe they might take notice.


----------



## Beej

lasty said:


> Greenland has been the focal point on climate change.
> 
> "From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[6] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as BrattahliÃ°, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[7] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly."
> 
> Its a shame the professor Corrinne le Querre and her 31 disciples cant work out WTF happened here and  perhaps correlated whats happening today rather than jumping to conclusions.




There was a link posted around here somewhere from the UK "Royal Society" that addresses this and other "misleading climate change arguments". The link now appears to be broken but I printed the document out and have it here in front of me, and your often repeated skeptic argument is addressed in their response to "misleading argument 1":



> There have also been regional changes such as the 'Medieval Warning Period', when land less sea ice and larger areas of cultivated land were reported in Iceland. However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74 deg C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for my natural factors alone.




So it seems in fact the climate scientists are well aware of the cherry picked data and resulting misleading argument that you present, and it is an event that is easily addressed by the science, and certainly has not been shown by any credible research to be a basis for de-bunking the whole anthropolical climate change conclusion as you attempt to do.

PS: Basilo - good post. I think you sum things up nicely. I personally find it more than a little hypocritical that it is the hard-core CC skeptics here on this thread that accuse others of being "religious" and "hysterical" 

Just to be clear, as I see it there are really 3 aspects to the CC debate. 

1) Has anthropological climate change occurred?

2) How accurate are the models that show how ongoing anthropological CC might impact the global climate over the coming century? Particularly with respect to CO2 emissions?

3) What (if anything) should we be  doing about it? Either globally? Or nationally?

These debates seem to always get the 3 things very mixed up. The first point is virtually irrefutable. Those who try to cannot point to a single credible piece of peer reviewed research that dis-proves what is currently known on this front. The second is open to argument - models are never perfect and always have errors - personally I think they pretty much have the trend nailed, as demonstrated by the graph posted in one of the other threads that shows the models getting the last 150 year trend pretty much spot on with was actually observed. The third is the really controversial topic, but I think this thread is really focused on the first 2 aspects?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## basilio

> I enjoyed your read.
> The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.



Perhaps I was too subtle with the 3 thought experiments I outlined.

a)  Disregarding  a legitimate hurricane warning in Australia is just totally foolish *because  we are confident enough in the science *to know there will be a big blow on the way and that we need to make preparations. The fact that the sky is still blue now is immaterial to our decision to take decisive action in anticipation of a highly probable event.

b)  It isn't necessarily the case that everyone realises that when the sea recedes quickly that a tidal wave is coming. I can remember observations made before the last Tsunami about people who did go out to pick up fish and look at emerging wrecks. *But if you have the  certain understanding of what is happening *you would quickly realise the need to get the hell out of there.

c)  With regard to sending off an overladen ship in the 1840's. It happened, and happened and happened practically as I outlined it. It didn't take  rocket science to work out that an overladen ship would sink at the first sniff of a gale. But many owners were happy to insure their ships to the hilt, send them out and watch them sink. Pure legal murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Plimsoll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/25/biography.features

This was finally *legally stopped *when the Plimsoll line legislation was passed in 1876. It had a lot of trouble passing Parliament because  there were many shipowners in the British Parliament who had made serious money  sending out coffin ships. 

*You didn't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous accepted  sailing practices were.  There was plenty of objective evidence. But getting this legalised murder stopped against the financial interests of the shipowners was probably as hard as persuading fossil fuel companies and our broader society that unlimited CO2 emissions are irrevocably changing our climate.*


----------



## noco

Isn't it  amazing, it seems the more the Sceptics gain momentum in numbers, the Alarmist keep coming up with more outlandish hysteria of unfounded so called scientific facts of Global Warming (sorry it's now Climate Change since the Globe is actually cooling.)

It seems to be a case of, 'I can shout louder then you' and the dam media appears to give preference to the one who shouts the loudest.

Thank goodness we have the likes of Andrew Bolt who is not ashamed to bring out the truth.


----------



## wayneL

We keep addressing old points and going around in circles



Beej said:


> 1) Has anthropological climate change occurred?



Yes, along with natural CC. But the human induced factors are different to the main scare of GW



> 2) How accurate are the models that show how ongoing anthropological CC might impact the global climate over the coming century? Particularly with respect to CO2 emissions?



Pathetic.



> 3) What (if anything) should we be  doing about it? Either globally? Or nationally?



Lots.

But the current focus attacks the wrong factors.

It's bogus.


----------



## Calliope

lasty said:


> I enjoyed your read.
> The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
> Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.*A trend that should be monitored.*




You can be assured that the sceptics are being very closely monitored. Those who predict the end of the world is nigh sense they are close to victory and they will not willingly concede their power, even if it involves dispensing with democratic processes as Clive Hamilton has suggested.


----------



## Vizion

> sorry it's now Climate Change since the Globe is actually cooling



Not quite...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py

In the interest of full disclosure, the full discourse is below.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


----------



## noco

Vizion said:


> Not quite...
> 
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py
> 
> In the interest of full disclosure, the full discourse is below.
> 
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/




Isn't amazing what scientist can do on computers these days to satisfy their masters who pay them to come up with the answers they want to hear.

Penny Wong has produced similar models only to be proved wrong, time and time again. However, she still persists with her hysteria that we are all going to get swamped with sea water or burn to death if we don't stop Global Warming or Climate Change which ever suits the circumstances. Even our fearless leader has pressed the panic button with his recent outburst of cowards etc.etc.

31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.

The Alarmists are becoming  terrified at the momentun of the number of Sceptics of Global Warming, hence their hysteria in coming up with so called new evidence. The heat wave in the Southern states is typical. I can hear the champagne corks popping up hear in Townsille, the Alarmist just love it, the heat wave that is, and probably the bubbly as well.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Perhaps I was too subtle with the 3 thought experiments I outlined.
> 
> a)  Disregarding  a legitimate hurricane warning in Australia is just totally foolish *because  we are confident enough in the science *to know there will be a big blow on the way and that we need to make preparations. The fact that the sky is still blue now is immaterial to our decision to take decisive action in anticipation of a highly probable event.
> 
> b)  It isn't necessarily the case that everyone realises that when the sea recedes quickly that a tidal wave is coming. I can remember observations made before the last Tsunami about people who did go out to pick up fish and look at emerging wrecks. *But if you have the  certain understanding of what is happening *you would quickly realise the need to get the hell out of there.
> 
> c)  With regard to sending off an overladen ship in the 1840's. It happened, and happened and happened practically as I outlined it. It didn't take  rocket science to work out that an overladen ship would sink at the first sniff of a gale. But many owners were happy to insure their ships to the hilt, send them out and watch them sink. Pure legal murder.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Plimsoll
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/25/biography.features
> 
> This was finally *legally stopped *when the Plimsoll line legislation was passed in 1876. It had a lot of trouble passing Parliament because  there were many shipowners in the British Parliament who had made serious money  sending out coffin ships.
> 
> *You didn't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous accepted  sailing practices were.  There was plenty of objective evidence. But getting this legalised murder stopped against the financial interests of the shipowners was probably as hard as persuading fossil fuel companies and our broader society that unlimited CO2 emissions are irrevocably changing our climate.*



Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate.

Could you answer just one question?

Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen?   Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis?  After all it's apparently a global problem.

Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?

And a further question:  do you concede that an ETS - particularly one which is apparently so deeply flawed as this one which has even earned the condemnation of the government's own climate expert, Ross Garnaut  - will almost certainly have a highly negative impact on our economy, possibly causing businesses to move offshore with their emissions, and put a great strain on the many Australians who are already attempting to exist at or below the poverty line?

Imo a good deal of the reason the 'climate agnostics' become so irritated with the devotees is the apparent lack of consideration they give to anything other than just the physical environment.


----------



## Vizion

> 31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.



31,700... How about a link to where you got this amazing fact.?

I work in the science's, & honestly, I cannot believe I missed such an important document in all the hysteria that is going on. Do please post the link, so I can see which of my colleagues broke ranks with our all powerful masters. My god, they are going to be in such trouble when they get found out.


----------



## Sdajii

This is typical of most human patterns. People choose a belief they like rather than a belief based on a careful examination of the evidence, and then, once they have this baseless belief, they go about trying to fabricate evidence to convince themselves and others that they are correct.

Climate change is blatantly obviously a real phenomenon, it has been having massive effects since before modern humans even existed, let alone started doing anything interesting. We know that climate change has been so extreme it has created land bridges between Australia and PNG, several times, including quite recently. If that was to happen again over the next few years, no doubt many people would blame human influence.

How much our influence is affecting climate change is a question I don't believe we can fully answer yet. I am a climate change agnostic (in terms of how much affect humans are having).

The climate change skeptics seem to laugh at the 'hystericals' (certainly a very unfair and extremely hypocritical label - neither side has the evidence to call the other stupid) and vice versa. Something which strikes me as very strange is that the skeptics seem to think that since humans are not causing climate change, we are all going to be okay, while the other side thinks that if reversing the human influence will solve all our problems...

Both sides seem to be making a fundamental mistake - they both assume that the only potential for climate problems is human influence.

Regardless of whether it is caused by humans, solar activity, natural terran cycles, alien or divine intervention, significant climate change is going to happen, and it will severely screw us. The answer is not necessarily either reversing human impacts or discounting them and kicking back to enjoy ourselves. We need to accept that climate change is inevitable, and we need to prepare for it.

If none of us had ever seen a tidal wave, and we had a magical opportunity to grab fish and explore reefs, we would all probably take it. Modern civilisation has not yet seen significant climate change events, and the first major one of modern history is going to really catch most of the world by surprise. Humans are like that, we never learn our lessons the easy way.


----------



## basilio

> Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate




This thread was about  Resisting Climate Hysteria. My discussion started off exploring how  Professor Lindzen et al had cleverly crafted a way to dismiss those who accepted the current scientific view were hysterical and could be disregarded. The thought experiments were ways of exploring how quite sensible and logical responses to a situation could be disregarded as hysterical. Obviously I was referring to most of the current comments.


> Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen? Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis? After all it's apparently a global problem.




One of the key elements in these negotiations is about leadership and showing good faith. The idea is that if some countries make a stand  others are more inclined to follow. That's the theory and I suspect that when it comes  down to personalities it's more likely that leaders can be swayed by each other.


> Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?




Possibly. Like all politicians Rudd certainly has  a healthy ego.  He's very bright, very driven, very determined and on balance would  be at the top end of capability in comparision to most political leaders. 

Another possibility of course is that he actually get's the issue  and realises just how desperate the situation is and how badly affected Australia will be.




> And a further question: do you concede that an ETS - particularly one which is apparently so deeply flawed as this one which has even earned the condemnation of the government's own climate expert, Ross Garnaut - will almost certainly have a highly negative impact on our economy, possibly causing businesses to move offshore with their emissions, and put a great strain on the many Australians who are already attempting to exist at or below the poverty line?




Is the ETS flawed?  Absolutely. The  targets are too low. There are far too many exemptions. I fear there will widespread gaming of the system. I have made these comments in other forums.

Will it have a highly negative effect on our economy? Certainly the industries that are currently heavy fossil fuel users would like us to believe that. But there is another side to story. 

If we accept the fact that fossil fuels are running out we must  make super rapid progress to renewable energy sources if we are to keep any sort of economic infrastructure alive. One of the economic models Rudd is offering is the rapid development of a green economy with hundreds of thousands of new jobs in new green industries. Will it happen ? Not sure but we can be absolutely sure it won't happen if policy directions and parameters are not established to change the direction of our economy.

*The fact is Julia we have to create a renewable and sustainable economy or we just fall over. By definition a mining lead economy runs out of resources in the very foreseeable future. *

I think the comment about all the people on the poverty line is a furphy. There is more likely to be widespread employment in a thriving, widespread  renewable economy than one based on  localised highly capitalised resource extraction.

Just to refer back to my thought experiment and the fight that Samuel Plimsoll had to stop coffin ships. Make no mistake about it. At the time the wealthy ship owners in the name of  commercial freedom and profit  sent hundreds of people to their deaths in legalized murder.  And they didn't lightly agree to laws that would protect the public  but were against their economic interests. It took a Royal Commission and many years of widespread public agitation to get the laws changed. I suggest there is a parallel to the current situation where  the richest industries in the world have a very vested interest in delaying a movement to renewable energy use.



> Imo a good deal of the reason the 'climate agnostics' become so irritated with the devotees is the apparent lack of consideration they give to anything other than just the physical environment.




You can't make a dollar on a dead planet.  Obviously many  other people on this forum totally disagree but  I consider ignoring the overwhelming  scientific evidence on global warming and it's causes to be akin to ignoring cyclone warnings because it's still calm and sunny. But if one chooses to not accept this science .. well you take the consequences. Trouble is we all go down in the same boat.


----------



## wayneL

Sdajii said:


> The climate change skeptics seem to laugh at the 'hystericals' (certainly a very unfair and extremely hypocritical label - neither side has the evidence to call the other stupid) and vice versa. Something which strikes me as very strange is that the skeptics seem to think that since humans are not causing climate change, we are all going to be okay, while the other side thinks that if reversing the human influence will solve all our problems...



The above paragraph is confused.

You seem to lump skeptics (aka agnostics) in with outright deniers (while placing yourself in the middle). The reason agnostics like me - and I'm only agnostic about the extent of the role of co2 - laugh at the alarmists, it that they only consider the most extreme Hollywood Al Gore version of the next few decades.

That is totally laughable. The Gore nonsense has proven to be just that, nonsense. Packed so full of distortions, cherry picking and emotive garbage, that it deserves to be considered a work of a productive imagination, rather than a possible scenario. Not science at all.

Yet they studiously ignore the likes of Pielke(s) et al who have a more realistic, balanced and more holistic view of the available science from which more workable solutions may be developed.

The alarmist's views are just as laughable as the people who deny climate ever changes, human influence or not. In actual fact, there are very few of those and many of them are merely taking extreme views to counterbalance the alarmists... classic attitude polarization.

The only thing that is not funny is that the alarmists inhabit (infest) journalism and government and therefore twist and skew the information available to the public. Any contradictory science is quietly ignored or hidden on page 234 of the newspaper next to the bereavements or something like that.

Disingenuous ####s!




> Both sides seem to be making a fundamental mistake - they both assume that the only potential for climate problems is human influence.
> 
> Regardless of whether it is caused by humans, solar activity, natural terran cycles, alien or divine intervention, significant climate change is going to happen, and it will severely screw us. The answer is not necessarily either reversing human impacts or discounting them and kicking back to enjoy ourselves. We need to accept that climate change is inevitable, and we need to prepare for it.
> 
> If none of us had ever seen a tidal wave, and we had a magical opportunity to grab fish and explore reefs, we would all probably take it. Modern civilisation has not yet seen significant climate change events, and the first major one of modern history is going to really catch most of the world by surprise. Humans are like that, we never learn our lessons the easy way.




Climate change will happen, as it has done for the millennia. But to reverse the line from possibly the most annoying ad on TV, It will happen, but it won't happen overnight.

Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns. But we must stop trashing the planet, that is for sure. This is the BIG issue, not the amount of co2 being emitted. The reason it will catch the world by surprise is that it will probably be totally different to what those dogmatic IPCCer alarmists are preaching.

Sudden climate change will only come at the hands of a loons with red buttons or something like Yellowstone or Taupo blowing up.

Meanwhile this whole political Copenhagen/IPCC/Rudd cap and trade nonsense has a whole different agenda... and it obviously ain't reducing overall emissions.


----------



## Vizion

> Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns.



There is a high probability of this. To what degree is total supposition. 



> Yet they studiously ignore the likes of Pielke(s) et al who have a more realistic, balanced and more holistic view of the available science from which more workable solutions may be developed.



This is only your opinion. Pielke has no more an idea of the full mechanisms in play that any other scientist. His research like all others is probability based. His theories simply sit better with your own views. Your choice of language like "holistic" & "reasonable" betrays this fact, you can't have it both ways. 



> The alarmist's views are just as laughable as the people who deny climate ever changes, human influence or not. In actual fact, there are very few of those and many of them are merely taking extreme views to counterbalance the alarmists... classic attitude polarization.



Agreed.



> But we must stop trashing the planet, that is for sure.



Agreed.



> Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns.



Yes but to what degree is uncertain. As stated above, NO ONE fully understands the science of climate. 



> This is the BIG issue, not the amount of co2 being emitted.



Once again this is only an opinion. Please stop saying this as if you know the answers. You DO NOT know this to be fact, any more than those in the scientific community who practice good research, who are honest & state only known facts. You DO NOT know better than ANYONE else what is true. 



> The only thing that is not funny is that the alarmists inhabit (infest) journalism and government and therefore twist and skew the information available to the public.



Agreed to point, this is as much a blanket statement, as full of bias as any. 



> Sudden climate change will only come at the hands of a loons with red buttons or something like Yellowstone or Taupo blowing up.



As stated above NO ONE fully knows where or if or at what point, there might or might not be "sudden" climate change. Define sudden. Please stop making blanket statements that are just as wrong as the alarmists ones.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, you are being as biased in your methodology in putting them forward as everyone else, by putting them forward as facts. They are unproven theories, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## wayneL

Vizion said:


> This is only your opinion. Pielke has no more an idea of the full mechanisms in play that any other scientist. His research like all others is probability based. His theories simply sit better with your own views. Your choice of language like "holistic" & "reasonable" betrays this fact, you can't have it both ways.



Perhaps, but Pielke et al do take all the science to form those opinions, rather than cherrypicking data. This means he is likely to be less biased. Actually, Pielke made me change my views, they didn't sit so well at first. I chose his position as the most likely because of his lack of bias and did not exclude any science.



> Once again this is only an opinion. Please stop saying this as if you know the answers. You DO NOT know this to be fact, any more than those in the scientific community who practice good research, who are honest & state only known facts. You DO NOT know better than ANYONE else what is true.



I'll stop so long as everybody else does. While they state their pet views as fact, so will I. We all know it is just opinion.



> Agreed to point, this is as much a blanket statement, as full of bias as any.



 No, it is a demonstrable reality



> As stated above NO ONE fully knows where or if or at what point, there might or might not be "sudden" climate change. Define sudden. Please stop making blanket statements that are just as wrong as the alarmists ones.



If you show me an incidence of sudden global climate change without some precipitous intervening event, I'll accept your statement. Until then I stand by mine.



> Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, you are being as biased in your methodology in putting them forward as everyone else, by putting them forward as facts. They are unproven theories, nothing more nothing less.



Wrong. They are not even theories, they are hypotheses. If the one thing that could be achieved through all the bluster, bs, grandstanding, scare tactics and debate, is the simple fact of your statement that nobody knows what the ~~~~ is going on.

I will readily concede anything you say here. But the problem is that the alarmists will concede no such thing, they promote their hypothesis as actual fact and are causing dramatic policy decisions having convinced idiot politicians of such.

The terms of the debate is that ones guesswork is promoted as the unequivocal truth; those terms are framed by the extremists and those are the rules all in the debate must abide to be heard.

Look, we live in a world where we are told daily we will be swimming in boiling oceans within our lifetime as if it were a fact. The most dodgy science imaginable is made into a movie and promoted as the future. The producer of such fiction jags a Nobel Prize and gets rich by this alarmism.

The world needs a counterpoint to this vile manipulation with questionable ends. The outright deniers aren't effective and there are issues we do need to deal with. 

The truth is that the IPCC models are a failure and much of the science a fraud and/or interpreted for a defined end. This is not how science should be.

Now we have politicians equating CC sceptics with holocaust deniers. WTF? This madness must stop. 

Therefore I and others will continue to couch our views in exactly the same way they do. The debate is not fair so there are different rules.


----------



## lasty

"Rudd certainly has a healthy ego. He's very bright, very driven, very determined and on balance would be at the top end of capability in comparision to most political leaders."

No, Rudd is just a spruiker with very little substance and it appears he is doing a very good job at fooling quite a few


----------



## Beej

noco said:


> Isn't amazing what scientist can do on computers these days to satisfy their masters who pay them to come up with the answers they want to hear.
> 
> Penny Wong has produced similar models only to be proved wrong, time and time again. However, she still persists with her hysteria that we are all going to get swamped with sea water or burn to death if we don't stop Global Warming or Climate Change which ever suits the circumstances. Even our fearless leader has pressed the panic button with his recent outburst of cowards etc.etc.




Yep - that's the way, if credible, peer reviewed science ever shows up any facts that don't fit with your pre-conceived views and conclusions, it must all be a great conspiracy - got it! 

Also, speaking of hysteria and alarmism, got any links showing a quote from Penny Wong where where she indicates that it is likely we are all going to burn to death or get swamped by sea water??



> 31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.
> 
> The Alarmists are becoming  terrified at the momentun of the number of Sceptics of Global Warming, hence their hysteria in coming up with so called new evidence. The heat wave in the Southern states is typical. I can hear the champagne corks popping up hear in Townsille, the Alarmist just love it, the heat wave that is, and probably the bubbly as well.




As others have asked - got a link or reference for the above claim? You call people "alarmists" and "hysterical" and yet you spout completely made up stats and misleading/mis-represented scientific arguments. Please see below quote for what the UK Royal Society has to say re your "it's all caused by changes in the Sun" argument, just for the sake of keeping some of the facts in the debate:



> Misleading Argument # 6: It’s all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth and the number of sunspots on the Sun.
> 
> What does the science say?
> 
> *Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.*
> 
> Changes in the Sun’s activity influence the Earth’s climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more ‘active’ phase – as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface – it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years – there is even evidence of a detectable decline – and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.
> 
> The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors – both natural and human – into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun’s energy that reaches the Earth’s surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way.
> 
> Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced
> volcanic activity.
> 
> During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.




PS: To be very clear and avoid irrelevant/confused debate, this post is aimed at exclusively addressing issue "1" around the CC/GW debate. That is, is there concrete scientific evidence of significant anthropological climate impact/global warming? There are no comments or predictions above about what may or may not happen in the future with our climate, or what is or is not appropriate government action in response to any possible threat from CC. 

Beej


----------



## Mofra

Calliope said:


> Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics.






Calliope said:


> No you got that the wrong way round.




How would you know whether you fit into one camp or another (because nobody is allowed to have an open mind or read any opinion which doesn't match their own ) before reading information about it? How does one choose which paper to read if they haven't yet formed an opinion (because obviously you can't read anything that doesn't confirm to one's own views)?

There is definately a logic-gap in your argument.


----------



## Sdajii

wayneL: I agree with most of what you posted. Just to clarify though, I am not exactly putting myself into a different category from alarmists or skeptics, I suppose you could say I am both. I am skeptical (agnostic) about the human role in climate change, but believe it is going to happen regardless, and severely harm us. 

Then again, if it harms us sooner than later it might actually be a blessing in disguise. A billion people dying in 2020 might be enough to wake us up, rethink the way we utilise our planet, and allow us to prevent eight billion people dying in 2050. 

Regardless of climate change, we are 'yeast people', and sooner or later the 'sugar' will run out. If significant climate change events happen when we are close to exhausting our sugar supply, the number of people who are caught out and starve to death will be far greater, it could potentially kill most people on the planet. If they happen afterwards they probably won't matter too much. If they happen before, well, it might be beneficial. Then again, it might just turn out that we don't get any significant impact from climate change at all.

Either way, we, the yeast people, are still going to run out of sugar. Enjoy it while we still have a bit left!


----------



## Calliope

Despite the dire warnings of the nasty fate that awaits us if we don't embrace the GW religion I don't think the message is getting through.

The exodus of those from southern states heading north into warmer climes far exceeds those heading in the other direction seeking cooler climes (or higher ground). Queensland even attracts about a third of those migrating from NZ.

Premier Bligh is concerned that Queensland is becoming too crowded for the infrastructure to handle. There is a suggestion that scare campaigns do not work. Instead of Rudd vilifying sceptics perhaps he should start telling the truth. It would be a refreshing change.


----------



## noco

Vizion said:


> 31,700... How about a link to where you got this amazing fact.?
> 
> I work in the science's, & honestly, I cannot believe I missed such an important document in all the hysteria that is going on. Do please post the link, so I can see which of my colleagues broke ranks with our all powerful masters. My god, they are going to be in such trouble when they get found out.




The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org


----------



## derty

noco said:


> The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (*Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine*) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
> 
> www.petitionproject.org



That's too funny noco - have you had a look to see what the OISM is and how it functions? 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine



> The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."





> The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects...The Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. *Two of those listed are deceased*, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body...






> The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and *was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", *may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journa*l. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. ...
> 
> ...Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer...
> 
> ..."The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago....
> 
> Notwithstanding ... the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "*the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda*."
> 
> ...Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "*extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. *"Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data,"...
> 
> ...In addition to the bulk mailing, *OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet*, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign...
> 
> ...OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:    "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing."...




LOL


----------



## Vizion

Sorry Wayne, but he cherry picks like anyone else.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/

I am very familiar with his work, In fact I have followed his work for 20 years. I have been saddened to see some of the recent postings he has made. He is just as biased towards his work as the irrational alarmists are to theirs.


----------



## Smurf1976

Sdajii said:


> Regardless of climate change, we are 'yeast people', and sooner or later the 'sugar' will run out. If significant climate change events happen when we are close to exhausting our sugar supply, the number of people who are caught out and starve to death will be far greater, it could potentially kill most people on the planet. If they happen afterwards they probably won't matter too much. If they happen before, well, it might be beneficial. Then again, it might just turn out that we don't get any significant impact from climate change at all.
> 
> Either way, we, the yeast people, are still going to run out of sugar. Enjoy it while we still have a bit left!



Consider how just about everything depends on oil and that, regardless of how much actually exists, oil is a finite resource that will eventually run out (and in my opinion we'll see demand exceeding supply a lot sooner than most are expecting - within 3 years).

Our way of life is unsustainable no matter what issues there may be with the climate.


----------



## Julia

Comment on the current situation from the Business Spectator:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...onckton-pd20091120-XXRRN?OpenDocument&src=kgb


----------



## wayneL

Vizion said:


> Sorry Wayne, but he cherry picks like anyone else.
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/
> 
> I am very familiar with his work, In fact I have followed his work for 20 years. I have been saddened to see some of the recent postings he has made. He is just as biased towards his work as the irrational alarmists are to theirs.




Allegations of cherrypicking from cherrypickers. Interesting.

FYI Here are Pielke's responses to that blog 

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/02/re...ke-sr-to-the-real-climate-weblog-more-bubkes/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/05/real-climate-permits-the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/06/re...inued-presentation-of-misinformation-part-ii/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/14/fa...the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/

Vizion - You don't seem to have followed this through. Pielke has clearly ripped Schmitt a new on in this exchange.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...

"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."​
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf


----------



## Gamblor

noco said:


> The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
> 
> www.petitionproject.org




A 12 year old can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All they need is a heat lamp a couple of bottles of soft drink and 2 temperature gauges.

Oh and nice fail with the OISM.

You lot make me laugh


----------



## noco

OzWaveGuy said:


> It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...
> 
> "Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."​
> http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf




Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!

Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-

www.anelegantchaos.org

www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Further info on Andrew Bolts  Courier Mail blog.

If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!!!!!!


----------



## Vizion

Thank you Wayne I had already read his responses. 

Let me start by saying, I don't believe I have posted one article in any thread that has not admitted fully, that there is multiple variables at work & that NO ONE has the full answers. Climate science is not exact, & there are still large variables at work that NO ONE understands.

You on the other hand, have been putting forward his research as the defining truth on this subject. All the while by the sin of omission, rubbishing or ignoring a very large body of work. From other extremely well respected & admired people in the fields of oceanography, climatology & physics to name just a couple of the disciplines this work crosses over.

I have admitted to an admiration for, & to have followed Pielke's work for over 20 years. I doubt you can say the same. I also doubt you have read his work in the raw. I am telling you, that he is JUST as prone to bias as ANYONE who has taken a stance. It is the nature of man to defend a position. It is also the nature of science to alter as facts become clearer. Pielke's opinion on this subject has changed in the last 20 years.

You can accuse me of cherry picking all you like, if you work in science you develop a thick skin  I repeat... you DO NOT know with certainty that co2 is NOT the major forcing agent ANYMORE than ANYONE else studying climate.

This is your OPINION. You are entitled to an opinion, I have enjoyed reading & agree with some of your opinions, but it is still ONLY your opinion.

Someone asked me what counted as hard research. Distilled blogging's I do not consider research. I have posted some links to sites with simplified findings as they are not as "dry" as what I read at work & to further my own knowledge. 

On a side note, I find it amusing in the extreme, that people on here. Will rubbish the findings from a body such as NASA,  yet agree with someone else's position, based on NASA's data if they are able to use it to point to their own opinions._ (I am not talking about you here Wayne, but to someone else who has already been lampooned by another forumite)

_http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf

The link above is an example of what I consider hard data & good research. I would welcome comment.







      Dr. James J. McCarthy from Harvard. Who currently holds the chair of AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/ 

I would be thrilled if you all read some of his papers. It will definitely give you a broader understanding of the Earth's workings. You could also note their current stance & the wording they use to describe their position. We can all learn something from it.


----------



## Mickel

From Paul Kelly's article in The Australian today titled-

*Decision shaping up as one for the purists*

"Beneath an increasing dogmatism on both sides are several core benchmarks. First, what is Rudd's justification for insisting on his legislation before Copenhagen? In truth, this argument has collapsed, given Copenhagen will not finalise any agreement.

Second, how urgent is the need for Australian action? The case has weakened precisely because the rest of the world has faltered, a reality Australia's media seems reluctant to report. This gives the Liberal critics their strongest case, with Minchin saying it is "idiotic of this country to legislate an ETS before the US Congress does so". He argued that with Australia responsible for only 1.4 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, nothing this country does can make the difference but the economic damage would be real: "Passing this law would condemn Australia to lower living standards for absolutely zero environmental gain." "

Whatever your views on Climate Change, there is *clearly* no logical case for Australia (or New Zealand) to legislate an ETS this year. If we can take the hysteria out of the Government's push to do so, we have progressed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-for-the-purists/story-e6frg6zo-1225800731482


----------



## Calliope

The new President of the EU has used the term "global governance" in his acceptance speech His proposal that the "global management of our planet" is needed to combat climate change is a worry.

Rudd recently accused GW sceptics of scaremongering when they raised concerns on this issue. Having lived through an age where dictators had the same idea, I am more scared of "global governance" than I am of the dire fate that Mr Rudd has predicted for the world,  if we don't accede to his demands for the control of GW.


----------



## Aussiejeff

Then you can toss this lot into the 'melting' pot...



> *CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming*, the region's representatives say.
> Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.
> 
> Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-in-climate-debt/story-e6frf7k6-1225801565274

Wonder how much they reckon Oz should be stung for?

This is just the beginning, folks..... :angry:


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!
> 
> Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-
> 
> www.anelegantchaos.org
> 
> www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php
> 
> Further info on Andrew Bolts  Courier Mail blog.
> 
> If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!!!!!!



Noco, who or what is 'anelegantchaos.org'?  I had a look at your link and it appears to be just a post from a blogger.


----------



## Calliope

Mr Rudd said;



> “I’m constantly stunned. It’s as if we’re back into the trial of Galileo or something and they’re simply arguing somehow that the science is fiction and that they alone in their own prejudiced universe occupy fact.
> 
> “I mean, we are back almost in a medieval court.”






> So in order to attack the climate sceptics in the Opposition, Kevin Rudd enlists the help of probably the most famous scientific sceptic in history, who was eventually shown to have been right all along




http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=1518


----------



## wayneL

Vizion said:


> Thank you Wayne I had already read his responses...
> 
> ...You on the other hand, have been putting forward his research as the defining truth on this subject. All the while by the sin of omission, rubbishing or ignoring a very large body of work. From other extremely well respected & admired people in the fields of oceanography, climatology & physics to name just a couple of the disciplines this work crosses over.




We've been through this on climate threads and you're not the first to unilaterally redefine my views on the fly. 

Anyone who has known me on these boards knows me as someone who admires balance and tries to cut a road between extremes as best I can without agenda (apart from smashing extremists).

As you rightly say, we humans are intrinsically cognitively biased, but at least if aware of that fact can at least mitigate some of the preposterous self delusion most are prone to.

This is why I admire Pielke et al as being someone with the best chance of interpreting the vast swathes of science out there as he manages (IMO) to travel the middle road more successfully than nearly everybody else.

You can try to create a straw man by portraying me as as some sort of anti AGW extremist or denier, but those that know me know that isn't true... apart from alarmists that is, who will consider me an apostate heathen, but that just reveals them as religious zealots.

In other words, your criticism doesn't stick. Nice try, but no cigar.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Noco, who or what is 'anelegantchaos.org'?  I had a look at your link and it appears to be just a post from a blogger.



Julia, if you go to www.couriermail.com.au and link to Andrew Bolts blog:-

"HOW TO SEARCH INSIDE THE WARMIST CONSPIRACY", THE SEARCH LINK WAS CREATED BY READER ANELGANTCHAOS.


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by OzWaveGuy View Post
> It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...
> 
> "Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
> 
> http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...atestissue.pdf
> Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!
> 
> Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-
> 
> www.anelegantchaos.org
> 
> www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php
> 
> Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.
> 
> If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!




Real climate website has acknowledged the authenticity of the files and has opened a discussion on what is meant  by the the exchanges.

As for this explosive revelation already cited - the word "trick" here is  a common word used to describe some neat mathematical process that a scientist would use to complete an operation.  Quite straightforward and explained in detail on the blog.

By the way the extensive  responses are quite interesting. There are at least 20-25% critical comments which are responded to by either Gavin Schmidt , blog writer or other participants.

If you want a condensed anlalysis of the main  exposes go to post 293.

Cheers

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


----------



## Gamblor

Vizion said:


> [/I]http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf
> 
> The link above is an example of what I consider hard data & good research. I would welcome comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. James J. McCarthy from Harvard. Who currently holds the chair of AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
> 
> I would be thrilled if you all read some of his papers. It will definitely give you a broader understanding of the Earth's workings. You could also note their current stance & the wording they use to describe their position. We can all learn something from it.




I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> Julia, if you go to www.couriermail.com.au and link to Andrew Bolts blog:-
> 
> "HOW TO SEARCH INSIDE THE WARMIST CONSPIRACY", THE SEARCH LINK WAS CREATED BY READER ANELGANTCHAOS.



Noco, I find it difficult to regard Andrew Bolt as in any way objective.
He is so absolutely rusted on to the Right as to be incapable of finding any validity in anything the government might suggest.  e.g. if Mr Rudd were to suddenly declare anthropogenic climate change to be a myth and assert there was no need for an ETS, Mr Bolt would find something to challenge and criticise in that.  In this instance, I agree with him to a large extent, but believe his objections to be just as much motivated by his political convictions as by any evaluation regarding climate change.



Gamblor said:


> I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.



A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
Nothing surprising in that.  But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Gamblor said:


> I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.



You obviously don't know what _critic_ means.


----------



## wayneL

Gamblor said:


> I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.






			
				Julia said:
			
		

> A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
> You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
> Nothing surprising in that. But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".




Indeedy!!! lol


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate.
> 
> Could you answer just one question?
> 
> Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen?   Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis?  After all it's apparently a global problem.
> 
> Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?




The more I watch the ETS debate, and listen to Rudd, the more I feel it is his agenda.

He is using the prime ministership of this country and the negative impact on the future health and wealth of our children, as a stepping stone to being head of the United Nations.

I have spoken to many Labor people who know Climate Change is a load of bo****x, but are too scared to say so lest the "Little Emperor" banish them from the Court of Fools.

gg


----------



## Calliope

Ron Liddle writing in the Weekend Australian Magazine sums up my position as to why I am sceptical about the alarmist position on Global Warming.
(The bold emphasis is mine)



> I am a little sceptical of man-made climate change because, for me, the raw statistics do not quite add up, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. And I also reckon that most of the stuff urged upon us in order to address climate change makes sense for other environmental reasons anyway.
> 
> But this is not good enough; this makes me a climate-change denier - you will note the implication of such a phrase, its implied resonance - and that's not on.
> 
> Because one is no longer allowed to question climate change; it is a fact, and there's an end to it. And to the believers the "fact" of climate change is a "fact" to be held sacred and never challenged.
> 
> *And all the while you feel that these people actually want the earth to be heating up, the polar bears to die, and the floods to engulf us so that we will all burn, starve or drown.
> 
> If somehow it could be proved tomorrow that climate change was a huge con, these people would't be relieved - they'd feel robbed of something intrinsic to themselves*.


----------



## Gamblor

Julia said:


> A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
> You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
> Nothing surprising in that.  But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".




Absolute rubbish

I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson? 

I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.

To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.

So here are my thoughts,

1. In terms of what causes global temperature change, co2 is quite low on the list at the moment (although it becomes more important the higher the concentration, so it will be bumped up the list in the future) Solar radiance is the major determining factor, and it's obviously not a constant where we can state; X amount of energy will hit the earth year X. This is just one of the reasonsn why climate modelling is almost impossible to get accurate.

2. The ETS is a bad idea in it's current form, not to mention there is no global agreement which renders it useless.

3. Kevin Rudd is as full of it as Andrew Bolt and many on this forum. Just this week Rudd claimed that last weeks hot weather was proof of climate change. So if next week is cooder than average is that proof that the globe is cooling? 

4. There is plenty of good science that suggest the globe will actually cool over the next decade. The anti AGW crowd will jump on this as proof but at the same time they will ignore those same scientists that also model mean temperature over the next 50 years rising.

The fact remains that most on this forum are not interested in science unless it confirms their dogma. 

I stand by that and know I'm not in that camp, can you say the same for yourself?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

> I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?
> 
> I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.
> 
> To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.



Epistemic arrogance.
Give the _dogma_ word a rest.


----------



## Julia

Gamblor said:


> A 12 year old can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All they need is a heat lamp a couple of bottles of soft drink and 2 temperature gauges.
> 
> Oh and nice fail with the OISM.
> 
> You lot make me laugh






Gamblor said:


> I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.






Gamblor said:


> Absolute rubbish
> 
> I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?




Your above posts are supercilious and sneering.
You may have earlier set out what actually you believe (or have proven for yourself) and I have missed it.   If so, I apologise for concluding your above expressed contempt was all you were offering.





> I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.
> 
> To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.



I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults.  Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis".  Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?
And isn't that why so many express concern and doubt about the government's current zeal to institute an ETS?
(Btw I've never expressed any thought that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and don't recall anyone else on this forum doing so either.)



> So here are my thoughts,
> 
> 1. In terms of what causes global temperature change, co2 is quite low on the list at the moment (although it becomes more important the higher the concentration, so it will be bumped up the list in the future) Solar radiance is the major determining factor, and it's obviously not a constant where we can state; X amount of energy will hit the earth year X. This is just one of the reasonsn why climate modelling is almost impossible to get accurate.
> 
> 2. The ETS is a bad idea in it's current form, not to mention there is no global agreement which renders it useless.
> 
> 3. Kevin Rudd is as full of it as Andrew Bolt and many on this forum. Just this week Rudd claimed that last weeks hot weather was proof of climate change. So if next week is cooder than average is that proof that the globe is cooling?
> 
> 4. There is plenty of good science that suggest the globe will actually cool over the next decade. The anti AGW crowd will jump on this as proof but at the same time they will ignore those same scientists that also model mean temperature over the next 50 years rising.



OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.

It seems you are bringing your learned perspective essentially alongside of those of us who are not happy about Mr Rudd's messianic determination to force Australia into an ETS, regardless of the decisions of the rest of the world.  This is really all many of us have been saying, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're so irritated at the expression of a concern which seems similar to your own.


----------



## Timmy

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Epistemic arrogance.




What does that mean please?


----------



## Gamblor

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Epistemic arrogance.
> Give the _dogma_ word a rest.




Cut too close to the bone did I?


----------



## wayneL

Gamblor,

A degree does not preclude one from being dogmatic and may even be a precursor of in in some people.

Some of the most spectacularly dogmatic people in fact come from the ranks of the "learned".

Don't forget some of the most ludicrous hypotheses in all areas of science comes from.... scientists. These are people who purportedly spent much time in universities as well.

To claim exemption from dogma on this basis is one of such cognitive bias that it takes my breath away. 

Like Julia, I find your stated views alongside your appalling disrespect of agnostics very confusing as well, your arguments based on the straw man caricature of doubters rather than our actual considered views.

It seems you've shot yourself in the foot really.


----------



## Gamblor

Julia said:


> Your above posts are supercilious and sneering.
> You may have earlier set out what actually you believe (or have proven for yourself) and I have missed it.   If so, I apologise for concluding your above expressed contempt was all you were offering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults.  Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis".  Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?
> And isn't that why so many express concern and doubt about the government's current zeal to institute an ETS?
> (Btw I've never expressed any thought that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and don't recall anyone else on this forum doing so either.)
> 
> 
> OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.
> 
> It seems you are bringing your learned perspective essentially alongside of those of us who are not happy about Mr Rudd's messianic determination to force Australia into an ETS, regardless of the decisions of the rest of the world.  This is really all many of us have been saying, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're so irritated at the expression of a concern which seems similar to your own.




The models aren't inconclusive, they show that co2 is causing a problem, it's the projected temperatures I have a problem with - too many variables in place for people to claim it will be X degrees hotter in 2050. Plus it's very possible some places will get a lot colder while the global mean increases. That's why global warming is not the best term for it.

I don't have anything against you, sorry if that's how it ended up, you seem quite moderate compared to many around here.


----------



## Gamblor

wayneL said:


> Gamblor,
> 
> A degree does not preclude one from being dogmatic and may even be a precursor of in in some people.
> 
> Some of the most spectacularly dogmatic people in fact come from the ranks of the "learned".
> 
> Don't forget some of the most ludicrous hypotheses in all areas of science comes from.... scientists. These are people who purportedly spent much time in universities as well.
> 
> To claim exemption from dogma on this basis is one of such cognitive bias that it takes my breath away.
> 
> Like Julia, I find your stated views alongside your appalling disrespect of agnostics very confusing as well, your arguments based on the straw man caricature of doubters rather than our actual considered views.
> 
> It seems you've shot yourself in the foot really.




Really? Did looking at both sides and making informed judgements loose you somehow. I don't have any borderline religious belief that climate change does or does not exist - I'll go with what I can gather from the science, when the science changes I'll be changing my mind with it.

I've got no disrespect for agnostics, I think it's the best place to be unless you're knee deep in the research. Clearly there are many here that are not agnostics though. Seriously, if you're trying to claim to be agnostic then you don't no the meaning of the word. I've read many of your posts trying to rubbish AGW.


----------



## Gamblor

wayneL, I'll just add that if I've misunderstood the intention behind a lot of your posts around here then I appologise.


----------



## lukeaye

Here is my late engagement in the debate.

Firstly, when i debate something, or make a judgement on something i will try to learn as much as possible about the topic before i pass my judgement.

I actually read quite a few books on climate change as i thought it was an interesting topic, and something that would be talked about alot in the future. ( I read these books about 5 years ago.)

Now there are some very very compeling arguements from both sides. But i have issues believing the books i have read. 

On one side i read a book from a "scientist" outling why the particular gas that supposedly causes the greenhouse effect, escapes from our atmosphere regardless of the amount of it. In lamens terms, if you imagine a fly screen, almost nothing can get through it, though there are a few exeptions, such as air, water, so on. Think of the Gas as air that can readily pass through the flyscreen, no matter how much there is it will always get through. This is mainly due to the elementary attributes of the gas and the atmosphere which i wont go in to.

Now i am not a scientist, not even close, i did year 12 chem and got a B+ so i have no clue as to the specifics of this. The book i read i have to take at face value as being correct? How do i not know that an oil company hasnt paid off a scientist to write this report? I don't?

On the other side, we have another group of scientist professing the end of the world? We have all seen the reports on 60 minutes. The evidence is very very compeling. BUT, How many times have you seen a report about how good everything is? Fear and tragedy sell? Good news items dont.

So how do i know these scientists arent just trying to get paid as well? I don't?

How do we know its not all part of the natural cycle? I don't? So how can any of us pass a judgement as to what is right and what is wrong? We cant?

Even if you have a PHD in the area, you still can't know? We all study the markets and make probable calls, but we never know what is going to happen, what call is right what call is wrong?

So I say er on the side of caution? But unfortunately the governments have seen there oppurtunities and made completely uselss carbon taxes, which help solve the problem none. 

I reserve my opinion because i am not qualified to make a statement.


----------



## Vizion

> You can try to create a straw man by portraying me as as some sort of anti AGW extremist or denier, but those that know me know that isn't true... apart from alarmists that is, who will consider me an apostate heathen, but that just reveals them as religious zealots.



 
This is an absolute nonsense & non sequitur. A fascinating use of extreme language, to try to make it look like I said something I clearly did not. All the while completely ignoring the actual science. Please point out where I called you an AGW extremist or denier... So if I knew you, I would agree with you because If I don't I'm obviously an alarmist. You I have apparently placed into the AGW camp, (instead of me or others just thinking your a decent man with concerns who is mistaken) That is one hell of a circular argument you have going there.
 
Roger Snr manages to point out a statistically insignificant data set, based on erroneous data, collected in part from the Argus net, which has been admitted to having some radical data errors in it. While failing to include seasonal variations in computations. This he then asserts makes it statistically significant. All the while ignoring the rises of the decades before. This is such a blatant cherry picking of data it beggars belief.

He prefers to address local and regional problems on time scales measurable in hours, weeks and months. This is mesoscale myopia. Since Roger Snr is actually a meteorologist & has only recently moved into climatology, his assertions are somewhat short sighted to put it mildly. No one in climatology actually thinks in these time frames.  

Roger Snr _(Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.)_
This argument is inane. Essentially, anyone who doesn’t support my arguments are stupid or dishonest. Hrmm sounds familiar...

It is amazing to see someone who wrote papers such as the one he wrote on the 2002 Colorado drought, descend into such emotive & biased language. 

As I have pointed out before, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how it is based. You appear to be trying to tread a moderate line based on your understanding of the science. That understanding if it is based on Roger's blog, is unfortunately very narrow. 

Let's look at an example of his use of cherrypicked data. The first half year of 2008 were strongly influenced by a La Nina episode which suppressed the surface temperature from Co2 warming. Additionally, the sun had reached the very bottom in its 11 year solar cycle. (for the sake of simplicity I will not even factor in the Milankovitch cycles) So it will only start to _significantly_ supplement greenhouse warming in a couple of years from now as ITS . So we have had a very short period when "cooling" phenomena have coincided. That's measured in the surface as well as tropospheric temperature records. So its not a big surprise there has been a flattening effect on sea temps. The data shows it is still rising, at a reduced rate admittedly. Yet it is still inline with the predictions. A fact Roger Snr has omitted. 
If he is genuinely interested in how the Earth's surface temperature responds to greenhouse warming, he would be trying to make a trend from the fact there are some temperature variations in & around a couple of months or years. So it has cooled a little at times due to seasonal fluctuations. So what? In another couple of years the rise in the solar cycle which has been eerily quite for a good number of years, _(while temperatures have continued to rise in line with the predicted CO2 models)_, will be _supplementing_ the greenhouse forcing rather than opposing it as in the last few years.

How about you read these papers to start with, to get a better understanding of what's being discussed, instead of relying on Roger Snr to get it right.

_W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453_

_Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.
_
You put your faith in this man to make sense of the complexities of climate when he himself has stated. 

Roger Snr 
_(Our examples lead to an inevitable conclusion: since the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable)_ 

& then...

_(Hence, it appears that one should not rely on prediction as the primary policy approach to assess the potential impact of future regional and global climate change. We argue instead that integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability …offer the best solution, whereby risk assessment and disaster prevention become the alternative to prediction.)_

*So we should all wait till it all breaks down before we attempt to fix it?*

To make these statements he must ignore, the know decay rates & interaction of CO2 in atmospherics, chemistry, radiative forcing, ITS, physics, astrophysics, signal to noise in climate models & a whole plethora of reasonably well understood feedback systems & their dynamic interactions. Doing all this in favour of this notion, that some things in climatology are too complex. therefore we can't know enough to make a policy decision.

There is example after example that I could give that shows his bias & use of cherry picked data.

You go right ahead & think what you like though, he's obviously the man for the job. A web-blog I might add he does not allow comments to be posted on that. I wonder why...

Oh & no is that there has been no comment on the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to climate? That should have started a rip-snorter of a discussion.  Plenty to argue about in that...


----------



## Gamblor

Vizion said:


> Oh & no is that there has been no comment on the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to climate? That should have started a rip-snorter of a discussion.  Plenty to argue about in that...





I'm out of here - have fun folks.

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics


----------



## wayneL

Vizion said:


> This is an absolute nonsense & non sequitur. A fascinating use of extreme language, to try to make it look like I said something I clearly did not. All the while completely ignoring the actual science. Please point out where I called you an AGW extremist or denier... So if I knew you, I would agree with you because If I don't I'm obviously an alarmist. You I have apparently placed into the AGW camp, (instead of me or others just thinking your a decent man with concerns who is mistaken) That is one hell of a circular argument you have going there.




Well that was a pretty impressive diatribe Vizion. TouchÃ©. 

You nearly had me convinced. Unfortunately, like the worst case CC scenario it falls down when the facts are dispassionately examined. Nonsense and non sequitur? I think not. It was obvious you were unilaterally altering my views, your premise fails from then on. Good effort though.

Re Pielke & cherrypicking: We could argue about what is and what isn't cherry picking of climate data _ad infinitum_. But it must be pointed out that the Climatesci blog, as one of it's main focuses, is about cutting through biased interpretation of the science. If I could be bothered, I could present a list biased conclusions of truly humungous proportions that makes total fools of the IPCC. But that's been done over time on Pielke's blog and elsewhere.

I'm sure this will be conveniently ignored however.

It all boils down to your earlier point of nobody having a clue. Your's and other's criticisms of Pielke et al may also be a result of bias, and so-on it goes. Being Home Sapiens, I have no doubt that the group suffers from the same human failings as any other.

It still does not detract from the sense of their argument when compared to the alarmists and outright deniers, even if formed from the chaotic fog of climate science. Alongside the religion like zealotry of the alarmist mob, they (the alarmists) seem almost like new earth creationists attempting to prove that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever.

They also address something which can be thought about more tangibly and addressed in far more concrete and effective terms. 

Less bias, better hypothesis.

It goes to my consistent point about wrong problem, wrong solution.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Its in this morning's Australian that a mob of pommy and yankee Climate Change Scientists were using dirty tricks to denigrate those who did not believe in the Gospel according to Gore.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...se-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912

They also wonder how their prrof is not fitting the data!!!!



> In one email, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research, who supports the theory of man-made climate change, says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
> 
> Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
> 
> End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
> 
> Dr Trenberth says data published last August "shows there should be even more warming . . . the data are surely wrong."




A piece of advice.

Get the data correct first, then postulate. Not the other way about.

It is a bloody religion not science.

gg


----------



## donkeykong

I’m probably going to be banging my head against a brick wall here but anyway....

Even if there isn’t a direct link between co2 commissions and climate change there are so many other reasons to decarbonise our economies. Coral bleaching, ocean acidification, health impacts of highly polluted air (anyone been to Jakarta, Beijing or LA). Even if you couldn’t care less about the environment there is only so much oil/coal/gas in the ground. Even if there is 100 years worth of fossil fuels, then what? Considering the amount of economic knowledge there is on this forum surely people can see what impact situations such as peak oil will have on the world. 

That being said rudds ETS is pretty much useless, there should be a broader push to develop alternative energy manufacturing industries investing in projects such as high speed train lines up and down the east cast that would greatly reduce the need for domestic air travel which is one of the most inefficient uses of fossil fuels.


----------



## moXJO

Gotta love hackers

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26386792-401,00.html


> COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain's leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists.
> 
> The messages – more than 2000 emails and 3000 documents – lay bare bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.
> 
> In one email, the head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is "cheered" by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.
> 
> *The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to "prove" man-made climate change.*




Based on science my ass


----------



## noco

Ruddmiester Hysteria

Heat Wave in Adelaide = Global Warming.

What a Shiester!

Whay will he say if it starts snowing in Canberra? = Global cooling!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bunyip

*FWIW - the following was sent by someone called Mark Blair. I have no idea who he is or what qualifications he has, but it makes for interesting reading.*


Opinion letter to Ballina Shire Advocate, Thursday Nov 5 2009   
 It`s Stupidity.

 Where to begin with the global warming stupidity?

 In all my years, I have never seen so many people who are willing, even
 eager, to believe in a media-hyped myth in preference to hard scientific
 facts.
 Yet I live in hope that there are some rational people left. Here are 
some
 of the facts. Anything I say below can be verified with a quick internet
 search.

 Fact 1: The polar ice caps are not melting. The British Antarctic Survey
 and NASA have confirmed that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica has grown
 300,000 sq km since 1980. Let me repeat: grown. Arctic ice, which did
 shrink two years ago has since largely rebounded and is within the normal
 range of variation.

 Fact 2: The seas are not rising abnormally. The seas have been rising
 slowly for the past 10,000 years. This is part of a long natural cycle.
 There is no sign that the seas are rising faster than usual. For the past
 three years there has been no detectable sea rise, according to satellite
 data monitored by the University of Colorado.

 Fact 3: No record continental temperature has been set in the world since
 1974. The NSW high was set some 70 years ago. South Australia 37 years 
ago and Victoria 103 years ago. Europe`s high was set 128 years ago.

 Fact 4: The world as a whole is not getting warmer. The world did get
 warmer from 1975 to 1998, but since then it has got cooler again, as both
 Hadley and NASA have reported. It is normal for the world to get warmer 
and cooler in natural cycles that span decades and centuries. According to 
data from Greenland ice cores, the world was several degrees hotter over the 
past 10,000 years than today. Let`s get that straight, because it is very
 important: the world has been warmer in our recent pre-industrial past, 
with no cars, no coal burning power stations and no factories.

 Fact 5: The last 1000 years have been unusually cool, in fact, well below
 the 10,000 - year average. The recent warming trends are typical of 
 trends seen many times in the past as the temperature naturally reverts back to
 somewhere nearer the 10,000 year average. There is nothing in the recent
slight warming to suggest that the rate of reversion is abnormally strong.

 Fact 6: We are not getting worse droughts than ever. From1870 to 1890
 Australia saw a series of severe droughts, including Australia - wide
 droughts which were severe enough to cause native trees and animals to 
die.
 The Federation drought killed half the sheep in Australia (50 million) and
 it took 20 years for the sheep industry to recover. That was a hell of a
 drought.

 Fact 7: The claim that the science is settled and there is a consensus
 about global warming is untrue. Many well qualified scientists disagree.
 Google search US Senate Minority Report on global warming. You will find 
  an up-to-date report containing an astonishing amount of anti - global 
  warming evidence from well-known scientists that is not reported in the general
 media.

 Fact 8: Climate change is normal and has been going on through-out the
 world`s entire history. It is not something to panic about and use as an
 excuse to introduce expensive new taxes (as Rudd is planning).

 If you are in the mood for calm and intelligent analysis of the global
 warming issue, I recommend Googling William Happer 2009 testimony US 
Senate.
 Happer is a distinguished professor of physics at Princeton University. 
  He is one of the world`s top experts in the physics of heat and gas and he is
 not worried about global warming. So why are we?



 Mark Blair.

 Ballina


----------



## lasty

donkeykong said:


> I’m probably going to be banging my head against a brick wall here but anyway....
> 
> Even if there isn’t a direct link between co2 commissions and climate change there are so many other reasons to decarbonise our economies. Coral bleaching, ocean acidification, health impacts of highly polluted air (anyone been to Jakarta, Beijing or LA). Even if you couldn’t care less about the environment there is only so much oil/coal/gas in the ground. Even if there is 100 years worth of fossil fuels, then what? Considering the amount of economic knowledge there is on this forum surely people can see what impact situations such as peak oil will have on the world.




Well your concern the environment is plausible however we dont know that reducing CO2 emissions will have any impact.
Some of the scientist who have acknowledged that CO2 is the cause feel that it will take centuries for the planet to rollback. In other words the horse has bolted.

As for your concern about peak oil and resource extermination, mans greed  for prosperity will resolve this.
Oil companies made sure that mans inventions to alternative resources were squashed, so the intellectual property is out there.
Its only a matter of time.

Rudd however couldnt careless about our emissions. He is only after being president of the New World order at the UN.
What Rudd fails to see is that no one wants it and countries like the UK who have lived with an immigration explosion that meant locals losing jobs and paying higher taxes for welfare for foreigners are starting to rebel.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Another interesting read....
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/the-un-ipcc-climate-change-numbers-hoax/

The UN (IPCC) climate change numbers hoax

By Tom Harris and John McLean – Monday, 30 June 2008. mail updates!

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
...
....
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have nt been observed.”
....


----------



## noco

Mr.Rudd it's 23c max. in Adelaide today. Is this now global cooling?


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
> ...
> ....
> An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
> 
> In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.



Prof Ian Plimer makes this same point in his book "Heaven and Earth".
He further says that these 'scientists' were not actually all scientists at all, but rather simply environmental activists.

They certainly appear to have been successful in their endeavours.


----------



## Smurf1976

lasty said:


> As for your concern about peak oil and resource extermination, mans greed  for prosperity will resolve this.
> Oil companies made sure that mans inventions to alternative resources were squashed, so the intellectual property is out there.
> Its only a matter of time.



Time is what worries me. Based on all the info I have, we've got only until the economy (globally) grows more than a few % to have the alternatives rolling off the production line since oil production capacity today is almost certainly below actual consumption levels 18 months ago.

The oil industry needed to run flat out to maintain flat production, then along came the GFC and a lot of projects were cancelled or delayed. It thus seems reasonable to assume that production capacity now is less than it was, a situation hidden only by GFC-induced falls in demand.

Time will tell but I'm not at all confident that we'll actually implement alternatives in time. "In time" meaning basically until the economic downturn ends and growth resumes - that's likely to be measured in months or at most years rather than decades or centuries. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Ruddmiester Hysteria
> 
> Heat Wave in Adelaide = Global Warming.
> 
> What a Shiester!
> 
> Whay will he say if it starts snowing in Canberra? = Global cooling!!!!!!!!!!!!!



13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33. 

Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.

It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.

One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur. 

Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.


----------



## GumbyLearner

Smurf1976 said:


> 13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33.
> 
> Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.
> 
> It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.
> 
> One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur.
> 
> Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.




Exactly what Dorothea Mackellar was talking about in 1904.

A Sunburnt country

    The love of field and coppice
    Of green and shaded lanes,
    Of ordered woods and gardens
    Is running in your veins.
    Strong love of grey-blue distance,
    Brown streams and soft, dim skies
    I know, but cannot share it,
    My love is otherwise.

        I love a sunburnt country,
        A land of sweeping plains,
        Of ragged mountain ranges,
        Of drought and flooding rains.
        I love her far horizons,
        I love her jewel-sea,
        Her beauty and her terror
        The wide brown land for me!

    The stark white ring-barked forests,
    All tragic to the moon,
    The sapphire-misted mountains,
    The hot gold hush of noon,
    Green tangle of the brushes
    Where lithe lianas coil,
    And orchids deck the tree-tops,
    And ferns the warm dark soil.

        Core of my heart, my country!
        Her pitiless blue sky,
        When, sick at heart, around us
        We see the cattle die
        But then the grey clouds gather,
        And we can bless again
        The drumming of an army,
        The steady soaking rain.

    Core of my heart, my country!
    Land of the rainbow gold,
    For flood and fire and famine
    She pays us back threefold.
    Over the thirsty paddocks,
    Watch, after many days,
    The filmy veil of greenness
    That thickens as we gaze…

        An opal-hearted country,
        A wilful, lavish land
        All you who have not loved her,
        You will not understand
        though Earth holds many splendours,
        Wherever I may die,
        I know to what brown country
        My homing thoughts will fly.


----------



## bunyip

Smurf1976 said:


> 13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33.
> 
> Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.
> 
> It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.
> 
> One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur.
> 
> Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.




Exactly....thank you Smurf for bringing some sanity to the climate debate by pointing out a simple fact that so many people just don't consider.

It's completely ludicrous to automatically assume that the most extreme weather events we've seen in the last two hundred or so years are the result of man-made climate change. Yet that's the sort of claim made by Kevin Rudd and other fools when Adelaide copped a heatwave recently, when cyclone Larry hit North Queensland a couple of years back, and when the heatwave and associated bushfires devastated parts of Victoria earlier this year.

You'd have to be stupid in the extreme not to realise that the last few hundred thousand years have almost certainly produced stronger cyclones, bigger floods, longer droughts, colder cold snaps, and bigger tsunamis than any we've experienced in the last few hundred years.

Below is an article that outlines some interesting findings from Dr. Jonathan Nott, a highly credentialed researcher from James Cook University in Cairns.



_Super Cyclone
 (04/10/2001)
Topics: Natural Disasters

Comments
Reporter: Paul Willis 
Producer: Louise Heywood 
Researcher: Robert Hodgson 
North Queensland regularly suffers under the onslaught of cyclonic winds and driving seas, but scientists don't think Australia's top end has seen how big and bad a cyclone can be. 

Could cities such as Cairns withstand the ferocious attack of a 'super cyclone'? A geological dig through a 6,000-year history of cyclones in the region reveals that the worst is yet to come - and it's time to batten down the hatches.

TRANSCRIPT
Narration: North Queenslanders beware - a supercyclone, bigger than anything you've seen before, is coming your way. And Cairns may not be able to cope with a cyclone from hell.

Jonathan Nott: Generally Europeans haven't been in north Queensland since the last super cyclone but one is definitely going to occur in the future.

Narration: Cyclones are regular visitors to Cairns. Cyclone Steve hit in 2000 causing extensive damage. It was one of the strongest storms recorded in the area. But this is not the worst that can happen.

Steve was a pup. If a small cyclone can cause this much damage, imagine what a really big cyclone could do. Dr Jonathan Nott from James Cook University at Cairns has been looking into the geological record to figure out how often cyclones hit the North Queensland coast. 

Today he's taking me to one of his study sites on Fitzroy Island, just off the coast from Cairns.

Jonathan Nott: Out there is the Great Barrier Reef so the beaches here are not made of sand, they're made of broken coral. This coral shingle is washed onto the beach during storms. 

Narration: Cyclones create storm surges and these walls of water push the shingle into ridges at the back of the beach. The bigger the cyclone, the bigger the storm surge, the bigger the shingle ridge it leaves behind. 

Jonathan Nott: We have a small ridge here that is deposited by a relatively moderate size cyclone. A ridge behind that what was deposited by an earlier cyclone that was bigger again and then back into the rainforest we have another deposit that was deposited by a very large or very intense cyclone.

Narration: By measuring shingle ridges Jon's been able to build up a 6,000 year history of cyclones in North Queensland. He's found dozens of super cyclones - enormous storms the likes of which have not been seen within historic times. The last big cyclone seen in Cairns hit in 1920. It had a storm surge of just 2.5 metres.

Jonathan Nott: In the early 1800's we had a storm surge which was more than 4 metres high and that would have been at least a metre over my head as I sit here now.

Narration: As you can see Cairns has changed quite a bit in the last 80 odd years. As the city has grown and developed, the building regulations have been tightened to account for the strongest cyclones on record. But, if Jon's right, they ain't seen nothing yet.

Cyclone Vance was Australia's biggest recorded cyclone. It hit the North Coast of Western Australia in 1999 with 267 km/h winds. Homes and buildings built to withstand cyclonic winds were no match for Vance. More than 240 were damaged, half beyond repair.

Destruction came from both the extreme winds and a ferocious sea. The storm surge was a 6 metre high wall of water. It ploughed up to a kilometre inland stripping bare everything in its' path. Is Cairns ready for a Super-cyclone? Built to withstand smaller cyclones, the 300kmh winds of a super-cyclone would leave half of Cairns uninhabitable. A storm surge greater than 4 metres would devastate the waterfront and shopping districts.

If the city is evacuated there should be no loss of life but the damage bill could run into many millions of dollars.

Jonathan Nott: These events occur every two to three hundred years and it has been a couple of hundred years since the last one hit this region here around Cairns. So we know that they're going to occur in the future. We don't know when they will occur, but we know that one will definitely occur in the relatively near future."

Narration: Jon's findings have only just been published in the journal Nature, so the authorities haven't really had time to take on board his warnings. It may well mean that building regulations have to be tightened even further and development close to sea level stopped altogether. 

But the take home message is BEWARE: killer cyclones will hit north Queensland.

Story Contacts
Dr Jonathan Nott   

Email 
James Cook University
Cairns, Queensland_


----------



## sinner

wayneL will find this one interesting

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-religion-modern-day.html


----------



## Calliope

Nigel Lawson yesterday launched "The Global Warning Policy Forum" for those people interested in rational debate;

www.thegwpf.org



> *Who we are*
> 
> The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity
> 
> Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.
> 
> The GWPF's primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration
> 
> Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
> 
> We intend to develop alternative policy options and to foster a proper debate (which at present scarcely exists) on the likely cost and consequences of current policies.


----------



## noco

I have told this true story before, but I will tell it again.

My dear mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897. In 1911 a severe cyclone hit Port Douglas and my mother, her three sisters and their mother huddled under the  very strong kitchen table for shelter. The house collapsed on top of them and the kitchen table saved their lives. That was the same cyclone that sank the Yongala. The house was totally destroyed. To the best of my knowledge they did not have categories of intensity in those days, so it is difficult to compare with what has happened since then.

I personlly worked on sheep stations in the late 40's and early 50's and experienced severe drought, fire and floods, being marooned on one property for two weeks on an island surrounded by water. There was no panic in those days, no helicopers to the rescue, no bitumen sealed roads. Most property owners had been through all before and made adequte preparations in advance.

So tell me what's new today? The only thing new today is the BS being put out by politicians; the hysteria that we must have an ETS and a CPRS to save the world, from what?


----------



## Julia

Noco, I doubt it will make you feel better to know that the amended scheme includes additional benefits for the coal and electricity industries, funds for which will be taken from the assistance to ordinary householders.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

The University of East Anglia should be ashamed for fiddling data and denigrating those scientists who did not agree with the Al Gore led Weather not Weather argument.

Shame, shame , shame.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg

noco said:


> I personlly worked on sheep stations in the late 40's and early 50's and experienced severe drought, fire and floods, being marooned on one property for two weeks on an island surrounded by water. There was no panic in those days, no helicopers to the rescue, no bitumen sealed roads. Most property owners had been through all before and made adequte preparations in advance.
> 
> So tell me what's new today? The only thing new today is the BS being put out by politicians; the hysteria that we must have an ETS and a CPRS to save the world, from what?



Yes as a kid I remember walking the drying river beds looking for among other things goannas, lizards, snakes, crayfish, top notch pigeon, feral pigs and wild cats. Then at different times revelling in the mud slides on the banks of the Flinders River in flood from the rains in the Gulf. Truly normal climate but that was a long way from the industrial world back then.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Noco, I doubt it will make you feel better to know that the amended scheme includes additional benefits for the coal and electricity industries, funds for which will be taken from the assistance to ordinary householders.




Yes Julia, I am aware of the compromise made and who will suffer the most? You and me and lot lot more like us who, in many cases, are self funded retirees. Make no exceptions, everybody's hip pocket will be affected.


----------



## bunyip

My area has experienced well below average rainfall for at least the last 12 years or so, with a number of these years being touted by the media and by various well-respected climate 'experts' as 'the worst drought on record' for this region. 

During that 12 years my family and I have travelled regularly through a particular 50 km stretch of country on our way to visit my aunty and uncle.
In that 50 km stretch we cross a number of creeks that have had water in them during every one of these so called 'driest years on record'. 

My uncle, who is in his eighties, tells me there's an old timer near him who is in his late 90's, and this man remembers riding his horse through this same 50 km stretch of country back in the 1920's when he was a teenager - on the entire trip he couldn't find one creek with water in it to give his horse a drink.

Conclusion? Back near the turn of last century there were drier years than some of the years in recent times that are being touted as 'the driest on record'.
And no doubt there were wetter years too than any recently, and colder years and hotter years, if not in the early 20's then before then. 
And yet there's barely a week goes by without some imbecile like our Prime Minister pointing to some extreme weather event and claiming it's the worst on record and is proof of man-made climate change.

When, for 'God's sake when, are these stupid people going to get in touch with reality!


----------



## Calliope

bunyip said:


> When, for 'God's sake when, are these stupid people going to get in touch with reality!




Once we we would have looked on the climate change alarmists as being harmless cranks. But now with Rudd and Turnbull's ETS we are confronted all to late, with the realisation that they have the upper hand, and they are dangerous.

As Terry Mc Crann said about yesterday's events;



> THAT was a day that will live in infamy and insanity and inanity.
> 
> We had a prime minister who declared economic war on his own country. And an opposition leader who spent the rest of the day trying desperately to make it unanimous. Finally, succeeding.




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26397329-3122,00.html



> Now committing to something like this this would be bad enough coming from any leader of any country. Directly attacking the wellbeing of its citizens.
> 
> Especially when that leader knows, and I mean knows that it is utterly pointless, even in his own misconceived terms, as no-one of major emitting substance is going to follow.
> 
> Coming from the leader of a country whose entire economy is built on carbon-based energy and the export of carbon-based products, it is criminally - there really are no other words for it - insane.


----------



## Smurf1976

There's not much point now in continuing the should / shouldn't debate since it seems there's a done deal. The rational focus now is on how to make the best of it personally and what the bigger picture consequences will be.

Amongst other things, REC's are now tradeable on the ASX so there's one possibility. http://www.asx.com.au/products/futures/recs/product_description.htm

Other things that come to mind are any company involved in the gas industry since that's likely to scale up across the board and, in the medium term, see significant price rises as its main competitor (coal and coal-fired electricity) is constrained.

Civil construction companies involved with the building of wind farms and, on a lesser scale, other large scale renewable energy production are another one. There are multiple large wind farms in various locations plus a few solar (large scale not house roofs) and hydro projects in the planning stages that are now more likely to proceed.

At the personal level, anything that reduces your fossil fuel use is likely to be more profitable in the years ahead than it otherwise would have been. What is a loss or break even today becomes profitable in this new carbon-constrained world. And even at present electricity prices, you can get a 12% nominal return on a 1.5 kW PV system on your roof (depending on how much you pay for it etc) so it's worth looking at.

Anyone who makes a new committment to ongoing high levels of fossil fuel use, relative to their income, is a fool in my opinion. Forget that new SUV and forget those halogen downlights. And needless to say, don't build a poorly insulated McMansion with no eaves and a black roof in a hot climate, an idea that always was absurd regardless of electricity costs.

Don't think you're being smart rushing to beat the electric water heater ban either - you'll end up going broke on a quarterly basis paying to run it for the next 15 years as electricity prices rise. Go solar, heat pump or at least gas instead (which is best will depend on your circumstances - a heat pump will suit me fine but it's not for everyone).

Now, I'm not overly happy with the situation but I've thought since the 1980's that this day would come eventually, the only question being under what circumstances - whether oil depletion or politics got there first. Politics it is - at least until oil whacks us over the head and everyone forgets about climate change (a scenario I'm fully expecting). But for now - make the best of it and base your decisions accordingly. RIP cheap energy.

The next open ended question is what government does next to ease the pain for voters? We've already got solar PV and HWS subsidies, energy audits (many of which are useless IMO but that's another story), free insulation and green loans. We've banned incandescent light bulbs, regulated building construction and are banning electric storage water heaters. 

So what's next? Other than extensions to existing schemes, about the only obvious things government hasn't handed out already is a "cash for clunkers" program to get rid of old cars (and conveniently boost the car industry...) and free natural gas connection for houses. Given the political clout of both of those industries, the broader economic situation with manufacturing, and the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (which has synergies with installing gas pipes), I wouldn't be surprised to see either of those schemes eventuate at some point.


----------



## brty

Well said Smurf, one of the better posts on the topic.

I see your point, which is basically get over it move on and profit from the changes, because we are beyond fighting change (as in political).

brty


----------



## basilio

> Re: Resisting Climate Hysteria
> Well said Smurf, one of the better posts on the topic.
> 
> I see your point, which is basically get over it move on and profit from the changes, because we are beyond fighting change (as in political).




Totally agree. I think it will make more and more sense to invest in products and services that will directly reduce  on going energy costs and overall costs of livings. So the comments about  not overbuilding, installing PV ect make sense.

It's interesting to note that in the traditional investment advice  almost all suggestions are geared to  putting your money into external investments (shares, property , pine trees ....) to somehow make enough money to keep up a lifestyle you believe you need. On reflection many of those models seem to do a lot more for the advisers, managers and owners of the investments than the mum/dad investors.... Perhaps there is an opportunity for a another type of financial/life adviser who can suggest ways to live more economically and use at least some of the investment funds investment funds as Smurf has suggested.

One consideration in the drive to reduce costs and construct a simpler more robust life is making sure you get good value. Unfortunatey business being what it is when new trends get started all types of stuff gets thrown on the market with green labels and big promises. Given that some of these decisions are quite costly and you won't necessarily have the capital to replace them if they don't work out it will make sense  to invest in quality, value for money deals.


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> There's not much point now in continuing the should / shouldn't debate since it seems there's a done deal. The rational focus now is on how to make the best of it personally and what the bigger picture consequences will be.




You are right. We are screwed, but we don't have to grin and bear it. There is little advantage the great majority can gain from it, only higher taxation, and a lowered standard of living.There will be those who can make money from the misfortune of others. In a material society this is normal practice,but it is difficult for the losers to assume a "rational focus."

Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.


----------



## Mofra

Calliope said:


> Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.



I just wonder whether those supporters will be smart enough to understand what is happening, or they will assume the handout is Krudd's generosity & continue to vote for him.

Either way is seems the majority of the Australian economy is being manufactured by the governement, and this is just another example. The Austrian School Economists must be ready to host a wake given government action since the 07 election.


----------



## noco

From the Townsville Bulletin today, Clive Palmer who owns the Yabulu Nickel Refinery in Townsville has threatened to close down if the fuul extent of the ETS is applied. 

Does Rudd and Turnbull care if 1200 loose their jobs? It does not appear that way. Not a word from our three state Labor parlimentary  stooges.


----------



## trainspotter

Google "David Bellamy climate change" and get some unbiased information from a Scientist/Greenie/Professor.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

this whole Global Warming/AGW/Climate Change scam is agressively spilling across the internet....I'm sure there will be more high profile revelations to unfold (and they may not all be related to the AGW scam).

Who's checked the Australian temp. datasets, and have they been 'adjusted' too as below?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
...
....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:

    The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> You are right. We are screwed, but we don't have to grin and bear it. There is little advantage the great majority can gain from it, only higher taxation, and a lowered standard of living.There will be those who can make money from the misfortune of others. In a material society this is normal practice,but it is difficult for the losers to assume a "rational focus."
> 
> Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.



Agreed but there are things you can do to at least minimise your losses. Some specific examples as follows (note that I'm not recommending (or otherwise) the companies mentioned, I'm just using current offers as an example.

1. Nu Energy (www.nue.com.au) will for just under $3000 supply and install a 1.5 kW PV system on your house roof. How much it saves you will depend on location and how much you pay for electricity - but in Hobart (not the ideal place for solar...) it works out at about $370 a year saving which, since it is completely TAX FREE, isn't too bad a return overall. And that saving will go up with any rise in electricity prices. *In some parts of Australia they are offering the same system, fully installed, for just under $2000*. Do the math there - it's worthwhile.

2. If you need a new hot water heater then for an electric one it's going to cost you about $1000 plus the plumber to install it - so around $1500 all up. But you could instead get a top of the range marine grade stainless steel Siddons Solarstream heat pump instead and that will come to around $3500 after rebates, substantially less in areas where there are state or local government rebates. And it will save you 70% on your hot water costs even in the middle of Winter.

This is a split system - tank goes where the electric one is now (mine will be under the house) and the compressor goes somewhere else convenient outside (just like a split system air-conditioner). Other companies, such as Quantum, make "all in one" units that are cheaper to install but need to have the tank outside.

Worth looking into, especially if you need a new water heater anyway. Spend $1500 - $2000 extra for 70 - 75% permanent savings that will increase in value with power costs. www.siddonssolarstream.com and www.quantumenergy.com.au Other companies make these systems too (but don't buy one with a booster element - it's not necessary unless you really do live somewhere that gets regular snow and ice and will use power unnecessarily during cool weather. Also make sure it can work on off-peak to minimise costs - the Siddons unit can.

3. Heating the house. 

If you're using electric heating other than via an air-conditioner, you could save up to 77% of your heating bills (realistically 70%) by switching to a reverse cycle air-conditioner.

All the major air-conditioning manufacturers make reverse cycle models but Mitsubishi Electric now has a "Hyper Heating" version that is specifically optimised for heating. It works down to -25 degrees outside which should be more than enough for anyone in Australia (most other systems lose output at low temperatures, a common complaint with reverse cycle heating. Mitsubishi claims these models maintain constant output regardless of how cold it is outside). They also work as conventional air-conditioners for cooling during Summer.

Plenty more ideas and ways to reduce energy consumption but the 3 above will for many people completely offset the claimed $1100 a year increase in bills anyway. Then we can get back to worrying about the real issue with the ETS - the potential loss of our major exporting industries.


----------



## derty

I stumbled across this site: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Has the latest and historic arguments from both sides of the fence as well as a very extensive list of sites that cover official sites, for and against science groups, for and against blogs, a whole range of data sites, for and against debunking sites and energy sites. It's a great compilation. It's huge!


----------



## MS+Tradesim

This may interest many. The alleged emails in question. If authentic, there are some real doozies:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Apologies if someone already posted this. I came across them quite by accident today.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
> ...
> ....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:
> 
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.





There really needs to be an official investigation of this fraud by scientists and the IPCC, but then who do the IPCC answer to? Not elected by you or me.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

"We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2””it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace."


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
> ...
> ....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:
> 
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.




Yes they have, at least twice in addition to the scientific papers:

From the website of NIWA, the New Zealand Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise:


> NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8 °C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
> 
> Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
> 
> NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.




Also from NIWA, a press release dated August *2006* http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2006/2006-08-03-1 dealing with the same allegations. 

For a more step by step explanation of how and why these sets of data are adjusted, try http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/. 

Cheers

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed but there are things you can do to at least minimise your losses. Some specific examples as follows (note that I'm not recommending (or otherwise) the companies mentioned, I'm just using current offers as an example.




Smurf, I agree entirely with your three suggestions. The is nothing more wasteful that compensating householders for increase in power costs. There is no incentive to reduce consumption.

When you consider all the power available from your roof it it makes sense that we should avail ourselves of it. Many of my neighbours are doing just that with  !.5 kw solar panels and water heating systems. My son has the water heating system you describe and it been fully self-sufficient in the  six months he has had it.

The compensation money should be used to help people to help themselves instead perpetuating power wastefulness.


----------



## basilio

> from the website of NIWA, the New Zealand Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...mperature-rise:
> Quote:
> NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8 °C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
> 
> Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
> 
> NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
> Also from NIWA, a press release dated August 2006 http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...6/2006-08-03-1 dealing with the same allegations.
> 
> For a more step by step explanation of how and why these sets of data are adjusted, try http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-l...top-scientist/.




Ii all makes perfect sense doesn't it....  Over a hundred years a few weather stations are moved to obviously cooler sites i.e. 125 metres higher up a mountain. Every meteorological body understand that there needs to be an adjustment of the older figures to ensure same for same comparison with new ones. It's done and explained - clearly.

And yet.. some deceitful blackards, after being shown how and why the adjustment was made, try to scream fraud. Just sickening and stupid.

I had a good read of how and why the figures were adjusted and the fact that these explanations were made and accepted by all the meteorological bodies ages ago. *And specifically explained to the climate coalition.*

It's simple. The deniers are liars.


----------



## basilio

> It's simple. The deniers are liars.




Had a chance to think about my earlier post and I think it was a bit rough. I  remembered  a few conversations I have had with people who seem absolutely convinced that global warming is either not that real or not caused by people or any of the other comments bandied around the net.  I don't think they would see themselves as liars.

So what was I trying to say? The core of the issue I feel is the systematic deceit of many people/organizations attempting to discredit either the science behind global warming or the scientists who observe and measure what is happening. The particular point of the "fudged" New Zealand temperatures is just one such absolutely glaring example. 

If one takes the trouble to read what happened and then scout around the various meteorological organization and ask if  the adjustments are kosher the simple answer would be yes. You can't directly compare readings from 2 weather stations if there has been a material change in the position. 125 metres of altitude is a clear change which will cause a demonstrated difference in recorded temperatures.

This had been made clear previously but it didn't stop  a rehash of the story with  character destroying comments about the scientists in question.  The twisted stories in the Telegraph and Herald Sun are the lies I am particularly bitter about. It is only because these journalists chose to  tell a story that is not truthful that millions of readers start to believe the deception.

*In this particular case I sincerely hope "someone" has the capacity to sue these journalists and newspapers for libel.*

If anyone here is actually interested in what happened in New Zealand and why, take the trouble to check out the link in the previous post.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Had a chance to think about my earlier post and I think it was a bit rough.




It wasn't really. If someone is messing with, or disingenuously interpreting data, they need a size 13 steel-capped Blundstone up the derrier.

But it is important to note that we (as truth seekers) now have important evidence that both sides of the debate have been indulging in pure, grade A, USDA approved bull$#1+.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

The whole CC debate has become about politics and zeal rather than the facts. We cannot move forward with any real consideration of what's actually happening, because that's obfuscated with emotion and nonsense that is laughingly referred to as peer reviewed science... oh, and what appears to be a hidden agenda.

That size 13 steel-capped Blundstone wielder needs to get to work on both extremes. The disappointing thing for me is that the pro ACC extremists have control of policy and are using it to further their own ends. Need there be any better example than the repulsive liar Al Gore who has used the worst of the science to enrich himself and to achieve influence denied him by the US supreme court and the reptilian cretin that brought us the immensely stupid "war on terrrrrrrr".

Yes let's call out the liars and mercilessly trash their reputations... on both sides of the debate.

But please don't try to claim the high moral ground for the pro AGW lobby because some clown jerking us off with a dodgy interpretation of data. In light of the latest email scandal and consistent exposing of bias by others, that would be speaking from a position of hypocrisy of truly megalithic proportions.


----------



## alphaman

I don't need figures, it's obvious to me that we are in a secular trend of environmental destruction. And given our obsession with the so-called "economic" growth, I'd say the fundamentals support continuation of this trend.  Sure there will be a few bumps along the ride, but you can't fight the trend. Most likely the GEC (Global Environmental Crisis) is still generations away, by the time I'll be dead anyway.


----------



## wayneL

alphaman said:


> I don't need figures, it's obvious to me that *we are in a secular trend of environmental destruction*. And given our obsession with the so-called "economic" growth, I'd say the fundamentals support continuation of this trend.  Sure there will be a few bumps along the ride, but you can't fight the trend. Most likely the GEC (Global Environmental Crisis) is still generations away, by the time I'll be dead anyway.




Agree, but let's address that rather than the CO2/AGW ruse.


----------



## basilio

> Yes let's call out the liars and mercilessly trash their reputations... on both sides of the debate.




Nice one Wayne....

So while we are on the topic of taking out and trashing the reputations of liars consider  just how the whole "solar actvity is causing global warming" BS has been a total scam since it's inception. 

For years now one of the juiciest red herrings of the GW deniers has been that Solar activity was the big reason for global warming. Not just a small factor but THE factor. Graphs were used in The Great Global Warning Swindle  amongst other pieces of rubbish  that purported to show this correlation.

*Trouble was this was a calculated lie by the relevant scientific researchers  that was uncovered many years ago, put into into plain daylight - and then ignored by the body of deniers who simply arn't interested in the truth if it gets in the way of want they want to believe.
*
If other forum members want to see an overview of just how this fraud was  concocted and used to cloud this this issue check out the link. I have attached a few relevant paragraphs.




> *Flawed science*
> I have followed the scientific work of these two researchers over many years. In the 1990’s I was scientific advisor to the Danish Energy Agency. It was my task to scrutinize the steady flux of climate related scientific literature and keep the Agency informed about developments which should be taken into account in shaping Danish energy and climate policies.
> 
> In 1991 Eigil Friis‐Christensen together with Knud Lassen, another Danish researcher, published an article in the scientific journal Science which attracted worldwide attention. It seemed to document a close agreement between data representing solar activity (solar cycle lengths), and terrestrial temperatures. The agreement was displayed on a graph which showed a solar and a terrestrial curve closely intertwined. *What made the graph a sensation, was the fact, that the steep rise in temperature from about 1970, the ‘global warming’, was closely matched by a corresponding steep rise of the solar curve. *This was seen by many as proof that global warming was caused by the sun. The graph has been reproduced extensively all over the word, both in the mass media and in scientific literature, and has helped to create a large community of believers, who claim that the sun is causing the global warming.
> 
> *Regrettably, it took some years before a careful analysis of the article revealed that the conspicuous steep rise of the solar curve actually had nothing to do with the behavior of the sun, but had been created (accidentally?) by a change of the mathematical procedure used to calculate the points creating the steep rise.* I published this finding in 2003 in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar‐Terrestrial Physics, but had already presented my critique in the year 2000 at a conference on “The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate”, arranged by the European Space Agency.
> 
> In the late 1990’s a series of articles seemed to provide additional credibility to the ‘solar theory’. In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.
> 
> *However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws:
> 1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details).* Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on
> apples alone.
> 2) *However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article.Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years *(See my 2003‐article for details).




ttp://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.p

So given that the lies that underpinned the "Global Warming is caused by Solar activity" was clearly exposed at least 10 years ago what are to make  of the relentless push by deniers to continue to use that "evidence" since then? And you can start with Ian Plimer who copied the Great Global Warming Swindle rubbish into his book complete with manufactured figures. 

This episode also highlights the point of peer reviewed science. When researchers put out a paper they have to show just how they arrived at their conclusions and enable other scientists to go through the process  to verify it. In this case it became clear that clever subtle  "mistakes" had made made in the calculations to come out with the desired result. The scrutiny of other scientists brought this to light.

The refusal of climate deniers to see this reality meant the lie was spread and still infects the mindset of many people who want to believe that something else apart from CO2 is causing global warming.


----------



## noco

With Tony Abbott now the new leader of the Coalition it looks like the ETS is dead until February. Perhaps now, there will be  breathing space to gather more information on the SCAM AND CONSPIRACY of this flawed and fraudulent ETS.

It must be defeated.


----------



## basilio

Just realized that the link to the Flawed Science paper wasn't working.

I will be interested to hear in due course the response of  forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not  play a small part in our climate)

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf


----------



## Temjin

basilio said:


> http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf






> A question of trust
> 
> So, it must be recognized that not all research institutions have accepted proper responsibility to maintain the trust which the general public traditionally places in them. In the modern world, many scientific results are extremely
> difficult to verify independently. They may be produced by a group of several researchers working for months or even years with vast amounts of data, which have to be calibrated employing especially tailored computer programs.
> Often it is practically impossible for an outsider to verify the conclusions. That applies also to the referees, who have to decide on the publication of the work. So, trust is in the short run often all we have to judge the authenticity of claimed new developments. Trust in fellow scientists and trust in research institutions. And, at the Copenhagen conference on global climate the decision makers of the world, must be able to trust the scientific basis which is presented to them. They must be able to rely on it when building a strategy to fend off catastrophic climate developments. So, the scientific community should be careful not to squander this trust.




Geez, such an easy way out. So they say, it's extremely difficulty or often practically impossible to verify a scientific conclusion. So therefore, we cannot present the raw data to you and you have to just "TRUST US" that we are perfectly right. (and others who don't agree with us are wrong) 

And I thought science is about...



> "Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the *generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions.* Scientists are also *expected to publish their information* so other scientists can do similar experiments *to double-check their conclusions.*




The emails hack certainly show the level of trust with some of those scientists are lacking. 

Until they release every data to the public and then verified by other independent scientists, it's not exact science. (but of course, they are not going to since they have already admitted they would rather destroy the data than be analysed by the skeptics)


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> Just realized that the link to the Flawed Science paper wasn't working.
> 
> I will be interested to hear in due course the response of  forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not  play a small part in our climate)
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf




I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.


----------



## lasty

It seems to me that many have claimed its man made climate change but failed to prove it.

Isnt that like saying "someone has been murdered and you have to prove you didnt do it?"

Isnt the law innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## Knobby22

moXJO said:


> I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.




So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis?

Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.


----------



## lasty

Knobby22 said:


> So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis?
> 
> Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.




Nice twist.. but if you are an alarmist arent you meant to be alarming us about something that is FACTUAL?

Yes the climate is changing... FACT.. we both agree..
Man made CO2 is the cause.. FICTION.. until proven..

"So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis."
However if you want to play that game here goes..

My skeptic alternative theory is that our planet goes through hot and cold cycles continuously.. Now prove to me it doesnt...


----------



## Rommel

A simple example I have for debunking some global warming (CO2 and other related) especially in common conversation, is that everyone mentions the recent hot days (especially in VIC) and how it is attributed to climate change.

However, the same set of hot days were recorded for November 80 years ago, did it ever occur to the sceptics that the Earth's climate and weather system are not static entity, there are seasonal trends, 10 year trends, 100 even 1000 year trends. The world has had a changing temperature for thousands of years, and considering it has been dynamic since before mass CO2 production or the 'industrial period'; how is a change in climate instantly attributed to humans?

The sceptics are relying on a single variable in a complex system.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.




Basilio, Knobby, et al:

And the pro AGW theories are based on.....? Climategate anyone? 

Repetition is no substitute for truth, no matter how repetitiously the repetition is repeated.

In fact, when I see such baseless dogma, it is because the debate has been lost on intellectual grounds. All that is left is propaganda.

AGWers have well and truly lost the battle of the century, yet the war rages on.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

wayneL said:


> In fact, when I see such baseless dogma, it is because the debate has been lost on intellectual grounds. All that is left if propaganda.



Good point you have made Wayne. Good debate is logical debate.


----------



## derty

So the denial camp have a hockey stick too. (All we need is a ball and a good referee  )

As for the Sun, of course solar activity influences terrestrial climate. After all what other comparable source of energy does the Earth have?  Even with the discredited graphs showing a relationship between sunspot activity and climate, these variations occur within the 22/11yr sunspot cycle and the cycles associated with cycle length.

The major heating and cooling cycles of the Earth happen on much greater time scales. It is associated with these cycles that people claim the Earth was X degrees hotter than it was Y million years ago e.t.c. *These major climatic changes are not due to the variability of solar activity. *They are due to the changes in orbital eccentricity, the axial tilt and axial precession of the Earth. These effect the attitude and distance of the Earth to the Sun and how that solar radiation hits the Earth (just look at the annual temperature variations associated with the seasons).

Cherry picking temperatures whether they be last year, 80 years ago or 1000 years ago is meaningless. Temperatures need to be looked at as weighted averages over significant time periods. They then need to be looked at with respect to the Milankovitch cycles in conjunction with the shorter cycles that exist. 

Once these are understood we then need to factor in how humans are altering the planet and how those alterations are effecting the world. If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation,  changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place. 

The Earth's temperature is rising and it is not illogical to see that humans may have quite a hand in it. The question is how are we doing it? Is it CO2? It is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing by relatively significant amounts. It is a possibility. Though, at the same time there may be other things we are doing that have more of an effect. Not something I can answer. But to outright deny any human participation is short-sighted and narrow-minded.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> good referee




Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## wayneL

Now they're REALLY insulting our intelligence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece



> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
> 
> It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
> 
> The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.


----------



## Timmy

wayneL said:


> Now they're REALLY insulting our intelligence.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece




What a tangled web is being woven by these chaps.  Disgraceful.

(Explanation here, if needed:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27150.html)


----------



## Wysiwyg

derty said:


> Once these are understood we then need to factor in how humans are altering the planet and how those alterations are effecting the world. If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. *Deforestation,  changes in land use,* *urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects.* *There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place. *




I draw on an analogy from my days as a youth in North West Queensland. 

My task was fairly straight forward in that I had to bury the proceeds from the out-house whenever the donations neared the top. Dad had allocated a small plot to accept these proceeds and so in pursuing the role of a good boy I would dutifully dig up the compact dry earth to a nominal depth to bury the out-house proceeds.

Now after numerous ventures into the designated plot, to my surprise I found located within a shovel load of earth, previously buried out-house proceeds. So the moral of the story is -- "Giving a man space is like giving a dog a computer: the chances are he will not use it wisely."


----------



## lasty

"If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place."

Thats your assumption and of course you are entitled to it.

Im sure that planet can handle what man dishes up.It tends to counter balance itself.
Even when meteors that have hit the earth, it has wiped out life but the earth rejuvenates.
So what are you trying to save here? The Planet? Life as we know it? Or the Labor party?


----------



## Knobby22

lasty said:


> "If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place."
> 
> Thats your assumption and of course you are entitled to it.
> 
> Im sure that planet can handle what man dishes up.It tends to counter balance itself.
> Even when meteors that have hit the earth, it has wiped out life but the earth rejuvenates.
> So what are you trying to save here? The Planet? Life as we know it? Or the Labor party?




Just an aside.
There is a theory that man is only going to get one chance to go to the level of self sufficiancy without fossil fuels. If we fail due to wars, short sightedness etc. to develop an economy that doesn't rely on fossil fuel and collapse. The next lot pf people will be unable to get much past  Roman technology as the easily available fuel sources will not exist and they will be unable to develop the manufacturing industry necessary to build efficient solar cells and the like.


----------



## wayneL

Gross Eco-hypocrisy:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece



> Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
> Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customised planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?




Bastids! There is nothing more revolting than the putrid double standards of Alarmists.


----------



## drsmith

If we are wrecking the planet's climate then perhaps the road to salvation starts with reducing the amount of advertising material we get. 

In the past 24 hours I have had 1.4kg of crap deposited in my letterbox.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Gross Eco-hypocrisy:
> 
> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece
> 
> 
> 
> Bastids! There is nothing more revolting than the putrid double standards of Alarmists.




I agree, if you pollute you should do it proudly.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1982521-lobbyist-dick-armeys-pro-pollution-gospel

Somehow it has been removed from this website and youtube. Doesn't the USA believe in free speech?
Oh the power of the Republicans!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Rudd  led us into this madness, Tony Abbott will lead us out.

gg


----------



## derty

lasty said:


> "If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place."
> 
> Thats your assumption and of course you are entitled to it.
> 
> Im sure that planet can handle what man dishes up.It tends to counter balance itself.
> Even when meteors that have hit the earth, it has wiped out life but the earth rejuvenates.
> So what are you trying to save here? The Planet? Life as we know it? Or the Labor party?



Well you are not shy of a few assumptions yourself there.

I am well versed in the mass extinctions that have occurred over geologic time. The Earth is a very resilient place over geological periods. The species that inhabit the Earth are not quite so resilient. The Earth does rejuvenate, it has time on it's side. It would be highly unlikely that the human race would rejuvenate following one of these big events.

What am I trying to save? I am not trying to save anything here. Where did I say that I was trying to save something? 

The Earth does not need saving it will do fine. It's biota is the fragile component.

Life as we know it? What is life as we know it? The snapshot of evolution that we exist in is transient and dynamic. Life as we know it will be vastly different in a mere 1000 years.

So, because I believe that it is not infeasible for humans to alter their environment on a global scale I am a Labor hack? You might want to pull your pants back up, your paradigms are showing. Neither party would gain my vote at the moment.
What I was saying, was that the Earth is becoming overpopulated. We are not a benign species. As far as effecting our environment we punch well above our weight. With time and an increasing population we will effect our Earth if we haven't started already. The mode/modes of that effect for me is up in the air. It will not be as simple as one overriding cause. The question will be which factor will be the fastest, easiest and cheapest to remedy if and when there is a cause to do so?

Lastly, I'm also sure that the planet can handle whatever Man dishes up. I just don't think that Man can.


----------



## lasty

The curb of Population growth is not on the agenda. Infact it seems the UN want it blossom.
I find it strange how the bleeding hearts want to preserve carbon emissions on one hand and then make poorer nations prosper on the other which will lead to more emissions.
But come judgement day of population curbing it won't be mans decision directly but indirectly via war,disease or natural causes.
I'm not however letting a bunch of hoaxes ruin my lifestyle with some bogus tax.
Australians should wise up and do the same.


----------



## noco

moXJO said:


> I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.




I have advocated for some time now that climate change is a nautural phenomenon created by the intensity of Sun spots and not  man made CO2 emissions.

I would suggest to all alarmist who believe the contrary to check out Google and link to "The Sun's effect on Earth". you may just learn something instead of believing in what Rudd, Wong and Turnbull are trying ram down our throats.


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by moXJO View Post
> I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.
> I have advocated for some time now that climate change is a nautural phenomenon created by the intensity of Sun spots and not man made CO2 emissions.
> 
> I would suggest to all alarmist who believe the contrary to check out Google and link to "The Sun's effect on Earth". you may just learn something instead of believing in what Rudd, Wong and Turnbull are trying ram down our throats.




And NOCO you might like to check out the report and link I posted this morning which decisively showed that the research which was used to "prove"this assertion was a lie. The main research scientists simply created some clever mathematical lies, added new figures,  dropped inconvenient ones and then trotted them out.

See #219


> So while we are on the topic of taking out and trashing the reputations of liars consider just how the whole "solar actvity is causing global warming" BS has been a total scam since it's inception.
> 
> For years now one of the juiciest red herrings of the GW deniers has been that Solar activity was the big reason for global warming. Not just a small factor but THE factor. Graphs were used in The Great Global Warning Swindle amongst other pieces of rubbish that purported to show this correlation.
> 
> Trouble was this was a calculated lie by the relevant scientific researchers that was uncovered many years ago, put into into plain daylight - and then ignored by the body of deniers who simply arn't interested in the truth if it gets in the way of want they want to believe.
> 
> If other forum members want to see an overview of just how this fraud was concocted and used to cloud this this issue check out the link. I have attached a few relevant paragraphs.
> 
> Of course the fact that this deception was discovered and reported clearly in the scientific world around 10 years hasn't stopped those who won't let reality get in the way of a red herring.




I will be interested to hear in due course the response of forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not play a small part in our climate)

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-conten...HANGE-CPN1.pdf


----------



## Julia

Re link provided by Wayne re hypocrisy of the environmentalist lobby,
are they assuming the vast majority of the population simply accepts the words and doesn't realise these huge hypocrisies?
Just a couple of examples from the link:



> There are endless other examples of hypocrisy by green politicos. David Cameron was once photographed virtuously riding his bike to the House of Commons, with his official car behind him, carrying his suit and briefcase. Ken Livingstone, who swore he would make London the world’s greenest city when he was mayor, made scores of arguably unnecessary flights to foreign destinations. The supposedly green Barack Obama had a St Louis chef flown 850 miles just to make pizza at the White House.
> 
> At the end of the film An Inconvenient Truth, the unbearably earnest former presidential candidate Al Gore asked his audience: “Are you ready to change the way you live?” His own huge Nashville mansion consumed over 20 times the electricity of an average American home. Indeed, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, it burnt twice as much power in the month of August 2006 than most American homes do in an entire year. Another inconvenient truth revealed that the former senator spent $500 a month just to heat the indoor swimming pool in his lavish domestic establishment. The 100ft houseboat he bought in 2008, on the other hand, was said to be powered by biodiesel.





derty said:


> What I was saying, was that the Earth is becoming overpopulated. We are not a benign species. As far as effecting our environment we punch well above our weight. With time and an increasing population we will effect our Earth if we haven't started already. The mode/modes of that effect for me is up in the air. It will not be as simple as one overriding cause. The question will be which factor will be the fastest, easiest and cheapest to remedy if and when there is a cause to do so?
> 
> Lastly, I'm also sure that the planet can handle whatever Man dishes up. I just don't think that Man can.



Good comments, derty.  The question of over population is very relevant and points to a further hypocrisy by Mr Rudd.  He wants us to participate in his ETS tax to save the planet but insists that it's just all okey dokey for Australia's population to be 35 million in a decade or so.   

There is another aspect to the hysteria which names this thread which I notice more and more.  That is, the apparent need for self-flagellation by a certain sector of our society.  The imposition on all of us of a vast amount of guilt for even daring to breathe.  Has anyone else observed this?  An insistence that we should all feel abjectly guilty for our unspecified abuses?

And before anyone jumps on me, that is not to say we should not all be more careful about how we use electricity, how much we use our cars etc.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And NOCO you might like to check out the report and link I posted this morning which decisively showed that the research which was used to "prove"this assertion was a lie. The main research scientists simply created some clever mathematical lies, added new figures,  dropped inconvenient ones and then trotted them out.
> 
> See #219
> 
> 
> I will be interested to hear in due course the response of forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not *play a small part* in our climate)
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/wp-conten...HANGE-CPN1.pdf




Basilio:

Did you not read the lead paragraph?

“*My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and
terrestrial climate.* Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole
objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized,
apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.”

Also you present this some ground-breaking revelation that refutes the role of solar activity as a major player in earth's climate. Your diminution is not reflected in Laut's article at all. It merely challenges an interpretation of a data set. 

News-Flash: Science is riddled with biased conclusions.

All:

There has been a great set of articles on Pielke Snr's blog recently http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/


----------



## basilio

> “My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.”
> 
> Also you present this some ground-breaking revelation that refutes the role of solar activity as a major player in earth's climate. Your diminution is not reflected in Laut's article at all. It merely challenges an interpretation of a data set.




Let's try it again shall we? No problem with Laut's opening paragraph. It is agreed that solar activity has links to earths climate (as has many other factors) . The point that Laut was making was that these effects had been dramatically overstated by a number of  organizations trying to show that solar activity was the principal driver of changes in the earths climate *on the basis of fraudulent data interpretation*

Not misinterpretation Wayne. Clever arithmetic mistakes, deliberate  addition of irrelevant data, deliberate omission of relevant data. The figures were cooked. *The rest of the paper points this out with absolute clarity. * And Laut makes the point that scientists have been far too civilized in not speaking plainly about the deception played. His opening statement even in it's seeming courtesy points out that "*the apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data"*

This deception was highlighted from 2000 onwards but it didn't stop those attempting to muddy the waters on what the main drivers for current global warming could be. They still used the same fraudulent papers as proof that there was another non anthropogenic cause for global warming to  take the heat  off  CO2 and related global warming gases. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Last point. I floated this in response to Wayne's statement about putting the boots into scientists who deliberately fudge data. This is a prime example.


----------



## Aussiejeff

> *'Climategate' boss steps down after email scandal*
> 
> From Fox News From: NewsCore December 02, 2009 9:22AM
> 
> THE director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.




Tony Abbott will have a smile on his face with this embarrassing news for hysterical man-made Global Warming enthusiasts.....


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...er-email-scandal/story-e6frf7jx-1225806022990


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Last point. I floated this in response to Wayne's statement about putting the boots into scientists who deliberately fudge data. This is a prime example.




That's completely fair, but I note the unwillingless to lay the size 13s into pro warming book cooking... or to even acknowledge it.

Even George Monbiot has conceded that... grudgingly.

Let us face the facts here. The whole field of climate science is a rancid cesspit of lies, disinformation, misinformation, political agenda and propaganda.

Credibility = *-*100%

Just today in the NZ version of Pravda (The Dominion Post) misinformation and emotive propaganda was writ large, doomsday claims made without a shred of valid supporting science.

Only the chinless and obnoxious enviro-fascists purport to believe it. Anybody willing to examine the whole debate dispassionately isn't having a bar of it.


----------



## Temjin

wayneL said:


> Now they're REALLY insulting our intelligence.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece




Ohhh that is just great, now we just have to "trust" them. What else are there to argue then?


----------



## Calliope

I don't think too many people will disagree that the greatest problem facing the world today is pollution.

And I don't think that anyone will disagree that pollution is caused by people.

So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.

And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.

All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.

Anything that comes out of Copenhagen will be just tinkering around the edges.

By the way, it is not just rich countries that have overweight people. Egyptians are 66%  overweight.

Some fat stats;  

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26434989-5003402,00.html


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> I don't think too many people will disagree that the greatest problem facing the world today is pollution.
> 
> And I don't think that anyone will disagree that pollution is caused by people.
> 
> So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.
> 
> And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.
> 
> All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.
> 
> Anything that comes out of Copenhagen will be just tinkering around the edges.
> 
> By the way, it is not just rich countries that have overweight people. Egyptians are 66%  overweight.
> 
> Some fat stats;
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26434989-5003402,00.html




Calliope,whilst I believe in climate change created by natural causes such as the Sun, I do not believe  climate change is man made.
However, the pollution in some of the large cities such as Bangkok, Manila and Davao City (Philippines) and Beiging for example is a local health hazard and should be controlled for the sake of their citizens.
I cannot see how obesity can be the cause. You don't see a lot of obese people in the cities I mentioned above.

I wonder what % of obesity we have in Australia?


----------



## derty

Calliope said:


> So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.
> 
> And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.
> 
> All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.



The problem will only get worse. With increasing standards of living we will see more and more fat people in the developing countries. Western nations are having trouble reducing obesity. This will be even more difficult in developing countries.  In addition, as these countries become more developed they will be using more energy regardless of the wasitline of the population.

Offsetting this will be the reduction in birth rate seen as populations become more educated (the usual religious caveats applying).

The key issue here is that developing countries have a right to develop and with that they have a right to increase their energy footprint. 

At the end of the day one has to be realistic about what can be done. Reducing the rise in global population, per-capita energy use and obesity (for what it is worth) will be difficult if not impossible short of catastrophic circumstances. So all that is really available to us is to modify the energy generation and manufacturing methods so that impacts on the environment are lessened. Some of those impacts are obvious, others are contentious. Though change means money and no-one will want to be the first to dip their hands in their pockets as it will place their nation at a disadvantage to those who choose to drag their feet. 

So the end result will be no substantial shift. As Calliope said the edges will be tinkered with. So when the :fan however the :fan things will have progressed to the point where we are along for the ride. 

The next century or two will be very interesting. Population and energy use can only expand so far before things begin to crack politically, environmentally and economically.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> However, the pollution in some of the large cities such as Bangkok, Manila and Davao City (Philippines) and Beiging for example is a local health hazard and should be controlled for the sake of their citizens.
> I cannot see how obesity can be the cause. You don't see a lot of obese people in the cities I mentioned.




I didn't say obesity was the cause. It just makes it worse. In the places you mention over-population is the cause and it is exacerbated by migration to the cities from rural areas.



> derty
> At the end of the day one has to be realistic about what can be done. Reducing the rise in global population, per-capita energy use and obesity (for what it is worth) will be difficult if not impossible short of catastrophic circumstances. So all that is really available to us is to modify the energy generation and manufacturing methods so that impacts on the environment are lessened. Some of those impacts are obvious, others are contentious. Though change means money and no-one will want to be the first to dip their hands in their pockets as it will place their nation at a disadvantage to those who choose to drag their feet.
> 
> So the end result will be no substantial shift. As Calliope said the edges will be tinkered with. So when the however the  things will have progressed to the point where we are along for the ride.
> 
> The next century or two will be very interesting. Population and energy use can only expand so far before things begin to crack politically, environmentally and economically.




I'm afraid you are right derty. The situation is now out of hand and cannot be reined in and I don't think it ever could have been within the limits of a democratic society. As you say all we can do is go along for the ride. In my case the time is not far off when I will get off.


----------



## basilio

Came across a risk analysis assessment of the current direction our world is going and  suggesting why another approach might be in our better interest.  Be interested in feedback.



> Anyone For a Habitable Planet?
> 
> ...I am an IT Risk Manager by occupation and therefore assess risk for a living.  In this post I will drop the emotional debate, and approach climate change from a risk management perspective.
> 
> Whether you believe that human activities are causing the climate to change from the norm we have experience during the last 20,000 years or not, the argument is really about mitigating risk.  I will give you four risk scenarios for you to assess;




http://simple-green-frugal-co-op.blogspot.com/2009/10/anyone-for-habitable-planet.html

Gavin offers 4 scenarios to consider. And you don't have to have an overwhelming fear of climate change to decide that we  have to change direction very quickly for a constructive future.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Came across a risk analysis assessment of the current direction our world is going and  suggesting why another approach might be in our better interest.  Be interested in feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> http://simple-green-frugal-co-op.blogspot.com/2009/10/anyone-for-habitable-planet.html
> 
> Gavin offers 4 scenarios to consider. And you don't have to have an overwhelming fear of climate change to decide that we  have to change direction very quickly for a constructive future.




Agree with the sentiment, but once again, focus is on the wrong risk revealing the typical cognitive biases of a propaganda victim.

He equates lower co2 with clean air, whereas we can have co2 back to 280ppm and still have absolutely filthy air. Conversely, co2 was much higher in the distant past and the air completely clear of pollutants. 

IMO people should focus on their "pollution footprint" rather than carbon footprint.


----------



## lasty

The muppets at Copenhagen have opened their speeches with one suggesting if we dont act now its too late.. We need to cut CO2 emissions now to bring down temps by 2c by 2050.
Well according to some of the alarmists scientific studies evening if man reduced its CO2 emissions to zero the affect wont be noticed for 100's of years.

They cant even get their own doctored stories straight..


----------



## Wysiwyg

lasty said:


> The muppets at Copenhagen have opened their speeches with one suggesting if we dont act now its too late.. We need to cut CO2 emissions now to bring down temps by 2c by 2050.
> Well according to some of the alarmists scientific studies evening if man reduced its CO2 emissions to zero the affect wont be noticed for 100's of years.
> 
> They cant even get their own doctored stories straight..




A 2 ° C figure for a distant time is ridiculous. Smells like the steamers have started to drop already. :disgust:


----------



## Calliope

Those warmers who are who are making a play based on the promises of India an China to reduce emissions, are on the wrong track. They have promised no such thing.

The have promised to reduce the *intensity* of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of *increase* in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.

The Indian Prime Minister is already running into strong political flak. This is in a country whose whole future is based on increased development.


----------



## Aussiejeff

Calliope said:


> Those warmers who are who are making a play based on the promises of India an China to reduce emissions, are on the wrong track. They have promised no such thing.
> 
> The have promised to reduce the *intensity* of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of *increase* in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.
> 
> *The Indian Prime Minister is already running into strong political flak. This is in a country whose whole future is based on increased development.*




Perhaps re-phrase that to *"MASSIVE" increased development*?


----------



## bellenuit

Calliope said:


> The have promised to reduce the *intensity* of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of *increase* in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.




My understanding is a bit different. What they mean by reducing the intensity of their emissions is that they will use their energy more efficiently. In other words, they will emit less per unit of output. But they have no commitment to reducing or even slowing output, so that the net effect will be that they continue to increase emissions, but at a rate less than the increase in volume of output.

The rate of increase in emissions could actually increase, if the volume of output increases faster than currently.

So if they can cut emissions by 20% per unit of output, their emissions overall will increase by 80% if output doubles.


----------



## Calliope

bellenuit said:


> My understanding is a bit different. What they mean by reducing the intensity of their emissions is that they will use their energy more efficiently. In other words, they will emit less per unit of output. But they have no commitment to reducing or even slowing output, so that the net effect will be that they continue to increase emissions, but at a rate less than the increase in volume of output.
> 
> The rate of increase in emissions could actually increase, if the volume of output increases faster than currently.
> 
> So if they can cut emissions by 20% per unit of output, their emissions overall will increase by 80% if output doubles.




You are right bellenuit. *Intensity* is defined as "amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product."


----------



## bunyip

We constantly hear that climate change is causing our oceans to rise and spread out over larger areas.


I came up with a different theory - no, a fact - that partly explains rising sea levels. 
Here it is.....

Toss a shovel full of dirt into a bucket half full of water. The water level immediately rises in the bucket.

The same thing happens to our oceans every day of the year. Erosion from wind and water causes billions of tons of dirt to be deposited into our oceans, making them shallower and causing the water to rise and spread out over a wider area.
That big dust storm over eastern Australia back in September dumped many millions of tons of dirt into the sea. And that one was just a baby compared to the dust storms that are virtually an every day occurrence in some of the desert areas of the world.
And there must be millions of streams worldwide that deposit dirt into the sea.
I boated along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea many years ago in February when it was in flood at the height of the wet season . It's a massive, fast flowing river that was constantly brown with dirt.....it must deposit an immense tonnage of soil in the sea each year. And that's just one of many thousands of rivers.

I'm not suggesting this is the entire reason why our oceans are rising, but it's one that I've never seen put forward before.
Erosion is definitely a contributing factor to rising sea levels - just how much of a contribution is the question.


----------



## Knobby22

Don't forget icebergs! 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766458.htm
Click on the picture to see where it is.


----------



## bellenuit

Knobby22 said:


> Don't forget icebergs!




Best forget them. Their melting doesn't cause sea levels to rise. Think Archimedes.


----------



## derty

bellenuit said:


> Best forget them. Their melting doesn't cause sea levels to rise. Think Archimedes.



Though their falling into the ocean does. 

The one linked to by knobby calved off the Ross Ice Shelf so it was already sitting in the ocean before calving.


----------



## noco

bunyip said:


> We constantly hear that climate change is causing our oceans to rise and spread out over larger areas.
> 
> 
> I came up with a different theory - no, a fact - that partly explains rising sea levels.
> Here it is.....
> 
> Toss a shovel full of dirt into a bucket half full of water. The water level immediately rises in the bucket.
> 
> The same thing happens to our oceans every day of the year. Erosion from wind and water causes billions of tons of dirt to be deposited into our oceans, making them shallower and causing the water to rise and spread out over a wider area.
> That big dust storm over eastern Australia back in September dumped many millions of tons of dirt into the sea. And that one was just a baby compared to the dust storms that are virtually an every day occurrence in some of the desert areas of the world.
> And there must be millions of streams worldwide that deposit dirt into the sea.
> I boated along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea many years ago in February when it was in flood at the height of the wet season . It's a massive, fast flowing river that was constantly brown with dirt.....it must deposit an immense tonnage of soil in the sea each year. And that's just one of many thousands of rivers.
> 
> I'm not suggesting this is the entire reason why our oceans are rising, but it's one that I've never seen put forward before.
> Erosion is definitely a contributing factor to rising sea levels - just how much of a contribution is the question.




Another theory which is worth considering is those small coral atolls like Kiribati may be sinking due to plates moving in the ring of fire. I can't believe that one or a few of these low lying atolls are affected by rising sea levels to the extent claimed, while other islands are not affected.

I also observed  photos of ice melting in the Arctic. These photos were all taken in July/August; the northern hemisphere suumer.

My youngest son is currently working in Antarctica and he informed me three weeks ago  they had to walk 4 nautical miles from the Aurora  Australis to Davis base due to the fact the ice was 2 metres thick and too thick for the ship to break. However, his latest news reveals personal are forbidden from walking on that same ice because it is now too thin. Summer is now in Ant Arctica and boats can now sail into Davis base.


----------



## noco

I have just read an article put out by Money Morning ,"How your super will be spent in Copenhagen", together with a Copenhagen draft agreement.

Do people realize what The Rudd Government is trying to commit us to?

If it is all true, then this crazy Government of ours has got to be stopped.

Anyone who is interested in reading this article should contact
moneymorning@moneymorning.com.au for a free subscription.

I tried to get a direct link;  unfortuneatly I was not successful.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Here are some interesting agreements to ponder. (They call me the ponderer, lol). This planets elliptical orbit of the sun.

"It takes roughly 365 days for the Earth to go around the Sun once. *This means* *that the Earth is rushing through space around the Sun at a rate of* *about 67,000 miles per hour!* The time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun one full time is what we call a year." 

"In celestial mechanics, an apsis, plural apsides (pronounced /ˈÃ¦psɨdiːz/) is the point of greatest or least distance of the elliptical orbit of an object from its center of attraction, which is generally the center of mass of the system."

"Derivative terms are used to identify the body being orbited. The most common are *perigee and apogee*, *referring to orbits around the Earth* (Greek γῆ, gÃª, "earth"), and *perihelion and aphelion*, *referring to orbits around the Sun *(Greek ἥλιος, hēlios, "sun"). During the Apollo program, the terms pericynthion and apocynthion were used when referring to the moon."


----------



## -Bevo-

noco said:


> I have just read an article put out by Money Morning ,"How your super will be spent in Copenhagen", together with a Copenhagen draft agreement.
> 
> Do people realize what The Rudd Government is trying to commit us to?
> 
> If it is all true, then this crazy Government of ours has got to be stopped.
> 
> Anyone who is interested in reading this article should contact
> moneymorning@moneymorning.com.au for a free subscription.
> 
> I tried to get a direct link;  unfortuneatly I was not successful.




Hi noco I just found this on the web haven't read it all yet but it refers to what your talking about.

http://www.asxnewbie.com/General-Content/General/how-your-super-will-be-spent-in-copenhagen.html


----------



## noco

-Bevo- said:


> Hi noco I just found this on the web haven't read it all yet but it refers to what your talking about.
> 
> http://www.asxnewbie.com/General-Content/General/how-your-super-will-be-spent-in-copenhagen.html




Yeah, that's the one. Thanks Bevo. ASF members can  now go direct on Bevo's link. Scary stuff.


----------



## basilio

Can we play a game of pretend for a minute? Let's say that the rapidly rising CO2 levels arn't related to climate change.. Right. ?

Would it still be worthwhile to take some  dramatic action to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent the rising acidification of the oceans and damage this  is causing to the ocean environment? And  of course we as humans will be very, very affected by these outcomes?

Just a thought...



> Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows
> 
> Report launched from leading marine scientists at Copenhagen summit shows seas absorbing dangerous levels of CO2
> 
> The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned.
> 
> A report by more than 100 of Europe's leading marine scientists, released at the climate talks this morning, states that the seas are absorbing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as a direct result of human activity. This is already affecting marine species, for example by interfering with whale navigation and depleting planktonic species at the base of the food chain.
> 
> The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. Many of the effects of this acidification are already irreversible and are expected to accelerate, according to the scientists.
> 
> The study, which is a massive review of existing scientific studies, warns that if CO2 emissions continue unchecked many key parts of the marine environment – particularly coral reefs and the algae and plankton which are essential for fish such as herring and salmon – will be "severely affected" by 2050, leading to the extinction of some species.
> 
> Dr Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, which co-sponsored the report, said: "The threat to the delicate balance of the marine environment cannot be overstated - this is a conservation challenge of unprecedented scale and highlights the urgent need for effective marine management and protection."
> 
> Although oceans have acidified naturally in the past, the current rate of acidification is so fast that it is becoming extremely difficult for species and habitats to adapt. "We're counting it in decades, and that's the real take-home message," said Dr John Baxter a senior scientist with Scottish Natural Heritage, and the report's co-author. "This is happening fast."
> 
> ..... Congressman Brian Baird, a Democrat representative from Washington state, who championed a bill in Congress promoting US research on ocean acidification, s*aid these findings would help counter climate change sceptics, since acidification was easily and immediately measurable.*
> 
> *"The consequences of ocean acidification may be every bit as grave as the consequences of temperature increases," he said. "It's one thing to question a computer extrapolation, or say it snowed in Las Vegas last year, but to say basic chemistry doesn't apply is a real problem [for the sceptics]. I think the evidence is really quite striking."*




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

Would it just be possible to consider this as a serious, serious environmental problem which has to be addressed now as distinct from some theoretical construct which should be ignored ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Can we play a game of pretend for a minute? Let's say that the rapidly rising CO2 levels arn't related to climate change.. Right. ?
> 
> Would it still be worthwhile to take some  dramatic action to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent the rising acidification of the oceans and damage this  is causing to the ocean environment? And  of course we as humans will be very, very affected by these outcomes?
> 
> Just a thought...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca
> 
> Would it just be possible to consider this as a serious, serious environmental problem which has to be addressed now as distinct from some theoretical construct which should be ignored ?




You see, these alarmist numpties shoot their own credibility out of the sky with their own BS. From the UK Pravda article:



> The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution.




The truth:



> Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).




That's not 30% is it?

How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?


----------



## spooly74

wayneL said:


> That's not 30% is it?



Nope 


wayneL said:


> How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?



Acid/ification mentioned 9 times in that article. Oceans with a Ph of 8.
Less 'alkaline' doesn't quite pack a punch.


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).
> That's not 30% is it?
> 
> How can it be taken seriously with a clanger like that?




Because it's a logarithmic scale Wayne....  Exactly the same way as an earthquake measured at 7 on the Richter scale is 10 times more powerful than one measuring 6.  But I'm sure you are only too aware of this simple scientific fact. And by the way where did you find that particular figure ? I havn't come across it yet.

And of course one (anyone ) could have quoted the report from the original source or a score of  any other reputable news sources. But naturally if it comes from "Pravda" you (wayne)  have to dribble that this can't possibly be anything worth considering ... 

*The point about the whole research is that ocean acidification is clearly and easily measured.* It's effects are also clear and the long term term consequences are as obvious and dramatic as falling off a 20 story building. 

Or do we have yet another example of a entire branch of scientists creating yet another false set of data with made up science theories ? Why won't I be surprised when you and every other denier jumps on that particular bandwagon ? 

For those who might like to view the report in full check out

http://www.epoca-project.eu/images/RUG/oa_guide_english.pdf


----------



## basilio

Found your source of information Wayne.



> Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere[/B[/B]].[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).[2][3]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-key04-2

Nice detailed and quite complex article which corresponds to the Epoca publication. Not surprising of course because they quote from the same leading scientists in the field.

*The question remains. Do we view the consequences of continuing CO2 absorption in the oceans as serious enough to rapidly reduce our emissions ?* Does this come under the heading of addressing real environmental problems ?


----------



## basilio

A little more background on ocean acidification, the science behind it and the consequences for the oceans and us



> *Increasing Ocean Acidity as a Consequence of the Buildup of Atmospheric CO2 - Implications for the Present and the Future:*
> 
> *Ocean acidification (ocean chemistry change) is a highly predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.* Surface ocean chemistry changes resulting from changes in atmospheric composition can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.
> *
> Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. *Ocean acidification and climate change are both effects of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but they are completely different; ocean acidification depends on the chemistry of carbon dioxide whereas climate change depends on the physics of carbon dioxide.
> 
> *If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. *There is some uncertainty both in the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and future atmospheric concentrations and in inferred past ocean chemistry, but these uncertainties do not throw into doubt the fact that we are producing highly unusual chemical conditions in the world's oceans. Right now, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.
> *
> Ocean acidification of these amounts and at these rates could be expected to have major negative impacts on corals and other marine organisms that build their shells or skeletons out of carbonate minerals*. When carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean it forms carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is corrosive to carbonate minerals. The impact on other categories of marine organisms is less clear, but there is likely to be disruptions through the entire marine food chain. The potential for ecological or micro-evolutionary adaptation is unclear at this time; however, both in today's ocean and over geologic time the rate of accumulation of shells and skeletons made from carbonate minerals shows a consistent relationship with ocean chemical conditions indicating that the success of these organisms is largely controlled by marine chemistry.




http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/51005ESSS.html

This came from  a presentation in 2005. The current Epocia report represents  the up to date research on this topic. And obviously scientists have been aware and concerned about it for many years. It wasn't just thrown up for Copenhagen.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Because it's a logarithmic scale Wayne....  Exactly the same way as an earthquake measured at 7 on the Richter scale is 10 times more powerful than one measuring 6.  But I'm sure you are only too aware of this simple scientific fact. And by the way where did you find that particular figure ? I havn't come across it yet.
> 
> And of course one (anyone ) could have quoted the report from the original source or a score of  any other reputable news sources. But naturally if it comes from "Pravda" you (wayne)  have to dribble that this can't possibly be anything worth considering ...
> 
> *The point about the whole research is that ocean acidification is clearly and easily measured.* It's effects are also clear and the long term term consequences are as obvious and dramatic as falling off a 20 story building.
> 
> Or do we have yet another example of a entire branch of scientists creating yet another false set of data with made up science theories ? Why won't I be surprised when you and every other denier jumps on that particular bandwagon ?
> 
> For those who might like to view the report in full check out
> 
> http://www.epoca-project.eu/images/RUG/oa_guide_english.pdf



Basilio, The Guardian has well known links to the Fabian movement. You obviously didn't notice from other threads I was pretty deep into the bowels of UK politics and was a member of a liberal think-tank for some time. I know the agendas out there. "Pravda" is an apt metaphor for the Grauniad. It's extreme left bias does indeed make it dribble not worth reading - no attempt at balance.

If acidification is a problem then yes I am concerned about it, but I have seen science that refutes the alarmist view. Some of it I have linked to. Some of it totally destroys the whole acidification projection model the IPPC are relying on. That's not surprising.

Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% more acidic than 8.179.

Edit to add>> Though "acidification is the correct term for lowering of pH, even in alkaline environment, as Spooly points out, the oceans are alkaline. So the correct question is Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% less alkaline than 8.179.

It should also be pointed out that pH varies naturally in the ocean by the magnitude of 0.2 or 0.3, At least TEN TIMES the purported average decrease over a 250 year period. At face value it would make that insignificant.

I am a greenie and supported Greenpeace before I realized they sold out to the Goreists. But real issues please. The oceans face an enormous threat from humans, but it's nothing to do with acidification.


----------



## Calliope

Give a dog a bad name.

*Who is speaking for the plants?*




> The full proverb says, “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.” They’ve given carbon dioxide (CO2) a bad name and it is now being hanged by draconian and completely unnecessary legislation. Consider this comment by Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist, “I think you have to think about this stuff (CO2) as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we’ll be,” An alarmist, outrageous and completely unsupportable comment, but not surprising from the co-chair of Working Group I of the IPCC 2007 report.
> 
> The reality is if CO2 is reduced we are worse off as the plants suffer. Something must be done to protect the plants from fanaticism.






> So you have the paradox of environmentalists screaming to reduce CO2 to save the planet, while putting all life in jeopardy by killing the plants. It is blind faith. But this is not surprising because the great problem of environmentalism as a religion is the failure to do full and proper cost/benefit analyses. For example, all you ever hear about are the down sides to warming when there are actually more up sides.  One major downside rarely mentioned is the impact on plants of reduced CO2 levels



.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8110


----------



## Calliope

*Carbon Dioxide - The Breath of Life*


----------



## Wysiwyg

Calliope said:


> *Carbon Dioxide - The Breath of Life*



Maybe with the large amount of deforestation on the planet, nature has made the necessary adjustments. After all, the planet is a living organism constructed from multiple living organisms and we have observed constant balancing throughout existence to achieve the optimum life sustaining conditions.


----------



## Calliope

Thousands of climate change alarmists are gathered in Copenhagen to devise a way to save the earth from an apocalypse by limiting the output of CO2. 

There must be a good reason why they don't take the easier and more eco-friendly path of limiting human population. You don't have to be an IPCC scientist to know that CO2 is not the problem. It is us. All the other species on earth would do fine without us.


----------



## basilio

> Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% more acidic than 8.179.




If you punch in 30% increase in acidity in Google you will get a swathe of references. I found one last night that actually did the maths but can't find it again today. However the reference below appears to explain the situation clearly.


> *What is causing ocean acidification?
> 
> As carbon dioxide obeys Henry's Law (which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution) an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly leads to an increase in the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the oceans. Human induced CO2 emissions have increased since the industrial revolution through the burning of fossil fuels, land use practices and concrete production[1]. This increase from around pre-industrial values of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383ppm today (See Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) has resulted in the acidification of the ocean.
> 
> The averaged CO2 concentrations measured at Cape Grim Tasmania from 1975-2005 [2]. Reprinted with Permission from CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> Figure 1. The averaged CO2 concentrations measured at Cape Grim Tasmania from 1975-2005 [2]. Reprinted with Permission from CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> The rate of increase is far greater than generally occurs naturally and is predicted to continue to rise well into the future [3]. Approximately 25% of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels and cement production in the past 200 years has already been absorbed by the oceans. This CO2 absorption has already led to a decrease in the pH of the oceans of about 0.1 units from pre industrial levels. While this value seems very small, this is mostly an artefact of the way that pH is measured. Put another way this change represents about a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ in seawater. More importantly the H+ concentration, and the rate at which it is rising, are both still increasing [4].
> *



*

http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/ocean_acid.jsp*


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> If you punch in 30% increase in acidity in Google you will get a swathe of references. I found one last night that actually did the maths but can't find it again today. However the reference below appears to explain the situation clearly.
> 
> 
> http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/ocean_acid.jsp




That 30% more H ions are required to raise the oceans pH by ~0.1 does not equate to 30% greater acidity (or more properly 30% less alkalinity).

To suggest so is disingenuous and emotive use of figures. 

The fact remains that the purported average reduction in pH is a small percentage of the normal variation that occurs from one place in the ocean to the next.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Calliope said:


> There must be a good reason why they don't take the easier and more eco-friendly path of limiting human population. You don't have to be an IPCC scientist to know that CO2 is not the problem. It is us. All the other species on earth would do fine without us.



Do you mean there is something significant the masses are not being informed of or a distraction from an economic downturn?

 I like the idea of a mutual agreement on bearing children. Not enforcement but simply a globally responsible and recognised acknowledgment that too many  human beings WILL NOT be good for the planet. Surely two offspring per couple is satisfying.


----------



## basilio

> That 30% more H ions are required to raise the oceans pH by ~0.1 does not equate to 30% greater acidity (or more properly 30% less alkalinity).
> 
> To suggest so is disingenuous and emotive use of figures.
> 
> The fact remains that the purported average reduction in pH is a small percentage of the normal variation that occurs from one place in the ocean to the next.




Well that explains it all doesn't it Wayne? You will obviously have to inform every one of those ocean scientist who have been studying acidification *that they have simply got it wrong and that there is just nothing ( or very little) to worry about.*  We can now all rest easier with your firm certainty that practically every ocean scientist is just a dill.

It's good to get reaffirmation on the fundamental strengths of our forum members.

 ___________________________________________________
_Dunning- Kruger strikes again and again and again_


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well that explains it all doesn't it Wayne? You will obviously have to inform every one of those ocean scientist who have been studying acidification *that they have simply got it wrong and that there is just nothing ( or very little) to worry about.*  We can now all rest easier with your firm certainty that practically every ocean scientist is just a dill.
> 
> It's good to get reaffirmation on the fundamental strengths of our forum members.
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> _Dunning- Kruger strikes again and again and again_




Shrill sarcasm does not substitute for fact basilio, and the fact remains that 0.075 lowering of pH is not a 30% lowering of alkalinity. The H ion factor is just the chemistry to get it there. Two different things buddy.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio,

Normal ocean pH varies from ~8.0 to ~8.3 in different places, that's ~0.3 variance. That is far greater than 0.075

What you're saying is that the ocean in one place can be perhaps 150% more acidic than in another place on the same day. Or said the other way round he ocean in one place can be perhaps 150% more alkaline than in another place on the same day.

Absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## basilio

It's really simple. Is the  body of ocean scientists who have been researching the issue of ocean acidification a pack of dills or not?  They seem to believe from their studies that we have a significant problem already and that projections of rapidly increasing CO2 levels will magnify these considerably. The outcome is likely to be crashes in the oceans ecosystem with  obvious ramifications for all marine life and humans who depend on it as well.

Or alternatively you have worked out that there is nothing to worry about. 

Let's refresh our memories of the article which was taken from the Press Release of the body that had done the review and research.



> Quote:
> *Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows*
> 
> Report launched from leading marine scientists at Copenhagen summit shows seas absorbing dangerous levels of CO2
> 
> The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned.
> 
> A report by more than 100 of Europe's leading marine scientists, released at the climate talks this morning, states that the seas are absorbing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as a direct result of human activity. This is already affecting marine species, for example by interfering with whale navigation and depleting planktonic species at the base of the food chain.
> 
> The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. Many of the effects of this acidification are already irreversible and are expected to accelerate, according to the scientists.
> 
> *The study, which is a massive review of existing scientific studies, warns that if CO2 emissions continue unchecked many key parts of the marine environment – particularly coral reefs and the algae and plankton which are essential for fish such as herring and salmon – will be "severely affected" by 2050, leading to the extinction of some species.*
> 
> Dr Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, which co-sponsored the report, said: "The threat to the delicate balance of the marine environment cannot be overstated - this is a conservation challenge of unprecedented scale and highlights the urgent need for effective marine management and protection."
> 
> *Although oceans have acidified naturally in the past, the current rate of acidification is so fast that it is becoming extremely difficult for species and habitats to adapt. "We're counting it in decades, and that's the real take-home message," said Dr John Baxter a senior scientist with Scottish Natural Heritage, and the report's co-author. "This is happening fast."*
> 
> ..... Congressman Brian Baird, a Democrat representative from Washington state, who championed a bill in Congress promoting US research on ocean acidification, said these findings would help counter climate change sceptics, since acidification was easily and immediately measurable.
> 
> "The consequences of ocean acidification may be every bit as grave as the consequences of temperature increases," he said. "It's one thing to question a computer extrapolation, or say it snowed in Las Vegas last year, but to say basic chemistry doesn't apply is a real problem [for the sceptics]. I think the evidence is really quite striking."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fication-epoca




_______________________________________________________

_Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again_


----------



## wayneL

So I take it you've conceded my point.

It's late in Havelock North, I'm going to bed. Stay tuned for more ocean acidification debunking. 

NB There is no argument that pH has been gradually dropping. The question is whether the alarmism is warranted or not.


----------



## basilio

For those forum members who would like to increase their knowledge of what is happening in our oceans because of acidification I have attached an url for an excellent slide show presentation from Stanford University. Quite absorbing.

It also addresses Wayne's point.

http://i2i.stanford.edu/carbonlab/co2lab.swf

__________________________________________________
_Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again_


----------



## basilio

Just a thought for  members who follow these forums. 

How interested are people in exploring and learning new ideas? Are forums like this useful in exposing ourselves to information we might otherwise never see? Are we prepared to have a look at ideas that may be a bit challenging but give us new perspectives ?  Or do we have set positions that we just  aren't prepared to see challenged and will defend to the death any questioning of them?

Up until a couple of days ago I had only a general idea of acidification of the oceans. I knew a little but there was no way I would call myself an expert or even largely knowledgeable. 

After coming across the press release from Epocia I thought I must come up to speed on the issue. And after a few hours of reading I became quite interested and really concerned. It was discovering a whole new world of science that until then was just a relatively vague generality. I thought others might like to share that knowledge which was why I included the information URLS.

I would not pretend that I am now some expert. Certainly much more informed and concerned.  But what do other members think? Is it actually worthwhile doing some reading to learn about topics we want to voice our opinion on ? Or is it just a waste of  time and far easier to read Andrew Bolt et al?

____________________________________________________

_Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again. _


----------



## Wysiwyg

basilio said:


> For those forum members who would like to increase their knowledge of what is happening in our oceans because of acidification I have attached an url for an excellent slide show presentation from Stanford University. Quite absorbing.



Hi, From that presentation I didn't understand how world ocean ph level averages were arrived at, both distant and present. Did you see that data anywhere?


----------



## basilio

> Hi, From that presentation I didn't understand how world ocean ph level averages were arrived at, both distant and present. Did you see that data anywhere?




Your right of course. The presentation was geared to explaining  how  changing acidity levels  would affect  various sea creatures.

This reference  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519111031.htm explains how scientists have built up a picture of our past climate through extensive drillings.

With regard to predicting future PH levels in the ocean it seems to be largely a function of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased absorption of CO2 in the oceans and thus lowering of ph levels. I think one of the later slides had a moving graphic which showed the effect of this.

There is a good debate on this topic at climate skeptic.   Get past the  opening statement and  you see some quite perceptive  analysis. I thought the analysis by the contributor James pulled together most of the threads and the science particularly well.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification.html


----------



## Wysiwyg

basilio said:


> The presentation was geared to explaining  how  changing acidity levels  would affect  various sea creatures.



Over the last several revolutions of the sun and with the rapid pace of information disseminated, I have become such a 'doubting Thomas'. I knew marine researchers working toward education degrees and they relied on Government grants to support 'research' of whatever was deemed researchable. Whale sound recordings or observing zooxanthellae under a microscope, present a sound case (see persuasion) and they were off to some remote island or out in the boats collecting water samples. Living simply on Government grants in some beautiful location was the culture they subscribed to. 

I could rave on but I won't. The 53 million year samples have turned up what is already known in that the Earth has been constantly changing. Assuming the facts are adhered to, a greater knowledge of cause and effect should result. I personally don't jump to conclusions based on every scientific report. Planetary effects are the issue and small samples not a reflection.

I have learned much tonight and thankyou.


----------



## Whiskers

That's quite a profound post Wysiwyg.

I've been exploring the cycles of weather among other things for quite awhile now and you make sound sense re 'scientific' research. People often loose track of, or are never informed of, the funding source vested interests and the particular research project adgenda as in prescribed (often limited) processes and (sometimes biased) objectives.

Re weather or climate, the late Indego Jones had a brilliant record forcasting long range weather in Aus from the middle of last century... based largely on the prominant influence on our weather, the cycle of solar flares.

Most good farmers and gardeners know the influence of the cycles of the moon on plant germination, growth and ripening esentially via gravitational forces on water as in sap flow... but many people discount, even dismiss those influences on animals and humans.

There are other cycle analysis also, eg others who use (loosely) astrology as in the gravitational influences of the sun, planets and moons for a wide range of cycle analysis.

For me the hysteria is a deliberate marketing ploy of relating the 'product' to the consumer in an emotional, personal and fearful way to move them from their comfort position to the desired position asap.

I'm with those who think the main aim of the so called 'Climate Change' phenomenom is to introduce new taxes. 

The real concern should be about improving immisions in the context of toxic pollution, better planned urban development and resource management eg more controlled forest burnoffs to simulate 'natural' conditions and the weather and climate will do what it will do... wax and wane in short and long cycles and cycles within cycles as it has always done.

Too many people complain that it's hotter, colder, drier or whatever than they can remember. 

These peoples lifetime is hardly a blip in the total cycle of things.

It's like waking up late... missed the start of the market which has gone up 100 points in a couple of hours and only noticed it correct back 40 in half an hour and getting into a hysteria that the market is crashing.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Whiskers said:


> The real concern should be about improving immisions in the context of toxic pollution, better planned urban development and resource management



They will be some of the better outcomes from this scenario. So much noise. Gee.


----------



## wayneL

FYI

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#carbon_situation


----------



## Calliope

Wysiwyg said:


> Do you mean there is something significant the masses are not being informed of or a distraction from an economic downturn?
> 
> I like the idea of a mutual agreement on bearing children. Not enforcement but simply a globally responsible and recognised acknowledgment that too many  human beings WILL NOT be good for the planet. Surely two offspring per couple is satisfying.




I don't think anyone  can deny that over-population is the problem that should be pursued, and not CO2.

The Guardian gets it right for a change;

*Offset your return flight to London for the price of a condom in Kenya*

British newspaper The Guardian reports on December 3:



> CONSUMERS in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries.
> 
> The scheme argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
> 
> Every pound stg. 34 ($60.50) spent on contraception, the Optimum Population Trust says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require a pound stg. 38 investment in tree planting, pound stg. 315 in wind power.
> 
> Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#carbon_situation




Good article.


----------



## Calliope

This should be the theme song of the High Priests of Global Warming assembled in Copenhagen


----------



## wayneL

Carbon implicated in warming.... well, yes. But not the CO2 type carbon.

As you all know, I've always argued against significant climate change as a result of co2 in the atmosphere, but all but the most putrid dealers in ad hominem slur (such our dear departed "friend" 2020) will recognise my and most other climate sceptic's concerns over general pollution, it's affect on the Earth, and yes, its effect on regional climate.

Below is a classic example of a phenomenon the Goreists have been all too keen to blame on co2, when in fact it is another form of carbon - SOOT! (AKA black carbon)

The politicization of science has removed the line between a pollutant (black carbon) and a non-pollutant (co2). This the same way that there are polluting forms of hydrogen molecules, such as Hydrogen Sulphide (h2s) and non polluting forms, such as Dihydrogen Oxide (h2o)(AKA WATER). 

Both molecules contain two hydrogen ions, with the other ion making a significant difference.

Anyway here is the article from Pielke Snr:

Soot Effects On Climate In The Himalayas – Its Larger Than the Forcing From The Human Input Of CO2



> This news study reinforces the conclusion that a broader perspective of the role of humans in the climate system is needed, and that the radiative effect of CO2 may not the dominate human role as concluded by the IPCC report and as being discussed in Copenhagen./QUOTE]


----------



## ghotib

Thanks Wayne. This is an excellent example of why it's useful to keep reading beyond Pielke Sr..

1. His commentary is wrong about Copenhagen http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2989:


> COP15 quietly addressing other half of the emissions problem
> While all media attention is on carbon dioxide, negotiators have not forgotten the greenhouse gases that are believed to constitute the other half of man’s contribution to global warming.
> Morten Andersen 14/12/2009 22:10
> 
> Changes in countries’ positions on reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide are widely reported on an almost daily basis. In contrast, five other substances also meant to be regulated under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are seldom mentioned. This is a bit strange, as they together account for a manmade contribution to climate change just as big as that of carbon dioxide. And for some of these substances, a reduction in emissions would yield fast results.
> ...
> 
> Three substances are currently in focus. These are methane which is released from coal mines, landfills and agriculture; black carbon, which is soot from incompletely burned fossil fuels and biomass; and hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) which are widely used in refrigerators and air conditioners ...




2. His commentary implies that the IPCC reports ignored black carbon. They didn't. Its distribution and effects were and are the subject of major research. This article is an indication of what was thought in 2007, how that had changed since 1990, and the work that Lau built on for the paper Pielke refers to. 
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/07/black-carbon-and-global-warming/


> ... Although emissions of black carbon are concentrated in the tropics, they have a strong forcing influence in snow-covered areas because of albedo effects: black carbon that falls onto snow and ice covered surfaces absorbs rather than reflects sunlight, warming the surface and causing melting.
> 
> A number of scientific studies have found that black carbon may be responsible for as much ice and snow melt as greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic and for springtime snow in Eurasia. The distribution of black carbon emissions is somewhat important because of its relatively short atmospheric lifetime. Emissions near Arctic areas or other areas with year-round snow cover will have a stronger albedo impact than emissions in the tropics, as more black carbon will fall onto the ice.
> 
> Given the concentration of these emissions in Asia, especially those associated with home cook fires having dire local air pollution effects, there is considerable room to focus on reducing black carbon emissions as part of international development projects. Projects like distributing or subsidizing inexpensive but efficient cook stoves for rural areas could help reduce premature mortality resulting from air pollution and also reduce black carbon emissions.
> 
> Controlling these emissions from industrial sources is somewhat more complicated, as many of the technologies to clean up black carbon will also reduce sulphate aerosol emissions, and therefore counteract some of the reduction in climate forcings.
> 
> Recent and ongoing research on the large role of black carbon emissions in contributing to atmospheric warming is another reminder that the issue is more complicated than CO2 emissions alone, and that cleaning up other forcings like black carbon may prove less expensive, more politically viable, and more effective in the short-term while other strategies are developed and implemented to address longer-term concerns.




Incidentally, I note that Lau's work is all about modelling. Pielke's exerpt does not include these paragraphs http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html


> Building on work by Veerabhardran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, Calif., Lau and colleagues conducted modeling experiments that simulated the movement of air masses in the region from 2000 to 2007. They also made detailed numerical analyses of how soot particles and other aerosols absorb heat from the sun.
> 
> "Field campaigns with ground observations are already underway with more planned to test Lau’s modeling results," said Hal Maring who manages the Radiation Sciences program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "But even at this stage we should be compelled to take notice."




Cheers,
Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Thanks Wayne. This is an excellent example of why it's useful to keep reading beyond Pielke Sr..
> 
> 1. His commentary is wrong about Copenhagen http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2989:







> 2. His commentary implies that the IPCC reports ignored black carbon. They didn't. Its distribution and effects were and are the subject of major research. This article is an indication of what was thought in 2007, how that had changed since 1990, and the work that Lau built on for the paper Pielke refers to.
> http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/07/black-carbon-and-global-warming/
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I note that Lau's work is all about modelling. Pielke's exerpt does not include these paragraphs http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghoti



Ghoti,

I think you've taken the wrong message from Pielke's comment and is needlessly defensive. If you read Pielke Snr you would know that...

...and a lesser man would take offence at your "wayneL only reads Pielke" innuendo. I'll just marvel at the capacity for warmists to add ad hominem all the time. Subtle though, not quite so obnoxious as some other posters.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Ghoti,
> 
> I think you've taken the wrong message from Pielke's comment and is needlessly defensive. If you read Pielke Snr you would know that...



Defensive? That's not how I felt. A bit weary perhaps, because I've read enough Pielke Snr (and I admit that I sometimes get Snr and Jnr confused) to feel that this blog has a very strong pattern of... um.... incomplete commentary. A blog is personal; he's entitled to express his opinions and to be selective about what he discusses. I have found that his selectiveness consistently misrepresents the IPCC reports and processes. From my personal point of view that's been useful: I probably wouldn't have read nearly as much as I have if I hadn't been confronted with so many contradictions and questions. From the perspective of political decisions I think it's very unfortunate. 



> ...and a lesser man would take offence at your "wayneL only reads Pielke" innuendo. I'll just marvel at the capacity for warmists to add ad hominem all the time. Subtle though, not quite so obnoxious as some other posters.




... and a lesser woman would remind you that you once said, possibly in this very thread, that you were content to rely on Pielke (unspecified, or possibly not remembered) because he knows the science  

I dunno Wayne. When it comes to actions we're probably in furious agreement about 80% or more of what needs doing. In practice the Greenie mantra of "Reduce; Reuse; Recycle" would work to improve everything except economic growth, and as Smurf has pointed out more than once the assumption of infinite economic growth is a core problem. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## derty

Monbiot and Plimer finally get to have somewhat of a debate on Lateline.  While I still haven't read Plimer's book I found Plimer's total avoidance at answering any question directed to him about claims in his book to be extremely frustrating.  

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487279_2511549.asx


----------



## wayneL

From all our favourite Lord , The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...achauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/


----------



## Julia

derty said:


> Monbiot and Plimer finally get to have somewhat of a debate on Lateline.  While I still haven't read Plimer's book I found Plimer's total avoidance at answering any question directed to him about claims in his book to be extremely frustrating.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487279_2511549.asx




I agree, derty.  I found Professor Plimer's book much more persuasive than his physical presence or his argument last night.  
It wasn't helped by Tony Jones' inability (or unwillingness?) to keep the discussion under control.  
Pathetic all round.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> It wasn't helped by Tony Jones' inability (or unwillingness?) to keep the discussion under control.
> Pathetic all round.



I lost interest well before it ended.


----------



## Glen48

Never fear the Aussies are here:

Australians going to Copenhagen
 You and I missed out on this one. Your name is not on the list either.

    You would think that in these days of instantaneous international communications the vast majority of the listed gravy-train free-loaders could have stayed at home and provided all of the advice necessary from their offices supported by their staff, libraries and data bases.  Canberra's carbon footprint must been down to almost nothing for the duration of the Copenhagen talk fest.



    How is this for wasting money!

    The list below, is the 114 Australian going to Copenhagen, flights, accommodation and meals all paid for, by every TAX payer in this country.  I thought Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong were trying to cut greenhouse gases, sorry I forgot it’s only applies to the peasants.


     To see which Australians are oinking at the Copenhagen smorgasboard, read on and marvel:

    Australia
    H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd
   Prime Minister

    H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong
    Minister, Climate Change and Water
    Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water

    H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand
    Ambassador for Climate Change
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. David Fredericks
    Deputy Chief of Staff
    Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Mr. Philip Green Oam
    Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs
    Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Mr. Andrew Charlton
    Senior Adviser
    Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Mr. Lachlan Harris
    Senior Press Secretary
    Prime Minister’s Office
    Office of Prime Minister

    Mr. Scott Dewar
    Senior Adviser
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Clare Penrose
    Adviser
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Fiona Sugden
    Media Adviser
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Lisa French
    Office of the Prime Minister
    Office of Prime Minister

    Mr. Jeremy Hilman
    Adviser
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Tarah Barzanji
    Adviser
    Office of Prime Minister

    Mr. Kate Shaw
    Executive Secretary
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Gaile Barnes
    Executive Assistant
    Office of Prime Minister

    Ms. Gordon de Brouwer
    Deputy Secretary
    Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Mr. Patrick Suckling
    First Assistant Secretary, International Division
    Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Ms. Rebecca Christie
    Prime Minister’s Office

    Mr. Michael Jones
    Official Photographer
    Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Mr. Stephan Rudzki

    Mr. David Bell
    Federal Agent
    Australian Federal Police

    Ms. Kym Baillie
    Australian Federal Police

    Mr. David Champion
    Australian Federal Police

    Mr. Matt Jebb
    Federal Agent
    Australian Federal Police

    Mr. Craig Kendall
    Federal Agent
    Australian Federal Police

    Mr. Ian Lane
    Squadron Leader Staff,
    Officer VIP Operations

    Mr. John Olenich
    Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong
    Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water

    Ms. Kristina Hickey
    Adviser to Minister Wong
    Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water

    Mr. Martin Parkinson
    Secretary
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Howard Bamsey
    Special Envoy for Climate Change
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Robert Owen-Jones
    Assistant Secretary, International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Clare Walsh
    Assistant Secretary, International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson
    Policy Advisor
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak
    Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Kristin Tilley
    Director, Multilateral Negotiations
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Andrew Ure
    Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Annemarie Watt
    Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Kushla Munro
    Director, International Forest Carbon Section
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley
    Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Anitra Cowan
    Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Sally Truong
    Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Jane Wilkinson
    Assistant Director
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Tracey Mackay
    Assistant Director
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Laura Brown
    Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change


----------



## Glen48

But wait there is more:

Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey
    Delegation Manager
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Nicola Loffler
    Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Tamara Curll
    Legal Adviser, International Climate Law
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Jessica Allen
    Legal Support Officer
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Sanjiva de Silva
    Legal Adviser, International Climate Law
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Gaia Puleston
    Political Adviser
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Penelope Jane Morton
    Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC)
    International Division
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt
    Policy Advisor
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Amanda Walker
    Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Alan David Lee
    Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations
    Department of Climate Change

    Ms. Erika Kate Oord
    Australian Stakeholder Manager
    Department of Climate Change

    Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough
    Communications Manager
    Ministerial Communication
    Department of Climate Change

    H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan
    Ambassador
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Julia Feeney
    Director, Climate Change and Environment
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham
    Second Secretary
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany

    Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper
    Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Ms. Rachael Grivas
    Executive Officer, Environment Branch
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Moya Elyn Collett
    Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Mr. Rob Law
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Mr. Robin Davies
    Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group
    Australian Agency for International Development

    Ms. Deborah Fulton
    Director, Policy and Global Environment
    Australian Agency for International Development
    Australia (continued)

    Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn
    Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment
    Australian Agency for International Development

    Mr. Brian Dawson
    Policy Adviser
    Australian Agency for International Development

    Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke
    Deputy Secretary
    Department of Resources Development,
    Western Australia

    Mr. Bruce Wilson
    General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division
    Department of Resources Development,
    Western Australia

    Ms. Jill McCarthy
    Policy Adviser
    Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

    Mr. Simon French
    Policy Adviser
    Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

    Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe
    Policy Adviser
    Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

    Mr. David Walland
    Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre
    Bureau of Meteorology

    Mr. Damien Dunn
    Senior Policy Adviser
    The Australian Treasury

    Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman
    Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships

    Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport
    Chief Economics
    NSW Department of Industry and Investment

    Mr. Graham Julian Levitt
    Policy Manager, Climate Change
    NSW Department of Industry and Investment

    Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones
    Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability
    Queensland Government

    Mr. Michael William Dart
    Principal Policy Advisor
    Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP
    Queensland Government

    Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien
    Senior Director, Office of Climate Change
    Queensland Government

    Mr. Michael David Rann
    Premier, South Australia
    Department of Premier and Cabinet,
    Southern Australia

    Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter
    Adviser
    Department of Premier and Cabinet,
    Southern Australia

    Mr. Paul David Flanagan
    Manager, Communications
    Government of South Australia

    Mr. Timothy William O’Loughlin
    Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management
    Department of Premier and Cabinet
    South Australian Government

    Ms. Nyla Sarwar
    M.Sc Student
    Linacre College
    University of Oxford

    Mr. Gavin Jennings
    Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation,
    Victorian Government

    Ms. Sarah Broadbent
    Sustainability Adviser

    Ms. Rebecca Falkingham
    Senior Adviser
    Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change

    Mr. Simon Camroux
    Policy Adviser
    Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited

    Mr. Geoff Lake
    Adviser
    Australian Local Government Association

    Sridhar Ayyalaraju
    Post Visit Controller
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Tegan Brink
    Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh
    Transport Liaison Officer and Consul
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Lauren Henschke
    Support Staff
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Maree Fay
    Accommodation Liaison Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Patricia McKinnon
    Communications Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Eugene Olim
    Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Belinda Lee Adams

    Ms. Jacqui Ashworth
    Media Liaison Officer
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Patricia Smith
    Media Liaison Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Martin Bo Jensen
    Research and Public Diplomatic Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Mauro Kolobaric
    Consular Support
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Susan Flanagan
    Consular Support
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Stephen Kanaridis
    IT Support Officer
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
    Australia (continued)

    Mr. George Reid
    Support Staff
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Ashley Wright
    Support Staff
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Jodie Littlewood
    Support Staff
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Thomas Millhouse
    Support Staff
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Timothy Whittley
    Support Staff Driver
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Ms. Julia Thomson
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Donald Frater
    Chief of Staff to Minister Wong
    Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water

    Ms. Jacqui Smith
    Media Liaison
    DFAT
    Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark

    Mr. Greg French
    Senior Legal Advisor, Environment
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Mr. Jeremy Hillman
    Advisor
    PMO


----------



## Smurf1976

Some of those people would seem reasonable to attend such a gathering, but the only reason I can see for state governments to be involved is if they don't fully support the Australian Government's position on the issue, a rather interesting concept given that in most cases it's the same party in office.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Thanks for that list Glen. I'm surprised there are so many Public Servants attending. I bet there is a nice serving of hanky panky.  

On a more serious note, I do eagerly await the outcome of this historical event to see if what is spouted post Copenhagen resembles anything close to truth. See if they pass the ASF lie detectors.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> I agree, derty.  I found Professor Plimer's book much more persuasive than his physical presence or his argument last night.
> It wasn't helped by Tony Jones' inability (or unwillingness?) to keep the discussion under control.
> Pathetic all round.



I think Tony Jones controlled the debate exactly how he wanted it to go. 

Plimer has been called out on a few points in his book. Monbiot makes a big deal about it, but says nothing about the string of clangers in various pro warming publications, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" and a rich catalogue of nonsense by other pro warmers. 

Unfortunately, the debate still centers around egos, reputations, vested interests and ulterior motives. Dispassionately examining the science comes last.

Monbiot made a claim that the science had hardened, when in fact it seems to, if anything, have softened in recent months as the largely unfunded agnostics (Not oil lobby outright deniers) sort through the hugely funded and resourced data of warmers and find numerous mistakes and deliberate distortions.

He tried the old conspiracy theorist straw man, easily refuted by Plimer.

He also dropped the "unequivocal" tag into the debate... anyone from either side of the debate who thinks anything to do with climate science is unequivocal is a blinking idiot.

What we should be trying to arrive at is a balance of probabilities consensus as we will never ever get "hard" science. The whole problem is that nobody is trying to balance the probabilities, preferring disaster scenarios, pandering to various economic and political interests and ensuring the continuation of funding.

I don't think Plimer has done any favours to that end by paying fast and loose with the facts, but it is unfortunate that the mainstream media don't apply the same sort of scrutiny to the IPCC, Gore et al. The agnostics can't play by the same rules - they must play fair, even as the warmists play dirty.

Gore has been spouting the most unimaginable nonsense at COP15 and is allowed to get off scott free. Only the blogosphere has called him out.

Where is the balance in MSM?

If they did that it would quickly become obvious that we are wasting time and resources on the wrong question at this time and missing the opportunity to do the planet (and us) some good in a myriad of other ways.

A pox on their houses and thank God for alternative media.


----------



## wayneL

> If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)




Here is a good article on the diabolical state of the long term surface temperature trend data set over land.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...ia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Here is a good article on the diabolical state of the long term surface temperature trend data set over land.
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...ia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/



Why do you call this a good article? 

I ask because it's dated 15 Dec but it doesn't mention any of the explanations or responses to the allegations it repeats. They aren't hard to find - I posted one myself on one of these threads. They might not be convincing, but surely a good article would acknowledge that they exist, and a good *Web* article would link to at least some of them?

Cheers,
Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Why do you call this a good article?
> 
> I ask because it's dated 15 Dec but it doesn't mention any of the explanations or responses to the allegations it repeats. They aren't hard to find - I posted one myself on one of these threads. They might not be convincing, but surely a good article would acknowledge that they exist, and a good *Web* article would link to at least some of them?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghoti




Hang on! You're demanding that a media article provides refutations of itself to be a good article? 

This is something that we have seen to be be actively and corruptly prevented deep in the bowels of the IPCC and the warmanista movement. 

You must excuse me if I suspect double standards.


----------



## Boggo

Another bit of interesting reading...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...e-opening-copenhagen-presentation/#more-14254


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Gore has been spouting the most unimaginable nonsense at COP15 and is allowed to get off scott free. Only the blogosphere has called him out.



Not quite right, Wayne.  "The Australian" reported on it quite fully.  And there have been other instances of reasonable balance in this paper.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Hang on! You're demanding that a media article provides refutations of itself to be a good article?



I didn't say provide the refutations; I said acknowledge that they exist. Or at least that someone has tried, even if the author doesn't accept them. I particularly expect that when the author's academic or professional qualifications are prominently displayed in a way that lends authority to his statements. 

Linking to refutations, even without commentary, would be something, but none of the links in this piece do that. Links to websites of the organisations that provided the data he's calling fraudulent would be something, but he doesn't do that either.  


> This is something that we have seen to be be actively and corruptly prevented deep in the bowels of the IPCC and the warmanista movement.
> 
> You must excuse me if I suspect double standards.



On the strength of this article? My question was why do you think it's a good article? To rephrase, what criteria are you using to assess it? At the moment you must excuse me if I suspect confirmation bias 

I'd love to end on that note, but I want to thank you again for pushing me to think, this time about the criteria I use to assess information. Outtatime to post about that though. 

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope

Wysiwyg said:


> Thanks for that list Glen. I'm surprised there are so many Public Servants attending. I bet there is a nice serving of hanky panky.
> 
> On a more serious note, I do eagerly await the outcome of this historical event to see if what is spouted post Copenhagen resembles anything close to truth. See if they pass the ASF lie detectors.




As the conference draws to a close, few people hold out hopes for a successful outcome. I, on the other hand think that the conveners of the Conference have a trump card to play. And that card is Kevin Rudd.

It has not been obvious to many, why the leader of a second class country has been given the VIP treatment, and needs such a huge entourage.  It is now clear. Leaders of the developed countries, in their wisdom, recognise Kevin Rudd to be the world's leading *sorry sayer.*  Before the Conference descends into chaos, Kevin will be called upon to deliver the *sorry* address.

O behalf of the *rich* nations he will apologise to the *poor* nations for our greed in using up their *pollution heritage* before they can have a whack at it. After this gut-wrenching apology there will be tears flowing and hugging in the aisles and everybody will depart feeling good.

The beauty of *the apology* is that you don't have to pay compensation. And Kevin will have achieved his first miracle on his path to sainthood.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> At the moment you must excuse me if I suspect confirmation bias




I'm going to do something you'll never see a warmanista admit to, and that is admit to confirmation, and a number of other biases. 

I realise that as a human, that I'm subject to these. What really concerns me is that warmanistas refuse to acknowledge their own biases and the distortions in their thinking it causes. They believe themselves to be somewhat popelike in their infallibility. Not good.

My actual bias is to refuse to accept that MMCC is occuring. By accepting that I am biased, I have forced myself to consider valid refutations of that. 

This is the challenge I have with warmanistas, the absolute refusal to admit bias and accept valid refutations of their own junk (The extreme on the other side is also guilty of this).

I still think you are holding up expectations from this article you would never expect from articles that fit your own cognitive biases.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> As the conference draws to a close, few people hold out hopes for a successful outcome. I, on the other hand think that the conveners of the Conference have a trump card to play. And that card is Kevin Rudd.
> 
> It has not been obvious to many, why the leader of a second class country has been given the VIP treatment, and needs such a huge entourage.  It is now clear. Leaders of the developed countries, in their wisdom, recognise Kevin Rudd to be the world's leading *sorry sayer.*  Before the Conference descends into chaos, Kevin will be called upon to deliver the *sorry* address.
> 
> O behalf of the *rich* nations he will apologise to the *poor* nations for our greed in using up their *pollution heritage* before they can have a whack at it. After this gut-wrenching apology there will be tears flowing and hugging in the aisles and everybody will depart feeling good.
> 
> The beauty of *the apology* is that you don't have to pay compensation. And Kevin will have achieved his first miracle on his path to sainthood.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


>






It appears there has been some sort of 11th hour deal.

And Macquack will be happy to know that Danish police pushed an elderly delegate in the back (who had his hands in his pockets at the time), knocking him to the ground, hitting his head and resulting in loss of consciousness. Our favourite Lord is quite OK however.

You got your wish mate, chalk one up for thuggery.


----------



## Macquack

wayneL said:


> You got your wish mate, chalk one up for thuggery.




Showing your cognitive bias there Wayne. What happen to Monckton was unwarranted and unacceptable.

If you remember Wayne, my reference to Monckton getting knock out was in reference to the Lord repeatedly referring to a jewish guy whose grandparents had escaped Nazi Germany as a "Nazi" and "Hitler Youth".


----------



## BradK

This whole climate change thing is beyond spin... its a wash. All the arguments for and against are so muddied, that the average punter shrugs his shoulders and walks away... a wash. Much much much better than spin. 

In this one, I seriously don't know my ass from my elbow. 

Saw the Monbiot/ Plimer b!tch fight on Lateline just now (ABC iView). What a clown Plimer is. 

One more thing: Monckton has big bulging eyes!! Doesn't he? huh? Huh? HUH?  Freaky stuff... I don't want to bring the level of debate down into the gutter - because clearly on this I have NOTHING to offer... but I think that is how I look just before I ejaculate. 

... yeah... sorry about that. 

Brad


----------



## Happy

What also worries me is that all the billions pumped to ‘poor’ countries mostly will be squandered by their elite as most of the aide was so far.


----------



## Julia

Happy said:


> What also worries me is that all the billions pumped to ‘poor’ countries mostly will be squandered by their elite as most of the aide was so far.




That's exactly what I was thinking.  You'd have to hope they would be required to keep a clear account of what measures the funds are used for, and that this would be checked.  Then, by whom?  Given the UN's woeful record in pretty much everything, I can't see them holding any nation adequately to account.

What a godawful potential for wasting money this looks like being.
But no worries, the taxpayer doesn't get a choice.  Along with the increased costs of electricity and everything else affected by an ETS which almost certainly will eventually happen.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> That's exactly what I was thinking.  You'd have to hope they would be required to keep a clear account of what measures the funds are used for, and that this would be checked.  Then, by whom?  Given the UN's woeful record in pretty much everything, I can't see them holding any nation adequately to account..



*Meaningful* outcome.



> WORLD leaders have reached a "meaningful" climate accord but it is not sufficient to combat the threat of global warming, a senior US official says.




http://www.news.com.au/world/meaningful-climate-deal-reached/story-e6frfkz9-1225811944522

Most of the underdeveloped countries went to Copenhagen with one thing on their mind, and that was to screw the rich countries for all the could get in handouts. Climate change was the last thing on their minds.


----------



## wayneL

Macquack said:


> Showing your cognitive bias there Wayne. What happen to Monckton was unwarranted and unacceptable.
> 
> If you remember Wayne, my reference to Monckton getting knock out was in reference to the Lord repeatedly referring to a jewish guy whose grandparents had escaped Nazi Germany as a "Nazi" and "Hitler Youth".




It wasn't cognitive bias, I was just having a go at you for unjustifiably wishing violence on my "pin up boy".


----------



## wayneL

Why I am a Climate Realist - by Willem de Lange - Professor Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato

In'eresting.



> ....................So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities


----------



## BradK

BradK said:


> Monckton has big bulging eyes... I think that is how I look just before I ejaculate.
> 
> Brad




So, none of you took the bait. I'm going to take a long hard look at myself. :

Brad


----------



## bunyip

*Sent to me by someone - thought I'd pass it on....*


Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen!


There could be some truth in this?



Are we all being railroaded on to the Wong track? 



Will anyone get an apology if this is so?





Please take the time to read this, as KRudd is looking at signing away billions of dollars of our Taxes to the UN for so called "Global Warming"...we all need to get on board with this one before it's too late



Column - Will Rudd pay the UN $7 billion?

Andrew Bolt Blog 

 Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, November 04, 2009 at 07:20am 

NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world’s emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth 

So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he’s been appointed a “friend of the chairman” to tie up loose ends. 

So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority? 

Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between. 

And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies? 

It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty. Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed? 

In case you think what I’m saying is just too incredible - too far-fetched - to be true, let me quote this draft treaty. 

Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona. Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement: 

“By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year.” 

Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should “compensate for damage” to the economies of poorer countries “and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity” allegedly caused by our gases. 

And here comes the bill, in paragraph 22, objective 41, of annex 1 of this extortion note: “[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties] ... “ 

In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our “historical climate debt, including adaptation debt” climbs to at “at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]”. 

Wow. Let’s do the sums. Australia’s GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations. 

That’s your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funneled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal. 

Never have the Third World’s demands for the First World’s cash been so brazen. 

But wait, there’s more. Because never has the Left’s mad goal of world government been so close, either. 

This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new “board” of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal. 

The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could “impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess”. 

Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we’d overshoot by 2012, we’d be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd’s plan. 

Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose “penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties” such as Australia that failed to honour “commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building”. 

All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs. For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners. 

Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again. 

But wait, there’s still more. 

You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent. 

But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies. 

And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest. 

Under this draft treaty, the new board’s biggest spending arm - the “adaptation fund” - will be managed by a “governing board comprising three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries”. 

That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash. 

That’s the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That’s the billions we risk having to hand over. That’s the power we risk losing over our own affairs. 

Now ask: why hasn’t this been the subject of furious debate? Where’s the Government? Where’s the Opposition? 

Well, here’s Rudd’s one response to this threat, given only this week: “At this stage there’s no global agreement as to what long-term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen.” 

That’s a “trust me”, with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already reaching into his - your - wallet: “Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share ."But how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello? 

As for Turnbull ... well, it’s tragic. 

Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: “Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate.” 

So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over? 

Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too - so who’s applying the brakes? 

Not our politicians, for sure. 

So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it’s all too late.


----------



## inenigma

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The one fact that everyone agrees on is that there are too many humans on the planet.
> gg




Too true GG....  The world needs war to reduce the surplus humans living on it....  either that or it'll be "Soylent Green" (remember the movie ???)


----------



## Aussiejeff

inenigma said:


> Too true GG....  The world needs war to reduce the surplus humans living on it....  either that or it'll be *"Soylent Green"* (remember the movie ???)




Yum!!!!!


----------



## Happy

Or vaccine resistant mutant Swine flu virus


----------



## Aussiejeff

_*sigh*_

Enough frivolity, children..... back to the serious business of Climate Hysteria!

Can WongKRudd & Co instill enough meaningful hysteria into us gullible heathens after the sputtering flame of Global Warmth was snuffed out by a sudden cold snap in Hopelesshagen?

When and where will the next SupaDupa Summit be convened?

Any odds for a stanking hot February 2010 at Uluru, hurriedly organised by mine host Chairman KRudd ably assisted by his trusty sidekicker PeWong?

Oh, the humanity......

_"Pass the caviar, Swannee...."_


----------



## Calliope

Apparently Rudd will try to salvage a bit of face by dropping in on the Pope on the way home so that he can claim responsibility for getting someone called Mary MacKillop canonised for performing two miracles.

Can we trust someone who claims to believe in such crap, or is it just part of his devious spin?


----------



## Happy

Calliope said:


> ...
> 
> Can we trust someone who claims to believe in such crap, or is it just part of his devious spin?




Good point, but futile protest as long as all religions are not banned.


----------



## ghotib

A long (5 page) article about correcting apparent cooling of the oceans. An example of non-hysterical response to unexpected data.


> Josh Willis and his colleagues concluded that the world’s oceans gained heat in the decade from 1993 to 2003 (top). However, a follow-up study for the years 2003 to 2005 showed a surprisingly large decrease in heat content””about 5 times as large as the previous decade’s warming



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Happy

Swifty response could be that melting icecaps required 80 kj per every gram of melted ice and probably this is what will be official line, convenient line.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> I'm going to do something you'll never see a warmanista admit to, and that is admit to confirmation, and a number of other biases.
> 
> I realise that as a human, that I'm subject to these. What really concerns me is that warmanistas refuse to acknowledge their own biases and the distortions in their thinking it causes. They believe themselves to be somewhat popelike in their infallibility. Not good.
> 
> My actual bias is to refuse to accept that MMCC is occuring. By accepting that I am biased, I have forced myself to consider valid refutations of that.
> 
> This is the challenge I have with warmanistas, the absolute refusal to admit bias and accept valid refutations of their own junk (The extreme on the other side is also guilty of this).
> 
> I still think you are holding up expectations from this article you would never expect from articles that fit your own cognitive biases.



I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases. 

Catch is, the climate doesn't think.

I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be. 

Proposed ground rules:
1.  No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either  ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules. 

2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate. 

3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for. 

4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.

Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.
> 
> Catch is, the climate doesn't think.
> 
> I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.
> 
> Proposed ground rules:
> 1.  No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either  ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.
> 
> 2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.
> 
> 3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.
> 
> 4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.
> 
> Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??
> 
> Ghoti



There are a number of reasons why that wouldn't work as it is no longerr possible to separate physical climate from politics.

Prime example - funding of research.

From comments in a CC thread



> Paul Vaughan responded as follows:
> 
> Actually not so hard.
> 
> Personal anecdote:
> Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
> 
> Successful candidates will:
> 1) Demonstrate AGW.
> 2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
> 3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
> 
> Follow the money ”” perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.
> 
> Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.




Also doubt whether a conflict resolution technique is applicable to matters of science.

One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.

Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.

But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.
> 
> Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.
> 
> But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.




My experience with bureacrats is that some are good, some are paper pushers heirachists and some are clueless, bit like the human race really. The good ones can be very good however.

I am personally very glad that the conference didn't go the way it was being pushed of setting up a huge parrallel economy in ETS. I think that in six months we are going to see some clever people achieve something much better and hopefully more wide reaching.

I think we have a few more years to get it right and also see how the science continues to shape up. 

Also, there are a lot of clueless greens. There was a dodgy scientist getting plaudits for developing a speed hump to provide power for traffic lights. To me, with my engineering backgound, the use of kinetic energy to feed a battery is inefficient as there is a lot of machinery to convert it into electricity, not green as it uses batteries and not free as the kinetic energy comes from cars which will use more petrol to go over the speed humps. 
Yet the fools were almost worshipping the con artist! There a a lot of dumb greens as there are a lot of dumb skeptics. Sometimes I wonder how mankind keeps succeeding.

On a good note I'm with Tim Flannery take on the conferance.

"[But] if I was to sum it up in a single phrase I'd say this has been a good, successful meeting."

"It's only one step on the road but we are now really in the throes of tackling this very difficult problem and this meeting has been a very significant step forward. I wouldn't like anyone to undersell what's been achieved. I think it is very significant."

"We've made a huge advance at this meeting on a number of fronts, one being those pledged emissions, another being the funding we've got for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, and of course the REDD Negotiations, the world's efforts to protect the tropical rainforests," he said.

"That seems to be going very well indeed. I'm just waiting to hear the final status of REDD but I'm very hopeful we'll get a good agreement."


----------



## Aussiejeff

Here's some more of today's hysterical news...



> [size=+3]*Deadly snow storm blasts US*[/size]
> A DEADLY storm described as *one of the worst in a decade* blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season




Rapid global _warming_ eh? 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316


----------



## wayneL

Aussiejeff said:


> Here's some more of today's hysterical news...
> 
> 
> 
> Rapid global _warming_ eh?
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316




Snow on the beach at Nice, France.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> On a good note I'm with Tim Flannery take on the conferance.
> 
> "[But] if I was to sum it up in a single phrase I'd say this has been a good, successful meeting."




I'm surprised that Australia's leading climate hysteric thought it was a successful outcome. The truth is that is was the monumental failure it deserved to be when an unelected world body tries to interfere in the economies and foreign affairs of sovereign states.

These power brokers are not going to stop. However it will become much more difficult for people like Rudd to sell a proposition which is, as becomes more apparent daily, in his interests and not ours.


----------



## moXJO

Less pollution is always a good thing and I support that.
But you have to wonder if this is a push to develop the poorer nations into the world’s next consumers to exploit. The whole thing has a stink of ulterior motives about it and the environment is a very distant concern imo.


----------



## basilio

> I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.
> 
> Catch is, the climate doesn't think.
> 
> I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.
> 
> Proposed ground rules:
> 1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.
> 
> 2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.
> 
> 3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.
> 
> 4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.
> 
> Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??
> 
> Ghoti




Very creative and constructive idea Ghoti. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for a positive response.....

From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.

Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of  man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk. Other examples that we could recognise would be

1) Not overloading a ship recognizing that any storm would cause it to sink
2) Ensuring that there were sufficient welds on an plane/boat/bridge to hold it together under foreseeable operating conditions
3) Making sure you had enough petrol in the car before you went on desert drive...

This is the disaster insurance approach. You don't necessarily accept it is going to happen but paying a small premium now is the acceptable price for being able to recover later on.

But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.

Mind you I have been assured by those in the know that the arguments on this forum are conducted with more civility, intelligence and rationality than on other boards... which is still a worry. Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)

Good luck !


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Very creative and constructive idea Ghoti. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for a positive response.....
> 
> From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.




We've been talking about cognitive bias in this thread and we've managed to secure admissions from individuals on either side of their own biases. This is positive in any debate as at least recognition of one's own biases causes one to have a objective look at the other's view.

But here basilio reveals his screaming bias by 

1/ assuming a negative response  is a/ likely to come from agnostics and b/ that it is only possible that sceptics may have an epiphany and jump the fence, as it were. Then perpetuates the totally disingenuous strawman furphy by labelling agnostics as "totally disbelieving" when many agnostics have an altogether more holistic approach to healing the damage humans have cause to the planet. 

2/ refusing to acknowledge the reasons for the disparity in research which has been detailed dozens of time by now on this forum. Does the term "follow the money" mean anything at all to you?

Basilio reveals himself time and time again as someone toatally incapable of having a rational debate by continuing to revert to such argumentative  fallacies and leaving his biases off the leash.

In fact, most agnostics have looked at the science rationally and honestly and have come to their conclusions based on this. A prime example I posted not even 36 hours ago in this thread - Willem de Lange, Professor Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato; one example of an innumerable multitude of credible, learned people who are not swallowing the alarmism of the Goreists and the warmanist lobby.

Basilio's refusal to accept that there is a great body of sceptical scientific opinion based on the science is laughable, ludicrous and cult-like.



> Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of  man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk. Other examples that we could recognise would be
> 
> 1) Not overloading a ship recognizing that any storm would cause it to sink
> 2) Ensuring that there were sufficient welds on an plane/boat/bridge to hold it together under foreseeable operating conditions
> 3) Making sure you had enough petrol in the car before you went on desert drive...
> 
> This is the disaster insurance approach. You don't necessarily accept it is going to happen but paying a small premium now is the acceptable price for being able to recover later on.
> 
> But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.




Your last statement is total nonsense as explained above. All before it is a reasonable proposition, but fails to take a properly actuarial approach to the risks. To use your overloading the ship metaphor, the IPCC worries about the weight in the galley refrigerator, yet ignores the number of containers being piled on the freight deck.

The hypothesis that co2 is the prime driver in climate change has been shown time and time again to be overstated and it's effects misrepresented. 

Agree we should not overload the ship, but the extra crate of crown lager in the frig isn't going to sink it



> Mind you I have been assured by those in the know that the arguments on this forum are conducted with more civility, intelligence and rationality than on other boards... which is still a worry. Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)
> 
> Good luck !




That bias is still off its leash. The question could equally be asked why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept that the Goreist propaganda is... propaganda.

There is also some interesting research in that field.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of  man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk.




Under your rationale a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be justified. Meanwhile closer to home the Rudd government is preparing for a pre-emptive strike on GW sceptics. The spin doctors are busy with a hate campaign against Abbott and there are plans to censor the internet which could be used to filter subversive sceptic input.

However,  considering the urgency and gravity of the situation, much more should be done. I am sure the Anti-Terrorist Laws could be stretched to combat and break up the anti-GW conspiracy. They are obviously in favour of destroying "the condions under which we live" and need to be put out of circulation to "remove that risk."


----------



## basilio

Good luck with your attempt to start this exchange of analysis Ghoti. I think the responses to my post illustrate the positions of some of the main protaganists. Their starting point seems to be *the view* that we have 2 almost equally weighted possibilities each of which under careful scrutiny could be accepted.

......As distinct from *the fact *that the theories and evidence regarding the man made causes of global warming are supported by 99+% of the worlds scientific community. And the small detail that many of the arguments and evidence offered to refute MMCC are simply dishonest. I note that Ian Plimer who advances some of these arguments just can't come up with the evidence to back these assertions. (Of course that has never stopped everyone else repeating them.)

And Calliope please.  Is it possible that taking *constructive, non violent remedial action *to ensure a plane is safe or a ship is not overloaded might be slightly different to invading or destroying another country in anticipation of a possible problem?  

______________________________________________________________

I came across this article with regard to the cognitive dissonance issues  that global warming create in our society. 



> WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE
> 
> george-marshall-012At a recent dinner at Oxford University a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that this would make a contribution to climate change (we had, after all, just sat through a two hour presentation on the topic). “Of course,” he said blithely, “and I’m sure the government will make long haul flights illegal at some point”.
> 
> To be honest the conversation had not just idly strayed into the topic of holidays: I had deliberately steered it in this direction as part of an informal research project- one you are welcome to join. Previous experimental subjects include a senior adviser to Nicholas Stern who flies regularly to South Africa (“my offsets help set a price in the carbon market”), a member of the British Antarctic Survey who takes several long haul skiing trips a year (“my job is stressful”), a national media environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka (“I can’t see much hope”) and a Greenpeace climate campaigner back from scuba diving in the Pacific (“it was a GREAT trip!”).
> 
> Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change- an assumption that a moment’s introspection would show them was deeply flawed.




http://climatedenial.org/

Of course the rest of the article is equally interesting so check it out.  

And have a great Christmas one and all. Hope you get everything you need.

Cheers


----------



## basilio

This link may have been posted previously but it bears another look.
Essentially it is an exceptionally well laid out analysis of the various skeptical arguments against the science of global warming. 

All the references can be followed up. It just works very well.



> About Skeptical Science
> 
> *The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.* When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. *Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. *For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
> 
> Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. *Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.*
> 
> About the author
> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year. I am not a climate scientist. Despite my scientific background, my interest in global warming comes from a layman's perspective. *Consequently, the science presented on this website is not my own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.* To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to focus on the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).
> 
> *I receive no funding to maintain this website - it's run at personal expense*. I have no affiliations with any organisations or political groups (holding no particular ideology, I would characterise myself as a swing voter). Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love - maintained in my spare time and the main thing I get from it is sleep deprivation. The design was created by my talented web designer wife.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> Also, there are a lot of clueless greens. There was a dodgy scientist getting plaudits for developing a speed hump to provide power for traffic lights. To me, with my engineering backgound, the use of kinetic energy to feed a battery is inefficient as there is a lot of machinery to convert it into electricity, not green as it uses batteries and not free as the kinetic energy comes from cars which will use more petrol to go over the speed humps.
> Yet the fools were almost worshipping the con artist! There a a lot of dumb greens as there are a lot of dumb skeptics. Sometimes I wonder how mankind keeps succeeding.



A very rough calculation is that powering traffic lights that way would _incease_ the fossil fuel consumption to do so by around 200%. That's assuming the speed bumps are designed such that cars don't brake (at all) before going over them.

It's not a rational idea from any perspective, unless the lights are located somewhere that grid power isn't available (but traffic lights are generally in cities, and cities have grid power... but there might be an exception somewhere).


----------



## JimBob

basilio said:


> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year.[/url]




He was one of my lecturers while studying at University, a very well researched website without all the political biases.  Im sure he didnt believe global warming was happening while I was at uni, so any essays I wrote on the topic also didnt believe it  Either he has changed his mind based on his research, or I should have done more research into his standing on the topic.  Probably explains my poor marks.

He is also a gold medallist in Judo so dont talk while he is lecturing as he has challenged a few people to step outside to explain their reasons for talking over him.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, Smurf,  the trouble is that technologically trained people are not in the higher echelons of most governments.

Basilio

Thanks for the skepticalscience link, a nice website.

Their is opposition but every year it gets pushed back further.
First their was no global warming and oil and mining companies supported sites arguing agains climate change, then they witdraw when they were unable to handle the public critiscm and now you see Shell taking out full page adds saying how "green" they are.

Then the argument changed tact to "its not caused by us". The science is so strong that it is that this tact was losing steam. 

Now the resistors are using the "scientists are corrupted and part of a global conspiracy argument" and to do this they need to directly lie and obscurate.
Now it is only the intellectualy bereft Republicans and their tame media organisations in the US pushing that line.

It won't last in the long run. We will see action and I'm hoping it will be better than the ETS plan.

From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views



To accept this is to accept that scientists opposing the popular view do actually have the same access to publication that the "mainstream" do.
Not all of us accept that that is the case.



> it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.



Equally, you are unprepared to even remotely consider that your beliefs may be, if not wrong, not completely correct.



> Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of  man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk



That seems a reasonable view.  However, I think you are possibly under estimating the damage to the economies of individual countries and the combined global economy.  You seem to completely disregard this, and I'd suggest it's this lack of objectivity that so frustrates many of us who are simply unsure about where the truth lies.



> But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.



I think there is equal frustration on 'the other side'.



> Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)



Again, it would be equally possible to address this concern to those of you who are so absolutely unprepared to consider that there could be flaws in the science to which you are so devoted.




Knobby22 said:


> Now it is only the intellectualy bereft Republicans and their tame media organisations in the US pushing that line.



I don't believe that's true.  People of all political persuasions lack confidence in the current direction.  And I doubt that it's reasonable for you to suggest that your level of intellect is hugely superior to all Republicans.
It's this sort of comment that is entirely gratuitous, fails to contribute to constructive debate, and assists no one.




> From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.



Again, the derogatory personal remark.  Why is this necessary, Knobby?
I used to regard you as someone who was fair minded and reasonable, not into snaky personal stuff.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.




You are too modest. From what I have noticed you and Basilio are becoming more hysterical each day with all your worries about an impending apocalypse. This doom and gloom scenario worries me not at all.

Even if you are right and mankind is doomed, this can only be good for the earth. With the exodus of man, the polluter, all other species will thrive. 

They reckon there will be 9 billion of us by 2050, and all the idiots at Copenhagen and all "the science" still haven't to to grips with what the problem is. It is us.


----------



## Purple XS2

Aussiejeff said:


> Here's some more of today's hysterical news...
> 
> 
> 
> *Deadly snow storm blasts US*
> A DEADLY storm described as one of the worst in a decade blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rapid global _warming_ eh?
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316
Click to expand...



I gather both "sides" of the Climate kerfuffle recognise 1998 as the warmest year in the global record.
1998 began, if you recall, with the appalling Ice storm in NE USA and SE Canada.
One thing we can expect from global warming is all manner of anomalous events, and we may also see some localities reaching a cooler average amidst wider variability.

Severe snow in Europe this time of year does not invalidate the man-made global warming hypothesis.

Disclosure: yes, I am a card-carrying greenie, if that makes this post easler to trash.

Regards, P.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> ...Also doubt whether a conflict resolution technique is applicable to matters of science.



I doubt that too, but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists and I can't think of anyone who's said that they're a scientist presently working on climate-related problems. 

I think that for most of us it's a question of who to trust, and that's why I think that trying to argue against our own position might be useful. As I've said before, I got into this because I wanted The Great Global Warming Swindle to be right about the state of the climate and climate science. That's what? 2 years ago? I've put in a lot of time and effort trying to understand the science, but the confirmation bias I've developed is based more on my experience of the sources I've found than on my assessment of the scientific content. I think that's true of you as well? I'm willing to try and argue for Pielke Jr (Snr would be harder) as the most reliable guide to the science of global warming if you'll try and argue for RealClimate. Hopefully we'd both learn something. 



> One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.
> 
> Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.
> 
> But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.



Well calling it the CO2 religion probably isn't the best way to convince people that your position is based on science. Why not quantify the relative influences? Specify how they work? Propose specific actions to address negative human influence on global climate? 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## brty

> but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists




Here is a revelation for all those caught up in believing in the climate science. The 'science' is not chemistry, nor physics, nor biology, nor geology, it is mostly statistics, something that good traders can fairly easily get a grasp of.

I have a tertiary degree in the Environment area, yet I cannot find any data that is not "adjusted" to show global warming. There is also nothing that is definitive showing that if any warming is happening it is man made. If anyone here has anything to show differently, I'd love to see it. I have read the IPCC reports.

People should be sceptical of all the different reports that come out, as most things are biased. 

For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.

Here is a link...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

brty


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I doubt that too, but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists and I can't think of anyone who's said that they're a scientist presently working on climate-related problems.
> 
> I think that for most of us it's a question of who to trust, and that's why I think that trying to argue against our own position might be useful. As I've said before, I got into this because I wanted The Great Global Warming Swindle to be right about the state of the climate and climate science. That's what? 2 years ago? I've put in a lot of time and effort trying to understand the science, but the confirmation bias I've developed is based more on my experience of the sources I've found than on my assessment of the scientific content. I think that's true of you as well? I'm willing to try and argue for Pielke Jr (Snr would be harder) as the most reliable guide to the science of global warming if you'll try and argue for RealClimate. Hopefully we'd both learn something.



 That's not really fair. If I have to argue for someone like Schmidt, then you have to argue for someone like Plimer or Monckton.

Anyway, I don't think it would resolve anything. There is no way I could in good conscience argue for the RealClimate position as it would require me to do some creative interpretations of the facts and make numerous errors of ommission.



> Well calling it the CO2 religion probably isn't the best way to convince people that your position is based on science. Why not quantify the relative influences? Specify how they work? Propose specific actions to address negative human influence on global climate?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti




It is not likely to endear me to believers, but I think it is justified on  behavioural science grounds in many cases.


----------



## basilio

> For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.
> 
> Here is a link...




Excellent source brty. And a very sobering  piece of research.

The data from the research study shows that when CO2 levels have reached around the 380-400ppm mark the earths temperature has been far higher than current temperatures and as a consequence polar ice caps much lower. 

We are seeing this happen as we speak. That is the whole scary process of monitoring the relentless rapid increase in the temperatures recorded around the globe. It reflects the rapid breakdown in Arctic sea ice, the unprecedented receding of glaciers around the world and the exponentially  rising rate of  ice loss from Greenland. 

The extra CO2 is in the atmosphere. But it has only been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution and has really taken off in the last 40 years. In terms of changing the climate this is a very short time. There is a huge mass of water to warm up - but it is warming and in climate terms quite rapidly. It simply takes a little time for the heating effects to be well and truly felt. 

A simple analogy would be putting a very large pot of water on a stove, lighting the burner - and then saying in 10 seconds that nothing has happened because the temperature hasn't risen (much..)

Unfortunately the research is telling us that CO2 levels at 380 + ppm will, on past evidence, result in a far warmer earth - and certainly outside the range that humanity has so far thrived in. This new evidence of the effect of elevated CO2 levels is one of the major reasons climate scientists have changed their view about what they consider could be a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere i.e one that would enable a climate at least roughly similar to the one we enjoy. And of course it is why they have become more and more agitated about the continued refusal of all governments to recognize just  how dangerous a situation we are facing.

*The safe figure, based on the above research, is now 350 ppm*

http://www.350.org/about/science


----------



## Knobby22

The "Flat Earth Society of New Zealand" are global warming sceptics.
And why wouldn't they be? You can't have global warming without believing there is a globe.

http://flatearthersnz.blogspot.com/


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> A simple analogy would be putting a very large pot of water on a stove, lighting the burner - and then saying in 10 seconds that nothing has happened because the temperature hasn't risen (much..)




This analogy is nonsense. The heat source has always been there and may vary slightly on its own terms without input from Humans, Martians, or those Amazonian females from Venus (one of the indisputable natural factors in climate change).

The argument is over how much heat is prevented from escaping from the top of the pot..

As far as the other assertions in your post, there appear to be problems there too, especially re ocean heat. 

Better read some more research... expand your horizon beyond the cherrypicked stuff.


----------



## noco

We have had it rammed down our throats for the past two years that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by mid century due to climate change; you know the CO2 factor that Rudd, Wong and Garrett keep harping about.

Well, the head lines in the Weekend Australian "Scientist 'crying wolf' over coral". An article written by Professor Peter Ridd physicist with Townsville's James Cook University says it all; these 'wolf criers' have a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in "bloody good shape".

Professor Ridd who  has spent the last 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface tempertures. Instead of dying the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals.

NB. Coral did exist in Morten Bay many years ago and was used in later years to manufacture cement at Darra.


----------



## basilio

> As far as the other assertions in your post, there appear to be problems there too, especially re ocean heat.




With regard to assertions on ocean heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

Skeptical science does an excellent job detailing how oceans have been warming over the past 40 years and then examines the question of what has happened between 2003-2008. I assume that is what you were referring to.

My analogy was meant to convey that changes in the temperature of a very large body will not be immediately discernible with a change in net energy input and expecting anything else doesn't make sense. (unless one is taking about extraneous catastrophes ie hits from a comet).  It will take a little time for the full effects of the extra CO2  to become apparent...

*And of course the main point, the only point in my response was to draw attention to the science that is connecting historical levels of 380+ ppm CO2 with greatly increased temperatures and sharply higher sea levels.*


----------



## GoodCall

Scientific proof?


----------



## prawn_86

Article from Wired magazine saying how we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than debating where it is coming from and if we can stop or even slow it - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/st_essay_globalwarming/


----------



## Calliope

prawn_86 said:


> Article from Wired magazine saying how we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than debating where it is coming from and if we can stop or even slow it - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/st_essay_globalwarming/




The last thing the pro-warmers want is for us to adapt to change and make the best of outcomes over which we have no control, hence their dire warnings on the fate of the earth and our grandchildren. 

In a few years we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, in the same way that we now laugh at the ravings of Al Gore just a few years ago.


----------



## basilio

> The last thing the pro-warmers want is for us to adapt to change and make the best of outcomes over which we have no control, hence their dire warnings on the fate of the earth and our grandchildren.
> 
> In a few years we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, in the same way that we now laugh at the ravings of Al Gore just a few years ago




Calliope you obviously have *never actually read anything* on the consequences of runaway global warming have you? And equally obviously neither has the inimitable writer from Wired magazine.

Scientists have deliberately not chosen to highlight the consequences of going past the various tipping points or positive feedback loops that will quicken and intensify what is currently happening. 

FYI I have attached an analysis done two years ago. Good luck on Mars.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/...y-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Calliope you obviously have *never actually read anything* on the consequences of runaway global warming have you? And equally obviously neither has the inimitable writer from Wired magazine.




I obviously have an advantage over you in that I don't waste my time worrying about things that I can do nothing about, or trying to convert others to my way of thinking.

I hope you can put your worries and fears aside over Xmas, and have a merry one.


----------



## brianwh

noco said:


> We have had it rammed down our throats for the past two years that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by mid century due to climate change; you know the CO2 factor that Rudd, Wong and Garrett keep harping about.
> 
> Well, the head lines in the Weekend Australian "Scientist 'crying wolf' over coral". An article written by Professor Peter Ridd physicist with Townsville's James Cook University says it all; these 'wolf criers' have a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in "bloody good shape".
> 
> Professor Ridd who  has spent the last 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface tempertures. Instead of dying the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals.




Radio National Breakfast carried a piece on this article in this morning's program. A marine biologist (I didn't catch the name) from UQ made the point that this was merely an opinion piece by Professor Ridd and noted that Professor Ridd has not published a peer-reviewed paper on this topic whereas a large number of peer-reviewed papers have been published contradicting his point of view. The point was also made that even if the warming does not kill the coral (he didn't actually say it wouldn't though), serious bleaching would have a major effect on its tourist value. And as for the coral establishing itself further south, he claimed that increasing acidity would make this unlikely.


----------



## noco

brianwh said:


> Radio National Breakfast carried a piece on this article in this morning's program. A marine biologist (I didn't catch the name) from UQ made the point that this was merely an opinion piece by Professor Ridd and noted that Professor Ridd has not published a peer-reviewed paper on this topic whereas a large number of peer-reviewed papers have been published contradicting his point of view. The point was also made that even if the warming does not kill the coral (he didn't actually say it wouldn't though), serious bleaching would have a major effect on its tourist value. And as for the coral establishing itself further south, he claimed that increasing acidity would make this unlikely.




brainwh, perhaps you should find out the name of your marine biologist and arrange contact with Professor Peter Ridd. No doubt Weekend Australian would have checked Professor Ridd's statement as being authentic, otherwise they would not have published it. Maybe your marine biologist used a 'TRICK' ????? to satisfy Mr.Midnight  Oil.

Mate, I'm almost clicking 80 and have noted statements of coral bleaching for decades. I can remember blokes older than me saying back in the 40's and   50's, don't worry the Barrier Reef has been there for thousands of years and has been through it all before. It is strong enough to withstand many adverse conditions. I believe Professor Ridd knows what he talking about and I fully concur.

brainwh, have you any idea how large the Great Barrier Reef is? Well for your information it is 2000km long and has over 3000 reefs. Do you believe all of it is going to die. I don't know where you live or whether you have ever visted the reef, but if you haven't then perhaps you should  pay a visit some day to appreciate the extent and the beauty. I have flown over several times and it is absolutely amazing.


----------



## brianwh

Noco

Surely the point is valid - if an opinion NOT based on peer-reviewed material contradicts a large number of peer-reviewed papers then logic would suggest you lean towards the latter.

I don't have the scientific backgound to be confident either way. But I hope most fervently that, if the skeptics are able to influence decision makers and nothing is done, then they had better be right. The consequences of being wrong don't bear thinking about.

And I have seen the barrier reef on several occasions and it is truly magnificent.


----------



## wayneL

brianwh said:


> Noco
> 
> Surely the point is valid - if an opinion NOT based on peer-reviewed material contradicts a large number of peer-reviewed papers then logic would suggest you lean towards the latter.
> 
> I don't have the scientific backgound to be confident either way. But I hope most fervently that, if the skeptics are able to influence decision makers and nothing is done, then they had better be right. The consequences of being wrong don't bear thinking about.
> 
> And I have seen the barrier reef on several occasions and it is truly magnificent.




People are viewing "peer review" as some sort of admission to the canon as the gospel truth. Peer review has been shown to be anything but as of recently... actually there are numerous examples of junk science and outright fraud slipping straight on through the peer review process, outside and inside climate science.

In many cases, peer review is a joke. I'm not saying that science shouldn't be subject to peer review at all, but that it is extremely fallible. In view of the latest revelations, it doesn't automatically entitle any research to be legitimized at all, it should be viewed with as much suspicion as any process involving vested interests.

If you want to look for threats to the GBR, look to nutrient and other pollutions as a result of farming practices (AKA land use) and NOT purported anthropogenic warming.

....and I got my peers to review that, I got the thumbs up.


----------



## mythos

I find this article by News Limited's James Murdoch provides a balanced view, of that even though the science may be not as black and white as people would like. There are benefits of reducing our dependence on Middle East oil and exploring new clean technologies still. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303698.html


----------



## rowie

brty said:


> Here is a revelation for all those caught up in believing in the climate science. The 'science' is not chemistry, nor physics, nor biology, nor geology, it is mostly statistics, something that good traders can fairly easily get a grasp of.
> 
> I have a tertiary degree in the Environment area, yet I cannot find any data that is not "adjusted" to show global warming. There is also nothing that is definitive showing that if any warming is happening it is man made. If anyone here has anything to show differently, I'd love to see it. I have read the IPCC reports.
> 
> People should be sceptical of all the different reports that come out, as most things are biased.
> 
> For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.
> 
> Here is a link...
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
> 
> brty




I have been a somewhat global warming skeptic of late but this article(if accurate) is really quite scary. It could be basis to prove that higher carbon dioxide levels leads to global warming. If as it states that global temperatures were 4-5 degrees higher with similiar to todays levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, are we headed in this direction of warming. Crap! I am becoming less of a skeptic. And the increase in CO2 emmissions has only really started about 100 years ago, so the warming has only just begun and could grow exponentially? Like Basilio has said, it might take some time before the real warming begins as CO2 levels have only begun to rise dramatically in the past 40 years. Is this article a real worry or am I missing something? I am still 50-50 on this whole debate (not a believer but not entirely a skeptic either).


----------



## Wysiwyg

Does anyone know where on this planet the CO2 levels are recorded. I read one report that recorded from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This man was the pioneer of atmospheric CO2 research and according to the records, the CO2 levels are rising. Remove the planets vegetation and increase the carbon emissions is obviously a path of ruin.

Are the Charles David Keeling (1928-2005) inspired data readings a true indication? 



> The work for which Keeling is rightfully most famous then ensued.  In 1958 with the support of Harry Wexler of the U.S. Weather Service and Roger Revelle of Scripps, Keeling began an extensive survey of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in background air, including air-borne and ship-board measurements, and measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory and other land stations- measurements which have continued to this day under his guidance.


----------



## bunyip

I have no intention of joining an in depth debate on climate change.....I'll leave that to all you folks who relish a good argument!

One thing I note though, is that Rudd has been pointing to certain extreme weather events recently and claiming they're proof of man made global warming...e.g. the dust storm across Eastern Australia back in September, the recent heatwave, the heatwave and associated bushfires in Victoria earlier this year.

I wonder if Kev will have anything to say about the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)
Will the silly bastard come out and tell us this is proof of man made global cooling?
Of course not....it doesn't suit him to think that way so he'll keep his mouth closed and say nothing. This Rudd character is shaping up to be the biggest joke Australia has ever had for a Prime Minister.


----------



## Calliope

*Put Australia's Interests First*



> Aside from heavy job losses and economic meltdown, there would be much to lose environmentally by Australia scaling back mining, minerals processing or heavy industry through overly punitive measures.
> 
> Shortfalls in production would be made up quickly by rapidly industrialising nations and rival raw material exporters.
> 
> Global production and consumption of Australia's largest export, coal, for example, is increasing. Any fall off in production would be replaced by coal extracted in such nations as Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa and Russia -- often less cleanly than in Queensland.
> 
> Giving the planet the benefit of the doubt will require a far more sophisticated, global approach than the* asinine "cut Australian emissions by 40 per cent" mantra chanted by Greens leader Bob Brown*, who has dealt himself out of the rational debate.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-interests-first/story-e6frg71x-1225812568952


----------



## Calliope

Now that's a Turkey!  Merry Xmas


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

bunyip said:


> I have no intention of joining an in depth debate on climate change.....I'll leave that to all you folks who relish a good argument!
> 
> One thing I note though, is that Rudd has been pointing to certain extreme weather events recently and claiming they're proof of man made global warming...e.g. the dust storm across Eastern Australia back in September, the recent heatwave, the heatwave and associated bushfires in Victoria earlier this year.
> 
> I wonder if Kev will have anything to say about the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)
> Will the silly bastard come out and tell us this is proof of man made global cooling?
> Of course not....it doesn't suit him to think that way so he'll keep his mouth closed and say nothing. This Rudd character is shaping up to be the biggest joke Australia has ever had for a Prime Minister.




I agree, bunyip, I am just back from Copenhagen and it was as has been described , the despicable negotiating the inexplicable.

An old mate with the US delegation got me a pew and believe me Herr Rudd is persona non grata with the movers and shakers in Washington at the moment.

gg


----------



## Chris45

bunyip said:


> the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)



*http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm*



> March 5, 2004: *Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze,* possibly within only a few decades.
> 
> The view from orbit clearly shows a long-term decline in the "perennial" Arctic sea ice (the part that remains frozen during the warm summer months). According to a 2002 paper by Josefino Comiso, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this year-round ice has been retreating since the beginning of the satellite record in 1978 at an average rate of 9% per decade. Studies looking at more recent data peg the rate at 14% per decade, suggesting that the decline of Arctic sea ice is accelerating.




That was published 5 1/2 years ago so I wonder if we're now starting to see the effects of the slowdown of the thermohaline circulation?


----------



## darnsmall

I'm no scientist, but for a theory, a hypotheses, you have to be able to test the your theory, with experiments that prove the theory to be true/law no?

Is there any way to test the impact of man on global warming? And are we in a cooling or warming period? does anyone know when we'll reach the next apex of warming/cooling naturally?

Personally I think the ski fields are getting warmer because I can't ski for as long as I used to when I was a kid. I can remember decent snow well into September...now that only happens in a bumper season. I don't think that proves the globe is warming, just that the conditions for making snow that used to last from Easter to September have changed.

I agree with the idea of a Carbon tax to keep up country a little cleaner/tidier. But it just sounds like a good idea...I'd want a hell of a lot more analysis to go into it first.

Is there such a thing as credible climate change science/biology/chemistry?


----------



## Julia

darnsmall said:


> Personally I think the ski fields are getting warmer because I can't ski for as long as I used to when I was a kid.



I'm sure we can all remember anecdotal instances like this.  What I remember is the opposite, i.e. as a kid in NZ I was always into summer clothes in October.  Now it's pretty much winter clothing all year round in Christchurch barring the occasional warmish day.

Does anyone think there's any chance of the government negotiating with the Greens re the ETS being re-presented in February?  How do the numbers stack up if the Greens and Labor came to an agreement and the Coalition continued to vote against it?

It seems like an impossible alliance philosophically.


----------



## wayneL

FYI:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming



> Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
> 
> In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, *rather than carbon dioxide (CO2)* emissions


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> FYI:
> 
> Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming




The interesting thing about this article is that Qin is predicting cooling for the next 50 years. If cooling does occur over the next 5 years then this will break the present hypothesis as it will be testable. I hope fervantly he is right. 

He is really talking about polar warming though. I wouldn't be surprised that even if he is right, that there will be a warming effect from greenhouse gases over the temperate zones. Still the effect may be climate change but completely different to the models espoused at present.

Good find Wayne but I wish to note that it is "peer reviewed". Scientists are people and so have human weaknesses but science still continues. This article was peer reviewed and published showing that scientists really are still about trying to work out how things work and generally have an open mind.


----------



## spooly74

Knobby22 said:


> If cooling does occur then this will break the present hypothesis.



The present hypothesis, according to the IPCC, was for specific warming in the first 2-3 decades of this century. 
It has been falsified.

Seasons Greetings from a baltic Baile Ãtha Cliath :alcohol:


----------



## basilio

> The present hypothesis, according to the IPCC, was for specific warming in the first 2-3 decades of this century.
> It has been falsified.




Hang on Spooly we havn't finished the *first* decade of this century let along the second or third.  Do you think it might be  a bit premature to bury the current story? 

_________________________________________________________________

It will be interesting to see the response to that paper which suggests that  cosmic rays and fluorocarbons are the culprits in Global warming.  I think there should be a real flurry of checking and replicating the work amongst other scientists.


----------



## Purple XS2

Julia said:


> ...
> Does anyone think there's any chance of the government negotiating with the Greens re the ETS being re-presented in February?  How do the numbers stack up if the Greens and Labor came to an agreement and the Coalition continued to vote against it?



ALP + Greens + Xenophon are still short of a senate majority. Fielding (the gift to the nation from the Victorian ALP) obviously would never contemplate anything remotely (shudder) 'Green'. Ditto the Nationals, although funnier things have happened. What if a National senator come to the conclusion that global warming is a threat to his/her constituency?

Otherwise it would need 1 Liberal to cross the senate floor (and of course none the other way).

I'm not so sure that there aren't a couple of ALP senators who wouldn't cross the floor stage right to the opposition side, should it ever seem likely that a Liberal senator would cross stage left. Easy to stick with the party line when it doesn't matter.



> It seems like an impossible alliance philosophically.




Greens + ALP? Improbable, at least on those matters of greatest weight to the Greens. Liberal + ALP is a much more compatible match philosophically, just impossible under the _rules of the game_.

In conclusion: there is almost zero prospect of the current parliament passing an ETS, short of a compete meltdown of coalition party discipline (again, with feeling this time).

Disclosure: I am a greenie.


----------



## bunyip

The list below was sent to me before Copenhagen......presumably all this mob did in fact go, at the expense of the Australian tax payer of course.
And it's a pretty safe bet that they would have flown 'business class', and stayed at five star hotels.

Rudd is throwing money around like a drunken sailor - our money of course, not his.
So far he personally has spent 100 grand a month on overseas travel since he won office. 
He reminds me of the principal of the private school my kids attended....every year he headed overseas on a school-funded 'study tour'. Meanwhile, the school fees went up every year by well in excess of the inflation rate.
This clown Rudd is no different.....he's having a high old time touring the world at our expense

_Below is a list of the 114 Australians going to Copenhagen.  We (you and I) are paying for all their travel, accommodation and meals and we thought Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong were genuine about trying to cut greenhouse gases! 
 Read on and marvel: _
Australia 
H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd                            Prime Minister 
H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong                                  Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand                             Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. David Fredericks                                           Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Philip Green Oam                                         Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Andrew Charlton                                           Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Lachlan Harris                                               Senior Press Secretary Prime MinisterÃ¢â‚¬™s Office Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Scott Dewar                                                   Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Clare Penrose                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
                       Advisor PMO


----------



## bunyip

Here's some more of the list.....I had to divide it into three because the post exceeded the maximum number of words allowed.

Ms. Fiona Sugden                                               Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Lisa French                                                   Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Jeremy Hilman                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Tarah Barzanji                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Kate Shaw                                                      Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gaile Barnes                                                 Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gordon de Brouwer                                     Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Patrick Suckling                                            First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Ms. Rebecca Christie                                         Prime MinisterÃ¢€™s Office 
Mr. Michael Jones                                               Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Stephan Rudzki            
Mr. David Bell                                                       Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Ms. Kym Baillie                                                    Australian Federal Police 
Mr. David Champion                                           Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Matt Jebb                                                        Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Craig Kendall                                                Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Ian Lane                                                         Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations 
Mr. John Olenich                                                 Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Kristina Hickey                                              Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Mr. Martin Parkinson                                           Secretary Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Howard Bamsey                                           Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Robert Owen-Jones                                     Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Clare Walsh                                                  Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson                         Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak                                   Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kristin Tilley                                                   Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Andrew Ure                                                    Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Annemarie Watt                                           Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kushla Munro                                               Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley                           Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Anitra Cowan                                                Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Sally Truong                                                  Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jane Wilkinson                                             Assistant Director Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey Mackay                                             Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Laura Brown                                                 Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey                                   Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Nicola Loffler                                                 Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tamara Curll                                                 Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jessica Allen                                                 Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change


----------



## bunyip

And here's the final part of the list.....impressive eh? And all at our expense - you and me, the Australian taxpayers. 
Nice one Kev!


Mr. Sanjiva de Silva                                            Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Gaia Puleston                                               Political Adviser Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Penelope Jane Morton                               Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt                                  Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Amanda Walker                                           Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Alan David Lee                                             Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Erika Kate Oord                                            Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough                        Communications Manager Ministerial Communication Department of Climate Change 
H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan                                   Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Feeney                                                 Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham                  Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany 
Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper                            Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Ms. Rachael Grivas                                             Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Moya Elyn Collett                                                Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Rob Law                                                         Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Robin Davies                                                 Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Deborah Fulton                                            Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn                  Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Brian Dawson                                                Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke                                   Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Mr. Bruce Wilson                                                 General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Ms. Jill McCarthy                                                 Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism 
Mr. Simon French                                                Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe                                     Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. David Walland                                              Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology 
Mr. Damien Dunn                                                Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury 
Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman                               Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships 
Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport                                Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Mr. Graham Julian Levitt                                    Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones                                     Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael William Dart                                    Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government 
Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien                Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael David Rann                                    Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter                                    Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Mr. Paul David Flanagan                                   Manager, Communications Government of South Australia 
Mr. Timothy William OÃ¢€™Loughlin                        Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government 
Ms. Nyla Sarwar                                                  M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford 
Mr. Gavin Jennings                                             Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government 
Ms. Sarah Broadbent                                          Sustainability Adviser 
Ms. Rebecca Falkingham                                  Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change 
Mr. Simon Camroux                                            Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited 
Mr. Geoff Lake                                                      Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Tegan Brink                                                   Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh                                 Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Lauren Henschke                                        Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Maree Fay                                                     Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia McKinnon                                        Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Eugene Olim                                                        Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Belinda Lee Adams                                     
Ms. Jacqui Ashworth                                           Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia Smith                                                Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Martin Bo Jensen                                          Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Mauro Kolobaric                                           Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Susan Flanagan                                           Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Stephen Kanaridis                                        IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. George Reid                                                  Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Ashley Wright                                               Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Jodie Littlewood                                           Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Thomas Millhouse                                        Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Timothy Whittley                                           Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Thomson                                              Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Donald Frater                                                Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Jacqui Smith                                                 Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Greg French                                                   Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Jeremy Hillman


----------



## bunyip

*Sent to me by a friend who, like me, thinks Rudd is a lunatic with his ETS ideas.
Thought I'd pass it on for the interest of the forum.....make of it what you will.*

Subject: Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide.

This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09. Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone. He knew of me from my letters to the press. So we palled up over as long phone conversation. 

This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses.

Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.

Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.




Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar@iinet.net.au>


The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.



Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.

 Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly  have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers. 

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat  through boiler wall convection.

Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand. 

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

 The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).



Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts instead of going off  with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
 If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or  the size of a  large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide  and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years  by .004 percent.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20%  which is 1/5th of .0000008  = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that. 

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.

T.L. Cardwell


To the Editor   I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle.   I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.



Ronald Kitching
Rockhapmton

QLD

Australia.


----------



## Knobby22

I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case. 

Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Knobby22 said:


> I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case.
> 
> Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.



Don't forget the NOx. They don't mention the NOx.


----------



## Dowdy

What they should of done at Copenhagen was agree to fund new technology that would reduce carbon emissions to 0.

All they did was talk alot of crap about reducing emissions to below 1990 levels without actually telling how...

Well, here is my solution and there's no extra tax involved - 

Each country should invest a small percentage of their GDP <0.5% into an independent R&D department to invest in developing *ultra efficient solar cells* and/or *cold fusion*.

DONE! PROBLEM SOLVED.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> I won't pull apart the article all together but his main point of modern efficient coal power stations maybe true in Queensland but doesn't hold up in Victoria's case.
> 
> Our powerstations are very old, very inefficient and also burn brown coal which is also very inefficient. They are probably the most inefficient large generators in the world.



It's a bit of a complex issue, a few comments as follows:

The conversion of coal (or any other fuel) into electricity can be termed the thermal efficiency of the power station, hereafter simply referred to as "efficiency". 

For black coal, oil and natural gas it's pretty straightforward. Burning the fuel releases x amount of heat and what happens after that is a function of the efficiency of the associated boilers, steam turbines / gas turbines / internal combustion engines, alternators and after that transmission. 

In that context it's the steam turbines / gas turbines / internal combustion engines where the losses to be worried about happen - everything else is pretty efficient and not much can be done about it anyway.

Brown coal (and biomass) has a major complicating factor and that is water content. For example, some of the coal used in Victoria is up to 70% water as it comes from the ground. Put that into the boilers and the evaporation of this water ends up using a lot of energy, thus reducing the overall efficiency of generation. Go to the Latrobe Valley (Vic) during Winter and you'll see huge plumes of condensed water vapour (which most people would call "steam") coming directly from the stacks. That's water which was contained in the coal and has been evaporated as part of the combustion process. 

We're not talking about a few litres here - it's in the order of 4 _million_ litres per _hour_ going up the stacks as steam. That's rather a lot of water - around 35 _billion_ litres a year that was contained in the coal and ends up as steam in the atmosphere.

The problem quite simply is that all this water lowers the efficiency of the boilers as a heat source for the turbines since, unlike other fuels, the boilers are doing two jobs. One is to produce heat, the other is to evaporate water from the coal. The end result is that a 1970's - 1990's brown coal plant ends up 30% efficient versus around 38% for an otherwise identical plant using black coal (or oil or gas). That lower efficiency means you need to put more energy in (from coal) to generate the same volume of power. About 25% more in fact, and that is the source of the higher CO2 emissions. 

Apart from needing to use more of it, brown coal isn't a bad fuel as such. It's actually quite "clean" in terms of a lot of non-CO2 pollutants. And if it wasn't for the efficiency, it would be no worse than black coal in terms of CO2 - the inherent inefficiency of using it is the problem, not the fuel itself.

CO2 emmissions intensity from the brown coal power stations in Australia is approximately as follows. 

Plant name - nominal capacity - (commissioning dates) - CO2 emissions intensity. 

*Victoria*
Loy Yang B - 1000 MW - (1993 - 1996) - 1.23 tonnes / MWh
Loy Yang A - 2000 MW - (1984 - 1988) - 1.3 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn W - 1450 MW - (1973 - 1981) - 1.37 tonnes / MWh
Anglesea - 160 MW - (1969) - 1.37 tonnes / MWh 
Hazelwood - 1600 MW - (1964 - 1971) - 1.47 tonnes / MWh
Morwell - 170 MW - (1958 - 1962) - 1.47 tonnes / MWh

*South Australia*
Northern - 520 MW - (1985) - 1.13 tonnes / MWh
Thomas Playford B - 240 MW - (1960) - 1.50 tonnes / MWh 

Historic (closed) brown coal plants as follows. Dates are operational dates (opened - closed).

*Victoria*
Yallourn A - 75 MW - (1924 - 1968) - about 2.5 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn B  - 100 MW (1938 - mid-1970's*) - about 2.2 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn C - 106 MW (1954 - 1984) -  about 1.8 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn D - 100 MW (1958 - 1986) - about 1.8 tonnes / MWh
Yallourn E - 240 MW (1962 - 1988) - about 1.5 tonnes / MWh

*Turbines and alternators, but not the boilers, were retained for some years as backup for operation with the remainging power station boiers. Yallourn A - E was effectively the one plant, built progressively over the years with the buildings connected to each other. 

Brown coal briquettes were also used at the old Newport A , Newport B (closed 1980) and Richmond (closed late 1970's) power stations in suburban Melbourne. These were built at a time (1910's - 1950's) of fuel scarcity and over the years burnt black coal, brown coal, wood, oil and anything else the SECV could get its hands on at the time. Brown coal briquettes were orignally produced at Yallourn and later at Morwell (but still using coal from Yallourn mine).

The Spencer Street (closed 1983) and Newport C (closed 1980) plants in Melbourne were oil-fired.

*South Australia*
Thomas Playford A - 90 MW - (1954 - 1989) - about 1.8 tonnes / MWh

Brown coal was also used to some extent at Osborne A (about 90 MW, closed 1968) and especially Osborne B (240 MW, closed 1990) power stations in suburban Adelaide. These plants, like those in Melbourne, suffered fuel shortages over the years and burnt a variety of fuels including black coal (the intended fuel), brown coal, oil and later natural gas. 

It was the lack of black coal, due to persistent strikes in NSW, that largely prompted the development of the Victorian and SA brown coal industries in the first place. The alternative at the time was, quite literally, sitting in the dark.

To put all those figures into perspective, a typical black coal-fired plant (1970's - 1990's) in NSW or Qld, and they were very efficient plants by world standards when built, produces around 0.9 tonnes per MWh. Even for the worst, it's still only around 1.1 tonnes per MWh but for the majority it's 0.9 or less.

For a new black coal-fired supercritical plant, such as Tarong North or Callide C in Queensland, these figures can be reduced down to around 0.8 tonnes / MWh. 

In theory we could do a lot better with brown coal too. Use it in an integrated gasification plant and it becomes a pretty good, efficient fuel. How clean depends on the actual technology, but we're talking 0.85 tonnes / MWh or less.

But here's the problem - to operate the existing plant at Hazelwood costs around $3 per MWh generated or $30 million a year (at 75% capacity factor) for the marginal costs. Even if you include the costs of building a mine in the first place (ie the price the coal would cost from a new mine rather than its production cost from an already developed mine), it's still only $75 million a year or thereabouts. 

Just building a new power station of the same size as Hazelwood using old technology (equivalent to Loy Yang) would cost upwards of $2.5 billion in order to cut maybe $10 million a year in operating costs. $10 million isn't a profitable return on a $2500 million investment... And it gets even worse financially to go high tech given that capital cost, not operation, accounts for the vast majority of total generation cost.

So that's the real problem economically. Until they are completely worn out, it's incredibly cheap to just keep running the existing brown coal plants. That is to the point that compared to the newer plants (Loy Yang) even hydro, which is the ultimate in low running cost generation, struggles to compete. Literally free water, even during a flood, is barely competitive against the highly mechanised brown coal operations!. Brown coal is a very, very cheap fuel.


----------



## noco

For years now we have had GLOBAL WARMING rammed down our necks from daylight to dark, particularly by Rudd and Wong who believed in fraudulent  modelling by dishonest scientists around the world. No matter what some 37,400  honest scientists proved them to be wrong, no matter what was revealed by CLIMATE GATE, no matter how Copenhagen became the dudd of the century, Rudd and Wong still believe in GLOBAL WARMING; many now call it CLIMATE CHANGE because it has been proven time and time again that the Globe is actually cooling.

Even as late as yesterday, Rudd was still sprouting about his children and his grandchildren missing out on seeing the Great Barrier Reef because it will be gone in a matter of a few years. Professor Peter Ridd from James Cook University in Townsville has studied the the reef for 25 years and has recently stated "it is bloody beautiful shape".

Adelaide has a heat wave of 40c for a couple of days and Rudd pushes his claim it is the result of GLOBAL WARMING.A day or two later Adelaide had a maximum temperature of 23c. The silence was deafening.

Whether its drought, floods, fire, cyclones, snow blizards or hail storms, Rudd and Wong will come out and try to substantiate claim of GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE which ever suits them. 

The ALARMIST will tell us if you are a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC, you are a "DO NOTHING" and you are  going let the world be destroyed.

Now I believe in CLIMATE CHANGE which is caused by natural phenomenons such as the SUN and and associated elements created by the Sun.

I do not believe in CLIMATE CHANGE being caused by CO2 emissions and the introduction of a massive ETS or CPRS tax on everything we buy or use will reduce  these CO2 emissions. 

If the Alarmist accuse me of being a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC are they insinuating that I do not believe in Climate change?

So am I a CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC, a DENIER or a BELIEVER?????????


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

*SEE BELOW FOR IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT*

We have had some very good rain here in Townsville over Christmas and New Year. Everyone is more optimistic. The birds are chirping even louder. The stingers are out from the creeks in the ocean feeding. The cattle are munching the grass.

All this talk of climate change is not borne out by my observations. There has been no significant change in climate in NQ in my lifetime.

The hysteria is generated by people with an interest in making a quid out of it such as Gore, Rudd and Wong.

I just wish I'd thought of it first. A quid is a quid imho. Good on them. Just don't expect me to toss any kopecks in their direction.

Fools and their money/time are easily parted.

Now I suspect that we are going to be hit by an asteroid and I am starting off a company called Blue Sky ReDirect NL. The asteroid will land at Nimbin  in 2017, August 8th actually. 

Anyone on ASF wishing to get in at sea level please send via bpay $1000 for foundation membership.

Al Gore is a foundation member, he told me last night if it goes as far as his last scam I'll be a billionaire by mid February.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

Just to illustrate the significance of the Victorian (ie not including SA) brown coal industry, here's some current (as at 12:40pm today) figures. 

Generated output - 6397 MW

That is 28.2% of present electricity consumption across the whole of Queensland, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA. 

Qld, NSW, ACT, Tas and SA are presently all obtaining some power from Victoria, figures as follows. (In Qld's case it is physically power from NSW. ie Vic feeds into NSW and NSW then feeds into Qld).

Figures as follows.

Used within Vic - 4931 MW
Vic export to NSW - 788 MW | NSW export to Qld - 160 MW
Vic export to Tas - 466 MW
Vic export to SA - 182 MW

Figures do not add due to transmission losses and rounding. 

Anyone who thinks brown coal is purely a Victorian issue is very, very wrong.


----------



## dbcok

2009 was South Australias hottest year on record.This took into account all weather recording stations in the state.
In Adelaide it was the second hottest on record ,but with other rural weather stations considered it was the hottest year recorded for the state.


----------



## ghotib

gg, noco, I would like to ask you both one question:

What does the term "global average temperature" mean?

Thanks.

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> gg, noco, I would like to ask you both one question:
> 
> What does the term "adjusted global average temperature" mean?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ghoti





Corrected for pertinence.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

ghotib said:


> gg, noco, I would like to ask you both one question:
> 
> What does the term "global average temperature" mean?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ghoti




Ok I'll have a go.

Global pertains to round, from the latin globus, a shpere, a ball.
Average comes from vera I believe , the truth or close to real.
Temperature comes from latin again, it means a true measure of originally , now means how ott or cold summat is.

So I guess it means an educated guess at how hot or cold a ball is or balls are.

Although all these measurements actually change that which is measured a mate of mine who is a physicist tells me. 

gg

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

don't change while I am in mid reply.

let me correct that, just stay as you are.

gg

adjusted means that we are not on hotcopper, we are well adjusted


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I believe you may be referring to this.

From the UK Met Office  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm



> "The latest forecast from our climate scientists shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6C above the 1961-90 long-term average," a Met Office statement said.
> 
> "This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860."
> 
> However it added: "A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.
> 
> "We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available."
> *
> The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia,* maintains one of the three global temperature records that is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).




gg


----------



## prozac

I recall one or two Christmases ago when Victoria was in the grip of bushfires, yes "in the grip" was a very big place to be according to the news, well being in the grip as it were then the day before xmas it started to snow! Now Europe is in the grip of it's coldest weather in a decade or more . . . what's Kevin doin' about that?


----------



## Boggo

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ok I'll have a go.
> 
> Global pertains to round, from the latin globus, a shpere, a ball.
> gg




Garpal ol chap, don't you be misleading us.
The earth is not round, it is in fact an oblate spheriod, but I know that you knew that 

On a serious note, below is the list of tax payer funded freeloaders that were in that little jolly to Copenhagen.
(too many for one page!)

H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd                            Prime Minister 
H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong                                  Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand                             Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. David Fredericks                                           Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Philip Green Oam                                         Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Andrew Charlton                                           Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Lachlan Harris                                               Senior Press Secretary Prime Minister’s Office Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Scott Dewar                                                   Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Clare Penrose                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Fiona Sugden                                               Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Lisa French                                                   Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Jeremy Hilman                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Tarah Barzanji                                              Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Kate Shaw                                                      Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gaile Barnes                                                 Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gordon de Brouwer                                     Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Patrick Suckling                                            First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Ms. Rebecca Christie                                         Prime Minister’s Office 
Mr. Michael Jones                                               Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Stephan Rudzki            
Mr. David Bell                                                       Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Ms. Kym Baillie                                                    Australian Federal Police 
Mr. David Champion                                           Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Matt Jebb                                                        Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Craig Kendall                                                Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Ian Lane                                                         Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations 
Mr. John Olenich                                                 Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Kristina Hickey                                              Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Mr. Martin Parkinson                                           Secretary Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Howard Bamsey                                           Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Robert Owen-Jones                                     Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Clare Walsh                                                  Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson                         Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak                                   Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kristin Tilley                                                   Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Andrew Ure                                                    Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Annemarie Watt                                           Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kushla Munro                                               Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley                           Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Anitra Cowan                                                Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Sally Truong                                                  Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jane Wilkinson                                             Assistant Director Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey Mackay                                             Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Laura Brown                                                 Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey                                   Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Nicola Loffler                                                 Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tamara Curll                                                 Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jessica Allen                                                 Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Sanjiva de Silva                                            Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Gaia Puleston                                               Political Adviser Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Penelope Jane Morton                               Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt                                  Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Amanda Walker                                           Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Alan David Lee                                             Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Erika Kate Oord                                            Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough                        Communications Manager


----------



## Boggo

and here is the rest of them...

H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan                                   Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Feeney                                                 Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham                  Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany 
Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper                            Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Ms. Rachael Grivas                                             Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Moya Elyn Collett                                                Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Rob Law                                                         Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Robin Davies                                                 Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Deborah Fulton                                            Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn                  Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Brian Dawson                                                Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke                                   Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Mr. Bruce Wilson                                                 General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Ms. Jill McCarthy                                                 Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism 
Mr. Simon French                                                Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe                                     Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. David Walland                                              Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology 
Mr. Damien Dunn                                                Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury 
Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman                               Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships 
Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport                                Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Mr. Graham Julian Levitt                                    Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones                                     Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael William Dart                                    Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government 
Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien                Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael David Rann                                    Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter                                    Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Mr. Paul David Flanagan                                   Manager, Communications Government of South Australia 
Mr. Timothy William O’Loughlin                        Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government 
Ms. Nyla Sarwar                                                  M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford 
Mr. Gavin Jennings                                             Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government 
Ms. Sarah Broadbent                                          Sustainability Adviser 
Ms. Rebecca Falkingham                                  Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change 
Mr. Simon Camroux                                            Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited 
Mr. Geoff Lake                                                      Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Tegan Brink                                                   Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh                                 Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Lauren Henschke                                        Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Maree Fay                                                     Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia McKinnon                                        Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Eugene Olim                                                        Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Belinda Lee Adams                                     
Ms. Jacqui Ashworth                                           Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia Smith                                                Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Martin Bo Jensen                                          Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Mauro Kolobaric                                           Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Susan Flanagan                                           Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Stephen Kanaridis                                        IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. George Reid                                                  Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Ashley Wright                                               Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Jodie Littlewood                                           Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Thomas Millhouse                                        Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Timothy Whittley                                           Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Thomson                                              Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Donald Frater                                                Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Jacqui Smith                                                 Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Greg French                                                   Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Jeremy Hillman                                             Advisor PMO

Mr Brian Samuels                                               To keep the Bastards honest and enjoy the free wining and dining


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I trust they gave out free condoms. I know some of that mob.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I trust they gave out free condoms. I know some of that mob.
> 
> gg




Perhaps penicillin would be more appropriate.


----------



## Smurf1976

As I've often noted on these climate change threads, cutting CO2 emissions will come at a HUGE price to the natural environment in other ways.

Now today I hear of the plan to export wood pellets from Tasmania to Europe to replace coal in power stations as a means of reducing CO2 emissions.

Now, it sounds reasonably sensible to use a bit of waste wood rather than coal. But once you realise that we're talking about figures rounded to the nearest _million_ tonnes, you realise that "waste" in this context will mean the same thing it means in the context of logging for woodchips - and that's just about every tree that can be found.

So, we started out with about 1.2 million tonnes a year running 3 integrated pulp / paper mills plus a fourth mill that was pulp only. 

Then we started exporting what was at that time genuine waste, that would otherwise be left to rot, as woodchips.

Then we started burning another 600,000 tonnes a year heating houses to save the Franklin. Then we choked on the smoke and started the switch to electric heating that should have happened in the first place. 

Then we started winding down the pulp industry because the Greens didn't want a new mill at Wesley Vale, right next door to the existing pulp and paper mill, to replace the aging Wesley Vale and Burnie mills. Port Huon mill closed in 1991, Burnie pulp mill in 1998 and the old mill (the only one) at Wesley Vale plus the paper section of the Burnie mill is about to close in a couple of months. Only the Boyer mill survives - meanwhile we export millions of tonnes of woodchips and Australia spends a fortune on imported paper made from Indonesian rainforests. 

Faced with this, the industry ramped up woodchipping to ridiculous levels - 6 million tonnes a year. Years of protests but still it continued.

Then the Greens whinged about importing power from Victoria, the only option left when everything else is opposed and the lights very nearly did go out.

Then we got a plan for a new pulp mill, another attempt at replacing the old. This time it was to be at Bell Bay, a heavy industrial site which already has a  port, an aluminium smelter, ferro alloy smelter, power stations, aluminium powder plant, transmission lines everywhere, the Vic - Tas power interconnect infrastructure, a lot of oil tanks, two woodchip mills, a fibreboard factory and is the receiving point for all gas entering the state. It used to have a wheel casting factory as well. But apparently, according to the Greens and their ilk, Bell Bay is the wrong place for heavy industry. Another factory would spoil the "clean" environment in the area they say. And so we've had 5 years of bitter argument about that pulp mill with some very limited construction actually happening but no certainty that it will ever proceed.

And now here's the one to make every dam, mill and logging operation in the state look decidedly eco-friendly in comparison. Yep, we might be exporting wood pellets as fuel to cut CO2 emissions in Europe. No big deal? It is once you realise that they apparently want 17 million tonnes of the stuff every year and are looking to Tassie to supply the wood.

All up, it's a truly sad and sorry saga the whole thing over the past 30 years. A couple more dams and keeping the paper mills running and all would have been not green, but a hell of a lot better than clearfelling the whole state as we now seem set to do.

As a keen bushwalker myself, these Kyoto, Copenhagen, Green or whatever you want to call them vandals can go stick it as far as I'm concerned. This ain't conservation, this is outright wrecking the environment for the sake of an unproven Green agenda.  

How about these clowns stop messing about with CO2, stop protesting every single investment proposal in Tasmania that would actually make something here rather than just exporting wood at low prices, and instead start worrying about what's actually happening to the environment?

What about the pulp mill that's near the Murray well upstream of Adelaide's water supply? Isn't that a bigger concern than one in a heavy industrial region by the coast in Tas? Never hear anything said about that one...

What about taking a rational long term approach to CO2 instead of pretending it's so urgent that we've got to clearfell, dam and nuke the planet to cut emissions because it can't wait another 10 - 20 years for geothermal, wind etc?

What about considering just how much wood we're cutting as a direct result of their own past policies? And how many people it's put out of work in the mills as well?

Rant over but NOT happy with the way this nonsense is heading. Maybe I'd better get a tree or two and build a museum to put them in... (Well maybe not, no doubt someone will find an endangered something or other on the site of my museum, the bricks will be the wrong colour, there will be too much glass, the building will be too tall or there will be something else they'll find wrong with it).

There are real problems with the environment and burning wood to generate power isn't going to help. That burning wood wrecked the environment and trees started to run out is in fact why the coal industry emerged in the first place...


----------



## wayneL

Thanks Smurf, an excellent and logical rant.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Thanks Smurf, an excellent and logical rant.




Yes, as always from Smurf who combines knowledge with common sense.
Thanks, Smurf.


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> gg, noco, I would like to ask you both one question:
> 
> What does the term "global average temperature" mean?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ghoti




You can educate yourself if you go to Google, punch in "global average temperature". I'm sure you will learn all you need to know. Hope this helps!


----------



## noirua

Rudd & Co are committed to the green lobby and to coal and oil at the same time.  Therefore it will be coal and oil that will pay for all the green technology going forward, in the form of higher State royalties and new Federal taxes.


----------



## wayneL

A letter sent from Lord Monckton to Dear Leader

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/

Comments please.


----------



## Agentm

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.


lol

nice stuff

the food riots that no one wants to discuss, they are an interesting topic also


----------



## bunyip

dbcok said:


> 2009 was South Australias hottest year on record.This took into account all weather recording stations in the state.
> In Adelaide it was the second hottest on record ,but with other rural weather stations considered it was the hottest year recorded for the state.





And Washington had its lowest temperature ever recorded just a couple of weeks ago. Many other US and European centres came very close to setting new record lows.
Parts of Britain had record rainfalls last year.

My area in south east Queensland had its hottest winter day on record in August last year - 35 degrees.
Two years earlier we had two days in July that both set new record lows.
Sixty or seventy years ago there was snow in two Queensland towns on the Tropic Of Capricorn.

So what does all this prove? *Nothing. Absolutely nothing!*

The extreme weather events of today have been happening for thousands of years, and are _*not *_evidence of man made global warming or anything else. They're just natural, normal events in the ever-changing climatic cycle.

Anyone with half an ounce of common sense will realise that in the last several thousand years there will have been many hotter and colder and drier and wetter days/years, and bigger cyclones and earthquakes and tsunamis than any we've seen since records began.

Ocean levels are rising, and sometimes falling too, and none of the mob who are shouting 'man made global warming' are honest enough to admit that part of the reason is that billions of tons of dirt are deposited into the oceans year after year through wind and water erosion.

Rudd and Wong are money-hungry liars who are deliberately misleading the Australian people.
They're pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible. The more sensible people can see straight through them.


----------



## lasty

Rudd and Wong have gone very quiet.
Rudd has resorted to write a childrens book about a cat and a dog.
He just can't get the climate off his mind


----------



## wayneL

lasty said:


> Rudd and Wong have gone very quiet.
> Rudd has resorted to write a childrens book about a cat and a dog.
> He just can't get the climate off his mind




Don't for a minute think they are defeated. They are just reworking the propaganda. Expect an onslaught of BS at any moment. 

The Fabians are on a roll and they won't toss in the white towel so easily.


----------



## dbcok

bunyip said:


> And Washington had its lowest temperature ever recorded just a couple of weeks ago. Many other US and European centres came very close to setting new record lows.
> Parts of Britain had record rainfalls last year.
> 
> My area in south east Queensland had its hottest winter day on record in August last year - 35 degrees.
> Two years earlier we had two days in July that both set new record lows.
> Sixty or seventy years ago there was snow in two Queensland towns on the Tropic Of Capricorn.
> 
> So what does all this prove? *Nothing. Absolutely nothing!*
> 
> The extreme weather events of today have been happening for thousands of years, and are _*not *_evidence of man made global warming or anything else. They're just natural, normal events in the ever-changing climatic cycle.
> 
> Anyone with half an ounce of common sense will realise that in the last several thousand years there will have been many hotter and colder and drier and wetter days/years, and bigger cyclones and earthquakes and tsunamis than any we've seen since records began.
> 
> Ocean levels are rising, and sometimes falling too, and none of the mob who are shouting 'man made global warming' are honest enough to admit that part of the reason is that billions of tons of dirt are deposited into the oceans year after year through wind and water erosion.
> 
> Rudd and Wong are money-hungry liars who are deliberately misleading the Australian people.
> They're pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible. The more sensible people can see straight through them.




I only made a statement of fact without comment.Why the strong reaction?There are some that you let go through to the keeper.
Why call people liars from afar...it reflects badly on your character!


----------



## wayneL

dbcok said:


> Why call people liars from afar...it reflects badly on your character!




Even if it's true?


----------



## bunyip

dbcok said:


> I only made a statement of fact without comment.Why the strong reaction?There are some that you let go through to the keeper.
> Why call people liars from afar...it reflects badly on your character!




I assumed you were implying that the South Australian heatwave was the product of climate change. Happy to concede that I may have been wrong there. No apology though, as my response was forthright and factual, but not abusive.

It might help people to see what your views are if you were to add some comment to the facts you present.

Rudd's dishonesty is glaringly obvious to anyone with the ability to think clearly. I haven't forgotten him standing in front of a dried out lake bed somewhere in outback NSW, with the carcass of a dead cow behind him, looking straight at the camera with that _'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth'_ look on his face, and declaring that the scene behind him was proof of man made climate change.
On at least half a dozen occasions since then he has lied publicly by making statements such as_ 'The Victorian bushfires and heatwave are proof of made man global warming'._

Being forthright in calling the man a liar does not reflect poorly on my or anyone else's character. But Rudd's continued lies to the Australian public certainly reflect poorly on his.


----------



## Zird

NASA quote that the 10 most warmest years of the planet since recording started were in the last 12 years.

Is this significant or an anomaly?


----------



## bunyip

Zird said:


> NASA quote that the 10 most warmest years of the planet since recording started were in the last 12 years.
> 
> Is this significant or an anomaly?




Records began only a few hundred years ago - a miniscule amount of time in the overall context of things.
I doubt if there's any significance in the last ten or twelve years being the warmest on record.
Ten or twenty or fifty or eighty years from now we may well go through a decade of the coolest years ever recorded.


----------



## noirua

Lowest temperatures recorded in the USA and Canada show that the last lowest temperature recorded was back in 1999 in Congerite at -36 deg F (-37.7 deg C), for a State low. 
Lowest ever temperatures were at Snag, Yukon, Canada at -81.4 deg F (-63 deg C) on 3/2/1947 and at Northern Alaska at -79.8 deg F (-62.1 deg C) on 23/1/1971.
Siberia's lowest recorded at -90 deg F (-68 deg C)

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm


----------



## noirua

Highest temperature recorded in the USA and Canada.  Interesting that Colorado's highest temperature at 118 deg F (47.8 deg C) was recorded way back in 1888. Highest ever recorded at Death Valley in California at 134 deg F (56.6 deg C) on 7/10/1913.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wheat7.htm


----------



## Julia

dbcok said:


> I only made a statement of fact without comment.Why the strong reaction?There are some that you let go through to the keeper.
> Why call people liars from afar...it reflects badly on your character!



Huh?   How does a factual statement reflect badly on Bunyip's character, for heaven's sake?  What a peculiar thing to say.


----------



## Temjin

Smurf1976 said:


> What about taking a rational long term approach to CO2 instead of pretending it's so urgent that we've got to clearfell, dam and nuke the planet to cut emissions because it can't wait another 10 - 20 years for geothermal, wind etc?




Thanks Smurf, that's the same argument I have been using in every climate change argument. No one bothers to listen and argues we will all die within 20 years. 

The capitalist market (as much as some uninformed people hates), will eventually provide the solutions to all our unsustainable technologies that MAY BE hurting the planet with pollutants. Technologies will eventually catch up where it may be far more economically and environmentally superior to use it over existing unsustainable ones.

All these carbon-tax scams to transfer the wealth of the taxpayers to the government/big businesses is anti-free-market and will just hinder the innovation process.


----------



## dbcok

Julia said:


> Huh?   How does a factual statement reflect badly on Bunyip's character, for heaven's sake?  What a peculiar thing to say.




Where I come from if you are going to call people liars or cowards as some do on this forum-you do it up close and personal-giving the recipient a chance to respond in person.
However on these forums some come to definitive conclusion and use the internet to accuse people on matters which,in the very least,are contentious.
You see if you are unwilling to do it in person,do not do it from afar.
I bet that you do not understand that Julia!


----------



## wayneL

dbcok said:


> Where I come from if you are going to call people liars or cowards as some do on this forum-you do it up close and personal-giving the recipient a chance to respond in person.
> However on these forums some come to definitive conclusion and use the internet to accuse people on matters which,in the very least,are contentious.
> You see if you are unwilling to do it in person,do not do it from afar.
> I bet that you do not understand that Julia!




Whoa there Sapphire!

As far as I can see, the only people referred to as liars from afar are politicians, bureaucrats, and VI scientists. These people have pretty conclusively been outed as liars at least part of the time.

Your final comment therefore, is totally out of order and treading the raggedy edge of personal abuse.

In fact, Herr Rudd himself is quite capable of accusing people of all sorts of unsubstantiated villainy. Need there be any better example of KRudd's unjustified and unjustifiable castigation of Lord Monckton in public, to which he doesn't even have the basic manners and good grace to respond to Monckton's refutations?

PFFFFT!!  

A disgraceful double standard there I feel!


----------



## Julia

dbcok said:


> Where I come from if you are going to call people liars or cowards as some do on this forum-you do it up close and personal-giving the recipient a chance to respond in person.
> However on these forums some come to definitive conclusion and use the internet to accuse people on matters which,in the very least,are contentious.
> You see if you are unwilling to do it in person,do not do it from afar.
> I bet that you do not understand that Julia!



It was you who cast aspersions on Bunyip's character, with no discernible reason as far as I can see, so maybe take your own advice.


----------



## Buddy

What would have happened if Jokenhagen was "successful"?

So, assuming the developed countries committed to reducing their emissions by 30% by 2020. That only accounts for about half of the world's emissions..... the other half being from the developing nations..... who were due to get a free get out of jail card.

That means that world CO2 levels would go from around 388ppm to 406ppm by 2020. If it were business as usual, we add around 2ppm per year, leading to a value in 2020 of 408ppm.

Now if you look at the temperature change due to that increase in CO2, you get (using IPCC formula) a delta T of 0.29 degrees for business as usual versus 0.27 degrees had Hopenhagen been successful. So for all the pain it would inflict you get a change of 0.02 degrees (theoretical). You can extrapolate this out to 50 or 100 years if you like but you get much the same comparative result.

So, 0.02 degrees change, from doing nothing! Of course a (very) few people would have become extremely rich from the outcome and there would be a lot more bureaucrats running your lives. Oh, and krudd would probably have become ruler of the world. 

Imagine if all the effort of Dopenhagen went into solving some real problems, like real pollution, correcting bad land management practices, water quality improvement, peak oil ........ the list goes on.

I for one am glad Crapenhagen failed. Now, how about solving some real problems.


----------



## bunyip

dbcok said:


> Where I come from if you are going to call people liars or cowards as some do on this forum-you do it up close and personal-giving the recipient a chance to respond in person.




Well ol' son, I can assure you I have no intention of flying from QLD down to Canberra just so I can see Rudd in person and give him a piece of my mind.
However, if he ever happens to visit my area and I have the chance to speak to him face to face, I won't hesitate to tell him exactly what I think of him.

If you want to cast doubt on someone's character, then look no further than Kevin Rudd......it's him, not me, who continues to publicly display a lack of honesty and integrity.

If Rudd continues to be blatantly dishonest with the Australian public then I and others will keep pointing out that he's a liar. 
And if that doesn't suit you - tough luck!


----------



## Mr J

dbcok said:


> You see if you are unwilling to do it in person,do not do it from afar.




What makes you think that we wouldn't say it to Rudd's face? Sounds like you're assuming that we're cowards, and breaking your own rule.


----------



## noirua

Some posts on this thread appear more than a little illaqueate or dare I say it, a touch of callithumpian disc-ordination and maybe dollydaw, indeed.


----------



## bunyip

Especially for Kevin Rudd and Al Gore and all those who are allowing themselves to be duped by them......

PROOF OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!


----------



## Agentm

Get ready for a cool three months

Long-range forecaster tips below-average temperatures for next three months.


----------



## wayneL

On the 6 o'clock news:

Himalayas glaciers won't be gone in 25 years after all. Apparently this oft quoted assertion (including by the IPCC) is the result of a typo. It was the work of some obscure Indian researcher who extrapolated the current and concluded that the glaciers might disappear by 2350...

...but some muppet transposed it as 2035 and it was never picked up.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the quality of science relied upon by the IPCC.


----------



## bunyip

Extreme weather conditions are still playing out in Australia and around the world. 
January 2010 is unfolding as the coolest January on record for the south east corner of Queensland, with many days of well below normal temperatures. Today's 5 degrees near Stanthorpe was the coldest January day ever recorded in the south east region.

Global cooling?


----------



## bunyip

Agentm said:


> Get ready for a cool three months
> 
> Long-range forecaster tips below-average temperatures for next three months.




Sounds pretty good to me.....a nice cool autumn coming up. 
It's the hot weather that I hate.


----------



## Happy

Every warmer day is heralded as proof that we are in a grip of severe GLOBAL WARMING, that only heavy K Rudd style Warming Tax is only chance for us to survive.

While every well below average temperature is reported as unimportant and insignificant freak of the nature.

It would be funny if it wasn’t scary.


----------



## Wysiwyg

bunyip said:


> Extreme weather conditions are still playing out in Australia and around the world.
> January 2010 is unfolding as the coolest January on record for the south east corner of Queensland, with many days of well below normal temperatures. Today's 5 degrees near Stanthorpe was the coldest January day ever recorded in the south east region.
> 
> Global cooling?



What's the go there? From an average low of 16.3 ° C  down to a low of 7 ° C in one day. If the daily low temperature is back to average 16 ° C tomorrow I would suggest the unusual reading is inaccurate. Not April fools day yet.


----------



## Julia

bunyip said:


> Extreme weather conditions are still playing out in Australia and around the world.
> January 2010 is unfolding as the coolest January on record for the south east corner of Queensland, with many days of well below normal temperatures. Today's 5 degrees near Stanthorpe was the coldest January day ever recorded in the south east region.
> 
> Global cooling?



Doesn't apply to the coast as far as I can see.  It has been a pretty average summer here, certainly not any cold days.  Most days are around 31, overnight about 22, with little variation other than a couple of days of 33, today included.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Agentm said:


> Get ready for a cool three months
> 
> Long-range forecaster tips below-average temperatures for next three months.




lol 

or

Below-average forecaster tips long-range temperatures for next three months.

gg


----------



## Nyden

Well, a few days ago here in Melbourne - we had a rather chilly night, and I actually had to wear a sweater to bed! Some Summer this has turned out to be. We've had maybe 4 beach-worthy days. 

Global warming my foot.


----------



## bunyip

Wysiwyg said:


> What's the go there? From an average low of 16.3 ° C  down to a low of 7 ° C in one day. If the daily low temperature is back to average 16 ° C tomorrow I would suggest the unusual reading is inaccurate. Not April fools day yet.




Yesterdays 5 degrees at Stanthorpe is quite believable for those of us who live in this area and know what Stanthorpe is capable of. I live about two hours from Stanthorpe - yesterday at 4.30am I went for my usual morning walk and I can tell you it was damned cold, certainly felt like well below 10 degrees (and we're normally a good five degrees warmer than Stanthorpe.) 
I went out in light clothes as usual and had to walk like hell to try and warm up. My hands were still half frozen even when I did warm up after ten minutes of hard walking.
It was merely a sudden cold snap due to the air coming in from the desert to the west of us. The previous day we had just under 35 on a westerly wind. Typical of what happens out in the desert country, a very cold night followed the hottish day due to the fact that the westerly wind kept blowing ever so slightly through the night.
I've experienced this very same weather pattern at Alice Springs even in summer....a cold night after a hot day. We got a taste of it here yesterday, courtesy of the westerly wind that brought the weather system in to us from Central Australia.

I couldn't resist having a dig at the global warming fanatics by suggesting that the cold snap is a sign of global cooling! 
Any weather event, no matter how extreme, is simply a case of history repeating itself. It's all happened hundreds or thousands of times before...we just weren't around to witness it.


----------



## Wysiwyg

bunyip said:


> It's all happened hundreds or thousands of times before...we just weren't around to witness it.




Today the B.O.M. recorded a low today of 7.5 ° C. in Stanthorpe following on from yesterday's 7 ° C. so a cold snap it most certainly is.


----------



## bunyip

Wysiwyg said:


> Today the B.O.M. recorded a low today of 7.5 ° C. in Stanthorpe following on from yesterday's 7 ° C. so a cold snap it most certainly is.




Our weather program here reported 5 degrees yesterday for Applethorpe, near Stanthorpe. I notice that Applethorpe is usually the coldest place in QLD so I guess it could well have been a couple of degrees below Stanthorpe.
Tonight is pretty chilly here too, well below normal.

A relative of mine is driving out to Alice Springs tomorrow - will arrive on the weekend after a four day drive. I've suggested plenty of warm clothes, even though it will be hot during the day.
I've never forgotten the night we camped in the desert about three hundred km east of Alice.
The day had been warm to hot but we damn near froze that night.


----------



## noirua

In the last 6 weeks we've had about 12 days of snow and several with driving and swirling winds. Following this was 3 days of continuous rain and sleet. The sky has remained grey to dark grey with only one day of sun. Temperatures between minus 8c and plus 6c.
My relatives in Canada are not impressed as temperatures there have hit minus 27c.
Never mind though, as it kills off the bugs for next season and a lot of other nasty little creatures.

I believe climate change is affected more by spraying of crops than all the cars in the world. The second worse pollutant, and I can't remember many marches by Greenpeace, up and down the rows of cabbages and carrots etc.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Average temperature in Townsville varied 26-34 over the last week.

A cyclone is now to the north, closer to Cairns/Port Douglas.

All not unusual for this time of year.

Goreballs continue to be emitted from the wwweatherisnotweather lobby.

Again not unusual.

When will this silliness all end.

At least I can admit when I'm going troppo.

The Warmeners cannot.

gg

gg


----------



## Mickel

A Turnaround on Climate Change

IMO a fairly accurate description of the state of play at present from the ABC's 'The Drum' today.

Unfortunately, their conclusion is not good news-

"Where to from here? It seems inconceivable that global warming as a scare will abruptly go the way of Y2K.

This is because the research grants, taxpayer subsidies to renewables, public statements by political leaders and long lags before there can be certainty about the degree of warming that might take place. At the same time there will be no international emission restraint on the scale necessary to stabilise existing global levels of CO2.

But the vested interests promoting wasteful expenditures are well established. The impetus created by over a decade of poor policy is too strong to allow the sort of "peace dividend" like that which came with the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Instead we are likely to see only a gradual reversal of the wasteful abatement expenditures and investment risk measures set in train by the IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming."


Link http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2832420.htm


----------



## Mickel

'The Brave New World of Carbon Trading'

A paper by former CSIRO scientist Professor Clive L. Splash which the Government tried to muzzle.

The conclusion-

The billions of dollars now being generated in trading carbon and offsets has created a powerful institutional structure which has many vested interests whose opportunities for making money rely on maintaining GHG emissions, not reducing them. The transaction costs inherent in these markets are actually being seen as a source of economic growth rather than a deadweight loss to society. Once created, how politicians will cut the market by 80 percent””even within the 40 years they are allowing themselves””is hard to imagine. After all, the reason for emissions trading is that corporations and the technostructure proved too powerful for the political process to establish a tax or direct regulation in the first place.

The framing of the whole issue of human induced climate change is highly important to how it is addressed. There seem two opposing characterisations. On the one hand, financiers, bankers and major polluters argue we must bravely face the new opportunity for markets to innovatively show how the most intangible of objects can be bought and sold, reaping vast financial gains and stimulating economic growth. On the other hand, society can realise that ever increasing material throughput based upon fossil fuels has led to serious environmental problems, and failed to address social inequity, so that a change in economic structure, institutions and behaviour is now necessary. Clearly the former is dominant and perhaps we must await a financial emissions trading crisis and increasing environmental disasters to reverse that situation.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the drug ‘soma’ offered inhabitants of a future Earth the means to distract themselves from addressing life’s problems while supporting the established social and economic order in the promotion of happiness through hedonic pleasures. Today emissions trading promises a painless way to avoid human induced climate change which will leave the growth economy unaffected in its pursuit of happiness through materialism. The reader is left to judge illusion from reality and the desirability of the society created.

Link - http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19114/1/MPRA_paper_19114.pdf


----------



## Julia

Dr Splash is no longer working for the CSIRO, having resigned in protest at his muzzling.

So Australia loses another valuable scientist because he failed to toe the political line.


----------



## Mofra

Using "hysteria" in the thread title (sadly) turned out to be very accurate.

http://www.news.com.au/world/family-massacred-over-global-warming-fears/story-e6frfkyi-1225835900133



> A BABY girl survived three days with a bullet in her chest as she lay alone beside the dead bodies of her parents and toddler brother in Argentina.
> 
> The Daily Mail reported Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their seven-month-old daughter and two-year-old son before killing themselves.
> 
> The pair allegedly agreed to a suicide pact over fears about global warming.




I still think any form of fundamentalism is dangerous...


----------



## ghotib

Which political line do you suggest Dr Spash failed to toe?


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Which political line do you suggest Dr Spash failed to toe?




You don't think a CTS is the epitome of politics?

You don't think _ipso facto_ mandatory support of CTS is having to toe the political line?


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> You don't think a CTS is the epitome of politics?
> 
> You don't think _ipso facto_ mandatory support of CTS is having to toe the political line?



I think banging your head against a brick wall is very probably hysterical 

Julia called Dr Spash a valuable scientist. That suggested to me that she was thinking his work is about climate science, which further suggested that the political line she meant is something to do with the physical climate. That's why I asked the question. 

Julia??


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I think banging your head against a brick wall is very probably hysterical




By strange coincidence, I banged my head against a fence rail this morning.

My buddy thought it was hysterical.

I didn't.


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> Which political line do you suggest Dr Spash failed to toe?






wayneL said:


> You don't think a CTS is the epitome of politics?
> 
> You don't think _ipso facto_ mandatory support of CTS is having to toe the political line?



Ghoti, Wayne's comment pretty much covers it.   In a radio interview I heard with Dr Splash he was expressing his disquiet that because at least some of his thoughts did not align with the fervour of the government about global warming/climate change and from my now vague memory I think he was against the ETS (which seems now to be the position of most of the world) his paper was suppressed or cut or whatever.  I simply can't remember now.

Neither do I have any interest in becoming involved in discussion about this whole fraught subject which seems to be slipping from the global radar anyway.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver

Well I'd have to say I'm fairly moderate about climate change. I agree with a couple of the posters on here though that prevention is much better than cure.

I've come to realize though that what is the point of trying to control the actions of others? Just like Copenhagen, when a group of people with diverse views on the subject try to come to compromise it's almost impossible to agree on anything.

So I can only do, over what I control.

I have solar panels on my house in (mostly) sunny QLD.
I have a water tank (which is plumbed to our toilets and washing machine)
I have about 1800 m2 of forest as a "carbon sink".

I've put an order in for two cars from MDI in France -When they move into full scale production. (the one I want is at 36 seconds in the vid below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ttEYhiRAjo

Having said that (which makes me sound quite green), it only makes sense to me.

I have solar panels = I save on electricity costs
I have a water tank = I save on water costs
I have 1800 m2 of forest that is allowed to grow = I love my restful and peaceful block of land (except for the occasional damned Kookaburra that wakes me at 5am).
I'll buy an MDI car = because I'd like to be able to travel 1500km on two litres of petrol and laugh at Garpal when he puts $100 a week into the Arnage.

It's only when Green is *more* economical than other methods will they be adopted by the majority - because most people (and countries) think with their wallets. Depressing but true.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Knobby22

True Sir Osisflivor

It is also human nature to not act until it is almost too late or too late.
All through history this has happened - from Easter Island, Incans, etc.

I know mankind will act but not too we feel the pressure of a gun on our head.

I think the heat is out of the argument because the moderates are resigned to the inevitable and sick of reading conspiracy theories.

We had a famous climate change denier here from England recently and he appeared on every type of press there is and lied about many things and the reporters didn't find out the truth for days later, and at that stage it is stale news and he has achieved his aims.

It all came out on Media Watch a week later but who watches that except rabble rousers and malcontents?

Que Sera Sera.


----------



## Mofra

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Well I'd have to say I'm fairly moderate about climate change. I agree with a couple of the posters on here though that prevention is much better than cure.



That in itself is debatable; the book "Freakonomics" cites a possible solution of emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that would cost (dollar values from a few years ago) US$150m then US$100m pa to maintain. 

Any international ETS will cost billions, as well as have a massive impact on the world's poor (cost of food increases as farmers change crop from food production to alternate fuel sources such as maize for ethanol production). 

The human costs of "prevention" never seem to be considered.


----------



## derty

I find the "OMG the last week is so hot the world really is heating up" and the "FFS this summer is really cold! Global warming my ar$e" brigades infuriating. 

I noticed on the previous page of posts quite a several comments about how cold it is etc etc. And thought I would just check the monthly averages for the areas mentioned to see how the summer went. It was quite interesting. FYI. 



bunyip said:


> Extreme weather conditions are still playing out in Australia and around the world.
> January 2010 is unfolding as the coolest January on record for the south east corner of Queensland, with many days of well below normal temperatures. Today's 5 degrees near Stanthorpe was the coldest January day ever recorded in the south east region.
> 
> Global cooling?






Nyden said:


> Well, a few days ago here in Melbourne - we had a rather chilly night, and I actually had to wear a sweater to bed! Some Summer this has turned out to be. We've had maybe 4 beach-worthy days.
> 
> Global warming my foot.




Here are the deviations in monthly average minimums and maximums for the last 3 months in degrees Celsius.

Stanthorpe, deviation from monthly averages (1873-2008):

Dec 09   min +1.9   max +1.1
Jan 10   min    0.0   max +1.5
Feb 10   min +0.9   max -0.6

Melbourne, deviation from monthly averages (1855-2008):

Dec 09   min +1.8   max +1.7
Jan 10   min  +1.6   max +1.6
Feb 10   min +3.6   max +2.4

I'm in Kalgoorlie and it certainly hasn't felt like a cool summer here so the results were not too surprising.

Kalgoorlie, deviation from monthly averages (1943-2008):

Dec 09   min +1.9   max +1.6
Jan 10   min  +1.6   max +2.9
Feb 10   min +2.0   max +3.4

It doesn't really make sense to take a days, a weeks or even a seasons weather and make extrapolations. Though so many still feel the need to to get that little dig in for their side.


----------



## gav

Sir Osisofliver said:


> It's only when Green is *more* economical than other methods will they be adopted by the majority - because most people (and countries) think with their wallets. Depressing but true.




What do you expect?  If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house.  Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.

I was considering getting a water tank.  However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees.  It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.

Same goes with solar panels.  You use energy generated from the solar panels during the day and any excess is fed back into the grid, which you get paid bugger all for.  You then have to pay the maximum rate to use power from the grid at night.  You then have to pay for the maintenance of the solar panels.

My hippy g/f might not think it matters that it costs so much more.  But I certainly do.  Maybe she can buy those things when she finishes uni


----------



## Mr J

derty said:


> I noticed on the previous page of posts quite a several comments about how cold it is etc etc.




Bunyip's comment about global cooling seems tongue in cheek, and Nyden just seems to be annoyed at the lack of a decent summer . I don't think either were seriously suggesting that a day or a season were proper evidence against the hypothesis of global warming.


----------



## derty

Mr J said:


> Bunyip's comment about global cooling seems tongue in cheek, and Nyden just seems to be annoyed at the lack of a decent summer . I don't think either were seriously suggesting that a day or a season were proper evidence against the hypothesis of global warming.



It is just something that gets up my nose. I just grabbed those two posts as they were recent and mentioned a location that I could check and I did not look too much into the between-the-lines sentiment. Apologies for the spotlight Bunyip and Nyden and thank you for being the subjects in my little demonstration.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver

gav said:


> What do you expect?  If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house.  Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.
> 
> I was considering getting a water tank.  However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees.  It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.




Hey Gav - I'd just like to preface this by saying...I'm not having a go.

What you're saying Gav is exactly the same as a lot of people will say..the vast majority, thinking with the wallet... but that sort of thinking is short-term thinking. What advantage do I get _now_. 

Do you plan to have kids? (trust me teenage girls spend an appreciable percentage of their life in the bathroom) Do you plan to put in a pool in some stage over the next x years you live in that house? Do you have a vege patch? Intend to buy your future son or daughter a pony? Etc Etc Etc. Your water needs and the cost of water will change in the future.

Do you think you will regret not making that purchase in the future?







> Same goes with solar panels.  You use energy generated from the solar panels during the day and any excess is fed back into the grid, which you get paid bugger all for.  You then have to pay the maximum rate to use power from the grid at night.  You then have to pay for the maintenance of the solar panels.




The cost/benefit of Solar panels depends on how long you intend to keep the house. I don't intend to ever sell the house I live in (although I may get bored in ten years or so and move away) so I understand that they may not be economic for everyone, but once again - electricity will get more expensive not less, regardless of whether I produce at offpeak times and use a greater proportion during peak times. 







> My hippy g/f might not think it matters that it costs so much more.  But I certainly do.  Maybe she can buy those things when she finishes uni




I notice you didn't mention the car however? Is that because a car that costs $1.50 to fill the tank _isn't_ attractive because it hasn't got enough machismo or whatever it is you look for in a car?

The economics of *that* car aren't hard to work out. It'll cost almost nothing to run the vehicle, only servicing and maintenance costs. Can't wait to get one. (The wife is even trying to convince me to go to France and ship one back - but I think she just wants to go to France on Holiday).

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## GumbyLearner

gav said:


> What do you expect?  If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house.  Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.
> 
> I was considering getting a water tank.  However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees.  It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.




I do remember the bad old days in the 80's where certain city councils in Melbourne would fine you for installing a water tank in your backyard.  These days you get a rebate.  Those with the foresight to see the potential for drought were unfairly usurped and punished. Bloody bureaucrats.

I'm inclined to agree with you gav. A lot of the proposals we hear today are based on a flawed deonotological premise. If you are not mega-wealthy, you don't have a right to financially adapt or exist for that matter because the so-called "cleaner" technologies are too expensive for most.     

Just my


----------



## Julia

gav said:


> What do you expect?  If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house.  Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.



And there's nothing wrong with that argument.  Too easy for people to make critical sounding noises about others just "thinking through their wallets".
We have a substantial number of Australians who are already struggling to live a basic life.  It's pretty hard to see why they should be further penalised by a poorly thought out scheme which no one has actually demonstrated will have any effect on climate anyway.
People are rightly seeing that the political imperatives were/are much greater than any green considerations.  Just note how the government has now relegated further discussion of the ETS to May or later.  Ditto the global situation.
Mr Rudd a few months ago said climate change was the "greatest moral challenge of our time".  Really?  It seems that this great moral challenge, following the humiliating fiasco that was Copenhagen, has been superseded by Mr Rudd's more recent great moral challenges, i.e. possibly his own political survival.




> I was considering getting a water tank.  However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees.  It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.



Gav, I agree with your decision not to get a water tank.  Several years ago I installed 3 x 5000 litre tanks.   It takes quite a lot of rain to fill them.
The installation is absolutely not cost effective so far, and I don't anticipate it will be for more than a decade to come.
Part of the problem is that rain where we live comes in concentrated bursts and then nothing for months.
A tank would probably be reasonable value for money if you received regular rain.  But hey, then you wouldn't really need it anyway, would you, if you were using it to top up the pool, water the garden etc.


----------



## gav

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hey Gav - I'd just like to preface this by saying...I'm not having a go.
> 
> What you're saying Gav is exactly the same as a lot of people will say..the vast majority, thinking with the wallet... but that sort of thinking is short-term thinking. What advantage do I get _now_.
> 
> Do you plan to have kids? (trust me teenage girls spend an appreciable percentage of their life in the bathroom) Do you plan to put in a pool in some stage over the next x years you live in that house? Do you have a vege patch? Intend to buy your future son or daughter a pony? Etc Etc Etc. Your water needs and the cost of water will change in the future.
> 
> Do you think you will regret not making that purchase in the future?




Hi Sir O, thanks for the reply.

A bit off topic, but no I don't plan on having children - ever.  It's not for me.  Fortunately, my partner feels the same way (although says she cant rule out possibly wanting them in the future).



Sir Osisofliver said:


> The cost/benefit of Solar panels depends on how long you intend to keep the house. I don't intend to ever sell the house I live in (although I may get bored in ten years or so and move away) so I understand that they may not be economic for everyone, but once again - electricity will get more expensive not less, regardless of whether I produce at offpeak times and use a greater proportion during peak times.




I only bought my house a year ago, and don't intend to move anytime soon.  If there were an inexpensive way to store solar power not used during the day so I could use it at night (instead of using power from the grid), I'd _consider_ it.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> I notice you didn't mention the car however? Is that because a car that costs $1.50 to fill the tank _isn't_ attractive because it hasn't got enough machismo or whatever it is you look for in a car?
> 
> The economics of *that* car aren't hard to work out. It'll cost almost nothing to run the vehicle, only servicing and maintenance costs. Can't wait to get one. (The wife is even trying to convince me to go to France and ship one back - but I think she just wants to go to France on Holiday).




Not sure why you think I drive a macho car?  The reason I didn't mention a car is because my current car is very cost effective.  I've been driving a Hyundai Accent for nearly 5 years now.  I drive 450KM of city driving per week, yet average 6.4 litres per 100KM due to my driving style.  Very cheap car to maintain too.

I won't be buying a new car for a couple of years, but if I had to choose now I'd get the new VW Polo GTI which is due out here at the end of the year.  It uses only 5.9 litres of fuel per 100KM, yet is sporty/quick with quality interior.  Ticks all boxes :


----------



## Smurf1976

gav said:


> I only bought my house a year ago, and don't intend to move anytime soon.  If there were an inexpensive way to store solar power not used during the day so I could use it at night (instead of using power from the grid), I'd _consider_ it.



I can't see your logic there.

I'm not familiar with your local situation, but in general you'd be offsetting consumption / exporting to the grid predominantly at peak rates during the day when the sun is shining. Why would you want to store that energy for use at a (cheaper) off-peak time? It's like wanting to turn $1 into 50 cents.

Or is there some local issue that means it doesn't work like this for you?


----------



## gav

Smurf1976 said:


> I can't see your logic there.
> 
> I'm not familiar with your local situation, but in general you'd be offsetting consumption / exporting to the grid predominantly at peak rates during the day when the sun is shining. Why would you want to store that energy for use at a (cheaper) off-peak time? It's like wanting to turn $1 into 50 cents.
> 
> Or is there some local issue that means it doesn't work like this for you?




It's my understanding that any solar power not used during the day is fed back into the grid and you are paid a small amount, yet you have to use power from the grid at night and are charged a higher rate.  Perhaps I've misunderstood and this isn't the case?


----------



## Smurf1976

gav said:


> It's my understanding that any solar power not used during the day is fed back into the grid and you are paid a small amount, yet you have to use power from the grid at night and are charged a higher rate.  Perhaps I've misunderstood and this isn't the case?



It varies a lot across the country, main points as follows:

Generally you get some sort of "Feed In Tariff" (FIT) for energy you export to the grid. Typically, this is a higher rate than for energy you buy from the grid and this is based on net metering.

Example. Your solar PV system is producing 800 Watts, your house is using 500 Watts at the same time. The remaining 300 Watts is exported to the grid and you get whatever the FIT rate is.

NSW has introduced gross metering for solar. That is, 100% of power produced by your solar panels goes into the grid ("on paper") and that is paid at the higher FIT rate. And you buy back 100% of what you use at the lower rate for electricty from the grid. So solar becomes artificially profitable.

Tasmania has a very simple system which is simply the normal electricity rates for import / export to the grid with zero changes compared to a non-solar house. So what time you use the power etc is irrelevant.

Victoria - all sorts of wierd and not so wonderful things happen in Vic where the various electricty companies run what could best be described as a a circus. There are some reasonable deals out there for connection of solar but good luck actually signing up for one of them. Vic does have a very high FIT for exports to the grid so in theory it's quite profitable - the trouble is actually getting the account set up and meter installed which seems to be a nightmare of hassles.

SA - a milder version of the debacle that occurs in Victoria.

So I'd look very seriously at it in Qld, NSW, ACT or WA. In Tas it's very easy and simple but not as profitable. In SA it's a bit of effort to get things sorted out but it's quite doable. In Vic it's an outright minefield but not totally impossible (though there's lots of horror stories...).

I just noticed you're in Victoria - so it's probably best to find some other way of saving energy rather than installing solar PV unless you know someone who can sort things out for you.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Ghoti, Wayne's comment pretty much covers it.   In a radio interview I heard with Dr Splash he was expressing his disquiet that because at least some of his thoughts did not align with the fervour of the government about global warming/climate change and from my now vague memory I think he was against the ETS (which seems now to be the position of most of the world) his paper was suppressed or cut or whatever.  I simply can't remember now.
> 
> Neither do I have any interest in becoming involved in discussion about this whole fraught subject which seems to be slipping from the global radar anyway.



I find it a little less fraught if I can keep the subject of our heating planet separate from the subject of what we might do about it. 

"Climate hysteria" seems to be a term that some people use for what I regard as a very reasonable and sensible concern that human activities are causing the climate of our only planet to change very rapidly to something that humans have never known. In that sense, Dr Spash (no "l") is more hysterical than the government. He thinks that the need to cut carbon emissions is so urgent that emissions trading can't be effective or fair. That's an opinion he shares with Dr James Hansen, the climatologist who was one of the first to sound the alarm more than 20 years ago. 

You can see why it helps to separate the subjects. Opposing the ETS because you think carbon emissions are no problem is a very different thing from opposing it because you think it's too big a problem. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> By strange coincidence, I banged my head against a fence rail this morning.
> 
> My buddy thought it was hysterical.
> 
> I didn't.



Not even after it stopped hurting??


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> You can see why it helps to separate the subjects. Opposing the ETS because you think carbon emissions are no problem is a very different thing from opposing it because you think it's too big a problem.
> 
> Ghoti



Not really.

It just demonstrates that ETS is pretty much a tax grab and a nice earner for vested interests at the expense of the broader community; with no outcome on co2 levels. That much is patently obvious.

In any case, the pirate ship "global warming" has been holed beneath the water line and taking water fast. It's as good as sunk. Gu'mints will have to think up another method of perpetual alarm quickly...


I'm taking bets on the following possibilties:

Terrorist threat from Aleutian Island separatists.
Invasion from Mars.
An asteroid .
Mutant ladybirds attacking the food supply
The end of the world in 2012

Though that old standard, "nukular" attack has been bubbling away in the background... they could just recycle that one.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Not really.
> 
> It just demonstrates that ETS is pretty much a tax grab and a nice earner for vested interests at the expense of the broader community; with no outcome on co2 levels. That much is patently obvious.



Tax is collected by governments for redistribution on a reasonably equitable basis for many essential services.  How is that at the expense of the broader community?
Who are these other "vested interests"?
On what basis do you conclude there will be no outcome on CO2 levels?




> In any case, the pirate ship "global warming" has been holed beneath the water line and taking water fast. It's as good as sunk. Gu'mints will have to think up another method of perpetual alarm quickly...



As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all.  The gathering evidence is stronger by the year.  Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Tax is collected by governments for redistribution on a reasonably equitable basis for many essential services.  How is that at the expense of the broader community?
> Who are these other "vested interests"?
> On what basis do you conclude there will be no outcome on CO2 levels?



Oh come on rederob! This has been discussed at length on this forum already; as well as a million other places in the public domain. If you honestly have to ask this..... 



> As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all.  The gathering evidence is stronger by the year.  Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.




It IS groundhog day! :sleeping: 

Confirmation bias anyone?


----------



## Mofra

sneak'n said:


> As shown in other threads, this is not the case at all.  The gathering evidence is stronger by the year.  Those arguing to the contrary are bereft of scientific support of their case and delve in distractions to the principal theme.



If you are up to date with the bulk of scientific research on the subject, then even if you do believe in global warming why would you support a levy that in effect taxes only CO2 producers?


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Oh come on rederob! This has been discussed at length on this forum already; as well as a million other places in the public domain. If you honestly have to ask this.....
> 
> It IS groundhog day! :sleeping:
> 
> Confirmation bias anyone?



A simple "present the evidence" request is all I seek.
The fact that many people who know little about the detail discuss matters and come to baseless conclusions counts for very little.
If you read this forum on ETS you would get the impression that countries don't want to get involved in carbon trading/emission abatement.  Nothing is further from the truth.
The difficulty is getting agreement on a raft of technical issues, let alone quantum and timing.
Few countries are willing to "go first" as there is a real and immediate cost to them.  The greater issue, however, is about the longer term costs of not acting sooner.


----------



## bellenuit

_The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, says a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.......

The study said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had *understated* mankind's overall contribution to climate change._ 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...essures-sceptics/story-e6frg6so-1225837488998


----------



## wayneL

bellenuit said:


> _The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, says a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.......
> 
> The study said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had *understated* mankind's overall contribution to climate change._
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...essures-sceptics/story-e6frg6so-1225837488998




That article appeared in all MSM papers around the world. 

Exactly what new information has this "study" (spits on the ground) brought to light?

Nuttin'

Nada

Zero

It is just a re-*interpretation* of existing information. It is a statement of religious faith - a tardy and futile defensive parry from an absolute PR hiding in recent months.

The AGW faithful will cheer and point, the rest of us will roll our eyes.


----------



## explod

We had a big shower here in Melbourne today, struth, they closed the races at Fleminton and the football, and Flinders Street became a billabong for the Yarra.

Climate change ???    G/G would say its the Athiest's convention and the anger of God

Been very humid here in Victoria the last three weeks, worse than Darwin and everyone was saying Global Warming, he he he....nothing like a shower to fix that


----------



## bellenuit

wayneL said:


> Exactly what new information has this "study" (spits on the ground) brought to light?
> 
> Nuttin'
> 
> Nada
> 
> Zero




From the article....

_The panel assessed more than 100 *recent* peer-reviewed scientific papers and found the overwhelming majority had detected clear evidence of human influence on the climate.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, who led the study, said: "This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

....

The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade. This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, Dr Stott said._


----------



## wayneL

Recent <> new.

Where are the references?


----------



## noirua

wayneL said:


> Recent <> new.
> 
> Where are the references?



If we have to have lots of references ASF could look like 'Wikipedia'. Then there would have to be stars put in indicating 'reference needed'. I suppose we should reference sometimes but all the same, there are our search engines to see if information is correct, if not, cite the fact.


----------



## wayneL

noirua said:


> If we have to have lots of references ASF could look like 'Wikipedia'. Then there would have to be stars put in indicating 'reference needed'. I suppose we should reference sometimes but all the same, there are our search engines to see if information is correct, if not, cite the fact.



Utter nonsense!

You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.


----------



## bellenuit

wayneL said:


> Utter nonsense!
> 
> You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.




Wayne. Do you mean assertions like the following, which I noticed didn't come with any corroborating evidence:



> It is just a re-interpretation of existing information. It is a statement of religious faith - a tardy and futile defensive parry from an absolute PR hiding in recent months.




It is a newspaper article. You would need to go to the source to validate what is being reported.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Utter nonsense!
> 
> You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.



Mr L, you continually make unsupported statements, and rely on apparent information from unnamed sources on many occasions to support your beliefs (with the exception of unexplained references to Pielke Snr).
Not one single reply from you to my requests has ever indicated that you understand the science.
Since the last IPCC report there have been dozens of scientific conferences where hundreds of peer reviewed papers were presented, many relating to climate and the causes of its change.  Only the most radical of these papers ever sees the media latch on, and that probably gives this thread some life.
Those with a lot of time on their hands (and a bit of download available) can get a wonderful perspective on the role carbon plays by watching this: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Science is seldom absolute, especially when such a huge range of complex factors are at work in a dynamic system.  But the simple bottom line when it comes to hypothesising about global temperature changes is that carbon dioxide is always large in the frame.


----------



## Calliope

If the rains and flooding in Western Qld and NSW is a result of climate change, I say bring it on.

The health of the Murray-Darling river system is dependent on big floods, not government regulations.


----------



## Tink

explod said:


> We had a big shower here in Melbourne today, struth, they closed the races at Fleminton and the football, and Flinders Street became a billabong for the Yarra.
> 
> Climate change ???    G/G would say its the Athiest's convention and the anger of God
> 
> Been very humid here in Victoria the last three weeks, worse than Darwin and everyone was saying Global Warming, he he he....nothing like a shower to fix that




Yep was a shocker here yesterday explod

One of my friends rang me that her cars windscreen got shattered and dints in her car. She couldnt believe the size of the hailstones.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Mr L, you continually make unsupported statements, and rely on apparent information from unnamed sources on many occasions to support your beliefs (with the exception of unexplained references to Pielke Snr).
> Not one single reply from you to my requests has ever indicated that you understand the science.
> Since the last IPCC report there have been dozens of scientific conferences where hundreds of peer reviewed papers were presented, many relating to climate and the causes of its change.  Only the most radical of these papers ever sees the media latch on, and that probably gives this thread some life.
> Those with a lot of time on their hands (and a bit of download available) can get a wonderful perspective on the role carbon plays by watching this: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
> Science is seldom absolute, especially when such a huge range of complex factors are at work in a dynamic system.  But the simple bottom line when it comes to hypothesising about global temperature changes is that carbon dioxide is always large in the frame.




Rederob,

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to sell an incorrect and now discredited hypothesis, you people are. I don't have to prove or disprove anything as there are ample sources already doing do.

Meanwhile the opportunity to address the correct causes of climate change and environmental damage slips by as policy makers and vested interests seek to profit rather than promote sustainability.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile the opportunity to address the correct causes of climate change and environmental damage slips by as policy makers and vested interests seek to profit rather than promote sustainability.



You might wish to elaborate on "the correct causes of climate change" so that we have a starting point for policy makers who, to your mind, seem somehow more interested in profiting from than solving.
The logical flaws and irrationality of your statements cause me to wonder why I have bothered to reply!


----------



## noirua

Resist climate hysteria, certainly yes. However, if you burn coal smoke comes off and if you burn millions of tonnes of it, then whole cities are covered in it and the result is a coughing and sick nation.


----------



## noirua

wayneL said:


> Utter nonsense!
> 
> You are suggesting that assertions need not have any corroborating evidence. That is ludicrous.



Fair enough if that's what you think I said. However, it was more a criticism of always wanting a citing if the view posted isn't liked much. I'm more understanding of the tiredness brought on by long distance travel that renders us all a touch poseur maybe - no pother intended but respect.


----------



## wayneL

Re Carbon Trading Schemes:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100305...t-rich-off-trading-scheme-study?quicktabs_1=0



> AFP - Europe's system for industrial carbon quotas has enriched the continent's biggest polluters, with ten firms together reaping permits for 2008 alone worth 500 million euros, a new report revealed.
> 
> Dominated by steel and cement makers, the same "carbon fat cats" stand to collect surplus CO2 permits that -- at current market rates -- could be worth 3.2 billion euros (4.3 billion dollars) by 2012, it said.
> 
> This is roughly equivalent to the entire EU investment in renewable energy and clean technology under its economic recovery plan...


----------



## wayneL

Climate realists will enjoy this blog http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/

Latest posts focus on the poverty of proper scientific method in the IPCC's  latest political manifesto, and the damage to the credibility of science in the field.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Climate realists will enjoy this blog http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
> 
> Latest posts focus on the poverty of proper scientific method in the IPCC's  latest political manifesto, and the damage to the credibility of science in the field.



Utter bunkum, and reflective of your poor grasp of the matter.
The simple reality is that those fighting against global warming cannot argue the science itself, and instead take cheap shots at aspects of a massive report that is flawed only in reference to Himalayan glacial melts - a section that failed the editing process through human error.
Mr L has seems unable to understand that the process of presenting a report that synthesises thousands of scientific papers is absolutely different from the precise material in any single paper.
From the numerous posts I have seen from Mr L I cannot say that I am surprised.


----------



## Mickel

sneak'n said:


> Utter bunkum, and reflective of your poor grasp of the matter.
> The simple reality is that those fighting against global warming cannot argue the science itself, and instead take cheap shots at aspects of a massive report that is flawed only in reference to Himalayan glacial melts - a section that failed the editing process through human error.
> Mr L has seems unable to understand that the process of presenting a report that synthesises thousands of scientific papers is absolutely different from the precise material in any single paper.
> From the numerous posts I have seen from Mr L I cannot say that I am surprised.




Just one example from Wayne's reference-


"Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector.

What's bizarre is that an examination of the comments submitted by IPCC reviewers following both the first and second draft of Chapter 5 - and the responses to them - suggests that those involved appear to have taken part in a shared hallucination. A great deal of lip service was paid to peer-review, but in practice it was a next to meaningless concept.

When Takayuki Take****a, a researcher associated with the University of Tokyo, suggested that a presentation he'd helped prepare be cited by the IPCC, the chapter authors advised him that "the use of a presentation would not satisfy the requirement for published literature." This is all well and good, but had that standard been applied uniformly the list of references at the end of the chapter would contain closer to 61 entries than 260.

Elsewhere, when Take****a said he considered a statement in the chapter to be "doubtful" and noted that it conflicted with almost "all of the literature I have ever read" on the topic, he was told: "Rejected; text simply quotes the study, and good chance the study is correct."

The full citation for that study looks like this:

    MIT, 2004: Coordinated policy measures for reducing the fuel consumption of the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Bandivadekar, A.P. and J.B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Report LFEE 2004-001, 76 pp.

Despite the fact that it is not peer-reviewed, the chapter authors think there's a "good chance" it's correct – and that's the end of the matter.

This is the celebrated IPCC internal peer review process in action. The reviewers don't get to make their case to a neutral editor who then arbitrates. Instead, the authors are at perfect liberty to ignore comments submitted in good faith by expert reviewers - to decide that the source they've cited is probably right."


shows how flawed the IPCC process is. There are many more examples given in that reference and others linked to it. Together with the leaked East Anglia emails, the lies in Gore's film, etc, etc show there is systemic bias or even fraud in the IPCC summaries.

The process that you describe Sneak'n, is not done in an open and scientific way and therefore, in many cases, the result is just UTTER BUNKUM.


----------



## wayneL

Thanks Mikel, as you say, that's just one.

In Rederob's (sneak'n) keenness to fulfil his juvenile vendetta, he has exposed his own glaring lack of understanding and intellectual integrity.

To attempt to deny that the IPCC's credibility has been massively and injuriously damaged in recent months is bordering on the pathological. One need only see the avalanching opinion polls to jolt one's self up from that dreamworld.

There is more than the issue about whether the science is right or wrong, it is also about the integrity of the conduct of climate science and associated vested interest agendas.

Furthermore, by the inevitable exposure of the fraudulent self interested alarmism on the co2 front, they may have irretrievably damaged the possibility of addressing other valid sustainability issues. The public simply is losing/has lost trust in environmental science and that is a real tragedy.

That rederob doesn't seem to realise these things, while pulling the old "play the man" card again, is not only tiresome and boring, but one must worry for his grasp of reality. (Parry and counterpunch is fair play in that game Red).

I can safely say that we can ignore the pseudo-intellectual pontifications of rederob as we do those of any cult member and get back to the topic of the thread - countering the alarmist hysteria promulgated by those who seek to profit from it.


----------



## basilio

I won't waste space requoting Wayne's last post. 

All that has to be done now to complete the work of debunking  the concepts of man induced climate change is

1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of  CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth

2) Persuading all the plants and animals that have responded to fundamental changes in temperature that they have it wrong.

3) Negotiating with a few million cubic Klms of ice in Greenland and Antarticia  to stay frozen because some cynical  PR hack is questioning the footnotes in a 3000 IPCC page report.

You can't B/S nature.  The rest of us can be conned by unscrupulous interests and our own innate desire to not want to believe very unsettling facts.

Which is a the main reason for the spectacular success of the groups that have systematically destroyed  respect for our international scientific community in the past few months.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Thanks Mikel, as you say, that's just one.
> 
> In Rederob's (sneak'n) keenness to fulfil his juvenile vendetta, he has exposed his own glaring lack of understanding and intellectual integrity.



I simply, and repeatedly, ask that you present the science - and you consistently fail.  I have separately asked that you back up some of your claims, but again you do not.



> To attempt to deny that the IPCC's credibility has been massively and injuriously damaged in recent months is bordering on the pathological. One need only see the avalanching opinion polls to jolt one's self up from that dreamworld.



This is a view that is held by those who do not understand the science, ignore the science, or prefer other agendas. 



> There is more than the issue about whether the science is right or wrong, it is also about the integrity of the conduct of climate science and associated vested interest agendas.



Your evidence for this is where?



> Furthermore, by the inevitable exposure of the fraudulent self interested alarmism on the co2 front, they may have irretrievably damaged the possibility of addressing other valid sustainability issues. The public simply is losing/has lost trust in environmental science and that is a real tragedy.



The agenda of those railing against warming is to use any and every opportunity to pump the media with a news that distorts the actual science, cherry picks, or is simply a beat up.  So the real culprits destroying public credibility in environmental matters are the opposite of those you suggest.




> That rederob doesn't seem to realise these things, while pulling the old "play the man" card again, is not only tiresome and boring, but one must worry for his grasp of reality. (Parry and counterpunch is fair play in that game Red).



I play the substantiation game.  Prove your case.
On the other hand, re-read your replies to me that trot out this line time and again, yet fail answer the questions I pose to you.



> I can safely say that we can ignore the pseudo-intellectual pontifications of rederob as we do those of any cult member and get back to the topic of the thread - countering the alarmist hysteria promulgated by those who seek to profit from it.



And you don't play the man!
The hysteria is born out of climate change denial zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
The science upholding man's role in warming justs gets stronger.

Anyone thinking rationally about climate change would be asking about the evidence for the opposite case.  Think about that.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I won't waste space requoting Wayne's last post.
> 
> All that has to be done now to complete the work of debunking  the concepts of man induced climate change is
> 
> 1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of  CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth
> 
> 2) Persuading all the plants and animals that have responded to fundamental changes in temperature that they have it wrong.
> 
> 3) Negotiating with a few million cubic Klms of ice in Greenland and Antarticia  to stay frozen because some cynical  PR hack is questioning the footnotes in a 3000 IPCC page report.
> 
> You can't B/S nature.  The rest of us can be conned by unscrupulous interests and our own innate desire to not want to believe very unsettling facts.
> 
> Which is a the main reason for the spectacular success of the groups that have systematically destroyed  respect for our international scientific community in the past few months.




Basilio,

You consistently miss the precise point being discussed as well as preaching from a platform of confirmation bias... if not outright bias. The co2 based AGW hypothesis is in deep trouble bro, both scientifically and in the PR war. The trend is down. That is the point, not outright denial of climate change.

You may also want to re-examine some of your assumptions there too, they are not accurate.

We all know climate changes, but should I remind you of the fact that the phrase "basic tenets" cannot apply to chaotic systems.

The warming effect of co2 is logarithmic for instance, a peculiarity that alarmists pointedly neglect to reveal. This is a point that has been raised before here and seredipidously revisited by David Archibald. Instead they make inferences that it is exponential. Total intellectual corruption.

Rederob,

You're just sounding shrill now, retreating to a argument where only  "true believers" can believe they have any argumentative point.

Fail.


----------



## Mickel

I think the IPCC has overstated the case of man made global warming.

Do you, Sneak'n and Basilio, consider that the processes for compiling the IPCC summaries, as described in the example of my last post, are done in a scientific and open manner?

Written before sighting Wayne's last post, but unsurprisingly in sync with it.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> We all know climate changes, but should I remind you of the fact that the phrase "basic tenets" cannot apply to chaotic systems.



Say huh??????? The basic tenets of chaotic systems are mathematics. Of course the phrase applies. 

However, the application of the phrase "chaotic systems" to climate is doubtful. Chaos tends to overwhelm weather predictions quite quickly, but weather is not climate and weather models and not climate models. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/



> The warming effect of co2 is logarithmic for instance, a peculiarity that alarmists pointedly neglect to reveal. This is a point that has been raised before here and seredipidously revisited by David Archibald. Instead they make inferences that it is exponential. Total intellectual corruption.




Wayne, Watts is not a reliable guide to science or mathematics. He might point to something interesting or useful, but you won't know unless you follow it up with more reliable sources. 

Ghoti (who hasn't read anything on this thread except the last post for a couple of days, and doesn't know what Wayne thinks he's talking about this time, but is sick of doing hours of follow up on garbage links.)

Edited to fix quote tag


----------



## Calliope

sneak'n said:


> The hysteria is born out of climate change denial zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
> The science upholding man's role in warming justs gets stronger.




I hope you don't mind sneak'n (aka Rederob), but I have edited the above statement to make sense. After all we know which side the hysteria is coming from. I think common sense is a better guide than "the science".

*The hysteria is born out of climate change zealots who beat up whatever they can to get traction.
"The science" upholding man's role in warming justs gets more suspect
*


----------



## ghotib

We can probably agree that climate is totally unconcerned with trends in public opinion about it. That's worth discussing if the argument is about future human activity, but persistently treating public relations as the same thing as scientific argument is stupid or malicious or both. 

There is plenty of room for disagreement about the details of what's happening, but to talk sensibly about the disagreements you have to make an effort to understand the consensus of experts and how they reached it. One of the best places I know of for that is The Discovery of Global Warming  ( http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html ), which is the website for a book of the same name. It's a lot of reading, which I for one found pretty hard going in places. But surely the stakes merit a bit of effort. 

Human civilisation is roughly 10,000 years old and for the whole of that time global temperature change has been within a range of about 2degC. Regional change within that range has been enough to bring down civilisations. The consensus of climate experts is that human activity over the last 200 years will raise the global average temperature outside the range that's been normal for all of human history. I'm a human. That's why I'm alarmed. 

Ghoti


----------



## sneak'n

Mickel said:


> I think the IPCC has overstated the case of man made global warming.
> 
> Do you, Sneak'n and Basilio, consider that the processes for compiling the IPCC summaries, as described in the example of my last post, are done in a scientific and open manner?
> 
> Written before sighting Wayne's last post, but unsurprisingly in sync with it.



You are entitled to your view, but what supports it?


----------



## sneak'n

Calliope said:


> I think common sense is a better guide than "the science".



You might like to explain how we can determine the temperature on other planets by knowing their atmospheric composition and the energy received from the sun at the distance of their orbit.  How is that common sense?
Global warming is common sense to the extent that people understand the link between the composition of our atmosphere and irradiance.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Rederob,
> 
> You're just sounding shrill now, retreating to a argument where only  "true believers" can believe they have any argumentative point.
> 
> Fail.



Given that I seek responses from you, it's a bit rich suggesting I am retreating to any sort of argument.  Exactly what could I be arguing against?
What I do see from you are contant diversions from the actual issue, suggesting time and again that you have no grasp.
Your tactics replicate to a tee those of the "deniers'": No substance, so let's refocus the debate.


----------



## Calliope

sneak'n said:


> You might like to explain...




No thanks. I won't be drawn into your web. Last year when you were posting under your other name, I learned the futility of getting drawn into a debate with someone whose beliefs are driven by ideology.

It's like arguing with a creationist, except your bible is something you call "the science".


----------



## Mofra

basilio said:


> 1) Rewriting the basic tenets of science on the role of  CO2 and other green house gases in retaining atmospheric warmth



Assuming they are known, measurable and replicatable under all conditions. Photosynthesis efficiency increases when minute amounts of extra CO2 is available in the atmosphere; so from what I've read, even this basic tenet is not exact. 

If we can't measure these smaller effects accurately, does it not bring into question the changes that some scientists predict? Given the effect on food prices and the world's most needy, I'm not sure that we should condemn tens of millions of the world's poor to starvation due to a "maybe".


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Say huh??????? The basic tenets of chaotic systems are mathematics. Of course the phrase applies.



There are tenets, but they are not basic.


> However, the application of the phrase "chaotic systems" to climate is doubtful. Chaos tends to overwhelm weather predictions quite quickly, but weather is not climate and weather models and not climate models.
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/




You don't think climate is a chaotic system???

ROTFMAO!!!!!! 

Ludicrous!



> Wayne, Watts is not a reliable guide to science or mathematics. He might point to something interesting or useful, but you won't know unless you follow it up with more reliable sources.




Oh Please!

Watts is a meteorologist and more qualified to comment on climate than Rajendra Pachauri or any of the other VI clowns.



> Ghoti (who hasn't read anything on this thread except the last post for a couple of days, and doesn't know what Wayne thinks he's talking about this time, but is sick of doing hours of follow up on garbage links.)




Ahhh... the now mandatory character attack from the cultists, sans logic, and credible science. 

That's a bit bloody rich talking about rubbish links when the more than half IPCC position is predicated on non peer reviewed junk; the purportedly peer reviewed portion being revealed as highly questionable.

I was under the impression you were above that sort of crap, even if suffering from a raging and illogical bias.

Alas, No.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> That's a bit bloody rich talking about rubbish links when the more than half IPCC position is predicated on non peer reviewed junk; the purportedly peer reviewed portion being revealed as highly questionable.



You are one of many sucked in to thinking that all references in the IPCC report are to scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
They are not.

The scientific papers that that underpinned the Report were peer reviewed and/or re-reviewed by each of the teams that wrote the many sections.  Thousands of climate scientists were involved, and it is true that not all agreed on what eventually made it into the report.
Assertions that the science is junk have no substance, so if you have reliable peer reviewed literature to the contrary I welcome reading it.

Back to Donna Laframboisee blog.  Pachauri's remarks were (and mostly remain) contexted on the science that underpins the Report, rather than the data/analysis that informs in other sections.  To establish a project that looks for peer review of papers that essentially inform us about a range of ancillary issues - such as transportation - is not useful.
For example, Duoba, Lohse-Busch, and Bohn's 2005 paper, "Investigating Vehicle Fuel Economy Robustness of Conventional and Hybrid Electric Vehicles", was a paper presented at an electric vehicle congress held in Monaco.  It has nothing to do with climate change science.  However, like most (I haven't looked at every paper) cited sources it has been aired in relevant forums and/or published in associated industry journals and the like.

When I look at the multitude of issues that deniers of climate change present, the missing ingredient is always the science.  There is a very good reason for that. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests the IPCC got it right.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> You are one of many sucked in to thinking that all references in the IPCC report are to scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
> They are not.
> 
> The scientific papers that that underpinned the Report were peer reviewed and/or re-reviewed by each of the teams that wrote the many sections.  Thousands of climate scientists were involved, and it is true that not all agreed on what eventually made it into the report.
> Assertions that the science is junk have no substance, so if you have reliable peer reviewed literature to the contrary I welcome reading it.
> 
> Back to Donna Laframboisee blog.  Pachauri's remarks were (and mostly remain) contexted on the science that underpins the Report, rather than the data/analysis that informs in other sections.  To establish a project that looks for peer review of papers that essentially inform us about a range of ancillary issues - such as transportation - is not useful.
> For example, Duoba, Lohse-Busch, and Bohn's 2005 paper, "Investigating Vehicle Fuel Economy Robustness of Conventional and Hybrid Electric Vehicles", was a paper presented at an electric vehicle congress held in Monaco.  It has nothing to do with climate change science.  However, like most (I haven't looked at every paper) cited sources it has been aired in relevant forums and/or published in associated industry journals and the like.
> 
> When I look at the multitude of issues that deniers of climate change present, the missing ingredient is always the science.  There is a very good reason for that. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests the IPCC got it right.




And your final paragraph reveals the seething unreasonableness scarcely disguised in a cloak of glibness.

The highlighted excerpts, are just not accurate.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> And your final paragraph reveals the seething unreasonableness scarcely disguised in a cloak of glibness.
> 
> The highlighted excerpts, are just not accurate.



Your evidence to the contrary is found where?

I keep asking and you keep to the well worn track of not responding.  It's really quite difficult for me to take you seriously.  So until you have something worth responding to, I shall leave you to your irrelevant and wasteful diversions.


----------



## Mickel

Mickel said:


> I think the IPCC has overstated the case of man made global warming.
> 
> Do you, Sneak'n and Basilio, consider that the processes for compiling the IPCC summaries, as described in the example of my last post, are done in a scientific and open manner?
> 
> Written before sighting Wayne's last post, but unsurprisingly in sync with it.




Sneak'n and Basilio, you still haven't answered the question. A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Sneak'n, your response that the example I gave is only ancillary to man made global warming, misses the point. The IPCC use the same methods through many of their reports and it is not open nor scientific.

Here is another example from the same source-

"Economist Richard Tol has been taking another look at everyone's favourite mega-document, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. In guest posts on blogs here and here, he argues that while one section of the report (produced by Working Group 2) "appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change," another section (written by Working Group 3) appears to have systematically understated the costs to society associated with emissions reduction.

Click image for larger version. From p. 7 of a Dec. 2009 document issued
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (39-page PDF here)

At this juncture it's worth remembering that the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material to make its case. By now we know this isn't remotely true. Tol highlights passages in Chapter 11 of the Working Group 3 report that further demonstrate this.

On this page, the IPCC discusses emissions reduction studies. Tol points out that although the third paragraph cites three documents – Stern (2006), Anderson (2006) and Barker (2006a) – not one of them has been peer-reviewed. Indeed, of the seven studies mentioned in total on this page only one was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (All reference material for that chapter is listed here.)

Tol further notes that on another page, devoted to the rather important question of what effect reducing emissions might have on employment (in the US climate change policies are currently being sold to be public as job creation plans), a total of six "studies are cited to support the notion that emission reduction creates jobs. Only one of the six is peer-reviewed."

If this seems rather sloppy, Tol says it gets worse. The academic literature in this area, he says, suggests that the relationship between emissions reduction and job creation is a weak one, and that job growth only occurs in certain circumstances – namely when government policies are "smart and well-designed." If "emission permits are given away for free – as is common," he points out, "no positive impact on employment" is achieved. The IPCC report mentions none of this, however.

Tol doesn't talk about it in these blog posts, but he was an IPCC expert reviewer for this chapter. After reading the first draft, he raised a number of concerns. Below are some choice remarks appearing on pages 2-3 of the 65-page PDF of reviewer comments available here:

In a number of instances, authors mainly quote their own work. This is unworthy. In a number of instances, authors mainly quote other IPCC material. This is incestuous. The quoting of IPCC material is most pronounced in the scenario discussion, which can be summarised as "We, the IPCC, declare that all previous IPCC work is great." This is silly.

…In many places, the authors are out of their depth; the selection of papers is haphazard, the assessment superficial. I also found too many references that are simply wrong; the authors cannot have read these papers. For a supposedly expert panel, this is very serious."

In a number of instances, the draft material reads like a political manifesto rather than a scientific document. In other instances, the authors have tried to hide their political message in pseudo-scientific language. For a supposedly independent panel, this is very serious.

    Part of the literature review is haphazard; it seems as if the authors have not systematically searched the literature, but simple [sic] quote a few papers that happened to lie around. Another part of the literature review is severely biased; the authors quote their own work, and that of their friends, but systematically ignore the work of many authors. This is particularly true in the presentation of model results; results are shown for a subset of models only…

I rest my case. Is it scientific? YES or NO ?????


----------



## sneak'n

Mickel

Where in your post was the matter of climate science discussed?
Tol discusses matters ancillary to the science.  The fact is that the Report needed to come to some position on many issues, and it did.  Not all contributors were appeased - not unexpected given, literally, a cast of thousands.

As I repeat, there is considerable focus by climate deniers on side issues that can gain traction but have no bearing on climate science itself.

Matters scientific in the Report were based on the science.  The process of writing a report is not scientific.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Mickel
> 
> As I repeat, there is considerable focus by climate deniers on side issues that can gain traction but have no bearing on climate science itself.
> 
> Matters scientific in the Report were based on the science.  The process of writing a report is not scientific.



The continuous straw man tactic is getting boring rederob.

There are very few climate deniers. There are those who see the problems in the warmist dogma however... yes, in the science.

As far as "side issues"...? ROFL! That's cute.

LMAO

Dream on.


----------



## noirua

The hysteria of some on climate change should not cloud the issue so some see blood red. 

Many are against the use of uranium purely on the grounds of leaks from older nuclear stations or a future devestating explosion. The plus side, that it is the only short term solution for oil and coal in heavy power use.

Wind power is fine where there is wind and space available. Those against cite noise and the personal view they are an ugly sight. Generally best for power to housing.

Diesel from coal, is seen by many as a future for use of low grade brown coal, mainly in South Australia. Doesn't appear to change much but better is better than diesel from oil.

Granite power is a newer idea that the Federal Government is supporting. Looks reasonable from where I'm standing, but availability may be a minus but cost looks fairly low - on the low side anyway.

Electric power with heavyweight batteries (going to look silly in 50 years time I think) seen as great by some, but limited to Governments wishes to provide charging points in towns: As they have in London, England, or is it going to.

Power from the sun looks the long term winner. Trouble is it's going to be just that; a long time coming for heavy power use.

I have a torch which I wind up instead of using batteries. A bit of a wind up to suggest we can go all that much further with that. Or maybe everyone could wind their houses up and...

Will coal ever really be clean enough, even though it's pretty cheap. No, not really, even if every nasty is taken out or the recipe. Probably will still be in heavy use in 30 years or is it 40 years or 50 years, or even more.

Filthy dirty power will still remain as State Governments in Australia make a bundle out of royalties. One day they will raise royalties so high coal is not viable anymore. But not until they've got royalties from all the other forms of power beforehand.

Money talks before lives and that goes for Australia as well.


----------



## moXJO

This is a separate question from the current discussion. I remember back in the 80's maybe early 90s?  That there was a big thing with the hole in the ozone layer, and how we would all be burnt to a crisp with the hole slowly getting bigger. Reminds me a bit of the current stuff being thrown around. Is it still an issue now (hole still getting larger)?


----------



## Knobby22

moXJO said:


> This is a separate question from the current discussion. I remember back in the 80's maybe early 90s?  That there was a big thing with the hole in the ozone layer, and how we would all be burnt to a crisp with the hole slowly getting bigger. Reminds me a bit of the current stuff being thrown around. Is it still an issue now (hole still getting larger)?




Good comparison!

We solved it.
The world leaders all listened to the science and we got rid of fluorocarbons, that is why we use hydrocarbons in todays spray cans.
The hole is still there but getting smaller each year.

99.9% of scientist think that carbon dioxide and methane cause global warning but there are powerful vested interests out there  combined with poor policy action by governments which has meant that this has not yet become possible for the present problem.


----------



## brty

This sort of statistic is so often bandied about.....



> 99.9% of scientist think that carbon dioxide and methane cause global warning




Where is the evidence of it, can you show some evidence of this number???

brty


----------



## Mickel

Perhaps it is an appropriate time to reflect on what Professor Richard Lindzen
(the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) stated in part in the reference to the initial post on this thread-

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake."


----------



## Knobby22

In the quote above he does not say it is not occurring but says it is overstated and then spouts out wierd political arguments which are not his field and discount his abilities.

The Chinese seem to think it is real:

 Climate change is a fact, says China
By China correspondent Stephen McDonell

China sceptical on scepticism:

Audio: China takes swipe at climate deniers (AM) Related Story: 'Father of global warming' to speak in Adelaide Related Story: ABC chair criticises climate change coverage Related Link: Climate debate: opinion vs evidence A deputy director of China's most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.

Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an "extreme" stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.

The comments were made during China's annual sitting of the National People's Congress.

During the congress, a series of press conferences are held which, in many cases, are the only chance to put questions to members of China's power elite.

Last night, one such press conference was held on the subject of climate change.

The ABC asked the panel what they thought of the view that climate change had nothing to do with human activity and was in fact a natural phenomenon.

Xie Zhenhua, a deputy director at China's powerful economic ministry, the National Development and Reform Commission, answered that he believed that made-made climate change denial is, at best, a very marginal view.

"Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world," he said.

"There are two different views regarding the causes for global warming.

"The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation.

"There's a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system."


----------



## Timmy

Any chance of some sources / links for all these quotes??????


----------



## sneak'n

Mickel

Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.

It is one thing to be contrarian; it is another to have a sustainable view.

Linzen considers the world has cooled over the past 15 years, yet the data suggests that recent decades are the hottest - most of the hottest years since the Industrial Revolution occurring in the past decade.

All the emotive language in the world is unlikely to change the link between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature.

If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Mickel
> 
> Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.
> 
> It is one thing to be contrarian; it is another to have a sustainable view.



Can you please show where Lindzen has directly made any such statement so that:


We can see if it is indeed true

The correct context
Even if true, it leaves me perplexed as to what that has to do with climate.



> Linzen considers the world has cooled over the past 15 years, yet the data suggests that recent decades are the hottest - most of the hottest years since the Industrial Revolution occurring in the past decade.
> 
> All the emotive language in the world is unlikely to change the link between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature.
> 
> If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.




Data Scmata... damned lies and statistics and all that. The data as it stands can be made to show anything. His position is that CC has been overstated; that assessment can be supported.


----------



## GumbyLearner

Knobby22 said:


> In the quote above he does not say it is not occurring but says it is overstated and then spouts out wierd political arguments which are not his field and discount his abilities.
> 
> The Chinese seem to think it is real:
> 
> Climate change is a fact, says China
> By China correspondent Stephen McDonell
> 
> China sceptical on scepticism:
> 
> Audio: China takes swipe at climate deniers (AM) Related Story: 'Father of global warming' to speak in Adelaide Related Story: ABC chair criticises climate change coverage Related Link: Climate debate: opinion vs evidence A deputy director of China's most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.
> 
> Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an "extreme" stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.
> 
> The comments were made during China's annual sitting of the National People's Congress.
> 
> During the congress, a series of press conferences are held which, in many cases, are the only chance to put questions to members of China's power elite.
> 
> Last night, one such press conference was held on the subject of climate change.
> 
> The ABC asked the panel what they thought of the view that climate change had nothing to do with human activity and was in fact a natural phenomenon.
> 
> Xie Zhenhua, a deputy director at China's powerful economic ministry, the National Development and Reform Commission, answered that he believed that made-made climate change denial is, at best, a very marginal view.
> 
> "Climate change is a fact based on long-time observations by countries around the world," he said.
> 
> "There are two different views regarding the causes for global warming.
> 
> "The mainstream view is that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel in the course of industrialisation.
> 
> "There's a more extreme view which holds that human activity has only an imperceptible impact on the natural system."




Off to the hard labour re-education camp for the likes of wayneL et al by the looks of things. Gee I wonder what punishment they have in store for the GW deniers  I hope it's not as bad as what they do to the Human Rights deniers.   Will this mean they will halt building coal fired power stations and stop importing oil? :nono:


----------



## wayneL

GumbyLearner said:


> Off to the hard labour re-education camp for the likes of wayneL et al by the looks of things. Gee I wonder what punishment they have in store for the GW deniers  I hope it's not as bad as what they do to the Human Rights deniers.   Will this mean they will halt building coal fired power stations and stop importing oil? :nono:




LOL

I was wondering what expertise in climate science the Chinese gu'mint had over and above the likes of KRudd, Obarmy, Crash Gordon, et al.


----------



## GumbyLearner

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> I was wondering what expertise in climate science the Chinese gu'mint had over and above the likes of KRudd, Obarmy, Crash Gordon, et al.




Come on wayneL you should be enlightened enough to follow the *collective ideals* espoused by our great leaders of their newly found liberating classless thoughtspeak.  *Pollution* doesn't exist, the word *pollution* has been dispensed with due to the often frequent abusive use of it by the ruling classes. This word was misappropriated and wrongly apportioned to smokestacks, manufacturing plants, acid-rain etc.. all of which were caused by this incorrect thoughtspeak (*pollution*). *Global warming* and the pursuit of new *climate science* is the only way we can combat the oppression of the masses. This of course is only to be achieved through taxation of those same masses in order for them to recognize the source of such opportunistic linguistical distortions..  ROFLMAO


----------



## wayneL

GumbyLearner said:


> Come on wayneL you should be enlightened enough to follow the *collective ideals* espoused by our great leaders of their newly found liberating classless thoughtspeak.  *Pollution* doesn't exist, the word *pollution* has been dispensed with due to the often frequent abusive use of it by the ruling classes. This word was misappropriated and wrongly apportioned to smokestacks, manufacturing plants, acid-rain etc.. all of which were caused by this incorrect thoughtspeak (*pollution*). *Global warming* and the pursuit of new *climate science* is the only way we can combat the oppression of the masses. This of course is only to be achieved through taxation of those same masses in order for them to recognize the source of such opportunistic linguistical distortions..  ROFLMAO




Hmmmmm! That argument is so compelling, I've sent an email to NZIRD offering to double my tax rate.

(Just have to figure out how to get it to 0% )


----------



## Knobby22

All you doubters, you better start applying your conspiracy theories to the CSIRO. I haven't heard the one for China yet by the way.

CSIRO chief defends climate science

The head of Australia's peak science body has spoken out in defence of climate scientists, saying the link between human activity and climate change is beyond doubt.

The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence of global warming is unquestionable, and in Australia it is backed by years of robust research.

Dr Clark says climate records are being broken every decade and all parts of the nation are warming.

"We are seeing significant evidence of a changing climate," she said.

"If we just take our temperature, all of Australia has experienced warming over the last 50 years. We are warming in every part of the country during every season and as each decade goes by, the records are being broken.

"We are also seeing fewer cold days so we are seeing some very significant long-term trends in Australia's climate."

Dr Clark says the long-term data across a number of measures stacks up in favour of climate change proponents and against those who say the planet is not warming.

"We can certainly look at the long-term trends and any event here or there or a storm here or there really doesn't explain away what we are seeing in these major long-term trends," she said.

"We are also seeing consistency. I think the consistency between our temperatures, what we are seeing in our rainfall, what we are seeing in the increase of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere and of course, what we are now seeing in our oceans.

"So it is not just one measurement that is telling us. It is our observations and science that we are seeing in many areas being consistent."


Strong evidence

Dr Clark says the evidence strongly suggests human activity is responsible for the rise.

"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said. 

"We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."

Dr Clark says scepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process and has been considered as part of the climate change debate.

But she says the data needs to be looked at in a systematic way and the evidence backs those who say humans are contributing to global warming.

"Whenever we come into groups with very complex issues as a society, every time we have done that, we should challenge and we do challenge and it brings us back to our observations," she said.

"It makes us re-look at what we are really seeing. It makes us ask those questions, so I think challenge is simply part of coming to understand an issue.

"But at the same time, plucking out a snow storm in the US or a flood in Queensland or a cold day somewhere and trying to use that to explain away some of these long-term trends, of course, we know is not the right way to do it."

Dr Clark says the data the CSIRO has based its conclusions on is both long-term and solid.

"We have been recording and the [weather] bureau has been recording our climate for over 100 years," she said.

"Our records here are extremely robust and of course, CSIRO is studying and researching and looking at those trends for over 50 years so I think we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data]."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845519.htm


----------



## wayneL

:sleeping:

Old ground.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

sneak'n


> Lindzen regards the link between smoking and lung cancer as weak.



I have to point out the red herring in the debate based on logic. 



> If we reflect on anything on this topic it would be better it be related to the science and continuing research papers confirming or otherwise CO2's role.



Based on this the views of many scientists, either way, should be heard. That is science. Proving disproving and questioning. I disagree that we have to follow research papers to be sustainable. (not to say that was said above)


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> Can you please show where Lindzen has directly made any such statement so that:
> 
> 
> We can see if it is indeed true
> 
> The correct context




Yeah!

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> Old ground.




But obviously needs repeating often, the facade painters will not give up no matter how clear the truth.

Maybe we need a shower or two of football sized hail stones.


----------



## Knobby22

Found it.
A Newsweek article.

_'Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. _'

Note: he says climate change is occurring, like everyone else in his field, he is just saying it will be slower than predicted.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/page/1


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> But obviously needs repeating often, the facade painters will not give up no matter how clear the truth.
> 
> Maybe we need a shower or two of football sized hail stones.




1/ What clear truth? There is a hypothesis with conflicting data.

2/ What does a hail storm or two have to do with climate change? There have always been large hailstones.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Found it.
> A Newsweek article.
> 
> _'Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. _'
> 
> Note: he says climate change is occurring, like everyone else in his field, he is just saying it will be slower than predicted.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/page/1




Excuse me? 

That is not a direct quote, it is heresay; able to be spun in any way that is desired.

I want a quote and its context.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Yeah!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.




Well since it was quoted in a reputable magazine Newsweek, can you find anywhere where he has denied it? You would think he would want to. 
It seems to be common knowledge.

Of course not since he is paid by the coal lobbies. Independant science at its best. He has extensive links to the tobacco industry.  He is a gun for hire, nothing else. If he is one of the heroes of the denialists, they better get another one.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

I like this bit.

Will he put his money where his mouth is? 

He claimed to be willing to accept bets on the future climate during an interview with Reason magazine. Reason printed “Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.”  When Annan approached him and tried to accept the bet Lindzen seemed to carry a different tune.  The following is from James Annan’s personal website:

“Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around 
$8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo


----------



## Knobby22

Here he is using his degree to relax EPA pollution standards. What a poster boy!

Richard Lindzen, Robert Bailing, William Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso -- scientists opposed to global warming issues, as cited by Peter Samuel. Kay H. Jones, Seattle, Washington pollution consultant, was formerly responsible for air quality analysis for the Council on Environmental Quality. Our city air has been getting steadily better and justifies a less demanding set of government rules and regulation.  

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=36&tstamp=200606


----------



## Knobby22

Here he is as a witness for Philip Morris!!!

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Here he is as a witness for Philip Morris!!!
> 
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html




As far as I can see, he is only cited on that document as a scientist opposed to global warming.

There is still no quote, nor context.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> As far as I can see, he is only cited on that document as a scientist opposed to global warming.
> 
> There is still no quote, nor context.




Come on, the emporer has no clothes.
He is disreputable.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Well since it was quoted in a reputable magazine Newsweek, can you find anywhere where he has denied it? You would think he would want to.
> It seems to be common knowledge.
> 
> Of course not since he is paid by the coal lobbies. Independant science at its best. He has extensive links to the tobacco industry.  He is a gun for hire, nothing else. If he is one of the heroes of the denialists, they better get another one.



I find it stunning, after all that has happened in the last few months, with all the trashed credibility of the IPCC and associated scientists and pseudo-scientists, that you can sit there and type that with a straight face.

ROTFLMAO

Better get another tactic, the monumental hypocrisy is now exposed.

Pot
Kettle
Black

He may have things to say about tobacco, but context is everything.

You have done the despicable thing of condemning him without knowing the full facts. 

You have no idea what his precise position is, just using the disgraceful and typical zealot tactic of (sans data and real science) character assasination.

Nice!


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> I find it stunning, after all that has happened in the last few months, with all the trashed credibility of the IPCC and associated scientists and pseudo-scientists, that you can sit there and type that with a straight face.
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> Better get another tactic, the monumental hypocrisy is now exposed.
> 
> Pot
> Kettle
> Black
> 
> He may have things to say about tobacco, but context is everything.
> 
> You have done the despicable thing of condemning him without knowing the full facts.
> 
> You have no idea what his precise position is, just using the disgraceful and typical zealot tactic of (sans data and real science) character assasination.
> 
> Nice!




What, all the other scientists are being payed by the powerful non coal lobby?

It happens all the time. He did something slightly corrupt or was compromised in some way, they then offered him more and then when he said no the lobbyists said they would expose him.

After all, they would have argued, climate change needs critics and what about all your staff. And we we will pay you $500 a day as well as support all those people who rely on you. Just do what we say. 

So he does. 

I don't know how you can defend him. If someone from the other side was exposed you would be all over it.


----------



## trainspotter

Ummmmmm .... if the world is getting hotter (read climate hysteria) how is it that the U.S. just had their 3rd coldest winter on record? The United Kingdom just had their coldest winter in 31 years? Now before everyone flames this juxtaposition there is a case to be heard that Canada has just had it hottest and driest winter on record and Western Australia the same for it's summer.
The world is a kooky place. A rationale can be drawn for both sides of the argument. The jury is out from this quarter.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I don't know how you can defend him. If someone from the other side was exposed you would be all over it.



Excuse me?

I'm not defending anybody. I am seeking facts in order to make a decision about the fellow.

If you're going to trash someone, you better have facts.

You have none.


----------



## brty

> a reputable magazine Newsweek




In terms of science, much better than that disreputable rag "Nature" or "Scientific American" or "New Scientist".

Next will be reputable opinion quotes from  "The Sun- Herald" in Melbourne.

From Dr Megan Clark...



> We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly




That's garbage, does she know what she is talking about?? Ohh hang on....


> our CO2



 What the hell is "our CO2"?? maybe it is different to atmospheric CO2 levels.



> We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said.




The science clearly shows that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now was between 15-20 million years ago, but temperatures were 3-6 degrees warmer and oceans were 25-40 metres higher than now, does she not know this?? If she does, then why say something different?? If she doesn't then why comment about climate at all???

brty


----------



## roland

The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology today, both publicly announced their acceptance of measurable evidence of man induced climate change.

Collectively they expect a 2 degree warming in the Earth's temperature to occur over the next century.

Personally I have no problems in accepting their expectations and think in the future a move a little further to the south, or an increase in altitude of a couple of thousand feet should see out my lifetime before it becomes too much of a worry to me.

From a political point of view, I am more worried about the level of control over our lives and freedoms that future Governments, Global Climate Committees, United Nations etc. are all vying for.


----------



## sneak'n

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> sneak'n
> 
> I have to point out the red herring in the debate based on logic.



I would be grateful for your explanation of the "red herring", and even more grateful for your proof on the logic.



> Based on this the views of many scientists, either way, should be heard. That is science. Proving disproving and questioning. I disagree that we have to follow research papers to be sustainable. (not to say that was said above)



I regret that I cannot make sense of this.
What is the point you are trying to make?


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Yeah!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.



You are full of double standards Mr L.
I ask you about the science and you simply refuse to respond.
Yet you want a reply on something that is a little off the topic (although of itself obliquely highly relevant), and then toss in the mandatory "ad hominem" nonsense that is in almost every reply to me (and I note to many others).
You are very, very weak on this topic and, like the poster in my earlier response, seem unable to work out why I mentioned Lindzen's oft quoted statement to a journalist (reported in the press) many years ago.
If you cannot work this out, then it is reasonably apparent why you have no intention of turning your mind to the science.
I was thinking of starting a thread on the morality and ethics of climate change denial, but this place is not suitable.


----------



## derty

brty said:


> From Dr Megan Clark...
> That's garbage, does she know what she is talking about?? Ohh hang on....
> What the hell is "our CO2"?? maybe it is different to atmospheric CO2 levels.



I assume she is referring to the planetary CO2. It is not unusual to refer to the oceans as 'our oceans' or the atmosphere as 'our atmosphere'. So where is the problem referring to the level of CO2 as 'our CO2'? Dr Clark also make no secret that she believes there is an anthropogenic component to the CO2 levels. 


brty said:


> Dr Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science clearly shows that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now was between 15-20 million years ago, but temperatures were 3-6 degrees warmer and oceans were 25-40 metres higher than now, does she not know this?? If she does, then why say something different?? If she doesn't then why comment about climate at all???
> 
> brty
Click to expand...


I don't see where her comments on atmospheric CO2 levels conflicts with what you have stated. If the levels are the highest they have been for 15-20 million years then the current levels are both a) the highest they have been for 800,000years and b) possibly the highest for the last 20 million years.

As for the 2nd part of your rationale. The proxies for CO2 measurement prior to around 800,000 years wont be giving you an annual or decadal resolution and once you get out to 15-20 million years you will be lucky to have temporal data points with a 10,000 year resolution and from the stomata proxy data that most of the middle Miocene studies are based on, a 1 million year resolution is good.

The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 we have experienced in the last 200 years is well within the resolution of the Miocene studies. Now IF the radiative forcing attributed to CO2 by the scientific studies that the IPCC estimate is based on is close to the mark there will be a GRADUAL rise in global temperature. If that rise is only 1 degree C or so per century then in only 500 years you can get your 3-6 degrees warming. All this in the blink of an eye with respect to the data resolution of the Miocene studies.

She probably didn't mention all this as it is not relevant and not comparable to what she was saying. 

As for commenting on climate change, WayneL summed it up nicely:
Pot
Kettle 
Black.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> You are full of double standards Mr L.
> I ask you about the science and you simply refuse to respond.
> Yet you want a reply on something that is a little off the topic (although of itself obliquely highly relevant), and then toss in the mandatory "ad hominem" nonsense that is in almost every reply to me (and I note to many others).
> You are very, very weak on this topic and, like the poster in my earlier response, seem unable to work out why I mentioned Lindzen's oft quoted statement to a journalist (reported in the press) many years ago.
> If you cannot work this out, then it is reasonably apparent why you have no intention of turning your mind to the science.
> I was thinking of starting a thread on the morality and ethics of climate change denial, but this place is not suitable.




You can wiggle and wriggle and twist and turn, but still no quote. Context is everything.

I say ad hominem so often because you people use it as a standard tactic. 

You preach science, yet are unwilling to even consider Lindzen's points and crap on about some illusory quote on smoking.

On the science, I'm not going to write a thesis, but I have posted many links over the years, possibly as many as you rederob, yet you continuously deny that I do so. Possibly because you refuse to read them; that they will damage your faith. 

My position on climate change (which despite your ignorant straw man claim as denialism, which it isn't) is based on my readings of the available science.

You seem unable to discern any science which contradicts your religious faith in AGW as science. You you understand how ridiculous that seems to people able to look to both views without bias? It's cultism, ironically, only common with people on the far left.

Your are getting more irrelevant to this discussion with every post, attempting to drag it backwards with petty jibes and retrograde debate. 

I can only conclude that you are not interested in finding solutions to actual problems, instead there is some other malodorous political agenda at play.


----------



## Sidamo

One favourite argument of the anti-AGW crowd is that there has been no warming in the last decade. Interestingly, NASA published their end-of-year analysis of global temperature data a while back, which you can read here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

It lists the Top 10 hottest years, in order, as 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. It also states that the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record (since 1880), a full 0.54C hotter than the 20thC average. The 90's were next, 0.36C above the 20thC average.


----------



## wayneL

Sidamo said:


> One favourite argument of the anti-AGW crowd is that there has been no warming in the last decade. Interestingly, NASA published their end-of-year analysis of global temperature data a while back, which you can read here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report
> 
> It lists the Top 10 hottest years, in order, as 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. It also states that the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record (since 1880), a full 0.54C hotter than the 20thC average. The 90's were next, 0.36C above the 20thC average.




There are lots of reasons that that is doubtful, but once again, it's Groundhog Day.

We've been over this a hundred times.


----------



## lasty

wayneL said:


> There are lots of reasons that that is doubtful, but once again, it's Groundhog Day.
> 
> We've been over this a hundred times.




Where's Penny Wong?

Where is Kevin Rudd?

Starting to see the light  or worried about his future as the world catches up with his spin.


----------



## trainspotter

Is this the light you were talking about lasty ?


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> You can wiggle and wriggle and twist and turn, but still no quote. Context is everything.
> 
> I say ad hominem so often because you people use it as a standard tactic.
> 
> You preach science, yet are unwilling to even consider Lindzen's points and crap on about some illusory quote on smoking.
> 
> On the science, I'm not going to write a thesis, but I have posted many links over the years, possibly as many as you rederob, yet you continuously deny that I do so. Possibly because you refuse to read them; that they will damage your faith.
> 
> My position on climate change (which despite your ignorant straw man claim as denialism, which it isn't) is based on my readings of the available science.
> 
> You seem unable to discern any science which contradicts your religious faith in AGW as science. You you understand how ridiculous that seems to people able to look to both views without bias? It's cultism, ironically, only common with people on the far left.
> 
> Your are getting more irrelevant to this discussion with every post, attempting to drag it backwards with petty jibes and retrograde debate.
> 
> I can only conclude that you are not interested in finding solutions to actual problems, instead there is some other malodorous political agenda at play.



Mr L, your many statements are poorly founded.

For the benefit of those that suspect a *red herring*, or believe context is everything in relation to the earlier Lindzen attribution, the link between smoking and climate change is thus: Despite what we read on cigarette packets, smoking does not cause lung cancer.  The statistical link of causality is, however, legitimate.   Similarly, we cannot yet prove that carbon dioxide causes global warming, especially as it remains one of many greenhouse gas contributors.  Even if in a century's time the globe has warmed as CO2 emissions increase, there will be difficulty in separating the direct contribution of CO2 given the complexity surrounding climate change.

The science will hinge on two key factors; the known forcings inherent to CO2, and the statistical probability of warming being due to other factors (or vice versa).

In relation to Lindzen's recent scientific contributions on climate, I can advise that his 2009 collaboration with Choi was a good effort, although it fell down completely after it failed to correct what was acknowledged as a false signal in the data.  In other words, as Lindzen and Choi continued to use data that was known to be erroneous, albeit smoothed, it rendered their conclusions deficient.

I have asked you to substantiate a number of claims, and you continue to refuse to do so, relying instead on me needing to troll through years of postings in related threads.  While climate change might be complex, much can be said in plain English, or with just a few facts.  For example, which climate scientists do not believe that radiative forcings impact on global temperature?

I do note that Basilio and rederob in other threads have posted similar themes to me, although I suspect their knowledge of the science is not as robust.  Whatever label you choose for me will not wash, as I simply defer to the probabilistic linkage of CO2 to global warming that gathers more scientific support over time.

In relation to _*actual problems*_ as your last paragraph refers, may I give an example that accentuates my view that we need to reduce CO2 emissions.  A little understood or known linkage between ocean acidification and plant life has had major impacts on sea life and the capacity of fish stock to regenerate such that the ocean food chain is seriously out of balance.  We mostly compartmentalise this to overfishing, and while this has some truth it fails to acknowledge the biological web that leads to a vibrant fish stock in the first instance.

Deniers of warming and CO2's role continually refuse to debate the science.  They seek side issues and irrelevances, and sensationalise aspects of the science that seem implausible, except when placed in proper context.

This thread clearly demonstrates those tactics.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> I do note that Basilio and *rederob*....




I managed to read your repetitious and tangential post, an attempt to deflect having been called out on the Lindzen issue, without bursting out laughing...

...that is until you referred to yourself in the third person. 

BAHAHAHAHAHA! C'mon rederob we all know it's you, admit it.


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Is this the light you were talking about lasty ?




I like how he draws Rudd as Tin Tin. Classic.


----------



## Julia

lasty said:


> Where's Penny Wong?
> 
> Where is Kevin Rudd?
> 
> Starting to see the light  or worried about his future as the world catches up with his spin.



Astonishing, isn't it.  Before Copenhagen we were "facing the greatest moral challenge of our times", it was absolutely imperative that the ETS be passed prior to Copenhagen, etc etc., but following the utter fiasco that was Copenhagen, it's as though the great moral challenge has simply disappeared.
Such is the authenticity of Rudd's and Wong's convictions.

And just consider how close we came to actually having the ETS.  Just one vote sent Malcolm Turnbull on his way and as a result it all fell over.

Lasty, I don't mind if the world fails to appreciate how much of Mr Rudd is spin.  It would just be good if most Australians understand this.  It does seem to be starting to happen.

But then, if the alternative is Mr Abbott, that's hardly a satisfying outcome either.


----------



## Atlas79

France is just quietly resisting climate hysteria by dumping their proposed carbon tax.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528328

Scariest end of world scenario since Y2K.

I have it on good authority ocean acidification is the next fake environmental catastrophe to keep the enviro loons  busy.


----------



## Knobby22

France don't need a carbon tax.
95% of their energy is nucleur or wind.


----------



## trainspotter

I read somewhere that China in one week pollutes more to the atmosphere than Australia does in one year? I could be wrong as I am relying on my memory for this tidbit of info. Also that the top 3 Chinese electricity generating companies pollute more than the entire UK ? Can this be right?


----------



## WaveSurfer

trainspotter said:


> I read somewhere that China in one week pollutes more to the atmosphere than Australia does in one year? I could be wrong as I am relying on my memory for this tidbit of info. Also that the top 3 Chinese electricity generating companies pollute more than the entire UK ? Can this be right?




Where you see things like this






I would say it's quite possible. Tree hugger or not, that can't be good for the atmosphere.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> France don't need a carbon tax.
> 95% of their energy is nucleur....




They should have a water vapour (a greenhouse gas) tax then... all them turbines. 

They should also have an obnoxious garÃ§on tax too.


----------



## Atlas79

THE worst polluted places in the world are socialist cities. Yet we have the socialist Greens and their army of useful idiots with a straight face pretending to want to save whales while setting up GULAGs for the humans.

Check this out, "10 most polluted cities": 

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1661031,00.html


----------



## Knobby22

Atlas79 said:


> THE worst polluted places in the world are socialist cities. Yet we have the socialist Greens and their army of useful idiots with a straight face pretending to want to save whales while setting up GULAGs for the humans.
> 
> Check this out, "10 most polluted cities":
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1661031,00.html




Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## wayneL




----------



## basilio

I think it is absolutely critical to keep up with latest research on climate change  and in particular when we can recognise  human caused intervention.

Came across an excellent article in the Real Climate blog which examines the albedo effect of sheep on climate change and points out that the sharp reductions  in New Zealand sheep numbers  appears to correlate extremely well with  recent increases in global warming.

Cheers


> *The Sheep Albedo Feedback*
> 
> The already-reeling "consensus" supposedly linking climate change to CO2 is about to receive its final coup-de-grace from a remarkable new result announced in a press conference today by Dr. Ewe Noh-Watt of the New Zealand Institute of Veterinary Climatology [1]. Noh-Watt and his co-workers, describing work funded by a generous grant from the Veterinary Climate Science Coalition, declared "We have seen the future of climate ”” and it is Sheep." Prof. Jean-Belliere Poisson d’Avril, star student of Claude Allegro Molto-Troppo (discoverer of the Tropposphere) reacted with the words, "Parbleu! C’est la meilleure chose depuis les baguettes tranchÃ©es!"
> 
> The hypothesis begins with the simple observation that most sheep are white, and therefore have a higher albedo than the land on which they typically graze (see figure below). This effect is confirmed by the recent Sheep Radiation Budget Experiment. The next step in the chain of logic is to note that the sheep population of New Zealand has plummeted in recent years. The resulting decrease in albedo leads to an increase in absorbed Solar radiation, thus warming the planet. The Sheep Albedo hypothesis draws some inspiration from the earlier work of Squeak and Diddlesworth [2] on the effect of the ptarmigan population on the energy balance of the Laurentide ice sheet. Noh-Watt hastens to emphasize that the two hypotheses are quite distinct, since the species of ptarmigan involved in the Squeak-Diddlesworth effect is now extinct.
> 
> The proof of the pudding is in the data, shown in the Figure below. Here, the Sheep Albedo Index is defined as the New Zealand Sheep population in each year, subtracted from the 2007 population. The index is defined that way because fewer sheep means lower albedo, and thus a positive radiative forcing. It can be seen that the recent warming can be explained entirely by the decline in the New Zealand sheep population, without any need to bring in any mysterious so-called "radiative forcing" from carbon dioxide, which doesn’t affect the sunlight (hardly) anyway ”” unlike Sheep Albedo. Some researchers have expressed surprise at the large effect from the relatively small radiative forcing attributable to New Zealand Sheep, or indeed to New Zealand as a whole. "This only shows the fallacy of the concept of Radiative Forcing, which is after all only a theory, not a fact," says Noh-Watt. "Evidently there are amplifying feedbacks at work which give the Sheep Albedo Index a disproportionate influence over climate."




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-sheep-albedo-feedbacki/langswitch_lang/en/


----------



## basilio

Further to the discussions on albedo effect of sheep on global warming there has been some  shearing-edge research being conducted by the New Zealand Wool Board and the Wine Institute – code-named the vin de mouton project. Under normal conditions, turning an old sheep paddock into a vineyard would be a climate “double whammy” – loss of sheep albedo effect made worse by the heat-absorbing canopy of a growing vineyard (see here for an example).

The research programme began by exploring the concept of “wool offsets”, where vineyards could purchase sheep in other parts of the country to offset their warming effect, but it quickly became obvious that this would be difficult to monitor and implement. Sheep on south-facing slopes, for instance, have a much lower albedo effect than those on north-facing slopes (remember, this is the southern hemisphere). Trials with GPS monitoring of sheep movements in rolling hill country did show that the animals do seek out sunnier spots on colder days, but this was affected by fleece length (more fleece, less need for external heat) and by the animals’ need for shade in hot weather.

Recent work has established that the only way to make the wool offset concept work is to apply it at the vineyard level. Each vineyard maintains its own flock of sheep (about one sheep to 100 vines), and they are grazed between the vines at regular intervals – good for weed control and fertilisation, though they do have a tendency to like vine leaves (especially sheep with Greek bloodlines). This can be overcome by timing the application of sheep to the vineyard so that they animals can assist with leaf pruning to expose grape bunches to sunlight. The sheep are also fed all the prunings, and early results indicate that this diet significantly reduces the methane produced compared with an all-grass diet. Feed the sheep the grape skins left after the fruit is crushed for wine-making, and the sheepmeat develops a wonderful dark colour and marvellous flavours. Vine-fed lamb is expected to begin trial marketing soon, and it is expected to be a hit with gourmets in all our export markets (except, possibly, France).

The effect of sheep on wine quality is however a little more problematic. The flavour of sauvignon blanc – NZ’s flagship varietal – has been likened to “cat’s pee on a gooseberry bush”, and with overuse of wool offsets this can be a little more like “ram’s pee on a blackcurrant bush”. Trials with different breeds are continuing, and currently it looks as though merinos are the most benign on the basis of final bouquet.

Rererence. See above


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The effect of sheep on wine quality is however a little more problematic. The flavour of sauvignon blanc – NZ’s flagship varietal – has been likened to “cat’s pee on a gooseberry bush”, and with overuse of wool offsets this can be a little more like “ram’s pee on a blackcurrant bush”. Trials with different breeds are continuing, and currently it looks as though merinos are the most benign on the basis of final bouquet.
> 
> Rererence. See above




Sauvignon Blanc is for Champagne Socialists who haven't ripped off the public enough to afford genuine Champers and think themselves progressive for moving on from Chardonnay (which tastes like the gender specific urine of a specific indigenous group).

Real men and women drink Hawkes Bay Red. The producers of _vino locale_ are also doing their best to stave off the imminent ice age by hovering choppers over the vines on frosty mornings. A truly heroic and selfless effort.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I think it is absolutely critical to keep up with latest research on climate change  and in particular when we can recognise  human caused intervention.
> 
> Came across an excellent article in the Real Climate blog which examines the albedo effect of sheep on climate change and points out that the sharp reductions  in New Zealand sheep numbers  appears to correlate extremely well with  recent increases in global warming.







> The already-reeling "consensus" supposedly linking climate change to CO2 is about to receive its final coup-de-grace from a remarkable new result announced in a press conference today by Dr. Ewe Noh-Watt of the New Zealand Institute of Veterinary Climatology.





You know what? I think Dr Ewe Noh-Watt pinched his name off Kevin Rudd.


----------



## Buddy

Er, sheep and climate change?
What date is it?


----------



## Calliope

Buddy said:


> Er, sheep and climate change?
> What date is it?




I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.


----------



## trainspotter

Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping. Only 1–2% of global methane emissions come from livestock flatus.

Since New Zealand produces large amounts of agricultural product it is in a unique position of having high methane emissions livestock compared to other greenhouse gas sources. The New Zealand government is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and therefore, attempts are being made to reduce greenhouse emissions. To achieve this an agricultural emissions research levy was proposed, which promptly became known as a "fart tax" or "flatulence tax". It encountered opposition from farmers, farming lobby groups and opposition politicians.

In Fresno, California, a system to harvest methane by-product from dairy cattle and convert it to usable bio-gas is being used, in a partnership with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and BioEnergy Solutions, in which BioEnergy Solutions sells the methane harvested from cows to PG&E, who then converts the methane to usable bio-gas, which is very similar to natural gas.

In June 2009 Paul McCartney and other celebrities launched a "Meat Free Monday" campaign in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the world's livestock.

Thank you Wikipedia !


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.



Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
> I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.
> 
> Julia
> 
> Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!




Yeah. Couldn't let today go by without a little levity.

By the way there was  a brilliant little piece in The Guardian which announced that Gordon Brown was going to go agro in the run up to the next election to get the alpha male votes. Clever bit of work- and  the scary part was you could actually see the spin doctors nodding their heads.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!




You mean the light side

The scientific program Catalyst (ABC) was good tonight. A part of it was how glaciers have retreated massively throughout the world over the last 150 years. Quite fascinating.


----------



## sneak'n

Post April Fool's Day a protagonistic retrospective of the thread is handy (comments in blue):


wayneL said:


> Basilio, Knobby, et al:
> 
> And the pro AGW theories are based on.....?Based on the science, as proven month after month, year after year and decade after decade.  Moreover, there is no reputable rebuttal.Climategate anyone? As the "climategate" inquiry revealed last week, there was no evidence that the scientific argument was diminished, although there was a need for greater transparancy.
> 
> Repetition is no substitute for truth, no matter how repetitiously the repetition is repeated. In this matter I agree.  The problem is that climate change deniers continue to bandy around baseless and discredited "facts", and the likes of Monckton give them an air of credibility.
> 
> In fact, when I see such baseless dogma, it is because the debate has been lost on intellectual grounds. Certainly unproven in this thread, and the contributions of this poster demonstrate both the previous point and the inability of deniers to present a cogent case. All that is left is propaganda. This is an example of twisting a scientific case into a media circus whereby the poorly and illinformed are dripfed on information and events that purportedly represent what is really happening.  Dull and boring scientists are not interested in the media spotlight, nor can they easily present years of complex research to lay audiences that pine for definitive one line explanations.
> AGWers have well and truly lost the battle of the century,  not that there is any evidence of this but, as repetition is no substitute for truth, it will resonate with deniers  yet the war rages on. Actually, the science continues, and the findings each year give added to the strength to the theory of human-induced global warming


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Post April Fool's Day a protagonistic retrospective of the thread is handy (comments in blue):




Ahhh like the VI AGW community, the duplicitous rederob never gives up. The fact that you deny your identity, even when busted, is revealing.

Once again the straw man argument of me as a denier is re-repeated. One would have thought that rederob as one with sufficient IQ to grasp the simple point of my challenges with the Gorist/IPCC presentation of climate science. 

Alas, no! Unless the the goal is in fact to promulgate IPCC propaganda.

Your problem rederob, is selective consideration and biased interpretation of climate science... for what reason one can only speculate. However it is not lost on those capable of balanced consideration of data presented that such people as yourself are notably leftist. 

Prime example is the recent case of the presentation of the disappearance of New Moore Island in the Bay of Bengal as due to AGW, viz, sea level rise. This was laughable as readers comments in the link show.

Meanwhile disciples of the AGW religion continue to be lost around the world as intelligent folk evaluate both sides of the debate.

Meanwhile, as I've stated at least a hundred times on here, the real, measurable and mitigable human influences on climate and the ecosystem are ignored; and peoples trust of real science is compromised making it ever more difficult for community action.

No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.




Leftists! Don't bring that political crap into the argument.
Many of the right are worried.

I give you an example - Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arbon-neutrality/story-e6frg6n6-1111113507477


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Leftists! Don't bring that political crap into the argument.
> Many of the right are worried.
> 
> I give you an example - Rupert Murdoch.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arbon-neutrality/story-e6frg6n6-1111113507477



Murdoch is neither left nor right and plays both ends against the middle for his own advantage, he is a mercenary. In the UK, he sees advantage in supporting the left.

Somehow, Murdoch sees money in this.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Its starting to cool at night again in Townsville , as one would expect for this time of year.

I read that the Arctic ice is reforming. 

I do wish these religious nuts on Warming would get some new beliefs worthy of at least a rational if not empirical argument against the conservative view of the world. 

All the lefties, all jump, at the same time on to every softbrained theory to deny that the world is a better place under intelligent rational progress and rigid review of evidence.

gg


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Once again the straw man argument of me as a denier is re-repeated.



Why not demonstrate your grasp of the science rather than repeat ad nauseum posts in reply that totally lack substance.I have raised many points against your assertions that remain unchallenged or unsubstantiated.  The tried and proven tactics of deniers seem to be your stock in trade.



> Alas, no! Unless the the goal is in fact to promulgate IPCC propaganda.



Again a demonstration of the denier's stance that the IPCC has not produced a report that stands on its science but, rather, some spin.  Yet there is no evidence that this is the case.

Like most deniers you present information that the media has latched onto, which has little or nothing of merit from a scientific perspective:


> Prime example is the recent case of the presentation of the disappearance of New Moore Island in the Bay of Bengal as due to AGW, viz, sea level rise. This was laughable as readers comments in the link show.



In a twist of logic, deniers accuse those who trust the science as being zealots, disciples and the like, while themselves latching onto a cohort that spins quasi-scientific information in the name of climate science:







> Meanwhile disciples of the AGW religion continue to be lost around the world as intelligent folk evaluate both sides of the debate.



Then Mr L searches for legitimacy by going back to his roots:







> Meanwhile, as I've stated at least a hundred times on here, the real, measurable and mitigable human influences on climate and the ecosystem are ignored; and peoples trust of real science is compromised making it ever more difficult for community action.



Certainly our ecosystems are compromised, and in some nations nothing at all is done.  But in relation to measurable and mitigable influences on climate, the main protagonist is carbon, and we need to move forward on ETS, CPRS, EITe and POI to get emissions under control.
It seems that some think that we cannot act on all fronts simultaneously to improve our collective lot.  The reality is that we mostly are, but at some point priorities kick in.  



> No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.



Finally, Mr L uses language that denies the science, and cannot produce evidence to support his case.
Mr L may believe this about left and right ideologies, and he may use language to sway you to his view.  His case lacks a sound base, is fraught with emotion, and is deficient in its science.


----------



## brty

GG,

The alarmists conveniently overlook what is CURRENTLY happening to sea ice. A couple of years ago the smaller area of sea ice was all the rage with the albedo (or lack there of) effect going to accelerate GW. 

It is strange how the increase in ice doesn't seem to have the opposite effect  

Of course more ice, especially in Antarctica, is just another example of GW, go figure.

brty


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> GG,
> 
> The alarmists conveniently overlook what is CURRENTLY happening to sea ice. A couple of years ago the smaller area of sea ice was all the rage with the albedo (or lack there of) effect going to accelerate GW.
> 
> It is strange how the increase in ice doesn't seem to have the opposite effect
> 
> Of course more ice, especially in Antarctica, is just another example of GW, go figure.
> 
> brty



Hysterical deniers keep dragging this up, yet evidence of sea ice volumes and extent corroborates the warming case.
As Mr L eloquently points out, "repetition is no substitute for truth".
In relation to Antarctica, others have posted numerous explanations as to its difference from the Arctic region.
While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time, Antarctic sea ice has mostly tracked its 20-year average and remained well within two standard deviations.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sneak'n said:


> Hysterical deniers keep dragging this up, yet evidence of sea ice volumes and extent corroborates the warming case.
> As Mr L eloquently points out, "repetition is no substitute for truth".
> In relation to Antarctica, others have posted numerous explanations as to its difference from the Arctic region.
> While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time, Antarctic sea ice has mostly tracked its 20-year average and remained well within two standard deviations.




Good on ya sneak'n, for a bloke with less than 50 posts you have jumped right in to the spirit of ASF. You do sound like another poster of some time back though, my syntaxonometer thinks so anyway.

Now re hysteria, you so far in your posts would be a provider of more dough to the ole Freud were he still in practice than any engaging in argument with you since your debut on the forum.

Your post has a religious tone to it, calling people "deniers" who don't agree with you, why not call them "infidels" or "unbelievers" and blow em up or burn em at the stake.

The Koranobiblical evidence you quote is just that, a set of beliefs. Science continues in the face of that, never really sure of the exact truth, experimenting, collating and sharing information.

Please don't sneak off though, you sweet little newbie you. I enjoy your posts.

gg


----------



## brty

Sneak'n,

This is a classic example of the alarmists attitude....



> While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time




That is just plain wrong.

The current anomaly in sea ice area for the Arctic from the average over the last 30 years is 1.38%. Also there is as much sea-ice now as there has been at any stage in the last 6 years, and more than for most of that time.



> sea ice volumes




The effect on albedo of volume is what?? 

Us sceptics think area may be more important here, but then again perhaps I have missed something here.
According to IPCC data Antarctica sea-ice is growing at 1% per decade, but that doesn't fit the models or the science, so by using the cutoff point of late 2005 for data we can call the increase not statistically significant and ignore more sea-ice, and albedo effect etc etc.  

bye


----------



## Calliope

sneak'n said:


> In a twist of logic, *deniers accuse those who trust the science as being zealots, disciples and the like, *while themselves latching onto a cohort that spins quasi-scientific information in the name of climate science:




Twist of logic? As one who trusts "The Science" you have forfeited any credibility in this debate by being in denial that you are a resurrected  version of Rederob even to the extent that you have referred to your _alter ego_ in the third person.

I realise that you have enmeshed yourself too deeply in this tangled web of deception to extricate yourself, but your preaching now has the smell of hypocrisy.


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> Sneak'n,
> This is a classic example of the alarmists attitude....
> 
> That is just plain wrong.
> 
> The current anomaly in sea ice area for the Arctic from the average over the last 30 years is 1.38%. Also there is as much sea-ice now as there has been at any stage in the last 6 years, and more than for most of that time.



If you cite your references I will be pleased to reply in detail.



> The effect on albedo of volume is what??



Albedo has no volumetric impact on sea ice as it measures "reflection".  Furthermore, as the sun does not shine at either of the polar regions during the winter high points for sea ice, there is no albedo effect.



> Us sceptics think area may be more important here, but then again perhaps I have missed something here.
> According to IPCC data Antarctica sea-ice is growing at 1% per decade, but that doesn't fit the models or the science, so by using the cutoff point of late 2005 for data we can call the increase not statistically significant and ignore more sea-ice, and albedo effect etc etc.



  Different parts of Antarctica are experiencing opposite impacts, such as the Antarctic Peninsula, which is  experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.


----------



## wayneL

Ahhh rederob! In an attitude reminiscent of young earth creationists. You're so 2008, so behind the curve on revelations in the CC arena.

I was going to fisk your fisking, but it's like trying to rationalize with some sort of mad mullah - futile.

Those folks capable of logical and balanced discernment have already, or soon will realised they have been scammed via all the Gorist/IPCC nonsense. A certain number of faithful will stay trapped in the Gorist twilight zone, even as we enter a new cooling cycle.

_C'est la vie, que sera sera,_ etc etc


----------



## WaveSurfer

Sdajii said:


> ...people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to....




One of the better posts in this thread. And that sentence about sums it all up in a nice little package.

This immediately came to mind:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php

Oh we're a naÃ¯ve primitive race aren't we? Considering this "revelation" that drastically changed science was only 150 years ago, we've still got a very long way to go before we can call ourselves informed 

I'm not on either side of the argument, nor on the fence. I'm in my own paddock, doing my own thing. Because in the end, no-one really has the slightest clue at this stage. Everyone likes to have a stab in the dark though. And quite a wild one at that :

Someone come and get me when the next "Pasteur" proves it as fact or fiction.


----------



## brty

Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm

Oops the models got that one wrong..

Sneak'n..



> If you cite your references I will be pleased to reply in detail.




http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Only the 'official' stats that everyone uses.



> Furthermore, as the sun does not shine at either of the polar regions during the winter high points for sea ice, there is no albedo effect.




So there is no albedo effect in summer either?? please do better.


brty


----------



## sneak'n

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Your post has a religious tone to it, calling people "deniers" who don't agree with you, why not call them "infidels" or "unbelievers" and blow em up or burn em at the stake.



Mr Gumnut
I could use longhand and each time refer to one or any number of people who "deny" that there is any substance to the science that supports human-induced global warming theory, or I could call them "deniers"; the latter being my preference.
You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.
I find that most deniers simply regurgitate falsehoods and myths that abound the popular media.  A lesser number look at the evidence, don't understand it, and come to wrongheaded conclusions.  If their beliefs are poorly based, it is possible they might change.  On the other hand, there are some who quite deliberately choose information to obfuscate the facts and mislead.  It would be an error of judgement to call them infidels or unbelievers as they have a special agenda.  Do you wish to elaborate yours?


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Ahhh rederob! In an attitude reminiscent of young earth creationists. You're so 2008, so behind the curve on revelations in the CC arena.
> 
> I was going to fisk your fisking, but it's like trying to rationalize with some sort of mad mullah - futile.
> 
> Those folks capable of logical and balanced discernment have already, or soon will realised they have been scammed via all the Gorist/IPCC nonsense. A certain number of faithful will stay trapped in the Gorist twilight zone, even as we enter a new cooling cycle.
> 
> _C'est la vie, que sera sera,_ etc etc



Is there a point in time when you will substantiate your claims?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sneak'n said:


> Mr Gumnut
> I could use longhand and each time refer to one or any number of people who "deny" that there is any substance to the science that supports human-induced global warming theory, or I could call them "deniers"; the latter being my preference.
> You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.
> I find that most deniers simply regurgitate falsehoods and myths that abound the popular media.  A lesser number look at the evidence, don't understand it, and come to wrongheaded conclusions.  If their beliefs are poorly based, it is possible they might change.  On the other hand, there are some who quite deliberately choose information to obfuscate the facts and mislead.  It would be an error of judgement to call them infidels or unbelievers as they have a special agenda.  Do you wish to elaborate yours?




I don't have any real agenda, I enjoy life and the earth. I leave shopping trolleys back where they should go, and I don't litter and I grow vegies and fruit, and work, try to be nice within the limits of my personality and believe in a strong and independent Australia.

So I am just an ordinary garpal.

I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.

I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.

I am not a scientist and am as entitled to voice my opinion on this as much as the next garpal particularly when my country is led by an Alabama hating nerd who had a bald minister who wasted millions of my taxes on this stupid, stupid nonsense by electrifying little old ladies ceilings.

All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.

gg


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm
> Oops the models got that one wrong..



This reference has little to do with Arctic/Antarctic sea ice extent, and proves nothing - from the article  itself: _For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."_



> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
> 
> Only the 'official' stats that everyone uses.



As others will see from your attached reference (below chart), cherry picking data is not a useful way to demonstrate a multidecadal trend.  In recent years the decline in sea ice extent has neared 20% of the 30 year average.
As a point of note, my data clearly stated a different time series, and a different outcome, and were derived from the National Sea Ice and Data Centre:  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html


----------



## sneak'n

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.



You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness.  Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.
The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.



> I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.



I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> ...as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.




That would be true if climate science was truly evidence based, but it isn't.

Politics is involved _ab initio_, right from the funding stage. In fact funding is only available for scientists seeking to confirm the politically driven IPCC AGW hypothesis.

Climate science cannot be divorced from politics at this point and I find it incredible that you naively believe it is.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> That would be true if climate science was truly evidence based, but it isn't.
> 
> Politics is involved _ab initio_, right from the funding stage. In fact funding is only available for scientists seeking to confirm the politically driven IPCC AGW hypothesis.
> 
> Climate science cannot be divorced from politics at this point and I find it incredible that you naively believe it is.



Please substantiate your claims.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sneak'n said:


> You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness.  Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.
> The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.
> 
> I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.




I guess we'll have to differ as I honestly cannot understand where you are coming from and you equally cannot understand my point of view.

I will continue though as I said above to oppose your views until all the evidence is in, one way or the other, it is too important to have politicians from the New Left and scientists in their pay deciding the future of Australia. 

gg


----------



## Solly

Mr Bolt presents this proposition,

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes


----------



## Calliope

Garpal Gumnut said:


> All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.
> gg




You probably realise that trying to have a rational debate with sneak'n is an exercise in futility. He has a fundamentalist belief in man-made global warming and his acceptance of "the science"  is as fixated as a creationist's belief in the old testament.

This is a clear case of common sense and fundamentalism being not compatible.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> You probably realise that trying to have a rational debate with sneak'n is an exercise in futility. He has a fundamentalist belief in man-made global warming and his acceptance of "the science"  is as fixated as a creationist's belief in the old testament.
> 
> This is a clear case of common sense and fundamentalism being not compatible.




I realise that, thanks , Calliope.

All his charts look like five minute stock charts, he has no idea that you work back from longer term charts in technical analysis and I don't buy any of them as there is a huge data void. i presume it is true in weather analysis as well.

gg


----------



## Julia

sneak'n said:


> You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.



Oh dear, Rederob, despite your woeful tendency to discredit those who disagree with you, I usually take pleasure in your posts because they are literate.
You have let yourself down here, sadly.  
"As I see is your want", should be "as I see is your wont":  "wont" meaning habit.
So disappointing from one of your sensibilities.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I don't have any real agenda, I enjoy life and the earth. I leave shopping trolleys back where they should go, and I don't litter and I grow vegies and fruit, and work, try to be nice within the limits of my personality and believe in a strong and independent Australia.
> 
> So I am just an ordinary garpal.
> 
> I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.
> 
> I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.
> 
> I am not a scientist and am as entitled to voice my opinion on this as much as the next garpal particularly when my country is led by an Alabama hating nerd who had a bald minister who wasted millions of my taxes on this stupid, stupid nonsense by electrifying little old ladies ceilings.
> 
> All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.
> 
> gg







sneak'n said:


> You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness.  Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.



Hence the logic of taking a position of agnosticism.




> The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.
> 
> I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.



How is your conclusion 'evidence based'?  If it were, there would be no room for disagreement.  Your final sentence is in opposition to your earlier comment.
You are indulging in pure sophistry, Rederob.  I'd have expected better.


----------



## sneak'n

Julia said:


> How is your conclusion 'evidence based'?  If it were, there would be no room for disagreement.  Your final sentence is in opposition to your earlier comment.



Your inference is not valid.  Mr L would accuse you of constructing a straw man argument.

If you and others wish to discuss climate science I am pleased to do so.  If you and others wish to pursue rederob, I would be grateful if that chase occurred elsewhere.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Your inference is not valid.  Mr L would accuse you of constructing a straw man argument.



No I wouldn't, because it isn't.



> If you and others wish to discuss climate science I am pleased to do so.



Climate science is important to discuss, but as this thread is about resisting climate hysteria, it is secondary in this thread. It is evident in a thousand other places, and particularly in light of recent revelations that pro co2 based AGW "science" is mostly junk.

If one wishes to discuss climate change, that's fine, but it is irritating when those such as yourself toe the party line so faithfully in denial of the full range of information out there. An analysis of the science reveals that much of it is constructed to achieve a desired result and/or leaping to conclusions not backed by the data.... a scientific non-sequitur.

As above, politics is intrinsic to the discussion.



> If you and others wish to pursue rederob, I would be grateful if that chase occurred elsewhere.



Well, we all realise that you would be grateful if we ignored your previous ASF incarnation. But the syntax of your postings, the not so subtle hint in your new user name, and on obvious grudge are so marked, that it betrays your true identity faithfully.

Don't forget that we are traders, we have trained to see patterns.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Don't forget that we are traders, we have trained to see patterns.




Global warming induced by the continued population explosion will not go away.  Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Global warming induced by the continued population explosion will not go away.  Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.




Excuse me?

You seem to have acquired rederob's disgraceful habit in misrepresenting my statements. When did I say there is no climate change? My point is over causation and I have repeatedly stated that there are both manmade and natural causes. My dispute is over the role of co2 and the misrepresentations of the Gorist/IPCC agenda.

Learn to read and comprehend buddy so-as not to appear so intellectually compromised.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> No I wouldn't, because it isn't.



As I made no such remark, and could draw no conclusion, Julia simply created an argument of her choosing to respond to.




> Climate science is important to discuss, but as this thread is about resisting climate hysteria, it is secondary in this thread. It is evident in a thousand other places, and particularly in light of recent revelations that pro co2 based AGW "science" is mostly junk.



The hysteria is where? 
Media outlets desperate for storylines choose the least probable of possible scenarios and blow them into the headlines.  The science is very conservative.
You keep saying the science is mostly junk, yet you cannot prove it, and I have yet to see that you have a grasp on it. 




> If one wishes to discuss climate change, that's fine, but it is irritating when those such as yourself toe the party line so faithfully in denial of the full range of information out there. An analysis of the science reveals that much of it is constructed to achieve a desired result and/or leaping to conclusions not backed by the data.... a scientific non-sequitur.



What is the party line?
I have kept my comments to the science.
Perhaps a difference is that I review the science that other scientists review, rather than what hits the media.




> As above, politics is intrinsic to the discussion.



Only because you believe this.  The scientific forums where peer reviewed material is presented are devoid of politicians, and the politics is more about who is next Chair.




> Well, we all realise that you would be grateful if we ignored your previous ASF incarnation. But the syntax of your postings, the not so subtle hint in your new user name, and on obvious grudge are so marked, that it betrays your true identity faithfully.



Tilling your wonted ground to no avail!  There is no "grudge", and there is barely a debate when it comes to your posts as there is nothing to progress.  Dare I ask again that you add something of substance?


----------



## WaveSurfer

explod said:


> *Global warming induced by the continued population explosion *will not go away.  Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.




But where is the _indisputable scientific evidence_ to support this? That's all that any sceptic is asking for. And damn rightly so. Given the history of mankind's lies, deceit, corruption, manipulation and most of all *mistakes*, it's hardly no wonder why people will continue to question any half-baked theories. 

What if it's just a natural cycle? What are the dire consequences of getting it all wrong? Considering we can't adequately predict what the weather will do in 3 days time, I find it very hard to comprehend that they know what's going to happen in 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

Science is about finding the *truth*. Something a lot of scientists seem to have forgotten about since they left University (it's the very first thing that they teach you).

I take my hat off to those who continually question, in order to find the truth. If we believed and acted on every single half-baked theory that scientists manifest, god help us all.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> The hysteria is where?




The rest of your comments are repeat points that you seem incapable of grasping, so will leave you to your faith.

However the above is a good question.

The word hysteria is perhaps a tad hyperbolic as not many are running around in circles in the street. But we live in a culture where hyperbole is so common, so overused, any diminutive would seem inappropriate. The entire debate has been framed in hyperbole, mostly from the Gorists.

However when I speak to young people indoctrinated by the education system into thinking we we all be crowded onto mountain peaks, surrounded by swirling, boiling oceans and daily cyclones by this time next year (That is again hyperbole, rederob), then we have entered a hysterical phase. Those affected are without hope, angry, depressed etc.

So let us continue in a hyperbolic vein.

When there are protests against climate change, we have entered hysteria.

When the press blames every weather event on GW, it is hysteria.

When an island disappears in the Bay of Bengal due to normal dynamic and is blamed on rising sea levels, it is hysteria.

When encroaching seas due land subsidence are attributed to rising sea levels, it is hysteria.

When an unnecessary and ineffective carbon tax is proposed and accepted by ordinary folk, it is hysteria.

When people like you and explod distort the very words on the page in front of your face do satisfy your cult like and undiscerning adherence to the Gorist agenda, it is hysteria.

It is ultimately counter productive. The public are starting to realise they have been scammed, they are losing belief in AGW in large numbers; no because of some oil money based campaign of denial, but because the Gorist agenda has been exposed as fraudulent and inevitably lost credibility.

This is unfortunate, because the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater and other environmental issues are cast with doubt as well... things I have mentioned often on this and other threads.

Hysteria? No, not in the literal sense, but in the above sense, certainly.


----------



## Knobby22

I actually think the hysteria is on either viewpoint.

It seems that the media more and more cannot describe a balanced view but instead brings out the (usually discredited) extremists on both sides of the argument and completely misses the original ground.

I notice the skeptics are now using political argument i.e. stating you are left wing if you believe man is having an effect on climate change. So much so that it is used as a form of abuse. This is of course gone the other way as well.

The truth is in between, there are the facts, there are theories and in my view there is no giant scientific conspiracy. 

There is no real point arguing. The people (sheep) are being coerced by political agendas and am generally unable to understand the science. Scientist are being attacked like never before but the truth will win out.

Give it 5 years and the heat will all be gone out of this argument as the resulting climate change or lack of it will be obvious.

Most of the world is taking it seriously and modifying their economies. 
Places like Australia will follow eventually.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Give it 5 years and the heat will all be gone out of this argument as the resulting climate change or lack of it will be obvious.




5 years will prove nothing either way.


----------



## WaveSurfer

Watching the Discovery Science channel a few weeks back, I saw a program that claimed to have the solution for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. They were building large wave pump funnels, placed in the Atlantic ocean that went down below the surface of the ocean to a certain depth where photosynthesis was not occurring (1000 or so feet I think it was). They funnelled up the minerals phytoplankton were derived from to produce more phytoplankton. This then absorbs the CO2 and takes most of it down to the bottom of the sea bed.

Oh here ya go, just found it. This should explain it
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/project-earth-hungry-ocean.html

There you go. Scientists acting on half-baked theories with absolutely no idea about what sort of consequences these sort of actions would have.



> For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
> _Sir Isaac Newton_





This was only very briefly mentioned at the end of the program. They may as we'll of said, we're acting now and we'll think about it later


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> But where is the _indisputable scientific evidence_ to support this? That's all that any sceptic is asking for. And damn rightly so. Given the history of mankind's lies, deceit, corruption, manipulation and most of all *mistakes*, it's hardly no wonder why people will continue to question any half-baked theories.



There is only probability thus far in relation to the theory. Since the last IPCC report the "evidence" has not gone the other way but, rather, has favoured the theory and increased the probability.



> What if it's just a natural cycle? What are the dire consequences of getting it all wrong? Considering we can't adequately predict what the weather will do in 3 days time, I find it very hard to comprehend that they know what's going to happen in 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.



That is not a clever way of looking at the problem. Imagine you were at the opposite end of a large fish tank that was being heated to boiling point.  It would be possible for you to avoid the heating trend for some time, and within cycles you could find cooler water from time to time, although the water was incrementally heating at a net level.  The addition of CO2 to our atmosphere, in conjunction with relatively stable solar radiation, has an analogous impact in that at some point things are going very uncomfortable (though not "boiling").



> Science is about finding the *truth*. Something a lot of scientists seem to have forgotten about since they left University (it's the very first thing that they teach you).



If that was always the case there would be much better science from those who do not regard CO2 as a major concern.



> I take my hat off to those who continually question, in order to find the truth. If we believed and acted on every single half-baked theory that scientists manifest, god help us all.



So do you believe that human induced climate change is half baked? If so, what science informs you?


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> The rest of your comments are repeat points that you seem incapable of grasping, so will leave you to your faith.



In other words your grasp of the science remains in doubt.



> When people like you and explod distort the very words on the page in front of your face do satisfy your cult like and undiscerning adherence to the Gorist agenda, it is hysteria.



I would be grateful if you can present what I have distorted.  Your position seems to acknowledge that man has a role in warming, but how do you quantify that component?




> It is ultimately counter productive. The public are starting to realise they have been scammed, they are losing belief in AGW in large numbers; no because of some oil money based campaign of denial, but because the Gorist agenda has been exposed as fraudulent and inevitably lost credibility.



This is your mantra.  If anyone is being scammed it is they who have no idea of the complexity of climate, and can believe the media because they are credible! 



> This is unfortunate, because the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater and other environmental issues are cast with doubt as well... things I have mentioned often on this and other threads.



This is because climate change advocates are most vocal from the green movement (or the left as some prefer), and the conservative/right oppose their every motive.  There is a cost to keeping things clean and environmentally friendly and capitalism works best by avoiding those costs.  The quid pro quo for keeping businesses local is to transfer incidental costs the taxpayer.  This will see an ETS in place whether we like it or not.


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> Watching the Discovery Science channel a few weeks back, I saw a program that claimed to have the solution for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. They were building large wave pump funnels, placed in the Atlantic ocean that went down below the surface of the ocean to a certain depth where photosynthesis was not occurring (1000 or so feet I think it was). They funnelled up the minerals phytoplankton were derived from to produce more phytoplankton. This then absorbs the CO2 and takes most of it down to the bottom of the sea bed.
> 
> Oh here ya go, just found it. This should explain it
> http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/project-earth-hungry-ocean.html
> 
> There you go. Scientists acting on half-baked theories with absolutely no idea about what sort of consequences these sort of actions would have.
> 
> 
> This was only very briefly mentioned at the end of the program. They may as we'll of said, we're acting now and we'll think about it later



It's not a half baked theory as phytoplankton has been largely responsible for keeping CO2 levels as low as they are.  A cheaper option would be to treat the oceans as large paddocks, and scatter minerals that grow phytoplankton from planes.
The problem with the idea is that our oceans are getting too acidic, and adding to it does not tally with common sense.


----------



## Calliope

sneak'n said:


> I would be grateful if you can present what I have distorted.




Your identity. This is a gross distortion. I notice you are still referring to rederob in the third person.

*"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive"*


----------



## WaveSurfer

sneak'n said:


> That is not a clever way of looking at the problem. Imagine you were at the opposite end of a large fish tank that was being heated to boiling point.  It would be possible for you to avoid the heating trend for some time, and within cycles you could find cooler water from time to time, although the water was incrementally heating at a net level.  The addition of CO2 to our atmosphere, in conjunction with relatively stable solar radiation, has an analogous impact in that at some point things are going very uncomfortable (though not "boiling").




That's not a clever way of looking a the problem either. The question you failed to address is why is it heating? A natural process or a man-induced process. A simple question that "sceptic scientists" are asking today.



sneak'n said:


> If that was always the case there would be much better science from those who do not regard CO2 as a major concern.




Huh? Extreme excesses of CO2 is well known to be of concern. That is a known fact. CO2 is toxic - any basic chemistry 101 book will tell you that. I believe you meant - those who do not regard the *current levels of CO2* to be of major concern.



sneak'n said:


> So do you believe that human induced climate change is half baked? If so, what science informs you?




No science whatsoever informs me of this. The *lack of it* however does 

As I said before, I'm not on any side. Past history has shown it's ludicrous to take a side and act upon that assumption without first determining all of the facts.

If scientists can't agree on what's really going on, no assumptive posts on a public bulletin board are going to convince me otherwise. I'm more of a realist, not a sheep. I was given a brain and I'm going to use it to make my own mind - not be lead by propaganda.


----------



## WaveSurfer

sneak'n said:


> It's not a half baked theory as phytoplankton has been largely responsible for keeping CO2 levels as low as they are.  A cheaper option would be to treat the oceans as large paddocks, and scatter minerals that grow phytoplankton from planes...




You ain't gonna feed words into my mouth pal.

Read what I said again



> Scientists *acting on half-baked theories*



I never said the solution was half-baked.


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> That's not a clever way of looking a the problem either. The question you failed to address is why is it heating? A natural process or a man-induced process. A simple question that "sceptic scientists" are asking today.



I have repeatedly indicated the probability lies with CO2 emissions exacerbated by humans.



> No science whatsoever informs me of this. The *lack of it* however does



Given the debate is centred on the science, your position is best established by having some view of it. There is certainly no "lack of it" unless you simply wish to be dismissive.



> If scientists can't agree on what's really going on, no assumptive posts on a public bulletin board are going to convince me otherwise. I'm more of a realist, not a sheep. I was given a brain and I'm going to use it to make my own mind - not be lead by propaganda.



Climate scientists do agree - a significant majority - and their views are in the public domain because of the probable dire (long term) consequences of not acting soon.


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> I never said the solution was half-baked.



You might then care to explain what is *half baked*.  
If, as you say, the solution is not half baked, your post implies the theory is.
Or are you somehow able to claim neither is or was?


----------



## WaveSurfer

sneak'n said:


> blah blah blah...






Dude, you can mix words all you like. I ain't gonna buy into your half-baked argument.

Oh, here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:half+baked

Cherry pick anything you want from there and forward any response to

someone@whocares.com


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> Dude, you can mix words all you like. I ain't gonna buy into your half-baked argument.
> 
> Oh, here you go:
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:half+baked
> 
> Cherry pick anything you want from there and forward any response to
> 
> someone@whocares.com



It goes to your credibility.

You clearly had little idea of albedo impacts, chose to use the best possible data on sea ice extent (ignoring long term trends), and now don't have the capacity to defend your own words.

It's a bit like Mr Pliskin earlier raising "red herrings" and "logic", and never being seen again to defend his words, or like Julia suggesting I use sophistry when it is she creating and defending a case of her own making.

Then there is Mr L who relies on some history at this forum for his reputation and standing.  Perhaps it is good elsewhere, but apart from an excellent piece on hysteria earlier on, his scientific base appears without a foundation in this thread.

The hysteria from the deniers' camp is palpable.


----------



## Smurf1976

sneak'n said:


> This is because climate change advocates are most vocal from the green movement (or the left as some prefer), and the conservative/right oppose their every motive.  There is a cost to keeping things clean and environmentally friendly and capitalism works best by avoiding those costs.  The quid pro quo for keeping businesses local is to transfer incidental costs the taxpayer.  This will see an ETS in place whether we like it or not.



As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close and (2) as a "backdoor" measure to keep those wanting an ETS happy, we're going to get a lot more renewable electricity generation instead.

So, the plans to directly lower CO2 from power generation especially are being filed away whilst the plans to build all forms of new large scale renewable generation have been quickly dusted off and are now under financial review by potential developers. Meanwhile the small scale generation industry, which is mostly about politics rather than actual power generation or emissions reduction, seems to have grabbed a lifeline.

The big problem though is there's a lot of "gun shy" people at the moment given all the on again, off again, on again, off again nonsense from government in a very short space of time. Few are willing to take risks in this environment, hence there's a lot of caution.


----------



## WaveSurfer

sneak'n said:


> It goes to your credibility.




Like I said, send your replies to someone@whocares.com



sneak'n said:


> You clearly had little idea of albedo impacts, chose to use the best possible data on sea ice extent (ignoring long term trends), and now don't have the capacity to defend your own words.




HUH? Dude, wash the diarrhoea dribbling from your chin.

Scientists are in general consensus that the climate is changing. Duh! Like it hasn't been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. 

What they can't agree on is *why* it is changing... You have provided absolutely no evidence either 

If you can shed some light on why, and obtain consensus between scientists, then do so. Don't procrastinate and put words into mouths in here chump.

My points were simple. They don't know why, yet they are coming up with solutions to a potential natural phenomenon. Solutions to a problem based on a half-baked hypothesis in the first place.

The globe is warming - yes it appears so.
Why is it warming? WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE'LL TRY AND STOP IT ANYWAY.

Typical human naivety.



sneak'n said:


> The hysteria from the deniers' camp is palpable.




I don't deny or agree, I thought I made that pretty clear. If you can't fathom that, it's clearly your problem not mine.


----------



## explod

WaveSurfer said:


> Like I said, send your replies to someone@whocares.com
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? Dude, wash the diarrhoea dribbling from your chin.
> 
> Scientists are in general consensus that the climate is changing. Duh! Like it hasn't been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years.
> 
> What they can't agree on is *why* it is changing... You have provided absolutely no evidence either
> 
> If you can shed some light on why, and obtain consensus between scientists, then do so. Don't procrastinate and put words into mouths in here chump.
> 
> My points were simple. They don't know why, yet they are coming up with solutions to a potential natural phenomenon. Solutions to a problem based on a half-baked hypothesis in the first place.
> 
> The globe is warming - yes it appears so.
> Why is it warming? WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE'LL TRY AND STOP IT ANYWAY.
> 
> Typical human naivety.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't deny or agree, I thought I made that pretty clear. If you can't fathom that, it's clearly your problem not mine.




The word *DUDE* we getting a bit warmer there ole Champ.

Depends a lot on the scientists, of course agricultural scientists, and those in the coal industry and those young scientists who need guvmint grants to survive are going to say what big business and government wants them to say.   But if you *want to listen *to the correct science then we may have some trouble and it is certainly not half backed.

Have you read a book called the Sixth Extinction, the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it.   This book is well documented with footnotes to all evidence presented.


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close and (2) as a "backdoor" measure to keep those wanting an ETS happy, we're going to get a lot more renewable electricity generation instead.
> 
> So, the plans to directly lower CO2 from power generation especially are being filed away whilst the plans to build all forms of new large scale renewable generation have been quickly dusted off and are now under financial review by potential developers. Meanwhile the small scale generation industry, which is mostly about politics rather than actual power generation or emissions reduction, seems to have grabbed a lifeline.
> 
> The big problem though is there's a lot of "gun shy" people at the moment given all the on again, off again, on again, off again nonsense from government in a very short space of time. Few are willing to take risks in this environment, hence there's a lot of caution.




Agreed. The government could make major reductions just by weaning us off Victorian Brown coal onto gas. Ceramic fuel cell units could be encouraged and solar power stations built in places like Broken Hill.

It wouldn't take that much to achieve some impressive greenhouse gas reductions without going through the painful ETS route.

Maybe Australia will come up with something better! It wouldn't be the first time (e.g. our health care system compared to UK and USA).


----------



## WaveSurfer

If I was a palpable denier, why would I have done my part? I'm guessing more than most too. So far, I have:

Installed solar hot water
Insulated my house to hilts
Installed a solar power grid - I sell green energy back to the power company.

Was "climate hysteria" the reason for my actions. Ha! Not a chance.

I did it to save money - turns out I get ROI from the choices I made. My last bill was a cheque from the power company. There's a good chance that my next bill will be a cheque payable to me too.

So what are you doing about it hysterics? Apart from dribbling diarrhoea on a public forum


----------



## sneak'n

Wavesurfer

You are totally misrepresenting the science and the scientific consensus.
Climate scientists are very much of the view that CO2 is the principal ingredient of concern and postulated a theory which was presented in great detail in the last IPCC Report.  

The degree of certainty that the theory will hold hold true has improved as years pass.  The many forums and hundreds of scientific papers since IPCC3 continue to validate the theory.

What we do know is that CO2 concentrations will increase over the next 10 years (possibly until 2025) irrespective of any action likely to take place in the near future.  The theory will be falsified if, within a reasonable cyclical timeframe, our earth demonstrably cools.

Rather than present views which are mischievous and baseless, you might like to try and come to grips with some realities.  Or you might try to learn more of the science.


----------



## bunyip

Julia said:


> Oh dear, Rederob, despite your woeful tendency to discredit those who disagree with you, I usually take pleasure in your posts because they are literate.
> You have let yourself down here, sadly.




Rederob is back?? Surely not!

I still smile when I think of how I sent him limping away with his tail between his legs when he tangled with me in the aboriginal debate a couple of years back!


----------



## WaveSurfer

explod said:


> ...But if you *want to listen *to the correct science then we may have some trouble and it is certainly not half backed.




Who said I don't listen? And how does a layman distinguish between the correct and incorrect science? I'm all ears.



explod said:


> Have you read a book called the Sixth Extinction, the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it.   This book is well documented with footnotes to all evidence presented.




That may be the case. I doubt it will rival the asteroid that struck Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. But hey, who really knows? I certainly don't and I'm not going to put my life on hold in anticipation of what may or may not occur.

As they say, life goes on with or without you.


----------



## drsmith

As a species we should be aiming to maintain biodiversity and considering engineering solutions as part of this.


----------



## explod

WaveSurfer said:


> Who said I don't listen? And how does a layman distinguish between the correct and incorrect science? I'm all ears.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be the case. I doubt it will rival the asteroid that struck Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. But hey, who really knows? I certainly don't and I'm not going to put my life on hold in anticipation of what may or may not occur.
> 
> As they say, life goes on with or without you.




That and the other four previous extinction events are documented.

Anyone really serious about the debate needs to do the legwork and read all of material available.  Too much for me, can only go by gut as a lad who grew up on a farm 60 years ago.   It is very different today from this simple perspective.   But the bit *I have read *makes me concerned for the future on my Grandkids and regardless of what some unbelievers say, the risk is just too great and we need to stop everthing we think may be causing it *now*.


----------



## So_Cynical

brty said:


> Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm
> 
> Oops the models got that one wrong..




And if we read the content we find 



			
				www.sciencedaily.com said:
			
		

> For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."
> 
> If or when the overturning circulation slows, the results are unlikely to be dramatic. "No one is predicting another ice age as a result of changes in the Atlantic overturning," said Willis. "Even if the overturning was the Godzilla of climate 12,000 years ago, the climate was much colder then. Models of today's warmer conditions suggest that a slowdown would have a much smaller impact now.




One of the theories suggests that the conveyor wont slow as such, but shift well to the south...if this theory comes to fruition its expected to be a sudden event that will play out over only a decade or so.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close




While i don't doubt your energy watching credentials or detailed understanding of the current and historic industry, i think its fair to say you haven't been watching the CC debate and industry with the same zeal or attention.

Because if you had been paying attention, there would be no way known that you could even suggest that the inevitable will not happen...the IPCC isn't going to just go away, the science cant be ignored and the political imperative cant be denied.

IPCC First Assessment Report: 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

Calendar of WGII meetings for AR5 http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/

This has been going on since the late 80's, Gore is a sideshow and totally irrelevant, its laughable how some posters here seem to think he actually has something to do with this.


----------



## Smurf1976

1. Go for a decent walk in the bush.

2. Think about the whole coal / oil / gas / nuclear / hydro / wood / wind / solar debate while you're walking.

I've been there, done that one countless times now and always come up with much the same conclusion...

Coal, oil and gas are necessary in the medium term but the less we use of them, the better. Coal has an advantage of not being associated with war but has a disadvantage of higher CO2 emissions.

Nuclear based on uranium is the height of arrogance, like the teenage driver believing "it won't happen to me" as they speed past at 200 km/h. Sooner or later, there will be an accident - the only question is when and with what consequences.

Thorium reactors are an unknown. Theoretically a safe and viable alternative that sure ought to beat coal, uraniuim etc. But unproven in actual usage for commercial energy production. Let's build a medium scale one (100 MW) here in Australia and see how it goes in practical operation. 

That leaves wind, solar, hydr, wood and geothermal as the best of a bad bunch but with one very clear advantage. Even their strongest opponents readily acknowledge that the damage caused is largely or completely reversible in a matter of decades or centuries at most, a very different situation to that applying with fossil fuels or nuclear with their 20,000+ year legacies. There are some locations that ought to be off limits, I'm not advocating logging / damming / wind farming the whole lot, but we could do a lot more with these energy sources given a willingness to think rationally.


----------



## brty

Explod,



> the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it.




I don't have that text, could you please summarize what the 'evidence' is.

Historically, as in over millions of years, whenever the CO2 levels (as in 1600-2000 ppm) and climate are warmer, there has been greater diversity of life on the planet.

Sneak'n, you avoided the evidence shown about sea-ice, just like every other true believer. You want to dismiss the fact that Antarctica sea ice is growing (as in the IPCC report at 1% per decade), and are blind to the fact that every model of global warming has Antarctic sea ice stable for now or declining. With the Arctic CURRENTLY also increasing in sea-ice area (another aspect that all the models say isn't happening) the "science" you portray is currently a joke.

I am a sceptic, because all the evidence I have found is compromised. Temperature statistics, "adjusted" show warming. Raw figures when you come across them don't. Satellite temperature measurements unadjusted showed no warming, then they were also "adjusted" and voila warming.  

Another aspect is that if the climate over the last 120 years had changed due to CO2 levels, it is very minor over that time. With CO2 levels rising for the last 250 years due to the industrial revolution starting it all, then the likely changes are going to be slow. As the holocene period is more than likely going to end within the next thousand years as it is already much longer than previous interglacials, then warming the planet up maybe exactly the right thing to do, and it could take 100's of years to do it!

Adapting to change is the correct thing to do, not trying to stop change. The climate is always changing and if we don't change with it we are likely to perish on a large scale.

brty


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> While i don't doubt your energy watching credentials or detailed understanding of the current and historic industry, i think its fair to say you haven't been watching the CC debate and industry with the same zeal or attention.
> 
> Because if you had been paying attention, there would be no way known that you could even suggest that the inevitable will not happen...the IPCC isn't going to just go away, the science cant be ignored and the political imperative cant be denied.
> 
> IPCC First Assessment Report: 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
> 
> Calendar of WGII meetings for AR5 http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/
> 
> This has been going on since the late 80's



The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents. 

But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.

There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.

Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.

Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc. 

Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being. 

Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.

The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some _paper_ money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the _paper_ profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation. 

Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> Thorium reactors are an unknown. Theoretically a safe and viable alternative that sure ought to beat coal, uraniuim etc. But unproven in actual usage for commercial energy production. Let's build a medium scale one (100 MW) here in Australia and see how it goes in practical operation.




Thorium reactors are far form unknown...from my limited understanding there seems to be alot if interchangeableness as far as fuels for nuclear reactors goes....the linked document give a great oversight of the early US industry development and some of the thinking behind there decisions.



			
				An Account of  the ORNL’s Thirteen Nuclear Reactors said:
			
		

> MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT
> 
> With the ARE having shown the feasibility of molten-salt fuel, ORNL persuaded the AEC to fund a study of molten-salt power reactors. Two concepts were evaluated, both graphite moderated and based on the U-233/*thorium fuel cycle*. In one, the uranium and *thorium* were in the same salt. In the other, a *thorium* salt that formed a fertile blanket was kept separate from the fuel salt by a graphite barrier. The single-fluid concept was simpler, but a net breeding gain appeared to be possible in a two-fluid reactor.
> 
> The molten-salt development program proceeded well, and by the end of 1959, the Laboratory felt justified in proposing a small reactor to investigate the technologies needed for civilian power. To keep the reactor simple and inexpensive, it had a single region like a converter, but the salt did not contain thorium and in that sense was similar to the core of a breeder.
> 
> The fuel salt chosen for the MSRE was a mixture of the fluorides of lithium-7, beryllium, and zirconium selected to have good physical and nuclear properties.




http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/2009/3445605700845.pdf

So while the MSRE didn't actually run with thorium it could of...have a read of the whole document and you will see that fuels can be used in many combinations in many reactors with similar yet different results.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents.
> 
> But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.
> 
> There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.
> 
> Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.
> 
> Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc.
> 
> Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being.
> 
> Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.
> 
> The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some _paper_ money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the _paper_ profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation.
> 
> Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...




Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.


----------



## Knobby22

So_Cynical said:


> Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.




My problem with the ETS is how it is all pervasive and heavy government control. Heaps of public servants will be needed to administer it and Macquarie etc.  will take their 10% cut to our detriment.

Why can't we have a generator ETS that only relates to generated power?
Simpler and just as effective and will cause less distortion to the economy.

Also...congrats to everyone for raising the debate to a higher level.


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> Sneak'n, you avoided the evidence shown about sea-ice, just like every other true believer. You want to dismiss the fact that Antarctica sea ice is growing (as in the IPCC report at 1% per decade), and are blind to the fact that every model of global warming has Antarctic sea ice stable for now or declining. With the Arctic CURRENTLY also increasing in sea-ice area (another aspect that all the models say isn't happening) the "science" you portray is currently a joke.



Had you read through more carefully you would have seen my responses.  Some parts of Antarctica are increasing sea ice extent, and other parts are decreasing significantly - as in the Antarctic Peninsular. Other posts in this thread provide reasons for the anomaly.
That said, we need to be looking at global trends and in that regard the evidence of sea ice reduction is statistically significant.




> I am a sceptic, because all the evidence I have found is compromised. Temperature statistics, "adjusted" show warming. Raw figures when you come across them don't. Satellite temperature measurements unadjusted showed no warming, then they were also "adjusted" and voila warming.



While reliable temperature measurement instruments have existed for some time, the standards that relate to where they are located, how they are installed, and their height from the ground, vary to this day.  I suggest you contact the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia for their unbiased views of our temperature record, and you will learn the trend is clear cut.
Satellite temperature measurements had to be adjusted as the dozen satellites used since 1979 were differently calibrated, plus more - see here -  http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/November162005CarlMears.pdf


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> But the bit I have read makes me concerned for the future on my Grandkids and regardless of what some unbelievers say, the risk is just too great and we need to stop everthing we think may be causing it now




A common thread in the warmists' rantings is their professed concern for the future of their grandchildren, when the truth is that their motives are purely ideology driven. My grandchildren would think I was having a senior moment if I spouted such nonsense.

Those who don't have grandchildren substitute polar bears.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents.
> 
> But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.
> 
> There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.
> 
> Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.
> 
> Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc.
> 
> Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being.
> 
> Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.
> 
> The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some _paper_ money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the _paper_ profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation.
> 
> Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...




Nice post Smurf


----------



## brty

Exactly right Smurf....



> But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.




Not only in Aus, but the exports of coal are growing, to be burnt elsewhere. If we were really serious about global warming this would not be the case from the government perspective.

Sneak'n, beautifully sidestepped again. No answer to the simple fact that increased Antarctica sea ice of 1% per decade is acknowledged by the IPCC but missing from all the models. Failure to accept this as an anomaly in the argument for AGW is one reason why the true believers are not gaining momentum, but in fact losing it.

brty


----------



## wayneL

Peer review anecdote: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...post-by-ross-mckitrick-that-is-worth-reading/

Plus some interesting recent articles http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com

Also... here is a blog that collates articles from both sides of the debate http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> Thorium reactors are far form unknown...from my limited understanding there seems to be alot if interchangeableness as far as fuels for nuclear reactors goes....the linked document give a great oversight of the early US industry development and some of the thinking behind there decisions.



I don't doubt that a thorium reactor is possible and could likely be built and operated as a means of large scale (commercial) electricity generation.

But what are the practical aspects of operating such a plant? That's what we need to learn. 

Look at the history of brown coal in Victoria - the early plants had lots of problems, Yallourn W ((opened early 1970's) being the first one that actually worked properly from the beginning. The previous Yallourn plants had all sorts of problems as did Hazelwood, the latter taking many years to get working properly (and it still needs lots of maintenance to keep it going).

Same with hydro in Tasmania. Sounds simple and in theory it is. But then you end up with power stations washed away in a flood, penstocks bursting, pipelines rotting out, concrete cancer, dams running dry, machines that vibrate and shear the bolt heads off and so on. There was a learning curve in practical reality, despite the theoretically simple technology and brilliant engineers who designed most of what was built. Practice doesn't always match the theory.

Same with nuclear overseas. Lots of problems with the early plants, many of them only really operating properly in the past decade after all the bugs were sorted. And one of the big problems was, of course, that they cost far more than expected to build, financially crippling their owners in the process.

Hence my view that in order to properly evaluate thorium (or any other technology) we need to have a working plant of reasonable scale to tinker with and get everything right. 

Then build a second one using everything learned in the first, after which we'll know what the costs and practical operational aspects are. 

I have the same view about geothermal. Just pump in some serious $ and build a 100 MW plant. Given the potential significance of the technology, that seems a reasonable gamble with my taxpayer $ in my opinion. Otherwise, we'll be waiting around for another decade or more whilst funding-constrained companies try and make it happen. Australia needs answers as to whether this technology is a goer or not we need them now - just do it.

Brown coal in Vic would never have happened without the efforts of Sir John Monash, the Victorian government and a few other individuals who, back in 1918, understood the importance of it given the very limited reserves of black coal in Victoria. 

Hydo in Tas would never have happened without the vision of the Launceston City Council, Mt Lyell M&R Co, state government and a few individuals who saw the potential given the state's relative lack of other power sources. 

What thorium and dry geothermal need is someone to stop talking and actually make a large scale plant happen. It needs vision and engineering, not bean counting and procrastination. It needs long term thinking rather than a focus on next quarter's profits.


----------



## Julia

From today's "Sunday Mail":



> The Rudd government has transferred its emissions trading scheme team into the strife prone household insulation program, relegating plans for carbon trading this year to the backburner.
> 
> The team of 154 bureaucrats *who cost taxpayers an average of $370,000 each to plan for the non existent emissions trading scheme* will instead be put to work sorting out problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program ....
> 
> With a budget of $57 million this financial year alone, the public servants are working for the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority - an agency that is little more than a name until the legislation to create an emissions trading scheme passes through federal Parliament.




So much for the greatest social and moral challenge of our time.


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> Sneak'n, beautifully sidestepped again. No answer to the simple fact that increased Antarctica sea ice of 1% per decade is acknowledged by the IPCC but missing from all the models. Failure to accept this as an anomaly in the argument for AGW is one reason why the true believers are not gaining momentum, but in fact losing it.
> brty



Antarctic sea ice extents have little to do with model parameters.  That's because the value impact of increased Antarctic sea ice is zero due to its area being greatest during winter when there is no albedo effect.

If brty were to be consistent in his premise he might have been able to show that the coldest northern winter for decades had led to Arctic sea ice being at its greatest extent for years.  Yet, at best, Arctic sea ice areas are struggling to reach "average" levels, and will quickly melt away as each year the ice becomes thinner/newer.

Yet again those who peddle poorly based examples for their cause are caught out by their lack of understanding of the detail.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Julia said:


> So much for the greatest social and moral challenge of our time.



You beat me to it Julia.

Peter Costello wrote an article the other day in the Age:http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...e-x2026-until-the-next-one-20100330-rb8s.html


> It was so urgent it had to be legislated before the end of the year, and before the summit in Copenhagen.





> What amazes me is the way this greenhouse campaign can be switched on and switched off as quickly as the lights during Earth Hour. And for the moment the government has decided to switch it off so we can all get back to talking about health funding.




I'm interested in what the outcome of this moral issue will be.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

brty said:


> Not only in Aus, but the exports of coal are growing, to be burnt elsewhere. If we were really serious about global warming this would not be the case from the government perspective.



It's stuff like letting China expand its car production and usage and the above that doesn't make sense. If there is a real danger that is irreversible then why the expansion of pollution?


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.




Really ?



Smurf1976 said:


> Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.






Smurf1976 said:


> Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...




Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> Really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.




Care to show me a market where investment bankers and speculators don't line there pockets?


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> Care to show me a market where investment bankers and speculators don't line there pockets?



So you consider speculation a better use of capital than production ?


----------



## Smurf1976

If we assume that CO2 is to be cut then:

What the energy industry needs is a means to operate with higher costs, and pass those costs onto consumers, without some other supplier choosing to not cut CO2 thus operating with lower costs.

In that context note that "some other supplier" means in particular South Africa, China, India, South American countries in general, Middle East countries in general particularly Iran and Qatar, Russia and anyone nearby.

There is a major misconception that competition in the Australian electricity industry is something new an is about coal versus gas, one power station versus another and so on. 

Oh no it's not... Go back as far as the 1920's and the industry had already worked out that competition was from overseas, interstate and from alternatives to electricity. Tasmania was first in Australia at playing that game, with Victoria and South Australia deciding to get on board in the 1950's (though SA never really succeeded at doing so). By the 1970's Qld and NSW realised they also had the means to compete - witness the rapid industrialisation of Qld as a direct result.

Fast forward to the early 1990's and it was no secret at the time that the Tasmanian government / Hydro had a serious problem on their hands... from South Africa which was trying to poach basically every energy-intensive industry in the state. Then came gas, Basslink, wind and attempts to wring every last Watt out of the hydro system...

Bottom line? An Australian-only ETS, or even one that only covers a few countries, is pointless. The USA is NOT a competitor to the Australian electricity industry. Neither is the EU or Japan. They aren't in the game. It's the likes of China, India, Saudi Arabia etc that are the competition - either they are part of the ETS or it's a complete waste of time that may even increase emissions.

As for the bankers, they have no interest in anything which constrains GDP growth and brings about the failure of their fiat money system. That they seem keen on an ETS speaks volumes in itself. Yet another financial instrument created out of thin air that can be traded for profit by financial institutions. Basically, another "currency" that costs nothing to produce and sells for a huge profit to captive customers. 

Introduce a proper global ETS not subject to the antics of bankers and it would work. But I can't see that actually happening anytime soon. There will always be someone who cheats. Meanwhile coal use continues to soar.

In my opinion, the only real hope is to change the focus from capital, which is created out of thin air by central banks, to labour which is real and tangible. The old capital versus labour argument.

If capital is valued most highly, then fossil fuels have an advantage since much of the total cost is deferred. If labour is valued most highly, then renewables have the advantage since over the life of a plant, constantly mining coal requires more labour than the one-off construction of solar, hydro etc. 

It is no coincidence that the economics of hydro, other renewables and nuclear fell in a hole shortly after the financial events of the early 1970's. That is the real problem - the financial system. To their credit, the Greens worked all this out well before their opponents - the nuclear and in particular hydro schemes they so strongly opposed, and which others fought so hard to build, would not have been profitable anyway and the same applies to other renewable technologies today.


----------



## explod

Smurf1976 said:


> In my opinion, the only real hope *is to change the focus from capital, which is created out of thin air by central banks, to labour which is real and tangible.* The old capital versus labour argument.
> 
> If capital is valued most highly, then fossil fuels have an advantage since much of the total cost is deferred. If labour is valued most highly, then renewables have the advantage since over the life of a plant, constantly mining coal requires more labour than the one-off construction of solar, hydro etc.
> 
> It is no coincidence that the economics of hydro, other renewables and nuclear fell in a hole shortly after the financial events of the early 1970's. That is the real problem - the financial system. To their credit, the Greens worked all this out well before their opponents - the nuclear and in particular hydro schemes they so strongly opposed, and which others fought so hard to build, would not have been profitable anyway and the same applies to other renewable technologies today.




Hit the nail on the head smurf.   Would disagree on the put down of nuclear.  Though there are still some problems with radiation escape they are now minimal compared to the source of real grunt for alternative power till better methods of solar, wind etc can be developed.   Denmark for example are doing a great job in this area but that sort of change is also a change in our way of life and will take a generation or two to take hold in my view.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Hit the nail on the head smurf.   Would disagree on the put down of nuclear.  Though there are still some problems with radiation escape they are now minimal compared to the source of real grunt for alternative power till better methods of solar, wind etc can be developed.   Denmark for example are doing a great job in this area but that sort of change is also a change in our way of life and will take a generation or two to take hold in my view.



*ALL power pollutes*

I'd describe myself as a realist in regard to the whole energy issue. We're going to use it, it's going to have an impact. The question is what is the lesser of the evils?

Nuclear - if CO2 is really a problem and geothermal doesn't work then we're going to have to use more nuclear power (worldwide) than at present. That's reality.

But it is also reality that anything man does is prone to error. Build enough nuclear reactors, operate them for long enough and eventually there will be an accident. 

Now, if we're talking about conventional fission reactors using uranium, then the consequences of such an accident far exceed anything that can possibly go wrong with coal, gas, hydro, wind etc. A coal mine collapse traps 100 miners, a gas plant explosion kills 20 workers and shatters nearby windows, an oil spill wrecks 20km of coastline, a dam burts and wipes out a town downstream, a blade comes off a wind turbine and kills someone on the ground. Or a worst case nuclear accident affects millions.

The chances of a nuclear accident may well be low and I would agree that they are. But the consequences of such an accident, if it were to happen, far exceed that associated with any other energy technology. It may end up being a risk we have to just live with, but there's a risk, however small, that no amount of engineering can reduce absolutely to zero. 

Thorium reactors are, in theory at least, inherently safe since they need external energy input to operate and without that the reaction stops. A bit like how a petrol engine stops if there's no power to the spark plugs. That's my understanding at least, and if it's correct then thorium seems a much more sensible choice for nuclear power - a worst case accident wouldn't be a major disaster. And not having uranium in widespread use eliminates the risk that some third world dictator decides that their power reactor would be better used for weapons production.

But as I said, all power pollutes. The argument is about what to pollute and how, rather than whether to pollute at all.

I've seen first hand plenty of power stations in operation. 5 coal, 1 fuel oil, 2 diesel, 9 gas, 29 hydro, 4 co-generation plants and a wind farm too. Based on that, I conclude that none of them are doing the environment any real good (possible exception of one hydro scheme that is the sole habitat of a particular species and home to another endangered species).

Consider wind. One of the operating conditions at Woolnorth wind farm (Tas) is how many endangered birds it is allowed to kill. There are estimated to be 350 breeding pairs of Wedge Tailed Eagles in Tas so it's not exactly a common bird. Thus far, Woolnorth has killed 17 Eagles over 9 years (worth noting that the license allows up to 8 birds to be killed per year). 

What about coal? Let's see what happens in Victoria at the brown coal plants... Craters in the ground, mercury and sulphur into the air and a huge pile of ash. That's without mentioning CO2 or local air quality. Black coal is the same except that the mines are often underground.

Oil / gas - Take a look at where global reserves are concentrated. We'll end up fighting over the stuff and/or drilling somewhere like Antarctica. And burning #6 fuel oil creates more smoke than you'd have thought possible. 

Hydro - Let's just say it created what is now the Greens in order to oppose it. Personally I'd rather a flooded landscape (and I've seen plenty) than the alternatives simply because it could be restored in a matter of decades if the dam were no longer required, a point even hardline Greens acknowledge. It is certainly an impact, but it's not permanent like with coal etc. But many will disagree and argue that wilderness has a value in itself (and I'd actually agree with them by the way, a scenic river beats a half full man-made impondment any day - it's just that I'd rather a dam than fossil fuels).

Wood? Personally I think we've destroyed enough forests on Earth already in order to make paper without resorting to buring them for power as well. That reality in England, running out of trees and realising there were better uses for wood than burning it, is why coal became established as a fuel in the first place...

So it's about harm minimisation rather than avoiding any harm at all. Thorium seems, in theory at least, relatively low impact. Underground coal gassification would greatly reduce the impact of using coal (including less CO2). Hot dry rocks, if it works, also ought to be relatively low impact compared to the alternatives. And there's still more we can do (globally) with wind and hydro without messing up the geuinely high conservation value wilderness areas. And of course we can put solar hot water or heat pumps on houses, build better car engines and so on too - again not perfect but it helps.


----------



## WaveSurfer

sneak'n said:


> You are totally misrepresenting the science and the scientific consensus.
> Climate scientists are very much of the view that CO2 is the principal ingredient of concern and postulated a theory which was presented in great detail in the last IPCC Report.




Dude, you're not telling me anything that I don't already know.



sneak'n said:


> Rather than present views which are mischievous and baseless, you might like to try and come to grips with some realities.  Or you might try to learn more of the science.




Mischievous and baseless? Come to grips with reality? Learn more of the science? LMAO. What a piece of work...

I am not sure where all your reading is based. As I am a student of science, I have access to a database of practically every scientific journal on the planet. To get access to this database you need to pay a premium. That premium I pay through my University fees. My reading is 0.5% Internet, 0.5% Media and 99% *published scientific reports*.

As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.

There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against. There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.

As Sdajii put so well



Sdajii said:


> ....people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, *not what the evidence actually points to*...




Precisely. The evidence suggests that we have no idea if it's man-induced or a natural cycle that's going happen regardless of our CO2 omissions.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we neglectfully "burn away" and potentially speed up the process either. As I said countless times. I am not on either side because science informs me that we need more information before we start jumping the gun.

This information we don't have to spend hundreds of hours in the books to obtain. Once it is available, it will be summed up by a real scientist in a nice little package for all to understand. Somehow, I don't believe this will be in my lifetime. But hey, who knows?


----------



## wayneL

WaveSurfer said:


> As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.
> 
> There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against. There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.




Thanks for highlighting the real truth WS. I often argue for my own opinion on here, but acutely aware that it is just that.

If all would admit that and revert to the true science you allude to, I think much more could be achieved. As it stands, there is this silly attitude polarization which only engenders destructive argumentation.


----------



## sneak'n

WaveSurfer said:


> As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.



Not even the IPCC has stated the climate case is conclusive, so please do not invent an outcome that achieves your objective.




> There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against.



I am keen for you to elaborate the case which you suggest is "compelling" against the IPCC Report.




> There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.



As a science student you should respect the basis for hypothesis, and the case that underpins the IPCC's theory.   To place "variables" into an equation where in fact we are looking at empirical evidence is not a reasonable practice.




> The evidence suggests that we have no idea if it's man-induced or a natural cycle that's going happen regardless of our CO2 omissions.



The evidence suggests we have a better than even chance of pinning present warming trends to increased greenhouse gas emissions that are not part of the natural cycle.  What evidence are you using?


----------



## Timmy

I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode .... 

Humorous, but of course with serious intent.

Check out the homepage:
Number Watch


(Apologies if this has been linked to before)


----------



## wayneL

Timmy said:


> I enjoyed browsing this:
> A complete list of things caused by global warming
> Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....
> 
> Humorous, but of course with serious intent.
> 
> Check out the homepage:
> Number Watch
> 
> 
> (Apologies if this has been linked to before)




Excellent site Timmy.


----------



## wayneL

Here is an interesting article from Stephen Wilde, Posted on Anthony Watt's blog. A New and Effective Climate Model.

It even has some science to satisfy "rederob incognito".


----------



## Calliope

Timmy said:


> I enjoyed browsing this:
> A complete list of things caused by global warming
> Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....




I think I know why rederob is so worried. He probably owns a short-nosed dog.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/pets/...d-as-heat-rises/2008/01/19/1200620272510.html.

He is one of the few warmists who haven't used the excuse that they want to leave a "better world for their grand children".

On the other hand it could be that he is just naturally argumentive.


----------



## basilio

So how would we build a green economy to deal with CO2 emissions and their effect on the climate  ?  Came across an excellent article by  Paul Klugman in New York Times which explores the economics of rebuilding the world economy and the ways and means to do so.

Some notable highlights were
1) On the most honest estimates economic growth would be very slightly reduced with a change to non carbon based energy sources

2) The possible/probable consequences of inaction would be devastatingly high. Accepting this risk seems totally stupid....and suicidal

3) Arguments by self interested opponents to these actions and conservative think tanks are basically bad faith arguments which willfully deceive the public about costs associated with any change to the status quo.

Obviously there are many more salient points but you'll need to actually read the article to have a considered opinion.



> *Building a Green Economy*
> 
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Published: April 5, 2010
> 
> If you listen to climate scientists — and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should — it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic. And to avoid that apocalypse, we have to wean our economy from the use of fossil fuels, coal above all.
> 
> But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?
> 
> Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.
> 
> ......
> 
> Climate of Doubt?
> This is an article on climate economics, not climate science. But before we get to the economics, it’s worth establishing three things about the state of the scientific debate.
> 
> *The first is that the planet is indeed warming. *Weather fluctuates, and as a consequence it’s easy enough to point to an unusually warm year in the recent past, note that it’s cooler now and claim, “See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer!” But if you look at the evidence the right way *— taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations — the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before.
> 
> *Second, climate models predicted this well in advance, even getting the magnitude of the temperature rise roughly right.* While it’s relatively easy to cook up an analysis that matches known data, it is much harder to create a model that accurately forecasts the future. So the fact that climate modelers more than 20 years ago successfully predicted the subsequent global warming gives them enormous credibility.
> 
> Yet that’s not the conclusion you might draw from the many media reports that have focused on matters like hacked e-mail and climate scientists’ talking about a “trick” to “hide” an anomalous decline in one data series or expressing their wish to see papers by climate skeptics kept out of research reviews. The truth, however, is that the supposed scandals evaporate on closer examination, revealing only that climate researchers are human beings, too. Yes, scientists try to make their results stand out, but no data were suppressed. Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published. What else is new? Nothing suggests that there should not continue to be strong support for climate research.
> 
> And this brings me to my third point: *models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades. *
> 
> *Costs of action*
> 
> .......Clearly, conservatives abandon all faith in the ability of markets to cope with climate-change policy because they don’t want government intervention. Their stated pessimism about the cost of climate policy is essentially a political ploy rather than a reasoned economic judgment. The giveaway is the strong tendency of conservative opponents of cap and trade to argue in bad faith. That Heritage Foundation broadside accuses the Congressional Budget Office of making elementary logical errors, but if you actually read the office’s report, it’s clear that the foundation is willfully misreading it.
> 
> *Conservative politicians have been even more shameless.* *The National Republican Congressional Committee, for example, issued multiple press releases specifically citing a study from M.I.T. as the basis for a claim that cap and trade would cost $3,100 per household, despite repeated attempts by the study’s authors to get out the word that the actual number was only about a quarter as much. [/**B]
> *



*
A long article but pulls many of the issues together and comes to an inevitable conclusion. If the vast majority of scientific research and current evidence is showing that our emissions of CO2 are causing  a potentially catastrophic increase in global temperatures can't we just deal with the problem instead of ignoring it and hoping it will go away?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?pagewanted=1*


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Krugman



***Spits on ground in disgust.

Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.

Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> ***Spits on ground in disgust.
> 
> Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.
> 
> Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.



Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?
How about you present your case, rather than another dummy spit.
By the way, the link to the alternative climate model you posted was very amusing, so thank you. The science he got right was about the manner in which our earth dissipates heat into space.  There may have been a few other points, but I was probably laughing too much to notice.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?
> How about you present your case, rather than another dummy spit.
> By the way, the link to the alternative climate model you posted was very amusing, so thank you. The science he got right was about the manner in which our earth dissipates heat into space.  There may have been a few other points, but I was probably laughing too much to notice.




Probably pretty much the same reason that you can't substantiate yours rederob.

BTW, it's fair that you laugh at Wild's model. It is after all, merely a model, and models are just... models. Plus one may choose to laugh at something they disagree with. Not very scientific, but it was a good tactic in kindergarten so why not try it in adulthood? 

A reasonable man would understand the mirth of others towards his own cherished models because of the same.

Somehow I don't see that you would.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Probably pretty much the same reason that you can't substantiate yours rederob.



Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made.  I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.

Wavesurfer and drsmith were the last two I recall responding to, and neither has been back to justify or elaborate further on their statements.

You, on the other hand, have been absolutely true to form (as I noted when first joining ASF).  Attack the man (and claim the shoe on the other foot), post linkages without explanation/interpretation, and then legitimise your stance with an obligatory reference to Pielke Snr's site; all without ever backing your claims.

I welcome discussion or debate that contexts the supposed "hysteria" attached to this topic.  I would prefer not to make responses to posts of yours that continue to refuse to bring in scientific debate, while subtly suggesting  I might hold positions you ascribe.

For example, why refer to a "kindergarten" tactic when you had an opportunity to support the model you linked to?  Wilde's model had no temporal base, and did not discuss the role of greenhouse gases in any meaningful way.  His model did nothing but suggest his preferred slant on many known events.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made.  I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.



Ummm... your previous post?

You bagged out Wilde without a shred of justification for doing so.


> Wavesurfer and drsmith were the last two I recall responding to, and neither has been back to justify or elaborate further on their statements.



Perhaps they thought it a bit tiresome to continuously refer to published science which disputes the IPCC. Dunno, just guessing.


> You, on the other hand, have been absolutely true to form (as I noted when first joining ASF).  Attack the man (and claim the shoe on the other foot),



It is your turn to be amusingly hypocritical for the umpteenth time... ROTFLMAO


> post linkages without explanation/interpretation, and then legitimise your stance with an obligatory reference to Pielke Snr's site; all without ever backing your claims.



I must point out that it is not my place to back claims. I can never do so as successfully as the scientists involved. That is their job.

It is up to the inquisitor to decide whether the argument is valid or not. Second hand arguments are... well, secondhand. My purpose is to line up behind those arguments that make sense to me. 


> I welcome discussion or debate that contexts the supposed "hysteria" attached to this topic.



Rubbish.

You only welcome discussion that ascribes to your specific point of view. You steadfastly refuse to consider any other viewpoint, even after concessions from the other side. 

Very disingenuous.



> I would prefer not to make responses to posts of yours that continue to refuse to bring in scientific debate, while subtly suggesting  I might hold positions you ascribe.



I don't understand what you mean. But I can only point to the plethora  of links I have posted over the timeline of this and other climate threads that refer to climate science.

I regard it foolish that you continue to ignore/deny this.


> For example, why refer to a "kindergarten" tactic when you had an opportunity to support the model you linked to?  Wilde's model had no temporal base, and did not discuss the role of greenhouse gases in any meaningful way.  His model did nothing but suggest his preferred slant on many known events.




As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models

You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.

This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.

All the while, there are no practical answers to the purported problems.

I would bet my @ss that rederob lives in a better than avergae (and hungrier in energy) house, drives a nice car and has a "carbon footprint" typical.... perhaps even in excess of those of his peers.... just like Al Bore.

Perhaps he has even invested in companies profiting from ETS etc. That would be odds on.


----------



## explod

> As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models
> 
> You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.
> 
> This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.




Science is not static, new information from all sides comes from the continued enquiry, so of course we have a subjective situation.   But then you go on to speak of "the true scientific method".   

You too are shifting to suit your own argument.

Science or no science, we would not be having such discussion subject and I might add fought with such passion if we did not have a problem with rising  co2.


----------



## sneak'n

wayneL said:


> Ummm... your previous post?
> 
> You bagged out Wilde without a shred of justification for doing so.



Wilde's model does not discuss the issue at hand.  It simply represents his view of how climates can change.  I said it had no temporal base; that is, it does not consider the role of increased greenhouse gases with respect to current temperature trends.  To put it into this thread does not further debate on current science.  So you are inaccurate in this instance, not to mention my point referred to previous posts.




> I must point out that it is not my place to back claims. I can never do so as successfully as the scientists involved. That is their job.



You make assertions that you do not understand?  What are you presenting?  What science are you referring to?  I have not seen any evidence you know what you are doing in this thread.




> It is up to the inquisitor to decide whether the argument is valid or not. Second hand arguments are... well, secondhand. My purpose is to line up behind those arguments that make sense to me.



Maybe so.  Are you able to sustain the position so that others can grasp what it is that makes sense?




> You only welcome discussion that ascribes to your specific point of view. You steadfastly refuse to consider any other viewpoint, even after concessions from the other side.



Yet again, where is your evidence?




> I regard it foolish that you continue to ignore/deny this.



Not sure what you are referring to here as I have given my stance on most positions, and don't recall ignoring or denying anything.




> As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models



 That's a blatant cop out.  It's not about subjectivity.  It's about its value to climate science for one, and it should have been of value to this thread.  Again, I ask how so?




> You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.



Given Wilde has not addressed the climate science we generally allude to here, how is it immature?  




> This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.



You keep putting labels and tags on me.  Where have I ignored the science here?  On the other hand, where have you shown your comprehension of it?




> I would bet my @ss that rederob lives in a better than average (and hungrier in energy) house, drives a nice car and has a "carbon footprint" typical.... perhaps even in excess of those of his peers.... just like Al Bore.
> 
> Perhaps he has even invested in companies profiting from ETS etc. That would be odds on.



When will you put your character assassinations to one side, and argue the science?

Mr L, it is more of the same, more of the same.  Until you actually add meaningfully to this debate, I shall not be responding to your posts.


----------



## wayneL

Rederob,

As tempting as it is to address your logical fallacies forthwith, the land of nod beckons as it is now late in the Godzone; and I have an early start on Monday and a busy week ahead.

Thankfully, explod deals only in irrelevancies and can be addressed for amusement avlue if time permits.

But as you purport (erroneously) to have a grasp of the issues, I will take the time to address some of your points later in the week.

Meanwhile, as you have accused me of character assassination re your lifestyle, I would be pleased if you would detail your personal contribution to "saving the planet" and the proportions of your "carbon footprint".


----------



## basilio

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> Krugman
> ***Spits on ground in disgust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.
> 
> Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.
> __________________
Click to expand...



.....

By the way has anyone else taken the opportunity to actually read  Paul Klugmans article and in particular consider his comments on balancing the costs of tackling climate change versus the costs of inaction ?


----------



## ghotib

Hi Wayne. 

I read Wilde's article, and I also read his comment about it:



> Where do I claim it to be a ’science article’ or a ‘mathematical model’ ?
> 
> It is a logical description of the processes that must be occurring in one form or another or to one degree or another to get long term observations to fit the basic laws of physics.




So Wilde himself acknowledges that this is a long, long way from being either a testable hypothesis or a testable model. In the words of another comment, a better title would be "assumptions for a new climate model". 

The article makes a number of unsubstantiated statements about the existing, testable, publicly available models. You don't need to publish a detailed critique of existing work to produce something new, but you do need to understand the existing work to know that what you're doing really is new and potentially useful. So far, it looks as though Wilde doesn't understand. 

And Wayne, if this piece is Watts' idea of science, I think he might really be a liberal arts graduate and not a weatherman. 
Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## basilio

Thanks Wayne for the reference to Stephen Wildes discussion “A New and Effective Climate Model” .  When you have a good look at the paper and Stephen himself many of the recurring issues that arise with bashers of current climate scientists emerge.

For a start Stephen is actually a lawyer (with Honours !) but  not a scientist. Interestingly enough however he somehow manages to claim he is a “Fellow of  the Royal Meteorological society" since 1968.  see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041.  Well  that should add plenty of kudos to his theories shouldn’t it ? 

Trouble is that Stephen joined as student member of the society in 1968. However he but never actually reached the full professional standards and education required to be a Fellow.  See http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/06/stephen-wilde-sixth-article-death-blow.html

But lets not worry about details like that when your trying to look as if you know what you are talking about.

As for his Model.. It is a very confusing amalgamation of obscure and not so obscure scientific utterances seemingly intended to convince those who want to be convinced  that
1)	I’m very, very bright and can use big words
2)	The rest of the scientific world hasn’t yet appreciated my insights

Interestingly enough there was absolutely no maths in the discussion or any reference to any other scientific paper. 

There were hundreds of comments in response to the article. Naturally many were in enthusiastic support  (it is after all Watts what) while a number of others engaged Stephen in some of the scientific detail he used in his paper. In the first response I have quoted below I thought it was really neat how the writer demonstrated Stephens fundamental lack of understanding about basic scientific principles. When you get something as basic as this wrong you fail year 10 Physics.

 The second response goes to the core of what climate models are intended to do. 




> TLM (02:31:17) :
> Gosh – where to start with this one…?
> The biggies here are:
> (iii) Counterintuitively an active sun means cooling not warming and vice versa.
> and
> (v) [re CO2 forcing causing back radiation of infrared] …since evaporation has a net cooling effect due to the removal of energy as latent heat the net effect should be increased cooling and not warming of the oceans
> 
> Well if (iii) is correct then the less energy we receive from the sun, the warmer we get, and the more energy the cooler we get. How do I falsify that one? I know, lets compare a planet close to the sun, such as Mercury, with one that is far away such as Neptune. By this theory Neptune should be boiling hot and Mercury freezing cold. Hmm…
> It also blows out the Milankovitch Cycles as an explanation for the ice ages. This theory predicts (extremely accurately as it happens) that known variations in the orbit of the Earth bring us closer or move us further away from the sun creating really quite small changes in insolation. However, these small changes are enough to cause huge areas of the northern hemisphere to be covered in vast ice sheets.
> 
> Sorry, I don’t buy (iii). You need to explain the mechanism in more detail.
> 
> For (v) I would try an experiment involving a pan full of cold water. Above this I would put an infrared lamp. Now according to your theory the water should get colder due to evaporation as the heat from the infrared lamp hits the water.
> But if this were to happen then as soon as the water warmed a little under the lamp it would instantly cool due to evaporation and evaporation would stop. *This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical process. If the water does not get warmer then greater evaporation cannot occur.* The greater evaporation only happens because the water is warmer! Sunshine (infrared, ultraviolet, and visible spectrum) all warm the sea – as anybody who has paddled in the water on a beach in the Summer and avoided doing so in the Winter will testify.
> 
> Sure, evaporation (and re-emission of infrared radiation) will moderate the speed of the rise in temperature and eventually return it to a steady (but much higher) temperature – but rise it most definitely will.
> 
> I could go on and on but I have a life to lead.





TLM  then offers another post that identifies just what climate models are intended to do

…







> .Your “model” seems to be a random collection of various studies you have read on this site. Take a step back and have a look at the bigger picture. it really is a lot simpler than even your model tries to describe.
> 
> The problem for the climate models is not that they cannot predict the future, just that they cannot predict the near future, i.e. the next 5 to 10 years. What they can do, however, is predict a trend. I think a problem for the modellers is that they are probably trying to claim too much for their models.
> 
> They are almost certainly predicting the correct “trend”, i.e. a gradually warming climate. What they cannot do is account for all the internal variability – and to be honest I think it is beyond any climate model to do that.
> 
> *Internal variability is by definition “weather”.* Predicting chaotic variations in weather gets more difficult as the period of time increases. However, predicting a long term trend in the climate becomes easier as the period of time increases because the chaotic internal variations cancel each other out and the trend becomes clearer above the noise. If you do not understand that then you misunderstand the whole point of climate modelling!
> 
> ….*.The thing that the climate modellers are trying to achieve is a prediction of the effect of adding billions of tons of CO2 to our atmosphere over the next hundred years – that is a human timescale of two or three generations. It is worth stating what they are not trying to achieve:
> 
> 1. Prediction of the weather and temperature over the next one, two or even ten years.
> 2. Prediction of the climate over the next thousand years.
> 3. Prediction of the climate over the next million years.
> 
> Their major problem is that it is going to take another 10 or 20 years of empirical data for the trend to become apparent enough to “prove” that their models are correct – by which time it will probably be too late for us to do very much about it.*




Cheers


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Hi Wayne.
> 
> I read Wilde's article, and I also read his comment about it:
> 
> 
> 
> So Wilde himself acknowledges that this is a long, long way from being either a testable hypothesis or a testable model. In the words of another comment, a better title would be "assumptions for a new climate model".
> 
> The article makes a number of unsubstantiated statements about the existing, testable, publicly available models. You don't need to publish a detailed critique of existing work to produce something new, but you do need to understand the existing work to know that what you're doing really is new and potentially useful. So far, it looks as though Wilde doesn't understand.
> 
> And Wayne, if this piece is Watts' idea of science, I think he might really be a liberal arts graduate and not a weatherman.
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti




It is interesting that you make the same criticisms of Wilde's model that apply to the religious IPCC canon. 

And do I really need to remind you of how discredited the IPCC are, and how far from scientific method they have diverged now? 

That said, as per above, climate models suck... all of them so far.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> It is interesting that you make the same criticisms of Wilde's model that apply to the religious IPCC canon.
> 
> And do I really need to remind you of how discredited the IPCC are, and how far from scientific method they have diverged now?
> 
> That said, as per above, climate models suck... all of them so far.



In all fairness Wilde doesn't have a 'model', there is no maths behind it and he doesn't know the relative effects of his various factors. You cannot run it and have it predict anything.

So far Wilde has a list of assumptions. Comparing this with the existing climate models is apples and oranges.


----------



## Stephen Wilde

Hello all. Thanks for the attention.

Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.

Perhaps some of you might be a little more constructive. We are all on the same side in wanting to know the truth are we not ?

As for my 'model' that term is pretty wide ranging and need not be bound by any particular style or format.

If one gives it a little thought you will see that it complies with real world observations. The sequence I have set out is exactly what really does happen.

As for the appropriate interpretaion of those real world events there is lots of room for alternative suggestions. Even the CO2 theory could be slotted in but only if one can seperate any human CO2 influence from natural internal system variability.

Unfortunately nobody can do that yet.

Furthermore the CO2 theory does not explain the real world sequence of events either.

Time for a fresh start and I've provided one.


----------



## wayneL

Stephen Wilde said:


> Hello all. Thanks for the attention.
> 
> Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.
> 
> Perhaps some of you might be a little more constructive. We are all on the same side in wanting to know the truth are we not ?
> 
> As for my 'model' that term is pretty wide ranging and need not be bound by any particular style or format.
> 
> If one gives it a little thought you will see that it complies with real world observations. The sequence I have set out is exactly what really does happen.
> 
> As for the appropriate interpretaion of those real world events there is lots of room for alternative suggestions. Even the CO2 theory could be slotted in but only if one can seperate any human CO2 influence from natural internal system variability.
> 
> Unfortunately nobody can do that yet.
> 
> Furthermore the CO2 theory does not explain the real world sequence of events either.
> 
> Time for a fresh start and I've provided one.




Hi Stephen,

Welcome to the forum. 

I hope you stick around a bit and put forth more of your views.

Cheers


----------



## sneak'n

Stephen Wilde said:


> Hello all. Thanks for the attention.
> Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.



How does that square with most of the hottest years of the past century being recorded in the last decade?

Your model contains obvious and basic scientific mistakes, so how do you consider you have added to climate science?

Climate science does draw from the known impact of greater quantities of CO2 in our atmosphere.  We know that human contributions have sped up the natural cycle, but the precise quantum will never be known.  To *not *"model" - on a scientific basis -a known impact when there is a large amount of empirical evidence to suggest the trend may have severe consequences, would be rather foolish.

At best, your model tells us that climate changes.  That's not really a fresh start, is it?


----------



## trainspotter

*Modern cold waves (2001-date)*

*2009-2010 European Cold Wave -* At least 90 are confirmed dead after record low temperatures and heavy snowfall across Europe causes travel disruption to much of the continent including the British Isles, France, the Low Countries, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, the Baltic States, the Balkans, Ukraine and Russia. Coldest winter for 30 years in the UK with the longest sustained cold spell since 1981. Temperatures in the Italian Alpine peaks have reached low to an extreme of -47  °C. 

*December 2009 North American Blizzard* - heaviest blizzard for a decade causes power outages and travel chaos along the U.S Eastern Seaboard and Eastern Canada killing at least five people. 
Early 2009 European Cold Wave - Early January gave most of Europe, especially in central and south very cold temperatures. Some places like Germany, France, Italy, Romania and Spain had record cold temperatures well below 0 °C. Most of the places were covered in snow and ice which caused school closings and airport delays. Large cities like Paris, Madrid, Berlin and even Marseille saw very cold temperatures with lots of snow and ice in Northern Italy, most of Germany, in northern Portugal and even along the coasts of the Mediterranean. In early February another cold front brought heavy snowfall to much of Western Europe with the heaviest snow falling in France, Northern Italy, the Low Countries and the United Kingdom, where parts of Southern England had seen the worst snowfall in over 18 years causing widespread travel disruption particularly around London. 

*2008 North American Cold Wave -* In December, Canada and large parts of the United States experienced very heavy snowfall and plummeting temperatures. Snowfall was seen in unusual areas along the Great Plains and even in the deserts in and around Las Vegas. Also, over a foot of snow fell in Seattle and other parts of the lowland Pacific Northwest. Mexico experienced a number of cold waves in October, December and January, with temperatures below 0 °C. 
*
2008 Alaska -* In early February Alaska experienced some of the coldest temperatures for 8 years, with Fairbanks nearing (-50  °F (-46  °C) and Chicken, Alaska bottoming out at -72  °F (-58  °C), a mere 8 degrees away from the record of -80  °F (-62  °C). The first half of January also brought unusual cold weather and heavy snow to widespread regions of China and the Middle East. 

*2007 Argentine cold wave -* An interaction with an area of low pressure systems across Argentina during the July 6, July 7 and 8 of 2007, and the entry of a massive polar cold snap resulted in severe snowfalls and blizzards, and recorded temperatures below -30 º C. The cold snap advanced from the south towards the central zone of the country, continuing its displacement towards the north during Saturday, July 7. On Monday July 9, the simultaneous presence of very cold air, gave place to the occurrence of snowfalls. This phenomenon left at least 23 people dead.[3][4] 

*2007 Northern Hemisphere cold wave - *All of Canada and most of the United States underwent a freeze after a two-week warming that took place in late March & early April. Crops froze, wind picked up, and snow drizzled much of the United States. Some parts of Europe also experienced unusual cold winter-like temperatures, during that time. 

*2005-2006 European cold wave - *Eastern Europe and Russia saw a very cold winter. Some of them saw their coldest on record or since the 1970s. Snow was an abundance in unusual places, such as in southern Spain and Northern Africa. All the winter months that season saw temperatures well below average across the continent. 

*2004-2005 Southern Europe cold wave -* All areas of Southern Europe saw an unusually hard winter. This area saw an ice storm which have a 1 in 1000 chance of happening.[citation needed] This cold front caused snow in Algeria, which is extremely unusual. The south of Spain and Morroco also recorded freezing temperatures, and record freezing temperatures were observed on the north of Portugal and Spain. 

*2004 January cold outbreak, Northeast United States -* New England was near a record month when frequent Arctic fronts caused unusually cold weather. *Boston was one of their coldest in 114 years. Virginia Beach had an unusually long period of below freezing weather. One area of New York saw 150 inches of snow in a month. *Many parts of the western and midwestern area of the country seen the effect as well. 

Yeppers ...... bloody hot in them countries !


----------



## Timmy

What's the source for that TS?  - looks interesting.


----------



## derty

it's wikipedia Timmy,

here is the corresponding heat wave selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave

We are seeing some extremes in weather at both ends of the spectrum.



> 21st century
> 
> * In *April 2002* a summer-like heat wave affected much of the Eastern United States.
> * In the *European heat wave of 2003, around 35,000 people died* of it.[citation needed] Much of the heat was concentrated in France, where nearly 15,000 people died[citation needed]. In Portugal, the temperatures reached as high as 48  °C (118  °F) in the south.
> * The *European heat wave of 2006 was the second massive heat wave to hit the continent in four years*, with temperatures rising to 40  °C (104  °F) in Paris; in Ireland, which has a moderate maritime climate, temperatures of over 32  °C (90  °F) were reported. Temperatures of 35  °C (95  °F) were reached in the Benelux and Germany (in some areas 38  °C (100  °F), while Great Britain recorded 37  °C (99  °F). Many heat records were broken (including the hottest ever July temperature in Great Britain) and many people who experienced the heat waves of 1976 and 2003 drew comparisons with them.
> * A heat wave affected much of the *United States in July and August 2006. Over 220 deaths* were reported. Temperatures in some parts of South Dakota exceeded 115  °F (46  °C), causing many problems for the residents. Also, California experienced temperatures that were extraordinarily high, with records ranging from 100 to 130  °F (38 to 54  °C). On July 22, the County of Los Angeles recorded its highest temperature ever at 119  °F (48  °C).[23]
> * The *European heat wave of 2007* affected primarily south-eastern Europe during late June through August. Bulgaria experienced its hottest year on record, with previously unrecorded temperatures above 45  °C (113  °F). The 2007 Greek forest fires were associated with the heat wave.
> * During the *2007 Asian heat wave*, the Indian city of Datia experienced temperatures of 48  °C (118  °F).
> * In *January 2008, Alice Springs* in Australia's Northern Territory recorded ten consecutive days of temperatures above 40  °C (104  °F) with the average temperature for that month being 39.8  °C (103.6  °F). *In March 2008, Adelaide*, South Australia experienced maximum temperatures of above 35  °C (95  °F) for fifteen consecutive days, seven days more than the previous longest stretch of 35  °C (95  °F) days. The March 2008 heat wave also included eleven consecutive days above 38  °C (100  °F).[24] The heat wave was especially notable because it occurred in March, an autumn month, in which Adelaide averages only 2.3 days above 35  °C (95  °F).[25]
> * The *eastern United States experienced an early Summer heat wave from June 6–10, 2008* with record temperatures.[26] There was a heat wave in Southern California beginning late June,[27] which contributed to widespread fires. On July 6, a renewed heat wave was forecast, which was expected to affect the entire state.[28][29]
> * In early *2009, Adelaide, South Australia* was hit by a heat wave with temperatures reaching 40+  °C for six days in a row, while many rural areas experienced temperatures hovering around about mid 40s  °C (mid 110s °F). Kyancutta on the Eyre Peninsula endured at least one day at 48 °C, with 46 and 47 being common in the hottest parts of the state. Melbourne, in neighbouring Victoria recorded 3 consecutive days over 43  °C (109  °F), and also recorded its highest ever temperature 8 days later in a secondary heatwave, with the mercury peaking at 46.4  °C (115.5  °F). During this heat wave Victoria suffered from large bushfires which claimed the lives of more than 210 people and destroyed more than 2,500 homes. There were also over half a million people without power as the heatwave blew transformers and the power grid was overloaded.
> * In *August 2009, Argentina* experienced a period of unusual and exceptionally hot weather during August 24–30, 2009 during the Southern Hemisphere winter, just a month before Spring[30] when a unusual and unrecorded winter heat wave hit the country. A shot of tropical heat drawn unusually far southward hiked temperatures 22 degrees above normal in the city of Buenos Aires and across the northern-centre regions of the country. Several records were broken. Even though normal high temperatures for late August are in the lower 15  °C (59  °F), readings topped 30  °C (86  °F) degrees at midweek, then topped out above 32  °C (90  °F) degrees during the weekend.[31] Temperatures hit 33.8  °C (92.8  °F) on 29 August and finally 34.6  °C (94.3  °F) on 30 August in Buenos Aires, making it the hottest day ever recorded in winter breaking the 1996 winter record of 33.7  °C (92.7  °F). In the city of Santa Fe, a remarkable 38.3  °C (100.9  °F) degrees on 30 August was registered, notwithstanding the normal high in the upper 15 °C/60 °Fs. As per the Meteorological Office of Argentina August 2009 has been the warmest month during winter since official measurements began[32].


----------



## Timmy

Thanks Derty


----------



## trainspotter

Thanks Derty & Timmy !! It appears that a case can be augmented to any bias depending on whose research and statistics you want to use ! Hot in some places & cold in others. I just got tired of bloggers telling me how freaking hot it is blah blah blah and it appears it has also been the coldest in other areas in decades as well yadda yadda yadda.  Wikepedia might not be the best place for research BUT when the Guardian tells you it is the coldest winter in 31 years ya just might have to believe it !! LOLOLOL

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/british-winter-coldest-30-years


----------



## sneak'n

Stephen Wilde said:


> Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.




I could have used other data sets, but Wiki seems easiest and has other references for those wanting to go further:

*20 Warmest years on record *
              ( °C Anomaly of mean from 1901-2000)				
Year	Global 	Land 	Ocean 		
2005	0.6058	0.9553	0.4884		
1998	0.5768	0.8321	0.5087		
2002	0.5575	0.8309	0.4784		
2003	0.5566	0.7711	0.5102		
2006	0.5524	0.8159	0.4669		
2007	0.5499	0.9804	0.3874		
2004	0.5332	0.7075	0.4809		
2001	0.4939	0.7204	0.4416		
2008	0.4869	0.7758	0.3721		
1997	0.4618	0.5584	0.4498		
1995	0.3991	0.6531	0.3191		
1999	0.3953	0.676	0.3237		
1990	0.3701	0.5484	0.3279		
2000	0.3632	0.5175	0.3406		
1991	0.3239	0.4094	0.3105		
1988	0.2886	0.4196	0.2585		
1987	0.2867	0.2963	0.2999		
1994	0.282	0.3597	0.2699		
1983	0.2715	0.3718	0.2508		
1996	0.2586	0.2184	0.2986		

How do we start a debate from a false premise, Mr Wilde?
I know, pretend it's not true!

So then, let's look at the sense of your first sentence.
"..._*current climatology failed to anticipate*_...."  As a lawyer, Mr Wilde, you will know that climatology cannot anticipate anything.  It is not what climatology is about, is it?

"...*the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years *...."  What does this really mean?
Unless one misuses data, it is difficult to construct a declining temperature trend over the past 15 years.  But it is possible to say that the previous trend - of continuing warming - had moderated.  
What is missing is the "compared to what" factor; and without it the sense is quite useless.

Mr Wilde, I am up for debate and my first reasonable suggestion is that you put forward something better.


----------



## trainspotter

LOL sneak'n ... derty stole your thunder ! Te he ! Rock on wikipedia !


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter said:


> LOL sneak'n ... derty stole your thunder ! Te he ! Rock on wikipedia !



No.

derty responded to your post which was only about weather, not climate.
Weather events will continue at either extreme, and your respective posts showed just that.

Climate hysteria is about warming, and that implies a discernable trend.
I was presenting a rebuttal to Mr Wilde's initial contention.  If he thinks the last 15 years provide evidence of cessation of warming, why is it that every one of those years is in the top 20 warmenst in the past century.  

My Wiki table exluded last year, which was the second warmest in the past century, although for Australia it was the hottest since records began.


----------



## basilio

Hang on there Sneak'n et al. I really think you have missed the main point about this forum and  perhaps Stephens potential contribution to the discussion.

First the ground rules. *Understand that practically the entire current scientific community which is examining the climate change issue has got it hopelessly wrong*. For some reason all their collective education has simply taken them down a blind path that is at absolute odds with "the truth". God knows why but somehow we currently seem to have the most extreme example of collective scientific error/stupidity that has ever existed

*Secondly a number of current scientific laws just don't accord with "the truth"  and therefore need to be reconsidered.* Stephen manages to highlight a number of these in his writings which are vigorously backed up by highly vocal supporters who speak loud and long and in CAPITAL LETTERS. Which in this day and age is surely enough to cause us to reconsider the need to change the laws of physics to suit this new truth.

And finally but most importantly.  *There is absolutely no way that man produced CO2 can be having more than the most insignificant effect on our climate* This is tenement 1 of  "The truth".  Because of course if our  emission of CO2 was actually causing climate change we should be considering doing something about reducing our fossil fuel usage.  And  since that would cost some very rich people a lot of money and is therefore  just not politically possible we just can't go there. Get it so far ?  These are the ground rules for this forum. Remember the title "Resisting Climate Hysteria".

Somewhere in this debate you were probably thinking we should be looking at objective "facts" and "evidence" .* But that is just old thinking *and in this New Age of communication the right groups and politicians with the appropriate  sound bites, plenty of absolute confidence,  a sharp suit,  and a complete  morality excision can create their own reality. Black can be white. The innocent can be guilty. The guilty can be declared innocent. And inconvenient facts can be swept away with a contemptuous spit. Simple really. 

We see this every day in the relentless brainwashing of advertisers trying to convince us that Vegas and McDonalds are great. We watched for years as banks created  pyramids of make believe wealth out of  B/S loans.  We live in a world where every significant economic commentator sings the chorus of perpetual growth (in a finite planet.)  So why on earth should we expect that monumentally unpalatable facts and supporting evidence will be accepted and dealt with realistically ?  

We live in a fairy land of our own making. Stephan and co are just the larger artistes of  "The Truth" . Somewhere out there is a little kid dying to point out that the Emperor is starkers -  but all the smart money is spinning imaginary silk into imaginary clothes of infinite taste and beauty - but no substance. 

______________________________________________________

I think I'll go and paint my toenails. Certainly get more sense and satisfaction there than dealing with "the truth" seekers here.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> I could have used other data sets, but Wiki seems easiest and has other references for those wanting to go further:
> 
> *20 Warmest years on record *
> ( °C Anomaly of mean from 1901-2000)
> Year	Global 	Land 	Ocean
> 2005	0.6058	0.9553	0.4884
> 1998	0.5768	0.8321	0.5087
> 2002	0.5575	0.8309	0.4784
> 2003	0.5566	0.7711	0.5102
> 2006	0.5524	0.8159	0.4669
> 2007	0.5499	0.9804	0.3874
> 2004	0.5332	0.7075	0.4809
> 2001	0.4939	0.7204	0.4416
> 2008	0.4869	0.7758	0.3721
> 1997	0.4618	0.5584	0.4498
> 1995	0.3991	0.6531	0.3191
> 1999	0.3953	0.676	0.3237
> 1990	0.3701	0.5484	0.3279
> 2000	0.3632	0.5175	0.3406
> 1991	0.3239	0.4094	0.3105
> 1988	0.2886	0.4196	0.2585
> 1987	0.2867	0.2963	0.2999
> 1994	0.282	0.3597	0.2699
> 1983	0.2715	0.3718	0.2508
> 1996	0.2586	0.2184	0.2986
> 
> How do we start a debate from a false premise, Mr Wilde?
> I know, pretend it's not true!




Perhaps examine the quality of input and how these figures are arrived at? There are a number of concerns over this, only one of which is placement of weather stations. There are also others.

Then there is the matter of the length of the "record".  Perhaps they are the warmest, perhaps not, but compared to what period are we talking about and with what accuracy?

Then there is the matter of "adjustments", ahhh the adjustments -arbitrary inputs no?

Each data set/assumption used by climate doom mongers is framed by a whole range of factors which should rightfully be contested by scientists, yet politics and plain old self interest (funding etc) means that only those prepared to forego funding and career opportunities are prepared to contest the dogma.

As we have seen in the last year, the "science" is well dodgy... the IPCC et al has been called out on a range of issues.

In is in fact the warmers pretending things are not true rederob. The classic example of this is the open secret of your identity. Everyone knows you're lying through your teeth by referring to your previous forum incarnation in the third person and that you don't have the integrity to admit it. The movement is full of this attitude as climategate exposed.

Warmeners typically refuse to concede a single point, even when it is unequivocal.

So let's not have a presentation of hypotheses and problematic data sets as fact. Only the IPCC religiously faithful will hoop and cheer (bizarrely); more enquiring minds will roll their eyes and look deeper into the data.


----------



## Stephen Wilde

I don't attribute ALL the recent observed warming to UHI effects and exagerrated adjustments.

We saw the mid latitude jets move poleward for 25 years or so and that is an indicator that a warming trend was in progress. Warming proponents asserted as much and attributed the cause to more CO2 in the air.

However against the expectations of warming proponents the jets started moving back equatorward 10 to 15 years ago and now the effects are becoming obvious.

The accumulation of warm years recently is simply because we are approaching, or are at, or are leaving a 500 year upward curve from the depths of the Little Ice Age.

The upward progression is not smooth and the next downward progression won't be either. Indeed we may yet have a couple more warming cycles seperated by cooling cycles before we match the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period and start a proper downward trend again.

Theres no change in the laws of physics required to follow my 'model'. That model complies with the established laws of physics but uses logic to deduce from those laws and from real world observations the correct sequence of events. I then go on to point out to readers a set of propositions that must be true to achieve a match between the laws of physics and real world events.

If alternative propositions can be formulated to achieve a similar match then so be it. However the idea of CO2 as a significant climate forcing agent is obviously not one such because the match between theory and reality becomes daily weaker.


----------



## trainspotter

sneak'n said:


> No.
> 
> derty responded to your post which was only about weather, not climate.
> Weather events will continue at either extreme, and your respective posts showed just that.
> 
> Climate hysteria is about warming and that implies a discernable trend.
> I was presenting a rebuttal to Mr Wilde's initial contention.  If he thinks the last 15 years provide evidence of cessation of warming, why is it that every one of those years is in the top 20 warmenst in the past century.
> 
> My Wiki table exluded last year, which was the second warmest in the past century, although for Australia it was the hottest since records began.




LMAO now. If the respondent post was about climate and not weather how is it that you can post a Wiki table is in regards to HEAT (in your case you are calling it climate) and mine was in repsonse to COLD (weather?) is there a discernable difference? Good for the goose but not for the gander? 

"Climate Hysteria is about warming" (your words) and you post a table from Wiki evidencing this to support your stance and I post a Wiki table evidencing that it has been the coldest winter in Boston for 114 years and in other parts of the world (UK coldest winter in 31 years) Ummmmmmmm I am confused now sneak'n ? 

Could be a case of my Wiki table can beat up your Wiki table?


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter said:


> LMAO now. If the respondent post was about climate and not weather how is it that you can post a Wiki table is in regards to HEAT (in your case you are calling it climate) and mine was in response to COLD (weather?) is there a discernible difference? Good for the goose but not for the gander?
> 
> "Climate Hysteria is about warming" (your words) and you post a table from Wiki evidencing this to support your stance and I post a Wiki table evidencing that it has been the coldest winter in Boston for 114 years and in other parts of the world (UK coldest winter in 31 years) Ummmmmmmm I am confused now sneak'n ?
> 
> Could be a case of my Wiki table can beat up your Wiki table?



The table I posted amalgamated the temperature information across the globe and presented it as a single figure for the year.

Your references simply indicated that in certain places at certain times we have had extreme weather events.  You could have tried to build a climate case from the patterns of weather events you posted on, but you did not.

A climate case may have revealed that despite the severity of the event, the duration was trending consistently longer/shorter and the temperatures were trending higher/lower.

For example, Australia's weather records are showing long term trends of longer/hotter heat waves, more higher-minimum temperatures and drier south/wetter north of continent.


----------



## sneak'n

Stephen Wilde said:


> However the idea of CO2 as a significant climate forcing agent is obviously not one such because the match between theory and reality becomes daily weaker.



Let's see.
Hottest temperatures recorded in past century in most recent decades.
Greatest concentrations of CO2 gases recorded for longer still, also in most recent decades.
There is no match between your view and climate realities.
Stop telling lies and start getting the science right.


----------



## trainspotter

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-ice-age-cometh/story-e6frg73o-1111116134873

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74 °F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.


----------



## trainspotter

MIAMI 11th January 2010 ”” Record low temperatures chilled Florida from top to bottom Monday, endangering fruit and vegetable crops and taxing the power grid of a state unaccustomed to the cold. The National Weather Service reported 36 degrees at the Miami airport, beating an 82-year-old record of 37 degrees. It dipped to 42 degrees in Key West, one degree off the record and the second-coldest reading since 1873.

January 5th 2010 - Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere yesterday, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains. 

There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25C (-13F). 

The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimetres (10in) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital ”” *the heaviest fall since records began in 1937. *

In China, Beijing and the nearby port city of Tianjin had the deepest snow since 1951, with falls of up to 8in and temperatures of minus 10C. In the far north of China, the temperature fell to minus 32C. More than two million Beijing and Tianjin pupils were sent home and 1,200 flights were delayed or cancelled at Beijing’s international airport. 

 Seems Co2 has a lot to answer for ?


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter
You need to compare apples with apples, and you are not.
There are numerous datasets maintained by different organisations, utilising instrumental, radiosonde and satellite measurements.  

While the datasets may not give the same numbers, they use consistent principles and allow for systematic examination.

Cherrypicking data is not handy, so your reference to a particular year's temperature change being significant, belies the actual temperature outcome, as distinct from the rate of change. The decade was the hottest on record, and that one year experience a strong cooling from the previous simply tells us that we continue to have significant variability within an overall rising trend.


----------



## trainspotter

Keep on punching sneak'n ! It is you who are cherry picking now when you are resting your case on this decade is "the hottest on record". The fact of the science is that it is backed up by leading institutes of climate recording who have produced a graph that definitley evidences that the temperature has dropped below the mean average and that the earth has cooled. 

YES - you are right in saying that this was the hottest *decade* "globally" but this is the same to say that according to the figures of these well respected institutes that the temperature has dropped to the same as it was in the 1930's. If you look at the graph you will see that the earth's temperature has risen and fallen remarkably in this period of time and in fact is evidencing a cooling trend as neither of us can predict the future.

Who is to say that this downard spiral does not continue? What then? Wonderful that the past 10 years were the hottest on record "globally" (where I think the science is erring due to the location of the instruments) but what will happen if the next 10 years it continues to plummet? Ice age? I can smell the penguin **** already. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter said:


> Keep on punching sneak'n ! It is you who are cherry picking now when you are resting your case on this decade is "the hottest on record". The fact of the science is that it is backed up by leading institutes of climate recording who have produced a graph that definitley evidences that the temperature has dropped below the mean average and that the earth has cooled.



I can table dozens of different long term charts and tables of the temperature record going back over 100 years - all showing an upward trend.
I would enjoy seeing the definitive charts from leading institutes that you refer to.


----------



## wayneL

sneak'n said:


> I can table dozens of different long term charts and tables of the temperature record going *back over 100 years - all showing an upward trend.*




And that doesn't say something to you?


----------



## DB008

Found this. 
What do you guys think?

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#


----------



## trainspotter

sneak'n said:


> I can table dozens of different long term charts and tables of the temperature record going back over 100 years - all showing an upward trend.
> I would enjoy seeing the definitive charts from leading institutes that you refer to.




I have already posted (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) chart evidencing a fall in the earths temperature. I eagerly await your "dozens" of confounding charts theorising otherwise.


----------



## trainspotter

Here is a chart for you to feast your eyes on in the meantime whilst you search for the "dozens" of charts by recognised leading academics with an agenda to push for global warming.


----------



## GumbyLearner

trainspotter said:


> The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimetres (10in) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital ”” *the heaviest fall since records began in 1937. *




That's true. The missus had the ondol on most of today and last night. It has been freezing here. Coldest winter I can ever remember.


----------



## trainspotter

Whoooooooooops ! Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter
You said, "The fact of the science is that it is backed up by leading institutes of climate recording who have produced a graph that definitley evidences that the temperature has dropped below the mean average and that the earth has cooled."
Still waiting.

By the way, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc do not provide surface temperature measurements as they are satellite-based and measure atmospheric temperature.  Nevertheless, since inception of these measurements in 1979 all are now showing higher temperatures today, with a discernible rising trend using three-year averaged data.


----------



## trainspotter

sneak'n said:


> trainspotter
> You said, "The fact of the science is that it is backed up by leading institutes of climate recording who have produced a graph that definitley evidences that the temperature has dropped below the mean average and that the earth has cooled."
> Still waiting.
> 
> By the way, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc do not provide surface temperature measurements as they are satellite-based and measure atmospheric temperature.  Nevertheless, since inception of these measurements in 1979 all are now showing higher temperatures today, with a discernible rising trend using three-year averaged data.




I can't be bothered anymore sneak'n. Ducking and diving and leading from one nitpicking argument to the other about "decades" and now "three-year averaged data" then requesting other ASFERs to "stop telling lies" has become both boring and tedious. If you look at the graph I posted from these Institutes you will see it clearly shows that the temperature has fallen to the equivalent of what is what it was in the 1930's. Nevertheless .... I bid you adieu on this matter and will let others far more clever than myself take up the challenge of doing battle with your meaningless ripostes.


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter said:


> I can't be bothered anymore sneak'n. Ducking and diving and leading from one nitpicking argument to the other about "decades" and now "three-year averaged data" then requesting other ASFERs to "stop telling lies" has become both boring and tedious. If you look at the graph I posted from these Institutes you will see it clearly shows that the temperature has fallen to the equivalent of what is what it was in the 1930's. Nevertheless .... I bid you adieu on this matter and will let others far more clever than myself take up the challenge of doing battle with your meaningless ripostes.



Another dummy spitter?

I remain prepared to argue the science.  I won't duck and dive it, but it does need to have a reasonable base.  You seemed confused about the difference between weather and climate.  Meanwhile Mr Wilde's science was eponymous or, mumbo jumbo.  

You say, "If you look at the graph I posted from these Institutes you will see it clearly shows that the temperature has fallen to the equivalent of what is what it was in the 1930's".







> *April 15, 2010*
> The world’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January – March period on record.
> Read more at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats.html



Now I know the above relates to specific periods within a year, but I am curious to learn how the 1930s were as warm.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

The evenings are getting cooler again here in Townsville and it can be a bit nippy just before dawn, 20 degrees centigrade this morning, so its not much change really in the weather from other years, and I don't need some confected graph to tell me that.

gg


----------



## trainspotter

Sneak'n just because I know your secret identity, I will humour you for one last time. Go and do your own research and stop antagonising the other ASFers in here by demanding they must prove the science whilst you sit back and criticise them both personally and in your case illogically when they do give you the facts you so desperately require to feed your fire. DFTT everybody.  Google it if you don't know the meaning.


----------



## sneak'n

trainspotter said:


> Sneak'n just because I know your secret identity, I will humour you for one last time. Go and do your own research and stop antagonising the other ASFers in here by demanding they must prove the science whilst you sit back and criticise them both personally and in your case illogically when they do give you the facts you so desperately require to feed your fire. DFTT everybody.  Google it if you don't know the meaning.



It's as simple as putting up or shutting up, trainspotter.

If you can't substantiate your claims here, expect me to show you up as just another who takes snippets from here and there that prove nothing from a global perspective.

To quote weather events, and then make claims about institutes that show the 30s to be hotter than today, suggests to me denial of well established warming trends in both hemispheres.

As you have not provided any "facts" to substantiate your claims, I really have nothing more to discuss.


----------



## brty

Sneak'n,

Considering this is the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread, the true believers (in climate change) are the ones that need to provide any 'proof'.

Can you find one piece of unadjusted data, just one piece, that shows man made climate change. Everything that any of us comes across, is 'adjusted'. You keep bringing up figures that have been 'adjusted', yet nothing is further from the truth than 'adjusted' statistics, given that you can almost show anything you want with unadjusted statistics.

brty


----------



## sneak'n

brty said:


> Sneak'n,
> 
> Considering this is the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread, the true believers (in climate change) are the ones that need to provide any 'proof'.
> 
> Can you find one piece of unadjusted data, just one piece, that shows man made climate change. Everything that any of us comes across, is 'adjusted'. You keep bringing up figures that have been 'adjusted', yet nothing is further from the truth than 'adjusted' statistics, given that you can almost show anything you want with unadjusted statistics.
> 
> brty



How wrong!

The thread is based on Lindzen's claim that the warming camp is making outlandish claims about the impact of human induced global warming.

On the other hand, those denying global warming are unable to provide any evidence that there is no trend - except for brief periods - in the past century.

Unadjusted temperature data you can look at is found at our own Bureau of Meteorology site, based on instrumental measurements of surface temperature .  You can find similar data for the UK and for the USA.

In relation to sea ice extent you can look at actual pictures and video streams that show the trend for the Arctic is decreasing significantly.

Other data you could look at that is not adjusted relates to snowmelt onset.  These data are variously available, usually based on specific research projects, and show that for the northern hemisphere melts are starting earlier and earlier.

Another dataset you could use relates to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.  These data may differ depending on which set you choose, but as there was very little use of fossil fuels prior to the Industrial Revolution, the human contribution becomes obvious. 

Adjusted datasets are used significantly because technological improvements occur that allow us to account for past anomalies in a consistent manner.  For example, lower atmosphere temperature measurements by satellite since 1979 cannot compare for the entire period as many satellites have been used and their respective measurement yardsticks have all been slightly different.


----------



## Calliope

Rederob (aka sneak'n). Even if your climate hysteria has some foundation, how could you possibly delude yourself that we can do anything about it. Even Rudd has now sidelined "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", as election winning material. That rhetoric has been diverted to Health.

If I were you I would eat, drink and be merry, while waiting for the coming cataclysm. You cannot save the world and are wasting your time trying to ram sense into the heretics on this forum.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> Rederob (aka sneak'n). Even if your climate hysteria has some foundation, how could you possibly delude yourself that we can do anything about it. Even Rudd has now sidelined "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", as election winning material. That rhetoric has been diverted to Health.
> 
> If I were you I would eat, drink and be merry, while waiting for the coming cataclysm. You cannot save the world and are wasting your time trying to ram sense into the heretics on this forum.



Reality is that the world continues to burn fossil fuels as fast as they can be extracted from the ground and there is no sign of any change to that situation, indeed it has accelerated in recent times. 

Australia could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global fossil fuel use would continue to rise. That's the reality of the situation. Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.



That's the time we have to develop the technologies to fuel our growth beyond this finite planet.


----------



## explod

> Reality is that the world continues to burn fossil fuels as fast as they can be extracted from the ground and there is no sign of any change to that situation, indeed it has accelerated in recent times.
> 
> Australia could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global fossil fuel use would continue to rise. That's the reality of the situation. Constant growth on a finite planet will eventually consume all accessible resources both fossil fuel and other.




Yep, it is why I stopped posting on this topic.   Dog eat dog.  It is every person/thing for itself.    And that of course is natural selection.


----------



## trainspotter

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

University of Alabama at Huntsville has the data evidencing the drop over a ten year period. Hardly the hottest decade on record? Satellite temperature data (UAH and RSS) is more reliable because it covers the entire earth - with the exception of small regions near the north and south poles. They use the same methodology from year to year, and the two sources tend to agree fairly closely. The downside of satellite data is that it only goes back to 1978.

Now for the science of the land based readings: LONDON: The British Meteorological Office has been forced to correct its global temperature records after a science blogger discovered that Australian weather data had been misused or discarded.

The mistakes were discovered by Dr John Graham-Cumming when the temperature records were made public by the office in December in the wake of the East Anglia University email scandal.

Dr Graham-Cumming, a London mathematician and computer programmer who describes himself as a ''computer geek'', found that data from seven weather stations in Australia had been accidentally discarded while another 112 Australian stations - or 28 per cent of the Oceania total - had not been fully included in the calculations.

''What appears to have happened is that the Met Office calculated the averages and then got more data from Oceania and then failed to update the averages,'' Dr Graham-Cumming said.

*''The site with the greatest error was Napier Nelson Park, in New Zealand, where the average temperature was off by more than 1 degree. That's a lot given that the total warming seen since the 1970s is less than 1 degree and for this location the Met Office had it more than 1 degree hotter than it is. Had the error I'd found been more widespread, it could have had a real effect on the overall picture.''*

He said that when the office checked his findings it discovered similar problems with US weather data, with 121 stations assigned to the wrong location or overwritten in the calculations.

*Bwaaahahahahahhahaha aahaha aha*


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> That's the time we have to develop the technologies to fuel our growth beyond this finite planet.






> Yep, it is why I stopped posting on this topic. Dog eat dog. It is every person/thing for itself. And that of course is natural selection.




Agree guys with population growth and accelerating growth in demolition of finite natural resources the whole argument seems point less.


----------



## sneak'n

Cherrypicking:
Trainspotter's last table shows lower atmospheric temperature records (not surface measurements) from 1990 to present.  1998 is a well known outlier year due to the strongest El Niño on record.

Temperature records:
Many and various; all subject to some level of error.
What they don't show-> evidence of a cooling trend on a long term basis.

Other factors to ponder:
Climate science is complex, so there may be reasons that explain something that seems anomalous.  For example, is it possible that solar irradiance is affecting the UAH atmospheric temperature records?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Where is the volume on the chart.

It looks like a trading range that may break to the downside but I'd wait for confirmation.

gg


----------



## trainspotter

The plush new headquarters of the Department of Climate Change in Canberra / The Daily Telegraph Source:   

Rent for new offices $8m  - TAXPAYERS will pay $90 million a year to keep 408 public servants employed in the Federal Climate Change Department - despite most of them now having nothing to do until 2013. More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year. Their salary bill alone will cost an estimated $12 million every year. 

A further $8 million will also be paid in rent for plush offices at Canberra 's Constitution Place until 2012, where it is believed 500 new computers will be delivered this week. Despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's decision on Tuesday to suspend the failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2013, the department has ruled out plans to cut back staff.

A formal response by department secretary Martin Parkinson to a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday - the same day as the scheme's suspension - claimed the department would not offer redundancies. The formal response, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, said there were no plans for "the immediate future" of any scaling back of staff. According to official figures, the number of top-paid bureaucrats being paid up to $298,000 a year has almost doubled since January this year from 39 to 61. That was to gear up for establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will also now have no function. Since last year with climate change employees having risen from an initial 246 to 408.

Of the 61 senior agency officials, only nine have been inherited from the scrapped home insulation scheme. The majority, 38, were employed on the CPRS and a further 19 were employed on the renewable energy scheme which has also been axed. But none of the 408 staff within the department will be shed even though the department's key function, the CPRS, has been axed. Its own tender documents reveal a lease contract of $16 million for its offices which expires in 2012.


----------



## Calliope

Rudd is fighting a losing battle trying to convince the electorate that he is a dedicated warmist. To most people climate change now is just ho-hum.



> But sceptics shouldn’t think they’ve slayed the climate beast for good.
> 
> In this week’s budget the government included a $30 million propaganda campaign to run print, radio, television and web-based campaigns to give confidence to voters that the dodgy science in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report was just an accident.
> 
> The problem for Rudd is clearly that most voters clearly don’t share his view or his passion on climate change anymore. And instead voters are reading the science of climate change with the same cynicism that they’re taking to Rudd’s outbursts.




http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/7.30-meltdown-shows-pm-is-hot-under-the-collar/


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

James Lovelock wrote a good article, in the Guardian that covers a few points that the hystericals would care not to talk about. Notably, crying wolf twice may not get action. Can KRudd state that it is the moral issue of our times again?


----------



## Knobby22

Good article in New Scientist.

It appears Europe is very sensitive to the Sun's radiance which has been dropping over the last 20 years. Europe will get colder while the rest of the world is getting warmer.

At least to the Sun's output starts increasing again.


----------



## derty

A well researched rebuttal of one of Lord Monckton's presentations (Oct 2009). I know there are a few Monckton fans on the site and others that have been impressed by his message. This presentation is well worth a watch.

I have seen quite a few critiques of Monckton and while they do deal with some of his claims, most seem to resort to ad hominem attacks about Monckton's claims to being a House of Lords member, Thatchers science advisor or his use of a logo very similar to that of the UK parliament in an effort to lend weight to their rebuttal. Some even poke fun at his bulgy eyes. 

John Abraham is purely concerned with the data presented by Monckton. It is quite long (something to have open and running while doing something else) and imho quite damning. It would be interesting to see Monckton respond to Abraham's critique.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/


----------



## DB008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8758000/8758352.stm


----------



## Calliope

I am finding it hard to resist climate hysteria. I read some bad news in the paper today... global warming may not kick in until 2200. I can't wait that long. I am sitting here with my teeth chattering.

The Sunshine Coast has seen very little sunshine in the last few weeks. Very little rain, just overcast skies and chilly winds.

Any political party that promises to speed up global warming would be a shoe in.


----------



## Timmy

Something for everyone in this!
*
British Panel Clears Scientists*
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&ref=science



> A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
> But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was "misleading."




And Global Surface Mean Temp Anomalies from NOAA have been updated for May, 
from this source: 
*State of the Climate Global Analysis May 2010*
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Following chart from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=glob&year=2010&month=5&ext=gif






_Please refrain from throwing tomatoes._
:hide:


----------



## trainspotter

Then why is it so bloody COLD ??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Technical officer at WA Climate Service, Michelle Dalpozzo, said that the bureau considered anything below 5C a cold night and Perth was experiencing its *coldest winter on record.*

“We’ve definitely set a record with 14 consecutive nights,” she said. “The last time it was this cold in Perth was in July 1997 for nine days.”


----------



## Timmy

trainspotter said:


> Then why is it so bloody COLD ??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
> 
> Technical officer at WA Climate Service, Michelle Dalpozzo, said that the bureau considered anything below 5C a cold night and Perth was experiencing its *coldest winter on record.*
> 
> “We’ve definitely set a record with 14 consecutive nights,” she said. “The last time it was this cold in Perth was in July 1997 for nine days.”




Confusing weather with climate ts?


----------



## drsmith

Perth has been cold as it has been under the influence of dry continential air. This air is typically colder than the moist maritime air that Perth normally experiences at this time of year.


----------



## trainspotter

Timmy said:


> Confusing weather with climate ts?




LOLOL ...... must be !  

Sydney endures coldest night in 61 years .... http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/7487358/sydney-endures-coldest-night-in-61-years/

Geraldton received their coldest night in 69 years of records for any month, falling 10 degrees below average to -0.4 degrees. http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/parts-of-western-australia-freeze-through-record-cold/14568


----------



## basilio

> Then why is it so bloody COLD ??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
> 
> Technical officer at WA Climate Service, Michelle Dalpozzo, said that the bureau considered anything below 5C a cold night and Perth was experiencing its coldest winter on record.
> 
> “We’ve definitely set a record with 14 consecutive nights,” she said. “The last time it was this cold in Perth was in July 1997 for nine days.”




Well it's bleeding obvious isn't it ?? All those graphs showing temperatures at thousands of weather stations around the world for over a hundred years are just creatively constructed  stories run by fear mongering warmists who are slurping on the sweet teats of government handouts.  (_have a missed anything there folks ?)_

No. The real and final word on whether there is a systemic change in world wide climate comes from sticking your finger out the window and declaring that it's just too damn cold. End of story.

At this stage I think we are all in denial.  The scientists because it's becoming rapidly clear that the boat has sailed on any realistic chance to address  human induced climate change and climate change deniers because so far any range of **** and  bull arguments are still being swallowed by the rest of the population who just don't want to think about sad, unpleasant realities and can be easily distracted with new toys and happy stories.

That's all folks.


----------



## jonojpsg

trainspotter said:


> Then why is it so bloody COLD ??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
> 
> Technical officer at WA Climate Service, Michelle Dalpozzo, said that the bureau considered anything below 5C a cold night and Perth was experiencing its *coldest winter on record.*
> 
> “We’ve definitely set a record with 14 consecutive nights,” she said. “The last time it was this cold in Perth was in July 1997 for nine days.”




Tassie has been around 1 degree above average for all of 2010 so far - yes go ahead and laugh and scoff and say that makes us at least above freezing - but still, that's reasonably significant from a stats point of view.


----------



## trainspotter

jonojpsg said:


> Tassie has been around 1 degree above average for all of 2010 so far - yes go ahead and laugh and scoff and say that makes us at least above freezing - but still, that's reasonably significant from a stats point of view.




Completely concur jono ..... 1 degree WARMER is significant for a 1 year period. Is this an upward trend? Are warmer climes becoming cooler and vice versa?


----------



## Timmy

trainspotter said:


> LOLOL ...... must be !
> 
> Sydney endures coldest night in 61 years .... http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/7487358/sydney-endures-coldest-night-in-61-years/
> 
> Geraldton received their coldest night in 69 years of records for any month, falling 10 degrees below average to -0.4 degrees. http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/parts-of-western-australia-freeze-through-record-cold/14568




Don't be an idiot ts - do you have any idea of last week's weather on the east coast of the US?  Is it relevant to climate change?  No of course not, but if you really want to use last week's weather to make a climate point then please take a bigger picture view than just Perth and Geraldton.  

This sort of comment does not contribute anything to the site, just creates pointless arguments.


----------



## Timmy

trainspotter said:


> Completely concur jono ..... 1 degree WARMER is significant for a 1 year period. Is this an upward trend? Are warmer climes becoming cooler and vice versa?




If you think 1 year is significant then why are you trying to make your point with a week's weather?  Can you see the silliness here?


----------



## trainspotter

Timmy said:


> If you think 1 year is significant then why are you trying to make your point with a week's weather?  Can you see the silliness here?




Thanks Timmy .... thought it was relevant as it was the coldest *ON RECORD*. Not just the week ... EVER since records were kept.

Was not trying to provoke thoughtless arguments. Merely pointing out that 1 degree rising over a 1 year period I would have thought is quite significant? If it continues to rise at this rate then it is down right catastrophic.


----------



## Knobby22

Timmy said:


> If you think 1 year is significant then why are you trying to make your point with a week's weather?  Can you see the silliness here?




1 degree is significant but Trainspotter was asking is there a trend bcking this up or is it a one off. He was asking for more information.
Not worth attacking him over it.


----------



## drsmith

Local weather over a short period is not necessarily representative of broader scale climate change over a long period.


----------



## Timmy

trainspotter said:


> Thanks Timmy .... thought it was relevant as it was the coldest *ON RECORD*. Not just the week ... EVER since records were kept.




Apologies for my anger.  I know Joe is concerned with standards on the site and while having a laugh about recent weather in WA being so cold is fine for a bit of fun (even got a smily from me in my initial reply to you), using it on a serious basis, while ignoring the rest of the planet is just an example of ... well something ... but its not a positive for the site.


----------



## Timmy

Knobby22 said:


> 1 degree is significant but Trainspotter was asking is there a trend bcking this up or is it a one off. He was asking for more information.
> Not worth attacking him over it.




The attack was not for the 'significance' question, it was for the attempted serious use of a week's weather, in one part of the globe, to argue a climate question, which is ridiculous and is an example of the lowering of standards on the site.


----------



## trainspotter

Sorry .. I was getting confused with weather in isolated areas rather than global climate change.


----------



## jonojpsg

trainspotter said:


> Completely concur jono ..... 1 degree WARMER is significant for a 1 year period. Is this an upward trend? Are warmer climes becoming cooler and vice versa?




Just having a look through some of the data from http://www.bom.gov.au which has monthly stats from the last 60 years at least.

Hobart's annual average maximum has risen from 17.0 to 17.5 on a rolling 30 year basis since 1960.
Brisbanes has *decreased* by a smaller amount 25.6 to 25.3
Bundaberg has risen 26.0 to 26.9
Adelaide 21.5 to 21.6
Perth 24.3 to 24.7
Port Hedland 33.2 to 33.5
Darwin 32.0 to 32.2
Sydney 22.2 to 22.5
Melbourne 19.5 to 19.8*  (data only back to 1970)

Mawson base (Antarctica) -8.4 to -8.3
Casey base (Antarctica) -7.5 to -7.2

Note data is all taken from airports.

Looks like a pretty consistent picture at least over the last 50 years - increase in average annual maximum temperatures of around 0.3 degrees since 1960.

Just checked a few non-capital locations to check for urban heat sink effect but looks pretty similar - note Burketown must have had a few hot years in the 70s and 80s coz their average jumped from 32.5 (1940-1970) up to 32.8 (1960-1990) then back to 32.5 again (1980-2010).  

Burketown 32.8 down to 32.5
Ceduna 23.5 to 23.7
Ballarat 17.4 to 17.8

Obviously if 2010 pattern continues down here we'll be looking at an average annual temp for this year of at least 18 if not more.  Will check out the other capitals and get back to y'all


----------



## Julia

We only ever hear about the adverse effects of global warming (leaving aside the discussion of whether it's affected by anthropogenic factors).

Never any mention of what an improvement some warming would be for the colder regions of the world.  Canadians and New Zealanders are just two groups who would be more comfortable.  Much of northern Europe and north Asia would also benefit.


----------



## jonojpsg

Julia said:


> We only ever hear about the adverse effects of global warming (leaving aside the discussion of whether it's affected by anthropogenic factors).
> 
> Never any mention of what an improvement some warming would be for the colder regions of the world.  Canadians and New Zealanders are just two groups who would be more comfortable.  Much of northern Europe and north Asia would also benefit.




I am with you there Julia  Tassie will become an even greater place to live if the average temps lift by a couple of degrees!!  

Only problem is that most of our beaches would disappear, half our roads would go under and there would be hundreds of millions of refugees seeking somewhere dry to live


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> We only ever hear about the adverse effects of global warming (leaving aside the discussion of whether it's affected by anthropogenic factors).
> 
> Never any mention of what an improvement some warming would be for the colder regions of the world.  Canadians and New Zealanders are just two groups who would be more comfortable.  Much of northern Europe and north Asia would also benefit.




Agree Julia, but it is not a very pc statement. 

What is Al Gore up to nowadays? Is he still making a quid out of all this weather nonsense?

gg


----------



## Timmy

Julia said:


> We only ever hear about the adverse effects of global warming (leaving aside the discussion of whether it's affected by anthropogenic factors).




I think studies examining any potential benefits are quite rare.  Here is a link to something that might be of interest?
*Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming*
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

And a link to someone wondering about the same thing:
*Advantages and Disadvantages of Global Warming
Positive and Negative Effects of Global Warming to People and the Planet*
http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/advantages.htm

This is such a touchy subject eliciting strong emotions in posters here that I just want to add a disclaimer: I haven't read the material in these links and provide them for others to make their own mind up about without any recommendations from me.


----------



## drsmith

Timmy said:


> This is such a touchy subject eliciting strong emotions........



Religion and/or politics generally is.

From a global biodiversity perspective, global warming may be a good thing. Life does not exactly thrive in Antarctica's vast frozen desert.

For human civilisation however, regional climate change may result in a shifting of agriculturally productive areas and other dislocations. this of course would be a negative from our perspective and from the planet's perspective if it results in war.

A core objective should be to maintain the biodiversity of this planet. Climate change could be a positive in that regard if understood and managed. To that end we should be considering engineering solutions that enhance biodiversity. This is after all what we will need to do (on a much larger scale and from scratch) should we ultimately colonise other worlds beyond Earth.


----------



## Smurf1976

jonojpsg said:


> I am with you there Julia  Tassie will become an even greater place to live if the average temps lift by a couple of degrees!!
> 
> Only problem is that most of our beaches would disappear, half our roads would go under and there would be hundreds of millions of refugees seeking somewhere dry to live



The lack of rain in Hobart over the past few months is starting to become an issue. It got a bit wet for a while, but it's blue sky and sunshine most days, the bush is bone dry and this is in the middle of Winter! Went for a walk this morning and found that the creek near me is completely dry.

Might have to add major bush fires and half the place being burnt to the ground next Summer to the list of problems if this continues. I hope not, but it's way too dry for this time of year at the moment.

It could be argued that this is a continuation of the drought that began in 1998 and that last Winter's high rainfall was simply an aberration.

Anyway, it's a nice Spring day outside with typical Spring weather. In Winter...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Its getting dry here in Townsville, as is usual midwinter.

We had a very good wet season and good follow up early winter showers for most.

Polar bears still not visible from the Texas Holdem tables at Jupiters Casino, so the Copenhagen fiasco must have slowed something down.

Penny Wong never seen in Townsville either for what its worth.

gg


----------



## trainspotter

"In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%. 

The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/

Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?

June 28, 2010 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100628/

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. recently introduced the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS), an integrated set of supercomputing, visualization, and data interaction technologies that will enhance agency capabilities in weather and climate prediction research.


----------



## jonojpsg

trainspotter said:


> "In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%.
> 
> The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."
> 
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/
> 
> Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?




Isn't it just saying that the aerosol effect *contributed* those changes to the overall climate pattern, eg without the aerosol effect we would be that much warmer than we are?  If so, thank goodness for the aerosol effect!


----------



## DB008

Got this in my e-mail.
Please don't shot me, l'm just the messenger.

http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy/

Here is the text from the link above;




> Blacklisted scientist challenges global warming orthodoxy
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years has been predicting the greenhouse effect can spin out of control. They claim that there exists a scientific consensus that CO2 is pushing the planet into an unrestrained greenhouse effect, that it’s raising global temperatures and it must be stopped. IPCC was created in the 1980s by the United Nations. They have released findings that say that carbon-based emissions released into the atmosphere by humans, mostly in wealthy, Western countries, must be reduced, or a catastrophe will result. They have frequently used this scare tactic. It has been easy to frighten people, as the science involved takes some significant and serious study. Most people have relied on expert opinions because they lack their own expert knowledge in the field, a factor the IPCC has relied upon in the past.
> 
> Today Hungarian atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, says he has found and proven that the IPCC and their experts are wrong in their theory about how the greenhouse effect works. In the process, he has shown that changing CO2 concentrations are not the determining factor the IPCC and other scientists claim.
> 
> Over the last 20 years Miskolczi achieved several results which prove that the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere is completely dependent on energy. The IPCC would have the world believe that it is the ingredients of the atmosphere which matter more than the energy, and that it is rising levels of CO2 that are causing global warming.
> 
> Working with a number of sets of temperature and humidity data from all over the world, Miskolczi has found that the greenhouse effect is a balance of energy dependent primarily on the sun. This is something reasonable people have recognised for some time but haven’t been able to prove without the same sort of heavy science and math the IPCC experts have been using. Those who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions have needed some form of proof to back their positions. Until now, those proofs have been too few in number to slow Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) momentum backed with billions of dollars. Solid science which can be verified and recreated has been needed and Miskolczi claims that his research has finally provided just that. New mathematical equations seem to have put the players in this climate game into their proper places.
> 
> To put it very simply, Dr. Miskolczi has described previously unknown properties of our atmosphere.
> 
> Unfortunately it isn’t as clean and easy as E=mc2. The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not. The science is so difficult to follow that no one can refute the IPCC without discussing concepts most of the public don’t have the time or desire to learn. So by default the IPCC has owned the conversation and the playing field. What’s more, they have some big allies in supporting positions.
> 
> At the time of his original discovery Dr. Miskolczi was a contractor for NASA and had published many times in renowned journals with his colleagues there; he resigned his position in 2005 when NASA refused to publish work contradicting AGW.
> 
> Despite being blacklisted by the scientific community supporting AGW, he has continued his research proving and refining his results. However, this same community is also the one which peer reviews work like this. When a scientist is tossed off this team, they can’t get their work reviewed and pushed to the press as being “peer reviewed.” Despite this handicap Miskolczi has persevered, just this month publishing yet again, this time proving with observations that the greenhouse effect is actually stable.
> 
> Miskolczi does not appear to be saying that global warming or cooling doesn’t occur. Instead, he shows that CO2 does not and cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In his paper he provides a graph spanning 61 years from 1948-2008. It shows that the greenhouse effect remains constant while CO2 concentrations have risen. Miskolczi has found physical proof that the greenhouse effect works differently than previously thought and it isn’t affected by changes in carbon dioxide.
> 
> Lacking now is an honest scientific community’s review of his work, something hard to get once you have been kicked off the team.
> 
> The American and international press have also ignored this publication. Though more articles appear daily contradicting the IPCC, this single decisive discovery, if true, completely dismantles the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Amazingly it has yet to make the front page.
> 
> For more information Dr. Miskloczi’s latest paper can be found here: Ferenc Miskolczi: The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness (Energy & Environment Vol. 21 No 4, 2010 August Special Issue: Paradigms in Climate Research), and is available at Multi-Science Publishing Co., Great Britain.
> 
> Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi can be contacted at: fmiskolczi@cox.net .
> 
> Dianna Cotter is a Golden Key International Honor Society Member and student at American Military University. She writes for Examiner.com and Family Security Matters. She currently resides in Oregon with her husband and three children. Dianna Cotter can be contacted at cotter.d.c@gmail.com.




ALSO


----------



## ghotib

Don't shoot me; I'm just trying to understand. 

Dr Roy Spencer is one of the very few climate scientists who still has doubts that human activities have changed the climate of the planet. His rebuttal of Miskolczi's theory is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/. The introduction reads:


> Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory
> August 5th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
> 
> SPECIAL MESSAGE: For those following Miskolczi’s work, and his claims regarding “Aa=Ed”, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously “trying” to achieve radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. If those two quantities were more “un-equal” then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than we observe.
> 
> Again…if Aa does not EXACTLY balance Ed, then Miskolczi has found NOTHING that departs from the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
> 
> ADDENDUM…his additional finding of a relatively constant greenhouse effect from 60 years of radiosonde data (because humidity decreases have offset CO2 increases) is indeed tantalizing. But few people believe long-term trends in radiosonde humidities. His result depends upon the reality of unusually high humidities in the 1950s and 1960s. Without those, there is no cancellation between decreasing humidity and increasing CO2 as he claims.




What is conservative about messing with the only climate human civilisation has ever known? 

Ghoti


----------



## Knobby22

Bushfires in Russia, this year is shaping up to be one of the hottest ever. and some people are still thinking.

*Signs of a tipping point in the debate with climate sceptics Jo Chandler *
August 17, 2010


*Deniers are swapping sides as the evidence continues to build.*

There's a lot of talk about ''tipping points'' in the climate science literature these days. It's an innocuous enough little phrase, implying just a nudge over the edge of something. But in climate terms, that step beyond the ''critical threshold'' is a doozy.

In warming scenarios, a tipping point is a mechanism that sweeps us off the edge of the recognisable planet. These narratives are most usually and soberly described in the pages of scientific journals, yet they read like the plot of a Hollywood thriller - think The Day After Tomorrow - but with warming suddenly supercharged by melting permafrost or by clouds of methane belching from beneath the seas, the seas rising by metres as the great polar ice sheets collapse, the powerhouse of the ocean conveyer system failing, or the waters becoming too acidic to nurture life.

These are real enough threats to warrant the intense scrutiny of many of the sharpest scientific minds of our age. Nonetheless, great uncertainties surround each of these scenarios. What is the evidence, the probability? When and how fast? What capacity might nature have to put itself right? What lever might humanity pull?

Uncertainty and doubt are comforting to people who don't want to face the climate spectre - the get-out clause. And frankly, who can blame them?

Uncertainty and doubt are also the most valued currency available to campaigners involved in the orchestrated effort to debunk the science of warming. As US spinmeister Frank Luntz famously counselled Republicans in a leaked 2003 memo on ''winning'' the global warming debate: ''The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.

''Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.''

But has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science - sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science - finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?

The front page of The New York Times, a publication not known for getting hot under the collar about climate, yesterday featured a photographic display of floods in Pakistan, wildfires in Russia, and wild storms in Chicago with the headline, ''In Weather Chaos, A Case for Global Warming''. Might these far-flung disasters be linked? ''The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.'' More frequent, more intense weather events and excessive heat were all ''consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases'', said Jay Lawrimore of the US National Climatic Data Centre.

''If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,'' said NASA's Gavin Schmidt. ''If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no - at least, not yet.''

Last week, the science editor of Britain's proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ''The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real - and Deeply Worrying''.

*''I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic,'' wrote Michael Hanlon. (One commentator describes him as Britain's most influential sceptic.) ''But my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic . . .*

''I still believe climate change has probably been exaggerated, but after coming here it is impossible to maintain that nothing is going on.'' It's doubt, but not as we know it.

Climateprogress.org, a blog run by scientist and former Clinton administration official Joe Romm, documents a half dozen recent ''scales-from-their-eyes'' moments in sceptical or previously mute publications, among them a Canadian bastion of the right, the National Post, lambasting global warming deniers as ''a liability to the conservative cause''.

So is this the tipping point in the debate? On this, it pays to be sceptical. Let's remember it was in the super-heated summer of 1988 when NASA's James Hansen went to Washington DC and sounded the alarm. Twenty-two summers later, and here we are.

Australian scientists are to be congratulated for enunciating clearly, at this critical moment, what is not in doubt - that an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of human industry pushes up temperatures, and that these are now at the highest levels seen in 800,000 years.

There is still much to doubt about the consequences. But am I strange? Why do I find so little comfort in uncertainty? *As veteran British climate writer Fred Pearce observes, sceptics have a valid point when they say that climate predictions are far less certain than is often claimed. But ''those sceptics are dreadfully wrong to take comfort in this . . . There is chaos out there, and we should be afraid.''*

Jo Chandler is an Age senior writer.


----------



## wayneL

I've just bough several thousand hectares on Baffin Island for a song. 

Plans available now. Reserve your house block before the great NW passage rush.

(Just adding more argumentative fallacies into the rich vein of them in the preceding post. )


----------



## Knobby22

I'd buy a block.
I really would be interested. If you could locate it in a good position as a port for the new arctic shipping channel you could do really well.


Recently published data from DAMOCLES scientists reveal that another critical minimum for Arctic sea ice can be expected in September 2010.

http://www.damocles-eu.org/research/Sea_ice_in_the_Arctic_does_not_recover.shtml


----------



## derty

Here is another good site for monitoring the Arctic sea ice, updated almost daily. From their data the current ice extents are greater than for the same period in 2007 after a cooler July and they seem to think it is unlikely that the 2007 minimum will be breached. Even then it is still on track to be the second lowest ice extent on record. 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## wayneL

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice seams to be heading for a record high.

There are a number of possibilities for this.


----------



## wayneL

This will be interesting:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330/Niwa-sued-over-data-accuracy

There was a 1980 "peer reviewed" paper outlining that the NZ weather record is rubbish... and now it's mainstream science?



> Niwa sued over data accuracy
> 
> The country's state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.
> 
> The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
> 
> The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.


----------



## ghotib

This PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.

Ghoti.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> This PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.
> 
> Ghoti.



LOL

Anything against your opinion is a lie. 

You might want to check the New Zealand Journal of Science, 1980, Vol. 23, 1 – 9 where there is a peer reviewed paper by JWD Hessell (a NZ meteorologist), essentially trashing the NZ temperature because of inappropriate maintenance of sites and completely arbitrary adjustments.

More here http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/08/16/court-asked-to-invalidate-niwa-temperature-record/


The paper - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf

The Watts study (which warmers like to unjustifiably discount) shows similar factors in the US temp record.


----------



## jonojpsg

Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back?  Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970.  While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

jonojpsg said:


> Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back?  Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970.  While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.




The BOM data has been compromised due UHI effects, adjustments and manipulation such as lowering older tempratues and increasing new temprature readings to suit the political agenda. Plenty of discussion on blogs and across the net on climategate, glaciergate, pick-a-gate.....

Speaking of fraud, satellitegate - a breaking story last week proves satellite temperature data has also been compromised -  Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful.

Have any of the warmist alarmist on this forum figured out why the US has spent $80B (yes, that's a B) since 1980 to convince you that you need to pay a tax to produce CO2? Ah sorry, forgot religious beliefs can't be changed. Move along, eyes forward, follow the person in front...


----------



## Calliope

Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS




Calliope, I believe a vast majority of people are waking up to these "ALARMIST" at long last and are doubting the authenticity of Climate change created by Man's emmissions of CO2 affecting climate change.

Climate change has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to influenced by the Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun. This why there has been more disasters in the Northern Hemisphere than their Soutern counterparts. Extreme cold, extreme heat, floods and typhoons.

There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.

It's an absolute con particularly by the Greens Socialist Party  and Labor to raise revenue resulting in higher cost of living and higher electicity prices.

This is why the Labor Party have resisted debating the subject before the election! Bob Brown stated in the NPC "there will be CPRS in this next term if Labor win the election". This is the deal they have obviously made  with Labor to gain their preference vote. Make no mistake the Greens have a twisted agenda.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.



No. You're wrong.

Humans ~= 29 Billion tonnes CO2/year


			
				http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm said:
			
		

> Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.





			
				http://www.geotimes.org/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html said:
			
		

> Every year, fires burn 3 million to 4 million square kilometers of Earth’s land surface area, and release more than a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.






			
				http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/12/03/PDF/acpd-6-3175-2006.pdf said:
			
		

> ...Average annual biomass burning emissions as calculated by our model were 2.5 Pg C year−1 over the 1997–2004 period. The dominant contributors were Africa (49%), South America (13%), equatorial Asia (11%), boreal regions (9%), and Australia (6%)....
> 
> ...Biomass burning emissions showed large interannual variability with a range of more than 1 Pg C year−1, with a maximum in 1998 (3.2 Pg C year−1) and a minimum in 2000 (2.0 Pg C year−1)...



1Pg C = 1 x10^15g or 1x10^9t = 1 billion tonnes
1 tonne C = 3.67 tonnes CO2
Therefore ave of 2.5Pg C/year = 9.18 billion tonnes CO2 = *31% of human emissions*


----------



## Julia

Presently on air an interview with (climate change sceptic)  Prof Bob Carter who apparently has a new book out.  

http://www.abc.net.au/widebay/programs/612_evenings/


----------



## bryansmith

Actually what are the symptoms of hysteria


----------



## trainspotter

bryansmith said:


> Actually what are the symptoms of hysteria




Posting in here with an opinion counts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Let us hope Tony gets in and finally finishes off what he correctly describes as " a load of crap". 

Many in the ALP agree but don't have the ovaries or balls to disagree with the Greens.

gg


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> Anything against your opinion is a lie.



Oh no. Sometimes it's just a mistake 


> You might want to check the New Zealand Journal of Science, 1980, Vol. 23, 1 – 9 where there is a peer reviewed paper by JWD Hessell (a NZ meteorologist), essentially trashing the NZ temperature because of inappropriate maintenance of sites and completely arbitrary adjustments.
> 
> More here http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/08/16/court-asked-to-invalidate-niwa-temperature-record/
> 
> The paper - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf
> 
> The Watts study (which warmers like to unjustifiably discount) shows similar factors in the US temp record.




I was going to write my own reply to this, but while I've been getting around to that the Skeptical Science website keeps publishing relevant articles - something like five in the last two weeks. You can get to them easily from the home page by clicking Climate Skeptic Argument 6 - "The temperature record is unreliable", which leads to this http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm.

My extremely shortened version is that the temperature record has been checked sixteen ways from Sunday and it continues to show that the average temperature of the planet is going up. 

A slightly longer but still extremely shortened version adds that the temperature record has been analysed to take account of the results of the "Watts studies" (I take it you mean the volunteer effort of examining individual weather stations?). Removing the stations that Watts regarded as "bad" gives a slightly higher warming trend than leaving them in. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Mofra

Might be an interesting read:

http://www.news.com.au/world/top-climate-change-sceptic-does-u-turn/story-e6frfkyi-1225912590257




> AN ECONOMIST dubbed the world's most prolific climate change sceptic finally admitted global warming was the biggest threat to the world and called for a $US100 billion ($112 billion) fund to fight it.


----------



## Agentm

we know that co2 levels have been far higher in the ice ages, up to twice the levels today, so the co2 debate and the debate whether co2 is a cause or an effect of climate change is basically irrefutable, its an effect.. always in a lag..

but the desperation by governments to generate cash from carbon is what needs to be debated.. it concerns me more than the futile debate on carbon..  

its cool to see that the melting of glaciers and  icecaps is way less than reported, at least half..  so hysteria over global sea level rises are really overstated..


----------



## Knobby22

Agentm said:


> we know that co2 levels have been far higher in the ice ages, up to twice the levels today, so the co2 debate and the debate whether co2 is a cause or an effect of climate change is basically irrefutable, its an effect.. always in a lag..
> 
> but the desperation by governments to generate cash from carbon is what needs to be debated.. it concerns me more than the futile debate on carbon..
> 
> ..




The problem is that Governments do not want to wean the populations off cheap fuel (coal) because they are generally in debt and do not want to spend the money to do this while they are struggling. Not the other way round.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. We are not in an ice age so why is it relevant? It is true that rising carbon levels allowed the ice ages to end but why does this mean we have nothing to worry about rising CO2 levels today when we are not in an ice age??


----------



## derty

Agentm said:


> we know that co2 levels have been far higher in the ice ages, up to twice the levels today, so the co2 debate and the debate whether co2 is a cause or an effect of climate change is basically irrefutable, its an effect.. always in a lag..



Which ice ages are you talking about Agentm having twice the current CO2 levels? The oldest ice cores go back 800ka and iceage periods all seem to have CO2 concentrations around 200ppmv Co2 or less, even the interglacial periods only seem to get up to 300ppmv CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Do you have a link to these claims?


----------



## Dunger

Piers Corbyn is a scientist that's not getting caught up in the hysteria.

Man made global warming is a pretty arrogant attitude. To think we have the ability to change the weather of the earth that's managed itself for billions of years is laughable.

The pdf attached is a good read.


----------



## basilio

> Man made global warming is a pretty arrogant attitude. To think we have the ability to change the weather of the earth that's managed itself for billions of years is laughable.
> 
> The pdf attached is a good read.




Hi Dunger. I noticed that you attached a paper by Christopher Monckton which appears to decry global warming. Christopher Monckton has no respect amongst scientist because, put quite simply, he just makes up his "facts" to suit his conclusions. The complex graphs he sets out to justify his conclusions don't correspond to original data or in some cases any data. 

I attached an introduction to a paper which examines in detail Moncktons graphs and explains where they have been frabricated.


> *
> Monckton makes it up*
> 
> Guest commentary by Barry R. Bickmore, Brigham Young University
> 
> If you look around the websites dedicated to debunking mainstream climate science, it is very common to find Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, cited profusely. Indeed, he has twice testified about climate change before committees of the U.S. Congress, even though he has no formal scientific training. But if he has no training, why has he become so influential among climate change contrarians? After examining a number of his claims, I have concluded that he is influential because he delivers “silver bullets,” i.e., clear, concise, and persuasive arguments. *The trouble is his compelling arguments are often constructed using fabricated facts. In other words, he makes it up. *(Click here to see a number of examples by John Abraham, here for a few by myself, and here for some by Tim Lambert).
> 
> Here I’m going to examine some graphs that Lord Monckton commonly uses to show that the IPCC has incorrectly predicted the recent evolution of global atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean temperature. A number of scientists have already pointed out that Monckton’s plots of “IPCC predictions” don’t correspond to anything the IPCC ever predicted. For example, see comments by Gavin Schmidt (Monckton’s response here,) John Nielsen-Gammon (Monckton’s response here,) and Lucia Liljegren. Monckton is still happily updating and using the same graphs of fabricated data, so why am I bothering to re-open the case?
> 
> My aim is to more thoroughly examine how Lord Monckton came up with the data on his graphs, compare it to what the IPCC actually has said, and show exactly where he went wrong, leaving no excuse for anyone to take him seriously about this issue.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

Cheers


----------



## derty

Dunger said:


> Piers Corbyn is a scientist that's not getting caught up in the hysteria.
> 
> Man made global warming is a pretty arrogant attitude. To think we have the ability to change the weather of the earth that's managed itself for billions of years is laughable.
> 
> The pdf attached is a good read.



To add to what basilo has said Monckton is no more than a very eloquent con man.

If you get the time, watch the following youtube video of one of Monckton's speeches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 and then view this measured rebuttal by John Abrahams of the points put forward in Monckton's presentation http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Take note of Monckton's methods of delivery too, he is a very good speaker. He starts by pandering to his clearly right-wing republican audience by making a birther joke and making creationist overtones. He waffles on about the disingenuous scientists/left wingers that killed millions of people by banning DDT and not segregating AIDS victims in colonies (as he advocated). His claim that DDT was banned due to bogus science of the environmental damage it was causing (banned with the purpose of killing millions of third world children) when in fact the main reason for the discontinuation of the widespread use of DDT was that the mosquito population had developed resistance to the chemical. He carries on to address the errors that Gore put forward in his Inconvenient Truth, though he seems to spend more time ridiculing Gore's accent rather than just addressing the points. Not really how a scientist would go about it.

He is a con man, he is slick, effortlessly spiels off very complicated monologues and at times uses technical jargon, he obviously has a very good memory. It is very easy to see why someone would walk away from one of his talks and be convinced Monckton is 100% across this and the scientific community is rotten to the core. But at the end of the day he cherry picks and misrepresents a lot of what he delivers and is a charlatan.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> The problem is that Governments do not want to wean the populations off cheap fuel (coal) because they are generally in debt and do not want to spend the money to do this while they are struggling. Not the other way round.



The whole world is in debt with _tomorrow's_ growth as collateral for _today's_ debt. The system creates the debt but not the interest that must be paid on it, thus requiring constant growth to keep the game going.

That's really the crux of the entire environmental / resource problem. Either we have constant growth or the financial system falls in a spectacular heap.

Any real solution to resource / environmental issues, beyond purely localised issues, requires fundamental monetary reform in my view. Constant growth on a finite planet isn't going to work and we'll consume everything we can get our hands on if we try.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Hi Dunger. I noticed that you attached a paper by Christopher Monckton which appears to decry global warming. Christopher Monckton has no respect amongst scientist because, put quite simply, he just makes up his "facts" to suit his conclusions. The complex graphs he sets out to justify his conclusions don't correspond to original data or in some cases any data.
> 
> I attached an introduction to a paper which examines in detail Moncktons graphs and explains where they have been frabricated.
> 
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
> 
> Cheers



Your source is Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young University.
Why should we believe what he says any more than we believe Lord Monckton?  

Brigham Young University is owned and run by the Mormons.
I have no idea what stand this university takes on global warming, but given some of the peculiar ideas the Mormons have (including polygamy), I hardly think this is an impeccable source to be quoting.

In saying this, I'm not defending or criticising Lord Monckton.  I'm agnostic about the whole climate thing until someone shows something definitive either way.


----------



## derty

Smurf1976 said:


> The whole world is in debt with _tomorrow's_ growth as collateral for _today's_ debt. The system creates the debt but not the interest that must be paid on it, thus requiring constant growth to keep the game going.
> 
> That's really the crux of the entire environmental / resource problem. Either we have constant growth or the financial system falls in a spectacular heap.
> 
> Any real solution to resource / environmental issues, beyond purely localised issues, requires fundamental monetary reform in my view. Constant growth on a finite planet isn't going to work and we'll consume everything we can get our hands on if we try.



Nicely put Smurf, that sure makes a lot of sense. 

With the head in the sand trajectory we seem to be on, fundamental monetary reform will most likely be undertaken after the financial system falls in a spectacular heap. 

Surely we will not be able to maintain the level of growth required for long with the limit of hydrocarbon extraction looming. Mind you sky rocketing energy prices may drive an inflation cycle that will inflate away a lot of the current debt (surely I got something wrong there in that logic).


----------



## Smurf1976

My observations on the resource development life cycle.

1. The industry is established and new uses for the resource are found. Production grows but the industry is yet to achieve any broader economic significance.

2. The boom arrives and strong growth ensues. At this point the industry becomes important economically, in some cases to the point of becoming the dominant economic, political and even social force in the regions producing the resource.

3. Attempts to maintain constant annual % growth clash with the reality that the higest grade, most easily accessible resouces are almost always  developed first. More and more effort is required for a given increase in output, and with the increase in output each year being greater than the year before, the whole thing starts to become impossible both physically and economically, often due to availabilty of capital and equipment to facilitate ongoing expansion, such that the growth rate inevitably falls.

4. Some sort of economic, political and/or social (eg unemployment) crisis results, particularly where production of the resource is a key local economic activity. Efforts are made to regain past glories, resulting in:

5. A final surge back to or even above historic growth rates for a relatively short period, after which growth sharply slows or even ceases entirely.

6. Another crisis results. But this time a return to past high growth rates is no longer achievable even briefly without going into:

7. Overshoot. Faced with economic difficulties, extraction of the resource is pushed beyond sustainable limits whilst that can be achieved.

8. Decline. Once the overshoot has consumed stored grain in the silos, stored water in the dams, easily accessible coal in previously "off limits" areas etc then the inevitable happens. Production must decline to match a reasonably sustainable rate (in the case of minerals, a rate broadly equal to the rate of new discoveries).

There's plenty of examples. Oil in the North Sea and USA have reached point 8 quite some time ago and globally it I'd estimate it's at point 7, having reached point 4 in the 1970's.

Brown coal in Victoria is also at point 8 now, since everything already built is maxed out and new construction is uneconomic.

Hydro-electricity in Tasmania is a renewable resource but still not exempt from the overall pattern:

1 - 1893 - 1938
2 - 1938 - early 1970's during which time it was the state's main means of economic development 
3 - early 1970's to 1982 amidst rising environmental opposition
4 - early 1980's with the great dams debate, industry closures, soaring unemployment 
5 - mid-1980's
6 - 1992 - 1997 amidst the seemingly endless recession
7 - 1997 - 2002
8 - 2002 - 2008, after which production stabilised at a sustaiable level.

And as everyone in Tas will be well aware, the timber industry has recently hit point 8 as well.

1 - 1788 - 1938 when the paper industry commenced
2 - 1938 - 1976 when paper production growth slumped
3 - 1976 - 1980 with permanent closure of the East Mill.
4 - Early - mid-1980's amidst temporary shutdowns and job losses
5 - Late 1980's - early 1990's with the woodchip boom and revival of a previously closed pulp mill
6 - 1990's with mill closures and job losses
7 - 2000's with another woodchip boom and a blaze of environmental controversy.
8 - Present and almost certainly forever after given that even the strongest industry supporters seemingly acknowledge that it's over in terms of growing, or even sustaining, past production volumes. The paper mill which started it all in 1938, closed forever a few weeks ago as did another mill which operated since the 70's.

The key point here is that the causes of transition may be many factors. Resource depletion is one, environmental concerns are another, so too are economic factors. 

The USA, North Sea etc are indeed running out of oil since it is a non-renewable resource. As production gets harder and harder from diminishing resources, economic production rates inevitably fall.

Brown coal is a different one. There's plenty of it, but it simply became uneconomic to build new production facilities. As existing plants wear out, production will decline.

Hydro-electricity and timber are different again. It simply comes down to the best sites being used first, slowly eroding the economics of further development. Add in concern for the environment, and a point is reached where the industry hits the wall. It is still raining and there are still trees growing in Tasmania, but much of the low hanging fruit has been picked and what remains is locked up for conservation, thus rendering growth impractical given competition from interstate and overseas energy and timber producers with better remaining accessible resources.

The same scenario applies to virtually any resource in my opinon. Natural gas globally is entering phase 3, coal will follow. Nuclear power is probably only really just ending phase 1 at the global level.

The above is simply my own opinion, having spent rather a lot of time looking at resource issues. They all follow the same basic pattern, although the timing of the stages varies depending on circumstance. And they all have in common a political influence of some sort (eg OPEC controlling the oil market, environmentalists, governments nationalising / privatising industries etc) in addition to the pure resource issues. 

Eventually, every resource on the planet will end up in phase 8 if we keep going as we are...


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Your source is Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young University.
> Why should we believe what he says any more than we believe Lord Monckton?



I think that's the first question for those of us who are not specialists in relevant fields: how do I know who to trust. I've been wrestling with it here ever since Wayne posted a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle and I still don't have an easy guideline for myself, let alone anyone else. The closest I can get is something like "never trust only one"; not only one paper, not only one person, not only one line of evidence, not only one argument.  

For me trusting a source requires digging into what they say in their own words. Sometimes that's quite hard to find, but in this case, everything is free on the Web. Basilio linked to an article in which Barry Bickmore attempts to show that Christopher Monckton has deliberately misrepresented part of the IPCC 4th report. That article contains links to the source of the graphs by Christopher Monckton that he's discussing, and to the relevant sections of the IPCC report. I can fairly easily check whether Bickmore is misquoting Monckton and whether either of them is misquoting the IPCC. 

That's a useful starting point: if I find misquotations by one and not the other I think I can dismiss the article by the misquoter out of hand and I'm justified in being doubtful about their other work. If I don't find that, I need to try and understand the meat of the arguments and follow up their references. When that process gets me out of my depth, which happens less quickly now than it used to but still doesn't take long, I have two choices. One is to look for other discussions of the issues. The other is to look for information about the people involved and their affiliations. 

My preference has been to look for other discussions because I find the science of climate fascinating in its own right, quite apart from the enormous policy questions. However it looks as though Julia has chosen to look at people and affiliations. 


> Brigham Young University is owned and run by the Mormons.
> I have no idea what stand this university takes on global warming, but given some of the peculiar ideas the Mormons have (including polygamy), I hardly think this is an impeccable source to be quoting.
> 
> In saying this, I'm not defending or criticising Lord Monckton.  I'm agnostic about the whole climate thing until someone shows something definitive either way.



I think each of us has to find our own criteria for "definitive", but while we're looking it's useful to try and apply the same tests to all the data we get. So if we use Barry Bickmore's academic affiliation as a test of his credibility, we should look at Christopher Monckton's academic affiliation as well. 

Over to you Julia 

Ghoti


----------



## basilio

*Re  Who to believe and why.
*
Earlier in this discussion I pointed out that Christopher Monckton was just an out and out liar with zilch credibility.  I quoted a particular paper by Barry Brickmore which examined Monckton's graphs ect and discovered just how mythical this information was.

Julia suggest that because Barry comes from a Mormon University we should treat  Barrys paper with caution because the Mormons have some pretty strange beliefs.

The main reason I cited Barrys paper was because it was published on the Real Climate blog and the scientists who run this blog are amongst the best credentialed in the field  of Climate  Science.  So if they check this out and run it I'm pretty happy with the quality of the work.

*In fact however the paper that Derty quoted from John Abrahams is the clearest explanation of just how how distorted and untrue  Christopher Moncktons statements are with relation to climate change.*

So what happens when a person like Christopher Monckton is show to be have systematically produced completely deceptive information to promote the view that Climate Change is not really happening?

Well naturally you attack with all the indignity that only a true conman can muster. And because many, many people want to believe that climate Change is a load of bollocks they will allow themselves to believe the demonstratively untrue - because I suppose the reality would be very hard to bear.

George Monbiot(again) looks at how Christopher Monckton responded to the devastating dissection of his work.  Along the way he looks at the myriad other falsehoods Christopher Monckton propagates as well at the very strange views of other people in the climate denial camp.  

This is all a round a bout way of responding to Julias suggestion  to look at some of the context of where ideas are coming from. ie a Mormon University.

Check out George's story and ask yourself *"Are these the sort of people I would believe ?*




> *Monckton's response to John Abraham is magnificently bonkers*
> 
> *Monckton fails to provide a convincing refutation of Abraham's criticisms but does throw a great deal of dust into the air*
> 
> Say what you like about Viscount Monckton, he never fails to entertain. His response to the devastating critique of his claims about climate change by the physicist John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.
> 
> To give you a flavour of Monckton's reasoning, here are some examples of what he cites as evidence of Abraham acting out of malice:
> 
> • Abraham pointed out that Monckton "has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic";
> 
> • Abraham stated that Lord Monckton "presented a lot of data with no citations or no explanation";
> 
> • He pointed out that "if you don't tell us where it's from we can't assess the data";
> 
> • He explained that a graph displayed by Lord Monckton was "almost off by 100%".
> 
> *These are all straight statements of fact. It is impossible to see how they could be construed as malicious, unless you regard all criticism of your views and credentials as illegitimate*.
> 
> Throughout these 99 pages, Monckton ducks, dives and, like Ian Plimer, avoids answering Abraham's questions by asking questions of his own: Monckton asks almost 500 of them. As far as I can see, he fails to provide a straight or convincing refutation of any of Abraham's criticisms, and succeeds only in throwing a great deal of dust into the air.
> 
> *......One of the characteristics of the foot-soldiers of climate change denial seems to be their startling inability to spot a wrong 'un. As well as publishing a long series of falsehoods about climate change, Monckton has falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords (although you can read his explanation here); falsely claimed to be a Nobel laureate; falsely claimed to have won the Falklands war  (by suggesting to Margaret Thatcher that the SAS introduce a mild bacillus into the water supply in Port Stanley); maintained that he has invented a cure for HIV, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other diseases; and grossly exaggerated his role in shaping Margaret Thatcher's views. Yet none of this seems to have discouraged his disciples one jot.*
> *
> There's a pattern here too*. Those who insist that sea levels are not actually rising, for example, often cite the work of Nils-Axel Morner, who maintains that his work in the Maldives proves that it's all a false alarm. Our old friend Christopher Booker claimed that Morner  "knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world", that he "has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe" and that his findings demonstrate that "all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story."
> 
> Morner's work in fact consists of indirect measurements in just a few locations, which reveal the sum total of zilch about recent changes in sea level and have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But the interesting thing, which connects this to the Monckton issue, is that Morner has also made a series of wild claims about other matters. He maintains that he possesses paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod. He also insists that he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" in Sweden. Working with a homeopath called Bob Lind, Morner inflicted unauthorised damage on an Iron Age cemetery in order to try to prove his thesis.
> 
> Similarly, Peter Taylor's claims that the planet is in fact cooling down have been given prominence by the Daily Express and other outlets, though they are unfounded in science. His book Chill has been a hit in the denier community. Taylor has also claimed to have uncovered toxic dumping by venturing into the astral realms. He has speculated that a Masonic conspiracy was tuning into his thoughts, and had sent a "kook, a ninja freak, some throwback from past lives" to kill him. He has also maintained that plutonium may "possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness".
> 
> As these examples suggest, those who lead the movement which claims that manmade climate change isn't happening often seem to entertain a number of other irrational beliefs.
> 
> In May, New Scientist interviewed the social psychologist Seth Kalichman, who has studied HIV denialist groups. He found that the leaders of these groups "display all the features of paranoid personality disorder".
> 
> These features include an intolerance of criticism and an inflated sense of their own importance. They succumb to what psychologists call "suspicious thinking".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere … All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no psychologist, but the wide range of crazy beliefs the gurus of climate change denial entertain suggests that something of the kind that Kalichman identifies is likely to be at play. *The question which bugs me is this: why, when it seems so obvious that men like Monckton, Morner and Taylor have serious issues with reality, are so many people prepared to follow them?*
Click to expand...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham


----------



## Knobby22

*The question which bugs me is this: why, when it seems so obvious that men like Monckton, Morner and Taylor have serious issues with reality, are so many people prepared to follow them?*

I think the answer is simple. Many people form a belief and then try to justify that belief. I know someone who believes that the ozone layer is still be destroyed and scientists have failed. He has taken this belief from the 1970s to today and I have shown him the facts and he just says it is lies. It is amazing to what lengths some people will go to hold onto their beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance - people are good at it. Especially people who are not scientifically trained.


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> The whole world is in debt with _tomorrow's_ growth as collateral for _today's_ debt. The system creates the debt but not the interest that must be paid on it, thus requiring constant growth to keep the game going.
> 
> That's really the crux of the entire environmental / resource problem. Either we have constant growth or the financial system falls in a spectacular heap.
> 
> Any real solution to resource / environmental issues, beyond purely localised issues, requires fundamental monetary reform in my view. Constant growth on a finite planet isn't going to work and we'll consume everything we can get our hands on if we try.




We are like rats -we will consume our food source. However we are smart rats. I have faith that we will work it out. Even the naysayers in the environment debate are working on reversing climate change by adding compounds into the air showing that they are really worried and don't believe there own propaganda. (refer earlier in the thread for details). Also, many Republicans are stating climate change is false while they invest their public fortunes in industries such as solar panels and electric cars. 

People will say one thing but do another. That (surprisingly) gives me heart. 

Then maybe I am an optimist.


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> Over to you Julia
> 
> Ghoti



Sorry,Ghoti, I'm just not sufficiently interested to get involved in this.
Quite happy for everyone to believe what they want to.
I have clearly said I am agnostic on the subject.  Nothing to add.
Just was vaguely curious about the significance of Brigham Young University.
Forget I uttered a word.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> *The question which bugs me is this: why, when it seems so obvious that men like Monckton, Morner and Taylor have serious issues with reality, are so many people prepared to follow them?*
> 
> I think the answer is simple. Many people form a belief and then try to justify that belief. I know someone who believes that the ozone layer is still be destroyed and scientists have failed. He has taken this belief from the 1970s to today and I have shown him the facts and he just says it is lies. It is amazing to what lengths some people will go to hold onto their beliefs.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance - people are good at it. Especially people who are not scientifically trained.




That has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance.

It is a cognitive bias however. Most everyone is afflicted to some degree, particularly zealots.


----------



## Knobby22

I would love you to watch Catalyst this coming Thursday Wayne and Julia.

The last 10 minutes is on climate change. (half hour program).


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> Also, many Republicans are stating climate change is false while they invest their public fortunes in industries such as solar panels and electric cars.
> 
> People will say one thing but do another. That (surprisingly) gives me heart.
> 
> Then maybe I am an optimist.



I would argue that the case for solar panels, electric cars and the like has more to do with the near term threat to oil supplies than a more distant threat of climate change.

Oil is an issue here and now. It costs the USA and others a fortune to defend supplies militarily. It bankrupts poorer importing nations and transfers vast wealth to a few. It starts wars and it wrecks the environment in far more ways than simply messing with the climate. And based on the (lack of) available data, it seems that we probably have a lot less of the stuff than we'd need to carry on business as usual anyway.

Personally, I'd rate moving away from oil as priority number 1 for the developed world, followed by moving away from gas and coal. That fixes an awful lot of problems, climate change being one of them, wars and national finances being another.

Get the wealthy countries off oil first, stop fighting over the stuff and drop the prices (due to lack of demand) such that poorer nations can afford to keep the lights on. Then direct the fortune saved into a transition away from gas and coal, something we'll have to do anyway as finite fossil fuel reserves inevitably deplete.

I've often thought that the push to do something about CO2 is at least partly a justification for action over peak oil and peak gas, without needing to alarm the population by telling them the truth. Tell them we need to act now for the sake of their children and the planet and they might be convinced it's worthwhile. Tell them that we're facing a near term energy abyss in terms of oil supply, and there will be panic...


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally, I'd rate moving away from oil as priority number 1 for the developed world, followed by moving away from gas and coal. That fixes an awful lot of problems, climate change being one of them, wars and national finances being another.
> 
> Get the wealthy countries off oil first, stop fighting over the stuff and drop the prices (due to lack of demand) such that poorer nations can afford to keep the lights on. Then direct the fortune saved into a transition away from gas and coal, something we'll have to do anyway as finite fossil fuel reserves inevitably deplete.
> 
> I've often thought that the push to do something about CO2 is at least partly a justification for action over peak oil and peak gas, without needing to alarm the population by telling them the truth. Tell them we need to act now for the sake of their children and the planet and they might be convinced it's worthwhile. Tell them that we're facing a near term energy abyss in terms of oil supply, and there will be panic...




I've often thought the co2 based AGW ruse is more about peak oil and energy security.

If so, and IMO, it's the wrong way to go about it because of arguments over the science. I prefer the truth... "folks we're running out of oil and we need to fins new ways of powering the planet". I might be wrong, but I don't think there would be panic. Rather, a more cohesive effort to do something.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> I would love you to watch Catalyst this coming Thursday Wayne and Julia.



Why?  How does it matter what I think?  I'm in no way qualified to make informed judgements and said just a few posts ago that I'm not all that interested.  Whatever happens will be at the hands of people whom I can never influence, even if I had a clear view.

Try this, Knobby:  I have only so much, um, 'worry space' in my head.
It is presently full of stuff that has more immediate relevance to me.



Knobby22 said:


> Also, many Republicans are stating climate change is false while they invest their public fortunes in industries such as solar panels and electric cars.



Perhaps they are simply being pragmatic and investing in what they believe will, rightly or wrongly from their own philosophical point of view, be the next profitable venture.  I find poker machines repugnant, but have held shares in the company which makes them.  If that makes me unprincipled and unethical, that's OK.  Can't be high minded about everything.





wayneL said:


> If so, and IMO, it's the wrong way to go about it because of arguments over the science. I prefer the truth... "folks we're running out of oil and we need to fins new ways of powering the planet". I might be wrong, but I don't think there would be panic. Rather, a more cohesive effort to do something.



Agree.  Oil - and peak oil - is understood by most people.  A simple approach such as you describe above would probably provoke a positive and co-operative approach from most people, unlike all the gobbledegook currently peddled.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> Why?  How does it matter what I think?  I'm in no way qualified to make informed judgements and said just a few posts ago that I'm not all that interested.  Whatever happens will be at the hands of people whom I can never influence, even if I had a clear view.
> 
> Try this, Knobby:  I have only so much, um, 'worry space' in my head.
> It is presently full of stuff that has more immediate relevance to me.




I like that concept Julia. My only fleeting worry about the climate is in  putting on the right clothes when I go out. This has nothing to do with age. My grandchildren also are not concerned with CO2 levels despite being indoctrinated at school.

Their main concern is having a good time and helping to fill the "worry space" space in their parents' heads.


----------



## bellenuit

Being Irish myself, O'Leary makes me cringe every time I hear him speak. He may be a good businessman, but why the constant foul language. Does he think it makes him seem cool. IMO his knowledge of the science seems to be based on superficial catch phrases of those who oppose the science rather than any serious study of the subject. 

*Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary*

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html

I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.



> *O'Leary* "There's absolutely no link between man-made carbon – which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions, most of it is naturally emitted – [and] climate change."
> 
> *Dr Shuckburgh* "Vast amounts of carbon are exchanged each year back and forth between the land, oceans and atmosphere – some 200 GtC/yr [GigaTons of Carbon per year] are naturally emitted and 200 GtC/yr are naturally reabsorbed. Man is now emitting more than 8GtC/yr, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. The impact has been significant. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppmv [parts per million by volume]. Man-made emissions have increased that to nearly 390ppmv".




My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?


----------



## noco

bellenuit said:


> Being Irish myself, O'Leary makes me cringe every time I hear him speak. He may be a good businessman, but why the constant foul language. Does he think it makes him seem cool. IMO his knowledge of the science seems to be based on superficial catch phrases of those who oppose the science rather than any serious study of the subject.
> 
> *Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary*
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html
> 
> I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?




This is what the Chinese think of man made AGW. A must read for the Greens and all AGW alarmist. Global warming (aka Climate change) is and has been for millions of years a natural phonomenon created by the Sun and the movement of the Earths axis just as the moon is a dominant factor on our tides and the periodic variations in sea levels.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...nese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/


----------



## nioka

Climate change is more than Global warming. Climate change is also air polution. To this there can be no argument whatsoever. As someone that has enphysema (and never smoked) I can assure you that there is plenty of polution of the land, water and sea that has been man made. Global warming or no global warming makes no difference to the fact that polluting everything around us has to stop. So stop thinking about temperature and think start thinking about cleaning up the enviroment to the best we can possibly do without living in a cave as hunter gatherers.

It will also be insurance against the possibility that there is also a global warming problem.


----------



## noco

nioka said:


> Climate change is more than Global warming. Climate change is also air polution. To this there can be no argument whatsoever. As someone that has enphysema (and never smoked) I can assure you that there is plenty of polution of the land, water and sea that has been man made. Global warming or no global warming makes no difference to the fact that polluting everything around us has to stop. So stop thinking about temperature and think start thinking about cleaning up the enviroment to the best we can possibly do without living in a cave as hunter gatherers.
> 
> It will also be insurance against the possibility that there is also a global warming problem.




Having travelled to many parts of the world, I will agree with you there are cities with high pollutuion from vehicle CO2 emmissions which has a disatrous effect on the citizens of particular cities such as Bangkok, Manila, Davoa City in the Philippines. Hong Kong was also bad back in the 80's but have now cleaned up their act. Beijing is another example of a highly polluted city. However, these are local problems and yes nephysema can result and yes it can be controlled.
I can't recall and major problems in Europe and Great Brittain.

You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.

Do you have a link to substantiate this statement? 

Don't put too much reliance on any Green propaganda. The Greens are a world wide organiastion with Al Gore as their patron. The Greens have a marxist heart and an environmental skin.


----------



## Smurf1976

How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well. 

Prepare to face the same scenes in other states eventually if we go down the carbon tax / ETS track. Whilst that isn't the cause in Tasmania, the cause is other historic actions of environmentalists combined with the failed ideology of breaking up the industry into separate parts, the outcome will be the same.

On a positive side, the Premier of Tas seems to have opened the door to what we all know makes sense. Going back to a single, state-run power authority that has as its' purpose the supply of cheap power, a concept that worked rather well in the past. A single authority that does everything from generation through to reading meters and sending out bills. 

As for carbon, we're pretty much locked in to whatever happens nationally there although away from mainstream politics, the debate is certainly back on amongst the general population. Some rather interesting views from some surprising sources. Interesting times ahead me thinks...


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.



Yes, I've been attempting to draw attention to the plight of people on low incomes for some time, even without an ETS, in the face of rapidly rising electricity charges.

The zealots couldn't care less.  They are almost all well paid academics or other left devotees in professional occupations and a rise in their electricity a/c won't mean a thing to them.  Likewise Mr Kloppers who is emphasising that BHP should still have any costs of engaging in an ETS or carbon tax fully rebated, and on whose multi million dollar salary will hardly be concerned about a few hundred more in his electricity costs.

One would hope that if the Greens really are about equality, they will insist on subsidies for low income earners if their climate change policies are enacted.


----------



## nioka

noco said:


> .
> 
> You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.
> 
> Do you have a link to substantiate this statement?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> The best link I have is enphysema. The next best link I will see tomorrow when I travel to Brisbane for treatment and leave the clean coastal air for the traffic fumes and pollutive dust. I will see another link as I see the roadside rubbish that will end up in stormwater drains and the sea around me. Last week I saw another link when I was fishing, caught nothing as the river here is near to death as far as fish stocks go. I see a link every time the wind is from the west and we aren't getting clean sea breezes. I see a link whenever I see scenes on telly of the smog in cities around the world. I see a link everytime I sit on the beach. I see a link when I catch fish that are covered in ulcerated flesh.
> 
> What links do you want to see. What links aren't you prepared to see ?. Do you see it but you dont believe it.


----------



## ghotib

bellenuit said:


> <snip>http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html
> 
> I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.
> 
> My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?



I'll have a go at this, but it's most definitely a case of "Do your own research". 

The balancing is a result more than a mechanism. The earth - land+sea+air - has a fixed amount of carbon which gets moved around. Most of it moves very slowly. For example, limestone, coal and oil contain carbon that's been stuck in rocks for millions of years. Some moves quite fast. Atmospheric carbon close to the ocean or land surface might be bouncing around between lungs, blood, plants and air over a couple of weeks. 

The term "carbon cycle" (worth a Google) is used to describe this system of movements, but in layman's terms it's not just one cycle, it's many cycles working on different scales in space and time. So, for example, if the biological carbon cycle gets out of balance - carbon emitted to the atmosphere is substantially greater or less than carbon absorbed - then the balance is restored by a geological process over geological time. 

That's how coal and oil got into the ground; they're a carbon sequestration project for a 65 million year old of atmospheric carbon.

In effect, the industrial age rate of burning coal and oil is forcing the biological cycle to deal with carbon from the geological cycle. I suppose it's a bit like a GFC affecting the price of bank stocks: a huge jolt that is part of the system but outside the normal trading cycle. In the long run things balance out, but the short and medium run are very uncomfortable and not everyone survives the upheavals. 

Hope that goes part way to answering your question. Also hope it's accurate  

I know of two particularly good videos about the carbon cycle. One is on the Web as a presentation and a podcast at http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/videos.php. There's a stack of interesting stuff there, but the one I'm thinking of is the Bjerknes lecture, given by Dr Richard Alley, entitled "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Climate History".  The second one is "Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil", which is on the Web at http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/. I have this on DVD but I can't remember where I bought it - probably from an ABC shop? 

Google turns up plenty of discussions of the carbon cycle. Here's one that I've found helpful: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.
> 
> Prepare to face the same scenes in other states eventually if we go down the carbon tax / ETS track. Whilst that isn't the cause in Tasmania, the cause is other historic actions of environmentalists combined with the failed ideology of breaking up the industry into separate parts, the outcome will be the same.



I didn't see this reported in the big island press. Maybe that's evidence that ordinary people are having to choose between rent and food, power and transport, all over the nation and it's therefore not news. Maybe it's too close to mainstream experience and people are afraid to acknowledge it. 

But I don't see how it helps anyone to conflate the effects of rising power prices with actions to reduce rising carbon emissions. 

First, power prices are going up anyway. There are different reasons in different places, but they include ageing generators, overdue maintenance, increasing demand for power, and privatisation. Those things have to be addressed whether or not there's a price on carbon emission. 

Second, putting a price on carbon does not mean that the price has to be paid wholly by those who are already struggling. That depends on how the pricing scheme is designed and introduced, and as a nation we have choices about that. 

I don't want to go into that on this thread - there are plenty of political threads here that IMO are more appropriate. But I do want to say here that we have no choice about how the warming planet will affect us as a nation. We don't know where the superstorms will land, just that there will probably be more of them. We don't know when the next Black Saturday will be, just that the conditions for it will probably become more common. We don't know what the cost of repair and recovery from more, and more frequent, extreme weather events will be, just that it will be substantial. We don't know which staple food crops will fail, just that wider weather extremes make crops less predictable and farming ever harder.

Those costs will emerge somewhere, whether or not  we put a price on carbon, and chances are that they'll hurt the poor most.


> On a positive side, the Premier of Tas seems to have opened the door to what we all know makes sense. Going back to a single, state-run power authority that has as its' purpose the supply of cheap power, a concept that worked rather well in the past. A single authority that does everything from generation through to reading meters and sending out bills.
> 
> As for carbon, we're pretty much locked in to whatever happens nationally there although away from mainstream politics, the debate is certainly back on amongst the general population. Some rather interesting views from some surprising sources. Interesting times ahead me thinks...



An ALSer supporting government monopoly?  Interesting times indeed 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> But I do want to say here that we have no choice about how the warming planet will affect us as a nation. We don't know where the superstorms will land, just that there will probably be more of them. We don't know when the next Black Saturday will be, just that the conditions for it will probably become more common. We don't know what the cost of repair and recovery from more, and more frequent, extreme weather events will be, just that it will be substantial. We don't know which staple food crops will fail, just that wider weather extremes make crops less predictable and farming ever harder.




Ahem! We actually don't know any of these things.


----------



## wayneL

What do people think about this? Has anyone heard about it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/urgent-a-call-to-action-for-the-wuwt-community/#more-25023



> Please read this whole story and consider if you can help. WUWT readers may recall this story: Death of a Feedlot Operator …in which the anal-retentive government of West Australia has “licensed” a family farm out of operation due to some shonky science and arbitrary application of the “sniff test”. Yes that’s right, cattle farms smell, so do pig farms, as does any farm. But now it’s reason to shut one out due to baseless complaints from the local greens. And, it all started when Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly......


----------



## ghotib

Ahem! Sorry. Those of us who are watching are observing those things. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Ahem! Sorry. Those of us who are watching are observing those things.
> 
> Ghoti




Observations should be holistic and impartial. Conclusions should not be drawn from incomplete and/or biased data.

There is a hypothesis, but we don't "know" any of these things. In fact, some observations are the contrary to what you think "we" know.


----------



## noco

nioka said:


> noco said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.
> 
> Do you have a link to substantiate this statement?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> The best link I have is enphysema. The next best link I will see tomorrow when I travel to Brisbane for treatment and leave the clean coastal air for the traffic fumes and pollutive dust. I will see another link as I see the roadside rubbish that will end up in stormwater drains and the sea around me. Last week I saw another link when I was fishing, caught nothing as the river here is near to death as far as fish stocks go. I see a link every time the wind is from the west and we aren't getting clean sea breezes. I see a link whenever I see scenes on telly of the smog in cities around the world. I see a link everytime I sit on the beach. I see a link when I catch fish that are covered in ulcerated flesh.
> 
> What links do you want to see. What links aren't you prepared to see ?. Do you see it but you dont believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nioka, are you sure you haven't been watching some news clips from India or Vietnam because if you have travelled to various parts of the world you will have a deep appreciation of  Australia when you return home for comparison.
> 
> As for the incurable disease of Emphysema, smoking is a high contributor to this problem, but there are also other causes such as repeated exposure to asbestos or other chemicals that are harmful to the lungs, especially over a substantial time period. I have a friend who was exposed to asbestos and who never smoked. He suffers from Emphysema and has always lived in the country. So I would say your argument is a little lop-sided.
Click to expand...


----------



## noco

noco said:


> nioka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nioka, are you sure you haven't been watching some news clips from India or Vietnam because if you have travelled to various parts of the world you will have a deep appreciation of  Australia when you return home for comparison.
> 
> As for the incurable disease of Emphysema, smoking is a high contributor to this problem, but there are also other causes such as repeated exposure to asbestos or other chemicals that are harmful to the lungs, especially over a substantial time period. I have a friend who was exposed to asbestos and who never smoked. He suffers from Emphysema and has always lived in the country. So I would say your argument is a little lop-sided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nioka, I heard of another case of emphysema today from a bowling colleague of mine who was a heavy smoker and ended up with this terrible complaint. To make matters worse, his wife also has the same problem and near life's end. She never smoked in her entire life. The doctors put it down to passive smoking from her husband who always smoked inside their house.
Click to expand...


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> I didn't see this reported in the big island press. Maybe that's evidence that ordinary people are having to choose between rent and food, power and transport, all over the nation and it's therefore not news. Maybe it's too close to mainstream experience and people are afraid to acknowledge it.



It's getting absolute saturation coverage down here on a daily basis.

As for linking it to carbon, my point is simply that there are consequences if energy prices rise. We're not just talking about "low income earners" here. Basically anyone with children or someone home all day is suffering enough already unless they're earning substantially above average income and/or have no rent or mortgage to pay. 

Either that or they're one of the few who, like me, use ridiculously little power because they knew this was coming and took action to prepare for it. But if you're low income, in rented accommodation and are getting $1000 power bills then you've got a battle on your hands to still keep eating that's for sure. 

As for the politics of it all, the push to go back to a single state-run energy supplier seems to be gaining momentum with Labor, Liberal and Green all seemingly now open to the idea. The wheel has finally turned there I think... And if the other states did the same then that alone would immediately cut CO2 by a significant amount simply through increased operating efficiency of existing power stations. 

Interesting times to say the least. Glad I've got solar power and a wood fire to keep me warm.


----------



## jonojpsg

Smurf1976 said:


> How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.




Hey smurf, as a Tasmanian as well I have been watching this fuss over rising electricity prices with a touch of frustration.  The people who are in tears over huge power bills are ones in the main who have little or no understanding of how that power gets used.  This IMO is what leads to their huge bills rather than rising prices.

For example, a little blow heater (commonly 2.4kW) that sits in the corner of a room and runs 12 hours a day heating that one room costs 12x2.4x20c/kWh per day or close to $5 per day.  Over a 90 day billing period, that means one blow heater is adding around $450 to their bill.  If people do not understand this they are much more likely to fall into the trap of doing just that.

Yes I understand that pensioners do not have access to capital to upgrade their heating source in most cases, but surely there can be a significant improvement in the size of peoples bills if they are more careful in their use of electricity.

Also, in terms of peoples overall budget, power bills probably represent about 5%.  This means that a 20% increase in electricity costs over the next three years in Tassie represents only a 1% increase in the overall budget, over three years.  Surely this is a storm in a teacup


----------



## Smurf1976

jonojpsg said:


> Yes I understand that pensioners do not have access to capital to upgrade their heating source in most cases, but surely there can be a significant improvement in the size of peoples bills if they are more careful in their use of electricity.



Fuel poverty and my personal circumstances at the time is actually what lead me to become interested in the whole area of energy, power generation and so on.

These days I get a very small bill, and earning a decent income it's not presently an issue for me. But there are plenty of people, many of them employed full time, doing it tough these days due in part to energy costs.

Consider the situation of my mother. Not working due to age, electric hot water and cooking, heat pump for heating. The last bill wasn't much under $700 and that's after the pension discount. That's a pretty large slice of mum's pension going striaght into the hands of the power industry. Over the year, it's more than 10% of her total income that goes on electricity. 

But if she had direct electric heating, common in public housing (mum owns her own home so can have more sensible heating...), the Winter bill would amount to about $1300. That's nearly 4 weeks' pension, just to pay a 3 month power bill. There's plenty of people in that situation right now and it's not nice. (OK, they don't actually spend $1300 - because they go cold instead, but you get the point...).

I don't doubt for a moment that there are many people who lack financial skills etc and this is partly to blame. But if you're home all day in an uninsulated rented house running fan heaters then you're already spending a ridiculous amount on power. A single 2.4kW fan heater is just about worthless in those houses - get 3 of them and then you might start to feel at least a little bit warm... until the power bill arrives. And apart from shivering, there's nothing you can do about it since neither public housing nor private landlords are likely to invest in order to save a tennant money on power.

I'm fundamentally far more capitalist than socialist. But I won't deny that I have actually lost sleep on this one. Easy for me to pay a bill so small that most laugh at first (then ask how I do it...), but a lot of people are really doing it tough out there with no realistic way out of the trap. I've been there before, and I know what it's like.  

What to do I really don't know. We need to look after the environment certainly. But I'm worried about creating yet another poverty trap in the process. The only answers I can come up with are effectively socialism - carbon tax then redistribute the wealth and/or use it to improve housing standards. Socialism has plenty of problems of its' own though...


----------



## Julia

This is a fairly horrifying suggestion  regarding future power price rises if a price on carbon eventuates.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...plosion-pd20100930-9RTE3?OpenDocument&src=kgb

We already have hundreds of thousands of Australians whose electricity has been disconnected due to their inability to pay their power bills.


----------



## basilio

> This is a fairly horrifying suggestion regarding future power price rises if a price on carbon eventuates.
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...cument&src=kgb
> 
> We already have hundreds of thousands of Australians whose electricity has been disconnected due to their inability to pay their power bills.




Couldn't read this but the headline suggested power costs rising fourfold over the next few years. Certainly a  terrifying prospect.... unless of course you are the CEO of a power company looking at MAMMOTH increases in profits that you can conveniently excuse as the result of  the "need to be green".

I think much of this is just price gouging at an extreme level. I would like to see as a citizen *exactly how much extra renewable energy will cost at the source of supply over comparable current figures. *What I suspect is that all the companies in the chain simply want to add an extra margin on any additional initial cost. What we will pay is therefore extra cost plus margin plus margin plus.

We already see this now. For example if you decide to install solar power the following issues seem to arise.

1) It takes ages to actually get the system recognised by the power companies through their paperwork. Meanwhile you don't get any recognition for the power input.

2) You are immediately put a new substantially more expensive Tariff. You pay an extra 15-20% for the privilege of being on solar power. You also lose OFF peak tariffs

3)  The already very hard to read power bills become totally unintelligible and unbelievable. In particular I havn't seen a single account *which tells the customer how much power their solar unit has contributed* 

I think we need a Royal Commission into the whole industry and a set of firm guidelines to ensure we have renewable energy at a price that reflects real costs rather than simply market place extortion.


----------



## jonojpsg

Now really, I think this is a bit strange.  I have been looking into the viability of setting up mid sized wind turbines as one off generators in Tas and I can make a business case for single turbines around 0.5MW selling to Aurora at around 4c/kWh.

Obviously they have all the associated distribution costs to cover but if they can't make a profit selling power at 20c/kWh which is the current retail price, then there's something wrong.  Absolutely no need to increase that by fourfold or anywhere near it IMO.  

Of course this is in Tas which has some of the best wind resource in the world, and using second hand turbines, but still...


----------



## spooly74

The simple mathematics of decarbonisation in Australia


> To become as carbon efficient as Japan by 2020 would require replacing its entire coal energy with a zero-carbon alternative.
> 
> If energy demand increases by 1.5 per cent per year - a rate lower than expected economic growth - then Australia would need to build the equivalent amount of carbon-free energy of 46, 750 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plants to replace its coal generation. That is not going to happen.
> 
> Several of my colleagues in Australia didn't like the analogy, since, as they tell me, "Australia doesn't do nuclear".
> 
> So we can express the magnitude of the challenge in another way, in terms of the number of 10 MW solar thermal power plants of the sort found in Cloncurry, Queensland. *To decarbonise to the level of Japan by 2020 would require 12,667 of these plants, or about 24 of them coming online every week over the next decade.* That is not going to happen either.
> 
> We can play with the numbers and make different assumptions, but the results will be the same: the magnitude of the challenge implied by Australia's pending emissions trading legislation is huge, likely unachievable.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842060.htm

but,



> As part of its deal to secure government, Labor signed a formal alliance with the Greens, whose policies include the eventual phasing out of the coal industry, Australia's biggest export earner.
> 
> But in an interview with The Australian, Mr Combet said his background as a former coal engineer, union official and MP with coal workers in his NSW electorate meant he did not believe his job was to shut down the coal industry.
> 
> "I don't agree with that. That's not part of my job at all," he said.
> 
> "I am acutely aware of the challenges that this policy presents. But people jump to these absolute positions, and I just don't think that's appropriate.
> 
> "I've got a responsibility to support those people's jobs. The coal industry is a very vibrant industry with a strong future. What you've got to do is look to how we can achieve in the longer term things like carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power stations." . . .




Coal has a future in Australia


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> I think we need a Royal Commission into the whole industry and a set of firm guidelines to ensure we have renewable energy at a price that reflects real costs rather than simply market place extortion.



Couldn't agree more.   Governments seem to be totally passive about what's happening in this industry.


----------



## sails

IMO, there are too many differing opinions on climate change.  It also seems feasible that there are very long cycles in climate and we may be simply reading something into it that is not really there.  And here is an article stating such uncertainties:

*Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science*



> The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become.
> 
> The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.
> 
> Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change.




I am not convinced either way at the moment but don't like the idea of carbon taxes in the event that there isn't a problem.  Once a tax is in place, governments in general find it very difficult to let it go again.


----------



## Happy

Probably retrofit insulation would have some play here too.

Taking example from northern Europe where triple glazed windows are standard, we could spend some money here.
Hate to think what pink bat bandits would do with this one!

For some reason I do not blame Government for Pink Batt fiasco.
Dishonesty of operators is to be blamed, Kevin was scape goat here.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Couldn't agree more.   Governments seem to be totally passive about what's happening in this industry.



We're having what amounts to one step short of a Royal Commission into the power industry here in Tas. But I doubt it will do a lot of good, because...

The basic problem is that the "reforms" introduced across Australia, NZ, UK and elsewhere over the past decades directly build in huge additional costs which are necessarily passed through to consumers. That is the crux of the problem, massive inefficiencies built in to the "market" system and the way it works.

If you want to go back to cheap electricity then there is really only one solution. And that is to have a monopoly operator of generation, transmission and distribution (ie the whole industry) and abolish the concept of "retail" altogether - just read the meters and send out the bills according to set tariffs.

Whether it is privately owned or publicly owned is less important, assuming there is some regulation of profit in either case. It is the disaggregation that has introduced the huge inefficiencies, some of which directly increase CO2 emissions by the way.

In short, there are no longer any such thing as "utlities" that operate to provide a service either at profit or non-profit. The entire industry today has far more in common with a casino than with any rational engineering or economic operation principles. Higher prices are "good", low prices are "bad".

Consumers would be outraged if they realised that they are already being charged to cut CO2 emissions at the same time as power stations purposely dump steam (ie total waste of the fuel burnt) so as to force less efficient (more polluting) plants to operate and thus force up prices and CO2 emissions. The money being spent on renewables, is really only offsetting the purposefully inefficient operation of coal and gas-fired generation. 

As for change, my guess is that the only real prospect of that will be after a major failure occurs sometime in Victoria, noting that the system in that state is now (due to under investment) extremely vulnerable in so many ways. 

(For obvious reasons of national security etc, I'm not going to post exactly how to cripple the electricity system on a public forum. Suffice to say that there is basically no redundancy in a very key part of the industry in Victoria due to under investment and failure to build certain systems at specific sites. That is a situation which the former SECV would certainly not have felt at all comfortable with, and neither would any other utility which considered itself to have an obligation to maintain a reliable supply so far as practical).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Happy said:


> Probably retrofit insulation would have some play here too.
> 
> Taking example from northern Europe where triple glazed windows are standard, we could spend some money here.
> Hate to think what pink bat bandits would do with this one!
> 
> For some reason I do not blame Government for Pink Batt fiasco.
> Dishonesty of operators is to be blamed, Kevin was scape goat here.




Amazing, but I'll let it pass, read your post again again Happy for enlightenment.

One of the problems we have in Australia with Weather is that we only have data for just over 200 years.

Its all weather imho.

All this scrummage is just left wing politics looking for a cause.

gg


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> If you want to go back to cheap electricity then there is really only one solution. And that is to have a monopoly operator of generation, transmission and distribution (ie the whole industry) and abolish the concept of "retail" altogether - just read the meters and send out the bills according to set tariffs.



I'm guessing this is extremely unlikely to happen.  Do you think there's any chance that it could, Smurf?


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> I'm guessing this is extremely unlikely to happen.  Do you think there's any chance that it could, Smurf?



Highly unlikely given that for most states we're talking about dismantling an entire financial market, a move that would hurt many "big boys".

That said, if it's going to happen anywhere then it would almost certainly be in Tasmania in the not too distant future. Widespread community outrage over the situation at present, no financial market to worry about dismantling and the reality that the whole lot is now back in government ownership anyway makes it a far easier proposition.

My own guess is that we'll go part of the way but not fully. I can't see it going back to a full "utility" model largely due to the massive fight it would entail between the state government and the ACCC given that this would be creating a monopoly. But there's an awful lot of pressure on the state government to scrap the present model. My guess is they'll go far enough to win votes, but not so far as to be needing an army of lawyers to fight the ACCC.

As for the other states, I just can't see it happening anytime soon although I do note that the industry is, very slowly, reassembling the integrated utility model of its own accord due to the efficiencies it presents. At some point in the future, we'll probably end up with two or at most three major utilities just as we have relatively few major banks, airlines, supermarkets, communications networks and so on. I can't see anything drastic happening in the short term though outside of possibly Tasmania, and even there it is far from certain.


----------



## wayneL

Anyone in doubt about the putrid totalitarian mindset of the ecofascists should watch this video put out by campaigners in the UK. 

Warning: This may be disturbing for some people. It is certainly tasteless and a spectacular own goal as it appears to have had precisely the opposite effect than intended.


----------



## Logique

sails said:


> ...but don't like the idea of carbon taxes in the event that there isn't a problem.  Once a tax is in place, governments in general find it very difficult to let it go again.



Agree completely. More danger in overreaction.

Interesting psychology at work here. The '_change_' part is the ill-omen to the green religion. We learned this from activist forays into leafy places. There is a stylized way that forests should be. This should never change. Just so with climate. If it changes in the near term, that's bad, and man must prevent this. 

Climate has always changed. I learned in school about the carbon cycle. It goes round and round, but carbon in = carbon out. We're not making new carbon. But of course, I was forgetting, the science is 'decided'.


----------



## professor_frink

wayneL said:


> Anyone in doubt about the putrid totalitarian mindset of the ecofascists should watch this video put out by campaigners in the UK.
> 
> Warning: This may be disturbing for some people. It is certainly tasteless and a spectacular own goal as it appears to have had precisely the opposite effect than intended.




Surely that was someone having a lend? That couldn't possibly be serious


----------



## professor_frink

Ok maybe it wasn't a joke

http://www.1010global.org/uk



> Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure’.
> 
> With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
> 
> As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website. We won't be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.




I must say I'm at a loss as to how these guys thought this was going to be interpreted as funny. Killing children is funny now?

I'm sure skeptics would be well pleased with this turn of events though. The pro climate change movement have just voluntarily portrayed themselves in a similar light to terrorists:

"if you aren't with us, we'll blow you up"

They should have just gone the whole hog and shown some images from 9/11 to really get their point across! Look for this in the follow up campaign- If you don't believe in climate change we'll fly airplanes into your buildings and kill you all. This can be followed up with some tasteful images of climate change deniers falling to their deaths as they leap out of burning buildings.


----------



## basilio

professor_frink said:


> Ok maybe it wasn't a joke
> 
> http://www.1010global.org/uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say I'm at a loss as to how these guys thought this was going to be interpreted as funny. Killing children is funny now?
> 
> I'm sure skeptics would be well pleased with this turn of events though. The pro climate change movement have just voluntarily portrayed themselves in a similar light to terrorists:
> 
> "if you aren't with us, we'll blow you up"
> 
> They should have just gone the whole hog and shown some images from 9/11 to really get their point across! Look for this in the follow up campaign- If you don't believe in climate change we'll fly airplanes into your buildings and kill you all. This can be followed up with some tasteful images of climate change deniers falling to their deaths as they leap out of burning buildings.
Click to expand...



What a xxxxing  appalling promo ! Just cannot fathom how that idea and it's execution (sic) got put onto you tube. 

I think the 10/10 concept was/is really great. But not like this... It should be titled

"How to self destruct in 3 minutes"


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> What a xxxxing  appalling promo ! Just cannot fathom how that idea and it's execution (sic) got put onto you tube.
> 
> I think the 10/10 concept was/is really great. But not like this... It should be titled
> 
> "How to self destruct in 3 minutes"




Indeed. 

There is nothing wrong with the message even if motivated by a religious delusion.

But there are no surprises that this video was supported by the pious and sanctimonious pastors of the GW sect at The Guardian... and most of their congregation actually thought it was funny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

Unbelievable.

They dipped their cards and if their hand wasn't already very obvious, it is now.


----------



## basilio

> Indeed.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the message even if motivated by a religious delusion.
> 
> But there are no surprises that this video was supported by the pious and sanctimonious pastors of the GW sect at The Guardian...  Wayne L




Actually reading the comments I thought the majority of people believed it was a stupid, counterproductive  piece - even when  they agreed with the idea. 

I would really like to hear the argument that says this was a funny clip which gave an edge to the issue. I just can't see it..


----------



## So_Cynical

basilio said:


> Actually reading the comments I thought the majority of people believed it was a stupid, counterproductive  piece - even when  they agreed with the idea.
> 
> I would really like to hear the argument that says this was a funny clip which gave an edge to the issue. I just can't see it..




Comedy is very much about taste and sensitivity, i didn't think the clip was funny either, counterproductive i doubt it....the deniers believe what they want, the ad is trying to grab the attention of people who don't have an opinion, climate agnostics or apathetics.



Logique said:


> Climate has always changed. I learned in school about the carbon cycle. It goes round and round, but carbon in = carbon out. We're not making new carbon. But of course, I was forgetting, the science is 'decided'.




LOL i think the issue is that the 'carbon out' part of the cycle is in unprecedented overdrive....carbon has been cycling into storage for a couple of hundred million years and you think its ok to release all that stored carbon over a couple of hundred years? because the release of that stored carbon is just a natural part of the carbon cycle...right???


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> ..counterproductive i doubt it....the deniers believe what they want, the ad is trying to grab the attention of people who don't have an opinion, climate agnostics or apathetics.




Grab their attention? By threatening to kill them?

Meanwhile, Franny has admitted she has increased her carbon footprint massively and most of the pious AGW clergy live it large with massive footprints.

It's grabbed their attention alright. It has actually woken many of these people up in a way they never intended.


----------



## Logique

So_Cynical said:


> ... and you think its ok to release all that stored carbon over a couple of hundred years?



Cheers So_Cynical, and quite right about the GF replay= bad idea.

Release all that stored carbon...you mean like a volcano, or a giant bushfire? Or a comet impact? Did Mt St Helens cause climate change, or centuries earlier Mt Etna?

Do you know what runs this website? Coal-fired power stations. Do you know what your house frame is made from? Timber from native forests.  Go into a greenie's house, do you know which timber they're featuring? It isn't plantation softwood!

All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.

The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue? 

Let's ask Tasmanians shall we.


----------



## So_Cynical

Logique said:


> Release all that stored carbon...you mean like a volcano, or a giant bushfire? Or a comet impact? Did Mt St Helens cause climate change, or centuries earlier Mt Etna?




Ok so you get where im coming from...however 1 or 2 volcanic eruptions a year is common and a natural phenomenon, giant bush fires (most of the carbon released is actually not really stored carbon, its the fines that burn not the timber that locks up the bulk of the carbon in a forest, also something like 20% of the carbon in a old forest is stored underground) even carbon stored in timber is only really short term storage...unlike carbon stored in coal/oil/gas that's carbon that 10 of millions of years old.



Logique said:


> All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.
> 
> The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue?




Com on...20 years ago it was a few power stations, today we have unprecedented dirty power station development and the future projections are staggering, world consumption of energy will double over the next 20years...with the vast majority of that addition consumption using carbon that's been in storage for 10's of millions of years.

Clearly we are in uncharted waters, truth is everybody's guessing what will or wont happen...denial is never an answer, solutions don't come from closed minds, yes the greens have an extreme agenda...all-ways have had, just look how there trying to kill the Thorium revival, look at how they helped kill the CPRS.

The greens are no real danger as they only ever appeal (long term) at the fringes of the political spectrum...IMO its the combination of the deniers, greens, vested interests (oil/gas/coal/nuke) and the status quo that are the real danger....there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, just the 2 extremes pulling the centre apart so that nothing changes and nothing gets done.


----------



## noco

There  seems to be a definte amount of uncertaintity relating to so called scientific evidence of Global Warming or Climate change created by man. Climate change is real, but doubt is mounting as to the cause, particularly from CO2 emmissions. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...facts-on-climate/story-e6frg71x-1225933016966


----------



## nukz

climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> Do you know what runs this website? Coal-fired power stations. Do you know what your house frame is made from? Timber from native forests.  Go into a greenie's house, do you know which timber they're featuring? It isn't plantation softwood!
> 
> All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.
> 
> The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue?
> 
> Let's ask Tasmanians shall we.



It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of non-fossil fuel electricity production globally is from nuclear and hydro which collectively account for close to 40% of total generation.

It is also a reality that with present technology, intermittent renewables are an alternative to fossil fuels only in conjunction with hydro. Without that, they are limted to merely supplementing what necessarily remains a predominantly fossil or nuclear system.

That said, if we continue pursuing constant growth on a finite planet then we could dam every last creek on the planet, build thousands of nuclear reactors and still end up with rising CO2 emissions. Growth is the real problem here, only after that is fixed is there any hope of really reducing emissions with nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, solar etc.

As for Tasmanians, a few observations:

1. Public support for large scale hydro construction was almost absolute for many decades, before declining to about 54% amidst the great dams debate of the early 1980's. It hovered around 70% through the 1990's until recently when (anecdotally) it seems to have moved upward again. 

All that said, there is no current proposal to build any large dam for power generation in Tas and the Hydro no longer has any construction machinery or a construction workforce, all of that being sold off or made redundant as construction on the last two schemes wound down in the early 1990's.

2. The vast majority of greens I have met in Tas burn wood for heating at home. That is to the point that one prominent green went into business manufacturing wood heaters during the dams debate era.  The official line from the greens at the time was that Tasmanians should switch to wood heating rather than electric, noting that a major shift away from oil-fired heating was underway due to rising oil prices and was in fact the reason the controversial dam was proposed in the first place. A decade later, Tasmanians were fed up with smoke filled air and embraced electric heating, which now has 70% of the home heating market (conventional firewood 25%, gas 3%, oil 1%, wood pellets 1%).

3. There wouldn't be too many people in the entire state who think that the overall goings on in the power industry have worked overly well. That's to the point now of power workers being abused on the street, such is the level of community frustration over rising prices. Sales of solar power and solar hot water systems are booming that is for sure, although they are still only used by a minority at this stage.

As for Smurf, well I don't agree with the greens. But I'm far less keen on "dam the lot" than you might think. Halt growth first, then there would be a point in considering new dams, nuclear etc. But if we keep going with growth then we'll burn all the coal anyway, in which case we might as well have a few nice rivers and some uranium left for future generations.


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> Clearly we are in uncharted waters, truth is everybody's guessing what will or wont happen...denial is never an answer,



With respect, that's a really silly thing to say.
First you say "everyone is guessing" and then you add "denial is never an answer".  Contradictory.




> IMO its the combination of the deniers, greens, vested interests (oil/gas/coal/nuke) and the status quo that are the real danger....there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, just the 2 extremes pulling the centre apart so that nothing changes and nothing gets done.



So if all the above are 'vested interests' even including the passionate Greens, who exactly is left?
You are presumably excluding all on the conservative side of politics, business in the form of energy companies who of all people should surely have a say in this whole thing, and then at the other end you don't like the Greens either.
Just leaves the dreaded Labor Party as far as I can tell.


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> With respect, that's a really silly thing to say.
> First you say "everyone is guessing" and then you add "denial is never an answer".  Contradictory.




Everyone is guessing, in that there's no definitive answer...some believe this and some believe that, some are in denial that there's even a valid question...some think the question is valid but the science is dodgy, some groups pushing for change have a purely political agenda, while individuals in those groups go along protecting there positions (Turnbull comes to mind)

Denial for many is just an easy way to deal with a complex or difficult truth/ question...much like the Germans post WW2, the modern Catholic church and the UN during the Rwandan Genocide.

I don't see any contradiction. :dunno: meanwhile the Kyoto 1990 baseline targets have come and gone, COP this and COP that, Copenhagen etc etc...20 years of in action, denial, protecting the status quo, maybe 2 or 3 billion dollars wasted world wide and nothing of any real value to show for it.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> There  seems to be a definte amount of uncertaintity relating to so called scientific evidence of Global Warming or Climate change created by man. Climate change is real, but doubt is mounting as to the cause, particularly from CO2 emmissions.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...facts-on-climate/story-e6frg71x-1225933016966



Sails also linked to an article discussing the Royal Society document a couple of days ago. 

The uncertainty that was being discussed was with respect to the predicted temperature changes, some of the proposed effects of climate change and the limits of some datasets and observations. An emphasis was placed on outlining those predicted extreme scenarios that have a lower confidence. As for uncertainty in predictions; of course there is a definite amount of uncertainty as all scientific predictions are made within calculated error bounds. 

The document does not state that doubt is mounting as to the cause - the document states" There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."



			
				The Royal Society said:
			
		

> Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth’s warming has been caused largely by human activity.  It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.



Here is the Royal Society report, it is quite interesting: http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294972963


----------



## derty

nukz said:


> climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.



Thanks for providing quite a good example of the issue as I see it.

Most people do not under stand the science or the scientific process, let alone the basic mechanisms that drive and buffer climate variation at the various time scales. Most people do not consider rates of change, historic absolute minima and maxima are directly compared to current conditions with no consideration of context. 

What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong. 

The scientists have been plodding along, gathering evidence and building a case and improving certainties. The issue enters the realms of politics, there is talk of taxes and economic pain and then big oil and other vested interests wades in and the discreditation campaign commences and now climate science is built on the work of dishonest money hungry charlatans. 

There are vested interests that want the carbon economy, there are vested interests that want to maintain the status-quo and in the centre is the science. Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.


----------



## noco

nukz said:


> climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.




Don't forget Al Gore! He is the Patron of the world GREEN movement.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.




LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play. The corruption in the consensus "green movement" is rife, with $80B being spent to build the AGW case since the 1980s in the US alone.

The consensus science is no longer "plodding" along building a AGW case, in fact their case continues to dissolve as more and more real scientists analyze the "consensus" data.  At the same time, the politicians are back to playing sneaky games to ram thru a carbon tax and build a global governance structure - not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet. 

Wake up


----------



## So_Cynical

OzWaveGuy said:


> LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play....not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet.
> 
> Wake up




OWG :bonk: care to walk us thru how this global governance play would work out....this conspiracy stuff really intrigues me, perhaps we should all start posting in code...there probably monitoring everything that goes on here.


----------



## derty

I'm not a necessarily a supporter of the political movement that has arisen on the back of the science and the scaremongering that has accompanied this - I just think the science regarding the warming and our part in it is close to the mark. The vested interests are another matter. 

You do in your reply however, further support my thoughts with respect to the ideological bias against the science (bolds my emphasis) 







OzWaveGuy said:


> LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and *a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play. The corruption in the consensus "green movement" is rife*, with $80B being spent to build the AGW case since the 1980s in the US alone.
> 
> The consensus science is no longer "plodding" along building a AGW case, in fact their case continues to dissolve as more and more real scientists analyze the "consensus" data.  At the same time, *the politicians are back to playing sneaky games to ram thru a carbon tax and build a global governance structure - not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet*.
> 
> Wake up


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> Thanks for providing quite a good example of the issue as I see it.
> 
> Most people do not under stand the science or the scientific process, let alone the basic mechanisms that drive and buffer climate variation at the various time scales. Most people do not consider rates of change, historic absolute minima and maxima are directly compared to current conditions with no consideration of context.
> 
> What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong.
> 
> The scientists have been plodding along, gathering evidence and building a case and improving certainties. The issue enters the realms of politics, there is talk of taxes and economic pain and then big oil and other vested interests wades in and the discreditation campaign commences and now climate science is built on the work of dishonest money hungry charlatans.
> 
> There are vested interests that want the carbon economy, there are vested interests that want to maintain the status-quo and in the centre is the science. Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.




Nice summary on the competing interests


----------



## explod

IFocus said:


> Nice summary on the competing interests




Is that a bit of a fence sit there Ifocus?

Seems to be a good take that money wins over common sense, but common sense wants the money to have the bread and all the other good things as those had before them.

It lets the hysteria balloon down and points out a real problem.  A good post derty.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> OWG :bonk: care to walk us thru how this global governance play would work out....this conspiracy stuff really intrigues me, perhaps we should all start posting in code...there probably monitoring everything that goes on here.




Well here it is (sugar coated) from Ban Ki Moon , secretary general of the UN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html.



> A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed.




and again http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16



> We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this




The term is being regularly used in enviro-political circles. If you remember, the greenie's favourite villain Christopher Monckton, exposed this as a documented item on the Copenhagen agenda.

In fact, it is regularly used outside of environmental debate. http://www.google.co.nz/#q=global g...s:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=73cb38aecb923674

SC, if using the straw man tactic in an attempt at ridicule, it would be wise to get your facts in order first so-as not to look so ridiculous yourself.

Perhaps in your haste to label people you have indulged in a bit of denial yourself?


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong.




This exposes a cognitive bias on your part by stating that only the right (by implication) makes decisions on the "the science" based on extraneous factors. Apart from the fact that in most cases, people regard these as two separate issues and well capable of discerning one from the other, it ignores that some from the left decide on political grounds (and other extraneous factors) as well.


----------



## wayneL

I rarely agree with Fox's take on things.

On this issue they are spot on IMO


----------



## Knobby22

It must feel good for the reporters to be able to truthfully attack the issue for a change.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> This exposes a cognitive bias on your part by stating that only the right (by implication) makes decisions on the "the science" based on extraneous factors. Apart from the fact that in most cases, people regard these as two separate issues and well capable of discerning one from the other, it ignores that some from the left decide on political grounds (and other extraneous factors) as well.



I could say that this exposes cognitive bias on your part for seeing that I am stating that only the right is implied. Sure, my use of 'envirofacist greenies' and 'leftist rule' are issues with the right, though the addition of taxes and  imposition of a new world order are issues for both the left and right. The simple truth of the matter is that the majority of the those that do not subscribe that the Earth is warming and/or humans have a large part in it, have conservative/right wing viewpoints. I think that 'not wanting the science to be true' leads people to accept and champion some of the disingenuous arguments put forward by the likes of Monckton. 

As you mentioned there is another side to the coin, those that have propagated predictions of catastrophic doom and those that have swallowed the worst case scenario hook-line-and-sinker. As we are all aware, predictions in the near future are made with reasonable levels of confidence and as we step further into the future the confidence decreases and the possible range of outcomes widens. Cherry picking catastrophic predictions is no different to grabbing the data from 1998 onwards and claiming the world is cooling. It misrepresents the science.

I think the fearmongers fall into two camps. 
1. Those that have their fingers in the pie and have set themselves up for gain. I'm sure Gore stands to profit handsomely from the carbon economy and I would not be surprised if nations/governments are seeing this as an opportunity to gain more wealth and control. It is not outside the realms of thought that the 'carbon economy' would be used to strip wealth and place controls over developing nations similar to that facilitated by the IMF and World Bank. 

2. Those that are crapping themselves that humanity (or civilisation as we know it) is going to come to a horrible end in the very near future as tipping points are reached and society collapses. They feel it necessary to preach (for want of a better word) the dangers and themselves latch onto data and predictions, often out of context, and promote these as evidence supporting the immanent demise.

So while the two extremes fight for control or to counter claims made, as I said before largely in the popular media and blogosphere, the science is being trashed. 

I support the science that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. I don't think that there will be an immanent global demise, however I support that temperature rise will be detrimental to society as weather does become more extreme and populations are stressed. 

I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I could say that this exposes cognitive bias on your part...



I've always admitted to bias; I am a human being after all. 

I just wonder how many zealots understand this about themselves.


> I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).




Agree.


----------



## IFocus

explod said:


> Is that a bit of a fence sit there Ifocus?
> 
> Seems to be a good take that money wins over common sense, but common sense wants the money to have the bread and all the other good things as those had before them.
> 
> It lets the hysteria balloon down and points out a real problem.  A good post derty.




Afraid so Explod I don't hold a strong view but I do think we do have climate change happening now and I think there is a part of it is man made and we should take some kind of action.

Realistically if its true then action will come to late along with saving the environment and earths resources.


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).




Agree except the time frame is sooner I think


----------



## nukz

How long has the green movement been around and why is it all of a sudden its rammed down our throats that the world is about to end. 

First it was bio-fuel... great idea burn food to create fuel that costs more to produce than petroleum. 

Then the car makers jumped on board with battery cars that are 'green' but in 10 years when the battery's die we just dump them all in India's water supply or something. 

People like George Soros have around a $1 billion invested in green technology and he's not here to help the environment let me tell you. 

Energy company's are increasing energy costs all because of this green movement.

Kyoto ... lol

Carbon credit trading, if you have ever seen this its like another Dow jones...

I also found these points online as well(cannot confirm there authenticity though)

    * 75% of U.S. meteorologists reject Al Gore’s science on global climate trends.
    * 81% reject claims that Gore’s Global Warming models are in any way reliable.
    * 55% agree with the statement”–Global Warming is a Scam!”
    * 500 scientists support Texas Attorney General Abbott’s lawsuit against EPA and global warming


----------



## nukz

My position on this issue is basically that large sum's of money will be made by certain people and when large sum's of money are involved you can bet saving the environment is not first on the agenda.


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Well here it is (sugar coated) from Ban Ki Moon , secretary general of the UN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html.
> 
> SC, if using the straw man tactic in an attempt at ridicule, it would be wise to get your facts in order first so-as not to look so ridiculous yourself.
> 
> Perhaps in your haste to label people you have indulged in a bit of denial yourself?




I had to google straw man  from wiki "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Wayne im pretty straight forward and call em as i see em...You and anyone else posting your beliefs about some sort of UN agenda to take over the world, 1 treaty at a time is without doubt going to get ridicule from me and a dozen or so other posters on this forum....sorry dude that's just the way it works.

I have no interest in what people think of me, of course i want to be loved by all ...however if it makes you feel better to think im ridiculous or you feel the need to encourage others to feel the same as you...feel free to go right ahead, knock yourself out. 

-----------------------

Clearly Mr Moon is talking about governance of the "GHG deal" as of course any global agreement will have to be administered by some sort of global body, otherwise its not much of a global agreement...Assuming the new body would be called something like (WGGRO - The World greenhouse Gas Reduction Organisation) i also assume its governance arm would operate in a similar way to the WTO - the world Trade Organisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization

Wayne do you genuinely believe the UN or some group/s behind the UN is trying to take over the world?


----------



## Julia

derty said:


> As you mentioned there is another side to the coin, those that have propagated predictions of catastrophic doom and those that have swallowed the worst case scenario hook-line-and-sinker. As we are all aware, predictions in the near future are made with reasonable levels of confidence and as we step further into the future the confidence decreases and the possible range of outcomes widens. Cherry picking catastrophic predictions is no different to grabbing the data from 1998 onwards and claiming the world is cooling. It misrepresents the science.
> 
> I think the fearmongers fall into two camps.
> 1. Those that have their fingers in the pie and have set themselves up for gain. I'm sure Gore stands to profit handsomely from the carbon economy and I would not be surprised if nations/governments are seeing this as an opportunity to gain more wealth and control. It is not outside the realms of thought that the 'carbon economy' would be used to strip wealth and place controls over developing nations similar to that facilitated by the IMF and World Bank.
> 
> 2. Those that are crapping themselves that humanity (or civilisation as we know it) is going to come to a horrible end in the very near future as tipping points are reached and society collapses. They feel it necessary to preach (for want of a better word) the dangers and themselves latch onto data and predictions, often out of context, and promote these as evidence supporting the immanent demise.
> 
> So while the two extremes fight for control or to counter claims made, as I said before largely in the popular media and blogosphere, the science is being trashed.
> 
> I support the science that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. I don't think that there will be an immanent global demise, however I support that temperature rise will be detrimental to society as weather does become more extreme and populations are stressed.
> 
> I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).



If we'd had more discussion along such objective and balanced lines, then the extremes on both sides would not have become so entrenched and unrealistic imo.
Neither would so much antagonism have been engendered.

Great post, derty.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

When the carbon tax is implemented will they be able to state how long it will take to be in a state of the tax being scrapped? Would the tax reduce the alleged warming and how long will it take? 

Also, to what extent is the heating of the core and the activity of the sun being taken into account? Would these factors make the computation of the tax complicated or would that be easy?


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> Wayne do you genuinely believe the UN or some group/s behind the UN is trying to take over the world?




It has been the goal of men since Adam was a lad. Have a cursory glance at history, it has been attempted several times.

Just across the road from the UN is this mob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement and their site http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/

It is just one of many.

I'm not saying there is some evil plot by some bald guy stroking a cat, and I suppose some have the best of intentions (avoiding war etc), but anyone who doesn't believe there are some who are working for some form of global government just doesn't have their eyes and ears open.

The problem is that the whole idea is wrapped up in conspiracy theory and paranoia, which polarizes many into a position of denial, such as yourself. On the other hand, much of the work done is with as little publicity as possible which raises suspicion in the minds of many.

Time will tell, but "take over the world" is the wrong phrase as it implied something like the Mongol Hordes rampaging across the planet. It is far more subtle than that.


----------



## Logique

nukz said:


> My position on this issue is basically that large sum's of money will be made by certain people and when large sum's of money are involved you can bet saving the environment is not first on the agenda.



Two good posts in a row Nukz. 

Carbon tax: how can you have an effective market price signal when the mechanism of political resonance is so hopelessly dysfunctional.

The Gillard govt's carbon tax worksops are probably a political stalling technique, but fair enough let's have the discussion, but an open discussion, with everything on the table. Not with certain categories curtailed by the commissars. It's irrational and undermines credibility, to exclude nuclear, thorium and hydro from the solution set.

Roll on nuclear fusion, which I understand has been achieved, but only at a microscopic scale thus far.

As on SBS last night, even a hydro scheme in Laos on the Mekong is under attack by world greens (WWF). Supporting renewable energy, yeah right.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> It has been the goal of men since Adam was a lad. Have a cursory glance at history, it has been attempted several times.



With apologies for going even further off topic, I had a cursory glance at history and I can't think of any case where a small group set out with the goal of conquering the world, and not many where an individual did. Most conquests seem to be an accidental byproduct of ferocious struggles for power within a group. The clearest example of that I know is ancient Rome, but it also seems like a good description of the growth of trade empires in the last couple of centuries. What are you thinking of?

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> When the carbon tax is implemented will they be able to state how long it will take to be in a state of the tax being scrapped?



Good question. The intent should be that the tax would become unnecessary as better technologies become cost effective, but the history of tobacco taxes doesn't promise well.



> Would the tax reduce the alleged warming and how long will it take?



A tax is one possible system for including the price of carbon emissions in the cost of goods and services. Warming will continue after carbon emissions (more accurately, carbon emissions from fossil fuels) go to zero. For how long depends on many other factors. 



> Also, to what extent is the heating of the core and the activity of the sun being taken into account? Would these factors make the computation of the tax complicated or would that be easy?



These factors are irrelevant to a tax on carbon emissions. 

Ghoti


----------



## spooly74

Unfotunatley it's all about policy now. As Derty pointed out, the science is being trashed, the well is poisioned, and a debate on future predictions is largely irrelevant. 
I know I'd rather cut off my left one than argue any point on the Earth's Climate. 

An Evaluation of the Targets and Timetables of the Proposed Australian Emissions Trading Scheme



> For carbon dioxide emissions relationship of forces leading to carbon dioxide emissions has been called the *Kaya Identity*, and it can be used
> to decompose the factors that lead to carbon dioxide emissions from the production and use of energy in the global economy.
> ..
> Together the four factors of the Kaya Identity explain the various influences that contribute to increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as follows:
> 
> *(1) Carbon Dioxide Emissions= Population * Per Capita GDP * Energy Intensity *Carbon Intensity
> 
> (2) P = Total Population
> 
> (3) GDP/P = Per capita GDP
> 
> a. GDP = Economic Growth (Contraction) = P * GDP/P = GDP
> 
> (4) Energy Intensity (EI) = TE/GDP = Total Energy (TE) consumption/GDP
> 
> b. Carbon Intensity (CI) = C/TE=Carbon emissions/Total Energy consumption
> 
> (5) EI X CI = "Carbon Intensity of the Economy" = TE/GDP * C/TE = C/GDP*
> 
> *Thus, according to the logic of these relationships, carbon accumulating in the atmosphere can be reduced only by reducing (a) population, (b) per capita GDP, or (c) carbon intensity of the economy.*






> A risk of proposing aspirational goals is that policy makers will look for ways to avoid meeting the objectives while maintaining the appearance of accountability to formal goals, at least during their time in office. Stanford’s David Victor explains, *“setting binding emission targets through treaties is wrongheaded because it ‘forces’ governments to do things they don’t know how to do. And that puts them in a box, from which they escape using accounting tricks (e.g., offsets) rather than real effort*.” (Victor, 2009)


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> With apologies for going even further off topic, I had a cursory glance at history and I can't think of any case where a small group set out with the goal of conquering the world, and not many where an individual did. Most conquests seem to be an accidental byproduct of ferocious struggles for power within a group. The clearest example of that I know is ancient Rome, but it also seems like a good description of the growth of trade empires in the last couple of centuries. What are you thinking of?
> 
> Ghoti




The list is subjective so debate will be taking this further OT, but I have already provided one current group with designs on some form of global governance.


----------



## Smurf1976

derty said:


> I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).



Already stopped using the stuff for most heating applications, power generation etc once it became too expensive for such uses.

Various wars which just happen to break out on places with large remaining oil reserves.

2008 price spike and global economic troubles immediately afterward.

Converting human food into liquid fuel.

Drilling incredibly deep wells in incredibly deep water because that's all that remains. Then it goes wrong and we spill the stuff in the water.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see trouble due to cheap, easily accessible oil no longer being sufficiently plentiful to meet "business as usual" demand growth. In my opinion, this along with the dwindling supply of phosphate fertilizers is by far the most urgent issue facing the world today.


----------



## sails

Below (in blue) is Grade 5 (Qld) notes for an essay that was unfinished at school and sent home to finish it.  Teacher's handwriting was quite messy, so student has copied as best she could.

I find the headings the most disturbing.  Some of the solutions are OK, but some are a bit far fetched as well, IMO.

Seems unbelievable to me that 10 year olds are being taught only one side of the climate change debate.  The child that brought this home thought it was factual information.  She was talking about closing factories down. When I explained the implications of loss of jobs, more dependency on the dole, etc, she saw there was another side to this.  

Surely curriculum should include both sides of the debate instead of potentially brainwashing young, impressionable minds on something that even scientists are divided?

Maybe it's just an over zealous greenie teacher and not part of the curriculum.  

Thoughts anyone?

Title: *Take a Stand Save Our Planet*.

Persuasive Text:

*1.	Save the planet global warming and climate change*
Solutions:
•	Stop using cars
•	electrical consumption
•	think about factory usage


*2.	Humans are their own enemies.*
Solutions:
•	wasteful
•	overusing natural resources
•	litter in landfills


*3.	Technology and this earth don’t mix*
Solutions:
•	energy over-use
•	cost of repairing vs. reproduction.
•	nature is technology


----------



## So_Cynical

sails said:


> Surely curriculum should include both sides of the debate instead of potentially brainwashing young, impressionable minds on something that even scientists are divided?
> 
> Maybe it's just an over zealous greenie teacher and not part of the curriculum.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?




I suppose its a little like those Christian schools that want to teach creationism and so called 'intelligent design' some believe that there is a genuine debate over the validity of evolution, some people think the moon landings were staged, some think the UN is under the influence of a conspiracy of some kind etc etc etc.

Educational curriculum should always follow the path of least resistance, the path of accepted and tested science, while still being open to change as the scientific evidence changes and of course encouraging debate and encouraging the individual to think for them self.


----------



## Smurf1976

Beyond the basics such as reading, writing, maths etc and practical skills such as cooking and woodwork, education on a specific subject will almost always reflect some underlying bias.

Smurf remembers quite well something in about grade 3 about state (Tas) development, resources and so on. Nice thick book to go with it, films to watch and so on. It all seemed a bit of fun, and a nice change from the normal spelling and so on. 

But looking back, I now realise very well that it all amounted to one simple point being made: Hydro dams = good, any other form of power = bad. Such was the politics of the time, and this was a government school. OK, there was a bit about timber, minerals and so on but power was the key point being made that's for sure.

Same year we all got in a bit of trouble for damming the local creek at lunch time and ending up covered in mud when the "dam" broke. Pretty obvious where that idea came from... And the teachers were in a bit of a bind too - no way were they going to say there's something wrong with dams as such, just that they'd rather we didn't try building one behind the school because being covered in mud might upset our parents, and also the bus would get dirty on the way home... 

Then in grade 5 & 6 I had a truly outstanding teacher who went way off the curriculum on a very regular basis and taught us all sorts of things. Finance and investments, legal system, how government works, media bias and so on. Computers were the future, and no way were we not going to learn how to type at a decent speed. We even made a film at some point in that class. Then he decided that we needed to know about industrial OH&S as well. 

One of the "outside the box" subjects he taught us was "the greenhouse effect". It wasn't a political issue back then but the idea was around in a scientific sense and we explored the theory and looked at the realities of how emissions could actually be reduced globally. A lot of what is in this thread, I first learnt in grade 5 at school. I understood very well back then, that there was no simple answer. Closing factories = lost jobs etc is a point that was certainly made, as was the "no jobs on a dead planet" argument.

We built a few things in that class too and yes, a solar water heater built from scratch was among them, noting that none of us had ever seen a real one at the time. So were all sorts of electronic contraptions and we nearly ended up with a zoo as well. The water heater did work by the way, as did the electronics. A few things went wrong, like the mice escaping and an aquarium blowing up (due to student error by the way), but it was a fantastic learning experience those two years. And he did manage to fit all the usual maths, writing etc in as well - and with pretty tough pass marks and lunchtime detention for anyone who failed.

Most useful thing you can do in the education of any child is what my grade 5 and 6 teacher was really trying to achieve. Teach them to get of their ***, do something about it rather than whinging (absolutely his key point), think for themselves, do proper research into how things really are, and don't just believe what they are told. I've kept that principle ever since, and it has served me well thus far.


----------



## ghotib

Bravo Smurf, and Bravo Smurf's teacher, and Bravo schools and teachers in general. 

Ghoti


----------



## Julia

Great post, Smurf.  Let's hope there are still a few similar teachers around these days.
Sadly, in many of our state schools they're too busy trying to control the violent kids that seem to exist in every class.


----------



## wayneL

The mind boggles....

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/3-offensive-images-of-climate-change/1122



> Why Climate Change Deniers Should Be Blown To Bits!
> 
> By R.T. Jones
> Wednesday, October 6th, 2010
> A couple of weeks ago, a new short film by comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis was released for the 10:10 environmental campaign. And apparently, that film offended a lot of people.
> I actually thought it was kind of funny. But I do have a sense of humor.




Then goes on to represent general pollution as climate change... such is the mindset of ecofascists.


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> ... such is the mindset of ecofascists.





Its a pity in a way that the earth isnt flat. If it was then the far right would go over one edge and the far left over the edge on the other side. Those of us with an open mind would take the middle ground and live happily ever after.


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> Its a pity in a way that the earth isnt flat. If it was then the far right would go over one edge and the far left over the edge on the other side. Those of us with an open mind would take the middle ground and live happily ever after.




For some on this forum though, anything to the right of Leon Trotsky is the "extreme right".


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> For some on this forum though, anything to the right of Leon Trotsky is the "extreme right".




And of course there are others that think anyone slightly to the left of Abbott has got to be a watermelon.


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> And of course there are others that think anyone slightly to the left of Abbott has got to be a watermelon.




Incorrect.

I have never seen Dullard categorized as "extreme left" or "watermelon", even though she is an avowed social democrat. Whereas Abbott is often categorized as "extreme right".

It is a known tactic of the left to tag opposition with extremist labels.

Economic liberals as extreme right.

Climate science realists as deniers.

In fact there are no extreme parties in mainstream Australian politics, with the major parties bluing over the middle ground,

"The Greens" are unquestionably a fair way to the left of the spectrum, earning the title of watermelons. Openly socialist, but still not extreme... on the face of it anyway.


----------



## explod

nioka said:


> Those of us with an open mind would take the middle ground and live happily ever after.




Do you mean that those either left or right of your middle ground do not have open minds nioka?


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> Its a pity in a way that the earth isnt flat. If it was then the far right would go over one edge and the far left over the edge on the other side. Those of us with an open mind would take the middle ground and live happily ever after.




So... you want everybody who's not in the middle to die?

MAybe you can get Franny to make you a film. ::::


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> In fact there are no extreme parties in mainstream Australian politics, with the major parties bluing over the middle ground,
> 
> "The Greens" are unquestionably a fair way to the left of the spectrum, earning the title of watermelons. Openly socialist, but still not extreme... on the face of it anyway.




wow

just 

wow

The greens openly want to shut down all native forestry in Australia and also want to stop mono culture and exotic plantation forestry, close all coal fired power plants and totally ban any type of nuclear power...and yet this is not extreme?

And i  suppose the Australian Protectionist Party and The Australia First Party aren't racist :dunno: perhaps we have different ideas about what is and isn't extreme.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> wow
> 
> just
> 
> wow
> 
> The greens openly want to shut down all native forestry in Australia and also want to stop mono culture and exotic plantation forestry, close all coal fired power plants and totally ban any type of nuclear power...and yet this is not extreme?
> 
> And i  suppose the Australian Protectionist Party and The Australia First Party aren't racist :dunno: perhaps we have different ideas about what is and isn't extreme.




Well I did say mainstream didn't I? You cannot ignore key adjectives and hope to comprehend the meaning of a written passage SC. 

Of those you mention, the Greens are the only one even remotely close to the mainstream of Australian politics. Yet they still aren't extreme on the grand scale of things.

Treacherous? Yes.

Dishonest? Yes.

Extremely economically inept? Absolutely.

Delusional? Probably.

Extremist? No. You can go a lot further left than The Greens.


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> I have never seen Dullard categorized as "extreme left" or "watermelon", even though she is an avowed social democrat..




Gillard is power hungry and will do what is necessary to have and retain power. To get that power she has to bow to the wishes of the greens and the powerbrokers within the party. In the present government that makes her a potential watermelon. Her main aim in life was to be Prime Minister. Her main aim now is to hold on as long as possible.

On the other hand Abbott has also proved that he would do the same. You only have to look at the promises that they both made to the indies in an effort to secure that power.


----------



## explod

nioka said:


> Gillard is power hungry and will do what is necessary to have and retain power. To get that power she has to bow to the wishes of the greens and the powerbrokers within the party. In the present government that makes her a potential watermelon. Her main aim in life was to be Prime Minister. Her main aim now is to hold on as long as possible.
> 
> .




Has to be, that's the survival technique of being in politics.   Show me one that is not.  Have to play whatever ball is thrown and play it hard.

So what.


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Well I did say mainstream didn't I? You cannot ignore key adjectives and hope to comprehend the meaning of a written passage SC.




How did i miss that :dunno: you prob could have left out the whole sentence, as in mainstream tends to mean the centre and thus not the extremes.


----------



## nioka

explod said:


> So what.




So what? If you dont know what happened to honesty and the courage of your own convictions them You will be a very unhappy person with a troubled conscience. There are still some around.


----------



## explod

nioka said:


> So what? If you dont know what happened to honesty and the courage of your own convictions them You will be a very unhappy person with a troubled conscience. There are still some around.




Yep agree, but as an idealist myself realise that it is not going to make it to the top in politics.

We are in Far Far Away Land, where seemingly, climate is not longer an issue.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> How did i miss that :dunno: you prob could have left out the whole sentence, as in mainstream tends to mean the centre and thus not the extremes.




ROTFL

Not necessarily. I can think of a few places where the extreme tends to be mainstream, both past and present.


----------



## Smurf1976

Bearing in mind that the environment versus development debate is now 4 decades old, it's good to see a more rational approach finally developing.

Note: FIAT = Forest Industry Association of Tas. The Wilderness Society is the dominant green group, and was the main public face of the entire conservation movement prior to formal establishment of The Greens.



> Environment Tasmania, The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation today reconfirmed their unified support for a sustainable timber industry that secures jobs and creates new economic opportunities.
> 
> Environment groups have agreed that a pulp mill could be part of the state’s economic future






> FIAT’s agreement removes the last barrier to the signing of the principles agreement, which includes a moratorium on the logging of high conservation value forests to apply within three months and eventual agreement on shifting the industry from native forests to plantations.
> 
> Any final agreement will have national ramifications, most likely leading to the phase out of native forest logging nationally.
> 
> Mr Edwards said he was aware that green groups, including The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation, were comfortable with the changes proposed by FIAT.
> 
> He expected the principles agreement to be signed within days.



http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php...-the-woods-today-youre-in-for-a-big-surprise/

So far, I'd have to say that this Labor-Green government and general co-operation between both sides of the broader environment versus industry debate is working rather well. Let's hope that it keeps going...


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> Has to be, that's the survival technique of being in politics.   Show me one that is not.  Have to play whatever ball is thrown and play it hard.
> 
> So what.



"So what?"   Where is all your previously espoused idealism, explod?

That's an incredibly cynical comment and unworthy of you.

I don't believe the voting public have entirely given up on the hope for some level of honesty and integrity amongst government.
But certainly, there's little evidence of it amongst the present bunch.

I can't think of anyone, other than perhaps Nick Xenophon, who might genuinely have the good of Australia at heart.  For the others, it's all about their own egocentric search for power.

The Greens engage in it with a veneer of wanting to be seen to unselfishly care for the planet and suck a lot of people in, but in the end it's about power for them too.





explod said:


> We are in Far Far Away Land, where seemingly, climate is not longer an issue.



What?   Climate is no longer an issue?  For god's sake, we are hearing about little else!


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> ...Most useful thing you can do in the education of any child is what my grade 5 and 6 teacher was really trying to achieve. Teach them to get of their ***, do something about it rather than whinging (absolutely his key point), think for themselves, do proper research into how things really are, and don't just believe what they are told. I've kept that principle ever since, and it has served me well thus far.




Smurf, thanks for your detailed post...

You certainly had a wonderful teacher in grade 5.  I especially liked your last paragraph where you were taught to think for yourself and not just believe everything you were told.  Very sound advice.

While this granddaughter is being encouraged to think for herself, I wonder about the other impressionable youngsters who haven't been taught to think more objectively.  

When she brought this work to my place for help because she struggles with writing essays and got into trouble because she hadn't finished it in school.  In fact this teacher ripped her work out of her book because it wasn't good enough.  At least she wasn't detonated as per 10:10 - nevertheless it hasn't warmed me any further to this one-sided teaching especially to kids .

Thankfully not much longer to go with this relief teacher.  But how much brain washing of her own beliefs does she do to kids who don't question as she could have access to many hundreds of young children in the course of her relief teaching.


----------



## Logique

This seemingly unilateral proposed withdrawal of water rights by the Feds. 

It's good that South Australia finally gets a better deal on water. But for generational farmers? Such times deliver extreme rhetoric, but you hear '...will meant the death of towns...tripling of food prices...farmers will walk off...houses plunge in value...now trapped here...'

Save for those in or near the Murray Darling Basin, you can't imagine the _despair_ of farmers and multiplier industries in small agricultural and irrigation towns like Griffith and Mildura. 

Make a submission says Tony Burke.

What I'm saying is: it's about the way change is managed. It's no good skulking around the inner city making ideological pronouncements about how things _ought_ to be, in farming, forestry, mining, fisheries, coal and uranium mines.

You can't go around shutting down industries forever. Inevitably there are economic and social consequences. The Greens hour in the sun will be curtailed very quickly unless they wake up to this. And Labor's with them.

The despair in the bush will turn to anger soon enough.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Too Hot for the Alarmists?*

On Joanne Nova's blog she picks up on the ongoing dispute between NZ Climate Science Coalition v's the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) who claims NZ has been warming at 0.92 °C per 100 years.

"But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data they found the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06 °C. They asked for answer and got nowhere until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain nor defend the adjustments."​
Since the NIWA data has influnced NZ climate policy there could be a significant legal battle brewing.

As some on this thread keep pointing out - the climate consenus scientists have proved there is global warming, and yes I agree that the warming is man made - specifically by those who are 'adjusting' temperature records. The consenus science continues to unravel....


----------



## Logique

Extract from source: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, resigns from the American Physical Society in protest at its attempts to shut down debate on its global warming stand: 

"....It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. *It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist*. 

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) *I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.* I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist....

...*I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation* [from the American Physical Society]"

....A short precis of the author’s qualifications:
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).


----------



## Knobby22

So Ozwave guy? Where have the glaciers in New Zealand gone?

Maybe they should return in a puff of logic?


----------



## wayneL

Yup!

The wheels are falling off the whole "science is settled" BS.

The political bandwagon is proving to be more robust at this stage however. I fear derailing that particular gravy train will be a whole lot uglier.

In the meantime a whole host current and important environmental issues remain un-addressed as the world's attention is diverted by the polarized co2 farce.

I wonder if seeing that the ecofascists have long wanted to jail and/or execute the so called "deniers", whether they will report to police stations for their own arrest as the scam is gradually exposed.

I do not support arrest myself (unless there has been genuine fraud), but I sure am angry enough to point out their gross hypocrisy and enjoy their humiliation.

But the sooner the whole thing is unravelled, the sooner genuine issues can attract the attention they deserve.


----------



## Julia

Logique said:


> This seemingly unilateral proposed withdrawal of water rights by the Feds.
> 
> It's good that South Australia finally gets a better deal on water. But for generational farmers? Such times deliver extreme rhetoric, but you hear '...will meant the death of towns...tripling of food prices...farmers will walk off...houses plunge in value...now trapped here...'
> 
> Save for those in or near the Murray Darling Basin, you can't imagine the _despair_ of farmers and multiplier industries in small agricultural and irrigation towns like Griffith and Mildura.
> 
> Make a submission says Tony Burke.
> 
> What I'm saying is: it's about the way change is managed. It's no good skulking around the inner city making ideological pronouncements about how things _ought_ to be, in farming, forestry, mining, fisheries, coal and uranium mines.
> 
> You can't go around shutting down industries forever. Inevitably there are economic and social consequences. The Greens hour in the sun will be curtailed very quickly unless they wake up to this. And Labor's with them.
> 
> The despair in the bush will turn to anger soon enough.



I'm very ignorant about the whole Murray-Darling Basin situation, so welcome any input from those who understand what's proposed.

But, on the face of it, taking up to 45% of water allocation away from agricultural land (do I have this right?) is surely going to drive a lot of these producers out of business.  As a consequence, aren't prices of commodities grown there, plus food, going to rise exponentially?

Is the alternative, i.e. doing nothing and hoping for continued rain, eventually to result in the same loss of productivity if that rain doesn't come, and allow the river to flow as it once did?

It seems so easy for the city based Greens et al to ride roughshod over the lives of the people in the small towns whose lives will be so hugely impacted.
Perhaps it's necessary?

Is it feasible for, say, the cotton and rice growing areas to instead be given over to producing food for Australians, rather than crops that are mainly destined for export?  Aren't both cotton and rice very water hungry, or is this a myth?

Would be interested in others' comments on this.
I'm just more and more concerned that the whole country is rolling over to the damn Greens who don't care about anything other than their own ideology.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> I'm very ignorant about the whole Murray-Darling Basin situation, so welcome any input from those who understand what's proposed.
> 
> But, on the face of it, taking up to 45% of water allocation away from agricultural land (do I have this right?) is surely going to drive a lot of these producers out of business.  As a consequence, aren't prices of commodities grown there, plus food, going to rise exponentially?
> 
> Is the alternative, i.e. doing nothing and hoping for continued rain, eventually to result in the same loss of productivity if that rain doesn't come, and allow the river to flow as it once did?
> 
> It seems so easy for the city based Greens et al to ride roughshod over the lives of the people in the small towns whose lives will be so hugely impacted.
> Perhaps it's necessary?
> 
> Is it feasible for, say, the cotton and rice growing areas to instead be given over to producing food for Australians, rather than crops that are mainly destined for export?  Aren't both cotton and rice very water hungry, or is this a myth?
> 
> Would be interested in others' comments on this.
> I'm just more and more concerned that the whole country is rolling over to the damn Greens who don't care about anything other than their own ideology.




Yes Julia, the darn Greens are getting too much say for liking. They have got the Labor Party by the "SHORT AND CURLIES".

Have you ever heard of the Bradfield scheme? It was an engineering sytem to divert water from North Queensland Waters into Lake Eyre. The amount of water which would have reached Lake Eyre would have created its own inland rainfall and no doubt that rain may have fell in the Muarry/Darling Basin, because most of the air flow is directed  to that area from Lake Eyre.

The Burdekin dam is currently overflowing at this time of the year and flowing out to sea. Governments have talked for years about rasing the height of the Burdekin Dam by 2 metres which would have quadrupled the capacity.

Various Governments have spent billions upon billions of tax payers money on stupid desalinisation plants instead of on schemes like the Bradfield scheme.
The desal plant on the Gold coast is only some 5 years old and is a rust bucket already costing millions of dollars to maintain.

We can find $43 billion for NBN, yet we can't inject such funds into water. OMG. woopee for the Greens!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme_a.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> The political bandwagon is proving to be more robust at this stage however. I fear derailing that particular gravy train will be a whole lot uglier.
> 
> In the meantime a whole host current and important environmental issues remain un-addressed as the world's attention is diverted by the polarized co2 farce.




Yes agreed on both points. The consensus science has failed to prove AGW, hence the recent policy decisions by labor/greens look to try and force the "consensus" through (again).


----------



## So_Cynical

Knobby22 said:


> So Ozwave guy? Where have the glaciers in New Zealand gone?
> 
> Maybe they should return in a puff of logic?




So any deniers want to comment on the NZ glacier situation? i spent half an hour googling and found the usual 19 outa 20 sites backing up the global glacial retreat story and the usual 1 outa 20 sites in total denial.

Oh that's right i keep forgetting that half the deniers are only in half denial, cos its like getting warmer but its all natural.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> So any deniers want to comment on the NZ glacier situation?




Well there's no deniers here. 

But in about 2mins I found this FWIW

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10569888


----------



## OzWaveGuy

There's some obvious confusion on this thread between natural varibilty of climate  (that's well documented) and the "consensus" theory of AGW by the IPCC - folks, temperatures don't stay flat over long or even short periods of time, believe it or not, but temperatures do change and are shown to ocillate. Glaciers around the world have been ocillating between advancement & retreat since the late 1800's (and of course over much longer periods of time: eg little ice age, and longer)

Whilst not directly covering NZ glacier movements (Wayne has provided some insight above), I thought this article covered the topic in good detail... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/...ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/

"Compared to North Atlantic SST record, the period with most glacier growth/retreat lags the ocean by 5 years, matching the lag in surface record. Extremely warm European summer in 2003 is clearly recognizable, when all observed glaciers retreated. But similar period occurred in 1945-1950, followed by years with prevailing growth in late 70ties/early 80ties. This glacier behavior is also discussed in recent study “100 year mass changes in the Swiss Alps linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations” . Based on the AMO peak in 2005 and observed 5-year lag, rebound of Alpine glaciers in the near future is expected."​
Use of the "Glacier retreat" argument is used and misused extensively in the IPCC AR4 reports as documented across the net.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> *Too Hot for the Alarmists?*
> 
> On Joanne Nova's blog she picks up on the ongoing dispute between NZ Climate Science Coalition v's the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) who claims NZ has been warming at 0.92 °C per 100 years.




Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hide – NZ politician on carbon tax and touches on  the fraud above.


----------



## noco

Julia Gillard states Climate Change is real and it is real, but it is not caused by CO2 emmissions. Tony Abbott says it is "crap" which I am sure he refers to latter.

My visit to New Zealand 1979 indicated the glaciers in the south island had been receding for decades before.
The link below says it all. We should have a Royal Commission to reveal the truth.

http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/10...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hide – NZ politician on carbon tax and touches on  the fraud above.



Oz, this link goes to a discussion about "RUOK Day" and suicide, a discussion between Alan Jones and Prof McGorrie on mental health.

Would be interested in the original discussion you referred to on carbon tax in NZ.

With thanks.


----------



## sails

noco said:


> ... We should have a Royal Commission to reveal the truth...




Noco, I agree with you but can't see the GG authorizing a Royal Commission into something that labor party are hell bent on implementing.  Could put a bit of strain family events...

I suspect the GG would prefer to stay clear of anything so political.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Julia said:


> Oz, this link goes to a discussion about "RUOK Day" and suicide, a discussion between Alan Jones and Prof McGorrie on mental health.
> 
> Would be interested in the original discussion you referred to on carbon tax in NZ.
> 
> With thanks.




Apologies, here we go http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_podcasting&task=playaudio&id=2&f=13&Itemid=41


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*IPCC Changes History*

As us humans can be a forgetful bunch sometimes and we can often overlook what our non-elected global prophets for the common good have provided - I thought I'd add a summary of the changing historical record provided in the IPCC AR reports since there is belief on this thread that temperature changes are "unnatural" and "illogical" and the IPCC must be believed.

AR1 and AR2 correctly estimated the global and European long term temperatures, but in AR3 (with the famous Hockey Stick) the temperatures are flat and explode upwards mid-twentieth century. Why the change? 

The Medieval Warm period was a global phenomenon, so why flat line it out of the recent report?


----------



## jonojpsg

INterestingly the Tasmanian gov has just decided to leave a few residents in the lurch subject to coastal erosion.  Basically the minister said if they jumped in for some they would open up a whole Pandoras box of potential future claims for help... makes sense I guess, if people want to build in coastal areas they take that risk.

The book Half Gone, which was more about Peak Oil, had a good discussion about the role of the big reinsurance companies in addressing cllimate change - but I haven't seen any action from them regarding this so maybe the market is telling us something??  Still if the insurance companies stop issuing cover on property within certain limits of the coast this could have a huge impact on prices, etc.


----------



## professor_frink

Just got sent this one, thought it might be of interest.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html



> *Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society*
> 
> For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
> 
> It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.






> APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?






> I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

There's a very good series of articles by Dr David Evans on the Joanne Nova site that takes a look at the climate change establishment willingness to allow climate "science" to use questionable methods and techniques to drive the AGW agenda....hence asking the question - is the western climate establishment corrupt?

"....example after example of the Western Climate Establishment allowing mistakes, errors or biases to accumulate ”” each factor on it’s own might be hard to pin down, but the sum total of actions (and inactions) forms a wholly consistent pattern"​
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5​


----------



## derty

professor_frink said:


> Just got sent this one, thought it might be of interest.
> 
> http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
> 
> 
> 
> *Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society*
Click to expand...


Well that article seems to have spread like wild fire. I assume Bolt will be heralding it soon.

This procalimed at WUWT - seriously wtf?







> This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.




But who is Hal Lewis? As far a I can tell he is 1 of 48,000 APS members. He is 87 years old. He is not a climate scientist. He was an undergraduate under Oppenheimer in the late 40's. He studied high energy particle physics and solid-state/superconductor physics. Most of his career (from the early 60's) he worked as an administrator and sat on a lot of committees. He wrote an article (not paper) on Nuclear Winter. He is currently listed as an Emeritus Professor at Uni of California, though does not have an office there and there is no link to his work there.

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/10/hal-lewiss-temper-tantrum.html


----------



## spooly74

derty said:


> Well that article seems to have spread like wild fire. I assume Bolt will be heralding it soon.



He was on to it a few days ago, Logique posted the link



> An importan moment in Science History



My ****. Storm in a teacup. +1


----------



## wayneL

I would like to get some comment on:

Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/...nsitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/


----------



## Knobby22

Fair article.
There are many greenhouse gases, some which counteract global warming.

It is true that it is difficult to model. We need a second earth to do experiments on and we need more time to refine the models based on the limited data we have.

We have a range of models each with various assumptions. The models do attempt to take into account the short term pollutents. Experiments show us what greenhouse effect can be expected fromthese gases. 

The overall trend however is clear, if not fully dterministic.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> The overall trend however is clear,



Is it?  How do you know it's not yet another variation in long term climate variations?
And if there's no proof as to the causative effect of human beings' production of CO2, what's the point of engaging in expensive and life affecting carbon taxes/ETS programs when there is absolutely no conclusive proof these will make the slightest difference?
Especially if Australia intends to act without the concerted agreement of the rest of the world.  It will simply put us at an economic and trade disadvantage.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> I would like to get some comment on:
> 
> Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/...nsitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/



You mean, that Doug Hoffman has written to the author of the original commentary for clarification because commenters pointed out that he has misunderstood it and his 65% claim is 100% wrong. The same point is made in a comment on the Watts reposting you've linked to: 


> EFS_Junior says:
> October 12, 2010 at 11:20 pm
> 
> From the paper;
> 
> “Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%.”
> 
> The important word in that sentence is? Augmenting.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/augmenting
> 
> So that gives us 100% from CO2 ( or a value of 1) and an additional augmentation of 65% from all other short-lived species
> 
> So CO2′s total contribution is 100%/(100% + 65%) = 61% not the 35% claimed here.
> 
> Also, CH4, N2O, and CFC’s are already modelled with those darn GCM’s.<snip>



All credit to Hoffman for acknowledging that he might be wrong and taking steps to find out. 
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/estimated-co2-warming-cut-65 

The comment he's talking about is here:  xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/publications/penner_ngeo10.pdf


----------



## ghotib

Waving back at you,


OzWaveGuy said:


> There's a very good series of articles by Dr David Evans on the Joanne Nova site that takes a look at the climate change establishment willingness to allow climate "science" to use questionable methods and techniques to drive the AGW agenda....hence asking the question - is the western climate establishment corrupt?



These articles are all restatements of arguments that have been made and rebutted many, many times. You can recognise them in the single sentence statements at http://www.skepticalscience.com/. If you find the rebuttals unconvincing, I would be interested to know your reasons. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Is it?  How do you know it's not yet another variation in long term climate variations?



Because there are reasons for long term climate variations, and they don't apply to the current rapid warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## derty

Yes, interesting article. Thanks for the link Ghoti, the WUWT link required a subscription to read. 

With my limited knowledge on the subject it all seems to make sense to me, though there wasn't really much discussion of absolute values, though I guess it wasn't a paper, it is a commentary piece. The general gist was that more work needs to be conducted to understand the chemical interactions of the short lived gasses and the radiative forcings of these gasses to allow an accurate determination of the climate sensitivity to CO2. 

The WUWT headline was *Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine. *Well we saw from Ghoti's post that the 65% value was not correct. And the actual wording of the second part of the headline was "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity ... *from past records,* partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era." They then go on to say that we need to reduce these short lived species while accurately measuring atmospheric concentrations and forcings to allow the climate sensitivity to be accurately determined. 

The WUWT article implies the short lived species augmenting the CO2 effect by 65% is a new discovery and needs to be factored into the models. When in fact the discussion of this in the paper references the IPCC 4th assessment report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.

While the Nature Geoscience article is good, the cherry picking and blurring of lines between quotes and commentary in WUWT is disingenuous. I suggest that the actual article be read from Ghoti's supplied link, it tells quite a different story.

It is obvious from this statement in the Nature Geoscience article that the authors regard anthropogenic CO2 as having a real effect on temperatures: 







			
				Nature Geoscience said:
			
		

> *Earth’s climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control* in the twenty-first century. But rolling back anthropogenic emissions of several short-lived atmospheric pollutants that lead to warming — such as methane, tropospheric ozone precursors and black-carbon aerosols — could significantly reduce the rate of climate warming over the next few decades


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Because there are reasons for long term climate variations, and they don't apply to the current rapid warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti




Oh please!

That is nothing more than a "science is settled" assertion. Can we at least admit that the subject is still being studied and riddled with error?


----------



## wayneL

Hal Lewis is not the only scientist bailing from the AGW "movement".

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/...maginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass



...and for those wishing to discredit Prof Rancourt, here is some grist for the mill (depending upon your POV)


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Is it?  How do you know it's not yet another variation in long term climate variations?
> And if there's no proof as to the causative effect of human beings' production of CO2, what's the point of engaging in expensive and life affecting carbon taxes/ETS programs when there is absolutely no conclusive proof these will make the slightest difference?
> Especially if Australia intends to act without the concerted agreement of the rest of the world.  It will simply put us at an economic and trade disadvantage.




You have refused to look into the issues and develop an understanding yet you critiscise people who have. I ask you again to look into the science.

The rest of the world is acting, we are lagging, yet we are the worst polluter.
We can act without damaging our economy if we are smart.  You are uninformed.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> Waving back at you,
> 
> These articles are all restatements of arguments that have been made and rebutted many, many times. You can recognise them in the single sentence statements at http://www.skepticalscience.com/. If you find the rebuttals unconvincing, I would be interested to know your reasons.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti




G, feel free to post your comments on the Joanne's site - David will repsond via email or to your post directly. The question still stands unanswered by the alarmists in this thread: Is the climate establishment corrupt?

Leading from this question: I would be more interested to understand if the SkepticalScience site has based their answer "playbook" on the historical temperature analysis from the IPCC's AR1 and AR2 reports where there is a  medeivel warming period with higher temps than today or from the IPCC's AR3 report that rewites the 1000 year temp record without the medeivel period and instead introduces the famous hockey stick that shows convienent "unprecendented warming" in the mid-twentith century.

If you believe that there is no corruption in AGW "concensus" science, then you agree with the IPCC's changing temperature record and the famous hockey stick lie.


----------



## jonojpsg

I think a simple restatement of what we know for sure is appropriate at this stage:

We know:
1.  Humans ARE burning ****loads of fossil fuels and have thus contrubuted to an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere of some 100ppm over the last 100 years.
2.  The average temperatures globally HAVE increased by SOME margin, the actual level being dependent on measurement accuracy and data handling, over the last 30-40 years compared to the 20th century average.
3.  CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and has been in higher concentrations during periods of warmer climate in the past.

We don't know:
1.  Whether CO2 forces the warming or follows.
2.  Whether other factors such as sun activity are more influential than CO2 and hence make human additions to CO2 levels inconsequential.

Is that a fair assessment?  Obviously it helps if we can all agree on some facts in order to be able to effectively debate "expert" comment one way or the other.


----------



## Logique

Same tired old alarmist defence, attack the messenger.

I think it would be discovered that there's a fair bit of physics in climate science. Real climate science that is. As opposed to the IPCC travelling medicine show, with their all-purpose health tonic.

Who is Hal Lewis, what would he know about climate...certainly not as much as a journalist, or a member of Greenpeace, an ABC TV presenter or a Greens Party staffer. The temerity of these academics to stick their nose into climate science.

Cheers,
Log


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> Same tired old alarmist defence, attack the messenger.
> 
> I think it would be discovered that there's a fair bit of physics in climate science. Real climate science that is. As opposed to the IPCC travelling medicine show, with their all-purpose health tonic.
> 
> Who is Hal Lewis, what would he know about climate...certainly not as much as a journalist, or a member of Greenpeace, an ABC TV presenter or a Greens Party staffer. The temerity of these academics to stick their nose into climate science.
> 
> Cheers,
> Log




Pot, kettle black.
Same old attack the messenger being the IPCC. 

Why don't you read the IPCC report, then you may not be able to perpetuate this nonsense that thousands of scientists have prostrated their belief in scientific principle and they are undertaking a giant conspiracy on mankind so they get paid, run by the evil secret government who will rule the world..

Lets believe  your "good guys", a guy who says he is a trained scientist and a lord (both not true) a weird guy in Australia, another guy in England who is not afraid to change graphs to prove his point, another guy who is paid by the energy and cigarette lobbys to deny everything and finally the latest example and old fart, not working in the field..not working fullstop who wants to be famous before he dies. 

I would like to sit you down with a few scientists, the CEO of BHP, the previous leader of the Liberal government, many other well educated people in the world and let them convince you that the Murdoch Press is just paying their dues to the powers that be. By the way, check out Rupert Murdochs opinion also. 

I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue. 
Rupert Murdoch - Global Warming - Responsibility - Environmental - Leadership

Other quotes follow.  Don't be a sheep, look up.

http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/rupert-murdoch/quotes.htm


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Same old attack the messenger being the IPCC.
> 
> Why don't you read the IPCC report




There's not just one report from the IPCC, each AR contains several reports and summaries. 

The obvious corruption is evident in the changing temperature histories (which so far none of the alarmists on this thread are concerned about) and the increasing alarmism across the versions of the reports. Which is then propagated by Gov, MSM and "consensus" scientists from around the world.

There's nothing difficult about understanding why the establishment is pushing a AGW hypothesis using corrupt models - the money to be made on carbon trading/carbon tax is massive. 

Then there's the failed Copenhagen treaty (draft) crafted by the establishment including the IPCC prophets. The treaty was simply about driving the global temperature down right? Wrong!

"Cooling" isn't even mentioned in the treaty. 
"Warming" only 5 times. 

But this didn't upset the AGW alarmists...because the world was going to do  something? Right? Yes...it was about shoveling money into the establishment trough. The wording of the treaty was focused on money and sovereignty. 

"Financial" is mentioned - 355 times,
"Transfer" - 240 times, 
"Government" - 45 times

Feel free to believe the IPCC prophets and send them your money, but make sure you know what your lying in - it stinks of corruption.


----------



## sails

One thing is for sure, and that is the controversy on this issue.

I am skeptical for a few reasons and one is because there is potentially money in it for Government and this government is like a high maintenance missus that needs excessive funds.  I know it may be revenue neutral for a time, but there is no guarantee it will remain so in the future.    

It also appears to be a brainwashing exercise when 10 year olds are being taught only one side of this in our schools and made to believe it is fact.  There is way to much controversy to call it fact, at least at this stage.  This sort of brainwashing to the young ones is cause for more skepticism on my part.

Gillard is desperately wanting a carbon tax.  And yet she flies everywhere seemingly without a thought to the planet.  This one is rather ironical - she flies the breadth of the country for some backslapping on Australia cutting carbon emmissions:

PM pleased to share good climate story



> JULIA Gillard dashed the breadth of the country yesterday to join in the backslapping over two key votes of international confidence in Australia's bid to cut carbon emissions.
> 
> The Prime Minister flew to Barrow Island, 70 kilometres off Western Australia's northern coastline, where US giant Chevron was revelling in its massive Gorgon gas project receiving recognition from the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum




This only increases my skepticism that it is nothing more than another money grab.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> You have refused to look into the issues and develop an understanding yet you critiscise people who have. I ask you again to look into the science.



No, I'm not criticising the people.  I am simply questioning some of the categorical statements that are being flung about, yours included.



> The rest of the world is acting, we are lagging






> I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.




The two above statements are directly contradictory.
Considering you have stated I'm uninformed, your own credibility is somewhat questionable.



> You are uninformed.



Pity we have to become so adversarial rather than agreeing there are many question marks on claims made by both sides.  I have previously said that I'm agnostic about it all.

Yes, you are no doubt correct and I do lack the training to discern what is fact.  I'm hardly alone in this, given many scientists in related fields are objective enough to come to the same conclusion.

There's one thing I'm sure of, however, and that's the danger of fanaticism and zealotry.


----------



## noco

Professor Hal lewis who is 87 years of age was quite prepared to blow the whistle with nothing to lose, whereas younger scientist fear for their careers if they dare speak out about this SCAM ON GLOBAL WARMING (aka climate change). This is the greatest fraud of all times.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cks-climate-scam/story-fn59niix-1225938436693


----------



## noco

Anyone noticed how quiet the Greens are since the arrival of La Nina. 

The drought has broken with record rainfall thoughout Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia.

It's a wonder they have not blamed CO2 emmissions for the record rain fall.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> Anyone noticed how quiet the Greens are since the arrival of La Nina.
> 
> The drought has broken with record rainfall thoughout Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia.
> 
> It's a wonder they have not blamed CO2 emmissions for the record rain fall.



Hey, don't rush them, noco.  They're probably waiting until the floods become devastating, then they'll be right in there.  Never mind that there have been extreme floods in the past.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> G, feel free to post your comments on the Joanne's site - David will repsond via email or to your post directly. The question still stands unanswered by the alarmists in this thread: Is the climate establishment corrupt?
> 
> Leading from this question: I would be more interested to understand if the SkepticalScience site has based their answer "playbook" on the historical temperature analysis from the IPCC's AR1 and AR2 reports where there is a  medeivel warming period with higher temps than today or from the IPCC's AR3 report that rewites the 1000 year temp record without the medeivel period and instead introduces the famous hockey stick that shows convienent "unprecendented warming" in the mid-twentith century.
> 
> If you believe that there is no corruption in AGW "concensus" science, then you agree with the IPCC's changing temperature record and the famous hockey stick lie.




Dr David Evans has posted Part 6 of the "Is the Western Establishment Corrupt" Series on Joanne's site.

This review goes into more detail on what I posted above and here on the hockey stick lie that the establishment peddled to the public and has still failed to publicly retract.

In addition, the alarmists on this thread seem to have gone incredibly quiet on the issue of the IPCC changing temperature history between the AR reports - a clear case of corruption within the climate establishment that was needed to support climate "policy"....

"And to make the current warming unprecedented, they needed the current temperature to be greater than anything in the last thousand years. In a rare insight or slip, one of the leading establishment climate scientists sent University of Oklahoma geoscientist David Deming an email in 1995 that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, according to a statement by Deming to a US Senate Committee."​


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.*

Royal Society...​"Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”​
I've heard this type of climate science-fiction before:  CO2 just keeps "building up" in the environment - almost like water filling a bathtub until it overflows and starts to cause damage.

CO2 used to hang around for "several millennia" until the Royal Society, just like the IPCC, re-writes their "Climate change: A Summary of the Science" guide. As reported here:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”.

Dr Kaiser’s article poses some very embarrassing questions about the competence of authors of the Royal Society document. The German chemist expertly dismantles the claims by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels. Such a claim, he says, “cannot be true.”

*Swedish Mathematics Professor cites “Elementary” Mistakes*

Backing up Kaiser's analysis is none other than Sweden’s eminent mathematics Professor Claes Johnson, who was quick to respond to the German’s findings when posting on his blog, ‘Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science.’​
The Royal Society's new guide is discussed here with some fun analysis of the RS claims.

The new guide makes full use of non-commital langauge like "possible", "potential changes", "uncertainties" and of course a "get out of jail free" card:

"There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding"​
But we just need to act...

"policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge"​
But we really are confident because:

"One indication of these advances is the increasing degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to human activity, as expressed in the key conclusions of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) in its assessments."​
*In summary:*
Still no mention from these experts that the medieval warming period was warmer than it was today, but that's ok, it was re-written by the IPCC, and we are now more confident that the science is also more confident now that we've fixed our gross mathematical errors so that we can under 'no pressure': act now, but we may need to significantly change our understanding of climate in the future should we decide to.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

This is just laughable...Michael Mann - the hockey stick guru.

Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.​
WUWT picks ups on the so called investigation of climate gate:
To my astonishment, other than Michael Mann, the people running the investigation of Michael Mann reported interviewing exactly TWO PEOPLE besides Mann himself. I was, as the lovely English expression has it, “Gob-smacked”.

I knew it was bad, but interviewing two people now constitutes a “thorough investigation” of alleged serious scientific malfeasance? The investigators didn’t even understand that the famous “Mike’s Nature trick“was a clever way of hiding adverse data, a big scientific no-no. They didn’t interview anyone who actually understood the issues.​
Quite simply, the AGW climate "science" is broken beyond repair...A Royal Commission is needed to uncover the fraud, the people involved, the money trail and prosecute where the laws have been broken.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

There is a very basic element underlying all this climate Hysteria,

The Left lost the Anti nuclear debate in the 60's and 70's, and the economic debate and the Cold War in the 80's and 90's.

So they come up with this Weather waffle to give themselves a reason to exist.

Next they will be telling us that speeding in a motor car kills, rather than the lack of skill of the drivers in the motor cars. 

gg


----------



## nulla nulla

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Next they will be telling us that speeding in a motor car kills, rather than the lack of skill of the drivers in the motor cars.
> 
> gg





Not sure on this one, is it the shooting up of speed (while driving) that kills or the loss of control while under the influence of speed (while driving) that kills?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

We've seen a very small sample on how the ongoing climate corruption has materialised with.....re-written temp histories by IPCC "consensus" scientists, manually adjusted land temperature data to show warming trends when there is little or none, loose non-committal wording mixed in with AGW hype by the Royal Society and of course adjusted Ocean temps....that still show a cooling trend, but were manually arrested so as not to embarrass the climate establishment....our tax dollars hard at work:

*Oceans Are Cooling*

From Dr David Evans Climate Corruption Series - Part 3

Argo found that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004. Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008 on NPR: “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant”.

*The Argo data originally showed a strong cooling trend*. Josh Willis was surprised at the results: “every body was telling me I was wrong”, because it didn’t agree with the climate models or satellite observations of net radiation flux. (Willis, who has written a paper with the father of alarmism James Hansen, had an “eye-opening” brush with Rush Limbaugh over the original data.) Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold.

(This is an example of a general problem with data in climate science: believers hold all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict their theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the theory of man-made global warming. It has happened several times now””but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time. Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.)

The Argo results shown here are the new data, after those omissions were made:​


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy, I'm sorry I haven't time to respond to your or anyone else's recent posts, but I would like to ask if you are aware that every one of the allegations you have mentioned has been rebutted, most of them many times. If you're not, would you consider looking at other sources to see why these allegations are often wrong in fact and even more wrong about the significance and meaning of the work they attack. 

The Skeptical Science website provides explanations at different levels and links to the scientific literature so non-specialists can go to many of the original sources and see for ourselves what the scientists do and don't claim. That's why I linked to it in an earlier post, and here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 

I don't see how arguments about fallible human nature or flawed human systems are any help in deciding what to do about global warming because (a) they apply to everyone and all systems and (b) they don't tell us anything about the climate. Many disparate chains of evidence now point clearly to serious risks from global warming caused by human activities. In my posts on this thread I've tried to provide links to sites that I've found helpful in understanding the evidence. I've put a lot of effort over several years into this, which is why I'm confident that Joanne Nova's and Anthony Watts' sites are not reliable guides: they are too often wrong about what scientists have said. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> *IPCC Changes History*
> 
> As us humans can be a forgetful bunch sometimes and we can often overlook what our non-elected global prophets for the common good have provided - I thought I'd add a summary of the changing historical record provided in the IPCC AR reports since there is belief on this thread that temperature changes are "unnatural" and "illogical" and the IPCC must be believed.
> 
> AR1 and AR2 correctly estimated the global and European long term temperatures, but in AR3 (with the famous Hockey Stick) the temperatures are flat and explode upwards mid-twentieth century. Why the change?
> 
> The Medieval Warm period was a global phenomenon, so why flat line it out of the recent report?




Australia's own Prophets of Climate Change - The Department of Climate Change used the famous Hockey Stick lie to drive it's Climate PR campaign with the Australian Public. However, visiting the the Departments web site today - you can no longer find the chart of "unprecedented" warming (if anyone can find it, please post the URL)

Instead, you must go to the Internet Web Archive at http://web.archive.org to find Australia's missing hockey stick

If global warming is "unprecedented" and there is no conspiracy to implement a carbon tax/ETS and the IPCC are the climate experts, then why remove the "adapted" IPCC chart? As recent history has shown - the Hockey stick is a lie and an embarrassment to the climate establishment.


----------



## nukz

Anybody got a graph showing the revenue's from all green projects last year or Q1 this year so then we can put this whole topic to bed 

Also the huge push to being green by George Soros and Rothschild, those two people do not give a **** about the environment. The Rothschild family is quite famous for funding wars that are not so green lol


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> OzWaveGuy, I'm sorry I haven't time to respond to your or anyone else's recent posts, but I would like to ask if you are aware that every one of the allegations you have mentioned has been rebutted, most of them many times.




Ease up on the kool-ade, open your eyes...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*What Hot Spot?*

Posted on Joanne Nova's Blog was a little noticed article that is the centre of the AGW theory on global warming - the Atmospheric "Hotspot" that is created by CO2.

The only problem is - it doesn't exist....

"...warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc."​
Look at chart A below from model simulations...

"the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F."​
Then look at the measured temperatures in the bottom chart...No Hot Spot

"The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report"​
If you're feeling less scared about AGW...don't worry try this Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches that should get you back to where the Climate Establishment want you to be.


----------



## drsmith

The radiosonde graphic is interesting in that is shows a warming of the northern hemisphere troposphere relative to the southern hemisphere and also mid-upper tropospheric warming of the southern hemisphere. 

This increase of atomospheric stability in the southern hemisphere relative to the northern hemisphere may, in part at least, offer a possible explanation for decreased rainfall over southern Australia. 

It would be interesting to see the latest stats.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

I would like to know to what extent the heating of the Earth's core is having on our atmosphere. 

I understand the role the sun plays re: sunspot activity etc.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Climate Change is suspended*

The greatest moral challenge of our lifetime was recently suspended by AusIndustry here

*Re-tooling for Climate Change*

Program Status:  *Suspended*.

The Re-tooling for Climate Change program has been suspended until further notice, effective 24 September 2010.  This does not affect existing grantees, whose grant contracts will be honoured.  However, no new applications can be accepted for assessment at this time.

On 14 August 2010 the Deputy Prime Minister announced an election commitment to reduce the funding for the Re-tooling for Climate Change program, and it is possible that this will require the closure of the program.

Further information on the future of the program will be made available on this site when known.​
*Carbon Tax - not suspended*

Get the impression the AGW alarmisim is sidelined? But the push for a Carbon Tax is now being made by stealth - Talks of climate change committee must be secret because of economic sensitivity.

Ms Gillard said all options were on the table as the committee moved towards “community consensus, on putting a price on carbon and looking at options for putting a price on carbon”.​
There's that "consensus" word again (a publicly friendly definition for  corruption)

*In Summary*
Were so concerned about climate change and we have so few years to act - we'll suspend programs that "appear" to make a difference and focus on a stealth strategy to tax you to death instead. We may possibly let you know when we actually know what real programs will be made available sometime in the future to reduce deadly CO2 emissions in Australian industry, but we really have no idea about the temperature impact of these programs but we know they will work but there remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding - Please trust us as we know best.

The AGW Alarmists on this thread can send their thoughts to the  AusIndusty Hotline ( hotline@ausindustry.gov.au ) to force reinstatment of the "re-tooling for climate change" program before we run out of time.


----------



## Logique

Working beautifully OWG. 

The '..why build dams, they'd never fill up..' crowd are pretty quiet lately too.

I recall 'Banker' Bob Carr once saying that desalinated water plants were producers of 'bottled electricity', mind you, this is the person once quoted as saying '..if you want vision, read _Mein Kampf_..'


----------



## So_Cynical

OzWaveGuy said:


> *Climate Change is suspended*
> 
> The greatest moral challenge of our lifetime was recently suspended by AusIndustry
> 
> Program Status:  *Suspended*.
> 
> 
> *Carbon Tax - not suspended*




Oz i wish i could find a decent picture of a man grasping for straws...would be a very appropriate response to pretty much all your denial support posts.

Do you somehow expect the industry groups etc that were expecting  funding via the CPRS to just keep on going without it? were the 400 redeployed public servants just meant to stay at there CPRS desks with no CPRS to administer?

Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of deniers come form the right side of politics and its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change....in Australia anyway (thinking of the French union rioters) 

Get a grip man.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of deniers come form the right side of politics




Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of alarmists come form the left side of politics?



> ...and its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change




Please substantiate this statement


----------



## Logique

So_Cynical said:


> ..its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change....
> Get a grip man.



Stereotype alert. GST anyone. 

Get a grip - on what. It's fairly clear what most of the alarmists are gripping.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

So_Cynical said:


> Oz i wish i could find a decent picture of a man grasping for straws...would be a very appropriate response to pretty much all your denial support posts.




Speaking of denial - Do you agree or disagree that the IPCC changed the 1000 yr temperature history between the AR1/AR2 and AR3 to remove the Medieval Warming period? Yes or No will suffice.

Does the AR3 "Hockey stick" show warmer temperatures today v's the AR1/2 charts? Again, a yes or no will suffice.

Just so there's no confusion - since many AGW alarmists on this thread tend to forget what their own climate change prophets, the IPCC have preached...


IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports have the Medieval Warming Period that show higher temperatures than today.
AR3 has the medieval warming period removed and the "unprecedented" warming hockey stick added to the 20th Century as described here in an attempt to prove Man is heating the earth by CO2 emissions

Hopefully these tough "denier" questions can be answered quickly by alarmists so we can obtain some basic agreement on the IPCC changing their temp histories and  move one step forward.


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Please substantiate this statement




Oh com on ...the American right, a decade of Howard nothingness, how can i substantiate that sugar is sweet?



OzWaveGuy said:


> Hopefully these tough "denier" questions can be answered quickly by alarmists so we can obtain some basic agreement on the IPCC changing their temp histories and  move one step forward.




Your not a man grasping at straws...your graphing at a hockey stick. 

Who cares......the charts are not a record of absolute certainty, same as the forward projections, models etc...what's certain is glacier melt, sea ice melt, deforestation, unprecedented release of long term stored carbon and development that is unsustainable using current technology's.

Medieval temperature anomaly = care factor zero.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> Oh com on ...the American right, a decade of Howard nothingness, how can i substantiate that sugar is sweet?




Ahhhh so no real attampt as substantiation.

I guess it's like Log said - stereotype alert. Shall we start on the leftist stereotypes then?


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of alarmists come form the left side of politics?




Please substantiate that statement !!!!!!!!!!!

There are alarmists. There are also realists. It is realistic to believe that we are degrading the planet. It is realistic that a lot of people don't give a damn. It is realistic to believe that there are others that care. It is realistic to believe that there are some on both side of politics. If the majority are on the left side of politics maybe then it would be right to say that the right worship the dollar more than the left.


----------



## sails

Aahh, but the left have a realistic motivation to believe.  
Don't they want to use it as an excuse for more taxes so they can keep up interest payments on the wild spending sprees?

Maybe too simplistic...lol.:couch


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> Please substantiate that statement !!!!!!!!!!!



You don't do irony? Are you American? 


> There are alarmists. There are also realists. It is realistic to believe that we are degrading the planet. It is realistic that a lot of people don't give a damn. It is realistic to believe that there are others that care. It is realistic to believe that there are some on both side of politics.




Yes, but these are issues not necessarily related to purported AGW. DO not be so silly to confuse the two.



> If the majority are on the left side of politics maybe then it would be right to say that the right worship the dollar more than the left.




No.

Different style, but greed exists is on both wings.


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> You don't do irony? Are you American?
> Yes, but these are issues not necessarily related to purported AGW. DO not be so silly to confuse the two.
> .




Can boast British,Scots and German but no American. (Thought that what was good for the goose was good for the gander.)

The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.




Incorrect.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

So_Cynical said:


> Who cares......the charts are not a record of absolute certainty, same as the forward projections, models etc...what's certain is glacier melt, sea ice melt, deforestation, unprecedented release of long term stored carbon and development that is unsustainable using current technology's.
> 
> Medieval temperature anomaly = care factor zero.




Never a straight answer from an alarmist - Let me rephrase, do you think there is a possibility that the climate establishment (as documented) could be corrupt? I'm not after your opinions on the state of the world climate atm.


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> Oh com on ...the American right, a decade of Howard nothingness, how can i substantiate that sugar is sweet?
> 
> 
> 
> Your not a man grasping at straws...your graphing at a hockey stick.
> 
> Who cares......the charts are not a record of absolute certainty, same as the forward projections, models etc...what's certain is glacier melt, sea ice melt, deforestation, unprecedented release of long term stored carbon and development that is unsustainable using current technology's.
> 
> Medieval temperature anomaly = care factor zero.



If you had but a shred of honesty, you'd simply say "I don't know" instead of obfuscating with this above totally meaningless non-answer.

And (although I usually refrain from correcting your woeful spelling and punctuation), you've just done it once too often with "technology's".
Why are you using an apostrophe, fergawdsake?  It's completely wrong.

Try "technologies".

Can't you get some sort of spellcheck/punctuation programme to attach to your posts?


----------



## trainspotter

A few more volcanic eruptions spewing debri into the atmosphere and blocking the sun should soon sort out Global Warming. Don't forget the planes that can't fly in these conditions so therefore there will be less Co2 emissions as well. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...d-icelands-volcano-slow-global-warming/39066/


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.



To a very large extent the reverse is true.

One of the key advantages of oil and gas is that, apart from CO2, they are relatively benign in terms of environmental impact. Prior to the emergence of the CO2 issue, environmentalists were generally opposed to basically every form of electricity generation other than oil / gas for this very reason. Everything else either costs a fortune, isn't reliable or has a greater non-CO2 impact.

One of the things that worries me about the climate issue, is that we're going to do a hell of a lot of other environmental damage trying to cut CO2. We'd better be pretty sure that CO2 is really a problem given the consequences of getting it wrong in either direction are pretty serious environmentally.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Planes, Trains and Automobiles (and Carbon)*

The AGW alarmists have lapped up so much climate change propaganda their vision is blurred whilst failing to ask their climate change prophets the obvious questions esp in the realm of corruption amongst a host of "others". 

Just to be clear - the environment is a good thing to fight for and I doubt anyone believes it isn't, but there's a difference between driving a corrupt propaganda campaign (that we clearly know is a Banking and Taxation political campaign) versus collective agreements to identify real environmental problems whilst at the same time keeping the Banks, ineffective Taxes and corrupt Science (eg end the AGW grant gravy train) away from the solutions. 

Amongst the host of "other" questions is the willingness of AGW alarmists to follow AGW “celebrities” that are clearly puppets of the AGW propaganda machine without asking the most *basic questions*. Such as: do they act like they preach....


*Al Gore – High Priest of Global Warming*
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.​

*With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming
*
From a  2007 article

But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson. ​*'Avatar' Director James Cameron to Discuss Climate Change, Environmental Policy on AFGE Radio Show*
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ental-policy-on-afge-radio-show-92438979.html

Cameron, who recently visited Capitol Hill to discuss the threat of climate change, will share his thoughts on U.S. environmental policy and his role in the climate change debate.​

*But James Cameron withdraws from own climate change debate*
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296631

Cameron challenged Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, Andrew Breitbart and filmmaker Ann McElhinney. He also made several demands, which included his own team of two scientists, a 90-minute debate, live online streaming and even hoped that it would attract mainstream media coverage.

According to the Canada Free Press, the skeptics agreed and everything was organized and scheduled to take place on Aug. 22 at the conclusion of the AREDAY conference in Aspen. However, Cameron made even further demands: Cameron wanted to change his team, make it a roundtable discussion instead of a debate, ban the opposing side’s cameras but he later changed that and wanted all cameras to be banned and only allow audio recordings.

The challengers agreed. Once again, though, Cameron revised the rules and wanted all media to be banned, make the roundtable discussion only to those attending the conference, cancel the online streaming and ban any kind of recording.

The skeptics agreed but on the day of the event, Cameron withdrew from the debate completely​

*James Cameron – climate alarmists hypocrite just cannot "live with less"* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec

*Lookup your favourite celeb * to see if they have a masive carbon footprint (and private jets).


----------



## trainspotter

Anybody know that Al Gore has millions invested in a company called Generation Investment Management LLP that trades in carbon credits and stands to make billions out of this ?? He also claims that buying carbon credits offsets his carbon footprint. OOOOPSIES !


----------



## Julia

Julia said:


> Can't you get some sort of spellcheck/punctuation programme to attach to your posts?



So Cynical, I should not have allowed my irritation with your silly answer to spill over into criticism about your spelling/punctuation, however much it gets to me.
I apologise for this.


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Anybody know that Al Gore has millions invested in a company called Generation Investment Management LLP that trades in carbon credits and stands to make billions out of this ?? He also claims that buying carbon credits offsets his carbon footprint. OOOOPSIES !





Al Gore is also Patron of the World Green Movement. Ki Moon the UN Secretary General is also a Greens sympathizer with Kevin Rudd appointed by him to be on the Climate change committee. 

In the Australian today is a great article, defining ALARMIST, SCEPTICS and climate change AGNOSTICS. Worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...the-wrong-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225942965363


----------



## OzWaveGuy

noco said:


> In the Australian today is a great article, defining ALARMIST, SCEPTICS and climate change AGNOSTICS. Worth a read.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...the-wrong-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225942965363




I had difficulty understanding the purpose of the article since Geoff Carmody assumes "there might be a man-made problem" off the bat and develops policy to support it. Nevertheless, noco it was a very interesting find...read on.

What stood out for me is the reference in the very last sentences 
*"What does the Productivity Commission think? Will it be asked its opinion?"*​
Some of you might think "Who cares what the Productivity Commission thinks" or "who is the Productivity Commission", but let's walk through what the Commission published in 2008 and suddenly many of you will have flashbacks of the Copenhagen treaty from 2009 - it's clear the commission has a view, but perhaps not well circulated to the Australian Public...

*What is the Productivity Commission?*
The Productivity Commission, is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. The Commission’s independence is underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by consideration for the well being of the community as a whole.​
Here's an interesting extract from a Speech in 2008...
*August 2008*, *The Productivity Commission*
*Industry Policy for a Productive Australia - Gary Banks*​
"Governments will also have to confront the argument that new industry policies are required to address the changing nature of innovation and the *‘new world order’* brought about by globalisation and *climate change*".​
Ah, there's that *"New World Order"* term again - bubbling up in Government policy. As you can see, Gary makes a direct linkage with climate change driving the new world order agenda (along with Globalisation).

Fast forward 12 months to 2009, the Copenhagen Treaty with it's focus on wealth transfer and Global Governance briefly dicussed in this post suddenly becomes of context in the strategy for  the new world order (as many have already published across the net).

The New World Order/Global Governace agenda has been the basis of the climate change strategy and is being implemented covertly.

The Department of Climate Change tries to debunk the World Government agenda as a myth. Obviously so many people complained in the run up to Copenhagen and Monckton's YouTube videos that it needed to alleviate these fears, however, what is clear is that the World Government Agenda was already in discussions within the Australian Government at least a year earlier.


----------



## wayneL

FYI

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1



Cheers wayneL, that was a good read. Hopefully Judith Curry has some success in bringing at least a little rationality to the debate. Although I won't hold my breath. It seems a lot of the scientific community see her actions as treasonous when I feel she seems to be trying to advance the issue. And conversely there are are lot of sections in the Scientific American article alone that can be cherry picked in isolation to be used by the anti-AGW crowd. Just by reading some of the comments you can see that there is quite a tug-of-war over her views.

There is a link to her blog site in the comments: http://judithcurry.com/ I will bookmark it and have a look every now and then when I get a moment.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

There's hope yet to stop this climate nonsense...

*WA MP calls for a royal commission into climate change*

Alan Jones talks to Dr Dennis Jensen – federal Liberal MP – who calls for a royal commission into the science of climate change.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_podcasting&task=playaudio&id=2&f=0&Itemid=41​


----------



## wayneL

Scientific American is running a poll re the Judith Curry Saga.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

The results are very interesting and must be disturbing the the consensus dogmatists. http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

But what is even more interesting to me (and many others) is the design of the survey, with many of the questions exposing a dogmatic bias and the multiple choice answers lacking objective choice.

Also her blog that derty posted http://judithcurry.com/ is an interesting read.


----------



## basilio

> Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. *So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy.* What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.




Yep. Very useful story.  Brings up some of the uncertainties of knowing exactly how  quickly and how disastrous climate change will be for us. ...

Because in the end that is what this story and the whole issue is about. Judith is not suggesting human induced climate change is anything less than a screaming reality. The edges may be be blurred. It would be great to have more knowledge of what is happening but the fundamentals are in place for a climatic change to everything that currently keeps us the earth in balance.

The sheer bs comes from the loonies like Monckton who just makes up whole packs of lies and recycles proven falsehoods to destroy the integrity of what is observable science - the effects of rising human produced greenhouse gases on climate. It's joined by the chorus of  self interested PR liars employed by the fossil fuel industry to defend their private wealth. And finally we have the rest of us who just don't want to think about the possibility we are destroying our world and will gratefully accept any possible reason to ignore the evidence and continue with the one way trip we are currently taking.

I'm sure there are some genuine scientists who can find fault with some aspects of climate change modeling. But if this thread is a reflection of the "mainstream" skepticism all we will see is a rehash of the brazen lies  and total rubbish that has been the mainstay of deniers around the world. Go back to start of this post. *Judith Curry is in no way saying climate is not real, not human induced and not  potentially catastrophic. * Do you want to hear that message again or is too uncomfortable with your breakfast?  

Or is a Royal Commission into reality required ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Yep. Very useful story.  Brings up some of the uncertainties of knowing exactly how  quickly and how disastrous climate change will be for us. ...
> 
> Because in the end that is what this story and the whole issue is about. Judith is not suggesting human induced climate change is anything less than a screaming reality. The edges may be be blurred. It would be great to have more knowledge of what is happening but the fundamentals are in place for a climatic change to everything that currently keeps us the earth in balance.
> 
> The sheer bs comes from the loonies like Monckton who just makes up whole packs of lies and recycles proven falsehoods to destroy the integrity of what is observable science - the effects of rising human produced greenhouse gases on climate. It's joined by the chorus of  self interested PR liars employed by the fossil fuel industry to defend their private wealth. And finally we have the rest of us who just don't want to think about the possibility we are destroying our world and will gratefully accept any possible reason to ignore the evidence and continue with the one way trip we are currently taking.
> 
> I'm sure there are some genuine scientists who can find fault with some aspects of climate change modeling. But if this thread is a reflection of the "mainstream" skepticism all we will see is a rehash of the brazen lies  and total rubbish that has been the mainstay of deniers around the world. Go back to start of this post. *Judith Curry is in no way saying climate is not real, not human induced and not  potentially catastrophic. * Do you want to hear that message again or is too uncomfortable with your breakfast?
> 
> Or is a Royal Commission into reality required ?




Hah! A stunning irony there basilio. LOL

The whole point of highlighting the Judith Curry saga was to point out that there should be a scientific dialogue between the AGW hypothesizers and others who disagree with the hypothesis; and that that dialogue should be devoid of politics or policy considerations.

IOW back to the science.

She is to be highly commended for taking that position whether or not one agrees with her view of the hypothesis.

She has certainly won my respect whether I am for or against her position.

Yet faced with the above, you immediately revert to kindergarten style attitudinally polarized sniping.

Bad form.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Yep. Very useful story.  Brings up some of the uncertainties of knowing exactly how  quickly and how disastrous climate change will be for us. ...
> 
> Because in the end that is what this story and the whole issue is about. Judith is not suggesting human induced climate change is anything less than a screaming reality.




You can scream all you want, but you're deliberately turning a blind eye to all the corruption, propaganda and false information that's been pumped out by the consensus crowd - the AGW consensus movement is running out of steam, hence the level of religious hysteria is increasing.

Just so there's some context on Judith Curry:
"She reserves her harshest criticism for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For most climate scientists the major reports issued by the United Nations–sponsored body every five years or so constitute the consensus on climate science. Few scientists would claim the IPCC is perfect, but Curry thinks it needs thoroughgoing reform. She accuses it of  “corruption.” “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC,” she says, “because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.”​
Replace "Monckton" in your post above and replace with "IPCC" - then there would be a sense of reality.


----------



## basilio

Read and weep.. 

I once entered the debates on this topic in this Forum with some idea there was logic and perhaps good faith in some other points of view. And there well may be . But the introduction of Judith Curry's contribution and the interpretation put on her comments reminds me not to waste my time.
*
I repeat Judith  Curray as a highly competent climate scientist  totally agrees with the main thesis that human induced climate change is very real and potentially catastrophic.* She chooses to engage in debate with some parts of the skeptical scientist field about some elements of the field

No problem with the expanding our knowledge of science in the field of climate change. Trouble is  - as usual  - the premise of deniers is that climate change can't possibly be happening as a result of human induced activity so lets just take these comments and twist them to repudiate the whole body of science on climate change that exists and continue to delay any action  that attempts to deal with it.

Over and out of here.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> The results are very interesting and must be disturbing the the consensus dogmatists. http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d
> 
> But what is even more interesting to me (and many others) is the design of the survey, with many of the questions exposing a dogmatic bias and the multiple choice answers lacking objective choice.



I think all that poll shows is that it is terribly written and the WUWT crowd swarmed it.

There is nothing more you can take from it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/take-the-scientific-american-poll-on-judith-currry/


----------



## Bat_Ears

noco said:


> Professor Hal lewis who is 87 years of age was quite prepared to blow the whistle with nothing to lose, whereas younger scientist fear for their careers if they dare speak out about this SCAM ON GLOBAL WARMING (aka climate change). This is the greatest fraud of all times.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cks-climate-scam/story-fn59niix-1225938436693




I think this needs to be bumped in case people missed it. 

Also, scientific consensus is bull****. Only one person needs to be right. Science is fact, not agreement among scientists or scientific panels. This sort of bull**** (along with the climategate scandal and other politics within science and academia) is the reason I quit university two weeks ago. **** a PhD, in a few years it will be worth as much as a degree in homeopathy. So now, does anyone have a job for an unemployed former math student with no marketable skills?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Read and weep..
> 
> I once entered the debates on this topic in this Forum with some idea there was logic and perhaps good faith in some other points of view. And there well may be . But the introduction of Judith Curry's contribution and the interpretation put on her comments reminds me not to waste my time.
> *
> I repeat Judith  Curray as a highly competent climate scientist  totally agrees with the main thesis that human induced climate change is very real and potentially catastrophic.* She chooses to engage in debate with some parts of the skeptical scientist field about some elements of the field
> 
> No problem with the expanding our knowledge of science in the field of climate change. Trouble is  - as usual  - the premise of deniers is that climate change can't possibly be happening as a result of human induced activity so lets just take these comments and twist them to repudiate the whole body of science on climate change that exists and continue to delay any action  that attempts to deal with it.




It is interesting the characters who refuse to budge from their sanctimonious pomposity, all the while belying the conviction of their words with their actions. 

Examples - Al Bore with his energy hungry Tennessee mansion, David Suzuki (who spoke so much about overpopulation) with his five children, 10:10 Franny with her world travel, the whole IPCC with their frequent junkets to exotic locations etc etc etc etc etc etc.



> Over and out of here.




Indeed I would lay low to save face too, if I were you.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I think all that poll shows is that it is terribly written and the WUWT crowd swarmed it.
> 
> There is nothing more you can take from it.
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/take-the-scientific-american-poll-on-judith-currry/



Well, there is really.

It gives a good indication of who is winning the propaganda war...

...and that is what we have. There is very little balanced argument. Those who try (e.g. Pielke Snr.) are regarded as heretics... a point made by Curry

This is a shame because I believe there are extremely negative consequences if either extreme "wins".


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Carbon trading project a world first*

Here is one of the key goals from the Global Warming policy morons that's been quiet for awhile...now operating just off our coast as a "trial"


A WORLD-FIRST trial of a personal carbon trading scheme that will also target obesity, is to be conducted by Southern Cross University on Norfolk Island.

The three-year project will involve giving everyone on the island a card loaded with carbon units, according to the man leading it, Garry Egger.

“Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power – and from the second year their food – it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units they are given for free at the start of the program,” Professor Egger said.​
And...

The SCU project is the first of its kind to be held in a “closed system” island environment and has been made possible by a $390,000 Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council.​
and...

“You can measure everything that goes in and out.”

If the trial was a success, it could be scaled up to a country level and ultimately to a world level, Professor Egger said.

This is a project for looking at reducing climate change and obesity in the one hit​
Our tax dollars hard at work to make people less fat and for others to invade your privacy and  "measure" everything that goes in and out. Notice the article also mentions people can cash in their credits if they don't use them. I suspect this trial will be made to look "successsful" by using key incentives.

The goals of the whole climate change strategy are becoming clearer.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Happy Climate Fools' Day *

James Delingpole provides some context of what the AGW policy crowd are trying to achieve just in the UK with billions in funding (eg Tax).

The first picture below shows two green barrels stacked together that represents the CO2 produced by the industrialized countries v's all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - water vapor (in blue) being the predominated greenhouse gas.

The second picture shows the amount of money in 50 pound notes represented in pallets (yes, if you look closely there's a red person standing next to the mountain of money) that the UK will be spending to reduce a very very small portion of CO2 in those green barrels.

With all this money flowing to reduce AGW, just an additional quarter of a blue barrel of water vapor would wipe out the trillions being spent globally over several years that aims to reduce CO2.

Take all the gravy train money away - and the Climate change movement  will dissolve overnight.

You just couldn't make this nonsense up

A Royal Commission is needed.


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> The three-year project will involve giving everyone on the island a card loaded with carbon units, according to the man leading it, Garry Egger.
> 
> “Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power – and from the second year their food – it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units they are given for free at the start of the program,” Professor Egger said.[/INDENT]
> 
> And...
> 
> The SCU project is the first of its kind to be held in a “closed system” island environment and has been made possible by a $390,000 Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council.​



What utter ***** nonsense.  Surely the good citizens of Norfolk Island are not about to have this on?

Just another demonstration of the absolute craziness of the alarmist religion, and they wonder why the general population isn't prepared to go along with their zealotry.

If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*How to determine who in Parliament is pushing what agenda*

Bumped into this site today http://www.openaustralia.org

It allows you to search what has been said in Parliament

Is this the whole of Hansard?
Not quite. This is everything in the Hansard for the House of Representatives and the Senate excluding written questions, petitions, and the divisions (voting) and so far goes back to the beginning of 2006​
For example you can search to see who's pushing for "climate change" and "Global Governance" - No surprises there:

http://www.openaustralia.org/search/?s="climate+change"+"global+governance"​
or "New World Order"

http://www.openaustralia.org/search/?s="new+world+order"​
Perhaps those people who believe the world revolves around Channel 9 news and the rest of the MSM can get their fingers off the remote control and actually press a search button to check the real discussions going on across Government.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Here's an interesting extract that's one month old:

http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-09-29.4.2&s="global+governance"#g9.3

"Labor will continue to meet the economic challenges outlined by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in his recent visit to Australia. These include recovering from the global financial crisis, addressing global imbalances, creating a more stable global financial system, creating a new global reserve system, creating a new global financial regulatory system, addressing the problems of global warming and devising a better system of global governance. If we do not deal with these issues, it will not be the billionaires and millionaires in Australia who will suffer the consequences; it will be ordinary working families battling to put food on the table and educate their kids who will face the problems of further global financial crisis. So it is absolutely essential that we deal with that. Professor Stiglitz identified some of the key problems in the international economy. He argued that before the crisis global growth was supported by bubbles, the largest in the United States. Financial innovation had allowed the bubbles to grow bigger and bad assets to be spread around the world."​
Get the feeling Labor is simply an extension of the UN...it was only a few years ago that Australia was deemed by the powers at the time to be well insulated from the GFC, now if we don't accept the Global Agenda we can't feed our kids. How about we cut all the funding to AGW grants and UN programs, that should free up $10B or so every year.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.



The great tragedy of this debate is that it is diverting much needed attention from all other environmental issues, many of which are demonstrably real. Those plus the very real issues of oil supply, poverty, disease and countless others.

As for what the Australian population thinks of it all, I don't have figures at hand but I do know that sales of "greenpower" are in steep decline in this country. Whether or not they believe in climate change, Australians clearly aren't prepared to pay in order to deal with it. 

Meanwhile the NSW government has just scrapped  the major incentives to use solar energy, apparently because doing so is now perceived as a way to gain votes whereas not too long ago the reverse was true.

Judge for yourself, but to me it looks very much as though the Australian population is not at all convinced there's a problem here. Either that or they think there's a problem but have accepted that local action is pointless in the face of surging emissions globally.


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> Judge for yourself, but to me it looks very much as though the Australian population is not at all convinced there's a problem here. Either that or they think there's a problem but have accepted that local action is pointless in the face of surging emissions globally.




As the second worst country per capita it appears it will be international pressure, not pressure from the populace that will one day force us to act.
Until then c'est le vie. I have decided to just go with the flow.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> As the second worst country per capita it appears it will be international pressure, not pressure from the populace that will one day force us to act.
> Until then c'est le vie. I have decided to just go with the flow.
> 
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita




Living costs and public outrage will kill any green love imo.


----------



## nioka

These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.


----------



## sails

nioka said:


> These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.




In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.

IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.


----------



## moXJO

nioka said:


> These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.




Pffft you mean an Aussie carbon tax was meant to fix it 
The only difference you will notice on environmental hair brained tax schemes is the price not the air quality.


----------



## Julia

nioka said:


> These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.



You have omitted the most important option, i.e. that much of the population have budgets that are already stretched to the limit with massive increases in electricity (even without the dreaded carbon price), water prices, and general cost of living.   People on low incomes are already unable to heat their homes in winter, are having to choose between paying for medication or food at times.

Why should they be further marginalised by a tax that is absolutely not proven to be useful?  Even if one were to accept the doubtful premise that anthropogenic warming is a fact, there is, as far as I know, no proof that putting price on carbon will materially make any difference.

It's therefore just another tax for the Labor government, plus an appeasement toward the Greens, without whom, plus the independents, they would not retain government.



sails said:


> In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.
> 
> IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.



Yep, count me amongst those you refer to, Sails.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> You have omitted the most important option, i.e. that much of the population have budgets that are already stretched to the limit with massive increases in electricity (even without the dreaded carbon price), water prices, and general cost of living.   People on low incomes are already unable to heat their homes in winter, are having to choose between paying for medication or food at times.
> 
> Why should they be further marginalised by a tax that is absolutely not proven to be useful?  Even if one were to accept the doubtful premise that anthropogenic warming is a fact, there is, as far as I know, no proof that putting price on carbon will materially make any difference.
> 
> It's therefore just another tax for the Labor government, plus an appeasement toward the Greens, without whom, plus the independents, they would not retain government.
> 
> 
> Yep, count me amongst those you refer to, Sails.




Hear hear, Julia, what a load of muppets not listening to their hip pocket nerves.

Labor = Taxes = Fatcats getting rich = Ordinary folk losing out.

Its happened before and it will happen again. 

gg


----------



## noco

sails said:


> In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.
> 
> IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.




The Labor Party are trying to play 'catch up' for the various state Labor Party's Governments neglect in not building new power stations and dams over the past decade and more in some cases. Through this neglect, we the taxpayers will have to foot the bill through this big new tax on carbon emmissions to pay for infrastructure that should have taken place years ago.  

Oh yeah, you will being paying heaps more for your power and if the Greens have their way, there will be no more coal mines, no more coal fired power stations and no more dams. We have to look after the hairy red nose wombats and the lung fish.  Nuclear is the way to go but can't see that happening while the Labor Party are in Government and the Greens in power.


----------



## Logique

My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:

1. Build a coal-fired power station
2. Build a dam
3. Build another coal-fired power station
4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW (yes I would consider one in my backyard, the technology has moved on).
5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.
6. A big research grant should go to the scientists working on developing cold fusion. Anywhere in the world you find them.

Here we have in Australia -vast reserves of minerals incl. uranium, and coal, and vast spaces away from people to place nuclear plants. Which are proliferating all over Europe and China because they can't afford the coal.

Yet domestic electricity prices are a runaway train, as are the hare-brained green schemes designed to substitute. Which they will never be able to do on baseload basis.

It's obscene. Other countries must laugh at Australia.


----------



## nioka

Logique said:


> My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:
> 
> 1. Build a coal-fired power station
> 2. Build a dam
> 3. Build another coal-fired power station
> 4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW
> 5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.
> 
> .




I'll suggest an amendment;

1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
11. Mothball the desal plants. 
12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.

I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)


----------



## moXJO

nioka said:


> I'll suggest an amendment;
> 
> 1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
> 2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
> 3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
> 11. Mothball the desal plants.
> 12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.
> 
> I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)




Try passsing that through the greens, they were blocking them non stop back in the day. Dams are as hard to pass as nuke with them.


----------



## Logique

Not bad Nioka,
all that renewable and carbon-free hydro-energy would be quite acceptable, and the water would be alright too. 

Agreed moXJO, I might have to pull that application for Greens membership.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Not bad Nioka,
> all that renewable and carbon-free hydro-energy would be quite acceptable, and the water would be alright too.
> 
> Agreed moXJO, I might have to pull that application for Greens membership.




Yeah me too Logique. A pity a few more didn't think like you and me.
 The Greens will stuff this country if allowed to gain control. When building dams you have to think about what will happen to those long red nosed hairy wombats. Don't worry about water or power for people.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> Try passsing that through the greens, they were blocking them non stop back in the day. Dams are as hard to pass as nuke with them.



The world's first Green party was started in Australia (Tas) specifically to oppose dam construction. Historically, it supported nuclear at one point and for many years supported coal-fired power (safe in the knowledge that such a plant would never likely have been built in Tas due to lack of economic viability). At one point it even supported burning wood (from native forests) rather than consider building more dams.

The odds of the Greens supporting dams are about as high as the chances of Labor banning unions or the Liberals outlawing capitalism. It's an issue that goes to the heart of the very basis of the party.

Personally, my own conclusion is that the Greens themselves are only moderately concerned about climate change and do not rank it as the highest environmental priority. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not oppose any and all means of producing more than a third of our electricity from non-fossil sources.


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:
> 
> 1. Build a coal-fired power station
> 2. Build a dam
> 3. Build another coal-fired power station
> 4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW (yes I would consider one in my backyard, the technology has moved on).
> 5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.
> 6. A big research grant should go to the scientists working on developing cold fusion. Anywhere in the world you find them.
> 
> Here we have in Australia -vast reserves of minerals incl. uranium, and coal, and vast spaces away from people to place nuclear plants. Which are proliferating all over Europe and China because they can't afford the coal.
> 
> Yet domestic electricity prices are a runaway train, as are the hare-brained green schemes designed to substitute. Which they will never be able to do on baseload basis.
> 
> It's obscene. Other countries must laugh at Australia.



I understand what you are saying, but there is a certain reality being ignored here.

The soaring cost of electricity is not due to the means of generation since that is still producing cheap electricity. The crux of the problem is the existence of a "market" and the associated fortune spent to facilitate it.

Get rid of pointless "competition" which has directly introduced massive inefficiencies in the industry and forced costs up both operationally and through unnecessary (in engineering terms) investment required to make this "market" work. 

It's a classic case of an economic theory that sounds nice but which is failing miserably in practice. It is a situation not unique to Australia. Introduce "reforms" and a "competitive market" and then watch as prices go through the roof. It is an idea that is flawed from an engineering perspective and which costs a fortune. It adds a lot of unnecessary CO2 too by the way...

We had the third cheapest electricity in the OECD, behind only Canada and NZ, both of which rely heavily on cheap hydro-electricity. Within Australia, we were world leaders in coal technology (Vic) and there are numerous engineering achievements in the Snowy and Tasmanian hydro schemes too. It is something that many hate to admit, but the state-owned electricity suppliers were genuinely first class operations.

Then along came the Thatcher-inspired economists who turned the industry on its head and made it operate less efficiently - that is the cause of your soaring power bills at home. 

Outside of Tasmania where their influence has been huge, the Greens haven't really done much to change the nature of the Australian electricity industry. A few protests here and there but, apart from in Tas, nothing really changed. The "economic rationalists" did far more damage in far less time than anything the Greens have done.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> The world's first Green party was started in Australia (Tas) specifically to oppose dam construction. Historically, it supported nuclear at one point and for many years supported coal-fired power (safe in the knowledge that such a plant would never likely have been built in Tas due to lack of economic viability). At one point it even supported burning wood (from native forests) rather than consider building more dams.
> 
> The odds of the Greens supporting dams are about as high as the chances of Labor banning unions or the Liberals outlawing capitalism. It's an issue that goes to the heart of the very basis of the party.
> 
> Personally, my own conclusion is that the Greens themselves are only moderately concerned about climate change and do not rank it as the highest environmental priority. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not oppose any and all means of producing more than a third of our electricity from non-fossil sources.




The Green movement goes futher back than Bob Brown in Tasmania as per link below.It is true that he started the Green Party in Australia in the seventies.

As I mentioned on a previous post, Al Gore is the World Patron of the Green movement with Ki Moon UN Secretary General a known sympathizer. Ki moon appointed Kevin Rudd to the UN Climate Change committee

http://webecoist.com/2008/08/17/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-green-movement


----------



## nioka

If we didn't have a two party political system then we wouldnt have the damn dam opposing greens. The greens get their votes from those that dont want to vote for either of the other two parties. It's time Tasmania woke up to the damage they are doing in that state.

They have ruined the cheap electricity availability. They have prevented an irrigated food bowl that would be the envy of the world. They have forced forestry to adapt to monoculture and Tasmania has some of the best sterile pine forests to be seen. Chasing their vote has seen some very bad decisions made by the other parties.

The other thing about dams. The NIMBY factor. Imagine the problems we could be having if they had blocked the Snowy scheme and most of the other storages that do supply the water now. The Clarence is a massive river with plenty of water to spare but local politics is fighting hard to stop anything happening there. We need a government strong enough to force these things through. Another Bjelke Peterson. At least he was "action man"


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> The Green movement goes futher back than Bob Brown in Tasmania as per link below.It is true that he started the Green Party in Australia in the seventies.



Environmentalism per se certainly goes back a long way internationally. Locally, the first real reference to it in Tas dates from the 1930's - and yes it was associated with the construction of the Tarraleah hydro scheme and damming of Lake St Clair (still dammed, but now also a National Park and _very_ few visitors realise this lake is a water storage used for power generation).

But in terms of political parties, my understanding is that the somewhat inappropriately named United Tasmania Group formed in the early 1970's and its successors ("The Independents", "The Green Independents", "Tasmanian Greens" and now "Australian Greens") was technically the world's first Green political party to actually have members elected to parliament. That is what the party itself claims anyway - "world's first Green party".

Tas presently has an actual Labor-Green government, as distinct from a minority Labor government relying on Green support, with Greens holding a number of ministerial portfolios including some in no way related to the environment (eg Greens leader Nick McKim holds responsibility for, amongst other things, prisons).

Interesting to see how it goes. The previous Labor-Green government, technically a Labor minority government relying on Green support, lasted about 2.5 years but did achieve sweeping economic reforms during that time. The Liberal-Green government of the late 1990's was absolutely associated with "doom and gloom" economics and was firmly kicked out over the issue of, you guessed it, the Hydro.

Looking at local politics, I'll simply make one observation. There's a growing campaign locally to the effect that the National Electricity Market is a farce (hard to deny...) that isn't working in consumers' interests. Central to that is the notion that the industry should be put back together - that is, re-establish a state-owned monopoly electricity supplier. 

The idea seems to have fairly broad support, even the Chamber of Commerce & Industry, an organisation you would not expect to be supporting state-owned enterprise, is willing to at least look at the idea as are Liberal, Green and, somewhat cautiously, Labor. Such is the level of dissatisfaction and growing outrage with the present arrangements and ridiculous household power bills.

Power goes up again on 1st December this year (last rise was 1st July) and it's a big jump. Then another one on the first of July next year, and another one after that... Everyone from pensioners to business has had enough of this electricity nonsense...

One state, One electricity company. I suspect we may well hear those words in use during the next election campaign if nothing happens sooner. There's a pretty long history of the power industry influencing election outcomes in Tas over the years...


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> If we didn't have a two party political system then we wouldnt have the damn dam opposing greens. The greens get their votes from those that dont want to vote for either of the other two parties. It's time Tasmania woke up to the damage they are doing in that state.
> 
> They have ruined the cheap electricity availability. They have prevented an irrigated food bowl that would be the envy of the world. They have forced forestry to adapt to monoculture and Tasmania has some of the best sterile pine forests to be seen. Chasing their vote has seen some very bad decisions made by the other parties.



40 years ago Tasmania accounted for 23% of Australia's energy-intensive heavy manufacturing industry. In 2010 it is basically irrelevant.

Port Huon pulp mill - gone.
Electrona - gone.
Glass factory (not sure of the proper name) - gone.
Blundstone - gone.
Sheridan - gone.
Stanley Works - gone.
Southern Aluminium - gone.
Coats Paton - gone.
APPM Burnie - gone.
APPM Wesley Vale - gone.
North-West Acid - gone.
Tioxide - gone.

Nyrstar (previously known as EZ) - still here but depends absolutely on cheap energy to be viable.
Norske Skog (previously known as ANM) - still here but now processes only pine.
Rio Tinto (previously known as Comalco) - still here but unlikely to remain due to energy issue.
TEMCO - still here but depends on what happens with the carbon tax and electricity prices.
Cadbury - plenty of rumors that it is only a matter of time...
Port Latta - still here but with the upgrade proposal to process imported product dead, its' life is limited to that of a single mine supplying raw materials. 

I do not claim that the Greens are solely responsible for every one of those industry closures, but lack of available electricity at reasonable prices (ie competitive with other states or overseas) delivered a pretty big blow. Throw in arguments over access to resources and it is no wonder that investors walked away.

Unions certainly haven't helped the cause either. Neither have the Labor party's boffins in Canberra, always keen to buy votes in Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of industry in the bush or smaller states.

I am not suggesting that we ought to log or dam the whole state. But it is absolutely ridiculous that Australia sells wood and coal (fuel) to Japan, a high wage developed country, and buys back paper. Madness economically and madness environmentally once the added shipping (and CO2 emissions) are considered. Meanwhile we've had 3 pulp mills and 2 paper mills shut down in Tas over the past 20 years, two of them as a direct consequence of Greens / Labor blocking further investment in the mills such that in due course the machinery simply wore out etc.

Now we're about to repeat this madness in the other states. We'll be closing aluminium smelters and exporting bauxite (one NSW smelter has already made the first moves in this direction). Closing steel mills, car factories and all sorts of other things. In short, completely gutting what remains of Australian manufacturing and becoming a mining-only exporter.

Better hope there's never a war, tade embargo, drop in mineral prices etc or we'll be completely stuffed. And if history is any guide, it is only a matter of time before some or all of those things actually happen. Then we're stuffed - even frozen vegetables are made in China these days.

Worth noting that national defence is in fact the reason the three largest energy users were set up in Tas in the first place. The aluminium smelter was actually owned by the Australian Government when first built, being privatised in the 1960's. No aluminium = no aeroplanes. The zinc works started amidst similar concerns - no zinc = no ammunition and lots of other things. Likewise no ferro alloys (TEMCO plant) = no ability to produce steel at the mills in NSW and SA = no ability to produce machinery in Australia. As I said, we'd better hope this country is never in a situation of having to defend itself when we'll soon lack even basic metals production capability.


----------



## Julia

Um, could someone kindly explain to me what it is that the Greens have against dams?

What means of generating sufficient electricity to provide full availability to all consumers, no power outages, do they actually approve of?


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Um, could someone kindly explain to me what it is that the Greens have against dams?
> 
> What means of generating sufficient electricity to provide full availability to all consumers, no power outages, do they actually approve of?



Getting a lot of mice and connecting their exercise wheels to a generator is about the only option that comes to mind as not being specifically opposed by someone, somewhere. 

Trouble is, you'll only have power when the mice are running. Fortunately however, mice tend to run on wheels mostly at night such that you'll be able to use the power for lighting. If you need extra power for some reason, for example to run power tools or cook dinner, just temporarily replace the mice with rats.

Before anyone says that I'm being silly, when you really think about it I'm not. Any serious source of power has plenty of opposition, leaving only silly ones like mouse power. That's how truly absurd the debate has become - we've ruled out literally everything that could actually work, thus leaving "do nothing" as the outcome.

Edit: Just realised that my mice are in fact consumers of electricity, not producers, since their cage is electrically heated. So that's another power source to cross off the list...


----------



## Julia

I appreciate the testimony regarding the amazing capacity of mice to generate power, Smurf.

But seriously, can you say what exactly the Greens object to with the provision of dams?
I'd have thought to dig a big hole in the ground to store rainwater wasn't offensive to anyone.
Silly me, I guess.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> But seriously, can you say what exactly the Greens object to with the provision of dams?
> I'd have thought to dig a big hole in the ground to store rainwater wasn't offensive to anyone.
> Silly me, I guess.



The objection is to what the industry once referred to as "modification" of the natural environment (ie covering the land with water). It is not the dam construction per se, but rather the water storage created upstream, to which environmentalists are generally opposed.

There's a quote circa 1960 that I'll try and find which explains it all quite well. And of course that was written long before anyone had actually stopped a dam being built on environmental grounds. I'll have a look for it over the next few days.


----------



## Logique

Smurf1976 said:


> ...It is something that many hate to admit, but the state-owned electricity suppliers were genuinely first class operations.
> ...



Genuinly thoughtful as ever Smurf. I never said the state-owned suppliers weren't efficient. But NSW needs solutions now, in the economic climate applying now. 

We face a set of older power stations needing replacement, the current ones are expensive to maintain and less and less reliable. We desperately need new investment, and realistically that's only coming from public-private partnerships, and that means the operation of market forces in pricing.  

And anyway, I'll never accept that free market competition necessarily leads to price rises - only in  imperfect markets, eg when govts create uncertainty with carbon tax and ETS proposals (which is a whole other discussion), or ideologically oppose an array of options (such as coal-fired, dams etc). Or I might add, in the case of poorly regulated markets. As a positive example, the ACCC seems to be reasonably effective in it's role.


----------



## derty

nioka said:


> I'll suggest an amendment;
> 
> 1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
> 2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
> 3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
> 11. Mothball the desal plants.
> 12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.
> 
> I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)



So where are we going to put these dams? The only really viable places for hydro in Australia are Tasmania (usually good rainfall), Snowy Mountains (annual snow melt) and the Top End (wet season). The rest of Australia are not good options for hydro due to low and sporadic rainfalls. And even the existing systems have shown signs of stress, the Snowy Scheme has had very low dam levels in the recent past. They have also used some innovative business practices where they have used low cost off-peak electricity to pump water back up to the dam at night time at Talbingo to use to generate high value electricity at Peak times. That isn't very green.

Unless methods of reticulating electricity over long distances are developed I think hydro is near it's useful limit in Australia (Smurf - would be able to answer this one well for us). Otherwise our only real alternatives at the moment are gas, nuclear or coal.


----------



## nioka

derty said:


> So where are we going to put these dams? The only really viable places for hydro in Australia are Tasmania (usually good rainfall), Snowy Mountains (annual snow melt) and the Top End (wet season). The rest of Australia are not good options for hydro due to low and sporadic rainfalls. .




Suggest you travel all along the east coast of NSW and Queensland. Also ,it is because there is sporadic rainfalls in other places makes the building of dams more important. Look at the flooding in central N.S.W. and Victoria at the moment. A few years supply in excess of current usage.

 Check out the BOM website, tick show rivers on the maps and see how many there are and how few are dammed.

Dams dont always have to be big to be worthwhile either.


----------



## derty

nioka said:


> Suggest you travel all along the east coast of NSW and Queensland. Also ,it is because there is sporadic rainfalls in other places makes the building of dams more important. Look at the flooding in central N.S.W. and Victoria at the moment. A few years supply in excess of current usage.



While the recent rains were sizeable they are an outlier and were preceded by almost a decade of low rainfall. You need surety of supply if you are planning power generation and much of Australia cannot guarantee this. 

from section 8.3 of the Australian Energy Resource Assessment 2010: 







> Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth, with over 80 per cent of its landmass receiving an annual average rainfall of less than 600 mm per year and 50 per cent less than 300 mm per year (figure 8.8). There is also high variability in rainfall, evaporation rates and temperatures between years, resulting in Australia having very limited and variable sur face water resources. Of Australia’s gross theoretical hydro energy resource of 265 TWh per year, only around 60 TWh is considered to be technically feasible (Hydropower and Dams 2009). *Australia’s economically feasible capacity is estimated at 30 TWh per year of which more than 60 per cent has already been harnessed* (Hydropower and Dams 2009).






nioka said:


> Dams dont always have to be big to be worthwhile either.



No you're right, and most of the  projected hydro power growth is from these small setups. Although the estimate is that these small hydro power setups will add an additional 0.2% capacity annually up to 2029. 

hydro section:http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ch_8.pdf
entire report: http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ga_aera.html


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> And anyway, I'll never accept that free market competition necessarily leads to price rises - only in  imperfect markets, eg when govts create uncertainty with carbon tax and ETS proposals (which is a whole other discussion), or ideologically oppose an array of options (such as coal-fired, dams etc). Or I might add, in the case of poorly regulated markets.



The operation of the market directly lowers the technical operating efficiency of power stations through a short term focus.

Give me a market that has guaranteed outcomes 7 days ahead and then we'll be able to operate generation efficiently. But when you realise that it takes a day to start or stop a major power station, but the market works in only 30 minute increments, then you see where the problem is. All sorts of technically wasteful and inefficient things are done simply because the traders changed the price unexpectedly. It wastes a lot of fuel, wears things out and generally increases costs, particularly through the forced running of high cost, inefficient plant.

Bottom line is the market is causing expensive peaking generation to be run whilst much lower cost plants sit idle. That's a clear waste of money and unnecessary pollution too.

In principle, I am a supporter of free markets (genuinely free being the key word here). But the electricity market as it stands just isn't working well - efficient outcomes are prevented by speculation (*which directly affects actual production *- remember that unlike other commodities, electricity is not stored) and all sorts of funny goings on.

I don't doubt that an efficient market quite probably could be devised. But what we have now is clearly not working.


----------



## Smurf1976

derty said:


> Unless methods of reticulating electricity over long distances are developed I think hydro is near it's useful limit in Australia (Smurf - would be able to answer this one well for us). Otherwise our only real alternatives at the moment are gas, nuclear or coal.



Detailed post to follow when I have more time. But I'll leave you with these photos for now. They show rather clearly what happens when system overload and drought are combined... (photos taken by Smurf).


----------



## nioka

derty said:


> While the recent rains were sizeable they are an outlier and were preceded by almost a decade of low rainfall. You need surety of supply if you are planning power generation and much of Australia cannot guarantee this.




There are rivers, not dammed that run all the time. (Clarence and Richmond are two) With dams they would supply a lot of electricity and some of that water could go over the range to augment the inland in those times of low rainfall. Check out a map showind the headwaters of these. At Glen Innis the Beardy which ends up in the Murray, is on one side of the town and the Mann river, which ends up in the Clarence, is on the other. The Glen Innes Council actually pump water from one to the other at times.


----------



## Logique

Smurf1976 said:


> Detailed post to follow when I have more time. But I'll leave you with these photos for now. They show rather clearly what happens when system overload and drought are combined... (photos taken by Smurf).



The pictures are no argument against dams- it doesn't look like that now, that's the whole point. 

La Nina year, floods in Victoria, SE QLD rivers discharging huge volumes to waste. Floods in southern NSW. The Hume Hwy was closed. Water lapping the spillway at Burrinjuck Dam and about to burst over, Blowering Dam 90% plus full, and rain still falling now. 

The Snowy Hydro scheme has always pumped water backwards and forwards, in good years and bad, that's what they do.


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> The pictures are no argument against dams- it doesn't look like that now, that's the whole point.



I've posted the photos in the interest of balance prior to posting a more technically detailed list of possibilities as viewed from a purely engineering viewpoint.

Also in the interests of balance, I'll point out that the very low levels shown in those two photos are not a consequence of drought as such. Rather, they are a consequence of failing to build enough new dams (or alternatives) to ensure reliable operation under all foreseeable weather conditions. 

Provided that the system is operated within an appropriately determined output capacity, water storages should never be empty and, if the storage is large enough, should never be full either.

Undeveloped hydro-electric schemes in Australia that I am aware of are as follows. This is industry information that is publicly available and has been for many years.

Note that output values are for the scheme and not necessarily for the power station itself. That is, if construction of a new scheme also diverts additional water into an existing power station, then the entire increase in output is attirbuted to the new scheme and none of it to the existing. This does not represent double counting.

Note that the output data is annual energy generation, not peak power. In general, hydro-electric power stations in Tasmania operate at high load factor (average load as a % of peak) to provide baseload supply whilst those in other states have larger installed peak capacity, relative to annual output, and are used primarily to meet peak power demands. 


Potential *new* hydro-electric power stations.

POWER STATION, ANNUAL OUTPUT (gigawatt hours), STATE

Gordon-below Franklin, 1580 GWh, Tas
Franklin and King, 1472 GWh, Tas
Burdekin Falls, 800 GWh, Qld
Herbert, 560 GWh, Qld
Huon, 429 GWh, Tas
Apsley, 400 GWh, NSW
Upper Franklin, 263 GWh, Tas
Upper Gordon, 245 GWh, Tas
Lower Arthur, 237 GWh, Tas
Davey, 236 GWh, Tas
Albert Rapids, 219 GWh, Tas
Jane, 219 GWh, Tas
Middle Arthur, 202 GWh, Tas
Mersey Lakes, 202 GWh, Tas
Upper Arthur, 184 GWh, Tas
Wilson-Huskisson, 175 GWh, Tas
The Brothers, 148 GWh, NT
Que, 131 GWh, Tas
Cleanskin, 126 GWh, NT
Whyte, 114 GWh, Tas
Mt Nancar, 111 GWh, NT
Donaldson, 105 GWh, Tas
Upper Meander, 96 GWh, Tas
Budd's Mare, 90 GWh, NSW
Savage, 79 GWh, Tas
Katherine Gorge, 70 GWh, NT
Quirindi Gorge, 70 GWh, NT
Upper Nive, 61 GWh, Tas
Traveller's Rest, 61 GWh, Tas
Ejong Waterhole, 58 GWh, NT
Judbury, 44 GWh, Tas
Lake Dixon, 39 GWh, Tas
Lake Spicer, 26 GWh, Tas
Lake Beatrice, 26 GWh, Tas
Ringarooma, 18 GWh, Tas
Bradys Lake, 13 GWh, Tas
Calder Inglis, 13 GWh, Tas
Derwent Bridge, 11 GWh, Tas


*Existing* hydro-electric schemes in Australia as follows (there's a couple missing from this list but it's mostly complete).

Gordon, 1472 GWh, Tas
Murray 1, 1408 GWh, Snowy
Poatina, 1295 GWh, Tas
Reece, 1007 GWh, Tas
Tumut 1, 894 GWh, Snowy
Murray 2, 816 GWh, Snowy
Tumut 2, 785 GWh, Snowy
Tarraleah, 638 GWh, Tas
Tungatinah, 618 GWh, Tas
Tumut 3, 582 GWh (partly pumped storage), Snowy
John Butters, 569 GWh, Tas
Trevallyn, 534 GWh, Tas
Liapootah, 493 GWh, Tas
Wivenhoe, 450 GWh (pumped storage), Qld
Cethana, 436 GWh, Tas
Bastyan, 385 GWh, Tas
Mackintosh, 385 GWh, Tas
Kareeya, 363 GWh, Qld
Dartmouth, 350 GWh, Vic
Devils Gate, 314 GWh, Tas
Lemonthyme, 312 GWh, Tas
Wayatinah, 280 GWh, Tas
Blowering, 270 GWh, Snowy
Catagunya, 265 GWh, Tas
Tribute, 263 GWh, Tas
Hume, 260 GWh, NSW
Barron Falls, 253 GWh, Qld
Fisher, 238 GWh, Tas
Meadowbank, 220 GWh, Tas
Bendela & Kangaroo Valley, 202 GWh (pumped storage), NSW
Eildon, 192 GWh, Vic
Repulse, 176 GWh, Tas
West Kiewa, 173 GWh, Vic
Paloona, 152 GWh, Tas
Guthega, 144 GWh, Snowy
Wilmot, 135 GWh, Tas
McKay, 105 GWh, Vic
Cluny, 100 GWh, Tas
Lake Echo, 88 GWh, Tas
Rubicon scheme, 80 GWh, Vic
Butler's Gorge, 71 Gwh, Tas
Lake Margaret, 60 GWh, Tas
Clover, 60 GWh, Vic
Burrinjuck, 50 GWh, NSW
Rowallan, 43 GWh, Tas
Oaky, 15 GWh, NSW
Keepit, 13 GWh, NSW
Todd's Corner, 11 GWh (diversion pump energy recovery), Tas
Cascade, 7 GWh, Tas
Meander, 7 GWh, Tas
Wellington, 5 GWh, WA
Brown Mountain, 4 GWh, NSW
Cairn Curran, 2 GWh, Vic
Bogong, ??? GWh, Vic
Ord, ???, WA


*Historic* hydro-electric schemes no longer in operation:

Waratah, around 5 GWh, Tas, 1893 - 1963. Abandoned ruin.
Duck Reach, around 15 GWh, Tas, 1895 - 1955. Preserved empty building. Water now used at Trevallyn.
Morinna, 5 GWh, Tas, 1907 - 2008. Fully intact but not operating. Water to be used for irrigation.
Waddamana A, Tas, 395 GWh between both A & B stations, 1916 - 1965. Museum open to the public.
Waddamana B, Tas, 1944 - 1994. Mostly intact apart from pipes but not operating. Water now used at Poatina.
Shannon, 90 GWh, Tas, 1934 - 1964. Demolished. Water now used at Poatina.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Julia said:


> What utter ***** nonsense.  Surely the good citizens of Norfolk Island are not about to have this on?
> 
> Just another demonstration of the absolute craziness of the alarmist religion, and they wonder why the general population isn't prepared to go along with their zealotry.
> 
> If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.




An update on the Carbon Credit trial in Norfork Island from Andrew Bolt, who talks to Egger on the trial:

*Why you may soon need a warmist’s permission to eat*

As far back as 2006, Britain’s then environmental minister, David Miliband, proposed a similar scheme, since endorsed by the Environment Agency and House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, which even insisted the Government defy howls of protest from mere voters.

“Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent,” the MPs said, before being driven off to dinner.

(Or as our own Professor Clive Hamilton, author and former Greens candidate, puts it, global warming is so “horrible” that leaders must look to “canvassing of emergency responses such as the suspension of democratic processes”.)

Nor is Egger’s idea new in Australia, The farcical “ideas summit” of prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 1000 “best and brightest” Australians also recommended it - which is a very good reason to be alert and alarmed.

“We have the technology now to create a ‘carbon account’ for individuals,” says the summit’s report, in between appeals for chairbound workers to be given 30 minutes a day of exercise and stairs to climb at work. ​
I suggest that the proposed Carbon Credit scheme (the aggressive version, not the PR version running in Norfolk) be applied to recipients of the AGW Gravy train, politicians and to the AGW alarmists in this forum, we can then  revisit the scheme in 5 years to see who is still "onboard".


----------



## Logique

An iconic river, and a wet year, so good timing for some environmental releases. I note without comment or insinuation of any kind, that Snowy Hydro will receive $13.7M compensation from the Fed Govt for the released water.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/11/04/Snowy_River_roars_once_more_534885.html

*Snowy River roars once more *Thursday, November 04, 2010 

Billions of litres of water has begun cascading down the mighty Snowy River - the biggest flow the parched system has seen in more than 40 years.

Victorian Premier John Brumby and Water Minister Tim Holding travelled to Jindabyne, in southeastern NSW, on Thursday to witness water returning to the Snowy.

More than *17 billion litres of water is flowing from the Jindabyne Dam *following an agreement between the Victorian, NSW and federal governments to repay the Snowy 'water debt' two years early.

The release, three weeks before the Victorian election, fulfils Labor's 1999 promise to return environmental flows to the river.

Under the three-way agreement, the federal government will compensate Snowy Hydro $13.7 million for water released as environmental flows.

The water started spilling from Jindabyne Dam on Tuesday and will continue for another nine days.

It cancels out the 'water debt' accumulated by the two states during the drought-ridden last decade, after an agreement to return water to the Snowy was signed but before water saving projects were in place.

Another 16 billion litres of water will be released in April next year, taking total river flows for the financial year to 70 (70) billion litres.

Mr Brumby said the government was on track to return the Snowy flows to 21 per cent by 2012.

'Flows in the legendary Snowy River are finally returning to levels that made it one of Australia's most iconic rivers,' he said.

'The return of this water is a great result for the environment and a great result for Snowy communities that have fought for so long and passionately to get their Snowy River back.'


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> 'The return of this water is a great result for the environment and a great result for Snowy communities that have fought for so long and passionately to get their Snowy River back.'



Yet another environmental "win" that comes directly at the cost of increased CO2 emissions.

Either CO2 is really the "number 1 issue" or it isn't. Judging by the actions of environmentalists over the past 40 years, it is not something they seem overly concerned about.

Wrong or right? I'm not judging, just observing. More water in the river there is, and more CO2 in the air is the direct consequence. Which is more important? Restore a river that's been dry for decades? Or keep CO2 out of the air?


----------



## nioka

Smurf1976 said:


> Yet another environmental "win" that comes directly at the cost of increased CO2 emissions.
> 
> Either CO2 is really the "number 1 issue" or it isn't. Judging by the actions of environmentalists over the past 40 years, it is not something they seem overly concerned about.
> 
> Wrong or right? I'm not judging, just observing. More water in the river there is, and more CO2 in the air is the direct consequence. Which is more important? Restore a river that's been dry for decades? Or keep CO2 out of the air?




Add to that the extra cost for electricity because the water was diverted from the hydro system. Electricty that would have reduced generation during periods of peak usage. Admittedly the river needed some water but was the allocation overdone?.


----------



## Logique

http://www.theonion.com/articles/solar-panels-going-on-white-house,18252/*
Solar Panels Going On White House*
President Barack Obama announced that he was putting solar panels on the roof of the White House in order to lead by example in the drive toward renewable energy. Here is a brief history of electricity consumption at the presidential residence:

Sept. 1901–Mar. 1909:  The White House spends a fortune on incandescent bulbs due to Teddy Roosevelt's habit of shooting the lights out every night with his Winchester Model 1895
Dec. 1910–Mar. 1911:  William Howard Taft goes an entire winter without turning on the heat, living off 220 pounds of stored fat
May 14, 1926:  In the custom of the Roaring '20s, Calvin Coolidge installs a large, energy-consuming neon sign on the roof that flashes "USA"
Nov. 2, 1939:  FDR saves electricity by not using White House elevator
Apr. 15, 1955:  Twenty percent of the White House's electricity is supplied by Vice President Richard Nixon pedaling a stationary bicycle
Aug. 8, 1977:  Jimmy Carter does some bull**** with peanuts
Feb. 10, 1984:  President Reagan delivers a two-hour-long speech to his staff on the importance of turning the lights off in a room if you're not using it
Dec. 11, 1989:  A Secret Service man is assigned to keep an eye on the thermostat


----------



## IFocus

New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........


----------



## nioka

IFocus said:


> New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........




He has dumped Labor too. He is touring Asia but sends Hillary to see Julia .For "secret womens business" I suppose.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........




And more here in this article: *Labor urged to follow Obama on carbon*



> Mr Warburton said Australia would be "stupid" to introduce a cap-and-trade system without the US. He said claims by Julia Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that a carbon price was needed to stimulate investment in electricity generation was *wrong*.


----------



## Julia

This decision by Obama - although absolutely sensible - does put Julia Gillard in a very awkward place.  Obviously she should follow.
The Opposition will rightfully be asserting that their direct action model is, in all the circumstances, more appropriate.

But if she backs down once again, she's going to give Abbott and Co endless ammunition.

Anyone ready to put money on her taking the sensible option and backing off a carbon price?

Or is it more likely that the sensible option will once again be sacrificed for what the government will see as its only political option?

It's a bit like the Nauru thing on asylum seekers:  they refuse to re-start the perfectly functional centre on Nauru - despite having no feasible alternative - just so they don't give the Opposition that opportunity to say "hey, after all, you had to revert to our solution".

Utopia would be where a government actually did what was best for the nation.  Won't ever happen here.


----------



## wayneL

The final results from the Scientific American survey are in. Not withstanding the very poor survey design, the results are interesting.

Results here ===>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

More evidence the warmists are losing the PR war.

Once the GW gravy train starts drying up, maybe all those scientists can study something worthwhile...

...or get a job in politics.


----------



## Logique

Bad couple of weeks for the Govt. 

Clobbered (politically) by Joe Hockey on the banks, and in the US, indirectly by the Tea Party in a big turn to the right in US politics, and the ensuing cap and trade scheme 'swan dive' on Presidential announcement. And then there was the wild mob in Northam WA to highlight their handling of our national borders. 

Stunning climate survey results there Wayne. Dick Warburton is on the money, uncertainty is the real blockage in the investment pipeline, not the lack of a price on carbon. I'd take his opinion over (former trade unionist) Gerg Combet's any day.

I want to be fair to President Obama, I admired his courage in pushing the new health care bill through, and Hillary Clinton supported that as well.  Scandalous the cost of medicine in the US.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> The final results from the Scientific American survey are in. Not withstanding the very poor survey design, the results are interesting.
> 
> Results here ===>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d
> 
> More evidence the warmists are losing the PR war.
> 
> Once the GW gravy train starts drying up, maybe all those scientists can study something worthwhile...
> 
> ...or get a job in politics.




Wow, 87% of US citizens think the IPCC is no good.
Then again 30% of US citizens think Obama is a Muslim and I think its near 50% that they never landed on the moon.
I wish Benjamin Franklin was still around but then he would be classifird as a scientific elitist in today's environment.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Wow, 87% of US citizens think the IPCC is no good.
> Then again 30% of US citizens think Obama is a Muslim and I think its near 50% that they never landed on the moon.




Knobby,

A bit of disingenuous interpretation there.

To clarify: 83.5% of readers of Scientific American and/or scientific blogs involved in the AGW debate which pointed to the survey believe that the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda".

Of the 30% who believe Obama is a Muslim etc, I have trouble believing any but a slim minority would be readers of Scientific American etc.


----------



## nioka

It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.

Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.

So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.

Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
or we can pay via a carbon tax.)

Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.

That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.
> 
> So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.



What we stand to "lose" is the entire non-CO2 environmental effects of alternative energy sources.

Prior to the emergence of the CO2 issue, environmentalists focused their opposition to energy development towards hydro and nuclear. There's a reason for that - if you exclude CO2 then nuclear has basically nothing going for it. An environmental and security hazard that costs a fortune. And I won't deny that hydro also has a pretty big impact on the landscape, though at least it shouldn't melt down.

For those who say otherwise in regards to nuclear, I will point to the aviation industry. I very much doubt that anyone believes that there will never, ever be a fatality resulting from an air crash in Australia, or involving an Australian airline. And of course crashes internationally are fairly common. It will happen, the only question is when (hopefully it never happens, but I'm being realistic here...).

Now translate that to nuclear power. The worst may well only happen once in 1000 years, but that it will happen at some point is near certain. And when it does happen, well then we've got a disaster on a rather massive scale. It might not happen very often, but it only needs to happen once...

Yes, nuclear power plants have all sorts of safety systems and are designed so as not to blow up. And modern airliners are designed so as to be virtually impossible to crash. But it happens.

And then there's the negative effects of wind, hydro, geothermal, wood etc. 

And then there's wars for oil (and potentially gas) etc too. At least coal is a peaceful energy source that is reliable and plentiful. If you take out the CO2 issue, coal doesn't look too bad compared to the alternatives. At the very least, we're not likely to start fighting over the stuff and it's not a terrorism threat.

ALL power pollutes. If we cut CO2 then we will increase some other form of pollution instead, possibly with serious consequences. We'd better get this one right.

All that said, I totally agree that there are things more important than money. Agree 100% there.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:
			
		

> The final results from the Scientific American survey are in. Not withstanding the very poor survey design, the results are interesting.
> 
> Results here ===>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?...LH1gIA03DqU_3d
> 
> More evidence the warmists are losing the PR war.
> 
> Once the GW gravy train starts drying up, maybe all those scientists can study something worthwhile...
> 
> ...or get a job in politics.





			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> To clarify: 83.5% of readers of Scientific American and/or scientific blogs involved in the AGW debate which pointed to the survey believe that the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda"



I not sure how you can say that with a straight face wayneL. Seriously, I thought you of all people would be cognisant of the unscientific nature and ease of manipulation of online polls. The poll was gamed by the anti-AGW crowd and is now being touted by the same crowd as being evidence in support of their position. 

Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I not sure how you can say that with a straight face wayneL. Seriously, I thought you of all people would be cognisant of the unscientific nature and ease of manipulation of online polls. The poll was gamed by the anti-AGW crowd and is now being touted by the same crowd as being evidence in support of their position.
> 
> Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
> Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
> Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry




Sure!

I'm cognizant of the unscientific nature and ease of manipulation of all sorts of data. Apparently, so are many others.

But gamed? 

1/ There was no imploration from Watts to vote a certain way.

2/ Your very own Joe Romm brought it to the blogosphere. http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/scientific-americans-shell-energy-poll/ 

3/ It was Joe Romm who explicitly encouraged his readers to "game" the survey http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/26/scientific-american-jumps-the-shark-online-polls-judith-curry/  with his opening comment - "Please click here and freep this poll..."

It seems the only overt attempt to game the poll was from the warmists. 

While I have no doubt the survey is not truly representative, it still says what I say is says about the PR war.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> 1/ There was no imploration from Watts to vote a certain way.



 He doesn't have to. He knows the bent of his followers. Merely saying 'Take this Poll' is all that is required.



wayneL said:


> 2/ Your very own Joe Romm brought it to the blogosphere. http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/scientific-americans-shell-energy-poll/
> 
> 3/ It was Joe Romm who explicitly encouraged his readers to "game" the survey http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/26/scientific-american-jumps-the-shark-online-polls-judith-curry/  with his opening comment - "Please click here and freep this poll..."



It all comes down to traffic. It's a numbers game and WUWT is a much more popular site. The traffic to the Poll generated by climateprogress would have been swamped by that from WUWT.

If you look at the traffic (see below), last month WUWT received 0.00029% of global page views. Climateprogress received 0.00005% of global page views. WUWT gets almost *6 times or 600%* the views of climateprogress. When you look at the page views per user WUWT has still 340% more users visiting the site.

The poll is compromised to the point that it is meaningless.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

nioka said:


> It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.
> 
> Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.
> 
> So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.
> 
> Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
> We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
> or we can pay via a carbon tax.)
> 
> Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.
> 
> That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.





*Some obvious questions:*

You seem to be deliberately mixing the pollution argument with the AGW argument – why? 
You seem to imply a carbon tax will have an impact – what is the impact to you and me – financially? 
How long will I need to pay a “little money”?
Your assertion of a “little money” lacks context – for example in the US alone, $80B has been spent on the AGW PR and pseudo-science engines since the 80's. We've already paid dearly to prop up this scam.
How much will this “little money” actually “cool” the earth in degrees Celsius and how long will it take?
You also seem to imply it's ok that there is "some" corruption in the AGW “science” and we should still act - why is it ok for corrupt operators to advise on policy, and do you see the IPCC as a corrupt operator? If not, why not?

To me, your statements lack clarity and hand-wave away dissenting voices to the AGW agenda, many of which are asking legitimate questions of the AGW science, policies and objectives. Corruption IS a major issue in AGW science and it's not going away any time soon until a thorough investigation has been undertaken.

In 1975, had we followed your logic above, we would have put in place policies and taxes to prevent the world from cooling - only to realise a major mistake had been made 20 yrs later. Do you think I would recieve a refund on my "taxes"?


----------



## nioka

OzWaveGuy said:


> *Some obvious questions:*
> 
> You seem to be deliberately mixing the pollution argument with the AGW argument – why?






Because the real problem IS pollution. The Anti global warming brigade use the no global warming excuse to stop doing anything to reduce pollution because it may hurt their hip pocket. The jury is still out on global warming as I see it but the verdict on pollution is there awaiting a response from fair minded people that do give a damn about the future.


----------



## nukz

Putting the science aside can somebody explain to me how investing in carbon derivitives will safe the earth? 

This is the root of this whole climate change and green movement. I can't believe anybody who is sane thinks the purpose of this is to clean the planet haha why would anybody want to clean the planet? unless of course you create the illusion of doing so and in the process make lots of money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

"Banks Moving In

Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.

JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors. "


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> Because the real problem IS pollution. The Anti global warming brigade use the no global warming excuse to stop doing anything to reduce pollution because it may hurt their hip pocket. The jury is still out on global warming as I see it but the verdict on pollution is there awaiting a response from fair minded people that do give a damn about the future.




Yes the problem is pollution, agreed.

But it is a separate argument and yes you are confusing the two arguments.

And this is my beef with the AGWists. By focusing BS disaster scenarios around co2, it has utterly devalued concerns on general pollution.

There is nothing fair minded about the political and financial aims of the warmist cabal. That is why fair minded people are rejecting it. Yes it is to do with the hip pocket because that is what the warmist cabal are aiming for - to fleece the plebeians for zero net environmental gain.

Fair minded people reject the warmist political agenda and are concerned about pollution as they do recognise them as separate arguments.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

nioka said:


> Because the real problem IS pollution. The Anti global warming brigade use the no global warming excuse to stop doing anything to reduce pollution because it may hurt their hip pocket. The jury is still out on global warming as I see it but the verdict on pollution is there awaiting a response from fair minded people that do give a damn about the future.




Another non-answer. It's a typical response from alarmists -  save the planet by reducing "pollution". Yes, I get it and we all want a cleaner and healthier environment and since the 70's air pollution has been reduced substantially (check the US EPA and other sites on air quality as one example), yet you continue to dodge the key questions posed on the science, the corruption, the policies and the impact of those policies. In other words: "You don't know" or "You don't care"

Did you read the Newsweek article? If we were faced with "global cooling" today instead of AGW - would you have agreed to "melting the ice cap by covering it with soot" as proposed back in the 70's to avoid an ice age?

The same games are being played out once again, and even though there's more scrutiny today because of the internet - the AGW followers cannot (or will never) bring themselves to admit they have been duped by Al Gore, a broken hockey stick, a corrupt IPCC, and imo a very successful AGW PR campaign that has been running for over 20 years.

Hence the reason we have forums like this to point out to those that have been easily misled what the real "game" is about.


----------



## gav

Even Homer Simpson isn't fooled by the madness...


----------



## Smurf1976

nukz said:


> Putting the science aside can somebody explain to me how investing in carbon derivitives will safe the earth?
> 
> This is the root of this whole climate change and green movement. I can't believe anybody who is sane thinks the purpose of this is to clean the planet haha why would anybody want to clean the planet? unless of course you create the illusion of doing so and in the process make lots of money.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
> 
> "Banks Moving In
> 
> Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.
> 
> JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.
> 
> The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors. "



That is precisely the problem I have with the whole ETS concept. It may well reduce CO2 emissions, but that is absolutely a sideline to its primary outcome of establishing yet another market on which to trade and speculate. For every Dollar spent, very little of it will end up actually reducing emissions.

In contrast to that, we could just go ahead and build a predominantly renewable power system without the need for middlemen skimming off most of the money. Far cheaper and it actually fixes the CO2 issue.

If my car breaks down tomorrow then I'll get it towed to a mechanic who can fix it. There's no point paying an army of middlemen to argue about what the mechanic should be paid and what might be wrong with the car. Just fixing the thing will be a lot cheaper and a lot quicker. Same with any problem.

If your household hot water bills are too high then do you employ an accountant to set up a shower trading system amongst family members? A system which can only work through either forcing the purchase of a more economical hot water system or by rationing consumption to some level below what would otherwise be preferred? Or do you just get a solar water heater and fix the problem simply and relatively cheaply? I think most would choose the latter and there's a reason for that. Trading the problem is not fixing it, all it does is waste money on middlemen.

Trading and markets certainly have a place. But the concept that bankers are the best people to fix an engineering and ecological problem worries me greatly. Keep the bankers well away at least until they can get their core business, the financial system, running sustainably (noting that failure on this point is the root cause of the CO2 issue in the first place - attempting constant growth on a finite planet).


----------



## nioka

Smurf1976 said:


> Trading and markets certainly have a place. But the concept that bankers are the best people to fix an engineering and ecological problem worries me greatly. Keep the bankers well away at least until they can get their core business, the financial system, running sustainably (noting that failure on this point is the root cause of the CO2 issue in the first place - attempting constant growth on a finite planet).




Bankers are the last people we need to get involved but I still see the need to hit the hip pocket nerve. I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> [*]How much will this “little money” actually “cool” the earth in degrees Celsius and how long will it take?



All good questions OzWave, but this one in particular is what I'd like you to answer, Nioka.
How do you know that putting a price on carbon is going to make any difference to anything, other than making the organisers of the derivatives related to such a price very rich, and ordinary householders (already suffering massive increases in electricity hikes) even poorer?

If there is some demonstrable proof that these costs will actually effect a clear change, you might like to provide it here.



> To me, your statements lack clarity and hand-wave away dissenting voices to the AGW agenda, many of which are asking legitimate questions of the AGW science, policies and objectives.



So true.   It is as though the pro-AGW brigade have a monopoly on moral righteousness, imparting to them the apparent obligation to condescendingly dismiss any reasonable dissent or questioning as coming from those too ignorant to have found the true religion.



nioka said:


> Because the real problem IS pollution. The Anti global warming brigade use the no global warming excuse to stop doing anything to reduce pollution because it may hurt their hip pocket. The jury is still out on global warming as I see it but the verdict on pollution is there awaiting a response from fair minded people that do give a damn about the future.



So, again, how is putting a price on carbon going to reduce general pollution?
How will you measure the success of this?

Don't you need to have an identifiable and clear measure of 'pollution" in the first place?

What actually comes under the term 'pollution'?




nukz said:


> Putting the science aside can somebody explain to me how investing in carbon derivitives will safe the earth?
> 
> This is the root of this whole climate change and green movement. I can't believe anybody who is sane thinks the purpose of this is to clean the planet haha why would anybody want to clean the planet? unless of course you create the illusion of doing so and in the process make lots of money.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
> 
> "Banks Moving In
> 
> Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.
> 
> JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.
> 
> The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors. "



Exactly right, nukz.   
How the idealists/carbon zealots aren't seeing this is beyond me.




nioka said:


> Bankers are the last people we need to get involved but I still see the need to hit the hip pocket nerve. I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.



Well, that's nice for you, Nioka.  You can obviously afford to instal these solar facilities.  But maybe spare a thought for people on very low incomes, who simply have no choices in life, and who are presently having their electricity disconnected because they can't pay the bill with rising prices, and explain how they're going to feel good about carbon trading when they get a doubling or more of their electricity bill.

And that's just for starters.  Everything will go up.  Even those companies who are able to claim back their costs for paying for carbon credits (eg BHP) will still probably take the opportunity to gouge their customers with price rises, simply because they will be able to get away with it.

There is just a huge divide between the fuzzy wuzzy feel good environmental stuff, and the reality of people's lives.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

nioka said:


> (snip.................................................snip)
> I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.




Nioka, you shared the expense with tax payers for your installations. It was a price shared by taxpayers. Such is the nature of subsidies as you have said.

Direct action and the free market are the way to attack the alarmist's problem - not tax.


----------



## bellenuit

*Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics*



> The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story


----------



## medicowallet

I might have already posted this.

What if we scrapped the NBN, and invested $43 billion into renewable energy.

The government then uses this revenue (because it would be profitable) to pay for an unprofitable NBN.

This would be in joint venture with current energy suppliers so that they would be duly compensated over a long time period.

This would decrease our reliance on oil, decrease our cost of power, reduce our emmissions (and give those of us who actually believe in dangerous AGW, a warm (pun intended) fuzzy feeling)

Problem is that the governments are determined to sell (or have sold) energy infrastructure as they are incompetent fools (as is also shown from the fact that they 1. selectively ignore good science, 2. represent us on the subject of science, and have not got a clue)

/end rant


----------



## nioka

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Direct action and the free market are the way to attack the alarmist's problem .




If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Joanne Nova's blog now has the "Is the Western Climate Establishment corrupt" series as PDF documents that can be easily sent around to others. Feel free to send them to the media and politicians 

*Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take? *

"The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

   1. Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
   2. Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
   3. They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
   4. Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
   5. Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
   6. The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds)."​
And the documents cover much more, including the famous hockey stick and hiding the decline etc...


----------



## Smurf1976

If people really want to cut CO2 emissions then why don't they just go ahead and stop polluting?

Why do we need a financial market to force people to change if they really believe in the issue?

People do all sorts of things every day without being forced either by government or a market. When is the last time you went for a walk, watched a movie or had sex? Did government or some market force you to do any of these things?

If people actually wanted to cut emissions, they would just go ahead and cut. The lack of solar water heaters on roofs, and the abundance of petrol guzzling vehicles on the road, suggests that cutting CO2 isn't a priority for the average person.

Whilst I take the point that many can not afford solar hot water etc, I have no doubt that anyone who can afford a new car could choose instead to spend 10% as much on a solar HWS and settle for a cheaper car. In reality, there is no shortage of new cars on the road whilst solar HWS remains comparatively rare despite massive taxpayer subsidies. A great many people who could cut emissions if they wanted to, have made a conscious decision not to.

In short, I'll believe that the average person is concerned when they actually start doing something about it. Until that happens, it is nothing more than talk.


----------



## Logique

OzWaveGuy said:


> Joanne Nova's blog now has the "Is the Western Climate Establishment corrupt" series as PDF documents that can be easily sent around to others. Feel free to send them to the media and politicians
> *Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take? *​





And that CO2 (not a pollutant, plants love it) levels historically followed warming, not led it.​


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> ...In short, I'll believe that the average person is concerned when they actually start doing something about it. Until that happens, it is nothing more than talk.




And the likes of Al Gore really don't seem to be concerned with their own CO2 excesses.

As I posted (I think) earlier in this thread an article stating that Ms Gillard had flown the breadth of the country for some backslapping on climate change. Would appear she has little, if any, concern for CO2 emissions.

The sheer hypocrisy causes me to believe there is nothing more in it than an excuse for further taxes.

If those that believed in it put their carbon footprints where their mouths are, it might be worth a further look.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

nioka said:


> If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.




We don't have a free market system and haven't had for a long time. The GFC was nothing natural because we don't have true free markets. Notice how banks and big corporations were not allowed to fail? The GFC reduced the wealth of nations and the middle class who pay the taxes.


----------



## Happy

Smurf1976 said:


> If people really want to cut CO2 emissions then why don't they just go ahead and stop polluting?
> 
> Why do we need a financial market to force people to change if they really believe in the issue?
> 
> ...QUOTE]
> 
> I have no problem and I try to cut on car or electricity use whenever I can without affecting my life too much.
> 
> But often I wander if it will make any difference?
> 
> Big polluters surely will be sceptical on Global Warming and until whole globe decides to do one thing we will not repair climate ourselves.
> 
> I keep reminding that Australia creates mere 2% of Global Warming, so even if we stop dead polluting overnight, surely it will make little difference since other polluters keep increasing their portions.
> 
> We will simply tax ourselves to poverty and besides feeling good about ourselves we will just look silly.
> (Reminds me of some Monks walking naked around, so their clothing accidentally does not kill some little creatures. Noble thing, but really?)


----------



## basilio

Smurf1976 said:


> That is precisely the problem I have with the whole ETS concept. It may well reduce CO2 emissions, but that is absolutely a sideline to its primary outcome of establishing yet another market on which to trade and speculate. For every Dollar spent, very little of it will end up actually reducing emissions.
> 
> In contrast to that, we could just go ahead and build a predominantly renewable power system without the need for middlemen skimming off most of the money. Far cheaper and it actually fixes the CO2 issue.
> 
> If my car breaks down tomorrow then I'll get it towed to a mechanic who can fix it. There's no point paying an army of middlemen to argue about what the mechanic should be paid and what might be wrong with the car. Just fixing the thing will be a lot cheaper and a lot quicker. Same with any problem.
> 
> If your household hot water bills are too high then do you employ an accountant to set up a shower trading system amongst family members? A system which can only work through either forcing the purchase of a more economical hot water system or by rationing consumption to some level below what would otherwise be preferred? Or do you just get a solar water heater and fix the problem simply and relatively cheaply? I think most would choose the latter and there's a reason for that. Trading the problem is not fixing it, all it does is waste money on middlemen.
> 
> Trading and markets certainly have a place. But the concept that bankers are the best people to fix an engineering and ecological problem worries me greatly. Keep the bankers well away at least until they can get their core business, the financial system, running sustainably (noting that failure on this point is the root cause of the CO2 issue in the first place - attempting constant growth on a finite planet).



*
Very well put Smurf.* Firstly recognizing there is a serious problem in global warming and depletion of non renewable resources and finally that the bankers and financiers have only a limited role in solving the problem (and if left to their own devices will just put us in more doo.)


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.




Oh brother! I can't believe people are still pushing that poorly thought out barrow.

GFC had nothing to do with a genuinely free market. It was primarily due to a legislated and bureaucratic credit bubble, courtesy of Bill Clinton and The Fed.

A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle.

GFC was a regulatory (via interference) failure not a market failure.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Oh brother! I can't believe people are still pushing that poorly thought out barrow.
> 
> GFC had nothing to do with a genuinely free market. It was primarily due to a legislated and bureaucratic credit bubble, courtesy of Bill Clinton and The Fed.
> 
> A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle.
> 
> GFC was a regulatory (via interference) failure not a market failure.




Agree, but it was also a regulatory failure due to removing constraints off the banks and driving up government debt, courtesy of George Bush ...and failure of policy of Bush and Obama with providing money to the big end of town when they would have been better helping the middle class and letting a few more banks go broke.


----------



## moXJO

nioka said:


> Bankers are the last people we need to get involved but I still see the need to hit the hip pocket nerve. I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.




Yes I agree........... Let’s make poor people pay for it. And how about even more obscene priced subsidies on our solar generated power.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Agree, but it was also a regulatory failure due to removing constraints off the banks...



The banks behaviour would have been a whole lot different if governments kept the #### out of it, even without regulatory restraints. If the banks knew there were never going to be any bailouts, they'd have been a LOT more conservative.

By the way, can we have 2 minute silence for the Chicago Climate Exchange's (I mean WTF?) Carbon contract CFI please.

RIP Gore's grand fantasy.


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle..




A truly free market exists only in your mind or maybe in a perfect world. The closest you could get these days is via a visit to Woodstock. The last freemarket was about the days of the cave man. The fact that it no longer exists puts in in the same class as the Tasmanian tiger. Time to be realistic and face reality.

I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> A truly free market exists only in your mind or maybe in a perfect world. The closest you could get these days is via a visit to Woodstock. The last freemarket was about the days of the cave man. The fact that it no longer exists puts in in the same class as the Tasmanian tiger. Time to be realistic and face reality.
> 
> I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.




Ahh the usual faulty logic.

You say: The free market does not exist.

You say: GFC was caused by the free market.

Yet somehow trying to apply both to some point about your AGW/pollution confusion.

Classic cognitive dissonance.

As we've discussed on this forum before, applying a price to carbon in western economies only drives emissions offshore to the third world, trashing our economies and enriching others... and no net carbon benefit. 

In fact, this probably increases emissions and most certainly increases general pollution.


----------



## nioka

wayneL said:


> Ahh the usual faulty logic.
> 
> You say: The free market does not exist.
> 
> You say: GFC was caused by the free market.
> 
> Yet somehow trying to apply both to some point about your AGW/pollution confusion.
> 
> Classic cognitive dissonance.
> 
> As we've discussed on this forum before, applying a price to carbon in western economies only drives emissions offshore to the third world, trashing our economies and enriching others... and no net carbon benefit.
> 
> In fact, this probably increases emissions and most certainly increases general pollution.




I said "a TRULY free market does not exist". Nor does it.

The GFC was caused by the free market that DOES exist.

There are ways of passing off the carbon price to the third world  eg add an export tax to the price of coal to those countries. 

Then again we could lead by example.

Think outside the comfort zone square.


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.



OK, here's a very real scenario. Most roads have speed limits, but there are few roads that do not. You imply that you will obey the speed limit, but what happens when you come to a road with no limit whatsoever?

My guess is that you'll floor it...

Quite a few countries will have no "speed limit" so far as CO2 is concerned. No prize for guessing where the steel industry, aluminium smelters and every other energy intensive process will become concentrated. They're only in Australia in the first place specifically because we have cheap electricity, a point that has long been fairly well known.


----------



## nioka

Smurf1976 said:


> No prize for guessing where the steel industry, aluminium smelters and every other energy intensive process will become concentrated. They're only in Australia in the first place specifically because we have cheap electricity, a point that has long been fairly well known.




I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy"  has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy"  has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.



Looking at it nationally:

Aluminium smelting is a significant industry in Qld, NSW, Vic and Tas. Even with cheap power from coal and hydro, electricity is by far the largest cost of production.

Alumina production (the "half way" stage of making aluminium) is a significant activity in Qld, NT and WA. 

Steel manufacturing is a significant industry in NSW and SA.

Ferromanganese, silicomanganese and zinc smelting are significant industries in Tas with local production around 2.5% of the world total.   

In addition there are various other metal smelters aound the country, plus other industries including cement and paper.

In short, energy-intensive processing is pretty much all we're actually good at in terms of manufacturing. Energy is (or at least was) one of the few key natural advantages we have. I'm not too keen on throwing that away and tuning Australia into a mining-only economy that exports ores and buys back metals. That won't help us economically or environmentally.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

nioka said:


> I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy"  has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.




Your a distractor on this thread nioka, you make every assertion under the sun, rarely substantiate any of it and can't answer basic question on your assertions.

Time to add you to the ignore list


----------



## wayneL

OzWaveGuy said:


> Your a distractor on this thread nioka, you make every assertion under the sun, rarely substantiate any of it and can't answer basic question on your assertions.
> 
> Time to add you to the ignore list




OWG

But there are Nioka's out there on a grand scale, watermelons who fail to think the whole issue through or who understand the law of unintended consequences. He is typical of the leftist Orwellian ideologues who think things will be better if the likes of Joolya Dullard, Wayne Swine and a bevy of detached and small-minded bureaucrats would micromanage every aspect of our lives.

Do you recognise the asinine logic, the limited mind captured by one sided public debate capable of only binary thought, the cultural self loathing and bloody minded empathy failure.

It's possible to ignore one ASF poster, but like a zombie army, there are more of them out there to contend with.


----------



## medicowallet

nioka said:


> I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy"  has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.




Actually I am with you on this nioka

We do not value add in this country.

We could actually produce the steel to sell if we wanted to, but govt processes make this not financially viable for companies. 

We have the raw materials and the skill, just not the regulations that would make it happen.


----------



## noco

After reading the following link, how stupid must Gillard be to procede with her CPRS just to appease the Greens. She is now being left out on the proverbial limb all by herself. She said before the 2010 election there would be no CPRS. The Greens wielded the big stick over her head and she relented. What will be her excuse this time if she does a back-flip  once again.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ts/column_gillard_leads_labor_army_to_moscow/


----------



## nioka

OzWaveGuy said:


> Time to add you to the ignore list




Be my guest, take the easy way out rather than give even the hint that there may just be another side to the story.

Put the whole thread on ignore and just pretend that there could not possibly a problem out there that needs some attention.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

nioka said:


> Be my guest, take the easy way out rather than give even the hint that there may just be another side to the story.



Another side of the story exactly. For example, It's not carbon, steam is coming from those cooling towers, humans are good, empathy is good, the Earth's core is changing, solar activity is changing, and the list could go on. 
The indoctrinated can't see the other side.


----------



## nioka

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The indoctrinated can't see the other side.




Actually it is hard to work out which side is "indoctrinated". ( If it is ONLY steam coming out of the stacks then what the hell happened to the black stuff). Also why was the sky of the USA clear and blue after all the aircraft were grounded  following the twin towers attack for the first time for years. Some of it is man made. The man made part could be reduced.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

nioka said:


> Some of it is man made. The man made part could be reduced



I agree. And I agree on the reduction. Direct action is how to go about it.


----------



## Smurf1976

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> For example, It's not carbon, steam is coming from those cooling towers



Are we talking about a specific cooling tower somewhere or just in general?

By the way, quite a lot of what you see coming out the chimney stacks, particularly where natural gas or brown coal (not oil or black coal) is being burned is also just steam.


----------



## nioka

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I agree. And I agree on the reduction. Direct action is how to go about it.




Finally we have complete agreement. I wish we /they/us/them really knew how to go about it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Smurf1976 said:


> Are we talking about a specific cooling tower somewhere or just in general?
> 
> By the way, quite a lot of what you see coming out the chimney stacks, particularly where natural gas or brown coal (not oil or black coal) is being burned is also just steam.



Just in general Smurph. Pictures of steam billowing is filling people's heads with fear of carbon.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

nioka said:


> Finally we have complete agreement. I wish we /they/us/them really knew how to go about it.



As I do. Bureaucratic TAX is not a genuine way to go about it as I see it. Whoever controls energy controls the public.

We don't tax the neighbour (or all property owners) because his fence is falling over. We prop it up and replace it if necessary. We take action through the use of technology.


----------



## Smurf1976

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> We don't tax the neighbour (or all property owners) because his fence is falling over. We prop it up and replace it if necessary. We take action through the use of technology.



Look around your own home:

Space heating. Various options are available and in the majority of situations it is possible to achieve at least a 70% emissions cut compared to electric resistance heating.

Hot water. Again several options, and at least a 65% cut is achievable.

Transport. Simply switching from a petrol engine to diesel in an otherwise identical vehicle achieves a 30% cut.

Lighting. A 30% reduction compared to the old incandescent bulbs is easily achievable with virtually no downsides. A 75% cut is doable if you accept some differences in lamp performance. And the LED technologies which aren't far away will take that to an 85 - 90% cut.

TV / computer monitor. LED LCD displays achieve around a two thirds reduction in energy compared to plasma / CRT.

And so on. None of the above measures would have ANY noticeable impact on the lifestyle of the average person despite delivering very real energy savings.

One real problem however is that many people tend to "cling" to inefficient technologies. Plenty will argue the merits of old fashioned electric water heaters over solar etc. Just like many will argue about the benefits of incandescent lighting. There's even a few who still think burning wood in an open fire to be a good idea. And yet strangely, those same people ditched the dial phone, twin tub and top loading VCR years ago (anecdotally, it seems to be those most willing to embrace new technologies in some areas, are also the least willing to embrace energy efficient devices. Why I don't know, but it is something I have observed on numerous occasions).


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Ah, some rational thought from the Rational Optimist....

If you have a financial dependency on the AGW scam or simply a AGW alarmist continously preaching "doom and gloom" then you won't like this letter response to David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change as it will put an "upper" on your friday. Dang! Right before the weekend is a no no. However, for me, it was an enjoyable read...

Matt Ridley eloquently pulls apart assertions and green ideology by Mackay. Mackay even asserts that a 2C warming over 200 years is a problem for the globe.

And of course this wouldn't be a real "AGW sceptical" article unless it shows the deliberate "adjustments" made to the raw temp data by the alarmists. This time in the US, and surprise surprise the Rural data has been made to "fit" the Urban data series which exhibits UHI,  poorly placed AC units and additional heat sources around measurement stations (as WUWT revealed)

As I've shown in past posts, Man Made Warming is a huge issue - but only in the manipulated temperature histories so the green ideology can be peddled to the masses.


----------



## Happy

Is there anywhere information on what Solar Panels do to Earth's temperature?

Since not all Solar energy is converted to heat, surely in some small way it removes little bit of heat from the equation.

If energy can be beamed, we could store excess heat on the Moon for example for later use or in some massive heat storage units.

Should we forget about arming ourselves to the teeth, we would have quite a few quids, for some real medium range proofing our little space speck against alleged global warming.


----------



## noco

A carbon trading scam has been broken in Europe and exposed to what could happen here in Australia if Gillard procedes with a simliar scheme.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...the_great_global_warming_scam_just_got_worse/


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> A carbon trading scam has been broken in Europe and exposed to what could happen here in Australia if Gillard procedes with a simliar scheme.



The ETS amounts to little more than yet another means of growing the finanical industry at the expense of the real economy producting useful goods and services. 

People seem to be waking up. That is not a comment on the issue, simply an observation as to what is happening. The push for an ETS, or any other system involving the financial markets as a solution, seems to be simply pushing people away from the CO2 issue altogether. 

Keep going with that, plus add in soaring energy prices etc, and in due course we'll see the coal industry end up with majority public support whilst the CO2 issue is consigned to the history books (rightly or wrongly).


----------



## drsmith

Happy said:


> Is there anywhere information on what Solar Panels do to Earth's temperature?
> 
> Since not all Solar energy is converted to heat, surely in some small way it removes little bit of heat from the equation.



This would depend on the albedo of the solar panel, relative to the surface over which it was placed.

Being dark I would imagine that the albedo of a solar panel would be lower (obsorbs more of the sun's energy) than most surfaces and thus contribute to warming. This though needs to be considered relative to warming from fossil fuel. 

As for energy stored as electricity (from any source), I'm not sure exactly what percentage is dissipated as heat when used, but I imagine it would be high (Smurf ?).

Photovoltaic solar panels convert only a small percentage of the solar energy they obsorb into electricity. The rest finishes up in the atmosphere as heat.


----------



## wayneL

An excellent rant from Malcolm Roberts via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/...inst-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841


----------



## Logique

Smurf1976 said:


> The ETS amounts to little more than yet another means of growing the finanical industry at the expense of the real economy producting useful goods and services.....and in due course we'll see the coal industry end up with majority public support whilst the CO2 issue is consigned to the history books (rightly or wrongly)



Yes fair comment Smurf. The aim being to reduce atmospheric carbon, surely it would have been more productive for the greens to work with the largest and cheapest energy sector, rather than demonize and propagandize, and generally attempt to sabotage the coal and coal-fired industry. 

Again, if that is their main aim, as opposed to say, political aggrandisement.

For once the greens might have bitten off more than they can chew. Unions work in coal mines. Big powerful ones, that won't be a soft touch like the timber industry.


----------



## Smurf1976

Seems like we might have to be more worried about freezing to death than being cooked...

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/16/186371_movies.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> An excellent rant from Malcolm Roberts via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/...inst-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841




It's an interesting read esp this bit...

*There is no evidence of human global warming:*
....
In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.

The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports””1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere. www.conscious.com.au​
The circus just gets better.

For the AGW alarmists - no need to read the article or any facts, or for that matter anything the IPCC published that doesn't support green ideology + tax + control eg medieval warm period or no evidence anywhere by IPCC scientists: Just act now - here's a start:

<Put on Clown Suit>
paint your roof white
<Take off Clown suit>​


----------



## moXJO

> The sci-fi action adventure movie is about a solar eclipse causing a rift in the ozone layer, allowing frigid gases to enter from deep space, sending a super-chilled fog rushing towards Hobart.



And still Tasmanians would wear shorts and thongs.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> Seems like we might have to be more worried about freezing to death than being cooked...
> 
> http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/16/186371_movies.html



Dear oh dear!

It might be worth watching purely for amusement value.


----------



## Julia

The government are ramping up the pressure, viz Greg Combet on "PM" this evening kindly advising us that putting a price on carbon will make electricity cheaper.  Sadly, he failed to explain why this would be so.

We will all just have to take his word for it and be grateful to have such a caring Climate Change Minister who is acting purely in our best interests.


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> *There is no evidence of human global warming:*
> ....
> In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
> 
> The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists.* Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports—1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere.* www.conscious.com.au​




To be an 'expert reviewer' you simply had request a copy of the draft report and sign to say you wouldn't publicly comment on the report before it was published. He was not an official reviewer. I could have asked for a copy and claim to be an IPCC expert reviewer.

I had a quick look through some of his recommended changes. Most of the were just 'replace this with that' or 'insert this on the end of such and such line'. He provided very few references for his changes. Apparently he made over 1800 requested changes.

Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.


----------



## derty

derty said:


> has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal.



I was wrong with this statement, though most of them are opinion pieces and not research. Also Energy and Environment is not a science journal and is classed as a trade journal. 


Gray V R  1994.  The Greenhouse Effect and its Consequences, Chemistry in New Zealand 58 (2) 31-40.

 Gray V R  1995. Climate Change 1994; Chemistry in New Zealand  59 (9) 30-33.

 Gray V R 1996. Climate Change ’95 ;   New Zealand Science Review 53 58-62.

 Gray V R 1998  The IPCC Future Projections: are they Plausible? ; Climate Research 10 155-162.

 Gray V R 2000 . The Cause of Global Warming;  Energy & Environment 11 (6),  613-629.

Gray V R 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere ; Energy and Environment 17 (5) 707-714

 Gray V R 2007.  Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policymakers.; Energy and Environment 18 (3+4) 433-440.


----------



## derty

At the end of the day we are locked in - the required changes to simply slow the increase in the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere are going to be technically extremely difficult and politically near impossible. To stabilise CO2 at around 450ppm will require a global cooperative effort that is laughable in it's magnitude.

I found this quite sobering. Notes from Steward Brand on a talk by Engineer Saul Griffiths (link):


> The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terrawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terrawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources.
> 
> That would mean the following. (Here I’m drawing on notes and extrapolations I’ve written up previously from discussion with Griffith):
> 
> “Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15-percent-efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Half a terawatt of biofuels? Something like one Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 15,250 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300-foot-diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build 3 100-megawatt steam turbines every day ”” 1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3-reactor, 3-gigawatt plant every week ”” 52 a year, times 25″.
> 
> In other words, the land area dedicated to renewable energy (“Renewistan”) would occupy a space about the size of Australia to keep the carbon dioxide level at 450 ppm.




Here is the task described another way. Basically it's not going to happen.







> The main scary part is the astounding magnitude of this project, and how far we are from doing anything remotely close. Griffith describes it as not like the Manhattan Project, but like World War II ”” only with everyone on the same side.




The relative power densities available to us are described here. Another interesting way at looking at energy is the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) and the lack of any real contenders to replace fossil fuels. Especially pertinent when looking for a solution for looming peak oil. Coal has a good EROEI though that would be for electricity generation, you start making oil out of it and it will drop drastically.

Typical EROEI's    
    Natural gas: 10:1
    Coal: 50:1
    Oil (Ghawar supergiant field): 100:1
    Oil (global average): 19:1
    Tar sands: 5.2:1 to 5.8:1
    Oil shale: 1.5:1 to 4:1

    Wind: 18:1
    Hydro: 11:1 to 267:1
    Waves: 15:1
    Tides: ~ 6:1
    Geothermal power: 2:1 to 13:1
    Solar photovoltaic power: 3.75:1 to 10:1
    Solar thermal: 1.6:1

    Nuclear power: 1.1:1 to 15:1

    Biodiesel: 1.9:1 to 9:1
    Ethanol: 0.5:1 to 8:1

Some interesting articles on energy and the issues at hand over at the Azimuth Project site:
Power Density
Energy Return on Energy Invested
Future
Stabilization Wedges

I really want the anti-AGW movement to be right. I just can't see it. I don't see a global conspiracy in the scientific community. It really doesn't make sense to me. I see a disinformation campaign that has become a self perpetuating monster and I see parasitic carbon based financial system that is being built up on the issue that will just result in the further consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few. To undertake any significant action will be politically and economically devastating with current technologies, so at best we will see token efforts. We are along for the ride. Wherever that takes us. 

Image: projected CO2 levels with varying CO2 emission scenarios.


----------



## sails

sails said:


> And the likes of Al Gore really don't seem to be concerned with their own CO2 excesses...




*Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange*



> Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange - not before Gore pockets $18M




Obviously, it's all about the money - carbon is simply the excuse...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> To be an 'expert reviewer' you simply had request a copy of the draft report and sign to say you wouldn't publicly comment on the report before it was published. He was not an official reviewer. I could have asked for a copy and claim to be an IPCC expert reviewer.
> 
> I had a quick look through some of his recommended changes. Most of the were just 'replace this with that' or 'insert this on the end of such and such line'. He provided very few references for his changes. Apparently he made over 1800 requested changes.
> 
> Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.




Thanks Derty for the clarification. You've raised a very good point on the strength of the IPCC "scientific" capacity. Many expert reviewers were simply ignored by the IPCC if their views didn't support the IPCC political agenda on climate change.

I've asked questions in this forum before but have yet to have anyone answer them to any reasonable satisfaction, one in particular:

"Why did the IPCC change the temperature histories between the AR 1/2 and AR 3 to remove the Medieval Warming Period that was previously published? Can you clarify which expert reviewer(s) with climate qualifications decided this to become fact and scientifically justified through peer review process?"​
Do you agree with the IPCC changing of temperature history that shows the Medieval warming period with higher temperatures than today swapped for the Hockey Stick that shows "unprecedented" and higher temperatures in the 1900's? If so, why?


----------



## Logique

derty said:


> ....Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.



And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?




The point is that Dr Vincent Gray is under the pay of the coal industry and pushes their interests. Come up with someone better to agree with your needs.


----------



## Logique

Flannery has a pecuniary conflict of interest as well:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/science-of-the-smear/story-e6frfifx-1111113148474
AS Tim Flannery shamefully proves, the pet weapon of global warming alarmists is now, The Smear. See a scientist who dares to doubt that the world is frying so fast we'll all die? 
Then don't answer his arguments with facts and reason. Smear him instead...

...*And how he's pushed geothermal* -- in which water is pumped to hot rocks underground to create steam for power.
How often he's *demanded we back this industry, especially in the Hunter Valley*, in articles and interviews in The Age (twice), the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the West Australian, the Border Mail, ABC's Lateline, ABC's PM, ABC's Jon Faine show, Cosmos magazine, AAP and more.

But only twice have I seen him reveal what he should always declare -- that *he holds shares in a very active geothermal company*, Geodynamics, which has a project in . . . the Hunter Valley.


----------



## derty

Logique said:


> And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?



Fine by me.


----------



## derty

Knobby22 said:


> The point is that Dr Vincent Gray is under the pay of the coal industry and pushes their interests. Come up with someone better to agree with your needs.



In all fairness Knobby, he was involved in the coal industry for much of his career and now states he does not personally receive any money from industry. He is involved with some think tanks/groups that receive undisclosed industry support and has been obsessed with repudiating global warming since he retired in 1991.


----------



## ghotib

Geez, I'm away for a couple of weeks and this thread goes feral. Just to respond to one point that was raised back in October: 


OzWaveGuy said:


> I've asked questions in this forum before but have yet to have anyone answer them to any reasonable satisfaction, one in particular:
> 
> "Why did the IPCC change the temperature histories between the AR 1/2 and AR 3 to remove the Medieval Warming Period that was previously published? Can you clarify which expert reviewer(s) with climate qualifications decided this to become fact and scientifically justified through peer review process?"​
> Do you agree with the IPCC changing of temperature history that shows the Medieval warming period with higher temperatures than today swapped for the Hockey Stick that shows "unprecedented" and higher temperatures in the 1900's? If so, why?



Changes to the temperature histories, like all advances in knowledge, were a result of continuing investigations. Our picture of how characteristics are passed from one generation to the next is very different in 2010 from what it was in 1910. Is that sinister? Of course not. It's what you'd expect after intensive study by a large number of researchers. Genetics in 2010 still has many areas of uncertainty and questions requiring further intensive and expensive study. Is that sinister? Of course not. There's a very old saying that "the more you know, the more you know you don't know."

In the particular case of how the IPCC reports discussed the Medieval Warming Period, it would help if you point to the relevant sections. It's hard to have a useful discussion about 3rd hand paraphrases of descriptions of diagrams.


----------



## Logique

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
*UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'*
By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."


> (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy*. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. *One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy*. *This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore*, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.



As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.


----------



## derty

Logique said:


> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
> *UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'*
> By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010
> If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
> 
> As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.



When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.

To claim that "*the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth*" is disingenuous when the man whose discussion is being used to support the claim clearly believes that AGW is real.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.
> 
> To claim that "*the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth*" is disingenuous when the man whose discussion is being used to support the claim clearly believes that AGW is real.




You should read up a bit on psychology to understand such beliefs.


----------



## Bat_Ears

nioka said:


> It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.
> 
> Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.
> 
> So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.
> 
> Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
> We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
> or we can pay via a carbon tax.)
> 
> Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.
> 
> That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.




Do you also believe in God?

What you have just stated is another form of Pascal's Wager?


Also, if the Earth is warming, and if it is NOT caused by humans, should we still act to stop the warming?


----------



## wayneL

Climategate revisited:


----------



## nioka

Bat_Ears said:


> Do you also believe in God?
> 
> What you have just stated is another form of Pascal's Wager?
> 
> 
> Also, if the Earth is warming, and if it is NOT caused by humans, should we still act to stop the warming?




What a ridiculous question. Does it matter if I do or I don't. Polution is caused by both the believers and the non believers. Pollution is there whether you believe or not believe in global warming, 

From the tone of most posts on the topic it is evident that a lot of non believers are non believers because they fear that believing will cost them money. Just because some opportunists are using "believing" to cash in on the business of prevention does not prove the case one way or the other.

Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.


----------



## drsmith

nioka said:


> Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.



If we forget "global warming", then in that context, we are saying it ain't broken.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. 

Obviously, the context of how we manage the planet is much broader, but how we change energy generation involves a comprehensive understanding of the current problems and of the impact of any potential solutions. So far, the problems and the solutions have been presented in a political context with other objectives such as increased taxation being a significant priority. This won't lead to either the best environmental or economic outcome.


----------



## wayneL

nioka said:


> Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.




And there-in lies the rub. CO2 has been categorized as the primo "pollution" threat by the alarmists.

I'm all for fixing the pollution and I willingly pay a higher price for non (or reduced) polluting (and/or ethical) products and services.

I pay for organic products, not just for my health, but because it is better for the Earth (IMO). I prefer to buy non-packaged products rather than the over-packaged but cheaper ones. I live in a modest, energy efficient house; not by necessity, but by choice...

etc etc etc

But they can stick their ETS/carbon taxes right up their @rse... sideways if it hurts more!

Because it does noting to alleviate pollution, not a jot.

All thinking people think the same, 'cept for Fabian Socialists and those fooled by their BS.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> But they can stick their ETS/carbon taxes right up their @rse... sideways if it hurts more!



Indeed. 

The politicians can take wedlock with their carbon tax on their own.


----------



## joea

Hi.
It is interesting to read comments on climate change and pollution.

Mankind will resolve the problems he has helped to create out of necessity, not want.
It has been documented that in the next 50 years, the planet will need to produce as much food as it has in the entire history of mankind.
The way we produce that food will require a radical departure from business as usual.

go to www.amazingcarbon.com and read "Soil carbon - can it save agriculture's bacon".

There has been a fair bit of activity in this area.
In Nth.Qld. seminars are being run, and research in the last few years has some interesting points.

As for me and my son in law we are going to covert a property from agriculture as usual to a better way. It has just been purchased.
We have mango's and catlle and we intend to initiate "Mycorrhizal fungi " under the soil associated to the plants to absorb CO2 as DOC ( dissolved organic carbon).
A gulf management group will be involved to help.

All my citrus  and vegetables are grown with SEASOL and bio fertilizers. 
I share with the insects.

We now intend to move to "compost tea" as the initiator of the fungi.
Correct grass growing methods and cell grazing will hopefully prove to be economic.
$6000 of grass pellets to be sowed by plane on Friday.

Hopfully I can provide photo's to keep you up to date.

Cheers. At the least we are going to give it a good go.
           Oh. yeah I am a semi retired sugar chemist from the sugar industry.
           Enhancing sugar content in sugar cane is also on the agenda.


----------



## Bat_Ears

joea said:


> Hi.
> It is interesting to read comments on climate change and pollution.
> 
> Mankind will resolve the problems he has helped to create out of necessity, not want.
> It has been documented that in the next 50 years, the planet will need to produce as much food as it has in the entire history of mankind.
> The way we produce that food will require a radical departure from business as usual.
> 
> go to www.amazingcarbon.com and read "Soil carbon - can it save agriculture's bacon".
> 
> There has been a fair bit of activity in this area.
> In Nth.Qld. seminars are being run, and research in the last few years has some interesting points.
> 
> As for me and my son in law we are going to covert a property from agriculture as usual to a better way. It has just been purchased.
> We have mango's and catlle and we intend to initiate "Mycorrhizal fungi " under the soil associated to the plants to absorb CO2 as DOC ( dissolved organic carbon).
> A gulf management group will be involved to help.
> 
> All my citrus  and vegetables are grown with SEASOL and bio fertilizers.
> I share with the insects.
> 
> We now intend to move to "compost tea" as the initiator of the fungi.
> Correct grass growing methods and cell grazing will hopefully prove to be economic.
> $6000 of grass pellets to be sowed by plane on Friday.
> 
> Hopfully I can provide photo's to keep you up to date.
> 
> Cheers. At the least we are going to give it a good go.
> Oh. yeah I am a semi retired sugar chemist from the sugar industry.
> Enhancing sugar content in sugar cane is also on the agenda.




I happen to agree that soil degradation is our biggest concern. And the way to fix it is fairly simple. Stop growing monocrops and switch to more pastured meats and vegetables that don't require the soil to be re-tilled every year. Rotate paddocks between vegetables and pastured animals so the animals can rejuvenate the soil. Also, ditch thirsty crops in Australia. Our country is not suited to them. 

With global warming we don't even know whether there IS a problem, and if there is a problem, is it caused by humans or is it a natural occurence? Or a mixture of both? If a mixture, how much is human caused and how much natural? To fully answer that question requires a greater understanding of the climate and all the different feedback loops?

What if CO2 is no the big cause? Then all our efforts are meaningless and we have put ourselves in a worse problem to deal with the problem (since we no longer have such great energy reserves to draw on). What if CO2 is the big cause but its not human caused? What do we do then? Should we stop the planets natural warming and/or cooling and geo-engineer the climate to suit what we humans find preferable? 

Its no use saying we take action until we know what is actually going on. Then we can decide whether action is warranted. And if so, what action? 

Right now we just have Al Gore's personal crusade and billions of dollars of funding given 'scientists' motive to 'hide the decline'.

The reason why this is so political is because we are talking about taxing the air. We are talking about giving governments the POWER to control everything about our lives in the name of an unproven scientific hypothesis. 

Further, for those who don't understand Pascal's wager, it runs roughly as follows:

1. If you don't believe in God and he is real you go to hell.
2. If you don't believe in God isn't real then you don't go to hell.
3. The possibility of going to hell is infinitely worse than the possibility of their being no life after death.

Conclusion: You ought to believe in God.

Switch God for Climate Change (or Al Gore) and hell for "OMIGOD WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE" and you have noika's climate change argument which is as silly and unconvincing as Pascal's Wager was hundreds of years ago.


----------



## nioka

Bat_Ears said:


> Switch God for Climate Change (or Al Gore) and hell for "OMIGOD WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE" and you have noika's climate change argument which is as silly and unconvincing as Pascal's Wager was hundreds of years ago.




No sillier than your distorted interpretation of my post. Do you consider that Al Gore is the only one interested in changing attitudes and that his is the only way to attack the problem.  Nor did I suggest "OMIGOD WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE" but I do say we are in for a reduced quality of life. as a matter of fact we are allready there and I have the medical proof to show it. You will get your turn too sooner than you think.


----------



## GumbyLearner

The arguments for taxing C02 are premised on a Deontological ethical fallacy. That being that all of mankind regardless of their means *should* be taxed for an unproven spurious "science". 
I am logically "duty" bound to many other pursuits, but this is not one of them.

Why don't they just tax daylight?  

Wait a minute that's already been tried.

http://historytothepeople.ca/2010/09/the-history-of-a-phrase-daylight-robbery/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax 

I agree with WayneL. This one belongs right up the clacker of it's proponents. I'm sure there will still be plenty of daylight emitting from where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## Smurf1976

I think this one deserves a mention. CO2 related or not, rainfall in WA has pretty much collapsed over the past 35 years. The climate has changed, no matter what the cause.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/wa-rivers-running-dry/story-e6frg19l-1225958473823

Historically, this trend has also affected Tasmania although at present we're not doing too badly.

http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/water-storage/storage.pdf


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> I think this one deserves a mention. CO2 related or not, rainfall in WA has pretty much collapsed over the past 35 years. The climate has changed, no matter what the cause.
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/wa-rivers-running-dry/story-e6frg19l-1225958473823
> 
> Historically, this trend has also affected Tasmania although at present we're not doing too badly.
> 
> http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/water-storage/storage.pdf





I was going to post the WA article Smurf but couldn't find it online. We have a decel plant already based on those numbers and a 2nd bigger one being built.

Southern state now just a tinder box waiting for a tragedy, hills area around Perth are a real risk fire wise

WA grain farmers got smashed 2010


----------



## nioka

IFocus said:


> I was going to post the WA article Smurf but couldn't find it online. We have a decel plant already based on those numbers and a 2nd bigger one being built.
> 
> Southern state now just a tinder box waiting for a tragedy, hills area around Perth are a real risk fire wise
> 
> WA grain farmers got smashed 2010




Makes one wonder how much of the problem in the west relates to the clearing of forests to supply firewood for the water distillation at the goldfields. At least land cleared for farming does grow crops that absorb carbon. I've seen figures that show a wheat crop can absorb more carbon than a eucalypt old growth forest and return more carbon to the soil than the forrest providing the stubble is not burnt.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> I was going to post the WA article Smurf but couldn't find it online. We have a decel plant already based on those numbers and a 2nd bigger one being built.
> 
> Southern state now just a tinder box waiting for a tragedy, hills area around Perth are a real risk fire wise
> 
> WA grain farmers got smashed 2010



Desal and groundwater will ensure that nobody dies of thirst. That's the good bit.

But for the natural ecosystems etc it's either adapt or die. And adaptation on that scale, in such a short space of time, sounds like a problem to me. Evolution maybe, but we're talking about a major change over a very short space of time here - species don't evolve _that_ quickly.

Then there's the "why?" question as well. A huge reduction in rainfall over a 35 year timeframe isn't a trivial event no matter how you look at it.


----------



## pixel

This Irishism says it all:


----------



## Logique

Ha ha. Cheers Pixel.

Because I'm a masochist I watched ABC Q&A last Monday. And who should be on it, but the guru himself Tim Flannery, who had brought his own adoring  audience it seemed. Loud cheers for his every utterance. 

'..These deniers..' he said, '..they always talk over you..'. 

_The Australian_ newspaper appears to be the main hindrance to him saving the world. If only it would fall into line with his visionary dogma. A newspaper according to Tim, that caters to a certain demographic..'..over 60 and regional..'.

It would appear that these are people whose views, in Flannery-World, don't count. Coincidentally, they would suffer most from the financially punitive outcomes championed by him.


----------



## wayneL

So this is Tim "let's pump the atmosphere full of no2" Flannery?


----------



## Logique

Mr Climate Change will not be happy. He'll have to hold back the rising oceans outside of prime time.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ent-affairs-show/story-e6frg996-1225965057836
*Leigh Sales and Chris Uhlmann to co-anchor ABC current affairs show 7.30 Report* 
LEIGH Sales and Chris Uhlmann have been named joint anchors for the ABC's new-look 7.30 Report, replacing Kerry O'Brien. 
The Australian broke the news online this morning and the ABC is now confirming the changes.

The ABC reported that the name of the show will change to 7.30 and online political writer Annabel Crabb will also be a contributor on 7.30.


----------



## gav

Logique said:


> Mr Climate Change will not be happy. He'll have to hold back the rising oceans outside of prime time.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ent-affairs-show/story-e6frg996-1225965057836
> *Leigh Sales and Chris Uhlmann to co-anchor ABC current affairs show 7.30 Report*
> LEIGH Sales and Chris Uhlmann have been named joint anchors for the ABC's new-look 7.30 Report, replacing Kerry O'Brien.
> The Australian broke the news online this morning and the ABC is now confirming the changes.
> 
> The ABC reported that the name of the show will change to 7.30 and online political writer Annabel Crabb will also be a contributor on 7.30.




Don't expect a balanced view though....

From the above link:
_"Uhlmann cannot leave Canberra to host the show in Sydney because his wife Gai Brodtmonn was elected as ALP member for Canberra"_

Un-f***ing-believable...


----------



## Julia

gav said:


> Don't expect a balanced view though....
> 
> From the above link:
> _"Uhlmann cannot leave Canberra to host the show in Sydney because his wife Gai Brodtmonn was elected as ALP member for Canberra"_
> 
> Un-f***ing-believable...



That seems on the surface really disappointing.  However, Chris Uhlmann has always come across to me as pretty balanced, objective and reasonably capable of asking hard questions.

I know plenty of married people who differ one from the other in their political views.

I can't see Leigh Sales, much as I like and respect her capabilities, being any sort of replacement for K. O'Brien.  She is at this early stage in her career rather too diffident, not enough aggression in her to insist on answer to the harder questions.

Guess we should not judge too much in advance.


----------



## bandicoot76

*europe in a deep freeze
*coldest australian november in 35yrs
*biggest rainfall on aus east coast since 1900
*america experiencing coldest consequtive winters in years....

Manns "hockey stick" must look like a sickle now.... just add the hammer and his political ideology is revealed! 

any AGW believers out there are either devious b*stards who will make a fortune out of their scaremongering or brainwashed sheep!

carbon tax based on pseudo science is only for political gain/power/people control and to enrich the devious mongrel "agw preachers" who will seriously "cash up" at the expense of us "the unwashed masses" if it ever gets implemented ... i'm looking at you gore & co!

AGW is complete bollocks!!!!!


----------



## joea

Hi
Update on Mango and Beef property.

The seed has gone on 400 acres, and 150mm of rain has followed.
Poison has been eleminated under trees and  "zero turn mower" utilised to mow the grass. i.e. low slung mower fits under trees.

All grass clippings has been sprayed under trees to help hold moisture.
All tree clippings chipped and applied as ground cover under trees.

"Compost tea" to be added under trees and then irrigated in.
A total of 3 additions will be applied in next 3 - 4 months.

We have been informed a farmer south of us has reduced poison usage by 
90% and synthetic fertilizers by 30 %. By applying similar methods.

Because owner works in a mine, we only have 3 days each break to do aggriculture work. 

Must say we are lucky with the early wet season. Two storms have passed over, then turned back to go over property again.

Side benefit of property is the wild life and wallaby's jumping all over the place.
 Next door neighbour just harvestered 55 tonne of pumpkins.
Cheers


----------



## nioka

Are they right? Or are you right?  Following is from a press item today.

     "" Climate: a million deaths a year by 2030 - study08:16 AEST Sat Dec 4 20106 hours 31 minutes ago

 The biggest misery will be heaped on more than 50 of the world's poorest countries, but the United States will pay the highest economic bill, it said.

"In less than 20 years, almost all countries in the world will realise high vulnerability to climate impact as the planet heats up," the report warned.

The study, compiled by a humanitarian research organisation and climate-vulnerable countries, assessed how 184 nations will be affected in four areas: health, weather disasters, the loss of human habitat through desertification and rising seas, and economic stress.

Those facing "acute" exposure are 54 poor or very poor countries, including India. They will suffer disproportionately to others, although they are least to blame for the man-made greenhouse gases that drive climate change, it said.

"Without corrective actions" a press release accompanying the study said, the world is "headed for nearly one million deaths every single year by 2030."

More than half of the 157 billion dollars in economic losses, calculated in terms of today's economy, will take place in industrialised countries, led by the United States, Japan and Germany.

But the cost to their GDP will proportionately be far lower than for poor countries.

The peer-reviewed report was issued by DARA, a Madrid-based NGO, and by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a coalition of island nations and other countries that are most exposed to climate change.

Saleemul Huq, a researcher at a London-based thinktank, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said the findings spelled out the need to start shoring up defenses against climate change now, rather than later.

"We are now entering into a highly vulnerable phase of our planet's existence and humanity's existence," Huq told a press conference.

"No amount of (greenhouse-gas) mitigation will prevent at least another 0.7 degree (Celsius, 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit) of temperature rise over the next two decades," he said.

"In the last century we have already seen a 0.7 degree (1.26 F) rise. So we are headed for 1.4 (2.5 F) almost certainly.

"If emissions carry on their current pathway then we may in the longer term be headed for three or four degrees (5.4-7.2 F), which is practically impossible for everybody to adapt to.

"But at the lower level, we can do a lot by adapting to the impacts of climate change, to prepare for them."

The November 29-December 10 talks in Cancun gather the 194 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), tasked with crafting a deal to roll back global warming and its impacts after 2010.

Among the long list of problems they face is how to muster funds to tackle climate change -- and decide how much of the money should be allocated for adapting to the threat, and how much to reduce carbon emissions.

So far, adaptation has been given far less priority than emissions mitigation, say campaigners.

"When you know your car has a brake problem, you do not sit around and talk about it. You fix it immediately before the kids get in," commented Wendel Trio of Greenpeace.

"No one escapes from the climate crisis, old or young, rich or poor, unless we all act together now."

Previous studies into climate vulnerability have been more narrowly focussed and have a longer timeframe, looking at, for instance, the risks by 2100.

By focussing on what happens in a couple of decades, the report has a better chance of swaying policymakers, as these events are likely to happen within their lifetime, said former UNFCCC chief Michael Zammit Cutajar."


----------



## bandicoot76

they are self serving twats perpetuating there own agenda for their own ends... usually power or profit... do yourself a favour... dont read bullsh*t propaganda written by self interest groups riding the carbon gravy train.

 buy a bloody thermometer, go to your local library archives and check the temperature & weather patterns in the local paper back as far as their archives go and to get an understanding of local temerature fluctuations and weather patterns. hell if youve got time get on the net and do it for areas all around the bloody world! in our area there are definate cycles.. a 10yr & 50yr continuous overlapping cycle at least..

google the 'climategate' leaked emails and have a read of these 'peer reviewed' scientests who push the AGW theory... and thats all it is a theory...to see what an absolute self serving "i'll scatch your back if you scratch mine" joke they are! go and read some alternative viewpoints like MITs richard lidzen or  australias own geology professor Ian plimer for an alternative viewpoint... believe me ive researched both sides before coming to my conclusion.... HAVE YOU???????????????????????

THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!

only sheep follow the leaders bleating blindly without ever questioning it


----------



## jonojpsg

bandicoot76 said:


> they are self serving twats perpetuating there own agenda for their own ends... usually power or profit... do yourself a favour... dont read bullsh*t propaganda written by self interest groups riding the carbon gravy train.
> 
> buy a bloody thermometer, go to your local library archives and check the temperature & weather patterns in the local paper back as far as their archives go and to get an understanding of local temerature fluctuations and weather patterns. hell if youve got time get on the net and do it for areas all around the bloody world! in our area there are definate cycles.. a 10yr & 50yr continuous overlapping cycle at least..
> 
> google the 'climategate' leaked emails and have a read of these 'peer reviewed' scientests who push the AGW theory... and thats all it is a theory...to see what an absolute self serving "i'll scatch your back if you scratch mine" joke they are! go and read some alternative viewpoints like MITs richard lidzen or  australias own geology professor Ian plimer for an alternative viewpoint... believe me ive researched both sides before coming to my conclusion.... HAVE YOU???????????????????????
> 
> THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!
> 
> only sheep follow the leaders bleating blindly without ever questioning it




hey bandicoot, i appreciate your point of view, but as you point out it is quite easy to access information on climate, eg bom.gov.au website, and as I posted back a few pages, the data for cap cities in Aus shows a clear warming of around 0.3 degrees average between 1970 averages and 2000 averages.  Obviously the big question that remains to be answered is whether this av temp rise is related to atm CO2 increases (325ppm to 370ppm in the same period).  

With 2010 about to close, we'll be able to look at the last decade averages shortly, but I imagine given that about 5 of the hottest years on record were in the last 10, you'll be disappointed if you think there's going to be any drop.  Even with some cold and wet weather in the last year or two.

Mann's temperature graph may be discredited, but the CO2 levels have definitely increased significantly since 1850 and at a rate faster than any time in history...whether this makes average temps increase is yet to be proven.


----------



## nioka

bandicoot76 said:


> only sheep follow the leaders bleating blindly without ever questioning it




And an ostrich puts its head in the sand, the blind lead the blind etc etc.

BUT WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG. 

Take the weather forcaster. IF people want rain and he says it will be fine then if he's right then he is right without question. If he is wrong then everyone is happy that he was wrong.
 I'll be happy if they are wrong but what if YOU are wrong, will you still be happy.?


----------



## bandicoot76

"the data for cap cities in Aus shows a clear warming"

you've just shot your own argument right out of the water buddy! have a think about it... cities are a man made 'heat bubble'.... the more people concentrated in one area equals more cars, more industry, more concrete, more power use, engine heat, tarmac, even body heat! basically everything in a city creates and stores heat... therefore the more people in one area the more heat created... and whats been happening for the past 25yrs not only in australia but all over the world? regional depopulation and a corresponding increase of people in urban cities! doesnt take a rocket scientist to join the dots mate! 

for a true measurement to get a "global mean temperature" the measuring stations should be in regional areas AWAY from cities so as not to get a false reading... if you had done your research you would know this has already been covered in the scientific community by the disqualification of  data provided by a chinese scientist collected from their research stations (cant remember the study paper...you'll have to google it) because the measuring stations where originally estabished in a rural area that was overtaken & surrounded by growing urbanisation giving it a false reading of increased temp given off from the city growing around it.

... and frankly no, i dont believe in taking radical action on a theory before it is proven to be fact... to me its like giving a baby chemo treatment just in case it developes cancer when it grows up. at the moment, on the evidence put forward, the cost is not relative to the proposed threat IMO!

 carbon IS NOT A POLLUTANT it is the basis of all life on earth, its plant food, the building blocks of life.. we wouldnt exist without it and man made CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere, the rest (99.98%) is natural... volcanoes, decomposing vegetation, even bloody white ants (termites) release more than we do... 

whatever... couldnt be buggered arguing... what will happen will happen... i just cant believe people think that the earths climate is a stagnant force that doesnt vary naturally... the earths gone from ice age to tropical countless times before and no doubt will do so again long after our puny race has wiped itself out.... google 'sunspots effect on earths climate' for another competing theory... no less documented than the AGW one.

sweet dreams chicken little cos the skys falling and the emporer has new clothes!


----------



## bandicoot76

and a "question everything" attitude is hardly having ones head buried in the sand! and acting without proven justification is plain foolhardy


----------



## derty

bandicoot76 said:


> *europe in a deep freeze[
> *america experiencing coldest consequtive winters in years....



Even with the current cold snap, 2010 will likely be one of the three warmest years since 1850 - globally it has been a warm year. 



bandicoot76 said:


> *coldest australian november in 35yrs
> *biggest rainfall on aus east coast since 1900



As I'm sure you are aware there is currently a strong la Nina in force, a similar situation was last seen about 35 years ago, that also coincided with the last time widespread rainfall and flooding of this magnitude was witnessed on the eastern seaboard. La Nina also sees more cloud cover and onshore winds that reduce temperatures, evaporation of rainfall also reduces the temperature too. 

And why is a high intensity rainfall event an argument against global warming?



bandicoot76 said:


> THE MAIN AGW WEAPON "MANNS HOCKEYSTICK GRAPH" HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE BOGUS!!



 The work by McIntyre was one of the first to find issue with Mann's work, and that issue was not with the data, but with the methodology he used with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) statistics he used. They claimed that the PCA used produced the hockey stick from the noise that was the tree ring data. Analysis of McIntyre's work and the highly plagiarised Wegman report to US Congress largely based on McIntyre's work have some questions being asked of them e.g., e.g.

This aside, assuming that Mann's data AND statistics are wrong, why do all these other studies using many different palaeo datasets and different analysis methodologies all show the same upturned trend? Is the hockey stick shape always the shape of the wrong answer?



bandicoot76 said:


> carbon IS NOT A POLLUTANT it is the basis of all life on earth, its plant food, the building blocks of life.. we wouldnt exist without it and man made CO2 only makes up 0.02% of the total carbon dioxide released into the earths atmosphere, the rest (99.98%) is natural... volcanoes, decomposing vegetation, even bloody white ants (termites) release more than we do...



Actually the man made CO2 is around 3-4% of the global CO2 exhalations. The natural CO2 cycle is in equilibrium, a state it has managed to find over a very long period of time where the CO2 sinks take up CO2 at the same rate that it is emitted. Now we have upset that in two ways, *1.* we are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere and *2.* through deforestation and land use we are degrading the carbon sinks.

Here is an analogy for you. Say you have a 2000 litre water tank with 1000 litres in it. It has a hole in the bottom that drains water at 1 litre per hour and a tap runs into it adding 1 litre per hour. The water level in the tank will remain constant, right? Now what happens if someone gives the tap a nudge so it is now running at 1.1 litres per hour and at the same time a leaf falls into the tank, settles to the bottom and partially obscures the hole so it only leaks at 0.9 litres per hour?

True, we wouldn't exist without carbon, it's ability to form long chain organic molecules is why it is the molecular backbone of life on Earth. But too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. It's a bit of a double edged sword. Plants have two methods of fixing carbon, the C4 method (~25% of the food crop) is optimised and increasing CO2 has no real benefit whereas the C3 plants (~75% of food plants and includes wheat) have a less efficient method of fixing carbon and will benefit in both productivity (though recent trials have shown the increase is less than was expected) and as the stomata have to be open less to acquire the necessary CO2 the plants will require less water too. One of the negatives of increased atmospheric CO2 is that nitrogen intake is inhibited  and as a result the nutritional value of the plant declines. This has the obvious consequences for humans in addition to both livestock and plant pests having to eat more to achieve their nutritional requirements.   

At the end of the day atmospheric CO2 is rising at relatively significant rates, there is no escaping this. There is also no escaping that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## basilio

> Actually the man made CO2 is around 3-4% of the global CO2 exhalations. The natural CO2 cycle is in equilibrium, a state it has managed to find over a very long period of time where the CO2 sinks take up CO2 at the same rate that it is emitted. Now we have upset that in two ways, 1. we are releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere and 2. through deforestation and land use we are degrading the carbon sinks.
> 
> Here is an analogy for you. Say you have a 2000 litre water tank with 1000 litres in it. It has a hole in the bottom that drains water at 1 litre per hour and a tap runs into it adding 1 litre per hour. The water level in the tank will remain constant, right? Now what happens if someone gives the tap a nudge so it is now running at 1.1 litres per hour and at the same time a leaf falls into the tank, settles to the bottom and partially obscures the hole so it only leaks at 0.9 litres per hour?
> 
> True, we wouldn't exist without carbon, it's ability to form long chain organic molecules is why it is the molecular backbone of life on Earth. But too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. It's a bit of a double edged sword. Plants have two methods of fixing carbon, the C4 method (~25% of the food crop) is optimised and increasing CO2 has no real benefit whereas the C3 plants (~75% of food plants and includes wheat) have a less efficient method of fixing carbon and will benefit in both productivity (though recent trials have shown the increase is less than was expected) and as the stomata have to be open less to acquire the necessary CO2 the plants will require less water too. One of the negatives of increased atmospheric CO2 is that nitrogen intake is inhibited and as a result the nutritional value of the plant declines. This has the obvious consequences for humans in addition to both livestock and plant pests having to eat more to achieve their nutritional requirements.
> 
> At the end of the day atmospheric CO2 is rising at relatively significant rates, there is no escaping this. There is also no escaping that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.




Really excellent post Derty.

Particularly like your link with the numerous other studies which clearly demonstrated that Global temperatures are going up very sharply. Isn't it curious that these other measures of global waming arn't mentioned ? But I wouldn't be holding my breath for a Road to Damascas conversion...


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Really excellent post Derty.
> 
> Particularly like your link with the numerous other studies which clearly demonstrated that Global temperatures are going up very sharply. Isn't it curious that these other measures of global waming arn't mentioned ? But I wouldn't be holding my breath for a Road to Damascas conversion...




I am sceptical because of carbon taxes and the attitude of those promoting such taxes.  There may be a problem, but I don't see that those promoting carbon taxes are one bit concerned about their own carbon footprints.  Al Gore is a classic.  Julia Gillard didn't seem bothered when she flew the breadth of Australia for some back slapping on climate change.  (Link was posted some time ago on this thread).

So there are probably two separate issues.  IF there is a problem with GW (and I'm not convinced), it should not be used as an excuse for further taxes which also further escalate our living costs.  And it is doubtful whether carbon taxes from Australia will actually do the slightest bit of good.

IF there is a problem, there would have to be more sensible ways to deal with it other than lining government and other people's pockets with unnecessary taxes.


----------



## Logique

> http://greensmps.org.au/content/med...mate-india-and-china-leaving-australia-behind
> Greens Deputy Leader Christine Milne:
> ...China is powering ahead of Australia in closing polluting industry and investing in renewables and efficiency.
> "As developing countries, neither *China* nor *India* should be expected to act before Australia does, and yet they *are both leaving us far behind them*...





> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html
> Bloomberg News:
> According to Michael Kruse, consultant on nuclear systems for Arthur D. Little, the* Chinese are ready to spend $511 billion to build up to 245 reactors*.
> “The market is being driven by the construction of new reactors, and it is no secret that most of those *are right here in China*,” says Fletcher T. Newton, an executive vice-president of Uranium One, a mining company.




The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine _USS Pennsylvania_ had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.


----------



## derty

cheers basillo 



sails said:


> I am sceptical because of carbon taxes and the attitude of those promoting such taxes.  There may be a problem, but I don't see that those promoting carbon taxes are one bit concerned about their own carbon footprints.  Al Gore is a classic.  Julia Gillard didn't seem bothered when she flew the breadth of Australia for some back slapping on climate change.  (Link was posted some time ago on this thread).
> 
> So there are probably two separate issues.  IF there is a problem with GW (and I'm not convinced), it should not be used as an excuse for further taxes which also further escalate our living costs.  And it is doubtful whether carbon taxes from Australia will actually do the slightest bit of good.
> 
> IF there is a problem, there would have to be more sensible ways to deal with it other than lining government and other people's pockets with unnecessary taxes.




It's a tough one Sails. Just looking at the numbers required, any substantial action of the problem will involve huge changes and most likely a huge reduction in the standard of living. Action like that will surely be political suicide for any that attempt it and literally may incite revolt. You can see the effect that merely adding a tax is having on public opinion and those actions are piddling in their proposed effect on reductions. People are adverse to change, noika sums it up well:


nioka said:


> From the tone of most posts on the topic it is evident that a lot of non believers are non believers because they fear that believing will cost them money. Just because some opportunists are using "believing" to cash in on the business of prevention does not prove the case one way or the other.




I think the fundamental premise of humans significantly contributing to warming is sound. As for how to realistically address the problem, I am at a loss. As I mentioned before the required effort will be monumental (see my post #1105) and needs to be globally coordinated. While there is a lot of noise in global politics about action, it really has failed to translate into anything tangible. And that probably won't really change. 

I see the problem something akin to stopping an asteroid hitting the Earth. If it is detected early enough you only have to exert a small amount of energy to alter the path, the longer you leave it the more and more energy you will need to apply to affect a change. Until it gets to the point that you do not have the energy at your disposal to prevent the collision.

I too am sceptical of the global carbon financial market/economy that is currently attempted to be set up. Those behind it and the first movers probably stand to make a poultice. This is the same with most markets and financial instruments. Another way of looking at it is that nothing is going to happen unless there is big bucks involved and a carbon economy may provide the financial incentive for the big money players that globally can make a difference to become involved (caveat: I may be totally speaking out the top of my hat here).

I'm a bit pessimistic, I don't think there will be the will to address the problem before we lack the means to.


----------



## ghotib

Then there's this from Business Week. Munich Re is one of the world's largest reinsurance companies.



> One of the new risks Munich Re is tracking is climate change. *The company has the world’s most comprehensive database on natural disasters, with information going back centuries. It shows that the frequency of serious floods worldwide has more than tripled since 1980, while hurricanes and other severe windstorms have doubled.*
> 
> “Global warming is real, and it affects our business,” says Peter Hoppe, who heads the company’s climate-change research.




http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...risk-in-natural-disasters-human-behavior.html

The first place I ever saw reference to climate change was in reports from reinsurance companies some time in the late 1980s. I thought it was quite funny then; I wish I still did. I wish even more that it was a scam or a fraud or a conspiracy by insurance companies to increase premiums. However, to date I've found that every suggestion that global temperature is not on a rising trend has turned out to be incorrect, and every explanation for the rise except that human activities have rapidly and greatly increased atmospheric  carbon has turned out to be insufficient or incorrect. 

Fortunately most of us can lower our carbon emissions as an unintended consequence of cutting costs or improving our lives in other ways. Turning stand-by power appliances off at the wall can make a startling reduction to power use: as power prices rise the dollar savings get greater. Walking or biking have fitness and financial advantages over driving. Home grown food beats supermarket vegetables for flavour, freshness, and variety, partly because most people try to build up the living and organic matter in their soils and incidentally create myriad little carbon cycles. 

Ghoti


----------



## derty

Logique said:


> The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine _USS Pennsylvania_ had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.



Yeah it's great stuff when handled properly. There is a US group that sells small contained reactors about 1.5m across that cost about $50M and can power about 20,000 homes for 7 to 10 years.


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> Fortunately most of us can lower our carbon emissions as an unintended consequence of cutting costs or improving our lives in other ways. Turning stand-by power appliances off at the wall can make a startling reduction to power use: as power prices rise the dollar savings get greater. Walking or biking have fitness and financial advantages over driving. Home grown food beats supermarket vegetables for flavour, freshness, and variety, partly because most people try to build up the living and organic matter in their soils and incidentally create myriad little carbon cycles.
> 
> Ghoti



Go and tell that to all the people on pensions, and other very low incomes, who are already doing all they can to stem their rising electricity bills.

How is some 80 year old who can't walk far, certainly can't toss bags of garden mulch etc around going to fare?  People who live in apartments who obviously can't have a garden?
And then if you live in some parts of the country a vegetable garden is impossible due to pests and diseases, counter-productive in terms of cost.

We have old people using torches to get round their homes at night because they can't afford to turn on the lights, and a single portable gas burner because they can't afford the stove or oven.  They are going without essential medication to buy food or keep a beloved pet.  They simply do not have the level of choices you are implying.

Go and talk with a few welfare agencies, Ghoti.   Allow them to describe to you the distressed people who come to them for assistance, reluctantly with pride damaged.  All very well for middle class Australians who have an unassailable belief that putting a price on carbon will make some magical difference to climate change, the anthropogenic component of which is yet to be established.  But spare a thought for those less fortunate.

And thanks, as always, to Derty for retaining some objectivity and honesty in this debate.  So much appreciated.


----------



## sails

Derty, yes thankyou for your reasoned response and acknowledgement of my concerns re the global carbon financial market/economy issues....

I understand your analogy of the asteroid hitting the Earth if it detected early enough.  With so much controversy regarding GW and whether it is actually something preventable or something that happens in nature over long periods of time, it is difficult to know if this is actually a fixable problem.

We could make life near impossible for many people (as Julia has pointed out so clearly and realistically) and still only achieve a relatively insignificant contribution to the problem.  Or we have made people's lives unbearable for normal cyclic temperature movements.  

I think if it were proved without doubt that there is *a problem that we can fix* and that a small contribution from everyone would fix that problem, I suspect the electorate at large would be more willing to participate.

But with the promises of "no carbon tax" pre-election to now pushing ahead for it, it leaves people like myself becoming quite skeptical that it is no more than a money grab that has the potential to hurt many people that can least afford it.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> We have old people using torches to get round their homes at night because they can't afford to turn on the lights, and a single portable gas burner because they can't afford the stove or oven.  They are going without essential medication to buy food or keep a beloved pet.  They simply do not have the level of choices you are implying.
> 
> Go and talk with a few welfare agencies, Ghoti.   Allow them to describe to you the distressed people who come to them for assistance, reluctantly with pride damaged.  All very well for middle class Australians who have an unassailable belief that putting a price on carbon will make some magical difference to climate change, the anthropogenic component of which is yet to be established.  But spare a thought for those less fortunate.



Totally agreed there. There's nothing at all unusual about finding a pensioner with a $750 power bill (for one quarter). Not unusual at all and it is the reality of the situation.

The outright mismanagement of the energy industry in this country disgusts me as it is, without adding a carbon tax to the problem.

Smurf's solution? I'll give you a hint. (1) Engineering is about doing things in an efficient manner (2) engineers historically have tended to be somewhat more socially conscious than money-obsessed CEO's (3) reducing CO2 emissions is by its very nature an engineering problem.

I'm not a qualified engineer by the way. But it seems ridiculous that we no longer have such people running the likes of electricity utilities, them having been replaced by highly paid CEO's and boards who have sent costs through the roof, pushed the system to a knife edge technically and failed to achieve any progress on the CO2 issue.  

PS: Due to the rising cost of grid electricity, I've spent much of today looking at equipment prices etc for solar. I've already got a few panels on the roof, but it seems that adding more is just about viable financially for me now, assuming I source the equipment directly and use my own free (but properly licensed) labour to put them up. And power prices are going up again next year, and again the year after that...


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> The SBS show last night said the 171m long submarine _USS Pennsylvania_ had been running for 21 years on a piece of uranium the size of a fist.




Logique, here is a further link where Spain has proved wind farms are a dead loss. There are now over 500 nuclear power plants around the world. Have you heard of any problems apart from the Chernobal distaster years ago?

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...eens_are_right_china_indeed_shows_us_the_way/


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> Totally agreed there. There's nothing at all unusual about finding a pensioner with a $750 power bill (for one quarter). Not unusual at all and it is the reality of the situation.




That's just not true...households with $3000 annual power bills would be most certainly deemed to be unusual, in fact i would think it very unusual, especially households occupied by pensioners.

I would be interested to know if anyone on this forum has ever paid $3000 over a 12 month period for power....i just cant imagine a situation where its possible without a 2000w radiator in every room running 24/7 for 10 months of the year.


----------



## Logique

derty said:


> Yeah it's great stuff when handled properly. There is a US group that sells small contained reactors about 1.5m across that cost about $50M and can power about 20,000 homes for 7 to 10 years.



Great research Derty. A very cool (and carbon free) energy solution. At 0.10 per kWh, the price is cheap, although I guess there'd be amortization of the installation cost to add to that.

Dear Gillard Federal Govt, can I have one in my neighbourhood please, just let me know where to BPAY my $2,500.

I knew there was a reason why the Australian Govt employed Ziggy Switkowski. If we can export uranium, why not use it ourselves?



> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hyperion's_Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors (Thanks to Derty for the link.)
> Costs
> *10 cents per KW hour*. Each neighborhood plant will cost $25 million USD for 10,000 household or *$2500 per household*.
> 
> Hyperion offers a 30% reduction in capital costs from conventional gigawatt reactor installations (from US$2,000 per kW to US$1,400 per kW). Hyperion also offers more than a 50% reduction in operating costs (based on costs for field-generation of steam in heavy oil recovery operations), from US$7 per million BTU for natural gas to US$3 per million BTU for Hyperion. *The possibility of mass production*, operation and standardization of design for the Hyperion power module *allows for significant savings*.


----------



## bandicoot76

SSDD on this thread... I'll leave with this cut & paste quote that sums things up pretty well for me:

"The GWPF’s graph, displayed on the GWPF’s homepage masthead, showing that the global average annual temperature hasn’t changed this century, drawn against a nice blue backdrop, is making a few people see red. Why this is I don’t exactly know as their logic, in contrast to their anger, isn’t entirely clear. Perhaps it is because it neatly summarises the uncertainties in climate science as well as common misconceptions (as was the intention) that some commentators find too uncomfortable to address, instead becoming deniers of basic scientific data. It certainly seems a difficult fact for some, but inconvenience is one thing, facts are another.

Those who complain that the graph is wrong, if they are to be fair and consistent, should now target the Royal Society in their sights as it has admitted this in its recent brochure on the science of climate change that the recent spell of warming ended in 2000.

It is not alone.  The Journal Science has said the pause in global temperatures is real, as do many refereed scientific papers in numerous journals. Also in State of the Climate in 2008, a special supplement to the August Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, no less, confirmed that in the past ten years the HadCRUT3 temperature data (there are problems with this data set regarding its reliability and how it calculates averages but it is probably the best we’ve got) shows no increase whatsoever. 

Their analysis showed that the world warmed by 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 deg C expected by the IPCC. Corrected for the large 1998 El Niño event (that made 1998 the hottest year on record) and its sister La Nina, the last decade’s trend is perfectly flat. There were even comments in the so-called Climategate emails along the lines of the temperature not increasing and “it’s a travesty” that we can’t explain it."


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> Logique, here is a further link where Spain has proved wind farms are a dead loss. There are now over 500 nuclear power plants around the world. Have you heard of any problems apart from the Chernobal distaster years ago?
> [urlhttp://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/greens_are_right_china_indeed_shows_us_the_way/[/url]




Cheers Noco, no I haven't. The linked article(s) also made the point that wind and solar have been a dead loss financially. 

Something else I saw about 4th Gen reactors: 


> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/reactors.html
> *A new, fourth generation of nuclear reactors*””the General Atomics GT-MHR and the South African PBMR””*is ready to replace the standard reactors that have been producing power for 40 years*. These new high-temperature reactors are almost *50 percent more efficient* than conventional nuclear reactors, *and supersafe*.


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> That's just not true...households with $3000 annual power bills would be most certainly deemed to be unusual, in fact i would think it very unusual, especially households occupied by pensioners.
> 
> I would be interested to know if anyone on this forum has ever paid $3000 over a 12 month period for power....i just cant imagine a situation where its possible without a 2000w radiator in every room running 24/7 for 10 months of the year.



I assure you that it happens all the time.  Why would you doubt what Smurf says?  Where in the entire existence of this forum have you ever found Smurf to be other than completely factual and reasonable in what he says?

Perhaps you live in an area where power prices have not risen as they have throughout most of the country.  Perhaps you are at work all day, and don't need to keep warm at home.  Perhaps you exist on take away food and don't need to use cooking appliances at home.  Perhaps you don't have little kids and need to do the laundry every day.  I don't know what you do, So Cynical, and care less.  But please do not impugn the honesty of what has been stated. 

And fyi I regularly pay more than $3000 per year.  That's OK.  I can afford it.
And no, I am not going to detail to you the reasons why.

There are thousands of people already doing it really hard.  We have hundreds of thousands of Australians living in poverty.  Why should they be further marginalised and discriminated against because of some unproven zealotry which has determined that a price on carbon is necessary?

I keep having a vision of the history books a hundred years hence.
They will, in somewhat of a tone of bewilderment, note that a few countries of the world wrecked their economies and put their most disadvantaged citizens into intolerable situations because of something that turned out to be the biggest con ever.


----------



## bandicoot76

well said julia!

there is no new information on the topic to be studied on this thread, just the same old links to the same old sites that have been circulating for the past 5 (if not more) years on every forum you look at... (links to realclimate.com etc etc)... 

thats why i dont like links... i believe that googleing is better as it will bring up sites showing both sides of the issue so you can study both the for and against points of view


----------



## ghotib

Sails, thanks for this:


> So there are probably two separate issues. IF there is a problem with GW (and I'm not convinced), it should not be used as an excuse for further taxes which also further escalate our living costs. And it is doubtful whether carbon taxes from Australia will actually do the slightest bit of good.




Many people seem to think that "Taxes are bad; therefore global warming is not happening" is a logical and convincing argument. As you point out, it's not. 

Julia, I didn't say all Australians can make changes, but you seem to think that none of us can or should. You also seem to think that the only reason electricity prices are rising is a price on carbon that doesn't exist yet. As Smurf has pointed out more than once, electricity generation is in a decaying mess and a large part of the reason is that the industry has known for at least 10 years that they can't make financially responsible plans to replace aging systems until there's a reasonably stable system for pricing carbon emissions. Continuing to delay and dither will make electricity more expensive for everyone. 

I was trying to suggest some ways that individuals can make a difference, however small, through changes that have more than one benefit. I'm also trying not to despair. It's so sad to see everyone waiting for everyone else to start fixing what looks increasingly like the ultimate tragedy of the commons. 

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> That's just not true...households with $3000 annual power bills would be most certainly deemed to be unusual, in fact i would think it very unusual, especially households occupied by pensioners.
> 
> I would be interested to know if anyone on this forum has ever paid $3000 over a 12 month period for power....i just cant imagine a situation where its possible without a 2000w radiator in every room running 24/7 for 10 months of the year.



Not at all unusual here in Tas to find people with $800, $1000, even $1200 power bills for the Winter quarter. Not unusual at all.

The conversation came up at work and I mentioned mine, $250, and got a few funny looks. The next lowest was almost double that amount and that was for someone with no electric heating at all.

Let's do some maths based on "typical" consumption:

Hot water, 5000 kWh per annum which is fairly normal for a 4 person household. There's $683.

Light and power at the "average" of 3600 kWh per annum. There's another $815.

Then there's another $350 for supply charges, payable without even having switched anything on.

So, normal lights and power, hot water and supply charges = $1848 per annum or $462 a quarter.

And now the big one, heating. Assuming it's a typical 3 bed house with room heating only (not central heating) then:

Electricity (portable heaters) - 12,000 kWh = $2718 per annum.

Electricity (hard wired fan heaters on discount rate) - 12,000 kWh = $1639 per annum.

Electricity (heat pump) - 4000 kWh = $546 per annum.

Wood - 6 tonnes = $510 (bought in summer) to $780 (bought in winter)

LPG - 24 cylinders = $3010 per annum.

Oil - 1650 litres = $2228 per annum.

So all up that's $2358, if you're willing to mess about with wood and remember to buy it in summer, all the way up to $4858 if you've got LPG and don't like shivering.

Bottom line is that if you are like me and can afford solar power, heat pump hot water, cook with gas and have a wood fire for heat then you're not going to use much electricity and so won't be overly concerned about the price. 

But try telling that to someone stuck in a rental property with no insulation and expensive heating (portable fan heaters, oil, LPG). And that's exactly the situation in rather a lot of rental properties - landlords aren't known for worrying about the energy costs of tennants. Even public housing has expensive electric fan heaters. Due to this situation, it is no secret that a large portion of rentals are freezing during Winter simply because tennants can't afford the cost of heating. That is particularly so for those on lower incomes etc - you know, the people most likely to rent, rather than buy, a place to live.

Likewise it is the situation faced by a lot of pensioners etc in their own homes who can't afford to install heat pumps, solar and so on.

Now, before anyone points out that my figures are for Tasmania, that the population is only 2% of Australia, people should just get used to the cold etc... 

According to official energy use statistics, Victorians use more heating per household than Tasmanians, The reason being that it is fairly common in Vic to heat the whole house with ducted heating, something that is not at all common in Tas. Now, Victoria does have a rather significant share of the national population, saved only by (presently) cheap gas in that state.

The whole CO2 thing sounds easy if you live in Sydney or Brisbane where incredibly low energy bills, under $1000 a year, are actually not uncommon. But it's somewhat different if you're going to be left shivering in the dark in Vic / Tas all winter or sweltering through summer in Adelaide. 

Likewise petrol prices don't really matter if you live in Hobart and spend 10 minutes driving to work. But it's rather different if you're in part of Sydney with poor public transport and spend 2 hours a day commuting. Very different indeed. 

I say all that as someone who first became interested in the whole issue of energy due largely to family circumstances at the time. I've been there, done that with no insulation, portable heaters and power bills that take a huge chunk of your (at the time low) income.  

If you are retired, unemployed, disabled or whatever then you tend to be home far more than someone who works full time. And that means your energy consumption is higher as a result. Those most exposed to rising energy prices, are those already least able to pay. The rich will go solar etc or just pay the bill. The poor are already shivering through winter, and if energy gets more expensive they'll be taking cold showers and eating cold beans for dinner as well. 

As for radiators, you'd only need to run ONE of them from the time the first person gets up in the morning until the last one goes to bed at night in order to run up a bill of $1000 for the quarter. And that's just for one radiator, which as anyone who lives in a cooler climate will know is certainly not going to keep more than one room warm.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> The whole CO2 thing sounds easy if you live in Sydney or Brisbane where incredibly low energy bills, under $1000 a year, are actually not uncommon. But it's somewhat different if you're going to be left shivering in the dark in Vic / Tas all winter or sweltering through summer in Adelaide.



Let's not forget that with Queensland's humidity in the summer, many people are going to need as much air conditioning as those in the Southern states use in heating in winter.

I doubt there are many parts of the country which would be unaffected by rising electricity prices.


----------



## Smurf1976

Smurf1976 said:


> PS: Due to the rising cost of grid electricity, I've spent much of today looking at equipment prices etc for solar. I've already got a few panels on the roof, but it seems that adding more is just about viable financially for me now, assuming I source the equipment directly and use my own free (but properly licensed) labour to put them up. And power prices are going up again next year, and again the year after that...



I should have added that my point is not to boast that I can afford to do this whilst many can not, but rather that a very expensive energy source is actually ending up as a viable option given the soaring price of grid electricity.


----------



## ghotib

bandicoot76 said:


> well said julia!
> 
> there is no new information on the topic to be studied on this thread, just the same old links to the same old sites that have been circulating for the past 5 (if not more) years on every forum you look at... (links to realclimate.com etc etc)...
> 
> thats why i dont like links... i believe that googleing is better as it will bring up sites showing both sides of the issue so you can study both the for and against points of view



What do you think all those Google results are if they're not links?


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> I assure you that it happens all the time.  Why would you doubt what Smurf says?  Where in the entire existence of this forum have you ever found Smurf to be other than completely factual and reasonable in what he says?




I have a lot of respect for what the Smurf says, however ya just cant call a 3K annual power bill "not unusual" according to this recent newspaper story (May 2010) the average Qld power bill after the next increase will be $2046

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...soars-240-a-year/story-fn5hj8qg-1225872739189



> The price hike means the average annual household electricity bill will soar to $2046 in the new financial year. Energy Minister Stephen Robertson and the industry argued that the increase was to build and maintain infrastructure.




Thus making a bill 50% higher rather unusual id say.  seems that 2 adults living normally should average about 12 > 15 kwh per day.



Smurf1976 said:


> Not at all unusual here in Tas to find people with $800, $1000, even $1200 power bills for the Winter quarter. Not unusual at all.




I'm sure you'll agree that Australians don't usually live in Tasmania...so its not realistic to use Tassie "not unusual's" for the rest of the country...the other 97% of us.



Smurf1976 said:


> As for radiators, you'd only need to run ONE of them from the time the first person gets up in the morning until the last one goes to bed at night in order to run up a bill of $1000 for the quarter. And that's just for one radiator, which as anyone who lives in a cooler climate will know is certainly not going to keep more than one room warm.




Really...what sort of a life is it when its dominated by radiator heating :dunno: only people who like the cold should live in cold climates, my experience in the snowy Mountains was that if you don't like the heat/cold, prob best if you go somewhere more to your liking...or make a heap more money/stop whining about how much it costs you to keep warm/cool.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> There are thousands of people already doing it really hard.  We have hundreds of thousands of Australians living in poverty.  Why should they be further marginalised and discriminated against because of some unproven zealotry which has determined that a price on carbon is necessary?
> 
> I keep having a vision of the history books a hundred years hence.
> They will, in somewhat of a tone of bewilderment, note that a few countries of the world wrecked their economies and put their most disadvantaged citizens into intolerable situations because of something that turned out to be the biggest con ever.



I hope people have time to write history books a hundred years hence, but if humans don't cut our carbon emissions, hard and soon, it's possible that much of the citizenry will be in situations that make today's disadvantage look like paradise and history books (books?) a forgotten luxury. 

Stronger, more frequent storms, longer heat waves, bigger bushfires and greater floods: these things will all hit the poor harder than others because the poor have fewer protections and options. Poverty sucks. But ignoring other problems won't make poverty go away. 

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> I have a lot of respect for what the Smurf says, however ya just cant call a 3K annual power bill "not unusual" according to this recent newspaper story (May 2010) the average Qld power bill after the next increase will be $2046
> 
> I'm sure you'll agree that Australians don't usually live in Tasmania...so its not realistic to use Tassie "not unusual's" for the rest of the country...the other 97% of us.



It has long been accepted that Qld power bills are low compared to most. They still have relatively cheap electricity for a start, and don't use that much of it. If average households in Qld are about to be paying $2K, then it doesn't take much of a stretch to find someone who is home all day in a cooler climate paying $3K.

And as I've said, Victorians use more heating per household than Tasmanians despite Vic being warmer. It's only the availability of (presently) cheap gas that makes this affordable. Hike the gas price up enough and then we'll hear screams in the national media. 0.5 million people in Tas can be ignored but ignoring 5 million in Vic would be a bit harder.

It's like you will find people who drive 20,000 KM each year, a figure that is significantly above the average. Some even do more than that. Just as you will find others who only travel 5,000 KM in the same period.

Just as I find it incredible that my neighbour manages to fill an 80 litre (the small ones) wheelie bin each week. Actually fill it up! I've no idea how anyone can create so much rubbish, but obviously it can be done. And of course some people have bigger bins.

Same with anything. I'm told that the average Australian drinks the equivalent of a bit under a carton (or slab if you prefer that term) of beer per month according to the stats. Some will think it ridiculous that anyone drinks that much, others literally buy a carton every week.

With anything, there is significant variation in consumption levels. And it's certainly not unsual for somone to spend $750 on a quarterly power bill - not unusual at all. Just as it's not that unusual to find someone with a very low bill, say $300. The "average" is comprised of individuals with hugely differing consumption levels. In some parts of the country, $300 wouldn't even be considered "low", indeed some would say it is "high" relative to local standards and their own usage. 

And the "average" is also incresingly skewed by forced conservation. It's no secret that those with woodheaters (cheap) tend to turn the lounge into a sauna whilst those with expensive heating often have "rules" about using the heater unless they have enough money not to worry about it (in which case they probably have an economical heater anyway).

Rules for the heater? No heating on any day with a forecast maximum 15 degrees or above seems to be a fairly common one and I know quite a few (mostly elderly) who do live in that manner so as to reduce expenses. Others will pick a different temperature, perhaps 16 degrees, or will base it on a thermometer reading rather than a forecast. Others have a rule about not using any heater if it's not cloudy. And so on. It's an exercise in psychology and coping with forced conservation, not any science or other reason to not heat a room on any given day.

Fuel poverty is real in this country. It's most noticeable in the cooler areas during Winter where it creates outright misery, but no doubt it affects those in the warmer states in other ways too.

If you think energy is cheap then try living on a pension / unemployment benefits / working poor etc for a while. Try paying rent / mortgage on a casual income or earning $20 per hour. And so on. Rent, insurance, food, water, fuel and so on - none of it is getting cheaper and wages are not keeping up. But it's the power bills that send people to the welfare groups for help.

I say that as someone who earns more than the average wage and has relatively low living expenses. I can afford solar. I can afford a carbon tax if it comes in. I already walk more than I drive. But a great many people do not have those options and that's what I'm worried about.

If we're going to cut emissions, then simply taxing the poor who have little option, other than shivering in the dark, to cut their energy consumption seems a pretty poor way to go about it. But it's what we're already doing at the global level with oil, food etc so I have little doubt we'll do the same with power, gas etc too. Some go without, such that the rest can keep on consuming and feel good about supposedly having done something... by directly hurting others. 

We need a better source of power, not a means of price-induced rationing that leaves some in the dark whilst the rest are relatively unaffected. We need engineering fixes to a problem, not a tax to price people out of the market.


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> <SNIP>Fuel poverty is real in this country. It's most noticeable in the cooler areas during Winter where it creates outright misery, but no doubt it affects those in the warmer states in other ways too.
> 
> If you think energy is cheap then try living on a pension / unemployment benefits / working poor etc for a while. Try paying rent / mortgage on a casual income or earning $20 per hour. And so on. Rent, insurance, food, water, fuel and so on - none of it is getting cheaper and wages are not keeping up. But it's the power bills that send people to the welfare groups for help.
> 
> I say that as someone who earns more than the average wage and has relatively low living expenses. I can afford solar. I can afford a carbon tax if it comes in. I already walk more than I drive. But a great many people do not have those options and that's what I'm worried about.
> 
> If we're going to cut emissions, then simply taxing the poor who have little option, other than shivering in the dark, to cut their energy consumption seems a pretty poor way to go about it. But it's what we're already doing at the global level with oil, food etc so I have little doubt we'll do the same with power, gas etc too. Some go without, such that the rest can keep on consuming and feel good about supposedly having done something... by directly hurting others.
> 
> We need a better source of power, not a means of price-induced rationing that leaves some in the dark whilst the rest are relatively unaffected. We need engineering fixes to a problem, not a tax to price people out of the market.




Well said, except that all engineering solutions have an economics component. One of the functions of any system for pricing carbon emissions can, and should, be to provide funding to support consumers through the costs of changing to low or no emission power generation. You might remember that one of the Greens' objections to the Rudd govt. ETS was that it compensated power generators instead of end users. I don't know how reasonable that objection was, though the government's pathetic efforts at explaining, let alone selling, their scheme suggests there might have been something in it. Still that's history; it only matters now as a reminder that the economics of carbon pricing are not straightforward. "Simply taxing the poor" would be just as unfair and stupid as using the poor as an excuse to do nothing. 

Ghoti


----------



## basilio

I share  Dertys and Ghotlibs concern on the effectiveness of proposed carbon trading approaches to reduce CO2 emissions enough to  have the required effect on global warming. The more one looks at the way business and finance works the more we can appreciate that gaming the system is the way to make money rather than actually  producing the desired outcomes.

*The critical point in my view is actually have a large enough group of people who recognise that there is enough evidence to say that CO2 induced global warming is real and an overwhelming threat to our lives that has to dealt with.*  And in that group there also has to be the business leaders who finally recognise that all the money in the world won't save their skins; they'll just get to die a few years later.

This forum is a microcosm of our society as it currently stands. A few members discuss the issue using the accumulated  research and  evidence  from thousands of scientists around the world. Their unambiguous  and unanimous verdict is that the world is warming rapidly and that human induced greenhouse gases are the principal reason.

Other members use arguments that have been repeated from organisations attempting to protect current greenhouse gas emitters that attempt to spread fear, confusion and doubt about the basis for scientists concerns. (Like others I went ad nauseum on these in earlier posts )  

*And in the end absolutely no-one wants to actually believe this is all true.  *(And that goes _(in my understanding)_ for the scientists who actually research this field) So it's far more comfortable to ridicule it, dismiss it or ignore it.

Whatever uncertainties remain about the full picture of how human induced global warming will play out are minuscule in comparison to the devastation that will be caused if the current situation continues. 

What to do? Again Derty hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that if decisive action had been taken 25 years ago when the first clear indications pf global warming were being observed we would be well on our way to a safer direction. But the asteroid is now much,  much closer and  diversion seems like a matter of prayer and blind luck (have the scientists mucked up the maths and the asteroid will just slip past us ?) 

In the simplest most direct solutions,  smurf and others have pointed out that engineering carbon free renewable energy systems and a  huge reduction in overall resource use offer the most hopeful opportunities of  averting global warming as well as addressing impending problems of  peak oil and resource depletion. You don't have to be GW believer to go down those paths.

But of course such a path could also require the ultimate sacrifice in our current society - *compromising our Freedom of Choice.*


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> I say that as someone who earns more than the average wage and has relatively low living expenses. I can afford solar. I can afford a carbon tax if it comes in. I already walk more than I drive. But a great many people do not have those options and that's what I'm worried about.




I too can afford a solar power system. I am having a 1.5kw system installed for about $3000 with rebates. I don't need it, but I love gimmicks. My power bill is under $100 per quarter, because the climate in which I live requires no artificial heating or cooling.

I know I am wasting money which won't be recovered in my lifetime. I also realise it takes about four years to offset the carbon generated producing the panel with the clean energy coming from the panel itself.

But what the hell. It may help a family living in my house after my demise.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> I
> If you think energy is cheap then try living on a pension / unemployment benefits / working poor etc for a while. Try paying rent / mortgage on a casual income or earning $20 per hour. And so on. Rent, insurance, food, water, fuel and so on - none of it is getting cheaper and wages are not keeping up. But it's the power bills that send people to the welfare groups for help.



Exactly.



> I say that as someone who earns more than the average wage and has relatively low living expenses. I can afford solar. I can afford a carbon tax if it comes in. I already walk more than I drive. But a great many people do not have those options and that's what I'm worried about.



Ditto on this.



> If we're going to cut emissions, then simply taxing the poor who have little option, other than shivering in the dark, to cut their energy consumption seems a pretty poor way to go about it. But it's what we're already doing at the global level with oil, food etc so I have little doubt we'll do the same with power, gas etc too. Some go without, such that the rest can keep on consuming and feel good about supposedly having done something... by directly hurting others.



Yes, the pat ourselves on the back stuff because 'we're helping to offset climate change' works well for the well heeled inner city greens.   No worries for them about having to do without food or essential medication to pay the bloody carbon tax.




Calliope said:


> I too can afford a solar power system. I am having a 1.5kw system installed for about $3000 with rebates. I don't need it, but I love gimmicks. My power bill is under $100 per quarter, because the climate in which I live requires no artificial heating or cooling.
> 
> I know I am wasting money which won't be recovered in my lifetime. I also realise it takes about four years to offset the carbon generated producing the panel with the clean energy coming from the panel itself.
> 
> But what the hell. It may help a family living in my house after my demise.



Whilst wishing you lots of fun with your new gimmick, Calliope, it's people like you who don't even believe in the need for the solar system, who are pushing up power bills for everyone else.  All these subsidies have to be paid for and it's a large part of the reason why there have been so many increases.

And yes, I know ageing infrastructure needs to be upgraded etc etc, but only a couple of days ago Mr Combet announced the cessation of one of these heavily subsidised schemes for just the very reason I've given.


----------



## joea

Hi.
I live in Miallo north of Port Douglas.
I would like to show the cost comparison of electricity of my property to the neighbour.
Both block 2 acres, have bores.
Neighbour has grid connect 1kWh system plus solar hot water.
Cost per quarter. Neighbour $394.
                        Me          $407

I have AC units, but fans run mostly, as we have breeze.
I have two 22 inch screens for trading and run a computer about 10 hrs per day. I watch TV etc. I have two fridges and a deep freeze. (ones a beer fridge)
They run a fan, but computer and tv rarely used. They have a fridge.

The only reason I can fathom for the similar cost is I pump to a tank with bore, then have a small pump for house pressure. All fruit trees and garden gravitate. Salad vegetables produced 8 months a year.
While the neighbour has the bore pump as only pump. Each time a tap turns on, a large pump is started.

Basically I agree with is what written above. 
The solar rebate scheme seems to be a bit of hoax. And a high cost to the tax payer.
Cheers


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> Whilst wishing you lots of fun with your new gimmick, Calliope, *it's people like you* who don't even believe in the need for the solar system, who are pushing up power bills for everyone else.  All these subsidies have to be paid for and it's a large part of the reason why there have been so many increases.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-one-year-early/story-fn59niix-1225963914109


> The program had previously been attacked as a middle class welfare measure because the subsidies tended to favour the well-off and had minimal impact in reducing Australia’s emissions.




I feel suitably chastened, but you must realise Julia that middle class welfare has been a large impost on the taxpayer since introduced by Howard and continued by Rudd and Gillard. None of it has come the way of *people like me*. Combet reckons reducing the rebates will reduce average power bills by $12 annually, while he is cooking up new ways to increase the bill.

I am well aware that these things will have minimal impact on Australia's emissions. They are simply a "look at me, I'm saving the world" gimmick like Prius cars.


----------



## bandicoot76

ghotib said:


> What do you think all those Google results are if they're not links?




my mistake i meant to write "thats why i dont like posted links" as in the ones on forums like this, and nearly every other forum ive looked at on the topic... as they rarely provide any new info to the debate... usually just a link to 'how to convert a denier' page on a webpage like realclimate.com... who were also tarred by the same brush as Mr jones & co in the 'climategate' emails... birds of a feather... 

why i prefer google is i can type in the issue being discussed and up comes current web pages with the LATEST info from BOTH sides of the arguement... not some pseudo-scientist wannabe's  biased twisting of the facts to suit their own agenda... from my perspective most ppl on these forums make up their mind before reading all the arguments from both sides, then 'cherry pick' titbits of information to try and prove they are right... 

a good example is mr derty's assertion that man made greenhouse gasses make up 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions... even this cherry picked piece of info is bollocks... heres why:

IF you leave out water vapor as a greenhouse gas/force then the man made percentage is actually 5%.... HOWEVER water vapour most definately IS a greenhouse gas/forcer SO when you include it the actual man made component drops to 0.18%... that was where (off the top of my head) i got the 0.2% content from (i know i originally put 0.02% my bad) anyhow like i said dont take my word for it... if you really do want to see a balanced view GOOGLE IT... and dont fall for the biased links from ppl who view the topic as a religion rather than an unproven scientific theory!


----------



## derty

bandicoot76 said:


> a good example is mr derty's assertion that man made greenhouse gasses make up 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions... even this cherry picked piece of info is bollocks... heres why:
> 
> IF you leave out water vapor as a greenhouse gas/force then the man made percentage is actually 5%.... HOWEVER water vapour most definately IS a greenhouse gas/forcer SO when you include it the actual man made component drops to 0.18%... that was where (off the top of my head) i got the 0.2% content from (i know i originally put 0.02% my bad) anyhow like i said dont take my word for it... if you really do want to see a balanced view GOOGLE IT... and dont fall for the biased links from ppl who view the topic as a religion rather than an unproven scientific theory!




I was just responding to your claim that:


bandicoot76 said:


> ...CO2 only makes up *0.02% of the total carbon dioxide* released into the earths atmosphere...



I never asserted that anthropogenic CO2 makes up 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. I asserted that it makes up around 3% of the carbon dioxide emissions. Which it does.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Whilst wishing you lots of fun with your new gimmick, Calliope, it's people like you who don't even believe in the need for the solar system, who are pushing up power bills for everyone else.  All these subsidies have to be paid for and it's a large part of the reason why there have been so many increases.
> 
> And yes, I know ageing infrastructure needs to be upgraded etc etc, but only a couple of days ago Mr Combet announced the cessation of one of these heavily subsidised schemes for just the very reason I've given.



The bottom line for me is that the taxpayer literally gave me a 1kW system. It cost me nothing more than a phone call. Even the stamp on the envelope to return the forms was supplied free.

I'd certainly agree that it wasn't the best use of the taxpayer's funds. But from a personal perspective, I'd be a fool to knock back something for nothing. Had I not taken it, they (government) would only waste the money on something else instead unfortunately. It's not as though they would actually put it into hospitals or something like that.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> The bottom line for me is that the taxpayer literally gave me a 1kW system. It cost me nothing more than a phone call. Even the stamp on the envelope to return the forms was supplied free.



Well, whoop de do, how good is that!



> I'd certainly agree that it wasn't the best use of the taxpayer's funds. But from a personal perspective, I'd be a fool to knock back something for nothing. Had I not taken it, they (government) would only waste the money on something else instead unfortunately. It's not as though they would actually put it into hospitals or something like that.



You might be right.  I don't suppose the government would indeed have actually done something useful with those funds.

But my point was that many people who do not need this assistance have taken up these offers, thus pushing up electricity prices for those who do need the help that they are not getting.

People on low incomes often are renters so obviously they're not in a position to take advantage of this great offer.

I just think it's a very unfair distribution of taxpayer dollars, and from what I understand, to an end which has a dubious cost/benefit result.

It's also irritating for those who paid for their own solar systems long before the subsidies were offered.


----------



## drsmith

I can't take advantage of it cost effectively because I'm on 3-phase power.

Western Power's approved list of 3-phase inverters are all around 10kw.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> But my point was that many people who do not need this assistance have taken up these offers, thus pushing up electricity prices for those who do need the help that they are not getting.
> 
> People on low incomes often are renters so obviously they're not in a position to take advantage of this great offer.
> 
> I just think it's a very unfair distribution of taxpayer dollars, and from what I understand, to an end which has a dubious cost/benefit result.
> 
> It's also irritating for those who paid for their own solar systems long before the subsidies were offered.



Totally agreed with all of that. It wasn't a good use of taxpayer funds that is for sure. Neither, in my opinion, was the $900 handout and most of the "stimulus" measures which, at best, returned poor value for money (and sent much of the money straight overseas anyway).

As I said though, if someone's willing to give me an inverter, 6 panels, mounting system and electrical components AND they're willing to do all the work to install it, all at no cost to me, then you can hardly blame me (or anyone else) for taking up the offer.


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> I can't take advantage of it cost effectively because I'm on 3-phase power.
> 
> Western Power's approved list of 3-phase inverters are all around 10kw.



1. Do you actually need to have 3 phase? 

2. From a technical perspective, there's no real problem connecting a single phase inverter to a three phase supply (just about every house is connected to a 3 phase supply out in the street, it's just that one phase is wired to your switchboard since that's sufficient for most homes) as long as the metering is able to cope. And of course most of your appliances are also single phase.

Western Power may not have suitable meters available for connecting an inverter in this manner however. They could do it if they really wanted to...


----------



## drsmith

I was advised by Western Power that a single phase inverter could not be used with 3-phase power.


Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Do you actually need to have 3 phase?
> 
> 2. From a technical perspective, there's no real problem connecting a single phase inverter to a three phase supply (just about every house is connected to a 3 phase supply out in the street, it's just that one phase is wired to your switchboard since that's sufficient for most homes) as long as the metering is able to cope. And of course most of your appliances are also single phase.



A couple of the solar panel companies I contacted don't think it's a problem, so perhaps this is what they had in mind.



Smurf1976 said:


> Western Power may not have suitable meters available for connecting an inverter in this manner however. They could do it if they really wanted to...



That could be the case too.


----------



## noco

It would appear from the article in the Australian Newspaper, Cancun Mexico
may finish up worse than Copenhagen. Let's hope Combet brings back the message to Julia Gillard to scrape the carbon tax once and for all.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-of-a-bad-movie/story-e6frg6zo-1225964133849


----------



## noco

I am beginning to believe this whole episode of Global Warming Alarmists throughout the World is fading with every conference they have, becoming less significant in light of recent happennings.
With lots of rain right down the Eastern Coast of Australia and into South Australia. Rains, Tim Flannery said would never happen when he predicted Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane would be without water by 2010, so he persuaded all the state Labor Governments to spend $Billions on useless desal plants.
The authorities should lock this bloke up and throw away thr key.  
To add insult to injury, Great Brittain and Europe are experiencing record snowfalls. All caused by 'Global Warming' of course. LOL 

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...scare_turns_into_a_greater_joke/#commentsmore


----------



## ghotib

OK Bandicoot, here's your chance. I think the 2nd article Noco linked to shows that Andrew Bolt either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore that the scientific understanding of global warming predicts colder winters on the northern continents. How do you research the science? What opinion, if any, do you reach about the freezing conditions in Scotland? What conclusions, if any, do you form about Andrew Bolt's reliability as a source on the science of climate change? 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> ...that the scientific understanding of global warming predicts colder winters on the northern continents.




Well the alarmists can't really lose there now can they? If it's warm it's because of AGW. If it's cold it's because of AGW. 

The fact is that though not usual, this sort of weather has always happened from time to time.


----------



## ghotib

What game do you think "alarmists" are playing Wayne? Let's just pretend that the "alarmist" explanation for the growing number of weird weather events is correct, i.e. that they are early examples of how climate change is fast destroying human land, food, and water resources. Do you seriously think "they" see that as a win???? 

There's an old story about an experienced traveller who realised that the bloke in the seat beside him was terrified. The experienced traveller kindly tried to help the other guy relax and by explaining how he travelled for his work and he knew how safe flying is. "So, what do you do for a living?"  The other guy managed to still his chattering teeth for long enough to reply: "I'm a pilot". 

Nobody is flying the planet, but the people who have seriously studied its behaviour for decades are sounding emergency alarms that the partying passengers have pushed it outside safe flying parameters. There are no winners if the plane crashes.  

Some regions of the world are experiencing record cold. At the same time others are experiencing record heat. The planet as a whole is warmer than at any time in human history. 

Ghoti


----------



## bandicoot76

ghotib said:


> OK Bandicoot, here's your chance. I think the 2nd article Noco linked to shows that Andrew Bolt either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore that the scientific understanding of global warming predicts colder winters on the northern continents. How do you research the science? What opinion, if any, do you reach about the freezing conditions in Scotland? What conclusions, if any, do you form about Andrew Bolt's reliability as a source on the science of climate change?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti




you know my opinion, that is climate is always changing and mans impact is minimal at best....i'm not on here trying to convert anyone one way or the other...if you want more new info on the subject... google it... thats what i do!


----------



## ghotib

bandicoot76 said:


> you know my opinion, that is climate is always changing and mans impact is minimal at best....i'm not on here trying to convert anyone one way or the other...if you want more new info on the subject... google it... thats what i do!



My mistake. I thought you meant you continue googling and try to keep up with new information. I didn't realise you think there's no new information because you stopped looking 5 years ago. 

Yesterday I googled "warm Arctic cool continents". I chose that search term because I've been reading about northern hemisphere winters for some time and the phrase has become a common label for the kind of conditions we're seeing up there now. It refers to the effect of the warmer Arctic Ocean and reduced Arctic sea ice on the behaviour of the atmosphere. The top Google results are mostly from sites about climate, though Wunderground, a weather site, turns up on the first page. The pages talk about large scale effects and large scale weather patterns and how the conditions in different regions are related. 

Then I googled "record cold winters". Most of these results refer to the last northern winter, which is fair enough considering how early we are in the current one. They include general news items about the cold in a particular town or region, a WattsUpWithThat post collecting cold records from a number of places in the US, and a Skeptical Science article that describes the "Warm Arctic Cold Continents" pattern without using that expression. Apart from the Sceptical Science article, I didn't see any attempt to explain the temperatures or to relate conditions in different parts of the world. 

You asserted that climate scientists are a bunch of self-serving twats who fudged the data and made stuff up. Even if that's true, they might still have hit on a valid explanation for the changing climate by accident so it's still necessary to show where the scientific explanation is wrong and to provide a different but still coherent set of mechanisms for the climate. 

AFAIK anthropogenic global warming is the only explanation that includes all the phenomena being observed AND and the science on which most of modern western life is based. That doesn't mean it's complete or that there are no uncertainties, but then real scientists don't claim that. I've shown you an example of how I did the research that persuades me that climate science is solidly based and incidentally that climate scientists as a group are neither self-serving nor dishonest. Now I'm asking you to demonstrate how you did the research behind your opinion.

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> OK Bandicoot, here's your chance. I think the 2nd article Noco linked to shows that Andrew Bolt either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore that the scientific understanding of global warming predicts colder winters on the northern continents. How do you research the science? What opinion, if any, do you reach about the freezing conditions in Scotland? What conclusions, if any, do you form about Andrew Bolt's reliability as a source on the science of climate change?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ghoti





ghotib, whether its extreme temperatures, extreme cold, drought, excess rainfail, flood or fire the 'ALARMIST' will blame Global Warming (aka climate change). I believe in Climate Change but I do not believe it is man made.

I am unaware of which era you have lived, but it would appear you may still have been in liquid form when I was in uinform. My memories of these extreme conditions go back to the 1930's and nothing has changed in 2000 and beyond. These so called experts who say they can predict what our conditions will be in 2100 can't even predict what our weather will be in 6 months. As I mentioned before, Tim Flannery, who a lot of politicians placed confidence in to proceed with desal 'WHITE ELEPHANTS', could not predict 3 years ahead.

I worked on sheep stations in South Western Queensland in the late 40's and earlt 50's for 3 years. I have been cut off by floods for two weeks at a time. I have witnessd the soil without a blade of grass for sheep to graze and plagues of locusts so thick that blotted out the sun. I've been through horrific storms in Brisbane with hail stones as big as cricket balls and iron ripped from roofs like a giant can opener.

I recall a report in the 40's where the Thames River in London was frozen. Extreme winter conditions was one of Hitler's down fall in the second world war.

Mark my words the  Cancun Mexican conference will be glazed over as a success without any agreed resolution. Kyoto will die of natural death in 2012.

So ghotib, I don't need so called scientist to ram down my throat what extreme weather conditions can be like as I've been through it all before and no doubt even before these so called experts were born. Nothing has changed and nothing will. All it needs is plenty of commonsense and memories of the past to understand the future.


----------



## nioka

Noco,
   I've been there and done that too, since the 30s. I've seen natures ravages of drought and floods. I've seen the sandstorms and the smoke from days of bustfires.
  I've also seen the pollution caused by human occupation that ADDS to natures cycles. Could be the straw that breaks the camels back. I've watched as the air quality deteriotes. I've seen clean rivers get to a stage where the fish prefer to be out of the water than in it. I've watched as lung disease and asthma from man made pollution increase faster than the decrease from tobacco smoking reduction. 
 There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that man has made a difference and has within their power to reverse some of their effect on the enviroment. To not accept that is the same as saying you wont stop speeding on the roads because "it is not MY speeding that kills"


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> What game do you think "alarmists" are playing Wayne? Let's just pretend that the "alarmist" explanation for the growing number of weird weather events is correct, i.e. that they are early examples of how climate change is fast destroying human land, food, and water resources. Do you seriously think "they" see that as a win????




Apparently so. Such is the tone of the Climategate emails. The game they are playing is both financial and political.



> The planet as a whole is warmer than at any time in human history.
> 
> Ghoti




Ahem.... even some of the most strident alarmists are recognising the existence of the medieval warm period. It is probable that that period was warmer than now.

But the GISS data you are referring to has been challenged - DYOR


----------



## drsmith

It's official. Climate change is man made.

The Bureau of Meteorology says so.



> Across South Australia a background temperature rise since 1950 of about 1 °C to 1.5 °C has been observed. Background warming is expected to be even higher in coming years as an ongoing consequence of *man made climate change*.



http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/sa/media_releases_sa_extreme_heat_20091208.shtml


----------



## noco

nioka said:


> Noco,
> I've been there and done that too, since the 30s. I've seen natures ravages of drought and floods. I've seen the sandstorms and the smoke from days of bustfires.
> I've also seen the pollution caused by human occupation that ADDS to natures cycles. Could be the straw that breaks the camels back. I've watched as the air quality deteriotes. I've seen clean rivers get to a stage where the fish prefer to be out of the water than in it. I've watched as lung disease and asthma from man made pollution increase faster than the decrease from tobacco smoking reduction.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that man has made a difference and has within their power to reverse some of their effect on the enviroment. To not accept that is the same as saying you wont stop speeding on the roads because "it is not MY speeding that kills"




nioka, I could not agree with you more when it comes to large cities around the world like Bangkok, Manila, Beijing, Davao and many more where pollution from vehicles and some industry is horrific and affects the people who live in those cities. They can be controlled as many cities like Singapore and Hongkong have done.

My objection is relevant to the claims that Climate change is man made, which more and more people are becoming scepital about the theory presented by these so called scientist such as Tim Flannery. We now have just about every dam on the East coast of Australia overflowing. I read in one of the papers this week where in most cases there is enough water stored for 5 years and another 5 years storage has gone to waste. What if these so called  politicians had built more bloody dams in the past 10 years instead of wasting $billions on desal plants.


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> It's official. Climate change is man made.
> 
> The Bureau of Meteorology says so.
> 
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/sa/media_releases_sa_extreme_heat_20091208.shtml




I assume that's tongue in cheek, Dr Smith?...

BOM doesn't always get it right as we have been reminded this week.  We were all booked in to have some work done at our place which requires two consecutive days of fine weather.  Forecasts were for rain all this week.  The job was postponed and then the sun came out to stay...


----------



## nioka

noco said:


> What if these so called  politicians had built more bloody dams in the past 10 years instead of wasting $billions on desal plants.




I'm with you on this I'm a dam person in more ways than one. A damn dam CHANGES the enviroment for the better in most cases.


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> I'm with you on this I'm a dam person in more ways than one. A damn dam CHANGES the enviroment for the better in most cases.



The availability of water in a reliable manner from a dam can be worked out using mathematical analysis and meteorological data.

Essentially, it comes down to (1) flow into the dam (2) storage capacity of the dam. Once those two are known, the former from long term records, it's not overly difficult to work out the "firm" (reliable) annual yield and also the gross yield (not reliable but a higher figure).

We've been doing this stuff in Tassie for literally a century now and the export of such knowledge (along with hard engineering aspects of dam construction and design etc) is actually quite a significant business employing hundreds at Entura. It's certainly not impossible to work this sort of thing out for any potential dam site anywhere, provided that the meteorological records are available.

There's certainly plenty of others around the world looking at building large dams. For example:  
http://www.entura.com.au/system/fil...lectric_feasibility_studies_Consult-23166.pdf

And looking at renewable energy closer to home, here's an example of how wind, solar and battery storage can substantially replace an existing diesel-only system (note however that it is not a complete replacement, the diesels still have to run, just at far lower output than would otherwise be the case).http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/documents/King_Island_Renewable_Energy_PK_2008.pdf


----------



## drsmith

sails said:


> I assume that's tongue in cheek, Dr Smith?...



U assume correct.

I just find it amusing that a government organisation supposedly independent of politics has got itself, well, caught up in the politics.


----------



## GumbyLearner

The Fallacy of Decomposition is something that is not addressed in this whole climate debate.

Lets tax everybody, that should solve it!!!!!!

Rubbish, lies and bull**** tape.


----------



## Julia

Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):

Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.

Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.

In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?

I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere"  or  "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".

OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".

And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?


----------



## GumbyLearner

Julia said:


> Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):
> 
> Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
> Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.
> 
> Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.
> 
> In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?
> 
> I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere"  or  "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".
> 
> OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".
> 
> And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?




That is quite a well-articulated list Julia.

I look forward to any responses from this forum addressing the concerns raised by Julia.

I'm all ears.


----------



## Knobby22

I'll let that mad left wing green conspiracy organisation called Origin Energy answer the question.

THE Federal Government decision to abandon its emissions trading scheme is likely to see higher electricity prices in the long term, Origin Energy boss Grant King says. 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...er-ets-abandoned/story-e6freqmx-1225868414780


http://www.originenergy.com.au/news/article/asxmedia-releases/1018

http://www3.intret.ret.gov.au/Documents/mce/energy-eff/nfee/_documents/e2wg_nfee_stag26.pdf


The absence of a carbon price is already having significant effects. Without a carbon price, business must build more risk into investment calculations, with the result that investment will be more expensive than it needs to be, leading to less investment taking place.

This is occurring already.

The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page, has stated that the uncertainty related to domestic climate change policy will result in a rash of smaller capacity, open-cycle gas turbine generators being built to meet incremental rises in energy demand, rather than fewer but more cost and emission-efficient baseload combined cycle gas plants. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price, could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or about $60 a household in 2020. Let me make this clear, opposition to a carbon price will force up electricity prices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a-cleaner-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225937875487


----------



## Knobby22

Another beat up by the left wing anarchist society the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-12/04/c_13634996.htm

CANCUN, Mexico, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) -- This year will be the third warmest year on record since 1850, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said here Friday.

Average air and sea surface temperatures in the first 10 months of this year were 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the figures in 1998 and 0.52 degrees Celsius higher than in 2005, it said in a statement.

The organization also said the decade from 2001 to 2010 was the hottest on record, with temperatures 0.46 degrees higher than the average from 1961 to 1990 and 0.03 degrees higher than in the 10 years to 2009.

Warming has been especially acute in Africa, parts of Asia and the Arctic. The worst-hit areas in each of these continents are the Sahara, west Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Greenland and the Canadian Arctic.


----------



## ghotib

GumbyLearner said:


> The Fallacy of Decomposition is something that is not addressed in this whole climate debate.



You mean this fallacy?



> Fallacy of decomposition :fallacious belief that one has triumphed in debate when in reality one's opponent has died of boredom or old age.



Ghoti


----------



## nioka

Knobby22 said:


> Another beat up by the left wing anarchist society the World Meteorological Organization




Where do you draw the line between left wing anarchist and left wing socialist, and between right wing liberals and the extreme right wing. Is there no difference in your mind with anything left of your extreme right wing attitude to anyone with differing opinions to yours?. Thats how I read your postings.

If we all thought the same and never changed our mind over the years we would all be driving black Holden cars.


----------



## jonojpsg

Julia said:


> Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):
> 
> Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
> Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.
> 
> Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.
> 
> In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?
> 
> I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere"  or  "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".
> 
> OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".
> 
> And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?




Have to agree Julia - only have to look at our behaviour a couple of years ago when petrol prices were through the roof - don't reckon anyone changed their driving habits, just got used to paying more for petrol.

Big question is then, IF we need to do something about CO2 emissions, which may well be the case given that we are clearly increasing the atm conc dramatically, HOW do we do that?


----------



## Knobby22

nioka said:


> Where do you draw the line between left wing anarchist and left wing socialist, and between right wing liberals and the extreme right wing. Is there no difference in your mind with anything left of your extreme right wing attitude to anyone with differing opinions to yours?. Thats how I read your postings.
> 
> If we all thought the same and never changed our mind over the years we would all be driving black Holden cars.




Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was being sarcastic.
They are meteorologists. Just reporters of the facts. And the facts are that the world is warming up.

Others on this thread will say it is a conspiracy involving these guys and other scientists and its not happening (head in sand crowd).


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> I'll let that mad left wing green conspiracy organisation called Origin Energy answer the question.
> 
> THE Federal Government decision to abandon its emissions trading scheme is likely to see higher electricity prices in the long term, Origin Energy boss Grant King says. ]




Seems a bit hypocritical when he picked up $3.8m in salary and bonuses this year:

*Origin boss Grant King lives in harbour city luxury* :



> He also refused to explain why he deserves the $1.8 million bonus he picked up this year on top of his $2 million salary.




And more on what other energy bosses are earning here:  *Big bonuses for energy company bosses as bills soar* 

From what I can see, it's all about helping themselves to as much as they can.  I become more skeptical of this whole carbon thing by the day...

And great questions, Julia.  I would also like answers other than that of an energy boss.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> The absence of a carbon price is already having significant effects. Without a carbon price, business must build more risk into investment calculations, with the result that investment will be more expensive than it needs to be, leading to less investment taking place.
> 
> This is occurring already.
> 
> The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page, has stated that the uncertainty related to domestic climate change policy will result in a rash of smaller capacity, open-cycle gas turbine generators being built to meet incremental rises in energy demand, rather than fewer but more cost and emission-efficient baseload combined cycle gas plants. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price, could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or about $60 a household in 2020. Let me make this clear, opposition to a carbon price will force up electricity prices.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a-cleaner-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225937875487



It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created to advocate it's new tax and it's not too worried about the impact on electricity generation investment in the meantime.

Business is not going to care whether there's a carbon price or not. They'll just pass the cost onto consumers. A no carbon tax outcome can be just as certain as a carbon tax outcome.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created to advocate it's new tax and it's not too worried about the impact on electricity generation investment in the meantime.
> 
> Business is not going to care whether there's a carbon price or not. They'll just pass the cost onto consumers. A no carbon tax outcome can be just as certain as a carbon tax outcome.




Exactly.  The energy companies can't believe their luck.  They can wave about this oh so vague allegation that prices to the consumer are rising because of 'uncertainty'  and  'lack of a price on carbon'.   Most consumers are too bewildered by the whole situation to question this.

Why exactly is any uncertainty driving up prices?  If someone could explain to me the details of what mechanism is actually causing the prices to rise, then I'll be interested.

Surely, without a price on carbon (and I still don't actually know what this phrase means:  is it a carbon trading scheme, is it a carbon tax and if so on what/whom?) everything would be just chugging along as it has in previous times?

I'm finding it pretty hard not to think the energy companies are taking this golden opportunity to raise prices and increase their profits.  They are being nobly assisted in this by the government repeatedly telling us we need to put a price on carbon.

Until someone can explain, as I asked in an earlier post, how this 'price on carbon' is going to ameliorate climate change, its effects in Australia, and not disadvantage our economy while our main trading partners are not employing any similar mechanism, I remain sceptical of the energy companies doing anything other than price gouging.

And for the government, I don't think Tony Abbott's 'big new tax' is too far off the mark.

And Knobby, just repeating what the energy companies et al have said doesn't at all answer my questions.  But perhaps you were just saying it over again, not actually offering your earlier post in answer to mine.


----------



## Julia

jonojpsg said:


> Have to agree Julia - only have to look at our behaviour a couple of years ago when petrol prices were through the roof - don't reckon anyone changed their driving habits, just got used to paying more for petrol.
> 
> Big question is then, IF we need to do something about CO2 emissions, which may well be the case given that we are clearly increasing the atm conc dramatically, HOW do we do that?




And that's sort of OK for those of us who can afford increases, but even then is it right that we should be stuck with unjustifiable increases that are actually going to increase the profits of the big energy companies, including increasing substantially the amounts earned by the bosses?
Of course these people are going to jump at the opportunity to whack up prices.  It's completely in their interests.  

But it's a whole other story for the people who are living in poverty now, or those who are just scraping by, with difficulty.  Interest rates will rise again next year, pushing up mortgage payments and rents.

A society where the affluent continually increase their wealth but the poorest people sink further into their misery should feel a sense of shame.


----------



## joea

Julia.
If they do committ to a carbon price, we will see it fizzle out in a few years, (more money wasted).
Academics cannot solve the Murry Darling problem.
Why, because academics are learning from books written by other academics.

I would be interested in if you had read a book "Beyond The Brink" by Peter Andrews.
Its about his radical vision for a sustainable Australian Landscape.

This fellow is out there rehydrating properties and getting his hands dirty.
I have got it from the Library but intend to buy one.

In the book he explains what our problem is with the climate in a way it makes sense. The government now have  him involved in seminars to get the farmers to come along.
The CSIRO have admitted that he can achieve on a property in 2 - 3 years what they take 12 years to achieve.

I have not answered your question on  carbon but can direct you to a book that I believe makes sense, on the real problem.

For the correct answer on carbon I do not think you are going to get it anywhere but WilkiLeaks.
Cheers


----------



## noco

What an embarrassment for Combet and his followers at Cancun Mexico.Record low temperatures are being currently experienced. GLOBAL WARMING??????? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING???????? What fools these people are trying to convince the world about Climate change.  

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...w-temperatures-during-cop16-in-cancun-mexico/


----------



## jonojpsg

noco said:


> What an embarrassment for Combet and his followers at Cancun Mexico.Record low temperatures are being currently experienced. GLOBAL WARMING??????? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING???????? What fools these people are trying to convince the world about Climate change.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...w-temperatures-during-cop16-in-cancun-mexico/




Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???


----------



## wayneL

jonojpsg said:


> ...seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record high temperatures indicate that global warming is occurring???




For interest, a slight modification to your post.


----------



## Smurf1976

jonojpsg said:


> Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???



It comes down to the politics of it all.

If there were record high temperatures then I'd be very surprised if there weren't claims from the other side that such temperatures were "proof" that climate change is real and is happening.

Remember the droughts that were never going to end and so on?

Both sides in this debate have thus far been willing to use short term weather events as "proof" of their argument in relation to long term climate. In a scientific sense that is junk, but it has been a widely used practice since this whole debate started over 20 years ago.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Exactly.  The energy companies can't believe their luck.  They can wave about this oh so vague allegation that prices to the consumer are rising because of 'uncertainty'  and  'lack of a price on carbon'.   Most consumers are too bewildered by the whole situation to question this.
> 
> Why exactly is any uncertainty driving up prices?  If someone could explain to me the details of what mechanism is actually causing the prices to rise, then I'll be interested.



Components of household electricity bills:

Generation = 40%
Distribution = 31%
Transmission = 17%
Retail = 8%
Other =3%

(Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding).

Combined increase in residential electricity prices 2007-08, 08-09, 09-10 (not compounded).

Vic (energy mostly from coal, gas, hydro in that order) = 53.6%
NSW (coal, hydro, gas) = 46.1%
Qld (coal, gas, hydro) = 45.6%
WA (gas, coal) = 42.5%
Tas (hydro, gas, coal, wind) = 41.9%
ACT (energy same as NSW - coal, hydro, gas) = 32.6%
NT (primarily from gas, rest mostly diesel) = 30.8%
SA (gas, coal, wind) = 29.6%

Now, amidst all of this, the major drivers of increasing prices are NOT related to power generation. New baseload generation 30 years ago cost about 4.2 cents / kWh from coal and about 1.4 cents from new hydro. In 2010 it's about 3.7 cents from gas and about the same from black coal.

The cost of generating baseload power hasn't increased at all over the past 30 years due to both technical and operational efficiency improvements combined with a fall in the real price of domestic fossil fuels.

So why the soaring bills? It's primarily related to distribution, transmission and all sorts of costs associated with being in a "competitive" electricity market (which has delivered higher prices...).

Note that both the smallest (SA) and highest (Vic) increases are in states with privately owned power supplies. Ownership makes little difference - it's how it's actually run (in a technical sense as well as management) that matters. 

Average retail price at average household consumption:
SA = 22.8c / kWh
NSW = 22.8c / kWh
WA = 22.4c / kWh
NT = 20.9c / kWh
Qld = 20.1c / kWh
Tas = 20.1c / kWh
Vic = 20.1c / kWh
ACT = 16.3c / kWh 

Retail price data sourced from the Tasmanian Economic Regulator and Aurora Energy (Tas) with some additional calculation by Smurf.  www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au Wholesale generation cost (as distinct from actual pricing) data is my own.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Question to Ghotib (and/or anyone else who concedes no doubt whatsoever that any change in climate is absolutely due to anthropogenic factors):



That's a big overstatement of my opinion, but I'll assume it's a bit of steam releasing rhetoric and try to answer the questions. Please bear in mind that I've concentrated on the science of climate change, not the economics of mitigating and adapting to it. I think that discussion about whether and how to end carbon emissions from fossil fuels is a separate question from the physical science of what's happening to the climate. I think the evidence is overwhelming that the effects of our fossil-fuel dependent way of life on the climate are  a serious threat to human life and that they will make the life of the generations after mine far less secure and comfortable than mine has been. I accept a responsibility to try and lessen that threat, but I recognise that other people might see meeting the immediate needs of, say, an 85-year old pensioner, as a greater responsibility. I hope there are ways to meet both sets of needs. 

More specifically, I don't have an opinion about the best economic mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions and I hope someone with a better understanding of economics will chime in. But seeing as you asked me directly: 



> Could you please explain exactly how the proposed "putting a price on carbon" will reduce our emissions by the agreed 5%.
> Or if you're a Greens disciple, 40%.



Proposals involve a bit more than just a price on carbon, but the price is a necessary step. It brings the cost of carbon emissions into economic and financial systems, which makes it possible to charge the costs at the point of emission instead of leaving them to be carried by the community at large or of a future time. In the case of electricity generation, for example, coal-fired electricity has been cheap because the generators didn't (and couldn't - I'm not blaming any one for doing what seemed like a good idea at at the time) count the costs of carbon emissions. That has led to the economic distortion where coal-fired power still has a cost advantage over other power sources, but all consumers have to carry the cost of changes to the climate caused by those carbon emissions. In effect, not making coal fired power generators pay something for their carbon emissions means that consumers and/or taxpayers are subsidising them, only we don't know it. 

One complication is that the costs of carbon emissions didn't become apparent until many decades after the huge rise in coal and oil burning had started; I guess in that way it's a little like the asbestos compensation nightmare where the damage is done decades before it became apparent. Another complication is that the atmosphere doesn't know about national boundaries, so it's not possible to say that any one source of carbon emissions is responsible for any particular weather event or crop failure or species extinction or... 

Anyway, I don't know if a price alone would be sufficient to bring emissions down by 5% or 40%. I suppose it might be possible, depending on what the price is and how it's charged. However most proposals seem to include a carbon price with other measures to reduce emissions, such as cap-and-trade schemes. 



> Then could you please explain how the above reduction in CO2 emissions by said 5% will make what difference to the climate.



You mean what difference does little Australia make when India and China emit more carbon in a week than we can cut in a year? Well, one point to consider is that little Australia has been putting fossil carbon into the atmosphere for 150-odd years and most of it is still up there, so our cumulative emissions are much more significant than our present annual emissions (and no I don't have exact figures for that, though it would be interesting to try and find them). Maybe there's an equity argument that we should cut to zero immediately till everyone else, including Samoa and Kiribati, catches us up?? Another point to consider is that our emissions per person are among the highest in the world and we have more room to cut them - which is not to say it's easy, just easier for most of us than for most others. However, it's true that if carbon emissions from Australia fell by 5% and carbon emissions from all other countries stayed the same as they are now the effect on the climate would be effectively unnoticeable. 



> In other words, if we all see our electricity bills increase exponentially, and then all our other bills rise similarly (because electricity is pretty much involved in producing anything at all), what result will we see, and when?



Exponentially? The worst I've seen is quadruple over about 7 years, which is pretty awful but not exponential. And who knows the effects on all other bills: many commercial and industrial centres are capable of generating their own power if it makes economic sense for them to do so. I don't mean to trivialise the pain of big increases in domestic power prices, but its unreasonable to assume that there will be only one effect.

The kicker in that question is right at the end where you ask *when* will we see a result. Of course that depends partly on what everyone else does, but even if all countries could somehow reduce carbon emissions to nothing immediately the Earth would keep getting hotter because the climate system will take decades to get back into balance. 



> I'm tired of hearing people say "well, we have to make a start somewhere" or "we have to do something just in case the alarmists are correct".
> 
> OK, that's not unreasonable in some ways, but what I want to know is exactly what effect will be the result of "putting a price on carbon".



And that's not an unreasonable question. Sadly, I don't think it can be answered exactly; that's why we have error bars and measures of uncertainty. Given how much of our present way of life relies on fossil carbon and has developed without costing fossil carbon, the effects of a carbon price have to be widespread and probably some of them will be surprising, but that doesn't mean they'll all be bad, any more than the effects of no change would all be good. 



> And further, if Australia acts in this respect, in the absence of any global commitment to a global scheme, can you explain how Australia will not be significantly economically disadvantaged?



I really hope someone will pick up this question because I don't have specifics. Some Australian industry is already significantly disadvantaged by our failure to act in this respect: consider all the solar power technology that's gone overseas. I've seen a lot of commentary about Australia already falling behind in general "post-carbon" technologies. I've seen suggestions that nations who refuse to reduce emissions will face trade boycotts. Cancun seems to be working towards a lot of small agreements rather than one big scheme; that might open more possibilities.  I had another look at the Garnaut report today; it has quite a lot of discussion of how an Australian ETS could relate to other schemes over time. Essentially I have a higher opinion of Australian enterprise than your question assumes, but that's not really an answer is it. 

They're good questions Julia, and I wish I had better answers.Do you read Climate Spectator? That might be a good place to look for them. In the meantime I continue to support a price on carbon in Australia because I can't see any better way to start forcing our carbon emissions down, and because I have even less ability to influence the carbon emissions of other countries than I have of the one I live in. 

Ghoti


----------



## Julia

Ghoti, thank you for what is at least a thoughtful and considered response, even if you can't actually answer the questions.


----------



## noco

jonojpsg said:


> Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???




Well the alarmist use it when the temperature is extreme, so what is your gripe?


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> ghotib, whether its extreme temperatures, extreme cold, drought, excess rainfail, flood or fire the 'ALARMIST' will blame Global Warming (aka climate change). I believe in Climate Change but I do not believe it is man made.
> 
> I am unaware of which era you have lived, but it would appear you may still have been in liquid form when I was in uinform. My memories of these extreme conditions go back to the 1930's and nothing has changed in 2000 and beyond. These so called experts who say they can predict what our conditions will be in 2100 can't even predict what our weather will be in 6 months. As I mentioned before, Tim Flannery, who a lot of politicians placed confidence in to proceed with desal 'WHITE ELEPHANTS', could not predict 3 years ahead.
> 
> I worked on sheep stations in South Western Queensland in the late 40's and earlt 50's for 3 years. I have been cut off by floods for two weeks at a time. I have witnessd the soil without a blade of grass for sheep to graze and plagues of locusts so thick that blotted out the sun. I've been through horrific storms in Brisbane with hail stones as big as cricket balls and iron ripped from roofs like a giant can opener.
> 
> I recall a report in the 40's where the Thames River in London was frozen. Extreme winter conditions was one of Hitler's down fall in the second world war.
> 
> Mark my words the  Cancun Mexican conference will be glazed over as a success without any agreed resolution. Kyoto will die of natural death in 2012.
> 
> So ghotib, I don't need so called scientist to ram down my throat what extreme weather conditions can be like as I've been through it all before and no doubt even before these so called experts were born. Nothing has changed and nothing will. All it needs is plenty of commonsense and memories of the past to understand the future.



Oh dear Noco. You remind me strongly of conversations with my dear old dad, who was born in 1925 and who spent 20 years of my life driving me crackers with strenuous and condescending arguments against what I didn't say. 

Look, I don't doubt you've seen extreme weather. Despite my relative youth, so have I. But your personal experience is of one place at a time, and different places throughout your life. It says less about the climate of the planet as a whole than one investor's unsuccessful investment in 1948 says about the pattern of stock markets from 1850 to 2010. It's not that your experience is irrelevant, just that your experience, like anyone else's, is a tiny part of the overall picture. Climatology is about the overall picture. It doesn't exist without the tiny parts, but to think the tiny parts are what climatology itself is about is, if I may borrow a comment from another post on this thread, to fall into the fallacy of decomposition. 

Now I'm going to see my old mum and we'll very likely look at a picture of my old dad in his uniform and sing, "He was a real dirty dog, but So Handsome!!" (Actually he was a man of deep personal integrity, a good business man, and not a dirty dog at all, but she likes the song). 

With respect,

Ghoti


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> Oh dear Noco. You remind me strongly of conversations with my dear old dad, who was born in 1925 and who spent 20 years of my life driving me crackers with strenuous and condescending arguments against what I didn't say.
> 
> Look, I don't doubt you've seen extreme weather. Despite my relative youth, so have I. But your personal experience is of one place at a time, and different places throughout your life. It says less about the climate of the planet as a whole than one investor's unsuccessful investment in 1948 says about the pattern of stock markets from 1850 to 2010. It's not that your experience is irrelevant, just that your experience, like anyone else's, is a tiny part of the overall picture. Climatology is about the overall picture. It doesn't exist without the tiny parts, but to think the tiny parts are what climatology itself is about is, if I may borrow a comment from another post on this thread, to fall into the fallacy of decomposition.
> 
> Now I'm going to see my old mum and we'll very likely look at a picture of my old dad in his uniform and sing, "He was a real dirty dog, but So Handsome!!" (Actually he was a man of deep personal integrity, a good business man, and not a dirty dog at all, but she likes the song).
> 
> With respect,
> 
> Ghoti




This Cancun conference is all about DECEPTION AND POLITICAL manipulation at its best and quite frankly it is becoming very boring having to listen to so called scientist expressing their B**ls^#t. When a Sceptic expresses  an opinion, he is branded  a social outcast and every attempt is made to silence him/her by these rabble fanatics.
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/166927.html


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> This Cancun conference is all about DECEPTION AND POLITICAL manipulation at its best and quite frankly it is becoming very boring having to listen to so called scientist expressing their B**ls^#t. When a Sceptic expresses  an opinion, he is branded  a social outcast and every attempt is made to silence him/her by these rabble fanatics.
> http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/166927.html



<sigh>Yeah dad, whatever you say. 

BTW, have you ever read something written by a real scientist? 

Ghoti


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> <sigh>Yeah dad, whatever you say.
> 
> BTW, have you ever read something written by a real scientist?
> 
> Ghoti




Yes Ghoti as a matter of fact I have, and in particular Professor Bob Carter from James Cook uni Townsville. Perhaps you should catch up with him some time Junior. You might just  learn something to broaden your limited knowledge on Gobal Warming. Oops I should say Climate change which ever suits the occassion.


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. *The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created*




The uncertainty it created :alcohol: are you drunk? amazing that the Coalition dosen't pass the legislation and yet by some bizarre logic only understood by the ASF right and other deniers, its the Govt that created the uncertainty.


----------



## nioka

Smurf1976 said:


> Components of household electricity bills:
> 
> Generation = 40%
> Distribution = 31%
> Transmission = 17%
> Retail = 8%
> Other =3%
> 
> (Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding).
> 
> Combined increase in residential electricity prices 2007-08, 08-09, 09-10 (not compounded).
> 
> Vic (energy mostly from coal, gas, hydro in that order) = 53.6%
> NSW (coal, hydro, gas) = 46.1%
> Qld (coal, gas, hydro) = 45.6%
> WA (gas, coal) = 42.5%
> Tas (hydro, gas, coal, wind) = 41.9%
> ACT (energy same as NSW - coal, hydro, gas) = 32.6%
> NT (primarily from gas, rest mostly diesel) = 30.8%
> SA (gas, coal, wind) = 29.6%
> 
> Now, amidst all of this, the major drivers of increasing prices are NOT related to power generation. New baseload generation 30 years ago cost about 4.2 cents / kWh from coal and about 1.4 cents from new hydro. In 2010 it's about 3.7 cents from gas and about the same from black coal.
> 
> The cost of generating baseload power hasn't increased at all over the past 30 years due to both technical and operational efficiency improvements combined with a fall in the real price of domestic fossil fuels.
> 
> So why the soaring bills? It's primarily related to distribution, transmission and all sorts of costs associated with being in a "competitive" electricity market (which has delivered higher prices...).
> 
> Note that both the smallest (SA) and highest (Vic) increases are in states with privately owned power supplies. Ownership makes little difference - it's how it's actually run (in a technical sense as well as management) that matters.
> 
> Average retail price at average household consumption:
> SA = 22.8c / kWh
> NSW = 22.8c / kWh
> WA = 22.4c / kWh
> NT = 20.9c / kWh
> Qld = 20.1c / kWh
> Tas = 20.1c / kWh
> Vic = 20.1c / kWh
> ACT = 16.3c / kWh
> 
> Retail price data sourced from the Tasmanian Economic Regulator and Aurora Energy (Tas) with some additional calculation by Smurf.  www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au Wholesale generation cost (as distinct from actual pricing) data is my own.




Smurf,

Do I read into your post that the electricity price is dominated by factors other than the cost of generation. if so then there is no reason fot that part of the cost to increase in the event of a carbon tax being applied to "dirty" generation. Also the tax would not be applied heavily if at all to the hydro generation, only lightly to wind powered or solar generation, not too hard on gas fired generation but harder on coal fired power. 

In that case the cost increase in the overall electricity generation should not increase as much as the "alarmists" would have us believe.

A carbon tax applied to coal exports would also mean that global polluters would bear the cost of their pollution if using our coal. in that way the Australian contribution would be extended to a meaningful level.

The argument that those unable to pay for any increase in the cost of power is no different to the argument against the GST. That was compensated for in a rise in pension levels to offset the cost increase.

I have seen no valid argument on this forum to convince me that a carbon tax is not necessary or that it is an unfair tax.


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> The uncertainty it created :alcohol: are you drunk?



There you go again, So Cynical!  Someone expresses an opinion which doesn't support your own, and you feel obliged to make pejorative personal remarks.  It's an indication of lack of faith in your own capacity to present your own view that you feel compelled to insult others.



> amazing that the Coalition dosen't pass the legislation and yet by some bizarre logic only understood by the ASF right and other deniers, its the Govt that created the uncertainty.



You're saying the government has not created uncertainty???? Where have you been for the last couple of years?   They decided we had to have an ETS to meet 'the greatest moral challenge of our time', didn't they?
But when they couldn't get it through, they rolled over like puppydogs, and didn't have the guts to take it to a double dissolution.

Then Gillard declared the whole idea had been a mistake, and Kevin was rolled, thrown out, rubbished, thrown on the scrap heap of failed leaders,  the whole damn thing, while Gillard further averred there would absolutely be no ETS and no price on carbon.
Absolutely.  No question.  End of story.

And then she goes into an unholy alliance with the Greens, and that promise is no more.  Ah, she says, we simply must have a price on carbon.  It is absolutely essential.  It is my fundamental mission for the current term.

And you have the gall to say that the government has not created uncertainty!!!

Get a grip!



nioka said:


> Smurf,
> 
> Do I read into your post that the electricity price is dominated by factors other than the cost of generation. if so then there is no reason fot that part of the cost to increase in the event of a carbon tax being applied to "dirty" generation. Also the tax would not be applied heavily if at all to the hydro generation, only lightly to wind powered or solar generation, not too hard on gas fired generation but harder on coal fired power.
> 
> In that case the cost increase in the overall electricity generation should not increase as much as the "alarmists" would have us believe.



You'd think not, wouldn't you.  But if you're naive enough to believe the energy companies will not take advantage of consumer bewilderment, and powerlessness, and price gouge as they are doing already, then you lack the wisdom I've previously given you credit for.

But I suppose we will all interpret everything in the light of what we want to believe.


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> The uncertainty it created :alcohol: are you drunk? amazing that the Coalition dosen't pass the legislation and yet by some bizarre logic only understood by the ASF right and other deniers, its the Govt that created the uncertainty.



Your response is based on an out of context slip on the delete key when quoting my post.


----------



## moXJO

nioka said:


> I have seen no valid argument on this forum to convince me that a carbon tax is not necessary or that it is an unfair tax.




I have seen no valid argument anywhere to convince me that the carbon tax is necessary, fair, or that it will actually achieve anything apart from filling more bureaucratic payrolls. IMO it is a big load of BS. 

Even more astounding is people jumping up and down wanting a new tax. Big business won't end up paying - the people will. If they want more revenue raise the GST, at least we know the consequences to the economy.


----------



## tothemax6

Just thought I would throw in my 
Really, if I actually wanted to smash someone's economy, one of the first targets I would want to hit is their energy supply. In a hi-tech, high-capital economy, energy is the FUNDAMENTAL resource. It is required at all points in every part of the economy - from the movement of persons and materials to the places of work, to the operation of machines, to the powering of computation devices, I'll leave the list at that but I could go on. 
Indeed, there has been research done on this (although I failed to bookmark the links, damn), which shows the high correlation between GDP and 'energy burn rates' if you will. And this stands to reason. The more energy expended the more minerals dug from the ground, the more materials that are processed, the more materials that are transported etc etc.
Now, given that this is the case, and I see little room for arguing that it is not, 'taxing carbon' needs to be understood as what it is:

Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.
Burning coal emits CO2 (the tax target)
Taxing X reduces the profitability of X and the output of X. E.g. if you crank up the tax on bread, people will reduce their consumption of bread because they can't afford the same rate of consumption, this is a well known economic fact.
Now, of course, what Australia _should_ be doing is building nuclear stations. To be generating ones electricity by burning cr@p-loads of coal nowadays is primitive, counter-productive, wasteful, and all-round stupid. The energy density of fission reactors makes combustion reactors look like friggin' AA batteries.
But alas, nuclear is not going to happen any time soon, AND the mad welsh woman even wants to CLAMP DOWN on what we have! 

Just sayin' this, if the carbon tax happens, and by happens I mean meaningful taxes, everyone here needs to be thinking of dumping all their longs and going short. And then probably buying gold and filling ones garage with canned goods (OK maybe that's a little extreme).


----------



## noco

It has been reported in the Townsville Daily Bulletin, the Cancun conference failed to reach a binding agreement on emmission targets but acting PrimeMinister Wayne Swan has suggested the latest developements could lead to a future pact between world leaders. 
Dream on Wayne.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt said the Cancun conference was not a mandate for Labor to push a carbon price.
"It shouldn't  be an excuse to impose a great new tax on electricity".
The only thing agreed to is to start a new 'green climate fund' to which Greg Combet has committed $599 million of tax payers money. 599 sounds better than 600.


----------



## derty

A clever little comic on Climate Change. It appears to be a first draft and a little sloppy in places, though sums up quite well my views on the drivers of anti-AGW . 

I have attached the first couple of panels here, the rest are at:http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-change.html


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> ...a little sloppy in places...




Not really. It faithfully regurgitates most of the anti - anti AGW propaganda.

Preaching to the converted there (religious connotation intended).


----------



## tothemax6

> A clever little comic on Climate Change.



Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.


----------



## derty

tothemax6 said:


> Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.



Both sides are about control and money.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> Both sides are about control and money.




Awesome!

If we can get all the footsoldiers to admit that, we might actually get somewhere.

Anarchy rules! OK! :


----------



## derty

I have attached the conclusion from the recently released Position on Climate Change from the Geological Society of London. I think it is good scientific summation (devoid of denialist or warmist name slanging or accusations of religious belief) in support of anthropogenic climate change with a specific focus on the evidence within the geological record. 

entire article: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/climatechange



> *In conclusion - what does the geological record tell us about the potential effect of continued emissions of CO2?*
> 
> Over at least the last 200 million years the fossil and sedimentary record shows that the Earth has undergone many fluctuations in climate, from warmer than the present climate to much colder, on many different timescales. Several warming events can be associated with increases in the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2. There is evidence for sudden major injections of carbon to the atmosphere occurring at 55, 120 and 183 million years ago, perhaps from the sudden breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the seabed. At those times the associated warming would have increased the evaporation of water vapour from the ocean, making CO2 the trigger rather than the sole agent for change. During the Ice Age of the past two and a half million years or so, periodic warming of the Earth through changes in its position in relation to the sun also heated the oceans, releasing both CO2 and water vapour, which amplified the ongoing warming into warm interglacial periods. That process was magnified by the melting of sea ice and land ice, darkening the Earth’s surface and reducing the reflection of the Sun’s energy back into space.
> 
> While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)43. This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate44. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation44. In total, human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon (hence over 1850 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere since around 1750, some 65% of that being from the burning of fossil fuels18,45,46,47,48. Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes49,50, but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.
> 
> In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6 ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.



(numbers at end of sentences are references in linked document)


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> Just thought I would throw in my
> Really, if I actually wanted to smash someone's economy, one of the first targets I would want to hit is their energy supply. In a hi-tech, high-capital economy, energy is the FUNDAMENTAL resource. It is required at all points in every part of the economy - from the movement of persons and materials to the places of work, to the operation of machines, to the powering of computation devices, I'll leave the list at that but I could go on.
> Indeed, there has been research done on this (although I failed to bookmark the links, damn), which shows the high correlation between GDP and 'energy burn rates' if you will. And this stands to reason. The more energy expended the more minerals dug from the ground, the more materials that are processed, the more materials that are transported etc etc.
> Now, given that this is the case, and I see little room for arguing that it is not, 'taxing carbon' needs to be understood as what it is:
> 
> Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.





Can't really argue with any of that. Locally, you only have to look at energy consumption in Tasmania or South Australia over the past 30 years and compare that to the faster economic growth states to see there's a clear link.

Go back 40 years and NSW, Victoria and Tasmania were the key energy states. WA was a minnow even compared to Tas, as was Qld. Fast forward to 2010 and Qld is now the second largest electricity using state, and WA has left Tas way behind. Look at the state economies and there's a pretty clear link there.

As for the sources of energy, coal does indeed account for the majority (around 80%) of electricity generated in Australia. It is by far the largest source in Qld, NSW/ACT and Vic and is a major source in WA and SA. Only the NT and Tas have no coal-fired power stations, although Tas obtains some electricity from coal-fired plants in Vic.


----------



## Julia

tothemax6 said:


> Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.




Really neat definition, tothe max6.  So accurate.
We are essentially powerless in the face of both sides.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Stronger, more frequent storms...




FYI


----------



## Knobby22

Wayne

On the graph, why is their a top (bue dot) and bottom point (grey dot) with a range in between. What does it represent?


----------



## derty

knobby, I think the top marker represents the global total while the lower marker is the northern hemisphere total. Not sure why they have chosen to colour the area between the two?

As far as frequency goes it look pretty flat from those data, with 2010 very quiet. I wonder if that is associated with the la Nina phase? I had a very quick dig about and it is thought that the there was a bias toward including lower pressure systems in the 70's and 80's due to problems in estimated storm central pressures. The error is thought to be up to 20% for the 1970's data. 







			
				http://www.willisresearchnetwork.com/Lists/Publications/DispForm.aspx?ID=10 said:
			
		

> It is shown that a bias towards lower intensities likely exists in earlier (mainly pre-1980) tropical cyclone central pressure deficit estimates of the order of at least 20 per cent in 1970, reducing to around ten per cent by 1980 and to five per cent by 1985. Inferred temporal trends in the estimated intensity from the original data-sets are therefore significantly reduced in the objectively reviewed data-set.



 Would be interesting to see if Maue's data includes or excludes these data. Also a representation of frequency and duration would be interesting to see too.


I had a quick look about for some historical data on intensity and frequency of intensities but didn't really find much. A longer search will likely find something (I'll whack it up if I find any). I did find a graph of total cyclone energy by Maue that was submitted in conjunction with the frequency image the wayne posted up. It definitely shows an increase in total energy from the 70's though to a peak in the late 90's or 2005, dependant on how much you smooth the data. You can see the peak in energies associated with the hot years of 1998 and 2005, the 1993 peak doesn't really correspond to an exceptionally hot year as far as I know. Since 2005 the drop-off in energy has been severe when compared to frequency, not what you would expect with 2010 being predicted at being one of the hot years. maybe it won't end up as hot as everyone thinks it will be or there are other factors that influence cyclone generation.

I'm sure there will be some write-ups about the data. We will have to see what comes of it.


----------



## bellenuit

*Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email


----------



## noco

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?????

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/its_just_weather_or_else/#commentsmore


----------



## Knobby22

bellenuit said:


> *Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email*
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email




Fox biased. What a non surprise.


----------



## noco

Well, it does not matter to these so called Climate Scientists whether it is extreme heat, extreme cold, drought, floods, cyclones or fire, blame on Globale Warming or Climate change which ever suits the occassion.
I am waiting for these idiots to start blaming Climate Change for Volcanoes and Earth Quakes.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...now_they_once_didnt_now_its_up_to_their_ears/


----------



## GumbyLearner

tothemax6 said:


> Just thought I would throw in my
> Really, if I actually wanted to smash someone's economy, one of the first targets I would want to hit is their energy supply. In a hi-tech, high-capital economy, energy is the FUNDAMENTAL resource. It is required at all points in every part of the economy - from the movement of persons and materials to the places of work, to the operation of machines, to the powering of computation devices, I'll leave the list at that but I could go on.
> Indeed, there has been research done on this (although I failed to bookmark the links, damn), which shows the high correlation between GDP and 'energy burn rates' if you will. And this stands to reason. The more energy expended the more minerals dug from the ground, the more materials that are processed, the more materials that are transported etc etc.
> Now, given that this is the case, and I see little room for arguing that it is not, 'taxing carbon' needs to be understood as what it is:
> 
> Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.
> Burning coal emits CO2 (the tax target)
> Taxing X reduces the profitability of X and the output of X. E.g. if you crank up the tax on bread, people will reduce their consumption of bread because they can't afford the same rate of consumption, this is a well known economic fact.
> Now, of course, what Australia _should_ be doing is building nuclear stations. To be generating ones electricity by burning cr@p-loads of coal nowadays is primitive, counter-productive, wasteful, and all-round stupid. The energy density of fission reactors makes combustion reactors look like friggin' AA batteries.
> But alas, nuclear is not going to happen any time soon, AND the mad welsh woman even wants to CLAMP DOWN on what we have!
> 
> Just sayin' this, if the carbon tax happens, and by happens I mean meaningful taxes, everyone here needs to be thinking of dumping all their longs and going short. And then probably buying gold and filling ones garage with canned goods (OK maybe that's a little extreme).




Great post tothemax6

This is where the fallacy of decomposition truly kicks in. 

Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world. 

Australia and other developed countries governments as well as elite think tanks, large corporates, banks etc.. will likely continue to push through the media, elite groups for a "carbon tax" on Co2. 

It is currently being proposed under the semantically packaged definition of *climate change*. Prior to this it was semantically packaged as *global warming*. However, the definition prior to that was *pollution*.Of course I undoubtedly believe that pollution does exist and is a problem all over the world. Including of course the component parts of the world those being different countries with different economies. 

This tax will have to paid on the basis of consumption. Of course considering that a greater genus terminology has now been adopted that being "climate change". The rasoin detre or spin whatever you like to call it, is aimed at taxing a broader base so that everyone to can contribute taxes in order to enable governments to provide a solution. 

Australia is part of the world. The world is composed of many parts. Some of those parts are exempt from emissions targets under frameworks like Kyoto. Also, certain people live in areas of the world where it is either bloody cold most of the year round or bloody hot. And also it is no conspiracy that certain communities have limited means and resources when it comes to *exchange value* and *use value* as strict economic defintions. Of course people like *THE GREENS* think they are synonyms. Which they certainly are not!!!!

Also, I noticed another great article by Terry McCrann today. I recommend everyone on this thread to read this article.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...chinas-coal-rush/story-e6frfig6-1225971769042

I had to laugh at one thing he said. It's great when some media players are frank and honest in their analysis.

"As I say: go long coal mines, go short winter fashion. If, of course, you're a believer."

The only point of conjecture I have with Terry is I would only being going long if I was an investor domiciled in an carbon tax exempt developing country. 

P.S. There is no "Taking one for the..." in the word TEAM. 

Cheers guys
DYOR

Gumby


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> FYI



Thank you for this pretty picture. What, if anything, do you suggest it means? Derty did a whole lot of digging on your behalf, but I'm sure you didn't just post a chart from some unidentified website without doing some investigation yourself. 

One comment:  All tropical cyclones are storms. Not all storms are tropical cyclones.

Cheers

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> Do I read into your post that the electricity price is dominated by factors other than the cost of generation. if so then there is no reason fot that part of the cost to increase in the event of a carbon tax being applied to "dirty" generation. Also the tax would not be applied heavily if at all to the hydro generation, only lightly to wind powered or solar generation, not too hard on gas fired generation but harder on coal fired power.




Household electricity prices are dominated by non-generation costs. Heavy industrial prices are essentially generation only since the other costs are not incurred to supply those customers.

As with most things, retail prices are very much greater than the wholesale price of the bulk commodity. We've all heard about the $2 pair of jeans etc.

As for hydro, wind etc costs there may not increase but prices certainly would. If the market price of electricity rises due to the carbon tax then renewable energy generators will simply sell at the higher market price and reap an increased profit. Prices are set at the margin, and with a carbon tax coal will that margin.



> A carbon tax applied to coal exports would also mean that global polluters would bear the cost of their pollution if using our coal. in that way the Australian contribution would be extended to a meaningful level.



Would the tax not be paid in practice by the mining companies, in the form of reduced profit, since the coal will still have to compete on international markets with non-taxed coal?



> The argument that those unable to pay for any increase in the cost of power is no different to the argument against the GST. That was compensated for in a rise in pension levels to offset the cost increase.
> 
> I have seen no valid argument on this forum to convince me that a carbon tax is not necessary or that it is an unfair tax.



A classic example as follows.

Rio Tinto and Hydro Tasmania have signed a deal for 322MW baseload that runs until 2025. This was publicly announced today.

In very rough terms, that is worth $100 million a year at present market prices.

Now, ignoring the point about the source of electricity in Tas since I'm making a point of relevance nationally, add a $40 per tonne carbon tax to that amount of coal-fired power and the cost doubles to over $200 million.

Now, how do you find savings to offset that $100 million cost increase? Being a global market with most production exported, they can't simply pass it onto consumers. And with total production at the plant worth $400 million a year, an extra $100 million for electricity is rather significant and likely results in the operation ceasing to be viable, at which point it would simply be relocated to somewhere without a carbon tax.

This is a real example for an industry which accounts for 13% Tasmania's  overseas exports. Replicate that scenario nationally and I'd say we've got a rather large problem on our hands...


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> Household electricity prices are dominated by non-generation costs. Heavy industrial prices are essentially generation only since the other costs are not incurred to supply those customers.
> 
> As with most things, retail prices are very much greater than the wholesale price of the bulk commodity. We've all heard about the $2 pair of jeans etc.
> 
> As for hydro, wind etc costs there may not increase but prices certainly would. If the market price of electricity rises due to the carbon tax then renewable energy generators will simply sell at the higher market price and reap an increased profit. Prices are set at the margin, and with a carbon tax coal will that margin.
> 
> 
> Would the tax not be paid in practice by the mining companies, in the form of reduced profit, since the coal will still have to compete on international markets with non-taxed coal?
> 
> 
> A classic example as follows.
> 
> Rio Tinto and Hydro Tasmania have signed a deal for 322MW baseload that runs until 2025. This was publicly announced today.
> 
> In very rough terms, that is worth $100 million a year at present market prices.
> 
> Now, ignoring the point about the source of electricity in Tas since I'm making a point of relevance nationally, add a $40 per tonne carbon tax to that amount of coal-fired power and the cost doubles to over $200 million.
> 
> Now, how do you find savings to offset that $100 million cost increase? Being a global market with most production exported, they can't simply pass it onto consumers. And with total production at the plant worth $400 million a year, an extra $100 million for electricity is rather significant and likely results in the operation ceasing to be viable, at which point it would simply be relocated to somewhere without a carbon tax.
> 
> This is a real example for an industry which accounts for 13% Tasmania's  overseas exports. Replicate that scenario nationally and I'd say we've got a rather large problem on our hands...



Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon? 

Ghoti


----------



## GumbyLearner

ghotib said:


> Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon?
> 
> Ghoti




Within Australia Ghoti your pricing sounds very generous.
I suspect prices will go UP. But that's just my opinion. They may go down, but I think they will go up, possibly double-digit within the next 3 years. I hope not.


----------



## derty

derty said:


> knobby, I think the top marker represents the global total while the lower marker is the northern hemisphere total. Not sure why they have chosen to colour the area between the two?



No I got that bit wrong, the top marker represents total number of events classed as tropical storms or greater. The lower marker represents those of the previous set that were classified as cyclones.


----------



## GumbyLearner

the underlying principle to not forget is most of this stuff has no scientific foundation. Indeed, it's scientifically contrived rubbish. 

The best thing to do in my opinion is minimize waste and recycle what is available. Considering most things are produced in the Far East these days.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Thank you for this pretty picture. What, if anything, do you suggest it means? Derty did a whole lot of digging on your behalf, but I'm sure you didn't just post a chart from some unidentified website without doing some investigation yourself.
> 
> One comment:  All tropical cyclones are storms. Not all storms are tropical cyclones.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ghoti



It means the claim that storms are increasing is not correct.

Right click on the image for source.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> It means the claim that storms are increasing is not correct.
> 
> Right click on the image for source.



1. What claim?
2. What storms?


----------



## derty

GumbyLearner said:


> Also, I noticed another great article by Terry McCrann today. I recommend everyone on this thread to read this article.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...chinas-coal-rush/story-e6frfig6-1225971769042



Cheers Gumby, you can't really fault what he says about the future of CO2 generation from China and India. Unfortunately. I think he is spot on when he says; "There is nothing, nothing the developed world can do to offset the CO2 that is going to be pumped by China and India. Short that is, of stopping the world..." To add to this not only is there nothing the developed world can do to stop China and India, there is nothing that they *will* significantly do to address their own contributions. There is also nothing that they *can* do to address their contributions that will not cause economic ruin. I guess why precipitate the ruin now, when the ruin we would be attempting to avert is probably a couple of generations away. 



GumbyLearner said:


> the underlying principle to not forget is most of this stuff has no scientific foundation. Indeed, it's scientifically contrived rubbish.



What do you mean by stuff?


Here is another article that is worth the read:http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...e-cant-be-stopped-so-adapt-to-it-2149699.html


> What do you think really clever people think – people who aren't climate scientists, and who aren't climate sceptics, but who need to know, purely pragmatically (as for multimillion-dollar investment decisions) where the truth really lies? You can find out by looking at last week's edition of The Economist, which some people probably consider Britain's cleverest magazine. (They certainly think so themselves.)
> 
> Last week The Economist ran a cover story entitled "Living With Climate Change" which struck me as one of the most notable things I have read about global warming all year. The magazine has no truck with climate scepticism – the future is far too important for nonsense. But neither does it embrace the old narrative, which is that it's real, but if we fight it we can stop it.
> 
> Instead, it sets out, quite coldly, a new, third position: it's real, but after Copenhagen, it can't be stopped. With all the world's efforts, here in Cancun, concentrating on halting the warming at a rise of two degrees, widely considered the danger threshold, the magazine quotes Britain's most distinguished climate scientist, Professor Bob Watson, former head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as saying that the two degree target is "a wishful dream". And then it sets out in detail how we should begin to adapt to what's now inevitably coming.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> 1. What claim?
> 2. What storms?




Excuse me?

Further up, you regurgitated the Gorist catastrophe scenario, one point being that violent storms will be/are more frequent because of purported AGW.

The graph shows that the opposite trend is currently in place.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> Further up, you regurgitated the Gorist catastrophe scenario, one point being that violent storms will be/are more frequent because of purported AGW.
> 
> The graph shows that the opposite trend is currently in place.



The picture might show that to date there have been fewer tropical cyclones - we don't actually know because the captions don't explain the points or the coloured grey area or what definition of tropical cyclone was used for counting. 

And, as I keep saying, not all storms are tropical cyclones, or even tropical anticyclones. There's nothing in the picture about "non-tropical" storms. 

Did you think you were making a point Wayne? This wasn't a point; it was more like a feather duster. As it happens I did make a mis-statement and if you take a bit more care you could find it. I wish you would; I retain a stubborn belief that you have a clearer head than Watts does. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Did you think you were making a point Wayne? This wasn't a point; it was more like a feather duster.




A feather duster is fine. We are dealing in chaotic systems with climate... Butterflies flapping their wings in San Francisco etc. 

A feather duster is well capable of bringing down a hypothesis.


----------



## tothemax6

Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
Cheers


----------



## Julia

tothemax6 said:


> Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
> Cheers



 Derty will provide an objective and rational response to this, as always.

But it's not just about the objective and rational.  It's way more about the political.
The government has locked itself in to an anti-nuclear stance and is reinforced in this by the Greens who are against everything other than wind and solar as far as I can tell.

Of course we should be seriously considering nuclear but I'm betting it won't be happening in the term of this government at least.


----------



## tothemax6

Julia said:


> Derty will provide an objective and rational response to this, as always.
> 
> But it's not just about the objective and rational.  It's way more about the political.
> The government has locked itself in to an anti-nuclear stance and is reinforced in this by the Greens who are against everything other than wind and solar as far as I can tell.
> 
> Of course we should be seriously considering nuclear but I'm betting it won't be happening in the term of this government at least.



Yes it's definitely not for a few years yet. And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever. As far as I can tell, the general policy of the greens is 'whatever is worst for people in Australia is good'. If we had an epidemic whilst a Green government was in power, I'm sure their official response would be 'Good, it will reduce global warming and environmental damage, the government hopes we have a famine too'.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
> Cheers



The main problem with nuclear is cost. Estimates vary widely, but in general it seem that nuclear will still be more expensive than coal even with a $40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax. 

If we're going to go nuclear then either we're going to also (1) nationalise the electricity industry or (2) hand fist fulls of Dollars to subsidise a private nuclear operator.

Option 1 worked in the past (state ownership, not "national" as such), indeed electricity prices have soared since that model was dismantled. Option 2 removes any incentive to minimise costs since the taxpayer will be footing the bill in a manner akin to the insulation fiasco or any other scheme which hands taxpayers money directly to business.

We're already effectively re-nationalising telecommunications via the NBN. And Tasmania has bought back the railways after they literally fell apart under private ownership. So there is a bit of a willingness to put things in government hands now, far moreso than there was 5 or 10 years ago. But privatisation is still carrying on in some states. Overall, there's a bit of both at the moment...

All that said, if we're going to throw masses of money at nuclear then I must ask the question why not do the same for geothermal? Both are, in a technical sense, actual alternatives to coal for baseload generation.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever.



In short, socialism and the apparent failure of both Labor and Liberal to offer a viable future direction.

Promise a future that seems better than the present path and you can be pretty sure that at least someone will vote for you. 

I was in Burnie (Tas) today and thought about all this as I was driving past the now-silent mills which once employed a quarter of the town's population. 70 years ago they lead the world in that industry, but now it's nothing more than empty buildings being stripped of anything having value prior to the inevitable demolition. Meanwhile Australia runs a massive trade deficit in paper-related products.

There is no major party, not Labor, not Liberal, not Green, that actually supports Australian industry these days. The Burnie mill was progressively destroyed by the policies of Liberal, Labor, environmentalists and greedy corporations over almost a 40 year period, 30 of which saw the mills in real visible decline before finally falling silent earlier this year.

Through their various ideals of globalisation and environmentalism the major parties are all pushing us toward being nothing more than a quarry for economies now far more advanced than our own. We'll end up with a few high wage jobs in mining, whilst the rest struggle to survive on "bringing each others washing in" type work.

To be fair, I'll give some credit to the Greens and their precedessors. They made no secret that this was the future 30 years ago. They correctly saw what was happening, even though I doubt they understood the real reasons why. Meanwhile Liberal and Labor have done nothing more than deny that they have brought about the virtual destruction of Australian industry.


----------



## derty

tothemax6 said:


> Derty, since you seem to be the most 'green' in this thread, could I have your opinion on Nuclear power? That is, the only realistic way in which Australia can meet its energy requirements, and secondarily, reduce its CO2 emissions.
> Cheers



totheamx, you are assuming that because I think that the science behind AGW is largely sound that I am therefore green. I am environmentally aware and concerned on many issues, though politically i would not describe myself as green. I am a geologist working in the mining industry and have worked at the Olympic Dam operations when it was WMC owned in the late 90's.

I am a big supporter of nuclear power and also think that Australia should seriously consider providing global nuclear waste storage facilities as we have very old, stable and isolated rock packages that would be ideal for storage. Plus doing so would make Australia a lot of money. 

Nuclear is currently the only real alternative for non-fossil fuel base-load power generation. When you compare the straight out cost per unit of electricity generated it is much cheaper than coal or gas. Though when you include the significantly higher capital costs and lead time for nuclear plants the total cost for electricity generation is in the ballpark with coal and gas.

Given that building a nuclear power station is a multi billion dollar exercise (seems to be $10+ billion for a pair of reactors) and the payback time is very long, it is unlikely that private enterprise will be championing this and it will fall back to the govt to build these. Unless the case is made for CO2 action then I don't think nuclear plants will be built in Australia purely due to our abundant and cheap coal and gas. Plus it will be politically very difficult.

There also seems to be the opinion that nuclear power is the great answer but it is also a finite resource. Some put peak uranium as early as 2035, though with rising prices many, of the large low-grade roll front and calcrete deposits will become economic and peak uranium will likely be quite a bit later. However, if there is a dramatic shift to nuclear to reduce CO2 then of course peak uranium will be brought forward. 

There are also other alternatives to uranium such as thorium which is has a higher crustal abundance, produces more energy per unit of mass and would be cheaper again. Also geothermal is a real alternative too, though it is still in its infancy, and improvements in drilling technology will make this more accessible in the future. 

I can't really see nuclear being a significant feature in power generation in Australia as coal is as economically competitive, it's a political hot potato, it's very expensive to set up and long lead times won't make it a priority for short term focussed governments. However, if a global carbon tax or cap and trade system is implemented nuclear will have political desirability.

As for a realistic way to reduce CO2 emissions I don't think there is one. Not one that will avoid a fundamental change to the way of life on Earth. I have linked to this before. Global energy use is about 15 terrawatts (TW) of this only about 1.5TW are from renewable, non-fossil fuel sources. To cap atmospheric CO2 to 450ppm we need to cut fossil fuel use back to 3TW and find an additional 10.5TW from non-fossil fuel sources. It's a very large problem.

edit: I composed most of this this morning and then spent the rest of the day socialising before submitting this. I see I have restated some of what Smurf has said. I also agree with the rest of what Smurf has presented. Well said.


----------



## nioka

tothemax6 said:


> And as for the Greens, I would love someone to explain to me why they have any popularity whatsoever..




Apart from appealing to a few radical greens they appeal to the NIMBYS. Most of their vote however comes from protests against both Labor and the LIBS, particularly in the last election where neither Gillard or Abbott appealed to a lot of voters ant the Democrats were a lost cause.


----------



## Knobby22

Just like to add that I am an electrical engineer who voted Liberal in the last State Election, Victoria. I have a keen interest in science and technology.

I agree with everything derty and Smurf said re: Fission power.


In Victoria we could achieve a lot by reducing brown coal use, which is very wasteful and installing new gas plants while waiting for the inevitable forces worldwide to react to climate change. Though this will only correct the problem for 20 years it would allow Thorium to emerge.

We should be insisting that all the Uranium we sell gets sent back and stored in a waste dump in the middle of Australia.

PS - nice announcement today from CFU regarding using their gas fired fuel cell to power a charge station for electric cars in Adelaide. I don't think people realise how soon it will be when 70% of us will be driving electric cars (not hybrids). I have a friend who drives one and it saves him a fortune. The battery technology has improved so much over the last 3 years. 
When the petrol price goes up a bit more and the $A drops, the penny will drop also.


----------



## tothemax6

Cheers derty, really 2035 peak uranium? That would suck if its true.
My understanding is that, in addition to fission reactors becoming more efficient (I have seen designs which burn through the fuel thoroughly as if it were a candle, rather than requiring fuel reprocessing) and also are capable of being made smaller, I think it could eventually be commercially viable. Again, there is no way to know if the government has a ban on it.


> The main problem with nuclear is cost. Estimates vary widely, but in general it seem that nuclear will still be more expensive than coal even with a $40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax.
> If we're going to go nuclear then either we're going to also (1) nationalise the electricity industry or (2) hand fist fulls of Dollars to subsidise a private nuclear operator.



If we are going to subsidize and nationalize any aspect of the electricity industry, then our policy is of course "less electricity for a higher price, please". My point is, that given that the government is banning nuclear and preventing any _possible_ entry into the market, we do not know if some entrepreneur can work out a way of undercutting coal with nuclear. I'm guessing they could work it out. It would probably involve starting small someplace where there was high electricity prices and high coal transport costs.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> Cheers derty, really 2035 peak uranium? That would suck if its true.we do not know if some entrepreneur can work out a way of undercutting coal with nuclear. I'm guessing they could work it out. It would probably involve starting small someplace where there was high electricity prices and high coal transport costs.



Agreed in principle - but there is no such location anywhere in Australia. The entire country either has cheap coal, cheap gas, hydro, or far too little demand for electricity to worry about. 

Japan, on the other hand, has high demand for electricity and high fuel transport costs. 

Logically, some countries should have a lot of nuclear power and low CO2 emissions (eg Japan) whilst others should be the last to stick with coal (eg Australia and much of the US). Trouble is, that approach doesn't really work politically.


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed in principle - but there is no such location anywhere in Australia. The entire country either has cheap coal, cheap gas, hydro, or far too little demand for electricity to worry about.
> Japan, on the other hand, has high demand for electricity and high fuel transport costs.
> Logically, some countries should have a lot of nuclear power and low CO2 emissions (eg Japan) whilst others should be the last to stick with coal (eg Australia and much of the US). Trouble is, that approach doesn't really work politically.



Well if that is the case, then there is no problem burning the coal till kingdom come. Politically, someone needs to point out that, whilst the politicians egos make them see their decisions as large and important, any change in Australias CO2 output is actually a drop in the bucket compared to the global output. It seems that Gillard would honestly trade Australia's quality of life in exchange for her getting to enjoy some moral posturing.
Aside, here is an awesome (and far fetched) idea I saw someone come up with; it is a solar-power breeder project which aims to turn the sahara (which is sunny and sandy) into a big solar panel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project
Trust the Japanese to think up something like this


----------



## Logique

This program came on Prime TV last night 'Journey to the Edge of the Universe'. Fabulous graphics, a craft voyaging through the solar system, obviously well researched.

Without missing a beat it calmly informed us that the Sun is getting hotter, and that eventually the Earth will become too hot for habitation. And that some of the planetary moons, currently too cold, could thaw out enough for mankind to move to them, eg Europa and Triton: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0211026.htm

What's this, the Sun causing warming, you mean...even if we have solar panels on our roofs...?  Even if we have a carbon price...? Even if we shut down coal mining...?


----------



## derty

Logique said:


> Without missing a beat it calmly informed us that the Sun is getting hotter, and that eventually the Earth will become too hot for habitation. And that some of the planetary moons, currently too cold, could thaw out enough for mankind to move to them, eg Europa and Triton: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0211026.htm
> 
> What's this, the Sun causing warming, you mean...even if we have solar panels on our roofs...?  Even if we have a carbon price...? Even if we shut down coal mining...?



Some think that the Sun has slowly been increasing it's energy output since it began shining following coalescence. They estimated that the suns luminosity will increase by about 10% over the next 1.1 Billion years. Rendering the planet uninhabitable within 500 to 900 million years. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html discussed at end of article)

If that scenario is not correct then the Earth will get surely fried when the Sun leaves the main sequence in around 4 Billion years and begins to swell into a red giant. 

What time frame was this show talking about? As a 10% change over 1 Billion years won't be that noticeable to those of us that inhabit the Earth for such a brief flicker.


----------



## Smurf1976

2009 we were sweltering on New Year's Eve with 38 degrees (unusually hot by local standards in Tasmania) and a truly spectacular lightning show that night. 

2010 we've got snow two days after Christmas. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/snow-falls-in-hobart-hills/story-e6frfku0-1225976636000

Of course, this means absolutely nothing in terms of climate change. Just like all other short term weather events.


----------



## wayneL




----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Smurf1976 said:


> 2009 we were sweltering on New Year's Eve with 38 degrees (unusually hot by local standards in Tasmania) and a truly spectacular lightning show that night.
> 
> 2010 we've got snow two days after Christmas. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/snow-falls-in-hobart-hills/story-e6frfku0-1225976636000
> 
> Of course, this means absolutely nothing in terms of climate change. Just like all other short term weather events.




Agree.

I'm having Weather in Townsville, rain, flood, thunder, lightning, washouts, as we have been having since ole Capn Cook RN sailed past Magnetic Island. 

gg


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree.
> 
> I'm having Weather in Townsville, rain, flood, thunder, lightning, washouts, as we have been having since ole Capn Cook RN sailed past Magnetic Island.
> 
> gg




GG you are soooo right and I WILL drink to that after 40 years in this great city myself.
 Good health and happiness for 2011.


----------



## Julia

In SE Qld over 15 inches of rain in the last week.  I couldn't have believed it could rain so much.  Not over yet.  Pool has gone from merely green to filthy, muddy brown despite massive amounts of chlorine

Almost enough to drive me back to earthquake ridden Christchurch!

Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> In SE Qld over 15 inches of rain in the last week.  I couldn't have believed it could rain so much.  Not over yet.  Pool has gone from merely green to filthy, muddy brown despite massive amounts of chlorine
> 
> Almost enough to drive me back to earthquake ridden Christchurch!
> 
> Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!




They are quiet julia.

Very quiet.

As the godbotherers were when they were advised the earth circled the sun.

This global warming crap will go down in science as a bigger con than the y2000 bug.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!



I think one thing is pretty certain. Regardless of the science, public confidence in the whole "climate change" thing will be taking a pretty hard hit at the moment. 

A couple of years ago, doing something to cut CO2 emissions was a political winner since there was clear community support to do so.

But since that time we've had everything from Climategate to the insulation fiasco, the ending of "permanent" droughts and the soaring cost of electricity.

I haven't seen any proper polling on the subject, but I very much doubt that the _political_ motivation for cuts to emissions is anywhere near as strong now as it was circa 2007-08. This sort of weather will only serve to further weaken the support base for emissions cuts.


----------



## joea

Hi
On  www.climatedepot.com a report from 2007 has been updated.
"More than 1000 International Scientists Disent over man-made Global Warming Claims.
They challenge the UN IPCC & Gore.
The report was dated December 8th 2010.

In  discussions I have had with an orginisation on soil carbon and agriculture, they have stated that Gillard may have a tax on Carbon by Nov. 2011.
But they also commented that the money involved will not flow through to where it is supposed to go. It will be absorbed by big business and Government. i.e. no result .

The current floods will be moving trace elements down stream to agriculture areas.
Thats how the planet works, and it will continue to do so after we are gone.
Man will (in the next couple of years) be introducing new farming principles to food supply. ... currently in place....
WA has the most damaged landscape in Australia. Municipal Solid Waste in the form of compost is being applied to lots of farming.
Trials since 2004 show excellent results.
These trials were initiated by SRMC & OFS. and supported by WA government.

New farming techniques are being introduced to Cane, Cattle, orchids etc. as we speak.
These improvements will accelerate in the coming years.
A farming business in Mackay HAS REDUCED poisons by 90% and fertilisers by 70% and
are more productive AND economically more viable.
All is not lost, but badly dented.
We have resources eveywhere that are called waste. In the future humans will continue to explore (a better way)
Our ways have erroded into a "throw away society.

manufacting has initiated this. The "penny has dropped". The thought process is in place.
Australia badly needs a government to prevent waste. "in all forms". It will be the way to reduce the costs of living.
Cheers


----------



## ghotib

Another movie (reviewed):

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/11/jaws-movie-review.html


----------



## derty

Julia said:


> Just waiting for all those comments declaring it's again proof of climate change!



No it's just proof that we have an exceptionally strong la Nina in place. Of similar strength to that which occurred in 1974 - hence a lot of the comparisons of this event to then.


----------



## Logique

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Top..._should_dump_carbon_pricing_plans_557484.html
*Govt should dump carbon pricing plans* 
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 

The government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable, the opposition says.
The federal government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable following a *decision by Japan to shelve its emissions trading scheme*, the opposition says.

Japan on Tuesday postponed the creation of its scheme by a year until April 2014 in the face of strong resistance from the nation's business lobby.
Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to impose a price on carbon are *looking 'increasingly isolated on the world stage'*.

*'Japan's decision is a stunning rebuke to Labor's plans to impose a massive hike in power prices on Australian families and businesses*,' Mr Hunt said in a statement on Wednesday.
'Surely now Julia Gillard must admit that her plans are in tatters.'

Japan's decision comes after *the United States and Canada dumped the same electricity tax Ms Gillard wants to enforce *in Australia, Mr Hunt said.................


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Top..._should_dump_carbon_pricing_plans_557484.html
> *Govt should dump carbon pricing plans*
> Wednesday, December 29, 2010
> 
> The government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable, the opposition says.
> The federal government must admit its carbon pricing plans are unworkable following a *decision by Japan to shelve its emissions trading scheme*, the opposition says.
> 
> Japan on Tuesday postponed the creation of its scheme by a year until April 2014 in the face of strong resistance from the nation's business lobby.
> Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to impose a price on carbon are *looking 'increasingly isolated on the world stage'*.
> 
> *'Japan's decision is a stunning rebuke to Labor's plans to impose a massive hike in power prices on Australian families and businesses*,' Mr Hunt said in a statement on Wednesday.
> 'Surely now Julia Gillard must admit that her plans are in tatters.'
> 
> Japan's decision comes after *the United States and Canada dumped the same electricity tax Ms Gillard wants to enforce *in Australia, Mr Hunt said.................



Slowly but surely, the willingness to cut CO2 is diminishing. As this happens, the cost to any country that does go ahead with such a plan increases in terms of lost industry, trade etc. If the US, Canada and Japan are not on side then that effectively makes any Australian policy prohibitively expensive. Even worse if China is not also bound by the same rules, including the same rates of tax per tonne of CO2 emitted.

I'm not arguing about the science. But it has long (about a decade) been my view that emissions will not actually be cut, indeed they will continue to rise until we either run out of things to burn or come up with a cheaper alternative such that we don't want to use coal etc anyway. I stopped worrying about the science for that reason - interesting maybe, but nothing is likely to be done no matter what the science says. 

I say that as someone who, whilst I have an open mind to the science, doesn't think it particularly wise to be messing about with nature on such a massive scale. But we're not going to stop...


----------



## So_Cynical

Tim Flannery gives a very good overall view and commentary of what's going on in the climate change world...what really happened at COP15 (Copenhagen) and the way forward...the deniers wont like his straight talking and common sense.

This video is a great insight into the issues and although Tim is clearly a believer, he's also too smart to totally dismiss or ignore...at the end of the presentation he even tips a bucket on the Greens, and rightly so.

http://fora.tv/2010/05/12/Tim_Flannery_Now_or_Never#fullprogram


----------



## tothemax6

So_Cynical said:


> Tim Flannery gives a very good overall view and commentary of what's going on in the climate change world...what really happened at COP15 (Copenhagen) and the way forward...the deniers wont like his straight talking and common sense.
> 
> This video is a great insight into the issues and although Tim is clearly a believer, he's also too smart to totally dismiss or ignore...at the end of the presentation he even tips a bucket on the Greens, and rightly so.
> 
> http://fora.tv/2010/05/12/Tim_Flannery_Now_or_Never#fullprogram



Watched the whole video start to finish. I fail to see how you think this video was in any way poignant, it was simply the same rhetoric I always here from climate change people. His 'straight talking an common sense' included placing a ban on new coal stations. He failed to address the following, important issues, which weigh against his position:
Australia's minuscule contribution to CO2 output in relation to the world
The effects of taxing carbon on energy outputs, and thus, GDP and quality of life.

He also did not mention 'nuclear', despite how pivotal and important it is to the debate.

His position, if applied to Australia, would exchange a massive downturn in quality of life, for nothing more than a nice bit of moral posturing.


----------



## So_Cynical

tothemax6 said:


> His 'straight talking an common sense' included placing a ban on new coal stations.




So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Tim Flannery gives a very good overall view and commentary of what's going on in the climate change world...what really happened at COP15 (Copenhagen) and the way forward...the deniers wont like his straight talking and common sense.
> 
> This video is a great insight into the issues and although Tim is clearly a believer, he's also too smart to totally dismiss or ignore...at the end of the presentation he even tips a bucket on the Greens, and rightly so.
> 
> http://fora.tv/2010/05/12/Tim_Flannery_Now_or_Never#fullprogram




Here is a comment by Alikar. 

Tim Flannery is a member of the "Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists" which has partnered with the WWF not exactly a sane organisation. He was also chairman of the "Copenhagen Climate Council", which as evryone knows failed to produce a single useful document. Why? (read the rest of his comments on the Tim Flannery link).

Also his predictions on climate change is highlighted on Andrew Blot's blog. Tim Flannery does not inspire me one bit. He has made an absolute fool of himself and should give up.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...i_dont_think_the_warmists_models_are_working/


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> Tim Flannery gives a very good overall view and commentary of what's going on in the climate change world...what really happened at COP15 (Copenhagen) and the way forward...the deniers wont like his straight talking and common sense.
> 
> This video is a great insight into the issues and although Tim is clearly a believer, he's also too smart to totally dismiss or ignore...at the end of the presentation he even tips a bucket on the Greens, and rightly so.
> 
> http://fora.tv/2010/05/12/Tim_Flannery_Now_or_Never#fullprogram




Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?

Credibilty MIA


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?
> 
> Credibilty MIA




According to wiki...Tim Flannery is/has/was

Australian of the Year in 2007
Palaeontologist
Mammalogist
Professor at Macquarie University
Professor at the University of Adelaide 
Contributed to over 90 scientific papers
Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council
Director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide
Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Museum
Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard University
The National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Yep this guy is a complete nobody and without a scintilla of scientific credibility.


----------



## wayneL

OK so let's pump the atmosphere with NO2 then. 

We'll not mention scientific objectivity re "climate disruption"  eh?

BTW, John Farnham was Aussie of the year too....

Good singer, but - pfffft


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> According to wiki...Tim Flannery is/has/was
> 
> Australian of the Year in 2007
> Palaeontologist
> Mammalogist
> Professor at Macquarie University
> Professor at the University of Adelaide
> Contributed to over 90 scientific papers
> Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council
> Director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide
> Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Museum
> Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard University
> The National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
> 
> Yep this guy is a complete nobody and without a scintilla of scientific credibility.




And how much money has he made out of his scientific "QUACKERY"?

After all his failed predictions, he should have the Australian of the year stripped from him. Yep, he is a complete "nobody' alright and without any credibility as has been proven.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> Is this Tim "let's fill the atmosphere with NO2" Flannery?
> 
> Credibilty MIA



I see you have mentioned this a few times when Flannery is mentioned and I have had a google to try and find any reference to Flannery and NO2 but didn't have any luck. Do you have a link to his proposed plan. I am curious as to what he was on about.


----------



## Logique

There's politics in science, Tim Flannery is living proof. He is ideologically approved by the science establishment.

Sceptics, approach the CSIRO with a project brief: '..Global warming is so much flim-flam, and please could CSIRO provide funds for a project to prove it..'  Good luck, you'll need it. Sorry it's called 'climate change' now isn't it. So inconvenient these floods and all this snow. 

Dragons were scientific fact, as recently as the 17th century.
http://www.dragnix.net/Basic/
In the world of fantastic animals, the dragon is unique. No other creature has appeared in such a rich variety of forms. It is as though there was once a whole family of different dragon species that really existed, before they mysteriously became extinct. *Indeed, as recently as the seventeenth century, scholars wrote of dragons as though they were scientific facts, their anatomy and natural history being recorded in painstaking detail.*

The *naturalist Edward Topsell, for instance, writing in 1608*, considered them to be reptilian and closely related to serpents: "There are divers sorts of dragons, distinguished partly by countries, partly by their quantity and magnitude, and partly by the different form of their external parts."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

So_Cynical said:


> According to wiki...Tim Flannery is/has/was
> 
> Australian of the Year in 2007
> Palaeontologist
> Mammalogist
> Professor at Macquarie University
> Professor at the University of Adelaide
> Contributed to over 90 scientific papers
> Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council
> Director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide
> Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Museum
> Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard University
> The National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
> 
> Yep this guy is a complete nobody and without a scintilla of scientific credibility.




For the record, I played beach volleyball against him once, and he was no good at that neither, and that was before all the beaches disappeared with the rising of the oceans.

gg


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> For the record, I played beach volleyball against him once, and he was no good at that neither, and that was before all the beaches disappeared with the rising of the oceans.
> 
> gg




GG, so good to see you back in action again. I get a hellava kick out of your dry humour.


----------



## Julia

tothemax6 said:


> Watched the whole video start to finish. I fail to see how you think this video was in any way poignant, it was simply the same rhetoric I always here from climate change people. His 'straight talking an common sense' included placing a ban on new coal stations. He failed to address the following, important issues, which weigh against his position:
> Australia's minuscule contribution to CO2 output in relation to the world
> The effects of taxing carbon on energy outputs, and thus, GDP and quality of life.
> 
> He also did not mention 'nuclear', despite how pivotal and important it is to the debate.
> 
> His position, if applied to Australia, would exchange a massive downturn in quality of life, for nothing more than a nice bit of moral posturing.




As far as I know Tim Flannery has no specific qualifications regarding climate change.
The climate change enthusiasts are quick to make this point when accusing someone on the other side of irrelevance.

Somehow Mr Flannery has attained a political status which confers on him the mantle of 'expert in climate change'.  He is personable and articulate, the perfect interviewee of the proponents of climate change politics, and thus his reputation has cleverly been mutated to that of a climate change expert.

I'd say his relevance is fast becoming that of global warming in general, i.e. irrelevant.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.



Theoretically not impossible.

Replace petrol engines with electric cars, using coal to generate the electricity.

Replace existing coal-fired power stations with new ultra supercritical (more efficient) coal-fired plants. Note that this process is proven both technically and, in the context where a new plant is being built anyway, economically.


----------



## So_Cynical

So_Cynical said:


> So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.






Smurf1976 said:


> Theoretically not impossible.
> 
> Replace petrol engines with electric cars, using coal to generate the electricity.
> 
> Replace existing coal-fired power stations with new ultra supercritical (more efficient) coal-fired plants. Note that this process is proven both technically and, in the context where a new plant is being built anyway, economically.




Theoretically possible to get the world to agree to change over to electric cars   they wont even agree to a lousy (binding) 5% cut in GHG emissions, but yeh of course its theoretically possible.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I see you have mentioned this a few times when Flannery is mentioned and I have had a google to try and find any reference to Flannery and NO2 but didn't have any luck. Do you have a link to his proposed plan. I am curious as to what he was on about.




http://www.news.com.au/climate-plan-could-change-sky-colour/story-e6frfkp9-1111116384553

I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.


----------



## wayneL

Not directly related to climate change, but here is an article on flaws in research due to cognitive biases.

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/09/where-science-is-flawed/

It can apply equally to both sides of the climate debate of course, but with the rich flow of government funds present only on one side, I suspect biases may me more prevalent there.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> http://www.news.com.au/climate-plan-could-change-sky-colour/story-e6frfkp9-1111116384553
> 
> I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.



Cheers wayne. The NO2 bit had me curious, considering the atmosphere is over 70% nitrogen anyway and NO2 is a very short lived molecule.

I think News Limited is giving Flannery a bit too much credit here as the use of particulate sulphate to effect global dimming was initially put forward in 1974. He has just regurgitated the idea and the media has jumped on it.   

It is actually an interesting subject, and quite a valid proposal, as we see the effects of dimming by atmospheric particulates accentuated following large volcanic eruptions. The mechanism proposed is via an end product of sulphate or SO4. The initial injected product can be SO2 or H2S.  The sulphate can easily be placed into the troposphere but we need to use a lot of it, it is relatively short lived at these low altitudes and you have all the associated environmental issues of acid rain e.t.c. If the sulphate can be placed into the stratosphere much less is required and it is much longer lived, you just need to get it there and in such a way that it forms particles of around 0.5 microns to effect dimming. Amongst the proposed delivery methods are military aircraft (need to get the stuff up about 20km in the tropics, so sorry chemtrail guys your standard airliner won't do this), balloons, artillery shells or huge towers (apparently carbon/epoxy composites can be used to make self supporting towers in excess of 100km tall!). There are a lot of cons especially considering that it is currently not known if the required particle size can easily be attained.

Here is a link to quite a comprehensive paper on the proposal (not Flannery's) and it's methodology :http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf


----------



## noco

There seems to be some conflict when surveys are carried out to determine the percentage of climate change scientist who believe climate change or global warming is man made. Someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends. An investigation reveals how these surveys are used to make the "ALARMIST" look good in the eyes of the public and left wing politicians who use these surveys to substantiate their push for a carbon trading scheme which most of us now know will do little to reduce CO2 emmissions. What it will do is push up the cost of living. 


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.



We've just spent the past 35 years trying NOT to put SO2 in the air, and now someone wants to do the opposite?

That said, I've previously head the drop in SO2 emissions from indusry and power stations (coal, fuel oil) as an explanation for the drop in global temperatures 1975 - 2000.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> It is actually an interesting subject, and quite a valid proposal, as we see the effects of dimming by atmospheric particulates accentuated following large volcanic eruptions.




Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.


----------



## noco

With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.



It would be a classic case of what I refer to as "tinkering".

Do one thing and it causes a problem. Then you do something else to fix that problem, which causes another problem. Then you do something to fix that one and, you guessed it, more problems take its place.

If CO2 really is a problem then, even though the cost is huge, cutting emissions would likely be a better (and cheaper) option in the long term than "tinkering" to try to address the symptoms, only to cause even more problems than we have now.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> It would be a classic case of what I refer to as "tinkering".
> 
> Do one thing and it causes a problem. Then you do something else to fix that problem, which causes another problem. Then you do something to fix that one and, you guessed it, more problems take its place.
> 
> If CO2 really is a problem then, even though the cost is huge, cutting emissions would likely be a better (and cheaper) option in the long term than "tinkering" to try to address the symptoms, only to cause even more problems than we have now.




There's an old saying, "IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT". Can't see the point in even tinkering with it. There is so much running against this Global Warming oops (climate change) it will be history in 5 years.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.



The estimated particulates required to halt the current perceived warming was the equivalent of a Pinatubo every 4-8 years. So if you spread that event out over 4-8 years the likely effect will be quite small and would have little effect on vegetation. Pinatubo injected approx 17Mt SO2 (~8.5Tg S) (10Mt SO2 = 5Mt S = 5Tg S) into the stratosphere in one go and caused average temps in the northern hemisphere to drop around 0.6 deg.C and globally a drop of around 0.4 deg.C. That would equate to a lowering of average global temps of 0.05 to 0.1 deg.C with their proposed stratospheric injection plan. 

The Pinatubo SO2 injection remained in the stratosphere for up to 3 years and I don't remember any environmental problems ensuing from the SO2 diffusing down into the troposphere during that time. We still inject 70Tg S into the troposphere from fossil fuel sources today so the proposed 1Tg S injected into the stratosphere per annum is not likely to result in any noticeable environmental effects on the ground. It does however have consequences for the ozone layer. 

I'm not advocating this method, thought think it is feasible and not as hair-brained as it is made out to be. However I do agree with Smurf that why tinker with the atmosphere more than we already are? Though if push comes to shove and temperatures do rise to the point where catastrophic changes are occurring it is a weapon we have in the arsenal.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf




For me that link doesn't work.  Get a screen saying "drawing error", whatever that means.
Could you summarise the content?


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> For me that link doesn't work.  Get a screen saying "drawing error", whatever that means.
> Could you summarise the content?




Julia, if you click on OK to get rid of the "drawing error" box and then scroll down, there is information there.  I haven't read it as I'm too tired tonight...


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> The estimated particulates required to halt the current perceived warming was the equivalent of a Pinatubo every 4-8 years. So if you spread that event out over 4-8 years the likely effect will be quite small and would have little effect on vegetation. Pinatubo injected approx 17Mt SO2 (~8.5Tg S) (10Mt SO2 = 5Mt S = 5Tg S) into the stratosphere in one go and caused average temps in the northern hemisphere to drop around 0.6 deg.C and globally a drop of around 0.4 deg.C. That would equate to a lowering of average global temps of 0.05 to 0.1 deg.C with their proposed stratospheric injection plan.
> 
> The Pinatubo SO2 injection remained in the stratosphere for up to 3 years and I don't remember any environmental problems ensuing from the SO2 diffusing down into the troposphere during that time. We still inject 70Tg S into the troposphere from fossil fuel sources today so the proposed 1Tg S injected into the stratosphere per annum is not likely to result in any noticeable environmental effects on the ground. It does however have consequences for the ozone layer.
> 
> I'm not advocating this method, thought think it is feasible and not as hair-brained as it is made out to be. However I do agree with Smurf that why tinker with the atmosphere more than we already are? Though if push comes to shove and temperatures do rise to the point where catastrophic changes are occurring it is a weapon we have in the arsenal.




Without referring back to the Flannery statement and IIRC, he said it would change the colour of the sky. That infers a far greater impact than your suggestion above.

I remember reading some research from Israel that the current levels of dimming from air pollution already affects agriculture in some places. 

The reason I believe the idea is hairbrained is that climate is a chaotic system that is not able to be fully and accurately modelled, with the law of unintended consequences fully applicable. A tip of the cap to this in above posts, but there would only be one chance to get it right.

If it failed catastrophically, what then?


----------



## Knobby22

It's going to be tough in England for a while.

"While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and modeling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate," concludes the report. "With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/warmer-arctic-spells-colder-winters.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

As one who has spent a lifetime studying the origin of our universe, black holes etc., for the financially literate, otherwise ignorant of all other things,  we are all "rooned" anyway.

All this claptrap about climate, is really about "Weather".

And this talk of climate changing is pure and utter horse ****.

gg


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As one who has spent a lifetime studying the origin of our universe, black holes etc., for the financially literate, otherwise ignorant of all other things,  we are all "rooned" anyway.
> 
> All this claptrap about climate, is really about "Weather".
> 
> And this talk of climate changing is pure and utter horse ****.
> 
> gg




Yes GG, its all about

Whether the Earth is close or far from the Sun.

Whether the axis of the Earth is tilted at one angle or the other.

Whether we are in the right line to be hit by Sun spots.

Whether it's going to rain, hail or snow.

Whether it's going to be hot and dry or cold and wet.

Whether we have Earth Quakes or Volcanoes.

Whether we blame GLOBAL WARMING,  CLIMATE CHANGE or CO2 EMISSIONS 

 It's all about whether we would rather weather the weather. Or perhaps we should keep a weather eye open for the Alarmist who might be a bit under the weather when they make their predictions whether they are right or wrong . But then again, the Alarmist might already be a bit weather beaten for being exposed to too much weather and whether the deniers are staring to get under their skin. 

In New Guinea, your term of accounts would be rather like " woopwoop belong bulla ma cow".


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> Without referring back to the Flannery statement and IIRC, he said it would change the colour of the sky. That infers a far greater impact than your suggestion above.



I think Flannery is talking out the top of his hat here. Pinatubo injected approx 8 times the amount of sulphur into the stratosphere in 1991 than is proposed in the geo-engineering solution. If there was to be a change in the colour of the sky then surely it would have been very noticeable then. The sulphur does effect the scatter of the longer wavelength red light so it is likely that it will cause longer and more vibrant sunsets. But that should be the limit of it other than a probably imperceptible reddening or less-blueness in the daytime sky. 



wayneL said:


> I remember reading some research from Israel that the current levels of dimming from air pollution already affects agriculture in some places.



From what I could find that dimming appears to be with urban centres and correlated highly with numbers of vehicles in use. This is from troposphere aerosols. While tropospheric aerosols create dimming they are less efficient at cooling as much of the dimming is due to soot which absorbs the radiation energy and heats the troposphere and light reflected by the albedo increasing particles is still available to interact with the troposphere. Whereas stratospheric sulphates reflect light directly back into space. 

As mentioned before stratospheric injection plan involved a total of 1Tg S (1Mt S) per annum which is placed in comparison to the 70Tg S emitted annually into the troposphere by fossil fuel burning. You also need to add to this the  amount of soot released into the troposphere and the stratospheric contribution becomes very minor in comparison. 

The stratospheric sulphates also change the nature of the light reaching the surface. The direct insolation component is drastically reduced (why this method will be a total pain in the butt for terrestrial optical astronomy) and the diffuse component is drastically increased. Plants photosynthesise much more effectively in diffuse light so this effect actually increased plant production and increases the effectiveness of the terrestrial carbon sink. 






wayneL said:


> The reason I believe the idea is hairbrained is that climate is a chaotic system that is not able to be fully and accurately modelled, with the law of unintended consequences fully applicable. A tip of the cap to this in above posts, but there would only be one chance to get it right.
> 
> If it failed catastrophically, what then?



If someone was to attempt to do this now it would be completely hair-brained - but as I said before, if things go pear shaped it is a solution, that due to direct observation of injected volcanic sulphate aerosols, we know works and works quickly. 

The main negatives appear to be the damaging of the ozone layer and totally disrupting terrestrial optical astronomy. The effect of the initial amount of added sulphur to the environment and disruption to vegetation appear to be insignificant and in the case of agriculture it looks to be a positive. It is untried and actually physically placing the sulphates into the stratosphere of a suitable size may prove to be difficult and may actually require much more sulphur to be used to achieve an effective albedo reduction than has been proposed so far. 

Though as for potentially being catastrophic I can't see how it could be. Especially in the early stages. The lifespan of the sulphate particles in the stratosphere of 1-3 years means that if we do see deleterious effects it can be stopped or wound back and the system quickly goes back to it's previous state. 

The main issue for me is the long term implications as alluded to by Smurf. If we eventually go down this route and continue to maintain the rate of increase of CO2 emissions then we will eventually get to a point (possibly not for centuries) where the amount of sulphur required to offset the rising warming effect will cause problems greater than they are  remedying. Though by this stage we might be locked in as stopping the sulphur injection would rapidly remove any cooling effect with the earth rebounding to the warmer equilibrium. It would all make a good science fiction novel.


----------



## Vizion

noco said:


> With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf




Oh dear... an institute who's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, who was also listed as the executive director of the *Center for Science and Public Policy* in the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation till 2006 who where actually funded by Exxon Mobil... 

Here is an funny article on Dennis from a blog http://davec.org/tag/dennis-ambler/ 

Incidentally when it comes to Northern Hemisphere temps I suggest you  look at the NOAA Website for what they actually are, along with the  actual amount of snow that has fallen in the northern hemisphere year on  year. 

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php

There is paper called "If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?"  by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo. On the Arctic  Oscillation. It (might) help (you) understand.

12 months since I bothered to post on any of these threads, with comments like the one quoted above is it really any wonder  You know I don't actually care what you believe, but when I see eleven exclamation points it makes me laugh out loud. 

Y'all play nice now.


----------



## tothemax6

So_Cynical said:


> So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.



Please don't just cut bits out of context like that.
But no, I don't accept that we need government to force cuts in CO2 emission at short notice. I have said (this is the context bit), that given there is a ban on nuclear, and that coal is (since markets automatically favour the most efficient energy source) the main energy source, cutting coal burn rates is the same thing as strangling the economy.
If renewable sources offered the energy-output-rate-to-cost ratio anywhere near coal, it would be being used competitively with coal anyway. If you strangle something as fundamental as a nations energy source, you ARE going to strangle its economic activity and hence peoples quality of life. That is to say, if you ban new stations, people will suffer for the sake of some guy getting to enjoy some moral posturing. And I say to hell with that.
The correct political stance is 'we legalize the use of nuclear power, subject to regional approvals'. This then allows the higher-energy-density nuclear to naturally compete with coal, which is technologically inferior, with the long-term result of nuclear displacing coal from the market (reducing, as a side-effect, national CO2 outputs).

Now some here have said that nuclear cannot out compete coal. However, we do not know this at all, since nuclear is not legal. It is all very well to say X can't beat Y, but they have to have a match to prove it, or it is mere empty conjecture. Technology has a knack of causing lowering prices, and given that the physics of fission is that supplies higher energy outputs than combustion - nuclear WILL displace coal from the market as generation capital becomes cheaper.

Australia may be the lucky country, but politicians can destroy anything if they put their minds to it. The climate brigade are doing just that.


----------



## wayneL

Vizion said:


> ....who where actually funded by Exxon Mobil...




All research is funded by somebody.

While research funded by oil companies might be suspected of bias in one direction, there is evidence that research funded by governmnet has bias in the other direction. It seems funding is only available if you want to show that climate change is occurring.

If you have a hypothesis that climate change is predominantly natural and want funding, you won't get it from government.

So let's put the childish "big oil" accusations in the toilet where they belong. It's playing the man not the ball. Either the research stands up on scientific grounds or it doesn't.


----------



## white_goodman

I have a question Ive been getting in quite heated debates with my lefty girlfriend on the climate change issue, the only thing I dont understand is where the oil companies are placed in all of this?

are they for or against? it seems strange that the US govt/NWO brigade could institute this hysteria without support of oil companies/lobbyists?


----------



## Knobby22

white_goodman said:


> I have a question Ive been getting in quite heated debates with my lefty girlfriend on the climate change issue, the only thing I dont understand is where the oil companies are placed in all of this?
> 
> are they for or against? it seems strange that the US govt/NWO brigade could institute this hysteria without support of oil companies/lobbyists?




The US oil and energy companies used to fund opposition but have withdrawn obvious support. The Replublicans through Murdoch run an agenda that still continues.

But lets argue the facts, not the politics.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> Now some here have said that nuclear cannot out compete coal. However, we do not know this at all, since nuclear is not legal. It is all very well to say X can't beat Y, but they have to have a match to prove it, or it is mere empty conjecture.



Nuclear power is legal and is used in many countries.

Costs of nuclear power from large scale plants in developed countries tend to be substantially higher than costs for new (or existing) coal-fired plant in Australia.

Given that an Australian nuclear industry would be relatively small scale and that proximity to uranium resources does not offer a significant cost saving (since uranium is only a small part of the total cost of nuclear anyway), it is difficult to come up with any real reason why an Australian nuclear plant would have costs lower than those overseas.

It is not proven that is true. But engineering is all about working these things out without having to actually "prove" them the hard way.


----------



## wayneL

James Hansen from 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3341039.ece



> The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the climate is changing,


----------



## white_goodman

wayneL said:


> James Hansen from 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3341039.ece



this james hansen adds literally nothing of value, its baffling how retarded his POV is


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> The US oil and energy companies used to fund opposition but have withdrawn obvious support. The Replublicans through Murdoch run an agenda that still continues.
> 
> But lets argue the facts, not the politics.




arent the facts pretty much plain to see? im more interested on what the agenda is besides money?


----------



## bellenuit

Has Tim Flannery lost it?

I try to keep an open mind on the GW debate, but Tim Flannery has sunk to zero in credibility if this extract from his radio interview is accurate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-beautiful-gaia/story-fn72xczz-1225981252143


----------



## noco

bellenuit said:


> Has Tim Flannery lost it?
> 
> I try to keep an open mind on the GW debate, but Tim Flannery has sunk to zero in credibility if this extract from his radio interview is accurate.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-beautiful-gaia/story-fn72xczz-1225981252143




I think Flannery has been reading too many 'FLASH GORDON COMICS' and become a fiction writer.

What he and Wong have said over the past 3-4 years is totally out of whack to what happened in 2010.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/warmists_see_their_creibility_drowned/


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> Nuclear power is legal and is used in many countries.
> 
> Costs of nuclear power from large scale plants in developed countries tend to be substantially higher than costs for new (or existing) coal-fired plant in Australia.
> 
> Given that an Australian nuclear industry would be relatively small scale and that proximity to uranium resources does not offer a significant cost saving (since uranium is only a small part of the total cost of nuclear anyway), it is difficult to come up with any real reason why an Australian nuclear plant would have costs lower than those overseas.
> 
> It is not proven that is true. But engineering is all about working these things out without having to actually "prove" them the hard way.



'In theory practice is the same as theory, in practice it is not'.

And I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying 'it will never work, so we should ban it'? This doesn't apply to anything else at all. 

'Hey Messrs Wright, I don't think that plane will fly, even if if does I won't let you commercialize it because it is dangerous, it is not economically viable, it will always be cheaper to take a boat than one of these planes, the costs of safety compliance will make it uncompetitive, its fuel costs will make it uncompetitive, it won't be able to carry as many men as ship so it won't be competitive, you will have to build special ports for them to land which will cost a fortune and make airflight uncompetitive. Brothers Wright, this is just never going to happen, and I won't let you try'.

Nuclear should be legalized, and the markets will decide.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/warmists_see_their_creibility_drowned/






			
				from Bolt said:
			
		

> The weather, 2010:
> 
> AUSTRALIA experienced its third-wettest year on record during 2010 and the La Nina conditions bringing heavy rains are likely to persist into autumn. The Bureau of Meteorology has reported that the second half of the year was the wettest on record for Australia as a 14-year “long dry” was broken by the rapid transition from El Niño to La Nina conditions.
> 
> What more does the weather need to do to prove that the warming alarmists have no credibility?



Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.


----------



## noco

derty said:


> Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.




derty, I can't see your reasoning in attempting to discredit Andrew Bolt as being scientifically illiterate. To my knowledge he has never made any scientific statements on Global Warming or Climate Change, which ever suits the the Alarmist of the day.

I don't recall reading any scientific comments by Bolt, only his emphasis on the inaccurate statements by Wong and Flannery, whom neither I might add, are Climate Change scientists. I would suggest to you they are the one's displaying scientific illterancy. Bolt has simply pointed out how WONG AND FLANNERY HAVE GOT IT SO WRONG.

It is a shame you cannot accept Bolt's criticism of people have made the errors.


----------



## Knobby22

Noco, The point is no one said that el Nina is no longer ever goin to occur. It will just get rarer.

The rainfall actually supports global warmng as the atmosphere is holding more moisture and therefore dumping rain harder.

Bolt is getting a bit slack on this issue, I suspect he has changed his mind but dare not let his editors know as they have been instructed by their boss to criticise global warming.  

He has to keep pumping it out, even if he doesn't believe it himself. It's his job.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Noco, The point is no one said that el Nina is no longer ever goin to occur. It will just get rarer.
> 
> The rainfall actually supports global warmng as the atmosphere is holding more moisture and therefore dumping rain harder.
> 
> Bolt is getting a bit slack on this issue, I suspect he has changed his mind but dare not let his editors know as they have been instructed by their boss to criticise global warming.
> 
> He has to keep pumping it out, even if he doesn't believe it himself. It's his job.




I have no doubts  Bolt is a Global Warming sceptic as are more and more people who are having second thoughts about these so called scientific models. These so called experts try to make out if you don't believe in Global Warming you don't believe in Climate Change. I for one believe in Climate change, but not man made by CO2 emmissions. There is a difference.

Flannery is trying to convince people along with his followers what is going to happen in 2050 or 2100 and yet he could not even predict the El Nina two years in advance.He stated in 2007 all the capital cities would be out of water by the end of 2010.   How could anyone be inspired or believe anything this idiot says. 

Ask any of the old farmers out West and they will tell you 10 year droughts are always followed by floods.


----------



## noco

Water Services Association of Australia Executive Director Ross Young stated in 2007 we would have a permamently drier future. Maybe he too, took too much notice from those two windbags Wong and Flannery.

We do know the Labor Governments of Victoria, NSW and Quennsland went along with Flannery's wrong predictions and built those usless desalination plants at a cost of $billions. What a waste. What is new with Labor Governments when it comes to money waste???????

I congratulate Andrew Bolt for exposing these frauds.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...warmists_said_the_drought_would_last_forever/


----------



## joea

noco said:


> I have no doubts  Bolt is a Global Warming sceptic as are more and more people who are having second thoughts about these so called scientific models. These so called experts try to make out if you don't believe in Global Warming you don't believe in Climate Change. I for one believe in Climate change, but not man made by CO2 emmissions. There is a difference.
> 
> Flannery is trying to convince people along with his followers what is going to happen in 2050 or 2100 and yet he could not even predict the El Nina two years in advance.He stated in 2007 all the capital cities would be out of water by the end of 2010.   How could anyone be inspired or believe anything this idiot says.
> 
> Ask any of the old farmers out West and they will tell you 10 year droughts are always followed by floods.




Hi
If Christine Jones has it correct, 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the last 5 years.
Agriculture debt has increased from $10 billion in 1994 to close to $60 billion in 2009, so obviously the 10 year cycle is not producing the goods.
Another point is, cattle farmers have flogged the soil  in the drought with over grazing. The soil is unhealthy and that is why the farmers leave.

The climate is like a stock chart, you are not sure what's further to the right.

What I am sure of, is the planet will continue doing what it does, and its going to be more years before  we can work it out.   However the solution will come quicker if we give the planet a little help.


Incidently she present papers to the government.    

Cheers


----------



## noco

joea said:


> Hi
> If Christine Jones has it correct, 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the last 5 years.
> Agriculture debt has increased from $10 billion in 1994 to close to $60 billion in 2009, so obviously the 10 year cycle is not producing the goods.
> Another point is, cattle farmers have flogged the soil  in the drought with over grazing. The soil is unhealthy and that is why the farmers leave.
> 
> The climate is like a stock chart, you are not sure what's further to the right.
> 
> What I am sure of, is the planet will continue doing what it does, and its going to be more years before  we can work it out.   However the solution will come quicker if we give the planet a little help.
> 
> 
> Incidently she present papers to the government.
> 
> Cheers




I don't suppose you would consider cheap imports of food products has anything to do with a drop of in farmers in Australia! The increase in the Australia dollar to the Green back has not helped our exports. Good for importers though.

I know of a farmer in Victoria who ten years ago exported 150 tonne of asparagus each year to Japan. Japan can now buy it cheaper from Vietnam.

Go to Woolworths and you buy cheap imported prawns at half the price of Australian prawns. You buy a ham with local and imported products marked on the ham; it does not quote what content. Most of the various types of nuts are now imported from Vietnam. Banana farmers have had to fight tooth and nail to stop imports from the Philippines. We poduce more bananas than we can eat so why import?

Is it any wonder our farmers are growing broke. How many farmers will be in business in 10-20 years if this Labor Government continues to allow such imports of food products? At least we won't have to worry about using too much rural water from the Murray because we won't need it.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Is it any wonder our farmers are growing broke. How many farmers will be in business in 10-20 years if this Labor Government continues to allow such imports of food products? At least we won't have to worry about using too much rural water from the Murray because we won't need it.




Labor haven't been elected long, most of what happened occured during the Liberal watch. What will the Liberals do that is different, in my opinion they are less likely to do anything to help. Tell me I am wrong.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Labor haven't been elected long, most of what happened occured during the Liberal watch. What will the Liberals do that is different, in my opinion they are less likely to do anything to help. Tell me I am wrong.




Do you have a link to prove your claim? If you do blame the Liberals, why hasn't Labor fixed it in 3.5 years.

Knobby, if I put my head in a fire, would you follow, because that is what you are saying this Labor Government should do. Follow the Liberals.


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> Cheers noco, a nice example of Bolt displaying his scientific illiteracy. This guy doesn't even know that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. It would be funny except that he has a sizeable gaggle that hang off his every word.




Sums up Bolt



> In 2002, Magistrate Jelena Popovic was awarded $246,000 damages for defamation after suing Bolt and the publishers of the Herald Sun over a 13 December 2000 column in which he claimed she had "hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free". Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program. The jury found that the article was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record of judicial proceedings and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest.






> Bolt's conduct described in 2002 by the Court of Appeal   as "at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

What really sets Bolt apart was speaking against Climate Change as a journalist but being paid by vested interests. He got pinged on the insiders by the other Jurno's  

And this great article one of my all time favorites 



> It's not really surprising that someone's suing Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt is an offensive, myopic, aggressively ignorant buffoon whose popularity I have yet to find a decent explanation for and whose arguments, if they are worthy of the title, are usually so full of disingenuity, casuistry, strawmen remarks and simple bias as to render them useless for anything other than lining a parrot cage.
> 
> *In short, Andrew Bolt is a total flogger.*




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30182.html


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Sums up Bolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt
> 
> What really sets Bolt apart was speaking against Climate Change as a journalist but being paid by vested interests. He got pinged on the insiders by the other Jurno's
> 
> And this great article one of my all time favorites
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30182.html




Probably all true, but the only thing that separates Bolt from most journos is his politics. All the red and watermelon journos are guilty of the same... you just agree with their politics.

Did someone mention bias?


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Sums up Bolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt
> 
> What really sets Bolt apart was speaking against Climate Change as a journalist but being paid by vested interests. He got pinged on the insiders by the other Jurno's
> 
> And this great article one of my all time favorites
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30182.html




It was interesting to read that article from start to finish and the comments that came thick and fast thereafter. There were more comments favouring Andrew Bolt than Luke Walladge.
It is most evident Luke Walladge is a socialist left and tarred with the same brush as David Maher who also is no fan of Andrew Bolt.
It is also common practice for the likes of Luke Walladge in an endeavour to silence their opponents, will use what ever method they can to intimidate and discredit the likes of Andrew Bolt. I doubt this would bother Bolt in the least. He would most likely laugh it off as a joke.
This recently happened on another ASF thread and I was so pleased to see Joe Blow, the moderator, pull that particular member into line for his personal abuse to another ASF member. We have not heard from that ASF member since.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> I don't suppose you would consider cheap imports of food products has anything to do with a drop of in farmers in Australia! The increase in the Australia dollar to the Green back has not helped our exports. Good for importers though.
> 
> I know of a farmer in Victoria who ten years ago exported 150 tonne of asparagus each year to Japan. Japan can now buy it cheaper from Vietnam.
> 
> Go to Woolworths and you buy cheap imported prawns at half the price of Australian prawns. You buy a ham with local and imported products marked on the ham; it does not quote what content. Most of the various types of nuts are now imported from Vietnam. Banana farmers have had to fight tooth and nail to stop imports from the Philippines. We poduce more bananas than we can eat so why import?
> 
> Is it any wonder our farmers are growing broke. How many farmers will be in business in 10-20 years if this Labor Government continues to allow such imports of food products? At least we won't have to worry about using too much rural water from the Murray because we won't need it.



Noco, I understand what you're saying here, but don't we have to remember that we function in a global trading environment and imports from other countries are just as valid as our exporting to other countries.  You really can't expect to have one without the other, and Australia without its exports is going to be in deep ****.

Besides, consumers demand a year round supply of pretty much everything
And doesn't it simply make sense?  i.e. that when a fruit or vegetable is out of season here, there's a surplus in the northern hemisphere, so fairly obviously we can mutually benefit both countries by allowing in these imports.

During times of peak seasonal availability here, I don't see too many competing products from overseas.  All up, it seems to me it's a pretty efficient system from everyone's point of view.

I don't see why farmers should necessarily be a protected species any more than the manufacturers of anything else.  



Knobby22 said:


> Labor haven't been elected long, most of what happened occured during the Liberal watch. What will the Liberals do that is different, in my opinion they are less likely to do anything to help. Tell me I am wrong.



 You're not wrong at all.  I very much doubt the Libs would change much in this respect (unless perhaps they are desperate for Bob Katter's vote!)


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Noco, I understand what you're saying here, but don't we have to remember that we function in a global trading environment and imports from other countries are just as valid as our exporting to other countries.  You really can't expect to have one without the other, and Australia without its exports is going to be in deep ****.
> 
> Besides, consumers demand a year round supply of pretty much everything
> And doesn't it simply make sense?  i.e. that when a fruit or vegetable is out of season here, there's a surplus in the northern hemisphere, so fairly obviously we can mutually benefit both countries by allowing in these imports.
> 
> During times of peak seasonal availability here, I don't see too many competing products from overseas.  All up, it seems to me it's a pretty efficient system from everyone's point of view.
> 
> I don't see why farmers should necessarily be a protected species any more than the manufacturers of anything else.
> 
> 
> You're not wrong at all.  I very much doubt the Libs would change much in this respect (unless perhaps they are desperate for Bob Katter's vote!)




So Julia, what are you suggesting, we close down the farms and send our farmers to work in the mines and buy what ever food we can from overseas at cheaper prices? I really can't see that happening. Most farms are handed down from generation to generation
So what happens if or when when China pulls the pin on coal and iron ore shipments and it could happen, do we then try to resettle our farmers again?
What do you believe would happen if the Australian dollar went back to say half the US dollar like it was a few years ago? Yes, out imports would be dearer and our exports would be more competitive. Petrol would most likely be $3.00 + a litre.
 I might question the effiency of the system in light of the likes of the USA who are still subsidising many of their industries. On a recent trip to the Philippines, I bought eight very cheap good quality shirts all made in the USA at half the Australian price. Given that the majority of our clothing comes from China. Now tell me how could they possibly compete with the cheap Filipino labour if the Yanks were not subsidising their clothing industry. 
It does not appear to be on a level playing field when that happens.


----------



## tothemax6

noco said:


> On a recent trip to the Philippines, I bought eight very cheap good quality shirts all made in the USA at half the Australian price. Given that the majority of our clothing comes from China. Now tell me how could they possibly compete with the cheap Filipino labour if the Yanks were not subsidising their clothing industry.
> It does not appear to be on a level playing field when that happens.



Better t-shirt making machines?

I thought this thread was about Climate change.


----------



## noco

tothemax6 said:


> Better t-shirt making machines?
> 
> I thought this thread was about Climate change.




Yes tothema, the thread is all about Climate Change which led to a statement made by Christine Jones that 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the past 5 years blaming the problem on drought. 
My point came as a follow through, that many had left farming, not because of the drought, but from imported foods from oversaes. This led to my statement that the USA (as an example) heavily subsidise their manufacturing and agricultural industries.
I doubt the USA would have any better t-shirt making machines than the Chinese. There is still labour involved which is cheap in China and the Philippines. In the USA it is all about protecting jobs. Without it their unemployement would be sky high.
So I trust you understand the catalyst that triggered my diversion from the thread
which in effect is still related.  
 I repeat, we (Australia) do not operate on a level playing field and it is more a fact of competition from overseas which leads to our farming industry becoming unviable. If you were in business would you operate at a loss? I doubt it!!!!!!!


----------



## noco

tothemax6 said:


> Better t-shirt making machines?
> 
> I thought this thread was about Climate change.




Yes tothema, the thread is all about Climate Change which led to a statement made by Christine Jones that 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the past 5 years blaming the problem on drought. 
My point came as a follow through, that many had left farming, not because of the drought, but from imported foods from oversaes. This led to my statement that the USA (as an example) heavily subsidise their manufacturing and agricultural industries.
I doubt the USA would have any better t-shirt making machines than the Chinese. There is still labour involved which is cheap in China and the Philippines. In the USA it is all about protecting jobs. Without it their unemployement would be sky high.
So I trust you understand the catalyst that triggered my diversion from the thread
which in effect is still related.  
 I repeat, we (Australia) do not operate on a level playing field and it is more a fact of competition from overseas which leads to our farming industry becoming unviable. If you were in business would you operate at a loss? I doubt it!!!!!!!


----------



## noco

Well, love him or hate him, Andrew Bolt has proved to the public what a 'FAKE' this Tim Flannery has turned out to be. His predictions on climate change which was acted upon by the eastern Labor states has cost the tax payers plenty of misdirected money. He shoild migrate to Siberia and stay there.


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


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I still reckon its all weather. Calamities such as the Rockhampton, Condamine, Theodore and St.George floods have been occurring for eons. 

The main debate is whether they are on the increase, and whether we will "be rooned".

To this date, I have seen no evidence that can predict weather in to the future.

NEVER EVER SEEN EVIDENCE

Sorry for shouting, but none of the climate change believers predicted even 6 months ago, a cooler summer and floods in Queensland and a colder winter and snow in Europe and the USA, such as has occurred over the last 6 weeks.

I am predicting rain in Townsville tomorrow, with scattered showers on Sunday, fineing up to a generally blue sky week.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry for shouting, but none of the climate change believers predicted even 6 months ago, a cooler summer and floods in Queensland and a colder winter and snow in Europe and the USA, such as has occurred over the last 6 weeks.



It's like being a stock market "expert" by claiming that whatever the market is doing at the moment is due to this, that or something else and presenting yourself as very knowledgeable on the subject but failing to predict anything before it happens, thus being COMPLETELY USELESS to anyone wanting to invest based on that advice.

If you look at the past few years then we basically had a "mania" in drought in terms of psychology. Much like those who believe xyz will never go down in price and will keep doubling every few weeks, some people actually did seem to believe that it would never rain again. Sadly, some of those people are in decision making positions and spent a fortune of taxpayers' money based on their being caught up in the mania.


----------



## tothemax6

noco said:


> Yes tothema, the thread is all about Climate Change which led to a statement made by Christine Jones that 10,000 farming families have left the agriculture sector in the past 5 years blaming the problem on drought.
> My point came as a follow through, that many had left farming, not because of the drought, but from imported foods from oversaes. This led to my statement that the USA (as an example) heavily subsidise their manufacturing and agricultural industries.
> I doubt the USA would have any better t-shirt making machines than the Chinese. There is still labour involved which is cheap in China and the Philippines. In the USA it is all about protecting jobs. Without it their unemployement would be sky high.
> So I trust you understand the catalyst that triggered my diversion from the thread
> which in effect is still related.
> I repeat, we (Australia) do not operate on a level playing field and it is more a fact of competition from overseas which leads to our farming industry becoming unviable. If you were in business would you operate at a loss? I doubt it!!!!!!!



But why is this a bad thing? If the yanks want to subsidize our consumption of their food, why should we complain? It is only the yanks that suffer for this. Yes, it hurts the business of farmers, but they are only a minority, eaters are a majority. People do not have to become farmers.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still reckon its all weather.
> NEVER EVER SEEN EVIDENCE
> 
> Sorry for shouting, but none of the climate change believers predicted even 6 months ago, a cooler summer and floods in Queensland and a colder winter and snow in Europe and the USA, such as has occurred over the last 6 weeks.
> gg




I don't believe the subject is centrally concerned with "predicting" weather. The main "concern" is what effect human pollution and deforestation is having on the planet.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't believe the subject is centrally concerned with "predicting" weather. The main "concern" is what effect human pollution and deforestation is having on the planet.




I must disagree with you. 

The "warming mob" predict ruination based on carbon pollution alone, due to human intervention such as industrialisation and deforestation, farting, over-breeding and driving fast cars which attract wild women. The latter by the way lead to all the foregoing.

These as my ole mate Don Rumsfeld used say are the known knowns. 

The warmers use too few inputs in to their models, and remember they are only models, not Mose's tablets from his tete a tete with God. 

Its a bit like tech/a's attempts at present to humour the Gann folk on another thread. 

Anything that happens weather or climate wise can be explained, just as with Gann they can whip out another coincidence to explain a change in the market. 

Tim Flannery is talking about bloody Gaia now, for gawd's sake. 

Its a flight to religion by lapsed Christians and folk gone broke trading the Gann method.

gg


----------



## joea

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't believe the subject is centrally concerned with "predicting" weather. The main "concern" is what effect human pollution and deforestation is having on the planet.




Please do not shoot me down when i make the following comments.
There is always a healthy debate on this subject.

I see people commenting about climate change as a whole but I think there are two  main elements....
1 The deforestation which may cause temperature increase, and if you look at the 
   science it probably does. (25%of our land mass has been cleared of forestation.
2 CO2 emissions. ( AND OTHER NASTY TYPES). CO2 in the atmosphere is an important 
  part of of the plant life, and as reforestation is implemented the Carbon will be 
  incorporated into the soil as DOC (dissolved organic carbon).
As mankind learns to respect the planet a little more ( a lot would be good) we will see
that  the signs of an unhealthy planet start to dissipate.
I have mentioned this before. There is more happening in the last 10 years than the previous 50 years.
I believe in my lifetime we will see the beginning of a reversal.

 Wysiwyg, has commented on pollution.
In the second world war there was a river in Britian so polluted that the navy would dock their ships there to clean the outside of the hull. That's unreal!!!
Cheers


----------



## IFocus

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't believe the subject is centrally concerned with "predicting" weather. The main "concern" is what effect human pollution and deforestation is having on the planet.




This what I don't get...... all the argument on global warming when we are seeing the rapid expansion of depletion of  the ecosystems required to support our existance.

The impact on the systems that support the human life form being ripped apart while the p!ssing arguments about data.

The rate of depletion of energy sources is beyond comprehension

Go to China and take a really deep breath without choking.............

The arguments are really all pointless as some point in the not so distance future ( 1 or 2 generations) we are all screwed.

Other than that everything is fine......


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Probably all true, but the only thing that separates Bolt from most journos is his politics. All the red and watermelon journos are guilty of the same... you just agree with their politics.
> 
> Did someone mention bias?





I would agree re the politics but I do read most of the conservative journos / publications of which there are some excellent content and argument.

Bolt's political views I understand but the shock jock aspect of his commentary I find disturbing.

This is a business model used around the world as a sure money maker by a number of media organizations (call me a snob) that dum's down the issues along the lines FX expressed in the immigrant thread.

Its all very subtle but sucks in an awful lot of people.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> But why is this a bad thing? If the yanks want to subsidize our consumption of their food, why should we complain? It is only the yanks that suffer for this. Yes, it hurts the business of farmers, but they are only a minority, eaters are a majority. People do not have to become farmers.



It leaves us incredibly vulnerable immediately in terms of national security (there have ALWAYS been wars and conflicts and sooner or later we'll be involved in another one, that is almost certain).

And longer term, we'll be in real trouble if the subsidies are cut off. Just like the Americans (and Australia) are today vulnerable should the Saudi's cut off the oil or the Chinese cut off the supply of rare earths (as they've sort of done...) or manufactured goods.

Depending on others for essential supplies carries huge risk. We can't even do it without conflict in our own country - look at the situation in South Australia with water. Qld, NSW and Vic could have South Australians dying of thirst if they wanted to, indeed they've come pretty close to doing so in recent years. 

Just like NSW used to cut off the coal to Vic and SA until those states developed their own mines and became self sufficient. It caused real pain at the time, blackouts in SA and at one point the Victorians resorted to shovelling green timber soaked in oil into the boilers to try and keep the lights on. That game went on for half a century or so until Vic and SA were finally in a position to tell NSW where to shove their coal.

Then SA thought they'd try banning the supply of natural gas to NSW. And now, Tasmania experiences natural gas shortages every time there's a hiccup with production in Victoria (though of course there are no interruptions to Victorian consumers, it's just the supply to others that is cut back...).

There are countless such examples around the world and the lesson is clear. Depending on others for food, fuel or water is something that should be done only if there really is no alternative. Sooner or later, there will be some sort of "reason" why supplies are cut back or cut off entirely.

One of the problems I have with the climate change issue is the often stated notion that the Vic brown coal industry should be closed in favour of greater reliance on natural gas. Now, where are we going to get all that gas from? There certainly aren't enough known reserves in Vic, and nor are there in SA or Tas. Back to the old days of depending on supplies from interstate, avoiding which was the very reason the brown coal industry was set up in the first place.

And it's not just the politics, but other reasons too. Imagine if we were all depending on gas from Qld to keep the lights on in SE Australia at the moment? It's bad enough having one state under water, even worse if the rest of the country was literally left in the dark as a result.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Other than that everything is fine......



Well, thank goodness for that.   
Sorry.


----------



## Wysiwyg

joea said:


> 1 The deforestation which may cause temperature increase, and if you look at the
> science it probably does. (25%of our land mass has been cleared of forestation.




Yes there is a price to pay for all steel, wood, plastic, rubber, glass, fuel & electricity we all consume at overall increasing rates. 
I caught some of a program called 'Home' and saw aerial footage of Haiti as an example. I am sure there are other examples of a lesser extent. 
Haiti residents only wanted wood to fuel their fires. An example of stupid human (of which we are all inherent sufferers) is consuming the whole damn forest. Stripped bare like locusts do a field.



> In 1925, Haiti was lush, with 60% of its original forest covering the lands and mountainous regions. Since then, the population has cut down an estimated 98% of its original forest cover for use as fuel for cookstoves, and in the process has destroyed fertile farmland soils, contributing to desertification.




Trouble is, one human takes a fair bit of earth to live simply. Let alone living a lavish life with the cars, boats, planes and mod. cons.


----------



## Wysiwyg

IFocus said:


> The impact on the systems that support the human life form being ripped apart while the p!ssing arguments about data.
> 
> The rate of depletion of energy sources is beyond comprehension
> 
> Go to China and take a really deep breath without choking.............
> 
> The arguments are really all pointless as some point in the not so distance future ( 1 or 2 generations) we are all screwed.




That's right Focus. Slowly moving the wrong way and for the most part it seems the larger populated areas get swept along, *automaton like, oblivious or ignorant of the consequences. Placing their faith in the governing body.



> "Man lives his life in sleep, and in sleep he dies. As a result of this condition, each person perceives things from a completely subjective perspective. Gurdjieff stated that maleficent events such as wars and so on could not possibly take place if people were more awake. He asserted that people in their typical state function as unconscious automatons, but that one can "wake up" and become a different sort of human being altogether.


----------



## GumbyLearner

Wysiwyg said:


> That's right Focus. Slowly moving the wrong way and for the most part it seems the larger populated areas get swept along, *automaton like, oblivious or ignorant of the consequences. Placing their faith in the governing body.




People are moving very slowly where I am at present. Skiing home is an option.

Coldest winter in memory!

http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=110698&code=Ne2&category=2

*Freezing Low Temperatures in Korea*
A cold snap is sweeping the nation on this Friday.
Morning temperatures in many regions around Korea dropped below minus ten degrees Celsius due mostly to a cold continental high pressure front.
Morning temperatures plummeted to minus 13.9 degrees in Seoul and minus 15 degrees in Daegwallyeong in Gangwon Province.
But with the wind-chill factor it is feeling much colder than the thermometer readings.
Afternoon temperatures are expected to remain low with most part of the country staying below zero.
Seoul will stay in a deep freeze at minus eight Celsius while Chuncheon is forecast to hit minus six and Daejeon minus four degrees.
This cold bout is expected to continue into Christmas Day with the mercury to remain around minus 10 degrees in most central regions.

DEC 24, 2010 

AND IT HASN'T STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  DAMN RIGHT IT'S COOL!


----------



## Smurf1976

Wysiwyg said:


> Trouble is, one human takes a fair bit of earth to live simply. Let alone living a lavish life with the cars, boats, planes and mod. cons.



Everyone knows how quickly mice breed. So I decided to try a bit of an experiment in the mouse house.

I let the food run out for half a day before adding more, occasionally I'll leave it for a full day. Sometimes I fill the bowl full, other times I don't. 

There's only one exercise wheel for all the mice. And only one water supply too (I don't let that run out but they have to queue for a drink). And when I give them special food for a treat, I make sure there's always one piece too few such that one mouse misses out.

And so I have a mix of male and female mice with no breeding over the past few months since the resource constraints became apparent. Prior to that, population was booming.

Now, if a few mice can work this stuff out then you'd think humans would "get it" too? Apparently not...


----------



## ghotib

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still reckon its all weather. Calamities such as the Rockhampton, Condamine, Theodore and St.George floods have been occurring for eons.
> 
> The main debate is whether they are on the increase, and whether we will "be rooned".
> 
> To this date, I have seen no evidence that can predict weather in to the future.
> 
> NEVER EVER SEEN EVIDENCE
> 
> Sorry for shouting, but none of the climate change believers predicted even 6 months ago, a cooler summer and floods in Queensland and a colder winter and snow in Europe and the USA, such as has occurred over the last 6 weeks.
> 
> I am predicting rain in Townsville tomorrow, with scattered showers on Sunday, fineing up to a generally blue sky week.
> 
> gg



Try opening your eyes GG. It's amazing what a difference that makes.

Look ( ), until you recognise that climate and weather are not the same thing you won't even start to make sense on the subject of climate change. And until you actually look at what climate science predicts you can't even start  to critique the predictions. The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change. 

Hanrahan wasn't rooned, but his great great grand children are facing much greater challenges.

The best performance of Hanrahan I've ever heard was at the end of year concert of a 4-teacher country school, where second class gave a group recitation. Some of those kids are now at the forefront of the fight to prevent coal mining under prime agricultural land. Like I said, greater challenges. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change.




Now you're really taking the p!ss ghoti. 

Here is one recent example from the Argo program where the "consensus" appears to be in a spot of bother. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

But thanks for the laugh.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> And until you actually look at what climate science predicts you can't even start  to critique the predictions. The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change.




I can't resist...This is such a bizarre statement. The Gaia followers use the "consensus" term in an attempt to silence critics and convince the general population of the need to worship their god (as the AGW "experts" and priests are doing). However ghotib, on this thread I expected you to exhibit more common sense - many of the folks here aren't having any of the AGW "consensus" BS.

Anyone can go back to see what type of AGW propaganda was peddled to the masses. I can only assume you are affilated or work for a AGW organisation who must defend the new "religion" at all costs...

Here's some AGW alarmists propaganda consensus, they are all priceless:

    1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

    2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

    3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

    4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

    5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

    6. “If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.

    7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

    8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fsh.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970


----------



## noco

I just cannot believe how these fakes on Global Warming, aka Climate Change, like Penny Wong who are consistantly being found out for their deception, just keep coming back with more incorrect so called scienticfic modeling. Surely these people must be embarrassed by their incorrect preditions. When will they give up?     


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...l/comments/but_penny_if_the_seas_are_cooling/


----------



## OzWaveGuy

noco said:


> I just cannot believe how these fakes on Global Warming, aka Climate Change, like Penny Wong who are consistantly being found out for their deception, just keep coming back with more incorrect so called scienticfic modeling. Surely these people must be embarrassed by their incorrect preditions. When will they give up?
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...l/comments/but_penny_if_the_seas_are_cooling/




It's simple, there's plenty of people across the world (and as demonstrated in this particular thread) who cannot think for themselves, but instead demonstrate an uncanny abilty to blindly follow a so called "expert" or group with a title. It's simply a herding instinct, exactly the same as found in the financial markets. In fact there's a strong correlation to this AGW "group think" and the market itself occuring in optimistic and pessimistic extremes at different time scales. I have some interesting charts that show this that I'll post later.

 These Groups or NGOs (as well as GOs) are well funded to generate propaganda and extend the "group think" to unsuspecting public. It was done in the early 70's for the global cooling "scare" and again for the warming "scare" in the 80's til now. The next generation will see the same warming "scares" in approx 30yrs once all the voices - yep, you guessed it, have stopped singing about global cooling.


----------



## Wysiwyg

noco said:


> I just cannot believe how these fakes on Global Warming, aka Climate Change, like Penny Wong who are consistantly being found out for their deception, just keep coming back with more incorrect so called scienticfic modeling. Surely these people must be embarrassed by their incorrect preditions. When will they give up?



With climate having much variability and long range unpredictability, it is obviously difficult for scientists to gauge via comparison. Atmospheric conditions may have to become non-conducive to life before everyone is convinced.


----------



## macca

Funding is usually readily available for the latest "fear tactic", we have had global cooling, Y2k, Global warming and now weather that keeps changing.

If you are a researcher with no desire to actually have to produce anything but pieces of paper, then naturally you go where the money is.

East Anglia Uni in the UK, (the one that misled the IPCC with false data) actually fessed up in court that he changed the data, why ? for money, $14mill in 10 years, good wages for altering a few numbers.

Interesting that the next committee to be started by the Federal Govt, applications just closed I think, but you are only welcome to apply if you already believe that the climate is changing


----------



## noco

macca said:


> Funding is usually readily available for the latest "fear tactic", we have had global cooling, Y2k, Global warming and now weather that keeps changing.
> 
> If you are a researcher with no desire to actually have to produce anything but pieces of paper, then naturally you go where the money is.
> 
> East Anglia Uni in the UK, (the one that misled the IPCC with false data) actually fessed up in court that he changed the data, why ? for money, $14mill in 10 years, good wages for altering a few numbers.
> 
> Interesting that the next committee to be started by the Federal Govt, applications just closed I think, but you are only welcome to apply if you already believe that the climate is changing




There is not a shadow of doubt that the climate changes and has done so for centuries. Most people believe in climate change with a few believing it is man made. Those believers who are pushing for a price on carbon, particularly the Federal Government, are using it purely for revenue raising and will do nothing to prevent climate change. 
Why can't these particular people be honest in their endeavours and give the real reason for a price on carbon.


----------



## joea

noco said:


> I just cannot believe how these fakes on Global Warming, aka Climate Change, like Penny Wong who are consistantly being found out for their deception, just keep coming back with more incorrect so called scienticfic modeling. Surely these people must be embarrassed by their incorrect preditions. When will they give up?
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...l/comments/but_penny_if_the_seas_are_cooling/




They will never give up. They are like "ticks" attached to a live animal, sucking blood for their very existance. In our case sucking taxes from the taxpayer in an attempt to balance a budget( which never happens.)
When these people go to Canberra, I am sure there is a room where they all get together and it called "Screw the Taxpayer".

Cheers.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Now you're really taking the p!ss ghoti.
> 
> Here is one recent example from the Argo program where the "consensus" appears to be in a spot of bother. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
> 
> But thanks for the laugh.



I do wish you'd be more precise about your jokes Wayne. What consensus do you think might be in a spot of bother from this paper? 

It's part of the ongoing attempt to understand one of the most obscure parts of the climate system, circulation and heat transfer in the oceans (my words). The fact that these processes are not well understood means, by definition, that consensus on what they are is yet to emerge. That has no effect on the consensus understanding that greenhouse gases are continuing to increase in the atmosphere and the oceans because of human activity, and that the planet is getting hotter in response. 

Two additional points about this paper: 
1.  It deals with 5 years' worth of data. That is not sufficient to establish trends. From the Argo website http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html


> A key objective of Argo is to observe ocean signals related to climate change. This includes regional and global changes in ocean temperature and heat content, salinity and freshwater content, the steric height of the sea surface in relation to total sea level, and large-scale ocean circulation.
> 
> The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.
> 
> Global coverage is essential, but for global change applications, Argo data must also have high accuracy and minimal systematic errors. Therefore, a high priority for Argo is to continue work aimed at identifying and correcting pressure measurement errors, especially those with systematic impacts. High quality shipboard CTD transects are critical for assessing data quality in nearby profiling floats.




2. The trends identified in the paper are smaller than the uncertainties.

There's still an enormous amount to learn about the oceans. I suppose there might be some unknown process out there that will somehow bring the planet back to where civilisation has grown and flourished, but to date there's no sign of it. It's nice that you can get a laugh out of that. I find  it desperately sad. 

Ghoti


----------



## jonojpsg

OzWaveGuy said:


> I can't resist...This is such a bizarre statement. The Gaia followers use the "consensus" term in an attempt to silence critics and convince the general population of the need to worship their god (as the AGW "experts" and priests are doing). However ghotib, on this thread I expected you to exhibit more common sense - many of the folks here aren't having any of the AGW "consensus" BS.
> 
> Anyone can go back to see what type of AGW propaganda was peddled to the masses. I can only assume you are affilated or work for a AGW organisation who must defend the new "religion" at all costs...
> 
> Here's some AGW alarmists propaganda consensus, they are all priceless:




Priceless indeed OzWG!  APart from most of them being before computers were actually able to provide anywhere near the computing power to provide reasonably accurate climate models...and the 70s, man they were probably all taking acid at the time  I do agree though that this particular aspect of science, eg climate science, has had some ridiculous claims/predictions made over the years about what the likely outcomes "will" be, only to be squished by the actual outcomes haha



noco said:


> I just cannot believe how these fakes on Global Warming, aka Climate Change, like Penny Wong who are consistantly being found out for their deception, just keep coming back with more incorrect so called scienticfic modeling. Surely these people must be embarrassed by their incorrect preditions. When will they give up?
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...l/comments/but_penny_if_the_seas_are_cooling/




Yep, Penny Wong is FOS as are many of the labour front bench...as much as I hate to say it as I voted them in 4 years ago, although changed to the libs last year to no avail.  It is beyond belief that we put up with such blatant incompetence in our politicians...anyone keen for a riot or two to stir things up??

However, this masks the fact that the last decade has in fact been the warmest on record, so I'm not sure where Bolt gets his data from on that front...the ocean data though, would be interested to see the data from the last 20 years, although ARGO hasn't been in that long



Wysiwyg said:


> With climate having much variability and long range unpredictability, it is obviously difficult for scientists to gauge via comparison. Atmospheric conditions may have to become non-conducive to life before everyone is convinced.




haha good call Wys  Is that like the DOW had to fall through 10000 before everyone believed the top was in



macca said:


> Funding is usually readily available for the latest "fear tactic", we have had global cooling, Y2k, Global warming and now weather that keeps changing.
> 
> If you are a researcher with no desire to actually have to produce anything but pieces of paper, then naturally you go where the money is.
> 
> East Anglia Uni in the UK, (the one that misled the IPCC with false data) actually fessed up in court that he changed the data, why ? for money, $14mill in 10 years, good wages for altering a few numbers.
> 
> Interesting that the next committee to be started by the Federal Govt, applications just closed I think, but you are only welcome to apply if you already believe that the climate is changing




This beggars belief really - how much money can government waste in pursuit of their own agenda...some university researchers should be shot (though I do appreciate what a lot of them achieve in improving our quality of life)

I'm not sure what the upshot of all that is, apart from the fact that I still think increasing atm CO2 levels at the rate that we are will have a negative impact on the global system - whether that is temperate increase, or ocean acidity, or some other effects.  

A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?  If so, what data do you have to back that up?  If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?

Just for interests sake


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I do wish you'd be more precise about your jokes Wayne.




Ghoti,

This is what had me literally laughing out loud, as per quoted at the time



ghotib said:


> The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change




As per your habit, you have run off at the wrong tangent.

The ARGO paper is just one small example that shows how the "consensus" is incorrect. There are plenty of other examples.


----------



## jonojpsg

jonojpsg said:


> A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?  If so, what data do you have to back that up?  If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?
> 
> Just for interests sake




Did you see this Wayne?


----------



## macca

The thing that really peees me off is that I believe we really are Polluting the earth way to much. If all of this money and drama was directed at reducing pollution using sensible methods I do think that is worthwhile.

Don't just tip into the river, catch it and treat it. Don't just pump chemical residue in the air, catch and recycle etc etc It is far easier to do, so will be accepted as reasonable and it is clearly visible for all to see. When the river or sea is yellow/brown/red whatever it can't be argued that it ain't the way it used to be.

This carbon thing just doesn't make sense to me, CO2 is a by product of heat decomposing matter, not the other way round. An excellent example is in all our kitchens, we have fridges to keep food matter cold so that it doesn't decompose too quickly. 

When it warms up it starts to decompose faster, yet the GW advocates swear it is the other way round, the matter is decomposing and that is warming the earth, maybe they don't have fridges to test the theory ? 

We are always going to get hotter/cooler decades, even in our short recorded history there are many examples of areas that used to be farmed then failed after 20-30 years. Lots of examples of wet decades then dry decades.

I might as well chuck in here a bit on sea temperatures, I have read that virtually all old records of sea temps were taken from the inlet valves of navy vessels. This water is pumped through the engine area to keep it cooler, the inlets are all beneath the surface of the water, some as deep as 5M below the surface. 

These days temps are taken a Lot closer to the surface and not surprisingly the sun heats the water and so the sea temp is read as warmer.

Just because we decided to record all the data doesn't mean the Earth has to toe the line and repeat itself, it is going to keep on doing whatever it wants to do. 

Mankind has been adjusting to the variables for a very long time and will need to keep doing so in the future


----------



## wayneL

jonojpsg said:


> Did you see this Wayne?




I will give you a detailed answer later.


----------



## So_Cynical

jonojpsg said:


> A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?  If so, what data do you have to back that up?  If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?
> 
> Just for interests sake






jonojpsg said:


> Did you see this Wayne?




This should be entertaining.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

I'd like put forward a different angle.

If global warming is *not* man made, and we go to all the trouble of making everything 'green', then at worst we will have created clean air for our cities, lots of new jobs and technologies.  We have also reduced our dependence on arab states for greatly diminishing oil supplies.  The only downside is cost.

So even if it's just natural cycles occurring, it's still of great benefit to make everything low carbon emission.

If on the other hand the warming is man made, then we've covered our risk side of the equation.


----------



## Smurf1976

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'd like put forward a different angle.
> 
> If global warming is *not* man made, and we go to all the trouble of making everything 'green', then at worst we will have created clean air for our cities, lots of new jobs and technologies.  We have also reduced our dependence on arab states for greatly diminishing oil supplies.  *The only downside is cost*.



Plus massive non-CO2 impacts on the natural environment. 

Prior to the CO2 issue, environmentalists spent their days opposing nuclear and hydro (which just happen to be the ONLY significant non-fossil energy sources we have today) for this reason.

Cut CO2 we could. But we're going to create an awful lot of other damage in order to do it since, on any realistic assessment, the way forward is more transmission lines, more big dams in the wilderness, nuclear power and to a lesser extent coastal wind farms. Everything else just doesn't cut it if we're going to do it now - it might work in 20 years time but it's not an option if we're demanding a shift away from coal in the near future.

I can't see environmentalists being too keen on any of that except in the context that it reduces CO2. Go back to the 1970's and there was strong opposition in Australia to hydro, nuclear and gas for power, favouring coal (specifically brown coal) as environmentally superior. It was amongst this, soon followed by issues of mining and literally saving the trees, that Australian environmentalism was effectively created.

Our present level of CO2 emissions is itself partly a consequence of prior environmental "victories". We use less gas and more brown coal. We used less hydro and more coal. And we don't use nuclear power at all. 

If we simply had the world average % of energy from nuclear and hydro then we wouldn't be having much of a debate about CO2 right now. And no, there is no technical limitation stopping that from being achieved, it is purely a political decision to favour coal, ironically because doing so kept environmentalists happy (arguably with good reason) in the 70's and 80's.

ALL power pollutes. ALL of it. All we get to chose is what we wreck, where, and in what manner. But if the lights are on then there's an effect on the natural environment somewhere. Even solar comes at a cost to the environment larger than most realise. 

All that said, agreed that we ultimately do need to stop burning fossil fuels. What I'm worried about is that we adopt flawed "solutions" (eg nuclear fission) due to a perception that the change is urgent when waiting longer would give rise to far better alternatives. The perception that it is urgent really leaves us with no choice other than to dam the lot and nuke the rest - not what I'd call "green" by any means.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> I can't resist...This is such a bizarre statement. The Gaia followers use the "consensus" term in an attempt to silence critics and convince the general population of the need to worship their god (as the AGW "experts" and priests are doing). However ghotib, on this thread I expected you to exhibit more common sense - many of the folks here aren't having any of the AGW "consensus" BS.
> 
> Anyone can go back to see what type of AGW propaganda was peddled to the masses. I can only assume you are affilated or work for a AGW organisation who must defend the new "religion" at all costs...



Well you know that corny line about ass-u-me

I'm not affiliated to anyone except my spouse and I don't work for anyone except myself. Unless you count the week b4 Xmas, when I delivered flowers  for a local florist - didn't think to ask what their religion(s) might be. Oh, and today I picked up a possible ironing client, but I didn't ask her religion either. Myself, I don't have one. 

I bravely assume that you're not serious about a list of unsourced, out of context, alleged quotes by Fox news. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> And so I have a mix of male and female mice with no breeding over the past few months since the resource constraints became apparent. Prior to that, population was booming.
> 
> Now, if a few mice can work this stuff out then you'd think humans would "get it" too? Apparently not...



Smurf I don't know what you mean by this.
It is well known that in the US, Europe, Australia and Japan (and probably more places), the birth rates have been dropped to below replacement for quite some time.
Indeed, last I heard, Japan and some european countries had birth rates around *half* the replacement level. (Replacement level is considered to be about 2.1 births per woman).
In humans, it is indeed _hedonism_ which fulfills the function of reducing births in advanced societies. Raising kids takes effort, it requires committing to one partner, it requires diverting money from your frivolous luxuries towards raising the kids, you can't spend every weekend getting smashed and chasing a lay etc. Lots just don't bother.

However, herein lies the rub - politicians, instead of accepting demographics, decide they disagree with the demographics. They have ideological slants towards immigration, since it 'creates diversity (changes the nation into something else)', 'supplies much needed labor in X', 'offers a better life for those who live in bad places' etc. 
And then there are the capitalists who desire the immigration, since it depresses the wage rate decreases input costs, and raises profits. Hence, they are always keen to lobby for increased immigration.
And thus we end up with the current farcical situation, in which 'our' population instead rises at twice the world average - even though the fundamentals would otherwise cause it to decline.


Gringotts Bank said:


> I'd like put forward a different angle.
> 
> If global warming is *not* man made, and we go to all the trouble of making everything 'green', then at worst we will have created clean air for our cities, lots of new jobs and technologies.  We have also reduced our dependence on arab states for greatly diminishing oil supplies.  The only downside is cost.
> So even if it's just natural cycles occurring, it's still of great benefit to make everything low carbon emission.
> If on the other hand the warming is man made, then we've covered our risk side of the equation.



The issue is that the price for doing this is actually enormous. Hence the 'only' downside is also enormous. 


Smurf1976 said:


> ALL power pollutes. ALL of it. All we get to chose is what we wreck, where, and in what manner. But if the lights are on then there's an effect on the natural environment somewhere. Even solar comes at a cost to the environment larger than most realize.
> 
> All that said, agreed that we ultimately do need to stop burning fossil fuels. What I'm worried about is that we adopt flawed "solutions" (eg nuclear fission) due to a perception that the change is urgent when waiting longer would give rise to far better alternatives. The perception that it is urgent really leaves us with no choice other than to dam the lot and nuke the rest - not what I'd call "green" by any means.



Could I just point out that humans existing is good? 'Pollution' is a necessary byproduct of our existence. And I fail to see how nuclear is a flawed solution. (Unfortunately I posted a response about nuclear the other day and it doesn't seem to have gone through )


----------



## noco

The link below is a typical example of Labor Government grants for a renwable energy project that has flopped and fallen on deaf ears.
Novemeber 2009 Tim Flannery was granted $90 million by the Rudd Labor Government for a geothermal project that failed. $90 million of tax payers money down the sewer and guess what, our Australian of the year also had a vested interest in the scheme.
The subsidisation of Green renewable energy projects such as solar, wind, wave etc. has cost us billions in subsidies and can never be used for base load power.
Canada has gone nuclear power and has reduced their CO2 emmissions 18% by 2010 and  20% by 2020. They now have 24 base load nuclear power generators. 
As at 2005, 15% of world power generation was produced by nuclear.Yes, that's right, in 2005 31 countries had a total of 439 nuclear power plants.
So if these Green Alarmist were fair dinkum in their efforts to reduce Green House Gases, why not go nuclear in Australia? 
It does not make sense with billions wasted on rewable energy subsidies we could have had may be two nuclear power plants now in operation and a reduction of green house gases. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...riermail/comments/flannerys_investment_cools/


----------



## wayneL

jonojpsg said:


> A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?




As to the specific question, the answer is no. There is no dispute that man is increasing co2 by burning fossil fuels. But that has never been in dispute AFAIK, apart from a few fringe nutters.

It is a poor question. The best question is how is this increase affecting the climate. This is the basis for the whole climate change argument.

There are a number of ancillary questions and answers to help explain my personal position in the debate, if you'd care to ask better questions.


----------



## jonojpsg

jonojpsg said:


> A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?  If so, what data do you have to back that up?  *If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?*Just for interests sake






wayneL said:


> As to the specific question, the answer is no. There is no dispute that man is increasing co2 by burning fossil fuels. But that has never been in dispute AFAIK, apart from a few fringe nutters.
> 
> It is a poor question. The best question is how is this increase affecting the climate. This is the basis for the whole climate change argument.
> 
> *There are a number of ancillary questions and answers to help explain my personal position in the debate, if you'd care to ask better questions.*




Thanks for responding Wayne  Looking forward to a response to the better question

The reason I am putting this line of debate forward is that the response of *climate* to increasing atm CO2 is not certain, eg does temp incr lead or lag CO2 increase, etc.  However there are other much more certain effects such as ocean acidification that could have significant deleterious impacts on the global system and which require action to address.  IMO of course.


----------



## wayneL

jonojpsg said:


> Thanks for responding Wayne  Looking forward to a response to the better question
> 
> The reason I am putting this line of debate forward is that the response of *climate* to increasing atm CO2 is not certain, eg does temp incr lead or lag CO2 increase, etc.  However there are other much more certain effects such as ocean acidification that could have significant deleterious impacts on the global system and which require action to address.  IMO of course.




Acidification is a misnomer. "IMO" there are greater threats to the oceans than marginal decreases in alkalinity.

As with climate change, the impact of co2 is grossly overstated while other more important impacts are ignored.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> derty, I can't see your reasoning in attempting to discredit Andrew Bolt as being scientifically illiterate. To my knowledge he has never made any scientific statements on Global Warming or Climate Change, which ever suits the the Alarmist of the day.



You don't have to say anything scientific to display that you lack scientific understanding.




noco said:


> I don't recall reading any scientific comments by Bolt, only his emphasis on the inaccurate statements by Wong and Flannery, whom neither I might add, are Climate Change scientists. I would suggest to you they are the one's displaying scientific illterancy. Bolt has simply pointed out how WONG AND FLANNERY HAVE GOT IT SO WRONG.



 Wong is a politician and Flannery is a publicity *****. To attempt to discredit statements that these two have made by invoking la Nina associated rainfall in no way discredits AGW. They are displaying political opportunism just as Bolt is doing in his attack on them.

Australia oscillates between lengthy periods of drought and shorter periods of high intensity rainfall. It's the norm for us and is largely tied in with the el Nino - la Nina cycle. We have just come off the back of 10 to 13 years of severe drought broken by an intense la Nina. This climatic cycle is independent of warming trends. You cannot use the la Nina rains to invalidate AGW.

We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.   



noco said:


> It is a shame you cannot accept Bolt's criticism of people have made the errors.



I made no reference to this.


----------



## noco

derty said:


> You don't have to say anything scientific to display that you lack scientific understanding.
> 
> 
> Wong is a politician and Flannery is a publicity *****. To attempt to discredit statements that these two have made by invoking la Nina associated rainfall in no way discredits AGW. They are displaying political opportunism just as Bolt is doing in his attack on them.
> 
> Australia oscillates between lengthy periods of drought and shorter periods of high intensity rainfall. It's the norm for us and is largely tied in with the el Nino - la Nina cycle. We have just come off the back of 10 to 13 years of severe drought broken by an intense la Nina. This climatic cycle is independent of warming trends. You cannot use the la Nina rains to invalidate AGW.
> 
> We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.
> 
> I made no reference to this.




derty ole mate, what you have just tried to preach to me is old hat. 
Get rid of those bloody Greens and lets build some more dams.


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> We have been seeing a shift to drier climes and, regardless of what is the cause of the warming, increases in temperature are predicted to cause the southern parts of Australia to become drier and the northern, monsoonal areas to become wetter. As we have seen in previous times of flood the intense rains don't last long before the system reverts back to hovering on the boundary of drought. Once the waters in the dams from these last rains has been used we will be back where we were before. The assumption that we will have below average rainfall and exist in a state of relatively constant water stress needs to be made and remediation steps taken. We can't assume that we will get these la Nina rains very 5 or 6 years to replenish the dams. Whilst these recent rains have filled the dams and given us some water security I fear the complacency it generates will sap the necessary drive to persevere with measures to improve our water security.




WA has been experiencing exactly as you describe. Amazingly our state governments (Lib/nats and Labor) acted on the expertize that said we must build decel plants or we run out of water.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> Smurf I don't know what you mean by this.
> It is well known that in the US, Europe, Australia and Japan (and probably more places), the birth rates have been dropped to below replacement for quite some time.



World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.

Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.

If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.



> Could I just point out that humans existing is good? 'Pollution' is a necessary byproduct of our existence. And I fail to see how nuclear is a flawed solution. (Unfortunately I posted a response about nuclear the other day and it doesn't seem to have gone through )



To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.

That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.

The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.

There have always been wars. There are wars going on right now. We can't even stop the wars long enough just to be able to say there aren't any wars right now. And now we're suggesting that we give literally every country on earth which has electricity, and that is every country or just about, access to plutonium. 

Commonsense sees a few problems with having plutonium become as available as raw coal, zinc concentrate or iron ore is today. 

Then there's that little point that we don't actually know how we'll decommission these facilities when the time comes. 100 years from now, we'll quite likely still be dealing with nuclear issues from the 1950's. How can such an ever-increasing cost be sustained? We can't even maintain the relatively simple infrastructure (roads etc) we have now, without worrying about a few hundred years' legacy of nuclear sites.

I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.

Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.


----------



## wayneL

From our favourite lord, for your comments: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/2010_warmest_on_record.pdf


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> From our favourite lord, for your comments: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/2010_warmest_on_record.pdf




Thanks wayne, what a great article. It certainly shows what "FAKES' we have around the world spreading their propaganda. The question is WHY are they doing it?
This Government of ours has been sucked into believing this 'crap' or do they?


----------



## sails

noco said:


> Thanks wayne, what a great article. It certainly shows what "FAKES' we have around the world spreading their propaganda. The question is WHY are they doing it?
> This Government of ours has been sucked into believing this 'crap' or do they?




LOL, I don't think they believe it - IMO it's just an excuse for another tax...

Posted an article link some time ago in this thread how Ms Gillard flew the breadth of the country and back in one day just for some back slapping on climate change,. She clearly doesn't give a hoot about her carbon footprints - at least IMO.  It appears Al Gore is also in it for the money and his own carbon footprints don't appear to line up with what he preaches.

With science divided and politicians apparently using this as a money grab while not practicing what they preach, I will remain very skeptical...


----------



## derty

Here is some more ground breaking research brought to you by the Science and Public Policy Institute. 

I always knew living in Victoria was bad for your health. Now we have proof. 




Read the whole thing here.


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.
> Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.
> If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.



You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it *would* be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.


Smurf1976 said:


> To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.
> That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.
> The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.



And this is inefficient. As I say, people have a knack of finding better ways to do things - IF they are free to invest in those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor


Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.
> 
> Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.



See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> There seems to be some conflict when surveys are carried out to determine the percentage of climate change scientist who believe climate change or global warming is man made. *Someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends.* An investigation reveals how these surveys are used to make the "ALARMIST" look good in the eyes of the public and left wing politicians who use these surveys to substantiate their push for a carbon trading scheme which most of us now know will do little to reduce CO2 emmissions. What it will do is push up the cost of living.
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf



noco, did you actually read the pdf you linked to and think about the numbers they produced? Did you take the time to look at the link to the study they were commenting on? 

It appears Bolt didn't either. 


			
				http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_the_evidence_were_so_strong_thered_be_no_need_for_such_untruths/ said:
			
		

> Dennis Ambler checks the statistics behind recently claims that 97 per cent of climate scientists believe man is heating the planet and finds evidence of some exaggeration:
> 
> However a headline of ”0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?
> 
> Er, no.



Ambler claims that the statement by Doran & Zimmerman that of 97% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate is misleading and that the actual number is only 0.73%. That is quite a difference of opinion. No?

The gross numbers of the Doran & Zimmerman survey are that an invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 chose to complete the survey, of those that chose to complete the survey 5% or approx 157 listed their discipline as climate science, of the identified climate scientists 79 stated that they were actively publishing papers mainly on climate change, of these 77 answered the question regarding humans causing climate change (question #2) with 75 answering in the affirmative.

Doran & Zimmerman went 75/77 = ~97% of climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change believe that humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Seems a valid claim to me, though a small population. Ambler has contradicted this and stated:  







			
				Ambler said:
			
		

> It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.
> 
> The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions.



WHAT??

Ambler has assumed is that the entirety of the remainder of the scientists who answered question #2 have answered no. So only 75/3146 = 2.83% actually think the answer to question #2 is yes.

Ambler then decides that all those who didn't respond to the survey would have voted no too. So actually only 75/10157 = 0.73% actually think the answer to question #2 is yes.



When in fact the linked Doran & Zimmerman article clearly states that *82% of the 3146 scientists that responded voted yes to question #2*. Not 2.83%. 

The attempt to include the 7011 who didn't respond on the grounds that they "wanted no part of it" is laughable. You can make no assumptions on their answers, they cannot be included in the survey. It isn't valid. I rarely choose to participate in surveys and a ~30% response rate is probably quite good.

That is some pretty fine reasoning there. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they are stupid. That, or *someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends.* 

The SPPI (and Bolt), refusing to let logic and facts get in the way of convenient figures. Way to go.

Here is the Doran & Zimmerman breakdown of question #2 that includes the results of a Gallop poll of the general pubic.


----------



## IFocus

tothemax6 said:


> You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
> It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it *would* be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.
> 
> And this is inefficient. As I say, people have a knack of finding better ways to do things - IF they are free to invest in those things:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
> 
> See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
> Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
> And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not.




I think you missed an important point that Smurf keeps making is the move of large in fact very large populations want of 1st world living standards I remember a number of that's about 7 earths resources..................


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> World population continues to rise and is well past the point that adverse impacts become observable.
> 
> Too many people is ultimately the problem. All this "pollution control" stuff is really just trying to come up with ways of accommodating more and more people when you think about it.
> 
> If the population of the world was, say, 500 million then we wouldn't be having this discussion and all would be fine. That it is over 6 billion, all of them wanting a "first world" standard of living, is ultimately the problem.
> 
> 
> To be a real option nuclear requires that we stop throwing away almost all of the fuel, since there isn't enough of it to continue that way if nuclear power is to take an increasing role globally.
> 
> That means we have to start reprocessing uranium rather than the "throw away" nuclear cycle we have today.
> 
> The by-product of uranium reprocessing is plutonium.
> 
> There have always been wars. There are wars going on right now. We can't even stop the wars long enough just to be able to say there aren't any wars right now. And now we're suggesting that we give literally every country on earth which has electricity, and that is every country or just about, access to plutonium.
> 
> Commonsense sees a few problems with having plutonium become as available as raw coal, zinc concentrate or iron ore is today.
> 
> Then there's that little point that we don't actually know how we'll decommission these facilities when the time comes. 100 years from now, we'll quite likely still be dealing with nuclear issues from the 1950's. How can such an ever-increasing cost be sustained? We can't even maintain the relatively simple infrastructure (roads etc) we have now, without worrying about a few hundred years' legacy of nuclear sites.
> 
> I'm not totally against nuclear energy. It has a valid role to play. Given the choice, I'd ramp up the use of nuclear at the global level in a fairly big way. But then I wouldn't want it in every country (I see no valid reason to use it in Australia, Indonesia or New Zealand) and I'd also be ramping up other energy sources too, specifically geothermal, hydro and to a lesser extent wind as well as unconventional fossil fuel technologies.
> 
> Then there's that little point that the pro-nuclear advocates hate. In this country at least, geothermal would almost certainly be cheaper and is equally functional. Rather than throwing $ billions at foreign equipment suppliers, we'd be far better off developing our own geothermal industry here at home.




Really like your work Smurf


----------



## IFocus

IFocus said:


> I would agree re the politics but I do read most of the conservative journos / publications of which there are some excellent content and argument.
> 
> Bolt's political views I understand but the shock jock aspect of his commentary I find disturbing.
> 
> This is a business model used around the world as a sure money maker by a number of media organizations (call me a snob) that dum's down the issues along the lines FX expressed in the immigrant thread.
> 
> Its all very subtle but sucks in an awful lot of people.




Sorry for moving off topic but found this profound coming from such a conservative administration and the very thing that I feel about the likes of Bolt 



> US gunman kills six, wounds congresswoman






> The sheriff blamed the *vitriolic political rhetoric* that has consumed the country, much of it occurring in Arizona.
> 
> "When you look at *unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry* that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."





http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8193897/us-politicians-shot-in-arizona-reports


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> You have skipped around my point - yes world population is increasing, first world population is decreasing (excluding non-first-world immigration). As I said, in much (if not all) of the first-world, birth rates are below replacement (thus the populations are naturally declining). The first world does not need population control - it has created its own ceiling through its culture.
> It does not affect Australians if the populations of other countries balloons, and the world total increases as a result, whilst our population declines or remains stable - our resources remain. For us (and the US/Canada, and Europe etc), it *would* be fine. The only reason it will effect us is the political legitimization of immigration.



If we are not affected by increasing global population then what on earth are spending time on this thread for?

The entire CO2 issue, well about 99% of it, is due to the actions of countries other than Australia. If we are not affected by the actions of others then there is absolutely nothing to worry about - not even the most hard line climate lobbyists are suggesting that Australia alone is burning enough coal to cause a problem.

But if CO2 is a problem then what the world does absolutely is our problem. And world population is increasing - that's OUR problem if you are worried about CO2. 

Due to billions of people in China, India etc adopting a "first world" standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to soar no matter what Australia, the US or any other "developed" country does. Now, either you are worried about CO2 or you are not - where it comes from makes no difference whatsoever to its impact.



> See this is what I don't understand. Your explanations of 'I see no valid reason', 'I'd also be ramping up other energy sources', 'geothermal would almost be cheaper'.
> Do you believe in the central planning of all resources and economic activity by the government (or even one man), or just energy? Markets (people freely buying and selling things they like) decide what sources of food, entertainment, transport etc will be present in society - why should energy be different?
> And since geothermal is not illegal - the markets are already deciding if it is viable or not



If we are going to leave it to the market then I have no real problem with that. But face reality - the market has chosen coal and gas as the means to generate electricity.

That said, Australia is one of the few places where energy is NOT centrally planned to any real extent (though WA, SA, Victoria and especially Tasmania have done so to a significant extent in the past). 

If you look at the nuclear industry in France, Japan or any other country with a high percentage of nuclear power then that is basically a consequence of central planning. Governments like nuclear, it's not something that private enterprise really wants to build (unless it's backed by government). Likewise hydro, wind and anything else that isn't coal, oil or natural gas is most commonly built either directly by or with the involvement of government. The market doesn't like renewables and it likes nuclear even less. The market likes gas and coal.


----------



## wayneL

Pielke Snr on the state of scientific discourse:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...d-h-douglass-kevin-trenberth-on-missing-heat/



> SNIP:
> 
> My comment:
> 
> Kevin has apparently learned nothing from the released East Anglia e-mails. To refer to a published paper as “rubbish” without substantiating that claim is arrogant. This behaviour is what has gotten us to the politicization of climate science. A constructive way for Kevin Trenberth to respond would be to post a comment on Judy’s weblog that could then be debated, while he simultaneously prepares a rebuttal paper to the scientifically sound paper by Knox and Douglas.


----------



## orr

Has there been any detailed critique, or discussion of, in this thread of "Merchants of Doubt"(how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming)
the radio national  science show, for a current lecture from the writer

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/01/ssw_20110108.mp3

I've looked for negative reviews and would be interested to be directed to any of this book. If there there, there hard to find.
The arguments outlined define the manipulatory tools to debunk  the science, out of an ideological fear, born out of old Cold War Warriors and their fellow travellers that; the 'Reds' are reforming yet again and are poised for a take over. Themes taken up by contributors to this thread and 'McCarthyists' within our political class.
 I suggest that if you want to create a society with pressure for socialist forms equity you might develop one that puts the combined wealth of the bottom 90% in the hands of the top one percent, 20% of your population under the poverty line and burgeoning unemployment. Any particular global super power coming to mind? If I was in that top one percect I might be seeing reds every where to. Unless I was George Sorros.


----------



## tothemax6

Smurf1976 said:


> If we are not affected by increasing global population then what on earth are spending time on this thread for?
> Due to billions of people in China, India etc adopting a "first world" standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to soar no matter what Australia, the US or any other "developed" country does. Now, either you are worried about CO2 or you are not - where it comes from makes no difference whatsoever to its impact.



Because this thread also concerns political action related to climate change and CO2 emissions. This is a big issue, because as I have said, Australian politicians are more than happy to clamp CO2 emissions, even though it will do nothing in the global scheme of things, and will only hurt Australia.


Smurf1976 said:


> If we are going to leave it to the market then I have no real problem with that. But face reality - the market has chosen coal and gas as the means to generate electricity.



As I say, no the market has not chosen this, since nuclear is banned from the marketplace. And it is all very well to say that 'it couldn't compete anyway', but this is the same as saying to the Wright brothers that we won't allow planes to compete with cars and boats in the transport industry 'because they are unsafe, not economically viable, boats and car transport are cheaper etc'. The market has not had a chance to pass its verdict.
But yes the market likes coal for now, and so be it. I'm just saying nuclear needs the right to compete - and you have to admit the traveling-wave reactor is impressive.


> I think you missed an important point that Smurf keeps making is the move of large in fact very large populations want of 1st world living standards I remember a number of that's about 7 earths resources..................



Yes but they can't access 7 earths of resources. They will hit upper limits, and it will be up to them to address their culture so as to reduce their birth rate. The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation. 
Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.


----------



## wayneL

jonojpsg said:


> If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?
> 
> Just for interests sake




On Ocean "Acidification" have a read of this and tell me what you think http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

ghotib said:


> Look ( ), until you recognise that climate and weather are not the same thing you won't even start to make sense on the subject of climate change. And until you actually look at what climate science predicts you can't even start  to critique the predictions. The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change.
> 
> Ghoti




Climate: The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

Weather: In Spain, the rain falls on the plain, as it does, when it rains.

gg


----------



## IFocus

tothemax6 said:


> Yes but they can't access 7 earths of resources. They will hit upper limits, and it will be up to them to address their culture so as to reduce their birth rate. The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation.
> Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.




I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war


----------



## IFocus

A bit about the cold temps lately from Jon Mauldin forecast for this year



> “Basically, both the Pacific and Bering plates are subducting (sliding beneath) under [the Kamchatka Peninsula] and each other. Just as fenders crumple during a car wreck, so the Kamchatka Peninsula surface is buckling with mountain ranges. When the ocean plates sink deep enough, portions are melted by the intense heat generated within the mantle, turning the solid rock into molten magma. The magma bubbles up through the crust, ultimately bursting to the surface and forming volcanic eruptions.
> “As a result of all this geological activity, Kamchatka tends to be somewhat active – but recently it has been ridiculous! Since late November, Kizimen, Sheveluch, Karymsky, and Kliuchevskoi have been erupting almost constantly. Most of the eruptions have ranged from 2-10 km (1.2-6.2 miles) high. While the smallest eruptions have caused only minor local disruptions, the larger ones have entered passing fronts, cooling temperatures, altering air pressure, and increasing precipitation.
> “Volcanic ash screens out incoming temperature, cooling the air below. This lowers air pressures which, in turn, changes wind patterns. In particular, in polar regions it appears to weaken the Arctic Oscillation winds. When the Arctic Oscillation turns negative, that is, when the winds weaken, the cold air normally trapped around the North Pole surges south.”
> She was writing months ago about the weather that we see today, so when she tells us that it’s possible we’ll see a repeat next year, I pay attention. This could further exacerbate food costs and force emerging-market central bankers to fight inflation by allowing their currencies to rise. Weather makes a difference.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war



I strongly suspect you are right. 

The odds of either "free market" economics or socialism deciding the allocation of resources in a peaceful manner are pretty slim in my opinion. The "free market" types will want the resources, but they won't want to pay the going rate for them. Meanwhile the socialists control much of the key resources and won't want to sell to the free market crowd on anything other than terms highly favourable to the socialists. 

Hence we end up with war.


----------



## Smurf1976

tothemax6 said:


> As I say, no the market has not chosen this, since nuclear is banned from the marketplace.



There are plenty of countries where nuclear is not banned, indeed governments are quite keen on it. And yet investors still aren't overly keen on it in those countries. If you look at those who are building nuclear, then they aren't exactly champions of the free market...

But if you want nuclear to be able to compete in the Australian market then I have no objection to that. Provided, of course, that the operators of any such plant pay all the costs of doing so and are not bailed out with my taxes.



> The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation.
> Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.



Strongly agreed on that point. I would love to do something about the situation, but I long ago accepted that the best I can hope for is that Australia successfuly deals with the consequences - we've got no chance of stopping the problem as such.


----------



## tothemax6

IFocus said:


> I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war



It will to a large extent, yes, unfortunately. Even the CIA has stated this will be the case. However, not any time soon. 


			
				 Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> The odds of either "free market" economics or socialism deciding the allocation of resources in a peaceful manner are pretty slim in my opinion.



Well the line between the market and the nation-state is always blurry. Britain was the best case in point (back when it was capitalist and imperialist) - free markets within the empire, with the empire constantly expanding by military force. 


			
				 Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> But if you want nuclear to be able to compete in the Australian market then I have no objection to that. Provided, of course, that the operators of any such plant pay all the costs of doing so and are not bailed out with my taxes.



+1. We have reached an agreement .


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Explains the AGW alarmists logic perfectly...


----------



## drsmith

When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax. 

The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.

Global warmimg was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.


----------



## Wysiwyg

drsmith said:


> When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme climate event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.




Ironically the Government of Queensland will be wanting the coal mines to start up and export coal to fill the coffers. Large tax dollars from coal exports and coal at its highest price per tonne ever.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.
> 
> The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.
> 
> Global warmimg was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.




Blah blah blah.   To counter that it has been documented by scientists since the 1970's (and no I am not bothering to provide the link, Google does that) that global warming would cause more moisture to rise, in turn causing increasingly heavy rain at times.  That the increasing extremes of hot and cold air would increase storm acitivities.

Floods, bushfires and droughts are now everyday news events.   Anecdotaly years ago such reports were now and again.

Yeh I know, its all happened before, blah blah blah

So you would say we do nothing.  We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> ...So you would say we do nothing.  We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.




I have heard that, even if we are carbon taxed to the max, it will have little actual impact on carbon.  

Like trying to empty the river with a teaspoon.  Will help a little but won't achieve anything worthwhile.

So why hurt the people with more taxes?


----------



## drsmith

> So you would say we do nothing.  We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.



It's unfortunate that advocates reduce the debate to two options, 100% faith in the religion or heresy, with no room for the in between.

It is this that has held human civilisation back at times in the past and threatens to do so again in the future.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> It's unfortunate that advocates reduce the debate to two options, 100% faith in the religion or heresy, with no room for the in between.
> 
> It is this that has held human civilisation back at times in the past and threatens to do so again in the future.




Not infering an extreme at all.  Let just all work out a way for more of us to agree that there may in fact be some problem so that a lot more of us can start to do something to curcumvent the possibility that nature is mucking up and we may have to start taking some alernative pathways for solutions.  Solutions that may in fact not be counter to progress either.

But like the alco, we may need to admit we may have a problem and that we may be it.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> Solutions that may in fact not be counter to progress either.



Fire away.


----------



## macca

explod

Floods said:
			
		

> The reason we have more bushfires, well in reality, less bushfires, but Much more devastating bushfires is that the Greens have influenced policies and the windfall, scrub and weeds are no longer burnt off in winter months.
> 
> This allows fuel to accumulate and when the fire eventually happens, be it from an arsonist or lightning, we get these horrendous holocausts that kill everything in there path.
> 
> That is why a very high number of bush fire fighters have resigned, why should they risk their lives for the stupid moralising idiots who live in the cities.


----------



## explod

macca said:


> The reason we have more bushfires, well in reality, less bushfires, but Much more devastating bushfires is that the Greens have influenced policies and the windfall, scrub and weeds are no longer burnt off in winter months.
> 
> This allows fuel to accumulate and when the fire eventually happens, be it from an arsonist or lightning, we get these horrendous holocausts that kill everything in there path.
> 
> That is why a very high number of bush fire fighters have resigned, why should they risk their lives for the stupid moralising idiots who live in the cities.




Since we settled Victoria about the 1830's we have cleared 80% of the bush.  The 1939 bushfire actually destroyed much more across Victoria than the recent one (not including deaths of course, but the extent of the blaze .

Your answer is a bit simplistic and little more than green bashing that is not going to help us all get our attitudes together for constructive change.

As a youngster I used to help my Dad with the local firebirgade burning off along all of the two chain roads.   Later in big fires I witnessed them jump these breaks as if they were not there.   A lot of people living in the bush is the idea that is wrong.  The bush is for farming, not for lifestyle in my view.

Bushfires are not the problem with weather change.   Almost everyone having a motor car may be though.


----------



## tothemax6

drsmith said:


> When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.
> 
> The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.
> 
> Global warming was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.



Exactly what I was thinking yesterday - Yes they will. Any extreme weather event can now be pinned on carbon emissions, and the source of peoples suffering can thus be funneled into political will to tax carbon. Just like in the old days, when bad weather meant that gods were angry - and this was to be blamed on leaders. 


			
				Explod said:
			
		

> So you would say we do nothing. We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.



Order of magnitude better than doing 'something', given that the 'something' is "smash Australia's economy by strangling its main source of energy with a tax". As an Australian, it is not rational for you to be pro-"smash Australia's economy".


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.
> 
> The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.
> 
> Global warmimg was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.




The only political speak so far has been about dams by you know who...... but just out of interest wasn't 74 and current floods 100 year events?


----------



## drsmith

More dams makes more sense than more tax.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> The only political speak so far has been about dams by you know who...... but just out of interest wasn't 74 and current floods 100 year events?



Two years ago lack of water was the problem, now the reverse is true.

Fixing such extremes is precisely what dams do and a very good reason to build some more. Store water when it rains for use when it doesn't.

The most immediate question that comes to mind is the practicaility or otherwise of raising the Wivenhoe dam? That would serve both flood control and water supply purposes. Then building some additional dams in other catchments would increase water supply and, depending on storage capacity, may also offer flood control benefits.

Building such dams would be an important step toward ending the use of desalination, a very worthwhile objective that directly cuts greenhouse gas emissions. It's nothing short of madness to be burning coal to desalinate water when we've got more than enough water running to waste because we're too short sighted to store it.


----------



## noco

OzWaveGuy said:


> Explains the AGW alarmists logic perfectly...





OzWaveGuy, what a brilliant piece of work. That sums the Greens up to a tee. They try to cover every angle no what the circumstances maybe.


----------



## macca

explod said:


> Since we settled Victoria about the 1830's we have cleared 80% of the bush.  The 1939 bushfire actually destroyed much more across Victoria than the recent one (not including deaths of course, but the extent of the blaze .
> 
> Your answer is a bit simplistic and little more than green bashing that is not going to help us all get our attitudes together for constructive change.
> 
> As a youngster I used to help my Dad with the local firebirgade burning off along all of the two chain roads.   Later in big fires I witnessed them jump these breaks as if they were not there.   A lot of people living in the bush is the idea that is wrong.  The bush is for farming, not for lifestyle in my view.
> 
> Bushfires are not the problem with weather change.   Almost everyone having a motor car may be though.




Some of this doesn't quite read correctly but the point I am trying to make is that if you allow a build up of fuel, then one day it is going to burn, usually at the worst possible time ie: when the weather is most conducive to burning things.

In my area we used to burn off regularly then it was all stopped by the "powers that be" We used to use a wet bag as a fire beater and we never lost houses or animals. Now because of the fuel build up when it eventually burns we lose lives, people and dozens of animals, all very sad and unnecessary.

Huge amounts of money are spent with helicopters trying to put out a fire that should never have been allowed to have so much fuel.

So many people these days don't seem to think things through to an end conclusion or consider the consequences of their actions, they read the headlines of the latest media beat up and think that it is all true


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> More dams makes more sense than more tax.



Indeed so Doctor. Many questions will be asked when the time comes for post-mortems. As you have pointed out elsewhere, with earlier floods in southern states, in a La Nina year it wasn't rocket science to release more water from QLD dams during December.

Economics: stark choice highlighted - three X $1.5B dams, or one X $5B desalination plant? Let's ask QLD'ers what they're thinking now. And by the way, how (underwater) do you switch on the (coal-fired) mains electricity to run the desal plant?  Coal-fired vis-a-vis the renewable and carbon free hydro-electricity from dams.

Climate models = fail. Neither the warmist mob nor the Bureau of Met predicted or warned of the severity of the Jan 2011 SE QLD flooding. 

'Dams no good because the'd never fill up' = a now discredited notion.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> More dams makes more sense than more tax.




Don't you need tax to pay for dams?

What happens if you lot end up like WA where it stops raining, this year we recived no run off for our dams.
 I wonder if this event sets up the eastern states into building the wrong water infrastructure


----------



## drsmith

A carbon tax won't make it rain.


----------



## >Apocalypto<

drsmith said:


> A carbon tax won't make it rain.




I think the rain argument has been answered. unfortunately with deadly repercussions in Queensland.

Considering this time last year I am others in Vicco where getting really worried about water levels. my main question is is climate change a natural order???


----------



## OzWaveGuy

noco said:


> OzWaveGuy, what a brilliant piece of work. That sums the Greens up to a tee. They try to cover every angle no what the circumstances maybe.




It does, and with the elephant in the room, the AGW extremists continue to push the most bizarre ideology onto the masses. Remember the ads on TV that asked everyone to reduce their meat intake to "save the planet" from that deadly CO2 (sponsored by the Australian Gov - aka your tax dollars).....now here's the solution:

The AGW alarmists should instead be eating *bugs to save the planet* and cooking them on a solar cooker at 2pm in the afternoon - if the sun's out! If not, you need to read the paper to ensure you can effectively switch to bug menu.​




In fact, they shouldn't even be on this forum as computers need electricity and infrastructure to run - creating "deadly CO2". However, with AGW warmists like Al Gore, Oprah, John Travolta etc leading the way, indulging more than anyone else on the planet with multiple private jets, cars, luxury accomodation, first class dining, private runways among them, then the average AGW alarmists need not bother to curb CO2 as the warmists "priests" aren't concerned afterall. Meat is therefore ok too.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> Don't you need tax to pay for dams?
> 
> What happens if you lot end up like WA where it stops raining, this year we recived no run off for our dams.
> I wonder if this event sets up the eastern states into building the wrong water infrastructure



Your argument as I take it is basically that inflows to dams are variable, and that some other source of water would be more reliable.

Now, that doesn't just apply to water. I can assure you that anyone who has dealt with predominantly renewable energy systems, from small stand alone solar to large scale hydro, has learnt at least one thing. And that is that coal and oil (but not necessarily gas) are inherently more reliable than any form of power that depends on what the weather is doing.

If it is not valid to build dams for water supply on the basis of unpredictable inflows then it is equally not valid to rely on renewables for electricity supply given that inflows (sun, wind, water) are unpredictable and in general terms far less reliable than water from a dam (given that non-hydro renewables involve essentially no storage).


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Floods, bushfires and droughts are now everyday news events.   Anecdotaly years ago such reports were now and again.
> 
> Yeh I know, its all happened before, blah blah blah
> 
> So you would say we do nothing.  We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.




its always the worst its ever been in the present... short memories


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

OzWaveGuy said:


> It does, and with the elephant in the room, the AGW extremists continue to push the most bizarre ideology onto the masses. Remember the ads on TV that asked everyone to reduce their meat intake to "save the planet" from that deadly CO2 (sponsored by the Australian Gov - aka your tax dollars).....now here's the solution:
> 
> The AGW alarmists should instead be eating *bugs to save the planet* and cooking them on a solar cooker at 2pm in the afternoon - if the sun's out! If not, you need to read the paper to ensure you can effectively switch to bug menu.​
> View attachment 40833
> 
> 
> In fact, they shouldn't even be on this forum as computers need electricity and infrastructure to run - creating "deadly CO2". However, with AGW warmists like Al Gore, Oprah, John Travolta etc leading the way, indulging more than anyone else on the planet with multiple private jets, cars, luxury accomodation, first class dining, private runways among them, then the average AGW alarmists need not bother to curb CO2 as the warmists "priests" aren't concerned afterall. Meat is therefore ok too.




Pure golden wisdom owg. 

It's a beaut day in Townsville this morning, a touch of rain last night, but we still have 12-14 weeks of cyclone season to WEATHER yet.

gg


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> A carbon tax won't make it rain.




True but then nor will building dams


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> Your argument as I take it is basically that inflows to dams are variable, and that some other source of water would be more reliable.
> 
> Now, that doesn't just apply to water. I can assure you that anyone who has dealt with predominantly renewable energy systems, from small stand alone solar to large scale hydro, has learnt at least one thing. And that is that coal and oil (but not necessarily gas) are inherently more reliable than any form of power that depends on what the weather is doing.
> 
> If it is not valid to build dams for water supply on the basis of unpredictable inflows then it is equally not valid to rely on renewables for electricity supply given that inflows (sun, wind, water) are unpredictable and in general terms far less reliable than water from a dam (given that non-hydro renewables involve essentially no storage).




To be honest Smurf I don't know the definitive answer.

To do that we have to reliably forecast the future weather cilmate............and we all know about the disagreement about that 

So like you have said we will be dealing with consequences what ever they will be rather than taking pro active action.

To maintain water supply to the increasing population I think the answer is we use less water along with dams if they are viable and decel.
WA draws a large % of its water from aquifers which we are surely killing slowly but surely. Dams wont work here we just don't get the rain any more which has been a trend for decades hence we are madly building decel plants.

The eastern states have just come out of drought to a 100 year + event (except the last one was only 40 years ago) 
Why wont we just go into another drought?
Will next year will be fine? 

Will the Murray / Darling be truly rooted due to irrigation getting the green light as we now have mega floods

I don't know the answer but suspect that this flood could set the seeds for some really poor decisions.

For flood mitigation clearly there is a need for dams or works to allow flood water diversion. 

Or don't build in known flood plains.

To combine water storage dams and flood mitigation dams I don't know the civil engineering area enough for an opinion.


----------



## wayneL

<trivia> One of the radio stations over here just ran a phone poll on the cause of the Qld floods

1/ It's a media beat up - 1%

2/ It's all to do with climate change - 17%

3/ It's just a flood, floods happen - 82%

</trivia>

FWIW


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> <trivia> One of the radio stations over here just ran a phone poll on the cause of the Qld floods
> 
> 1/ It's a media beat up - 1%
> 
> 2/ It's all to do with climate change - 17%
> 
> 3/ It's just a flood, floods happen - 82%
> 
> </trivia>
> 
> 
> FWIW




Interesting data.

Is this guy in the 1% or the 17%?

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> So like you have said we will be dealing with consequences what ever they will be rather than taking pro active action.
> 
> To maintain water supply to the increasing population I think the answer is we use less water along with dams if they are viable and decel.
> WA draws a large % of its water from aquifers which we are surely killing slowly but surely. Dams wont work here we just don't get the rain any more which has been a trend for decades hence we are madly building decel plants.
> 
> The eastern states have just come out of drought to a 100 year + event (except the last one was only 40 years ago)
> Why wont we just go into another drought?
> Will next year will be fine?
> 
> Will the Murray / Darling be truly rooted due to irrigation getting the green light as we now have mega floods
> 
> I don't know the answer but suspect that this flood could set the seeds for some really poor decisions.



It's sad but you're right. Some silly decisions will almost certainly come out of this situation just as they did with the drought.

Dams - my basic thought is that sometimes we have floods, the rest of the time we have drought. Now, if we could just capture and store some of that flood water for use the rest of the time then that fixes a lot of problems. The water is there, it's just that it falls from the sky very intermittently.

Weather records - nobody in the water / dams / hydro industry likes doing anything without at least 30 years of river flow (as distinct from rainfall) records and more is always better.

As for 1 in 100 year events etc, I don't know what the practice elsewhere is but in Tasmania the Hydro uses 20 in 1000 as its reliability criteria. That is, 20 failures over a 1000 year period. Obviously that analysis is based on synthetic data since 1000 years of actual records aren't available. 

Actual failures over the past 94 years of operation has been 1951 (though you could argue that since construction delays caused by WWII were the ultimate cause it wasn't really a system "failure" as such), 1967 and a very near miss in 2008. So that's pretty much within the 20 in 1000 criteria thus far.  

As for WA, I'm not really familiar with anything in WA apart from the fact that run-off into their water supply dams has outright crashed since the mid-1970's. Are there any local factors, such as land clearing, that contribute to this? Something must be going on surely?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Wherever you see "cooling" in this video, substitute "warming" and hey presto - you have the same basic scary messages being peddled by AGW alarmists...



How's the bug menu coming along? tasty?


----------



## Sean K

Good piece on the back page of the Fin today along these lines.


Andrew Bolt
Monday, January 17, 2011 at 02:42pm

Greens leader Bob Brown thought it was too soon to (correctly) blame soft boat people laws for luring people to their deaths:

Andrew Bolt’s call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for Julia Gillard’s resignation ... lacked human decency. He should resign.

But Brown did not think it too soon, when the fires were still burning, to blame global warming for the deadly Black Saturday fires in Victoria last year: 

Greens leader Bob Brown says bushfires like the ones raging across Victoria and New South Wales this weekend will be more frequent if climate change continues…

“Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more,” he told Sky News. “It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change.”

And he does not think it now too soon, with bodies still being recovered, to blame coal miners for the Queensland floods, either:

Senator Brown says the coal-mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland reconstruction efforts, claiming their operations are partly responsible for the floods.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.

Bob Brown is a hypocrite as well as a fool.

(Thanks to readers Peter, Owen, Simon, Kevin, Anton, John McLean and astonished others.)

UPDATE

Four years ago, Bob Brown claimed global warming could give us a “permanent drought”: 

From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now.

He was also warning of possibly no water at all in the Murray-Darling system: 

Already, (Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray–Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.

But when drought is replaced by floods, and rivers meant to be empty are overflowing, well, global warming caused that, too.

(Thanks to reader Simon.)

UPDATE 2

Brown rebuked: 

Minerals Council of Australia deputy chief Brendan Pearson accused Senator Brown of ”rank opportunism”, unworthy of a serious political leader.

And Australian Coal Association director Ralph Hillman said domestically-mined coal made a tiny contribution to global carbon emissions.

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the Greens leader should apologise for his “insensitive” comments.

“Senator Brown’s comments expose the Greens and his leadership as shallow and cynical; willing to peddle political propaganda in the face of a natural disaster,” Senator Abetz said.

UPDATE 3

Tony Barry has a question: 

Where’s Bob Brown?  Every national leader (including Julie Bishop) has been to Brisbane and Queensland except, as best I can ascertain, Bob Brown.

UPDATE 4

Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier, a geologist and geomorphologist, explains why Brown should be laughed out of town: 

There are at least three arguments against relating the Queensland floods to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

1. Even other people in the Global Warming game realize there is no relationship between broad disasters and carbon dioxide…

2. The second problem is that this is not an isolated event.  There was another flood of about the same dimensions in 1974.  There was no peak of CO2 at that time.  It was not an especially warm year, so Global Warming cannot be invoked (1998 was a hotter year, but no flood). 

But there were even greater floods in 1841 and 1893. This is well before any possible Anthropogenic Global Warming, which began, according to its adherents, in 1945…

3. A third problem is that just a few years ago, global warming was blamed for causing droughts. This opinion was extolled during the last drought especially by Tim Flannery, another non-expert. 

In 2003 Professor Karoly published, under the auspices of the World Wildlife Fund, a report that claimed that elevated air temperatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the drought. 

“...the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed...”
and 
“This drought has had a more severe impact than any other drought since at least 1950.... This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.”

So Anthropogenic Global Warming can apparently be used to explain any current disaster.  Any hypothesis (like AGW) that uses the same mechanism to explain opposite effects is untestable, and therefore not science.


----------



## noco

kennas said:


> Good piece on the back page of the Fin today along these lines.
> 
> 
> Andrew Bolt
> Monday, January 17, 2011 at 02:42pm
> 
> Greens leader Bob Brown thought it was too soon to (correctly) blame soft boat people laws for luring people to their deaths:
> 
> Andrew Bolt’s call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for Julia Gillard’s resignation ... lacked human decency. He should resign.
> 
> But Brown did not think it too soon, when the fires were still burning, to blame global warming for the deadly Black Saturday fires in Victoria last year:
> 
> Greens leader Bob Brown says bushfires like the ones raging across Victoria and New South Wales this weekend will be more frequent if climate change continues…
> 
> “Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more,” he told Sky News. “It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change.”
> 
> And he does not think it now too soon, with bodies still being recovered, to blame coal miners for the Queensland floods, either:
> 
> Senator Brown says the coal-mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland reconstruction efforts, claiming their operations are partly responsible for the floods.
> 
> ”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
> 
> Bob Brown is a hypocrite as well as a fool.
> 
> (Thanks to readers Peter, Owen, Simon, Kevin, Anton, John McLean and astonished others.)
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> Four years ago, Bob Brown claimed global warming could give us a “permanent drought”:
> 
> From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now.
> 
> He was also warning of possibly no water at all in the Murray-Darling system:
> 
> Already, (Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray–Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.
> 
> But when drought is replaced by floods, and rivers meant to be empty are overflowing, well, global warming caused that, too.
> 
> (Thanks to reader Simon.)
> 
> UPDATE 2
> 
> Brown rebuked:
> 
> Minerals Council of Australia deputy chief Brendan Pearson accused Senator Brown of ”rank opportunism”, unworthy of a serious political leader.
> 
> And Australian Coal Association director Ralph Hillman said domestically-mined coal made a tiny contribution to global carbon emissions.
> 
> Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the Greens leader should apologise for his “insensitive” comments.
> 
> “Senator Brown’s comments expose the Greens and his leadership as shallow and cynical; willing to peddle political propaganda in the face of a natural disaster,” Senator Abetz said.
> 
> UPDATE 3
> 
> Tony Barry has a question:
> 
> Where’s Bob Brown?  Every national leader (including Julie Bishop) has been to Brisbane and Queensland except, as best I can ascertain, Bob Brown.
> 
> UPDATE 4
> 
> Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier, a geologist and geomorphologist, explains why Brown should be laughed out of town:
> 
> There are at least three arguments against relating the Queensland floods to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
> 
> 1. Even other people in the Global Warming game realize there is no relationship between broad disasters and carbon dioxide…
> 
> 2. The second problem is that this is not an isolated event.  There was another flood of about the same dimensions in 1974.  There was no peak of CO2 at that time.  It was not an especially warm year, so Global Warming cannot be invoked (1998 was a hotter year, but no flood).
> 
> But there were even greater floods in 1841 and 1893. This is well before any possible Anthropogenic Global Warming, which began, according to its adherents, in 1945…
> 
> 3. A third problem is that just a few years ago, global warming was blamed for causing droughts. This opinion was extolled during the last drought especially by Tim Flannery, another non-expert.
> 
> In 2003 Professor Karoly published, under the auspices of the World Wildlife Fund, a report that claimed that elevated air temperatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the drought.
> 
> “...the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed...”
> and
> “This drought has had a more severe impact than any other drought since at least 1950.... This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.”
> 
> So Anthropogenic Global Warming can apparently be used to explain any current disaster.  Any hypothesis (like AGW) that uses the same mechanism to explain opposite effects is untestable, and therefore not science.




How true! How very true. I hope Australians wake up soon to this fake Brown for what he really stands for!!


----------



## wayneL

The Punch: *Who needs Pauline when you’ve got Bob Brown?*


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> The Punch: *Who needs Pauline when you’ve got Bob Brown?*




Well, for a start Pauline, at the time, spoke a lot of sense of what many of people were thinking but were afraid to say. Unfortuneatly in the end it only caused her a lot of grief. Nobody could say Pauline was the fake Bob Brown has turned out to be.She was down to earth and spoke her mind.


----------



## Sean K

noco said:


> Well, for a start Pauline, at the time, spoke a lot of sense of what many of people were thinking but were afraid to say..



What % of the vote did she receive at her fish and chip shop?


----------



## noco

kennas said:


> What % of the vote did she receive at her fish and chip shop?




Suggest you do your own research kennas. From memory she secured some 11 seats with 25% of the vote in Queensland.


----------



## derty

noco said:


> Well, for a start Pauline, at the time, spoke a lot of sense of what many of people were thinking but were afraid to say. Unfortuneatly in the end it only caused her a lot of grief. Nobody could say Pauline was the fake Bob Brown has turned out to be.She was down to earth and spoke her mind.



I thought this was a thread on climate change and those hystericals that argue for and against it. Aren't there better threads to argue the merits,evils and shortcomings of this very caring potato?


----------



## wayneL

More totalitarian politics from the Alarmists:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/china-style-dictatorship-of-climatologists/?page=1


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> More totalitarian politics from the Alarmists:
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/china-style-dictatorship-of-climatologists/?page=1




Lad you fund a nut on the climate change size, Wayne. Help even up the numbers.

The USA will change, but it will be when the powers that control that country decide it will be in their interest to; which will occur when they can make money out of it.


----------



## derty

Here is an article form June 2010 forecasting that cold winters in Europe, East Asia and East US are to be the norm in the years to come due to the warming of the Arctic and reduction of sea ice extents. Whilst the weather is a surprise to some, to those that study the Arctic it was to be expected.



> *More Cold and Snowy Winters to Come in Europe, Eastern Asia and Eastern North America*
> 
> ScienceDaily (June 15, 2010) ”” A warmer Arctic climate is influencing the air pressure at the North Pole and shifting wind patterns on our planet. We can expect more cold and snowy winters in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America.
> 
> "Cold and snowy winters will be the rule, rather than the exception," says Dr James Overland of the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in the United States. Dr Overland is at the International Polar Year Oslo Science Conference (IPY-OSC) to chair a session on polar climate feedbacks, amplification and teleconnections, including impacts on mid-latitudes.
> 
> *Loss of sea ice causes major climate change*
> 
> Continued rapid loss of sea ice will be an important driver of major change in the world's climate system in the years to come.



read the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm


----------



## Sean K

noco said:


> Suggest you do your own research kennas. From memory she secured some 11 seats with 25% of the vote in Queensland.



I very much respect the fact that she received 25% of the vote in QLD.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> Here is an article form June 2010 forecasting that cold winters in Europe, East Asia and East US are to be the norm in the years to come due to the warming of the Arctic and reduction of sea ice extents. Whilst the weather is a surprise to some, to those that study the Arctic it was to be expected.
> 
> 
> read the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm




IIRC, the Arctic lost the most ice up to 2007; up to that point, the northern hemisphere was experience warm winters (remember the "snow is a thing of the past" claim?).

Although Arctic ice is not at 70's levels, it has rebuilt to an extent since 2007. So since 2007, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the arctic is still "losing" ice.

With precious little actual science in the article, it reeks of opportunism as the trend to colder winters establishes itself. 

Antarctic ice studiously ignored.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Lad you fund a nut on the climate change size, Wayne. Help even up the numbers.




I can't make any sense of what you are saying here. Can you rephrase please?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> Here is an article form June 2010 forecasting that cold winters in Europe, East Asia and East US are to be the norm in the years to come due to the warming of the Arctic and reduction of sea ice extents. Whilst the weather is a surprise to some, to those that study the Arctic it was to be expected.
> 
> 
> read the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm




Nothing like having a foot in both camps to cover all bases. It also goes completely against the IPCC AR4 "playbook"...and this special IPCC report:





Seems to be about hot air, global warming and droughts. Nothing about colder days and nights.

But don't worry, going forward you'll see plenty more references from team IPCC on "extreme weather events" to cover anything that the hypothesis climate "models" can't predict (nor can they "predict" past climate variations either)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> I can't make any sense of what you are saying here. Can you rephrase please?




Its all a load of Gaiabothering nonsense.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> How true! How very true. I hope Australians wake up soon to this fake Brown for what he really stands for!!



Quite a lot of Tasmanians worked that one out 30 years ago... Unfortunately, "quite a lot" doesn't mean "all".

I'll have to see if I can find it but somewhere I've got Bob on (VHS) tape arguing that coal-fired power actually isn't so bad, at least not as bad as Bob's pet hate - hydro.

That would be circa early 1995 from memory and it made the local news headlines at the time. It's even stranger when you realise that the coal he was referring to would have been mined from within a National Park that was proclaimed during the Labor-Green Accord (1989-1992) for what most assumed to be the purpose of preventing mining of the coal.

A few years later, the Greens were opposed to coal and had come up with the slogan "clean green hydro".

Let's just say I'm speechless on that one. The Greens saying something good about dams, especially hydro-electric dams,  really is in the category of the Pope opening an abortion clinic, AC/DC saying there's something wrong with loud music or Labor trying to ban unions. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that one, but it really was a slogan the Greens used at one point.

A lot of the Greens ideas seem reasonable in isolation. But step back and take a look at them overall through the past 30 or so years (ie the Greens and their directly associated predecessors and related organisations (TWS etc) and it's somewhat ridiculous. One of those "don't know whether to laugh or cry" moments...


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> I can't make any sense of what you are saying here. Can you rephrase please?




Sorry, quick typing on dodgy keyboard.

Not much of a point. Just saying there are nuts on both sides. You finding one on the climate change side evens up the score a bit.


----------



## Calliope

The Queensland coal industry seems to have avoided the brunt of the cyclone, except for temporary shutdown of the loading facilities. Bob Brown will not be happy about this seeing that the coal industry actually caused the cyclone..and the floods... and the drought.

Or perhaps Brown is just another one of Knobby's nuts.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope.

Knobby's nuts - good one!!! Like it. 

The reinsurance industry has an organisation (Munich GEO risks research) that keeps tabs on worldwide natural catastrophes. If you can get today's Age or SMH you can see the graph that shows natural disasters in Australia caused by meterological events (weather), hydrological events (floods) and climatological events (heat, bushfires) has risen expontentially in Australia.

These are business people, not greens, and the facts are used by the re-insurance industry to price risk. Take a look. I wish I could publish the graph. I can tell you one thing, our insurance premiums for these factors are going up.

If anyone can get the graph and publish it, I would be very grateful.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Calliope.
> 
> Knobby's nuts - good one!!! Like it.
> 
> The reinsurance industry has an organisation (Munich GEO risks research) that keeps tabs on worldwide natural catastrophes. If you can get today's Age or SMH you can see the graph that shows natural disasters in Australia caused by meterological events (weather), hydrological events (floods) and climatological events (heat, bushfires) has risen expontentially in Australia.
> 
> These are business people, not greens, and the facts are used by the re-insurance industry to price risk. Take a look. I wish I could publish the graph. I can tell you one thing, our insurance premiums for these factors are going up.
> 
> If anyone can get the graph and publish it, I would be very grateful.




Have you read Freakanomics?


----------



## Chris45

Knobby22 said:


> If anyone can get the graph and publish it, I would be very grateful.



Is this the one?
http://hauntingthelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/trends_in_natural_disasters_004.jpg

Andrew Bolt's comments: 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...w_disasters_that_dont_fit_its_warming_script/


----------



## Knobby22

Chris45 said:


> Is this the one?
> http://hauntingthelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/trends_in_natural_disasters_004.jpg
> 
> Andrew Bolt's comments:
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...w_disasters_that_dont_fit_its_warming_script/




No, it's and Australian only chart and earthquakes don't increase in it at all.
I agree with Andrew Bolt about the chart he was commenting on. The data seems wrong - or there is some bias creeping in whether it is low reportage or change in parameters. Frankly, it look like rubbish. 

The Australian chart on the other hand done by business people in Europe looks much more professional and is no where near as steep.


----------



## Calliope

Economist, Ross Garnaut says, in relation to man-made extreme weather events;  

"You ain't seen nothing yet."

He is claiming the high moral ground.

Perhaps it will get as bad as the 1890's, when nature, not  man, caused five major floods in Brisbane.


----------



## Logique

As I've said before, you know what to expect from Mike Carlton on climate change. Strong on polemic, short on research, this Bob Brown disciple. By contrast Lord Monckton is noted as an '..idiotic British peer and coolist..'  

I think Carlton likes to be provocative:  http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ts-time-for-a-cold-shower-20110204-1agt8.html  - Flat-earthers, it's time for a cold shower, February 5, 2011

Says Carlton '..Given this catalogue of global disaster, would now be a good time for the climate change flat-earthers to shut up and listen, do you think? Just for a day or two, or even five minutes?
They won't, of course. The global warming denialists ignore the great body of world scientific opinion. When the Queensland catastrophe leaves the headlines the local lot will be at it again, barfing up their crackpot notions..'

And another gem '..A lot of the denialist stupidity is ideological..' 

I think it's clear who is who is 'beyond help' here.


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> As I've said before, you know what to expect from Mike Carlton on climate change. Strong on polemic, short on research, this Bob Brown disciple. By contrast Lord Monckton is noted as an '..idiotic British peer and coolist..'
> 
> I think Carlton likes to be provocative:  http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ts-time-for-a-cold-shower-20110204-1agt8.html  - Flat-earthers, it's time for a cold shower, February 5, 2011
> 
> Says Carlton '..Given this catalogue of global disaster, would now be a good time for the climate change flat-earthers to shut up and listen, do you think? Just for a day or two, or even five minutes?
> They won't, of course. The global warming denialists ignore the great body of world scientific opinion. When the Queensland catastrophe leaves the headlines the local lot will be at it again, barfing up their crackpot notions..'
> 
> And another gem '..A lot of the denialist stupidity is ideological..'
> 
> I think it's clear who is who is 'beyond help' here.




Kindergarten stuff really. He bags the likes of O'Reilly (deservedly), but employing basically the same tactics. Stunning irony.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's raining here today.

gg


----------



## IFocus

Logique said:


> As I've said before, you know what to expect from Mike Carlton on climate change. Strong on polemic, short on research, this Bob Brown disciple. By contrast Lord Monckton is noted as an '..idiotic British peer and coolist..'
> 
> I think Carlton likes to be provocative:  http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ts-time-for-a-cold-shower-20110204-1agt8.html  - Flat-earthers, it's time for a cold shower, February 5, 2011
> 
> Says Carlton '..Given this catalogue of global disaster, would now be a good time for the climate change flat-earthers to shut up and listen, do you think? Just for a day or two, or even five minutes?
> They won't, of course. The global warming denialists ignore the great body of world scientific opinion. When the Queensland catastrophe leaves the headlines the local lot will be at it again, barfing up their crackpot notions..'
> 
> And another gem '..A lot of the denialist stupidity is ideological..'
> 
> I think it's clear who is who is 'beyond help' here.




I do get a good laugh out of Carlron as a lot I think is tongue in cheek but this point is valid



> The third lot of climate denial ratbags are those tabloid media pundits cynically banging the populist drum to drag in the hordes of bogan nongs out there.
> 
> These are people who believe they are beset by a cabal of lefties, Greenies, gays, femi-Nazis, Muslims, venal and incompetent public servants and latte-sipping intellectuals conspiring to deprive them of all they hold dear, like their inalienable right to own a jet-ski and to name their children Breeyanna and Jaxxon.
> 
> To them, climate change is another part of the plot. They are beyond help.




He left out the fact of commercial / media interests working this crowd of bogan nongs


----------



## IFocus

Oh couldn't leave without throwing this bit in wrong thread I know



> There has been a wonderful response to my competition to find our greatest whingers. First, an honourable mention to a clutch of gormless Australian tourists stuck in Cairo and grizzling to a TV reporter that the Gillard government had abandoned them.
> 
> Canberra had sent two 747s to collect them and any other Australians eager to leave but this bunch wanted nothing less than the SAS abseiling into their room, faces blackened, weapons cocked.
> 
> Applause, too, for Peter Costello belly-aching about the government's flood levy, an iniquitous new tax. This from the former treasurer who gave us the never-ever GST and no fewer than six levies of his own.
> 
> But the standout winner this week is Kristina Keneally, with her demand that NSW taxpayers should be levied less than everybody else because we have bigger mortgages. There is no end to this woman's silliness.





http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ts-time-for-a-cold-shower-20110204-1agt8.html


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile back at Bondi .........

*SYDNEYSIDERS are bracing for yet another day of baking temperatures as the record-breaking heatwave continues to sizzle across the state. *

Temperatures are due to hit 41C in parts of western Sydney on Saturday while along the coast, beachgoers can expect highs of up to 36C.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...s-into-sixth-day/story-e6frf7kf-1226000593695


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Its stopped raining, and its a beautiful day, though a bit cloudy, nice breeze, not a Green in sight. 

gg


----------



## IFocus

February 2, 2011
Arctic Oscillation brings record low January extent, unusual mid-latitude weather 

Overview of conditions



> Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
> 
> Ice extent in January 2011 remained unusually low in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait (between southern Baffin Island and Labrador), and Davis Strait (between Baffin Island and Greenland). Normally, these areas freeze over by late November, but this year Hudson Bay did not completely freeze over until mid-January. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free.




January 2011 compared to past years



> January 2011 had the lowest ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records. The linear rate of decline for the month is –3.3% per decade.
> 
> Ice extent for the Arctic as a whole increased at an average of 42,800 square kilometers (16,500 square miles) per day through the month of January, which is about average.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is perhaps one of the most beautiful evenings here in Townsville, so strange after the last weeks' storms. 

A gentle breeze, blue sky, occasional distant cloud, about 26 degrees I'd guess , possibly 30 in the sun, birds are back, children playing in the pool.

All is well with the world, as it has been , and will be in the future.

gg


----------



## Knobby22

Nice graphs IFocus.

The long term trend is particuarly obvious.

2010 was the tied hottest year over the last 131 years according to NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/


----------



## sails

I know some here don't like Bolt, but are these facts correct?



> QUEENSLAND had worse cyclones and floods a century ago, before any possibility of man-made warning. Brisbane's biggest flood was actually in 1893. Cyclone Yasi's central pressure of 922hPa is still not as low as the 914hPa of Cyclone Mahina, which killed more than 400 Queenslanders in 1899.
> 
> IN 1918, Queensland had two huge cyclones in a single year, each of which killed more people than have died in all Queensland's natural disasters this year, despite our much greater population. Cyclone Tracy in 1974 destroyed Darwin and killed 71 people.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-beat-their-drum/story-e6frfifx-1226000403114

The article lists a range of historical weather facts and explains that Professor Ross Garnaut is an economist. I thought he must have been a scientist, is that assumption incorrect?

If the above is true and there have been worse weather conditions than seen recently, doesn't that once again point to the likelihood that we are experiencing cycles in severe weather and are simply being hoodwinked for revenue raising?


----------



## Julia

Sails, yes, according to charts I've seen the two events you mention were indeed worse than current, so can hardly be attributed in those times to 'climate change'.

And yes, Professor Garnaut is an economist.

Go figure, as the Americans would say.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Sails, yes, according to charts I've seen the two events you mention were indeed worse than current, so can hardly be attributed in those times to 'climate change'.
> 
> And yes, Professor Garnaut is an economist.
> 
> Go figure, as the Americans would say.




Thanks for the confirmation, Julia... 

Yes, on so many counts this whole climate change thing is looking increasingly dodgy.  I have never been convinced of it, largely because I'm suspicious when governments find a controversial issue to increase taxes.  My skeptisism is steadily increasing on this and several other current issues...


----------



## Logique

This issue is so yesterday. 'FlimFlammerys' indeed!

With thanks to the Tim Blair Blog (my bolds):  
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...aph/comments/chief_commissioner/#commentsmore
"...Careful Tim.  With a picture like that, some might decide that swapping the Windsors for the FlimFlammerys is the constitutional change they crave. *A Gaia-given right to rule the lower classes*, plus outrageous clobber for our new bunyip aristocrats like Baron Garnaut, Duchess Deveney, Sir Andrew Pitman and Lady Marieke Hardy (inherited title from gramps) will swing a lot of lefties.  Needless to say, when king Timbo ordains Cardinal Brown to head the new state religion he will exhibit the mercy of Samual Marsden to non-believers, while looking rather fetching in red. 
But what of our jobs, the proles will cry.... “let them serve Lattes” came down from on high. 
MiltonG of Brisbane (Reply)
Thu 10 Feb 11 (01:53pm) 
*Flannery’s PhD is in Paleontology. 
His thesis was on macropod evolution.*..."


----------



## Julia

Logique said:


> *Flannery’s PhD is in Paleontology.
> His thesis was on macropod evolution.*..."



Quite so.  Right up there with the government's adviser on climate change being an economist.


----------



## Knobby22

It would be nice if they chose one of the climate scientists from the Bureau of Meterology, or Nasa etc. Maybe the government thinks they haven't got the right skill set.

One thing Tim does have is a scientific background. He can read graphs showing the world is warming, the artic ice cap is melting, etc. 

The critiscism seems to be that believing climate change is like being in a religion presumably being that it is based on faith and there are no facts. 

In fact it is the opposite, the climate deniers are ignoring the evidence and believing the prophets of the Murdoch press mainpulating public opinion and sponsored priests. all have been exposed as frauds or corrupt one by one.  Instead of attacking us all the time, read the graphs (published on this page) and tell us why we are wrong!!!!!  

Is it too much to argue facts?


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> ...Is it too much to argue facts?




So why do the climate change fanatics claim climate change has been the cause of the recent natural disasters?

How do they explain the even worse disasters in the last hundred years?  It doesn't make sense.

I clearly remember when my kids were young and we were holidaying at the beach.  It was pouring with rain and the weather news continually stated a clear, sunny day.  The frequent comments from the kids were: "If the weather people would just put their heads outside they might learn something".

Obviously the weather bureau's "charts" were up the creek...

I think that logic still applies today and even more so when there's a tax involved...


----------



## Aussiejeff

Knobby22 said:


> Is it too much to argue facts?




FACT - 

Thus far in Feb alone we have recorded *235mm* in our backyard rain guage at Wodonga. More rain is falling as I type - _another 20mm_ or so by tonight. 

Long term records show Hume Dam weather station has only ever recorded one Feb total above 200mm - being 201.2mm in 1939.  The long term mean rainfall for Hume Dam in Feb is 41.3!

That means so far after only 11 days, *we here have experienced well over [size=+1]5 x[/size] the annual Feb average rainfall & smashed the previous Feb record in 1939, going back to when records began in 1922!*  

The local House Creek has flooded badly 3 times - today being the latest.

Arguably, my opinion would be useless & pointless.

Splash on....


----------



## Mofra

Knobby22 said:


> It would be nice if they chose one of the climate scientists from the Bureau of Meterology, or Nasa etc. Maybe the government thinks they haven't got the right skill set.



Does it matter that much? Even the best scientists admit that the best models for climate prediction they can recreate as it stands are inaccurate. 

In any case, there are private firms who are actually working on solutions to some of the worst case scenarios - one firm has discovered a possible geo-engineering solution that would cost less than US$250m - a solution developed by a team of sceptics & believers.


----------



## Mickel

I've recently come across a website that appears to accurately account for past weather patterns and gives a dire prediction for future weather patterns up to 2028.
Not surprising that it takes into account sunspots and lunar cycles.

NO. NOT GLOBAL WARMING BUT GLOBAL COOLING. 

Read the " One page weather forecast for 2010 to 2028" on this website-

http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> It would be nice if they chose one of the climate scientists from the Bureau of Meterology, or Nasa etc. Maybe the government thinks they haven't got the right skill set.
> 
> One thing Tim does have is a scientific background. He can read graphs showing the world is warming, the artic ice cap is melting, etc.
> 
> The critiscism seems to be that believing climate change is like being in a religion presumably being that it is based on faith and there are no facts.
> 
> In fact it is the opposite, the climate deniers are ignoring the evidence and believing the prophets of the Murdoch press mainpulating public opinion and sponsored priests. all have been exposed as frauds or corrupt one by one.  Instead of attacking us all the time, read the graphs (published on this page) and tell us why we are wrong!!!!!
> 
> Is it too much to argue facts?




Knobby - pulleeeeeze!

There is manipulation from both sides, but since you implore argument based on facts, it is wise to consider ALL available data.

Earlier I asked you (I think it was you) if you read Freakanomics. The reason I asked that that is that there is usually a non transparent causation behind many statistical outcomes.

AGW sceptics (...and noting that you insist on using the emotive but inaccurate "denier" tag) understand this point. They also note that climate alarmists insist on the use of emotive arguments and do not stick to "the facts". 

This indicates that "the facts" are not enough to unequivocally demonstrate catastrophic *A*GW... with the emphasis on anthropogenisis(?). 

Sooner or later, people see through politically motivated alarmism as opposed to hard fact. This is why the AGW "religion" is losing adherents hand over fist. It is largely a case of "the boy who cried wolf" as prediction after prediction proves to be laughable. eg No Himalayan glaciers by 2035 and the ludicrous blaming of recent weather events on AGW.

Argue facts?

Yes indeed,  but we want all the facts, not facts selected by those with an agenda.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22;611012[QUOTE said:
			
		

> One thing Tim does have is a scientific background. He can read graphs showing the world is warming, the artic ice cap is melting, etc.




So Flannery can read graphs. Flannery (palaeontologist) and Garnaut (economist) have no more qualifications to advise governments on climate change than you or Al Gore i.e *nil*.

"The cobbler should stick to his last".


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> ...One thing Tim does have is a scientific background. He can read graphs showing the world is warming, the artic ice cap is melting, etc.....Instead of attacking us all the time, read the graphs (published on this page) and tell us why we are wrong!!!!!  Is it too much to argue facts?



I actually agree with that Knobby. If I've been tough on Tim Flannery, it's because so many of his supporters need to read your words too.


----------



## Logique

Mickel said:


> ...Not surprising that it takes into account sunspots and lunar cycles. NO. NOT GLOBAL WARMING BUT GLOBAL COOLING.
> Read the " One page weather forecast for 2010 to 2028" on this website-http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html



That is a fascinating read Mickel. Kevin Long is a mechanical engineer with an interest in sun spot activity and lunar cycles. Very interesting stuff. Going to get cold and dry by his forecast. 







> ..Sunspot experts from both Russia and the US are forecasting that the present 30-year decline in solar radiation will continue well into the future. A leading Russian expert says the world will cool and produce another Little Ice Age period by about 2042..


----------



## Knobby22

OK, replying one by one.

sails- you state that disasters occurring are not caused by climate change as they always have occurred - of course they have - circuitous argument.

Of course, but is global warming occurring? How much is the effect? Not that much at this stage, and it is predicted to be not that much. I didn't hear any climate experts saying that global warming caused the Queensland events, only they would have ben less strong.

It is true that that climate disasters have risen over the last 20 years though!!!


aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?

 By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.   

wayne - skeptics doubt things - all scientists are skeptics - things often turn out different and I reckon most of the predictions of what will happen are not 100% correct. 

Deniers will not have any flexibility in their views e.g. people against evolution, you can throw as many dinosaur skelatons at them that they would be buried and the still won't believe.

The facts show the earth is warming, there have been some problems like the guy with the tree rings in Russia but science gets its sources from many directions. Why would NASA be trying to pull the wool over our eyes? The evidence is plain to see. Even last year with the La Nina event which caused some cooling, still ended up being the even hottest year. 

You say manipulation of data is widespread and you cannot believe the scientists and should instead believe the propagandists who have an interest in slowing change as they tried to resist the medical evidence against cigarrettes, fridges causing the hole in the ozone layer, DDT in food etc. . 

You are the one being manipulated, Wayne.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> It is true that that climate disasters have risen over the last 20 years though!!!




Twenty years is a nano-second in the history of the planet.


----------



## Sean K

Knobby22 said:


> aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?
> 
> By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.
> .



Thanks Knobby, that explains the last 10 years of drought too. Cheers, kennas

"of droughts and flooding rains"

circa 1904.

Poets tend to have literary license of course.


----------



## Smurf1976

I think many people would be far more open to the science if the whole issue hadn't been corrupted for other purposes. 

The constant attempts to use climate change as justification to achieve either socialist or financialisation goals is what puts many off the whole thing. That plus the frequent extreme claims about permanent droughts in the same places that climate change is now supposedly causing floods. The public have had enough of it, and are losing interest in the whole issue as a result.

Personally, I do suspect there's a limit to how much CO2 we could put in the atmosphere without causing some sort of problem. It certainly does stand to reason. But I am absolutely opposed to using a scientific issue to justify handing yet more money to the bankers or alternatively implementing socialist policies for the sake of it.

If our so-called leaders would just stick to the issue, which is climate, rather than trying to force everyone onto trams even where that would actually increase emissions whilst creating another market for unproductive speculation at the expense of Joe Average then there would be a lot more support for action.

Greens have wrecked it with extreme claims and pushing socialism. Labor has wrecked it with a tax grab and money for bankers. Strangely, that leaves the Liberals as the only major party that might actually be able to get real public support for action on this one. Sadly, they'll almost certainly use that to justify handing taxpayer funds to the nuclear industry...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

kennas said:


> Thanks Knobby, that explains the last 10 years of drought too. Cheers, kennas
> 
> "of droughts and flooding rains"
> 
> circa 1904.
> 
> Poets tend to have literary license of course.




When I saw Flannery's name on this new way to distribute Salary Sacrificing, to the elites, via a Climate Change Quango, I said to myself, wankers.

The poor bastard believes in Gaia. This is his motivation, as well as the Salary Sacrifice.

gg

gg


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> I think many people would be far more open to the science if the whole issue hadn't been corrupted for other purposes.
> 
> ...But I am absolutely opposed to using a scientific issue to justify handing yet more money to the bankers or alternatively implementing socialist policies for the sake of it...
> 
> ...Greens have wrecked it with extreme claims and pushing socialism. Labor has wrecked it with a tax grab and money for bankers.




I'm afraid you've lost me. Where do "bankers" fit into this narrative.:dunno:


----------



## drsmith

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The poor bastard believes in Gaia.



You're not joking.

The following is from an interview with Andrew Denton in 2008;



> ANDREW DENTON: You know, we wouldn’t even be worrying about this stuff. You’re about to bring out an an essay talking about Australia’s sustainable future and what kind of future it may have. In that you talk about Gaia which was created by James Lovelock. What is Gaia?
> 
> TIM FLANNERY: Well Gaia is our earth, this extraordinary living organism of ours that we’re all part of and just breathing now, talking we are plugged into Gaia aren’t we? We are, we taking the atmosphere into our bodies, we’re changing its chemical composition and we’re exhaling it. And it’s life that makes the atmosphere what it is, that’s a very important aspect of Gaia you know. Gaia is life working as a whole to maintain the atmosphere as it is, so that life can go on. So, Gaia I think is is saying to us “it’s time you took control.”




http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au 

The worry here is the religious overtones.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid you've lost me. Where do "bankers" fit into this narrative.:dunno:



One word in 3. Emissions Trading Scheme.

You can be pretty sure that the vast amount of trading will be pure speculation and a burden on the real economy. Otherwise, the big investment banks wouldn't be so incredibly keen on the idea. 

An entirely new market where people are effectively forced to buy. Someone is going to get damn rich out of this, and it won't be you or me. Think about it - since when were governments and big business concerned with saving the planet? If the big financial organisations are keen on it then you can be pretty sure it's got nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with them making money.

It would probably start out honestly. Then along comes some economic crisis and we respond by "printing" more carbon permits to help, thus defeating any environmental benefit and making some nice $ for those doing the "printing". Exactly what they do with money now - print more of it (at zero cost) then charge you and me to use it (interest) whilst devaluing (inflation) what we already have. It's a nice little earner for bankers and government.

Note how we've already scrapped various "green" things as soon as the floods in Qld came along, and here in Tas they're doing much the same in response to a state budget shortfall (and that's with the Greens forming part of the government). There's certainly a precedent there - we're all "green" until an economic bump comes along...

Cutting emissions is one thing. Handing government or private banks yet another license to print what amounts to money, in addition to the one they already have, is what I take issue with.


----------



## macca

Smurf1976 said:


> One word in 3. Emissions Trading Scheme.
> 
> You can be pretty sure that the vast amount of trading will be pure speculation and a burden on the real economy. Otherwise, the big investment banks wouldn't be so incredibly keen on the idea.
> 
> An entirely new market where people are effectively forced to buy. Someone is going to get damn rich out of this, and it won't be you or me. Think about it - since when were governments and big business concerned with saving the planet? If the big financial organisations are keen on it then you can be pretty sure it's got nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with them making money.
> 
> It would probably start out honestly. Then along comes some economic crisis and we respond by "printing" more carbon permits to help, thus defeating any environmental benefit and making some nice $ for those doing the "printing". Exactly what they do with money now - print more of it (at zero cost) then charge you and me to use it (interest) whilst devaluing (inflation) what we already have. It's a nice little earner for bankers and government.
> 
> Note how we've already scrapped various "green" things as soon as the floods in Qld came along, and here in Tas they're doing much the same in response to a state budget shortfall (and that's with the Greens forming part of the government). There's certainly a precedent there - we're all "green" until an economic bump comes along...
> 
> Cutting emissions is one thing. Handing government or private banks yet another license to print what amounts to money, in addition to the one they already have, is what I take issue with.




To see how this works just Google Al Gore and his cronies in the USA. They set up an exchange to trade carbon credits. It is claimed they are already billionaires from it as they set it up before releasing the fictional horror movie "An Inconvenient Truth" 

For them it was a very convenient "Inconvenient truth"

Trust me guys, whether or not the earth is warming there is very little we can do about it here in OZ. The governments and hangers on are simply screwing the little guys as per usual.


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> One word in 3. Emissions Trading Scheme.
> 
> You can be pretty sure that the vast amount of trading will be pure speculation and a burden on the real economy. Otherwise, the big investment banks wouldn't be so incredibly keen on the idea.
> 
> ... It's a nice little earner for bankers and government.




Thanks Smurf. You've cleared up one mystery for me. I often wondered why Turnbull favoured an ETS. I thought is was because he was a closet Green. But they hate the banks too and all Big Business. I guess it was because he is still a banker at heart.

So Swan, Gillard and Combet are secretly in bed with the banks.


----------



## noco

macca said:


> To see how this works just Google Al Gore and his cronies in the USA. They set up an exchange to trade carbon credits. It is claimed they are already billionaires from it as they set it up before releasing the fictional horror movie "An Inconvenient Truth"
> 
> For them it was a very convenient "Inconvenient truth"
> 
> Trust me guys, whether or not the earth is warming there is very little we can do about it here in OZ. The governments and hangers on are simply screwing the little guys as per usual.




I read a couple of days ago some scientist stated (can't find the link for now) we are in for a mini ice age starting 2042. Did anyone else see it?


----------



## sails

noco said:


> I read a couple of days ago some scientist stated (can't find the link for now) we are in for a mini ice age starting 2042. Did anyone else see it?




And by 2042, that would give them nearly 30 years of taxes to collect (that's if labor survive that long...) before they are proven wrong about the global warming and that it's all perfectly normal cyclic stuff.

So much more money to spend and ensure plenty for throwing around to keep buying votes. All while the taxpayer is left with little of his/her hard earned money for their own needs.

IMO, there is no way Turnbull should ever be allowed back into the leadership position.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> IMO, there is no way Turnbull should ever be allowed back into the leadership position.



 Even if he is their only hope of getting into government?
(I understand why you're saying what you are regarding his fundamental biases.)


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Even if he is their only hope of getting into government?
> (I understand why you're saying what you are regarding his fundamental biases.)




Julia, I think Turnbull would vote with labor on their crazy policies.  We have seen already that he believes in controversial climate change and was willing to side with labor for ETS.

And what's the point in the libs getting voted back in with Turnbull as leader because I think he would simply continue to follow on with labor policies. I think he is on the wrong side of politics for his personal beliefs.  Much like Windsor and Oakeshott appeared to be conservative but looks like they are more labor at heart.

And I think the libs could lose more votes than they gain from the labor supporters as I feel many conservative voters would be afraid of Turnbull being a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Agree that he is definitely more of a statesman and speaks far more articulately than Abbott.  But it's interesting that it is mainly labor supporters that keep calling for Turnbull to come back which makes sense as he won't oppose labor policies as Abbott would do.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> You say manipulation of data is widespread and you cannot believe the scientists and should instead believe the propagandists who have an interest in slowing change as they tried to resist the medical evidence against cigarrettes, fridges causing the hole in the ozone layer, DDT in food etc. .
> 
> You are the one being manipulated, Wayne.




The above statement is fitting of any budding politician.

i.e. pure BS


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> Thanks Smurf. You've cleared up one mystery for me. I often wondered why Turnbull favoured an ETS. I thought is was because he was a closet Green. But they hate the banks too and all Big Business. I guess it was because he is still a banker at heart.
> 
> So Swan, Gillard and Combet are secretly in bed with the banks.



Maybe not in bed with them, but when it comes to money and votes versus actually helping the environment, politicians take the former every time.

I wonder how many ETS supporters would support it actually being implemented properly? To implement it properly, you need the same price on carbon regardless of what fuel it comes from, thus tipping the balance in favour of lower (or no) carbon energy sources through the price mechanism. Creating this situation is central to the notion that it can work as a means of driving a shift toward lower carbon energy sources.

Just one problem. To implement it as intended you need to remove any existing tax on carbon, especially if it is on some fuel other than the absolute most polluting (ie coal). Now, that means petrol and diesel excise being cut to the same rate as the excise on brown coal, after which the carbon price is then added back in.

I wonder how keen any of our politicians would be on that? A nice new system that just happens to cut tax revenue rather than increase it (but don't forget this is all about the environment). Thought not... 

The whole scheme as it is actually proposed amounts to little more than a tax. In principle it could work, but only if it is set up properly and not manipulated to achieve non-CO2 related "objectives", which is not how it will be set up in practice. It's not as though we're about to see the hurdles to actually building large scale non-carbon power generation removed. It's not as though the carbon price will even be set so as to hit the most polluting fuel hardest. It's a tax...


----------



## macca

Hi,

These links aren't showing up in a search of the thread so I will post them, an interesting read.

Very relevant statistics on Greenhouse gases

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

back to my reading


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> And I think the libs could lose more votes than they gain from the labor supporters as I feel many conservative voters would be afraid of Turnbull being a wolf in sheeps clothing.




Perhaps we will never know the real Malcolm Turnbull. He has to perform a fine balancing act. If he hadn't been elected in Wentworth, he would never have been in parliament. Now Wentworth is an electorate, where , in the absence of Turnbull, it would elect a Green.

He has to perform a juggling act. He has to try to persuade the conservatives that he can be trusted, and at the same time convince his electorate that he is one of them.

Being two-faced is not an easy game to play. Sooner or later you have to show your hand.


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> The above statement is fitting of any budding politician. i.e. pure BS



Yes the trouble with case studies as argument is that there are always counter-studies, or counter-propaganda:

- Galileo was run out of town by the science establishment. Now we have footage of astronauts on the moon dropping a rock and a feather at the same speed.
- Columbus, another crackpot at odds with the establishment, took a long time at the Spanish Court to get some ships.
- Ulcers until very recently, were almost universally thought to be the result of stress, but some renegade Aussie scientists proved that bacteria were the cause.

The point is that the science is never decided. Anyone who says that is actually saying that it's the politics that is decided (in their minds).


----------



## Gringotts Bank

re: science is never decided, Logique...

Turns out lactic acid actually assists muscles to perform when fatigued, as opposed to hampering them.  Strange but true.  Dr. Smooth was wrong all this time!

Way back, scientists had noticed a build up of lactic acid in fatiguing muscles.  They put 2 and 2 together and assumed that this meant lactic acid was a waste by-product which hampered muscle performance.  In actual fact, the  body produces it to enable the fatigued muscle to continue working in a less than optimal situation.  It has an enabling effect.

Regarding climate change, I think we may be creating it through some sort of mass observer effect.  The collective unconscious is dreaming this into reality.  How's that for a theory! :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> - Galileo was run out of town by the science establishment. Now we have footage of astronauts on the moon dropping a rock and a feather at the same speed.
> - Columbus, another crackpot at odds with the establishment, took a long time at the Spanish Court to get some ships.
> - Ulcers until very recently, were almost universally thought to be the result of stress, but some renegade Aussie scientists proved that bacteria were the cause.
> 
> The point is that the science is never decided. Anyone who says that is actually saying that it's the politics that is decided (in their minds).



Another way of looking at it would be to say that great discoveries have been made because these people took a sceptical view and didn't accept conventional wisdom as fact.


----------



## kiwichick

the conventional wisdom being that we couldn't possibly be harming the ozone layer

or that earth was the center of the universe

or that "640K  ought to be enough for anybody "   Bill Gates 1981


----------



## noco

My oh my, this link shows how the Global Warming Alarmist fudge the figures to suit their own interest. Why can't they be hoest for once and admit defeat!


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...to_make_97_per_cent_of_climate_experts_agree/


----------



## derty

noco said:


> My oh my, this link shows how the Global Warming Alarmist fudge the figures to suit their own interest. Why can't they be hoest for once and admit defeat!
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...to_make_97_per_cent_of_climate_experts_agree/



It appears you still haven't read the pdf of the original report by Doran & Zimmerman as I recommended a month ago. If you did you could easily see how the numbers were obtained, what they represent and their significance. As for that piece posted by Bolt, it just reinforces Bolts lack of mathematical understanding and his willingness to use irrelevant information for point scoring.

Please revisit my post #1395 in this thread for a relatively easy to understand summary of why Bolt and those he links to are misrepresenting the survey.  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=603451#post603451


----------



## wayneL

There are usually scaggs of interesting article on sceptical blogs that come up every week. I don't bother posting them... probably for the same reason the vast majority of pro AGW articles don't get posted here.

This one is worth following IMO; for our mutual amusement:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/...d-of-the-australian-bom-and-csiro/#more-34117


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> There are usually scaggs of interesting article on sceptical blogs that come up every week. I don't bother posting them... probably for the same reason the vast majority of pro AGW articles don't get posted here.
> 
> This one is worth following IMO; for our mutual amusement:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/...d-of-the-australian-bom-and-csiro/#more-34117




Good idea, if everyone will accept the findings. I wonder who the Australian Senator is?


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> There are usually scaggs of interesting article on sceptical blogs that come up every week. I don't bother posting them... probably for the same reason the vast majority of pro AGW articles don't get posted here.
> 
> This one is worth following IMO; for our mutual amusement:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/...d-of-the-australian-bom-and-csiro/#more-34117



Crikey Wayne, you want to be careful some real sceptical bloggers don't sue you. The Watts blog isn't sceptical; it's gossip. The best and simplest clue is that he publishes too fast to be able to think about what he's saying. Sceptical articles take time; gossip doesn't. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Crikey Wayne, you want to be careful some real sceptical bloggers don't sue you. The Watts blog isn't sceptical; it's gossip. The best and simplest clue is that he publishes too fast to be able to think about what he's saying. Sceptical articles take time; gossip doesn't.
> 
> Ghoti




The above statement adequately illustrates a closed mind.

Watt's blog is... a blog, and certainly contains some elements of gossip. It has become an enterprise and commercial imperatives dictate some of the more frivolous content. But to disregard the bona fide content and to label it entirely as "gossip", is puerile, petty and asinine

Also, Watts is not the only contributer, there are several authors now which accounts for some of the quantity.

So come on ghoti, step up and debate properly rather than playing silly "attack the credibility" games.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> The above statement adequately illustrates a closed mind.
> 
> Watt's blog is... a blog, and certainly contains some elements of gossip. It has become an enterprise and commercial imperatives dictate some of the more frivolous content. But to disregard the bona fide content and to label it entirely as "gossip", is puerile, petty and asinine
> 
> Also, Watts is not the only contributer, there are several authors now which accounts for some of the quantity.
> 
> So come on ghoti, step up and debate properly rather than playing silly "attack the credibility" games.



I repeat, sceptical articles take time. Did you yourself follow through on the article you linked to? Do you know how many times the New Zealand Institute for Weather and Atmospheric Research has answered the questions of its critics and how many times they have simply ignored the replies? Have you noticed that this behaviour echoes that of critics and self-described climate skeptics on dozens of issues in climate science, including Watts' failure to acknowledge that data from his own weather station project showed that the warming trend in the US is steeper than previously thought? 

I've tried to debate the  issues with you before, including on this thread. My earlier posts here have taken me a lot of time and I didn't see that you addressed the points I raised. As I've said before, I'm grateful to you for pushing me to research the science of climate to the extent that I have and continue to do. I started because you posted a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle. When was that - 2006ish? That was my first encounter with what I have come to see is an orchestrated but internally contradictory and deeply dishonest attack on science and scientists whose work happened to lead to the realisation that human activities have led to the release of so much fossil carbon that human civilisation, millions of human lives, and thousands of other species are under threat. That is not alarmist. That is a cause for alarm. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I repeat, sceptical articles take time. Did you yourself follow through on the article you linked to? Do you know how many times the New Zealand Institute for Weather and Atmospheric Research has answered the questions of its critics and how many times they have simply ignored the replies? Have you noticed that this behaviour echoes that of critics and self-described climate skeptics on dozens of issues in climate science, including Watts' failure to acknowledge that data from his own weather station project showed that the warming trend in the US is steeper than previously thought?
> 
> I've tried to debate the  issues with you before, including on this thread. My earlier posts here have taken me a lot of time and I didn't see that you addressed the points I raised. As I've said before, I'm grateful to you for pushing me to research the science of climate to the extent that I have and continue to do. I started because you posted a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle. When was that - 2006ish? That was my first encounter with what I have come to see is an orchestrated but internally contradictory and deeply dishonest attack on science and scientists whose work happened to lead to the realisation that human activities have led to the release of so much fossil carbon that human civilisation, millions of human lives, and thousands of other species are under threat. That is not alarmist. That is a cause for alarm.
> 
> Ghoti




Ghoti

You see people like you see climate change as some sort of binary argument:

1/ We will all be crowded on the mountain tops surrounded by boiling seas.

2/ Nothing to see here folks move along (denial).

As evidenced by this thread there are those who inhabit those extremes, but sans any financial or ideological incentive, most people fall in between those extremes.

Only a buffoon will deny climate change or man's effect on climate in at least a regional sense. I have outlined my own thoughts on here many times and still get labelled a denier by warming extremists. 

Sheesh even the likes of Pielke Snr and Curry are attacked as heretics.

The crux of sceptical arguments is the questioning of grossly overstated disaster scenarios motivated by ideology, politics and financial self interest in an effort to arrive at a sound conclusion and appropriate responses.

.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Ghoti
> 
> The crux of sceptical arguments is the questioning of grossly overstated disaster scenarios motivated by ideology, politics and financial self interest in an effort to arrive at a sound conclusion and appropriate responses.
> 
> .




I agree, and there are many scientists who agree that the models are definitely not worth much.  I read New Scientist and it is very interesting how there are continually new factors such as iceberg behaviour and its effect on the wind, that come up that lead to the scientists involve saying that the models must include this and often the new factors are naturally slowing any global warming.

There is a huge difference between denying what has happened already and trying to
look through the fog of the future. What gets my goat is when you get people saying that the gases we are putting in the atmosphere have no effect and any global warming is caused by other factors. This is obviously an industry agenda. 

In my career I see a lot of what the Europeans do to mitigate greenhouse gases and make life better for their citizens at the same time - I am talking about more efficient lighting, lighting control systems, trams to the centre of all major cities (including free carparking at the tram terminus). Sure,their trading system isn't too crash hot but at least they are achieving. 

My view is that we should tax the heavy polluters at the source and give that tax money back to the ordinary citizens directly and transparently so their energy costs do not increase. Over 20 years, all the inefficient generators would be out of business and replaced with gas generators and other alternatives - pretty much by market forces alone.  

The US and Australian position seems to be lets do nothing but if we do something, lets make sure all the polluters are protected by giving them huge numbers of credits and we set up some obtuse financial crediting sytem that the merchant bankers can make money out of. The ordinary citizens can get screwed. This is what upsets many people in this thread and fair enough.

Something is going to give, we are the lucky country though luck and good decisions. I am hopeful our wooly headed politicians (and I include pretty much all of them whether they be Green, Liberal or Labour in this category), can get their act together and work something out to lead the world rather than lag it. Australia used to lead the world in many things once, we can again.

(You say Wayne, my comments suit a budding politician, I know it was meant as an insult but sometimes I think I should have been one. The present lot is generally so pathetic. I don't know what has happened to the Liberals in particular who used to be full of extremely well read intelligent people, we seem to have quite a few with the intellect of George Bush II at present.)


----------



## ghotib

One of the most difficult characteristics of the discussion is the way so much of it rests on generalisations about people and assumptions about their motives and what they think. That's easier than grappling with the scientific, or even the policy, questions because we all have quite a lot of expertise in dealing with people, but it obviously doesn't get us very far in assessing the facts or how we might need to respond to them.


wayneL said:


> Ghoti
> 
> You see people like you see climate change as some sort of binary argument:
> 
> 1/ We will all be crowded on the mountain tops surrounded by boiling seas.
> 
> 2/ Nothing to see here folks move along (denial).
> 
> As evidenced by this thread there are those who inhabit those extremes, but sans any financial or ideological incentive, most people fall in between those extremes.



I'll resist the bait of "people like you" and just say that this is not the way I see things and I'm glad to have confirmation that it's not the way you see them either. 


> Only a buffoon will deny climate change or man's effect on climate in at least a regional sense. I have outlined my own thoughts on here many times and still get labelled a denier by warming extremists.
> 
> Sheesh even the likes of Pielke Snr and Curry are attacked as heretics.



You get labelled, I get labelled. Pielke Snr and Curry get called heretics; Jones, Mann, Hansen, Steig, Schmidt - shall I go on? - get called fraudsters and liars. None of that nonsense says anything about what's happening to the climate or what we might need to do about it. 

Is it fair to summarise your thoughts like this: many human activities are affecting the planet in ways that will hurt humans sooner or later. These include excessive clearing of forests for building and for agriculture, non-sustainable agricultural practices, overuse of non-degradable materials, emissions of toxic gases to the air and into the water, and many others. These impacts are more harmful than the emission of fossil carbon and should be addressed first. 

I'd be very happy with policy and behavioural changes that tackled all those issues because most of them would reduce carbon emissions at the same time. I agree that those are serious problems and that some of them will hit many of us before the warming effects of carbon show unambiguous harm. Trouble is the time lag between carbon emissions and warming, and the lag between reducing carbon emissions and ending warming. I think we need to tackle carbon emissions directly because we've already delayed so long. 


> The crux of sceptical arguments is the questioning of grossly overstated disaster scenarios motivated by ideology, politics and financial self interest in an effort to arrive at a sound conclusion and appropriate responses.



No. There are many cruxes - cruces - and you've entangled at least three of them. One crux is about the collection, verification, analysis, and interpretation of data. Another is the preparation of scenarios and scientific advice for policy makers. Another is examining  the political and financial implications of policy, including the implications of continuing as we are. Maybe the motivations of some of the noisier players is another, though personally I just find that a distraction.

What "grossly overstated disaster scenarios" do you question? In what way do you think they are grossly overstated? Who have you questioned about them? What evidence do you see that they have not included? What reasons have been given for excluding this evidence? What effect would the evidence have on the scenarios? How old are the scenarios? How do they match with intervening reality?... 

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> Over 20 years, all the inefficient generators would be out of business and replaced with gas generators and other alternatives - pretty much by market forces alone.



There are plenty of people who would argue that, regardless of CO2, burning gas to generate baseload electricity is itself something that ought to be very strongly discouraged, if not outright banned.

What are we going to use for transport as oil declines? Realistically, it will be gas.

Where do our fertilizers and many other critical chemicals come from? Gas.

What natural resource is two thirds concentrated in the hands of Russia and the OPEC members? Gas.

What resource can be easily distributed for direct use with far higher efficiency than turning it into electricity? Gas.

Australia may well have quite a bit of the stuff, but the supply situation for the Western world as a whole is far more concerning. It seems an almost criminal act to burn it to generate baseload electricity. Future generations won't thank us, especially once you realise that we're letting all the rare gases such as helium go in the process.


----------



## Knobby22

Fair point - what do you think then we should do Smurf?

Wait for solar to get more efficient? I read an interesting article in New Scientist about a completely new type of solar cell using tiny miniature aerials to pick up the energy and convert it to an AC waveform, the great thing is that it can work off IR radiation which means it will work at night!!

The energy then has to be converted to DC which is one of the stumbling blocks.
It needs a new type of diode as the standard silicon diodes are not suitable; but a different group of scientists is working on that.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> What "grossly overstated disaster scenarios" do you question? In what way do you think they are grossly overstated? Who have you questioned about them? What evidence do you see that they have not included? What reasons have been given for excluding this evidence? What effect would the evidence have on the scenarios? How old are the scenarios? How do they match with intervening reality?...
> 
> Ghoti




Bloody hell I'd have to write a whole treatise to answer those questions... and would be going over old ground all over again.

Groundhog Day anyone?

Just read the genuine scientific objections to the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis instead of ignoring them. The answers are contains therein without be typing a word


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> OK, replying one by one.
> 
> sails- you state that disasters occurring are not caused by climate change as they always have occurred - of course they have - circuitous argument.
> 
> Of course, but is global warming occurring? How much is the effect? Not that much at this stage, and it is predicted to be not that much. I didn't hear any climate experts saying that global warming caused the Queensland events, only they would have ben less strong.
> 
> It is true that that climate disasters have risen over the last 20 years though!!!
> 
> 
> aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?
> 
> By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.
> 
> wayne - skeptics doubt things - all scientists are skeptics - things often turn out different and I reckon most of the predictions of what will happen are not 100% correct.
> 
> Deniers will not have any flexibility in their views e.g. people against evolution, you can throw as many dinosaur skelatons at them that they would be buried and the still won't believe.
> 
> The facts show the earth is warming, there have been some problems like the guy with the tree rings in Russia but science gets its sources from many directions. Why would NASA be trying to pull the wool over our eyes? The evidence is plain to see. Even last year with the La Nina event which caused some cooling, still ended up being the even hottest year.
> 
> You say manipulation of data is widespread and you cannot believe the scientists and should instead believe the propagandists who have an interest in slowing change as they tried to resist the medical evidence against cigarrettes, fridges causing the hole in the ozone layer, DDT in food etc. .
> 
> You are the one being manipulated, Wayne.




20 years lol, so much irony in the last setence


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Bloody hell I'd have to write a whole treatise to answer those questions... and would be going over old ground all over again.
> 
> Groundhog Day anyone?
> 
> Just read the genuine scientific objections to the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis instead of ignoring them. The answers are contains therein without be typing a word



Ahem:


> So come on _Wayne_, step up and debate properly rather than playing silly _handwaving_ games.



Those questions don't need a treatise. They need you to be specific about what you mean by "grossly overstated disaster scenarios". Pick just one if you like, but be specific about it. Or be specific about what you mean by "the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis" you want me to read "genuine scientific objections to". 

You've reminded me of an earlier discussion - maybe even on this thread - where you were dismissive of the IPCC climate model. I pointed out that the 4th IPCC report cites 22 separate models, and you replied with a similar handwaving to the effect of  "you know what I mean". That suggests to me that you didn't know what you meant then, and you don't really know what you mean now.

Prove me wrong. Be specific. 

Ghoti
PS I've tried to find that earlier exchange but I can't think of a narrow enough search term.


----------



## Smurf1976

white_goodman said:


> 20 years lol, so much irony in the last setence



In any event, on what basis is anyone saying that _climate_ disasters have increased over the last 20 years? Where is the evidence for that rather specific claim?


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Ahem:
> 
> Those questions don't need a treatise. They need you to be specific about what you mean by "grossly overstated disaster scenarios". Pick just one if you like, but be specific about it.




http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uoa-rsw021411.php


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uoa-rsw021411.php



That links to a press release from the University of Arizona about a paper published this year, and probably this month. 

1. It's not an IPCC press release and there's no way in the world to know what the IPCC reports will or will not say about its research. How can you point to this work as an IPCC hypothesis? 

2. As far as I can see it's about the effects of some possible future events - a series of "what ifs". What "grossly overstated disaster scenario" do you suggest it demonstrates? I won't be surprised if it's something to do with sea level rise, but as a good skeptic I can't assume I know what you're thinking.

3. How can any genuine scientific criticism possibly be available for a paper that's barely off the presses? 

These might seem like nit-picking debating points but that's not how I mean them (well not wholly). If we're ever going to find answers to huge problems we surely need to know that we're talking about the same thing. After all, plenty of people on this forum haven't realised that you can't take the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

The IPCC report predicts accelerating sea level rises. 

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm - Dr Willem De Lange



> For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was likely to decrease, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating.
> 
> After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.
> 
> The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.
> 
> Despite therefore finding accelerating sea level rise, the latest IPCC assessment projects lower sea level rises than the previous ones. The methodology used to report the projections was changed to make comparisons harder, but the range of 0.18-0.59 m equates to a most likely rise of around 0.39 m. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 also included an extra 0.20 m allowance for uncertainties associated with destabilisation of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps. Various groups have speculated that the collapse of these Ice Caps could produce a much higher additional sea level rise. In contrast, published studies that have specifically studied this contribution have concluded that given the worst possible scenarios, the maximum extra contribution is 0.18 m. Hence, the IPCC Assessment Report 4 allowance is a very conservative upper bound.
> 
> What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are exaggerations and not realistic.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Its an absolute corker of a morning in Townsville.

Birds are singing, grass is long after all the rain, a clear blue sky. 

Hysteria is infectious, and I admire those on this thread who persist in it's cautery.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Hysteria is infectious, and I admire those on this thread who persist in it's cautery. gg




cautery:  
An agent or instrument used to destroy tissue, as in surgery, by burning, searing, cutting, or scarring, including caustic substances, electric currents, and lasers.

I guess this is a close resemblance to the above definition: 

Lawrence Solomon: US House votes to defund IPCC in Climategate fallout.

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin ”” 244-179 ”” to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..........​
The pessimism continues to grow.


----------



## white_goodman

Smurf1976 said:


> In any event, on what basis is anyone saying that _climate_ disasters have increased over the last 20 years? Where is the evidence for that rather specific claim?




dont you realise everything in recent memory is the worst its ever been....

lol, its supported by no facts but dont let that get in the way of their emotional moral crusade


----------



## bandicoot76

i cant wait for phil valentines new doco "an inconsistent truth" to come out! 

a quote from the trailer: 
'of the (IPCC's) panel of 3000 only 152 were actual climate scientists, the rest were hangers-on....and of those 152 there was no concensus on the issue (of AGW)"  
 ... interesting! ....

hopefully the 'cap & trade' gravy train will be derailed... but i wouldnt hold my breath... how many greedy pollies & beaurocrats would give up a global taxation system worth trillions?


----------



## drsmith

From a taxpayer perspective, the current subsidies for solar panels and the like are, in effect, a carbon tax by stealth in terms of their impact on electricty prices. It smooths the way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ls-cost-of-power/story-fn59niix-1226009112115

The Australian Industry Group misses the point (perhaps deliberately) that certainty can also be in the form of a reduction (or removal) of these subsidies and no carbon price.


----------



## white_goodman

drsmith said:


> From a taxpayer perspective, the current subsidies for solar panels and the like are, in effect, a carbon tax by stealth in terms of their impact on electricty prices. It smooths the way.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ls-cost-of-power/story-fn59niix-1226009112115
> 
> The Australian Industry Group misses the point (perhaps deliberately) that certainty can also be in the form of a reduction (or removal) of these subsidies and no carbon price.





also an interesting aside that my dad tell me, solar panels void all 10-20year roof warranties... fyi


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> cautery:
> An agent or instrument used to destroy tissue, as in surgery, by burning, searing, cutting, or scarring, including caustic substances, electric currents, and lasers.
> 
> I guess this is a close resemblance to the above definition:
> 
> Lawrence Solomon: US House votes to defund IPCC in Climategate fallout.
> 
> The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin — 244-179 — to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..........​
> The pessimism continues to grow.




I am shocked and disheartened! They aren't getting the results they want so they try to close it down!! I give up. I suppose next they will tell NASA to not report their global measurements results and we can all be mushrooms.

I am going to take the rest of the year off this thread and am just let nature take its course. The fact that last year was the hottest year ever (even with another recent year) and the Artic is continuing to melt seems to not influence many of the people on this thread one iota. 

See you all next year. You win (along with the powers that be).


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> I am shocked and disheartened! They aren't getting the results they want so they try to close it down!! I give up. I suppose next they will tell NASA to not report their global measurements results and we can all be mushrooms.
> 
> I am going to take the rest of the year off this thread and am just let nature take its course. T*he fact that last year was the hottest year ever *(even with another recent year) and the Artic is continuing to melt seems to not influence many of the people on this thread one iota.
> 
> See you all next year. You win (along with the powers that be).




ill be sure to tell people from UK/Europe and the US who had the coldest winter in recent memory


----------



## OzWaveGuy

white_goodman said:


> ill be sure to tell people from UK/Europe and the US who had the coldest winter in recent memory




Both ends of the earth could be frozen like the recent bizzards in the northern hemisphere every year for the next 20, yet the extremist alarmist will still be screaming about global warming and extreme weather events.


----------



## wayneL

FYI

http://democrats.science.house.gov/...rings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976

white_goodman said:


> also an interesting aside that my dad tell me, solar panels void all 10-20year roof warranties... fyi



Not if installed in compliance with (roof) manufacturer's instructions and Australian Standards so as to prevent galvanic corrosion of the roofing material.

How commonly the proper proceedures are followed I am really not sure, but installing a system on an iron roof (whcih I have done myself so know what I'm on about...) is basically a matter of removing the existing roof bolts and replacing them with longer ones. Done properly, it shouldn't affect the roof in any way. Done improperly is another matter entirely...


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> The IPCC report predicts accelerating sea level rises.
> 
> http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm - Dr Willem De Lange



Which IPCC report, and what is the grossly overstated disaster scenario it allegedly contains? Do you really know what the IPCC said? Have you personally looked at any of their publications, or are all your ideas about them drawn from critics and contrarians? 

This article is in a political journal, which explains why it doesn't contain any citations or any evidence for the author's opinions. It would, however, be helpful to have some information about which sections of the IPCC reports he's discussing. For instance, in the 4th report the chapter "Observations: Oceanic Climate Changes and Sea Level" ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf  contains 6.5 pages of small-print references to about 300 papers. There's no way to tell which one Dr De Lange objects to.

If you're interested in what's known about sea levels, this is one place to start: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-basic.htm. 

Ghoti


----------



## Mickel

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> http://democrats.science.house.gov/...rings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf




Thanks for providing this reference, Wayne. I thought Prof Lindzen outlined the real scientific debate in his opening remarks-

"In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen --including policymakers –do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC."

And part of his summary-

"Perhaps we should stop accepting the term"skeptic". Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years, makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating."


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Which .... etc etc
> 
> Ghoti




Hey Ghoti

Don't go thinking I've piked on our debate here. It's just I don't really feel much like arguing about CC for a while after what has happened over here.

Though not personally affected, many of my clients and friends have been.

I'll get back to it in due course.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Hey Ghoti
> 
> Don't go thinking I've piked on our debate here. It's just I don't really feel much like arguing about CC for a while after what has happened over here.
> 
> Though not personally affected, many of my clients and friends have been.
> 
> I'll get back to it in due course.



There are effects and effects. I think all Kiwis must be affected, and a great many Australians; Gillard got one thing right when she said that New Zealand is family. 

Hang in there Bro. 

Ghoti


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> Hang in there Bro.
> 
> Ghoti



What's this current vogue of addressing people as 'Bro"?   All the years I lived in NZ I never once heard it.  Mentioned it to a Christchurch relative yesterday.  Neither have they, so it's not something that has evolved in my absence.


----------



## trainspotter

Julia said:


> What's this current vogue of addressing people as 'Bro"?   All the years I lived in NZ I never once heard it.  Mentioned it to a Christchurch relative yesterday.  Neither have they, so it's not something that has evolved in my absence.




Not sure if I have got this right or not but I call a lot of my "mates" by "Bro" or "Brother" or "Brother from another mother" and they are not from NZ?

I have noticed in many movies in regards to the lifestyle or the culture of the NZ people (Maoris in particular) that the vanacular was strewn with "F Bombs" and "Cuzzy Bro". Think of the movies Once Were Warriors and Boy.

I am pretty sure it has little to do with NZ and more like trying to sound "street wise" or something like that. Also used as a term of endearment between blokes IMO. 

Hey sista girl !


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> What's this current vogue of addressing people as 'Bro"?




I was thinking of the cartoon Beached Az (pron. Bitched Ez) that runs at odd moments on the ABC and this week has been calling for donations to the earthquake appeal. Every character in it calls every other character Bro (pron. Bru). It's not Kiwi, but it fooled at least one Aussie  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcGUg4tNR2M

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/beachedaz/#/background/home


----------



## basilio

Is there a way of coming to a conclusion on Global Warming ?  Coming to a definitive truth by pulling together all the data and making a fresh independent assessment of what has happened and where we might be going?

Just came across this project  at the University of California which is attempting to do just that. And just to make it interesting one of the financial supporters (amongst others) is the founder  of a Charles Koch foundation. The Koch brothers are incredibly rich American businessmen who to  date have  attacked any suggestion that climate change is real or should be a concern.

It will be interesting to see the results and how they are viewed by the both climate scientists and skeptics.




> *Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?*
> 
> *The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming*
> 
> For the past year, Muller has kept a low profile, working quietly on a new project with a team of academics hand-picked for their skills. They meet on campus regularly, to check progress, thrash out problems and hunt for oversights that might undermine their work. And for good reason. When Muller and his team go public with their findings in a few weeks, they will be muscling in on the ugliest and most hard-fought debate of modern times.
> 
> Muller calls his latest obsession the Berkeley Earth project. The aim is so simple that the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking is easy to miss. Starting from scratch, with new computer tools and more data than has ever been used, they will arrive at an independent assessment of global warming. The team will also make every piece of data it uses – 1.6bn data points – freely available on a website. It will post its workings alongside, including full information on how more than 100 years of data from thousands of instruments around the world are stitched together to give a historic record of the planet's temperature.
> 
> Muller is fed up with the politicised row that all too often engulfs climate science. By laying all its data and workings out in the open, where they can be checked and challenged by anyone, the Berkeley team hopes to achieve something remarkable: a broader consensus on global warming. In no other field would Muller's dream seem so ambitious, or perhaps, so naive.
> 
> "We are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," Muller says, over a cup of tea. "We are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find." Why does Muller feel compelled to shake up the world of climate change? "We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close," he says.
> 
> ...For the time being, Muller's project is organised under the auspices of Novim, a Santa Barbara-based non-profit organisation that uses science to find answers to the most pressing issues facing society and to publish them "without advocacy or agenda". Funding has come from a variety of places, including the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (funded by Bill Gates), and the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Lab. *One donor has had some climate bloggers up in arms: the man behind the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation owns, with his brother David, Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "kingpin of climate science denial". *On this point, Muller says the project has taken money from right and left alike.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> What's this current vogue of addressing people as 'Bro"?   All the years I lived in NZ I never once heard it.




Very prevalent amongst young whitefella of low socio-economic strata and particularly Maori.

The middle class never utter it.

However it's prevalence has a direct correspondence to atmospheric co2 levels</ridiculousattempttobeontopic>


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Very prevalent amongst young whitefella of low socio-economic strata and particularly Maori.



So what's that about?   I know you're American and have only lived in NZ for about a minute and a half, but why is it apparently fashionable for low status white Kiwis to attempt to adopt what they think is the Maori vernacular?

True Maori would not use such a banal term.  They have way more dignity.


----------



## Mickel

Hi Wayne. I think we should forget about the "Bro" references. They are irrelevant on this thread at this time.

I understand your concern for your clients and friends to some extent. I also had friends and a relative who were affected by the floods in SE Qld. However , the death toll here was much smaller than the current one in Christchurch, which appears will increase substancially.

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Christchurch. I hope that they will still be able to host the Rugby World Cup games later this year as it will mean so much to them.


----------



## DB008

Hypothetical;

The world is warming

Floods/Cyclones/Natural Disasters in QLD/North QLD recently, fair amount of houses taken out in Brisbane--->Cairns region

If the climate is warming, then shouldn't the houses that are being rebuilt, be rebuilt to better/higher standards than current ones because if the temp is indeed rising, then that means that in the next 50 years, Brisbane will have a Cyclone Yasi (or equiv) and more of them and also further south than at present? 

As an example, they have seen box jelly fish further south than previously????
*
Box Jellyfish found in northern NSW *
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/box-jellyfish-found-in-northern-nsw/story-e6freuy9-1226013091600


----------



## trainspotter

*A NASA satellite that aimed to study the impact of aerosols on climate has plunged into the Pacific Ocean, delivering a $US424 million ($418.43 million) blow to the US space agency. *

The failure of the Glory satellite launch overnight was the *second bungle for NASA climate science efforts in two years*, and closely resembled a botched carbon satellite launch involving the same company, Orbital Sciences Corp, in 2009.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...it/story-e6frfku0-1226016257320#ixzz0hGNdPufu

Anyone else see the irony in this? Or is it just my cynical brain working overtime again?


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> *
> Anyone else see the irony in this? Or is it just my cynical brain working overtime again?*



*

Perhaps cynicism and the irony are not mutually exclusive? :*


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin

Why don't we see talk on the heating of the rest of the planets in the solar system?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Why don't we see talk on the heating of the rest of the planets in the solar system?




Because it is not politically correct mate, good point.

I have noted Mercury increase in temperature of late, although my thermometer is half assed, and may be influenced by Uranus.

gg


----------



## DB008

Found this;

Global warming: 10 little facts

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/bob-carter

*Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate*
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.*



> Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists.
> 
> Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.
> 
> Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin – in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.
> 
> The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.
> 
> It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.......




More on the link above.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Because it is not politically correct mate, good point.
> 
> I have noted Mercury increase in temperature of late, although my thermometer is half assed, and may be influenced by Uranus.
> 
> gg






DB008 said:


> Found this;
> 
> Global warming: 10 little facts
> 
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/bob-carter
> 
> *Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate*
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.*
> 
> 
> 
> More on the link above.




An inconvenient truth without a mob of Scientologists to fund the movie, that's why.

gg


----------



## Calliope

DB008 said:


> Found this;
> 
> Global warming: 10 little facts
> 
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/bob-carter
> 
> *Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate*
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.*
> More on the link above.




Thanks for that Danny. These slogans and facts should be writ large. 

*1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
Fact
The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.

Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.
Fact
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.

2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
Fact
There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.

Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.

3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
Fact
A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.

It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.

4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
Fact
The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.

To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.

5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Fact
Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.

At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.

6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
Fact
They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.

The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, chaos and deep corruption currently manifests the European exchange and some US states are withdrawing from anti-carbon dioxide schemes.

Playing “follow the leader” is not a good idea when the main leader (the EU) has a sclerotic economy characterised by lack of employment and the flight of manufacturers overseas.

7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
Fact
Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.

For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.

8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
Fact
The issue at hand is global warming, not the catch-all, deliberately ambiguous term climate change.
Fact
Trying to prevent hypothetical “dangerous” warming by taxing carbon dioxide emissions will be ineffectual, and is all pain for no gain.

9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
Fact
This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.

For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100.

10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Fact
Indeed.

However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.

The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.

It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.

Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.



*


----------



## DB008

Another one;

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

*Professor Bob Carter on the carbon tax debate*

Alan Jones speaks to Professor Bob Carter about the ongoing carbon tax debate. 

Link here; http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8366BODY


----------



## Julia

Thanks Danny.  It would be good if more media gave equal exposure to Prof Carter as that they offer to Prof Garnaut.
Prof Carter at least, as far as I know, not being paid by a political party and is completely independent in his thinking.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

One of my lads has dengue, and I've had to drive a 2b in and out to the Isa and I've noticed that when the sun shines, there are more shimmering shapes on it between 4 and 4.30 of an afternoon.

Are there more solar flares about atm?

This could explain all the weather and earthquakes we've been having.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner

Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

GumbyLearner said:


> Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!




Canis meus id comedit	

That is my return.

The centerlink crew gamble, drink and procreate, so the cc should pay the carbolic tax.

Then the rest of us can get on with earning a quid to keep them in the style to which they are hysterically accustomed.

I will not pay a carbolic tax.

No way

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I will not pay a carbolic tax.
> 
> No way
> 
> gg




Neither will I. I think it's best to stay put.
Plenty of newbie taxpayers coming into Australia to make up the shortfall for those 
born in aussie taxpayers like me who don't want to move back. 

Great advice gg. Plenty of newbies coming in. Most of which are much more malleable than the former constituency.


----------



## wayneL

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and
Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses



> CONCLUSIONS
> Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
> tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
> time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
> that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
> worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
> are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
> than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y
> 2
> accelerations that are required to
> reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
> (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
> Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
> increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
> It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
> worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
> of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
> global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last
> 80 years.




Via that gossip blog.


----------



## sval62




----------



## sinner

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story



> A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.
> 
> *The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.*
> 
> But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
> 
> The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.
> 
> Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.
> 
> *The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels*, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.




Article continues.


----------



## basilio

Nice story sinner.  It will be fascinating to see how this all finishes.  

One thing we can be certain of of course is  that regardless of what the figures might say *there is absolutely no way* global warming is related to human activity and that it isn't going to matter that much anyway, that there are far more important pollution problems to worry about, that CO2 certainly isn't a causal factor and that really we should all understand that the thousands of scientists who have been beating their gums about this problem are just pigs in the trough of government funded largesse. 

(Have I missed anything Wayne et al . ?? I'm sure the usual gang will offer their insights into  seriously misguided review. )
  __________________________________________________

Also liked the last touch comments of the story.



> *Other scientists noted that temperature is only one factor in climate change. "Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover," Thorne said.
> 
> "All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating.*"




Still the sun is shining here on a beautiful autumn morning so obviously we havn't a care in the world.


----------



## drsmith

Interesting interview with 







> Associate Professor Stuart Franks ... a Hydro Climatologist wrote a peer reviewed paper in 2006 that warned about higher rainfall currently being experienced by Queensland.




http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...april.html?site=brisbane&program=612_evenings


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ... I'm sure the usual gang will offer their insights into  seriously misguided review...




What's misguided about Australia only contributing a *tiny* 

...................................1.28% 

to world carbon emissions and that carbon taxing the Australian people will mainly hurt people financially and apparently do the *tiniest fraction of a percent* about carbon emissions worldwide?

And to compensate certain sectors will most likely further dilute any potential reduction in carbon dioxide.

I think there are two separate debates.  One is the dubious global warming theory which gives the excuse for a tax.  

The second is, will that tax actually achieve anything other than hurt the people who find their cost of living is through the roof?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


----------



## basilio

Your right Sails there are 2 separate discussions. This thread was started to debase the conversation about Global Warming. By continually deriding the evidence, attacking the scientific community which is extensively researching the issue and  then minimising any possible effects deniers are then able to attack any possible solutions on economic grounds.

It's probably more appropriate to take the Carbon Tax question to that particular forum. But the question of just what humanity is doing to the climate and the effect this will have on our future deserves respect rather than ridicule.  In that sense the study undertaken by Richard Muller (who is a genuine  scientific skeptic as distinct from a pure BS denier) is worth following.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Your right Sails there are 2 separate discussions. This thread was started to debase the conversation about Global Warming. By continually deriding the evidence, attacking the scientific community which is extensively researching the issue and  then minimising any possible effects deniers are then able to attack any possible solutions on economic grounds.
> 
> It's probably more appropriate to take the Carbon Tax question to that particular forum. But the question of just what humanity is doing to the climate and the effect this will have on our future deserves respect rather than ridicule.  In that sense the study undertaken by Richard Muller (who is a genuine  scientific skeptic as distinct from a pure BS denier) is worth following.




Basilio, I had an open mind initially.  Didn't know much about it and the theory seemed plausable without delving into it too much.

The series of events that changed my mind were:

1.  The hypocrisy of the likes of Al Gore and then Gillard who seem to take no thought of their own carbon footprint.

2.  Then it became clear it was all about the money and imposing a tax with the most likely outcome being wealth redistribution possibly with an intent to try and sway votes at the next election.  Whenever large sums of money can be extracted from an unsuspecting public, it raises immediate questions, IMO.

3.  Then I started to hear from other scientists, highly qualified such as John Christy, who explain that a carbon tax will do as much good as spitting in the ocean.

4.  Climate has been changing all on it's own.  Severe weather has shown it's hand long before climate change could be blamed.

So, I might be called a denier, but there is little left to convince me that there is anything more in this than an excuse to impose an unpopular tax making it all about the money.  And, unless the "deniers" keep standing up against this, we may well be sucked into one of the biggest money scams we have ever seen.


----------



## sptrawler

Its much easier to introduce a new tax than try and raise an existing one. If it was about global warming we would follow the leaders not try and be the leader. There is a budget hole from stupid spending and more stupid spending to come someone has to pay for it. The problem is the baby boomers are trying to save for their retirement and the Government want their money and also want them to keep working. What better way than to make it too expensive to retire.LOL  don't you just love it getting older and more cynical.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> don't you just love it getting older and more cynical.



Cynicism happens as a result of bitter experience and is usually soundly based.
Maybe think for the future about auditioning for that TV program "Grumpy Old Men/Women"?


----------



## basilio

sails said:


> Basilio, I had an open mind initially.  Didn't know much about it and the theory seemed plausable without delving into it too much.
> 
> The series of events that changed my mind were:
> 
> 1.  The hypocrisy of the likes of Al Gore and then Gillard who seem to take no thought of their own carbon footprint.
> 
> 2.  Then it became clear it was all about the money and imposing a tax with the most likely outcome being wealth redistribution possibly with an intent to try and sway votes at the next election.  Whenever large sums of money can be extracted from an unsuspecting public, it raises immediate questions, IMO.
> 
> 3.  Then I started to hear from other scientists, highly qualified such as John Christy, who explain that a carbon tax will do as much good as spitting in the ocean.
> 
> 4.  Climate has been changing all on it's own.  Severe weather has shown it's hand long before climate change could be blamed.
> 
> So, I might be called a denier, but there is little left to convince me that there is anything more in this than an excuse to impose an unpopular tax making it all about the money.  And, unless the "deniers" keep standing up against this, we may well be sucked into one of the biggest money scams we have ever seen.




It's interesting to read your comments which in effect reflects the incredibly effective disinformation campaign that has been waged against climate change scientists and any other people who speak up on the topic.

*The attack on Al Gores alleged hypocrisy was a calculated effort to destroy his credibility *and therefore the very strong effect he was having on public opinion with his presentations and finally the documentary of his presentation. A very typical ad hominem attack. 

*The comment about it all being a new tax is interesting as well*. If one accepted that we needed to drastically change the way we generate energy and replace fossil fuelled energy with non fossil fuelled energy then some sort of economic incentive/disincentive is the way economists would recommend.The economic point of a tax on carbon is to make non carbon sources of energy more economically viable. 

There is always a fair comment that this is just governments taxing for the sake of taxing but perhaps it might be worth discussing the best ways of changing energy use rather than reflexively dissing any government actions.

*The John Cristy comment about a carbon tax  being totally ineffective. Hmm.*  Actually all people in this area would agree that each single measure will have only a small effect. To actually address the problem properly will require many changes of policies, practices and  community attitudes and even then because we have stuffed around for so long it may well be too late. If you put aside an hour or so to actually read a reasonable summary of the science and the consequences you will get  an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

And the final comment *"The climate has been changing all the time"* is another priceless piece of  misleading denier mischief.  Yes of course climate has been changing for many different reasons. But what we are facing is an extremely rapid climate change ( rapid in geological terms)  almost certainly caused by our actions in releasing billions of extra tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  The comment is as fatuous as saying about lung cancer victims that "people are dying all the time" and skipping over the faint possibility that  30 years of smoking was the direct cause of an early. ugly death.  (I think this is a really good comparison because before the climate change denial industry really got going the same  marketing sociopaths had developed their disinformation skills on behalf of Big Tobacco to prevent recognition that *1) smoking was addictive and 2)  It caused lung cancer.*)

The idea that pumping millions of extra tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere would *in itself* inevitably raise the temperature of the earth was put forward over a hundred years ago. It was formulated as a more specific theory around 60 years ago.

Through the last 30 years scientists having been carefully measuring temperatures around the world, observing  the effects of a warming climate and  increasing at an exponential rate their understanding of the earths past climates and the effects of other factors on our climate. 

So in 2011 the evidence is well and truly in. The planet is warming at a rapid rate (again geologically speaking) and the inevitable consequences of continued warming will be absolutely catastrophic for our civilisations and most of the current lifeforms. And unfortunately we look like seeing some of these effects well within the next 20 years.

Of course absolutely no one including the scientific community (and me..) wants to believe that conclusion because it is devastating. So what do we do Sails ?  Perhaps just shrug our shoulders and have a long pixx up before  it all gets too tough ?


For a few stories on climate change check out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

A far more detailed but very useful analysis is on a website run by the insurance giant Allianz. It's interesting to note that insurance companies were amongst the first large companies to study the science carefully and come to the conclusion that  we better take this problem seriously.  This site is really worth a bit of time.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/climat...292&kwg=Exact_1784968432_climate+change+facts


----------



## sails

Basilio...

I gave you an honest run down of the factors which convinced me that this whole carbon thing is nothing more than a money scam and then you proceed to tear it down piece by piece with the same annoying spin that put me off in the first place...

Using words like "mischief", "denier", etc become rather tiring and do nothing to convince me of your arguments.

Oh and I forgot a fifth point: Finding out that Australia's world carbon emissions are only *1.28%* reduces the whole carbon tax to the point of being ludicrous.  Sure you can make that look bigger by quoting per capita, but we do live in a country of deserts, sweeping plains and rugged mountain ranges which are somewhat uninhabitable, so Australia will always have a less dense population than some other countries.

But the fact remains that Australia's carbon emissions are so negligible that trying to reduce them by 5% or even 20% will do practically nothing in the big scheme of things.  That is another fact that fuels my increasing belief that it is nothing but a money scam.  The reason remains a mystery, but the guesses are that it is for wealth redistribution and possibly part of an effort to "butter up" certain sectors of the community as a means of getting re-elected.


----------



## orr

What your suffering from sails is not new, It is in fact beautifully illustrated in a painting by J.L.A.Gericult-Le Radeau De La Medusa. We're all wretch's  on that raft. Some see the tiny mast on the horizion and know that's our hope, other's try to encouraged the disillusioned, cursed by futility others hold back those with hope, others succumb to mortifying despair, seeing nothing but the fallen and others beaten still rise.
 Depending on my mood sometimes I stand before this work of art and weep at its power to expose humanity.(it's the appreciation of art like this that makes it worth the bother, for me)


----------



## spooly74

drsmith said:


> Interesting interview with
> 
> http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...april.html?site=brisbane&program=612_evenings




More on this here



> Given the well-known relationship between the SOI and heavy rains in eastern Australia (eg., McBride and Nicholls, 1983) we can conclude that the fundamental cause of the heavy rains this past six months was indeed this record La NiÃ±a event. Other heavy rain years (1917/18, 1950/51, 1973/74, 1975/76) were also the result of strong La NiÃ±a events. The relationship between rainfall and the SOI is very strong, with a correlation coefficient of 0.66. So, the heavy rains were not caused by global warming, but by a record la NiÃ±a event – a natural fluctuation of the climate system.




But he doesn't stop there. He next asks: "But perhaps 2010/11 was a record La NiÃ±a because of global warming?"* His answer:



> There has not been any trend in the SOI over the past 111 years, despite the warming of global mean temperature of about 0.75 °C over that period. Nor do climate models consistently predict increased strength of La NiÃ±a events from enhanced atmospheric content of greenhouse gases (eg., Vecchi and Wittenberg, 2010). So there is no reason, at this moment, for us to suspect that global warming is increasing the frequency or intensity of La NiÃ±a events.




http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/neville-nicholls-on-australias-extreme.html


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> So in 2011 the evidence is well and truly in. The planet is warming at a rapid rate (again geologically speaking) and the inevitable consequences of continued warming will be absolutely catastrophic for our civilisations and most of the current lifeforms. And unfortunately we look like seeing some of these effects well within the next 20 years.




id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?

brb getting my tin hat


----------



## sails

white_goodman said:


> id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?
> 
> brb getting my tin hat




and better grab a drink too - it will be a looooong read...

And I hope he addresses the 1.28% that Australia contributes to world carbon emissions.

If Australia can reduce emissions by 5%, that will reduce emissions worldwide by *0.00064*. 

And for that miniscule amount, they want to rob over $800 per working person per annum.  They have to be joking - this is totally absurd.


----------



## white_goodman

sails said:


> and better grab a drink too - it will be a looooong read...
> 
> And I hope he addresses the 1.28% that Australia contributes to world carbon emissions.
> 
> If Australia can reduce emissions by 5%, that will reduce emissions worldwide by *0.00064*.
> 
> And for that miniscule amount, they want to rob over $800 per working person per annum.  They have to be joking - this is totally absurd.





also note on that bbc article chart show what the temperature scale in on the right...

a doubling of co2 might = 1 degree of increase...

its the same crop of weak minded people falling victim to a Goebbels style campaign l70 years later...


----------



## wayneL

Basilio,

:sleeping:

Science is irrelevant.

Politics is relevant.

IMO


----------



## derty

white_goodman said:


> id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?
> 
> brb getting my tin hat




Not such a long read sails.

It's quite easy to calculate.

Pre-industrial levels about 280ppm (0.028%)
Current levels around 390ppm (0.039%)

We have added approx 110ppm (0.011%)

Therefore man made CO2 currently constitutes approx 28% of the atmospheric CO2 and represents an increase of 39% over pre-industrial levels.


----------



## basilio

> id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?
> 
> brb getting my tin hat




As I indicated in my earlier post the Allianz website offers an excellent analysis of the global warming debate and even manages to address many of the misunderstandings and sometimes mistakes run by those who want to stop any action on this problem.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/climate/science/?172/co2-endless-warming-greenhouse-gases


> Human-induced increase
> The increase in CO2’s share of the atmosphere is mostly due to anthropogenic (man-induced) factors, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial production.
> 
> Most anthropogenic CO2 is produced by energy production and transport. Cement production is just one among many chemical processes that release the gas. Rotting organic materials release CO2, and so landfills are big CO2 contributors too.
> 
> In total, humans emit around 32 gigatons of carbon dioxide each year. Half of this stays in the atmosphere; the rest is absorbed by oceans and vegetation.
> 
> But with sharp increases in man-made CO2 emissions, the natural CO2 cycle has been thrown out of balance: vegetation can no longer transform the same proportion of CO2 into oxygen, and oceans are steadily reaching saturation level.
> 
> Theoretically, rising CO2 levels should be compensated for by plants and algae. Up to a certain concentration, more CO2 means more photosynthesis and more growth.
> 
> Unfortunately, under hot and dry conditions many plants close their pores to prevent the loss of water and switch to a process called photorespiration during which they consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. Only areas with enough precipitation and fertile soils will see increased growth as a result of rising CO2 levels.
> 
> The result is an enhanced greenhouse effect and, subsequently, climate change. While CO2 is only responsible for 20 percent of the natural greenhouse effect, it accounts for about 60 percent of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect that is causing the current global warming.




As to the tiny amount that Australia contributes to global CO2.  Of course it is very small and in the context of 200 hundred years of increasing fossil fuel use as well as the impact of all countries energy use our influence is limited.  But this doesn't give us a Get out of Jail card.

Think of any humumgous enterprise. A world war, building giant pyramids, the Manhattan project (that is creating the atomic bomb), creating a premiership football team . Anything of great magnitude requires a combined effort where by definition each individual part's effect is limited - but still a part of the  whole.  And an important part of a group effort is that everyone plays their role and doesn't squib. 

And by the way this stuff about the poor workers of Australia being screwed for $800 a year is again a mischief.  The proposal incorporates a rebate to lower paid workers and social security recipients to mitigate these effects. Again there is a good discussion on this in The Age. Of course if you want create  a scene about  A BIG NEW TAX you certainly wouldn't want to acknowledge anything that would reduce your thunder.

It has been said a few times but I'll repeat it. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as biologists, geographers ect believe human induced global warming is real. The physical evidence for this warming is now documented across temperature patterns, reduction in Arctic and Antarctic ice volumes, size of glaciers , the patterns of animal and plant reproduction.  The list goes on.

Is there a chance that they are all dead wrong and that we can continue to increase greenhouse gases  without care and not cook our bacon?  Maybe ...... . But why are we dismissing  potentially the biggest threat to common safety on  some very flimsy grounds against the total understandings of the huge majority of scientists who study this field?  

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-fine-print-on-carbon-tax-20110405-1d2s7.html


----------



## white_goodman

derty said:


> Not such a long read sails.
> 
> It's quite easy to calculate.
> 
> Pre-industrial levels about 280ppm (0.028%)
> Current levels around 390ppm (0.039%)
> 
> We have added approx 110ppm (0.011%)
> 
> Therefore man made CO2 currently constitutes approx 28% of the atmospheric CO2 and represents an increase of 39% over pre-industrial levels.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio,
> 
> :sleeping:
> 
> Science is irrelevant.
> 
> Politics is relevant.
> 
> IMO




Droll Wayne, droll.  What you seem to be saying is that any facts in this situation are simply irrelevant compared to the machinations of political power. Thats good.  We now know that all your convoluted  comments trying to disparage global warming were unnecessary  because in the end the critical question is not whether there is a problem but how elegantly or forcefully one can deny it.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ...
> And by the way this stuff about the poor workers of Australia being screwed for $800 a year is again a mischief.




An absolute  mischief to screw labor's "working families" for this amount...



> The proposal incorporates a rebate to lower paid workers and social security recipients to mitigate these effects.




How can any sort of fair compensation be reached?  As Smurf has pointed out in one of these threads everybody's use of electricity, fuel, etc is different.

And Ms Gillard has brazenly renegged on no carbon tax in her government.  Isn't there a further risk she will reneg on compensation when it suits her agenda?

And the rest of your post is your opinion and articles that support your opinion. I acknowledge we are poles apart in our opinions of this absurd situation.

I have honestly yet to meet anyone who is pushing for this tax that is pretty sure they won't be compensated or they have some financial gain.  No point asking if you fall into the category of potentially being compensated as there is no way of verifying it.  However, I do wonder what your motivation might be.  

Maybe GG is right and this is the next religious cult.  It has all the markings of such.


----------



## basilio

White Goodman you just provided an url for a website which laid out a case for total denial of the global warming case.  Have yoiu actually had a chance to investigate this website in more detail?

My first observation was I simply couldn't find a name for any person taking any responsibility for the story. Who was this? A climate scientist ? A think tank? Nothing.

I than had a oood read and discovered immediately a number off completely false statements.  Have a read of the Allianz material and one can the easily detect the  lies and misinformation.

*But the real point is that the majority of the website is extolling the wonders of coal in the Appalachian mountains and how important it is to  use this magnificent resource. This is just a puff piece to promote coal. It has no basis as a source of factual information.*


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> And by the way this stuff about the poor workers of Australia being screwed for $800 a year is again a mischief.  The proposal incorporates a rebate to lower paid workers and social security recipients to mitigate these effects. Again there is a good discussion on this in The Age. Of course if you want create  a scene about  A BIG NEW TAX you certainly wouldn't want to acknowledge anything that would reduce your thunder.




you must be living in a different world to what I am, like the vast number of social welfare programs, whether that be subidised university education, minmum wage laws etc etc, the poor always pay for it, I dont know of this benevolent govt you believe in that thinks it can tax big business and wealthy individuals and the poor dont suffer the most. Your knowledge on economics is rudimentary at best and you obviously live in a household where you expect to eat a lot of free lunches.

Are you under the assumption the govt (group A) can take money from group B, to spend on Group C, and you think that the bureaucracy and endless govt workers will spend this money effectively... if they wanna develop green technology then do it via the future fund, and let it compete with other energy producers..

but hey what sacrifice is it to allow the govt more control, more power over everyones lives, they are all knowing all seeing, and know whats best (hey look at the history of govt).. long live stalin


also that article you linked just goes to show the state of media these days, what a load of idiocy


----------



## IFocus

Thanks to basilio and derty for the informed debate just wish the other side would debate in a similar style.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Thanks to basilio and derty for the informed debate just wish the other side would debate in a similar style.




So what's with the "holier than thou" approach? GG is right - this is like a religious cult.

And the use of "mischief" and "denier" are nothing but attempts at belittling another's view point.   Just because someone doesn't agree with your view point is no reason to call them a denier.  I could just as easily call you a denier for not seeing the truth as I see it.  Pretty childish.  Surely there is enough to debate without resorting to petty names.

Here is a view point from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who says the carbon tax will be a heavy tax with no benefit. 

Interview with Chris Smith: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=29&Itemid=41

PS - thanks derty for your information which was given without the silly name calling.  Your posts are informative and objective.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Droll Wayne, droll.  What you seem to be saying is that any facts in this situation are simply irrelevant compared to the machinations of political power. Thats good.  We now know that all your convoluted  comments trying to disparage global warming were unnecessary  because in the end the critical question is not whether there is a problem but how elegantly or forcefully one can deny it.




Bas,

I know the Fabians teach you to spin everything, but there is an art to it. The art is to make the ridiculous believable, otherwise it's just ridiculous.

Take your comment here; your attempt at spin is so amateurish that the ridiculous still sounds totally ridiculous.

Firstly, there is no attempt to deny changes in climate by the majority of people outside of the uncritical CC believers group. Many do believe humans are responsible for some changes and certainly on a regional scale. There is simply an attempt to arrive at a considered and balanced view and reasonable solutions if practical and/or necessary.

Secondly, only an imbecile would not realize that politics takes any issue and politicizes it, making the actual facts irrelevant. Pragmatism has no place where ideology reigns. For eg - Iraq anyone?

Thirdly, you have grossly and dishonestly misrepresented my personal position which I have repeated ad nauseum in this and other threads, reflecting the tactics of broader church of GW - when the dodgy science fails, go ad hominem.

pfffft


----------



## Whiskers

derty said:


> Not such a long read sails.
> 
> It's quite easy to calculate.
> 
> Pre-industrial levels about 280ppm (0.028%)
> Current levels around 390ppm (0.039%)
> 
> We have added approx 110ppm (0.011%)
> 
> Therefore man made CO2 currently constitutes approx 28% of the atmospheric CO2 and represents an increase of 39% over pre-industrial levels.




Yeah, the CO2 numbers are certainly rising, but I'm not convinced it's necessairly causing a great amount of global climate change.

What I'm noticing is maybe the lack of oxygen generationgiving a bit of a mis balance. What if the polar ice caps and other huge glaciers have been hoarding oxygen for some time and need to melt to release some of it back into the atmosphere?

The other issue I'm thinking about is accompaning man's industrialization of the world, we have also 'cleaned' up a lot of the forests which generate oxygen, but maybe more importantly we have probably taken too much of a dislike for some plants like algae that generate more oxygen and would help maintain the status quo.

But looking at the big picture, is the status quo meant to be? 

The oxygen level seems to have been in decline in the 2.5 odd million years since before our ancesters evolved. Does that mean the humaniod form is/will evolve to accomodate a new atmosphere?

It is suggested that higher concentrations of things like Nitrous Oxide is causing an increased carcenogenic effect. But, maybe that is also a 'natural' leveling factor to cull the more susceptable and let those whose genes modify to resist cancer to survive.

The bottom line for me is certainly we have released too much pollution into the environment, but I'm a bit bemused by the focus on CO2 and apparently trying to maintain a status quo, when probably it's going against the natural cycle of things.


----------



## IFocus

sails said:


> PS - thanks derty for your information which was given without the silly name calling.  Your posts are informative and objective.




More succinct way of putting what I was trying to say


----------



## white_goodman

just watching the APAC channel on foxtel, what a vomit session... what is this 1934 Nuremberg?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I'm struggling to understand why the the AGW alarmists that frequent this hysteria thread haven't quickly highlighted to us Flannery's Gaia plan for the globe. Surely the alarmists must agree that their main AGW man in Australia (paid by you and me) knows and understands what must be done to "save" the world (or the "ant colony"). 

Now's the time for the AGW alarmists folks here to step up and bond with Flannery and back his plan for a "global super organism" and a "stronger Gaia", anyone?



To be brutally honest I have no idea what he's talking about. I can only assume the "Global Super Organism" is the unelected UN driven one world government that directs us "ants" to work to serve the mysterious Gaia.

This man has lost it and does not represent me or my beliefs in anyway whatsoever.


----------



## drsmith

OzWaveGuy said:


> To be brutally honest I have no idea what he's talking about.



The interaction of various forms of life as part of a greater being. In other words, a form of god. It's a nice idea, but where's the proof ? 
This is where he has lost the plot.



OzWaveGuy said:


> I can only assume the "Global Super Organism" is the unelected UN driven one world government that directs us "ants" to work to serve the mysterious Gaia.



It was only a few hundred years ago that the semi-global super organisms were the unelected religious orders that directed their "ants" to work to serve their mysterious gods.

This model of power is something we should only look as as part of our history, if for no other reason than to understand its limitations.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> I'm struggling to understand why the the AGW alarmists that frequent this hysteria thread haven't quickly highlighted to us Flannery's Gaia plan for the globe. Surely the alarmists must agree that their main AGW man in Australia (paid by you and me) knows and understands what must be done to "save" the world (or the "ant colony").
> 
> Now's the time for the AGW alarmists folks here to step up and bond with Flannery and back his plan for a "global super organism" and a "stronger Gaia", anyone?
> 
> To be brutally honest I have no idea what he's talking about. I can only assume the "Global Super Organism" is the unelected UN driven one world government that directs us "ants" to work to serve the mysterious Gaia.
> 
> This man has lost it and does not represent me or my beliefs in anyway whatsoever.



ROFL

Have you come across a book called "Godel, Escher, Bach; An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hostadter? I'd bet my house Tim Flannery has. Not that he quotes the book or references it directly, but there are loud echoes of Hofstadter in the ant colony as an example of an emergent consciousness and his delight in the way complex systems, not least life itself, have evolved from very simple bases. 

Flannery isn't talking about government, neither of one world nor of one nation, nor even of one forum. He's not talking about anything imposed. His discussion of ants doesn't mean that people are mere workers in the service of Gaia (which isn't really mysterious, BTW, and is certainly not a plan). A really simplistic generalisation of what he's saying is that the whole (an ant colony or a human brain) is more than the sum of its parts (the ants or the brain cells). 

If this talk gives you the heebies then forget it; it's nothing to do with climate policy. If you're curious about what he's talking about and you don't want to read his book, then have a go at Hofstadter. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've been entertained and challenged by it for 30 years and I'd love to pass the fun along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach. 

Ghoti


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> ROFL
> 
> Have you come across a book called "Godel, Escher, Bach; An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hostadter? I'd bet my house Tim Flannery has. Not that he quotes the book or references it directly, but there are loud echoes of Hofstadter in the ant colony as an example of an emergent consciousness and his delight in the way complex systems, not least life itself, have evolved from very simple bases.
> 
> Flannery isn't talking about government, neither of one world nor of one nation, nor even of one forum. He's not talking about anything imposed. His discussion of ants doesn't mean that people are mere workers in the service of Gaia (which isn't really mysterious, BTW, and is certainly not a plan). A really simplistic generalisation of what he's saying is that the whole (an ant colony or a human brain) is more than the sum of its parts (the ants or the brain cells).
> 
> If this talk gives you the heebies then forget it; it's nothing to do with climate policy. If you're curious about what he's talking about and you don't want to read his book, then have a go at Hofstadter. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've been entertained and challenged by it for 30 years and I'd love to pass the fun along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach.
> 
> Ghoti




Ghoti, I understand you are deep into the theory of all things carbon, but honestly, does Australia really need to go into deep financial pain to try and reduce world emissions by a fraction of a percent?  

Australia only emits 1.28% of world carbon emissions, so 5% of that (at great economic cost) really isn't going to make a difference.  At least that's the logical thinking.

As an analogy, weather forecasters so intent on all their theories, weather maps. computer models and charts that they sometimes forget to look out of the window.  No point in forecasting a fine day because theory says so when it is bucketing down outside.  Sometimes we have to accept some practical logic as well.


----------



## medicowallet

When the benefit of an ETS is larger than the error in computer generated models, come ask me this question again


----------



## tothemax6

medicowallet said:


> When the benefit of an ETS is larger than the error in computer generated models, come ask me this question again



Good luck. I'm sure by then we will all have our computers turned off because we can't afford the electricity.


----------



## wayneL

FYI - http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/



> Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
> 
> By David Evans
> 
> The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
> 
> Let’s set a few things straight.
> 
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
> 
> Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is near nigh impossible to stop a gravy train.

Absolutely impossible if it is driven by the New Class.

gg


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is near nigh impossible to stop a gravy train.
> 
> Absolutely impossible if it is driven by the New Class.
> 
> gg




That depends on how hard voters apply the brakes.

People who initially had an open mind seem to be deciding that this is ridiculous for Australia with our incredibly low world emissions.  I think the powerful silent majority will do their job at the next election.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sails said:


> That depends on how hard voters apply the brakes.
> 
> People who initially had an open mind seem to be deciding that this is ridiculous for Australia with our incredibly low world emissions.  I think the powerful silent majority will do their job at the next election.




I wish I had your confidence, the electorate have swallowed this Watermelon Green/ALP lie, hook line and sinker.

When it comes to a vote, the left meeja and the left parties will get it up.

Common sense is absent many years on Climate Hysteria.

gg


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> That depends on how hard voters apply the brakes.
> 
> People who initially had an open mind seem to be deciding that this is ridiculous for Australia with our incredibly low world emissions.  I think the powerful silent majority will do their job at the next election.



 Agree, Sails.   gg, I'm surprised you are so ready to accept apathy by the electorate.
It seems to me that more and more people are becoming aware of the great con job that has been done on them thus far, and as the reality of a carbon tax on their cost of living hits home (they are not deluded that any compensation will be ongoing or adequate), they are prepared to be a lot more interested and will be making their views known to their local MP's.

WayneL, interesting remarks from ex warmist.


----------



## drsmith

It will be interesting to follow global satellite measured temperature as the debate goes on.

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/48140/coolest-march-since-1994.asp


----------



## DB008

drsmith said:


> It will be interesting to follow global satellite measured temperature as the debate goes on.
> 
> http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/48140/coolest-march-since-1994.asp




Despite the recent cooling, the decadal temperature trend for the lower troposphere remains upward *at + .145 C.*

+0.145 in a decade? Am l reading that statement correctly? I thought that there were larger figures being tossed around by the "pro-climate" camp? 

Data Page for Accuweather.com



Something from the Anti-Camp (Check out the website address, iceagenow.com, LOL!


> So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010.  Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
> 
> The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
> 
> It’s really much to do about nothing.
> 
> Dr. Don Easterbrook is a Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA.


----------



## tothemax6

DB008 said:


> +0.145 in a decade? Am l reading that statement correctly? I thought that there were larger figures being tossed around by the "pro-climate" camp?



But didn't you know? 0.145/decade means the sky will fall and we are all doomed.


----------



## white_goodman

tothemax6 said:


> But didn't you know? 0.145/decade means the sky will fall and we are all doomed.




we didnt listen!


----------



## orr

The socio-political reasons for why you have come to the conclusions you have; 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/taking-on-climate-skepticism-as-a-field-of-study/?hpw

But do the math on the split and for the Skeptics, read major polluters, there's a worrying majority.


----------



## tothemax6

orr said:


> The socio-political reasons for why you have come to the conclusions you have;
> 
> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/taking-on-climate-skepticism-as-a-field-of-study/?hpw
> 
> But do the math on the split and for the Skeptics, read major polluters, there's a worrying majority.



Or you could just ask people to state their position. Takes a certain kind of unfounded arrogance to think of people as though they were a group that needed to be studied as to why they incorrectly don't think the same as you. 

Climate change hysteria (as this thread is titled), and its potential effects are far worse that the potential effects of CO2 heating. It would be far better for everyone if they believed that climate change science was based on nothing, regardless of how correct/incorrect this belief was, simply because it would prevent the political actions that would occur otherwise (carbon emission clamping/taxing).


----------



## Smurf1976

The reason we are in this situation now is due to things like being told that the drought would never end.

The science has absolutely been handed over to politics, to the point that for practical purposes this is no longer a scientific issue but rather, a political one. Scientists themselves are partly to blame with their calls for specific political actions and so on.

Personally, I do think there's probably at least some truth in it all. Global warming, and the theory very clearly requires that it is a warming not a cooling of average temperatures, is quite likely valid to some extent. It certainly does work as expected in a lab. But any hope of doing anything about it has become totally lost amongst what has become effectively an _economic_ treaty with the outcome of wealth redistributionm and consequent higher rates of global economic growth (and thus even higher greenhouse gas emissions).

Look at what's actually happened in recent times whilst many countries supposedly prepare for, or actually implement, emissions cuts. Global emissions have soared like never before - precisely the outcome one would expect from the measures being implemented and a point conveniently ignored by many.


----------



## macca

Interesting article serving to highlight how little we actually know and are how much we are yet to discover about the earth and out weather patterns

''While the ozone hole has been considered a solved problem, we're now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that has been observed, the report's co-author, Lorenzo Polvani, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, said.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ked-to-east-coast-weather-20110422-1drht.html

If only we could get real facts reported as news not opinions, instead of exaggerations and wild claims I am sure there would be a better result.

Much the same as racism claims, people switch off when it becomes obvious that the other side is telling lies.


----------



## drsmith

macca said:


> Interesting article serving to highlight how little we actually know and are how much we are yet to discover about the earth and out weather patterns.



The movement of the jet stream south and subsequent expansion of subtropical dry zones would explain the decline in rainfall over the southwest corner of Western Australia in recent decades.


----------



## Logique

Whatever the truth,
the hype, over-reaction, opportunism of governments, and the politicization of science - these have become the problem. More than any fractional rise or fall in temperature.

All that this ever needed was: 
- an expanded, ongoing and internationally co-ordinated research program into more efficient renewables, 
- research into cleaner and safer nuclear power, 
- last but not least, speeding up the development of nuclear fusion, which is the real medium term hope. 

Instead we have this political and economic fiasco, brought to us by scheming opportunists and their sycophantic co-conspirators. [/RANT]


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> The movement of the jet stream south and subsequent expansion of subtropical dry zones would explain the decline in rainfall over the southwest corner of Western Australia in recent decades.



The situation has also affected Tasmania and the attempts at finding the cause are worth noting in the overall context of climate research.

In Tas, the primary observed effect has been the emergence of a rainfall "hole" during Autumn which seemed to progressively worsen from 1975 (no observed effect) until the past few years (virtually zero runnoff into water storages during Autumn). 

The Hydro is by far the largest water manager in Tas and they've done rather a lot of research into it. And it's no secret that they've also lost rather a lot of money because of the rainfall decline.

Bottom line is that the research assumed that the underlying cause must have something to do with either temperature change (ie global warming) or land use change either in Tas or somewhere up wind (eg WA or perhaps even South America).

Nobody ever thought of looking at ozone. And now that's been mentioned, my casual look at the evidence does show a pretty strong correlation between declining ozone and declining rainfall.

Lots of money spent on research. An outright fortune spent on all sorts of measures to deal with the rainfall decline without the lights going out. And nobody thought about the ozone hole...

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume this is not an isolated case and that a few people looking at stream flows in Tas aren't the only ones who have wrongly assumed the cause of a change to be something other than what it actually is. Those fancy computer models are prone to exactly the same type of wrong assumptions, as is the entire climate change debate.


----------



## ghotib

If "nobody ever thought of looking at ozone", what's the basis for this newspaper report? 

People are indeed looking at ozone, and have been for decades. The earliest reference I found in a 10 minute Google is a 1993 paper in Nature, called _Subtropical stratospheric mixing linked to disturbances on the polar vortices_ (I'm reasonably confident that's talking about the same mechanisms as the present article. There might well be others that I can't identify from the titles.) 

Complicated and difficult subjects take a bit of work to understand, from readers as well as from journalists. Many "exaggerations and wild claims" come from bad publicising and superficial reading, not from the original sources. The sort of misunderstandings that have arisen from this 250-word press agency report happen all the time:

1. It was taken to show the unreliability of computer modelling, but look at what it actually says:


> The scientists added the ozone hole's effects into Canadian and US global climate models to investigate how it might have affected winds and rains. Their experiments compared data on sea ice, surface temperatures, rain and ozone.



IOW these experiments are runs of climate models using different parameters to isolate effects. Just out of interest, can anyone think of any other way to run controlled experiments on a planet? 

2. It's been taken to mean that greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the poleward movement of the jet stream that has led to climate changes such as our recent droughts. That's not what the scientific papers say. The SMH article is prompted by a paper in Science which is paywalled. However Dr Polvani helpfully provides a linked list of his papers. I didn't go behind the paywall to read the Science paper but I did look at the next two in the list, which  report aspects of the same work. To demonstrate the kind of nuance and qualification that gets lost in the general media, I quote from the conclusion of the paper in Journal of Climate:


> Finally, we return to the effects of stratospheric ozone on the SH circulation. To quantify the relative impor- tance of ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases, we have focused in this study on the period 1960– 2000, for which all the key forcings are known (to some degree) from observations. Over that period, as pointed out by Shindell and Schmidt (2004), the effects of ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases have added constructively and conspired to yield a relatively large poleward shift of the overall atmospheric circulation.
> 
> The key finding of this study has been to show that ozone depletion appears to have been the dominant factor in the recent SH atmospheric circulation changes.
> 
> In the twenty-first century, however, as stratospheric ozone recovers to pre-1960 levels, the effects of ozone recovery will oppose those resulting from increasing greenhouse gases. The key question, of course, is: Which of these two will dominate? Simulations conducted by the recent CCMVal2 intercomparison indicate a near-total cancellation of the effects of greenhouse gas increases by the recovery of stratospheric ozone (Son et al. 2010), yielding insignificant trends in the latitudinal position of the midlatitude jet and the edge of the Hadley cell be- tween 2000 and 2100. Such projections, however, are founded on incomplete knowledge of SSTs and radiative forcings. Furthermore, there is some evidence that model simulations that prescribe monthly mean zonal-mean ozone fields, as we have done here, might underestimate the tropospheric response to changes in polar ozone (Gillett et al. 2009; Waugh et al. 2009). Whether the recovery of stratospheric ozone will be able to cancel the effects of greenhouse gas increases remains an open question. Time will tell.



Points to note: 
The work deals with the Southern Hemisphere only, not the whole planet. 
The object is to quantify the effects of changing stratospheric ozone in order to distinguish them from the effects of increasing greenhouse gases and then to work out how (or if) the two effects interact. 
Some simulations *suggest* that recovery in ozone will counteract the effects of increasing greenhouse gases so that southern hemisphere atmospheric circulation will stay roughly as it was in 2000.
There are known questions whose answers will improve these projections.  

Ghoti


----------



## derty

A good explanation of the "Trick to hide the decline" email that was the core to Climategate with a segue into Dr Mullers BEST program. Some annoying use of imagery in here but it is well explained in layman's terms.


----------



## basilio

That was a really excellent video Derty.  Quite fascinating to see at the end how Dr Mullers Berkley project *which has been funded by the Koch brothers* is now appearing to confirm what climate scientists have been saying all along.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> A good explanation of the "Trick to hide the decline" email that was the core to Climategate with a segue into Dr Mullers BEST program. Some annoying use of imagery in here but it is well explained in layman's terms.





The use of terms like Deniers, Anti-science, skeptics etc is another attempt to bring credibility back to the discredited climate establishment. Didn't watch the entire propaganda but did they cover the discredited hockey stick and why it was quickly pushed to the sidelines after prominently using it to drive the AGW agenda in the lead up to Copenhagen.

The anti-science term was laughable - I've seen more analysis and questions by real scientists from numerous fields to the climate establishment and have subsequently uncovered more lies, misleading headlines, misleading and inaccurate data etc etc in the last 2 yrs alone. The AGW alarmist's world is fast unraveling


----------



## tothemax6

derty said:


> A good explanation of the "Trick to hide the decline" email that was the core to Climategate with a segue into Dr Mullers BEST program. Some annoying use of imagery in here but it is well explained in layman's terms.



Its a lot easier to take a video seriously when he is using neutral intonation. When he sounds from word one like he thinks he is so clever, and that his targets are stupid children, one tends to just turn the video off.

Yes, there are plenty of loons out there, and Glen Beck is certainly one of them. However, the fact remains that the climate brigade are focused with tunnel-vision on possible disaster scenarios, and refuse to consider the economic damage their policies would cause.

I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough. They are looking like 'the bad guy', and they are not convincing the public that it is in fact the Left that are 'the bad guys'. As always, the Right always sound like they are on the defensive, and the Left are slugging away. Its time the Right got their act together and fought back.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> .... The AGW alarmist's world is fast unraveling



You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got. 

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got.
> 
> Ghoti




It's why alarmists should admit defeat on the ruse of runaway global warning and turn to real environmental problems.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got.
> 
> Ghoti




This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.


----------



## tothemax6

OzWaveGuy said:


> This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.




Tasty video, thanks for that


----------



## Julia

tothemax6 said:


> I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough.



Who are you referring to when you say "The Right"?
If you're meaning the Opposition here in Australia, then I think Abbott and co. are indeed doing a good job of pointing out the adverse implications on the lives of ordinary people a carbon tax would have.  And as far as I can tell, they are largely avoiding attacking 'the science'.
They have been noting in detail the rise in electricity prices in particular that will occur with a carbon tax, plus increases in price in everything else due obviously to electricity being involved in pretty much the production of all we consume.

What more, specifically, would you have them do?


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> It's why alarmists should admit defeat on the ruse of runaway global warning and turn to real environmental problems.



Runaway global war_n_ing? Wassat???

Don't you think that the number of present and impending problems need solutions that address more than one problem at a time.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.



I'm on wobbly wireless broadband and I can't get the video to play past 4:53, so I don't know what the simple message is. From the short section I did see, I recognised some points from Dr Evans' recent article in the Wall St. Journal, where he reproduced a number of ancient myths and misunderstandings of climate science. I don't know if this talk includes every mistake he made there, but they are explained in this article at the Skeptical Science website. 

Governments set taxes and I don't see much evidence that any Australian government is a Climate Establishment. Nor do I think that taxation will save the world. The world is not at risk. It will keep rolling around the Sun even if humans change the conditions on the world to such an extent that we wipe out ourselves and 90% of the other species we share it with. Taxation is one tool that might help prevent that.

Sometimes it seems that people think the choice is between paying for carbon (specifically fossil carbon) and carrying on as usual. If that really is the choice then of course there's no point in any carbon pricing mechanism. The trouble is that carrying on as usual leads to enormous costs when the effects of a climate that human civilisation has never known start to overwhelm us. The most obvious at the moment might be food shortages, but how many times can an economy cope with floods such as the recent ones in Queensland, Pakistan, or the Mississippi valley? 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Who are you referring to when you say "The Right"?
> If you're meaning the Opposition here in Australia, then I think Abbott and co. are indeed doing a good job of pointing out the adverse implications on the lives of ordinary people a carbon tax would have.  And as far as I can tell, they are largely avoiding attacking 'the science'.
> They have been noting in detail the rise in electricity prices in particular that will occur with a carbon tax, plus increases in price in everything else due obviously to electricity being involved in pretty much the production of all we consume.
> 
> What more, specifically, would you have them do?



Face the facts of a disrupted global climate and help voters do the same. 

I wish the government would do that too. 

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Face the facts of a disrupted global climate and help voters do the same.
> 
> I wish the government would do that too.
> 
> Ghoti



Indeed. There is no realistic chance that CO2 emissions are going to do anything other than continue to rise and that situation is well out of Australia's hands. As such, the only rational domestic policy is to plan to adapt to the consequences.


----------



## Logique

Agree completely.

The operation of the free market, reviled by so many in the left-leaning compassion fatigued commentariat, suddenly becomes the vehicle of choice in the carbon crusade. 

Surely an admission that their own methods have failed.


----------



## joea

tothemax6 said:


> Its a lot easier to take a video seriously when he is using neutral intonation. When he sounds from word one like he thinks he is so clever, and that his targets are stupid children, one tends to just turn the video off.
> 
> Yes, there are plenty of loons out there, and Glen Beck is certainly one of them. However, the fact remains that the climate brigade are focused with tunnel-vision on possible disaster scenarios, and refuse to consider the economic damage their policies would cause.
> 
> I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough. They are looking like 'the bad guy', and they are not convincing the public that it is in fact the Left that are 'the bad guys'. As always, the Right always sound like they are on the defensive, and the Left are slugging away. Its time the Right got their act together and fought back.




You make a point of saying the anti-climate-change policy's should be explained.

Can you please show us where Combet and Gillard have clearly explained on paper(not through the media), how the carbon tax  actually helps reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Runaway global war_n_ing? Wassat???



That is what is colloquially referred to as a typo, short for typographical error. But I am certain that you knew that but was indulging in some pathetic nitpicking over insignificances. (There, you can nitpick my grammar as well )



> Don't you think that the number of present and impending problems need solutions that address more than one problem at a time.




Yes, so long as the problems are real and worth addressing.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> That is what is colloquially referred to as a typo, short for typographical error. But I am certain that you knew that but was indulging in some pathetic nitpicking over insignificances. (There, you can nitpick my grammar as well )




Thank you. I'll let the disagreeable verb pass, and merely remind you that the professional wordsmith's abbreviation for typographical error is _tupo_. And I liked yours so much I thought it might have been deliberate. If it wasn't then I must assume that you were being either mischievous or alarmist in referring to runaway global warming. That was Venus. Earth is not Venus. 



> Yes, so long as the problems are real and worth addressing.



Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem. Repairing water and soil degraded by industry and industrial agriculture is a gargantuan problem. Ending the stream of non-degradeable plastics into the oceans and finding practical ways to get the stuff out again, not to mention restoring the historical chemistry of the oceans, is profoundly difficult problem. Solutions to all of those go along with ending carbon emissions. That enough for starters?


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> If it wasn't then I must assume that you were being either mischievous or alarmist in referring to runaway global warming. That was Venus. Earth is not Venus.



Ahem!

Alarmists use the term "runaway global warming" very often in reference to earth:

For example, from the Socialist Fabian Daily: "If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said.

More here http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=runaway+global+warming



> Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem. Repairing water and soil degraded by industry and industrial agriculture is a gargantuan problem. Ending the stream of non-degradeable plastics into the oceans and finding practical ways to get the stuff out again, not to mention restoring the historical chemistry of the oceans, is profoundly difficult problem. Solutions to all of those go along with ending carbon emissions. That enough for starters?




While pushing an obvious ruse, people will not listen, IOW environmentalists are addressing this the wrong way round. People who believe in AGW think they're helping by buying Toyota Piouses and mercury laden "eco" bulbs; while not really helping with carbon emissions they add profoundly to pollution.

Kinda dumb if you ask me.

Yes carbon emissions will drop in response to addressing these other problems, but as this is not a primary problem, the effect will not be noticeable.

A cleaner more sustainable world will be.


----------



## mccollr

Found this interesting ......



Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary. 



Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress, that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus ''human-caused'' climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention ''Global Warming'' any more, but just ''Climate Change'' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme (that whopping new tax)
imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?


----------



## derty

mccollr said:


> bla bla bla



You have just pasted up a viral email that has been doing the rounds for a year or so. 

It's bunkum. Look here,  here,  and here.

The reduction in CO2 from the aircraft grounded by the eruption was greater than the amount of CO2 emitted by the volcano during the grounding period. Look here.

Plimer was shown to be  wrong in his statements regarding volcanic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

From the US Geological Survey: Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem.



To the extent that some suggest shifting from coal to gas for electricity generation so as to cut CO2, they are making any solution to the oil problem dramatically harder given that gas is really all we've got in that regard. 

That's one of my major objections to the various proposals to cut CO2 emissions - they seek to use up the world's gas resources at a truly shocking rate, thus depriving future generations not only of natural gas as a fuel but also of the by-products such as helium.

A more rational approach in my opinion would be to focus on reducing fossil fuel use as such, thus achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions and the other side effects of fossil fuel use without creating an incentive to squander all the gas.


----------



## bandicoot76

derty said:


> You have just pasted up a viral email that has been doing the rounds for a year or so.
> 
> It's bunkum. Look here,  here,  and here.
> 
> The reduction in CO2 from the aircraft grounded by the eruption was greater than the amount of CO2 emitted by the volcano during the grounding period. Look here.
> 
> 
> Plimer was shown to be  wrong in his statements regarding volcanic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> 
> From the US Geological Survey: Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.




i would take the word of a world-renowned vulcanoligist/geologist like professor ian plimer over a bunch of self serving, talking-head twats anyday... 

none of the b/s, theory/modelling based info/links you post on here explains the practical realities of whats really happening in the 'real world' (confirmed by the satellite global temperature measurements) showing the earths temp has levelled off if not slightly decreased in the past decade. you keep posting B/S links from B/S sources that are about as reliable/truthfull as mann's hockeystick...

reading your posts you remind me of a spanish inquisition priest, so certain of your position you  refuse to accept any other possibilities preferring blind faith & dogma over reason & sceptical thinking... well keep the faith brother derty... your gunna need it once ppl realise AGW/CC is all just one big money grabbing con! :

p/s: since you like your little links so much heres one for you to 'put on the rack' 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjCjEH7X_MA&feature=youtube_gdata


----------



## derty

bandicoot76 said:


> i would take the word of a world-renowned vulcanoligist/geologist like professor ian plimer over a bunch of self serving, talking-head twats anyday...



 I am a geologist myself. I liked Plimer's work against the creationists. But he did become a bit obsessive during the process. He can also be quite dogmatic. The Mt Isa area has been subject to a widespread and voluminous Na-Ca metasomatic alteration event and even with the isotopic, stratigraphic, chemical and textural evidence in support of the event Plimer refused to budge from his existing theory that the rocks were evaporites. His global warming book has some very sloppy science in it, the claim that volcanic CO2 dwarfs human emissions being just one of them. He has been asked to justify many aspect of his book but to date has refused to do so. Criticisms of his book aren't limited to climate scientists, former geological colleagues of his have also been scathing. 



bandicoot76 said:


> none of the b/s, theory/modelling based info/links you post on here explains the practical realities of whats really happening in the 'real world' (confirmed by the satellite global temperature measurements) showing the earths temp has levelled off if not slightly decreased in the past decade. you keep posting B/S links from B/S sources that are about as reliable/truthfull as mann's hockeystick...



Which b/s theory/modelling links have I posted? Most journal papers are behind pay walls so if one is to provide a link the only option is often to an article that discusses a paper. 

The temperature does appear to have flattened off somewhat over the last decade (ignoring 1998). The surface and satellite data agree coincide on this.  However, the last decade contains 9 of the 10 hottest years since the 1880's so one can hardly say it is getting cooler when you look at decadal trends. 







As for Mann's hockey stick, if it was just the tree ring proxy data that displayed it then there might be a case. But as the hockey stick anomaly is supported by multiple non-tree ring proxies it does tend to throw weight behind it. 




bandicoot76 said:


> reading your posts you remind me of a spanish inquisition priest, so certain of your position you  refuse to accept any other possibilities preferring blind faith & dogma over reason & sceptical thinking... well keep the faith brother derty... your gunna need it once ppl realise AGW/CC is all just one big money grabbing con! :



I'm not sure where you are coming from here. I always try to remain rational and refrain from accusatory language. I think the science is largely correct. Sure there are uncertainties but in science things are rarely black and white, especially when this complex. I generally avoid referencing predictive models and prefer to just look at what the trends are. And the trend is that of a warming Earth and the current understanding of the physical dynamics of the Earth by the bulk of the scientific community cannot account for the warming without considering CO2. 

As for the religious accusations. I tend to see it the other way. Especially when you keep seeing the same old debunked objections being trotted out as fact. Faith is continuing to believe the proclamations of discredited charlatans such as Monckton et.al. I stick a lot of the 'denialsphere' up on the shelf with the Flat Earthers and Creationists. Sure there is some good critical work going on and it serves to ensure that the science is more precise and robust but most of it is just ideological driven people with little to no real understanding of what they are talking about regurgitating tired old memes. 

However, before you pop a blood vessel. I think the apocalyptic doom-spreaders are just as guilty as those above.

I'm not sure why that because I largely think the science is correct it is assumed that I am automatically a card carrying greenie pinko.



bandicoot76 said:


> p/s: since you like your little links so much heres one for you to 'put on the rack'
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjCjEH7X_MA&feature=youtube_gdata



I prefer to support my statements with references rather than make unsubstantiated claims.

You might be surprised that I agree with most of the utube clip. He supports AGW, doesn't think that there is any realistic way we will be able to cut emissions and effect the temperature, that we are locked into a projected rise even with a cut in emissions and that the whole process is now politicised and perverted. Cheers


----------



## basilio

Nice work Derty. Good to see some of the misinformation that is being picked up and  promoted clarified.

The statement by Plimer that volcanoes are the major emitters of greenhouse gases was, as you point out,  one of the most easily provable errors in his book. Shame it keeps getting passed around.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> The temperature does appear to have flattened off somewhat over the last decade (ignoring 1998). The surface and satellite data agree coincide on this.  However, the last decade contains 9 of the 10 hottest years since the 1880's so one can hardly say it is getting cooler when you look at decadal trends.




And the cause of the medieval warming period? Ah, that's right it was replaced by the Hockey Stick.....




> As for Mann's hockey stick, if it was just the tree ring proxy data that displayed it then there might be a case. But as the hockey stick anomaly is supported by multiple non-tree ring proxies it does tend to throw weight behind it.




Yes, it's so credible that it's splashed up everywhere I look. Oh, except for the department of climate change that took it down off their website when the hockey stick was discredited. Yup, plenty of weight behind it.

Sorry Derty, there's been so much obvious corruption in pushing the AGW agenda as a cash and control grab that neither you - a complete non-expert or even the so-called gravy train AGW "experts" have any credibility left. Hence, you simply don't need to be an expert in climate science to see how corrupt the AGW pushers are.

Nice post btw, not confrontational and trying the softer side of AGW alarmism. Perhaps in your next post you could also call out the corruption in the AGW "science" to provide some real substance to your views and perhaps offer some ideas how to bring back credibility to Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption (or whatever is the current politically correct term).


----------



## Knobby22

Yep, corruption is a problem in this debate. Follow the money!

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/


----------



## bandicoot76

derty said:


> You might be surprised that I agree with most of the utube clip. He supports AGW, doesn't think that there is any realistic way we will be able to cut emissions and effect the temperature, that we are locked into a projected rise even with a cut in emissions and that the whole process is now politicised and perverted. Cheers




you are correct i am surprised that you agree with that presentation. maybe i miss-interpret your posts, to me they come across in the al gore-ish "the sciene is settled there shall be no dissent" theme, perhaps i am being over-reactionary but i shall leave you with a quote from US senator Ron Paul that sums up my feelings exactly:

"[radical enviromentalism]has created such a poisoned atmosphere of political correctness that any questioning or dissent on the science used to support [their] position is ridiculed and written off as crazy talk. even reputable scientists who question the assumption and data used are not afforded the slightest respect regardless of the authenticity of their challenges"

i am not a scientist, i started out with an open mind on the CO2 debate but have found that to me the evidence doesnt stack up to prove significant AGW! i draw my objections to the theory from my own observations having travelled extensively both domestically and internationally, from talking to ppl from these places and hearing their local knowledge, from reading every bit of information i can lay my hands on from both sides of the debate and analizing it using my practical engineering background thought processes, from my family's records that show the hottest period by far in this area to be the 1940's, and from the devious, manipulative and dishonest behavior of the climate change gravy train including gore, mann etc... 

any smart investor knows the quote "beware the hard sell" well carbon tax/ trading etc is being sold hard.... and dirty!


----------



## noco

OzWaveGuy said:


> This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.





Very interesting in deed. 

How do we send a copy to Gillard and Combet.

Kevin 11 is also tied up with the UN on Climate Change and corruption in the UN is rife. A relation of mine has been involved with the UN for over twenty years and the stories he told me just last week is mind bogling.

There is little doubt the UN want a world Government and they are trying to attain their objectives by devious means and Climate Change (GLOBAL WARMING) is high on their agenda with support from the GREENS.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Yep, corruption is a problem in this debate. Follow the money!
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/




Hah! Greenpeace has just lost its charity status here as it has been (correctly) deemed a political organisation.

Follow the money indeed. Your inference here is analogous to claiming that only the Liberal party receive donations from vested interests. A laughable and astonishingly naive stance to take.

Yep! Follow the money.


----------



## basilio

> Yep! Follow the money.




Absolutely right Wayne old boy. Absolutely bloody right.,

And if you actually decided to have a look at what Greenpeace has discovered we could all recognise the wonderful job that the myriad of  sock puppet organisations do dancing to the tune of the Koch brothers and their partners in  planetary rape and pillage.

"Wonderful"  of course if we accept that repeated lies and  misinformation in the cause of of destroying  appropriate  responses to  the very real problems *identified by the broadest scientific community over the past 20 years*  is a good thing.

That is the crux of the issue Wayne et al. If you throw enough oil money you can certainly find some scientists and plenty of  sociopathic PR hacks  who will  blow dust in your eyes and come up with either imaginary, distorted or in some cases  real issues with the vast majority of research done by climate scientists.  But if you had a serious illness and 98 doctors said you needed immediate surgery to deal with problem but 2 say "nay,  it'll go away next year" how willing would you be to take the word of the last 2 ? 

It's worth quoting a little of what Greenpeace has found out about the Koch brothers financing  the scores of sock puppet sites that promote the  distortions that are regularly paraded in these forums. 


> *Case Studies: How Does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate?*
> 
> From our 2011 report update:
> 
> Koch Front Groups Attack RGGI—The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
> Koch Industries Backs California Proposition 23
> The Kochtopus Media Network
> 
> 
> From our 2010 report:
> 
> The Koch-funded "ClimateGate" Echo Chamber
> Polar Bear Junk Science and Koch Industries
> The "Spanish Study" on Green Jobs and Koch Industries
> The "Danish Study" on Wind Power and Koch Industries
> Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims
> 
> 
> The Koch brothers, their family members, and their employees direct a web of financing that supports conservative special interest groups and think-tanks, with a strong focus on fighting environmental regulation, opposing clean energy legislation, and easing limits on industrial pollution. This money is typically funneled through one of three "charitable" foundations the Kochs have set up: the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.
> 
> Download our previous report (2010)
> 
> Executive Summary - Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (PDF)
> Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (PDF)
> 
> Other resources:
> 
> Koch Industries profile on SourceWatch, a wiki project of the Center for Media and Democracy
> Ongoing blog content on Koch Industries from ThinkProgress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund
> Center for American Progress Action Fund report: The Koch Brothers: What You Need to Know about the Financiers of the Radical Right [PDF]
> Center for Public Integrity report on Koch federal lobbying activity: Koch’s Web of Influence
> Common Cause resources from the Uncloaking the Kochs protest during Koch’s secret strategy meeting in Rancho Mirage, California.
> Ongoing reporting on the Koch brothers from Alternet
> Ongoing reporting on the Koch brothers from The Exiled




The page details *39 organizations* that the Koch brothers have funded since 1997 with a view to discrediting the work of climate scientists and challenging actions intended to reduce pollution or other environmental damage *to protect their multi billion dollar investments.
*

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> The page details *39 organizations* that the Koch brothers have funded since 1997 with a view to discrediting the work of climate scientists




Thank God someones on the ball, and also counter Greenpeace propaganda.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio,

My point went straight over the top of your head exposing a raging cognitive bias. 

I can accept that there is oil money involved in the debate... of course there is. But there is stacks of money exclusively for supporting the AGW hypothesis.

This is a point you seem unable to accept.


----------



## basilio

Simple Wayne et al.  Oil money supports misinformation, lies and distortion to protectr it's  considerable interests. Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment. It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting

We saw all this for 50 years when the tobacco industry funded  it's own pet liars to discredit the evermounting evidence of smoking based deaths. We see it whenever one of the pet liars funded by the oil industry throws up a piece of drivel that has been comprehensively proven to be wrong. The most recent example on this forum of course was the comment about volcanoes being the major source if greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Simple Wayne et al.  Oil money supports misinformation, lies and distortion to protectr it's  considerable interests.




Basilio,

Misinformation is easily exposed as such. It is counterproductive to the case being promoted as it destroys it's own credibility.



> Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment.




That's what it is supposed to do, but in too many cases this is not what is happening. Experiment/model design skewed to obtain a particular result and/or biased conclusions are drawn to ensure continued funding.

Science has lost its integrity and ergo, the trust of the public... deservedly, tragically.



> It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting




It has been well documented that this purported "cross checking" has in fact been found wanting. Peer review is now viewed with suspicion.



> We saw all this for 50 years when the tobacco industry funded  it's own pet liars to discredit the evermounting evidence of smoking based deaths. We see it whenever one of the pet liars funded by the oil industry throws up a piece of drivel that has been comprehensively proven to be wrong.




A superb case in point. The tobacco industry trashed it's own reputation by playing those games.

The oil industry will do damage to the integrity of scientific debate by running interference. But the oil industry is merely the flip side of the coin to Gore, Hansen, Basilio, et al which is damaging the integrity of scientific debate as well.

As a result we now have a political debate with scientific soundbites thrown in, rather than a purely scientific debate. Your own rigid one sided and cognitively biased diatribes being fairly typical of this.


----------



## basilio

> Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment. *It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting*




Wayne, I have  requoted my statement with the important bits bolded.

The scientific research on global warming is closely monitored by other scientists. If there are problems with the  figures or the reasoning then peer reviews are there to pick up anomalies.

It is also an evolving field  with extra information being added all the time. I don't think anyone would say everything is known.

*But what is believed at this stage with a very high degree of certainty is that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of excessive  man produced  greenhouse gases  (CO2 and others) *  And extrapolating from that the extra warmth is going to  severely degrade the quality of current life which has evolved to live in certain climatic parameters.

I have watched this evolving  knowledge and debate since the 90's. Over that time  the global warming science has filled in more and more of the gaps, learnt more about past climatic records and measured temperature increases and changes around the world. It appears that almost all this information is confirming the original hypothesis that extra CO2 is warming the earth (in exactly the same way as the original CO2 created a warmer earth)

On the other side of the discussion I can identify a wide range of strategies to dispute the Global Warming hypothesis. "It's the sun" " CO2 is good for us - it can't possibly be harmful" "Volcanoes are the problem" "The weather stations are badly sited". 

Then there will be preposterous fabrications like Lord Monckton who simply and literally makes up statements that have absolutely no factual basis and with a supremely confident swagger tries to pull off bare faced lies. There is Plimer who writes books again with clear  factual errors (volcanoes being only one) and still manges to be endlessly believed and quoted. (Basically because a swath of oil funded  sock puppets will  quote him endlessly to say absolutely anything they can to create uncertainty)

I agree with you Wayne that this has now become a "political" issue. What that means it seems is that  victory for an idea will be won or lost on the pressure and noise that can be brought to  bear on the argument rather than an accurate appraisal of evidence. And we don't get much bigger money or pressure than the fossil fuel industry.

But in the end nature bats last.

____________________________________________________________________

And by the way lets be clear about what the tobacco industry was doing for 50 years.  They were totally aware smoking was addictive and caused cancer. They just were not prepared to loss a very lucrative business just because it was killing people and did whatever it took in the way of lies and misinformation to stop public acknowledgment of these facts. There were always liars and killers peddling addictive cancer sticks.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> The scientific research on global warming is closely monitored by other scientists. If there are problems with the  figures or the reasoning then peer reviews are there to pick up anomalies.



How can we have complete confidence in this when many of the so called peer review publications simply refuse to accept opinions which contradict the popular ideology?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> *But what is believed at this stage with a very high degree of certainty is that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of excessive  man produced  greenhouse gases  (CO2 and others) *  And extrapolating from that the extra warmth is going to  severely degrade the quality of current life which has evolved to live in certain climatic parameters.




And this is the crux of the matter. The most reasonable scientific opinion agrees that additional GH gases will cause warming, but that it has been grossly overstated/exaggerated.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

This may be a silly question...but, have the folks on this thread that preach AGW to the rest of us actually changed their lifestyle in order to reduce CO2 "pollution"?

It's a simple question, but I wonder if the answers (if any) will be honest?

For example..

Do you still use Heating in winter and cooling in summer?
Do you still use a motor vehicle?
What changes in your diet have you made? Do you still consume meat?
What powers the PC you use to connect to the Internet?
Do you invest in only so called "Green" Companies?
Any other changes you have personally made?
How do these changes impact you and the rest of your family?

The reason I ask is because I see so many "idols" of the AGW movement with multiple methods of transport including private jets and owning multiple large homes. Therefore are warmists simply telling us what we should do without actually doing it themselves?

And yes, if you have solar, then you can mention that - even though it's the taxpayer that has actually funded the subsidy.

Interested to specifically hear from Knobby, Basilo, Derty etc


----------



## Calliope

What is certainty to Bazzo is usually just propaganda to those who don't share his fundamentalist beliefs.



> But what is believed at this stage with *a very high degree of certainty *is that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of excessive man produced greenhouse gases (CO2 and others)


----------



## bandicoot76

basilio said:


> Simple Wayne et al.  Oil money supports misinformation, lies and distortion to protectr it's  considerable interests. QUOTE]
> 
> before going down the "oil money corrupting science" path you should actually follow the money trail a little further....
> 
> 1)i would suggest you research who the big winners were out of the european carbon trading system debacle... the environment? NO, there has been no significant CO2 drop... it was the big oil companies & banks who made a fortune by trading their carbon credits on a volatile carbon market, manipulating the very scheme that was supposed to regulate them!... so if this trend were to be repeated in carbon schemes worldwide why would they be behind trying to stop it when its a cash cow for them????
> 
> 
> 2) as well as this, also continue digging to find out who actually owns the oil companies? i would also suggest you will find names such as rothschilds, rockefellers, morgans etc and the dutch & british royal families to name but a few... then check who donates to greenpeace, WWF etc... you will find the same ppl! they have a foot in both camps... if oil loses to carbon trading they win! if oil wins out over carbon trading... they win... a win win situation for the money-men behind the scenes whichever way the dice rolls! you dont have to believe me, its pretty easy to check as its all on public record


----------



## bandicoot76

Calliope said:


> What is certainty to Bazzo is usually just propaganda to those who don't share his fundamentalist beliefs.




agreed!!.... the world is rapidly warming? hmmm didnt talking-head AGW zealot tim flannerry just come out and say something along the lines that the warming wont be felt for another thousand years and then only 0.07%? (i cant remember if that was the exact comment as i only saw a snippet of the interview on tv a few nights ago so please feel free to correct me if im wrong) 

the posturing of mr flannery is one of the reasons i am an AGW skeptic, one minute hes saying AGW is causing drought & the murray basin wont have rainfall because of CC, then when the drought breaks, NSW & QLD have widespread rains thus flooding so he's saying its AGW/CC is causing these floods...totally negating his previous "murray dustbowl" statement... now because the data shows no significant warming for the decade his position changes again to 'wont affect anyone for another 1000yrs' its this duplicity & manipulation of facts from idiots like gore, flannery, garnaut etc that re-inforce the fact AGW/CC advocates cant be trusted!


----------



## basilio

Okay so how we we come to agreement on 


> The most reasonable scientific opinion agrees that additional GH gases will cause warming, but that it has been grossly overstated/exaggerated.  Wayne



or


> How can we have complete confidence in this when many of the so called peer review publications simply refuse to accept opinions which contradict the popular ideology? Julia




My point of reference is the 98% plus research from climate scientists that with a very large degree of agreement sees the climate change models producing between 2-5 degrees of warming in the next century. On the here and how the measurements of global warming as shown in ocean temperature rises, increase in average temperatures changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures  see us on track for these changes. In fact there is a whole new review of global temperatures (partially funded by the Koch brothers !) that appears to be confirming these results.

I'm sure we can find some  people who will offer a more comforting scenario. But unfortunately almost all other scientists in the field seem to have  evidence that contradicts their view. 

With regard to current scientific journals that won't accept contrary opinions.. The point about peer review is that the presented paper need to stack up in terms of  its internal logic and the replicability of its research. My comments about the brazen lies of Lord Monckten are worth repeating here. When a person attempts to present material where he/she has falsified data or tried to change  the basis on which science is currently known to work then it will be impossible to accept the material. 

With regard to my own lifestyle. I don't wear a hairshirt . I keep warm in winter and stay out of the sun when it gets hot. There is no way I live as sustainably as I believe we all need to. But we are getting there. 

There are real contradictions in this field. From a current real science perspective it appears almost impossible to stop the effects of runaway global warming. We are just too far down the wrong road. I feel we are left with doing the best we can right now. It is certainly not conducive to a good frame of mind to continually focus on the next wave of research on global warming. 

The most constructive approach I can think of is undertaking the best no regrets actions that can reduce our overall environmental impact (realising that peak oil is well and truly here ) and improve the current quality of our lives without  creating more greenhouse gases and destruction. And maybe we could try to repair some of the world we have trashed ? 

I will offer some references for my comments.  (But if they contradict what you believe  or would like to believe will you take any notice ?)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/ 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

Perhaps this book is one of the references used to say that global warming is not actually happening at anything like the rate almost all other climate scientists are saying.The review  and the comments which cover the whole spectrum of the discussion are worth a look. 



> *Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’*
> Filed under:
> 
> Guest commentary from Steve Ghan
> 
> A good writer knows their audience, and Roy Spencer knows his. There are plenty of people who would love to hear a compelling argument for why no action is needed to mitigate global warming, and Spencer’s book “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” will give uncritical readers the argument they’ve been looking for. As Sarah Palin said, “while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather change”. That is really the essence of Roy’s argument.
> 
> What is the Great Blunder? According to his book, “a fundamental mistake has been made in previous interpretations of satellite data”…”a mix-up between cause and effect when analyzing cloud and temperature variations”.
> 
> Who made this mistake? Invariably, it is “the IPCC researchers”. He cites a couple of specific papers by Piers Forster, but finds no fault with them. So he casts aspersions into the wind.
> 
> .......Spencer does make a valid point about the potential for bias toward exaggerating problems because it can bring in more funding. We all must be wary of this. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the book market tends to financially reward a bias toward contrarianism.
> 
> But for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that “it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.” So much for weighing the evidence. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious.
> 
> Roy Spencer is respected for his remote sensing expertise, but the conclusions of his book are nothing like those in his JGR article. What a difference an audience can make.


----------



## bandicoot76

OzWaveGuy said:


> This may be a silly question...but, have the folks on this thread that preach AGW to the rest of us actually changed their lifestyle in order to reduce CO2 "pollution"?
> 
> It's a simple question, but I wonder if the answers (if any) will be honest?
> 
> For example..
> 
> Do you still use Heating in winter and cooling in summer?
> Do you still use a motor vehicle?
> What changes in your diet have you made? Do you still consume meat?
> What powers the PC you use to connect to the Internet?
> Do you invest in only so called "Green" Companies?
> Any other changes you have personally made?
> How do these changes impact you and the rest of your family?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I see so many "idols" of the AGW movement with multiple methods of transport including private jets and owning multiple large homes. Therefore are warmists simply telling us what we should do without actually doing it themselves?
> 
> And yes, if you have solar, then you can mention that - even though it's the taxpayer that has actually funded the subsidy.
> 
> Interested to specifically hear from Knobby, Basilo, Derty etc




lol.... nice post! if they follow the actions of their beloved spokesman al gore obviously not, gore was grilled by senator inhofe and it was interesting to see him squirm!... ok i'll try to find a link for you'se 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming032207.htm  its not the youtube video i wanted, i cant seem to find that link


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> My point of reference is the 98% plus research from climate scientists that with a very large degree of agreement sees the climate change models producing between 2-5 degrees of warming in the next century.




Er, models? The sames ones that can't get the past temperatures right? The whole case for AGW is based on models and not observed facts - it's laughable. There's a "skid row" of false predictions from the very same alarmists with "models", er, like, no more snow, arctic ice completely gone, rising sea levels that will swamp islands, 50M climate refugees - the list goes on....

So you still drive a car, eat red meat and use power? Getting there? How exactly? Sell your car, stop buying meat, switch off the TV and reduce your power to the bare essentials - you can do this today! What's stopping you exactly? Didn't you know we're on a tipping point? Or are you suggesting it's everyone else that should go AGW "extreme" whilst you preach about models?


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Er, models? The sames ones that can't get the past temperatures right? The whole case for AGW is based on models and not observed facts - it's laughable. There's a "skid row" of false predictions from the very same alarmists with "models", er, like, no more snow, arctic ice completely gone, rising sea levels that will swamp islands, 50M climate refugees - the list goes on....
> 
> So you still drive a car, eat red meat and use power? Getting there? How exactly? Sell your car, stop buying meat, switch off the TV and reduce your power to the bare essentials - you can do this today! What's stopping you exactly? Didn't you know we're on a tipping point? Or are you suggesting it's everyone else that should go AGW "extreme" whilst you preach about models?




Oh come on, just because a person may think that maybe we should be using energy more efficiently and avoid building more coal power stations if possible does not mean we should get around in grass skirts and live in caves. Geeez. It doesn't mean we have to vote Green or suddenly become socialists. It doesn't even mean we believe in a tipping point (I don't). It doesn't even mean we agree with this tax Labor is trying to set up. 

And just because you disagree doesn't mean that you won't use your recycling bin (I hope it doesn't). 

And when you say something is wrong give some evidence to support it rather than pulling stuff out of your proverbial and therby showing us the amazing intellect you are obviously so proud of. 

By the way, did anyone read the speech by Jac Nassar of BHP. He made some very salient points that Labor should take on board. They better listen to him because I think a broad based tax is a mistake and we should be targeting it much more.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Hah! Greenpeace has just lost its charity status here as it has been (correctly) deemed a political organisation.
> 
> Follow the money indeed. Your inference here is analogous to claiming that only the Liberal party receive donations from vested interests. A laughable and astonishingly naive stance to take.
> 
> Yep! Follow the money.




You can knock the source, fair enough, but what about disproving their provided facts. 
I don't know why you are bringing the Libs into it, it is just showing that a lot of the opposition is manufactured - through mis-information. The Libs and Labor are run by politicians - most of them party hacks, ex lawyers and ex teachers. They barely can understand most of the issues in my view, they just look at polls. I don't think donations comes into it -in Australia, the US is different as we all know what their politicians are like.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/sep/21/usnews.georgewbush

Oz wave guy keeps claiming that all the scientists have been corrupted - presumably by Greenpeace or someone  - to lie. Even Nasa. Just providing some balance to the argument. There is big money opposing it.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> You can knock the source, fair enough, but what about disproving their provided facts.



The purported facts in the article are not relevant to the science.



> I don't know why you are bringing the Libs into it, it is just showing that a lot of the opposition is manufactured - through mis-information. The Libs and Labor are run by politicians - most of them party hacks, ex lawyers and ex teachers. They barely can understand most of the issues in my view, they just look at polls. I don't think donations comes into it -in Australia, the US is different as we all know what their politicians are like.




Do you know what an analogy is? The Lib example was simply an analogy as clearly stated in my post.

SHEESHH!


----------



## wayneL

Sometimes when the JWs knock on my door and I'm bored, I'll invite them in for a chat.

This thread reminds me of the conversations I have with them... you see they have "proof" too.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Sometimes when the JWs knock on my door and I'm bored, I'll invite them in for a chat.
> 
> This thread reminds me of the conversations I have with them... you see they have "proof" too.




Another analogy with an obvious inference.

I won't argue this one.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Another analogy with an obvious inference.
> 
> I won't argue this one.




It's how Jesus taught also. :


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> It's how Jesus taught also. :




Touche!


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Perhaps I've overstepped. Maybe Climate scientist dependent on the AGW gravy train aren't corrupt after all, perhaps they're just misunderstood.

Your dollars have been used to correct any misunderstanding about climate "scientists"....



Has the climate establishment stooped so low that they can no longer use actual science to hold up Carbon Dioxide as a deadly "pollutant" - so a rap jingle will now do the trick? wtf.

Royal commission please.


----------



## basilio

Good little rap clip there Ozzie.  Maybe they are just saying they actually know what they talking about, that it's bloody serious and that the other  (whatevers) just don't know xxxx.

The discussion about exactly what I am doing to reduce my impact on the environment is a choice piece of misdirection. We all need to work in the same direction if we are going to make necessary changes.  But if it is left to a few earnest individuals to be the sacrificial lambs then their  environmental savings will simply be gobbled up by the the rest of the community. Ask yourself how many people would pay their taxes if it was voluntary activity ?  How about going on rations during a major war ? 

Even when we talk of national efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions we get the protests that our emissions are just too insignificant to make a difference. Which of course is why any proposed actions need to be universal. 

And by the way AGW model is now based on clearly recorded rises in global temperatures.  That is why the Berkley Project is pulling together every scrap of global temperature information to provide a final, independent imprimatur on what is  happening to our climate.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Sometimes when the JWs knock on my door and I'm bored, I'll invite them in for a chat.
> 
> This thread reminds me of the conversations I have with them... you see they have "proof" too.




I'm impressed ! Usually when I invite them in they run away screaming?


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Perhaps I've overstepped. Maybe Climate scientist dependent on the AGW gravy train aren't corrupt after all, perhaps they're just misunderstood.
> 
> Your dollars have been used to correct any misunderstanding about climate "scientists"....
> 
> 
> 
> Has the climate establishment stooped so low that they can no longer use actual science to hold up Carbon Dioxide as a deadly "pollutant" - so a rap jingle will now do the trick? wtf.
> 
> Royal commission please.





I'm not sure what it proves  ... had a good laugh..  I think they are trying to put it out there!!!

It does prove Scientist nerds can't rap.

Girl scientist nerds are a bit cute though.

I think it was a cry for help to put them in the media instead of the others - 
I liked the Alan Jones bit!!! 

Thanks Ozwaveguy for that. 

I don't think it proves your point that they are evil and corrupt though - maybe lame I'll agree with.  
Good try though!!!!


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> I don't think it proves your point that they are evil and corrupt though - maybe lame I'll agree with.




They promised us global warming. They lied.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> They promised us global warming. They lied.




Hey Calliope, I thought everyone agreed the world is warming - we were disagreeing with the causes and extent. 

Not happening?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The discussion about exactly what I am doing to reduce my impact on the environment is a choice piece of misdirection. We all need to work in the same direction if we are going to make necessary changes.  But if it is left to a few earnest individuals to be the sacrificial lambs then their  environmental savings will simply be gobbled up by the the rest of the community. Ask yourself how many people would pay their taxes if it was voluntary activity ?  How about going on rations during a major war ?
> 
> Even when we talk of national efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions we get the protests that our emissions are just too insignificant to make a difference. Which of course is why any proposed actions need to be universal.




In other words you're doing #### all? 



> And by the way AGW model is now based on clearly recorded rises in global temperatures.  That is why the Berkley Project is pulling together every scrap of global temperature information to provide a final, independent imprimatur on what is  happening to our climate.




And you believe it will be any more accurate that all previous failures?

BTW you mentioned "extrapolation" of data. You do realize this is an egregious mistake in analyzing chaotic systems such as economics, weather and... climate?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Today's discussions have been quite a good show and clearly demonstrates the problem the climate establishment has, for example:


the AGW alarmists in this thread are actually doing nothing significant themselves to reduce their own "deadly" CO2 footprint - which we already knew.
alarmists believe climate "scientists" are really climate scientist with no agenda (as long as they sing the AGW rap song)
alarmists believe "big oil" is de-railing the AGW climate train. Perhaps all of those here that aren't swayed by AGW propaganda are in fact on the take by "big oil". Where's my cheque?
and there's no corruption by the AGW establishment

So what's the problem the AGW folks have? *No credibility*

Knobby, Basilio, derty, post away all you want - you have nothing to give. It only makes your delusion  more obvious when you're not addressing the multitude of questions thru this thread regarding the corruption, the ever changing climate story and the lengths alarmists will go in convincing us all there's a drastic problem called carbon dioxide pollution.

How about creating your own thread titled "What we are doing to help the globe and all mankind", perhaps there will be some real discussion on innovations and ideas that do benefit us all. Or is that too hard and it's easier to pontificate the AGW scam to others?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Hey Calliope, I thought everyone agreed the world is warming




No. Everyone agrees that the climate changes. It's a cyclical thing. The earth warms - the earth cools.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> No. Everyone agrees that the climate changes. It's a cyclical thing. The earth warms - the earth cools.




Our third night of a bitter winter here in Townsville, projected 10deg C, then who can believe projections.

It is all weather.

gg


----------



## IFocus

OzWaveGuy said:


> Today's discussions have been quite a good show and clearly demonstrates the problem the climate establishment has, for example:
> 
> 
> the AGW alarmists in this thread are actually doing nothing significant themselves to reduce their own "deadly" CO2 footprint - which we already knew.
> alarmists believe climate "scientists" are really climate scientist with no agenda (as long as they sing the AGW rap song)
> alarmists believe "big oil" is de-railing the AGW climate train. Perhaps all of those here that aren't swayed by AGW propaganda are in fact on the take by "big oil". Where's my cheque?
> and there's no corruption by the AGW establishment
> 
> So what's the problem the AGW folks have? *No credibility*
> 
> Knobby, Basilio, derty, post away all you want - you have nothing to give. It only makes your delusion  more obvious when you're not addressing the multitude of questions thru this thread regarding the corruption, the ever changing climate story and the lengths alarmists will go in convincing us all there's a drastic problem called carbon dioxide pollution.
> 
> How about creating your own thread titled "What we are doing to help the globe and all mankind", perhaps there will be some real discussion on innovations and ideas that do benefit us all. Or is that too hard and it's easier to pontificate the AGW scam to others?





OWG when you attack the individual during a discussion.........its generally because you have nothing of substance to argue.

i.e. you become just another politician IMHO


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> OWG when you attack the individual during a discussion.........its generally because you have nothing of substance to argue.




Not if you attack the individual for talking rubbish.


----------



## Julia

bandicoot76 said:


> agreed!!.... the world is rapidly warming? hmmm didnt talking-head AGW zealot tim flannerry just come out and say something along the lines that the warming wont be felt for another thousand years and then only 0.07%? (i cant remember if that was the exact comment as i only saw a snippet of the interview on tv a few nights ago so please feel free to correct me if im wrong)
> 
> the posturing of mr flannery is one of the reasons i am an AGW skeptic, one minute hes saying AGW is causing drought & the murray basin wont have rainfall because of CC, then when the drought breaks, NSW & QLD have widespread rains thus flooding so he's saying its AGW/CC is causing these floods...totally negating his previous "murray dustbowl" statement... now because the data shows no significant warming for the decade his position changes again to 'wont affect anyone for another 1000yrs' its this duplicity & manipulation of facts from idiots like gore, flannery, garnaut etc that re-inforce the fact AGW/CC advocates cant be trusted!



Zackly.  Tim Flannery is a top example of the, um, 'flexibility' of views demonstrated by many so called experts.
I quite like Mr Flannery.  He has a sort of vague innocence.  I don't think he even realised how he was aiding the case of the sceptics when he pronounced any carbon tax in Australia, even if it were accompanied by similar action by the rest of the world, would be essentially meaningless for 1000 years, as described above.

Good that he was apparently honest enough to offer a candid assessment rather than continue to push the AGW barrow if he genuinely felt it inappropriate in this context.




Knobby22 said:


> Hey Calliope, I thought everyone agreed the world is warming - we were disagreeing with the causes and extent.
> 
> Not happening?



Hell no, Knobby.  It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming, but just you try and sell that to the masses to whom the whole climate change thing is yet another mighty tax grab, especially in the face of massively increasing cost of living, and way more importantly, the stupidity of imposing an economically punitive tax on Australia which will make no difference to the climate.
(acknowledge your earlier statement that you don't believe a carbon tax in Australia is appropriate.

Btw good to see some relatively good natured exchanges in this thread instead of multiple personal insults.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia;632724Hell no said:
			
		

> Remember the drought that was "proof" of global warming? Or that just about every hot day is used to make the same argument?
> 
> If it's hot then it must be due to CO2. If it's cold then that's just natural weather variation. Spot the bias - it's on just about every major media outlet whenever there is a significant weather event be it hot, cold, wet, dry or whatever.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> alarmists believe "big oil" is de-railing the AGW climate train. Perhaps all of those here that aren't swayed by AGW propaganda are in fact on the take by "big oil". Where's my cheque?




Hey, your not in the loop????

Didn't you know Basilio, Ifocus, derty, Wayne, Calliope, Julia and myself are all getting paid and doing quite well out of it. Where were you when the money was being handed out? You contributed quite well, I would get onto it if I was you. Good entertainment for the masses..  If we do well we might get a paid offer to appear on Bolts new show. I'm expecting to be the guy to be shot down in flames...hey its money.

By the way, Garpel Gumnut, I believe someone shouted you in a pub recently for no good reason?? That was your payment (better get an agent).


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Zackly.  Tim Flannery is a top example of the, um, 'flexibility' of views demonstrated by many so called experts.
> I quite like Mr Flannery.  He has a sort of vague innocence.  I don't think he even realised how he was aiding the case of the sceptics when he pronounced any carbon tax in Australia, even if it were accompanied by similar action by the rest of the world, would be essentially meaningless for 1000 years, as described above.
> 
> .




He didn't quite say that. But that was the best result - what about the worst result?



Julia said:


> Hell no, Knobby. It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
> Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming,
> .




Ah, its the weather not climate argument - hard to argue against. The record Mississipi floods aren't global warming influenced either. I'm prepared to wait a few more years and see what happens. Man is an adaptive species, we will cope in any case. plenty of zoos to hold the creatures that don't adapt and climate is just one of their problems in any case. 

I think there is a case to say that climate warming is flattening out a bit and has become more a linear effect than the expotential effect than that was thought would happen, so we have more time than we first thought. But, hey scientists are allowed to be a bit wrong - There not Gods walking the earth (like Rupert).


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Hey, your not in the loop????
> 
> Didn't you know Basilio, Ifocus, derty, Wayne, Calliope, Julia and myself are all getting paid and *doing quite well out of it.*




Speak for yourself I am having a hell of a time trying to survive on the $150K they keep giving me..........


----------



## OzWaveGuy

More cold weather and snow - It looks like the AGW alarmists were in fact right. Carbon Dioxide pollution is causing "extreme weather" events (again).

Can someone tell me what the models predict next? This is frightening.


----------



## basilio

Perhaps there are other places to look for  evidence of climate change than one day in Sydney ?

*Effects of climate change in the Arctic more extensive than expected*

– May 9, 2011

The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report. The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming...

 Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.

The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. *Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years.*

As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter – in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees. There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw. Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost. The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. *But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.*

Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.
*
The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent.* The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...e-in-the-arctic-more-extensive-than-expected/

Also a recent video from Nobel winning climate scientist Terry Callaghan covering this extensive research program.

http://media.theage.com.au/news/environment-news/climate-seeing-dramatic-change-2362785.html


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> And the cause of the medieval warming period? Ah, that's right it was replaced by the Hockey Stick.....
> 
> Yes, it's so credible that it's splashed up everywhere I look. Oh, except for the department of climate change that took it down off their website when the hockey stick was discredited. Yup, plenty of weight behind it.



You keep trotting out this 'the IPCC killed the MWP' and hockey stick has been discredited meme.

1. The graph displayed in the 1st IPCC report was a hand drawn schematic. The y-axis on the graph is dimensionless.
2. The data that the schematic was based on was collected in 1965, taken from a single site in Central England as 50 year averages. 
3. When newer and more widespread data became available new graphs were created. This data did not remove the MWP, it just reduced its magnitude and placed the peak of it around the 1950 levels.
4. Of the various attacks on the 'hockey stick' they have either been dismissed out of hand or the errors that have been found have not effected the main conclusions.
5. As stated before, post the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 'hockey stick', a swag of additional studies have been done using various different proxies and all, while confirming the presence of the MWP, do not have it exceeding the current temperature.




I did some cruising of WUWT and J.Nova sites and the two studies they have been showing as evidence of the MWP exceeding the current warm period, Loehle (2007) and Huang and Pollack (1997). The Loehle paper contains several temporally coarse datasets, datapoints that cannot be accurately dated and only 5 of the 18 datasets are thought to be valid to compare medieval and current temperatures. Loehle issued a correction in the Energy and Environment Trade Journal but did not address some of the main concerns raised about his paper.  The Huang data was later corrected by Huang himself in 2008 due to problems he found with the more recent of his data. However, the original data is still being used as evidence that MWP > CWP.

I did find a list that Jo Nova put up of a swag of articles presented on CO2 Science that state the MWP > CWP (current warm period). It all looks quite impressive on first view. Though after a bit of digging it was interesting to see some of the tactics used. The MWP was any high point in the data series that occurred between about 500AD and 1500AD, regardless of its duration, with the MWP's being separated by many 100's of years in some cases. The MWP was commonly within noise levels of the study and the data series commonly ended before the current day though are presented as evidence for the MWP exceeding the CWP. Graphs are presented where the author of the paper explicitly states that these data should not be used as a temperature proxy. One data series that displays the MWP approx equal to the CWP is picked out while the other 11 data series in the same paper that show the MWP < CWP are disregarded. Old papers are presented that have been superseded  by more recent research from the same area.

Why, if it is so clear cut, are all these tactics required?

Here is a graph as presented by the CO2 Science site.



And here is the graph as it appeared in the original paper. Note the removal of the 1997-2007 mean temp line as it appears in graph b. Why do they need to do this if it is so clear cut??


----------



## derty

Julia said:


> It's not yet even the middle of May - still autumn - and we are experiencing record low temperatures.
> Of course you and others will dismiss such interim anomalies as unworthy of consideration, and no indication of lack of global warming,






OzWaveGuy said:


> More cold weather and snow - It looks like the AGW alarmists were in fact right. Carbon Dioxide pollution is causing "extreme weather" events (again).




After political persuasion, the current weather is the most influential factor driving someone's current position on global warming.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110406161039.htm 



> ...surveyed about 1,200 people in the United States and Australia, and found that those who thought the current day was warmer than usual were more likely to believe in and feel concern about global warming than those who thought the day was unusually cold....
> 
> ...after controlling for the other factors, the researchers found that perceived temperatures still had nearly two-thirds the power as political belief, and six times the power as gender, to push someone one way or the other a notch along the scale....






OzWaveGuy said:


> Can someone tell me what the models predict next? This is frightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 42898



You would be wanting to speak to a meteorologist, they are the ones that predict the weather.


----------



## medicowallet

derty said:


> You would be wanting to speak to a meteorologist, they are the ones that predict the weather.




Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.


----------



## basilio

> Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.




Or you could look at the work of climate scientists who have been monitoring the rapid rate of climate change in the Arctic as per the earlier post.


----------



## macca

medicowallet said:


> Yes and the government think we should look to the IPCC, who have tried with multiple computer generated models to "predict" climate change and have failed miserably.




The IPCC reports were based on data supplied by East Anglia Uni, the same guy who fessed up in court that he had been altering the data.

He is now suspended from Uni while they work out what to do about it.

The UN sacked their auditor when he refused to pass the IPCC report so no wonder the report is wrong.

Imagine the hand wringing and uproar if a skeptic was found out altering the figures.

Not much noise about this or the fact that NZ BOM admitted in court they were altering the figures upwards as well.

AGW is a conspiracy to frighten the public into paying more taxes , simple !!


----------



## medicowallet

macca said:


> AGW is a conspiracy to frighten the public into paying more taxes , simple !!




Or is it a conspiracy to misdirect before peak oil occurs?

Who knows.

All I know is that the science is questionable.


----------



## trainspotter

Not just NZ either.



> A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.
> 
> The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been *adjusted up by 40%*. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.
> 
> Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)




http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/an...-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/


----------



## OzWaveGuy

It's spreading....extreme weather events continue to gather momentum due to increasing carbon dioxide pollution...That IPCC job should look good soon...


----------



## medicowallet

OzWaveGuy said:


> It's spreading....extreme weather events continue to gather momentum due to increasing carbon dioxide pollution...That IPCC job should look good soon...
> 
> View attachment 42919




phew

Lucky they changed it from global warming to climate change, otherwise the population might think that it is all a crock.


----------



## sails

From the HeraldSun: If it’s cold, it’s just weather



> If it had been the hottest instead, they’d have called it global warming


----------



## drsmith

trainspotter said:


> Not just NZ either.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/an...-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/



Interesting. Very interesring infact, but the unedited trend is still up, though not as much.

With regard to early winter cold spells (or individual heatwaves for that matter), they are not an accurate measure of climate variation (natural or otherwise). I would imagine that somewhere in the pages of this thread, this has been covered before.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

drsmith said:


> Interesting. Very interesring infact, but the unedited trend is still up, though not as much.
> 
> With regard to early winter cold spells (or individual heatwaves for that matter), they are not an accurate measure of climate variation (natural or otherwise). I would imagine that somewhere in the pages of this thread, this has been covered before.




Yes, the NIWA in New Zealand were caught red-handed tampering the temperature records....

*The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims New Zealand has been warming at 0.92 °C per 100 years.* But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data, they found that the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06 °C. They asked for answers and got nowhere, until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain or defend the adjustments.​
But as the AGW alarmists (who aren't changing their lifestyle in line with IPCC ideology) keep pointing out - there's simply no corruption in the AGW "science". They are in fact correct as one must open their eyes first to acknowledge it.


----------



## drsmith

OzWaveGuy said:


> But as the AGW alarmists (who aren't changing their lifestyle in line with IPCC ideology) keep pointing out - there's simply no corruption in the AGW "science". They are in fact correct as one must open their eyes first to acknowledge it.



Once science become politicised, or worse, religion as this has, there is always going to be corruption.


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> Once science become politicised, or worse, religion as this has, there is always going to be corruption.



That is precisely the problem with the whole debate. Few are reallyinterested in the science as such, it's all about politics.

If it's hot then it must be climate change. If it's cold then it's just weather...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Dodging issues is a AGW alarmists specialty...If the data doesn't match computer generated hypothesis - simply change the data and let the magic flow! A new Hockey Stick, New Zealand's NIWA magic temperature increases and magical sea level rises....

NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
Source:  Forbes
by James Taylor

Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
..
..
Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.​
And here's the justification from the Uni of Colorado:

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)​
Of course when all the reporting is rolled up, all such changes will be massaged to show that Sea Level changes are accelerating.

All I need now is a Royal Commission wand.


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Dodging issues is a AGW alarmists specialty...If the data doesn't match computer generated hypothesis - simply change the data and let the magic flow! A new Hockey Stick, New Zealand's NIWA magic temperature increases and magical sea level rises....
> 
> NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
> Source:  Forbes
> by James Taylor
> 
> Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.
> 
> Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
> ..
> ..
> Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.​
> And here's the justification from the Uni of Colorado:
> 
> One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)​
> Of course when all the reporting is rolled up, all such changes will be massaged to show that Sea Level changes are accelerating.
> 
> All I need now is a Royal Commission wand.



I'm not sure why isostatic adjustments are only being accommodated in the data now. I would have assumed that they would have been part of the regular calculations. 

Isostasy or isostatic rebound is a real phenomena OWG. They aren't just making this all up so they can add some numbers to the sea level data. The uplift of the land due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is measurable with the most recent data collection being done by the GRACE program satellites and GPS networks. Rebound rates in some places are still occurring at a rate of around 1cm/year. The British Isles have lifted approx 50m since the last glacial maximum.

Even just building a decent sized dam will cause the land surface to subside or force an isostatic adjustment.

Isostasy


> Isostasy (Greek Ã­sos "equal", stÃ¡sis "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways.




Glacial Isostatic Adjustment


> During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. *Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.*


----------



## macca

So if the Earths surface is rising we don't need to worry do we !!

All these adjustments are always UP, or pro panic, never seen one yet that is down.

I have this funny feeling that back in the 70s when the climate people were screaming "ice age coming" (some of them are the same people, just older) these lying alarmists would have been adjusting figures down.

Now they adjust them up, so now they compare figures that have been adjusted up to figures from the 70s that were adjusted down and say "we need more research money"

What a rort.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
> During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.




Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago. 

I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.

So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I
> Even just building a decent sized dam will cause the land surface to subside or force an isostatic adjustment.




However this is not factored in when alarmists trumpet the plight of low lying islands, blaming sea level rises when in fact it is land use which is the problem.

Isostatic adjustments seem to be selectively applied.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.
> 
> I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
> 
> :




You must know you are talking nonsense. Think about what you are writing before you write it.


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.
> 
> I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
> 
> So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?




lol, you spend all this time regurgitating the anti-AGW meme's. Discount out of hand any rational explanation presented to you. All while displaying that you have no real understanding of any of the basic history, cycles and processes of the Earth. No wonder all this stuff you post up seems rational to you.

Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these cold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.

These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.

The Milankovitch Cycles


----------



## basilio

> Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these gold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.
> 
> These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.
> 
> The Milankovitch Cycles




That was a really interesting and useful segue Derty.  Well worth refreshing the memory on the Milankovitch cycles as one of the factors in creating the climactic conditions on earth.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> However this is not factored in when alarmists trumpet the plight of low lying islands, blaming sea level rises when in fact it is land use which is the problem.
> 
> Isostatic adjustments seem to be selectively applied.



The isostatic adjustment does not occur uniformly. Some bits go up quickly, some bits more slowly and some parts are going down. Also due to the redistribution of magma post the ice age the *prevailing adjustment of the ocean floors is down* (in contrast to the continents which is up).  

So yes you are right a component of the sea level rise we see in these low lying islands is due to isostasy which gives them a double whammy as it is cumulative with sea level rise. And yes it is something that the 'alarmists' either don't pass on, or more likely are unaware of when regurgitating the more catastrophic predictions. 

Locally sea level and sea level rise is an extremely complicated thing to measure. There is istostasy, thermal expansion, tides, the effect of prevailing winds piling up water e.t.c. With the isostatic adjustment the calculation is that the average effect is to mask sea level rise by 0.3mm/yr due to lifting continental crust.


----------



## bandicoot76

heres a passage that sums up my feelings toward AGW zealots pretty well:

"special interests can think of the most ingenious reasons why they should be the objects of special solicitude.their spokesmen present a plan in their favour; and it seems at first so absurd that disinterested [parties} do not trouble to expose it. 

but the special interests keep on insisting on the scheme. its enactment would make so much difference to their own immediate welfare that they can afford to hire trained [professionals] and public relations experts to propagate it on their behalf. 

the public hears the argument so often repeated, and accompanied by such a wealth of imposing statistics,charts, curves and pie-slices, that it is soon taken in.when at last the disinterested [parties] recognize that the danger of the schemes enactment is real, they are usually too late! 

they cannot in a few weeks acquaint themselves with the subject as thoroughly as the hired brains who have been devoting their time to it for years; they are accused of being uninformed, and they have the air of men who presume to dispute axioms."


----------



## basilio

Bandicoot that little story is a fitting description of the lobbying talents of  say the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, financial planners an a few other assorted spivs.

Perhaps it worth appreciating just how far off the mark  global warming deniers are.

In America Congress called for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to investigate climate change and provide detailed scientific advice for Congress.

So they did just that and what did they say ?  The Washington Post in an editorial outlined the essentials of the report.



> *Climate change denial becomes harder to justify*
> 
> By Editorial, Published: May 16
> 
> *“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”*
> 
> So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.
> 
> *In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action. And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system.* That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.
> 
> None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.
> 
> *Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists, Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the causes uncertain.
> 
> Not so, says the National Research Council. “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”
> 
> Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.*




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...der-to-justify/2011/05/13/AF44QQ4G_story.html

Are we supposed to accept that the whole Science community is so corrupt, or stupid or self interested that it can manage to  get this issue so totally wrong ?  Is it worth thinking about ?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

As with the AGW alarmists on this thread who aren't too concerned about corruption, falsifying temperature records and who also avoid making any changes to their own lifestyle to reduce the "killer" CO2 are joined by most of the government's ministers....


THE Federal Government is proving to be full of hot air when it comes to slashing greenhouse gases, with just two out of 20 Cabinet ministers choosing fuel-efficient “hybrid” cars.

    Despite insisting Australia must reduce carbon emissions, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet are among scores of Labor MPs driving gas-guzzlers.​
In just 2 years, the Global Warming scam is on a "tipping point" as the clear minded individual can see thru the propaganda that simply results in more taxes and leaving the world's temperatures unchanged.

The real questions is: Have we headed into a cooling trend that may adversely impact economies and food production? (AGW alarmists need not answer, I think we already understand your pov)


----------



## tothemax6

bandicoot76 said:


> the public hears the argument so often repeated, and accompanied by such a wealth of imposing statistics,charts, curves and pie-slices, that it is soon taken in.when at last the disinterested [parties] recognize that the danger of the schemes enactment is real, they are usually too late!
> 
> they cannot in a few weeks acquaint themselves with the subject as thoroughly as the hired brains who have been devoting their time to it for years; they are accused of being uninformed, and they have the air of men who presume to dispute axioms."



Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

This should get interesting.....a challenge to AGW scientists and Government....

Alan Jones speaks to Malcolm Roberts, the project director of the Galileo Movement. For more information, visit www.galileomovement.com.au​.

It looks like Malcolm is still waiting for an answer on actual evidence that man made CO2 impacts temperatures.....no answers yet from the so called AGW experts. Perhaps the non-experts here with coloured graphs from models can send Malcolm the answer.


----------



## bandicoot76

tothemax6 said:


> Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?




i'm not even sure there is a problem that requires a solution mate, to me the sunspot variation/solar wind interaction theory makes the most sense, it never gets any airtime though so most ppl have never even heard of it... but thats my own personal bias... its what makes sense to me... 

it doesnt mean its the definative answer, maybe there is no definative answer maybe the global temps slight trend upwards over the past few decades is a combination of 10000 different variants all combined, maybe its part of a cycle that hasnt been identified yet, i remain VERY sceptical that man made CO2 is the cause however! 

no matter how many times i go over the 'man made carbon is the one and only climate forcing element' statement sprouted by the AGW faithful it never computes in my head and doesnt seem logical... again i point out that i have an engineering background not a scientific one so maybe it does go over my head abit, but when i start to feel this way i look at the lack of honesty and morality and unethical behavior of the ppl pushing it (gore, garnaut, flannery, mann, jones etc etc) and the exagerations they put forward and my scepticism suddenly returns tenfold!

HOWEVER ,NO MATTER THE SCIENCE, AT THE END OF THE DAY HOW HAS A TAX EVER  SOLVED A PROBLEM OR EVER  HELPED ANYONE OTHER THAN PARASITIC GOVERNMENTS?


----------



## bandicoot76

tothemax6 said:


> Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?




sorry i think i took your quote in the wrong context, at first i thought you meant: 'solution to global warming'  

however re-reading your post i think you meant: 'how do sceptics counter the AGW propaganda machine?'

if its the latter then thats a pretty hard question to answer! i guess keep an open mind, read as much information on the subject FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE that you can get your hands on and basically keep an open mind... 

i think the main difference between sceptics and believers is that believers think the science is settled and must be acted on, whereas sceptics are unconvinced so therefore think its far from it and should be investigated more before taking possibly costly & unwarranted action (keep in mind flannerys comment that it probably wont affect ppl for another 1000yrs regardless of a carbon tax)

 .... of the 2 positions who do you think is more keeping an open mind? 

so back to the point, my solution, hmmm...research the sh*t out of it then go with your gut feeling, if you feel strongly about it then bring up the subject with as many ppl as you can and have an informed discussion presenting facts to back your position, AGW dissent has to be done from a grass-roots position of power cos your gunna get SFA support from the media, tax-dollar hungry pollies and the rest of the establishment... cos lets face it, no matter the science... tHEY ALL WANT TO MILK THE FAT CARBON CASH COW!


----------



## basilio

AGW alarmists.... So that obviously includes the whole body of scientists represented by the the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The falsified evidence is the sum total of thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists over 30 years. The scientific basis for this concern - that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been proven to trap heat from the sun. This too must be some sort of mistake.

Bandicoot you say you have an engineering background. Is it even remotely feasible that in engineering circles there could ever be such a total mistake of understanding ? That hundreds of engineering scientists could collectively conspire to fabricate evidence to come to a totally wrong headed conclusion ?  

Can anyone else conceive of any other scientific field - medicine for example where such a long term and  monumental error occurred ? 

And yet on an issue where we all face quite horrendous consequences if we don't act you insist this whole scientific community is wrong, fraudulent and mischievous.

Crazy stuff folks.  But I can still totally understand why you cannot even consider the remotest possibility that the scientists represented by the National Research Council (and many others ) might actually know what they are talking about.

Because what they are saying is not an attractive look is it ?  And if we really did take it seriously we would have to realistically face some huge consequences - which of course very few of us actually want to recognise


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> AGW alarmists.... So that obviously includes the whole body of scientists represented by the the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The falsified evidence is the sum total of thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists over 30 years.(




"Hundreds of Scientists"? Perhaps I have misunderstood - from the previous PM who also is an alarmist, I thought there were "4000 scientists" at the IPCC in white coats running around measuring "things". And from the IPCC - 2500 scientists agreed that man is causing unprecedented warming. So we've now dropped from several thousand to a few hundred?

It kinda sounds like rats leaving a sinking ship. Demand more cheese to encourage them back.


----------



## bandicoot76

basilio said:


> .
> 
> And yet on an issue where we all face quite horrendous consequences if we don't act you insist this whole scientific community is wrong, fraudulent and mischievous.




did you even read my post? where did i insist 'the whole scientific community is wrong?' yes i did list some names of alarmists who are hypocrits, liars and frauds... ppl who exagerate the 'problem' for their own agenda, however... i believe i made the main point that the difference between alarmists and sceptics was that alarmists have taken the theory as gospel while sceptics have yet to be convincved. hardly an extreme viewpoint in my mind!

lol... the engineering field is changing constantly! what is an industry standard and accepted by everyone one day could very well become history if, when put in practice and studied over time, it is proved to be impractical, flawed or just plain wrong. flawed theorys tend to get swiftly eradicated in the engineering field... i guess thats the difference between theory and practice, practical application weeds out the BS pretty quickly!

your post seems to indicate that you think the science is settled and no other 'climate driver' other than CO2 need be studied nor taken seriously?  
you are pushing the doomsdayers line of 'act now or perish' when the latest statement from your mob by tim flannery suggests that even acting now (introducing carbon tax) wont have any effect for 1000yrs & even then would be slight... so why the big rush? 

you have clearly made up your mind on the AGW issue, so be it... good for you... many of us have not, and we like to hear information from both sides before deciding on our position, not because we are 'paid off by big oil' or brainwashed by 'deniers' & 'conspiracy peddlers'... basically its because your mob hasnt convinced us yet! too much exageration & too many hypocrits on the bandwagon to be taken seriously at this stage... 

and 30yrs ago it was 'glogal cooling/beware the new ice-age' that was all the rage with the global climate scientific community... well i guess with abit of spin-doctoring that could be lumped under the 'climate change science' banner though couldnt it... not sure if you could string it out to cover AGW but! 

there have been scientific consensus's throughout history that, although fervently and unanimously agreed by [almost] all at the time to be true, have later proven to be false, yes even in the medical, engineering, physics etc etc fields! steven hawkings 'black hole event horizon information loss' theory springs to mind... but at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong! the eugenics theory also springs to mind... and it scares me a little that the remnants of the eugenics movement are up to their eyeballs in the AWG movement as well!


----------



## Knobby22

bandicoot76 said:


> \ and it scares me a little that the remnants of the eugenics movement are up to their eyeballs in the AWG movement as well!




Wow!!! Who?? Love to know. 

Also

What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??


----------



## bandicoot76

Knobby22 said:


> Wow!!! Who?? Love to know.
> 
> Also
> 
> What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??




maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ian r crane, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!

i dont follow english politics, the political system and politicians in general disgust me actually! i dont believe in the L vs R paradigm 'football match' style that politics in the west has degraded into... 

actually football match is too good...maybe WWF wrestling match would be more apt! anyhow my stance on politicians from both party's is the same...at the end of the day they all feed from the same trough!

 bottom line is i dont really care what the torys think about climate change, why would anyone?


----------



## bandicoot76

Knobby22 said:


> Wow!!! Who?? Love to know.
> 
> Also
> 
> What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??




if you want an english perspective (other than political) on climate change heres an article i found while researching the eugenics/AGW link :

_
This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.

Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.

Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.

Of course, the alarmists continue to argue””as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal””that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.

Like the UK parliamentary committee, which issued a report claiming that Phil Jones and the CRU’s scientific credibility remained intact after a rigorous one day hearing which featured no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice. After the release of the report, the committee stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by climategate and Phil Willis, the committee chairman admitted that the committee had rushed to put out a report before the British election.

Or the Oxburgh inquiry, chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International, an NGO-funded climate change legislation lobby group. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. Unsurprisingly, it found the climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct.

In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.

In December of that year, the UN’s Copenhagen climate talks broke down when a negotiating document was leaked showing that–contrary to all opininon- it would be the third world nations bearing the brunt of a new international climate treaty, with punishing restrictions on carbon emissions that would prevent them from ever industrializing. The document, written by industrialized nations, allowed the first world to emit twice as much carbon per person as the third world, and was widely seen as an implementation of a eugenical austerity program under a “green” cover. This agenda was further exposed by the influential Optimum Population Trust in the UK, which began arguing that same month that rich westerners offset their carbon footprints by funding programs to stop black people from breeding.

In January 2010, the United Nations’ much-lauded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began to fall apart as error after error began to emerge in this supposedly unassailable peer-reviewed, scientific document asserting human causation of catastrophic climate change. That month it was revealed that a passing comment to a journalist from an Indian climatologist that the Himalayan glaciers could melt within 40 years found its way into the much-touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report on climate change via a World Wildlife Fund fundraising pamphlet. When IPCC defenders tried to pass the universally derided prediction off as a legitimate mistake, the coordinating lead author of that section of the report admitted that the IPCC knew that the report was based on baseless speculation in a non-peer reviewed work, but included it because “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Also in January, the UK Information Commissioner ruled that researchers at the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with Freedom of Information requests, but that no criminal prosecution would follow because of a statute of limitations on prosecuting the illegal activity.

In February, the UK Guardian revealed that a key study co-authored by Phil Jones that purported to show there was no such thing as the well-researched Urban Heat Island effect was found to have relied on seriously flawed data. This, according to the Guardian, led to “apparent attempts to cover up problems with [the] temperature data.”

In September, John Holdren, the man who had previously advocated adding sterilizing agents to the water supply to combat the overpopulation problem which he thought would ravage the Earth by the year 2000, and who currently is the Science czar in the Obama White House, advocated a name change for global warming to “climate disruption,” further affirming the theory’s non-scientific status as an unfalsifiable prediction that anything that ever is due to manmade carbon dioxide.

Later that month, Britain’s prestigious Royal Society rewrote its climate change summary to admit that the science was infused with uncertainties and that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future…”

In October, a carbon reduction advocacy group called 10:10 released a video to promote its campaign in which those skeptical about participating in the program are literally blown up.

And just this month, Scientific American, a publication that has been noted for publishing increasingly alarmist reports about the reality and the dangers of manmade-2 induced global warming, a poll of its own readers that found over 77 believe natural processes to be the cause of climate change and almost 80 responded that they would not be willing to pay a single penny on schemes to “forestall” the supposed effects of supposedly-manmade global warming (warming that even climategate scientist Phil Jones now admits is no longer taking place).

The reports undermine the data, its sources, the scientific processes used, the scientists themselves, and their conclusions. It shows that the main temperature records that are used to determine the highly-problematic concept of the global mean temperature are in fact in the hands of scientists like Phil Jones and James Hansen with a direct stake in the continuation of the alarmist scare. When these scientists are questioned on the sources of their data they advocate deleting emails and even deleting data itself. They admit that key data underlying their calculations has already been deleted.

And yet, with all of this, they have the audacity to continue to suggest that there is overwhelming concensus on the “science” of global warming. They call for public debates with skeptics who they invariably accuse of being funded by Big Oil, and then, when those debates are actually organized, they then back out of those debates, and They will once again pretend that inflicting severe austerity on the third world in the name of greening the earth is anything other than eugenics by another name.
_


----------



## bandicoot76

bandicoot76 said:


> maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ian r crane, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!
> QUOTE]
> 
> ian r crane is not a eugenicist, my typo! i was going to include a statement by ian r crane on the link between eugenics and AGW but decided it was too inflamatory and decided to remove it, but left ians name up... my mistake.


----------



## Knobby22

bandicoot76 said:


> prince philip,
> 
> ?




Hell, I didn't know he believed in either climate change or eugenics. You don't think his position on Eugenics may have changed over 60 years?

(maybe he did have a bigger influence on Prince Charles than I thought)


----------



## Knobby22

bandicoot76 said:


> bandicoot76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ia, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I found on Maurice Strong.
> 
> "Four years later, the U.S. government, in a document called NSSM 200, called for a covert depopulation policy included in its American foreign aid program. At the U.N. conference in 1991 the national delegates, influenced by Maurice Strong, secretary general of the Earth Summit, supported a policy consistent with the notion that the
> presence of human beings on the earth and the health of the planet were incompatible."
> 
> It doesn't really say how this was to be achieved -I think the principle is good but is it being done by birth control and education or some other insidious method. It ws a catholic site I got this from so they wouldn't be happy either way.  Is it really eugenics as under that it involves better breeding not reduced breeding.
> 
> As an aside, DEVO, the band, on their devolution theory says we in the west are devolving due to worse breeding as the survival of the fittest no longer applies and breeding seems to be more prevalent among struggling people while the successful have fewer children.
Click to expand...


----------



## Knobby22

John Holdren in 1977 said somw way out things - forced abortions, mass sterialisation through infecting the water etc. A real kook and extremist. I'll give you that one.  He would probably say that he is older now , hass a family and wouldn't agree but that stuff is awful and the stain is huge.


----------



## Knobby22

Just found out the Holdren thing is a right wing lie.  Should have known. It amazes me that the far right in the US will lie to such an extent to convince the population - I reckon they should have suing laws like in Australia so Holdren could fight back. Disgusting. 

http://chimprefuge.com/2009/07/20/another-right-wing-lie-holdren-favors-eugenics/

I am not looking up anymore bandicoot. I suggest you check your sources. I think they are lying and twisting the truth.
I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail.  Be careful what you are told.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Another model predicting another catastrophic outcome and gains $115M in doing so....perhaps a stolen leaflet out of the IPCC playbook. Although the IPCC are trying damn hard to improve their image


----------



## basilio

OzWaveGuy said:


> Another model predicting another catastrophic outcome and gains $115M in doing so....perhaps a stolen leaflet out of the IPCC playbook. Although the IPCC are trying damn hard to improve their image



Confabulating an "end of the world  tomorrow" religious cult with climate  change discussions makes Fonzie jumping the shark look like an outstanding career decision. 

Have a think about what you are saying.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Knobby22 said:


> Just found out the Holdren thing is a right wing lie.  Should have known. It amazes me that the far right in the US will lie to such an extent to convince the population - I reckon they should have suing laws like in Australia so Holdren could fight back. Disgusting.
> 
> http://chimprefuge.com/2009/07/20/another-right-wing-lie-holdren-favors-eugenics/
> 
> I am not looking up anymore bandicoot. I suggest you check your sources. I think they are lying and twisting the truth.
> I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail.  Be careful what you are told.




We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.

You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.

All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.

gg


----------



## Knobby22

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.
> 
> You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.
> 
> All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.
> 
> gg




Here's the answer to that one if you can be bothered reading it. Avagoodweekend. 

http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.
> 
> You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.
> 
> All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.
> 
> gg






Knobby22 said:


> Here's the answer to that one if you can be bothered reading it. Avagoodweekend.
> 
> http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html




I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.

No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.

It is crap.

No null hypothesis, no science.

It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.

gg


----------



## Knobby22

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.
> 
> No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.
> 
> It is crap.
> 
> No null hypothesis, no science.
> 
> It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.
> 
> gg




That was written by a scientist. I don't think you understand how science works.
You are the one being religous, you are so certain in your "faith". No doubt at all.


----------



## basilio

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.
> 
> No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.
> 
> It is crap.
> 
> No null hypothesis, no science.
> 
> It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.
> 
> gg




The article makes complete and logical sense Garpal. It is certainly worth reading to understand the basis on which science experiments are undertaken and the inevitable limitations of dealing with a real life earth. 

You're the one who is full of crap.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> The article makes complete and logical sense Garpal. It is certainly worth reading to understand the basis on which science experiments are undertaken and the inevitable limitations of dealing with a real life earth.
> 
> You're the one who is full of crap.




Well then post it and let's dissect it.

I would not waste a click on it, so if you believe in it, post it's content.

gg


----------



## basilio

Done..



> *The proof of climate change*
> 
> Where is the proof that climate change is real and that humans are at fault? Climate sceptics love to pounce on the fact that scientists cannot prove that humans are the cause of climate change. Tony Abbott has said previously that climate science is “absolute crap”. More recently he has clarified that he meant to say the science of climate change is not yet “settled”. These comments presumably refer to climate scientists’ inability to prove that the climate is warming and that humans are contributing to it.
> 
> The concept of “proof” in science relates to the way in which scientists form and test hypotheses. But, as discussed by Massimo Pigliucci in his book Nonsense on Stilts, the way scientists go about testing these hypotheses depends on the complexity of the system they are trying to explain.
> 
> For example, a chemist in the laboratory may be trying to determine whether some compound “A” causes a particular reaction “B” to occur. To test this hypothesis, the chemist would probably set up an experiment to test whether reaction B occurred in the presence of A, and compare this with what happened in the absence of A. The chemist can follow this particular line of inquiry because they have the ability to manipulate and control most or all of the different factors that could affect the outcome of the lab experiment. An experiment is highly repeatable in controlled conditions, meaning that if the experiment is repeated over and over, the same results can be obtained consistently. Thus, predicting the behaviour of a system becomes very accurate when most of the variables are accounted for.
> 
> But imagine now that the chemist now has to perform their experiment out of the lab. The temperature and light intensity now fluctuates, and a little dust or dirt gets into the reaction. A little of compound A blows away in the wind before the chemist can add it to the reaction. Reaction B does not occur. The frustrated chemist repeats the process and this time reaction B does occur. Another repeat of the experiment produces a negative result. Once a system moves outside the lab and into the real world where some variables cannot be controlled, the system becomes less predictable.
> 
> Now consider an atmospheric scientist, who, like the chemist, wants to know whether compound A causes reaction B to occur in the atmosphere. In this situation, the atmospheric scientist cannot perform an experiment to change the concentration of compound A in the air - that would be impractical and irresponsible. Instead, the atmospheric scientist has observed that the concentration of compound A has increased in the atmosphere over the last few decades. Furthermore, the rate of reaction B has also increased during the same time period. Is the atmospheric scientist able to confirm or refute their hypothesis that compound A causes reaction B to occur in the atmosphere? Given that an experiment in the atmosphere is not feasible, is the current evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis? Or is the question just unanswerable? Is the science just “crap”?
> 
> *Not all streams of science are able to test hypotheses by conducting a controlled experiment. While the outcome of a controlled experiment is highly repeatable, the results of the experiment have limited relevance in the real world, where conditions are impossible to standardise.* On the other hand, it is difficult to conclusively demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships in natural systems because there are so often multiple factors that determine the outcome. Streams of science such as ecology and climate science often rely on making observations to identify trends and links between potential causes and effects. But scientists in these fields must report these results using sufficiently cautious language, using phrases such as “the evidence suggests…” and “our results may mean…”
> 
> *Pigliucci argues that this does not make the science “crap” but instead reflects the limitations that scientists face in answering questions about complex systems. Unless we have a spare planet earth that we could observe, subject to exactly the same conditions as our own, except devoid of human life, proving in a scientific sense that climate change is human-induced is an impossible task and a foolish endeavour.*
> 
> Scientists studying these complex systems are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to communicating their work. The philosophy of science is such that definite conclusions are made only when hypotheses are tested in controlled experiments. The strict peer-review process, in which published science research is scrutinised by other experts in the field (I’ve discussed this in a previous post), effectively discourages scientists from making outlandish, unfounded claims. In contrast, those in business and politics want to see strong definitive results from science research, particularly when deciding whether to make a monetary investment in a discovery or when making government policies based on the results of a study.
> 
> *But in some situations, as is the case with climate science and climate change, another aspect needs to be taken into account. With the climate data we have and the trends we have identified, we need to weigh up whether the price of inaction outweighs our need for a controlled experiment to prove our hypothesis. With this in mind, and considering that a controlled experiment to test the hypotheses is not feasible, I think we need accept that we are as close to proof as we are going to get, and we to act now*.




Author is 



> Bridget Murphy
> Too often, news of our scientific discoveries never makes it outside of the laboratory. And when it does, the true meaning of the science is often lost or distorted on its way to the news desk. This leaves the general public sceptical about well-executed but poorly-communicated science. I am passionate about making science assessible to a broad audience without compromising its meaning. I am currently completing a PhD at the University of Sydney, studying the reproductive biology of Australian lizards. I was a Fresh Scientist in 2010 (www.freshscience.org.au) and I have taught biology to TAFE students and to first-year university students.




http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html


----------



## wayneL

The article discusses the limitations of science in complex systems and the difference between this and controlled experiments.

Then she takes the leap of faith and says we must act now.

Yet all these "we must act now" folk never have the courage of their convictions and act not. (eg basilio)

Why is that?

What actions should we take? A tax that nobody believes will alter the climate?

Buy Toyota Piouses? Eco(not) bulbs?

Guys, yes we must act now for the sake of energy security, I'm all for that. But as I've said ad nauseum, AGW is the wrong focus and (as is proven by the current stalemate and collapsing credibiltiy of the AGW lobby) ultimately extremely counter-productive.


----------



## basilio

Wayne  what  Bridget actually says  is 



> With the climate data we have and the trends we have identified,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we need to weigh up whether the price of inaction outweighs our need for a controlled experiment to prove our hypothesis. With this in mind, and considering that a controlled experiment to test the hypotheses is not feasible, I think we need accept that we are as close to proof as we are going to get, and we to act now.




And guess what ?  In the real world everyone with a half a brain accepts  that we go on balance of probabilities, acceptable risk scenarios ect.  If there is a perceived risk of a disastrous outcome well we tell people to get out of hurricance areas and so on.  It is not a leap  of faith just practical common sense.

And what are the best ways to reduce this risk ?  That could be debated but it would be a good start to respect reality and the risks we are taking  and not just  heap scorn on the mountain of  corroborative evidence with  misdirected comments  about  Null hypotheses,  or some fraudulent drivel as per  Oz Wave Guys  random quotes.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> The article discusses the limitations of science in complex systems and the difference between this and controlled experiments.
> 
> Then she takes the leap of faith and says we must act now.
> 
> Yet all these "we must act now" folk never have the courage of their convictions and act not. (eg basilio)
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> What actions should we take? A tax that nobody believes will alter the climate?
> 
> Buy Toyota Piouses? Eco(not) bulbs?
> 
> Guys, yes we must act now for the sake of energy security, I'm all for that. But as I've said ad nauseum, AGW is the wrong focus and (as is proven by the current stalemate and collapsing credibiltiy of the AGW lobby) ultimately extremely counter-productive.




Thanks wayne, I cannot put it better myself.

It is not science as it is known, it is belief and faith, abetted by weak leaders addressing the wrong concerns.

gg


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne  what  Bridget actually says  is




Correct, basically what I said she said



> And guess what ?  In the real world everyone with a half a brain accepts  that we go on balance of probabilities, acceptable risk scenarios ect.  If there is a perceived risk of a disastrous outcome well we tell people to get out of hurricance areas and so on.  It is not a leap  of faith just practical common sense.
> 
> And what are the best ways to reduce this risk ?  That could be debated but it would be a good start to respect reality and the risks we are taking  and not just  heap scorn on the mountain of  corroborative evidence with  misdirected comments  about  Null hypotheses,  or some fraudulent drivel as per  Oz Wave Guys  random quotes.




The balance of probabilities is as per the chap on the youtube above.

Look! We can invent all sorts of balance of probabilities scenarios and take all sorts of actions.

The balance of probabilities says that one day China will have economic; a.nd perhaps military and cultural hegemony over the west. We should act now, no?

Clearly, the ludicrous worst case scenarios as promulgated by Hansenites and Gorists is bunkum... scientifically dealt a death blow, with the most probable scenario not demonstrated to be negative in toto.

Meanwhile, while this sideshow persists, other things get ignored, the science surrounding such lacking in credibility because of the above clowns.


----------



## bandicoot76

Knobby22 said:


> Hell, I didn't know he believed in either climate change or eugenics. You don't think his position on Eugenics may have changed over 60 years?
> 
> (maybe he did have a bigger influence on Prince Charles than I thought)




prince philips eugenics position is quite well documented, when asked if he could be re-incarnated what would he come back as he replied "a virulent airborne strain of ebola virus to reduce the number of ppl on earth by 60%"

he is also co-founder and figurehead of the WWF who are major supporters of the AGW movement, funnily enough the royal family has big financial connections to BP and Rio tinto and other "global plunderer's"... talk about a foot in both camps!


----------



## bandicoot76

Knobby22 said:


> *1)Just found out the Holdren thing is a 2)right wing lie.  Should have known.
> 
> *3)I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail.  Be careful what you are told.




1) i have read alot about holdren including watching a 'home video' of a university lecture he gave about the benefits of diseases such as ebola, plague,malaria etc in reducing human population! I couldnt believe he tried to put such a positive spin on human suffering! not a nice fellow! i bet he'd change his tune if it was his family & friends dying in agony all around him! 

2) i think you need to step outside the box and realise the whole 'left Vs right' political paradigm is complete bollocks, a marxist era hoax designed to keep the people divided so 'the establishment' can carry on business as usual without concern of the citizens interfering!... labor liberal national republican green democratic ...all smoking the same pole... all with their snout in the same trough. judge them all by their actions not their words and you'll soon see they are all one in the same, all just after power & money!

2) i cut, pasted & saved that onto my PC some time ago as i didnt have time to read the whole article at the time, so no sorry i dont have a link, though i believe it was an article from UK newspaper 'the guardian' but cant be certain. sorry


----------



## Aussiejeff

Meanwhile, back at the Green Dude Ranch, a Second Wave of Hysteria is being brewed to feed the hoi poloi... 



> *Labor and the Greens have seized on a report from the government-appointed Climate Commission to ram home the need for [size=+1]urgent action on climate change.[/size]*
> 
> In its first report, titled The Critical Decade, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is now even stronger.
> 
> It warns global warming could cause global sea levels to rise up to one metre by the end of the century, higher than previously thought.
> 
> *Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the report underlines the need to "get on with it" and backs the Government's plans for a carbon tax.*



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224009.htm

Funny about that. At the same time it seems pertinent to review how some "resisters" have reacted to the stunning announcement in the last couple of days by the UK Gum-minters that they will set up legislation to *slash CO2 emmisions by 60% by 2030* regardless of what the rest of the planet does!! And we think 5% might damage OUR economy? Check this out then for a glimpse into our Maddening Future...



> Chris Huhne has done it again. No, I’m not talking about certain allegations, but about carbon emission targets. A few months ago, he was pushing the EU to raise their 20 percent reduction by 2020 to 30 percent.
> 
> *Now he wants the UK to pledge a 60 percent cut on 1990 levels by 2030*. This is madness on many levels -- not least because in trying to reduce emissions so quickly, he is likely to undermine the British-based companies, and the innovation from them, which might deliver this. Counter intuitive? You bet.



http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...n_british_industry_and_make_the_problem_worse

Have a luvverly day, partygoers.....


----------



## Knobby22

Yawn, that hysterical Murdoch press article is old. 

The *Conservative party *have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Yawn, that hysterical Murdoch press article is old.
> 
> The *Conservative party *have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions




That link doesn't work.


----------



## Knobby22

Sorry. Good link follows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry. Good link follows.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions




Ahem!

It's politics, not science. I should be point out (as a former member of a Lib Dem Orange Book think tank) that Chris Huhne is a Social Democrat... i.e. a member of the far left of the far left of the Lib Dems.

Geez even St Vincent was agin it.


----------



## Calliope

Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.



> Chief commissioner Tim Flannery said there was no doubt any more about what was happening to the globe, saying the report's findings were based on a peer review of the latest science.
> 
> "The planet's warming, that is incontrovertible," he said. "All the data points that way, that humans are causing it, again that is incontrovertible."




A poll in today's paper says otherwise;



> Are humans causing global warming?
> Yes
> 27.7% (82 votes)
> No
> 64.86% (192 votes)
> Not sure
> 7.43% (22 votes)
> Total votes: 296




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rees-wont-cut-it/story-e6freooo-1226060787069


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Knobby22 said:


> The *Conservative party *have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.




just because the conservatives support it means nothing.

Robert Mugabe is a Global Warming advocate, and turned up in Copenhagen with his sick parade of flunkies and shopaholics to shout his low carbon credentials from the sewers.

From the Globe And Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/



> When you're getting lectures on “aspiring to misrule” from despot Robert Mugabe, you may conclude you've stepped through Alice's looking glass.
> 
> The gathering at Copenhagen was huge, 34,000 by some reports. A few strange outbursts would be par for the course. But Mr. Mugabe, who more or less single-handedly has brought Zimbabwe to ruin, giving the world lectures on “misrule” and deploring “arbitrary power and governance systems” – well, this is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. Zimbabwe can lay claim for a near non-existent carbon footprint only because its geriatric dictator has despoiled his country




When you have an old despot and lowlife like ole Bob on side, you need to look hard for credibility. One can drag up the good and bad to spruik the non-science of global warming, but you can't ignore the null hypothesis.

A Poeme

by Garpal Gumnut

No null, no science.
No science, no proof
Just belief
A new religion
Rapture
Sure

gg


----------



## noco

I always believed the "GAURDIAN" used to be a pro communist rag.


----------



## Logique

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ..http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/....One can drag up the good and bad to spruik the non-science of global warming, but you can't ignore the null hypothesis.
> 
> A Poeme
> by Garpal Gumnut
> 
> No null, no science.
> No science, no proof
> Just belief
> A new religion
> Rapture
> Sure
> 
> gg



You never fail to amaze. I think you should be the GG, replacing 'Polly Prissy Pink' at Yarralumla.  

sptrawler doubtless understands your 'poeme' wasn't a shot at him.  I'm fan of ole TS myself and this works for me. Ezra Pound was there first, but eclipsed I think.


----------



## basilio

This forum is certainly full of very special people....

The capacity to dismiss and debunk  the work of climate scientists around the world with an airy wave of the hand ( "it's just politics you know ....")  and a_ poeme _on the Null Hypothesis by good ol GG has to be part of a very special set of skills.  

Crafted and Honed of course by those master educators Bolt, Monchton, Carter and co

For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.  

http://www.skepticalscience.com/


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.



Why haven't journalists challenged Tim Flannery on the apparent contradiction between today his statements about utter urgency to act immediately, and his suggestion a few weeks ago that even if Australia were to act now it would make almost no difference to global temperatures for about 1000 years.
(That's from memory:  if I'm slightly misquoting him, someone will correct me.)

Let's just remember that Tim Flannery is being paid by the government so of course he's going to spruik their line.

And why are so few journalists pressing for answers on the economic disadvantage that will apply to Australia if we have a carbon tax whilst the major polluters of the world do nothing?
I just can't believe that this aspect is being so little pursued.

No wonder the electorate is cynical.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.




Dare I say you should follow your own advice?


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/




Reading the comments from there, they seem just as divided on CC


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Dare I say you should follow your own advice?




Wayne et al.. you're not speaking to me when you suggest I am being totally and completely delusional. You're saying that the vast majority of scientific community has seriously stuffed this up.  That the analysis of  multiple measures of world temperature changes, melting of polar ice caps, increases in ocean temperatures, changes in the biology of plants and animals around the world are all delusions or systemic  and systematic fakery

I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to  re evaluate evidence.  It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.

*But I won't humour your wilful ignorance.* 

__________________________________________________________

Julia, you open a discussion on the comment that  Tim Flannerys  suggets that Australia's contribution to reducing global warming would take hundreds of years to be apparent.

By definition any particular countries contribution to reducing total greenhouse gases is only part of the picture.  You can use the same  logic talking about any country and come to a similar conclusion.  It doesn't change the need for a whole world approach to the problem.

There is a good analysis of this argument at the following location. The rest of the site is also worth checking out for anyone interested in the science of this debate.




> *Tragedy of the Commons Once Again*
> 
> Their main argument seems to be becoming a favorite amongst "skeptics": "CO2 limits will make little difference."  In his radio interview, Christy applied the argument to California (which is attempting to implement a carbon cap and trade system), Australia (with the aforementioned proposed carbon tax), and in his congressional testimony, to the USA:
> 
> "We’re talking about less than a hundredth of a degree [if California cuts emissions by 26% by 2016]. It’s just so miniscule; I mean the global temperature changes by more than that from day to day. So this is what we call in Alabama “spitting in the ocean”."
> 
> "On the climate front, [Australia cutting its emissions by 5% by 2020] will be imperceptible or minuscule compared to what the rest of the world is doing."
> 
> "you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]"




http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html

________________________________________________________________

And just to  reiterate an earlier post.


*
National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management*
Posted on 17 May 2011 by dana1981

The USA's National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) was ordered by Congress several years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be reacting to the potential consequences of climate change. America's Climate Choices, the final in a series of five reports, was recently published.  *The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.*  The press release summarizes the report's basic scientific conclusions:
_*
    "The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades.  This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun."*_

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nas-nrc-report.html


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> __________________________________________________________
> 
> Julia, you open a discussion on the comment that  Tim Flannerys  suggets that Australia's contribution to reducing global warming would take hundreds of years to be apparent.
> 
> By definition any particular countries contribution to reducing total greenhouse gases is only part of the picture.  You can use the same  logic talking about any country and come to a similar conclusion.  It doesn't change the need for a whole world approach to the problem.



Hence the stupidity of subjecting Australia to such huge economic disadvantage by acting in the absence of the world's major emitters doing likewise.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne et al.. you're not speaking to me when you suggest I am being totally and completely delusional. You're saying that the vast majority of scientific community has seriously stuffed this up.  That the analysis of  multiple measures of world temperature changes, melting of polar ice caps, increases in ocean temperatures, changes in the biology of plants and animals around the world are all delusions or systemic  and systematic fakery
> 
> I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to  re evaluate evidence.  It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.
> 
> *But I won't humour your wilful ignorance.*




Excuse me?

Would you like to reconsider this post to restore the remaining vestiges of both your credibility and character please?

Basilio, evidence cuts both ways. You have to consider that which supports your hypothesis; but you also have to consider that which contradicts it. Lastly, you have to consider the nature of climate science itself (as per discussion a few posts up), along with all ancillary factors and financial/funding considerations.

This is why I say you should follow your own advice, as you are singularly unwilling to do as I suggest. Because if you did, it would be totally impossible to view climate change deterministically as you do.


----------



## basilio

Interestingly enough Julia the Conservative government in Britain has now decided to legislate deep cuts in carbon emissions. Someone has to start somewhere.

But the other big move in this debate is the Pentagon. There is a good analysis of their approach in the Guardian. 



> *US military goes to war with climate sceptics*
> 
> Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon
> 
> ....Enter what some might view as a counterintuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, "We must recognise that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".
> 
> For years, in fact, high-level national security officials both inside the Pentagon and in thinktank land have been acknowledging climate change is for real and that we need to take action to preserve and enhance US national security interests. The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report (pdf), "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." It noted the department of defence is actively "developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities".
> 
> CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon's urgency, writing, "Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board's perspective, presents significant risks to America's national security." The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.
> 
> This isn't a tree-hugging festival. It's the US military and its partners making clear-eyed calculations based on the best available climate science.
> 
> *So, why this quiet camaraderie between scientists and military higher-ups? The answer, most certainly, is uncertainty.
> 
> Uncertainty is an inherent element of honest science. But in the political sphere, uncertainty has been harnessed as an alibi for denial and inaction. The military, however, operates under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Like scientists, they wade through the unknown to assess varying degrees of risk. As CNA Corporation put it, military leaders "don't see the range of possibilities as justification for inaction. Risk is at the heart of their job."
> *
> Climate cranks – many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security – are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...y/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism


----------



## white_goodman

interesting to see the latest Canadian election... 1 out of 5 parties totally against climate change/carbon tax policy... win via landslide


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to  re evaluate evidence.  It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.




You got that right. Gillard says global warming is man-made and she is a proven liar.


----------



## basilio

Wayne you suggest I evaluate the evidence that supports Global warming versus the evidence against it.

I have done that for 20 years.  I expounded it in detail in earlier posts on ASF. I re visit it  regularly at sites like Skeptical  Science which painstakingly identify how people like Carter and Monkton make up information, redraw graphs and otherwise abuse scientific process to throw dust in people's eyes.

*The science is not complete. *  It never can be or will.  There will always be  something extra to learn, gaps to be filled, adjustments made.  But if anyone cares to read the reports I noted in previous posts  the evidence is going one way and at a rapid rate of knots.  Trying to perfect a Null Hypothesis argument is futile and goes against every practical approach to risk management.  We rarely have full information on a subject - we almost always have to work with uncertainties and do the best we can with them.

If the debate was how do we best tackle the issue and discussing how many approaches to take and how to tackle the inevitable dislocations we could have a conversation. But I stand on what has been said repeatedly by the scientific community - the overwhelming evidence regard man induced climate change is in. Denying it is just wilful ignorance.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I have done that for 20 years.  I expounded it in detail in earlier posts on ASF. I re visit it  regularly at sites like Skeptical  Science which painstakingly identify how people like Carter and Monkton make up information, redraw graphs and otherwise abuse scientific process to throw dust in people's eyes.



Why do you do it? Why is it such an obsession? The usual answer from the warmists is that they want to leave a better world for their grandchildren. In your case I think it is because you like preaching to those you condescendingly call the "wilfully ignorant."

I would be interested to know how many of the ignorant you have converted in your 20 years of religious proselytising.


----------



## basilio

Your right Calliope . I do want to leave a more or less sustainable world for my grandchildren.

Probably be more constructive in this debate  for you and others to try and demonstrate  a strong case that shows the world is not actually warming and that  excessive  man produced  greenhouse gases are not behaving the way they are proved to behave in repeated scientific experiments.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Probably be more constructive in this debate  for you and others to try and demonstrate  a strong case that shows the world is not actually warming .




The world warms and the world cools... life goes on. Over the eons natural selection has developed species that can adapt to the changes. Perhaps we have had our day, so sit back and enjoy life while you can.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> You got that right. Gillard says global warming is man-made and she is a proven liar.
> .






Calliope said:


> I would be interested to know how many of the ignorant you have converted in your 20 years of religious proselytising.




Religion relies on faith not evidence.
Where is your evidence? 

I suggest you are the one acting religously, spouting scripture in the form of snide slogans supplied to you from the forces paid to slow action on climate change for financial interests. If you are going to name call then make sure you are not implicating yourself.

The climate is a complex (in the scientific sense) system. We don't know precisely how it will act and so modelling cannot be 100% correct. We doubt! We don't have faith. We have peer reviews. We have new theories. Science is the opposite of religion.

So don't spin your slogans of denialism at us!!  Your religous dogma!  Provide evidence supporting what you are saying because if you don't then we have the right to just think you are just another uninformed fool who is weak minded enough to fall for propaganda.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> So don't spin your slogans of denialism at us!!  Your religous dogma!




Who is "us"?  It is a practice I have of trying to prick the egos of pompous know-it-alls and if you think that includes you that is your problem, not mine.



> ...we have the right to just think you are just another uninformed fool who is weak minded enough to fall for propaganda




Strange,:sheep: That's the category I would place your "us" in.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> Who is "us"?  It is a practice I have of trying to prick the egos of pompous know-it-alls and if you think that includes you that is your problem, not mine.
> .




Is that the best answer you can provide?



Calliope said:


> Strange,:sheep: That's the category I would place your "us" in.




"Us" are people not joining your flock.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> The world warms and the world cools... life goes on. Over the eons natural selection has developed species that can adapt to the changes. Perhaps we have had our day, so sit back and enjoy life while you can.




Head in the sand rationalisations, blah blah blah.

Have you read the "Sixth Extinction" yet?

*The change in the planets climatic conditions are different this time.*

Nothing can adapt to change on the current scale that takes place in just a few generations.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Is that the best answer you can provide?[/QUOTE}
> 
> Yep, and it works, as your response shows. I really have no interest in climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Us" are people not joining your flock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work solo. Not in a flock of converts like your "us" group. You worry too much about things you can do nothing about. And now you've got explod worried. He wants to include the planets in the coming holocaust.
Click to expand...


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> But I stand on what has been said repeatedly by the scientific community - the overwhelming evidence regard man induced climate change is in. Denying it is just wilful ignorance.




Another deterministic comment that is instructive.

1/ You purport that the scientific community is in total agreeance. They are not, ref Lindzon, the Pielkes  et al. There are varying views on the extent and modality of man's influence on the climate, all of which are scientific in nature.

2/ You seem to purport that any dissent from the most catastrophic scenario is denial

3/ I have repeatedly stated my personal view that man has influenced climate, and  that I think something like Pielke Snr's view is the most likely. Your categorization of me as a "denier", disingenuous, pious and dishonest... downright offensive actually.

4/ The evidence is not "overwhelming" at all. What is overwhelming is the propensity to arrive at the "official" Gorist conclusion, despite enormous difficulties in linking hypothesis to reality. A huge scientific non sequitur if you will.

5/ If the science is so unequivocal, there would be no need for clowns like Hansen et al to go the ad hominem route, such as he did recently here in New Zealand when asked a difficult question referencing Lindzon. He trotted out the tobacco lie... again.

6/ There is plenty of data available that DOES NOT support runaway global warming; an inconvenient truth.


----------



## basilio

Wayne, I can certainly see the possibility that some quality scientists can offer some variations on the current overwhelming scientific consensus.  Pielke Snr is one such person.

But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited.  What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out  with many other  people who  have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example.  Their claims are generally just rubbish but nonetheless are repeated endlessly because  in this debate the intention is to create doubt and stop any firm action.

In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small. This is why the overwhelming body of current science sees a very serious problem and is pointing out the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action  how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne, I can certainly see the possibility that some quality scientists can offer some variations on the current overwhelming scientific consensus.  Pielke Snr is one such person.
> 
> But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited.  What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out  with many other  people who  have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example.  Their claims are generally just rubbish but nonetheless are repeated endlessly because  in this debate the intention is to create doubt and stop any firm action.
> 
> In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small. This is why the overwhelming body of current science sees a very serious problem and is pointing out the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action  how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?




LOL! OK I will leave you to your opinion.

But regarding the doctors, based on my experience I would want to know what the 2 know that the other 98 don't.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> LOL! OK I will leave you to your opinion.
> 
> But regarding the doctors, based on my experience I would want to know what the 2 know that the other 98 don't.




I reckon there will be some shock from left field with climate science at some point over the next ten years. Hopefully it will be a "nice" shock.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

It seems the alarmists are back to the "all climate scientists" believe in AGW, that I'm sure was covered months or years ago. I suspect comments made by various alarmists in Government who see a tax on 'working families' have been spouting this topic again in a desperate attempt for a 'consensus'....

Various figures from 2500 to 4000+ expert climate "scientists" have been regurgitated countless times. So, for 10 points answer this question:

So how many climate scientists actually endorsed the IPCC AR4 report?​


----------



## basilio

> *	 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming*
> Posted on 11 May 2011 by John Cook
> 
> I was talking about climate to my dad last week (since the book launch, he will now talk to me about the subject) and I mentioned that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that humans are causing global warming. He registered great surprise at that statistic. "I thought it was more 50/50", he said. It made me realise just how good a job both the mainstream media and the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign have done in confusing the public about the scientific consensus on global warming. At the same time, I was working on a consensus graphic (cribbed from the Guide to Skepticism) for a video presentation. So as a tool for anyone wishing to communicate the scientific consensus, I've added the following infographic to the Climate Graphics resource:
> 
> *The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" *They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009). As "climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change" doesn't really roll off the tongue, I abbreviated that down to "climate experts".
> 
> One feature of Doran's survey results is that while 97% of climate expert said "yes, humans are causing global warming", only 1% said "no, we're not". The other 2% were unsure:
> 
> 
> Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
> 
> I've indicated the "I'm not sure" portion in the "97 out of 100 climate experts" infographic with grey colouring.





http://www.skepticalscience.com/Inf...erts-think-humans-causing-global-warming.html

It's worth going to the site to see the graphs.


----------



## Smurf1976

It must be remembered that taking action to reduce CO2 emissions entails unleashing a vast array of other forms of environmental destruction.

That's not something you would want to do without being certain it was necessary.


----------



## ghotib

Calliope said:


> ... I really have no interest in climate change.



That might be the most revealing statement in this entire thread. 

Calliope, and others who take no interest in the science of climate, why do you think you know what the scientific consensus is, let alone whether it's right or wrong?


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> . Your categorization of me as a "denier", disingenuous, pious and dishonest... downright offensive actually.



Agree.  The implied moral highground of criticism of even agnosticism on the subject is arrogant and inappropriate.




basilio said:


> But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited.  What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out  with many other  people who  have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example.  Their claims are generally just rubbish



How do you know?  Are you yourself a climate scientist?  I suspect you'd have long ago made us aware if this were the case, and are rather parroting off what your idols tell you.



> In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small.



Again, how can you confidently assert this?  Because of the lack of willingness on the part of those who control the scientific literature to admit any dissenting voice, it's impossible to be sure of the level of dissent.



> As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action  how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?



I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I' ve heard nonsense propagated by doctors simply because they've adopted the view of someone they consider superior to themselves.  Any contrary view is shouted down, and quickly.
It's a silly analogy.




			
				OzWaveGuy;635183
[INDENT said:
			
		

> So how many climate scientists actually endorsed the IPCC AR4 report?[/INDENT]



Interesting.  Thanks, OWG.


----------



## sails

It seems that the Climate Commission is a very biased organisation of selectively appointed members who will further the cause of warming alarmism... 

An excerpt from the article below:



> “The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed ... to further the cause of global warming alarmism.
> 
> “I think everybody should take anything they say with a grain of salt.




From the Australian: Make Carbon Tax Hurt Jullia Gillard Advised


----------



## basilio

I am pretty strong on the paucity of significant dissenting evidence against human induced global warming. Why ? Well as I said earlier there are actually only a very few climate scientists who have tried to mount a successful, coherent argument against the broad range of research undertaken by literally hundreds of other scientists.  That is why I  produced the reference to 97/100 climate scientists think humans cause global warming.

*They are the ones whose research leads them to that conclusion not me.*

But it is also worth examining the work of the few climate  scientists who strongly disagree with this consensus. Richard Lindzen for example puts forwards the view that  climate change is basically about internal variability with little/no external cause. Apart from his scientific papers where he attempts to demonstrate this he is also very eloquent in his non scientific essays where he  beats up on the global warmists.  If you havn't seen it check out his essay on Watts up.

*But Lindzen's scientific papers are not honest and in a number of key areas misrepresent other scientists work*.  In the end his attempts to show that there is no external forcing of climate change turn out to be a professional embarrassment. And let's remember he is a genuine, quality scientist with a very good body of work behind him.


Lindzen essay in Watts Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

The analysis of his papers which uncover his  errors and in some cases deliberate deceptions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-5-internal-variability.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html


----------



## basilio

sails said:


> It seems that the Climate Commission is a very biased organisation of selectively appointed members who will further the cause of warming alarmism...
> 
> An excerpt from the article below:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Australian: Make Carbon Tax Hurt Jullia Gillard Advised




It's worth noting that the author of that quote is Senator Nick Minchin. So let's not pretend he is going to accept it's validity.

The report itself is worth reading.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/...675-aus-news-file-climate-change-11-05-22.pdf


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Agree.  The implied moral highground of criticism of even agnosticism on the subject is arrogant and inappropriate.



As is the implied moral high ground of suggesting that people who've spent a working lifetime investigating a subject know stuff all about it. 



> How do you know?  Are you yourself a climate scientist?  I suspect you'd have long ago made us aware if this were the case, and are rather parroting off what your idols tell you.



Julia that's outrageous. Basilio said earlier on this thread that he's been investigating this subject for 20 years. To be sure anyone can say anything in a forum, but in this case we can test the claim against some dozens of posts right in this thread. I suspect that if you'd actually read them you would easily recognise that they couldn't possibly be simple "parrotting off". You might not be able to decide whether they're right or wrong without further investigation, but they aren't parrotted. 



> Again, how can you confidently assert this?  Because of the lack of willingness on the part of those who control the scientific literature to admit any dissenting voice, it's impossible to be sure of the level of dissent.



Now who's parrotting off? That claim is conspiracy bunkum with roughly the same plausibility as the dog ate my homework. Do your own research. 

Ghoti


----------



## basilio

Just had a read of the Climate Commission report.  It doesn't say anything new in the debate and wasn't intended to do so.

What it does do very well however is pull together the main features of the discussion in a reasonably easy read with very good to excellent graphics. It also manages to address some of the objections of anti GW advocates . For example it shows some excellent temperature maps which highlight  how one part of the world might be unseasonably cold but the rest of the world is  far warmer. In all the global temperature is too high.

The later sections are sobering . Check out page 52 for  projections of global temperatures with and without decarbonisation of the economy. Also have a look at the  risks of  rapid climate change as a result reaching particular tipping points. 

If/when you read this consider the question about the likelihood of this comprehensive range of research  being flat wrong or so corrupt that they have fudged the data simply to keep getting research grants.  And have a look at how even the relatively small body of work of non agreeing climate  scientists (Lindzen)  is shown to be severally compromised by  distortions of data and misrepresentation of other scientists work.


----------



## basilio

I've referenced an analysis of Richard Lindzens work on cliamte science earlier but I think it's worth posting the long story on how his ideas and research have evolved and found to be wanting.



> *
> Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo*
> 
> Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist "skeptics".  After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist "skeptics" to choose from.  Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades, since the field really began to grow and develop in the early 1970s, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, works at a prominent academic institution (MIT), and has been a "contrarian" for most of his career.
> 
> So his combination of expertise and "skepticism" make Lindzen an appealing figure to "skeptics".  He's even been compared to Galileo quite frequently.  But there's one major difference between Galileo and Lindzen: Galileo was right.
> 
> Galileo's positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence.  Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right and supported by the evidence.  In this post we will see that Lindzen, on the other hand, has a history of consistently being wrong on climate issues, and his positions are contradicted by the scientific evidence and observational data.
> Lindzen's Evolution
> 
> In his 1989 MIT Tech Talk, Lindzen summarized his many climate contrarian positions at the time:
> 
> Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
> the surface temperature record is wrong
> global warming is not a concern
> climate sensitivity is low
> the water vapor feedback is negative
> the cloud feedback is negative
> global warming is just due to internal variability
> water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas
> 
> Over the years, Lindzen's views have evolved somewhat, and some of these positions have fallen by the wayside.  Let's examine how his 1989 positions compare to his current views, and how they stack up against the observational data.  You would think a scientist's views would match observational reality, but as we will soon see, that's simply not the case for Lindzen.
> 
> *Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected* - this remains one of Lindzen's favorite arguments, which he makes in media articles on an annual basis to this day.  But as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #1, there is simply no truth to this argument.  When we consider all factors, including aerosol cooling and ocean thermal inertia, both of which Lindzen neglects in making this argument, we see that the planet has warmed almost exactly as much as climate models expect.
> 
> *The surface temperature record is wrong -* as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #2, in 1989, Lindzen didn't even put the GISTEMP observed warming trend (0.5 to 0.7 °C since 1880) within his range of possible warming trends (-0.2 to +0.4 °C since 1880).  As we now know, and as Lindzen would now admit, James Hansen and GISTEMP were right, and Lindzen was wrong.  The surface temperature record was and is accurate.
> 
> *Global warming is not a concern *- this argument is of course fundamental to global warming "skepticism", and thus one which Lindzen continues to subscribe to.  However, it's based on a conglomeration of Lindzen's many other incorrect arguments, and as shown in Lindzen Illusion #3, his arguments against taking action to reduce GHG emissions are based on logical fallacies and a lack of understanding of economics.
> 
> *Climate sensitivity is low - *this continues to be Lindzen's bread and butter argument, but as illustrated in Lindzen Illusion #2, temperature projections using low sensitivity simply don't match the observed warming trend.  Additionally, Lindzen Illusion #1 showed that the warming we've seen so far is inconsistent with low climate sensitivity.  Lindzen Illusion #4 demonstrated that nothing credible we've seen so far suggests sensitivity is nearly as low as Lindzen claims.  His low sensitivity argument seems to be based on little more than his own fundamentally flawed paper.
> 
> *The water vapor feedback is negative *- as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #4, Lindzen argued that water vapor could be a negative feedback due to a drying of the upper atmosphere until the mid-1990s, but had begun to reverse this position by the end of the decade.  Indeed, recent observational evidence has been consistent with the climate model projection of a strongly positive water vapor feedback.
> 
> *The cloud feedback is negative *- Lindzen Illusion #4 also discussed that Lindzen continues to believe the cloud feedback is strongly negative.  However, his "infrared iris" hypothesis has not withstood the test of time, and numerous recent studies have been inconsistent with a strongly negative cloud feedback.
> 
> *Global warming is just due to internal variability -* Lindzen continues to argue that internal variability may account for most of the global warming over the past century.  However, Lindzen Illusion #5 revealed this argument's Achilles heel: the oceans (including the deep layers) are warming too.  If the surface warming were simply due to heat moving around the internal climate system, from oceans to air, then the oceans would be cooling.  Moreover, we saw that Lindzen's argument was based on a misrepresentation of other climate scientists' work.
> 
> *Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas *- although Lindzen no longer downplays the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect, he continues to downplay its role as a global temperature driver, and many "skeptics" still argue that water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2.  However, as highlighted in Lindzen Illusion #6, two recent NASA GISS studies demonstrated that CO2 plays a far larger role in the greenhouse effect than Lindzen claimed in 1989, and more importantly, is "the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth".
> 
> In short, of Lindzen's eight 1989 arguments listed above, he has effectively admitted that he was wrong on three points (temperature record accuracy, water vapor feedback, importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas), but continues to make the other five.  However, none of these remaining five arguments mesh with observational reality.  But a useful question comes to mind, given the frequency with which "skeptic" arguments contradict each other: are these surviving arguments contradictory or self-consistent?
> 
> *Lindzen's Consistently Cloudy Vision*
> 
> Lindzen's surviving arguments are: Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected, global warming is not a concern, climate sensitivity is low, the cloud feedback is negative, global warming is just due to internal variability.  And indeed, we can create a consistent depiction of the climate system with these arguments.
> 
> A strongly negative cloud feedback would allow for a low climate sensitivity, which would explain how the large anthropogenic GHG radiative forcing could have a small impact on global temperatures.  If the anthropogenic influence were overestimated, then Earth wouldn't have warmed as much as expected.  But if GHGs aren't driving global warming, there must be another cause.  Lindzen explains the warming through the natural internal variability of the climate system (although as Swanson et al. (2009) note, a climate system with larger internal variability will also tend to be more sensitive to external forcings).  And if the warming is just natural variability, it will soon reverse itself, and thus is of no concern.
> 
> So Lindzen does present a mostly coherent, consistent alternative hypothesis to the anthropogenic global warming theory.  There's only one problem: as discussed above, *every single one of these arguments is inconsistent with the observational evidence.*  You may have also noticed that every single one of Lindzen's positions have underestimated or downplayed anthropogenic global warming, which suggests they may be based on contrarianism rather than scientific evidence.
> 
> Lindzen has constructed a house of cards, with his incorrect conclusion (global warming is of no concern) sitting atop a series of incorrect beliefs which are each contradicted by the observational evidence.  Indeed, when asked by then-Senator Al Gore why he believed water vapor and clouds generate a negative feedback in a 1991 Congressional hearing (Page 71), Lindzen responded:
> 
> "as far as we can tell every model predicting an excess of 2 degrees [sensitivity to doubled CO2] is predicting more [warming] than we already have seen."
> 
> In short, Lindzen's "no concern" argument is based on his "low sensitivity" argument, which is based on his "clouds are a large negative feedback" argument, which is based on his "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected argument.  It's just one huge chain of wrong arguments based on other wrong arguments, finally leading to a very wrong conclusion.
> 
> With this history of being wrong, the comparisons to Galileo seem wholly inappropriate.  There is of course nothing wrong with being occasionally mistaken in science.  The problem arises when a scientist is consistently wrong and fails to learn from the corrections advanced by other scientists or by nature, especially when we're asked to believe that he is right and virtually every other scientific expert is wrong.
> 
> Galileo was not a contrarian who was purely motivated to contradict Catholic beliefs.  Galileo's key feature is that his conclusions were dictated by the scientific evidence.  If anything, Lindzen is the anti-Galileo, as his conclusions seem to be based on pure contrarianism instead of scientific evidence.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html


----------



## wayneL

basilio,

That is nothing but an "I'm right, you're wrong" diatribe.

Please, if your going to clog up so much bandwidth, at least post something substantive.


----------



## noco

THE LIES, THE MYTHS AND THE TRUTH on Climate Change (AGW) has at last been exposed not only by Andrew Bolt but the Climate Change Commission, but Gillard claims it is more reason to impliment her stupid lie driven carbon dioxide tax.

Is it to save the planet or the Australian economy which has been so badly managed by this incompetent Labor government?????????? 




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/


----------



## Knobby22

The climate scientist Andrew Bolt, he did make one statement I agree with in that article that he will be dead before it really goes bad. 

I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> basilio,
> 
> That is nothing but an "I'm right, you're wrong" diatribe.
> 
> Please, if your going to clog up so much bandwidth, at least post something substantive.





In fact the post  overviews the main points that Lindzen uses to argue against the GW hypotheses and demonstrates  how each one is factually wrong - they have been disproved by  observation. And since Lindzen and the arguments he runs are some of the cornerstones of  the anti GW viewpoint I thought it would be worth detailing exactly how provably mistaken they are.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."



 That's a very emotive remark from Ross Gittens.
It demonstrates a lack of understanding for the genuine fear of many householders, much less well paid than Mr Gittens, and their already diminishing capacity to pay ever rising power bills.


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."




What we will achieve nothing via this tax in terms of world emissions. Ross Gittens is a pompous ass for sprouting that $hit


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> That's a very emotive remark from Ross Gittens.
> It demonstrates a lack of understanding for the genuine fear of many householders, much less well paid than Mr Gittens, and their already diminishing capacity to pay ever rising power bills.




Julia it will be a lot harder to pay for the power bills if we don't sort out climate change. 

The climate change report brought together the best current science on this issue. Ross Gittins did an excellent summary of the report and was pointing out that we either use resources now to combat cliamte change or suffer far greater hardships in the relatively near future feeling its effects. 

Of course if one chooses to believe that the report is just a load of trumped up stories, that the sun will shine tomorrow and that CO2 is great for plants then we can simply ignore the issue and pretend that  sending out dole bludgers to plant some trees will be a big enough fig leaf to cover the Coalitions nether regions.

I'm not having a go at you in particular Julia but so far very little of this discussion wants to acknowledge we might have a serious planetary problem that requires serious attention and money.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> THE LIES, THE MYTHS AND THE TRUTH on Climate Change (AGW) has at last been exposed not only by Andrew Bolt but the Climate Change Commission, but Gillard claims it is more reason to impliment her stupid lie driven carbon dioxide tax.
> 
> Is it to save the planet or the Australian economy which has been so badly managed by this incompetent Labor government??????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/




I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of  xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..

He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the  analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the  time. Completely skips over the  discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.

The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us  and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long  terms. 

I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.

Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> ...we might have a serious planetary problem that requires serious attention and money.




So now it appears that you are thinking that our CO2 emissions will affect the planetary system.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Julia it will be a lot harder to pay for the power bills if we don't sort out climate change.
> 
> The climate change report brought together the best current science on this issue. Ross Gittins did an excellent summary of the report and was pointing out that we either use resources now to combat cliamte change or suffer far greater hardships in the relatively near future feeling its effects.




And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies? You cannot answer this as nor can the "experts" that get paid a handsome sum to peddle this rubbish. Time to switch off the alarmist cool aid and the AGW gravy train - the AGW credibility is long gone. 

I see the AGW great barrier reef card is being played yet again - yawn - the desperation continues to grow.

Well, it's freezing here in Canberra, even with all the hot air from the local alarmists that actually don't do anything themselves, right basilio?


----------



## basilio

> And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies?  Oz wave guy




And exactly how long is a piece of string Oz ? Come on mate. I want to know NOW, Exactly . to the micrometre.

How much impact will one player make to a footy team ? What about the committeemen, boot studder, coach, financial supporter? 

Can you identify exactly how much each person contributes to the bottom line in your workplace ? Bit tough isn't it ? It takes everyone to play a part and it is  really tough, unfair and stoopid to try and factor exactly how much each contribution was to the whole story.

So overall this is just a dumb trick question put up weasals who want to get under your skin on the personal cost/benefit of changing how we live on earth.  Perhaps  another way of looking at the picture is to read the report and then have a look at page 52 which highlights the possible futures we face.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> So now it appears that you are thinking that our CO2 emissions will affect the planetary system.




Last time I looked the earth was a planet Calliope.

 By the way have you had a chance to read the Climate Commission report yet ?


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> It's worth noting that the author of that quote is Senator Nick Minchin. So let's not pretend he is going to accept it's validity....




So what if that was Michin's quote? Can you prove that the Climate Commission is  not what he said?  And, frankly, it seems to be nothing more than a sales report designed to get people to "think" that the weather is all our fault and that carbon tax is the way to fix it.  And pigs might fly to the moon.  Why don't they try to sell that too?

I believe the Independents told Gillard she had to "sell" her tax more effectively.  This is obviously all part of the sales pitch.  It seems the Climate Commission is a hand picked group of people who have been chosen to sell the carbon tax to the people.  Something like selling ice to the eskimos, imo. 

Description of the Climate Commission and the excerpt below is from the article I posted earlier.   Basilio, can you state that this is not so?:



> *“The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed ... to further the cause of global warming alarmism*




And, below is a link to the latest world carbon emissions for 2011 from Wikipedia and shows Australia still slightly over 1% of world emissions.  New Zealand have 0.11% emissions and the UK still under 2%.  How do we think we can actually do anything for emissions when our emissions are already so tiny? China and the US emit about 40% between them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

All the science in the world doesn't matter when there is so little we can do and yet risk destroying our economy, keeping pensioners shivering in the cold because they are too scared to put a heater on.  Come on guys, perhaps get your heads out of th science books and be a little bit practical about this?

And below it is in picture form - does that make it any easier to see how stupid we and other low emitting nations are to risk jobs, our economies and potentially further hurt people who already can't afford electricity to keep warm?







Graph from rom Bolt's blog: If Climate Commissioner Steffen was independent he wouldn’t have stalled


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of  xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..
> 
> He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the  analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the  time. Completely skips over the  discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.
> 
> The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us  and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long  terms.
> 
> I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.
> 
> Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.




OK now I know not to take you seriously.

Your comment about increasing floods did it. Only the most pathetically politically motivated zealot has linked the recent floods to climate change. Not one serious and sober climate scientist has done so.

1/ As alarmists are so apt to say when it suits them, weather is not climate.

2/ FFS have a look at REAL flood and storm records. There is no increase.

Also sea level rise rate is still subject to debate as to whether it is increasing or holding steady (or declining) at the same rate since the little ice age. At this point the steady appear to be winning.

You are a doomsday klaxon with the bloody cheek, the temerity to accuse more balanced minds of willful ignorance.


----------



## IFocus

OzWaveGuy said:


> And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies? You cannot answer this as nor can the "experts" that get paid a handsome sum to peddle this rubbish. Time to switch off the alarmist cool aid and the AGW gravy train - the AGW credibility is long gone.
> 
> I see the AGW great barrier reef card is being played yet again - yawn - the desperation continues to grow.
> 
> Well, it's freezing here in Canberra, even with all the hot air from the local alarmists that actually don't do anything themselves, right basilio?




WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns

WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:

    * 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
    * 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
    * 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
    * 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns
> 
> WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:
> 
> * 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
> * 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
> * 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
> * 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD





Hmmmm that's what they said about Eastern Australia for the last few years.  That's why we have billions of dollars tied up in redundant desal plants that also cost a small fortune to maintain - as I understand it.  

And then the rains came and came and came.  People died because of so much rain.  Dams couldn't hold the water.  And some towns may have been spared if dams had been built in preparation for the eventual flood rains.

WA must be almost due for flood rains...lol


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Last time I looked the earth was a planet Calliope.




OK. What 'serious planetary problem" does the earth have?" I assume you mean a problem caused by it being a planet.



> By the way have you had a chance to read the Climate Commission report yet ?




Yes, I have had a chance to read it, but I haven't bothered. Is it a good read?


----------



## basilio

> Your comment about increasing floods did it. Only the most pathetically politically motivated zealot has linked the recent floods to climate change. Not one serious and sober climate scientist has done so.  Wayne




And neither did I. Why am I not surprised that you either can't read a straight comment  properly or chose to twist it to diss someone you can't win a logical discussion with ?
*
I made no mention of any recent floods. Zilch, zero.* The comment was related to the commission analysis of what would happen to major cities on the coast if/when sea levels rise by 50-100cms. They didn't try and pin the recent floods on climate change either but they certainly have some evidence to show how sea levels will rise. How  you can say with a straight face that the evidence for rising sea levels is still not there is beyond me.  

Don't bother apologising for such a  misread Wayne.  It wouldn't become you.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And neither did I. Why am I not surprised that you either can't read a straight comment  properly or chose to twist it to diss someone you can't win a logical discussion with ?
> *
> I made no mention of any recent floods. Zilch, zero.* The comment was related to the commission analysis of what would happen to major cities on the coast if/when sea levels rise by 50-100cms. They didn't try and pin the recent floods on climate change either but they certainly have some evidence to show how sea levels will rise. How  you can say with a straight face that the evidence for rising sea levels is still not there is beyond me.
> 
> Don't bother apologising for such a  misread Wayne.  It wouldn't become you.




I was going to apologize if I misread, but after that last comment I decided you're not worth it. My point re flood/storm frequency still stands however.

On the point of misreads my very rude adversary, I didn't say that sea level was not rising, I said there was a debate about whether the rise is accelerating, with the debate favouring the no acceleration camp. To repeat myself, sea level has been rising since the little ice age, well before co2 increases.

Pot, kettle black.


----------



## trainspotter

> Since the early 1990s, sea level rise (SLR) has been measured by high-precision altimeter satellites. Between 1993 and 2009, the mean rate of SLR was reported as 3.3  ± 0.4 mm/year. Naturally, to climate change alarmists, this suggests that SLR is accelerating because of warming climatic conditions.




Great stuff here ----------------> http://resilientearth.com/?q=content/sea-level-shenanigans

3.3 mm per year will take 303 years to rise to a 1 metre level forgetting the integer of the equation that is. 



> “For example, relative sea level is *presently falling where land is uplifting* considerably, such as the northern Baltic and Hudson Bay””the sites of large (kilometer-thick) glaciers during the last glacial maximum,” state the authors. “In contrast, relative sea level is rising more rapidly than climate-induced trends on subsiding coasts.” Fluctuation is also caused by the interaction of wind and ocean, and changes in the ocean gyres. The nonuniformity of change can be seen in the map below.


----------



## trainspotter

Just also wondering what we are going to do about all of these naughty volcanoes chucking CO2 into the air.

Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano emitted between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every day when it erupted in 2010, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts claim.

So does Iceland have to pay the tax on this eruption? Apparently the Grimsvotn volcano plume is double the size of Eyjafjoell eruption. Is this the Rapture finally ??


----------



## IFocus

IFocus said:


> WA dams set to dry up by summer's end, expert warns
> 
> WA Water Commission figures show the average amount of rainfall flowing into the dams has dramatically declined since 1974:
> 
> * 1911 - 1974 - 338 gigalitres
> * 1974 - 2000 - 117 gigalitres
> * 2001 - 2005 - 92.4 gigalitres
> * 2006 - 2010 - 57.7 gigalitres
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...xpert-warns-20110523-1f0ho.html#ixzz1NKrTurmD




Just read a bit more of this and the numbers look a bit fuzzy so take it with a grain of salt but the SW of WA has had long term decline in rain fall since white settlement mate who owns a farm int he Margret River area has trees dying on his farm due to lack of water same as around Perth.

A flood would be welcome Sails but I think our problem over here is a little different to what was seen over your way in the far east with Perth expanding at the same time we will run out of water even with 2 decel plants up and running..


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of  xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..
> 
> He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the  analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the  time. Completely skips over the  discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.
> 
> The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us  and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long  terms.
> 
> I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.
> 
> Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.




BUSH FIRES??????? WHAT BUSH FIRES?????????
The last decade bush fires were no worse than the bush fires in the 30's and every decade after that.
What has made it look worse in the past couple decades is some people were stupid enough to build in fire proned areas and the Grenns were even more bloody stupid in not allowing those same people to clear some bush around those houses. One couple cleared around their house and were fined $50,000. Perhaps that $50,000 may have been a good insurance policy for their house was the only one left standing the area.

Rises in sea levels have gone as high as an eight story building, to 10 metres to one metre to less yhan half a metre. OMG how can anyone seriously believe these so call climate change idiotic "experts". 

Just about everyone believes in climate change and some 60% now believe it is not man made and increasing every year. IT'S JUST PLAIN CRAP.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

*Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)*

Here we go.......the regurgitated climate commission report that the alarmists bang on about...no need to read it, the contents page is plenty enough:
*
IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ*
This document is produced for general information only
and does not represent a statement of the policy of the
Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts
have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness
and reliability of the material contained in this document,
the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting
for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no
liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material
contained in this publication, or for any action as a result
of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
conclusions or actions in relying on this material.​
Or in other words: This fairy tale contains magic and pretty pictures for climate alarmists and if you think we're wrong on our assertions, well you may be right as we don't stand by it anyway.

Here's some better words for this important notice....

A Royal Commission to open up this scam.


----------



## noco

*Re: Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)*



OzWaveGuy said:


> Here we go.......the regurgitated climate commission report that the alarmists bang on about...no need to read it, the contents page is plenty enough:
> *
> IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ*
> This document is produced for general information only
> and does not represent a statement of the policy of the
> Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts
> have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness
> and reliability of the material contained in this document,
> the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting
> for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no
> liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material
> contained in this publication, or for any action as a result
> of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions,
> conclusions or actions in relying on this material.​
> Or in other words: This fairy tale contains magic and pretty pictures for climate alarmists and if you think we're wrong on our assertions, well you may be right as we don't stand by it anyway.
> 
> Here's some better words for this important notice....
> 
> A Royal Commission to open up this scam.




The Climate Commission were hand picked alarmist by Labor and the end result was well and truly predicted before it even commenced. 
With Tim Flannery heading the show, what else would any sane person expect the outcome would be. 
Did any sane person expect the report to come out and say, "no, AGW is not man made, it purely a natural phenomenon". 
Just another Labor Party beat up lie.
Oh for God's sake give us a break.


----------



## sails

*Re: Climate Commission Report - A Must read (the first page only required)*



noco said:


> The Climate Commission were hand picked alarmist by Labor and the end result was well and truly predicted before it even commenced.
> With Tim Flannery heading the show, what else would any sane person expect the outcome would be.
> Did any sane person expect the report to come out and say, "no, AGW is not man made, it purely a natural phenomenon".
> Just another Labor Party beat up lie.
> Oh for God's sake give us a break.




I guess this is all about Gillard being told to step up her sales pitch on carbon tax by Wilke.  And will she also use public funds to advertise her pet tax?

Andrew Wilkie says Julia Gillard must improve carbon tax sales job to regain public confidence 



> “Clearly the government does need to do a better job at selling a price on carbon if it is to regain the broad-based support it enjoyed last year,” he told The Australian Online.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Cold here today - ice everywhere, an extreme weather event perhaps?


IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This comment is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of OzWaveGuy. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the comment, OzWaveGuy and all persons acting for the OzWaveGuy preparing this comment accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this comment, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this comment.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Perhaps the Climate master Tim Flannery needs a disclaimer notice whenever he speaks too....


*In the Financial Review today (no link), Flannery is asked about these in passing by a journalist who fails to appreciate the significance of such a terrible record, or the implications of Flannery’s response:*

I can’t remember everything I said back then but there may have been things that were prevalent in the science back then which today have changed… I readily admit that, but the stuff about rainfall is still valid.​But aren’t we told to “accept the science”? So what must we conclude when the science turns out to be so fallible?​
So the science has changed? Exactly how so? There's a scientific "con-sensus", right? In fact, nothing has changed, just the fraud by the alarmists continues to grow.


----------



## drsmith

Regarding rainfall, Tim Flannery may be on the higher ground come the end of the year.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Not that shorter term variations in weather such as the recent La-Nina or a potential spring/summer El-Nino, as indicated by the computer models from the link above, should influence longer term thinking.


----------



## noco

OzWaveGuy said:


> Cold here today - ice everywhere, an extreme weather event perhaps?
> 
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
> This comment is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of OzWaveGuy. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the comment, OzWaveGuy and all persons acting for the OzWaveGuy preparing this comment accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this comment, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this comment.




You are spot on my friend. It's a load of "crap" that is coming out of the mouths of these so called climate change scientists purely to prop up Gillard's claim for a carbon dioxide tax.


----------



## Calliope

OzWaveGuy said:


> But aren’t we told to “accept the science”? So what must we conclude when the science turns out to be so fallible? [/INDENT]




Common sense (which the warmists on this thread don't have much of ) will beat "the science" every time.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Common sense (which the warmists on this thread don't have much of ) will beat "the science" every time.




Absolutly Calliope, I don't understand, how for the life of me they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

noco said:


> Absolutly Calliope, I don't understand, how for the life of me they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.




Very simple question to answer noco...there's an underlying mandate from the UN for all countries to drive the AGW agenda - it's part of Agenda 21. If they don't succeed with this Government, it'll be a mandate for the next. Alternatively it will be incrementally phased in over years if necessary so it's not so noticeable. Hence, it's not an issue with a government being Labor or Liberal, they are not in the driving seat. 

The Copenhagen Treaty of 2009 was the smoking gun to adopt global governance, an aggressive treaty that failed but was a clear sign of the UN's intentions to encapsulate the world with a tax on life.


----------



## sails

OzWaveGuy said:


> Very simple question to answer noco...there's an underlying mandate from the UN for all countries to drive the AGW agenda - it's part of Agenda 21. If they don't succeed with this Government, it'll be a mandate for the next. Alternatively it will be incrementally phased in over years if necessary so it's not so noticeable. Hence, it's not an issue with a government being Labor or Liberal, they are not in the driving seat.
> 
> The Copenhagen Treaty of 2009 was the smoking gun to adopt global governance, an aggressive treaty that failed but was a clear sign of the UN's intentions to encapsulate the world with a tax on life.




That's about the only thing that does make sense with carbon tax.  How else does the UN get money without imposing a tax of some sort on all developed nations and they get a percentage.  I have heard that the UN would get 10% of any carbon tax proceeds - something that is not talked about too much.

The UN would need funds to pay their representatives.  Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....


----------



## noco

sails said:


> That's about the only thing that does make sense with carbon tax.  How else does the UN get money without imposing a tax of some sort on all developed nations and they get a percentage.  I have heard that the UN would get 10% of any carbon tax proceeds - something that is not talked about too much.
> 
> The UN would need funds to pay their representatives.  Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....




Yes sails, that 10% was a commitment made at Cancun by Greg Combet together with the $599 million give away and the Labor Government have kept very quiet about that one.

The Un is pro GREEN and Rudd is a member of the UN Climate Change committee.

I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only  entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.


----------



## sails

noco said:


> Yes sails, that 10% was a commitment made at Cancun by Greg Combet together with the $599 million give away and the Labor Government have kept very quiet about that one.
> 
> The Un is pro GREEN and Rudd is a member of the UN Climate Change committee.
> 
> I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only  entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.




Yes, imo no point until China and the US do something (IF it's actually going to do any good for carbon emissions).  But if it's money for the UN, then that's a whole different issue and likely won't matter on the order that countries come on line.  Look at the chart below - China and the US are the fast rising blue and purple lines.  The UK is  barely seen down the bottom of the chart:







Click here for Wikipedia's 2011 world carbon emissions

Chart above from rom Bolt's blog


----------



## DB008

Common, we shouldn't be so harsh on our Government, they did try.....

Abbott (Nine News) - Cost of Australia's delegation to Copenhagen


> Presenter: It’s the figure Kevin Rudd didn’t want you to know. Nine News can reveal how much it cost taxpayers to send the PM and a huge team of Government officials to the Copenhagen climate conference.
> 
> Chloe Bugelly: The climate change conference was supposed to change the world. It didn’t, but it did rack up an enormous bill for taxpayers.
> 
> Andrew Bolt: Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure and a farce.
> 
> Chloe Bugelly: We spent almost $1.5 million ($1,429,707) sending a delegation to Copenhagen. That’s our money up in smoke. And that doesn’t include the cost of the PM’s jet which industry experts say cost $15,000 an hour to run.
> 
> Tony Abbott: I think there was something like 1800 tonnes of carbon dioxide created by this trip.




Mexico Summit
Climate delegation cost questioned


> THE Gillard government spent more than $360,000 of taxpayer funds to send a 38-member delegation to last year's United Nations climate change conference in Mexico.
> 
> Despite the failure of the previous Copenhagen meeting in December 2009, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, parliamentary secretary Mark Dreyfus, South Australian Premier Mike Rann and their advisers all flew business class to Cancun for the meeting.
> 
> The party was joined by 20 staff from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, four people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, three officials from AusAid and IT support from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
> 
> The delegation was also assisted by an additional three Mexico-based DFAT staff and they all stayed in a beachside and golf resort called “Moon Palace”, where the conference was held.
> 
> The figures, obtained through the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, also showed the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency spent $3 million on overseas travel in 2010.


----------



## DB008

Per Capita, Australia's CO is the highest (from this graph), but TOTAL emissions, Australia is a blip on the screen.


----------



## sails

Per capita is, of course, going to be much larger for Australia because of our deserts, sweeping plains, rugged mountain ranges, etc.

So, even if we look at per capita, it means that Aussies are going to have to pay many times more than a country such as China per person and yet do next to nothing for carbon reduction in Australia.

I think the idea that this is far more to do with the UN picking up 10% of carbon tax is the thing that makes the most sense.  How much of this goes to to transfer wealth from developed countries to help undeveloped nations adapt to "global warming" and how much the UN retains for it's own use remains to be seen, IMO.

An article from TheWest Feb 2011 with information that seems to be kept fairly quiet: 
Carbon tax billions to help poor nations



> The Gillard Government is party to a UN agreement which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about 10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations will go into a Green Climate Fund.
> 
> Even when Ms Gillard was denying there would be a carbon tax last August, her government had committed to spend $599 million on climate change handouts over the current three-year Budget period, mainly in the Pacific and South-East Asia. About $470 million has already been allocated.


----------



## Smurf1976

Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.

Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.

A more relevant figure would be GDP per capita, excluding that which arises from financial speculation and other non-"real economy" activity. That's a pretty good measure of total resource consumption that overcomes the offshoring issue.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> The UN would need funds to pay their representatives.  Another tier of government that the people in developed countries will be required to support....



Including Our Kevvie when he eventually gets that coveted seat at the UN.



noco said:


> I am not sure where it came from, but I thought I heard mention from some source that Australia should only  entertain a Carbon Dioxide Tax untill all countries did the same.



Noco, Ms Gillard, her very self, said this or a phrase to that effect when she announced the community forum on climate change, or whatever it was called.  That's one more thought bubble from the government that appears to have died quietly.
Such a sentiment has now been conveniently overlooked.
What are our journalists doing????
They're on the whole such pathetic acolytes of e.g. Flannery and Garnaut.



Smurf1976 said:


> Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.
> 
> Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.



That's really interesting, Smurf.  Can you expand on this a bit?  How does this work and what sort of industries/ companies are engaged in this?


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> Australia is in the outsourced contractor business so far as carbon emissions are concerned in much the same way as India is with call centres.
> 
> Quite a large share of Australia's apparent CO2 emissions have been offshored to Australia by other countries, just as we offshore our call centres and electronics manufacturing to others. Of course our emissions per capita seem high - we're pumping out a lot of CO2 on behalf of others.
> 
> A more relevant figure would be GDP per capita, excluding that which arises from financial speculation and other non-"real economy" activity. That's a pretty good measure of total resource consumption that overcomes the offshoring issue.



Are you talking about where carbon emissions from e.g. Australian coal sent to China are, or would be, taken into account? I've had trouble finding information about this; I think it's one of the areas that is discussed at length in international meetings such as Cancun and Copenhagen, but the details are implemented locally. I'd be very interested in sources of information.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> That's really interesting, Smurf.  Can you expand on this a bit?  How does this work and what sort of industries/ companies are engaged in this?



There are many industries (most notably aluminium) which are hugely energy intensive and whose production is primarily (or solely) for export markets.

For example, about 15% of all electricity generated in Victoria is used to produce aluminium and it's similar in Qld and NSW. Aluminium isn't the only example, but it is individually the largest. In Tasmania it's even more extreme with a bit over 50% of all electricity consumed going into either the newsprint mill or one of the big 3 electrometallurgical plants (aluminium, zinc, ferro alloys). Add in mining and other manufacturing and that figure rises to about two thirds of total consumption.

The key point is that these plants are always built where electricity is cheap. The ONLY reason they exist in NSW, Vic or Tas at all is due to cheap electricity. That is the sole reason those industries exist in those states, and the only real reason they are in Australia at all. They were built because of cheap power, and they will be relocated if that situation changes.

I doubt the average person realises the economics of this. We're not talking about a factory that gets a power bill in addition to all other expenses. No, we're talking about a situation where electricity is by far the largest cost of production, to the point that it becomes the primary factor in determining where such businesses should operate. If it's a choice between high wages but cheap power, or cheap wages but expensive power, then the cheap electricity wins. Hence why the're in Australia and jobs in these places generally pay pretty well. 

In that context it's no secret that the aluminium industry is already underway with a pull out from Australia by means of a capital strike. That is, stop investing in the plants and gradually run them down until they eventually close once everything is worn out and completely out dated. That certainly seems to be what is going on already, and it is no surprise.

This de-industrialisation process has as its outcome replacing the smelters with the exprot of ores and coal for processing overseas (noting that most of the value comes about during processing, not mining). It doesn't reduce emissions but rather, it simply relocates them to a different country.


----------



## macca

So if we apply Smurfs smelting info to Danny's graphs we see that Australia's output reverts back to about average output per capita for emissions in developed societies.

Quite reasonable since the Greens refuse to allow us to build new dams for Hydro or Nuclear plants to produce electricity which would drop the figure dramatically. 

I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.


----------



## drsmith

macca said:


> I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.



The following I would suggest is a reflection of the Greens fantasy world.



It's a very nice piece of music by the way, but some within the Greens have been listening to it for too long. I can see father Bob Brown in the guy with the serious look on his face at the end of the above clip. In that scene in the movie, he orders the other villagers back to their houses like they are children.


----------



## Knobby22

macca said:


> I really don't understand why they insist we continue to use coal powered plants, I suppose it gives them an easy target for media shots.




Not nice being known as the biggest polluters in the world per capita. Wouldn't like Europe to start sanctions agains us but as long as the USA does what it does then we shouldn't have too many problems.

We could reduce out per capita pollution pretty easily. Just get rid of our most inefficient brown coal power station and replace it with an efficient brown coal power station and we would probably drop below the USA.


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> Quite reasonable since the Greens refuse to allow us to build new dams for Hydro or Nuclear plants to produce electricity which would drop the figure dramatically.



A few points...

Compared to the world as a whole, the Australian electricity industry has roughly half as much hydro and has no nuclear at all. If we simply used these two power sources at levels comparable to the global average, that would produce a drop in our emissions comparable to outright closing the entire brown coal industry.

I am not a fan of nuclear power for many reasons, the main three of which are that it is unsustainable, uneconomical and an unnecessary risk. But it can't be denied that it produces far less CO2 than any form of fossil fuel generation.

As for hydro, when people say "renewable" what they really mean in practice, in terms of power generation that is actually in use, is hydro. Pick any country that claims a high % of renewable electricity and you'll find that the vast majority of that is from hydro. 

Now, we had that debate 30 years ago and I'm not going to try and start it here (though it never really died in the minds of many and there's still plenty of flow gauges on undammed rivers...). But suffice to say that if we want flowing rivers then there's price to pay for that, and that price is higher CO2 emissions.

All that said, I still think geothermal holds great potential. Given all the money that government throws at this, that and something else, I'd like to see some taxpayer backing of this one. Not necessarily nationalisation, but I'm thinking more in terms of incentives. Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants) with an output not less than 500 MW.

Geothermal potentially really is a game changer and it's certainly got more chance of being commercially viable than uranium. I'm no socialist, but it's a fact that it took government (specifically the Vic and Tas state governments) to get both brown coal and hydro up and running in Australia on a decent scale where private enterprise had failed and I do think we need to look at doing the same with geothermal. It's got to be a better use of my taxes than batts, halls and plasmas.


----------



## orr

. Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants) 

I look at a map when thinking along these lines and scribe an arch from Port Augusta up Through the Copper Basin and onto South central Queensland linking those Geothermal and Solar Thermal Tenements and think "High Voltage D.C inter-connector" And ask why Not, and answer myself, a tragically conservative electorate component that's been convinced or convinced themselves that this type of proposal to assist a sustainable future Australian industry is all part of a Greeny Commo world Government plot. These same 'Thinkers', with adept use of the 'right' mental gymnastics and pre Copernican Alchemy,are able easily surmount advanced scientific method,  whilst firmly clinging to the slipperiest of snake oil 'sails'men to ease their frying nerves. 
  Just the mention of Geothermal they run shrieking into the street, arms flailing 
"Flannery Flannery Flannery"


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> . Say, government will fund the entire cost of transmission for the first permanent full scale plant (or group of plants)
> 
> I look at a map when thinking along these lines and scribe an arch from Port Augusta up Through the Copper Basin and onto South central Queensland linking those Geothermal and Solar Thermal Tenements and think "High Voltage D.C inter-connector" And ask why Not, and answer myself, a tragically conservative electorate component that's been convinced or convinced themselves that this type of proposal to assist a sustainable future Australian industry is all part of a Greeny Commo world Government plot. These same 'Thinkers', with adept use of the 'right' mental gymnastics and pre Copernican Alchemy,are able easily surmount advanced scientific method,  whilst firmly clinging to the slipperiest of snake oil 'sails'men to ease their frying nerves.
> Just the mention of Geothermal they run shrieking into the street, arms flailing
> "Flannery Flannery Flannery"




Nice rant orr. It is shame it was wasted on such BS.

Conservatives are against geothermal?  I'm not a conservative, but I find this a bit hard to believe.

IIRC (and I'm certainly not au fait with this and stand to be corrected), it is the Greens putting roadblocks in front of many alternative energy sources.


----------



## wayneL

FYI

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...al-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html



> *Kyoto deal loses four big nations*
> May 29, 2011
> 
> DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.....
> 
> ....They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.
> 
> At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html#ixzz1Nn7ECGgl


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> ...We could reduce out per capita pollution pretty easily. Just get rid of our most inefficient brown coal power station and replace it with an efficient brown coal power station and we would probably drop below the USA.




Trouble with per capita is that we need a higher population to reduce the per capita percentage.  But then we increase our percentage of world carbon emissions.  Doesn't make sense to me.

Smurf has come up with a solution.  Check out his posts...


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Trouble with per capita is that we need a higher population to reduce the per capita percentage.  But then we increase our percentage of world carbon emissions.  Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Smurf has come up with a solution.  Check out his posts...




Sort of true.  Canada is beating us despite the fact they need heaps of energy just to keep warm and a similar mining issue. I'm sure we could do better with a bit of thought.
I like Geothermal but the one geothermal plant we tried recently failed. I think the scientists and engineers are still trying to understand all the problems.

I was at a meeting at work recently which showed a solar powered desalination plant that is being used around the world including Germany. The only electricity it requires is a small pump to get the water from the sea into the plant.

Why we don't have them in Australia is probably due to poor decisions or lobbying by the big US firms who have the filtration technology we have chosen. We need better people!


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Some interesting points raised here...

*Alan Jones speaks to Professor Timothy Ball about climate change and the Galileo Movement.*


----------



## IFocus

I just love the rubbish The Australian puts out

"West waves goodbye to its biggest dry"

Its about a farmer who got 15mm of rain at York and can start seeding.


Mean while



> The Water Corporation said the rain was welcome but more was needed to make any difference to critically low dam levels in Perth, where water storage is just 22 per cent capacity.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-its-biggest-dry/story-e6frg8y6-1226066001623


----------



## OzWaveGuy

You can see why alarmists have been quiet on the % contribution of CO2 from man v's nature. The numbers are so small and the government could never win a PR campaign  should these figures (esp the Australia contribution) be openly discussed. 

Ask your friends (and MPs) what % of the atmosphere is CO2 and what is the human component of that. Then ask them if we reduced our CO2 gas emissions by 5%, what change in the global temperature would we expect to see?

Alan Jones in his "comical" way goes thru the numbers....

*Alan Jones speaks to climate change scientist Professor David Karoly.*


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> You can see why alarmists have been quiet on the % contribution of CO2 from man v's nature. The numbers are so small and the government could never win a PR campaign  should these figures (esp the Australia contribution) be openly discussed.
> 
> Ask your friends (and MPs) what % of the atmosphere is CO2 and what is the human component of that. Then ask them if we reduced our CO2 gas emissions by 5%, what change in the global temperature would we expect to see?
> 
> Alan Jones in his "comical" way goes thru the numbers....
> 
> *Alan Jones speaks to climate change scientist Professor David Karoly.*



I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest. 

Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest.
> 
> Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.




Hey derty,

Claims and assertions on both sides there and not much scientific backup really. 

The word "clearly" repeated as nauseam by the boffin. But nothing is clear really is it? I think AJ did a great job in highlighting that, whether an ignorant rude bore or not. Last statement contained "beyond reasonable doubt", yet he admitted beforehand that the science isn't settled.... that means there is reasonable doubt doesn't it?

I contend the use of language by Karoly is rather less scientific and rather more political. IMNTBCHO of course.

BTW, are only AGW dissenters ignorant rude bores or can a climate alarmist be one too?


----------



## basilio

derty said:


> I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest.
> 
> Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.




Yes it was an eye opener to realise how much totally stupid vitriol could be poured on a  highly knowledgable scientist.  You certainly couldn't use facts or logic in talking with Alan Jones on a topic like climate change.

With reference to the statement that humans only contribute 3% of the  CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quite true.   Before the industrial revolution the natural cycle of growth and death resulted in a CO2 levels staying stable. Overall  CO2 was cycled from the growth and decay of plants. In fact scientists are able to see a saw tooth pattern of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which corresponds to the cycles of spring and autumn.

However when humans started to add substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there ( there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well) . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate. 

The effect of the extra CO2 has been to trap more heat into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect.

The time lags for temperature changes as a result of this additional CO2 are measured in decades not years.  But they  are coming and unless the process is reversed  we will see average global temperature increases of 2-5 C.  

If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.


----------



## mexican

basilio said:


> Yes it was an eye opener to realise how much totally stupid vitriol could be poured on a  highly knowledgable scientist.  You certainly couldn't use facts or logic in talking with Alan Jones on a topic like climate change.
> 
> With reference to the statement that humans only contribute 3% of the  CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> Quite true.   Before the industrial revolution the natural cycle of growth and death resulted in a CO2 levels staying stable. Overall  CO2 was cycled from the growth and decay of plants. In fact scientists are able to see a saw tooth pattern of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which corresponds to the cycles of spring and autumn.
> 
> However when humans started to add substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there ( there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well) . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate.
> 
> The effect of the extra CO2 has been to trap more heat into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect.
> 
> The time lags for temperature changes as a result of this additional CO2 are measured in decades not years.  But they  are coming and unless the process is reversed  we will see average global temperature increases of 2-5 C.
> 
> If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.




So what do you think about Professor Bob Carter's hypothesis?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

How quickly the alarmists rush to defend with the usual regurgitated "zombie" CO2 propaganda, yet even Karoly couldn't point to any observed evidence of CO2 driving temperatures. In fact, it's temperatures that drive CO2 not the reverse, no surprise that Karoly didn't debate Jones when this topic was raised in the interview.

But no problem, alarmists can simply add an *"Important Notice"* to their magical work paid by the people of Australia to ensure there is no liability whilst collecting their grants.


----------



## Boggo

I copied this from another site, worth showing I think.

Below is a picture of Michael Caton with a picture of the Battersea power station in the UK in the background, Battersea was closed down in 1983.

Bottom pic is what it actually looks like.

These people seriously believe the majority are morons, maybe they are right ?

.


----------



## Knobby22

They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.


----------



## bandicoot76

Knobby22 said:


> They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.




actually what you can vissibly see emitted from the stacks of any power station is only water vapour! not soot nor CO2, 

any solid bi-products (ie 'soot') is cleaned & removed by scrubber units where-as the CO2 is non visable... its colourless.

the pictures of stacks 'belching CO2' are a miss-representation. engineering 101


----------



## Boggo

Knobby22 said:


> They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.




They were actually white when Pink Floyd placed a flying pig between the chimneys on one of their album covers many moons ago.

(Flying pig - relevance ?  )


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there *(there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well)* . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate.



My bold. Are these local or global studies?
Ref?
Thx


----------



## basilio

spooly74 said:


> My bold. Are these local or global studies?
> Ref?
> Thx




At least 2 separate recent studies have identified a reduction in absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The IPCC report  also noted that as the world gets warmer there is a substantial increase in  the likelihood of the earth releasing CO2  as well as release of methane under the meltaing permafrost.



> *Sea absorbing less CO2, scientists discover*
> 
> 
> David Adam, environment correspondent
> The Guardian, Monday 12 January 2009
> Article history
> 
> Scientists have issued a new warning about climate change after discovering a sudden and dramatic collapse in the amount of carbon emissions absorbed by the Sea of Japan.
> 
> The shift has alarmed experts, who blame global warming.
> 
> The world's oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide pollution each year, about a quarter of all produced, and even a slight weakening of this natural process would leave significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere. That would require countries to adopt much stricter emissions targets to prevent dangerous rises in temperature.
> 
> Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the "very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming".
> 
> He says the warmer conditions disrupt a process known as "ventilation" - the way seawater flows and mixes and drags absorbed CO2 from surface waters to the depths. He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment



> Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
> 
> The study was carried out over the course of a decade
> The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.
> 
> *University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.
> 
> Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.*
> 
> Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.
> 
> Researchers said the findings, published in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research, were surprising and worrying because there were grounds for believing that, in time, the ocean might become saturated with our emissions.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm




> *
> 
> Why the news about warming is worse than we thought*:
> 
> Oceans, soil and trees will become worse at absorbing carbon dioxide as temperatures rise
> 
> 
> The Guardian, Saturday 3 February 2007 02.46 GMT
> Article history
> 
> Predictions by international scientists that global warming will lead to a sharper rise in temperatures than previously thought made sobering reading yesterday. But what is the major factor that has driven their gloomy conclusion?
> 
> *Dramatic flips in the way ecosystems absorb carbon dioxide will see oceans and vast swaths of land falter in their ability to draw up the greenhouse gas, allowing it to build up in the atmosphere and cause more warming. The phenomenon is known as a positive feedback - where global warming drives changes in ecosystems that themselves cause more heating.*
> 
> The warning came in a major report on climate change published yesterday that suggests average temperatures could rise more than expected - by as much as 6.4C by 2100, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reined in. The report, from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has upgraded its 2001 estimate that temperatures would rise by at most 5.8C, because at the time the feedback mechanisms were either unknown or poorly understood.
> 
> The latest report states that the predicted temperature rise for 2100 was raised because "the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks".




http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/03/greenpolitics.science?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> BTW, are only AGW dissenters ignorant rude bores or can a climate alarmist be one too?




They are easy to spot on this thread... especially the long-winded bores.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> At least 2 separate recent studies have identified a reduction in absorption of CO2 in the oceans.



Both say the uptake has halved. Wondering how much CO2 is already there and how much it can store?

Also, no mention of the study in the second link in the first link. Probably sloppy journalism?


> He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.




Even my own Grandson pointed out from his own reading that the ice and snow loss hasw taken away an important reflective blanket, ie., it reflects heat back into space.

Good post as usual basillio. 

Listening to John Michael Howson on Saturday and anyone putting up a common sense rebuttal were shouted over.   What intellectual missfits the business lobby have.


----------



## basilio

A number of  contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.

Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any  scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> A number of  contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.
> 
> Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any  scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.





Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version.  Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...

And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time.  Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon.  Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.

Australia emits 1.35% (by memory).  Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.  

I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.

The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts?  Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> A number of  contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.
> 
> Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any  scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.




Oh and of course science is infallible?  The very basis of the scientific method is fallibility; picking the eyes out of any hypothesis to see if it stands up. Of course climate scientists and their fellow gravy train passengers believe they should be exempt from such inquiry.

If we define commonsense as some sort of logical "thinking through" things, surely it must be applied to experiment design to avoid silly flaws which may give an erroneous conclusion. I observed a lack of commonsense results in totally inappropriate experiment design in equine exercise physiology, relative to the target athlete, making conclusions worthless. Very few were designed properly, using so called "commonsense" (read basic logic). The biggy - experiments conducted at sub-maximal exercise and conclusions extrapolated to equines undergoing maximal effort. 

There are still products on shelves that don't do what the "science" says they do, due to such muppetry.

And such muppetry is oh so prevalent in climate science too.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Oh and of course science is infallible?  The very basis of the scientific method is fallibility; picking the eyes out of any hypothesis to see if it stands up. Of course climate scientists and their fellow gravy train passengers believe they should be exempt from such inquiry.
> 
> If we define commonsense as some sort of logical "thinking through" things, surely it must be applied to experiment design to avoid silly flaws which may give an erroneous conclusion. I observed a lack of commonsense results in totally inappropriate experiment design in equine exercise physiology, relative to the target athlete, making conclusions worthless. Very few were designed properly, using so called "commonsense" (read basic logic). The biggy - experiments conducted at sub-maximal exercise and conclusions extrapolated to equines undergoing maximal effort.
> 
> There are still products on shelves that don't do what the "science" says they do, due to such muppetry.
> 
> And such muppetry is oh so prevalent in climate science too.




Yes, and once apon a time the world was flat and the heretics who expresses another possiblity, based on some crazy science, were cast out and some burned at the stake.

Waynel, subjective gobbledygook is just that and science works and points to conclusions which *are objective.*

But of course we will only see what we want to look at.   Our dreams and desires cannot be measured and quantified but they unfortunately get in the way of *the objective.*


----------



## basilio

Wayne I think the contributors who wanted to ditch all scientific research on climate change (unless they agreed with it of course !) in preference to their own robust commonsense made more sense than you have.

FWIW I leave the discussion on the robustness of the current science behind climate change to a real expert.



> *Climate debate 'almost infantile'*
> Adam Morton
> May 25, 2010
> 
> 
> *A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ''almost infantile'', equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.
> 
> Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.
> 
> While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science - that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions - should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.
> 
> ''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.
> 
> ''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.'' He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise.
> 
> Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, was appointed a science adviser by the Howard government in 2004. He has advised Labor's Penny Wong and the Coalition's Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull.
> *
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1NuZFpCeZ





And, please note,  Professor Steffen was John Howards  appointment as the government  science advisor in 2004.


----------



## Calliope

Science says we should put a tax on carbon. Commonsense tells us that carbon is our most valuable resource. That great believer in "the science", Bob Brown, thinks all fossil fuels should stay in the ground. He lacks common sense.



> THE economy looks set to suffer it biggest contraction in 20 years in the first quarter of 2011 after a string of natural disasters savaged exports in crucial industries such as coal




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...atural-disasters/story-e6frg926-1226066438394


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne I think the contributors who wanted to ditch all scientific research on climate change (unless they agreed with it of course !) in preference to their own robust commonsense made more sense than you have.
> 
> FWIW I leave the discussion on the robustness of the current science behind climate change to a real expert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, please note,  Professor Steffen was John Howards  appointment as the government  science advisor in 2004.




Yes, and as previously noted, alarmists must go the ad hominem route as the first option.

You are at least true to form. 

Prof. Steffan has done no better than throw a tantrum.


----------



## sails

sails said:


> Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version.  Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...
> 
> And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time.  Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon.  Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.
> 
> Australia emits 1.35% (by memory).  Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.
> 
> I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.
> 
> The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts?  Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????




basilio - why do you think Australia should put it's economy at risk to reduce 5% of 1.35% of world carbon dioxide emissions?  Don't you think it's futile when the biggest polluting countries are not interested in this nonsense?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Prof. Steffan has done no better than throw a tantrum.




We are starting to see who is throwing the tantrum.  Lacking a bit of explanation in proportion to the bland statement I feel.

Yes this whole carbon and warming thingo is a connundrum.   But as we continue with expansionism it is only going to grow into a larger problem.

If we can start to at least agree that we have a problem, and *we will eventually*, then all heads will be the better to try and solve it.

The current crapola is the more pointless of all that we assert.  And this point does deserve a


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yes, and once apon a time the world was flat and the heretics who expresses another possiblity, based on some crazy science, were cast out and some burned at the stake.
> 
> Waynel, subjective gobbledygook is just that and science works and points to conclusions which *are objective.*
> 
> But of course we will only see what we want to look at.   Our dreams and desires cannot be measured and quantified but they unfortunately get in the way of *the objective.*




Observations are (usually) objective. Experiment design (or model design) is subjective to a lesser or greater extent as I've highlighted in my example of equine exercise physiology.

Conclusions often are, or at least have a component of subjectivity.

The very nature of climate science means there is a very large component of *sub*jectivity.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> We are starting to see who is throwing the tantrum.  Lacking a bit of explanation in proportion to the bland statement I feel.




OK then, can you please highlight where the professor has introduced any substantive scientific arguments in that article?


----------



## bellenuit

Calliope said:


> Science says we should put a tax on carbon.




Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity. To the extent that I have followed the debate I accept that that is the case. Science also tells us that the way to slow down or stop the warming trend is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can only be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions to a point where CO2 absorption exceeds CO2 emissions. Science can also tell us what human activities produce the most CO2 and what produce the least.

Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> OK then, can you please highlight where the professor has introduced any substantive scientific arguments in that article?






> ''You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it - that's fair game - but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],'' he said.





Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1Numg4Ol9

At the end of the day we have to surely take *some note *of the experts.

Of course how we attain that may be the real burning question.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1Numg4Ol9
> 
> At the end of the day we have to surely take *some note *of the experts.
> 
> Of course how we attain that may be the real burning question.




You didn't answer *my* question.


----------



## mexican

Always good to hear a presentation by a qualified Professor that does not have his hand in the government's pocket!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8&feature=relmfu


----------



## Calliope

bellenuit said:


> Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity.




Sorry. I thought Gillard was using "the science" which says warming is our fault, to justify her taxes, to put a brake on our nasty "human activity" of emitting CO2 by burning coal.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You didn't answer *my* question.




You need to explain first why you believe the professor was throwing a tantrum.  It ws not clear to me.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You need to explain first why you believe the professor was throwing a tantrum.  It ws not clear to me.




I hold that to be self evident. Emotive language is the clue.


----------



## IFocus

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify. 

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?


----------



## explod

> ''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.
> 
> ''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.''



This is what he was purported to have said directly.   The other content is the version of what was said by the reporter.

And I agree with what he states above and would be interested on what, in this Waynel, that you disagree and why?


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> 
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> 
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> 
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> 
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> 
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> 
> If we do some thing who will die?





 Bleehhh
Are you the writer for the new carbon tax ad or something.


----------



## IFocus

moXJO said:


> Bleehhh
> Are you the writer for the new carbon tax ad or something.




To be honest the carbon tax is neither here nor there but to do nothing is a much more serious decision.

There are some serious consequences coming but seems like those making the decisions now wont be around for the results I just cannot see a happy ending in 50 years time.

I think the climate thing is not a No 1 issue now but if we cannot find a way though dealing with the questions on really such a basic premise .........well we are well and truly Fu(ked for the other serious issues coming sooner.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> 
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> 
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> 
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> 
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> 
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> 
> If we do some thing who will die?




Methinks a carbon tax is not the answer. Seeing how we waste more food then we eat I really do not see this as an issue.


----------



## basilio

IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> 
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> 
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> 
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> 
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> 
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> 
> If we do some thing who will die?




*That is the big picture IFocus.* We don't just have a global warming problem or a peak oil problem or a resources constraint problem. If we are going to somehow muddle through in some  semi coherant shape *all the issues *have to be addressed.

When we (as a society)  actually get to the stage of acknowledging the reality and severity of these issues we might start thinking about what we have to change and give up to  make an impact.  Up until now it's been  groups like the Pentagon, environmentalists and the broader scientific community  who have been most concerned. 

It's been mentioned before but still bears repeating.  The mantra of continual economic growth as the only way to keep our society going is one of the basic reasons we are in this mess. And to get out of this mess _(after we actually recognise  it is there ! _)  we have to find a way of restructuring our society  to use less resources but still keep everyone alive and reasonably happy. 

I think that deserves it's own thread and it is a worthwhile discussion.


----------



## sails

sails said:


> Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version.  Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...
> 
> And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time.  Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon.  Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.
> 
> Australia emits 1.35% (by memory).  Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.
> 
> I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.
> 
> The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts?  Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????




 OK, I'll try again Basilio - what's the point when Australia emits so little CO2???

If still no answer, I will start a new thread...lol


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> basilio - why do you think Australia should put it's economy at risk to reduce 5% of 1.35% of world carbon dioxide emissions?  Don't you think it's futile when the biggest polluting countries are not interested in this nonsense?



A very reasonable question which surely, basilio, deserves a clear answer from you.



bellenuit said:


> Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.



Totally sensible comment, bellenuit.  Good to see some objectivity.



IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> 
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> 
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> 
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> 
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> 
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> 
> If we do some thing who will die?



Ah, some heart tugging, emotive stuff there.
However, few of your questions have to do with the usefulness of Australia engaging an economy-damaging carbon tax while the major emitters of the world do nothing, and furthermore have emphasised their attitude to this by again refusing to endorse the Kyoto stuff.

Please say simply whether you believe Australia's proposed carbon tax, while China, the USA, et al continue to grow their emissions, is useful, and if it is, then could you please explain how.



IFocus said:


> To be honest the carbon tax is neither here nor there but to do nothing is a much more serious decision.



That statement is a total cop-out, IF.  What, then, do you suggest Australia should do (taking into account the non-action of other major industrialised nations) as an alternative to your 'doing nothing'?


----------



## Sean K

IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> 
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> 
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> 
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> 
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> 
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> 
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> 
> If we do some thing who will die?



Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.


----------



## explod

kennas said:


> Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.




Amen.   

Remember who started the baby bonus, "one for Dad, one for Mum and one for the country" drum roll please............it was.......Johnie's right hand man Peter.

Be interesting to see who has the b.lls to reverse that one in a hurry.

And population growth is required for continued expansionism.   So cutting the b.lls out of that will take some .........too.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> It's been mentioned before but still bears repeating.  The mantra of continual economic growth as the only way to keep our society going is one of the basic reasons we are in this mess. And to get out of this mess _(after we actually recognise  it is there ! _)  we have to find a way of restructuring our society  to use less resources but still keep everyone alive and reasonably happy.




You have been preaching doom and gloom for so long that you have become quite paranoid. I think that you are convinced "this mess" is now in train and we are on a collision course with armageddon. 

You will only get relief from your trauma when you concede, that if the end is approaching, there is nothing that mankind can do to change the result.

So relax and enjoy life while you can. The world does not want to be saved.


----------



## sails

kennas said:


> Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.





Ahhh, but then the *per capita* emissions increase...


----------



## Smurf1976

kennas said:


> Population control is the only option until there is a solution to the fossil fuel energy reliance, and need to eat and drink.



Indeed. That really is the crux of the problem. Too many people.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

A chilly end of May night in Townsville, presently 13 degrees C, looking at a low of 10.

As it is normally this time of year. 

Dams are full. Those who want a job are working. Schools and University busy, soldiers preparing for deployment. Cowboys are winning for a change.

I do not buy this climate hysteria.

gg


----------



## basilio

*Australia's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. *

Firstly the issue is a whole world problem. We are all going to be affected. Interestingly the current science suggests that Australia will be  particularly affected as we are already pretty dry and hot and increases  in temperature will take us to really dangerous levels. So in that sense we have more to lose if global warming continues so in our own interest we should be particularly keen to see effective action being taken.

In the political world of pure self interest it is exceptionally hard for one country to make big changes and then watch others not follow. I suppose we could call it bludging. So any treaties that are developed to solve an international problem need some sort of oversee able and enforceable regulation that tries to ensure everyone plays their part. That is what the Kyoto agreements were intended to do. But as we know America refused to ratify it and Australia followed. That reduced the impact markedly.

It is also not accurate to say that other countries are not doing anything significant.  China for example is actually a front runner in trying to reduce it's CO2 output.  (Sounds crazy but I have supplied a reference) They are watching climate change lay havoc with their environment and , again for self interest, want to see effective action. 

The conversation about "wrecking the economy" is interesting. We realise that the main people arguing this are companies with large fossil fuel interests who would see the value of these depreciate enormously. There will also be power companies that use coal who don't want to see these assets stranded by a change in policy. So naturally these interest are going to be at the forefront of cries of "it will wreck the economy "  (Us ! Us Us!)

But if we decide that we can't accept coal as a main source of power generation (in it's current form) then we are faced with a massive but necessary re engineering of our power supplies to no carbon alternatives. 

Despite what the fossil fuel industry says there are such viable alternatives.  Solar thermal power stations with molten salt  back ups already exists. There is  a case for next generation thorium nuclear power stations. Wind works and development of onsite storage can extend it's capacity. One particular technology that I believe could be a game changer will be UCG (underground coal gasification) coupled with a low cost fuel cell that would turn the synthetic gas into electricity with no carbon output at a cost comparable to current coal fired power stations. This is very close to commercialization.

In fact we would probably need to substantially increase our supply of clean electricity if we also decided to reduce the impact of cars and general transport by going electric.

All of these projects would change the face of our industrial infrastructure. There would be new winners and old  losers. But in the end we would have designed and produced   a clean supply of power that was not going to inevitably run out. Not a bad result.

Now if we were quick and clever it could be Australian skills and technology that got the  jobs and profits from  these projects. As distinct from what has happened to the solar cell technology which was developed in Australia but has been commercialised in China and USA.

On another front there is a strong case for developing bio char as a way to take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into a long life  charcoal that would stay in the soil AND improve the quality of our soils. (which would help grow more food.)

There are already tomes of books and papers outlining how we might quickly and effectively address the multiple problems Ifocus outlined earlier and which need to be addressed.

It would not be easy or cheap. I can't see how we could keep our current ways of  living and spending going while undertaking such a huge re engineering of our society. But unless 99% of all climate scientists are dead wrong we face a starkly disastrous future if we don't have a go.

References.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation 
 A good overview of many of the major ways we could reduce Greenhouse gases. 

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

This is a very ambitious and detailed plan of how Australia could be running on only renewable energy by 2020. Worth  reading at least the synopsis and who is contributing to this project.

http://www.energyglobal.com/sectors...g_alkaline_fuel_cell_technology_with_UCG.aspx

A brief overview of the UCG fuel cell application for cheap clean electricity from stranded coal. The australian company Linc energy holds the rights to develop this technology around the world.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/Biochar-Factsheet.html

As it says.  CSIRO analysis of the potential of biochar to sequester carbon and improve soils.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/chinas-thorium-reactor-and-japans.html

A look at thorium nuclear reactors.  Small, relatively low radioactivity . Allegedly can't cause any melt downs.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...tspending-us-now-matches-us-in-wind-capacity/

Interesting analysis of how much China is doing with regard to renewable energy in comparison to America

http://www.energybulletin.net/

An excellent site that pulls together many of the best ideas on how to tackle these  multiple issues


----------



## derty

bellenuit said:


> Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity. To the extent that I have followed the debate I accept that that is the case. Science also tells us that the way to slow down or stop the warming trend is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can only be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions to a point where CO2 absorption exceeds CO2 emissions. Science can also tell us what human activities produce the most CO2 and what produce the least.
> 
> Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.



*Great summation bellenuit. *The science, the economics and the politics. The boundaries get blurred and misinterpreted. 

I agree that the current proposed carbon tax is a futile effort. It is heading in the right direction (i.e. It's the thought that counts.) but the reality is that the magnitude of task is that vast that there would be no economic or political motivation to seriously address it. 

There is a certain amount of inertia in the system. At the current CO2 levels the system is not at equilibrium. The Earth's temperature still has some rising to do before it has enough energy to allow the heat escaping the Earth to match that entering. So even if we magically manage to stabilise the atmospheric CO2 at the current level of 390ppm we remain locked into further temperature rise. 

Stabilising CO2 at 390ppm is not going to happen. The number bandied about to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg.C is 450ppm atmospheric CO2. To achieve that it requires drastic changes to our energy generation. (I posted something about this before and will place a link to that at the end.) 

Basically the current global energy budget is around 16 terawatts (TW). 

About 1.5TW is produced from hydro and nuclear. 

The remaining 14.5TW is generated by fossil fuels.  

To stabilise atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm we need to reduce the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels to 3TW within 25 years.

We need to convert 11.5TW of energy production to renewable or non-CO2 generating methods within 25 years.

While this scenario is theoretically possible, I cannot envisage it being a practical reality. The globe cannot even agree to begin to make rudimentary and cosmetic cuts to CO2 generation. It will not be until we start to see serious and unambiguous manifestations of temperature rise that there will be enough motivation to begin to act in more than a token gesture. And by then it will be too late. 

When you look at it like this it makes the Labor carbon tax futile. It's a classic game of the Tragedy of the Commons. If you are all going to end up at the same point (i.e. ruin) why force yourself to endure hardship on the journey there while others do not? 

Link to my previous post: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=592182&#post592182 
Link to discussion on power density and the magnitude of the problem: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/power-density/

While I am pessimistic about our current trajectory, I do believe that there may be future breakthroughs in nanotech or fusion that will provide the next great cheap energy source that will spurn the human race onto the next level of our technological advancement.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.


----------



## startrader

OzWaveGuy said:


> Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...
> 
> And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)
> 
> One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.




Yes, it looks like they're trying to write a book!

We all know there is climate change - there always has been.  The argument is about man's contribution to the coming alleged end of the world.  This climate change hysteria is all based on an unproven *THEORY*, which won't be proven or disproven in our lifetimes, but in the meantime some people in power are planning on getting as much mileage as possible out of it and making as much money as possible.

There are many things we could and should be doing to make the environment better, such as cleaning up the oceans which are treated as a huge rubbish tip, but why do we see no interest shown by anyone in doing anything in these areas?  Is it because there is no money to be made out of something like this???


----------



## wayneL

Alarmists tend to categorize anyone who doesn't believe we'll be huddled on mountain tops surrounded by boiling oceans as "deniers.

Here is a more considered categorization from Ira Glickstein:

_Divergent Views – There is a valid, science-based argument between people I refer to as Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics. I distinguish their reasoned views from the far out, unscientific rantings of people I refer to as Alarmists and their equal and opposite reaction opponents, who I call Disbelievers._


----------



## trainspotter

In 1975 there was evidence of global cooling:-



> A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.




http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

In 1975 there was evidence of global warming:- 



> In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide”, and that “by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years”. He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8 ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

In 4500 B.P. it was bloody hot



> Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
> 
> The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm ......


----------



## mexican

startrader said:


> Yes, it looks like they're trying to write a book!
> 
> We all know there is climate change - there always has been.  The argument is about man's contribution to the coming alleged end of the world.  This climate change hysteria is all based on an unproven *THEORY*, which won't be proven or disproven in our lifetimes, but in the meantime some people in power are planning on getting as much mileage as possible out of it and making as much money as possible.
> 
> There are many things we could and should be doing to make the environment better, such as cleaning up the oceans which are treated as a huge rubbish tip, but why do we see no interest shown by anyone in doing anything in these areas?  Is it because there is no money to be made out of something like this???




Right on the money startrader....it is a theory not fact. Alot of other improtant issues that should be considered first...that are FACT!
Only have to ask Professor Tim "Our dams will never be full again" Flannery about theories.
Professor Carter vs Professor Basilio could be interesting as well!!


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)
> 
> One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.




Basilio, Derty? 

Let me give you a hand.....could this be an answer? *1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science*, perhaps, as many have been pointing out, a cooling trend is upon us? Ah, no it couldn't be since CO2 isn't the driving force.....this research must be completely wrong, right?

pls post your observed evidence, should be easy to find since there is a "con-sensus"


----------



## Knobby22

Oz wave guy.

The world has moved on. 

If you want to say the world is cooling then give some evidence and tell me why all the glaciers are disappearing and NASA is lying.  Otherwise I am afraid I will have to rate you as a acolyte of Jones


----------



## basilio

Good story in  The Age reviewing the updated Garnaut report on how to tackle climate change.  The article itself highlights some of the issues raised here (what is the rest of the world doing ) and why the carbon tax makes sense as a way to drive investment towards low carbon technology and away from high carbon businesses.



> *Garnaut's cry from the heart for honesty*
> June 1, 2011
> 
> Comments 91
> 
> 
> *Lies and political slogans have demeaned our climate change politics.*
> 
> ROSS Garnaut's final report on climate change has three great strengths. It skewers myth after myth spread by those who oppose putting a price on Australia's carbon emissions. It restates his state-of-the-art 2008 blueprint on how the world should share the burden of cutting global emissions in half by 2050.
> 
> But perhaps most important of all, he proposes a way to take politics out of Australia's future decisions on climate change by setting up three independent agencies to advise the government on future targets, on future industry assistance measures and to administer the scheme.
> 
> After 18 months of sloganeering and lies that have demeaned Australian politics, this offers us a structure for honest, objective decision-making on what is arguably the most important issue of our time.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...for-honesty-20110531-1feky.html#ixzz1NzNimi7A





Summary of the report
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Good story in  The Age reviewing the updated Garnaut report on how to tackle climate change.  The article itself highlights some of the issues raised here (what is the rest of the world doing ) and why the carbon tax makes sense as a way to drive investment towards low carbon technology and away from high carbon businesses.




Ho Hum....another important notice, this time from the Garnaut Climate Change Review web site.....

*Disclaimer*
The Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of this web site and that users carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.

However, the Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this web site or on any linked site.​
More fairy magic.

Now, back to my very simple question....


----------



## basilio

OzWaveGuy said:


> Basilio, Derty?
> 
> Let me give you a hand.....could this be an answer? *1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science*, perhaps, as many have been pointing out, a cooling trend is upon us? Ah, no it couldn't be since CO2 isn't the driving force.....this research must be completely wrong, right?
> 
> pls post your observed evidence, should be easy to find since there is a "con-sensus"





All yours

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html



> Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...
> 
> And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)
> 
> One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.



OWG, can you please answer me this? How do you explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 of almost 40% over pre-industrial levels?


----------



## trainspotter

What about the Medieval Warming Period? (1000 BC to approx 1300 BC) Followed by the Little Ice Age? (1550 AD and 1850 AD)


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> What about the Medieval Warming Period? (1000 BC to approx 1300 BC) Followed by the Little Ice Age? (1550 AD and 1850 AD)




Check it out.  Also worth looking at the comments which flesh out some of the misunderstandings associated with using this to attack current global warming.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm


----------



## Sean K

Did we just have the coldest May in 40 years, or something?

Does global warming do that?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Check it out.  Also worth looking at the comments which flesh out some of the misunderstandings associated with using this to attack current global warming.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm




Hey basilio does this equate to the same as to what we have here on our globe right now? UK just had the coldest winter in 31 years. USA coldest winter in 25 years. Sydney coldest day in 30 years and Alice Springs coldest day EVER ... blah blah blah I could go on about the cold.

So to say that Medieval Warming Period was a "few" isolated places (as per the website you provided) is it not the same as we have now? Yes there are places that are warmer (Perth) BUT there is also places that are experiencing the coldest winters EVER recorded. 



> Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact *warmer than today in many parts of the globe *such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places *were very much cooler than today *including the tropical pacific.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

kennas said:


> Did we just have the coldest May in 40 years, or something?
> 
> Does global warming do that?




Agree Kennas,

The Alarmists cannot have it both ways.

Is it getting warmer, I ask, and over what timeframe?

gg


----------



## basilio

At the start of these discussions there is a differentiation between weather  and climate.  2010 saw one of the warmest years on record around the world.  But there were still  plenty of examples of some individual cold events.

One month, one winter , one  summer is not the same as  the sum of maximum and minimum temperatures around the world. One of the interesting things about global warming has been the  steady increase in minimum temperatures.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> At the start of these discussions there is a differentiation between weather  and climate.  2010 saw one of the warmest years on record around the world.  But there were still  plenty of examples of some individual cold events.
> 
> One month, one winter , one  summer is not the same as  the sum of maximum and minimum temperatures around the world. One of the interesting things about global warming has been the  steady increase in minimum temperatures.




Thanks for the heads up on the difference between weather and climate.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

The alarmists still cannot answer the simplest question of all yet the entire case is based on it: *Where is the observed evidence that CO2 by man drives temperatures?* Sorry, snippets from propaganda sites don't cut it. 

"Houston we have a problem"


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> So to say that Medieval Warming Period was a "few" isolated places (as per the website you provided) is it not the same as we have now? Yes there are places that are warmer (Perth) BUT there is also places that are experiencing the coldest winters EVER recorded.



It would be naive in the extreme to believe that we have experienced and actually recorded the full range of natural variation in the weather since man has had thermometers. 

It's quite likely that there has at some point been snow on the ground where Brisbane now stands and that Tasmania has had a week long heatwave with temps 40+ every day. Just because these events haven't happened since European settlement, doesn't mean they didn't happen some time prior to that and won't happen in the future. 223 years is nothing...


----------



## trainspotter

http://www.co2science.org/ for the real deal that the media does not care for.



> But could the higher temperatures of the past four interglacials have been caused by higher CO2 concentrations due to some non-human influence? Absolutely not, for atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm, whereas the air's CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm.
> 
> Combining these two observations, we have a situation where, compared with the mean conditions of the preceding four interglacials, *there is currently 100 ppm more CO2 in the air than there was then, and it is currently more than 2 °C colder than it was then, which adds up to one huge discrepancy for the world's climate alarmists and their claim that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to high temperatures.* The situation is unprecedented, all right, but not in the way the public is being led to believe.




http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php for the facts (according to them)


----------



## Smurf1976

derty said:


> About 1.5TW is produced from hydro and nuclear.
> 
> The remaining 14.5TW is generated by fossil fuels.
> 
> To stabilise atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm we need to reduce the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels to 3TW within 25 years.
> 
> We need to convert 11.5TW of energy production to renewable or non-CO2 generating methods within 25 years.



The numbers are a bit more complex than that... 

Renewables generally have electricity as their output. That is, if we produce x amount of renewable energy then we usually measure it in the form of electricity. 1 GWh of renewable energy is actually 1 GWh of useful electricity into the grid.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are raw chemical energy. We lose 45 - 70% of that in the process of converting it to electricity (the variation is due to the fuel type and grade, ambient environmental conditions etc). So we put, say, 3 GWh of fuel into the power station and get 1 GWh of electricity out.

So to replace 2.5 to 3 TW of energy from coal with renewables, only requires that we produce about 1 TW of renewable electricity since the other 1.5 - 2 TW from coal presently ends up as wasted heat due to the inherent inefficiencies in thermal power stations. 

It's worth noting that this introduces considerable complexity into energy statistics. For example, nuclear and hydro both produce comparable amounts of electricity and both have little other large scale usage. However, it is common to measure the heat value of the uranium, but to measure the electricity value of hydro. Now, given that nuclear power stations generally have very low conversion efficiencies, this overstates the true value of nuclear energy and understates the value of hydro (and other renewables). 

Personally, I prefer to look at it in terms of common units. So, expressing the output of hydro or nuclear in terms of how much coal it saves rather than the heating value of the uranium or hydro-electricity.


----------



## Sean K

OzWaveGuy said:


> The alarmists still cannot answer the simplest question of all yet the entire case is based on it: *Where is the observed evidence that CO2 by man drives temperatures?* Sorry, snippets from propaganda sites don't cut it.
> 
> "Houston we have a problem"



This is the question isn't it.

The answer?

There is none.

If my foot has five toes, and a spider monkey has five toes, then I must be a spider monkey.


----------



## Sean K

Smurf1976 said:


> It would be naive in the extreme to believe that we have experienced and actually recorded the full range of natural variation in the weather since man has had thermometers.
> 
> It's quite likely that there has at some point been snow on the ground where Brisbane now stands and that Tasmania has had a week long heatwave with temps 40+ every day. Just because these events haven't happened since European settlement, doesn't mean they didn't happen some time prior to that and won't happen in the future. 223 years is nothing...



Yep.

Brisbane and Tasmania were probably in slightly different places on the globe 14m years ago.

Like they will be in another 14m years. 

Time to start preparing for the next 14m years imo. 

Floating environmentally controlled self sustaining cities will be a start.


----------



## Sean K

Smurf1976 said:


> It would be naive in the extreme to believe that we have experienced and actually recorded the full range of natural variation in the weather since man has had thermometers.
> 
> It's quite likely that there has at some point been snow on the ground where Brisbane now stands and that Tasmania has had a week long heatwave with temps 40+ every day. Just because these events haven't happened since European settlement, doesn't mean they didn't happen some time prior to that and won't happen in the future. 223 years is nothing...



Yep.

Brisbane and Tasmania were probably in slightly different places on the globe 14b years ago.

Like they will be in another 14b years. 

Time to start preparing for the next 200 years imo. 

Floating environmentally controlled self sustaining cities will be a start.

At some point we're going to spear into the Sun anyway.

I'm sure that's going to be a warming experience.


----------



## Julia

Could someone please remind me just why some warming is absolutely bad?

I can think of many countries which would enjoy more comfortable living if the temperatures were quite a bit higher, viz New Zealand, Canada, just as a couple of examples.

If it were actually to be real, perhaps I could go back to live in NZ which I'd like.


----------



## bandicoot76

when i first left school there was a recession on and a serious lack of jobs available, i made ends meet by being paid minimum wage to help local farmers plant trees, funded by a govt scheme similar to landcare.... i planted thousands of seedlings, possibly even hundreds of thousands of the lil buggers... 

my guess is that ive contributed more to carbon sequestion than every one of the pro AGW posters on here combined, and i'm a sceptic!... if you feel so strongly about the problem then do something PRACTICAL about it rather than blah blah blah... the total electricity you use to post your views on here probly added 20tn of carbon into the atmosphere... just in an attempt to convert ppl who dont share your view!

if carbon cate flew over with a $1million cheque for landcare projects she would have been much more respected in the community than pissing on about a new tax! to say its a tax only on polluters is complete bollocks! the costs of ALL taxes get passed down the line and end up getting paid by the consumer... and if not in this case then where is the dis-incentive that promotes the use of less power? and compensation fixing the shortfall??...lol...yeah right... what a totally retarded concept!!!!! 

furthermore... the ONE AND ONLY practical (and 100% renewable) industry that produces a material made of captured and stored carbon is the timber industry... which the 'green' groups are against!!.... go figure!


----------



## tothemax6

IFocus said:


> I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
> If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
> If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
> If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
> If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
> Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
> Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
> How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
> If we do some thing who will die?



If we 'do something', particularly 'throttle CO2 emissions', people will suffer. I have said this time and time again (and always been ignored), but since GDP and energy consumption are interwoven, and Australia gets is energy from carbon (coal), throttling CO2 output throttles GDP/capita (i.e. life sucks more). 
If countries like China or India did this, yes many many people would die. You cannot support a nation of 1billion people whilst simultaneously contracting the energy supply. Every aspect of an economy depends on the energy supply - when you start throttling transport and machinery usage (due to energy limitations), this does flow down to reduced sow and harvest quantities. One could argue thus that for Australia to do this is plain masochist, for Asia to do this would be murderous.

Regarding other energy sources, we already 'do this' (what is even with the 'do nothing' mantra anyway? I don't know about you guys, but I 'do things'). Energy sources are sought out because: energy sources save labour, and increase rates of action (more production for less effort). Thus logically, the most productive energy source requiring the least effort is used first. There are many situations in which this source is not coal, but not most situations.

There is a false and bizarre belief that the only concern in carbon emission reduction is 'whether or not global warming is happening'. This is so insane it boggles the mind. The biggest concern is what carbon emission reduction would do to our lives.

To sum up the Australian carbon tax debate:
"Your car is broken"
"_OK sure it might be broken_"
"I offer to fix your car"
"_OK, how will you do that_"
"I will pour mustard on it"
"_That is insane_"
"You are a broken car denier".


----------



## Wysiwyg

Herd size control will come one way or another. Shutting down the biosphere will do this.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Now for some fun, since the alarmists cannot find real CO2 evidence and some like to post colourful charts....it's time for a Pop Quiz: Which column out of all the atmospheric gases shows the % volume of CO2 produced by man....


Here's the Atmospheric Gases of earth by % Volume....Can you see which column shows man made CO2?  (hmmm, I know which one the alarmists are pointing to)






Lets zoom in a little - Here's the same chart, this time showing only the first 5% on the Y axis. See it yet?





Lets zoom in a little more - now showing only the first 1% 





Still can't see it? Lets zoom to 0.1%. Did you guess it yet?



If not, perhaps Carbon Cate could educate us all


----------



## basilio

Very pretty OZzie. You must have been quick reading through all those papers on how/why  man produced CO2 is a critical factor in climate change. 

Obviously pretty pictures are more interesting.  Do you think you should share your observations with all those dimwits who write that xhit on the effect of CO2 on climate  ?


----------



## basilio

I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.

Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.

Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as  replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor  David Karoly.

Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are. 

http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html


----------



## trainspotter

How long has Alan Jones been a recognised CO2 scientist? He is a vox pop and nothing more.

http://www.co2science.org/data/temperatures/temps_plot.php

Click on this link for a database of temperatures globally since 1880 to present day. Evidences NASA and GHCN ground temps as well as MSU and Radiosonde satellite temps.

Interesting to note ground temps have slowly increased (probably due to urbanisation) whilst the satellite temps are remaining slightly negative??


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.
> 
> Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.
> 
> Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as  replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor  David Karoly.
> 
> Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are.
> 
> http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html




I'm not exactly a Jones fan, but wasn't sure which figures you were talking about at first




> 31 May 2011 4:21:24pm
> 
> Prof KarolyÃ¢â‚¬™s letter to 2GB initially agrees with AJ. Quote: He correctly said that Australian emissions are about 1.5% of the 3%, or about 0.045% of the total annual production of CO2 going into or out of the atmosphere. However further on in his letter, he drops a zero, changing 0.045% to 0.45%. Hence Prof Karoly's final figure of 0.00018% is exactly the same as AJs, with just one zero less Ã¢â‚¬“ purely due to his change of mind on that 0.045%.
> 
> Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator
> 
> Pete the gibberer :
> 01 Jun 2011 9:29:05am
> 
> John, I initially agreed with you. *But Karoly is talking about a cumulative figure, rather than an annual figure. That is why he drops the zero.*




Just to clear up what they were talking about (from the responses)


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> The alarmists still cannot answer the simplest question of all yet the entire case is based on it: *Where is the observed evidence that CO2 by man drives temperatures?* Sorry, snippets from propaganda sites don't cut it.
> 
> "Houston we have a problem"




And the alarmists can't understand why so many have questioned the blind faith and to reveal the scam.

For such a minute amount of man made CO2 occupying apporx 0.00108% of the atmosphere, the alarmist predict with "models" the end of days for humans. In the same breath cannot produce observed evidence, yet they chatter on.

Basilio, Knobby, Derty - Feel free to start an alarmists chatter thread, perhaps when you produce the actual hard evidence you can return with some credibility. :


----------



## moXJO

What happens when there is a volcanic eruption like the one in Iceland in regards to carbon emissions and how much CO2 it produces?

Similarly Australia in regards to bushfires/ back burning?

I see a lot of figures thrown around in arguments at the moment, hence the interest.


----------



## spooly74

With the human contribution being so small, is there or has there any thought been put into sequestering natural CO2?

Can it be done?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.
> 
> Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.
> 
> Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as  replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor  David Karoly.
> 
> Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are.
> 
> http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html




1/ Have you considered the irony in your comments here?... Nah, obviously not. 

2/ Do you think there may be a any reason why mediawatch has never (to my knowledge) reported on dodgy alarmist propaganda in the media?


----------



## sharezum

OzWaveGuy said:


> And the alarmists can't understand why so many have questioned the blind faith and to reveal the scam.
> 
> For such a minute amount of man made CO2 occupying apporx 0.00108% of the atmosphere, the alarmist predict with "models" the end of days for humans. In the same breath cannot produce observed evidence, yet they chatter on.
> 
> Basilio, Knobby, Derty - Feel free to start an alarmists chatter thread, perhaps when you produce the actual hard evidence you can return with some credibility. :




If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up.  Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.


----------



## wayneL

sharezum said:


> If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up.  Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.




{Sigh}

All sides have pretty much agreed that a carbon tax will do nothing to mitigate climate change, whether or not, or to what extent it is caused by man.

Doing nothing always impacts profit in a changing world, so business should be ready to adapt to changes, including possibly climate... and that include cooling as well as warming, as well as change with no cooling or warming.

However, doing "something" that is inappropriate and that will only export carbon dioxide production (AKA productive manufacturing) to SE Asia is really quite dumb. And that is what will happen with a carbon tax.

It won't save the world... it won't save a goddam thing; and hands economic hegemony to China on a silver platter.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sharezum said:


> If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up.  Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.




Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists: Sharezum, Everyone agrees that the climate changes - just point to the *observed evidence* that CO2 gas from humans changes the worlds temperatures.

I'm not afraid of helping to tackle a real problem - just show me the observed evidence and the impact to worlds temperatures by undertaking initiatives to stop it changing. 

So far, I've heard nothing but alarmist muttering about nothing of any substance. 

It's such a simple request, or maybe not.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists.




I thought that deceit was by Alan Jones:


----------



## sharezum

OzWaveGuy said:


> Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists: Sharezum, Everyone agrees that the climate changes - just point to the *observed evidence* that CO2 gas from humans changes the worlds temperatures.
> 
> I'm not afraid of helping to tackle a real problem - just show me the observed evidence and the impact to worlds temperatures by undertaking initiatives to stop it changing.
> 
> So far, I've heard nothing but alarmist muttering about nothing of any substance.
> 
> It's such a simple request, or maybe not.




There are many reports that show there is climate change and that we are responsible - I don't think I can reproduce them all on this forum.
The trouble is you want a couple of paragraphs that proves it. 
By the way it is not just the impact on worlds temperatures - it's the instability.  Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms.  These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.


----------



## IFocus

Wysiwyg said:


> Herd size control will come one way or another. Shutting down the biosphere will do this.




Succinctly put, given the seemingly over whelming numbers here who appear to support "do nothing" its pretty much a given.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Succinctly put, given the seemingly over whelming numbers here who appear to support "do nothing" its pretty much a given.




Although I agree herd control will be a reality sooner or later also, I don't think it's fair to say the majority advocate doing nothing at all.

I could be wrong, but I think the general thrust is that the general consensus here of your "do nothings" is "do nothing about stuff that doesn't need anything done about it".


----------



## basilio

basilio said:


> All yours
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html




Oz you asked this question earlier. I have offered this reference which details at least 10 fingerprints of human activity on current  observable climate change. (In fact there are many more but they couldn't make them neatly fit on a pretty table) The scientific papers that provide evidence for this are cited.

You demand a short simple one paragraph answer.  That is about as practical as wanting a simple answer to proving that cigarette smoking causes cancer, or asbestos causes lung disease. Any short answer would be simplistic  and grossly inadequate. It's has taken 20 years of research by hundreds of different scientists across many fields to build the picture of the different drivers of climate.  

And you want it summed up on the back of postage stamp. 

I'll repeat the  relevant quote at the bottom of the reference.



> Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.




But in the end all the scientific research and analysis in world is totally useless if people choose to routinely dismiss the credibility of 99% of climate scientists , don't even know enough about the  way science works to appreciate  what they don't know and then substitute whatever trumped up version on "commonsense"  they are presented by Alan Jones and co  in place of reality.


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> Oz you asked this question earlier. I have offered this reference which details at least 10 fingerprints of human activity on current  observable climate change. (In fact there are many more but they couldn't make them neatly fit on a pretty table) The scientific papers that provide evidence for this are cited.
> 
> You demand a short simple one paragraph answer.  That is about as practical as wanting a simple answer to proving that cigarette smoking causes cancer, or asbestos causes lung disease. Any short answer would be simplistic  and grossly inadequate. It's has taken 20 years of research by hundreds of different scientists across many fields to build the picture of the different drivers of climate.
> 
> And you want it summed up on the back of postage stamp.
> 
> I'll repeat the  relevant quote at the bottom of the reference.
> 
> 
> 
> But in the end all the scientific research and analysis in world is totally useless if people choose to routinely dismiss the credibility of *99% of climate scientists* , don't even know enough about the  way science works to appreciate  what they don't know and then substitute whatever trumped up version on "commonsense"  they are presented by Alan Jones and co  in place of reality.




this is where you lose all credibility


----------



## basilio

white_goodman said:


> this is where you lose all credibility




Which of course is exactly what Alan Jones was saying to Professor David Karoly.  And Alan Jones is just an abusive, lying shock jock *who has been proven * he will  promote any product or point of view if he is paid enough money.


----------



## spooly74

sharezum said:


> Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms.  These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.




Earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions? Seriously.


----------



## Ruby

sharezum said:


> There are many reports that show there is climate change and that we are responsible.




Sharezum, there are many reports that show there is climate change.  None has proven we are responsible.  Our degree of responsibility (if any) is as yet unknown.



sharezum said:


> By the way it is not just the impact on worlds temperatures - it's the instability.  Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms.  These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.




Climate change and instability is a feature of the world's cycles. It has always been there and is not as cut and dried as you like to depict.  No, we probably can't do much about it.  Another unknown. Do you seriously think we can 'manage' things like volcanic eruptions and tornados?   The more that climate scientists learn about our climatic cycles, the more they realise how much we still don't know about it.

If we are going to live here we have to learn to adapt - to warming and to cooling, because both are going to happen.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Which of course is exactly what Alan Jones was saying to Professor David Karoly.  And Alan Jones is just an abusive, lying shock jock *who has been proven * he will  promote any product or point of view if he is paid enough money.




This would be the same Professor David Karoly who is a member of the IPCC? This is the same IPCC that claimed the glaciers would have melted by 2035? The same 2500 climate scientists that were "peer scrutinized" that turned out to be about 20 writers and only a handful of them actually scientists for the IPCC ??

google ..... "IPCC DISCREDITED" for the answer here 

or click here http://www.heartland.org/full/26934/IPCC_Discredited_Evidence_of_Scientific_Fraud_Mounts.html

I especially liked this part 







> IPCC’s supporting documentation, however, shows IPCC based its assertion *solely *on a paper published by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) environmental activist group. WWF in turn had based its assertion on *conversations with a single scientist* who admits he was only *speculating *about Himalayan glacier retreat, never mentioned the year 2035 as a potential melt date, and did not base his speculation on any formal research.




So what else are they not telling the truth about?


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> This would be the same Professor David Karoly who is a member of the IPCC? This is the same IPCC that claimed the glaciers would have melted by 2035? The same 2500 climate scientists that were "peer scrutinized" that turned out to be about 20 writers and only a handful of them actually scientists for the IPCC ??
> 
> google ..... "IPCC DISCREDITED" for the answer here




It is interesting how to the extent that alarmists try to claim credibility, they highlight their lack thereof.


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> This would be the same Professor David Karoly who is a member of the IPCC? This is the same IPCC that claimed the glaciers would have melted by 2035? The same 2500 climate scientists that were "peer scrutinized" that turned out to be about 20 writers and only a handful of them actually scientists for the IPCC ??
> 
> google ..... "IPCC DISCREDITED" for the answer here




Just because there was a mistake in a massive document does noot mean the whole document is wrong.
Not like Alan Jones - opinions are for hire.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/an-overview-of-ipccclimategate-criticism.html

“Glaciergate"

The section of the 2007 IPCC report that deals with climate impacts, called Working Group II, included a statement in its chapter on Asia (see p. 493) that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other glaciers on Earth and “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” That statement was challenged by an Indian government report released late last year that suggested, qualitatively, that “many” Himalayan glaciers were instead growing in size and that others were stable. (The report’s conclusions were first widely publicized in a November story in Science, and the flimsy basis for the “very high” statement in the 2007 report is detailed here, in a letter to Science by a Canadian expert on glaciers.

IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri at first defended IPCC, calling the Indian government report “voodoo science,” opening up a row with scientists in his country’s government.

But on 20 January, IPCC’s leadership, after examining the issue, issued a statement expressing “regret” over “the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.” Op-eds followed: The Australian slammed the error, as did journalists and bloggers pointing out that the reporter who wrote the November story for Science, Pallava Bagla, told Pachauri about the error in late 2009, but it took the IPCC 2 months to issue a correction.

RealClimate sought to put the error into context, linking to several studies that make clear how much danger the Himalayan glaciers face


----------



## trainspotter

I repeat ...... Alan Jones is a paid shock jock and not a climate scientist.

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who should know better 

Not only was there a "mistake" but the "mistake" once found out and the "REAL" science was released then there was the attempt to discredit it by calling it "voodoo science" 

The Himalayan glaciers are in danger of what exactly? The next report was lambasted as well.

"The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is riddled with errors at least as egregious as this one," said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and coeditor of Climate Change Reconsidered, an 800-page critique of the IPCC's latest report. "The revelations will continue until the entire house of cards collapses."


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> And the alarmists can't understand why so many have questioned the blind faith and to reveal the scam.
> 
> For such a minute amount of man made CO2 occupying apporx 0.00108% of the atmosphere, the alarmist predict with "models" the end of days for humans. In the same breath cannot produce observed evidence, yet they chatter on.
> 
> Basilio, Knobby, Derty - Feel free to start an alarmists chatter thread, perhaps when you produce the actual hard evidence you can return with some credibility. :




This is getting comical. Can any of the alarmists point to a real study that proves without doubt that man made CO2 causes global warming?  Links to propaganda blogs that have "finger print" reports is a joke.  I would expect the report to: be peer reviewed and real climate scientists from all sides have agreed with the contents and it shows there is indeed a man made CO2 hot spot "finger print".

Surely none of you would walk into a court room with this "chicken little" show we've seen so far? Ah, sorry forgot - there's a legal disclaimer on all alarmist content.


----------



## sharezum

Well when something major happens that can't be ignored you doubters can all say 'why weren't we told'!


----------



## trainspotter

sharezum said:


> Well when something major happens that can't be ignored you doubters can all say 'why weren't we told'!




Is that you Weatherbill?


----------



## bandicoot76

wayneL said:


> Although I agree herd control will be a reality sooner or later also, I don't think it's fair to say the majority advocate doing nothing at all.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think the general thrust is that the general consensus here of your "do nothings" is "do nothing about stuff that doesn't need anything done about it".




F*CKING "HERD CONTROL?!?! am i reading this correctly???? are we a bunch of cattle to be culled on  a whim now? and if so who chooses who lives and whos off to the slaughterhouse? its a slippery slope your teetering on ppl! its been aproached many times before in history under many guises... 

eugenics is the milder "people friendly" fluffy bunny version... consisting mainly of family planning based on genetics and social castes,eg  the 2 child policy, the snip snip & tie tie of the undesirables in the community (again tho, who makes the decision?)... 

but followed to its logical conclusion 'herd control' means genocide... the termination of human lives (albeit in the belief its for the 'greater good'!) thats what your so dispassionately discussing here!

you ppl who support this theory better start thinking very carefully on where the practical realities of this train of thought may lead, or in the future you may just become listed in the same catagory of "population reducer's" such as hitler, stalin, mao & pol pot...

if you hold this belief that the worlds population needs to be so drastically & urgently reduced then perhaps you should step up and lead by example!!!!!   sick bastards!


----------



## wayneL

bandicoot76 said:


> F*CKING "HERD CONTROL?!?! am i reading this correctly???? are we a bunch of cattle to be culled on  a whim now? and if so who chooses who lives and whos off to the slaughterhouse? its a slippery slope your teetering on ppl! its been aproached many times before in history under many guises...
> 
> eugenics is the milder "people friendly" fluffy bunny version... consisting mainly of family planning based on genetics and social castes,eg  the 2 child policy, the snip snip & tie tie of the undesirables in the community (again tho, who makes the decision?)...
> 
> but followed to its logical conclusion 'herd control' means genocide... the termination of human lives (albeit in the belief its for the 'greater good'!) thats what your so dispassionately discussing here!
> 
> you ppl who support this theory better start thinking very carefully on where the practical realities of this train of thought may lead, or in the future you may just become listed in the same catagory of "population reducer's" such as hitler, stalin, mao & pol pot...
> 
> if you hold this belief that the worlds population needs to be so drastically & urgently reduced then perhaps you should step up and lead by example!!!!!   sick bastards!



Excuse me?

Herd control (as referred to here) will be administered by mother nature.

Chill out man!


----------



## bandicoot76

wayneL said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> Herd control (as referred to here) will be administered by mother nature.
> 
> Chill out man!




if herd control is administered through natural means then so be it, sad but un-avoidable... 

however having read much on the subject though i am very wary of people who seem to want to give 'mother nature' a lil nudge to hasten things up! 

you would be considerably 'un-chilled' if you read the writings of ppl like john holdren, science 'czar' of the clinton administration, or maurice strong formerly of the un, or even dear old doctor death prince phillip... its scary that climate change in its most radical form is being presented as a case for population 'control' ... very scary stuff! no not science fiction nor conspiracy clap-trap... 

get a copy of the DVD 'codex alimentarius' by ian r crane and it will blow your mind... a scene showing a university audience giving a standing ovation for a lecturer who advanced the notion that sceintists should be working on developing airbourne ebola super bugs to wipe out millions of ppl still makes me feel sick to the stomach!!


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...
> 
> And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)
> 
> One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.



Your question is akin to providing a simple answer to prove Evolution, The Big Bang Theory or the Standard Model of particle physics. 

You wont get a one sentence answer OWG, as there is no simple answer to your question. As you well know (that is an assumption). If the issue was that simple that it could be answered in one sentence, or one paragraph, the discussion would be over and the wiggle room to sow doubt would not exist.

As has been explained before, there are multiple lines of evidence that when taken as a whole indicate that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a significant portion of the observed warming that has taken place to date and by extrapolation will cause warming in the future. If you take one of those lines of evidence in isolation it is not proof in itself. The science is not based on one gotcha breakthrough, it is formulated through thousands of observations and analysis within hundreds of often very specific and tightly focussed thesis. It is through the weight of these conclusions and the weight of the conclusions built on these that the science is built. 

I know you won't accept that as an answer and will claim it as further evidence that "alarmists" have no credibility. And really, I'm not sure why I bothered to type this answer. 

Most people in the community have no real scientific education and the scientific process and high level science is outside their understanding. It's a bit like magic. Opinions are not based on understanding. There is only so far you can simplify many scientific ideas before the loss of detail renders the explanation meaningless. 

Anyway I'm over this, I have expended enough time here. The same discredited and inane meme's just keep getting presented time and time again regardless of how well they are addressed. It's like ground-hog day with creationists. Over and out.


----------



## bandicoot76

heres a link about the above post
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/doctor_doom_eric_pianka_receiv002118.html

p.s i think i got the wrong DVD with this scene in it. too much research too little memory space! lol


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> You wont get a one sentence answer OWG, as there is no simple answer to your question.




Ah, now we have the typical misrepresentation...nobody is asking for a one line answer....I thought I made myself perfectly clear - A real study that proves the case once and for all - A link is perfectly fine, but it must be credible (eg no links to propaganda blogs - basilio) and there is agreement by all climate scientists that the study has merit as it should prove there is a atmospheric hot spot from man made CO2 (eg CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas).

Usually the AGW extremist here respond quickly with "book" postings, charts and various magical material - Let's be really clear, this is the most basic request since the whole AGW CO2 case depends on this 1 answer. Alarmists have spent upwards of $80B in the last 20+ yrs, surely the observed evidence is in? Isn't it?


----------



## IFocus

basilio said:


> Very pretty OZzie. You must have been quick reading through all those papers on how/why  man produced CO2 is a critical factor in climate change.
> 
> Obviously pretty pictures are more interesting.  Do you think you should share your observations with all those dimwits who write that xhit on the effect of CO2 on climate  ?




Its an old argument here is another example that wont then stack up



> Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide.
> 
> For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ge-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O75sZnQ4


----------



## wayneL

bandicoot76 said:


> heres a link about the above post
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/doctor_doom_eric_pianka_receiv002118.html
> 
> p.s i think i got the wrong DVD with this scene in it. too much research too little memory space! lol




I completely understand your sensitivity on this subject. I am with you 100%


----------



## Julia

sharezum said:


> There are many reports that show there is climate change and that we are responsible - I don't think I can reproduce them all on this forum.
> The trouble is you want a couple of paragraphs that proves it.
> By the way it is not just the impact on worlds temperatures - it's the instability.  Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms.  These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.






Ruby said:


> Sharezum, there are many reports that show there is climate change.  None has proven we are responsible.  Our degree of responsibility (if any) is as yet unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change and instability is a feature of the world's cycles. It has always been there and is not as cut and dried as you like to depict.  No, we probably can't do much about it.  Another unknown. Do you seriously think we can 'manage' things like volcanic eruptions and tornados?   The more that climate scientists learn about our climatic cycles, the more they realise how much we still don't know about it.
> 
> If we are going to live here we have to learn to adapt - to warming and to cooling, because both are going to happen.



Ruby, you've beaten me to this response.
But in addition, with respect to this bit:


> but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.



this is the part that so gets me, and it's repeated everywhere by the alarmists, despite even the government's chief promoter of Climate Change , Tim Flannery, saying it would be about 1000 years for any appreciable difference to occur in climate even if the major emitters China and the US et al, were to participate in any carbon abatement scheme.

So for anyone to imagine Australia introducing a carbon tax, whilst China, the US, Japan and other major emitters have clearly stated they will not be doing anything, is actually "doing something about it" is facile.

Anyone who thinks otherwise must have scant regard for the effect on the loss of competitiveness for our businesses, not to mention the added impost for households.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> This is getting comical. Can any of the alarmists point to a real study that proves without doubt that man made CO2 causes global warming?  Links to propaganda blogs that have "finger print" reports is a joke.  I would expect the report to: be peer reviewed and real climate scientists from all sides have agreed with the contents and it shows there is indeed a man made CO2 hot spot "finger print".
> 
> Surely none of you would walk into a court room with this "chicken little" show we've seen so far? Ah, sorry forgot - there's a legal disclaimer on all alarmist content.



If by "propaganda blog" you mean Skeptical Science, it provides links to over 4000 of the "real studies" that, in combination, now prove without doubt (a) that "man made CO2" has exactly the same effects as any other kind of CO2 and (b) that by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the level of approximately the last 14,000 years humans are responsible for the current trend of global warming. 

If you don't have time to critically read and evaluate over 4,000 studies, you would be grateful to the following bodies which have done it for you. They all find that human activity is responsible for the current global warming trend and that if the rising trend in fossil carbon emissions continues then global warming will generate massive disruption and loss of human life:

The National Science Academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, the Caribbean, China, Ghana, Indonesia,  Ireland, India,  Japan, Kenya, Madagascar,  Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, the United States,  Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Leopoldina of Germany

The Inter Academy Council, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Network of African Science Academies 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the European Science Foundation 

The European Geosciences Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of London, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the American Geophysical Union

The European Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanograpic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), The World Meteorological Organization

The American Quaternary Association, The International Union for Quarternary Research

The American Statistical Association, The Institution of Engineers Australia, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand


That list is taken from Wikipedia, which provides information about the content of the statements and the links you need to examine them for yourself. I have not included all the organisations listed, and I am aware of recent reports that are not included. 

Finally:


> Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
> 
> Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases.




Hope this helps,

Ghoti


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> If by "propaganda blog" you mean Skeptical Science, it provides links to over 4000 of the "real studies" that, in combination, now prove without doubt (a) that "man made CO2" has exactly the same effects as any other kind of CO2 and (b) that by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the level of approximately the last 14,000 years humans are responsible for the current trend of global warming.




Thanks for the irrelevant book post. So now if you would be kind enough to post just one link to the study that contains the observed evidence of man made CO2 driving global temperatures, identifies the critical atmospheric hot spot and is accepted as a worthy study containing hard observed evidence by climate scientists from all sides.

Once we have agreement on the observed evidence, the next step will be to understand how much global temperatures will be reduced by cutting man made CO2 that is 3% of all CO2 gas.

Please, to all alarmists - no more hysteric book posts, nobody cares about your non-expert opinion on climate hysteria. People want hard facts.


----------



## trainspotter

Anyone heard of the Oregon Petition? This topic is just like the Y2K scaremongering tactics. Planes will fall out of the sky, massive computer shutdowns etc etc. Polar ice caps will melt and flood the world, animals will disappear ad infinitum.

According to this pack of noobs (sorry meant scientists) KIDNEY STONES will be the new black. 



> *An unanticipated result of global warming is the likely northward expansion of the present-day southeastern U.S. kidney stone “belt.” *The fraction of the U.S. population living in high-risk zones for nephrolithiasis will grow from 40% in 2000 to 56% by 2050, and to 70% by 2095. Predictions based on a climate model of intermediate severity warming (SRESa1b) indicate a climate-related increase of 1.6–2.2 million lifetime cases of nephrolithiasis by 2050, representing up to a 30% increase in some climate divisions. Nationwide, the cost increase associated with this rise in nephrolithiasis would be $0.9–1.3 billion annually (year-2000 dollars), representing a 25% increase over current expenditures. The impact of these changes will be geographically concentrated, depending on the precise relationship between temperature and stone risk. *Stone risk may abruptly increase at a threshold temperature (nonlinear model) or increase steadily with temperature change (linear model) or some combination thereof.* The linear model predicts increases by 2050 that are concentrated in California, Texas, Florida, and the Eastern Seaboard; the nonlinear model predicts concentration in a geographic band stretching from Kansas to Kentucky and Northern California, immediately south of the threshold isotherm.




http://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9841


----------



## sharezum

It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.


----------



## trainspotter

sharezum said:


> It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.




I can't ....... I have a kidney stone and am waiting for the NBN to rollout past my house so I can get on ASF quicker. Look ........ there goes a unicorn ....... 

I will be doing my bit for World Environment Day and collecting street kerb RUBBISH and recycling it.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sharezum said:


> It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.




You can really see why this thread has attracted the hysterical alarmist - all they have been doing for years here and in other threads is regurgitating useless and factually incorrect studies about such things as no more snow, 100m sea level rises, 50M climate refugees etc etc etc etc. So excuse me for asking about observed evidence. 

It's easy to see why this country is degenerating into a mess with the billions wasted on such rubbish.


----------



## Knobby22

I have had enough too.


----------



## spooly74

sharezum said:


> It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.




lol, how about you back some of yours up first.
How are tsunamis and earthquakes caused by temperautre inversions and ocean heat content?

OzWave, 
I think you know such a study won't be found. 
We cannot be 100% certain that the human addition of CO2 is responsible for all the warming, but you can't deny that it's addition is sufficent to cause all the warming we see.


----------



## Calliope

Ruby said:


> Climate change and instability is a feature of the world's cycles. It has always been there and is not as cut and dried as you like to depict.  No, we probably can't do much about it.  Another unknown. Do you seriously think we can 'manage' things like volcanic eruptions and tornados?   The more that climate scientists learn about our climatic cycles, the more they realise how much we still don't know about it.
> 
> If we are going to live here we have to learn to adapt - to warming and to cooling, because both are going to happen.




Ruby, you are talking common-sense, which is an anathema to the warmists and the hysterics. We will adapt to climate change, as long as we realise that there is nothing we can do to influence it.


----------



## Ruby

Thank you Calliope.  I have to admit I was once a 'climate change alarmist', and then I started doing a lot of reading - on both sides of the argument.  I really think that everyone who has a strong view - either way - could benefit by doing the same thing (with apologies to those who have already done so.)

It is important to remember a few other things:- This issue is a very hot political football, and scientists are no more honest than anybody else.  If a scientist has a pet theory he wishes to pursue, and a government with a particular agenda and a bottomless purse offers to fund his research with the expectation he will produce a particular result........ then what is to stop a little manipulation of results here and there?   And before any of you start jumping up and down and crying 'foul!' - just read about the East Anglia 'Climategate' scandal.  To give credit, these same scientists may believe so passionately in what they are doing they become a little bit blind and see only the results they want.  Sometimes it may depend on how data is interpreted.  I don't know the reasons for it.

What is undeniable is:-  Our climate is changing.  To date scientists cannot agree on the reasons for this.  More and more scientists who were once in the 'alarmist' camp are defecting to the other side.  Data has been manipulated.   In the past, warming has *preceded *increased CO2 emissions (so what is the first cause?).  The world has experienced higher temperatures before.  Following WWII we had a 30 year period of *cooling *at the same time as CO2 emissions were increasing markedly. 

There is still a lot scientists don't know about our climate, and while this remains the case there will never be consensus.

The big problem in my view is that governments have certain agenda they wish to pursue, and then truth is always the first casualty.


----------



## spooly74

> *Forum: Is Extreme Weather Linked to Global Warming?*
> 
> In the past year, the world has seen a large number of extreme weather events, from the Russian heat wave last summer, to the severe flooding in Pakistan, to the recent tornadoes in the U.S. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, a panel of experts weighs in on whether the wild weather may be tied to increasing global temperatures.




*Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Analysis Section*.
Yes, undoubtedly. The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities.

*Andrew Watson, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.*
My answer to this question as posed is no.

*Roger A. Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.*
To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not just wrong, but wrongheaded — every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove climate change.

*Kerry Emanuel, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Program in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate.*
There is some evidence that hydrological events are becoming more extreme. This is not so easy to estimate, because rainfall is often quite local, so a good network of observing stations is required. 

*Judith Curry, chair of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.*
I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing.

*Laurens Bouwer, climate scientist at Vrije University, Amsterdam.*
Even more important is that other processes determine the impact of extreme weather events — principally the way humans modify their environment and often settle in locations where natural hazards occur. 

*Gabriele C. Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.*
Individual weather extremes can generally neither confirm nor dispute the role of humans in climate change. The only meaningful approach is to estimate changes in the probability of events of the kind observed, and then see if human influence has changed this probability.

*William Hooke, director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program.*
Teasing out long-term changes in the relationships linking the extremes and the averages merits concerted and sustained scientific attention, but will remain a multi-year aspiration. 


Snippets of answers provided. Link


----------



## Calliope

spooly74 said:


> *Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Analysis Section*.
> Yes, undoubtedly. The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities.
> 
> *Andrew Watson, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.*
> My answer to this question as posed is no.
> 
> *Roger A. Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.*
> To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not just wrong, but wrongheaded ”” every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove climate change.
> 
> *Kerry Emanuel, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Program in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate.*
> There is some evidence that hydrological events are becoming more extreme. This is not so easy to estimate, because rainfall is often quite local, so a good network of observing stations is required.
> 
> *Judith Curry, chair of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.*
> I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing.
> 
> *Laurens Bouwer, climate scientist at Vrije University, Amsterdam.*
> Even more important is that other processes determine the impact of extreme weather events ”” principally the way humans modify their environment and often settle in locations where natural hazards occur.
> 
> *Gabriele C. Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.*
> Individual weather extremes can generally neither confirm nor dispute the role of humans in climate change. The only meaningful approach is to estimate changes in the probability of events of the kind observed, and then see if human influence has changed this probability.
> 
> *William Hooke, director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program.*
> Teasing out long-term changes in the relationships linking the extremes and the averages merits concerted and sustained scientific attention, but will remain a multi-year aspiration.
> 
> 
> Snippets of answers provided. Link




And don't forget;

Dr Bob Brown, eminent Australian messianic figure with a strong cult following, said that coal miners were to blame for the Queensland floods;
"It's the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...wn/story-e6frfku0-1225988806619#ixzz1OApaDPYD


----------



## basilio

Very interesting and useful contribution to the thread Spooly. 

The full statements by the various authors adds a lot more value to understanding the full picture. As you would have noticed I think every author agreed that global warming was happening but it was unrealistic to say that a particular event was directly caused by this.

There was also another good discussion on that site which explores the role of global warming in current extreme weather events.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/whats_with_the_weather_is_climate_change_to_blame/2388/


----------



## sails

Oh Basilio, you are back.  You still haven't answered my question as to what is the point of Australia risking the economy for a carbon tax when Australia emits *1.35%* of world CO2?

Here's the first 27 countries from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

The top five countries emit around 70% or world CO2 emissions.  Even if there is a problem, it is extremely doubtful that Australia will achieve little, if anything, to reduce emissions with a carbon tax.  If so, it puts carbon tax being more about a money scam than science.

Regardless of which side might be "right" and which side might be "wrong" is not the point. Will carbon tax actually do any good for carbon emissions?  If the answer is a resounding "yes", then perhaps it's time to look at the controversial "science".  But if we are not sure that carbon tax will reduce emissions, then what's left is likely a money grab where apparently 10% will go to the UN for whatever.

IMO, you have wasted pages and pages of bandwidth here at ASF stating your view of the "science" - could you please now answer my practical question now that it is clear that Australia emits this tiny fraction of world co2?  

*Or will you rudely continue to ignore such a practical request???*


----------



## basilio

I responded at length to your request on post 1888 , Sails. 

Over and out.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> *Australia's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. *
> 
> Firstly the issue is a whole world problem.... That is what the Kyoto agreements were intended to do. But as we know America refused to ratify it and Australia followed. That reduced the impact markedly....It is also not accurate to say that other countries are not doing anything significant. ...




Well, thank you for finally responding.

Above is the reference to your post 1888 and some excerpts from that post.  Might be over and out for you, but not for thinking Australians who realise that the majority of the world's biggest polluting countries obviously do not agree with you either.  

From SMH: *Kyoto deal loses four big nations*

What's the point of bleating on and on with your side of "science" when other scientists do not agree with you either?  There is a book called "The Science of Getting Rich".  Just because something is called science doesn't mean it is fact.  It may be a scientific theory but it isn't necessarily fact.  And even more so when scientists do not come up with the same conclusion.

Goodness, medical "science" once told us eggs were bad for us and now they are good for us.  Science is theory and can change as more knowledge is gained.

And why waste your time here with your version of the "science"?  Is it to promote carbon tax?  Because with about 50% of co2 emissions comming from countries who are not going to join a new Kyoto agreement, there is little point for Australia, imo.

And how do we know that carbon tax will actually reduce our emissions one iota?  Carbon tax makes no sense.  But I expect you will carry on with long, boring posts which back up your theory, but make absolutely no sense for Australia, imo.  Some of the tiny emitting countries are doing something, but what they are achieving would be no more than a spit in the ocean I would think.  Again, more likely because their governments are looking for more revenue.


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> What's the point of bleating on and on with your side of "science" when other scientists do not agree with you either?




Because there are souls to be saved and time is running out.

"He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:20


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> Because there are souls to be saved and time is running out.
> 
> "He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:20




lol - but who is the sinner?  I think the alarmists are the sinners and obviously the alarmists think the realists (they call us deniers), but I think they've got it badly wrong...

It is just like any good theological argument where neither side will ever agree.  But each side will continue to argue lest the bystanders think the other side is right. 

I think this whole climate / carbon tax cult is very much like an extreme religion where common sense goes out the window and, at the end of the day, it's all about money and power (and in cultist religion usually sex as well).

Good analogy, Calliope...


----------



## bandicoot76

not a bad review of the whole AGW "debate":


_When Is it Appropriate to Challenge the "Consensus"? 


Casey Luskin March 19, 2010 10:10 AM | Permalink



Discovery Institute senior fellow Jay Richards has an excellent piece at The American titled, "When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'," that gives 12 criteria to help us decide whether it's appropriate to doubt a particular "consensus." Richards of course notes that the very term "consensus" is often used to shut down scientific debate--but that hardly means the scientific "consensus" is necessarily wrong. Indeed, some wrongly challenge the consensus when it ought to be affirmed. Richards threads this needle carefully, explaining why we must carefully examine the scientific, sociological, rhetorical, and political dynamics of a debate to determine if the consensus deserves our assent, or our skepticism:


Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the "power of the paradigm" often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.
 We shouldn't, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there's someone somewhere--easily accessible online--that thinks it's all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they're just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.

So what's a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, "between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?" Are we obligated to trust whatever we're told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don't know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific "consensus," whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it's wise to be suspicious. 
Many of Richards' criteria are clearly applicable to the debate over intelligent design (ID) and neo-Darwinism. For example, Darwin's defenders make heavy use of personal attacks, and Richards suggests we ought to consider skepticism "When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate." Likewise, Richards' criteria of "When scientists are pressured to toe the party line" or ""When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish" also have immediately obvious relevance to the ID-evolution debate.

But what about Richards' first criterion: "When different claims get bundled together"? Does it apply to the ID-Darwin debate? According to Richards:

 Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. 

Finally, it's worth noting that Richards final criterion -- "When we keep being told that there's a scientific consensus" -- is perhaps the most important one. The late Michael Crichton would agree. As he eloquently observed, "The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. ... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ... Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."_


----------



## OzWaveGuy

No observed evidence, insignificant amount of man made CO2, -ve growth, rising cost of living, new taxes - what is this Government's agenda, nothing happens by accident. 

*Alan Jones talks to Professor Bob Carter about climate change and a carbon tax.*


----------



## mexican

OzWaveGuy said:


> No observed evidence, insignificant amount of man made CO2, -ve growth, rising cost of living, new taxes - what is this Government's agenda, nothing happens by accident.
> 
> *Alan Jones talks to Professor Bob Carter about climate change and a carbon tax.*




Enough said really Oz!!
A public debate Carter and co vs Flannery/Garnaut....it would be a slaughter and Flannery and Garnaut know it!!!!
It would be great if it did happen............how can we get the ball rolling Oz?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Mexican, I doubt a debate will ever happen --- too much deceit from alarmists that they know cannot be used in a debate with experts. Even non-experts like Jones and Bolt rip apart the alarmists with the simple questions that cannot be answered. Alarmists are resorting to deceitful PR campaigns that they too refuse to debate, as Bolt found out this weekend...all in the first 3mins...



The answer is very simple - don't pay a tax built on deceit and corruption.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

mexican said:


> Enough said really Oz!!
> A public debate Carter and co vs Flannery/Garnaut....it would be a slaughter and Flannery and Garnaut know it!!!!
> It would be great if it did happen............how can we get the ball rolling Oz?




Prof Carter is up for a debate, Flannery is silent, Garnaut, let's not go there.

gg


----------



## sails

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence...



> THE international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $US1.5 billion of them traded last year - the lowest since the system opened in 2005, says a report from the World Bank.
> 
> A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States also declined, and only the European Union's internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $US120 billion. However, leaked documents appear to show that even the EU's system is in danger.




Full article from SMH and written by Fiona Harvey: Carbon credits market at point of collapse


----------



## Logique

A polemistic 'attack dog' like George Monbiot is the nearest approach to a 'scientist' the Left will nominate to go up against the likes of Profs Carter and Plimer.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...6NXSDw&usg=AFQjCNEaSODohaFjWSTcmYaE2VvbUXkeXQ ..-_Climate Realists_
Reply to article from Lord Monkton:  _Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk_ by John Abraham  - Friday, June 4th 2010

"...ONE of the numerous artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate-extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics..."

"...One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian. What is Monbiot’s qualification to write about climate science? Well, like Abraham, he a “scientist”. Trouble is, *he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist*, so his specialism has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham, who nevertheless presents himself as having scientific knowledge relevant 'in the area'.

...Monbiot made the mistake of pretending that he understood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which he had plainly not previously heard...."


----------



## Logique

Richard Glover in the balanced Fairfax press (SMH) says 'bone-headed' deniers should be forcibly tattooed. Hint: don't expect too much scientific analysis in this article.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html
*The dangers of bone-headed beliefs June 6, 2011 *by Richard Glover 

"...Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies....On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy..."

A bit Nazi-creepy Richard? What will be next - saying 'meouw' to the beastly 'deniers'?


----------



## Ruby

Logique said:


> Richard Glover in the balanced Fairfax press (SMH) says 'bone-headed' deniers should be forcibly tattooed. Hint: don't expect too much scientific analysis in this article.
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html
> *The dangers of bone-headed beliefs June 6, 2011 *by Richard Glover
> 
> "...Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies....On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy..."
> 
> A bit Nazi-creepy Richard? What will be next - saying 'meouw' to the beastly 'deniers'?




What an infantile piece of writing.  Rudeness, arrogance and personal attacks are always the last refuge of the ignorant.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Logique said:


> Richard Glover in the balanced Fairfax press (SMH) says 'bone-headed' deniers should be forcibly tattooed.
> 
> "...Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies....On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy..."




It's interesting isn't it?....as we saw last week in this very same thread - the level of frustration by alarmists who couldn't definitively prove their warming position is being played out elsewhere too. 

This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Many alarmists cannot believe they've been scammed and psychologically will refuse to admit it even when the evidence is overwhelmingly obvious of foul play.   

It's not just the alarmists that are on a warpath, already climate Scientists have been threatened as the level of frustration and anger builds on both sides. (PS it wasn't me)


----------



## medicowallet

Ruby said:


> What an infantile piece of writing.  Rudeness, arrogance and personal attacks are always the last refuge of the ignorant.




I find this statement rude.


----------



## Ruby

medicowallet said:


> I find this statement rude.




Feel free to find it anything you like.


----------



## Calliope

This is rude!



> PARLIAMENTARIANS from Julia Gillard down appear ready to give the cold shoulder to Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an outspoken climate change sceptic, when he visits Australia next month.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...frosty-reception/story-fn59niix-1226069752818



> Klaus is a vocal critic of the notion that any global warming is anthropogenic: "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so." and if it is, that globally coordinated government action is necessary. He has also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming because "a whip of political correctness strangles their voices."
> In addition he says, "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, in an answer to the questions of the U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.



Wikipedia


----------



## Ruby

This is an excellent site to browse if you want to get some unbiased and rational facts about this issue:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/new-here-the-ten-second-guide-to-the-world-of-skeptics/ 


.......... and this is absolutely hilarious!!

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/im-here-to-fix-your-climate/


----------



## Logique

Two good links there, thanks Ruby. If only we could see that satire on Clarke and Dawe played on the ABC, but it wouldn't get past the in-house thought police.


----------



## Calliope

Where are all those Warmists when you need them?



> Australian Summary: An intense low is generating very strong, cold winds, showers, small hail and low level snow in TAS, VIC and southern NSW. A front is bringing the odd sleety shower to the NSW central ranges. A trough is generating patchy rain over the northern and western interior.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

The hoax continues to unfold....insight into the IPCC corrupt processes, Government policy makers influencing themselves to ensure climate taxes are forced upon the world.... 

*Alan Jones speaks to Dr Vincent Gray about climate change*

Are any of the Alarmists here still willing to claim that there's no corruption in the climate establishment? Or has the green ideology brainwashed them to disbelieve the obvious deceit to drive taxation to benefit the elite with zero impact to climate?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Logique said:


> Richard Glover in the balanced Fairfax press (SMH) says 'bone-headed' deniers should be forcibly tattooed. Hint: don't expect too much scientific analysis in this article.
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html
> *The dangers of bone-headed beliefs June 6, 2011 *by Richard Glover
> 
> "...Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies....On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy..."
> 
> A bit Nazi-creepy Richard? What will be next - saying 'meouw' to the beastly 'deniers'?




It really illustrates how dangerous these religious alarmist nuts are, totally unable to accept any arguments that challenge their faith, and resorting to threats.

gg


----------



## Logique

OzWaveGuy said:


> The hoax continues to unfold....insight into the IPCC corrupt processes, Government policy makers influencing themselves to ensure climate taxes are forced upon the world....
> 
> *Alan Jones speaks to Dr Vincent Gray about climate change*
> 
> Are any of the Alarmists here still willing to claim that there's no corruption in the climate establishment? Or has the green ideology brainwashed them to disbelieve the obvious deceit to drive taxation to benefit the elite with zero impact to climate?



It seems the science isn't settled in the view of (independent of govt) climate expert PhD (Cambridge) Dr Gray. He joins a growing stampede of experienced and respected academics. 

He has a good understanding of the fact that the IPCC is dominated by governments. Follow the govt line or be sacked. Follow the govt line or you're not published in the scientific journals. That's how it goes.


----------



## Ruby

OzWaveGuy said:


> The hoax continues to unfold....insight into the IPCC corrupt processes, Government policy makers influencing themselves to ensure climate taxes are forced upon the world....
> 
> *Alan Jones speaks to Dr Vincent Gray about climate change*
> 
> Are any of the Alarmists here still willing to claim that there's no corruption in the climate establishment? Or has the green ideology brainwashed them to disbelieve the obvious deceit to drive taxation to benefit the elite with zero impact to climate?






Logique said:


> It seems the science isn't settled in the view of (independent of govt) climate expert PhD (Cambridge) Dr Gray. He joins a growing stampede of experienced and respected academics.
> 
> He has a good understanding of the fact that the IPCC is dominated by governments. Follow the govt line or be sacked. Follow the govt line or you're not published in the scientific journals. That's how it goes.





It's very clear, isn't it?

Another red herring that keeps being thrown up (and which was mentioned in Alan Jones' preamble to the interview) is the 'east coast of Australia will be inundated and millions of $$ worth of property will be lost' one.  Well.....  all land masses in the world are continually shifting and changing.  Nothing is ever static.  The east coast of Australia has been disappearing for as long as I can remember (huge erosion in 1960's at the Gold Coast.)   Hmmm!  Somehow that does not fit the model! 

The alarmists are panicking.  They are making ever more ludicrous statements and shooting more torpedos into their sinking ship (as Bob Carter would say.)


----------



## Calliope

Ruby said:


> The alarmists are panicking.  They are making ever more ludicrous statements and shooting more torpedos into their sinking ship (as Bob Carter would say.)




The scary bit Ruby, is that no leader of any political persuasion in this country is prepared to get up on their hind legs and commit themselves to take on these dangerous purveyors of the fraudulent claims that the globe is warming and that is our fault. 

Why are they so scared to take them on? :dunno:


----------



## Knobby22

Dr Vincent Grey. - another individual (Prophet) involved in the global warming denial industry. Keep up with your religous beliefs guys.


Vincent Gray is a chemist based in New Zealand.  He is a retired coal industry researcher, climate author, and founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Cambridge University.

Publications
A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.

Primary Affiliations

Gray and the NRSP
Gray was a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), until the organization ceased operation around 2008.  The NRSP was a lobby organization that refused to disclose its funding sources.

*The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."*

The New Zealand Climate Coalition and the Navy
Gray is a founding member of the "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" which was created in May of 2006 with the aim of " refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming."

The New Zealand Coalition states that its main goals are:

"To publish and distribute papers and commentaries produced by members of the Coalition. 
To audit statements by other organizations, both in New Zealand and overseas, which are published in New Zealand, or are expected to influence New Zealand public policy and public opinion. 
And "to audit the forthcoming IPCC report, either on its own, or through the Asia Pacific Climate Science Coalition, or equivalent organization, if one has been established in time." 
The chairman of the NZ Coalition is Rear Admiral Jack Welch, a retired member of the New Zealand Navy.

ICECAP
Gray is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).

ICECAP believes we should "worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon."

In one ICECAP article, Gray touts his position as an "expert reviewer" of the IPCC. He further describes how the IPCC science has been "'spun' to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of [sic] certainb greenhouse gases which [sic] has no scientific basis.

The ICECAP domain name was registered in 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo who is employed by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). SPPI, a prominent global warming denier group, is largely backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute which has in turn received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Skeptical Activities

The "NZ Climate Enviro Truth" newsletter
Gray publishes a newsletter called the NZ Climate and Envirotruth.

NZ Climate Truth provides the following description on their home page: "Vincent is too modest, the content is global in scope and his penetrating analysis honed by years of reviewing IPCC reports is applied to issues arising in the Greenhouse / Global Warming / Climate Change debate."

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Published a policy paper in 2001 for a Canadian think tank called "The Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP)." The FCPP has held lunch seminars on global warming with Tim Ball, a well-known global warming "skeptic."

"Expert" IPCC Reviewer 
Gray often introduces himself as an IPCC expert reviewer. He says that "I have been an 'Expert Reviewer' for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its first major Report in 1990."

He uses this as justification for his continuous attack on the IPCC, having called the panel "fundamentally corrupt," and describing their scientific methods as "unsound." Gray also published a book critiquing the IPCC titled The Greenhouse Delusion. The book describes the panel has having "not convincingly made its case that increases in carbon dioxide levels are occurring and [sic] that increase will have harmful effects."

Although the Financial Post suggests that "no one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray," all that it takes to be an expert reviewer is to refrain from publicly commenting on the draft. So just about anyone who requests to see a draft of the IPCC's report is qualified to be an IPCC expert reviewer.


http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray


----------



## Knobby22

Bob Carter is worse. Isn't there anyone not taking money??? He takes it from tobacco as well!!!

Bob Carter
Background
Carter's Ph.D is in palaeontology and he holds a B.Sc in geology from the University of Otago.

Publications
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly in the area of stratigraphy, the study of rock layers and layering.

Primary Affiliations

The "Institute for Public Affairs"
Carter is on the research committee of an organization called the "Institute for Public Affairs" (IPA). The IPA is an Australian-based organization that, according to Sourcewatch, has received funding from the fossil fuel industry.

In reference to his involvement with the IPA, Carter stated in a March 15, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article: "I don't think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry."

Tech Central Station
Carter has written articles for Tech Central Station which has received has received money from ExxonMobil. Until very recently, TCS was run by the Washington lobby/PR firm DCI Group, which in turn was at the centre of controversy over a YouTube Al Gore spoof video they produced and posted under the guise of 29-year old amateur filmmaker. ExxonMobil is also reported to be a client of the DCI Group.

Skeptical Activities

"Not a credible source" on climate change
In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that "if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process."

Carter has written numerous newspaper articles, primarily for UK and Australian newspapers, that attempt to disprove global warming.

The International Conference on Climate Change 
Carter was a speaker at the 2009 International Conference on climate Change. His speech can be viewed here. The conference is hosted by the industry-funded Heartland Institute and focuses on “research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions.”

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
In an interview with ABC, Carter describes how "increasing [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere is actually a benefit to human kind." He is listed on the "panel" for The Great Global Warming Swindle as a climate change skeptic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter to ABC that was signed by thirty-seven British Scientists who claimed "the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed."

In an interview between ABC Australia’s Tony Jones and the film’s director Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle’s validity and scientific accuracy were also put into question. 

The Independent Summary for Policymakers 
Carter is listed as a expert reviewer of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM), essentially a critical review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

The ISPM is published by the industry-supported Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute has received over $60,000 from ExxonMobil and is also financially-supported by several tobacco companies including Philip Morris and British American Tobacco


----------



## wayneL

But can you refute their points?


----------



## Ruby

Knobby, the hypothesis that "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous gobal warming"  has not been proven to be correct.  Those who believe it to be so have the onus of proof on them.  It is not the other way round.  The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested until observational data proves it to be either true or false.

So far the observational data does not match the theory.  The IPCC cannot produce evidence which proves empirically that the hypothesis is true.  All it has to do is produce this evidence and the debate will be silenced.


----------



## basilio

Ruby said:


> Knobby, the hypothesis that "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous gobal warming"  has not been proven to be correct.  Those who believe it to be so have the onus of proof on them.  It is not the other way round.  The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested until observational data proves it to be either true or false.
> 
> So far the observational data does not match the theory.  The IPCC cannot produce evidence which proves empirically that the hypothesis is true.  All it has to do is produce this evidence and the debate will be silenced.




Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that  "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that  "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html




Basilio, I am afraid this is unscientific and is not empirical evidence that proves the hypothesis.  It is a bit of very faulty logic.
"Humans are raising CO2 levels. CO2 traps heat. The earth is warming.  Therefore human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."

It is a bad as the silly piece of non-logic that says "The **** crows before dawn each morning.  The sun rises each morning soon after that.  Therefore the ****'s crowing causes the sun to rise."

There are too many other factors not taken into account:- 
CO2 is only one greenhouse gas.  Water is a much more prevalent one.
CO2 may amplify the warming effect, but not in a straight line, so the amount of warming reduces as CO2 increases.
There has been no warming in the last 10 years, but CO2 emissions have increased.
Past history shows that global warming *precedes *increased CO2 emissions (so which is the cause, and which the effect?)
CO2 emissions increased dramatically post WWII, but the earth went through a cooling period for 3 decades.
The warming the earth has been experiencing in the last few hundred years is well within normal variations.
and so on..........

And by the way, I loathe Alan Jones, whatever his leanings are.


----------



## Knobby22

I'm not going to argue the climate case as the belief system is so strong and it has been argued infinitum before.
I am just trying to put a skerrick of doubt in the minds of those accolytes of Jones and Bolt.  Just a skerrick.... that they might be hearing a slightly biased view from people who are paid to tell them how to think.


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> I'm not going to argue the climate case as the belief system is so strong and it has been argued infinitum before.
> I am just trying to put a skerrick of doubt in the minds of those accolytes of Jones and Bolt.  Just a skerrick.... *that they might be hearing a slightly biased view from people who are paid to tell them how to think*.




Hmmm!........... and you think that the 'other' side might *not *be presenting a biased view by people who are paid to tell them how to think?????

Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side.  We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change.  It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that  "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html




You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.

Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.
> 
> Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.




Just a skerrick of doubt.


----------



## noco

Ruby said:


> Hmmm!........... and you think that the 'other' side might *not *be presenting a biased view by people who are paid to tell them how to think?????
> 
> Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side.  We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change.  It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.




Spot on Ruby. 

I keep emphasising the fact where Gillard and co persist in saying, if you don't believe in a carbon (dioxide) tax you are a climate change denier. What a load of rubbish.

I would say 95% of people believe in climate change, but not man made.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that  "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html




We are facing record cold weather here in Qld.  Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?


----------



## medicowallet

sails said:


> We are facing record cold weather here in Qld.  Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?




Has anyone ever seen the temp projections of 

the IPCC reports

With what really happened with the temperature on them?

I mean all of the projections from the first report through.


----------



## trainspotter

sails said:


> We are facing record cold weather here in Qld.  Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?




Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh See ! This is what global warming is all about. It is the change in the weather as in some places will get colder whilst others get warmer. Blame CO2 gas for this conundrum. As the earths ozone warms up it creates different vortex wind currents changing the weather cycle. NOW DO YOU GET IT?


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh See ! This is what global warming is all about. It is the change in the weather as in some places will get colder whilst others get warmer. Blame CO2 gas for this conundrum. As the earths ozone warms up it creates different vortex wind currents changing the weather cycle. NOW DO YOU GET IT?



The stock market might go up tomorrow. Or it might go down. Or maybe sideways. 

See, I'm right either way and can now call myself an expert at forecasting the direction of the stock market. You should hand over lots of money to me for this... 

As for winter, well yes it's damn cold outside. I came home about half an hour ago and it was 10.6 degrees - that's inside the house, not out. It's warmed up to about 13 now. On a positive note, at least the mice are getting some use out of the heating I put in the mouse cage (yep, a heated mouse cage...).


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.
> 
> Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.



OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. 

In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

medicowallet said:


> Has anyone ever seen the temp projections of
> 
> the IPCC reports
> 
> With what really happened with the temperature on them?
> 
> I mean all of the projections from the first report through.



Yes, and I note that there are four sets of projections based on four emissions scenarios, that they go through to 2100 and that even in the highest emission scenario (the one we're actually closest to, as it happens) the fastest warming happens later in the century so that if we're noticing it now, barely a decade in, we're in even deeper trouble than the IPCC reports indicated. 

That's what you meant isn't it?

Ghoti


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

ghotib said:


> OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study.
> 
> Ghoti




Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study.
> 
> Ghoti




Thanks for another useless book post, The only evidence the non-expert alarmists put up is pretty hockey sticks that seem to have convinced the green faith that CO2 drives Temp. Then use deceit to spin the usual "correlation" argument.

What about the critical hotspot 10km up? Isn't that meant to be the key finger print of CO2?

Since you cannot post links to credible scientific studies that clearly show man made gases drive temperatures, then the only thing left for you is to fall back to studies based on flawed hypothesis models.

But it doesn't stop there, please post links to credible studies that show if man was to reduce CO2 emissions by say 5%, there would be a temperature drop. Noting that man made emissions are 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's see,  5% of that 3% is a whopping 0.15% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

So we are told by the alarmists that aren't actually doing anything about "Global Warming" themselves including all the alarmists in this thread, but we must have faith in their models to save the earth for $billions, whilst the elite alarmists continue to fly their personal jets and yet see no temperature change. Yes Ghotib, the fiction you spin is truly amazing

Real Studies based on real observed evidence by real scientists  please.


----------



## bandicoot76

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."




the onus is on the ppl pushing the theory to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not for those ppl unconvinced to dis-prove it.... i thought that was basic science 101? OWG is right, where's the irrefutable 'smoking gun' evidence?


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

bandicoot76 said:


> the onus is on the ppl pushing the theory to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not for those ppl unconvinced to dis-prove it.... i thought that was basic science 101? OWG is right, where's the irrefutable 'smoking gun' evidence?




If you want it spoon-fed, here:

Exhibit A: (Picture) Simple chart

Exhibit B: (Writing) _"Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity-and very little else- is warming the world's oceans. 

The Scripps' report, coming from one of the world's leading ocean research institutions, may turn out to be the "smoking gun" that finally establishes the link between greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other pollutants) and the increase in temperature worldwide, or global warming. 

The authors contend that their results clearly indicate that the oceans' warming is produced "anthropogenically," i.e. by human activities. The study, conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce, along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans, a Scripps bulletin stated. 

The findings were reported at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held in Washington D.C. Dr. Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps, stated: "This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution." He admitted to being "stunned" by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming," he continued. 

In an interview with the BBC Barnett noted that the world's oceans cover around 71 percent of the earth's surface, and that what happens in them therefore has significant consequences on the world's weather and climate. The study used advanced computer models of climate "to calculate human-produced warming over the last 40 years in the world's oceans," said Scripps' bulletin. "In all of the ocean basins, the warming signal found in the upper 700 meters predicted by the models corresponded to the measurements obtained at sea with confidence exceeding 95 percent. The correspondence was especially strong in the upper 500 meters of the water column." 

The bulletin noted that it is this "high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming." 

If the observations Barnett and his colleagues have identified continue, they will "produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land." Rapidly melting glaciers in South America and China could greatly reduce the amount of water available in the dry summer months. In the Western U.S. warmer conditions could fundamentally alter the snow pack upon which many Western States rely for water. 

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," Barnett stated. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers." 

While it may be an exaggeration to say that the world's decision makers have been "dithering" over climate change, the only concrete result so far has been the Kyoto protocol, which went into force last week (See IJ Website Feb.17), at least for the countries that have signed up to it. The United States, Brazil and China are notably absent. If the Scripps report convinces those who are still unsure about the causes of global warming that it originates from greenhouse gases, the world will owe Dr. Barnett and his colleagues a great debt. 

More details concerning the report and the effects of global warming can be obtained on the Scripps' Website at: http://scripps.ucsd.edu/; or on the AAAS Website at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0217warmingwarning.shtmle. For general information, see also the United Nations Environment Program Web site at: http://www.unep.org/, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm."_

Exhibit C: (Movie) Watch An Inconvenient Truth

*Now it's your turn.*


----------



## bandicoot76

InvisbleInvestor said:


> If you want it spoon-fed, here:
> 
> 
> 
> Exhibit C: (Movie) Watch An Inconvenient Truth
> 
> *Now it's your turn.*




i was going to but your 'an inconvenient truth' link has made me run to the toilet!


----------



## DB008

5 minutes on Google can produce various results...
















> The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

bandicoot76 said:


> i was going to but your 'an inconvenient truth' link has made me run to the toilet!




That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument.



DB008 said:


> 5 minutes on Google can produce various results...




Yes it can, depending who you want to listen to.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

InvisbleInvestor said:


> That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument.




And in the same breath cannot answer the most basic question  Where's the observed evidence from real scientists using observed evidence instead of corrupt models and hockey sticks? and what will the temperature drop by should the flimsy 3% from man be reduced by 5%?


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

No matter what I say now will significantly alter your views, so I'm not going to bother trying.


----------



## trainspotter

Would that be the inconvenient truth about Al Gore being the major shareholder of a company that trades carbon credits and he stood to make millions of dollars out of? Would that be the same Al Gore whose mansion uses 20 times more electricity and gas than the average home in Nashville? Apparently he purchased carbon credits from his own company to offset his carbon footprint. LOL ! Would that be the same inconvenient truth?


----------



## white_goodman

trainspotter said:


> Would that be the inconvenient truth about Al Gore being the major shareholder of a company that trades carbon credits and he stood to make millions of dollars out of? Would that be the same Al Gore whose mansion uses 20 times more electricity and gas than the average home in Nashville? Apparently he purchased carbon credits from his own company to offset his carbon footprint. LOL ! Would that be the same inconvenient truth?




is the first point legit...


also a nice page showing that carbon in the atmosphere is logarithmic...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/)


----------



## trainspotter

Why yes it is in fact !



> Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
> 
> Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms,"




Read more: Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40445#ixzz1OpJT6SQT

Also got roasted by Newt Gringich I think who conveniently POINTED OUT THIS FACT.

Go to youtube and find it there as well. Te he !


----------



## Calliope

You can't trust a global warming alarmist as far as you could kick him. Their whole industry is based on lies and deception, and the gullibility of their disciples.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that.




I am afraid it does, Ghotib.  That is the scientific method.  When someone puts forward a hypothesis, ie, that human CO2 emissions are driving global warming, then the next step in the scientific process is to either prove or disprove that claim.  That can only be done by collecting vast quantities of observational data - which may take years. If the empirical data confirms the hypothesis, then it is accepted as fact; if it does not, then the theory must be discarded.  This is proper science, and the whole scientific body knows that.




> In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather.




Yes, and when these 'deep connections' are seen various hypotheses are developed - which still must be tested. 



> Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years.........




No it hasn't.  The theory that human activity is driving climate change is only about 30 years old.




> That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study.




'Evidence' that is full of assumptions is not proof.  To simply say "Human CO2 emissions are increasing. The global temperature has been rising.  Therefore the second factor is caused by first,"  is faulty logic, and is unscientific.  The two could be happening entirely independently of one another.  The cause and effect has not been established by empirical testing.  An 'explanation' is not proof of anything.  There can often be many explanations.



> The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one.




No, it is not.  The hypothesis is "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."  It is *this *hypothesis which must be proven or disproven.  So far it has not been proven correct.  If it had been, there would be at least one peer reviewed study available.   There is not.  This is why OWG and others are asking for a link to one such study.


----------



## Ruby

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."




Lots of research, but no empirical proof.


----------



## Ruby

InvisbleInvestor said:


> If you want it spoon-fed, here:
> 
> Exhibit C: (Movie) Watch An Inconvenient Truth
> 
> *Now it's your turn.*




As soon as I saw "Exhibit C" I decided not to bother with A and B.    II, that film was discredited a long time ago.


----------



## ghotib

DB008 said:


> 5 minutes on Google can produce various results...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>



And 5 minutes on Google can lead to 55 hours of followup  

Some months ago I spent something between 5 and 55 hours tracing links from the Geocraft website and the status of their information. As several other people have linked to it from this thread, I'm posting a piece (slightly modified) I wrote about my findings for another board. It deals only with the first of the graphics DB008 has posted, which is linked from a page called _Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective_, part of a website called _Plant Fossils of West Virginia_. The article and the site are the work of Monte Hieb. 

This post is an example of the kind of checking I've worked out to help me, as a non-scientist, assess the reliability and accuracy of scientific-sounding information. It takes time and patience and a willingness to get very confused at times, but I would think most  people here are capable of doing it if they want to. 

Monte Hieb’s article contains several illustrations from various sources. This post concentrates on one, taken them from a 1996 article with the poetic name   Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record, by Thomas Crowley.  It’s the third illustration in Monte Hieb’s article. 

Many people who have investigated climate change science or politics will recognise this graphic. It shows a reconstruction of temperatures over the last 1000 years. This is what Monte Hieb says about it:


> Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2 ° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes.



And here's the caption as Monte Hieb shows it. He repeats Crowley’s caption and adds a link directly to the graphic in Crowley's paper: _Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in  ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record_

So just from the text above and below the graphic it's apparent that Hieb is talking about *global* temperature whereas Crowley is illustrating an “example of *regional* variations”. This is even clearer in Crowley’s discussion (all emphasis mine):


> A prominent feature found *in some regions* during the first centuries of the present millennium is a time of particularly mild temperatures, reaching maximum warmth in the 12th to 13th centuries. *In some locations* at that time, surface conditions may have been similar to today. However, *it is not at all clear whether this climatic feature occurred at the same time in all places””an important distinction from the somewhat more uniform pattern in recent decades.*



Monte Hieb’s interpretation of the graphic - that it shows something about global temperature - is contrary to what he source says about it at least twice. That worries me, but one case could be an oversight or a misunderstanding so I looked at some more. I can post about them separately if people are interested, but for now I’ll just say that in my opinion Monte Hieb has been misleading in his use of another writer’s work and in his implication of agreement between himself and Crowley. 

Am I overstating the disagreement? Reading the conclusions to each article I don't think so. First Monte Hieb:


> Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
> 
> Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.



And now Thomas Crowley: 


> The net impression of this evaluation of "things past" is that the future climate promises to look very different than the present and, perhaps more disconcertingly, possibly unlike anything known before.



By following up the sources that Monte Hieb has cited, I can see for myself that he has not addressed what they actually say and I can do that even without knowing much about the subject. Of course, many articles don’t cite their sources and Hieb deserves credit for the citations and links he provided. But in my view his misuse of their material makes his whole article unreliable.

Ghoti


----------



## bandicoot76

InvisbleInvestor said:


> That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument..




your post got the reply it merited, especially since you started it with a condescending line like "spoon fed", did you really expect any other response?

cut and pasted posts from 'how to debate a climate sceptic' dont cut any ice on this thread, especially when they link to propagada like hypocrit Al gores 'an inconvenient truth'!

keelings curve proves without a doubt a fact everyone here is well aware of...

atmospheric CO2 levels definately ARE rising, due, in part, to human activities such as emissions from burning fossil fuel for energy, a consequence of us living in a modern industrial society! 

however that is NOT what we are debating , the whole notion of AGW climate change rests on one question, that so far remains unanswered:

"does atmospheric CO2 produced by man cause (force) catastrophic climate change"

until there is irrefutable proof to prove this point (and dont show manns hockeystick for gods sake!!!) the science remains unsettled. 

so quit having a sook!  :


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> No, it is not.  The hypothesis is "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."  It is *this *hypothesis which must be proven or disproven.  So far it has not been proven correct.  If it had been, there would be at least one peer reviewed study available.   There is not.  This is why OWG and others are asking for a link to one such study.



I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but just quickly I'd like to point out that "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" is not the hypothesis. It's a result that has emerged from various tested hypotheses. 

If human CO2 emissions were not causing global warming, that fact would be evidence against the established (i.e. tested) understanding of such things as how heat moves, how shells form, how insect species interact. Not just one of those things - all of them. That's why scientists talk about global warming as being like gravity. 

Gotta go.

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope

InvisbleInvestor said:


> No matter what I say now will significantly alter your views, so I'm not going to bother trying.




If you want people to respect your views you will have to stop talking rubbish.


----------



## bandicoot76

Ruby said:


> As soon as I saw "Exhibit C" I decided not to bother with A and B.    II, that film was discredited a long time ago.




 i felt the same way when i read his post (at 1am after a long arvo shift)... but i read it anyway, and came to the conclusion obi-wan here just wanted to post something too show how clever he was and how dumb us "unbeleivers" are... 'the spoon fed' line put my back up straight away.... 

his 'keeling curve' link was actually correct in its content, but it proves a point that we have already accepted as a fact, that atmospheric CO2 is rising, but it doesnt prove that CO2 forces catastrophic climate change outside of normal variation (a fact i dont think he comprehends)

...but the context of the keeling study wasnt even meant to adress the issue carbon/climate forcing!... its simply the graph of a long term measurement of atmospheric CO2 starting from the 1950's on from a 'neutral measuring station in hawaii... 

the inconvenient truth link was just the icing on the cake wasnt it!


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but just quickly I'd like to point out that "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" *is not the hypothesis*. It's a result that has emerged from various tested hypotheses.




Yes, that *is *the hypothesis.  Ask any scientist.  Do you know what a hypothesis is?



> If human CO2 emissions were not causing global warming, that fact would be evidence against the established (i.e. tested) understanding of such things as how heat moves, how shells form, how insect species interact. Not just one of those things - all of them. That's why scientists talk about global warming as being like gravity.




Now you are talking absolute nonsense!
(My bolds)


----------



## Ruby

bandicoot76 said:


> ..........The inconvenient truth link was just the icing on the cake wasnt it!




Yes, quite!


----------



## bandicoot76

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Exhibit B: (Writing) _"Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity-and very little else- is warming the world's oceans.
> 
> The Scripps' report, coming from one of the world's leading ocean research institutions, may turn out to be the "smoking gun" that finally establishes the link between greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other pollutants) and the increase in temperature worldwide, or global warming.
> 
> The authors contend that their results clearly indicate that the oceans' warming is produced "anthropogenically," i.e. by human activities. The study, conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce, along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans, a Scripps bulletin stated.
> 
> [/B]_



_

interesting but hardly the smoking gun..._


----------



## bandicoot76

bandicoot76 said:


> i felt the same way when i read his post (at 1am after a long arvo shift)... but i read it anyway, and came to the conclusion obi-wan here just wanted to post something too show how clever he was and how dumb us "unbeleivers" are... 'the spoon fed' line put my back up straight away....
> 
> his 'keeling curve' link was actually correct in its content,




apolagies to "invisableinvestor": he did not provide link to the keelings curve, that was on another forum page i was researching late last night. 

thats what i get for trying to cram too much info in a limited amount of resresarch time


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> Yes, that *is *the hypothesis.  Ask any scientist.  Do you know what a hypothesis is?



I think so. How would you go about testing a hypothesis such as "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."? 


> Now you are talking absolute nonsense!
> (My bolds)



Possibly, but show me why.


----------



## drsmith

With any theory, the responsibility of proof belongs to the theorist.


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> With any theory, the responsibility of proof belongs to the theorist.




Not strictly true.

In science you need to test the theory and that can be done by anyone.
The theory may then be discarded or modified to suit if the test fails.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> In science you need to test the theory and that can be done by anyone.



It does not have to be done by anyone.

Onus of proof is on the theorist.


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

drsmith said:


> It does not have to be done by anyone.
> 
> Onus of proof is on the theorist.




Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.


----------



## drsmith

In the context of pricing carbon dioxide:

It is up to the proponents of carbon pricing to demonstrate that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming, not anybody else.

It is not up to anybody else to disprove the above.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> I think so. How would you go about testing a hypothesis such as "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."?




I am not a climate scientist so I can't answer that question.

However, climate scientists and scientists in many related fields (geology, oceanology, etc) are constantly testing this hypothesis.  For example, they collect temperature data from thousands of weather satellites, balloons, buoys; they collect ice core samples from glaciers; and cores from the ocean bed.......... and on and on.  Hundreds of small and large observational tests are constantly being done and the empirical data collected.  This is the proof by which scientific theories stand or fall, and so far, the empirical data has not given the results the hypothesis expected.  So the hypothesis has not been proven correct.

The two parts of the hypothesis are:-
1.  That human CO2 emissions are causing gobal warming, and
2.  That the warming is dangerous

So far, neither has been proven.  In fact, the global temperature may even be cooling at present.

It is very difficult to relinquish long-held and cherished opinions, but if a hypothesis fails rigorous testing, then it must be discarded.

I hope this answers your question - albeit in a rather round-about way.


----------



## Ruby

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.




No, it is not just a theory.  If you had studied any physics you wouldn't ask that question.


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

Ruby said:


> No, it is not just a theory.  If you had studied any physics you wouldn't ask that question.




No I haven't studied any physics, so that explains that!


----------



## wayneL

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.




Gravity is:

1/ Observable
2/ predictable
3/ measureable

Unfortunately the AGW hypoguessis is none of the above


----------



## wayneL

Here's another sceptic obviously in Big Oil employ 

Fossils Uncover A Different Take On Climate Change



> When he began his PHD studying fossils and climate change, Dr Geoff Deacon had no idea his area of expertise would become as topical, political and controversial as it is today...
> 
> ..."In the aspect of anthropogenic global warming I'm a sceptic and proud...I would argue that every scientist is actually a sceptic," Dr Deacon says.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

The alarmist in this thread continue to deflect the issue that's top of mind - Present the evidence that confirms the CO2 warming hypothesis. It's becoming obvious that after weeks of asking the same question we are shown no credible evidence, but simply told to believe the their faith. Do the alarmists also use the same logic when investing in the stock market by believing what they are told? Perhaps.

The alarmists here continue to flat line at zero credibility, but I'm kinda amused by the fact you guys front up with another "book" post of zero evidence thinking it's a game changer each time. Some professions would call it delusional.

Here's some observed evidence v's the IPCC "to big to fail" model predictions, but feel free to start another "book" post, and I'll follow up with my apparently unanswerable simple questions that $80B+ investment hasn't been able to uncover.


----------



## Sean K

I agree with averaging things but,

The best start to a ski season in 20 years.

HUH?



Is that global warming caused by *carbon*?


----------



## trainspotter

InvisbleInvestor said:


> Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.




Go jump off a tall building and test the theory. Gravity is real alright. 

*Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation* states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

*Einsteins Theory of Gravity* is something else all together and is to deal with the unknown mechanations of space and time.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> The alarmist in this thread continue to deflect the issue that's top of mind - Present the evidence that confirms the CO2 warming hypothesis. It's becoming obvious that after weeks of asking the same question we are shown no credible evidence, but simply told to believe the their faith. Do the alarmists also use the same logic when investing in the stock market by believing what they are told? Perhaps.
> 
> The alarmists here continue to flat line at zero credibility, but I'm kinda amused by the fact you guys front up with another "book" post of zero evidence thinking it's a game changer each time. Some professions would call it delusional.
> 
> Here's some observed evidence v's the IPCC "to big to fail" model predictions, but feel free to start another "book" post, and I'll follow up with my apparently unanswerable simple questions that $80B+ investment hasn't been able to uncover.




1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990. 


2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.


Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Here's another sceptic obviously in Big Oil employ
> 
> Fossils Uncover A Different Take On Climate Change




I agree, all good scientists are skeptics and that bloke is a scientist.
All scientists will be skeptical on the modelling, all scientists knowthey don't understand or even know all the drivers of global warming, much less understand exactly all the feedbacks (positive and neagitive) that are occurring.

The same goes however for the deniers. How can you be so certain that there is nothing in it. I appreciate the skeptics in this thread and their opinions but the deniers who quote tainted sources who have been proven liars and just discount everything by saying all the scientists are in a giant conspiracy just come across as closed minded fools to me.

I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.

And if anyone here says that there is NO WAY that man can effect the environment as I have seen on this thread, then I reserve the right to think (privately) of that person as a closed mind idiot.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> 1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.




Yes, you're correct, the IPCC continuously demonstrates misleading propaganda in their material.


----------



## drsmith

An open mind is one thing.

A tax is quiet another.


----------



## InvisbleInvestor

drsmith said:


> An open mind is one thing.
> 
> A tax is quiet another.




As opposed to a loud another


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.
> 
> I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.




Er, don't be hysterical, don't have closed minds, it's a weakness of human condition. Excuse me for pointing this out, you and the rest of the alarmists have played out these "human conditions" to the letter in this thread.

None of you are asking your Gaia priests the very same questions on observed evidence and the actual  impact of reducing man's contribution of 3% of CO2 to world's temperatures. Instead you blindly follow and regurgitate the rubbish spewed by the climate establishment and now claim to "keep an open mind". This sounds incredibly hypocritical to me 

Many others here have pointed to real environmental concerns that are causing real issues, yet the alarmists are silent on these and continue to think CO2 plant food is the enemy. You forgot "delusional" as one of the human conditions


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Er, don't be hysterical, don't have closed minds, it's a weakness of human condition. Excuse me for pointing this out, you and the rest of the alarmists have played out these "human conditions" to the letter in this thread.
> 
> None of you are asking your Gaia priests the very same questions on observed evidence and the actual  impact of reducing man's contribution of 3% of CO2 to world's temperatures. Instead you blindly follow and regurgitate the rubbish spewed by the climate establishment and now claim to "keep an open mind". This sounds incredibly hypocritical to me
> 
> Many others here have pointed to real environmental concerns that are causing real issues, yet the alarmists are silent on these and continue to think CO2 plant food is the enemy. You forgot "delusional" as one of the human conditions




I am not excusing either side of bias.

OK, so you are 100% certain that there is no global warming and that even if there is that its not caused by humans?

(I'm not 100% certain on either that it is true but I think the evidence points that this is likely.)


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I agree, all good scientists are skeptics and that bloke is a scientist.
> All scientists will be skeptical on the modelling, all scientists knowthey don't understand or even know all the drivers of global warming, much less understand exactly all the feedbacks (positive and neagitive) that are occurring.
> 
> The same goes however for the deniers. How can you be so certain that there is nothing in it. I appreciate the skeptics in this thread and their opinions but the deniers who quote tainted sources who have been proven liars and just discount everything by saying all the scientists are in a giant conspiracy just come across as closed minded fools to me.
> 
> I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.
> 
> I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.




IOW the science ISN'T settled?

Lo!!


----------



## Julia

I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:

i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?

Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?

Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?

Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.

I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now. 

Please,  one of  you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?


----------



## trainspotter

Julia said:


> I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:
> 
> i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?
> 
> Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?
> 
> Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?
> 
> Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.
> 
> I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.
> 
> Please,  one of  you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?




The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:- 



> "Phytoplankton grow faster in a cool ocean and slower in a warm one," said Siegel. "The scary part is that the oceans are warming now ---- probably caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide."
> 
> These microscopic plants are predicted to grow even slower in the warmer oceans of the future. This in turn will reduce the food available to fish and other organisms, including marine birds and mammals, which are supported by the ocean's food chain. *Phytoplankton are responsible for about the same amount of photosynthesis each year as all the plants on land combined.*
> 
> Another disturbing result of reduced phytoplankton is that our atmosphere depends on the consumption of atmospheric carbon dioxide by these plants. Reduced phytoplankton means less carbon dioxide is taken up by the ocean, which could speed global warming, contributing to a vicious cycle of increased warming.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm

*Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La NiÃ±a transitions on record*. 

Really ??? So much for that theory then !


----------



## medicowallet

trainspotter said:


> The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm
> 
> *Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La NiÃ±a transitions on record*.
> 
> Really ??? So much for that theory then !




From what I understand about this, it is not the temperature, but variations between seasons that makes the difference.

I need to look into this much more, seems very interesting.

A very basic guide for people at

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vg.html


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.
> 
> Please,  one of  you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?




Ah memory. Its a fascinating area. I'm going to post something on this under a different thread but memory is famously faulty. You can't trust it.

Some biases.

Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.

Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.

Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.

Check this out for more memory biases that no one is immune from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

It would be interesting Julia if you went back in the records to where you were and see whether it was actually warmer. If you haven't time let me know the area and I will see if I can get the information.

In my view the problenm with the environment warming rapidly over 50 years is that we can't predict all the events such as bigger storms? extinction of animals? more rain, more droughts? I think man cannot rate itself above nature and our biosphere.  I suppose it is about risk.  Say something really bad happened we didn't foresee??


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> IOW the science ISN'T settled?
> 
> Lo!!




Any scientist would say that. Any skeptic would say this.
It is one thing saying it isn't settled to saying it is all rot!!


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm
> 
> *Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La NiÃ±a transitions on record*.
> 
> Really ??? So much for that theory then !




It supported the theory, did you read what you posted????


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:
> 
> i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?
> 
> Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?




We will adapt, and if we don't it's no big deal. Most of the species that ever existed on earth are now extinct. 

If this global holocaust that we are threatened with, does occur, perhaps it will make our species stronger by wiping out those of us who can't adapt.


----------



## drsmith

InvisbleInvestor said:


> As opposed to a loud another



The response to this new tax should be loud.

A government's underlying reason for new taxes are typically to raise more revenue with any other secondary reason to appease the public.  Put another way, to pluck more from the goose with the minimum amount of squawk.

During the week, Wayne Swan in a lateline interview initially tried to dodge the issue of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax although, when pressed did still indicate it would be broadly revenue neutral in line with an earlier comment from Penny Wong.

From the government that brought us "No carbon tax under a government I lead" during the last election campain, it will be interesting to see exactly what "broadly revenue neutral" means.

Practice you loudest squawk.


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> The response to this new tax should be loud.
> 
> A government's underlying reason for new taxes are typically to raise more revenue with any other secondary reason to appease the public.  Put another way, to pluck more from the goose with the minimum amount of squawk.
> 
> During the week, Wayne Swan in a lateline interview initially tried to dodge the issue of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax although, when pressed did still indicate it would be broadly revenue neutral in line with an earlier comment from Penny Wong.
> 
> From the government that brought us "No carbon tax under a government I lead" during the last election campain, it will be interesting to see exactly what "broadly revenue neutral" means.
> 
> Practice you loudest squawk.




The tax will make the economy less efficient which is why I am against it.  They could have got similar results in other ways. This thread is not about the tax though, that belongs in the Gillard lies whatever it is called thread.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> The tax will make the economy less efficient which is why I am against it.  They could have got similar results in other ways. This thread is not about the tax though, that belongs in the Gillard lies whatever it is called thread.




I agree Knobby - there are two different issues.  One is the AGW controversy and the other is the carbon tax controversy.

However, while AGW is used as the excuse for carbon tax, it has merged the two and yet it is quite possible that, despite theories to the contrary, carbon tax will do next to nothing to help AGW.  Bizarre...


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Ah memory. Its a fascinating area. I'm going to post something on this under a different thread but memory is famously faulty. You can't trust it.
> 
> Some biases.
> 
> Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
> 
> Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.
> 
> Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
> 
> Check this out for more memory biases that no one is immune from.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
> 
> It would be interesting Julia if you went back in the records to where you were and see whether it was actually warmer. If you haven't time let me know the area and I will see if I can get the information.



I quite accept that bias could be colouring my memory, knobby.  Other factor is that - although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.

I've googled for actual temps and the variation is less than 1 degree, so that supports your theory.



> In my view the problenm with the environment warming rapidly over 50 years is that we can't predict all the events such as bigger storms? extinction of animals? more rain, more droughts? I think man cannot rate itself above nature and our biosphere.  I suppose it is about risk.  Say something really bad happened we didn't foresee??



Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate.  If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> ...Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate.  If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.




Although any new tax is a difficult thing to sell, I agree that it would help the electorate if they thought it was actually going to do any good.  Then the debate would be back to the science controversies of AGW.  So those not agreeing or unsure about AGW will still oppose the tax.  Only the AGW diehards would be fully supportive, imo.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.




Yes, my 7 tear old still runs around in his undies all the time and it is winter in Melbourne so its pretty cold. He just doesn't feel it.

Good point Sails.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Any scientist would say that. Any skeptic would say this.
> It is one thing saying it isn't settled to saying it is all rot!!




It is also one thing saying the science IS settled as the alarmists have been claiming for a number of years now and saying the science ISN'T settled.

So we should be putting the non-scientific "science is settled" Gorist, Hansonist et al alarmists in the same category as the "it isn't happening" denialists? I think we should (and do).

We should then reserve respect for those asking questions and challenging the purported science, whichever side of the warm divide they sit.

That means people like Carter, Deacon et al on one side, as well as Curry, the Pielkes' et al on the other should command our respect; and not subject to ad hominem attack.


----------



## bandicoot76

sails said:


> I agree Knobby - there are two different issues.  One is the AGW controversy and the other is the carbon tax controversy.
> 
> However, while AGW is used as the excuse for carbon tax, it has merged the two and yet it is quite possible that, despite theories to the contrary, carbon tax will do next to nothing to help AGW.  Bizarre...




i would go one step further and say the whole AGW debate could be broken down even futher, as per the quote i posted previously:

_"Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. "_


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> It supported the theory, did you read what you posted????




LOL ..... if there was another El Nina / Ninio whatever do you not think the ocean would cool? All of this on a measly 9 years of data. I can give you temperature variances over the same period from my pearl farm and come up with the same data. 

BTW the water has averaged cooler LATER over the past 3 years than previous 9 years. This completely stuffs seeding/production/spat growth/cleaning schedules etc. There has been no temperature SPIKES to the uptick that has caused mort rates either.

Now there's an idea !!!!! I will set it up as a carbon credit bodice of water and offset my footprint with the amount of carbon the ocean can swallow in 258 acres !!!!! Bugger growing pearls for a living. I can get on the gravy train of Carbon Credits just like AL Gore.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate.  If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.



Judging by the arguments some are now making against gas as a fuel, and to some extent I think they are likely correct, a carbon tax could actually make the situation worse (assuming we accept that both CO2 and CH4 (methane) are greenhouse gasses).

Pay more, to make the problem worse. It's an arguable point, but that could well be what we're about to do.


----------



## trainspotter

No carbonistas seem to be worrying about the volanic ash from Chile? 

_VIRGIN Australia has joined Qantas in suspending all domestic and international flights in and out of Melbourne as a plume of volcanic ash drifts across from South America. 

Virgin's Sean Donohue said 34 domestic flights and one international service would be suspended from 7pm (AEST).

"We have been closely monitoring the situation all day," he said in a statement.

"Safety is always our number one priority."

This afternoon the airline decided to cancel five flights to and from Australia and New Zealand.

Earlier, a Qantas spokeswoman said all of its flights in and out of Melbourne and Auckland would be grounded from 6pm.

All Qantas flights to and from Tasmania, Christchurch, Queenstown and Wellington had already been cancelled._
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ts/story-e6frfku0-1226073900625#ixzz1P3dDZHqL

Surely no planes flying means less pollutants in the air? Bit what about the CO2 that the volcano spewed out? HUH?? :


----------



## Julia

Julia said:


> I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:
> 
> i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?
> 
> Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?
> 
> Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?
> 
> Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.
> 
> I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.
> 
> Please,  one of  you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?



No one has responded to my question above on the thread, but the following has come to me via an alternative source.  Comments on it would be welcome.



> The current ecological systems are adapted to live inside the current temperature range. We don't see trees in very hot and relatively dry environments. Most crops won't grow if it gets too hot. A number of crops won't set fruit for example if there arn't enough cold nights. These are just a few examples of consequences of a rapid increase in temperatures. Some areas might indeed become more amenable to agriculture but lack of sufficient daylight (in the norther hemisphere) and poor soils will limit any potential advantage
> 
> There is also the likelihood that increases in temperatures will trigger tipping points in various ecological systems around the world releasing huge further amounts of CO2 that would drive temperatures even higher. Particular examples that have been noted are
> 
> 1) Release of huge amounts of methane currently locked up in the permafrost.
> 2) Release of carbon in the soil as it gets warmer
> 3) Reduction of tree cover as higher temperatures destroy current forest areas. This would work in 2 ways. Firstly the dead trees would effectively release further CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly the (dead) trees would unable to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere
> 4) Warming oceans would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The colder the ocean the more CO2 it can hold.
> 
> The other issue with a warming world is that extreme heat waves would become far more common. The consequences of this eco systems would be fatal (not to mention us.)
> 
> The unfortunate part is that if we believe current scientific research the earth is already committed to at least another 1 degree of warming as result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere . (It just takes a few decades (which is nothing in geological time) for the warming effect to be fully felt. The point of reducing CO2 emissions now is to forstall even bigger temperatures increases.


----------



## Happy

trainspotter said:


> ...
> Surely no planes flying means less pollutants in the air? Bit what about the CO2 that the volcano spewed out? HUH?? :




Maybe "narual disaster TAX" or something like that to cover the nature doing naughty things?


----------



## Happy

15-th century Global Cooling was probably worse.

Humans need warmth to live!


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.
> 
> I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.




Knobby, there is a lot of commonsense in what you say, and I agree that both sides need to get rid of bias.   See my previous post below....



Ruby said:


> Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side.  We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change.  It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.







bandicoot76 said:


> _"Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.
> 
> There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it.* But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." *That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. "_




These are excellent points.  I think a lot of us who sit on opposite sides of this debate would actually find that we have a lot of areas of agreement when we break the issue into its different components.
(My bolds)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Ruby said:


> Knobby, there is a lot of commonsense in what you say, and I agree that both sides need to get rid of bias.   See my previous post below....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  I think a lot of us who sit on opposite sides of this debate would actually find that we have a lot of areas of agreement when we break the issue into its different components.
> (My bolds)




Wise words Ruby.

I am a member of the ALP, and the LibNats, and am considering joining Bob Katter's Australia Party.

One thing unites us all, a mistrust of the Greens. 

At least Labor, the Conservatives and Bob, are not driven by religious sentiments and a "correct at all cost" mentality.

Wise heads need to steer us forward to a sustainable environment and economic future for our children and grandchildren, without a descent in to fascism.

gg


----------



## trainspotter

NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ...... this can't be true !!!!!!!!!

*US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures. 

For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.*

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...le/story-e6frfku0-1226075834854#ixzz0qu9QbwEj


----------



## bbker

trainspotter said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ...... this can't be true !!!!!!!!!
> 
> *US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures.
> 
> For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.*
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...le/story-e6frfku0-1226075834854#ixzz0qu9QbwEj




Bring on a Global Cooling tax!


----------



## noco

bbker said:


> Bring on a Global Cooling tax!




Ok Nooo, not another big new tax!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bbker

noco said:


> Ok Nooo, not another big new tax!!!!!!!!!




Why not? We need more taxes to fund all these portfolios and ministers that keep popping up.

We need to be able to name one starting with each letter of the alphabet to ensure full bureaucratic efficiency!


----------



## wayneL

bbker said:


> Why not? We need more taxes to fund all these portfolios and ministers that keep popping up.
> 
> We need to be able to name one starting with each letter of the alphabet to ensure full bureaucratic efficiency!




Why can't we just have a Minister For Everything... Like Russ Hinze. :


----------



## sails

trainspotter said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ...... this can't be true !!!!!!!!!
> 
> *US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures.
> 
> For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.*
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...le/story-e6frfku0-1226075834854#ixzz0qu9QbwEj




I wonder how the alarmists will handle this upsetting their version "settled" science?

How anyone in their right mind can think science theories on something as complex as our world's climate and other integrated systems is settled is beyond me.  Already, here is now another factor with the sun that just might rain on their parade...

I don't think I'm a sceptic, just a realist...


----------



## bbker

wayneL said:


> Why can't we just have a Minister For Everything... Like Russ Hinze. :




And from one extreme to the other....


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Why can't we just have a Minister For Everything... Like Russ Hinze. :




I would like to give his daughter a good Ministering of Everything. 

This would certainly align the planets into making the Earths temperature cool. :


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Why can't we just have a Minister For Everything... Like Russ Hinze. :




Wow, YOU ARE giving your age away now to be back in Russo's days.


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> I would like to give his daughter a good Ministering of Everything.
> 
> This would certainly align the planets into making the Earths temperature cool. :




Well trainspotter, Kristy is his grandaughter and married some billionaire, so I don't think Geralton will cut it. LOL
However I do agree with your sentiments, not a lot of Russ in that.


----------



## trainspotter

sptrawler said:


> Well trainspotter, Kristy is his grandaughter and married some billionaire, so I don't think Geralton will cut it. LOL
> However I do agree with your sentiments, not a lot of Russ in that.




How did you know I meant his granddaughter? I might have meant his daughter? Does he even have a daughter? I don't know anymore. She may have married a billionaire BUT is she truly happy?  

Anyhoooooooooo back on topic. Quite a bit of unseasonal rain has fallen on upper NSW of late. Considering in 2010 that 13.9% of NSW was in drought there seems to be quite a turnaround of late. I wonder what will happen to the weather/climate when we get the impending pole shift?


----------



## moXJO

trainspotter said:


> How did you know I meant his granddaughter? I might have meant his daughter? Does he even have a daughter? I don't know anymore. She may have married a billionaire BUT is she truly happy?
> 
> Anyhoooooooooo back on topic. Quite a bit of unseasonal rain has fallen on upper NSW of late. Considering in 2010 that 13.9% of NSW was in drought there seems to be quite a turnaround of late. I wonder what will happen to the weather/climate when we get the impending pole shift?




Dude there is no rain unless labor tells you so. Didn't you listen to that speech about doom by drought.


----------



## Logique

trainspotter said:


> ...US scientists say the familiar *sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period* unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight *cooling effect *on global temperatures.
> For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...le/story-e6frfku0-1226075834854#ixzz0qu9QbwEj



Actually I've been pointing this out on ASF for some time. The work of Victorian scientist Kevin Long also backs this up. He studies sunspot activity and lunar/cosmic cycles.


> http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html The Long View, page on June 2011
> Key effects:
> There is much evidence (including graphs and references below) to suggest that the  currently diminishing SUNSPOT ACTIVITY is *likely to trigger a Little Ice Age within a few decades*.
> 13 years of declining average global temperature indicates that we are facing Global Cooling  ... not Global Warming!




Also:  http://www.iceagenow.com/Prepare_for...matologist.htm 
Prepare for Ice Age Now, says top paleoclimatologist, By Terrance Aym, THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! 28 Mar 11


> During a lengthy interview with Gelf Magazine, [retired professor of paleoclimatology at Columbia University] George Kukla explained: "What is happening is very similar to the time 115,000 years ago, when the last glaciation started.... Believe it or not, the last glacial started with 'global warming!'" A recent revelation by *NASA and the ESA *is that that * the sun is going to fall into a quiet period for the next 30 to 50 years*.


----------



## noco

I have been saying for months now according to Gillard's Labor Government, if you are againgst this stupid Carbon dioxide tax you are branded a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER. 

These 'GRUBS' keep  brianwashing voters with their deceit, lies and propaganda. They would place Gobbles in the kindergarten in comparison to these rats.

It is a wonder Gillard has not tried to blame the recent earthquakes and volcanoes on climate change.

I would say without a shadow of doubt over 60% of people believe in climate change mainly attributed to the SUN.

NB. the alarmist have dropped the GLOBAL WARMING scare mongering since they found out the Globe is actually cooling. It is now CLIMATE CHANGE.

Rowan Dean, as per link below, spells it out in simple terms. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-denier-monster/story-e6frgd0x-1226075916732


----------



## Ruby

noco said:


> I have been saying for months now according to Gillard's Labor Government, if you are againgst this stupid Carbon dioxide tax you are branded a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.
> 
> Rowan Dean, as per link below, spells it out in simple terms.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-denier-monster/story-e6frgd0x-1226075916732




Great article!   Exactly what I would have said myself - if I had the wit, vocabulary and creative writing abilities at my disposal!!

The "warmists" have to use that tried and true tactic of deflecting the venom back on to those who don't agree with them, because they can't back up their own argument.  They then call us "climate-change deniers" when in fact I don't think anyone is denying the climate is changing.  It changes all the time, and has been since the world began.  Climate is never static.


----------



## Happy

Labor Party rhetoric took over the substance and science.

Same with anybody saying anything against some activities is called racist.


----------



## bandicoot76

Happy said:


> Labor Party rhetoric took over the substance and science.
> .




unfortunately it doesnt matter what puppet political party is in power at the time, the situation remains the same, they are all being told what to do, and cannot resist even if they wanted to because 'we' have signed away all our soveriegn decision-making rights over to global institutions like the UN, IMF, WB, WTO...etc 

abbot is enjoying a free ride on public opinion (on the carbon tax issue) at the moment but i have no doubt that if he was PM he would cave in to the intense lobbying pressure and do the same thing julia gillard did... promise no carbon tax then introduce one anyway! it is the way of all the spineless jellyfish we have as politicians, from all sides, to lie, cheat and con us! 

its time to realise our whole political system is a joke! the whole Left Vs Right, labor Vs liberal system is so fake its akin to a WWF wrestling match... it serves to keep the people divided and distracted so as to maintain a stagnant and easily manipulated political status quo...


----------



## sails

bandicoot76 said:


> ...abbot is enjoying a free ride on public opinion (on the carbon tax issue) at the moment but i have no doubt that if he was PM he would cave in to the intense lobbying pressure and do the same thing julia gillard did... promise no carbon tax then introduce one anyway! it is the way of all the spineless jellyfish we have as politicians, from all sides, to lie, cheat and con us!...




And I have no doubt if Abbott tried anything so stupid, he would get the same cold shoulder from the electorate as Gillard is now experiencing...

And, what if the globe starts to cool?  That will surely take away the excuse for such a nonsense tax in the first place.


----------



## noco

sails said:


> And I have no doubt if Abbott tried anything so stupid, he would get the same cold shoulder from the electorate as Gillard is now experiencing...
> 
> And, what if the globe starts to cool?  That will surely take away the excuse for such a nonsense tax in the first place.




Yes I agree. The globe is cooling and the facts keep coming up on ASF AND THE MEDIA.


----------



## Dowdy

I haven't been active in this thread but I'm active against the carbon tax.

I set up a campaign on Getup.org stating that *I want a campaign AGAINST the carbon tax!*

It's been going for only 2 weeks now and it's had a great response.

So i'm just writing to let the members of this forum know about it so we can get the word out and if we get enough support, Getup will support the campaign.

View the campaign here and sign up and support it

http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-getup-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1880763-i-want-a-campaign-against-the-carbon-tax-?page=1&ref=title


----------



## OzWaveGuy

bandicoot76 said:


> unfortunately it doesnt matter what puppet political party is in power at the time, the situation remains the same, they are all being told what to do, and cannot resist even if they wanted to because 'we' have signed away all our soveriegn decision-making rights over to global institutions like the UN, IMF, WB, WTO...etc
> 
> abbot is enjoying a free ride on public opinion (on the carbon tax issue) at the moment but i have no doubt that if he was PM he would cave in to the intense lobbying pressure and do the same thing julia gillard did... promise no carbon tax then introduce one anyway! it is the way of all the spineless jellyfish we have as politicians, from all sides, to lie, cheat and con us!
> 
> its time to realise our whole political system is a joke! the whole Left Vs Right, labor Vs liberal system is so fake its akin to a WWF wrestling match... it serves to keep the people divided and distracted so as to maintain a stagnant and easily manipulated political status quo...




This is precisely the current state of play and probably one of the best posts in this thread bandicoot.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> And I have no doubt if Abbott tried anything so stupid, he would get the same cold shoulder from the electorate as Gillard is now experiencing...
> 
> And, what if the globe starts to cool?  That will surely take away the excuse for such a nonsense tax in the first place.



Don't be silly, sails.  They have that covered.  It's why "Global Warming" has been replaced by "Climate Change".  So no worries, it covers every conceivable event.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Don't be silly, sails.  They have that covered.  It's why "Global Warming" has been replaced by "Climate Change".  So no worries, it covers every conceivable event.




lol Julia... .  However, their choice of "climate change" is rather ambiguous due to climate change being a perfectly natural event and not necessarily anything humans can do to change or control the climate.


----------



## Ruby

sails said:


> lol Julia... .  However, their choice of "climate change" is a rather ambiguous due to climate change being a perfectly natural event and not necessarily anything humans can do to change or control the climate.




Exactly!   And what do they think is the 'perfect' climate anyway?  The one we should be aspiring to achieve?


----------



## sails

Dowdy said:


> I haven't been active in this thread but I'm active against the carbon tax.
> 
> I set up a campaign on Getup.org stating that *I want a campaign AGAINST the carbon tax!*
> 
> It's been going for only 2 weeks now and it's had a great response.
> 
> So i'm just writing to let the members of this forum know about it so we can get the word out and if we get enough support, Getup will support the campaign.
> 
> View the campaign here and sign up and support it
> 
> http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-getup-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1880763-i-want-a-campaign-against-the-carbon-tax-?page=1&ref=title




Dowdy, I thought GetUp are pro carbon tax and have been involved in "pro carbon tax" rallies on the same days that the "against carbon tax" rallies were held.  Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I had a look at the page, but don't feel comfortable in giving my email address to them.

Surely it would be better to sign the petition with Menzies house (if it's still running) or at Barnaby Joyce's website:  Stop! the Carbon Tax Petition


----------



## Dowdy

sails said:


> Dowdy, I thought GetUp are pro carbon tax and have been involved in "pro carbon tax" rallies on the same days that the "against carbon tax" rallies were held.  Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> I had a look at the page, but don't feel comfortable in giving my email address to them.
> 
> Surely it would be better to sign the petition with Menzies house (if it's still running) or at Barnaby Joyce's website:  Stop! the Carbon Tax Petition




Getup is technically meant to be independent (but their organised and website leaders are more leaned towards the left).
 The way getup works is that regular people come up with campaigns and if there are enough votes on it from the general public then getup will support it.  
They supported the carbon tax with only 1000 votes. My aim will be to change getup's support for the tax. Once my campaign gets 2000 or more votes i'm sure getup will think twice about supporting the carbon tax and maybe they'll realise that Australia doesn't need another tax and will support my campaign 

It's getting alot of support from people so i'm sure we can make that target


----------



## IFocus

Dowdy said:


> Getup is technically meant to be independent (but their organised and website leaders are more leaned towards the left).




I honestly cannot think of a right wing agency that's works in or comes from the community


----------



## sails

Dowdy said:


> Getup is technically meant to be independent (but their organised and website leaders are more leaned towards the left).
> The way getup works is that regular people come up with campaigns and if there are enough votes on it from the general public then getup will support it.
> They supported the carbon tax with only 1000 votes. My aim will be to change getup's support for the tax. Once my campaign gets 2000 or more votes i'm sure getup will think twice about supporting the carbon tax and maybe they'll realise that Australia doesn't need another tax and will support my campaign
> 
> It's getting alot of support from people so i'm sure we can make that target




Perhaps they supported carbon tax with only 1000 votes - but is that because it suited their own leanings?  

I can see your point about getting getup to support your campaign, but I'm not so convinced they would be interested.  Do you know where the funding comes from?  That often says where loyalties lie.


----------



## bandicoot76

sails said:


> Perhaps they supported carbon tax with only 1000 votes - but is that because it suited their own leanings?
> 
> Do you know where the funding comes from?  That often says where loyalties lie.




very perceptive post sails!.... and the funding answer is ....drumroll please...........the one and only Mr george Soros, manipulative scumbag extraordinaire!


----------



## Calliope

* Is Another Little Ice Age coming?*.



> EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions.
> Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
> During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.
> New analysis of the Sun's interior, surface and corona showed that the next cycle of sunspot activity "will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all".
> Dr Frank Hill, of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network in Sunspot, New Mexico, said, "The fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation"



.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1PaMGqq5d


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> * Is Another Little Ice Age coming?*.
> 
> .
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1PaMGqq5d




Within that article



> However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.




None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.

Are these possibilities *hysteria*


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Within that article
> 
> 
> 
> None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.
> 
> Are these possibilities *hysteria*




Fuzzy thinking again.

The science of catastrophic climate change due to co2 emissions is failing, but is quite separate to a host of other issues due to population and resource overuse.

Don't confuse the two.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Fuzzy thinking again.
> 
> The science of catastrophic climate change due to co2 emissions is failing, but is quite separate to a host of other issues due to population and resource overuse.
> 
> Don't confuse the two.




You are entitled to your view too however I do not agree.   More people means more fuel to keep warm and to transport.  There is a lot of evidence to *suggest* that co2 emmisions are contributing to global warming.

And a point often missed is that higher temperatures bring about more cloud activity which translates to more rain and snow and of course storm activities but not an overall drop in average temperatures.   Yes these things have happened before but the evidence suggest not as quickly or on the same scale.

Would recommend a very good read on the subject "The sixth extinction" which goes through the previous five in great detail and all the way is backed up by credible scientific anaylisis.

Even if we do not know can we afford to stand idly by and not at least try to do something.  Concern for the current situation is not *hysteria*


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Within that article
> 
> None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.
> 
> Are these possibilities *hysteria*




I thought that is why Mother Nature gave us tsunamis, floods, cyclones and earthquakes? Sort of thinning out of the populace so to speak.

Has been happening for years. 1931 China floods 250,000+ drowned, 2004 Indonesian tsunami 230,000 wiped out, 1970 Bangladesh cyclone 300,000+ blown away, 2010 Haiti earthquake 220,000 flattened. 

Funny how these natural disasters seem to hit in the densely populated areas isn't it?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You are entitled to your view too however I do not agree.   More people means more fuel to keep warm and to transport.  There is a lot of evidence to *suggest* that co2 emmisions are contributing to global warming.




Suggestion is not empirical proof.

I agree that co2 has contributed to the latest warming cycle, but that contribution is slight enough to not worry about. 

The impending ice age hypothesis is actually a far more worrying one.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Suggestion is not empirical proof.
> 
> I agree that co2 has contributed to the latest warming cycle, but that contribution is slight enough to not worry about.
> 
> The impending ice age hypothesis is actually a far more worrying one.




Who is trying to assert emprical proof.   As laymen we do not know.   My contention is merely that perhaps we could have a problem and perhaps we should be doing something about.   My own observations from a boy off the land some 65 years ago makes me believe we *do have* a problem and should give it a lot of attention.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Who is trying to assert emprical proof.




Ummm, well the alarmists are trying to pass off designer conclusions as empirical proof... "the science is settled" and other such unmitigated drivel.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet.




So I suppose you are actually hoping for a cataclysmic global warming which will wipe out all those superfluous people who can't adapt. Or do you have a solution?


----------



## wayneL

Calliope said:


> So I suppose you are actually hoping for a cataclysmic global warming which will wipe out all those superfluous people who can't adapt. Or do you have a solution?




One thing I have noticed  is that the "solution" never includes themselves.

Eg Al Bore, Cate Blanchett etc. 

You lot stop breeding, heating your house, driving and flying around the world.

We'll just carry on as usual... fuel up the Lear Jet Jeeves.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> So I suppose you are actually hoping for a cataclysmic global warming which will wipe out all those superfluous people who can't adapt. Or do you have a solution?




Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.

And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs.  This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.

And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia.  And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.

Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.
> 
> And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs.  This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.
> 
> And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia.  And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.
> 
> Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.




Explod, none of these things is going to stop the climate from changing.   The climate has always been changing and will continue to do so.  And your 65 years of climatic memories are meaningless in a scientific debate.  I too, can remember when it was hotter, colder, wetter, dryer.........     Scientific records show that in the past the climate *has *warmed more quickly than it is doing in the present, and that during your 65 years we have gone through a 30 year cooling cycle (post WWII) and a warming cycle, but there has been no warming for the last 10 years.  All of this is within the overall warming cycle that began after the Little Ice Age.

What other members are saying is correct - we have much more to fear from a period of cooling than we do from *slight *warming.  What we need is less hysteria, more acceptance of what nature does (because it will happen anyway) and adaptation.

I am not saying we shouldn't tackle things like over-population and pollution, but they are different issues.


----------



## Logique

Within that [Ice Age] article.....







> However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.



Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is: 







> Solar Influences on Climate - Professor Joanna Haigh - Feb 2011 - *Grantham Institute for Climate Change* : http://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cli...r Influences on Climate_Executive Summary.pdf
> ..However, the response of climate on regional scales to changes in the composition and intensity of incident solar radiation is more complex. This is an area of active research and, while significant progress has been made, *definitive answers require further investigation* into effects such as the role of stratospheric ozone, oceanatmosphere interactions and the role of clouds..




What she might also have said is that she is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment, and acted on many UK and international panels. 

So I think we can see where Prof. Haigh sits in the scheme of things. She would have us believe that the all-powerful trace gas CO2, now known to follow temperature changes, not lead them, is more powerful than the Sun! 

Prof. Haigh, is winter colder than summer?

Speculative and misleading nonsense, aimed at the gullible.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Yes, university level education for every human on the planet that wants to. (think of the jobs that would generate) and a world wide one baby per woman policy, no IVF or surragacy.
> 
> And another little bonus, university graduates most often give up religious beliefs.  This too is the way to fight the war on terror IMHO.
> 
> And the Australian higher education system has played a big role in the formal education of students from around south east asia.  And just look at who most of our young scientists and doctors are.
> 
> Solutions; I could rant on it for hours.




Yes a nonsense rant. What I asked was, do have a solution for overpopulation or are you relying on global warming to get rid of the superfluous people? I think you consider, as Wayne says, that you are one of the elite who is not part of the solution.


----------



## medicowallet

Logique said:


> Within that [Ice Age] article.....Think about it. She said could. What she might have said is:
> 
> What she might also have said is that she is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment, and acted on many UK and international panels.
> 
> So I think we can see where Prof. Haigh sits in the scheme of things. She would have us believe that the all-powerful trace gas CO2, now known to follow temperature changes, not lead them, is more powerful than the Sun!
> 
> Prof. Haigh, is winter colder than summer?
> 
> Speculative and misleading nonsense, aimed at the gullible.




I wonder what level of research funding I would get to study whether man made CO2 is driving the sunspot cycle.

A google scholar search showed me that this is a truly original idea, and I would probably do the research for a 7-8 figure payment.


----------



## bandicoot76

explod said:


> Within that article
> 
> 
> 
> None of this gets away from the fact that we have too many people on the planet, we are burning too much coal and the Chindia group are all wanting to buy a motor car too.
> 
> Are these possibilities *hysteria*




so whats your solution? cull a few billion ppl to reduce the population? its been tried before and has a name... its called genocide!! refer to previous posts on this thread related to the topic


----------



## Julia

medicowallet said:


> I wonder what level of research funding I would get to study whether man made CO2 is driving the sunspot cycle.
> 
> A google scholar search showed me that this is a truly original idea, and I would probably do the research for a 7-8 figure payment.



 Quite seriously, that's an excellent idea.   To whom would you apply for funding?


----------



## tothemax6

bandicoot76 said:


> so whats your solution? cull a few billion ppl to reduce the population? its been tried before and has a name... its called genocide!! refer to previous posts on this thread related to the topic



Now now, its not genocide if you're not 'choosy' . 

Ironically, the West has the least problem with population due to sub-replacement birth rates. Or at least they would do, if they didn't simply make up the numbers with immigration of foreign nations. Ahhhh, does anybody do _anything_ that is _non_-self-destructive nowadays, or for that matter, not just outright _bad_?


----------



## bandicoot76

heres a good link on how the peer review process has been manipulated:  

http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/

very interesting!


----------



## ghotib

Calliope said:


> * Is Another Little Ice Age coming?*.
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1PaMGqq5d



And further to the misrepresentations published in this News Ltd story and elsewhere:


> In response to news inquiries and stories, Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement:
> 
> "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."



From the National Solar Observatory press release on which the News Ltd story is partly based. 

It's always worth following up on stories in the mainstream press because even when the reporters understand them they rarely have room for details and of course they don't write the headlines. Logique obviously followed up Professor Joanna Haigh's comment in the same article, although he seems to confuse regional change with global change and to have stopped a little too soon. Dr Haigh's conclusion to the Briefing Paper from which Logique quoted:


> Over the next several decades there may be an overall (temporary) decline in solar activity but at this stage, this is speculative. Even if solar activity were to reach the record low levels seen in the 17th century Maunder Minimum (implying a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed, averaged over the globe, of 0.2-0.6 Wm-2), it would only partially offset the increased climate warming projected through the uncontrolled anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (equivalent to a trapping of heat energy of around 4 Wm-2 over the next century.




Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> No one has responded to my question above on the thread, but the following has come to me via an alternative source.  Comments on it would be welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> The current ecological systems are adapted to live inside the current temperature range. We don't see trees in very hot and relatively dry environments. Most crops won't grow if it gets too hot. A number of crops won't set fruit for example if there arn't enough cold nights. These are just a few examples of consequences of a rapid increase in temperatures. Some areas might indeed become more amenable to agriculture but lack of sufficient daylight (in the norther hemisphere) and poor soils will limit any potential advantage
> 
> There is also the likelihood that increases in temperatures will trigger tipping points in various ecological systems around the world releasing huge further amounts of CO2 that would drive temperatures even higher. Particular examples that have been noted are
> 
> 1) Release of huge amounts of methane currently locked up in the permafrost.
> 2) Release of carbon in the soil as it gets warmer
> 3) Reduction of tree cover as higher temperatures destroy current forest areas. This would work in 2 ways. Firstly the dead trees would effectively release further CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly the (dead) trees would unable to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere
> 4) Warming oceans would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The colder the ocean the more CO2 it can hold.
> 
> The other issue with a warming world is that extreme heat waves would become far more common. The consequences of this eco systems would be fatal (not to mention us.)
> 
> The unfortunate part is that if we believe current scientific research the earth is already committed to at least another 1 degree of warming as result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere . (It just takes a few decades (which is nothing in geological time) for the warming effect to be fully felt. The point of reducing CO2 emissions now is to forstall even bigger temperatures increases.
Click to expand...


Apologies for taking so long to respond to this Julia. The question you originally asked was what's so bad about 2 degrees of warming. I'm commenting on the piece you quoted.

It's incomplete and obviously very generalised, but the general direction is right. A global average temperature increase of 2 deg C doesn't just mean slightly warmer breezes. It means more water vapour, which in turn means energy, in the atmosphere, leading to more extreme weather events - droughts, wildfires, cyclones, snowfalls, heavy rains, floods, storm surges, depending on where you are and the season they occur. Extreme weather events are an extra complication in growing food crops, added to changes in pest movements and populations, shifts in germination and pollination periods, loss of certainty for planting times. That all adds up to food shortages, which in turn can be expected to mean rebellions, wars, and increased economic uncertainty. 

2 deg of warming also means sea level rise: even if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are not destabilised, the oceans expand as they warm. That leads to higher storm surges, and hence to damage, loss, and possibly abandonment of coastal land and infrastructure. 

It's true that there has been rapid climate change in the past and it's probably true that humans and many other species could adapt to climate change in time. However it's also true that the global climate of the last 14,000 years - i.e. the whole of human civilisation - has been stable. Current global average temperature is at or just over (the uncertainty is mine) the top of the range it's occupied for the whole of that time. That means we face a climate of which there is no historical experience at the same time as we face peak oil, peak agriculture, peak fish, peak arable land...

I think the point that fossil carbon emissions to date already commit the earth to further warming is important. The state of the climate in 2020 is to a great extent already determined by past emissions. The urgency now is to prevent greater warming in later decades.

Hope this makes sense. References available in multiple posts from several posters on this thread, or on request. 

Ghoti


----------



## white_goodman

id recommend the alarmists in this thread or anyone for that matter to watch this video, this isnt the "tipping point", this isnt the "crucial decade"...

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html


----------



## Logique

white_goodman said:


> id recommend the alarmists in this thread or anyone for that matter to watch this video, this isnt the "tipping point", this isnt the "crucial decade"...http://documentaryfilmsource.com/the-narrative-of-environmentalism.html



Great contribution WG. Steven Hayward, Senior Fellow Pacific Research Institute, seems to think through the issues rationally and objectively.  I like how he navigates a middle course on the issues, avoiding the artificial polarization of alarmist-denier.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> I think the point that fossil carbon emissions to date already commit the earth to further warming is important. The state of the climate in 2020 is to a great extent already determined by past emissions. The urgency now is to prevent greater warming in later decades.Ghoti




You can "think" and regurgitate propaganda as much as you like, please let us all know about the observed evidence that shows man's measly 3% of total CO2 contribution has such a spiraling impact to the "safety" of earth. And then you can show us the observed evidence of how much temperatures will drop should man cut 5% and even 100% of CO2 emissions. Feel free at include all the zeros after the decimal place, we all have moderate knowledge of the basics so no need to round up.


----------



## trainspotter

*CARMA reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.*

http://carma.org/

Notice how Australia only has 2 that are on the radar?


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> *CARMA reveals the carbon emissions of more than 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies in every country on Earth.*
> 
> http://carma.org/
> 
> Notice how Australia only has 2 that are on the radar?




So you suggest we do nothing.  Remember the film "The Castle"

And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort.  In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> So you suggest we do nothing.  Remember the film "The Castle"
> 
> And as a developed western nation our influenced on those heading that way could be well worth the effort.  In addition we could position ourselves to profit the technology of bringing about good change.




Nope ....... that's not what I meant by it at all. I am suggesting in the scheme of things that Australia produces 1.3% of Global CO2 then we are the small fry of the world "polluting" economies.

I believe that as a country of a mere 22 million people we are putting the cart before the horse on this matter. I am not suggesting we wait for USA and China to clean up their act either.

So tell me why is it that all these people have placed solar generators on their roofs and not using the grid anymore PLUS the increase of wind turbine generators that suddenly we are using MORE electricity? (the most "polluting" sector) ALSO since the advent of 6 star enery efficient appliances as well as the EDUCATION of the populace to reduce their carbon footprint as well as a plethora of people who have gone "green" that we still need to puff up our chests and claim we are killing the planet? SURELY this would have had a decreasing effect on consumption??? HUH ????

Don't forget the Pink Batts and the energy efficient lightglobes we all have to have now. Building restrictions on new homes is now at 6 stars as well. Electric cars is another matter altogether. It all adds up !!!!

I am advocating that we continue down a path of a green change by increasing what I have listed above and not a TAX that will change the paradigm of the social system in this great country of ours.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> So you suggest we do nothing.  Remember the film "The Castle"
> 
> And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort.  In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.




Explod, if Australia shut down *completely*, the difference it would make to our climate is miniscule - that is well accepted.  The change in our climate is within normal variation anyhow.  

We can do all sorts of things to make the world a better place for everyone - no-one denies that.   Trying to resist normal fluctuations in climate is not one of them.


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> So you suggest we do nothing.  Remember the film "The Castle"
> 
> And as a developed western nation our influence on those heading that way could be well worth the effort.  In addition we could position ourselves to profit from developing some of the technology of bringing about good change.




if you want to promote renewable clean technology, like 99% of people in this thread, do it in a way the promotes free market and isnt a form of propaganda income distribution based on faulty sciece and the academic community lining their pockets... 

heres a video that i posted in the 'Labor carbon tax lie' thread

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/a-free-market-case-for-green-energy.html

also it really needs attention is the fact the heat caputred by carbon in the atmosphere is parabolic... ie the first 20ppm of co2 captures as much heat as the other 350ish ppm... ie even if we double co2 its going to have a minuscule effect on temperatures..


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So you suggest we do nothing.




This is the typical sort of straw man tactic/non sequitur of the alarmists;

"I like the German people"
"Oh, so you support what Hitler did do you?"

C'mon Plod et al, all this argumentative fallacy doesn't advance the debate one iota.


----------



## IFocus

Talking about losing the plot makes me start to think climate change is real and man made 100%.



> Scientists are receiving death threats over their stance on climate change and carbon tax policy






> MEMBERS of the scientific community are receiving death threats as debate over Julia Gillard's carbon tax intensifies.
> 
> In the latest incident, Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies executive director Anna-Maria Arabia received an email today saying she would be "strung-up by the neck" and killed for her promotion of mainstream climate science.
> 
> The threat was emailed to her this morning before a "Respect the Science" campaign at Parliament House in Canberra today.
> 
> It follows months of abusive phone calls and threats to several of Australia's top scientists at the Australian National University, forcing it to improve security and shift climate scientists to a more secure work location.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-policy/story-fn59niix-1226078505195


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Talking about losing the plot makes me start to think climate change is real and man made 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-policy/story-fn59niix-1226078505195




IF, there are extremists on both sides. EG the idiotic Richard Glover suggesting in a newspaper that "deniers" (by his definition) should be forcibly tattooed... and he got to put it in print. 

Equally, such extremism could make one think it's all BS.

Nutjobs have nothing to do with science.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Talking about losing the plot makes me start to think climate change is real and man made 100%.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-policy/story-fn59niix-1226078505195






I completely abhor anyone taking their frustrations out in this unthinkable way, but try not to tar everyone who is against the carbon tax with the same brush, IFocus...  I am sure the police will do their job in tracking down the offender./s.

It's possible it's one angry person or a small group so no need to get your feathers ruffled...


----------



## drsmith

sails said:


> It's possible it's one angry person or a small group so no need to get your feathers ruffled...



It's also possible that it could be from the same side with the other side being blamed for it.

All is fair with love and politics, is it not ?


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> It's also possible that it could be from the same side with the other side being blamed for it.
> 
> All is fair with love and politics, is it not ?




Yes, hadn't thought of that...

And quite possible given that people tend to side with the so called "victim".  If so, that would be a low thing to do.  However, we can only hope the police discover the real perpertrator regardless of which side is to blame.

In any case, it is usually a nut case that pulls stunts like this.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> It's also possible that it could be from the same side with the other side being blamed for it.
> 
> All is fair with love and politics, is it not ?



Ah, such machiavellian thinking, drsmith.  Perhaps you've missed your calling as a political strategist?


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> Explod, if Australia shut down *completely*, the difference it would make to our climate is miniscule - that is well accepted.  The change in our climate is within normal variation anyhow.
> 
> We can do all sorts of things to make the world a better place for everyone - no-one denies that.   Trying to resist normal fluctuations in climate is not one of them.




Ruby, go back and have a second read of the very good post a day or so back on this thread by ghotib.

The fluctuations are not normal at all.

Climate change does need attention, there are many countries, particularly in Europe getting in to it up to the elbows and I repeat, as a developed nation we can punch above our weight with developing nations.   It is about commitment and mindset.

And also as I said if we stop fiddling around we can probably profit handsomely as a nation from it too.  And maybe even your Great Granchildren will one day love you for it.


----------



## trainspotter

While your'e at it Ruby go and read post #2137. It is a CORKER !! I am still waiting for a response BTW


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Nope ....... that's not what I meant by it at all. I am suggesting in the scheme of things that Australia produces 1.3% of Global CO2 then we are the small fry of the world "polluting" economies.
> 
> I believe that as a country of a mere 22 million people we are putting the cart before the horse on this matter. I am not suggesting we wait for USA and China to clean up their act either.
> 
> So tell me why is it that all these people have placed solar generators on their roofs and not using the grid anymore PLUS the increase of wind turbine generators that suddenly we are using MORE electricity? (the most "polluting" sector) ALSO since the advent of 6 star enery efficient appliances as well as the EDUCATION of the populace to reduce their carbon footprint as well as a plethora of people who have gone "green" that we still need to puff up our chests and claim we are killing the planet? SURELY this would have had a decreasing effect on consumption??? HUH ????
> 
> Don't forget the Pink Batts and the energy efficient lightglobes we all have to have now. Building restrictions on new homes is now at 6 stars as well. Electric cars is another matter altogether. It all adds up !!!!
> 
> I am advocating that we continue down a path of a green change by increasing what I have listed above and not a TAX that will change the paradigm of the social system in this great country of ours.




Sorry for my neglect on your questions.  But I do agree with most of your post but a carbon tax will point the finger at the big producers of co2 emissions.  Of course their services will cost more but this type of change some other way will not come without that anyway.   It will in my view help to lead the big boys of business with the real grunt to backup and be part of the innovation required. 

And just like the nice pink batts I am sure there will be problems that will need to be modified and fine tuned but as with the general consensus now (poll last week) of the populace on the matter we have to give it a go in my view.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> IF, there are extremists on both sides. EG the idiotic Richard Glover suggesting in a newspaper that "deniers" (by his definition) should be forcibly tattooed... and he got to put it in print.
> 
> Equally, such extremism could make one think it's all BS.
> 
> Nutjobs have nothing to do with science.



Guess what: Richard Glover frequently uses comic exaggeration in his weekly column, as he did for the piece you refer to. You might not have seen his column the following week? 


> After 25 years writing this column, I've had my first experience of an internet hate campaign. So far, more than 2400 people, nearly all American, have emailed me. More emails come every time I hit the send/receive button. About 5 per cent contain threats of violence. Even stranger, quite a few threaten me with sexual violence. They say, in various forms, that they want to rape me.
> 
> The only good news: quite a few don't seem to know the precise location of Sydney. Or Sidney, as some call it. ''You are so out of touch with America, I cannot believe you are published by an American paper,'' writes one emailer, having read the story on The Sydney Morning Herald website. Quite a few tell me I should be nervous if I ever try to leave Britain.
> 
> Here's how it started. Last week, in this spot, I wrote a piece about climate change. It was critical of both the left and the right and contained some comic hyperbole about both: that environmental zealots wanted us all to live in caves and that climate-change deniers should tattoo their beliefs on their bodies so they couldn't later deny their role in preventing action on climate change.
> <snip>
> Then - sometime Sunday night - a link to the piece was put on a right-wing website in the US, offering me up as another communist trying to ruin the world through the ''hoax'' of climate change...
> 
> ...Suddenly I was the toast of town: about 300,000 people read the piece on smh.com.au between Sunday night and Tuesday morning. I had more readers than anyone else in the Herald. Only problem was: many of them wanted to kill me.
> <snip>
> And, boy, were they upset. TTB, from Nevada, said he had ''a couple of 9mm hollowpoints with your name on them''. Jonathan, of Sag Harbor, NY, wanted to remove my testicles, while DB wanted to remove my penis. And M. Glasgow, in an email sunnily titled ''can't wait to meet you'', observed that: ''I will kill you so dead that your rotting body will do nothing but energise the worms and maggots that will do their part in saving the planet from morons like you.''
> <snip>
> Many use that phrase ''you f---ing commie bastard'', which seems charmingly retro. In others I'm a ''hardcore-Left ideologue and operative''. Stan, in Seattle, on the other hand, has me working for the British royal family: ''A ***** working for the Queen's yellow green paper money''.
> 
> And a huge proportion mention Al Gore, who they believe is paying me. So, boss, I need to tell you: they hate you even more than they hate me.
> 
> Apparently Gore has bought a beach property (in some emails he's bought two, in others four), thus proving Gore doesn't believe his own lies. Quite a few accuse me (and him) of working for what they call ''the Jews'', and mention several big companies as having financed the hoax.
> <snip>
> And maybe, in a world of international publishing, learn to be clearer. The thing about tattoos was not meant to be taken as a serious suggestion. For those who took it as such, my apologies.



You might not think Glover is funny - I don't particularly - but calling him an extremist on this issue is a joke.


----------



## white_goodman

"Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?" (Thomas Sowell)


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Guess what: Richard Glover frequently uses comic exaggeration in his weekly column, as he did for the piece you refer to. You might not have seen his column the following week?
> 
> You might not think Glover is funny - I don't particularly - but calling him an extremist on this issue is a joke.




You think the tattoo thing was comic exaggeration? Perhaps it was an exaggeration, perhaps not. Perhaps the death threats were an exaggeration, perhaps not. He's still alive, so I guess we must conclude they were.

It doesn't remove the fact that the sentiment is an extreme one and one of the latest in a long line of rabid alarmists calling for unpleasantries for those who challenge the biased science of alarmism.

There was the notorious case of the Talking Points Memo site with 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” 

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2007, declared “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” 

In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics.

In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” 

In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

...and so on.

Still think it's a joke Ghoti?

The truth is, at least some of these people reacting with threats of violence are probably only doing so because of the types of things said above.


----------



## davede

Must say that Monkton's accent just makes him sound that much more credible.


----------



## moXJO

ghotib said:


> Guess what: Richard Glover frequently uses comic exaggeration in his weekly column, as he did for the piece you refer to. You might not have seen his column the following week?
> 
> You might not think Glover is funny - I don't particularly - but calling him an extremist on this issue is a joke.




You haven't been to a pro carbon tax rally. In fact those on the left are much more aggressive and violent and self opinionated then must other groups I have seen. Not sure if they are rent a crowd or what but they do their best to intimidate the other side.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> The fluctuations are not normal at all.




The global temperature fluctuations over the last, say, 60 years, are well within the range of recorded fluctuations in previous centuries.



explod said:


> Climate change does need attention, there are many countries, particularly in Europe getting in to it up to the elbows.




There may be, but what is the result?



explod said:


> ......as a developed nation we can punch above our weight with developing nations.   It is about commitment and mindset.




No, we can't "punch above our weight" with developing nations.  As I said before, Oz could shut down completely and the difference would be unnoticed.  Furthemore, as much of our coal is going to China and India, and will continue to do so, we are contributing to the emissions of developing nations.  Our government is very two-faced.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> No, we can't "punch above our weight" with developing nations.  As I said before, Oz could shut down completely and the difference would be unnoticed.  Furthemore, as much of our coal is going to China and India, and will continue to do so, we are contributing to the emissions of developing nations.  Our government is very two-faced.




Intellectually.    Having been part of a Research and Development team in a previous life I can assure you Australia is not only the most innovative country in the world but most places recognise it too.   Due to our lack of investment in this area now we would be falling behind but we have that potential and should be using it.

At the physical level you are correct however the most important level as I indicated are attitude and minset.

And on temperatures, variation is one thing but staying at or above the higher level as put forward by ghotib is the worry.    And to be concerned is not hysterical.


----------



## Logique

Julia said:


> Ah, such machiavellian thinking, drsmith.



Don't think for a moment that it's beyond the rent-a-crowd professional protestors of the left, they are practised in the art. That guy on Q&A last week ('..why is climate science being taught in schools, it's just a theory like gravity..') - he looked very sus, and I think he was a plant to make out that sceptics don't believe in gravity.  

Death threats to scientists at ANU? Does anyone seriously believe this? Let's see some hard evidence. Sounds like just another trick, their side is losing the argument and they're growing desperate.


----------



## trainspotter

Logique said:


> Don't think for a moment that it's beyond the rent-a-crowd professional protestors of the left, they are practised in the art. That guy on Q&A last week ('..why is climate science being taught in schools, it's just a theory like gravity..') - he looked very sus, and I think he was a plant to make out that sceptics don't believe in gravity.




I just love these crackpot creationists who claim gravity is only a "theory". Get them to jump off a tall building and test the theory I reckon. If I drop something does it fall upwards?

*F=Gm1m2/d2*

F is the force of gravity, G is a constant (the Gravitational Constant) which can be measured, m1 and m2 are the masses of two objects and d is the distance between them.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Intellectually.    Having been part of a Research and Development team in a previous life I can assure you Australia is not only the most innovative country in the world but most places recognise it too.




Well, well, an intellectual giant, no less. It must have been quite a comedown to be reincarnated as Mr Plod


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Intellectually.    Having been part of a Research and Development team in a previous life I can assure you Australia is not only the most innovative country in the world but most places recognise it too. ...




I hear from people overseas that we are probably the most laughed at country with the current circus going on in Canberra.  

And I absolutely can't understand NZ agreeing to an ETS when their contribution to total world co2 emissions are around 0.11%.  They must be a bigger laughing stock than Australia.

And the greek PM has openely admitted that carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-taxes-are-just-another-way-to-raise-revenue/


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> And on temperatures, variation is one thing but staying at or above the higher level as put forward by ghotib is the worry.




What makes you think our temperatures are at or staying above the higher level?  Higher than what?


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> <snip>
> 
> The truth is, at least some of these people reacting with threats of violence are probably only doing so because of the types of things said above.



Do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups? 

You really do like straw men don't you Wayne.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> Do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?
> 
> You really do like straw men don't you Wayne.




Ghotib, Wayne was just pointing out that there have been many nasty threats made against those who do not buy the climate change propaganda.  Was that unreasonable?  You don't hear about that on the news.   I did not think Richard Glover's article at all comic, and yes, he is extreme.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> I hear from people overseas that we are probably the most laughed at country with the current circus going on in Canberra.
> 
> And I absolutely can't understand NZ agreeing to an ETS when their contribution to total world co2 emissions are around 0.11%.  They must be a bigger laughing stock than Australia.




The interview on 7.30 last night with NZ PM John Key was one of Chris Urhlman's weaker efforts.  The point should have been made that NZ has always derived most of its electricity from hydro whereas Australia derives it from coal, so to compare the suggestion of 'switching to renewables' with the implication that this is similar for both countries is ludicrous.  

And, given that both the Greens and Labor will not countenance nuclear power, would some of their supporters be kind enough to explain where baseload electricity is going to come from if the coal powered electricity companies become so unprofitable they simply close down.  What then?


----------



## overhang

explod said:


> Ruby, go back and have a second read of the very good post a day or so back on this thread by ghotib.
> 
> The fluctuations are not normal at all.
> 
> Climate change does need attention, there are many countries, particularly in Europe getting in to it up to the elbows and I repeat, as a developed nation we can punch above our weight with developing nations.   It is about commitment and mindset.
> 
> And also as I said if we stop fiddling around we can probably profit handsomely as a nation from it too.  And maybe even your Great Granchildren will one day love you for it.




Why do we need action right now?  The planet will still exist as we know it regardless of Australia adopting a carbon tax.  This is too big of a reform without receiving a mandate from the general public.  Please don't tell me we will fall behind the rest of the world as if we do then we simply purchase the technology and better yet learn from their mistakes.  Considering coal is our largest export and with the predicted growth in LNG demand from Asia I have difficulty believing Australia would be better off if the rest of the world implemented a carbon tax. When we only contribute 1.35% of the worlds emissions then clearly this is something that can be held off until next term.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> The interview on 7.30 last night with NZ PM John Key was one of Chris Urhlman's weaker efforts.  The point should have been made that NZ has always derived most of its electricity from hydro whereas Australia derives it from coal, so to compare the suggestion of 'switching to renewables' with the implication that this is similar for both countries is ludicrous.
> 
> And, given that both the Greens and Labor will not countenance nuclear power, would some of their supporters be kind enough to explain where baseload electricity is going to come from if the coal powered electricity companies become so unprofitable they simply close down.  What then?





Yes Julia, I agree with you. This Green/Labor Government are all PIE IN THE SKY with this renewable energy crap just to make them look good in the eyes of the naive.

They have no idea what base load power is all about. Not one clue.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> ...And, given that both the Greens and Labor will not countenance nuclear power, would some of their supporters be kind enough to explain where baseload electricity is going to come from if the coal powered electricity companies become so unprofitable they simply close down.  What then?




Julia, this is a real concern, imo.  We do not have reliable, affordable renewable energy readily available for the masses.

It seems very silly for labor to put our main source of power under pressure and make it unaffordable for people to use.  Surely anyone with half a brain could work that one out.

But, no, Gillard drones on about this being the "right thing to do".  About the only thing it's going to do is give Gillard and Swan more dollars to spend and do next to nothig to reduce co2 emissions (even IF co2 is really a problem).


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Well, well, an intellectual giant, no less. It must have been quite a comedown to be reincarnated as Mr Plod




I have never had concern for status or labels.  And Mr Plod in the Noddy Books was a kind and reliable backstop for a feeling of security.

A bit of a small mind showing there olepal.

I suppose if the argumant is tough then shoot the opposition.  Hey we are discussing that.


----------



## bandicoot76

drsmith said:


> It's also possible that it could be from the same side with the other side being blamed for it.
> 
> All is fair with love and politics, is it not ?




the term for this is "a false flag attack" ...and it is being used increasingly more often by extreme factions from all sides to try to sway public opinion.


----------



## moXJO

NZ is actually slowing down its carbon policy as they want to cash in on feeding the world.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?
> 
> You really do like straw men don't you Wayne.




Straw man? 

Most of us hide our cognitive biases under a layer of logic, you do no such thing.

What Ruby said.


----------



## mexican

Logique said:


> Don't think for a moment that it's beyond the rent-a-crowd professional protestors of the left, they are practised in the art. That guy on Q&A last week ('..why is climate science being taught in schools, it's just a theory like gravity..') - he looked very sus, and I think he was a plant to make out that sceptics don't believe in gravity.
> 
> Death threats to scientists at ANU? Does anyone seriously believe this? Let's see some hard evidence. Sounds like just another trick, their side is losing the argument and they're growing desperate.




A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
Skip the Gillard part


----------



## Ruby

mexican said:


> A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
> http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
> Skip the Gillard part




You were right, Logique.  They are stooping to very dirty tactics in their desperation.


----------



## moXJO

mexican said:


> A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
> http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
> Skip the Gillard part




Lol there seems to be a push on most boards in the last month. Getup not out to change the balance are they


----------



## white_goodman

mexican said:


> A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
> http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
> Skip the Gillard part




what a joke... why is it that the minority in this country with such an ill informed moronic view seem to have the largest pedestal upon which to project.

Thank god normal people or those slightly right have the Bolt report to give some semblance of balance to the large left leaning of media and academia


----------



## explod

white_goodman said:


> what a joke... why is it that the minority in this country with such an ill informed moronic view seem to have the largest pedestal upon which to project.
> 
> Thank god normal people or those slightly right have the Bolt report to give some semblance of balance to the large left leaning of media and academia




"What a joke"... indeed.   On this board alone the majority are climate change deniers.  The media are in the same catigory.

Academia, what is your definition w.g.?


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> "What a joke"... indeed.   On this board alone the majority are climate change deniers.  The media are in the same catigory.
> 
> Academia, what is your definition w.g.?




intellectual class, people whose end product is ideas rather than products and services... the govt grant class


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> On this board alone the majority are climate change deniers.





Really?

Perhaps you could list who you think are climate change deniers and let them confirm or deny that accusation.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Really?
> 
> Perhaps you could list who you think are climate change deniers and let them confirm or deny that accusation.




On this page 17 posts, including yourself I would say 7 against, and the remaining five includes myself probably for the warming camp.

"No names no pack drill."

But thats just my rough opinion. DYOR


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> On this page 17 posts, including yourself I would say 7 against, and the remaining five includes myself probably for the warming camp.
> 
> "No names no pack drill."
> 
> But thats just my rough opinion. DYOR




Well I'll let the others speak for themselves, but after everything I've said in this thread, I have serious concerns for both your cognitive abilities and your language comprehension.

Seriously, I am worried about you.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Well I'll let the others speak for themselves, but after everything I've said in this thread, I have serious concerns for both your cognitive abilities and your language comprehension.
> 
> Seriously, I am worried about you.




Well that is reasuring and will pass your idea on to my psychologist.  Next apointment is 15 July.

Have you bothered to get "the sixth extinction" from the library.  The following a lift from google on it;



> So what is the Sixth Extinction? When is it coming? And what is its cause? "It's the next annihilation of vast numbers of species. It is happening now, and we, the human race, are its cause," explains Dr. Richard Leakey, the world's most famous paleoanthropologist. Every year, between 17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet, he says. "For the sake of argument, let's assume the number is 50,000 a year. Whatever way you look at it, we're destroying the Earth at a rate comparable with the impact of a giant asteroid slamming into the planet, or even a shower of vast heavenly bodies." The statistics he has assembled are staggering. Fifty per cent of the Earth's species will have vanished inside the next 100 years; mankind is using almost half the energy available to sustain life on the planet, and this figure will only grow as our population leaps from 5.7 billion to ten billion inside the next half-century. Such a dramatic and overwhelming mass extinction threatens the entire complex fabric of life on Earth, including the species responsible for it: Homo sapiens.




http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

But you really need to read the book.  Unfortunately the science is strong overall but subjective when each is taken on its own.   These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Well that is reasuring and will pass your idea on to my psychologist.  Next apointment is 15 July.
> 
> Have you bothered to get "the sixth extinction" from the library.  The following a lift from google on it;
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html
> 
> But you really need to read the book.  Unfortunately the science is strong overall but subjective when each is taken on its own.   These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.




I'm pleased, because once again you are off at an irrelevant tangent to the current point. You have categorized me (and others) as a climate change denier; I have never denied climate change and even suggested some anthropogenic factors.

Unless you categorize all people outside of the the most extreme (and scientifically unsupported) worst case scenario as "deniers", I suggest that either:

1/ a retraction is in order.

or 

2/ try to get an earlier booking.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I'm pleased, because once again you are off at an irrelevant tangent to the current point. You have categorized me (and others) as a climate change denier; I have never denied climate change and even suggested some anthropogenic factors.
> 
> Unless you categorize all people outside of the the most extreme (and scientifically unsupported) worst case scenario as "deniers", I suggest that either:
> 
> 1/ a retraction is in order.
> 
> or
> 
> 2/ try to get an earlier booking.




I am sorry Waynel and will have another mull over the posts.  Apologies to those effected.   

He's on holidays in Greek Isles.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> They have no idea what base load power is all about. Not one clue.



They know very well what reliable baseload electricity is about, that was firmly rammed into their heads 30 years ago in Tasmania and there are quite a few fairly technical books on the subject published in that era, some of them written by environmentalists (The Price of Power comes immediately to mind).

What is commonly misunderstood is that yes, they do know all about electricity. However, they don't want you to be using much of the stuff - to be achieved by a gradual process of deindustrialisation. 

As for the issue of violence, well that goes back a long way in the environmental debate too. Plenty of threats against environmentalists, plenty of outright sabotage of construction machinery (grinding paste added to the engine oil works wonders...) and it's no secret that someone did go as far as planning to blow up a major power station at one point. Then came the infamous hoax bombing of the railway bridge whilst others tried to mess with the discharge valve at Serpentine Dam. And of course there's that very often re-run footage of Bob Brown being dragged in all directions at once back in 1986 by loggers. And of course there was that aeroplane that mysteriosly disappeared right at the start of all this 40 years ago... 

Both sides have had a fair go at each other in a physical manner over the years.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Really?
> 
> Perhaps you could list who you think are climate change deniers and let them confirm or deny that accusation.






explod said:


> On this page 17 posts, including yourself I would say 7 against, and the remaining five includes myself probably for the warming camp.
> 
> "No names no pack drill."
> 
> But thats just my rough opinion. DYOR



Explod, I endorse Wayne's request.  I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive.  It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.

Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.

Most of us also lack the scientific training and expertise to adequately comment on the whole issue and have noted the many scientists, well credentialled, who disagree with the current phenomenon of blaming human beings for the changes in climate, despite these changes having occurred long before industrialisation.

Further, most of the anger derives from the agreed fact that the proposed carbon tax in Australia will not make any appreciable difference to the climate for more than 1000 years, and even that tiny change if it does occur, would only occur if the major nations like China, India, the US, Japan et al were to introduce a price on carbon as well.

Surely you can see how stupid it seems to be putting in jeopardy the economic well being of Australia, the very existence of coal fired power stations which are our major source of baseload power, for no change in the damn climate?  Why would anyone do this?  

Perhaps you're happy to fork out for this tax, and perhaps you're also happy to endure blackouts when the power supply fails, but I can tell you I am not, and neither are most of Australia.

So kindly withhold your cliched labels such as 'climate change denier' and just understand that if it had been clearly proven that we are responsible for some catastrophic climate change (which I can't believe even the proposed 2 degrees would be and to which we should easily adapt), and further that if it had been clearly shown how the carbon tax would alter this, then that would be a whole different proposition.

As it is, it seems to most Australians that they are simply being slugged with another tax.
Personally, I'd rather the government just came out and said :  'hey people, after the stimulus payments for the GFC, the coffers are a bit empty, so we need to whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus".

That, at least, would be honest, as opposed to the mealy mouthed hypocritical nonsense they are presently peddling.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> Explod, I endorse Wayne's request.  I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive.  It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" ...






Julia said:


> ...  You have been diagnosed, out of the blue, with a life threatening disease...Do you simply deny to yourself that all this happening?  ...



And if you do, wouldn't the simplest and most likely description of you be that you are a denier?  

FWIW, I avoid the term denier in the same way as I try to resist attributing motives to people I don't know. But if I did use it, and if I did happen to be thinking of another well-documented issue where a phony debate had been fostered by deliberate obfuscation and lies, that issue would be tobacco smoking, not the Holocaust. 

I find the term "pro-AGW" and its variants offensive. Nobody who has a clue about the risks we run by continuing to burn fossil carbon is "pro-" it.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Straw man?
> 
> Most of us hide our cognitive biases under a layer of logic, you do no such thing.



And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing. 

I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.




Er, like asking the most fundamental questions that alarmists like yourself cannot answer, yet preach on about science that doesn't support your ideology in anyway whatsoever


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing.
> 
> I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?




LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Yet you use poison to avoid answering any questions that demands observed evidence of your AGW faith, then you come back here and try to re-apply your delusional thinking. We're seeing many of the alarmist using similar deflationary approaches to avoid the real discussion here.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Explod, I endorse Wayne's request.  I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive.  It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.
> 
> Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.....





I agree Julia.  I find it offensive and annoying and puts me right off wanting to learn more of their ideas.  I am a bigger sceptic now because of these silly attitudes and a nonsense carbon tax (that won't actually do much to reduce co2).

To take a consdending attitude and call people "deniers" simply because they don't agree with you is kindergarten stuff.  At least they will continue to put people off their cultish climate religion and that's a good thing.  No extremes are healthy and cultish behaviour is often dangerous.

I used to be more open minded about climate science, but when found I was called a "denier" for asking questions (eg not a full on alarmist), I decided that anyone who resorted to such childish and belittling behaviour probably didn't have anything of substance to offer.

If the science is so convincing, let it speak for itself.  Surely there is nothing to gain by belittling those who don't agree and, as I said before, it actually has the reverse effect and puts them right off such nonsense.

So carry on, toffee nosed climate alarmists (well we have to call you something in return otherwise you just get away with the bullying).  You are doing a great job in building a bigger and bigger wall around yourselves.

And have you warmists / alarmists / or whatever you call yourselves noticed what has happened to Gillard's polls since she threatened the carbon tax?  I think most of Australia may become your deniers...lol.  But you can continue your little tea parties (mind you would have to be cold tea coz there won't be much power if Gillard gets her way).

Getting late - end of rant...


----------



## mexican

Explod I believe in Climate change...it has changed in the last millions of years and will do so for the next millions of years but CO2 causing Global warming I used to be sitting on the fence but as time goes on I am becoming less convinced that this theory is not the case.
We are looking at the right hand side of the graph, where it is a probability not fact.....fact is on the left hand side of the graph. We prefer certainty rather than thinking in probabilities hence why there is so much of scare tactics from the believers to convince the public to think that the CO2 theory is a certainty.
There is so much of these scare tactics from the Greens, professor's, government and so on that I started to smell a RAT!
If there is no doubt then why is the government using celebraties in ad's, looking at spending $12 million dollars of tax payers money on promoting a tax that will save us, ABC putting fake Deniers in the audience, using the phrase " We only have a minimal time to act", the bullying, "saving our children" to make us feel guilty....the list goes on and on. This is what I find very suspect.
Professor Flannery should have learnt that not all theories are correct after he said (2007) we will never have flooding rains again and our dams will never be full again because of global warming and then we did and the majority of dams are full, he decided to blame the flooding rains on  climate change. Again this makes me more suspicious!
I look at this as it should be..... a theory not fact and that is from both sides of the debate but the more time goes by and the scare and bullying tactics used by the Climate change believers I am less inclined to sit on the fence!
All for greener energy and have some money invested in some companies but not the way our government is going about it!! That would be a disaster for Australia!


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing.
> 
> I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?




Sorry I missed the question.

Perhaps it was because it was so poorly and exclusively framed. Your question only refers to the lower end of extremist balderdash and dis-includes predictions, or even calls, for violence against groups, such as "forcibly tattooing" or "strangling them in their beds" as has been suggested by alarmists.

In any case I do not endorse direct threats of violence in the first instance, however would advocate vigorous physical self defense against the same, as is anyone's right.


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> Explod, I endorse Wayne's request.  I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive.  It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.




At least Julia you do not talk in riddles.   I will not be made to name individuals and in any case the big stick standover tactics are not becoming of ASF in my view and only indicate that arguments are thin on the ground anyway.




> Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.
> 
> Most of us also lack the scientific training and expertise to adequately comment on the whole issue and have noted the many scientists, well credentialled, who disagree with the current phenomenon of blaming human beings for the changes in climate, despite these changes having occurred long before industrialisation.




Please clarify for me the gross exaggeration.

We do not understand, agreed but anecdotally with increasing extremes of weather it seems to me that the writings on global worming do have some substance, on that basis we do in my view need to give it our best attention.   



> Further, most of the anger derives from the agreed fact that the proposed carbon tax in Australia will not make any appreciable difference to the climate for more than 1000 years, and even that tiny change if it does occur, would only occur if the major nations like China, India, the US, Japan et al were to introduce a price on carbon as well.




So it does not matter what happens in a thousand years, excuse me, so the pocket is more important than the future of our human race.   There is another thread for the carbon tax, this is about Resisting Climate Change Hysteria.   And I am so concerned that perhaps I am right on topic in this aspect.




> Surely you can see how stupid it seems to be putting in jeopardy the economic well being of Australia, the very existence of coal fired power stations which are our major source of baseload power, for no change in the damn climate?  Why would anyone do this?




You only have the pollies say so on most of this, again we do not know.  I do not know if a carbon tax (here getting of topic again) is right or wrong I just feel strongly that we do have to do something about our destruction of the athmosphere.   One engine of a jumbo jet uses the amount of oxigen that is used by 100 people for 100 years.  With most of the worlds lungs, ie the rain forrest cut down now, how long can this pollution ponzie be kept up.



> Perhaps you're happy to fork out for this tax, and perhaps you're also happy to endure blackouts when the power supply fails, but I can tell you I am not, and neither are most of Australia.




Of course I am not happy about the rising costs and I am sure that without the tax power costs are going to be out of the reach of most people soon anyway as we have reached peak oil and when everyone goes gas I am sure it will not last long either.  So we need good alternatives.  Nuclear will be one and I say that as a Greens member.  We are going to have to be practical.



> So kindly withhold your cliched labels such as 'climate change denier' and just understand that if it had been clearly proven that we are responsible for some catastrophic climate change (which I can't believe even the proposed 2 degrees would be and to which we should easily adapt), and further that if it had been clearly shown how the carbon tax would alter this, then that would be a whole different proposition.
> 
> As it is, it seems to most Australians that they are simply being slugged with another tax.




Well you do seem to express the view that you do not believe in the science of climate change so what is wrong with the term.   A number on here are indicating that I am a complete nut case.  So what? "sticks and stones..." and the sun is coming up this morning.



> Personally, I'd rather the government just came out and said :  'hey people, after the stimulus payments for the GFC, the coffers are a bit empty, so we need to whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus".




Amen



> That, at least, would be honest, as opposed to the mealy mouthed hypocritical nonsense they are presently peddling




again we do not really know.


----------



## Ruby

Julia said:


> Explod, I endorse Wayne's request.  I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive.  It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.
> whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus"......




I endorse it too.   I had been mulling over how to respond to the charge myself, but cannot add to what has been said - thanks Julia and Sails


----------



## explod

So are you all saying that we do *have a climate change problem*?


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> So are you all saying that we do *have a climate change problem*?




No, we are all saying *we recognise we have a changing climate*.  No-one denies that.  Read some of my earlier posts on this and the other thread.  However, we dispute (or at least, I do) a lot of the faulty science and propaganda that has been fed to us about the nature of the change and what is causing it.


----------



## Logique

Julia said:


> ...both the Greens and Labor will not countenance nuclear power, would some of their supporters be kind enough to explain where baseload electricity is going to come from..



So negative of them. No, No, No, that's all they can say  The UK is cutting emissions. But they are building nuclear power stations. Which information is conveniently omitted in the telling over here.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> So it does not matter what happens in a thousand years, excuse me, so the pocket is more important than the future of our human race.   There is another thread for the carbon tax, this is about Resisting Climate Change Hysteria.   And I am so concerned that perhaps I am right on topic in this.




As a disciple of Bob Brown you have no choice but to follow his partisan line about saving the world. His motives are much more sinister. You are right, this thread is about *resisting * climate hysteria. If you want to support climate hysteria you should start another thread. I wish you luck.


----------



## Logique

mexican said:


> A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
> http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
> Skip the Gillard part



Good find mexican. At 4.00 in the video, a James (Bretany?), who works in community radio, and according to Bolt is a climate alarmist, was the one who asked the 'gravity is just a theory' question on Q&A. What an underhanded phony. If he is a climate change believer or alarmist, he has served his cause poorly here.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> As a disciple of Bob Brown you have no choice but to follow his partisan line about saving the world. His motives are much more sinister. You are right, this thread is about *resisting * climate hysteria. If you want to support climate hysteria you should start another thread. I wish you luck.




Not at all, in discusions it is looked at all the time, heatedly of course.  We are in a democracy.  Policy will be tested and moved as needs be over time.  Necessity *is the mother of invention*

Of course some would say that is not keeping a promise.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> No, we are all saying *we recognise we have a changing climate*.  No-one denies that.  Read some of my earlier posts on this and the other thread.  However, we dispute (or at least, I do) a lot of the faulty science and propaganda that has been fed to us about the nature of the change and what is causing it.




How do *you* know the science is faulty ?


----------



## Logique

It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?

Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011   http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

"...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide. 

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> How do *you* know the science is faulty ?




Because empirical evidence has proven it so.   The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong.  Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years.  The predicted "hot spot" has not been found.  Warming has always *preceded *increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.  

Furthermore, there have been coverups (read about "climategate" - the scandal at Hadley CRU; dissent has been suppressed; we have been lied to (the IPCC tells us that "97% of climate scientists agree...." when in fact that is 97% of a small group of about 75 who responded to a poll)..........


----------



## Ruby

Logique said:


> It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?
> 
> Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011   http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
> 
> "...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.
> 
> You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."




This is the sort of meaningless rubbish written by ignorant journalists trying to sensationalise the issue.   All this woman has done is display her pathetic ignorance

Note how it is always the alarmists who write this nonsense with its sinister undertones.


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?
> 
> Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011   http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
> 
> "...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.
> 
> You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."




Such is the diversion from real science the alarmists have ventured and another classic example of them wanting to inflict harm/death on those who disagree. 

How about Ms Singer et al putting their strong views to the test and refusing to drive cars, fly in plane, heat and light their home, reproduce, or any co2 emitting activity?


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Of course some would say that is not keeping a promise.




It is difficult to decipher what you are going on about. Are you referring to Gillard's lies?


----------



## Logique

The chart is from Bolt's blog, 22 June 2011, ergo 'anti-science nonsense'.  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ A link to Prof Sinclair Davidson's analysis is supplied within the article.

The initial replies in the comments section argue furiously against it, so a balance of opinions is presented.


----------



## Julia

> Quote Originally Posted by Julia View Post
> ... You have been diagnosed, out of the blue, with a life threatening disease...Do you simply deny to yourself that all this happening? ...






ghotib said:


> And if you do, wouldn't the simplest and most likely description of you be that you are a denier?



Oh dear, Ghoti, what a dishonest and facile ploy:  to take a question I posed to the forum at large on a completely different topic and apply it to me personally on the subject of climate change!
Truly, I expected better of you.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> Because empirical evidence has proven it so.   The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong.  Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years.  The predicted "hot spot" has not been found.  Warming has always *preceded *increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.
> 
> Furthermore, there have been coverups (read about "climategate" - the scandal at Hadley CRU; dissent has been suppressed; we have been lied to (the IPCC tells us that "97% of climate scientists agree...." when in fact that is 97% of a small group of about 75 who responded to a poll)..........




You could be wrong and you could be right.  



> Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
> Global warming is a contentious issue because it is very complex. However, almost all serious peer reivewed research suggests that global warming is occuring, though a small percentage of these researchers consider that it may not be human induced. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have stated that it is very likely that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.
> 
> There is a huge lag between the burning of fossil fuels and the consequent effects. Countries such as China and India are increasing their fossil fuel emissions, and thus depsite emissions targets, it is likely that the human induced causes of global warming are intensifying.
> 
> It is difficult to say whether global warming itself is getting better or worse, because we have been monitoring the effects for a short period of time, and the year to year natural variations can complicate interpretation. However, there are several reasons to believe that global warming will become much worse in the future:
> 
> 1. current effects are worse than the 'average' predictions that were initially made
> 2. There are 'sinks' that soak up carbon dioxide (e.g. plants and the oceans) but they can only absorb a certain amount before they become saturated, thus it is expected that we can have large sudden rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide, even if we just continue emitting at the same rate, or even decrease the rate of emissions.
> 3. Methane is stored as cystals at the bottom of the sea. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. As sea temperatures rise this actually increases the release of methane, making climate change worse. Thus another sudden jump in climate change (temperature increases) can occur.
> 4. Increased temperatures may reduce vegetation cover in many regions, thus less carbon dioxide is soaked up and stored by plants (further increasing the effect of climate change)
> 
> Thus, there is a strong likelyhood that we could have sudden temperature increases, although it is hard to say when. The current sea level is also, in geological times, very low, so it is expected (whether natural or speeded up due to human activity) that sea levels will rise
> Source(s):
> (worked in climate change research many years ago, when the CO2 concentration was about half of what it is now, and also did some recent research in this area.)
> 6 months ago Report Abuse




http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101228112249AAr9dHK

I iterate that we do not know and I repeat that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that we should be taking some notice of the possibilities and setting things in place now, as the longer we wait, not only may the problem become exponentially worse but the costs will also increase proportionately as well. 

And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word *denier* is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?

Move on and help me (as Waynel does) to try and make a sensible argument of this important issue.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> You could be wrong and you could be right.
> 
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101228112249AAr9dHK
> 
> I iterate that we do not know and I repeat that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that we should be taking some notice of the possibilities and setting things in place now, as the longer we wait, not only may the problem become exponentially worse but the costs will also increase proportionately as well.
> 
> Move on and help me (as Waynel does) to try and make a sensible argument of this important issue.




Explod, I have tried to help by giving you some factual information, but you choose to ignore it.  You could find it for yourself if you wanted, and were not so blinkered.  I have also asked you what you would suggest to help solve the problem as you perceive it, but you have not responded.  

I would not give much credence to answers.yahoo.com as a scientific reference



explod said:


> And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word *denier* is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?




No, I don't think.  The word has specific connotations, and is used purposely with those connotations in mind.  Furthermore, you are using it incorrectly.  A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.



Not by definition, and AFAIK not in general usage. A denier is a person who denies. I aim to be a chocolate denier for July: that doesn't mean I deny the existence of chocolate, or that chocolate is some kind of abstraction. I think the assumption that "climate change denier" started out as some kind of association with Holocaust denier is at best doubtful. Unfortunately it's been promoted to such an extent that a useful descriptor has become unusable. 

Of course, some of us remember when denier referred primarily to pantihose. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> ... You have been diagnosed, out of the blue, with a life threatening disease...Do you simply deny to yourself that all this happening? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, Ghoti, what a dishonest and facile ploy:  to take a question I posed to the forum at large on a completely different topic and apply it to me personally on the subject of climate change!
> Truly, I expected better of you.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you took it that way. I was trying to demonstrate that "denier" is not necessarily a loaded term and that  it doesn't always carry an association with Holocaust denial. I was thinking of something like a group of trainee doctors or nurses discussing different reactions to a difficult diagnosis. "Denial" is a common and understandable reaction. The term "denier" for someone who denies the diagnosis is a natural English usage, IMO

Best wishes,
Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

Ghoti,

In our language, context is everything. For instance how do we know denier is not referring to a measurement of fibres? 

By the rest of the words of the sentence in which it is contained, the sentences surrounding that and other accompanying paragraphs; ie the context.

When 'denier' is included in the same passage as "forcibly tattooing", subjecting one to "high concentrations of co2 and co" etc., it would be safe to assume that the context adds another dimension to your innocuous interpretation.

I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.




Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as  a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.

Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.




Well I do consider her a far more interesting subject matter.


----------



## mexican

explod said:


> Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as  a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.
> 
> Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.




Stretched beyond limits by the government and supporters to confuse the debate not by us on this thread.
I can't speak for all of us but I am sick and tired of a finger being poked in my chest..I see this as what it is and thats a massive propaganda to fool the masses.
When ever a well qualified and respected Professor in this field challanges this debate he/she's theory is dismissed as rubbish and with venom by the believers.
We/public have been misinformed on a issue we know little about since day one with scare tactics, lies and propaganda.
I say "look at this with a open mind or you will end up being moved along with the rest of the herd" which is exactly what the government/believers want, which will achieve no change in our climate with a massive cost to our economy!


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as  a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.




So why did you use the term to describe anyone who does not agree with you on this issue?


----------



## white_goodman

Ruby said:


> A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.




oh you didnt get the memo... "THE DEBATE IS OVER!"


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> You could be wrong and you could be right.
> I iterate that we do not know



So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?



> And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word *denier* is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?



No.   The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred.  You know this.  You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled' and who are concerned about the adverse effects on our economy and on individual Australians, via a tax which even your so called experts (e.g. Garnaut and Flannery) have conceded will do nothing to change the climate in the absence of the major emitters doing likewise.

And on this, explod, you earlier said accusingly "so we should do nothing just because no effect will be shown for more than 1000 years", conveniently leaving out the fact that the 'no effect for more than 1000 years" was *if the major emitters all fell into line with a similar scheme.  They have clearly stated they have no intention of doing this.*




wayneL said:


> Ghoti,
> 
> In our language, context is everything. For instance how do we know denier is not referring to a measurement of fibres?
> 
> By the rest of the words of the sentence in which it is contained, the sentences surrounding that and other accompanying paragraphs; ie the context.
> 
> When 'denier' is included in the same passage as "forcibly tattooing", subjecting one to "high concentrations of co2 and co" etc., it would be safe to assume that the context adds another dimension to your innocuous interpretation.
> 
> I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.



Exactly.

You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> So why did you use the term to describe anyone who does not agree with you on this issue?




I was not aware that I used the term as you say.   I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.

I repeat, on climate as laypeople we do not know the finite answers or facts.   In regards to science there are scientists also I am told who's specific task it is to confuse the issues and to discredit those who do come up with the real facts.

But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before.  And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.

I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all.  And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.

I believe that there may be problems and rather than turn the other cheek we ought in my view try and clarify what they are and what we can do about them.   And of course *I do not know *what more we can do, that is for the experts in these fields.   First we need to listen, if needed accept and then to do what we can.  We now minimise and sort rubbish, we have water tanks and try to save on power use.   I grow vegitables,  barter for eggs and check the recycle station for odds and ends before buying conventionally.

Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I *think* there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?
> 
> 
> No.   The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred.  You know this.  You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled' and who are concerned about the adverse effects on our economy and on individual Australians, via a tax which even your so called experts (e.g. Garnaut and Flannery) have conceded will do nothing to change the climate in the absence of the major emitters doing likewise.
> 
> And on this, explod, you earlier said accusingly "so we should do nothing just because no effect will be shown for more than 1000 years", conveniently leaving out the fact that the 'no effect for more than 1000 years" was *if the major emitters all fell into line with a similar scheme.  They have clearly stated they have no intention of doing this.*
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.




So I may be a denier too Julia.  Anyway the following meaning is the one I have meant:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I *think* there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.




maby the insurance companies gambled and their business model wasnt up to scratch.. storms are no more prevalent or severe now, its not statistically high, things only seem that way cos its more fresh in the mind.

The whole point about crops changing is funny, environments change, is it dangerous? no, things change, climates change, weather changes... the world doesnt stay is stasis..

regarding the debate is over and the science is settled.. if it is so settled will the grants and gravy train stop now then?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> I was not aware that I used the term as you say.   I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.




So don't use it.



> I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all.  And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.




No problems at all? There are plenty of problems, there is no denying this - CO2 just doesn't happen to be one of them. 



> Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I *think* there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.




But here we go again, an assertion there's a problem because there are disasters like floods, bushfires and storms. Can you provide evidence on how these are related to man's 3% of CO2 gas contribution and also show that there is in fact an increase in observed disasters - or is it just the media and alarmists like Flannery pumping climate change?

Perhaps it's me, maybe I should watch more TV so I can soak up the fear when disasters strike and to look for a cause that fits with a specific Government need to raise taxes.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?
> 
> No.   The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred.  You know this.  You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled'
> 
> You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.



I didn't, and don't, use the term, and I flatly deny the accusation of sophistry. I do not believe that the word "denier" refers exclusively to Holocaust denial, or that its use is so strongly associated with holocaust denial that the implication can be assumed. If anyone thinks I've been insulting them by implication I apologise; it was not my intention.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before.  And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.
> 
> I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all.




I am not aware of *anyone*, on this thread or elsewhere, who suggests that there are no problems, or that the climate is not changing.  It always changes - always will.



explod said:


> First we need to listen............




That is correct....... to both sides of the argument.  That is the only way you can gain a balanced viewpoint.   I suggest (and this is offered in a spirit of co-operation) that you do some research and find out why so many disagree with the propaganda fed to us by the alarmists, which is inciting so much hysteria and inviting people to jump to the illogical conclusion that it is all caused by human CO2 emissions and that we can somehow reverse it.



explod said:


> Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms........




And..........?

In the history of the world there have always been floods, bushfires, storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc, often many times more violent than those we are witnessing today.  This is normal.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> I was not aware that I used the term as you say.   I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.
> 
> I repeat, on climate as laypeople we do not know the finite answers or facts.   In regards to science there are scientists also I am told who's specific task it is to confuse the issues and to discredit those who do come up with the real facts.
> 
> But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before.  And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.
> 
> I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all.  And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.
> 
> I believe that there may be problems and rather than turn the other cheek we ought in my view try and clarify what they are and what we can do about them.   And of course *I do not know *what more we can do, that is for the experts in these fields.   First we need to listen, if needed accept and then to do what we can.  We now minimise and sort rubbish, we have water tanks and try to save on power use.   I grow vegitables,  barter for eggs and check the recycle station for odds and ends before buying conventionally.
> 
> Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I *think* there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.




If you are going to continue to post the nonsense ravings of Chairman Plod I suggest you  go to the nonsanse thread that you specifically opened to post your garbage...your Gobbledegook thread. Or perhaps you could start an Alarmist thread.


----------



## trainspotter

Ruby said:


> In the history of the world there have always been floods, bushfires, storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc, often many times more violent than those we are witnessing today.  This is normal.




Yeppers ..... All we need is another Krakatoa and the alarmists will claim it is the CO2 causing volcanic eruptions rather than tectonic plates shifting.


----------



## Ruby

trainspotter said:


> Yeppers ..... All we need is another Krakatoa and the alarmists will claim it is the CO2 causing volcanic eruptions rather than tectonic plates shifting.


----------



## Logique

Want to control population in the third world? Build coal-fired power stations and export lots of coal to run them.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ut-into-population-control-theory/#more-42036
Al Gore branches out into population control theory - Posted on June 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts  







> Dr. Dave says:
> June 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm
> *The best way to control population is to decrease poverty, provide abundant, affordable electricity and enhance education*. It works like a charm everywhere it has been tried…perhaps too well. Developed countries have had to import the poor from third world countries for labor because their own fecundity has been reduced.






> JP says:
> June 22, 2011
> ..if you look at either stats from the CIA Factbook or the UN population studies, you will find that since 1970 global birh rates have dropped. *Currently, birthrates are in free-fall*. The world population is growing, but it is also getting older..
> 
> If trends continue, the global population will peak out somewhere around 2040. *It will begin to fall after 2050. And the fall will be swift.* Many nations are set to see thier populations halved every generation (Japan, Russia, China, Italy, and Spain).


----------



## explod

ghotib said:


> I didn't, and don't, use the term, and I flatly deny the accusation of sophistry. I do not believe that the word "denier" refers exclusively to Holocaust denial, or that its use is so strongly associated with holocaust denial that the implication can be assumed. If anyone thinks I've been insulting them by implication I apologise; it was not my intention.




Agree, same here.  

By jove, 

very touchy and a lot of feathers in the chicken coop overnight.

Yep back to Far Far Away Land could be a good option Calliope.   But then who would you argue with to give yourself a little boost now and again ole pal.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Yep back to Far Far Away Land could be a good option Calliope.   But then who would you argue with to give yourself a little boost now and again ole pal.




I don't remember arguing with you. You have never put forward a point of view worth debating. The points you make are easily disposed of without argument.


----------



## basilio

Came across what I believe is a useful contribution to a constructive debate on this issue.
I urge you to take  15 minutes to read and think about the article and the responses.



> *Could peace talks ever end the 'climate war'?*
> 
> *The climate debate rages on without progress, but a 'meeting of moderate minds' might be the answer*
> 
> 
> ......When I heard the news about the possibility of olive branches being gestured in Afghanistan, I couldn't help but think of the ongoing "climate war". Here we have a seemingly intractable, bitter, hostile conflict between two firmly entrenched foes with no obvious sign of resolution ahead. (And I won't dare for a second suggest who might be analogous to the Taliban!) Day after day, week after week, the battle rages on. And, in Australia, where the conflict is arguably at its most intense at present, we now have reports of climate scientists receiving death threats. But, as with the killing fields of France during the first world war, "progress" can only ever be measured in a matter of inches.
> 
> Are those of us engaged in this dispute destined to remain in this state of stasis for years ahead? If so, it's a thoroughly depressing thought.
> *
> But there have been two flickers of hope to report over the past week that hint at the possibility of a positive, constructive alternative. First, we had a blog post by a US blogger called Skeptoid who, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian/conservative" climate sceptic, announced that he had "converted" and was now "persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real". For me, though, the far more compelling component of his post was not the revelation of his conversion per se, but his thoughtful advice to his "friends on the left and right" for how to reach some shared middle ground.*
> 
> It's well worth a read, but,* in summary, what he seems to be saying is, first, erase any political allegiances from your mind and concentrate on getting to grips with what the best available science is telling us*. Only then can you introduce your politics when talking about how to move forward. I couldn't agree with him more and have been trying to make this same point for years by exposing what I see as naked ideology or vested interest rather than genuine scientific enquiry."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/21/peace-talks-climate-change-sceptics


----------



## basilio

I also took the opportunity of following up the Skeptoid blogger article that was referred to in the previous post.

Again worth a close read. 



> *I, Global Warming Skeptic*
> Posted on June 15, 2011 by Craig Good
> 
> I am a global warming skeptic. Politically, I land somewhere in the libertarian/conservative camp. If liberal still meant what it did sixty years ago I’d probably be one of those. Whatever my label, I am not a progressive/socialist kind of guy. I wrote on my own blog a long time ago that I needed to be convinced that warming was happening at all, then that people were causing it, and then that it was actually a bad thing.
> 
> I have many good reasons to be skeptical about AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
> 
> I’m old enough to remember “Global Cooling”, the population bomb, the hole in the ozone, and any number of other tidings of doom. The Chicken Littles have a track record indistinguishable from that of Harold Camping.
> The issue is massively politicized. The Left has seized on it as an opportunity to dismantle free markets and grow government. They have entangled it with their beliefs the way creationists entangle evolution with religion.
> That amount of politicization brings corrupting quantities of money.
> The IPCC was formed by the United Nations. The UN is a systemically-corrupt, left-wing political organization. Any organization that coddles dictators and thugs should not be trusted even if it claims the sky is blue.
> Anybody who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck can see “cap and trade” and carbon credit markets for the bald-faced scams they are.
> Climate science is very complicated, and there are any number of legitimate questions having to do with the accuracy of our models, the true effect of CO2 as a forcing agent, the reliability of temperature data, the effect of solar cycles, etc.
> 
> There is, in short, more heat than light in the AGW debate, and plenty of reason to be skeptical. It’s pointless to even begin to talk about policy until the science is solid and well-understood. Which is why I’m so grateful to a particular scientist by the name of Dr. Peter Gleick.
> 
> A skeptic isn’t someone who merely holds doubts. A skeptic, as my daughter points out, is the one with the truly open mind. A skeptic will believe anything as long as it is supported by data, sound science and a logically consistent argument.
> 
> When I heard Dr. Gleick speak at the recent SkeptiCal, I was all braced for the typical alarmist assault. I was about to be called a “denier”, and told why Kyoto must be signed.
> 
> Except that’s not what happened.
> 
> Dr. Gleick started by pointing out that good policy without good science is unlikely. I had to agree. He then carefully teased out the science from the politics and talked about the fallacies that commonly appear around the science of global warming. Especially illuminating was the part about cherry-picking data. It was refreshing.
> 
> Since his talk I have spent a lot of time on a site he recommended, skepticalscience.com. There they have taken each of the most common science questions, numbered them, and carefully addressed them with the current science. The answers are even presented in basic, intermediate, and advanced formats so that there’s likely to be one matching the reader’s level of scientific knowledge.
> 
> With the caveat that a few of the questions don’t belong on their list (42, 63, 105 and 165, at least) because they are economic and/or political rather than scientific, I highly recommend the site.
> 
> So, yes, I am now persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real. That’s because I’m a skeptic.




The rest of his article is the money shot. Check it out. 

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> I also took the opportunity of following up the Skeptoid blogger article that was referred to in the previous post.
> 
> Again worth a close read.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of his article is the money shot. Check it out.
> 
> http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/




Any luck in finding observed evidence Basilio? Or will you simply continue to paste "fascinating" articles without actually answering the real questions CO2 impacting climate?

Will any of the alarmists step up with any credible information? Or do we have to endure pointless blog articles to make us feel afraid of storms and weather.


----------



## Knobby22

Here's an experiment you can do at home

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> I also took the opportunity of following up the Skeptoid blogger article that was referred to in the previous post.
> 
> Again worth a close read.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of his article is the money shot. Check it out.
> 
> http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/




Yes, it is worth a close read - especially the blog comments following.   Reading further you will note that *it wasn't data or science* that converted Craig Good, but a talk by a climate alarmist and the web site skeptical.science.com - hardly good recommendations.  Check out Gleick at http://www.circleofblue.org/waterne...ick-the-best-argument-against-global-warming/ and read his views.

Good also says:-



> SkepticalScience appears to me to present the science accurately. They also present, as I mentioned, some non-scientific views. I wish they didn’t, as it does weaken their position. They may be wrong. I may be wrong. But rather than a road to Damascus moment, it was closer to a tipping point.* It’s getting harder to find experts who disagree with the basic idea of CO2 contributing to global warming*.




Harder to find experts who disagree with the basic idea of global warming?   Where is he looking?   There are droves of them.

Skeptical.science.com is hardly a neutral unbiased site.  Here are two bloggers views


> SkepticalScience.com is a *tour de force of pro-AGW argument*. They present over 100 important skeptical arguments* in such a way as to make skeptics look ignorant. *The formula is simple. Present the skeptical argument in naive terms then answer it with a relatively sophisticated pro-AGW response, preferably citing a paper or two. They now even have three levels of response sophistication in some cases. As propaganda goes it is an impressive achievement.
> The glaring fallacy is that there are skeptical counter arguments of equal, or even superior, scientific merit, for every argument listed. *There is no hint on SS.com that these even exist*. But the denizens here know these counter arguments well so your 99% claim is not merely false, it is silly. There is a wealth of skeptical scientific knowledge on this blog, none of which is found on SS.com. [...]






> 	One problem with skepticalscience is the use of circular reasoning. A top of my head example is the* assertion that temps have been stable for 2000 years until man started with fossil fuel and then straight up with added CO2.* Mann’s famous false hockey stick graph is the IPCC basis for their AGW claim and the number one hat hanger for intervention via cap and trade. If this point is false then the rest does not make sense Cook tries to argue temp stability with the settled science argument and studies have shown method, his reference, Mann’s hockey stick graph and paper. Cook proves a false premise by reference to the false premise.




Hmmmm!


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> Here's an experiment you can do at home
> 
> http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm




For goodness sake Knobby, what is that supposed to prove?   Are you suggesting that you can reproduce the earth's climate in a few test tubes.  That is utterly ridiculous.  We all know the greenhouse effect of CO2.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Here's an experiment you can do at home
> 
> http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm




Just to clarify, so nobody becomes confused with this wonderful experiment, does this experiment measure the difference in air temperature when using a mixture of 0.04% CO2 gas, v's 0.0388% CO2 gas? The difference being that the 0.04% figure contains the 3% contribution from man.

My home isn't equipped to measure temperature differences that have many zeros after the decimal point. 

I'm guessing this was an assertive attempt by knobby to prove temperatures do change since there is a lack of scientific observations demonstrating man's 3% CO2 contribution is driving earth to a frenzied demise.

Perhaps Knobby could enlighten us by running the experiment using the correct CO2 mixtures and reporting back to us.


----------



## Knobby22

Just experiment no. 1 and I know its basic but we are non scientists. 
Ok, we all agree its a greenhouse gas which means it causes warming. So if the amount of CO2 rises then you would expect some warming to occur. 

I know its not enough for a complex system like the earth to predict what will happen but its a starting point.

Will look for a suitable experiment 2 when I have time.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Just experiment no. 1.
> Ok, we all agree its a greenhouse gas which means it causes warming. So if the amount of CO2 rises then you would expect some warming to occur.




See these are the sort of dumb experiments that only fool muppets.

Co2 is measured in the atmosphere as parts per million. Why do you think that is Knobby? If you answered that it's because co2 is in minute concentrations, you'd be spot on.

Any relation between a bottle with pure co2 and the earth's atmosphere at 280ppm, 380ppm or even 1000ppm is frankly, preposterous. Add in at this point unknown feedback mechanisms in a chaotic system such as climate and people with an IQ higher than their shoe size  will be rolling their eyes incredulously.

Please, we are not fools, don't insult our intelligence.


----------



## explod

Had read about ice core samples from Antartica some years ago and lucky enough to find a reference to it today.

And yes I know most do not think a carbon tax is the way to go, I do not know myself but this thread is about the hysteria surrounding the possibilities of climate change.   I have feelings of concern as having grown up in the bush I feel very close to the natural world and also from the stories of my Father and Grandfather know how fickle small changes to seasons are on cropping and livestock.  Suppose I am just some sort of Anecdotalist maybe as well as in the naughty corner.

Anyway I am sure some bod has done some recognised research to discredit these findings but they seem okay to me.   In fact by the venom that has emerged on this thread, (and beyond my IQ to comprehend and respond to in the way that seems to be desired) I am sure a lot of oil and coal dollars were spent to bring this one down too. 

Anyway enjoy:  http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7644


----------



## basilio

> Any luck in finding observed evidence Basilio? Or will you simply continue to paste "fascinating" articles without actually answering the real questions CO2 impacting climate?*
> 
> Will any of the alarmists step up with any credible information? Or do we have to endure pointless blog articles to make us feel afraid of storms and weather. *



*
Ozwave guy for 16749th  time 

Just so we understand each other Ozzie.  I have repeatedly  posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming. The fact is that you either can't understand english (not true of course..) or point blank refuse to take any notice of any information that doesn't fit your point of view. Solutions to these issues  are entirely in your hands and I refuse waste any more time on it.

So how about putting your xxxxxxx drum away and coming up with something more insightful to say ?

__________________________________________________________

The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas.  In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.

The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem)  and the Amercian armed forces.*


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas.  In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.
> 
> The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem)  and the Amercian armed forces.




"You all should be like schizoid and cave in to AGW propaganda so we can all hold hands and say OMMMM" is hardly conciliatory basilio, particularly while mouthing erroneous bullcrap like 98% of scientists blah blah blah (which has been dealt with before).

It was more like an ambit claim.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> "You all should be like schizoid and cave in to AGW propaganda so we can all hold hands and say OMMMM" is hardly conciliatory basilio, particularly while mouthing erroneous bullcrap like 98% of scientists blah blah blah (which has been dealt with before).
> 
> It was more like an ambit claim.




Some clarifiication ole pal.  What is AGW ? and if not clear the propaganda?

What was erroneous in Basilios post ?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> *Ozwave guy for 16749th  time *
> 
> Just so we understand each other Ozzie.  I have *repeatedly * posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming. The fact is that you either can't understand english (not true of course..) or point blank refuse to take any notice of any information that doesn't fit your point of view. Solutions to these issues  are entirely in your hands and I refuse waste any more time on it.
> 
> *So how about putting your xxxxxxx drum away and coming up with something more insightful to say ?*
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas.  In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.
> 
> The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem)  and the Amercian armed forces.




Maybe my ongoing requests were structured in such a complex way that the alarmists have failed to properly understand the core questions, perhaps from the distracting fear of weather. Lets try to make this as simple as possible:

Question 1: Observed evidence please. Link to study supported by all climate scientists and contains observed evidence of a atmospheric hot spot solely due to man's 3% contribution of CO2 gas. (btw Observed evidence doesn't mean "model", just so we're sure on the definition basilio - perhaps this is where your confusion lies) 

Question 2: What will the global temperature drop by should man reduce CO2 emissions by 5% and 100% (take your pick)? Again link to study supported by all climate scientists

So far I'm the recipient of many "fascinating" articles from propaganda blogs that asks everyone to simply believe man's 0.00112% addition to the atmosphere = end of days because a failed hockey stick says so.

I'll reserve my supplementary question on the topic of linear v's logarithmic CO2 impact to temperature when we get past the first 2.

Simple enough.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Some clarifiication ole pal.  What is AGW ? and if not clear the propaganda?




You're asking me what AGW is? 

Anthropogenic Global Warming



> What was erroneous in Basilios post ?




One example - 98% of scientists agree on AGW.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You're asking me what AGW is?
> 
> Anthropogenic Global Warming




"Human impact on the environment".   Good.   Do you think we we are having an impact?




> One example - 98% of scientists agree on AGW.




Okay we are getting somewhere.  So it is only 2% supported by the oil and coal companies .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> "Human impact on the environment".   Good.   Do you think we we are having an impact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay we are getting somewhere.  So it is only 2% supported by the oil and coal companies .
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment




What?

This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.

Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> What?
> 
> This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.
> 
> Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.




What's a d*u*scussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Make of it what you will.


----------



## Julia

trainspotter said:


> What's a d*u*scussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?.



That's quite enough of that ridicule, TS.  There are some sensitive little Kiwi souls out here.  You may not be unkind to us.


----------



## trainspotter

Julia said:


> That's quite enough of that ridicule, TS.  There are some sensitive little Kiwi souls out here.  You may not be unkind to us.




Aaaaaaaaaaah yes ..... a bit below the belt on that one. I reckon after the hammering Christchurch has had of late the sensitivity meter would be off the richter scale. Pun intended.

CSIRO website I posted has some magnificent detail about it as well. Interesting to note they have distanced themselves of any climatic assumptions and have positioned themselves right in the middle of Switzerland.


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> What's a d*u*scussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?




Hahah! Good typo pickup TS. But with your PM, glass houses come to mind. 

OT trivia - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10602759



> The kiwi accent has been rated the most attractive and prestigious form of English outside the UK in a BBC survey.
> 
> Respondents from throughout the UK completed an online survey rating the prestige and social attractiveness of 34 different English accents.
> 
> The kiwi "fush and chups" came seven places ahead of Australia's "sex and Seedney" - and nine ahead of the American accent in terms of attractiveness.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What?
> 
> This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.
> 
> Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.




Well said, but just wish more people would take the problems of the shrinking planet more seriously.


----------



## macca

trainspotter said:


> What's a d*u*scussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?
> 
> http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
> 
> Make of it what you will.




Hi TS,

I find this bit of that report particularly interesting

<<Seasonal variation

Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink).>>

Makes me wonder why we are getting taxed on CO2 when the CSIRO says that it is coming from the northern hemisphere.


----------



## trainspotter

macca said:


> Hi TS,
> 
> I find this bit of that report particularly interesting
> 
> <<Seasonal variation
> 
> Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink).>>
> 
> Makes me wonder why we are getting taxed on CO2 when the CSIRO says that it is coming from the northern hemisphere.




Hi macca,

I also liked the part whereby it claims "seasonal variations and annual cycles". Would be interesting to see what this actually corresponds to? Winter in the Northern Hemisphere produces more CO2 due to more fossil fuels being burned to keep warm? I dunno 

Exactly macca. Australia produces 1.3% of global CO2 and we are pontificating on the world stage as if we are the largest "releaser of CO2" (notice I did not say *polluter*) I don't believe we should be rushing into taxing ourselves out of global competition by placing a price on carbon.


----------



## Ruby

Basilio and Explod, just to add a bit more clarification, which I know is repetitious, *but*......



basilio said:


> *.........  I have repeatedly  posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming...... *



*

"Best available evidence" is not good enough if it cannot be supported by observation, and the evidence you have produced is not observed evidence.  Observation has shown the global warming models are wrong.  You really can't argue with observed data.   Climate scientists are discovering more all the time - things which just do not fit the models.



basilio said:



			........ and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem)  and the Amercian armed forces.
		
Click to expand...



You probably don't realise that this oft-quoted figure of "98% of climate scientists agree...." is 98% of about 75 climate scientists who responded to a poll - actually an insignificant number.  This is an important point which many people do not realise.   Once again the alarmist lobby has omitted vital information leading people to draw incorrect conclusions.  There are thousands of very reputable and well qualified scientists who do not subscribe to the theory as it stands.

Insurance companies and the armed forces?   When did they become authorities on the climate?*


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Ruby said:


> "Best available evidence" is not good enough if it cannot be supported by observation, and the evidence you have produced is not *observed *evidence.  Observation has shown the global warming models are wrong.  You really can't argue with* observed data*.   Climate scientists are discovering more all the time - things which just do not fit the models.




Ruby, I suspect the alarmists here truly know and understand the exact nature of the questions repeatedly asked upon them, but in a psychological sense, they will never admit to being wrong or being "had" by the AGW PR machine since their belief is firmly in the "we must act" camp. Yet they cannot specify the outcome of acting, but simply follow those with "authority" that back a new revenue stream from taxation. The scam is so obvious to most.

I doubt there is anyone in this forum who doesn't believe in acting to preserve nature and ensuring responsibility for their actions. Yet the alarmist use terms like "deniers" as a catchall phrase for AGW skeptics that see them as a "mad group" fighting to destroy the environment. Bizarre really, but fits with human responses to such emotional/religious issues.


----------



## Ruby

OzWaveGuy said:


> I doubt there is anyone in this forum who doesn't believe in acting to preserve nature and ensuring responsibility for their actions. Yet the alarmist use terms like "deniers" as a catchall phrase for AGW skeptics that see them as a "mad group" fighting to destroy the environment. Bizarre really, but fits with human responses to such emotional/religious issues.




OWG, this is an important point, and one on which I think a lot of climate alarmists get confused.  Those of us who are sceptical about the propaganda fed to us seem to be automatically considered environmental vandals, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Some clarifiication ole pal.  What is AGW ?




Bang goes any credibility you may have had. In other words you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> OWG, this is an important point, and one on which I think a lot of climate alarmists get confused.  Those of us who are sceptical about the propaganda fed to us seem to be automatically considered environmental vandals, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.




On overview many of our positions I now admit are not too distant on the issues at all.

The cost is a big matter and so is belief, it is a very emotional mix.  I had not realised that the word "denier" was such a problem or the bad connotations it connects with for some people.  However some people will put on a reaction to weaken another side of the argument too.   To my mind words are merely that, it is the overall intent behind them that is important.   In my past I have had to turn the other cheek to some frightfull descriptions but have always tried to see beyond that to the real cause.   I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes but we can only do our best and nor should we be deterred from putting all of our views and ideas forward.

Some of the observations of the last few posts have been very good and food for thought.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> On overview many of our positions I now admit are not too distant on the issues at all.
> 
> The cost is a big matter and so is belief, it is a very emotional mix.  I had not realised that the word "denier" was such a problem or the bad connotations it connects with for some people.




Plod

You will note that those who disagree with the big bang theory (electric universe theory etc) are not called big bang deniers.

Those who disagree with the prevailing theory of evolution are not called evolution deniers.

There are no Higgs Boson deniers; to my knowledge there are only two field where dissenters are referred to as deniers:

1/ The Jewish Holocaust

2/ Anthropogenic climate change

Do you wonder why AGW sceptics take exception to the term?


----------



## Logique

Also climate sceptics believe in a flat earth, they disbelieve gravity, they disbelieve that cigarettes lead to lung cancer, they disbelieve that asbestos causes mesothelioma, and they disbelieve Darwinian evolution. 

The Green propaganda is clever and persuasive, but perhaps (at last) people are starting to wake up?



> https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...kYXmDQ&usg=AFQjCNHdeWFfiz98JRukY5JJKHj08x8SSg - Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - Ch10
> 
> Saruman was shown that the power of his voice was waning. He cannot be both tyrant and counsellor. When the plot is ripe it remains no longer secret. Yet he fell into the trap, and tried to deal with his victims piece-meal, while others listened.


----------



## Knobby22

Lord of the Rings...Cool.

Made me decide to change my avatar to Gimli.

Wayne what made you decide to go female on us?


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Wayne what made you decide to go female on us?




You had to have been following the "Day Trading Futures" thread. The avatar has run its course now, but I lagging on changing it because... well, she is responsible for my own personal hockey stick graph.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> You had to have been following the "Day Trading Futures" thread. The avatar has run its course now, but I lagging on changing it because... well, she is responsible for my own personal hockey stick graph.




Impressive hockey stick graph. Are you using the principal components analysis method or employing a variety of statistical techniques ? :


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> Impressive hockey stick graph. Are you using the principal components analysis method or employing a variety of statistical techniques ? :




Empirical observation.


----------



## bandicoot76

explod said:


> On overview many of our positions I now admit are not too distant on the issues at all.
> 
> The cost is a big matter and so is belief, it is a very emotional mix.  I had not realised that the word "denier" was such a problem or the bad connotations it connects with for some people.  However some people will put on a reaction to weaken another side of the argument too.   To my mind words are merely that, it is the overall intent behind them that is important.   In my past I have had to turn the other cheek to some frightfull descriptions but have always tried to see beyond that to the real cause.   I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes but we can only do our best and nor should we be deterred from putting all of our views and ideas forward.
> 
> Some of the observations of the last few posts have been very good and food for thought.




explod, NOBODY wants to live in a polluted wasteland! NOBODY wants to see environmental destruction, NOBODY wants an overpopulated unsusustainable chaotic future for our descendants... no not even oil or coal executives wants chaotic climate destruction!!! to think otherwiose is insane!!! all skeptics want is to know that any policies put in place are scientifically proven, will have a definate positive impact and are not just another scheme by parasites to use the environment as an excuse for a devious cash grab!!!!!


----------



## sails

bandicoot76 said:


> explod, NOBODY wants to live in a polluted wasteland! NOBODY wants to see environmental destruction, NOBODY wants an overpopulated unsusustainable chaotic future for our descendants... no not even oil or coal executives wants chaotic climate destruction!!! to think otherwiose is insane!!! all skeptics want is to know that any policies put in place are scientifically proven, will have a definate positive impact and are not just another scheme by parasites to use the environment as an excuse for a devious cash grab!!!!!




Well said, Bandicoot76...


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> Well said, Bandicoot76...



 +1.


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> ...Wayne what made you decide to go female on us?



Yes in context that avatar is unnerving...yet of itself strangely interesting.


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> Yes in context that avatar is unnerving...yet of itself strangely interesting.




My wife sitting some distance away watching the TV is allways asking, who is that woman you are looking at all the time.  Me "just arguing about the envoronment"


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> Lord of the Rings...Cool.
> Made me decide to change my avatar to Gimli..



Apologies everybody, but I digress on this glorious winter Saturday in SE NSW. Wish the Swans vs Collingwood was today instead of tonight. Not that it would increase our chances (..grumble).

Knobby, I join with with actor Christopher Lee on this - I cannot believe that director Peter Jackson left the Saruman at Orthanc scene on the cutting room floor. Dramatically a key highlight of the story, but what did we get instead? A few extra minutes of monster scenes! Not good enough in an otherwise fine production.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> Apologies everybody, but I digress on this glorious winter Saturday in SE NSW. Wish the Swans vs Collingwood was today instead of tonight. Not that it would increase our chances (..grumble).
> 
> Knobby, I join with with actor Christopher Lee on this - I cannot believe that director Peter Jackson left the Saruman at Orthanc scene on the cutting room floor. Dramatically a key highlight of the story, but what did we get instead? A few extra minutes of monster scenes! Not good enough in an otherwise fine production.




True, I suppose it was getting too long, the Hobbits being taken over by his men didn't happen either.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is 22/13 in Townsville today and tonight, and 24/15 for tomorrow.

No change discerned from previous years.

Modelling said different in 2001.

gg


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is 22/13 in Townsville today and tonight, and 24/15 for tomorrow.
> 
> No change discerned from previous years.
> 
> Modelling said different in 2001.
> 
> gg





Quite chilly here on the Gold Coast for us Qlders.  When coming out of a resturant tonight with friends and while wrapping scarves around our necks to keep the cold out, we were laughing about global warming nonsense...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Freezing here in CBR. Can someone shower cbr in CO2, Julia needs sizzling heat for her next interview on deadly CO2 gas and a tax we just need to have. Perhaps an experiment Knobby can run? 

Apparently the hands are at twelve, we can no longer wait for action...but what is really needed is a large dose of actual evidence of man's 3% CO2 gas contribution driving earth to be chased by the hounds of hell and to support all the disaster scenarios pontificated by alarmists ...any luck on observed evidence basilio...

*Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics*.  The peril is imminent, he says.  It is desperate.  The hands of the clock point to twelve.  The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun.  The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world.  He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime ”” and he doesn’t worry.​
Sound familiar? Plenty of pontification, but no individual action themselves.


----------



## Knobby22

Now the previous experiment proved that carbon dioxide is a greenhous gas.

Oz wave guy , that does not mean it is posion, it is a necessary trace gas that we need. Any secondary student knows this who pays attention in science class, so can you frop this point as it is patronising. See if you can read this all the way through (like it the other way?)

*This experiment shows the effect at trace levels.* 
Experiment #2: Carbon dioxide chamber. 
Maybe you've heard someone like John Coleman -- former weatherman on 'Good Morning, America!' and the founder of The Weather Channel -- telling people that global warming is a scam because carbon dioxide is only a trace gas, and therefore can't have a large impact on our planetary weather. Here's a simple at-home experiment which proves him DEAD WRONG. 
You'll need:
1.) An empty 2-liter soda bottle, label removed. 2.) A thermometer. Maybe two. 3.) A piece of narrow cardboard, long enough to cover the thermometer. 4.) A heat-lamp. 5.) An ordinary balloon. 6.) Some thread & tape. 7.) Some dry ice. 8.) A small syringe (without a needle) or eye-dropper.
Take the cardboard and tape it to the thermometer. This will shield it from the heat lamp so that the light from it doesn't give an artificially high temperature. (We want the temperature of the air, not the temperature of the glass.) Attach the string to the cardboard and thermometer and suspend it inside the empty 2-liter soda bottle, using some tape on the inside. Next, cover the opening at the top with your balloon, keeping it as deflated as possible. This will regulate the air pressure inside with the air pressure outside, again so as to not give an artificially high temperature.
Turn on the heat lamp and let it heat up the inside of the bottle. Make sure the cardboard-side of the thermometer is facing the lamp. You will see the balloon inflate as the air inside heats up and expands. Let the temperature stabilize (I recommend half an hour). Record the temperature inside. (At this point, you may use the option of a second thermometer, kept outside the bottle nearby, to make sure the temperature of the room doesn't change significantly to alter your result.) Usually, I find that the temperature reads somewhere around 90 degreees when I reach this stage. It's all right if your own measurements at home are slightly different.
Now, turn off the lamp and let the bottle cool. We will now add a small amount of carbon dioxide gas to increase the percentage of CO2 inside the bottle. Now, it should be noted here that Mr. Coleman is right about CO2 being a trace gas. It's only about 0.038% of our atmosphere. We're going to increase it by only a little bit, by adding 0.005% to total 0.043% inside our soda bottle. You can confirm the math at home, but you can increase that amount of CO2 by adding exactly 0.1cc's, or 0.1ml of carbon dioxide. How do you do that?
Here's where you use your dry ice. Fill a sink with water. Then, put a small glass under the water and let it fill all the way. Keeping the glass completely under water, put the dry ice into the sink. Now, catch the bubbles inside the glass! Dry ice is pure CO2! So the gas inside the glass is the pure carbon dioxide you need. Take your syringe and suck in a little bit of CO2. Now, it's easy to get a syringe, but if you can't, just use a small eye-dropper. Just remember to completely fill up the eye-dropper with water first, and suck in one tiny bubble at the very tip. (That bubble should be roughly 0.1cc.) Now, squirt the CO2 into the bottle by rolling up one corner of the balloon. With the syringe, point down. With the eye-dropper, point up! (And spill no water, if you can help it.) Because pure CO2 is a little heavier than air, it will travel down into the bottle. Now the percentage of CO2 is just a tiny bit higher. 
Make sure the balloon is secure over the top of the bottle again, and turn on the heat lamp. Make sure the distance between the heat lamp and the bottle is still the same. Now, let the temperature stabilize again, and record the temperature.
You will observe that the temperature will jump by roughly 5 to 6 degrees farenheit, or almost 3 degrees celcius!
If you don't think that's much, just think about the difference between a 45 degree day and a 50 degree day. Or a 55 degree day and a 60 degree day. It's a lot!
Oh, and by the way, the new concentration of CO2 we made, at 0.043%? We're projected to reach that level of CO2 sometime after the year 2020.

http://sacredcowwursthaus.blogspot....rself-global-warming.html?zx=fbced142f55ad5c9


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

The propaganda department of the ABC are in overdrive on The Drum, a far left sideshow of that website, with some heavy guns aimed at those who question the alarmists religious convictions.

I would not legitimise their rants by a link.

It is like the Cold War. Is this CW2?

gg


----------



## explod

Knobby22 said:


> If you don't think that's much, just think about the difference between a 45 degree day and a 50 degree day. Or a 55 degree day and a 60 degree day. It's a lot!
> Oh, and by the way, the new concentration of CO2 we made, at 0.043%? We're projected to reach that level of CO2 sometime after the year 2020.
> 
> http://sacredcowwursthaus.blogspot....rself-global-warming.html?zx=fbced142f55ad5c9




In the last few years down here in Victoria we have had about three days that have been apparently 100 year events, a lot of storms and floods have been like that too of late, anyway back to the temperatures.    These particular days were between 45 and 48 degrees c, one was the day of the bushfires so that would have helped.  Anyway most of the small possums were wiped out, saw the eveidence the next day along the paths of Balcombe Creek and a lot of old people carked it too.  Not yet that old myself, furtunately though the power did go out so no airconditioner.

So why are we having these 100 year floods and heatwaves all close together much more often.

Oh I know, the blown out of proprtion percentage of sceptical scientists say its all happened before, before official records were kept or something like that.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Now the previous experiment proved that carbon dioxide is a greenhous gas.
> 
> Oz wave guy , that does not mean it is posion, it is a necessary trace gas that we need. Any secondary student knows this who pays attention in science class, so can you frop this point as it is patronising. See if you can read this all the way through (like it the other way?)
> 
> *This experiment shows the effect at trace levels.*
> Experiment #2: Carbon dioxide chamber.
> Maybe you've heard someone like John Coleman -- former weatherman on 'Good Morning, America!' and the founder of The Weather Channel -- telling people that global warming is a scam because carbon dioxide is only a trace gas, and therefore can't have a large impact on our planetary weather. Here's a simple at-home experiment which proves him DEAD WRONG.






Though I am of the opinion that co2 levels can have a small impact on climate, I think the above experiment and implied conclusion re magnitude is disingenuous.

1/ Earth's climate is not a closed system like a coke bottle 

2/ We have already had a rise in co2 something of the order as in the "experiment" (more in fact), yet where is the observed increase in temperature over and above the trend since the mini ice age? 

The implication that a rise in co2 levels to 430ppm will cause a rise in Earth's temperature of 3 degrees C is frankly, ludicrous.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> Though I am of the opinion that co2 levels can have a small impact on climate, I think the above experiment and implied conclusion re magnitude is disingenuous.
> 
> 1/ Earth's climate is not a closed system like a coke bottle
> 
> 2/ We have already had a rise in co2 something of the order as in the "experiment" (more in fact), yet where is the observed increase in temperature over and above the trend since the mini ice age?
> 
> The implication that a rise in co2 levels to 430ppm will cause a rise in Earth's temperature of 3 degrees C is frankly, ludicrous.




But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.

Thanks Knobby, no more cold days for me here in CBR. Those climate blogs you subscribe to are just amazing.

Hopefully someone can find some observed evidence of the earth heating from man's 0.00112% CO2 contribution too.


----------



## wayneL

OzWaveGuy said:


> But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.




Well methane is a more potent Gh gas. Just eat more baked beans and walk into said rooms when passing wind and voila!


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> Now the previous experiment proved that carbon dioxide is a greenhous gas......................
> 
> *This experiment shows the effect at trace levels.*
> Experiment #2: Carbon dioxide chamber. ........................




And to add to what Wayne said............. *observation *has shown that in the *real *atmosphere, the rise in CO2 plotted against the rise in temperature is not a straight line, it is a parabolic curve.  In fact, after a while, further increases in CO2 have little impact on temperature.   Although atmospheric CO2 has risen in the last 10 years, the global temperature* has not.*


Knobby22 said:


> We're projected to reach that level of CO2 sometime after the year 2020.




Projections, projections, projections..........yes, sure, we may reach that level of CO2 in that time, but we won't have your predicted temperature.

You are forgetting that there are lots of other factors to take into account, two of which are feedback systems (which I think are not fully understood yet) and solar activity.  Climate scientists are constantly discovering new things about our climate, so the science is neither settled nor as simplistic as you imply.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> So why are we having these 100 year floods and heatwaves all close together much more often.




Explod, what makes you think we are having these events more often?  More often than when?  How do you know there weren't similar temperature spikes in Victoria 250 years ago?  We weren't here to record it then.  Devastating floods such as the one we had in Brisbane in January have happened before.

Why are "one in 100 year" events so unusual?  Are you suggesting that human CO2 emissions are causing all these things, and that they wouldn't happen if it were not for us?  100 years is nothing in geological time.  These things have always happened.


----------



## Ruby

wayneL said:


> Well methane is a more potent Gh gas.




So is water vapour.......


----------



## ghotib

Ruby, 

It would be helpful if you would provide citations for your statements. 

Thank you.

Ghoti


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> Explod, what makes you think we are having these events more often?  More often than when?  How do you know there weren't similar temperature spikes in Victoria 250 years ago?  We weren't here to record it then.  Devastating floods such as the one we had in Brisbane in January have happened before.
> 
> Why are "one in 100 year" events so unusual?  Are you suggesting that human CO2 emissions are causing all these things, and that they wouldn't happen if it were not for us?  100 years is nothing in geological time.  These things have always happened.




Daah, I do not know and did make it clear that I am speaking as we know it in our own time just seems interesting that there has been an enourmouse increase since we came here.

Seems also interesting how everyone jumps 30 feet on anyone that *may* put up arguments that indicate we *may *have a problem.


----------



## Wysiwyg

explod said:


> Daah, I do not know and did make it clear that I am speaking as we know it in our own time just *seems interesting that there has been an enourmouse* *increase since we came here.*



Not the additional gas from your rear end is it.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> Seems also interesting how everyone jumps 30 feet on anyone that *may* put up arguments that indicate we *may *have a problem.




30 feet, no, just 30yrs of AGW could's, should's, maybe's, possibly's, projected, rises and alarms that are wrapped up in disclaimers that we've been subjected to.

People are tired of the BS - show us observed proof, not more nonsense that you consider as substantial arguments, it's beyond a joke.


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> Not the additional gas from your rear end is it.




No just the so called 100 year events every couple of years.

And the rear end, now worries, goes off like an old lands bulldog tractor.  Due soon.


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> Oh I know, the blown out of proprtion percentage of sceptical scientists say its all happened before, before official records were kept or something like that.



So can you explain why specifically you don't find this an acceptable explanation?



explod said:


> No just the so called 100 year events every couple of years.



I heard an interesting and sensible explanation of this poorly described event a while ago.  It is not, as suggested by the phrase above,  an event which occurs once every hundred years (which you are claiming is happening much more frequently than that), but rather, an event which has a 1% chance of occurring.

So many cliches and so little common sense.


----------



## explod

OzWaveGuy said:


> People are tired of the BS - .




Why would one bother with begonia language like that.

And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.

And Julia your directed and cutting words, now a number of times, do upset me, had felt you were a real Lady but sadly dissappointed.

We are merely having a discussion, for Goodness sake.


----------



## trainspotter

OzWaveGuy said:


> But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.




I have just found a new business model that will leap me into the stratosphere of $$$ 

WOW !!!!!!! Ingenious ...... why didn't I think of it before?? House is cold, squirt some CO2 into the North facing rooms, let the sun do the rest and VIOLA !!!!! Instant internal heating !!


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.



But, explod, what you're omitting to consider is the potential damage to our economy and to the lives of ordinary Australians by taking action that is not expected to actually make any difference to the climate, especially when much of the rest of the world has declined to do likewise. Your apparent refusal to consider this is, to me, very frustrating.



> And Julia your directed and cutting words, now a number of times, do upset me, had felt you were a real Lady but sadly dissappointed.



Well I'm sorry to so disappoint you, explod.  But I cannot agree with you just in order to allow you to think I'm nice, or a 'lady' or something.

I'm not directing any of my comments to you in any personal sense, but simply disagreeing with much of what you're putting forward, on the basis that much of it is naive and unrealistic.  That doesn't mean I don't still think you're a warm and fuzzy bloke.



> We are merely having a discussion, for Goodness sake.



Quite so, dear explod.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.




And there we have it, no real proof, but explod has a vibe that says we should all pay a tax that won't actually change anything. Now you can see why the alarmist have lost the debate. Perhaps explod is really al gore trying to reap from the middle class to pour into the trough of the elite.

I doubt there's anything else you could say in this thread, your illogical and clearly bias views have you in an immovable corner. 

Btw - what are you personally doing? Still have a car, use power in your home etc etc. Yep thought so.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> I heard an interesting and sensible explanation of this poorly described event a while ago.  It is not, as suggested by the phrase above,  an event which occurs once every hundred years (which you are claiming is happening much more frequently than that), but rather, an event which has a 1% chance of occurring.
> 
> So many cliches and so little common sense.



So many assertions and so little checking. According to Wikipedia, a one in a hundred year event has a 1% chance of being exceeded in any year, which is equivalent to saying that over a long enough period it occurs (more correctly, is expected to occur - we're talking statistics and probability) on average once every hundred years. The Met Bureau has a nice discussion in Why Do 100 Year Events Happen So Often?

Weather Underground's Jeff Masters has just posted an overview of extreme weather events in 2010 and the first part of 2011. It might suggest why many sensible and knowledgeable people believe there is good reason to be alarmed about the changing state of the climate. From the introduction:


> Every year extraordinary weather events rock the Earth. Records that have stood centuries are broken. Great floods, droughts, and storms affect millions of people, and truly exceptional weather events unprecedented in human history may occur. But the wild roller-coaster ride of incredible weather events during 2010, in my mind, makes that year the planet's most extraordinary year for extreme weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s. Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Weather Underground's Jeff Masters has just posted an overview of extreme weather events in 2010 and the first part of 2011. It might suggest why many sensible and knowledgeable people believe there is good reason to be alarmed about the changing state of the climate. From the introduction:




http://www.masterresource.org/2011/03/recent-weather-extremes-fingerprint-not/


----------



## wayneL

More totalitarian "shut up the 'deniers'" rhetoric from the alarmists.





> “Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.  They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.


----------



## wayneL

FYI







http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/...ficantly-below-ipcc-climate-model-predic.html



> As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the  the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> Ruby,
> 
> It would be helpful if you would provide citations for your statements.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Ghoti




Which one?   The one about water vapour?   There are plenty scattered throughout this thread, but here is one.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Below is an excerpt from that link (with apologies - the table didn't copy properly!) I know that Wiki is not the best source of information, but I think it will give you an answer to that particular question.  Please come back to me if I haven't answered your question.



> The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eighty times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,[8] but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[9]
> 
> Gas
> Formula
> Contribution
> (%)
> *Water vapor H2O 36 – 72 % *
> Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26 %
> Methane CH4 4 – 9 %
> Ozone O3 3 – 7 %
> 
> It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[9][10] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases.[9][10]


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> We are merely having a discussion, for Goodness sake.




I'm afraid, that in typical plod fashion you are floundering way out of your depth. The same applies to me. I had the presumption to think that I had something to add to the AGW debate, and it turned out that it was only *common sense.* 

Basilio the heavyweight warmist alarmist on these pages, soon disabused me of my pretentions. He pointed out to me that *common sense* does not stack up against *the science*. Apparently he doesn't see any irony in this assertion.

As a disciple of Basilio I see that you are wisely avoiding using *common sense.*


----------



## basilio

For those who are interested.

Hansen and others have written a paper pulling together the current analysis of  climate science research and the implications for our climate. It's not as short as one paragraph jottings and it does quote and refer to over 100 peer reviewed research papers

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

Cheers


----------



## explod

Good link basilio.

For those concerned this is the *vibe* I mean but find too complex to get across to those who do not understand either.

And I am not being dogged I just say, *we may have a problem* and that we should be talking about what we can do about it.

And on this subject I will never go away.   Fossill fuel use has to be stopped.

And as I have said before "plod" in Noddy simply stands for "goodness".


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> And I am not being dogged I just say, *we may have a problem* and that we should be talking about what we can do about it.
> 
> And on this subject I will never go away.   Fossill fuel use has to be stopped..




"Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision"


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And on this subject I will never go away.   Fossill fuel use has to be stopped.




The power of one Mr Plod - It starts with you. Ditch the car, the electricity etc, no lights, no heating, no air conditioning, no Internet.

Then you can convince Gore, Blanchett, the idiotic Caton et al.

Though I think you might be told that "you're dreamin'". LOL


----------



## mexican

Thats it.....I am going to get in my big block chevy and light it up a round the block getting 1.5km to a lt, put on everything in the house, light the open fire with a dozen bric a bracs on it and then the big one....I am going to crack open a dozen coke bottles at once!
Its the end of the world.............woooooo scary!


----------



## wayneL

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/



> New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity:
> 
> During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
> Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
> In his new paper, "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity", Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 - May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.


----------



## explod

Oh,

forgot to mention that on our 3AW news this morning they reported a 500 year flood in South Dekota.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Oh,
> 
> forgot to mention that on our 3AW news this morning they reported a 500 year flood in South Dekota.




Statistics 

Research kurtosis, specifically leptokurtosis.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Oh,
> 
> forgot to mention that on our 3AW news this morning they reported a 500 year flood in South Dekota.




Have you ever considered as man populates the earth and lives closer to the ocean or rivers etc that the devastation of floods, cyclones, fires etc will increase? Man has also changed the course of rivers and blocked natural drainage paths in his ever increasig desire to build houses as well as an attempt to control nature. DOH !

Stands to reason really.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear or see it ... did it really fall?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Statistics
> 
> Research kurtosis, specifically leptokurtosis.




Waynel, as I have expressed before, you are a beautifull thing but could you please explain what you have just said.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Waynel, as I have expressed before, you are a beautifull thing but could you please explain what you have just said.




It's why only a fool uses normal distribution to calculate probabilities of price movement... and probably weather events.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> And I am not being dogged I just say, *we may have a problem* and that we should be talking about what we can do about it.
> 
> And on this subject I will never go away.  * Fossill fuel use has to be stopped.*




Explod, now you are being naive.   However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.

You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing  you wear and most manufactured goods.   You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels.   You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.  You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.

You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers!  You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!! 

You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.

the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm!  Lovely!!

Incidentally, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule.  Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.

Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm


----------



## Wysiwyg

mexican said:


> Thats it.....I am going to get in my big block chevy and light it up a round the block getting 1.5km to a lt, put on everything in the house, light the open fire with a dozen bric a bracs on it and then the big one....I am going to crack open a dozen coke bottles at once!
> Its the end of the world.............woooooo scary!



Wait on a minute ... that's what everyone else in the world is doing.   Nah, it'll be alright.


----------



## mexican

Ruby said:


> Explod, now you are being naive.   However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.
> 
> You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing  you wear and most manufactured goods.   You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels.   You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.  You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.
> 
> You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers!  You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!
> 
> You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.
> 
> the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm!  Lovely!!
> 
> Incidentally, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule.  Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.
> 
> Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum
> 
> http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm




You forgot one pretty important material Ruby........STEEL. Without coking coal no steel!!!


----------



## noco

Ruby said:


> Explod, now you are being naive.   However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.
> 
> You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing  you wear and most manufactured goods.   You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels.   You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.  You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.
> 
> You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers!  You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!
> 
> You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.
> 
> the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm!  Lovely!!
> 
> Incidentally, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule.  Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.
> 
> Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum
> 
> http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm




Just love it Ruby. That should be enough to keep explod quiet for a while.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> That should be enough to keep explod quiet for a while.




You're dreaming


----------



## basilio

*"Fossil fuel use has to be stopped"*

Well Explod's comment has certainly brought out every extreme possibility in the book. And  the discussion is a bit one sided. So let's consider more closely what is meant by Explod's comments and the alternatives.

Firstly the idea of stopping the use of fossil fuel is  largely directly at  replacing coal fired powered stations and changing the energy use of transport.  If we are to reduce CO2 emissions by what is necessary then we need to bring on line solar thermal, wind power, photovaltaic,  perhaps even  4th generation thorium nuclear power stations. And if we want to replace a substantial amount of the petrol powered  cars with electric cars or public transport then we probably  need to increase total electricity production to meet that need.

But we probably won't be able to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently by just changing how we generate power. Storing carbon in the soil with extensive tree plantings and pyrolysis and burial of organic mater into carbon will also be required. These and many other processes are part of what would be required to successfully make a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions.

While we are talking about getting off fossil fuel let's recognize *that  we will have to do this anyway *  Fossil fuels, particularly oil, are running down. On the International Eneragy Agencies own figures we are facing an irreversible shortage of  oil within the next few years.  So even if we don't want to go down this path -  we have no choice. Does anyone want to reconsider their comments ?

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> *"Fossil fuel use has to be stopped"*
> 
> Well Explod's comment has certainly brought out every extreme possibility in the book. And  the discussion is a bit one sided. So let's consider more closely what is meant by Explod's comments and the alternatives.



Obviously we can't keep burning fossil fuels forever. It's the timing of a change that's in question.

One of the things that seriously scares me about the whole CO2 thing is the notion that we should use natural gas, the only real alternative to diminishing oil supplies we have for transport, to generate electricity. That's like turning diamonds into lead. If we're going to meddle with the means of producing electricity then banning baseload gas, rather than increasing it, would make more sense...

10 years from now, I doubt you'll hear a word about CO2. The focus then will be on the ongoing liquid fuels problems and we'll be wishing we hadn't either exported or burnt for electricity just about all the gas we have. Import parity pricing for gas seems likely at some point, and with Russia and the Middle East dominating supply it's not going to be cheap.

If we focused on a sensible energy strategy then we'd fix the CO2 issue in due course anyway. But by focusing on CO2 directly, we're going to create a lot of serious headaches for ourselves down the track as far as transport fuels are concerned. It can only be burnt once, and global reserves relative to future consumption aren't exactly large.

The former state electricity authorities understood this very well, and it is why most of them had a conscious and very visible objective to maximise the share of production from coal and hydro, so as to minimise the use of gas and oil.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> *"Fossil fuel use has to be stopped"*
> 
> Well Explod's comment has certainly brought out every extreme possibility in the book. And  the discussion is a bit one sided. So let's consider more closely what is meant by Explod's comments and the alternatives.........




Basilio, I know my comments were extreme.  That was my rather frustrated response to naive comments "something has to be done............ fossil fuel use has to be stopped".  It is not that simplistic.  We currently have no viable alternative, and I don't see our government building lots of nuclear power stations, wind farms or installing (Australian made) solar panels on every surface that the sun shines on.  

Even if we do everything you suggest, our efforts will make little measurable difference to global temperatures (which are not rising anyway).


----------



## explod

> Ruby;642247]Explod, now you are being naive.   However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.




I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go.  However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction



> You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing  you wear and most manufactured goods.   You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels.   You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.




A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water.  Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)

I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.

Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced.  Another provides eggs.   Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.  

But we have a long way to go. 



> You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.




This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled.  Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet.  Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.




> You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers!  You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!




Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible.  The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.



> You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.
> 
> the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm!  Lovely!!




As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too.  And with computers who needs books anyway.



> Incidently, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule.  Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.




In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this.  The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.  Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well. 



> Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum




Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.


----------



## basilio

Ruby said:


> Basilio, I know my comments were extreme.  That was my rather frustrated response to naive comments "something has to be done............ fossil fuel use has to be stopped".  It is not that simplistic.  We currently have no viable alternative, and I don't see our government building lots of nuclear power stations, wind farms or installing (Australian made) solar panels on every surface that the sun shines on.
> 
> Even if we do everything you suggest, our efforts will make little measurable difference to global temperatures (which are not rising anyway).




Actually Ruby there are quite viable alternatives to radically and quickly re engineering our world. They have been mapped out many times including quite detailed plans for Australia.  And if there was the political will we could have a red hot go at putting them into practice.

To do that would be the rough equivalent of ww2 mobilisation and change of direction.

But of course nothing like that appears likely to happen does it ?

So what will the alternative be? If Alan Jones, Professor Carter,  Lord Monkcton and co are correct this will all be a storm in a tea cup and we'll wonder in 30-50 years time what the fuss was about. 

On the other hand if James Hanson, Al Gore.  Australia's Chief Scientist ,  and almost all the scientific community that actually studies this issue are correct, in 30 years  we will be dealing with an earth rapidly heating beyond the tolerances of most of the current ecosystems.  *And  we would also have to deal with a shortage of fossils fuels.*

Given these  consequences of being wrong you would really want an extremely high certainty that our current scientific community is so utterly wrong wouldn't you ? Do you believe you have it ?  Have you considered having at look James Hanson's paper whose link I posted earlier today ?


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.



Not in the absence of a massive human population reduction.

China's and India's populations are well beyond what a subsistance lifestyle can support, as is the globe as a whole. To consider otherwise is fantasy.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go.  However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction
> 
> 
> 
> A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water.  Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.
> 
> Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)
> 
> I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.
> 
> Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced.  Another provides eggs.   Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.
> 
> But we have a long way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled.  Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet.  Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible.  The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.
> 
> 
> 
> As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too.  And with computers who needs books anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this.  The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.  Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.




You must Dave's father from Gundagai where the dog sat on the tucker box.

I think it is now 2011 and there has been a few changes since then. We now have a radical Green/Labor Government hell bent on taking us back to those dark and dim ages. You might just be in luck


----------



## mexican

Very extreme Bas.
What lost it for me was the IPCC's name is on it, they have as much credibility as our PM.
"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR".......trying to make people think it is a certainty not a theory.
Any way half his luck he is earning some cash on the side!

http://nation.foxnews.com/climate-change/2011/06/22/global-warming-scientist-james-hansen-exposed


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.




the large fields they just discovered in the Atlantic and Brazil say otherwise...

you seriously ONLY argue based on greeny-do-goodery and totally ignore facts/stats/figures. You seem to have a religious belief in some doomsday model or world armageddon and like the majority of modern liberals (small 'l' non classical definition) you seem quite willing to throw away vast amounts of individual freedoms in the name of your intellectual, world vision.


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> Explod, now you are being naive.   However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.
> 
> You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing  you wear and most manufactured goods.   You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels.   You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.  You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.
> 
> You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers!  You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!
> 
> You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.
> 
> the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm!  Lovely!!
> 
> Incidentally, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule.  Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.
> 
> Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum
> 
> http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm




Now THAT's alarmist


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> Not in the absence of a massive human population reduction.
> 
> China's and India's populations are well beyond what a subsistance lifestyle can support, as is the globe as a whole. To consider otherwise is fantasy.




Aha, the weight of the very possible problem.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/



Surely not true, Wayne!   How could this possibly be in the face of the 'settled science' which has assured us that floods, cyclones and other extreme events will be not only more frequent, but more intense?
It is not possible, of course, that those promoting that 'settled science' might actually be wrong.


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> Surely not true, Wayne!   How could this possibly be in the face of the 'settled science' which has assured us that floods, cyclones and other extreme events will be not only more frequent, but more intense?
> It is not possible, of course, that those promoting that 'settled science' might actually be wrong.




Or perhaps we are looking at one teensy weeny little part of on climate system for a couple of years  and we don't want to peek at the floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and whatever that are part of the rest of the world ? And while we are at it we might close our eyes to the insurance companies who notice these sort of things because they have to make payouts on these events and decide how much next years premium will be.

I was fascinated by Wayne's little titbit. There are scores and scores of large, medium and smaller studies that demonstrate the effects of global warming around the world. (You can check them out on James Hansen's paper) But these of course hold no sway when compared to one non conforming study. That does say it all in this discussion doesn't it ?


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> Which one?   The one about water vapour?   There are plenty scattered throughout this thread, but here is one.....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
> 
> Below is an excerpt from that link (with apologies - the table didn't copy properly!) I know that Wiki is not the best source of information, but I think it will give you an answer to that particular question.  Please come back to me if I haven't answered your question.



Thank you for the link. If you read it again I think you'll realise that it doesn't support your point. You were saying the water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Wikipedia article implies, there's a lot more of it but it's not more potent because its residence time is so short. There's an explicit discussion in the last section of this article, if you're interested.

I didn't specify which of your statements I'd like to see citations for, but there are several. Here are some from this thread:

From post 1931:


> ...there are many reports that show there is climate change. None has proven we are responsible. Our degree of responsibility (if any) is as yet unknown.




From post 1965:


> What is undeniable is:- Our climate is changing. To date scientists cannot agree on the reasons for this. More and more scientists who were once in the 'alarmist' camp are defecting to the other side. Data has been manipulated.




From post 1988:


> The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested until observational data proves it to be either true or false.




From post 2000:


> CO2 may amplify the warming effect, but not in a straight line, so the amount of warming reduces as CO2 increases.



And


> There has been no warming in the last 10 years




From post 2025:


> The theory that human activity is driving climate change is only about 30 years old.




Also from post 2025. In this case I'm asking for the source of the argument that that you rightly reject.


> To simply say "Human CO2 emissions are increasing. The global temperature has been rising. Therefore the second factor is caused by first," is faulty logic, and is unscientific. The two could be happening entirely independently of one another.




From post 2203:


> The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong. Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years. The predicted "hot spot" has not been found.




From the same post, I'm asking what significance you attach to this point, which you've made several times:


> The predicted "hot spot" has not been found. Warming has always preceded increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.




Post 2283:


> observation has shown that in the real atmosphere, the rise in CO2 plotted against the rise in temperature is not a straight line, it is a parabolic curve. In fact, after a while, further increases in CO2 have little impact on temperature.



Thanks,
Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> Obviously we can't keep burning fossil fuels forever. It's the timing of a change that's in question.
> 
> One of the things that seriously scares me about the whole CO2 thing is the notion that we should use natural gas, the only real alternative to diminishing oil supplies we have for transport, to generate electricity. That's like turning diamonds into lead. If we're going to meddle with the means of producing electricity then banning baseload gas, rather than increasing it, would make more sense...



Smurf have you had look at the Stationary Energy plan produced by the Beyond Zero group? They claim it shows how Australia could go to  100% renewable energy sources by 2020, using existing technology. It would be great to know that this really is technically possible so we can concentrate on the economic / political hurdles. 

Cheers,
Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I was fascinated by Wayne's little titbit. There are scores and scores of large, medium and smaller studies that demonstrate the effects of global warming around the world. (You can check them out on James Hansen's paper) But these of course hold no sway when compared to one non conforming study. That does say it all in this discussion doesn't it ?




How disingenuous. "One" non conforming study?

LMAO

I believe there are a few more than one lingering around for alarmists to ignore. 

Basilio I hate to belabour the point that sceptics are trying to make, but we all know climate changes, we all know there has been some evidence of warming - since the little ice age in fact. 

Regional climate change due to land use considerations aside, the argument is about the purported mechanisms of global climate change. The alarmist models have totally missed the mark and as we see now, alarmists are trying to pin any weather event as climate change. The sad fact is that when proper analysis is undertaken, all these weather events are well within the normal range of what happens on this planet.

Just like you have done in the preceding post, alarmists refuse to acknowledge the (poorly funded and hence far less undertaken) body of science which contradicts the Runaway Global Warming Hypothesis, and that their models are utterly failing to predict climate patterns.

And let's not even mention the gross hypocrisy of you and your fellow doomsday klaxons, Gore, Hansen, Blanchett, that imbecile Caton, *et al*.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go.  However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction
> 
> A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water.  Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.
> 
> Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)
> 
> I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.
> 
> Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced.  Another provides eggs.   Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.
> 
> But we have a long way to go.
> 
> This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled.  Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet.  Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.
> 
> Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible.  The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.
> 
> As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too.  And with computers who needs books anyway.
> 
> In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this.  The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.  Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.
> 
> Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.




Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.


----------



## macca

explod said:


> A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water.  Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.



Hi Explod,

Your life style sounds very suitable for someone who grew up on a farm and enjoys nature. I like wide open spaces myself so know where you are coming from.

I do think that with a bit of investigation you will find that a lot of the big changes in lifestyle are made through necessity as the population grows. I recall reading once that if everyone rode a horse to work in Sydney the droppings would be half a metre deep every day (in the CBD) LOL

The same applies to using wood fires for heating, in the city this causes pollution problems, see link http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/woodsmoke/

I would liken your lifestyle to one of choice and support your right to live it but it is not possible for everyone to live like that in the city.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> Thank you for the link. If you read it again I think you'll realise that it doesn't support your point. You were saying the water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Wikipedia article implies, there's a lot more of it but it's not more potent because its residence time is so short. There's an explicit discussion in the last section of this article, if you're interested.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ghoti




From the link you gave me:-


> What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, *water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas.* Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.




Ghotib, I will get back to the rest of your query, but don't have time now.

Cheers,
Ruby


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Actually Ruby there are quite viable alternatives to radically and quickly re engineering our world. They have been mapped out many times including quite detailed plans for Australia.  And if there was the political will we could have a red hot go at putting them into practice.
> 
> To do that would be the rough equivalent of ww2 mobilisation and change of direction.
> 
> But of course nothing like that appears likely to happen does it ?




Bas, I think we are veering slightly off topic here (and I take my share of responsibility for that).  I, like you would like a better world with less pollution, etc, but the topic is climate change and whether it is cause for alarm.


basilio said:


> So what will the alternative be? If Alan Jones, Professor Carter,  Lord Monkcton and co are correct this will all be a storm in a tea cup and we'll wonder in 30-50 years time what the fuss was about.
> 
> On the other hand if James Hanson, Al Gore.  Australia's Chief Scientist ,  and almost all the scientific community that actually studies this issue are correct, in 30 years  we will be dealing with* an earth rapidly heating beyond the tolerances of most of the current ecosystems. * And  we would also have to deal with a shortage of fossils fuels.
> 
> Given these  consequences of being wrong you would really want an extremely high certainty that our current scientific community is so utterly wrong wouldn't you ? Do you believe you have it ?  Have you considered having at look James Hanson's paper whose link I posted earlier today ?




Despite what Hanson and Gore say, the *observed *fact is that the earth is *not *rapidly heating; the warming we have experienced in the last few hundred years is within normal variation; the global temperature has not risen in the last 10 years.  These are observed facts.  You keep ignoring this.  On the large scale of geological time, what is happening to our climate is not unusual.  Nothing we can do in Australia is going to stop it.


----------



## trainspotter

Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and a director of four mining companies. He is known as a prominent critic of creationism and more recently for his writings opposing the scientific consensus that human activities have a significant influence on global warming.

Plimer is the author of around 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth ”” Global Warming: The Missing Science (2009).

*Okay,  here's the bombshell.  The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first  spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT  you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on  our planet – all of you.*

Of  course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress  – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and  grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal  life.

I  know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission  savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense  of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till  midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing  out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet  paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and  speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day  on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light  bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes  in just four days.

The  volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes -  FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single  effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.  And there are  around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time -  EVERY DAY.

I  don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that  when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, *it spewed out  more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had * emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.  Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active  for over one year – think about it.

Of  course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the  effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global  heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely  insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And  I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the  matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this  year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next  two to three years.  And it happens every year.

Just  remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on  you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change  scenario.

Hey,  isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but  just “Climate Change” - you know why?  It’s because the planet has COOLED  by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got  caught with their pants down.

And  just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that  whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except  make you poorer. * It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for  sure.*

But  hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS:  I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?


----------



## derty

ts, this is just some of the 1st page of a google search:
http://www.rense.com/general94/onevol.htm
http://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-global-warming-scam-stops-here-2/
http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=826724&postcount=1
http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5963&sid=a149fe872910df52b6a99d17b4d357a2
http://www.past-life-test.com/volcano.html
http://www.kotadama.com/blog.cfm?postid=815718&feature=2089062
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2011/03/g0427-co2-carbon-tax-scam-has-iceland.html

It's unmitigated bollocks ts. The main Pinatubo eruption released about half a days worth of global CO2 emissions. 

If the 'sceptics' spent a fraction of their sceptical energies actually investigating the validity and basic scientific robustness of some of the claims that get posted up here this thread would be less of a sad version of Groundhog Day and people might actually learn something.

bye again


----------



## Calliope

Ruby said:


> Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.




As a  high ranking police officer in "another life," Plod would be on a substantial pension and well able to afford his little hobbies, as well as making substantial donations to the Greens. I fancy however that he spends more time crouching over his computer than over his veggie patch.


----------



## trainspotter

derty said:


> ts, this is just some of the 1st page of a google search:
> http://www.rense.com/general94/onevol.htm
> http://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-global-warming-scam-stops-here-2/
> http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=826724&postcount=1
> http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5963&sid=a149fe872910df52b6a99d17b4d357a2
> http://www.past-life-test.com/volcano.html
> http://www.kotadama.com/blog.cfm?postid=815718&feature=2089062
> http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2011/03/g0427-co2-carbon-tax-scam-has-iceland.html
> 
> It's unmitigated bollocks ts. The main Pinatubo eruption released about half a days worth of global CO2 emissions.
> 
> If the 'sceptics' spent a fraction of their sceptical energies actually investigating the validity and basic scientific robustness of some of the claims that get posted up here this thread would be less of a sad version of Groundhog Day and people might actually learn something.
> 
> bye again




My scientist can beat up your scientist


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> I fancy however that he spends more time crouching over his computer than over his veggie patch.




Wrong, about an hour a day trying to entertain on this thread and half an hour on markets and my stocks.

Of course the hour is split all over the place on other things at the same time.  Do a check on my posts, about 90% of late on this thread and the thought needed is neglible unless the feathers are ruffled a bit.  I should be more focused and really kick the bucket but do not want to upset that lovely little doll Waynel.   Who else thinks she is cute?

Its all off topic and why am I reporting to you anyway?

I do not like those who aim at the person, someone could get shot, so stick to the subject Calliope.


----------



## derty

trainspotter said:


> My scientist can beat up your scientist



 well here is one that I don't imagine would do too well in the ring. They don't get much nerdier than this, but he does give a very engaging and animate lecture on CO2 with respect to the historic palaeoclimate record. 

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml 

summary: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1453&tstamp=


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Its all off topic and why am I reporting to you anyway?




I suppose it's the copper in your blood. You have to report to someone.

You got that right.



> about 90% of late on this thread and the thought needed is neglible


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Smurf have you had look at the Stationary Energy plan produced by the Beyond Zero group? They claim it shows how Australia could go to  100% renewable energy sources by 2020, using existing technology. It would be great to know that this really is technically possible so we can concentrate on the economic / political hurdles.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghoti



I haven't read every last word of it, but:

1. They've certainly got the underlying concepts right about (a) a "clean energy" economy is one that uses more electricity rather than less and (b) how to go about running a predominantly renewable electricity grid.

2. Some resolvable issues with design that would cause problems in operation. Specifically, the biomass burners need to be larger (which would actually result in lower burn rates on average through lower reserve minimums being practical).

3. Day to day operation of such a system is fundamentally of a "central planning" nature in order for it to work. Economic theories of a forced market (in a natural monopoly industry) etc are thus a significant obstruction to such a plan.

4. Note that significant potential generation goes to waste. All of this has to be paid for, since the costs are of a capital nature rather than operational, which increases the cost of delivered energy to a level significantly higher than the quoted figures (in the order of 50% increase).

5. Seems to have overlooked the increase in peak loads on distribution networks in many areas resulting from a mass switch from gas to electricity for heating and cooking. Given the sheer scale of these networks, upgrading isn't a simple task.

Overall, I'd give it 97 out of 100. Some minor points which can be resolved (at a cost...).

From a practical perspective, the only thing I can really see of a limiting nature is timeframe. I very much doubt that we'll see ordinary households scrapping perfectly good gas ovens etc for electric all in the space of a few years, and I'd argue that it would be environmentally very questionable (waste of materials etc) to do that anyway. So I doubt that 10 years is really practical - it could be done but it would necessarily be a "crash course" with quite a bit of waste in order to do it.

Bottom line - yes it could work with a few tweaks here and there.


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go.  However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction
> 
> A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water.  Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.
> 
> Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)
> 
> I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.
> 
> Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced.  Another provides eggs.   Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.
> 
> This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled.  Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet.  Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.
> 
> Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible.  The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.
> 
> As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too.  And with computers who needs books anyway.
> 
> In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this.  The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.  Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.






Ruby said:


> Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.




Ruby, you're right, of course.  But part of me admires explod for apparently making some attempt to live up to his beliefs, which I expect are quite genuine.

Personally, I have zero interest in doing without every possible modern comfort, but if someone gets to feel good by making their life more arduous, for the sake of what they perceive as a higher cause, then good luck to them.

It's a bit like religion.  I don't see any need for it, probably regard it largely as a negative force, but for those who believe, they derive much comfort and support from it.  That's totally fine, as long as they don't want the rest of us to subscribe to their views.

Explod, your computer is gobbling up lots of nasty electricity.  Reckon you could do without it?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> How disingenuous. "One" non conforming study?
> 
> LMAO
> 
> I believe there are a few more than one lingering around for alarmists to ignore.
> 
> Basilio I hate to belabour the point that sceptics are trying to make, but we all know climate changes, we all know there has been some evidence of warming - since the little ice age in fact.
> 
> Regional climate change due to land use considerations aside, the argument is about the purported mechanisms of global climate change. The alarmist models have totally missed the mark and as we see now, alarmists are trying to pin any weather event as climate change. The sad fact is that when proper analysis is undertaken, all these weather events are well within the normal range of what happens on this planet.
> 
> Just like you have done in the preceding post, alarmists refuse to acknowledge the (poorly funded and hence far less undertaken) body of science which contradicts the Runaway Global Warming Hypothesis, and that their models are utterly failing to predict climate patterns.
> 
> And let's not even mention the gross hypocrisy of you and your fellow doomsday klaxons, Gore, Hansen, Blanchett, that imbecile Caton, *et al*.




The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to act yet cannot point to observed evidence nor do anything personally - hence the obvious increase of rubbish posts that conveniently skip the real discussion. Psychologically they cannot change - kinda like wishful thinking on a bad trade - "I'll hold as I know it will come good"


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> Now THAT's alarmist




So does that mean that those that don't agree with AGW are now "alarmists" and those who do agree are now "deniers".  Have we switched name tags?..

But then the carbon tax IS an alarming unknown - it is doubtful that the flow on effect has been properly analysed, imo.


----------



## wayneL

OzWaveGuy said:


> The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to act....




I see it a bit differently and perhaps more accurately :

The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to *tell others* to act...

************

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but it still contains some useful passages:



> 3 	 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> 4 	 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
> 5 	 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.




Blanchett, Gore, Caton etc come to mind.

And.....



> 15 	  ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
> 16 	 Ye shall know them by their fruits.




The same sort of people come to mind.

Courtesy of a quaffable chardonnay from Ngatarawa Stables, 5 minutes from home.


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> From the link you gave me:-
> 
> 
> 
> What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghotib, I will get back to the rest of your query, but don't have time now.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ruby
Click to expand...


Thanks Ruby, I'm looking forward to your answers.

I don't think you've realised why I suggested you take another look at the Wikipedia reference on water vapour. In the post that prompted my request for citations, all you said was "So is water vapour...." in response to  a comment from Wayne that methane is a more potent Gh (presumably greenhouse) gas. As I understand it, water vapour is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, but greenhouse potency most commonly refers to "global warming potential", which is a technical term in climatology that does not apply to water vapour. That's not because climate science ignores water vapour. It's because the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere adjusts to changes in air temperature, whereas for other greenhouse gases changes in quantity cause changes in air temperature. (This is my over-simplified version of Water vapour: feedback or forcing?)

This feels like a big deal to make of what was probably a flip comment, but there's a lot of talking past each other on this thread and one of the difficulties for people of good will is that so many words have both technical and general meanings. 

Cheers,
Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> I haven't read every last word of it, but:
> 
> 1. They've certainly got the underlying concepts right about (a) a "clean energy" economy is one that uses more electricity rather than less and (b) how to go about running a predominantly renewable electricity grid.
> 
> 2. Some resolvable issues with design that would cause problems in operation. Specifically, the biomass burners need to be larger (which would actually result in lower burn rates on average through lower reserve minimums being practical).
> 
> 3. Day to day operation of such a system is fundamentally of a "central planning" nature in order for it to work. Economic theories of a forced market (in a natural monopoly industry) etc are thus a significant obstruction to such a plan.
> 
> 4. Note that significant potential generation goes to waste. All of this has to be paid for, since the costs are of a capital nature rather than operational, which increases the cost of delivered energy to a level significantly higher than the quoted figures (in the order of 50% increase).
> 
> 5. Seems to have overlooked the increase in peak loads on distribution networks in many areas resulting from a mass switch from gas to electricity for heating and cooking. Given the sheer scale of these networks, upgrading isn't a simple task.
> 
> Overall, I'd give it 97 out of 100. Some minor points which can be resolved (at a cost...).
> 
> From a practical perspective, the only thing I can really see of a limiting nature is timeframe. I very much doubt that we'll see ordinary households scrapping perfectly good gas ovens etc for electric all in the space of a few years, and I'd argue that it would be environmentally very questionable (waste of materials etc) to do that anyway. So I doubt that 10 years is really practical - it could be done but it would necessarily be a "crash course" with quite a bit of waste in order to do it.
> 
> Bottom line - yes it could work with a few tweaks here and there.




That's about the most heartening thing I've read all year  There is hope!!

I've only skimmed the report. There's a section called "Minimising Peak Demand" which I would think attempts to cover your point 5. Not good enough? 

Lots to think about; maybe in its own thread. 

Thanks Smurf.


----------



## basilio

Derty that was an excellent post on the actual amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. In case others havn't read it, the paper outlines how much CO2 is emitted, the comparison between various countries emissions and volcanoes and some excellent analysis of what would happen if in fact volcanoes were spewing out the amount of CO2 alleged previously.

So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect. 
*They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of  evidence.* 

They are amongst the biggest of big lies with the intention of providing some nominal support to those who want to distance human produced CO2 from it's role in increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Believe and propagate the volcano lie and you are simply being stooged.  If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false -  then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.

It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on  credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.

Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact".  Professor Carter threw up a story in the papers yesterday and tried to come up with simplistic one sentence statements to disparage current knowledge on AGW.   He was systematically dismantled in todays paper and it's worth quoting  it at length because the analysis address a number of the statements belted to death by some forum memebrs.



> *]Half the truth on emissions*
> John Cook
> June 28, 2011
> 
> 
> *Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument misses the alarming reality.*
> 
> A Yiddish proverb states ''a half truth is a whole lie''. By withholding vital information, it's possible to lead you towards the opposite conclusion to the one you would get from considering the full picture. In Bob Carter's opinion piece on this page yesterday, this technique of cherry-picking half-truths is on full display, with frequent examples of statements that distort climate science.
> 
> The partial truths are further bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact. It is not surprising that people present such fallacies, since the blogosphere is full of climate pseudo-science, but it is surprising that newspapers are still reporting such statements. *Opinion is one thing, but scientific fact is another. Every major science body in the world has effectively refuted the assertions made by Carter.*
> 
> So what is the full picture? To understand what's happening to the global climate, we need to look at temperature change over the entire planet. Two scientific teams - NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast - have constructed temperature records spanning the whole globe. Both find consistent results, using independent methods, with the two hottest years on record being 2010 and 2005. Both find the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, with melting sea ice acting as a positive feedback that amplifies the warming.
> 
> More importantly, temperature trends are not established by drawing lines between individual warm and cool years. It's the long-term trend that counts and the most recent decade was the warmest on record. Long-term warming trends are agreed upon by all international meteorological agencies.
> 
> But there's a bigger picture still. The temperature record tells us what's happening to surface temperature. But signs of warming are being observed all over the climate system. Over the past decade, ice loss from the huge ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica has been steadily accelerating. Currently, Greenland is losing 300 billion tonnes of ice a year. Over the same period, Arctic sea ice has been thinning and melting, glaciers have been shrinking at an accelerating rate and seasons are shifting due to warming temperatures. All these facts, including their uncertainties, are not considered in isolation by scientists; it's the overall picture that matters.
> 
> *What's driving this warming? There is no mystery or guesswork about the cause of recent global warming - it can be directly measured. Satellites observe less radiation escaping to space at those exact wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Less heat escaping to space means more heat returning to Earth and this is confirmed by surface measurements. An increased greenhouse effect should also cause a cooling of the upper atmosphere, and this is confirmed by satellites and weather balloons. From these observations, scientists concluded ''this experimental data should effectively end the argument by sceptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming''.*
> 
> Enter Bob Carter and his deliberate brand of climate cherry-picking and false, but plausible, assertions. He has long hung his hat on the proposition the climate has been cooling since 1998. But with 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, he resorts to cherry-picking which dataset to use. *Rather than use temperature records that cover the entire globe, he opts for datasets that do not include the Arctic region, where warming is the strongest. These temperature records underestimate recent warming and are the darling of those who wish to deny global warming is happening.*
> 
> The half-truths become more tenuous as Carter's piece progresses. He argues that carbon dioxide is beneficial as it acts as a valuable plant fertiliser. Studies show mixed results for carbon dioxide fertilisation for different species and different climate regimes. But this line of argument fails to recognise that plants also need water and the right temperature range to flourish. Over the past 40 years as temperatures have risen, drought severity has also increased. This is exerting significant pressure on agriculture as water supplies become strained.
> 
> Labelling Carter's final ''scientific fact'' as a half-truth is giving it too much credence. According to Carter, it's a fact that "extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit."
> 
> These are ludicrous statements that fly in the face of 20 years of scientific research. Rapidly increasing carbon dioxide will most likely lead to a rapidly changing climate, and decades of research has not painted such a rosy picture of the environmental and socio-economic impacts. Dismissing all of that science on the basis that carbon dioxide is plant food is like dismissing that effluent can ever be a pollutant since blood and bone gets put on garden beds.
> 
> It is not really possible to assess Carter's other assertions on the economy since, unlike climate, the economy is not constrained by fundamental physical laws of the universe. Nevertheless, it is interesting that a self-professed sceptic is able to present, as fact, that reducing carbon emissions will result in the closing down of the Australian economy. This is despite the fact that numerous economic analyses find the benefits of climate action outweigh the costs several times over.
> 
> It is also interesting that self-professed sceptics, who believe that there is simply no way of determining to what degree carbon dioxide concentrations will affect climate, can precisely estimate the effect of Australia's emissions on global-mean temperature. Everyone understands that global efforts are required to reduce carbon pollution. Australia, as one of the highest carbon emitters per capita, is in an ideal position to positively influence global negotiations. Those who argue that Australia is an insignificant player underestimate our role on the global stage and our potential to be a leader in reducing carbon pollution.
> 
> Bob Carter exhorts us to "pay attention to the facts and keep an open mind". Ironically, he has closed his mind to any evidence that conflicts with his preconceived views and suspends critical thought when presenting his own doomsday scenarios. Carter's article shows how cherry-picked information can mislead and distort the science - embodying the proverb, "a half-truth is a whole lie".
> 
> John Cook runs the website skepticalscience.com and is co-author of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, with environmental scientist Haydn Washington.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...n-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html#ixzz1Qa3yTTCi


----------



## basilio

If you would like to see just how Professor Carter (and others in this debate) managed to make the bald statement that the earth has stopped warming in the past ten years check out the following link.

It's interesting to note that the graph Professor Carter wants to use is the Hadley set of figures. This is the organisation he sprayed on as totally dishonest with regard  to Climate gate. But he'll use their graph when it suits him (particularly as it doesn't include those pesky Arctic temperatures that are unreasonably high) 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-half-truths-turn-out-to-be-whole-lies.html


----------



## mexican

This guy has alot of credibilty Bas!


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/ho...ves-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect.
> *They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of  evidence.*




What's an "ect" and what's a *sherrik*?? I'm afraid your work is getting *slovenly*.


----------



## basilio

Hi Calliope.

Perhaps you might like to stop at *" Complete and total fabrications"*

Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> Thanks Ruby, I'm looking forward to your answers.
> 
> I don't think you've realised why I suggested you take another look at the Wikipedia reference on water vapour. In the post that prompted my request for citations, all you said was "So is water vapour...." in response to  a comment from Wayne that methane is a more potent Gh (presumably greenhouse) gas. As I understand it, water vapour is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, but greenhouse potency most commonly refers to "global warming potential", which is a technical term in climatology that does not apply to water vapour. That's not because climate science ignores water vapour. It's because the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere adjusts to changes in air temperature, whereas for other greenhouse gases changes in quantity cause changes in air temperature. (This is my over-simplified version of Water vapour: feedback or forcing?)
> 
> This feels like a big deal to make of what was probably a flip comment, but there's a lot of talking past each other on this thread and one of the difficulties for people of good will is that so many words have both technical and general meanings.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghoti




Ghoti, yes, it was a bit of a flippant comment, so I suppose I deserve your response.  However, it has been found that with increased CO2 in the atmosphere the temp does not increase in a straight line - in fact it levels out.  This comment has been made by several people who have also posted references and graphs. (I will try and find a ref as it was one of the things you asked me for.)

And yes, you are correct in saying that a lot of us are talking past each other in this thread when no ill will is intended.

Cheers,

Ruby


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Hi Calliope.
> 
> Perhaps you might like to stop at " Complete and total fabrications"
> 
> Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.




They say you can spot a polluter by the amount of garbage he generates. If only your post were "short and simple" they might be read. As it is your emissions are of volcanic proportions, and you are only preaching to the converted.


----------



## mexican

basilio said:


> Hi Calliope.
> 
> Perhaps you might like to stop at *" Complete and total fabrications"*
> 
> Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.




Cook does not like reading too much either.
Getting desperate if you are using this guy as a example.
Like I said, he has no credibility on this topic!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Derty that was an excellent post on the actual amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. In case others havn't read it, the paper outlines how much CO2 is emitted, the comparison between various countries emissions and volcanoes and some excellent analysis of what would happen if in fact volcanoes were spewing out the amount of CO2 alleged previously.




This is taking into consideration an "average" of volcanic activity. A few more eruptions as well as bit of undersa volcanoes heating the oceans and VIOLA ... more CO2. 

Termites are the next big thing on the CO2 radar ! http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html



> So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect.
> *They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of  evidence.*




My what big bold letters of defence you have there basilio. Is a sherrik a big green ogre type creature with a second cousin called Shrek?



> They are amongst the biggest of big lies with the intention of providing some nominal support to those who want to distance human produced CO2 from it's role in increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> Believe and propagate the volcano lie and you are simply being stooged.  If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false -  then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.




The biggest of the big lies??? You mean like Al Gore and the "inconvenient truth" he failed to tell the punters? 

_8 Mar 10 - "Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting ”” and seas are rising," said Al Gore in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on February 27

Never mind that Mr. Gore dismisses the IPCC's fraudulent claims that the oceans are rising precipitously. ("Partly inaccurate," he huffs.)

Never mind that Mr. Gore completely ignores the admission by the CRU's disgraced former director Phil Jones that global temperatures have essentially remained unchanged for the past 15 years._

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm



> It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on  credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.




What ? You mean like Greece?



> Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact".  Professor Carter threw up a story in the papers yesterday and tried to come up with simplistic one sentence statements to disparage current knowledge on AGW.   He was systematically dismantled in todays paper and it's worth quoting  it at length because the analysis address a number of the statements belted to death by some forum memebrs.




Why is it when "Alarmists" state somehting it is gospel but when deniers state something it is B/S ??


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> ........... If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false -  then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.
> 
> It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on  credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.
> 
> Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact". .................




Basilio my friend, you could equally apply these words to yourself and your beliefs on climate change.

"Skeptical Science" is *not *an unbiased website.  John Cook set it up because he wanted to demolish what *he called* the "climate change deniers" so anything he says should be taken with a large dose of scepticism.  Might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black??   Bob Carter is a very reputable scientist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science


----------



## wayneL

Ruby said:


> Basilio my friend, you could equally apply these words to yourself and your beliefs on climate change.




Indeed Ruby. But because of his/her raging cognitive bias, I doubt (s)he would do so.


----------



## basilio

*"Beliefs about climate change ? ".  In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.*

I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.

I accept the empirical evidence of  temperature measurements around he world that our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms. In particular as John Cook noted from research papers  the temperatures in the Arctic are rising quite quickly and causing an exponential increase in ice melt.  That is backed by  numerous data observations. 

I can also understand the bigger and longer picture of  how our climate has change and the various  factors that have influenced it.  In that sense I can see  the  capacity for various other factors at play.  

*But in the end I accept the basic understandings I have and finally the collective knowledge and cross checked research of the vast majority of the scientific community.  *

One could accept that the science is not totally settled. I'm certain every scientist in the field would acknowledge that.  If one sees this as a giant jigsaw puzzle a certain number of pieces have not been put in place. But the big picture seems very clear and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of  putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic. 

Why do we want to take such a risk unless we were totally certain all these scientists were wrong ?

Now on the other side of the picture. The range of arguments put up by  people to discredit the AGW  idea.  

I've already said that one could closely question current theories and measurements. That is what  peer reviewed scientific work is about. On the big picture however I find it extremely hard to see how querying small elements of what is happening climatically will make a substantial difference to the overall story.

And then we go to what I put in big letters as outright lies. The assertion that volcanoes put out more CO2 than us is an outright lie. The evidence by vulcanologists who are the people who actually study this completely and flatly refutes this statement.  So whenever it is trotted out again it  just demonstrates the proponent has no interest in observed facts and is willing to accept or make up anything that will support his/her case.

At that stage that person in my eyes has little credibility and particularly when they use their Professorial status to say they understand how science works. That's Professor Carter

On a similar theme  Professor Carter tries to say that more CO2 will help green the Sahara. Peter Cook pointed out how illogical that statement was particularly understanding all the factors affecting vegetation.  Are we suppose to accept quite illogical statements in this debate ? 

There are scores of similar outright lies, cherry picked figures, illogical arguments and misinformation promoted by organization trying to stop decisive action on reducing greenhouse emissions. Again John Cook has taken each of these statements and pointed out what the observed facts are or the logical fallacies or the use of cherry picked data. 

The problem for those who want to legitimately hold a skeptical view and query uncertain aspect of the science of AGW is that these areas are quite small and often  obscure. (Much of science is obscure) So the rest of the deniers (not genuine skeptics) simply throw in any sort of drivel with the view that if its said loud enough and often enough then we will accept it.

Cue Carter, Ian Plimer, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. et al


----------



## Ruby

ghotib said:


> I didn't specify which of your statements I'd like to see citations for, but there are several. Here are some from this thread:
> 
> From post 1931:
> From post 1965:
> From post 1988:
> From post 2000:
> From post 2025:
> Also from post 2025. In this case I'm asking for the source of the argument that that you rightly reject.
> From post 2203:
> From the same post, I'm asking what significance you attach to this point, which you've made several times:
> Post 2283:
> 
> Thanks,
> Ghoti





Hi Ghoti,

Here is a list of links which will provide the answers to most of your questions.  There are lots more of course and you will be able to find them yourself.  If you spend the time reading these and watching the videos you will find them very imformative.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=relmfu 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=relmfu 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&NR=1&feature=fvwp 
http://joannenova.com.au/  - go to the "New? Start here" button first, then read the rest.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...imate-hysteria 
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmcl...lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/ 
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/ 
http://climateaudit.org/ 
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/09/foi-request-to-phil-jones/ 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked 
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 

Some of the things that might not be covered in the links....

Post 1931
I can't give a ref for something that does not exist (ie, the proof does not exist).  The onus of proof is on those who claim our responsibility for climate change, and our degree of responsibility.  I don't say this is false, just that it is unproven.

Post 1988
?? That is the scientific method.  Ask a scientist.

Post 2025
This is simple logic.  Temp rising.  CO2 levels rising.  You cannot *assume *one is caused by the other.  Geological data has shown that in the past temp has risen before CO2 levels (see links provided)

I hope this will answer your questions.

Cheers,

Ruby


----------



## explod

> basilio:                       One could accept that the science is not totally settled. I'm certain every scientist in the field would acknowledge that. If one sees this as a giant jigsaw puzzle a certain number of pieces have not been put in place. But the big picture seems very clear and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic.
> 
> Why do we want to take such a risk unless we were totally certain all these scientists were wrong ?




A great post.

And as I have repeated, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> A great post.




The gospel according to preacher Basilio.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> A great post.
> 
> And as I have repeated, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?




China might attack, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?

Logical fallacy.


----------



## basilio

Thank you Ruby. That was an excellent link to the Guardian article on why John Cook set up his Climate Skeptics site.

It certainly explains far better than I can the ways in which climate change  deniers  ignore observable facts, cherry pick information, create false arguments  and so on.

Certainly well worth reading and I'm sure the links explain his statements.

So what does he use as a base for his arguments ?


> To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. *There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. *As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> China might attack, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?
> 
> Logical fallacy.




BS response Wayne. On current evidence the probability that almost all climate scientists are right and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.  

A more equivalent situation would be the weather bureau predicting a force 5 cyclone coming within a few days and telling everyone to get out or get flattened.  There is always a chance the cyclone will veer away or loss strength.  But the smart money takes notice of what the science is saying and  takes action instead of ignoring it.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> The gospel according to preacher Basilio.




Nay calliope. Just my thoughts.

And I'm getting fed up with your snide, nasty comments to anyone who disagree with you.  I can see they are short and sharp but they just poison the discussion and should not be part of this forum.,

* Joe, Moderator's  over to you.*


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> *"Beliefs about change ? ".  In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.*




Why do you believe that, given that the climate was changing long before industrialisation?



basilio said:


> I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.
> 
> I accept the empirical evidence of  temperature measurements around he world that *our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms*.




The empirical evidence is that the world is *not *warming at a rapid rate in geological terms



basilio said:


> In particular as John Cook noted from research papers .......




Why do you think John Cook has credibility and Bob Carter has not?   John Cook is not a climate scientist. 



basilio said:


> I can also understand the bigger and longer picture of  how our climate has change and the various  factors that have influenced it.  In that sense I can see  the  capacity for various other factors at play.
> 
> *But in the end I accept the basic understandings I have and finally the collective knowledge and cross checked research of the vast majority of the scientific community.  *




Vast majority?  How do you know this?



basilio said:


> One could accept that the *science is not totally settled*........
> 
> ..........But the *big picture seems very clear* and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of  putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic.
> 
> .....I've already said that *one could closely question current theories and measurements.*




Hmmm!  I see contradiction there.  Which is it?



basilio said:


> On the big picture however I find it extremely hard to see how querying small elements of what is happening climatically will make a substantial difference to the overall story.




That is because you are not a scientist.   Small elements are often very important, and more are being discovered all the time



basilio said:


> ..... it  just demonstrates the proponent has no interest in observed facts and is willing to accept or make up anything that will support his/her case.




But this is what you are doing Bas.



basilio said:


> At that stage that person in my eyes has little credibility and particularly when they use their Professorial status to say they understand how science works. That's Professor Carter




Are you saying Prof Carter doesn't know how science works?



basilio said:


> There are scores of similar outright lies, cherry picked figures, illogical arguments and misinformation promoted by organization trying to stop decisive action on reducing greenhouse emissions. Again John Cook has taken each of these statements and pointed out what the observed facts are or the logical fallacies or the use of cherry picked data.




I think John Cook might be the one doing the cherry picking!   And I don't think anyone argues that we should keep trying to reduce our greenhouse emissions.  



basilio said:


> The problem for those who want to legitimately hold a skeptical view and query uncertain aspect of the science of AGW is that these areas are quite small and often  obscure. *(Much of science is obscure)* So the rest of the deniers (not genuine skeptics) simply throw in any sort of drivel with the view that if its said loud enough and often enough then we will accept it.




But you said the picture was clear.

Bas, there is one thing you keep ignoring.   You say 'we must take action to prevent this climate change' but there is nothing we can do in Australia that can stop it.  If we shut down tomrrow the difference would be miniscule.   Our climate has always changed and always will.

(I have added some bold type)


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Thank you Ruby. That was an excellent link to the Guardian article on why John Cook set up his Climate Skeptics site.
> 
> It certainly explains far better than I can the ways in which climate change  deniers  ignore observable facts, cherry pick information, create false arguments  and so on.
> 
> Certainly well worth reading and I'm sure the links explain his statements.
> 
> So what does he use as a base for his arguments ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science




You are ignoring his initial bias!!!   He is not a credible source, and if you do some further reading you will see that the IPCC peer review process has been largely discredited.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> On current evidence the probability that *almost all climate scientists are right *and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.




Bas, can you please explain what you mean by "almost all climate scientists are right"?  That is a very sweeping generalisation.  How do you know what "almost all" climate scientists think?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> BS response Wayne. On current evidence the probability that almost all climate scientists are right and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.




It is not BS. There is a flash point in Taiwan, they have a nuclear arsenal and a huge standing army and are known to harbour a grudge against the west.

Your 90% surety of catastrophic climate change is proven where? And yes almost all scientists agree... that is if you dis-include those who disagree. Sorry Bas, you are convincing nobody except yourself of these things.  



> A more equivalent situation would be the weather bureau predicting a force 5 cyclone coming within a few days and telling everyone to get out or get flattened.  There is always a chance the cyclone will veer away or loss strength.  But the smart money takes notice of what the science is saying and  takes action instead of ignoring it.




Incorrect.

The formation of cyclones is a well known phenomenon and the prediction is based on well worn patterns of weather... and of course the storm already existing. There is no leap of faith, the science is valid because of the predictability.

This analogy is nowhere near what is purported with catastrophic climate change and your use of such highlights the scientific non-sequitur you alarmists are fond of using, where no such predictability exists.


----------



## basilio

Ruby said:


> Bas, can you please explain what you mean by "almost all climate scientists are right"?  That is a very sweeping generalisation.  How do you know what "almost all" climate scientists think?




It is a generalization that is supported by research amongst climate scientists and their understandings of  how human produced CO2 is affecting our cliamte. The paper that establishes this fact is listed below. I attached the Abstract



> *Expert credibility in climate change*
> 
> William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 ,
> James W. Prall b ,
> Jacob Harold c , and
> Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1
> 
> + Author Affiliations
> 
> aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
> bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
> c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
> dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
> 
> Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. *Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.*




http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract?loc=interstitialskip

 ________________________________________________________________

With regard to Peter Cook's intention in setting up his website. He is trying to carefully explain the myriad stories that are thrown around to discredit the overwhelming evidence of AGW.  To do that he uses what he sees as the strongest available evidence - peer reviewed scientific  research. So if someone says  "volcanoes throw out more CO2 than us " they need to produce the evidence that this is so. 

The way to show this is a lie is to point to scientists in that field who have actually done the measurements and can show this is untrue. 

There are scores of other assertions. Each of these is similarly dealt with.  At this stage the response offered by those who want to  disagree with the findings is to dismiss almost all  peer reviewed research  that supports AGW and somehow put up ideas that are either proven to be wrong, irrelevant or half truths.

There is nothing new about this process. The Tobacco industry was faced with a similar problem in the 1950's when doctors made the link between smoking and lung cancer (as well as other throat, mouth etc cancers)  So the industry started a systemic public misinformation campaign and even established it's own Research institute to continue studies on the effects of smoking.   It took about 50 years for our societies to accept what scientists had established and to expose the deceptions of the Tobacco industry. (References available) 

This is no different. It's just that the stakes are far higher.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.




LOL - Nobody in this forum has provided any evidence of man's 3% of Global CO2 emissions drives Global temperatures. Unless your talking in the range of 1/1000th of a degree, also as CO2 increases, the strength of it's so called "greenhouse" ability  quickly diminishes.

The alarmists continue to be fraudulent on these very obvious facts, hence nobody in the Australian Government will debate it and nor will the alarmists here put up the observed evidence.

So far plenty of useless book posts by Basilio and Goti. Next book post?


----------



## Calliope

Ruby said:


> But you said the picture was clear.
> 
> Bas, there is one thing you keep ignoring.   You say 'we must take action to prevent this climate change' but there is nothing we can do in Australia that can stop it.  If we shut down tomrrow the difference would be miniscule.   Our climate has always changed and always will.




An excellent post, Ruby. You have effectively dismantled the alarmist warmist arguments. One would have to be indoctrinated to imagine that anything we do can alter the progress of climate changes.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> It is a generalization that is supported by research amongst climate scientists and their understandings of  how human produced CO2 is affecting our cliamte. The paper that establishes this fact is listed below. I attached the Abstract



Bas, a generalisation is not sufficient to assert that "almost all climate scientists agree..." when quite clearly they don't, and when dissent has been rigorously suppressed.  See link for one such instance.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmcl...lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/ 



basilio said:


> With regard to Peter Cook's intention in setting up his website. He is trying to carefully explain the myriad stories that are thrown around to discredit the overwhelming evidence of AGW.  To do that he uses what he sees as the strongest available evidence - peer reviewed scientific  research. So if someone says  "volcanoes throw out more CO2 than us " they need to produce the evidence that this is so.
> 
> The way to show this is a lie is to point to scientists in that field who have actually done the measurements and can show this is untrue.
> 
> There are scores of other assertions. Each of these is similarly dealt with.  At this stage the response offered by those who want to  disagree with the findings is to dismiss almost all  peer reviewed research  that supports AGW and somehow put up ideas that are either proven to be wrong, irrelevant or half truths.
> 
> There is nothing new about this process. The Tobacco industry was faced with a similar problem in the 1950's when doctors made the link between smoking and lung cancer (as well as other throat, mouth etc cancers)  So the industry started a systemic public misinformation campaign and even established it's own Research institute to continue studies on the effects of smoking.   It took about 50 years for our societies to accept what scientists had established and to expose the deceptions of the Tobacco industry. (References available)
> 
> This is no different. It's just that the stakes are far higher.




I am going to resist tempation to respond to the rest of your post and say only this...

John Cook is not a credible source for reasons I have already given.  

You seem to forget that the so called 'climate sceptics' *have nothing to prove*.  They merely *observe *what is happening (which is, after all, the scientific method*) and a lot of what is happening does not conform to the models and predictions of the IPCC (whose peer-reviewed papers are quoted by John Cook.)
*The scientific method is to take a theory or hypothesis and try and disprove it.  If it cannot be disproven then it is accepted by the scientific community as fact

All the vitriol, vilification, demonisation, personal attacks, death threats etc, are coming from those who promulgate the AWG theory - not those who are sceptics.  I wonder why that is???  If you don't believe me, read about the 'climategate' scandal - just google it - there are plenty of links - and you will see just how vitriolic it has become.

I would like to suggest to you (and this is done in good faith, because I once occupied a place in your camp) that you set aside your prejudices and read the info on this website with an open mind.... just to inform youself.  You may not change your mind, but you will have a better view of the situation.

http://joannenova.com.au/


----------



## Julia

Basilio, in response to your above cited basis for suggesting the majority of scientists are in agreement, the authors of your 'proof' and the affiliations don't necessarily provide reassurance, i.e.


> + Author Affiliations
> 
> aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
> bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
> c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
> dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305



Biology:  Electrical & Computer Engineering:  some foundation about which we know nothing:  a university department of environment.
From the abstract:



> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers *most actively publishing in the field* ...........




(The bolding is mine.)

The wording underlines once again the suggestion that the peer review process is tainted by the non-acceptance by scientific publications to accept research/opinion that doesn't align with their predefined conclusions.

It's the same principle as the Australian government's "MULTI PARTY Committee on Climate Change".  It's not multi party at all, because only those who - before the committee even began its so called investigations - had already declared their firm belief in AGW and that a carbon price was required.

This is the sort of manipulative stuff that so depresses those of us who would so like to see a genuinely objective evaluation with results that are not a foregone conclusion because of the undeniable bias of the participants.


----------



## Calliope

Ruby, you are right when you say. "that the so called 'climate sceptics' have nothing to prove." We are the ones being bombarded with misinformation and threats of global warming and inundation by rising seas. 

Some religions threaten their people with hell if they don't conform to their doctrines. These quasi-religious alarmist cranks are threatening us with hell on earth, and they know that even if their predictions come to pass there is nothing they can do about it.

So why are they intent on "proving" the dodgy science to to the sceptics with such evangelistic zeal? What are their motives?


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> What are their motives?




Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.




And yet, as posted on the other thread, even Mark Dreyfus, the Gillard Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency doesn't think Australia's carbon tax will reduce global temperatures for at least 50 years.  Maybe Flannery was spot on with his 1,000 years...

An email from the above secretary to one of Bolt's readers - 
full story here: Dreyfus: no cut in temperature under our tax


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.




Most of them use this tired old cliche. On the other hand you say the earth is overpopulated. Do you share the blame for this?


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Most of them use this tired old cliche. On the other hand you say the earth is overpopulated. Do you share the blame for this?




Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times.

First we need to face the fact that our comfort days *are *numbered.  I do but we need more followers to try and do something.


----------



## basilio

Okay lets respond to the dissection of an earlier post by Ruby.



> Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> "Beliefs about change ? ". In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.
> Why do you believe that, given that the climate was changing long before industrialization?




My quote says current and forseeable climate change. Other forces do act over a longer period of time. We are talking about additional impact of  mass human produced CO2



> I accept the empirical evidence of temperature measurements around he world that our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms.
> 
> The empirical evidence is that the world is not warming at a rapid rate in geological terms




This was one of the half truths used by Professor Carter. He and others have picked the last 10 year period used a temperature model that doesn't include Arctic temperatures and then tried to say the world is not warming at  a rapid rate. I showed the references demonstrating this when quoting Peter Cooks article.

Incidentally the last 10 years has seen escalating levels of ice melt in the Arctic and and Antarctic regions. These research around this data forms a critical part of understanding what the effects of further warming will be. 



> In particular as John Cook noted from research papers .......
> 
> Why do you think John Cook has credibility and Bob Carter has not? John Cook is not a climate scientist.




John Cook bases his argument on research that has been peer reviewed and published. He also does it in good faith in that he *accurately *reports what the researchers are saying.

 Bob Carter doesn't do that and in fact there is an extremely limited number of scientific papers that question the basic principles of AGW.

But going further than that when Professor Carter makes statements saying volcanoes produce as much or more CO2 than humans he destroys his credibility. Same goes for the comments about the Sahara become greener because of the extra CO2.  

I have already posted  a reference to show how the vast majority of current cliamte scientists support AGW.

I offered comments about scientists still learning more and more of  the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate. But that doesn't detract from the amount of knowledge already established and the direction this points.  Life is risk management. We often act on uncertain knowledge using the best information we have at present. 

If we choose to  accept the collective research and cross checking of 97% of climate scientists we take immediate decisive action. But of course you have to actually respect the skills and integrity of these scientists and it's clear in this forum that few people will argue with the research directly but prefer to invoke dishonesty, incompetence, a huge one world conspiracy idea 


_________________________________________________________

Regarding the Joanna Nova website. It is intriguing.  If it in fact reflected evidence of an alternative hypothesis regarding GW and had robust evidence to back it up I would expect to see references to papers published in scientific journals around the world. Is that the case ? 

________________________________________________________



> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field ...........
> (The bolding is mine.)
> 
> The wording underlines once again the suggestion that the peer review process is tainted by the non-acceptance by scientific publications to accept research/opinion that doesn't align with their predefined conclusion*s.  Julia*




Julia scientists live and breathe to make original ground breaking research. But a scientific paper can't just be an opinion piece with a set of made up or cherry picked data. The point of peer review and subsequent analysis and questioning is that other scientists want to make sure the story is logical and the data robust. And it's because of the lack of a logical thesis and good data that there is almost no peer reviewed published papers discrediting AGW.

BUT.... this doesn't stop some scientists from publishing all sorts of theories with accompanying data outside the scientific publishing world. And  that is often where much of the misinformation  comes. Professor Lindzen is an excellent example of this. In fact it was his (non published ) article that was the beginning of this thread and used by him to undercut  the work of the remainder of the scientific community.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> This was one of the half truths used by Professor Carter. He and others have picked the last 10 year period used a temperature model that doesn't include Arctic temperatures and then tried to say the world is not warming at  a rapid rate. I showed the references demonstrating this when quoting Peter Cooks article.
> 
> *Incidentally the last 10 years has seen escalating levels of ice melt in the Arctic and and Antarctic regions. These research around this data forms a critical part of understanding what the effects of further warming will be. *




Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, *the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years*. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, *the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded*.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225700043191#ixzz0sEAJvIYS

*GOSH* ........ now I don't know who to believe?


----------



## trainspotter

John Cook wrote this as well. _"The more interesting puzzle is that of Antarctic sea ice which has  increased since satellite measurements began in 1978."_

http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh the "land ice" is melting but the "sea ice" is getting bigger.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times..




Good one Your policy would wipe out the human race quicker than the global warming holocaust.


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, *the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years*. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
> 
> A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, *the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded*.
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225700043191#ixzz0sEAJvIYS
> 
> *GOSH* ........ now I don't know who to believe?




Rubbish.

http://www.universetoday.com/28643/data-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

And a carefull read of the latter which does talk about a current increase points out:



> Lead author Professor John Turner of BAS says:
> 
> “Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Good one Your policy would wipe out the human race quicker than the global warming holocaust.




A more humane way than chocking and starving to death.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> http://www.universetoday.com/28643/data-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/
> 
> http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
> 
> And a carefull read of the latter which does talk about a current increase points out:




But but but basillio wrote this ....... _"John Cook bases his argument on research that has been peer reviewed and published. He also does it in good faith in that he *accurately* reports what the researchers are saying."_

and I wrote this about which John Cook CLAIMED  _"The more interesting puzzle is that of Antarctic sea ice which has *increased *since satellite measurements began in 1978."_

http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-a...r-growing.html

So which one is it???? 

Trainspotters Law states _"For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"_

Very similar to Newtons Law


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Okay lets respond to the dissection of an earlier post by Ruby.
> 
> My quote says *current and forseeable climate change*. Other forces do act over a longer period of time. We are talking about additional impact of  mass human produced CO2




No Bas, your quote says "the *large majority* of current and foreseeable climate change."  Big difference.   *Please show me the proof of this.*

You have not properly responded to my post, so I am not going to continue having a circular argument with you.  

You choose to grant an insignificant non-authority like John Cook credibility because he agrees with you, even though he quotes from "peer reviewed" papers whose claims cannot be backed up by empirical data.

Oh, and incidentally, the "97% of scientists......." that you and others keep trotting out is 97% of a small group of about 75 scientists who responded to a poll.   Hardly indicative.

(my bolds)


----------



## Ruby

trainspotter said:


> Trainspotters Law states _"For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"_
> 
> Very similar to Newtons Law




Love it TS


----------



## trainspotter

And that would be game, set and match. Thank you linesmen and ballboys. Now back to you in central missionary position. :


----------



## tothemax6

explod said:


> Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times.



And what would that do? Australia's natural birth rate is below the replacement level. Let me explain what this means: given that there is approx 1 woman for each man, when a woman dies she must have given birth to two people, plus an additional amount to make up for women who die prior to doing the same, to maintain a stable (non expanding) population. This 'replacement level' is claimed to be about 2.1 in the West, for example.
Since Australia has a fertility rate (births per woman) of around 1.7 to 1.8, we have a naturally declining population. However, no one in Australia believes that Australia's population is declining. Why? Because it isn't, and it cannot, due to immigration.

Indeed, perhaps you should consult the worlds fertility statistics. A below replacement birth rate is the norm for the nations of Europe, for East Asia, for Russia, for Canada & Mexico, for Australia. A bare replacement rate is the norm for the US & NZ. [source CIA world factbook]
An above-replacement fertility rate can be found in North Africa, the near and middle east, and South Asia. Do you expect them to social engineer their fertility rates below 2.1, or send the surplus here, to Europe, and to Canada?

Your policy is stupid. Max rests his case.


Incidentally, has Climate Hysteria stopped yet? I hadn't being paying attention, its all boring nonsense anyway.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> I have already posted  a reference to show how the vast majority of current cliamte scientists support AGW.



And I, for one, have made it clear that I don't find this convincing.



> Life is risk management. We often act on uncertain knowledge using the best information we have at present.



What about the risk management situation for our economy and vital, well established industries?  You seem to completely fail to take into account the very obvious downside of your desire to see a tax introduced to make greenies feel good.



> If we choose to  accept the collective research and cross checking of 97% of climate scientists we take immediate decisive action. But of course you have to actually respect the skills and integrity of these scientists and it's clear in this forum that few people will argue with the research directly but prefer to invoke dishonesty, incompetence, a huge one world conspiracy idea



Perhaps with very good reason.  Just today Bob Brown said, in an interview where he was asked about the Greens' aspirations now that they are about to hold the balance of power in the Senate, he wanted to see a global government.
Doesn't this, fergawdsake, give you pause for thought?
But perhaps not, because presumably you have the same objective.




> Julia scientists live and breathe to make original ground breaking research. But a scientific paper can't just be an opinion piece with a set of made up or cherry picked data.



And exactly how would you know what sort of protocols have gone into any research which disagreed with what you want to believe?



> The point of peer review and subsequent analysis and questioning is that other scientists want to make sure the story is logical and the data robust.



Ah yes, in an ideal world.  But in the real world, where a predetermined agenda has been established, any research which disagrees with that agenda may simply not be accepted.  


> And it's because of the lack of a logical thesis and good data that there is almost no peer reviewed published papers discrediting AGW.



Really?  How exactly do you know this?  What way would you have of knowing everything that has been submitted to all scientific journals?


----------



## Calliope

trainspotter said:


> And that would be game, set and match. Thank you linesmen and ballboys. Now back to you in central missionary position. :




You got that right. The alarmist "experts" on these pages don't have a leg to stand on. They have as much credibility as Al Gore. I will still back common sense to beat the AGW dodgy science every time.


----------



## wayneL

What's this?

"Follow the money" as exhorted  by AGW alarmists?

I'm hearing stories of big oil funding of Greenpeace and other green organizations.

DYOR.


----------



## basilio

Well sussed out Wayne. I was certain you're eagle eye wouldn't miss the Greenpeace Big Oil connection 

As you know what Greenpeace has discovered is that Dr Willie Soon, astrophysicist to the masses,  scored about a $1m worth of support from Big Oil while he was busily producing a series of papers  knocking off AGW, decrying the effects of mercury in coal fired power stations and showing how polar bears are not affected by climate change.

Of course he denied that he had ever received any of these funds at the time because ( how strangely  !!.) questions might have been raised about conflicts of interest.  Just a little perjury.

Dear old Willie also comes in for some close attention because of his behavior in getting a paper published in a science journal which  tried to say the 20th Century was not the warmest on record in flat contradiction to all existing studies. 



> For example, in 2003 the reputable journal Climate Research published a paleoclimatological analysis that concluded, in flat contradiction to virtually all existing research, that the 20th century was probably not the warmest of the last millennium. This paper, partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute, attracted considerable public and political attention because it seemingly offered relief from the need to address climate change.
> 
> The paper also engendered some highly unusual fall-out.
> 
> First, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over its publication, including the incoming editor-in-chief who charged that “…some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”
> 
> This highly unusual mass resignation was followed by an even more unusual public statement from the publisher that acknowledged flaws in the journal’s editorial process.
> 
> Three editorial resignations and a publisher’s acknowledgement of editorial flaws are not standard scientific practice and call for further examination of the authors and the accepting editor.
> 
> The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools. (The people who teach such summer schools, actual climate scientists, published a scathing rebuttal of Soon’s paper.)




Check out just how  Big Oil pulls the strings of denier puppets at
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/american-climate-skeptic-soon-funded-oil-coal-firms-0

And for the complete story on Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review check out

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552

The whole Greenpeace report detailing the fundings for his various papers can be found at 
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...lie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

These are public record documents and the information comes from the various organizations that funded Dr Willie Soon.


----------



## noco

Here is another one of Rudd's DUDD schemes in coperation with that dudd Tim Flannery.

$90,000,000 of tax payers money down the drain.

Guess that is only 'peanuts' when one looks at the $135,000,000 this inept Green/Labor socialist left government borrows every day. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...green_investment_in_deep_strife/#commentsmore


----------



## trainspotter

> THE federal government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has celebrated his last day in the job with a stinging rebuke of the Australian media and a swipe at the most recent Liberal government.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...pe/story-e6frfku0-1226085077770#ixzz1QkMWpp6K


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Well sussed out Wayne. I was certain you're eagle eye wouldn't miss the Greenpeace Big Oil connection




Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.


----------



## explod

OzWaveGuy said:


> Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.




A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.

Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06


----------



## Ruby

trainspotter said:


> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...pe/story-e6frfku0-1226085077770#ixzz1QkMWpp6K




From the above link.....



> "This is a reform where the costs all come early and the benefits all come later - huge benefits, necessary benefits, if we care about the future generations of Australians."




Did I miss something?  I am still waiting for our illustrious leaders to tell me just what the benefits are going to be.


----------



## basilio

OzWaveGuy said:


> Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.




Thanks for the kind thoughts Ozzie.  Actually it's  shaping  up rather well. In point of  fact it's a PhD thesis  for the *Social Psychology of Climate Denial  Journal.*  Still considering the title but at the amount the working headline is

"_Dissertation on the Culpability of Climate Scientists for Fostering  Climate Hysteria amongst Credulous Environmentalists _"  

Will probably need some release forms from your good self and other forum participants for using your prescient insights  and I'd (respectfully..)ask for a focus group peer -review process to ensure I have accurately represented all the arguments put forward to demolish the current scientific communities  mistakes and misunderstandings.

Cheers 
_
PS Hope that wasn't too long for you Ozzie.._


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.
> 
> Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06




I would agree that ice reduction in Greenland is due to ice melting under increasing temperatures, but whether that is due to "global warming" is a bit harder to swallow. 

The ice in Greenland has been to-ing and fro-ing for millenia, that is why it is called The Green Land, it was much warmer in the past.

gg


----------



## bandicoot76

wayneL said:


> What's this?
> 
> "Follow the money" as exhorted  by AGW alarmists?
> 
> I'm hearing stories of big oil funding of Greenpeace and other green organizations.
> 
> DYOR.




i posted info on this very subject previously! the big oil companies made a killing on the european carbon markets! take it one step further & see who owns controlling shareholdings in these greeny supporting 'big oil' companies... the truth shall set you freeeeeeee!


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would agree that ice reduction in Greenland is due to ice melting under increasing temperatures, but whether that is due to "global warming" is a bit harder to swallow.
> 
> The ice in Greenland has been to-ing and fro-ing for millenia, that is why it is called The Green Land, it was much warmer in the past.
> 
> gg




Well this report stated "..is due to global warming"  but a nice little tip toe there gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.
> 
> Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06




Well blow me down Proof at last! Now we just need to find how CO2 has pulled earth out of the previous ice ages


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.



And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?


----------



## ghotib

I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board. 

Ghoti


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?





You can probably expect a curt PM from Basilio as he sent me when he refused to answer my persistent question as to how much Australia can actually in reduce global emissions when we emit a tiny 1.3%...

Some questions of ours are simply not convenient...


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
> 
> Ghoti




Ghoti, that may be so, but I do think the labor government have brought AGW to the surface through the threat of a tax.  

Here is an excerpt from the Morgan Poll which shows that many believe humans are responsible for a tiny 1% of global c02 emissions and the majority also believe that the carbon tax will make no difference.  Pro AGW people can claim science all they like, but at the end of the day when it comes to a new tax, voters will have the last say and not cherry picked science papers.  And I think Aussie voters are becomming more cynical by the day, not only to carbon tax, but also to the AGW excuse being used for it.



> A clear majority of Australian electors (67%) are aware that Australia is responsible for about 1% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions and a majority (64%) believes that Australia’s proposed carbon tax will make no difference to the world’s climate. However, 52% of ALP supporters and 67% of Greens supporters believe a carbon tax will make a difference to the world’s climate compared to only 15% of L-NP supporters.




Source: Roy Morgan Poll June 03, 2011


----------



## trainspotter

ghotib said:


> I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
> 
> Ghoti




Trainspotters Law will take care of that. I can post 50 relevant national and international scientific associations that will negate this furphy.

Do you mean the 97% of scientists (all 75 of them) out of a possible 1800 that responded?

Or do you mean the Al Gore style of "inconvenient truth" ? He owns the company that stands to make billions out of carbon credits?

Or what about the Himalayan Glaciers melting IPCC retraction? LOL

Or are you talking about as recent as basillios John Cook Observation?? Read it and weep

All of which I will not add a link to as I have already done so on previous posts !

Or do you mean with Professor Garnaut stated it will take 1000 years before we reduce global temps by 0.1% by a carbon tax???

Which one is it ghotib??


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.
> 
> Ghoti




I can hear a broken record once again....Ghoti, please keep reminding us as we are  forgetting about the big disclaimers that come with these "important" associations who are funded by those that want a tax

Can one enter into a realm of negative credibility? I guess you could call it delusional.


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?




I have become pretty flippant about discussing this issue in this forum because frankly discussions basic on logic and  seemingly clear evidence are just swept off the table. But (at the certainty of repeating much of what I have already said ) I will offer a response to your questions Julia.

You rejected my noting the support of 1373 plus  publishing  climate scientists for AGW versus a handful who are either agnostic or favour another theory. I can't change the figures or your views but surely such an overwhelming preponderance of expert knowledge should give one food for thought ? When a person can  summarily dismiss such an overwhelming* expert * acceptance of a situation what will they accept ?

*The risk management argument you raise.* Julia IF,  for arguments sake,  all these scientists are right and the observations of rising temperatures with the threat of much more to come are fulfilled we face an absolute cataclysm.  At the very least there will be large increases in sea levels which will destroy most sea side cities  In fact there are two separate reports out in the last couple of days which point to rapidly rising melt levels in Greenland and warm water getting under the Antarctic ice fields and threatening to send these into the ocean. 

And let's not  even look at the clearly predictable consequences of 2-3-4 degree increase in global temperatures. So what is worse on balance ? A rapid re engineering of our worlds energy sources to renewable energy (with the inevitable economic cost that would require ) versus flooding most of the large population centres and turning much of the world into a desert ?

And  Julia what were you thinking when you quoted my statement about accepting the integrity and competence of cliamte scientists and then talked about Bob Brown and one world government ?  It has no relevance to the discussion and was just a smelly red herring. Are you suggesting that all these scientists are somehow part of a one world conspiracy cabal ? Perhaps it's worth separating the quality of evidence supporting the case for AGW and then "how the hell do we fix it ?".  They are two separate questions.

Now to the question of the quality of scientific papers that propose other theories to explain temperature rises or offer  data to contradict what is being currently observed. It's actually pretty hard to misconstrue data when they have to go through a peer review process. Essentially the paper has to  demonstrate how they arrived at their figures and the assumptions made  at each stage. If there are either mistakes, genuine errors or sometimes deliberate errors  other scientists in the field can bring them up for attention. These can be corrected or if the error makes the paper a complete farce it won't be published. *In peer reviewed science you can't just make up figures and breathtaking  assumptions and get away with it. *

Again on this topic of peer reviewed papers I just noted how Dr Willie Soon's contributions to the GW debate (as well as other topics) were largely a corrupted set of figures. The fact that he had been paid by Big Oil and the coal companies etc to do this just made it worse. One of the tricks that is done by some scientists is to present  seemingly learned scientific papers outside the peer review process and bank on their name to have them accepted by  groups who want to believe them. They can say what they like in the public forum and obviously many do.
*
But it doesn't make it honest or accurate . *

It's one of the farces of this debate that GW deniers take a query or a half truth and then thunder forever about the totally baseless claims of climate scientists. For example the  "infamous" "hockey stick" debate. Deniers have spent a decade trying to say this was a lie and thus discredit all GW research.

The wiki story on this issue is a detailed and excellent summary of how scientists went about their work and how measurements were checked, improved ,extended and *verified.* It's interesting to note that one of the first scientists to challenge this data was Dr Willie Soon and that his paper had  such a host of errors that three of the research editors resigned. And you can see how deniers used this issue to beat the hell out of climate scientists  when in fact - * it was all true. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

________________________________________________________________-

A bit over a week ago I posted a blog from a long time climate skeptic who decided that the evidence supporting AGW was finally sufficient to persuade him. This was interesting enough but I thought his comments to  both parties on how to approach the issue were worth sharing because they offered a constructive alternative. Apart from Waynes derisory dismissal no one else chose to discuss it. Shame. See post 2232, 2233

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hange-sceptics
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/...rming-skeptic/
______________________________________________________________

PS I think I'll take a break from this topic and finish my theseses ..


----------



## trainspotter

LOL ...... you used John Cook to test the veracity of your claims as *accurate* and he backpedalled in saying the ice is increasing./decreasing LMAO

Just as well you need to take a break


----------



## basilio

Just to reinforce a comment I made previously concerning the bad faith character of scientists who attempted to discredit climate scientists. This refers to the Willie Soon paper which tried to discredit the Michael  Mann hockey stick .



> The Soon-Baliunas article claimed that the twentieth century was not the warmest century in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. This sham science kicked off a heavy focus by deniers on the “hockey stick” study first done by Michael Mann, later proven sound by numerous other studies, but viciously attacked by deniers regardless.
> 
> Mann himself, in an interview, said of the Soon-Baliunas 2003 paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It really was one of the poorest pieces of scholarship that any of us in the climate research community had ever seen… it was clear that there was an effort by some on the editorial board to compromise the PR (peer review) process and allow through this deeply, deeply flawed paper in the professional literature where it was immediately held up by those in Washington opposed to taking action against climate change… as somehow being the dagger in the heart of the case for global warming, when in fact it was just an extremely bad study that never should have published…"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Soon-Baliunas article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch.  V*on Storch declared the article seriously flawed because "the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper." In addition to the resignations, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas had misinterpreted their work*.
Click to expand...



http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...lie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

This is why there is peer review process.

___________________________________________________________________

Trainspotter.  When anyone actually reads that article they will find out so much more accurately the loss of ice in the Antarctic. 

There is no point discussing this topic with you when you reduce the content to one line.

Bye


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Well blow me down Proof at last! Now we just need to find how CO2 has pulled earth out of the previous ice ages




This has been explained to you before in nice easy to understand language. You may recall the explanation followed on from your discovery that there had been ice ages on the Earth in recent geological times. Allow me to refresh your memory about the Milankovitch Cycles:



OzWaveGuy said:


> Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, *but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago*.
> 
> I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
> 
> *So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate* in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?






derty said:


> lol, you spend all this time regurgitating the anti-AGW meme's. Discount out of hand any rational explanation presented to you. All while displaying that you have no real understanding of any of the basic history, cycles and processes of the Earth. No wonder all this stuff you post up seems rational to you.
> 
> *Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these cold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.
> 
> These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.*
> 
> The Milankovitch Cycles




Ruby you should read the wiki link too, this is the reason CO2 lags the temperature rise during exit from the ice age by several centuries.


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> You can probably expect a curt PM from Basilio as he sent me when he refused to answer my persistent question as to how much Australia can actually in reduce global emissions when we emit a tiny 1.3%...
> 
> Some questions of ours are simply not convenient...




Or in my case, he appealed to the Moderators to shut me down when I dared to criticise his long-winded preaching.


----------



## basilio

> Or in my case, he appealed to the Moderators to shut me down when I dared to criticise his long-winded preaching.




Actually Calliope it was because you continually make nasty, snide personal comments about *all *forum members who disagree with you. And I said it makes this an unpleasant place to to be in and poisons the discussion.

And I'm not asking for you to be shut down - simply to be polite or leave

Thanks


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Trainspotter.  When anyone actually reads that article they will find out so much more accurately the loss of ice in the Antarctic.
> 
> There is no point discussing this topic with you when you reduce the content to one line.
> 
> Bye




Oh really? 



> *Antarctic Ice Melt Lowest Ever Measured *That's the sensational headline anyway. Is it part of a significant downward trend though? Here's a graph of ice melt anomaly from the paper: An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
> 
> You can use the g3data software to pull data points (that's what I did) if you want to run your own analysis with R. Does a simple statistical analysis support the claim that "there seems to be a downward trend"?
> 
> What does that model summary output mean? There really is NOT a significant downward trend of melt anomaly with years (there's no first order trend in fact). It's not measurably different from noise. How does this square with the recent reports of runaway melting though?
> 
> Whether the ice is melting to much or too little,
> 
> *The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.*-- DR. DAVID WOJICK, UN IPCC expert reviewer, PhD in Philosophy of Science, co-founded Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University
> 
> These recent posts about climate change stuff were inspired by a post I read about climate change skeptics, which I found because of my Google alerts on things related to 'computational fluid dynamics'. In the post she mentions Freeman Dyson, he's a pretty smart guy.
> 
> Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data.
> 
> *It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.*-- Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, fellow of the American Physical Society, member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London
> 
> My favourite quote on the whole mess, a level-headed engineer from MIT quoted in a short article:
> 
> Mort Webster, assistant professor of engineering systems, warned that public discussion over climate change policies gets framed as a debate between the most extreme views on each side. "The world is ending tomorrow, versus it's all a myth," he said. "Neither of those is scientifically correct or socially useful."




http://www.variousconsequences.com/2009/10/antarctic-ice-melt-lowest-ever-measured.html

That was a measured response. What about this then? 



> The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - *was unfounded.*
> 
> The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

Not good enough for you then how about this pineapple?



> A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades *It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. *The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com  Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, *who obligingly "adjusted" *the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .




http://www.nzclimatescience.net

*WARNING* WARNING* WARNING*



> Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
> Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms,




Read more: Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40445#ixzz1PIOA3so9

Go ahead Punk .... Make my day.



> The reason it snowed more this winter over North America in the Global Warming camp was because of warmer temperatures, yet it contained less water equivalent. That is odd because warmer temperatures hold more water than cold temperatures. Interesting. As we progress into Spring, the warmingistas proclaim all the severe weather and flooding is a direct result of warming the planet. If the Earth is warmer in all facets, then you have LESS baroclinic clashes of air masses and less severe weather threats. The atmosphere just does not work this way. This is like saying that the reason it is colder right now is because it is warmer.




http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/05/15/global-warming-equals-political-real-world-equals-cooling/

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh that's better now.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Actually Calliope it was because you continually make nasty, snide personal comments about *all *forum members who disagree with you. And I said it makes this an unpleasant place to to be in and poisons the discussion.
> 
> And I'm not asking for you to be shut down - simply to be polite or leave
> 
> Thanks




In future I will try to be nice to you. You, on the other hand should try not to be so thin skinned. My problem is that I don't suffer fools gladly, especially those who proselytise. However I apologise if I have damaged your ego.

Incidently Ross Garnaut has the same problem with _The Australian_ that you have with me.



> "I reflect upon the media treatment especially the News Ltd group of this complex issue of immense importance for long-term Australian prosperity, and I don't think many people would say we have had a media presentation of the issues as thorough, as reliable and informed as we had as a basis for the reform era of Australia," Professor Garnaut said.
> 
> His comments followed an appraisal by The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan yesterday that Professor Garnaut's last report was "astoundingly poor, relying on various sleights of hand, misrepresentations and propaganda techniques".
> 
> Sheridan said Professor Garnaut had "sacrificed his reputation as a serious policy intellectual and will be remembered for having produced a shoddy report in the interests of partisan campaigning".




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...media-as-he-goes/story-fn961iy1-1226085169303


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I see the alarmists focus is off the barrier reef and back onto ice again - yawn. Ice here this morning, but it melted by 9, I'm taxing my neighbours as I'm sure it was their CO2 that did it.

If someone can please help the gullible alarmists with some observed evidence of man's 0.00112% of atmosphere contribution causing massive shifts in ice, a burning planet and 100m, er, no, I think it was 60m, er, maybe no, it was 30m, umm, perhaps it was 20 feet, nope it was 12 feet, er 1m, ah damn I forgot sea level rise....

.....then we would all be grateful. Otherwise Basilio will have to cut down a couple more rain forests when he prints his Climate Alarmist book based on his posts here and be forced to ask Al Gore to fly it around in his personal jet. There goes the earth by another 6 degrees, er, um, no it's actually 4.5, perhaps with the latest data it's 3, huh, oh, it's changed again now 2, er, what? we can't go negative now - what a travesty, let's hide the decline and leave it at 6.


----------



## Calliope

OzWaveGuy said:


> I see the alarmists focus is off the barrier reef and back onto ice again - yawn. Ice here this morning, but it melted by 9, I'm taxing my neighbours as I'm sure it was their CO2 that did it.
> 
> If someone can please help the gullible alarmists with some observed evidence of man's 0.00112% of atmosphere contribution causing massive shifts in ice, a burning planet and 100m, er, no, I think it was 60m, er, maybe no, it was 30m, umm, perhaps it was 20 feet, nope it was 12 feet, er 1m, ah damn I forgot sea level rise....
> 
> .....then we would all be grateful. Otherwise Basilio will have to cut down a couple more rain forests when he prints his Climate Alarmist book based on his posts here and be forced to ask Al Gore to fly it around in his personal jet. There goes the earth by another 6 degrees, er, um, no it's actually 4.5, perhaps with the latest data it's 3, huh, oh, it's changed again now 2, er, what? we can't go negative now - what a travesty, let's hide the decline and leave it at 6.




Not to mention that the polar bears have to swim further.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> I will offer a response to your questions Julia.
> 
> *The risk management argument you raise.* Julia IF,  for arguments sake,  all these scientists are right and the observations of rising temperatures with the threat of much more to come are fulfilled we face an absolute cataclysm.  At the very least there will be large increases in sea levels which will destroy most sea side cities  In fact there are two separate reports out in the last couple of days which point to rapidly rising melt levels in Greenland and warm water getting under the Antarctic ice fields and threatening to send these into the ocean.



I can't believe you failed to comprehend my question which was to do with the risks to our economy.  Rather, you decline to address the question (as you have with my other questions).  We can only assume you haven't even bothered to consider the economic repercussions from the proposed tax and simply don't care about this.

It would be more honest of you to simply say "I am not going to answer your questions because I cannot or I just don't know.  Moreover, I don't care, " than to once again regurgitate the same old obfuscatory stuff.


----------



## ghotib

Has anyone here read the Garnaut reports or the Stern report, even just an executive summary? They addressed economic aspects, short and long term, of global warming and possible responses to it, including the costs of failing to do anything. I'm not suggesting they are the final word, but it would be nice to read a critique based on what they actually said instead  of what someone assumes they didn't think of. 

Same goes for climate science of course. So much attempted debunking of claims that were never made. It's all rather sad.


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> I can't believe you failed to comprehend my question which was to do with the risks to our economy.  Rather, you decline to address the question (as you have with my other questions).  We can only assume you haven't even bothered to consider the economic repercussions from the proposed tax and simply don't care about this.
> 
> It would be more honest of you to simply say "I am not going to answer your questions because I cannot or I just don't know.  Moreover, I don't care, " than to once again regurgitate the same old obfuscatory stuff.




Julia, it is very obvious that the economic risks are more than that, they will be catastrophic.   Climate change unfortunately *is coming to a place near you*.   

So we have a problem and trying to stop the problem because of economics is not going to work, we cannot for example give the climate a pay rise or offer a bribe.   We are going to have to change drastically the way we live in and occupy our fragile planet.

Not a big Barry Jones fan myself but he does know his science and his article on just this issue in the Age newspaper today is a very good one for objective readers:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ysteria-fear-and-populism-20110630-1gsuj.html

]


----------



## MACCA350

explod said:


> Climate change unfortunately *is coming to a place near you*.



Er, it's been here for millions of years already

Cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

MACCA350 said:


> Er, it's been here for millions of years already
> 
> Cheers




Well said 

gg


----------



## explod

MACCA350 said:


> Er, it's been here for millions of years already
> 
> Cheers




Not at the current rate, ever.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> Not at the current rate, ever.




Lol - i guess when you have mann's failed hockey stick as wallpaper then the rate is exponential wherever you look.

Rate of warming and cooling has been consistent, however, the alarmists will use their corrupt data to prove otherwise - hockey anyone?


----------



## Wysiwyg

Reality via agreement.


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Has anyone here read the Garnaut reports or the Stern report, even just an executive summary? They addressed economic aspects, short and long term, of global warming and possible responses to it, including the costs of failing to do anything.



I haven't read every single word but I've had a look some time ago...

In short and from memory, there seemed to be serious flaws in relation to fossil fuel reserves and likely discovery rates to the point that future emissions scenarios are unrealistic. That being so, the rest of the report is necessarily academic in nature since it does not reflect a likely real world scenario.

It's a bit like writing a report about the upcoming world tour of my band. It all sounds plausible until you realise that I have never been part of any musical band, can not play any instruments, and aren't too good at singing either. Once you realise that fatal flaw, you necessarily come to the conclusion that a world tour is unlikely and as such any plans in relation to it are purely academic since there will in practice be no tour.

Given that discovery rates for conventional crude oil are by most credible (non-political) estimates falling well short of consumption, a major shakeup of fossil fuel use is inevitable with or without the CO2 issue. The same applies to coal reserves in China and gas in a number of countries. Any prediction based on "business as usual" growth in consumption is thus meaningless since resource constraints and the consequent economics (ie lower productivity / higher costs) mean that recent past trends are highly unlikely to be sustained.

In short, it's the classic trap of looking at recent past performance and assuming it will continue. It's what happens with every market bubble and yes, I am indeed saying that oil production (and to a lesser extent other fuels) is in a bubble that will not likely continue increasing as it has in recent decades. I'd have thought any credible study into climate change would at least properly acknowledge this situation.

Coal - If China is going to keep relying on it then it is going to be imported coal that they burn. It seems that their investment in coal-fired power and other uses thus far, already requires more coal over the lifetime of those plants than the total known Chinese coal reserves. If China is going to keep relying on coal, then there's an outright boom coming for coal exporters such as Australia. It also suggests future consumption growth probably won't be as high as many are assuming due to the increased costs of extraction and transport. This is a point of major relevance that has been overlooked.

Oil & gas - as easily accessible reserves are used up, extraction and delivery (eg gas as LNG rather than locally via pipeline) costs are rapidly increasing. For oil that is global, for gas that affects some countries only at this stage. The bottome line however is that economics suggests that under this situation, future demand will be lower than would be assumed based on historic consumption trends.

Without using plausible future emissions scenarios and fuel prices, the rest of it becomes rather academic in nature...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's bloody cold tonight in Townsville.

No signs of the Globe warming.

gg


----------



## IFocus

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future. 

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.


----------



## Wysiwyg

> The same applies to coal reserves in China and gas in a number of countries. Any prediction based on "business as usual" growth in consumption is thus meaningless since resource constraints and the consequent economics (ie lower productivity / higher costs) mean that recent past trends are highly unlikely to be sustained.



 Doesn't appear that China or USA are reducing coal fired power stations to supply electricity.


> U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plant Summary –Year 2010 1/8/2010 –12/13/2010
> • Eleven new coal-plants totaling 6,682 MW were Commissioned in 2010; the most in 25 years



While China just keeps building and burning more. Clean coal their preferred solution. So much for those Green beans with their save the world in ten years plan. 


> TIANJIN, China ”” China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.
> *But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, **mastering the technology and driving down the cost.*


----------



## Wysiwyg

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.



I wonder why they apparently care at all. Nearing or at retirement they won't need employment in industry or industry related jobs.


----------



## springhill

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.
> 
> The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and *the rally's for filled with future generations.*
> 
> This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.
> 
> Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.
> 
> They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.




There is a reason the silverbacks, not the up and coming adolescents control their gorilla family, they are experienced in the ways of life.
Gen Y don't have enough life experience to know the ways of lying-assed politicians and those that will fill the heads of the young and stupid with rose coloured visions of people power conquering those evil corporation types. Give them a catch phrase and a youtube vid with a celebrity pushing some feel-good agenda and they will eat it, hook line and sinker.
That is the modus operandi to suck in the young and dumb, most of these Gen Y's have never read a news paper cover-to-cover, or googled to find the counter balance to the left wing taxing-fixes-everything agenda, they are too busy googling Bieber. For the few Gen Y's out there that have, hopefully there is more than we think, i'm sure aren't just swimming along like schools of herring.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.
> 
> The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.
> 
> This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.



Anything Green or otherwise to the Left has always tended to appeal more to the young (most notably uni students) whilst as people age their views tend to drift more to the Right.

I was absolutely a supporter of conservationists (the Greens as such not existing at the time) many years ago. Then I finished school and the first party I ever voted for was Labor. In due course my views drifted further away from the Left, though I still can't vote Liberal whilst they cling on to that religion nonsense. 

I remember very well a political debate (with actual candidates attending) when I was in year 11 or 12. Probably 85% supported Bob Brown, and the rest were with Labor. Nobody, and I mean nobody, dared express any support for the Liberals. Pretty obviously, that doesn't reflect the view of the population as a whole, even though it reflected the view of 16 - 18 year olds at the time.

Based on what I've observed over the history of the party's existence, I'd say that the support base of the Greens is largely at either end of the spectrum. Young uni students etc at one end, high income professionals at the other.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.
> 
> The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.
> 
> This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.
> 
> Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.
> 
> They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.




Probably more representative of the canard, 

" If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are a socialist when you are old, you have no brains."

When I was a young boomer I was out there getting whacked by coppers, now I am in agreement with the anti Carbon Tax mob.

gg


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> Not at the current rate, ever.




Yes, Explod, at the current rate, often!!!


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> Yes, Explod, at the current rate, often!!!




Okay, explain it in your own words without quoting others or a heap of text.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.



Ah, jolly good:  here we go again with the stupid mass generalisations about any age cohort.  Can't you just perhaps think for yourself instead of incessantly subscribing to such a cliche?



> The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.



I can't help myself here, although I usually refrain from correcting spelling, there is no such word as 'rally's', unless perhaps someone called 'rally' were to be indicating something belonging to him/her.
Try "rallies", a simple plural of "rally".




> This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.
> 
> Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.
> 
> They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.



What utter piffle!   I'm a baby boomer and fairly typical amongst my friends and acquaintances of this generation.  If there are additional costs as a result of a carbon tax, it isn't going to materially affect our standard of living in the slightest.

I'm way more concerned about the impact on those individuals and families who are not well off, and who are already very stressed about the rising cost of living.

But most of all, I'm simply outraged about a government, in its state of being held hostage to the nutty Greens, which is about to impose on the whole population a tax which even they or their 'advisers' have openly admitted will make no difference to the climate, *especially in the light of any such similar action being taken by major emitters of the dreaded carbon dioxide.*

So, IF, kindly save your irrational generalisations and misconceived conclusions for someone more vulnerable to stupidity than most of the members of this forum.


----------



## trainspotter

Julia said:


> But most of all, I'm simply outraged about a government, in its state of being held hostage to the nutty Greens, which is about to impose on the whole population a tax which even they or their 'advisers' have openly admitted will make no difference to the climate, especially in the light of any such similar action being taken by major emitters of the dreaded carbon dioxide.




I am so down with this it is not funny.


----------



## medicowallet

IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.
> 
> The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.
> 
> This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.
> 
> Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.
> 
> They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.




In addition to what Julia and GG wrote:

Ifocus, when you learn about the real world, you will then realise that the government wants to take you for a ride. 

Do some research into CO2 and then, when you have made up your own mind, then come back and post in 10 years time.

Something that generally comes with life experience is looking at something for yourself, as opposed to just taking what other people say (whatever their own focus is influences what they say).

The worst thing anyone can ever do is trust what people say, without thinking for themselves.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Not at the current rate, ever.




This has been the coldest winter in Qld for a while, so I don't know what you are on about, explod.  Skies are still wonderfully blue and clear on fine days.  Weather cycles seems just as normal as 50+ years ago.





IFocus said:


> Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.




But what will carbon tax actually achieve?  I posted an email the other day from Mark Dreyfus who stated that temperatures will not fall with carbon tax even up to the next 50 years.  It seems very unlikely that carbon tax will do a thing for the environment - so how does that make anyone (let alone baby boomers) selfish for resisting this unnecessary tax imposition?

And before you go on about baby boomers being selfish, there are more baby boomer grandparents helping to look after grandchildren than I think in any other time in history.  And that's often an expensive process.  Most raised their own families and then have had to almost do it all over again so both parents can work and some times because the kid's parent/s can't cope.

Some baby boomers have helped their kids get into the housing market, paid for education, etc.  Calling them selfish is rude and unnecessary, imo.

There are selfish and unselfish people in every generation, so please go somewhere else with your generalisations.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> But what will carbon tax actually achieve?  I posted an email the other day from Mark Dreyfus who stated that temperatures will not fall with carbon tax even up to the next 50 years.  It seems very unlikely that carbon tax will do a thing for the environment - so how does that make anyone (let alone baby boomers) selfish for resisting this unnecessary tax imposition?




The carbon tax is about attitude.  Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.

I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.

And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds.  If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.

So we have to take some reponsibility.

Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean.  Happened before, sure but not at this speed.   Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.

And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes.   Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times.  And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The carbon tax is about attitude.  Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.
> 
> I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.
> 
> And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds.  If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.
> 
> So we have to take some reponsibility.
> 
> Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean.  Happened before, sure but not at this speed.   Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.
> 
> And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes.   Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times.  And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.




Explod, how do you separate carbon from carbon dioxide? Do you have to put it through a strainer?


----------



## joea

explod said:


> The carbon tax is about attitude.  Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.
> 
> I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.
> 
> And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds.  If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.
> 
> So we have to take some reponsibility.
> 
> Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean.  Happened before, sure but not at this speed.   Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.
> 
> And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes.   Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times.  And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.




I think you have summed it up very well.
But I think the timing is the problem. With our economy in a spiral down, add Gillards interference and Swan saying we are in great shape, well something has to come to a head.
I believe there has to be a change, but I read that (some) but probably not enough, company's are reducing energy etc, but Gillard will not admitt it.
joea


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I haven't noticed any erosion or abnormal high tides at the Strand in Townsville or at Cungulla where I sometimes go fishing with some mates.

Lots of crocs, no erosion.

When does the sea start to rise according to the theory of Al Gore and the other alarmists.?

gg


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> .
> I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes.




So your children were indoctrinated at school? Indoctrination is not science. Whoever told them this, were themselves indoctrinated.

And by the way, does your policy of one child per family apply only to the third world, and not to the Green Plods?:shake:


----------



## joea

In last weeks Australian, there is a article by Tim Flannery on Carbon Dating.
He refers to Stager who states "55 million years ago when a vast pulse of greenhouse gas entered the atmosphere, caused a reddish colour in the sea and caused the extintion of some marine life."

Well I was involvedin setting up a prawn farm with MCM.

We refer to this reddish colour as "toxic algae". It comes about by excess phosphorus in the water.
In prawn farming you create a green bloom to prevent the sunlight causing growth on the bottom of the pond. "algal bloom"
This bloom also is a source of food for small prawns etc.

So if Tim Flannery can use such a event to scare people about " toxic algae", and then link it to climate change, people are going to be reading a lot of rubbish. 

But then most of you know that. Just thought I would mention it.
joea


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean.  Happened before, sure but not at this speed.




WTF?? China is flooded !!!!!! June 17th 2011 this happened.



> *China has mobilized troops to help with flood relief and raised its disaster alert to the highest level after days of downpours forced the evacuation of more than half a million people in central and southern provinces*.




http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/17/us-china-floods-idUSTRE75F5W220110617

Texas is in a drought BUT GUESS WHAT ??? It has happened before and the trend is *WETTER!*

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/04/drought-history-in-texas.html



> Recall the meaning of the PDSI, in which values of -2 to -3 are "moderate drought", -3 to -4 are "severe drought", and -4 and below are "extreme drought".  So the current value of about -3.2 is indeed a severe drought.  At least if the PDSI is to be believed, it's not unprecedented however: *I count 15 different years which have had a lower PDSI in March than 2011*.
> 
> I've also added a trendline, which you will note slopes upward (ie to wetter conditions).  However, a regression comes up with a slope of 0.0056  ± 0.0075 PDSI units/year - ie. the trend is smaller than the uncertainty and so it's not a statistically significant trend.  *At any rate, there certainly is no evidence in the record that Texas is getting drier overall *(at least in March, at least so far).







So the ice shelf is falling into the sea at an unprecedented rate eh? NASA and USCS do not support this theory.



> "The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me," Tulaczyk said. *"Within the past 200 years, the ice sheet seems to have switched fairly rapidly from a negative mass balance to a positive mass balance."*




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm

The situation is perplexing


----------



## noco

My youngest son spent 6 months in Antarctica a couple of years ago and he told me ice falls into sea every summer. When he first arrived at Davis base, the Aurora Australis (ship) stopped 4km from the base and they had to walk over the ice to get to the camp. That was in mid October.

Whitin 2-3 weeks of his arrival the 1.5m of ice had melted and the next supply ship was able to dock at Davis. 

Yes, the ice falls into the sea every summer; big deal according to the Climate Change Alarmists.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> Anything Green or otherwise to the Left has always tended to appeal more to the young (most notably uni students) whilst as people age their views tend to drift more to the Right.
> 
> I was absolutely a supporter of conservationists (the Greens as such not existing at the time) many years ago. Then I finished school and the first party I ever voted for was Labor. In due course my views drifted further away from the Left, though I still can't vote Liberal whilst they cling on to that religion nonsense.
> 
> I remember very well a political debate (with actual candidates attending) when I was in year 11 or 12. Probably 85% supported Bob Brown, and the rest were with Labor. Nobody, and I mean nobody, dared express any support for the Liberals. Pretty obviously, that doesn't reflect the view of the population as a whole, even though it reflected the view of 16 - 18 year olds at the time.
> 
> Based on what I've observed over the history of the party's existence, I'd say that the support base of the Greens is largely at either end of the spectrum. Young uni students etc at one end, high income professionals at the other.




At that time Smurf you were likely to be concerned about the future of the environment rightly so. Australia continues to lead the world in extinction of threaten and endangered wild life with absolutely no change in pace of that trend. 

As for the Greens they seem more worried about gay rights that the environment these days.

Back to the future

The future for the generations to follow the selfish baby boomers isn't all that rosy as the ratio of workers supporting retirees changes quite dramatically. Nothing new here including lack of sufficient action by the BB's other than excuses.

I say selfish because BB's are, they failed to provide enough savings to provide for their retirement even though they have more than enough information as to what was going to happen.

They are selfish as they blow their money on rampant consumerism bigger cars, bigger houses, etc regardless of the fact that they have more than enough resources available to provide for their future, longer life spans, health care and retirement costs. But nope they expect some one else to pay...........

Similar to all the _rally's_ now taking place of selfish  gray hairs who polling has shown are not willing to pay one cent regardless of whether they believe in CG or not towards negating CG.

Nothing, zilch, Nada regardless of the method. The BB's will always be first in line with their hands out winging about the lack of government support.

Any change that could in any way effect the BB's wealth is meet with hysteria. Hysteria driven by the "Bugger everyone else its me that matters" 

Abbott understands this selfish side of the BB's and feeds the manure accordingly which is lapped up by the faithful.

There is always a divide between the generations, the old claim wisdom as they send the young off to fight their wars. Sound familiar?

Vietnam, the young demonstrated about the wasted lives and cause and the old sent in the truncheons and tear gas.  Who got that one right? 
People who got sent off at the age of 19 like my Brother-in-law  have payed for that one everyday since.

Make love not war that wasn't some old farts idea.

Oh and on the self righteous and indignant replies from forum BB's, they duly noted with a ironic smile lol


----------



## trainspotter

*GOSH* IFocus you are on a tangent today.

MAIN EXPECTED SOURCE OF INCOME AT RETIREMENT



> *Of all employed people aged 45 years and over who intended to retire from the labour force, 43% reported that their expected main source of income at retirement would be income from 'superannuation, an annuity or allocated pension'.* The average age at which this group intended to retire was 63 years (64 years for men, 62 years for women). A higher proportion of men than women reported that this would be their main source of income (49% and 36% respectively).
> 
> The second most commonly reported expected main source of income at retirement was a *'government pension or allowance', with nearly one quarter (24%) of people* who intended to retire expecting that this would be their main source (23% of men and 26% of women). The average age at which this group intended to retire was 65 years (66 years for men, 64 years for women). These ages are consistent with the age eligibility requirements to access the aged pension, which are 65 years for males, and between 63 and 65 years for females, depending on their date of birth (end note 7).
> 
> There were some men (10%) and women (20%) who intended to retire from the labour force and who did not expect to have any personal income source when they retired. *These people expected to live off savings, assets or their partner's income. Women expecting to live off savings, assets or their partner's income had the lowest expected average age at retirement* (60 years). Just over half (51%) of the women who intended to retire between the ages of 45 and 54 years, expected to have no personal income source when they retired.
> 
> People whose main expected source of income at retirement was 'own unincorporated business income', 'rental property income', 'dividends or interest', or 'superannuation, an annuity or allocated pension' were also asked to estimate how long they expected to be self-funding after they gave up all paid work. Close to half (44%) of those who reported their expected main source of income at retirement to be from 'superannuation, an annuity, or an allocated pension' estima*ted that they will be self-funding for life*.
> 
> Both men and women intending to be funded by 'rental property income', or 'dividends or interest', also intended to retire relatively early, at 62 years. Over half (51%) of those intending to be mainly funded by 'rental property income' intended to be self-funding for life, as did 58% of those intending to be mainly funded by 'dividends or interest'.
> 
> Generally, men who intended to live off their 'own unincorporated business income' intended to retire relatively late. The average age at which they intended to retire was 66 years, and 43% of this group intended to be self-funding for life.




http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/36EDBADC29D261FECA25776100150592?OpenDocument

So quite the opposite in reality there IFocus. The BB's have actually prepared for their retirement and will be self funded. Less than a quarter will accept the Guvmint handouts.



> The baby boomer generation, who were aged between 42 and 61 years at the time of the survey, *accounted for two-fifths (40%) of all employed people aged 15 years and over (39% of employed men and 41% of employed women) and the majority (87%) of employed people aged 45 years *and over (85% of employed men and 90% of employed women). They also accounted for 21% of retired people aged 45 years and over (18% of retired men and 24% of retired women).




The BB's are still working? Making uo 40% of the entire workforce??? NAhhhhhh that can't be right? They are all sucking on the Guvmint teat and welfare handouts !!! Selfish buggers, fancy having superannuation


----------



## Julia

IFocus:   Let's see you put up reliable links to the hysterical accusations you are making about baby boomers, huh?

Trainspotter has quickly made your ranting look pretty silly.
We'll give you a chance to redeem yourself with some facts before either laughing hard or feeling sorry for you.

Reality:  every generation will always have members who are selfish, wasteful, and thoughtless.  It's the wild generalisations about whole cohorts that betray the ignorance of the accuser.


----------



## trainspotter

P.S. What has the BB's got to do with Climate Hysteria? Other than the IFocus hysterical posts whereby he is using electricty (generated by a coal gobbling electicity station) to fire up his computer with ranting vitriol?


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> IFocus:   Let's see you put up reliable links to the hysterical accusations you are making about baby boomers, huh?...




IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day.  Now it's the baby boomers fault....  

I think it is labor policies on the run are causing most of our problems.  Very likely a selfish PM who is greedy about power, selfish independents who thumbed their noses at their constituents are the thin threads holding this minority government together.  It's not a good recipe for the best interests of the country.

I previously posted a few paragraphs pointing out the stupidity of blaming all baby boomers as some are very unselfish people.  I pointed out how many, not only raised their own families, but then settled down to help their kids raise theirs either for economic or sickness reasons (as in my case). 

But what's the point.  IFocus just keeps squawking out the same repetitive stuff, it seems in an effort to blame anything else but labor's failed policies...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day.  Now it's the baby boomers fault.... .........
> 
> But what's the point.  IFocus just keeps squawking out the same repetitive stuff, it seems in an effort to blame anything else but labor's failed policies...




Sails, you are spot on here. But it extends to all the alarmists here...

blame everyone else, 
do nothing themselves, 
repetitiously squawk about what we must change about ourselves, 
provide no proof whatsoever,
go back to start and repeat

Like the government, the postings by the alarmists are increasingly desperate, perhaps they should apply to the Dept of Climate change for a grant so they can better convince us of something fearful.


----------



## sails

OzWaveGuy said:


> Sails, you are spot on here. But it extends to all the alarmists here...
> 
> blame everyone else,
> do nothing themselves,
> repetitiously squawk about what we must change about ourselves,
> provide no proof whatsoever,
> go back to start and repeat
> 
> Like the government, the postings by the alarmists are increasingly desperate, perhaps they should apply to the Dept of Climate change for a grant so they can better convince us of something fearful.




OWG - you missed one out:


it's all Mr Rabbit's fault

As cleverly depectied by the cartoon - the other students (aka electorate) are not fooled...






Source: http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/07/01/1226085/867056-110702-leak.jpeg
Apologies for reposting, but this cartoon seemed very fitting here...


----------



## sails

Interesting video showing how plants take in co2 to thrive:


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> Okay, explain it in your own words without quoting others or a heap of text.




Explod, the earth's climate is constantly changing - it always has.  Ever since the 'Little Ice Age' a few hundred years ago it has been slowly warming, but within that period there have been smaller warming and cooling periods.   After WWII the global temperature cooled for about 30 years, and then began to warm again in the 1970's - a warming which continued until roughly 2000.  This increase was *within normal variation*. That means it has happened before and nothing we do will stop it.  It is part of a global cycle.   Observation has shown that for the last 10 years or so the global temperature has not been increasing.  *It is not happening*.  The "hockey stick" model* has been proven incorrect by observation*.  The run-away increases in global temperature predicted by Al Gore and others are *just not happening*.

Now if you prefer to believe in predictions produced by models rather than in what is actually observed, look at it this way:-   If the weather bureau predicts rain and chilly temps for next weekend (using all the sophisticated computer modelling at its disposal), and next Saturday and Sunday prove to be warm and sunny with not a cloud in sight, which do you believe?  Did it rain or was it fine?   Do you believe the computer models which said it would rain, or your own observation which told you it was sunny and warm?

I am not going to quote any references because this thread is littered with excellent links.  You apparently don't read them.   If you like, go back to my post in which I gave numerous links to Ghoti (one day last week).  They are worth reading.  At least inform yourself of the facts.

I have some other data I will put in another post which may interest you.


----------



## Ruby

IFocus said:


> At that time Smurf you were likely to be concerned about the future of the environment rightly so. Australia continues to lead the world in extinction of threaten and endangered wild life with absolutely no change in pace of that trend.
> 
> As for the Greens they seem more worried about gay rights that the environment these days.
> 
> Back to the future
> 
> The future for the generations to follow the selfish baby boomers isn't all that rosy as the ratio of workers supporting retirees changes quite dramatically. Nothing new here including lack of sufficient action by the BB's other than excuses.
> 
> I say selfish because BB's are, they failed to provide enough savings to provide for their retirement even though they have more than enough information as to what was going to happen.
> 
> They are selfish as they blow their money on rampant consumerism bigger cars, bigger houses, etc regardless of the fact that they have more than enough resources available to provide for their future, longer life spans, health care and retirement costs. But nope they expect some one else to pay...........
> 
> Similar to all the _rally's_ now taking place of selfish  gray hairs who polling has shown are not willing to pay one cent regardless of whether they believe in CG or not towards negating CG.
> 
> Nothing, zilch, Nada regardless of the method. The BB's will always be first in line with their hands out winging about the lack of government support.
> 
> Any change that could in any way effect the BB's wealth is meet with hysteria. Hysteria driven by the "Bugger everyone else its me that matters"
> 
> Abbott understands this selfish side of the BB's and feeds the manure accordingly which is lapped up by the faithful.
> 
> There is always a divide between the generations, the old claim wisdom as they send the young off to fight their wars. Sound familiar?
> 
> Vietnam, the young demonstrated about the wasted lives and cause and the old sent in the truncheons and tear gas.  Who got that one right?
> People who got sent off at the age of 19 like my Brother-in-law  have payed for that one everyday since.
> 
> Make love not war that wasn't some old farts idea.
> 
> Oh and on the self righteous and indignant replies from forum BB's, they duly noted with a ironic smile lol




IF, when you are a grownup you might learn to use grammar properly, and you might read some history.  At the moment you are just displaying your abysmal ignorance.


----------



## Ruby

For all those people who think we can reduce the 'dangerous' global warming by a few degrees:-

http://joannenova.com.au/ 



> Professor Garnaut’s carbon trading scheme will cost $11.5 billion a year, rising at 4% above the annual rate of economic growth. He wants another $2.5 billion a year – again, rising at 4% above the growth rate – spent on “renewable” energy and “innovation”. And the Climate Change Department is already spending $1.6 billion a year. These are not the only costs, but let us assume they are.
> Applying Professor Garnaut’s own discount rate of 2.65%, the cost of his policy over the next ten years will be close to $200 billion, with the aim of forestalling 25% of Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn represent 1.2% of global emissions, which – if the policy worked at this cost – would accordingly fall by just 0.3%.
> In the absence of any mitigation, CO2 concentration by 2020 would be 412 ppmv, but Australia’s near-$200 billion of spending would cut this to 411.934 ppmv, *forestalling 1/2750 of a degree of warming by that year – less than 1% of the threshold below which modern methods and instruments cannot measure any global temperature change.*If the whole world were to pursue Australia’s proposed policy, the cost of forestalling each degree of warming would be $545 trillion, or $18,500 from everyone on Earth. Preventing the 0.24 C º global warming predicted to occur by 2020 would cost $130 trillion, or 18.3% of global GDP over the period.
> The cost of the climate damage from doing nothing, however, would be just 1-4.1% of global GDP. Doing something would cost more than four times as much as doing nothing.




And for all those who keep on ranting about there being no peer reviewed papers supporting the sceptical viewpoint - here is a list of 900:-


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


----------



## explod

When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal.  There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air.    Putting it all together and in line with why we are here at ASF ie. "economics" then the following is good for a Sunday reflection.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/grenade-glasshouse

And of course we cannot reduce global warming but our efforts and hope should be to at least try to minimise things for the generations to follow.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> ................ and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air.




Which "big black clouds......... eating up our good clean air" are you talking about?   The black clouds of CO2 perhaps?   The ones belching out of the chimney stack behind Cate B. in the advert?  Or the ones pictured behind Julia Gillard in any news item about the climate or the carbon (dioxide) tax?

Perhaps you don't know that CO2 is a colourless gas, so those "big black clouds" you refer to are not CO2, and in fact most of the clouds you see belching from industrial chimney stacks are steam.



explod said:


> And of course we cannot reduce global warming but our efforts and hope should be to at least try to minimise things for the generations to follow.




Minimise what things?  I agree entirely (and I am sure everyone does) that we should try and minimise pollution and the destruction of our environment, but it really is not the same topic, which is climate change and whether we need to be alarmist about it.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal.  There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough...




Can you then please explain why Gillard & Co are quite happy to risk our current power supply by taxing them and then on the other hand give out money willy nilly for unlimited baby bonuses?

If too many people are the problem, wouldn't it be a win:win if baby bonuses were only given for the first or maybe second child (after that most families have bought all the equipment they need).  That way the government would save money on some who are known to breed like rabbits at tax payer expense and have less humans to be breathing out co2.  Then the plants don't need as much co2 because there are not so many people for whom to grow food.

Oh, but perhaps cutting the baby bonus down might upset some voters...

But it's this sort of hypocrisy that leads me to believe this whole carbon tax thingy and AGW is nothing but a big con.  If it were real, they would go the source of the problems.  And they could stop jet setting around the world if they are really concerned about the future safety of humans.

What a joke this is - what about any of this is not political ?...


----------



## sails

Ruby said:


> Which "big black clouds......... eating up our good clean air" are you talking about?   The black clouds of CO2 perhaps?   The ones belching out of the chimney stack behind Cate B. in the advert?  Or the ones pictured behind Julia Gillard in any news item about the climate or the carbon (dioxide) tax?
> 
> Perhaps you don't know that CO2 is a colourless gas, so those "big black clouds" you refer to are not CO2, and in fact most of the clouds you see belching from industrial chimney stacks are steam...




Agree Ruby - this is another big con to the public.  Aussies are being treated as fools to pretend that co2 is a dirty or black gas.  However, people are waking up to the truth and hopefully, any "no carbon tax ads" will point out the deceptions in the Cate and Caton ads.

Anything that has to be sold with this level of deception cannot have any substance, imo.  The more deception I learn about in relation to co2 and the "must have now" carbon tax, the more I have to say the whole box and dice is complete and uttter rubbish.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal.  There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air.    Putting it all together and in line with why we are here at ASF ie. "economics" then the following is good for a Sunday reflection.



Which coal burning power stations in Australia emit black smoke?

There's only one coal-fired power station in Australia that I'm aware of emitting black smoke, and I'm not certain if that was normal operation or not. Certainly for every other plant I've seen, and I've been to rather a lot of power stations, there's either virtually no visible smoke (most of them) or the smoke is grey in colour. It really depends on the composition of the coal being burnt, combustion efficiency and the efficiency of pariculate removal. But either way, CO2 certainly isn't coloured. 

Oil-fired plants tend to belch quite a lot of smoke, but again that's dark grey not actually black. And we don't have any fuel oil burning plants (other than those which burn oil as backup to supply of some other fuel, usually gas) supplying main grids in Australia these days.

I've got an old photo (not digital) of Hazelwood with clear blue sky above the plant. I'll see if I can find it and scan it. Yes, the plant was in operation at the time...


----------



## bandicoot76

explod said:


> The carbon tax is about attitude.  Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.




what a complete load of bollocks!!! since when has ANY company/corporation/business EVER not passed on costs to the consumer to maintain their bottom line!!!

EVERY SINGLE TAX IS PASSED ON DOWN THE LINE TO EVENTUALLY BE PAID BY THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER! ALL TAX IS JUST A WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION PROCESS, TO THINK A TAX WILL EVER SOLVE A PROBLEM IS SO NAIVE ITS UNBELIEVEABLE!

time to wake up ppl


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> *GOSH* IFocus you are on a tangent today.
> 
> MAIN EXPECTED SOURCE OF INCOME AT RETIREMENT
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/36EDBADC29D261FECA25776100150592?OpenDocument
> 
> So quite the opposite in reality there IFocus. The BB's have actually prepared for their retirement and will be self funded. Less than a quarter will accept the Guvmint handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> The BB's are still working? Making uo 40% of the entire workforce??? NAhhhhhh that can't be right? They are all sucking on the Guvmint teat and welfare handouts !!! Selfish buggers, fancy having superannuation




Getting well off track here thread wise apologies every one but when you have a fan club like me one has to push through doing gods work 

Excellent research TS as always, but given the worker to retiree ratio reducing where is the revenue going to come from to support the increase in services that will be required?

Abbott is promising tax cuts that means reduced services.

The BB's wont be paying a cent unless the government of the day ups the tax on super the current BB's running the show are making certain there will be no dividend from the mining boom.


----------



## IFocus

Ruby said:


> IF, when you are a grownup you might learn to use grammar properly, and you might read some history.  At the moment you are just displaying your abysmal ignorance.




Sigh...... another finger pointer looking for a urinating contest while personalizing a debate.

Even Calliope contributes excellent insights these days in between insults. 

But I happily respect all on ASF regardless.


----------



## IFocus

sails said:


> IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day.  Now it's the baby boomers fault....
> 
> I think it is labor policies on the run are causing most of our problems.  Very likely a selfish PM who is greedy about power, selfish independents who thumbed their noses at their constituents are the thin threads holding this minority government together.  It's not a good recipe for the best interests of the country.




Given Labors or Gillards performance I would think they have done every thing possible to lose power their only saving grace is that Abbott's not trusted by the independents.  

Running out the carbon tax was hardly ever going to be a popular vote winner Combet's comments early on were along these lines.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Given Labors or Gillards performance I would think they have done every thing possible to lose power their only saving grace is that Abbott's not trusted by the independents.
> 
> Running out the carbon tax was hardly ever going to be a popular vote winner Combet's comments early on were along these lines.




IFocus - I think most people would accept it better if there weren't so many deceptive things that have gone with it.  There is now massive suspicion.  Not only did Gillard categorically say "there will be carbon tax under a Government I lead" just prior to the election, the Cate and Caton ad shows a dirty sky and blackish steam from the old decommissoned power plant and yet we know that co2 is invisible.  These things only serve to make the public nervous and distrustful.

If carbon tax was really  as good for the country as Gillard says it is, then I believe the majority of the people would not be so opposed.  But it is becomming abundantly clear that it's not going to do anything for co2 reduction.

And, as you admit yourself, Gillard and labor have had a dismal performance - why should she be trusted to mess with our main power supply with her history of breaking most things she touches?  And it is very likely it won't help the environment one bit.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Excellent research TS as always, but given the worker to retiree ratio reducing where is the revenue going to come from to support the increase in services that will be required?




*sigh* .... obviously "self funded" escapes your hippocampus capabilities. 

People are living longer and staying healthier. The "self funded" retirees living off interest, rental incomes, shares and superannation will not need a pension to survive. This will not be the burden of the BB's as they have planned for their retirement. (see previous post)



> Prior to 1992, about 50 percent of Australians participated in occupational pension plans (both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes). That number is now *up to 91 percent*, due to the superannuation guarantee. The government hopes that this segment of the pension system will reduce retirees’ dependence on the means-tested segment of the pension, thus eliminating the some of the burden that an aging population will place on the system. *In fact, projections of the overall burden of the public pension program as a percentage of GDP by 2050 is one of the lowest of the developed nations*




http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/featured/wef/australia.pdf

Hmmmmmmm ..... The SGC and super is paying for all this? *GOSH* who would have thunk it?

Oh you mean the "services" to support these BB's ........ Let's think about this then on a kindegarten level for a moment. 

Wasn't the MRRT supposed to shore up the health debacle? It was Kevin Rudd that used the SUPER PROFIT MINING TAX to pay for it and Julia has watered it down with the MRRT.



> The Federal Government will step up to permanently pay 50 per cent of the growth in hospital costs.
> This will be done in two stages, increasing to 45 per cent in 2014-15 and to 50 per cent in 2017-18.
> Once this kicks in, the States and the Commonwealth will share future funding growth in a 50/50 partnership.
> The States and Territories will receive $16.4 billion in extra hospital funding between 2014-15 and 2019-20 under the new structural funding arrangements and $3.4 billion for extra emergency departments, elective surgery and 1300 sub acute hospital beds in the next four years.




http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/health-reform/

Oh you mean the "other services" that will be required and how are we going to fund this then?

*THAT WOULD BE THE CARBON TAX *



Now get back on topic you asinine apparatchik!


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> Anything that has to be sold with this level of deception cannot have any substance, imo.



Exactly.   The government and their supporters keep on about how the carbon tax is 'hard to sell'.  Haven't they considered the basic proposition that if something makes sense, you do not have to 'sell it'.!




IFocus said:


> Getting well off track here thread wise apologies every one but when you have a fan club like me one has to push through doing gods work



I guess we all have our hysterical moments when irrationality takes over.
Probably you still don't quite realise how offensive your comments were.



> The BB's wont be paying a cent unless the government of the day ups the tax on super the current BB's running the show are making certain there will be no dividend from the mining boom.



The utter illogic in this statement renders it unworthy of a response.
For heaven's sake, IF, you're actually capable of being more or less sensible and even applying some objectivity at times.  Try to concentrate on that and give a miss to the sort of nonsense you're spouting here.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> ?
> 
> Abbott is promising tax cuts that means reduced services.
> 
> .




Tax cuts could be paid fo by reducing 11,000 dead wood federal public servants, plus the extra public servants that would be needed to administer the carbon tax.


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> *sigh* .... obviously "self funded" escapes your hippocampus capabilities.
> 
> People are living longer and staying healthier. The "self funded" retirees living off interest, rental incomes, shares and superannation will not need a pension to survive. This will not be the burden of the BB's as they have planned for their retirement. (see previous post)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/featured/wef/australia.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmmm ..... The SGC and super is paying for all this? *GOSH* who would have thunk it?
> 
> Oh you mean the "services" to support these BB's ........ Let's think about this then on a kindegarten level for a moment.
> 
> Wasn't the MRRT supposed to shore up the health debacle? It was Kevin Rudd that used the SUPER PROFIT MINING TAX to pay for it and Julia has watered it down with the MRRT.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/health-reform/
> 
> Oh you mean the "other services" that will be required and how are we going to fund this then?
> 
> *THAT WOULD BE THE CARBON TAX *
> 
> 
> 
> Now get back on topic you asinine apparatchik!




Nice to see such fine manners on display from everyone

Your quoted document shows the coming change in ratios but still no hint as to where the revue short fall comes from when you remove such a large amount of taxable income from the system?


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> Tax cuts could be paid fo by reducing 11,000 dead wood federal public servants, plus the extra public servants that would be needed to administer the carbon tax.




I would say that the bureaucracy needed to run this vast redistribution of wealth will be enormous.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> I would say that the bureaucracy needed to run this vast redistribution of wealth will be enormous.




Calliope, it all about creating jobs, more jobs and more jobs paid for by the tax payer.

Gillard has 'gotta' keep unemployment down. All Labor governments are top heavy with public servants and you can bet you a^*?e a majority would be staunch Labor voters.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Nice to see such fine manners on display from everyone
> 
> Your quoted document shows the coming change in ratios but still no hint as to where the revenue short fall comes from when you remove such a large amount of taxable income from the system?




*SIGH* ..... self funded means just that ! They will still have to pay tax on their earnings IFocus !!

The taxable income is about shifting the current tax regime from individuals/business's to MRRT and CARBON TAX. The bigger companies are going to be slugged who in turn will pass off the impost to the proletariat. The government will use this money as the stop gap measure to fund hospitals, government quangos and the populace. 

Colin Barnett adjusted the royalties on the state mining taxes for WA and it blew a 2 BILLION DOLLAR HOLE in the Fed's budget.  

*Have you not been paying attention?*

Now what about this little gem then? You know all this money the Guvmint (and private funds) has locked away in superannuation contributions? Who is to say that in say, 20 years time when all of these BB's DO RETIRE then the Guvmint of the day (under pressure from the sector of course) decides to KEEP your superannuation money and only pay you an annuity BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY YOU OUT !!!!!!! 

WAY WAY WAY OFF TOPIC NOW IFocus ...... go and start another thread called "BABY BOOMERS SENDING THE REST OF US BROKE" :


----------



## moXJO

Saw a show the other night on the blue water holes (deep caves filled with water) in the Bahamas. The deeper levels were oxygen free so things were preserved fairly well. Anyway they cut one of the stalactites and tested it in a similar way they do with ice core samples for past climate data. Going off my bad memory in the last 70000 years there were roughly 14 changes in the climate. And some that occurred very rapidly (within 50 years). I know to take TV shows with a grain of salt but did raise some questions. 
Any data that shows the rapid change in the past and what caused them?


----------



## derty

moXJO said:


> Saw a show the other night on the blue water holes (deep caves filled with water) in the Bahamas. The deeper levels were oxygen free so things were preserved fairly well. Anyway they cut one of the stalactites and tested it in a similar way they do with ice core samples for past climate data. Going off my bad memory in the last 70000 years there were roughly 14 changes in the climate. And some that occurred very rapidly (within 50 years). I know to take TV shows with a grain of salt but did raise some questions.
> Any data that shows the rapid change in the past and what caused them?



Rapid localised changes are often due to changes in regional ocean currents. In addition there are several orbital cycles that occur that have varying effects on the climate. The main cycles have approx 20,000yr, 40,000yr and 100,000yr frequencies and the stalactites may well be displaying some of the shorter scale climatic changes associated with these (the shorter frequency ones can be seen overprinting the dominant 100,000yr eccentricity variations in the records, interestingly the 100,000yr cycle has been the dominant one in the last million years, prior to that the 40,000yr axial tilt variation was dominant). Also stalactites require air to form so these one would only be recording the local climate whilst they were not submerged. 

There is a cave in the Nevada desert, the Devils Hole, where the dating of oxygen isotope ratios preserved in layers of calcite (same mineral that forms stalactites) displayed climatic variations that did not agree with the Milankovitch cycles and was presented as proof that the orbital variations were not the cause of the major climatic variations. It was later found that the oxygen isotope record in the caves was dominated by Pacific Ocean currents and reflected local climatic variations.

Given the Bahamas caves proximity to the ocean you would think that ocean current would have had a significant influence on the temperature record contained in the stalactites there, it would also explain the rapid temperature variations too.


----------



## trainspotter

OMFG !!!!!!!!! A scientist that speaks the truth !!



> While global warming doesn't cause the weird weather, the professor acknowledges its part in making some of them more severe.
> 
> "Global warming doesn't produce these events, however, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that global warming has exacerbated the frequency and the intensity of these heat waves," the Monash University professorial fellow said.
> 
> But this year's floods in Australia do not fit into that picture.
> 
> "It is much harder to make the connection to link those floods in Queensland in early 2011 to global warming," he said.
> 
> "There was a particular and very unusual meteorological sequence that led to those floods and it is very difficult to work out if climate change is exacerbating that situation at all."
> 
> The culprit here is a record-breaking version of La Nina, the relative of the drought-causing El Niño.
> 
> "This is the largest recorded La Nina event seen in 120 years of recorded history," Prof Nicholls said.
> 
> "The only one that comes close was in 1917."
> 
> Prof Nicholls' observations draw the inevitable question as to whether global warming has in turn caused the latest version of La Nina to be especially strong.
> 
> The answer to that evades him.
> 
> *"We don't really know," Prof Nicholls said.*




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ls/story-e6frfku0-1226087343968#ixzz1R7YijbJ6


----------



## drsmith

A 2000km shift southwards in our climate zones ??

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mmission-inquiry/story-fn59niix-1226087140792

That would make Australia a tropical paradise.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> A 2000km shift southwards in our climate zones ??
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mmission-inquiry/story-fn59niix-1226087140792
> 
> That would make Australia a tropical paradise.




How do you spell malaria..............


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> WAY WAY WAY OFF TOPIC NOW IFocus ...... go and start another thread called "BABY BOOMERS SENDING THE REST OF US BROKE" :




I would if I could fit Liberal and Abbott in there some where


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> How do you spell malaria..............



Just think of all that tropical rainforest and the CO2 it could obsorb.

The Lake Eyre Basin could become the new Amazon with a nice big inland sea in the middle. Perfect for Bob Brown to stick his toes into. Don't mention the crocodiles.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> I would if I could fit Liberal and Abbott in there some where




Hasn't stopped you in this thread so far?


----------



## moXJO

derty said:


> Rapid localised changes are often due to changes in regional ocean currents. In addition there are several orbital cycles that occur that have varying effects on the climate. The main cycles have approx 20,000yr, 40,000yr and 100,000yr frequencies and the stalactites may well be displaying some of the shorter scale climatic changes associated with these (the shorter frequency ones can be seen overprinting the dominant 100,000yr eccentricity variations in the records, interestingly the 100,000yr cycle has been the dominant one in the last million years, prior to that the 40,000yr axial tilt variation was dominant). Also stalactites require air to form so these one would only be recording the local climate whilst they were not submerged.
> 
> There is a cave in the Nevada desert, the Devils Hole, where the dating of oxygen isotope ratios preserved in layers of calcite (same mineral that forms stalactites) displayed climatic variations that did not agree with the Milankovitch cycles and was presented as proof that the orbital variations were not the cause of the major climatic variations. It was later found that the oxygen isotope record in the caves was dominated by Pacific Ocean currents and reflected local climatic variations.
> 
> Given the Bahamas caves proximity to the ocean you would think that ocean current would have had a significant influence on the temperature record contained in the stalactites there, it would also explain the rapid temperature variations too.




Thanks derty


----------



## Calliope

> *JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia's climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.*




And a carbon tax will fix that? What bullsh*t. There is only one reason for this tax. It is to slug industry (i.e. "the big polluters") so that she can buy the votes of those to whom she is diverting most of the money. 

If she can pull this off she might have a chance at the next election especially given the fact that Abbott can't match this handout without some other tax. This and Work Choices will be the Labor /Green mantra for the next two years.

Abbott's success will depend on how he handles these issues.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> How do you spell malaria..............




How do you spell bulls#!t?

DYOR


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> How do you spell bulls#!t?
> 
> DYOR




Do you mean a bullseye, maybe? 

Now the following may allay the fears of those worrying about a cooling down of the planet and the looming of a new ice age:-



> The huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions, new research has revealed. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt.
> 
> The last decade was the hottest on record and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. But within that period, global surface temperatures did not show a rising trend, leading some to question whether climate change had stopped. The new study shows that while greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, their warming effect on the climate was offset by the cooling produced by the rise in sulphur pollution. This combined with the sun entering a less intense part of its 11-year cycle and the peaking of the El Niño climate warming phenomenon.




Full article at this link;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate


----------



## Calliope

Did you know explod, that 2010 was the hottest year since 1863?

[video]http://youtu.be/xtWIzMY7Dqs[/video]

My link is as credible as yours.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Do you mean a bullseye, maybe?




Obviously your research skills are sub par/non-existent/biased.

The Anopholes mosquito and hence malaria has existed on every continent 'cept Antarctica. Malaria is not a tropical disease and there were epidemics in the UK, Northern Europe and North America before modern health practices were employed.

Please research where Malaria is rampant and report to me why you think the incidence is rare or  non-existent in similar climates in other places.


----------



## matty77

Was going to post up a new topic called:

"Are people brainwashed or just stupid?"

So my wife was on a conference the other day (she is a teacher) and the whole day was spent on brainwashing the room about climate change and the carbon tax (I mean WTF?) When she got home I was told she would support the Carbon Tax now, even though she doesnt like Gillard.

Why I ask?

"Because we can afford it and we are the lucky country. We are the biggest polluters and third world countries cant do anything about it so we need. Consumers will think twice about buying something if it cost more."

I am still WTF on this.


----------



## wayneL

It's like a race for who can destroy their prosperity first.

Aus, NZ, EU, USA...

It's WTF alright.


----------



## Knobby22

Double plus good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGwUNTGrnvE&feature=related


----------



## tothemax6

matty77 said:


> Why I ask?
> 
> "Because we can afford it and we are the lucky country. We are the biggest polluters and third world countries cant do anything about it so we need. Consumers will think twice about buying something if it cost more."
> 
> I am still WTF on this.



Well as I have found, given that these people (leftists) spend all year practicing their insane and moronic propaganda, the rest of us have a moral responsibility to practice rebuttal.

Oh, and just tell your wife "all that stuff you buy, would you prefer it if it cost twice as much or half as much?". Maybe tell her how much CO2 Australia actual contributes as a percentage, and that reducing this tiny percentage by a tiny percentage is a pointless action. This should bring the argument down to 'its the moral thing to do', in which case you would conclude with 'We could get rid of electricity altogether, and live in a cold, dark, and hungry world. After all, who want's to be comfortable and happy when we can satisfy the moral dictates of zealous strangers and gain nothing for it?".

Its called 'bringing a head in the clouds back down to earth'.


----------



## sails

matty77 said:


> Was going to post up a new topic called:
> 
> "Are people brainwashed or just stupid?"
> 
> So my wife was on a conference the other day (she is a teacher) and the whole day was spent on brainwashing the room about climate change and the carbon tax (I mean WTF?) When she got home I was told she would support the Carbon Tax now, even though she doesnt like Gillard....




Matty, show her the link below where Australia emits around 1.35% of global co2 and where China and the US between them emit around 40% of global co2.  And yet I understand China is not slowing down on coal fired power and the US have backed right away from carbon tax or ets.

Ask her how much a 10% decrease in Australia's emissions would actually reduce global emissions?  She should be good a maths...

The marketers of carbon tax like to use per capita figures and, because Australia has a lot on unhabitable land, our per capita is quite high.  It is much higher than China and yet we produce a fraction of global co2 compared to China.  So per capita is useful for carbon tax marketers but not useful for AGW people want to actually reduce global emissions.

Here is the Wiki link: *List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions*

The snapshot below was taken when Wikipedia was showing 2011 figures, however, it no longer seems available and the link above shows Australia at 1.28% as at 2007:


----------



## trainspotter

matty77 said:


> Was going to post up a new topic called:
> 
> "Are people brainwashed or just stupid?"
> 
> So my wife was on a conference the other day (she is a teacher)




You have answered your own question (she is a teacher) My eyes glazed over when I read this part of the post.

My wife is a teacher also. Sooooooooooo this means that if they attend lectures and they have all sorts of powerpoint presentations and pie charts and sliding graphs and glossy brochures with percentile reckoning delivered by a man with glasses in a lab coat with a laser pointer it is GOSPEL !!!! End of discussion.

It takes me weeks of deprogramming after my wife attends such same like gab fests. 

Turn off the heater, turn off the electric blanket, make her walk to work or take the bus with snotty nose kids, don't cook dinner using either gas or electricity, do not let her use the iron nor the clothes dryer, do not pass go and collect $200 and go directly to jail. ....... They soon snap out of it. Reverse psychology is best when it is served up cold.


----------



## Julia

matty77 said:


> Was going to post up a new topic called:
> 
> "Are people brainwashed or just stupid?"
> 
> So my wife was on a conference the other day (she is a teacher) and the whole day was spent on brainwashing the room about climate change and the carbon tax (I mean WTF?) When she got home I was told she would support the Carbon Tax now, even though she doesnt like Gillard.
> 
> Why I ask?
> 
> "Because we can afford it and we are the lucky country. We are the biggest polluters and third world countries cant do anything about it so we need. Consumers will think twice about buying something if it cost more."
> 
> I am still WTF on this.






tothemax6 said:


> Well as I have found, given that these people (leftists) spend all year practicing their insane and moronic propaganda, the rest of us have a moral responsibility to practice rebuttal.
> 
> Oh, and just tell your wife "all that stuff you buy, would you prefer it if it cost twice as much or half as much?". Maybe tell her how much CO2 Australia actual contributes as a percentage, and that reducing this tiny percentage by a tiny percentage is a pointless action. This should bring the argument down to 'its the moral thing to do', in which case you would conclude with 'We could get rid of electricity altogether, and live in a cold, dark, and hungry world. After all, who want's to be comfortable and happy when we can satisfy the moral dictates of zealous strangers and gain nothing for it?".
> 
> Its called 'bringing a head in the clouds back down to earth'.



 So, Matty, what was your response to her conversion to this new religion?
Did you counter with e.g. what tothemax and TS have suggested?
Hope you're not aiming to preserve marital harmony at the expense of logic!

Seriously, though, that's really worrying.  Presumably your wife has a reasonable level of intelligence, so what's the hope for the great unwashed when they're exposed to similar drivel!


----------



## Logique

We can afford it? In which universe? Funny that the moral argument never extends to those who can no longer afford the mortgage or electricity, or to drive to work, numbers that will only increase.

Secondly, it is both sinister and offensive that teachers are brainwashing our kids in the schools (I know that Matty's and TS's wives aren't doing this - doing a great job for the country boys).


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> So, Matty, what was your response to her conversion to this new religion?
> Did you counter with e.g. what tothemax and TS have suggested?
> Hope you're not aiming to preserve marital harmony at the expense of logic!
> 
> Seriously, though, that's really worrying.  Presumably your wife has a reasonable level of intelligence, so what's the hope for the great unwashed when they're exposed to similar drivel!





And also, being a teacher, I suppose this pro carbon tax brain washing day was all paid for courtesy of the tax payer?  If so, that is very wrong to fund a day like that that is not for education but for political gain, imo.  

And then I suppose our kids are now going to be brainwashed by these "converted" teachers who will then go home and tell their parents about the alarmist "facts". No wonder Gillard loves "education".  Maybe it's time we started objecting to the pricipals - unless they have also been duped.

Julia, hopefully the great unwashed will not be subjected to day long brain washing sessions probably given by someone in the education department whom these teachers would otherwise feel respect.


----------



## matty77

I have done my best to explain it in every way I can - thanks for all the info everyone. 

Sometimes though logic just doesnt get through, talking to a teacher is like talking to a uni student sometimes... 

I think she has the ****s talking politics with me anymore once her ranga friend all went a bit pear shaped (I told ya so!). "oh but she is a female, so ill vote for her"

And yes my wife is quiet intelligent so I shake my head. 

It does prove though that there is definatly a fair bit of mis-truth and brain washing happening and people are falling for it!

edit: just so you guys know, it was only a 1 day conference, and not all day was spent on carbon tax, maybe hour or so with some pretty graphs and photos of poor kids in africa (im not kidding) they did the 3rd world story, and how we are better off than them so can afford to change etc.. oh gosh.


----------



## sails

matty77 said:


> ...
> edit: just so you guys know, it was only a 1 day conference, and not all day was spent on carbon tax, maybe hour or so with some pretty graphs and photos of poor kids in africa (im not kidding) they did the 3rd world story, and how we are better off than them so can afford to change etc.. oh gosh.




Thanks for the feedback, Matty.  Still, if the conference was funded by tax payers, it shouldn't be used for any sort of political gain.  

These deceits will now most likely be taught to school kids.  Deceptions such as Australia is one of the world's biggest co2 emitters when in reality we are actually very tiny in the global scene.

And I thought it was *global* co2 emissions that the AGW people want reduced...


----------



## moXJO

matty77 said:


> "oh but she is a female, so ill vote for her"
> 
> .




Ewww a labor voter

You know sometimes divorce is your only option


----------



## matty77

Its been a difficult few years. lol

but I will turn her eventually.


----------



## wayneL

matty77 said:


> Its been a difficult few years. lol
> 
> but I will turn her eventually.




My missus is much further to the right than me. It's so cool, she is vego, loves furry critters etc, but she would happily rip out Ms Dullard's liver and eat it for lunch.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> My missus is much further to the right than me. It's so cool, she is vego, loves furry critters etc, but she would happily rip out Ms Dullard's liver and eat it for lunch.




Remind me to send your missus a sharp knife and a bunch of flowers.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> My missus is much further to the right than me. It's so cool, she is vego, loves furry critters etc, but she would happily rip out Ms Dullard's liver and eat it for lunch.




Don't forget the bacon from the  Brown pig to go with the liver.


----------



## trainspotter

Sums it up really IMO


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

trainspotter said:


> Sums it up really IMO
> 
> View attachment 43550




This has to be quote of the thread.

gg


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This has to be quote of the thread.
> 
> gg




Absolutely agree  - good find TS...

And quite chilly here in SE Qld - thought the winters should be getting milder if the globe is slowly cooking...


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> Absolutely agree  - good find TS...
> 
> And quite chilly here in SE Qld - thought the winters should be getting milder if the globe is slowly cooking...



Ah, Sails, silly you.  The chilly nights here are *weather* and apparently are no reflection of climate.
OK now?


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Ah, Sails, silly you.  The chilly nights here are *weather* and apparently are no reflection of climate.
> OK now?




Of course, how silly...


----------



## springhill

sails said:


> Absolutely agree  - good find TS...
> 
> And quite chilly here in SE Qld - thought the winters should be getting milder if the globe is slowly cooking...




Yep morning temps have been as low as 0 degrees here in sunny Perth, thank God for global warming, if it wasn't for all that nasty carbon it'd be -3 instead and i'd have to go out and by a merkin to keep the old fella warm.


----------



## explod

springhill said:


> Yep morning temps have been as low as 0 degrees here in sunny Perth, thank God for global warming, if it wasn't for all that nasty carbon it'd be -3 instead and i'd have to go out and by a merkin to keep the old fella warm.




Yep, quite amazing really, dont' seem to get those 3 and 4 below anymore, as a kid in the early 1950's used to love to walk on the frozen puddles to catch the school bus, or wait for the pipes to warm up to get the water to run.  Oh well.

Not sure about the coming summer though, wonder if we will beat the 48 degree day we had here in Southern Vic two years back, will help reduce the population though I suppose.


----------



## Smurf1976

I think we all know that short term weather extremes, in either direction, are of little relevance to this debate. It is reality however that both sides do make extensive use of them.

Anyway, it's been a tad chilly down in Hobart lately and it's causing trouble with the buses. http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/07/07/243725_todays-news.html

On a positive note, I've been sort or warm inside during the evenings thanks to a roaring fire. And since I'm burning wood that would otherwise be left to rot, it's not really adding much CO2 to the air. And best of all, Julia can't really put a tax on firewood when those who sell it aren't exactly known for paying existing taxes as it is...


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> On a positive note, I've been sort or warm inside during the evenings thanks to a roaring fire. And since I'm burning wood that would otherwise be left to rot, it's not really adding much CO2 to the air.



But you are (and so am I ) as the CO2 is being produced faster than by rotting. It's sorta like what we are doing with fossil fuels, all-be it on a much (x10 ) smaller scale.



Smurf1976 said:


> And best of all, Julia can't really put a tax on firewood when those who sell it aren't exactly known for paying existing taxes as it is...



Their use could be banned to force us on to super expensive over taxed electricity or as the Greens would prefer, to make us shiver in the dark.


----------



## Logique

In the 'wish I'd said' that stakes, well said by this blogger. It's longish, but hits the mark. My bolds.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_last_chance/P40/

"..So the man made global warming carbon issue for labor is going to suddenly become an absolute winner here, and they are going to turn it all around, record low polls, the lot, no worries, when *it has been a guaranteed proven absolute loser in the US (Senate) and Canada * (recent general elections). A lot of people would like to know how that is going to work? 
Rudd, ever the prick eared opportunist, would seem to have had the insight to know that it wouldn’t, when he ditched the greatest moral challenge of our time. The evidence from the US has been staring everyone in the face for several years now. 
References now to what a handful of US states are doing with the warmie dogma is not the story, *despite the ABC trying as hard as it can, it is what the vote for the US Senate amounted to, a repudiation of the greenie/warmie agenda that was simply bound to happen. *
The Aussie warmie journos blogs trying to sell us the religion are having their comments sections become chock full of opposition now, and expression of the numerous lines of legitemate scientific doubt that the absurd promotion of the nonsense theory has created.  This is no big oil conspiracy, it is the eventual triumph of common sense. 
As a consequence the level of hysterical stupidity from the warmies is reaching truly comic proportions, read the whacko catastrophising warmie article in Wednesday’s(6/7) Age(paper ed), which must surely have been researched from the warm list itself. These crying wolf efforts are now only self cancelling, and fuel to the doubt fire. 

It was good to see the argo bouys getting a mention recently on a blog here. 
The argo bouys pepper the world’s oceans and amount to the world’s most modern and comprehensive temperature measurement system.  
They indicate no warming, over a time when the highest ever levels of human created carbon pollution in the history of the world have occurred, and arguably, alone, amount to a proof that cancels out the greenhouse gas theory, as the bouys measure the temperature of the greatest heat regulator of the earth, the great mass of ocean that covers over 70% of the earth’s surface. Why no warming indicated? Consequently, only silence from the warmies on the argo bouy’s data. This issue never addressed by the ‘scientists’. The obvious answer, because the theory is totally bogus, that’s why! 

The old hippie/confirmation bias/ warmie hysteria will pass, as it has elsewhere, despite the push along it got from the big idea merchants in various faculties of academia, and the union cafeteria ‘big bang theory’ Einsteins thinking they were scientific breakthrough revolutionaries of a new age. This is one fantasy that has happened, and one scientific revolution that hasn’t. We still just plain don’t know. *The allegation of an alleged scientific understanding of the heat transfer dynamics of the entire planet is, at last, becoming widely recognised for the total, absolute and utterly fantastic nonsense that it is.* Recall “the evidence” button on the IPPC website pre Copenhagen leading to climate models? 
The real mystery is entirely sociological. 
How it ever got the hold it did in the age of reason, when every aspect of every appliance in everyone’s house operates on the uncompromising principles of the scientific method only (unless they have a Brock commodore in the driveway) 
For my part, a letter from an old uni friend, recieved in the late 80’s, points the way, speaking about a change in the climate, and how he suspects the greenhouse effect. The hippies in their dream world were the only ones talking about the greenhouse effect in the 70’s. A bit like the way the oldies copy the fashion of the young, and boom up the old surfie haunts, the old hippy nonsense got a hold, thanks to confirmation bias, and the drawing of conclusions in circumstances where all the variables were simply never covered. *This was never real science, it was post modern sloppy thinking and the history of the scientific method/industrial revolutions indicates it has no future.* 

Gillard’s catastophising to try and sell the unsellable carbon tax will only serve to hasten it’s end. 
Dangerous climate change = dangerous nonsense, for all parties!  
The only relevant question now is, do we end up in serious economic trouble as a nation before this government is either fundamentally re-arranged or thrown out, or afterwards, due to it’s legacy?  While the economic future cannot be predicted, *the level of national debt should be everyone’s major concern at the moment, and it is a fair argument that we are already in serious economic trouble.* Our export income is the key, with sound and very careful economic management required for many years to come, reform of science education to re-instate the scientific method, repair of our international relationships, especially with the democracy of Indonesia, and hopefully the lesson learnt by the electorate that the green left is a toxic political poison. 
*Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here*.." 

endofpostmodernscience (Reply)
Fri 08 Jul 11 (02:45pm)


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> *Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here*.."
> 
> endofpostmodernscience (Reply)
> 
> 
> Fri 08 Jul 11 (02:45pm)




A point consistently stated my myself on these boards.


----------



## Knobby22

The article is a bit hysterical.

What about the NASA figures?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

And the Argo buoys are interesting. They appear to show global warming or global cooling has occurred depending on the author and the parameters they pick but they do show global warming has slowed over the last 6 years but then again they show substantial warming over the previous 40 years and as the guy above says "The allegation of an alleged scientific understanding of the heat transfer dynamics of the entire planet is, at last, becoming widely recognised for the total, absolute and utterly fantastic nonsense that it is.". 

If it starts warming again next year as el nino restarts then what does that mean? I don't think we understand ocean and atmospheric dynamics well enough to use one lot of data in isolation with the rest of the data to completely repudiate all global warming. To do so is being *hysterical.*


----------



## Glen48

Maybe this is the cause:

http://blog.imva.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/video.jpg


----------



## bandicoot76

wayneL said:


> A point consistently stated my myself on these boards.




+1 !!!


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> *Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here*.."



That's what really worries me. We do need viable alternatives to fossil fuels certainly. It's just that we need to develop them before we stop using (or run out of) coal, oil and gas.


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> That's what really worries me. We do need viable alternatives to fossil fuels certainly. It's just that we need to develop them before we stop using (or run out of) coal, oil and gas.




Agree Smurf.  I have no problem with using alternative energy, but it seems fool hardy to mess with our major power supply BEFORE reliable and affordable sources have been developed.

But it seems that would be way to sensible for Gillard and her merry men (greens and three indies) to consider.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> I don't think we understand ocean and atmospheric dynamics well enough to use one lot of data in isolation with the rest of the data to completely repudiate all global warming. To do so is being *hysterical.*




Nobody repudiates global warming. It is axiomatic.The planet warms, the planet cools, and so it will go on in cycles into infinity. And there is nothing we can do to tweak these cycles.


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> Agree Smurf.  I have no problem with using alternative energy, but it seems fool hardy to mess with our major power supply BEFORE reliable and affordable sources have been developed.
> 
> But it seems that would be way to sensible for Gillard and her merry men (greens and three indies) to consider.




Only a fool disobeys *The First L;aw of Wing Walking

Never leave hold of what you've got until
you've got hold of something else*.


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> Nobody repudiates global warming. It is axiomatic.The planet warms, the planet cools, and so it will go on in cycles into infinity. And there is nothing we can do to tweak these cycles.




And the more Gillard tries to ram this down our throats as an excuse for another tax is pushing me further and further the the sceptical side.

I once had an open mind, but all this political propaganda and apparent deceitfulness is enough to make anyone with half a brain believe the whole lot is lies - AGW and carbon tax/ets.

And when most of the cited AGW "scientists" appear to be on government pay rolls, it calls for further caution, imo.

I think Gillard is probably doing a great job at creating extreme cynacism to anything remotely linked to AGW. Too bad if there is some truth in middle ground - I think there is so much rising hostility that even Gillard's AGW excuse is going to get chucked out with the bath water as utter nonsense.

She doesn't seem to have learned a thing from Howard's fall from favour when he seemed to stop listening to the people.


----------



## trainspotter

*Julia Gillard - *


> "And friends you know we must lead because the science says we must and friends we've known that for an awfully long time," “Two decades of denial and delay will come to an end” and "Polluters will have to pay." she said.




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-carbon-tax-plan/story-e6frfku9-1226091231059

*George Orwell – *


> "Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."




*Chapter 9 Animal Farm*

Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?


----------



## bandicoot76

trainspotter said:


> *Julia Gillard - *
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-carbon-tax-plan/story-e6frfku9-1226091231059
> 
> *George Orwell – *
> 
> *Chapter 9 Animal Farm*
> 
> Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?




+1 !!!!


----------



## sails

And the Australian government is going to be exempt from carbon tax?  

IMO, that gives a clear message that they don't believe in AGW or that Australia really needs to lead the way like an ant leading a herd of elephants...

Full story here by Tim Wilson: *Government’ s carbon skeleton*



> IF there are any undisclosed details left for tomorrow’s carbon tax announcement, taxpayers can be sure Australia’s dirtiest secret, that *the government is one of Australia’s largest, growing greenhouse gas emitters, won’t be included*.


----------



## trainspotter

sails said:


> And the Australian government is going to be exempt from carbon tax?
> 
> IMO, that gives a clear message that they don't believe in AGW or that Australia really needs to lead the way like an ant leading a herd of elephants...
> 
> Full story here by Tim Wilson: *Government’ s carbon skeleton*




I especially liked this part of the story -



> As a result, the cost of running government will also go up as the carbon tax price increases annually. Considering taxpayers finance government, it doesn’t take sophisticated Treasury modelling to figure out who’ll pay for the federal government’s carbon emissions hypocrisy.


----------



## Julia

trainspotter said:


> Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?






bandicoot76 said:


> +1 !!!!



+2.
I feel a rising nausea when she addresses us as 'friends'.  Used in this way, it's interchangeable with 'comrades' and we all know what that denotes.


----------



## Logique

Brilliant. 







> Originally by *trainspotter*:
> Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?
> 
> *George Orwell – Chapter 9 Animal Farm*:
> "Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."




And just before:


> "In any case he [Squealer] had no difficulty in proving to the other animals that they were not in reality short of food, whatever the appearances might be. For the time being, certainly, it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of rations (Squealer always spoke of it as a 'readjustment,' never as a 'reduction'), but in comparison with the days of Jones, the improvement was enormous."


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> And the more Gillard tries to ram this down our throats as an excuse for another tax is pushing me further and further the the sceptical side.
> 
> I once had an open mind, but all this political propaganda and apparent deceitfulness is enough to make anyone with half a brain believe the whole lot is lies - AGW and carbon tax/ets.
> 
> And when most of the cited AGW "scientists" appear to be on government pay rolls, it calls for further caution, imo.
> 
> I think Gillard is probably doing a great job at creating extreme cynacism to anything remotely linked to AGW. Too bad if there is some truth in middle ground - I think there is so much rising hostility that even Gillard's AGW excuse is going to get chucked out with the bath water as utter nonsense.



I've been aware of the AGW theory my entire adult life. I've done my own experiments and concluded that it does seem plausible. 

If you take out the energy production issues, then I don't think you'll find too many people saying that adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere is a good idea in itself. To paraphrase a former PM's comments on a related issue, nobody wants CO2 as CO2. What they want is adequate power at an affordable cost. 

Go back 10 years and I was certainly willing to spend a few $ to reduce my personal fossil fuel use. And even today I'm reasonably energy efficient in my lifestyle and I've always been an advocate for using renewable energy wherever it is viable to do so. 

But suffice to say that over the years I have become increasingly cynical in regards to the whole thing. I still think there quite likely is an issue at the scientific level with CO2, but it appears to be being used as simply a means to justify other agendas. 

We are told that cutting CO2 emissions in Australia, or even in just one Australian state, will ensure that locals are safe from the effects of global warming. Now, anyone who thinks that clearly does not understand the scientific theory involved and/or is oblivious to the fact that emissions rates globally are steadily increasing. We could completely black out South Australia, NSW or even the whole of Australia but that isn't going to save us from the effects of CO2 emitted elseswhere.

At best, the measures proposed to deal with the issue are being misleadingly marketed. Cut emissions locally and that will keep us safe we are told. Clearly that is correct only if global, not local, emissions are reduced - and there is overwhelming evidence that they are going up not down.

All of which has slowly but surely pushed me to the other side of the whole debate. When someone continually tries to get me to accept something that is clearly incorrect, and can easily be demonstrated as such, then either they are themselves ignorant of the facts (possible in the case of individuals, but unlikely for the Australian Government) or they are pushing some other agenda. In this case, it looks very much like the latter.


----------



## Logique

I won't feel that I'm a real woman until I join:  _1million women_:  http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/The-Campaign.cfm?ruuid=11612186-04EB-CAE0-14594B8B17A80A81

"1 Million Women - A campaign of daughters, mothers, sisters and grandmothers - Committed to protecting our climate, our communities and our future, leading change for the better". 

The 1 Million Women website will guide me through ways to cut my 1 tonne (of CO2, within a year of joining), and will track my progress. I don't have to be an expert on climate change, just join up and they'll guide me every step of the way. 

1 Million Women - a million tonnes of CO2. It's a huge challenge. 

With my help they will make it happen.


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> All of which has slowly but surely pushed me to the other side of the whole debate. When someone continually tries to get me to accept something that is clearly incorrect, and can easily be demonstrated as such, then either* they are themselves ignorant of the facts* (possible in the case of individuals, but unlikely for the Australian Government) or *they are pushing some other agenda.* In this case, it looks very much like the latter.




Well the agenda is certainly not about reducing AGW. No one on either side of politics believes this tax could make an appreciable difference to CO2 levels or global awareness

The scary bit is is that the only way the tax could be passed is with the connivance of 
Windsor, Wilkie and Oakeshott. They will vote it in not because the understand it, but because Gillard has bribed them with handouts for their electorates.

So here we have a tax, founded on a lie and passed on greedy opportunism.


----------



## Smurf1976

Once again we have the Tassie weather providing great irony amidst a major environmental announcement.

The coldest weather ever recorded in the state, and the highest electricity use ever recorded up to that time, came just hours before the Gordon below Franklin dam was canned by the High Court back in 1983. And yes, you guessed it, the record low temperatures were recorded equally at Tarraleah, Shannon and Butlers Gorge - all of which are historically Hydro towns and two of which have operating power stations.

And now we've almost done it again. On the morning of the great carbon tax announcement, it's snowing down to 200m and this will most likely be the coldest day of the year (literally) or at least very close to it.

Seems to be a pattern here. Whenever we have a Labor government trying to stop the generation of electricity, it gets damn freezing in Tassie. No doubt it's purely coincidence, but this is the second time it's happened now...


----------



## sails

Same here in Qld.  Not often one sees so many women wearing scarves for warmth as they do in the southern states.

Full article from SMH: N*o respite in sight for south-east icy snap*



> A severe weather warning has been issued for parts of NSW, with damaging winds and blizzard conditions expected in some regions.
> 
> Icy conditions are expected in south-eastern areas of the state tomorrow, the Bureau of Meteorology said on its website.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Once again we have the Tassie weather providing great irony amidst a major environmental announcement.
> 
> The coldest weather ever recorded in the state, and the highest electricity use ever recorded up to that time, came just hours before the Gordon below Franklin dam was canned by the High Court back in 1983. And yes, you guessed it, the record low temperatures were recorded equally at Tarraleah, Shannon and Butlers Gorge - all of which are historically Hydro towns and two of which have operating power stations.
> 
> And now we've almost done it again. On the morning of the great carbon tax announcement, it's snowing down to 200m and this will most likely be the coldest day of the year (literally) or at least very close to it.
> 
> Seems to be a pattern here. Whenever we have a Labor government trying to stop the generation of electricity, it gets damn freezing in Tassie. No doubt it's purely coincidence, but this is the second time it's happened now...



 As Sails has said, it's really cold here in Qld.  2 degrees at 6am!


----------



## Ruby

Logique said:


> I won't feel that I'm a real woman until I join:  _1million women_:  http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/The-Campaign.cfm?ruuid=11612186-04EB-CAE0-14594B8B17A80A81
> 
> "1 Million Women - A campaign of daughters, mothers, sisters and grandmothers - Committed to protecting our climate, our communities and our future, leading change for the better".
> 
> The 1 Million Women website will guide me through ways to cut my 1 tonne (of CO2, within a year of joining), and will track my progress. I don't have to be an expert on climate change, just join up and they'll guide me every step of the way.
> 
> 1 Million Women - a million tonnes of CO2. It's a huge challenge.
> 
> With my help they will make it happen.




I notice that Anna Bligh is on the list.  Does that mean she might stop using the government jet to fly to State of Origin matches?    And will all the other pollies on the list start car pooling when going to work in Canberra?


----------



## sails

Ruby said:


> I notice that Anna Bligh is on the list.  Does that mean she might stop using the government jet to fly to State of Origin matches?    And will all the other pollies on the list start car pooling when going to work in Canberra?





Government is exempt from carbon tax despite being one of the nation's highest co2 emitters.  So I can't see any slow down on anything you mention above.  And it makes a mockery of the whole thing, imo. I have often commented on the hypocrisy of Gillard and Rudd flitting around the globe in jets and the co2 emissions don't seem to be a bother at all.  Same with Al Gore.   It's all about the money...

Article yesterday by Tim Wilson: *Government’ s carbon skeleton*



> "IF there are any undisclosed details left for tomorrow’s carbon tax announcement, taxpayers can be sure Australia’s dirtiest secret, *that the government is one of Australia’s largest, growing greenhouse gas emitters, won’t be included*."


----------



## Wysiwyg

sails said:


> Government is exempt from carbon tax despite being one of the nation's highest co2 emitters.  So I can't see any slow down on anything you mention above.  And it makes a mockery of the whole thing, imo. I have often commented on the hypocrisy of Gillard and Rudd flitting around the globe in jets and the co2 emissions don't seem to be a bother at all.  Same with Al Gore.   It's all about the money...



Yes and plenty of jobs created in the Ministry of Carbon Dioxide to shuffle paper to their uhhh colleagues in other departments so they can inform peasants what carbon dioxide levels are. It is a monumental farce created by a > I'm a teapot, I'm a teapot < group of save-the-whales types.


----------



## bellenuit

*You Call This ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change?*

http://blog.heartland.org/2011/07/you-call-this-consensus-on-climate-change/


----------



## Calliope

Gillard and her gang of seven who were congratulating themselves and smugly telling us  that they are the leaders in saving the planet, have pulled off something so incredibly stupid that from now on it is all downhill for them. They have fooled nobody but the warmists and they are a small minority... even smaller after today.

As Terry McCrann said, their carbon tax package is "incomprehensibly dumb."


----------



## trainspotter

Well well well ...... who would have thunk it? Trees absorb CO2 and produce oxygen.



> They found that 231,000 tonnes of carbon were locked up this way, 10 times more than expected. It is roughly equal to the average annual emissions of more than 150,000 saloon, also called sedan, cars.
> 
> "Currently, once land in the UK is considered to be urban, its biological carbon density is assumed to be zero," said researcher Zoe Davies of the University of Kent, southeast England.
> 
> "Our study illustrates this is not the case and that there is a substantial pool of carbon locked away in the vegetation within a city."
> 
> Urban "sinks" are not by themselves a solution to the billions of tonnes of carbon emitted globally but can help mitigate their impact, *especially if gardeners grow trees, which absorb far more CO2 than grass and shrubs,* she said.
> 
> "If more trees are planted in urban areas for their carbon storage value, they must be the right kind of tree planted in the right place so that they have a long, productive lifespan, and *when trees die they should be replaced," *




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...dy/story-e6frfku0-1226092923542#ixzz0tSATDKMm

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh the irony of it all.


----------



## matty77

Calliope said:


> Gillard and her gang of seven who were congratulating themselves and smugly telling us  that they are the leaders in saving the planet, have pulled off something so incredibly stupid that from now on it is all downhill for them. They have fooled nobody but the warmists and they are a small minority... even smaller after today.
> 
> As Terry McCrann said, their carbon tax package is "incomprehensibly dumb."




From what I am seeing there is actually plenty of support out there for this tax from the working class, hey I dont get it but its out there. I would say its 60/40 at the moment, against the tax.

My wife wont talk to me about the carbon tax anymore, everytime Red Hair Hitler gets on the TV and calls us "friends" I keep pointing it out... hahaha lol


----------



## sails

matty77 said:


> From what I am seeing there is actually plenty of support out there for this tax from the working class, hey I dont get it but its out there. I would say its 60/40 at the moment, against the tax.
> 
> My wife wont talk to me about the carbon tax anymore, everytime Red Hair Hitler gets on the TV and calls us "friends" I keep pointing it out... hahaha lol





40% is probably about right.  Labor's primary vote is around 27% and greens around 11% - so that's pretty close to your figures.  Still not enough for labor to win an election.

Good luck with the missus.  I think she is part of the brainwashed crowd and sad that  possibly many of those teaching our primary school kids are also brainwashed and teach it to the kids as FACT - when it is still a controversial theory.  I believe it is part of the current cirruculum and Garrett refuses to remove it.

Anything that requires this sort of underhand brainwashing of primary school kids is very suspect, imo.  If it had any merit on it's own, there would be no need for brainwashing controversial theories as fact to impressionable school kids.

(There are articles out there that support the above and they have been posted before.)


----------



## sails

Matty77 - and this galaxy poll taken on Monday night after Gillard's dubious announcement on Sunday pretty much says the same thing:

"AUSTRALIANS have given the carbon tax the thumbs down, with 63 per cent calling for Julia Gillard to bring on an early election.

The exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun - the first major survey since the release of the carbon tax package on Sunday - also found 60 per cent of voters opposed the tax, 29 per cent were in favour and 11 per cent undecided."​http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/07/13/357351_latest-news.html


----------



## Happy

matty77 said:


> .... everytime Red Hair Hitler gets on the TV and calls us "friends" I keep pointing it out...




She was teary again and this time brought back her as "little girl", and after few blah, blahs later one could be excused for thinking, that she doing us a favour imposing Carbon Tax.

Even tried to twist her lie that this is not tax, but pollution payment so she never lied to anybody.
(Thank heavens there are tablets to keep blood pressure under control)


----------



## matty77

But again I state... I feel sentiment is changing and it wont be long before the carbon tax is a thing of the past and just another tax us australians have to pay for. With no election in site anytime soon what is the Australian public to do?


----------



## sails

matty77 said:


> But again I state... I feel sentiment is changing and it wont be long before the carbon tax is a thing of the past and just another tax us australians have to pay for. With no election in site anytime soon what is the Australian public to do?




Matty, I think there will be continuing anger over this.  Higher electricity bills are not going to help Madame and we know they are all going up again from July.  To threaten another tax on top of this is something people won't forget.

And world economies are not looking good, which is something Costello mentioned in the Bolt Report yesterday.  It certainly is not a good time to be trying to bring in a whole new and additional tax even though there are promises of compensation, I doubt that treasury have thought of everything.  The greens admitted that treasury didn't have enough time.

http://m.news.com.au/MostPopularNews/pg/0/fi774123.htm


----------



## matty77

Polls will be interesting in a few weeks after the $12mil ad campaign coming online today...


----------



## Julia

matty77 said:


> Polls will be interesting in a few weeks after the $12mil ad campaign coming online today...



 The sample couple of advts I've seen are just airy fairy stuff, no facts, which imo will irritate people further.

Prior to the 'package' being released, the government were saying that people would be reassured once they had the detail and specifically knew about the compensation.

Well, no, not according to today's poll.

So now Ms Gillard is saying that people won't actually feel comfortable with it until it's up and running.
Wow.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> The sample couple of advts I've seen are just airy fairy stuff, no facts, which imo will irritate people further.




The advertising campaign is predicated on the basis that we are stupid.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's a beautiful winter morning here in Townsville, I'm just heading up to the Towers, and then on to Richmond.

It is all hysteria, religious mumbo jumbo, this climate belief. 

These jokers are so busy looking at computer analysis, they fail to look out the window. That's where the weather is. It hasn't changed that I can see from years past.

And if the weather hasn't changed, it's unlikely the climate will, any more than it ever has.

gg


----------



## Calliope

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is all hysteria, religious mumbo jumbo, this climate belief.




I think that the majority of the western world has accepted the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming. What has not worked has been the attempt to scare us into the belief that we are facing floods, droughts, cyclones and sea rises unless we take urgent action.

Gillard started her spiel on Carbon Sunday with all sorts of dire warnings, about our fate if we didn't act quickly, but she could  not say how a carbon tax would delay this.

It all went over like a lead balloon. Common sense wins. AGW is dead in the water.


----------



## Boggo

The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.


----------



## medicowallet

Calliope said:


> the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming.




lmao.

If only this represented the warmist's argument.

Warmists are arguing that man is DRIVING DANGEROUS warming, on an unprecedented scale, that we must WRECK our economy to stop.

Factor in that Australia is going to go at it without China, US and India and at a price higher than the rest of the world.

lmao indeed.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Boggo said:


> The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.




Isn't this the truth!! Very well put together and hits the mark - perhaps Boggo, you could add an extension to this and represent a mountain of money in AU$ that the Government intends to steal by deception.

Like this from this post. This represented Britain's "investment" to tackle climate change in pallets loaded with 50 pound notes.


----------



## derty

Boggo said:


> The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.



Here let me fix some of that reality for you:

The assumption is that 1% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses (10,000ppm). With 9500ppm being water vapour (at the surface water vapour ranges from 1-4% (10000-40000ppm) though when you take the whole atmosphere into account it is only 0.4% or 4000ppm, but lets stick with ~0.95% as in the image).

C02 is now ~390ppm (not 362ppm)
Methane (1.79ppm) + others (nitrous oxide - 0.3ppm and ozone - 0.07ppm)

Correcting for the methane error of confusing ppm for %, for the greenhouse gasses to = 1%, water vapour needs to be 9608ppm not 9500ppm.

So that breakdown gives us:
*Water Vapour - 96.08%
Carbon Dioxide - 3.94%
Methane and Others - 0.02%*

Though then they go on and assume that as annual anthropogenic CO2 is approx 3% of the global emission that then it must equal only around 3% of the total atmospheric CO2. When in fact it is pretty easy to work out what the anthropogenic total is: Current CO2 = 390ppm, pre-industrial = 280ppm therefore (390-280)/390 *100 = *28.5% of CO2 is caused by human activity *(an increase of 40% in CO2 levels).


Now looking at the small red section - we have the claim that the reductions equal reducing a 100km length of string by 1mm. They don't really say what the 100km length of string represents. Lets look at that:
A 100km piece of string equals 100x1000x1000mm = 100 million mm 

If the string represents annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions then 5% of 1.5% = 0.05 x 0.015 = 0.00075 or 0.075%. So 100 million mm x 0.075% = 75000mm = *75m (not 1mm)*

If the string represents that erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2 then we have 5% of 1.5% of 3.4% = 0.0000255 = 0.00255% = a reduction on the length of the string by *2550mm or 2.55m*

If the string represents the total green house gas content of the atmosphere with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% = 0.000001 = 0.0001% = a reduction of string length of *100mm or 10cm (getting closer).*

If the string represents the entire atmosphere with greenhouse gasses representing 1% of the volume with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% of 1% = 0.00000001 = 0.000001% = a reduction of string length of *1mm (bingo!)*. 

This would be fine except that 99% of the atmosphere (according to their calculations) is transparent to visible light and infra-red so there for you can't really include that in the calculation if you are discussing greenhouse emissions. 

You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.





medicowallet said:


> Factor in that Australia is going to go at it without China, US and India and at a price higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> lmao indeed.



Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters. 

Why should we go to hell in a hand basket while most everyone else decides to go there in the Bentley?


----------



## trainspotter

*GGGGGGGGGG GOSH *


----------



## wayneL

derty,

Sans political agendas, funding imperatives and other extraneous factors, where do you see the future with regards to AGW. 

I'm asking for a bare bones opinion that can be scientifically substantiated.


----------



## Boggo

derty said:


> You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.
> 
> Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.




And herein lies the problem, those with the science qualifications can't seem to agree.
How can there be such differences between the numbers and each lot look so convincing.

Maybe this aspect is the weak link in the defence of any perceived reality, which one is reality or is it acceptable and the case that those whose who produce (generally publically funded) experiments and meanderings that we are expected to rely on really haven't got a clue ?

If they did have a clue shouldn't they all agree a little bit rather than disagree 

Makes it easier for Bob and Julia to find an achille's heel to exploit.


----------



## sails

Derty - that's the science.

*But where is the scientific solution?*

Why are economists and politicians deciding on the solution?  They are not qualified.  Doesn't this worry you from a science perspective?

AND  trading carbon credits (or abatements) to other low co2 emitting countries (or companies as apparently Al Gore does or has done with his own companies) *does not actually remove co2 from the atmosphere?*

Can you please explain to me how trading money is going to reduce co2 in the atmosphere?

Look forward to your reply...

PS - please don't point me to economist papers, because they are NOT scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science.


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> Here let me fix some of that reality for you:
> 
> The assumption is that 1% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses (10,000ppm). With 9500ppm being water vapour (at the surface water vapour ranges from 1-4% (10000-40000ppm) though when you take the whole atmosphere into account it is only 0.4% or 4000ppm, but lets stick with ~0.95% as in the image).
> 
> C02 is now ~390ppm (not 362ppm)
> Methane (1.79ppm) + others (nitrous oxide - 0.3ppm and ozone - 0.07ppm)
> 
> Correcting for the methane error of confusing ppm for %, for the greenhouse gasses to = 1%, water vapour needs to be 9608ppm not 9500ppm.
> 
> So that breakdown gives us:
> *Water Vapour - 96.08%
> Carbon Dioxide - 3.94%
> Methane and Others - 0.02%*
> 
> Though then they go on and assume that as annual anthropogenic CO2 is approx 3% of the global emission that then it must equal only around 3% of the total atmospheric CO2. When in fact it is pretty easy to work out what the anthropogenic total is: Current CO2 = 390ppm, pre-industrial = 280ppm therefore (390-280)/390 *100 = *28.5% of CO2 is caused by human activity *(an increase of 40% in CO2 levels).
> 
> 
> Now looking at the small red section - we have the claim that the reductions equal reducing a 100km length of string by 1mm. They don't really say what the 100km length of string represents. Lets look at that:
> A 100km piece of string equals 100x1000x1000mm = 100 million mm
> 
> If the string represents annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions then 5% of 1.5% = 0.05 x 0.015 = 0.00075 or 0.075%. So 100 million mm x 0.075% = 75000mm = *75m (not 1mm)*
> 
> If the string represents that erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2 then we have 5% of 1.5% of 3.4% = 0.0000255 = 0.00255% = a reduction on the length of the string by *2550mm or 2.55m*
> 
> If the string represents the total green house gas content of the atmosphere with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% = 0.000001 = 0.0001% = a reduction of string length of *100mm or 10cm (getting closer).*
> 
> If the string represents the entire atmosphere with greenhouse gasses representing 1% of the volume with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% of 1% = 0.00000001 = 0.000001% = a reduction of string length of *1mm (bingo!)*.
> 
> This would be fine except that 99% of the atmosphere (according to their calculations) is transparent to visible light and infra-red so there for you can't really include that in the calculation if you are discussing greenhouse emissions.
> 
> You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.
> 
> Why should we go to hell in a hand basket while most everyone else decides to go there in the Bentley?




There you go again quoting numbers etc unbelievably boring who wants facts and basic common sense that the changes in percentage terms are by any measure extreme..............Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (but not a member of the house of lords btw) is much more entertaining.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> There you go again quoting numbers etc unbelievably boring who wants facts and basic common sense that the changes in percentage terms are by any measure extreme..............Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (but not a member of the house of lords btw) is much more entertaining.




Ahhhh numbers. Interesting things numbers... depending of course, how much they agree with one's bias.


----------



## IFocus

Anyone read this http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

This by Wendy Carlisle pretty much put me off the anti climate change mob http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm the irony of the claims of fear are just extraordinary.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Ahhhh numbers. Interesting things numbers... depending of course, how much they agree with one's bias.




Last 20 years spent a fair amount of time dealing with gas analyzers in process control not much bias but plenty of appreciation of Derty's explanations.

I would'nt make claims with the future of climate but the numbers are not positive by any means.


----------



## Wysiwyg

I don't recall seeing anyone commenting on the hole in the ozone layer. In my youth I remember the phasing out of chloro-fluro-carbons which were damaging to the ozone layer. Does this problem still exist with other gases being released into the atmosphere damaging the ozone layer and causing the assumed AGW? Derty or anyone?


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> Anyone read this http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
> 
> This by Wendy Carlisle pretty much put me off the anti climate change mob http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm the irony of the claims of fear are just extraordinary.




gee ever thought it might run the other way as well


----------



## medicowallet

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't recall seeing anyone commenting on the hole in the ozone layer. In my youth I remember the phasing out of chloro-fluro-carbons which were damaging to the ozone layer. Does this problem still exist with other gases being released into the atmosphere damaging the ozone layer and causing the assumed AGW? Derty or anyone?




I would let you know, but my computer with a calculator was destroyed by the Y2K bug..

Maybe my book on nostradamus will have something. Now it must be floating around in my room somewhere, because I don't allow gravity in here because it sucks down the bacteria which I will NEVER immunise myself against.

Don't worry though, I have thick skin, but brittle bones, from the fluoride that the government puts in the water to control my mind, so that I can watch the television which beams messages telling us to consume more.

Oh well, back to my hobby, got my trusty EL480i  telescope.. just trying to find any evidence of a flag or footprints on the moon.  Anyway, I have to go, Elvis wants another pie god dammit, he'll have to eat it cold, because Carbon dioxide is now a potent poison....


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> I think that the majority of the western world has accepted the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming. What has not worked has been the attempt to scare us into the belief that we are facing floods, droughts, cyclones and sea rises unless we take urgent action.
> 
> Gillard started her spiel on Carbon Sunday with all sorts of dire warnings, about our fate if we didn't act quickly, but she could  not say how a carbon tax would delay this.
> 
> It all went over like a lead balloon. Common sense wins. AGW is dead in the water.



Too true.

My mind is open to the idea that CO2 might be a problem, and we should take sensible steps to reduce emissions due to that. Where the problem arises is with the definition of "sensible". 

I don't consider moving the steel works from Whyalla to somewhere in China, shipping the ore and coal there and shipping steel back to Australia, to be an overly sensible solution to anything. That would wreck the local economy in Whyalla (and no doubt cause considerable harm to Australia generally) whilst increasing CO2 emissions due to the extra shipping involved. It's pure madness really, and yet that's a specific example of what the Greens seem to view as sensible.


----------



## bandicoot76

David Beckham Reignites Hypocrisy of “Overpopulation” Alarmists

Ultra-rich elitists lecture middle class on having less children, reducing living standards while living in opulence and procreating with gusto

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Following the birth of the David and Victoria Beckham’s fourth child last week, the modern vanguard of the elitist, arcane and racist eugenics movement, now re-packaged as “overpopulation,” reacted by lambasting the Beckhams as a “bad example” for families, labeling them “environmentally irresponsible” for having too many kids. However, the leaders of this movement are almost exclusively comprised of ultra-rich elitists who themselves have numerous children and are rampaging hypocrites.

“The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child,” said Simon Ross, chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust.

The scope of this article is not to debate the validity of the overpopulation argument, which in other reports we have vehemently debunked as unscientific quackery (the population of the planet is set to rapidly decline after 2050 and is already doing so in many countries), it is to expose the rampant hypocrisy of those telling us to lower our living standards, reduce CO2 emissions and have less kids while they themselves live in luxury, fly around in private jets, and procreate with little concern for “overpopulation”.

Just take a brief look at the lifestyle choices of some of the leading proponents of global warming and overpopulation movement, who while telling others to reduce their living standards and have less children, are themselves living in opulence with their giant families.



Al Gore

As the leading luminary of the global warming movement, you would expect Al Gore to live up to the standards he lectures everyone else about. Gore recently called on women to access “fertility management” (abortion) in order to stabilize global population.

However, just like the Beckhams, Gore has four children of his own, who presumably enjoy the luxury of his $8.8 million seaside mansion in Montecito, California (absent any worries about rising sea levels).

Gore is set to become the first “carbon billionaire,” but he offsets his 12-times the average power consumption by purchasing carbon credits ….bought largely from his own company, Generation Investment Management.



George Soros

Soros was one of the participants of a secretive 2009 conference of elitists which took place in Manhattan at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University. The meeting was focused around curbing ‘overpopulation’.

But Soros himself seems to have little personal interest in following a lifestyle consistent with his public persona – he has five children from two different marriages.

Illustrating this hypocrisy, Soros has given over a billion dollars to his family’s Open Society Institute, which issues grants to promote abortion.



Warren Buffett

Billionaire industrialist Warren Buffett has donated millions to charities and foundations that are involved in population control, including Family Health International, IPAS, Planned Parenthood and the Population Council. The money was used to develop drugs that sterilize women, as well as equipment used to carry out abortions in the third world. Only after his shareholders complained did Buffett cease such donations through his Berkshire Hathaway company in 2003.

However, Buffett was present at the 2009 “billionaire club” meeting in Manhattan, suggesting that his zeal for population control has far from waned.

Of course, Buffett’s desire to reduce overpopulation doesn’t apply to his own personal life, he has three children and travels the globe in a $6.7 million dollar private jet.



David Rockefeller

In 1992 at a UN Ambassador’s Dinner, Rockefeller gave a speech in which he decried the rapid rise of world population and its impact on “our planetary ecosystems”.

Another attendee of the “overpopulation” club in 2009, Rockefeller has six children and owns four mansion estates. He has poured millions of his fortune into global warming and overpopulation fearmongering.

Rockefeller doesn’t seem to fussed about his own half a dozen offspring’s impact on the “planetary ecosystem”.



The Rothschild Family

Being the owners of the leading carbon trading exchange, the Rothschilds have been eager to spread the global warming/overpopulation myth with enthusiasm, particularly through the work of David Mayer de Rothschild (pictured) who has become a leading climate change campaigner.

The exchange is set to be worth $150 billion dollars by next year, continuing the Rothschilds’ historical legacy of manipulation, financial scams and rip-offs that have established them as the foremost banking dynasty on the planet.

The founder of the family, Mayer Amschel Von Rothschild, had no less than ten children.



Ted Turner

“Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce,” the Globe and Mail reported last year.

Turner’s call for western nations to enforce a tyrannical policy that in China is administered by undercover police and “family planning” authorities who kidnap, force drug and then forcibly abort babies of pregnant women, has nothing whatsoever to do with his concern for the environment.

Turner himself has five children and owns no less than 2 million acres of land. He is the largest private landowner on the planet, falling short of only the royal families of Europe. Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%, a figure only achievable by outright genocide, mass abortion and infanticide.



Prince Charles

Prince Charles, the next King of England, routinely lectures the unwashed masses about sustainability and reducing their living standards. While stating that the “age of convenience” must come to an end to save the planet, in 2009 he embarked on a 16,000 mile round trip in a luxury converted Airbus with 14 of his staff at a cost of half a million dollars to browbeat people into limiting their carbon dioxide emissions.

While ordering the peasants not to eat beef to help mother earth and insisting that people “use less stuff,” Charles gorges himself on the finest cuisine prepared by the royal family’s chefs as he relaxes in the surroundings of his four mansion estates, including his Highgrove estate which covers over 900 acres.

21st century eugenics

The fact that the leaders of a movement that is trying to guilt trip the middle class into shying away from having children, suppressing their quality of life and obsessing about CO2 emissions, are ultra-rich elitists who come from huge sprawling family dynasties and spew carbon dioxide from every orifice as they gallivant around the globe living a life of opulence, should tell us something about the credibility of the message.

The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.


----------



## Happy

bandicoot76 said:


> ....
> The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.




While on subject of overpopulation I refuse to believe that help to starving millions will change anything, it will help to breed more millions and just postpone that hard decision to later on.

Similar medicines help us after testing on mice made me think, that if plague overpopulation hits humans we too will resort to cannibalism to live.

No eugenics necessary.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> derty,
> 
> Sans political agendas, funding imperatives and other extraneous factors, where do you see the future with regards to AGW.
> 
> I'm asking for a bare bones opinion that can be scientifically substantiated.



Well I don't really see it being addressed in any way that will begin to actually reduce emissions. Mind you there are ruminations that China is to embark on a emissions trading scheme though the aim is not to reduce emissions but to slow the rate of increase. The end result will be that we will see global annual emissions rise and will see an acceleration in rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels. 

The magic number touted is levelling atmospheric CO2 at 450ppmv to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg C. Now I don't know enough about climate modelling to know how accurate that number is. However, what we are seeing is a sustained period of temperature rise coupled with an increase in atmospheric CO2 almost entirely from anthropogenic sources. Regardless of what is said about Mann's hockey stick, the fact remains that the temperature anomaly has been confirmed by multiple studies using varied temperature proxies. 

The absorption properties of CO2 within the infra-red spectrum is well understood, as is the band saturation effect that causes the logarithmic reduction in the energy intensity leaving the Earth. The radiative forcings of the long lived greenhouse gasses are well understood as are their contributions with increasing intensity. While the role of water vapour is less understood it's very short residency period makes it a reactionary atmospheric component and is not a long term driver of temperatures. The role of variations in the Sun is also less well understood, though the uncertainties are such that they cannot be used to explain the temperature variations. 

The bare bones is that the current temperature variations (as well as those of palaeo variations) are not adequately explained in the absence of CO2 and the greenhouse effect and with anthropogenic additions of CO2 increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by nearly 40% it is entirely logical to conclude that the bulk of the observed temperature anomaly is human induced.

As for the ramifications for humans on Earth that is a whole lot more subjective. Most of the doom and gloom merchants peddling imminent catastrophe are almost certainly wrong and most of the high profile ones all have political motives. From what I remember most of the predictions do not have a global 2 deg C rise in temperature occurring until late this century. However as the CO2 rise is leading the temperature rise the conditions for ensuring that temperature rise will be met long before then. 

Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.


----------



## Logique

bandicoot76 said:


> David Beckham Reignites Hypocrisy of “Overpopulation” Alarmists
> Ultra-rich elitists lecture middle class on having less children, reducing living standards while living in opulence and procreating with gusto
> Paul Joseph Watson  Tuesday, July 19, 2011
> ....to expose the rampant hypocrisy of those telling us to lower our living standards, reduce CO2 emissions and have less kids while they themselves live in luxury, fly around in private jets, and procreate with little concern for “overpopulation”....
> ....The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.



Malthusianism come and goes, but seems does seem to travel in lockstep with the AGW crowd and greens generally.

If you want to reduce birth rates, increase prosperity. This is the very thing the AGW crowd would prevent, if they could, via carbon dioxide reduction measures that would  restrict economic development in the third world. At Copenhagen, the Chinese effectively told the west to take a flying leap, and I understand why.

Birth rates in the west are serious decline.


----------



## moXJO

> Mr Klaus, who entered public life in 1989 when he and colleagues volunteered their services to the leaders of Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution against the communist regime imposed in the aftermath of World War II, warns that climate change is being used as a political weapon by the Left. "I do not believe in the innocence of global warming alarmists," he said. "They do not care about the environment, they just misuse it in their crusade, which aims at limiting our freedom and prosperity.
> 
> "I don't want to make cheap comparisons of their ideology with communism, but I do see many similarities . . . It is a new variant for the activist political Left, and I spent all my life fighting such a political thinking because I lived in such a political system."



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alarmism-a-danger-to-democracy-vaclav-klaus/story-fn59niix-1226098608900

It's a shame the science has been muddled in with the political.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.




Thanks derty. We can argue about the causative factors (and no doubt will ), but I agree that our (grand)children will live in a different world to this one. 

The great shame is how those at either fringe of the debate have polarized points of view. I means that the great bulk of good that can be done in the middle is ignored.


----------



## trainspotter

medicowallet said:


> I would let you know, but my computer with a calculator was destroyed by the Y2K bug..
> 
> Maybe my book on nostradamus will have something. Now it must be floating around in my room somewhere, because I don't allow gravity in here because it sucks down the bacteria which I will NEVER immunise myself against.
> 
> Don't worry though, I have thick skin, but brittle bones, from the fluoride that the government puts in the water to control my mind, so that I can watch the television which beams messages telling us to consume more.
> 
> Oh well, back to my hobby, got my trusty EL480i  telescope.. just trying to find any evidence of a flag or footprints on the moon.  Anyway, I have to go, Elvis wants another pie god dammit, he'll have to eat it cold, because Carbon dioxide is now a potent poison....




Post of the month. Puts some perspective on the matter.


----------



## IFocus

derty said:


> Well I don't really see it being addressed in any way that will begin to actually reduce emissions. Mind you there are ruminations that China is to embark on a emissions trading scheme though the aim is not to reduce emissions but to slow the rate of increase. The end result will be that we will see global annual emissions rise and will see an acceleration in rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.
> 
> The magic number touted is levelling atmospheric CO2 at 450ppmv to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg C. Now I don't know enough about climate modelling to know how accurate that number is. However, what we are seeing is a sustained period of temperature rise coupled with an increase in atmospheric CO2 almost entirely from anthropogenic sources. Regardless of what is said about Mann's hockey stick, the fact remains that the temperature anomaly has been confirmed by multiple studies using varied temperature proxies.
> 
> The absorption properties of CO2 within the infra-red spectrum is well understood, as is the band saturation effect that causes the logarithmic reduction in the energy intensity leaving the Earth. The radiative forcings of the long lived greenhouse gasses are well understood as are their contributions with increasing intensity. While the role of water vapour is less understood it's very short residency period makes it a reactionary atmospheric component and is not a long term driver of temperatures. The role of variations in the Sun is also less well understood, though the uncertainties are such that they cannot be used to explain the temperature variations.
> 
> The bare bones is that the current temperature variations (as well as those of palaeo variations) are not adequately explained in the absence of CO2 and the greenhouse effect and with anthropogenic additions of CO2 increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by nearly 40% it is entirely logical to conclude that the bulk of the observed temperature anomaly is human induced.
> 
> As for the ramifications for humans on Earth that is a whole lot more subjective. Most of the doom and gloom merchants peddling imminent catastrophe are almost certainly wrong and most of the high profile ones all have political motives. From what I remember most of the predictions do not have a global 2 deg C rise in temperature occurring until late this century. However as the CO2 rise is leading the temperature rise the conditions for ensuring that temperature rise will be met long before then.
> 
> Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.




Thanks derty huge post


----------



## springhill

Here is a letter written by Frederick Seitz, 
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University,
regarding a Research Review of Global Warming Evidence,
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

A petition signed by over 31,000 American Scientists - see the following site
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Click on The Global Warming Review Paper link and it brings you here.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

In the words of J.Gillard, i respect the scientists, i respect the science, the science is in. She should sit down and read this, pretty damning.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

We are looking at a low of 9 degrees in Townsville tonight. It's bloody colder presently so the forecasters are out by a bit.

This , from a comment on The Economist



> How about the correlation between the number of pirates sailing the seas and the average global temperature? The correlation is obvious: back when there were more pirates the average temperature was lower; ergo, the absence of pirates is the cause of global warming.
> Maybe now that those Somali and Asian pirates are active we will see a drop in the average global temperature.
> 
> Maybe this will make it to the front page of economist.com too.




I rest my case.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg

How about we strike a deal. The politicians, guided by Ross Garnaut, give up everything that they use which is derived from the earth and move into the bush. That means selling the house and contents, car and toys. This is called leading the way and dealing with the climate change directly.


----------



## derty

sails said:


> Derty - that's the science.
> 
> *But where is the scientific solution?*
> 
> Why are economists and politicians deciding on the solution?  They are not qualified.  Doesn't this worry you from a science perspective?
> 
> AND  trading carbon credits (or abatements) to other low co2 emitting countries (or companies as apparently Al Gore does or has done with his own companies) *does not actually remove co2 from the atmosphere?*
> 
> Can you please explain to me how trading money is going to reduce co2 in the atmosphere?
> 
> Look forward to your reply...
> 
> PS - please don't point me to economist papers, because they are NOT scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science.



Apologies for the late reply - life is quite busy at the moment. 

Basically the scientific solution has been presented by scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science. It is to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Unfortunately the implementation of that solution is only really viable via political and economic means. It requires the enticement, coercion or forcing of emitters to reduce their emissions. This is necessary, as while the cost of discharging your waste into the environment is cheaper than the cost of cleaning your waste before discharging it, there will be resistance from corporations and individuals to take the more expensive option. The incentive to change will generally require laws or taxation devices, and that is when the politicians and economists come in. 

As for how taxation or emission trading schemes will work to limit the rise and possibly eventually begin to reduce atmospheric CO2 is quite simple. I'm sure you already understand the concept but I'll just put down my take on it. Taxes will make it more expensive to release the CO2 than treat it. Cap and Trade will place upper limits on how much CO2 a nation can emit and within that how much industries and businesses can emit. Those that emit less than the limit can sell their credits to those that can't. The cap limit can be reduced over time, reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and causing those industries and businesses that cannot comply to be priced out of business. Emissions trading allows the sale of carbon credits gained by emitting less than your cap or by sequestering CO2 to those that need to reduce taxes or allow production above a cap.

Ultimately the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere can only be facilitated by widespread adoption of non-CO2 emitting power generation and CO2 sequestration.

The sequestration of CO2 is not in the realm of climate scientists expertise. This is largely the work of chemists and engineers.


----------



## sails

Thanks, Derty.  No worries taking time.  These longer posts can take up quite a bit of time and I appreciate your effort...

I do understand the concept in FORCING people to use alternative energy.  I am concerned that such energy has not yet been fully developed and, at this stage, green energy is generally more expensive than coal fired.

However, it seems the political goal is to make coal fired so unreasonably expensive, that people will be left with no choice economically than to try and work with alternatives.  But, what if these alternatives are not reliable?  I posted the story on the White Cliffs solar power station that eventually was fed into the grid as it was too expensive and didn't work at night.

But that aside, do we know if carbon tax is actually the most efficient method?  Have tests been done in other countries that have priced carbon before us to know exactly how much co2 is reduced (as that seems to be the AGWers goal)?  Has it been adjusted for economic factors such as recession or economic growth and how established, affordable and reliable alternatives were at the time of initiating carbon pricing?  Scientists are good at this - are there any reports?  I haven't been able to find any - only economist reports which I don't trust when they are delving into an area of science for which they are not qualified.


----------



## sails

Derty, in a nutshell, I am asking if scientists monitoring the effectiveness of pricing carbon?  

And hopefully that is not just scientists on government payrolls as there is potentially a massive conflict of interest.  Politicians are generally not known for their honesty...

I have major doubts that pricing carbon is going to change co2 in the atmosphere as there are far more causes of co2 other than our electricity use.  But it is an essential service, so it makes sense from a political viewpoint that this is an area to tax to get the most revenue.

Too many things don't add up.  I think it's time to move on from the controversial science and now that we are being threatened with the imposition of a tax that was promised wouldn't happen, we need to know how much this has been researched.

There seems to be nothing on it except from economists and they are not scientifically qualified, imo.


----------



## Wysiwyg

> The cap limit can be reduced over time, reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and causing those industries and businesses that cannot comply to be priced out of business. Emissions trading allows the sale of carbon credits gained by emitting less than your cap or by sequestering CO2 to those that need to reduce taxes or allow production above a cap.



It will work when the nations that pump 1000 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere follows this plan.


----------



## Ruby

The following address by* Dr David Evans *is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

_*"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence,  was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."*_

read the rest -it won't take long.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

I thinkyou will agree he has the right credentials!


----------



## springhill

DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades

*and this excerpt from the NZ Herald.*
"Yesterday saw the most widespread snow since 1995, with snow driven by a cold southerly falling from the southern tip of the South Island to Waikato, including in unusual spots such as Nelson, Palmerston North and the Kaimai Ranges near Tauranga.

The snow blanketed Christchurch in white.

The city had the heaviest snowfall, dumps of 30cm and 15cm disrupting electricity, transport, health and education services.

The University of Canterbury reopened again this morning at 11am after closing yesterday. Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology remains closed for a second day.

Orion Energy said damage to overhead lines cut power to at least 2000 Christchurch homes. Power has now been restored to almost the entire network, with only a handful of Tai Tapu customers still without power this morning.

Elective surgery and outpatient clinics at Christchurch Hospital were cancelled.

The St John ambulance service was called to 24 incidents in the South Island - eight in Christchurch - in which people injured themselves by falling on ice or snow.

Bus services have also been affected, with many runs cancelled. Metro hope to get some buses back on the road from 11am.

Later in the day, the cold air moved north, bringing snow flurries to Wellington. Some snowflakes drifted on to downtown Lambton Quay.

MetService said Greytown, in Wairarapa, had its first snow in 70 years.

Weather ambassador Bob McDavitt said the record cold was caused by a southerly push arriving at the coldest time of year and in an uninterrupted flow from the Antarctic.

"The coldest days usually come in late July," he said.

"But what is unusual is that ... this cold air has managed to bring snow to widespread areas ... and to places that haven't seen it for 15 to 20 years or more."

Federated Farmers adverse events spokesman David Rose said fortunately the snow did not come during lambing or calving.

"It's winter and spring that concern us the most," he told Radio New Zealand.

"Winter [weather] in winter is okay and we do have plans in place."

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said the temperature at a weather station in Whangaparaoa, north of Auckland, dropped to 4.5C.

Dr Griffiths said that the last time it snowed in Auckland, in June 1976, the temperature was between 4C and 5C.

BIG CHILL

* First snow in Greytown, Wairarapa, since the 1940s. 
* 45cm of snow in central Christchurch. 
* Light snow in Nelson, Motueka, and Wellington. 
* Airports, roads, hospitals closed, power cut. 
* Coldest July day on record in Banks Peninsula (-1.2C). 
* 12cm of new snow at Turoa skifield; -10C on upper slopes."


Those kiwi fools! If only they had left carbon alone all this could have been averted.


----------



## derty

springhill said:


> DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!
> 
> News article from the Nelson Mail.
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades



Cold snap is cold.

From the same article:


> Mr Palmer welcomed the cold snap, saying it would help to provide the chilling many horticultural crops such as apples needed and reduce the risk of diseases and pests, which was high *after such a warm autumn and a mild start to winter*.



Swings and roundabouts - it's all about the long term averages.


----------



## wayneL

springhill said:


> DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!
> 
> News article from the Nelson Mail.
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades
> 
> *and this excerpt from the NZ Herald.*
> "Yesterday saw the most widespread snow...





See! Our carbon tax is working! ::


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> Swings and roundabouts - it's all about the long term averages.




Can you inform the Gorists and the Hansenists of this please.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> Can you inform the Gorists and the Hansenists of this please.



It's a problem that afflicts both sides of the fence.

It's often used to score cheap points, push the barrow or scaremonger, in the full knowledge that they are perturbations in the trend. 

Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.


----------



## springhill

derty said:


> It's a problem that afflicts both sides of the fence.
> 
> It's often used to score cheap points, push the barrow or scaremonger, in the full knowledge that they are perturbations in the trend.
> 
> Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.




The article was posted toungue in cheek, obviously it's long term trends that matter, but it's still fun to take the p!ss out of global warmists with the odd short term event, just as they propose short term trends as the definitive evidence of climate change.

How long term is long term anyway, even 10,000 years is a pimple on a dog's butt in terms of planet age. Our scientific records date a couple of hundred.


----------



## sails

derty said:


> ...Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.





Maybe so, Derty.  However the majority of Australians are not scientists and yet we have to give a verdict at election time.  Most people can see through lies, and I think the level of deception at play with AGW being used as an excuse for a new tax is something people can see through.

It seems that Gillard is using many partial truths in a desperate attempt to get voters on side, however, the more porkies and truth stretches she uses, eventually the public will find out and she will be further despised together with her policy.

Those of us without scientific qualifications have to rely on common sense in weighing up evidence from all sides of the debate.  At this stage for me, the warming side is coming up severely wanting and made worse by the partial truths being sprouted.


----------



## derty

springhill said:


> The article was posted toungue in cheek, obviously it's long term trends that matter, but it's still fun to take the p!ss out of global warmists with the odd short term event, just as they propose short term trends as the definitive evidence of climate change.
> 
> How long term is long term anyway, even 10,000 years is a pimple on a dog's butt in terms of planet age. Our scientific records date a couple of hundred.



 So you are in the first camp then. Better be seen to be stirring rather than clueless 

The accurate instrumental records are quite short, though give us reasonable coverage for the industrialised period. We have several proxies that supply high temporal resolution data going back several thousands of years. Ice cores afford relatively good temporal resolution reaching back almost 1 million years. There are lower resolution proxies that allow us to measure climatic and atmospheric conditions back many 100's of millions of years. 

10,000 years is an insignificant time period when looking at the Earth in geological time. Though 10,000 years covers pretty much the entire period of human civilisation and 10,000 years is a long time when you consider a human lifespan. Rapid changes have been occurring in recent human history that can be attributed to human actions. The consequences of which are highly likely to have profound implications for human society in the next few generations. 




sails said:


> Maybe so, Derty.  However the majority of Australians are not scientists and yet we have to give a verdict at election time.  Most people can see through lies, and I think the level of deception at play with AGW being used as an excuse for a new tax is something people can see through.
> 
> It seems that Gillard is using many partial truths in a desperate attempt to get voters on side, however, the more porkies and truth stretches she uses, eventually the public will find out and she will be further despised together with her policy.



Yes, the argument for the general public is in the political sphere, and based on a lack of scientific knowledge the choice of the general public is made on political grounds. 



sails said:


> Those of us without scientific qualifications have to rely on common sense in weighing up evidence from all sides of the debate.  At this stage for me, the warming side is coming up severely wanting and made worse by the partial truths being sprouted.



Yet you ignore the multitude of arguments that have been discredited as misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies that have been presented by the anti-AGW camp? A lot of which are still being presented as truth. 

If you weigh up the arguments and evidence put forward by both sides over time and see which of the evidence and arguments remain in good standing it is quite apparent who is clutching at straws.


----------



## springhill

derty said:


> So you are in the first camp then. Better be seen to be stirring rather than clueless




Let me go get my knee pads before i bow to your superior intellect. Oh to have the wisdom of your fine self. 
I have my beliefs on the matter, whether you think i am clueless or not is of little consequence.



derty said:


> Rapid changes have been occurring in recent human history that can be attributed to human actions. The consequences of which are highly likely to have profound implications for human society in the next few generations.




Tripe. Could it be possible that these 'rapid changes' just happen to be occurring during human presence, and yet those with ulterior motives seek to use these for economic/social/political change?

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that rapid climate movements have not happened in the non-presence of humans on this planet?



derty said:


> Yes, the argument for the general public is in the political sphere, and based on a lack of scientific knowledge the choice of the general public is made on political grounds.




In that case the polls would show a mirror image of political party support, which they are not. Labor and Green voters for, Lib and Nat party supporters against.
It is the climate change element that is the leading indicator for party support, not party support leading climate change beliefs.
Why have so many abandoned Labor?




derty said:


> Yet you ignore the multitude of arguments that have been discredited as misunderstandings, misrepresentations or outright lies that have been presented by the anti-AGW camp? A lot of which are still being presented as truth.
> 
> If you weigh up the arguments and evidence put forward by both sides over time and see which of the evidence and arguments remain in good standing it is quite apparent who is clutching at straws.




Don't act like pro-AGW supporters aren't doing the same. Each as bad as the other.

You can fool all the people some of the time, but not some people all the time.

Good luck with your beliefs, derty.


----------



## sails

Here is some interesting information from NASA's satellite data (bolds are mine):

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space *than alarmist computer models have predicted,* reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates *far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted*, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."​
More at Yahoo - Forbes and written by James Taylor: 

*New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism*


And here is the research paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf


----------



## trainspotter

FFS  !!!!!!!!!!!!! They cannot get next weeks weather right let alone what is gonna happen in 100years !!!!





NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Here is some interesting information from NASA's satellite data (bolds are mine):
> 
> "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space *than alarmist computer models have predicted,* reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.
> 
> The study indicates *far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted*, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."​
> More at Yahoo - Forbes and written by James Taylor:
> 
> *New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism*
> 
> 
> And here is the research paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf




Thanks sails. Good find.

The newspaper article is extremely emotive and unbalanced (unprofessional) however the research paper is fascinating and very good news for hoping the negative feedbacks are stronger as seems to be evidenced lately. The paper doesn't seem to provide a theory as to why it occurs but it does appeat to occur. Hopefully there will be a follow up paper.

Quoting:

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Just google Polar Bear Fraud.

It says it all.

Dodgy data, dodgy science.

gg


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> FFS  !!!!!!!!!!!!! They cannot get next weeks weather right let alone what is gonna happen in 100years !!!!
> 
> View attachment 43775
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE !!!!!!!!!




So chance of a good surf Wednesday then.............


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just google Polar Bear Fraud.
> 
> It says it all.
> 
> Dodgy data, dodgy science.
> 
> gg





Fresh off the press - thankfully our media can still report information like this...

Full article from SMH: *Scientist who raised alarm over polar bears suspended* 



> *A move against a US federal biologist comes amid a push for Arctic oil, writes Suzanne Goldenberg....
> 
> ...But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct.*


----------



## sails

Below is a Roy Morgan poll on the Monckton and Denniss National Press Club debate:



> Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated.'




Full poll results here: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2011/1393/


----------



## Knobby22

*City's hot August night breaks all records *Megan Levy 
August 4, 2011 - 8:25AM

Melbourne's summery spell continued to break records overnight as the city experienced its hottest-ever August night since records began more than 150 years ago.

Winter doonas were kicked off as the mercury dipped to a low of 17.3 degrees at 5.32am today, a remarkable 11 degrees warmer than the average August minimum temperature in Melbourne.

In fact, last night's balmy conditions were three degrees warmer than the average overnight temperature in the city at the height of summer. January's average overnight temperature in Melbourne is 14.3 degrees.

Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Scott Williams said the previous hottest August night was recorded on August 20 in 1885, when Melbourne dropped to a low of 16.2 degrees.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...all-records-20110804-1ican.html#ixzz1U0fji66E


----------



## springhill

Knobby22 said:


> *City's hot August night breaks all records *Megan Levy
> August 4, 2011 - 8:25AM
> 
> Melbourne's summery spell continued to break records overnight as the city experienced its hottest-ever August night since records began more than 150 years ago.
> 
> Winter doonas were kicked off as the mercury dipped to a low of 17.3 degrees at 5.32am today, a remarkable 11 degrees warmer than the average August minimum temperature in Melbourne.
> 
> In fact, last night's balmy conditions were three degrees warmer than the average overnight temperature in the city at the height of summer. January's average overnight temperature in Melbourne is 14.3 degrees.
> 
> Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Scott Williams said the previous hottest August night was recorded on August 20 in 1885, when Melbourne dropped to a low of 16.2 degrees.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...all-records-20110804-1ican.html#ixzz1U0fji66E




And yet it has rained nearly everyday in Perth, remember the desert city, for the last 2 weeks, including one downpour that nearly flooded my house. I can't remember when there has been consistent rain like this over a longer period, certainly not since early last decade and i work outdoors so i'd know.

Does anyone really give a **** what happens in Melbourne anyway? Can't you sissies handle a widdle bit of warm weather? Might do you pasty b@st@rds some good to get some vitamin D in you.


----------



## Knobby22

springhill said:


> And yet it has rained nearly everyday in Perth, remember the desert city, for the last 2 weeks, including one downpour that nearly flooded my house. I can't remember when there has been consistent rain like this over a longer period, certainly not since early last decade and i work outdoors so i'd know.
> 
> Does anyone really give a **** what happens in Melbourne anyway? Can't you sissies handle a widdle bit of warm weather? Might do you pasty b@st@rds some good to get some vitamin D in you.





You are a stirrer, barracking for the Crows in Perth??

It use to rain there a lot more in Perth, that's why the deslaination plant had to be built.
Back to the future?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I thought this thread was dead.

But it looks like the last of the alarmists are still trying to tell us that climate changes - yes i think we all agree Knobby.

Now if you can provide the observed evidence this is because of CO2 and nothing else, and lowering CO2 will bring down the earths temperature - then we'll be all set.


----------



## springhill

Knobby22 said:


> You are a stirrer, barracking for the Crows in Perth??
> 
> It use to rain there a lot more in Perth, that's why the deslaination plant had to be built.
> Back to the future?




Barracking for the Crows is not alot of fun these days, i admit, but through thick and thin they will always be my team. Glad we offloaded that cripple Davis, just quietly.

True that it used to rain alpt more, but the west has been in the grip of an extremely strong El Niño, which is coming towards the end of it's cycle and is transitioning towards La Nina. I think the west can expect better rain falls over the coming years.

Barnett's water canal (should have been a pipeline) was the solution to Perth's water security, not a desal plant, but hey that's Labor Govt's for you!


----------



## Knobby22

Our shining unfinished Desal plant in Victoria is a shrine to Labor's ineptness.

And all I am saying to you Ozwaveguy is prove to me ithat CO2 is not responsible by providing some data that the Sun is warming or sometink.


----------



## sails

OzWaveGuy said:


> I thought this thread was dead....




We've had the coldest winter in a long time and now warm day and the AGW enthusiasts are now claiming the globe is warming....

Surely there are far more practical pollution and future power issues to be considered than simply killing our current reliable power for a pipe dream of windmills and solar.  And it is nothing short of irresponsible to start shutting down our main source of power and making it so expensive that we can't afford it when there are no feasible alternatives.  But then these sort of stuff-ups seem to be the way this lot govern.

I think the Star something poster who openly admitted that Aussie voters are stupid says it all.  This government and AGW supporters are taking us as fools.

They will be surprised at what good memories voters have when the next election eventually rolls around....


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> And all I am saying to you Ozwaveguy is prove to me ithat CO2 is not responsible by providing some data that the Sun is warming or sometink.




:sleeping:

We've been through this already 874,987,9876,642,094,252,857,474,126,85u times already.

Lord Monckton is in NZ at the moment and spent 2 hours on Newtalk ZB putting forth the sceptics case and interestingly, a history of AGW alarmism and retroactive editing of the 'science'; freely answering questions from callers, many of whom parroted the alarmist's line.

He made mincemeat of them.

His points:

There is no question that extra co2 = warming, sans other vectors. The question(s) are:

How much warming does it cause?

How much warming since the little ice age has it caused? Has it increased the already naturally warming trend? 

What are the extraneous feedbacks... are they positive or negative in toto?

It additional co2 a negative for the planet, or a positive?

Should we try to negate any such effects, if any (whatever they happen to be, at this point indeterminate), or should we mitigate?

Are there other agendas being served by AGW alarmism?

++++++++

Warmists like to attack Monckton with ad hominem slur, but as he challenged today on the radio, please point out where he is wrong and allow right of reply.


----------



## sails

And something I cannot get an answer to - and that is how much has pricing carbon actually reduced co2 adjusted for economic factors in other countries who have already been pricing carbon?

Or does pricing carbon cause such a negative to the economy that people use less simply because they can no longer afford it?

The solution seems to be so very unscientific.


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> The solution seems to be so very unscientific.




It is unscientific, it is written by economists. 
I don't agree with the big stick approach.

And breaking a record by 1.1 degrees is newsworthy.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> ...it is written by economists.




Oh ****! We are in trouble then.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> .....This government and AGW supporters are taking us as fools.
> 
> They will be surprised at what good memories voters have when the next election eventually rolls around....




Sails, speaking of fools, if you recall, we briefly discussed a specific method to NOTICE some of those fools that push the corrupt carbon tax - since I will refuse to pay any carbon tax - I will therefore need some rationale to backup my claims. 

Several of my Notices are with key government officials as we speak with one more to go to my local member. Happy to share if you like, PM me if needed.


----------



## Smurf1976

It's been reasonably warm here in Tassie too. It makes a nice chance - two weeks earlier there was ice still on the ground in the late afternoon.

It's weather, not proof of climate change.


----------



## Julia

OzWaveGuy said:


> Sails, speaking of fools, if you recall, we briefly discussed a specific method to NOTICE some of those fools that push the corrupt carbon tax - since I will refuse to pay any carbon tax - I will therefore need some rationale to backup my claims.
> 
> Several of my Notices are with key government officials as we speak with one more to go to my local member. Happy to share if you like, PM me if needed.



That's interesting OWG.  Could you consider posting your Notices here so we can all benefit?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> We've been through this already 874,987,9876,642,094,252,857,474,126,85u times already.
> 
> Lord Monckton is in NZ at the moment and spent 2 hours on Newtalk ZB putting forth the sceptics case and interestingly, a history of AGW alarmism and retroactive editing of the 'science'; freely answering questions from callers, many of whom parroted the alarmist's line.
> 
> He made mincemeat of them.
> 
> His points:
> 
> There is no question that extra co2 = warming, sans other vectors. The question(s) are:
> 
> How much warming does it cause?
> 
> How much warming since the little ice age has it caused? Has it increased the already naturally warming trend?
> 
> What are the extraneous feedbacks... are they positive or negative in toto?
> 
> It additional co2 a negative for the planet, or a positive?
> 
> Should we try to negate any such effects, if any (whatever they happen to be, at this point indeterminate), or should we mitigate?
> 
> Are there other agendas being served by AGW alarmism?
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> Warmists like to attack Monckton with ad hominem slur, but as he challenged today on the radio, please point out where he is wrong and allow right of reply.




Tonight in Townsville we expect a low of 13C.

It is 18C at the moment with a mild southerly, and it feels a bit cooler.

These are normal temperatures for Townsville, this time of year.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Julia said:


> That's interesting OWG.  Could you consider posting your Notices here so we can all benefit?




Sure. See below. This is to Greg Combet. After 21 days without a response I will send a "Notice of Default". I sent back the carbon tax sillyness that came in the mail with my notice.

View attachment Climate Change Notice example.doc


Note the format convention of how your name should appear in the notice - there are logical reasons, eg never use Mr, Mrs etc as you are standing under common law. Feel free to PM me with questions.


----------



## Logique

Seems it's all gone quiet on the ANU-Climate Scientists-Bunkered-Down-After-Death-Threats imbroglio. For anyone who has lived in Canberra and inhabited the halls of academe, this claim is as risible as it is confected. 

In Canberra, the Labor-Greens stronghold, heartland of the People-Who-Know-Whats-Best-For-Us, a fashionable climate scientist is more likely to be borne shoulder high down Northbourne Avenue by the adoring populace, rose petals strewn in their path. 

However go ahead Federal Police, and prove me wrong with some hard evidence.

Otherwise the only conclusion is - just another stunt in pursuit of a one-day headline, mixed with just a smidgeon of self-dramatization.


----------



## Logique

Well this guy is thinking outside the square anyway. His instincts were correct in working towards a low carbon future, but this wasn't the appropriate methodology. Follow the police directives please sir.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifesty...s-in-his-kitchen/story-e6frfhk6-1226108213890
*Swedish man caught trying to split atoms in kitchen* AP From: AP August 04, 2011 

"A Swedish man who was arrested after trying to split atoms in his kitchen says he was only doing it as a hobby. 
Richard Handl overnight said that he had the radioactive elements radium, americium and uranium in his apartment in southern Sweden when police showed up and arrested him on charges of unauthorised possession of nuclear material.

The 31-year-old Handl said he had tried for months to set up a nuclear reactor at home and kept a blog about his experiments, describing how he created a small meltdown on his stove.
Only later did he realise it might not be legal and sent a question to Sweden's Radiation Authority, which answered by sending the police.

"I have always been interested in physics and chemistry," Handl said, adding he just wanted to "see if it's possible to split atoms at home".
The police raid took place in late July, but police have refused to comment. If convicted, Handl could face fines or up to two years in prison.

Although he says police didn't detect dangerous levels of radiation in his apartment, he now acknowledges the project wasn't such a good idea.
"From now on, I will stick to the theory," he said."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is 22C in Townsville at present, a glorious day, some high cloud.

It was 11C overnight, chilly as expected for this time of year.

I have been away, anything happening with the climate alarm?

gg


----------



## Sean K

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is 22C in Townsville at present, a glorious day, some high cloud.



I'm at the Australian in Palmer St, GG. Come down for a beer.

Just watching a nice program about the Big Bang theory, etc....

What most scientists agree is that the Universe is expanding.

If that is correct, then surely climate throughout the universe will change one way or the other.....

Whether/weather we try to change it or not!


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> Well this guy is thinking outside the square anyway. His instincts were correct in working towards a low carbon future, but this wasn't the appropriate methodology. Follow the police directives please sir.



Would anyone be concerned if I burnt some gas at home? Or oil? Or even coal? 

Would anyone be too worried about me using solar power at home? Or a small hydro scheme on the creek over the back fence? 

Nuclear fission is inherently far more dangerous than coal etc and no amount of claims to the contrary will alter this fact.


----------



## wayneL

From the "Weather Isn't Climate" file:



> Climate scientist Georgina Griffiths of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research said *yesterday was the coldest day ever recorded in Auckland*.
> 
> 
> The temperature got up to only 8.2C - compared with the previous lowest high of 8.7C, on July 4, 1996.
> 
> *The last time snow settled on the ground in the city was 1939*. It fell to ground level at the airport in 1976.




http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10745421


----------



## Knobby22

I've got a new theory.
Christchurch has done something to annoy the gods. 

"The cold snap also wreaked havoc further south including the quake-devastated eastern suburbs of Christchurch. Power was cut to hundreds of homes, mail postponed, schools were shut for the day and heavy snow made it too dangerous to drive on."


----------



## Happy

Knobby22 said:


> I've got a new theory.
> Christchurch has done something to annoy the gods.
> 
> "The cold snap also wreaked havoc further south including the quake-devastated eastern suburbs of Christchurch. Power was cut to hundreds of homes, mail postponed, schools were shut for the day and heavy snow made it too dangerous to drive on."




No wonder why climate warming alarmists quickly changed their mission name to: 
CLIMATE CHANGE


----------



## Knobby22

Happy said:


> No wonder why climate warming alarmists quickly changed their mission name to:
> CLIMATE CHANGE




There you go Wayne, classic example.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> From the "Weather Isn't Climate" file:






Knobby22 said:


> I've got a new theory.
> Christchurch has done something to annoy the gods.
> 
> "The cold snap also wreaked havoc further south including the quake-devastated eastern suburbs of Christchurch. Power was cut to hundreds of homes, mail postponed, schools were shut for the day and heavy snow made it too dangerous to drive on."



Thank you for the link to the snow in Christchurch Wayne.   I've never, ever seen snow like that in Christchurch before.  I remember the very occasional snowfall, but it was in calm conditions when the snow wafted prettily down and barely settled, in contrast to what seems like a wild storm on this occasion.

Knobby:  yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you.  As if the residents of Christchurch haven't suffered enough.  Many are still living in makeshift accommodation.
I so feel for them.


----------



## basilio

Just saw an excellent program on SBS called Power Surge.  Has a look at the types of energy technologies that can replace fossil fuels (or clean them up ) and meet future energy needs as well as reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Some of the most eyeopening points

1) Seeing in physical terms the amount of carbon used by the average American family each year.  

2 ) How advanced China is in developing solar cell technology. 

3)  Richards Bransons commitment to assisting development of carbon free energy sources.  (and teh really pretty  island hideaway he has..)

http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/.../latestepisodes/playlist/Power-Surge-Full-Ep/


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Some of the most eyeopening points
> 
> 1) Seeing in physical terms the *amount of carbon used *by the average American family each year.
> 
> 
> http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/.../latestepisodes/playlist/Power-Surge-Full-Ep/




Basilio, what do you mean by "the amount of carbon used" ?

(My bolds)


----------



## sails

Ruby said:


> Basilio, what do you mean by "the amount of carbon used" ?
> 
> (My bolds)




It often surprises me that posters who like to appear "scientific" seem to have huge difficulties in saying co2 - or carbon dioxide - that harmless stuff that gives life to plants and, in return, they give us life giving oxygen.

These same types of posters usually use screeds of cut and paste and usually links to their preferred science blogs or government funded "climate" scientists where it begs the question of conflict of interest.

But then, maybe Basilio was referring to carbon monoxide...


----------



## macca

Did anyone watch the SBS show The Tropic of Capricorn last night, got a great laugh out of it 

It was made in 2008 and he was horrified that it had been a drought in the outback for 8 years and told all the graziers that it was climate change and they better get ready to sell up and move. One bloke said " Nah mate it is all just a cycle" but the presenter was adamant.

It hasn't stopped raining since, Lake Ayre is the fullest in living memory, floods everywhere LOL


----------



## IFocus

Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......

Source WA water corp

The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.


----------



## basilio

> Basilio, what do you mean by "the amount of carbon used" ?
> 
> (My bolds)




At one stage the program translated the amount of carbon dioxide used by an American family into the physical carbon equivalent.  ( CO2 less the oxygen atoms). They had a tipper dumping hundreds of tons of  (very black dirt) carbon around the family to demonstrate both how much carbon based fuel is taken out of the ground to feed our energy needs and in an oblique way point out that all this carbon does end up in atmosphere as CO2.

Worth a look.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> At one stage the program translated the amount of carbon dioxide used by an American family into the physical carbon equivalent.  ( CO2 less the oxygen atoms). They had a tipper dumping hundreds of tons of  (very black dirt) carbon around the family to demonstrate both how much carbon based fuel is taken out of the ground to feed our energy needs and in an oblique way point out that all this carbon does end up in atmosphere as CO2.
> 
> Worth a look.




"Amount of CO2 used"????   We don't "use" CO2.    We produce it.  Plants use it.  What you are saying suggests to me you have no idea what the discussion is all about.

Furthermore, what you have illustrated is a totally meaningless exercise.   Carbon, one of the earth's major elements, and part of all organic matter, is constantly being recycled.  And no, all carbon does *not *end up as CO2 in the atmosphere.  What a ridiculous thing to say.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Sure. See below. This is to Greg Combet. After 21 days without a response I will send a "Notice of Default". I sent back the carbon tax sillyness that came in the mail with my notice.
> 
> View attachment 43836
> 
> 
> Note the format convention of how your name should appear in the notice - there are logical reasons, eg never use Mr, Mrs etc as you are standing under common law. Feel free to PM me with questions.




Tick-tock-tick-tock

Getting close now. Tim Flannery, William Steffen and Greg Combet have been all Noticed, still waiting for their responses.

Then the fun begins.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
> 
> Source WA water corp
> 
> The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
> .



There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
> 
> Source WA water corp
> 
> The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
> .




Yes ifocus, thats brilliant, lets bring in a carbon tax that makes sod all difference. However it will put you out of work and put up your electricity costs. 
But you can sit there all warm and glowing because you voted for the D!&k heads anyway.
Actually there is a guy at work that was ranting Kev07 back then. Even he is saying sod all now. 
I don't understand where you are getting your undying motivation from? Maybe it is hereditary? I do have to take my hat off to undying loyalty, it was what got the boys over the trenches in WW1


----------



## macca

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.




Hi Smurf,

Have the dams refilled yet ?


----------



## springhill

IFocus said:


> Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
> 
> Source WA water corp
> 
> The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
> .




If you *truly* believe this Ifocus, when will you be putting your house on the market and leaving WA? Better get on it before the rest of the herd does and you still have some value. Just like Flannery espousing rising sea levels by up to 2m, yet he owns a flash waterfront house, you'd think somewhere like Alice Springs would be a place a paid up alarmist like him would feel more secure.
Hey never mind, according to his logic sea levels will rise to the point that the ocean will flood the inland and fill the dams up for us, will save me the cost of putting salt in my boiling pot of water when i cook my spuds and pasta.

You know full well that WA is moving from El Niño to La Nina ie. a wetter weather pattern, and that graph will reverse, or maybe according to you the trend will continue and we will have negative water flow in the dams in 5 years?


----------



## Happy

In colder temperate climate, when ventilation of hot-houses was not economical during winter and only excess moisture was removed from the air, there were fermenters used to replenish dwindling CO2 levels as system was effectively not connected to outside atmosphere.

If it were hydroponic systems, some small animals (guinea pigs or rabbits) were kept under the tables for the same reason.

Hence I always thought that slightly increased CO2 levels will be beneficial for plant life.

EDIT:
I know, I know, collected tax will be given to those less fortunate, so they don’t have to change a thing.


----------



## basilio

Ruby said:


> "Amount of CO2 used"????   We don't "use" CO2.    We produce it.  Plants use it.  What you are saying suggests to me you have no idea what the discussion is all about.
> 
> Furthermore, what you have illustrated is a totally meaningless exercise.   Carbon, one of the earth's major elements, and part of all organic matter, is constantly being recycled.  And no, all carbon does *not *end up as CO2 in the atmosphere.  What a ridiculous thing to say.




Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.

Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand  both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.

In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.

But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled.  CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2,  more warming. 

(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> (But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)




We've been through this numerous times now basilio 

As discussed (but obviously you refuse to accept it), there are several dynamics that introduce artifact into the purported 'science', to the point that there must be doubt on everything. 

In particular, the IPCC models are proving to be largely useless.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> Therefore more CO2,  more warming.




Basilio, I know this is a circular argument, but *emperical evidence *has shown that this is not the case.  Initially increased temp moved with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but this has levelled out.  Now, although CO2 is increasing, *temperature is not.* * This is what is being observed.*  It has nothing to do with anyone's belief system.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.
> 
> Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand  both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.
> 
> In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.
> 
> But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled.  CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2,  more warming.
> 
> (But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)




Uh oh. Basilio is back with the same old propaganda - was it a nice holiday?

And what % of all CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man again Basilio? Is it still 3% or has the propaganda machine changed it?

While you were away have you found the observed evidence that shows the 3% is 100% responsible for driving "runaway" global warming? Or are u still referring to models and data with a heap of legal disclaimers? Please post a link of the study


----------



## derty

Ruby said:


> Basilio, I know this is a circular argument, but *emperical evidence *has shown that this is not the case.  Initially increased temp moved with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but this has levelled out.  Now, although CO2 is increasing, *temperature is not.* * This is what is being observed.*  It has nothing to do with anyone's belief system.



 What?    It is doing no such thing.  You are just regurgitating another anti-AGW meme based on small time periods and cherry picked start dates.. The surface and satellite data both show continued warming and when you correct for volcanic and ENSO variations the trend is clearly that of warming.




OzWaveGuy said:


> Uh oh. Basilio is back with the same old propaganda - was it a nice holiday?
> 
> And what % of all CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man again Basilio? Is it still 3% or has the propaganda machine changed it?
> 
> While you were away have you found the observed evidence that shows the 3% is 100% responsible for driving "runaway" global warming? Or are u still referring to models and data with a heap of legal disclaimers? Please post a link of the study



 How can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.





Glad to hear it Smurf its the outliers that fill up the aquifers.


----------



## mexican

basilio said:


> Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.
> 
> Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand  both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.
> 
> In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.
> 
> But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled.  CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2,  more warming.
> 
> (But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)




Bas....I think you are over looking something that is very significant in your post.
How much land has been logged in the past 200 and in particular in the last 50 years??


----------



## IFocus

springhill said:


> If you *truly* believe this Ifocus, when will you be putting your house on the market and leaving WA? Better get on it before the rest of the herd does and you still have some value. Just like Flannery espousing rising sea levels by up to 2m, yet he owns a flash waterfront house, you'd think somewhere like Alice Springs would be a place a paid up alarmist like him would feel more secure.
> Hey never mind, according to his logic sea levels will rise to the point that the ocean will flood the inland and fill the dams up for us, will save me the cost of putting salt in my boiling pot of water when i cook my spuds and pasta.
> 
> You know full well that WA is moving from El Niño to La Nina ie. a wetter weather pattern, and that graph will reverse, or maybe according to you the trend will continue and we will have negative water flow in the dams in 5 years?




The last outlier was around 1964 they are what make a serious impact on water catchment. Been a large number of cyclical El Niño to La Nina  since then.

WA state governments Liberal and Labor have long been preparing for the invertible crunch in Perth's water supply pretty much non political simply because its reality. 

Talking of reality surely you can see all the trees dying around the place from stress!

Am I going to leave WA? 

Not while the WCE's are on their way to yet another premiership.


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> Hi Smurf,
> 
> Have the dams refilled yet ?



It varies but:

Farm dams = generally would be full or nearly full.

Town water supplies (which in Tas are generally fairly small storages) = mostly full or close to it.

Hydro-electric storages = system as a whole is 52.1% at the moment, the highest level in years. The major storages are a little lower, whilst some of the minor storages are spilling due to recent high rainfall (there are significant floods in Tas at the moment) causing water to enter these minor storages more rapidly than it can be processed or diverted.  

The highest level in recent times was 86% in 1997, and the lowest 16.9% in June 2008. 
The all time lowest is 14.2% in 1968, and the last time storages approaced 100% was on several occasions in the mid-1970's.

There's a bit of a pattern to this and it generally involves many years of decline followed by a fairly rapid rise in storage. 

14.2% in 1968 up to almost full by the early 1970's.

22% in 1991 up to 86% in 1997.

16.9% in 2008 up to 52% in 2011 and still rising.


----------



## basilio

> Bas....I think you are over looking something that is very significant in your post.
> How much land has been logged in the past 200 and in particular in the last 50 years??




Quite right Mexican.  The sharp reduction of trees has been an additional factor in reducing the capacity of of the earth to effectively recycle carbon back into the soil.  And of course warming of the oceans  and the soils are also reducing  their respective capacities  to sequester carbon. Which further explains why the* rate *of CO2 increase is  increasing. The curve is now exponential. 




> How can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.



 Derty on Oz Wave Guy

With absolute certainty, complete ease and absolutely no respect for reality. Along with the vast majority of other posters on this topic.

 _______________________________________________________________
_I  returned to the forum  simply  to draw some peoples attention to an excellent program.  I have no further interest in responding to comments for the reasons  I outlined above.

Cheers
_


----------



## wayneL

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu



> Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
> 
> Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.
> 
> An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu




Perhaps this line of investigation will yield Derty and Basilio the observed evidence they so desperately need - reduce CO2 to ward off alien attack. Let us know if you see any scout ships Basilio, and we'll all be sure to switch off anything that produces deadly CO2 gas to save the world. lol


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.
> 
> An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu



Malthusian daydreaming. '..In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence..' , and '.."Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet..'.

Naturally these postulated 'Green' aliens would have developed an advanced civilization and interstellar travel without ever having had industries, which as we know are carbon producing and hence bad.

Give those 'NASA affiliated' academics a research grant at once. Only this can save the world from the deranged 'Green' aliens.


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.
> 
> An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu



It certainly is a hysterical headline.

But the actual work they are cherry picking is simply a hypothetical postulation on the range of possible scenarios that may result from alien contact.

Here is the abstract of the paper:


> While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible. Contact could occur through a broad range of scenarios that have varying consequences for humanity. However, many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author. In this paper, we analyze a broad range of contact scenarios in terms of whether contact with ETI would benefit or harm humanity. This type of broad analysis can help us prepare for actual contact with ETI even if the details of contact do not fully resemble any specific scenario.




While it is certainly science fiction the actual work the article is based on is far from crap. have a read.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.
> 
> An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu




The alarmists scare tactics haven't worked, so now they are enlisting the support of the aliens.


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> The alarmists scare tactics haven't worked, so now they are enlisting the support of the aliens.




You are correct, Calliope, the scare tactics aren't having the slightest bit of difference.  In fact, they are probably making their cause less believable.  Latest Nielsen poll on climate:



> MAJORITY OPPOSE PRICE ON CARBON
> 
> A majority of Australians continue to oppose a price on carbon, according to the latest Nielsen Poll.
> 
> The national poll of 1,400 respondents, taken from 11-13 August, found that opposition to a price on carbon is steady (since July) at 56% while 39% (also steady) are in favour. Support is highest among Green and ALP voters (79% and 68% respectively) while an overwhelming majority of Coalition voters (82%) are opposed.




http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml


----------



## wayneL

I suppose warmists are trying their best to ignore the results of the CERN experiment? LOL

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/


----------



## Knobby22

I thought you said that you couldn't say an experiment conducted in a test tube could possibly show how the atmosphere works. Glad you have changed your mind.

OK, the experiment shows that cosmic rays cause changes to the atmosphere which helps prove that the Suns reduction in output caused the weather to become cooler, great.

So when the Sun returns to normal won't the other effects then kick in and enhance this?

And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.




At least he is doing his bit to reduce *climate hysteria* (*"frenzied climatology"*), which is what this thread is supposed to be about.


----------



## basilio

> And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.   Knobby 22




Of course you can find an authoritative intelligent assessment of the paper from scientists  who actually know what they are talking about.  (Just don't expect most of the forum members to bother reading it.)



> *The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…*
> Filed under:
> 
> Aerosols
> Climate Science
> Sun-earth connections
> 
> The long-awaited first paper from the CERN/CLOUD project has just been published in Nature. The paper, by Kirkby et al, describes changes in aerosol nucleation as a function of increasing sulphates, ammonia and ionisation in the CERN-based ‘CLOUD’ chamber. Perhaps surprisingly, the key innovation in this experimental set up is not the presence of the controllable ionisation source (from the Proton Synchrotron accelerator), but rather the state-of-the-art instrumentation of the chamber that has allowed them to see in unprecedented detail what is going on in the aerosol nucleation process (this is according to a couple of aerosol people I’ve spoken about this with).
> 
> This paper is actually remarkably free of the over-the-top spin that has accompanied previous papers, and that bodes very well for making actual scientific progress on this topic.




http://www.realclimate.org/


----------



## basilio

And The Guardian offered a more accessible insight into the CERN/Cloud results.  There is some interesting new science in these studies. (* But it doesnt dismantle the rest of climate science understandings. Simply adds some new ideas to explore*_ .)
_
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And The Guardian offered a more accessible insight into the CERN/Cloud results.  There is some interesting new science in these studies. (* But it doesnt dismantle the rest of climate science understandings. Simply adds some new ideas to explore*_ .)
> _
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models




What understandings?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> What understandings?




The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny.  Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.

And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of *extra CO2* to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards. The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook.

(The last  thread I started on how much  CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with  our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny. Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.




What? What disingenuous and insulting drivvle basilio. Everyone knows and accepts this as it has nothing to do with AGW. This is a very immature comment.



> And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of *extra CO2* to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards.




How big a factor is the subject of ongoing debate.



> The global warming has been clearly measured




Attempts to measure it have been made, but there are problems... need I mention the missing hot spot and other contradictory data?



> and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2




As above. The chaotic system we call climate contains numerous forcing and science just does not have an adequate handle on that. We are now discussing one of those "forcings" that has put the cat amongst the pigeons. There is no more evidence required than  inability of climate models to predict ANYTHING AT ALL.



> we will cook.




Emotive crap.



> (The last  thread I started on how much  CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with  our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)




What? The co2 emitted by one tank of petrol is great analysis on the co2 emitted by one tank of petrol, but not much else.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook




Cooking from Alien lasers or cooking the AGW models?

The only thing clear is that your assertions lack complete credibility - as has been the case with almost all your posts as after several months you still cannot point to observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 "cooking" the earth. Sorry didn't hear you? How much will the temperature drop should we reduce CO2 emissions 5% from year 2000 levels by 2020? or 50%? or 100%

Sorry my mistake - I shouldn't be asking such simple questions to such a complex problem.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What understandings?




Yep, it all seems rather difficult my ole Pal.

3AW snow report on a few minutes ago.  Nice cold night up in the hills overnight so the snow machines had a great night prepring for the weekend, and he added "we have done well for the season in one of the warmest winters ever"

Ah well, froth and bubbles.

You do seem rather vehement of late on this topic wayneL, some sort of agenda perhaps? or are things just getting to you?   

There is really no proof of anything anymore you know.

Anyway, just good to catch up


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yep, it all seems rather difficult my ole Pal.
> 
> 3AW snow report on a few minutes ago.  Nice cold night up in the hills overnight so the snow machines had a great night prepring for the weekend, and he added "we have done well for the season in one of the warmest winters ever"
> 
> Ah well, froth and bubbles.
> 
> You do seem rather vehement of late on this topic wayneL, some sort of agenda perhaps? or are things just getting to you?
> 
> There is really no proof of anything anymore you know.
> 
> Anyway, just good to catch up




Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.




Must say I do miss the old froth and bubbles inspections along St Kilda Road. 

Lets see how it pans out with Irene.  Pretty early in the season for the US; strange this weather we seem to be having.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Tick-tock-tick-tock
> 
> Getting close now. Tim Flannery, William Steffen and Greg Combet have been all Noticed, still waiting for their responses.
> 
> Then the fun begins.




Time's up. No response. The process of law now kicks in. Notices of Default will be sent to each respondent. This matter is res judicata and stare decisis and the Respondent's are in estoppel by Respondent’s failure to respond.


----------



## Julia

The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.

The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.

I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax,  about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.

There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.


----------



## sails

Beyond Blue should know better than that, surely.  I am appalled.

My daughter has had a long term depression and yet she struggles more in winter and seems to do better in summer.  Bring on the warmer weather...

So, even IF AGW has any merit (which I doubt), it certainly isn't making depression worse in my experience.

PS - agree Julia that the potential damage carbon tax could do to this country is quite depressing.


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.
> 
> The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.
> 
> I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax,  about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.




I can totally understand your view that concern about climate change causing increased depression is bumpkin. 

Your view Julia and Sails and Noco and Wayne and so on seems quite clear.  You believe the large majority of  climate scientists have just got it totally wrong. Their understanding of the current drivers of climate is hopelessly compromised and whatever global warming is happening is not going to be significant and will have little long term effect on our climate and thus our future. 

You would also need to believe that the current warming will be reversed in some way to refreeze the polar ice caps and therefore not cause further significant rises in ocean levels.

If you believe all that (and it comes to pass ) then of course there is nothing to worry about. 

But, if in fact this vast majority of scientific research is accurate, if the global warming figures are reflecting the changes that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will bring, then the future doesn't look so good. And seeing minimal real changes in our societies direction that might change the course of history would certainly cause some depression in anyone who has studied climate science and accepts there is a significant chance it is on the mark. 

On a more constructive note I just saw another doco which pulls together the range of  alternatives that could change our future. 

Is the key question  *"How absolutely  sure are you that all these scientists, their research and observations are completely and utterly wrong ? And how much are you willing to bet against it ?"*



> *One degree matters ””* Full documentary film
> 
> 'One degree matters' follows social and business leaders as they travel to Greenland and experience for themselves the dramatic effects of the melting of the ice cap and come to understand the planetary effects of climate change and the impacts these will have on society and the economy. The film brings to the screen the latest science from the Arctic and shows why a further rise in global temperature of one degree matters for the future of humankind. Film had premiere: 13 December 2009 during COP15



.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/cop15/bend-the-trend/one-degree-matters-movie


----------



## wayneL

Nice basilio, a brief and grudging doff of the cap to the "presentation of AGW" caused depression, and then a repetitive rant on your views and yet another Pascal's wager type argument.

No new information whatever and ignoring the latest model shattering developments.

The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people. The same thing happened with the ozone hole scare.


----------



## basilio

Wayne I can’t rewrite the laws of science. I can’t  for example decide how little or how much  CO2 and other  greenhouse gases trap heat.

I can’t change the effects of these situation ie. What happens when the volume of  greenhouse gases grows faster than the capacity of our planet to absorb them .

I can only reflect on the best evidence and the best science available. Not the most desirable result nor the one that particular interest groups would like to see happen.  In effect these are either lies, magical thinking or the work of  PR hacks employed to create “new realities” on behalf of their clients.

Your dismissive rant on the role  of greenhouse gases in warming the earth suggest you either  don’t understand  the basic science of greenhouse gases  or your simply using the big lie to cover  the dismissal of the core of  this problem. Obviously other factors also affect our climate but * currently  we are changing one very important driver with clear consequences.*

This new piece of science (the CERN /Cloud experiments)  is genuinely interesting .  It seems to throw up a hitherto unknown factor in climate forcing’s.  No one knows what is causing the different results in the experiments and all scientists, and particularly those involved in climate change, are eager to explore the territory. That is why the Real Climate  website was  so interested in the research. But it doesn't change what is already known about the role of greenhouse gases in warming the earth

Climate scientists do not want to be” right” in a similar way that oncologists,  hematologists  or other medical based  scientists  don’t want to tell a patient they are dying.  But of course  climate scientists have an even greater interest in finding  a way out that allows the “patient” to survive – because they  live on the same planet they are seeing  in deep trouble.(_ If you want to look for depression caused by concern about climate change you can start with the scientists who really and truly understand the issue and cannot see a way out_.)

I now longer “debate” this issue on this forum.  It’s clear from the discussions that those who dismiss current climate science either misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence or simply don’t understand enough about scientific principles to understand the issue.   *And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly  majority of climate scientists  just happen to be right might be a sensible approach.  That is called risk management and is the basis of  all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.*

________________________________________________________________

Perhaps there is another way of looking at the story. Lets for the moment put aside issues about the possibility of  climate change happening from the CO2 released by the massive use of fossil fuels.

How long can we continue to use non renewable fossil fuels to keep our society going ?  Will it be 20 years, 30 years,  perhaps 40  before oil, gas and even coal supplies cannot meet our demands?   How long would it take to make the massive changes to go from a carbon based energy economy to a renewable energy system ?  And how much  carbon based energy will we need effect that change?  

These are equally daunting questions and maybe the prospect of ending up with lots of cars, toys  and houses but no energy to run them is the right driver to change our direction.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Nice basilio, a brief and grudging doff of the cap to the "presentation of AGW" caused depression, and then a repetitive rant on your views and yet another Pascal's wager type argument.



Yes. 
 Sigh. 
 Sadly, basilio, I just don't read your posts any more once I get the usual drift.



> The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people.



 Not just young people, Wayne.  I'm depressed about it, but not for the reasons suggested by Beyond Blue.  I'm depressed and angry that this Greens-controlled government is so ruining Australia.


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people. The same thing happened with the ozone hole scare.




Indoctrination in schools of the scary nonsense that basilio preaches must have a depressing effect on young minds.

His line; "unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook." sound very similar to the "brimstone and fire" threats of old-time preachers.. 

Basilio is preaching hell on earth, unless his religion is embraced.


----------



## ghotib

Calliope said:


> Indoctrination in schools of the scary nonsense that basilio preaches must have a depressing effect on young minds.
> 
> His line; "unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook." sound very similar to the "brimstone and fire" threats of old-time preachers..
> 
> Basilio is preaching hell on earth, unless his religion is embraced.





> The recent rain experienced across many parts of New South Wales has been welcome – but it’s also brought an unwelcome threat for many people.
> 
> The rain has lead to increased grass growth across many areas and as this grass begins to dry out, there’s an increased risk of grass fires.
> 
> Grass fires can be especially dangerous because they can start quickly and spread rapidly, catching people off-guard. They can be very hot and produce large amounts of heat which can kill anyone caught out in the open.
> 
> _NSW Rural Fire Service_



The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.


----------



## Calliope

ghotib said:


> The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.




Preaching: "To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with."

They are both preaching. Only one is acting in the public interest, and they are not using  hysterical terms, like "we will cook" if we don't comply


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> *And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly  majority of climate scientists  just happen to be right might be a sensible approach.  That is called risk management and is the basis of  all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.*




LOL there's Pascal's Wager again! It might be a mildly compelling argument if it wasn't undermined by a hypocrisy of truly epic proportions. You yourself have admitted to doing nothing. Al Bore, Flim Flam Flannery, Hokum Hansen et al live fossil energy intensive lifestyles. 

And yet you all have the temerity, the absolute hide to preach Pascal's wager at the rest of us... many of whom are doing their bit to reduce their general impact on the planet.

Very typical of extreme leftist ideologues.



> How long can we continue to use non renewable fossil fuels to keep our society going ?  Will it be 20 years, 30 years,  perhaps 40  before oil, gas and even coal supplies cannot meet our demands?   How long would it take to make the massive changes to go from a carbon based energy economy to a renewable energy system ?  And how much  carbon based energy will we need effect that change?
> 
> These are equally daunting questions and maybe the prospect of ending up with lots of cars, toys  and houses but no energy to run them is the right driver to change our direction.




This is an entirely different topic altogether and the very first valid point you have ever made on this forum. This is the subject of energy security and something we _should all_ be thinking about.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.




Dear Lord! That analogy is so inappropriate, on so many different levels, that it's ridiculous.


----------



## bandicoot76

ghotib said:


> The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.




as a long serving member of the NSW rural fire service i can say with a measure of authority that your post is irrelevant drivel.

 bad bush fires are usually the combination of 2 components: 1) an ignition source... be it lightning, or some A-hole torching a stolen car ...but most of all component no.2) do-gooder green groups not allowing proper fire control measures such as annual hazard reduction burns in state forests/national parks and not maintaining the fire-breaks & access roads in said forests and parks! 

to try to link bushfires to AGW is complete nonsense!


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.
> 
> The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.
> 
> I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax,  about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.




Interesting observation.  A number of the younger generation in our families, around the 20 year mark are sufferring depressive symptoms and three have trid to commit suicides, seconf cousins, so I dont' think it is copy cat.   

My wife mentioned it to her Doctor a few weeks back, a good Doctor in her late fifties who said that this age group have a high and growing incidence of depression brought on by their view that the world does not offer them a good future.  It will of course not be all climate change.  A number of these kids are in Uni too so it is not usually parental influence here as they at this stage know more than thier parents (the old cliche). But just maybe the kids do know more about things that many of us cannot accept.


----------



## basilio

Wayne, Pascals wager has no relation to taking preventative action to avoid a very real earthly event. Temporal risk management is what businesses and governments do all the time. It is the cornerstone of Malcolm Turnballs approach to climate change and the threat it poses.

I'm delighted that you finally found something you could offer agreement on ( depletion of fossil fuels) . Perhaps that is the reality required to decarbonise our economies as quickly as possible.  

And how about dropping the nasty, irrelevant and wrong personal jibes ? It doesn't improve the tone of the debate and I believe reflects poorly on you.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne, Pascals wager has no relation to taking preventative action to avoid a very real earthly event.




Very real? yeah but no but yeah but no. As we have discussed, climate change is real, The Mayans found that out well before the industrial revolution. But as we have discussed, the question still remains whether it is possible to mitigate the change, or mitigate the effects, whether human induced or not.



> Temporal risk management is what businesses and governments do all the time. It is the cornerstone of Malcolm Turnballs approach to climate change and the threat it poses.




Risk management is wise, but it should be based on probabilities rather than model based improbabilties.



> I'm delighted that you finally found something you could offer agreement on ( depletion of fossil fuels) . Perhaps that is the reality required to decarbonise our economies as quickly as possible.




As I have so often pointed out, co2 emission mitigation, whether necessary or not, is a by product of moves towards energy security, so long as it is not about hoarding oil.



> And how about dropping the nasty, irrelevant and wrong personal jibes ? It doesn't improve the tone of the debate and I believe reflects poorly on you.




What personal jibes?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What personal jibes?




You are biased, non objective and addicted to them.

We may not sometimes have your finess at expression but you coldy dismiss any idea outside you own square.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You are biased, non objective and addicted to them.
> 
> We may not sometimes have your finess at expression but you coldy dismiss any idea outside you own square.




Only if you do not agree.

I could easily direct the same criticisms at you... and basilio.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> Yes.
> Sigh.
> Sadly, basilio, I just don't read your posts any more once I get the usual drift...




Ditto, Julia.  I often wonder if it is just cut and paste from AGW blogs and the like...


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Dear Lord! That analogy is so inappropriate, on so many different levels, that it's ridiculous.



Really? Why?


----------



## ghotib

sails said:


> Ditto, Julia.  I often wonder if it is just cut and paste from AGW blogs and the like...




Interesting comment sails. What AGW blogs do you have in mind?


----------



## ghotib

bandicoot76 said:


> as a long serving member of the NSW rural fire service i can say with a measure of authority that your post is irrelevant drivel.
> 
> bad bush fires are usually the combination of 2 components: 1) an ignition source... be it lightning, or some A-hole torching a stolen car ...but most of all component no.2) do-gooder green groups not allowing proper fire control measures such as annual hazard reduction burns in state forests/national parks and not maintaining the fire-breaks & access roads in said forests and parks!
> 
> to try to link bushfires to AGW is complete nonsense!



I didn't link bushfires to global warming. I quoted a recently issued warning about the risk to life from fast-moving grass fires when the huge pasture growth generated by the wet winter dries off. 

A media report is [url="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/inland-nsw-a-tinder-box-say-bushfire-experts-20110828-1jgeq.html]here[/url].

My point is that warning people of potential real-world danger is normal and appropriate behaviour.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> *And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly  majority of climate scientists  just happen to be right might be a sensible approach.  That is called risk management and is the basis of  all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.*




I usually don't respond to your useless "book" posts Basilio since I believe you have an agenda on this forum that demonstrates desperation in trying to convince others, yet you don't act to reduce these "risk" factors using your "precautionary action" assertions. This implies even you do not think the science is settled, hence you believe falling back to precautionary arguments keeps you in good standing. It doesn't. Your standing is poor. You can't answer simple questions on observed evidence.

The purpose of my post is not to comment on your ineffective assertions Basilo, but to point out to others that this whole CO2 agenda and resulting Tax structure is about business. For those who are anxious about the proposed Tax, you don't need to be (even if it gets in). The Government *are a business*, they need you in order to make the cogs turn, they contract with you, you don't realize it, but they presume you consent. 

The reality is: they are all public servants, they serve you, they are afraid, they aren't comfortable to talk to you in public, everything has a disclaimer, like a slick car salesman - they advertise to sell you something you don't want.

You are the creditors in this equation, you are the authority, you are the administrators and the government is the trustee. They just presume it's the other way around. You just need to set them straight.

Having said that, an update on my lawful notices: I have several climate "experts" in default and they have tacitly told me that CO2 does not drive temperatures and Climate science is full of corruption. Notices of default go out in the next few days.

The next step is the Tax Commissioner. I will ask what % of my tax goes into the corrupt climate science and funding. Since Tim Flannery and Greg Combet admit it's corrupt, then I will instruct the public servants at ATO that I will not pay for corruption in the public service. Failure to disclose the % by the Tax commissioner will create a default since it's an admission of public funds being used unlawfully. I will then not pay any tax.

l will have standing in court of a competent jurisdiction as I will have legal acceptance from all parties with a full certified paper trail and un-rebutted affidavits. I will have won before stepping in court (otherwise I'd be foolish to go)

This is just my way of telling the public servants that I am the administrator. My 2c


----------



## IFocus

Perth has just had the 2nd warmest daily average for Aug on record its all good folks.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Perth has just had the 2nd warmest daily average for Aug on record its all good folks.




And we had some colder than average days in SE Qld this winter - climate cycles are all cycling as they always have done.  

It's all good folks...


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Perth has just had the 2nd warmest daily average for Aug on record its all good folks.




Ireland – One of coldest Augusts since 1851

31 Aug 11 – Following the coldest June in nearly 40 years and the coldest July in 50 years, this month is now one of the coldest Augusts since records began in 1851.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/what-summer-august-was-coldest-in-25-years-2861997.html

It's all good folks.


----------



## Calliope

Basilio was right...we'll all be cooked:microwave



> "During the first week, almost everywhere in the southern Australia will experience its warmest early spring weather in at least five years," Weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...-five-years-20110902-1jpnk.html#ixzz1Wm1t03Vk


----------



## basilio

Always interesting to view the perspective of Climate change converts and what has caused them to change their vews.



> *Confessions of a Climate Change Convert*
> July 18, 2011
> 
> Some of the most passionate advocates for educating the public on climate change are individuals who, after years of climate change skepticism, simply found themselves overwhelmed by the force of the evidence, and had the objectivity and honesty to look reality squarely in the face.
> 
> Admiral David Titley, the US Navy’s Chief Oceanographer, told a TEDx Pentagon audience his story last year, and I posted the video.
> 
> More recently, Conservative writer D.R.Tucker wrote a widely noticed piece in the FrumForum, (former George W. Bush assistant) David Frum’s conservative blog, “dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Tucker’s piece is reposted below in its entirety, with permission.
> 
> *I was defeated by facts.*
> 
> *It wasn’t all that long ago when I joined others on the right in dismissing concerns about climate change. It was my firm belief that the science was unsettled, that any movement associated with Al Gore and Van Jones couldn’t possibly be trusted, that environmentalists were simply left-wing, anti-capitalist kooks.*




http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/18/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert/


----------



## basilio

On the same topic of Climate Change converts it's interesting to see Admiral Titleys contribution to the debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## basilio

But there are still creative people willing to argue the case against AGW.  Worthe checking out this blog.



> *DenialDepot
> 
> Blog Science for Real People*
> 
> About
> We are not afraid to be called climate "deniers". In fact we embrace it as medal of honor bestowed on us by our alarmist foes. Galileo was a Denier. It is not an insult. I call this blog "Denier Depot" for that reason.
> 
> Welcome to my climate science blog.
> 
> I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs because we bloggers are natural skeptics, disbelieving the mainstream and accepting the possibility of any alternative idea.
> 
> We stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can't grasp anything as certain as a fact.
> 
> Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called "experts" in their "peer reviewed journals" say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.





http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Always interesting to view the perspective of Climate change converts and what has caused them to change their vews.




And it is interesting to see how little it takes to cause an eruption of  verbal diarrhea from a fundamentalist warmist.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> And it is interesting to see how little it takes to cause an eruption of  verbal diarrhea from a fundamentalist warmist.




Ah Calliope what else would I possibly expect from you ?? : And I did particularly chose the the last website , Denial Depot,  because it offered a balancing anti AGW alternative that some of our more froth flecked contributors could appreciate. 

Look,  if you (or anyone else)  can find some warmists who after carefully re examining the evidence have changed their mind please post it. It will make a useful comparison to my contributions to the debate.


----------



## basilio

Robert Manne has written a piece in the Quarterly Magazine on the role of The Australian in debasing the public discussion on Climate Change. There is an edited version in The Age that pulls together the threads of how The Australian has ignored the science and made up its own facts.  



> *The truth is out there*
> Robert Manne
> September 3, 2011
> 
> 
> *One newspaper's unrelenting campaign against the facts of climate change defies all reason.*
> 
> When I was a boy, part of the English syllabus was called ''clear thinking''. I hope some equivalent still is, for we have never been more in need of the capacity for clear thinking than we are with regard to the controversy over climate change that has raged, especially in the United States and Australia, in the past few years. The key facts and distinctions are so obvious that it is embarrassing and dismaying that they need to be pointed out.
> 
> The most important fact is that there is a consensual view among qualified scientists about the cause of climate change. This consensus provided the basis for the four reports of the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> On the fundamental theory - namely, that global warming is happening; that it is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, most importantly carbon dioxide; and that it is certain to have profound effects in the future - the science is truly settled.
> 
> However, in regard to scores of other questions - concerning the precise impact on global temperature and sea levels, acidification of the oceans, the rate of melting of ice sheets and glaciers, the pace of extinctions, the prevalence and intensity of hurricanes, bushfires, drought and disease - of course the science is not settled.




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...s-out-there-20110902-1jq1z.html#ixzz1WqNNkF8P


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Ireland – One of coldest Augusts since 1851
> 
> 31 Aug 11 – Following the coldest June in nearly 40 years and the coldest July in 50 years, this month is now one of the coldest Augusts since records began in 1851.
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/what-summer-august-was-coldest-in-25-years-2861997.html
> 
> It's all good folks.




Its a bit like the markets really, there will be volatility.

And in the bias of either side.

But I do find the sceptics more extreme in tone, but they will say, I am only saying that because I am not a skeptic.

Vegitables the last 15 years have been much more advanced in late winter than years back.  I can even grow tomatoes out of season down here on the Vic south coast.  It was unheard of.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Look,  if you (or anyone else)  can find some warmists who after carefully re examining the evidence have changed their mind please post it. It will make a useful comparison to my contributions to the debate.




Ah, basilio, you of all people know that fundamentalists, whether from the left or the right, cannot change their position. They firmly believe that they are always right.

Sticking out the tongue is quite juvenile, but is does confirm your immaturity.


----------



## medicowallet

explod said:


> Its a bit like the markets really, there will be volatility.
> 
> And in the bias of either side.
> 
> But I do find the sceptics more extreme in tone, but they will say, I am only saying that because I am not a skeptic.
> 
> Vegitables the last 15 years have been much more advanced in late winter than years back.  I can even grow tomatoes out of season down here on the Vic south coast.  It was unheard of.




Feed the world. That is what we can achieve, and unless strategies are put into place to curb population growth, or to decline it, then we will never have CO2 levels decrease, and that is a good thing as it provides stability to the planet.


----------



## derty

In the media there is what appears to be equal coverage of cold snaps and heat waves and you would be forgiven for thinking that things were cooling off or at least being in balance. 

Below is a graph showing the ratio of hot vs cold record temperatures in the US for the last year. While it is only for the US and cannot be assumed to apply globally it shows the dominance of the hot records (August saw over 3000 daily heat records vs 142 cold records). I was surprised by the results, particularly given the media attention the winter cold snaps were given in the media. 





below is a graph detailing the number of records from Jun 2010 - 2011



http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/search/label/Record Heat


----------



## Smurf1976

It that US data exclusive of all cities, large towns, industrial areas, airports, power stations etc which are accepted as creating heat islands? If not then it would not correlate to global temperatures outside of these artificial heat sources.

Reason for asking is that given the sheer number of records (either hot or cold), I'm guessing that at least some of them were in cities, large towns, airports etc.


----------



## bellenuit

basilio said:


> Robert Manne has written a piece in the Quarterly Magazine on the role of The Australian in debasing the public discussion on Climate Change. There is an edited version in The Age that pulls together the threads of how The Australian has ignored the science and made up its own facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...s-out-there-20110902-1jq1z.html#ixzz1WqNNkF8P




Surely Manne jests?  The Australian's official position is that climate change is happening and that it is the result of man made activities. They have stated this in their editorial at least once in the last month and many times perviously. They do, however, allow columnists to opine on the subject and unlike many publications allow a broad range of views to be printed. This is as it should be.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

The weather in Townsville is no different today, than it has been for this time of year, in the recent past.

I can find no scientific evidence that there is climate change, but there is considerable climate hysteria.

I do wish these latte lefties would move on to some other religious belief. This is getting tiring.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The weather in Townsville is no different today, than it has been for this time of year, in the recent past.
> 
> I can find no scientific evidence that there is climate change, but there is considerable climate hysteria.
> 
> I do wish these latte lefties would move on to some other religious belief. This is getting tiring.
> 
> gg




In the great words of Joe, "Don't you worry about that".   

With no lefties you would have nothing to lean on or to sell the coffee beans,        

oops there, that's it, bent bananas.


----------



## basilio

bellenuit said:


> Surely Manne jests?  The Australian's official position is that climate change is happening and that it is the result of man made activities. They have stated this in their editorial at least once in the last month and many times perviously. They do, however, allow columnists to opine on the subject and unlike many publications allow a broad range of views to be printed. This is as it should be.




Good theory Bellenuit... If you have a read of Manne's story you can see how the theoretically official position on climate change contrasts with the columnists views. In particular Manne details just how  these columnists manage to ignore that scientific position The Australia says it agrees with.   And Manne notes the role the Editor plays in reinforcing this position.

I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering.  (Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..)


----------



## bellenuit

basilio said:


> Good theory Bellenuit... If you have a read of Manne's story you can see how the theoretically official position on climate change contrasts with the columnists views. In particular Manne details just how  these columnists manage to ignore that scientific position The Australia says it agrees with.   And Manne notes the role the Editor plays in reinforcing this position.
> 
> I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering.  (Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..)




Being a daily reader of the Australian, my assessment is that its columnists cover a broad range of opinion on the subject. 

Was the story you are referring to in the "Letters" section?  If so, it would hardly be an good example of editorial opinion.


----------



## basilio

bellenuit said:


> Being a daily reader of the Australian, my assessment is that its columnists cover a broad range of opinion on the subject.
> 
> Was the story you are referring to in the "Letters" section?  If so, it would hardly be an good example of editorial opinion.




Actually the story was on the front page of The Australian in Feb 2010. Check out the following link .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915

The journalism was so bad that even senior staff at News Limited couldn't stomach it.



> There are those within News Limited who are deeply uncomfortable with the paper’s position. The manager of environment and climate change at News Limited, Dr Tony Wilkins, told colleagues last September he had cancelled his subscription to the Australian because of its coverage. Dr Wilkins described a front-page story in February last year about a Bondi surfer who said he hadn’t seen any change in sea levels as “the worst case of journalism I ever saw anywhere”.




http://www.themonthly.com.au/power-...ed-states-chris-mitchell-sally-neighbour-3589


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> The journalism was so bad that even senior staff at News Limited couldn't stomach it.




Never mind basilio. You don't have to read The Australian, unless you are interested in balance. The Guardian and the Pravda on the Yarra are more your style.


----------



## bellenuit

basilio said:


> Actually the story was on the front page of The Australian in Feb 2010. Check out the following link .
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
> 
> The journalism was so bad that even senior staff at News Limited couldn't stomach it.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.themonthly.com.au/power-...ed-states-chris-mitchell-sally-neighbour-3589




Actually, IMO, that article doesn't in any way give me the impression of  deliberate bias. The heading is very much warmist propaganda: "Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches", suggesting the beach could erode by "hundreds of metres". The comment from the surfer could hardly be seen as The Australian using an authoritative source to counter Wong's claims. It was used purely in the context of how locals see the situation and was probably factually correct in regards to the past 30 years. It then used an authoritative source who gave factual information about measurements to date globally, which indicate 1.6mm pa. That is 4.8cm over 30 years and would also corroborate the gut feel of the local.

If you call that article bias, then you ain't read the stuff the government has been putting out.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering.  (Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..)




Basilio, *no-one *on this forum has denied that our climate is changing!  The earth's climate has *always *changed.  You have been making some pretty wild claims in the last couple of weeks.


----------



## basilio

bellenuit said:


> Actually, IMO, that article doesn't in any way give me the impression of  deliberate bias. The heading is very much warmist propaganda: "Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches", suggesting the beach could erode by "hundreds of metres". The comment from the surfer could hardly be seen as The Australian using an authoritative source to counter Wong's claims. It was used purely in the context of how locals see the situation and was probably factually correct in regards to the past 30 years. It then used an authoritative source who gave factual information about measurements to date globally, which indicate 1.6mm pa. That is 4.8cm over 30 years and would also corroborate the gut feel of the local.
> 
> If you call that article bias, then you ain't read the stuff the government has been putting out.




It's your opinion Bellenuit and like every other person on this forum your welcome to it.
A few clarifications

1) It was the Tony Wilkins the manager of Environmental and Climate Change at News Ltd who thought this was the worst piece of journalism he had seen. 

2) Penny Wong was basing her statements on the advice of IPPC climate scientists.  I understand that in this forum the research and analysis of  99% of climate scientists who see a serious problem is basically derided.  But Penny Wong does need to  recognise and follow the advice of what is the overwhelmingly majority of the current science.

3) The Australian chose to contrast the views of  hundreds of climate scientists against a 63 year old surfer who says he can't see any changes.

4) Professor Carter offers a view of the last 100 years of water level rises which he then projects into the future. He rejects  all the  evidence of climate scientist on rising ocean levels based on warming of the oceans (which will cause water expansion) and melting of glaciers and  Greenland icecaps (both clearly documented and expanding exponentially)


----------



## sails

Here's something that's NOT from the Australian - that should please Basilio...  

The Sunday Age has been looking for reader questions on climate and here is the winning question:



> "The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5% of Australia's around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by? If the amount is negligible (which it is), then given the present economic turbulence, what is the probability of Australia's carbon tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and India to make ACTUAL cuts to their C02 emissions (as opposed to mere carbon intensity) and economic growth? - -Jason Fong,"




and the answer (bold is mine):



> "Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, *Australia's policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100*."




So, even IF AGW is for real, there is little Australia can do about it.  No point arguing AGW any further unless the entire world will do something.  Even then I doubt that we can change co2 significantly with a tax.  And major emitting countries are simply not interested.

Relevent links to the quotes above:

http://oursay.org/the-sunday-age/th...will-reducing-5-of-australia-039-s-around-1-5

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz1WuyY7La6


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> Basilio, *no-one *on this forum has denied that our climate is changing!  The earth's climate has *always *changed.  You have been making some pretty wild claims in the last couple of weeks.



Ruby, Look at GG's post 6 above your own. Is GG no one?


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Here's something that's NOT from the Australian - that should please Basilio...
> 
> The Sunday Age has been looking for reader questions on climate and here is the winning question:
> 
> 
> 
> and the answer (bold is mine):
> 
> 
> 
> So, even IF AGW is for real, there is little Australia can do about it.  No point arguing AGW any further unless the entire world will do something.  Even then I doubt that we can change co2 significantly with a tax.  And major emitting countries are simply not interested.
> 
> Relevent links to the quotes above:
> 
> http://oursay.org/the-sunday-age/th...will-reducing-5-of-australia-039-s-around-1-5
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz1WuyY7La6




It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go,* but it is a start*

There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.

Effect very little at this stage.  It is about changing *sentiment* getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking.  Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.

Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go,* but it is a start*
> 
> There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.
> 
> Effect very little at this stage.  It is about changing *sentiment* getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking.  Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.
> 
> Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.




And neither does risking the vandalising of our economy.  That is a far greater risk to Australia than a tiny 0.0038% of a rising temperature.

The political "cure" is very likely to be far worse than the initial problem, imo.  Much like pulling your whole house down to find something you've lost.  Big overkill.

And, some of these other minor emitting countries have alternative baseload power such as hydro or nuclear.  We have neither.  Pretty stupid to put our main power at risk to prevent a tiny 0.0038% of rising temperature over the next 90 years...


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> Ruby, Look at GG's post 6 above your own. Is GG no one?





Pretty stupid to call AGW "climate change" because the climate has always changed.  No argument there.  There have always been long and short term warming and cooling cycles.

However, the controversial AGW "science" is not settled.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> And neither does risking the vandalising of our economy.  That is a far greater risk to Australia than a tiny 0.0038% of a rising temperature.
> 
> The political "cure" is very likely to be far worse than the initial problem, imo.  Much like pulling your whole house down to find something you've lost.  Big overkill.
> 
> And, some of these other minor emitting countries have alternative baseload power such as hydro or nuclear.  We have neither.  Pretty stupid to put our main power at risk to prevent a tiny 0.0038% of rising temperature over the next 90 years...




Maybe the eonomomy would benefit more by the stimulation creating new technologies.

And also if this new scheme is seen to be bringing down the economy then Governments will be forced to alter the direction of the ways to battle climate change. 

But we do not really know yet.  Some branches of business and industry are welcoming the change.

However as I said, sitting on our hands is a solution to nought.


----------



## Smurf1976

All these notions of taking action to reduce CO2 have one fatal flaw, an escape route for the major polluters who are pretty certain to use it.

"Free trade" is what stops us cutting emissions unless every country on earth agrees to do the same thing at the same time.

If we're going to have a carbon tax then it needs to be the same rate in Australia, China, Brazil, USA, South Africa, Qatar, Russia and many others. Either that or we close the escape door and slap tariffs on goods from any country with a lower rate of tax than us. But then that gives us a trade war, which isn't likely to be a good situation either.

For as long as I've had an interest in this issue, and that goes back to well before it was mainstream, trade has always been the thing that prevents effective action to reduce emissions. If we tax production here or otherwise force it to clean up then it simply moves offshore, meaning that nothing gets done to reduce emissions whilst throwing Australians out of work.

If Australia wants to actually reduce emissions then we're faced with the reality of needing to impose laws such that steel (for example) used in Australia has to be made in Australia or some other country with an equal (or greater) price on carbon. That is, a ban or tax on steel imports from most countries on earth. Likewise every other energy-intensive material and product made from it. In practice, that amounts to a return to protectionism and that's a fairly serious step with broader consequences.

We can debate CO2 forever but as it stands there is no means of actually bringing about a cut in emissions from energy-intensive materials production and manufacturing generally. Either we let it continue, or we move it offshore and it continues there instead. As long as there's this obsession with "free" trade and competition, we don't have the option to force domestic industry to do something that isn't being done internationally.

Could it be done? Of course it could. But it's not likely to actually happen.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> ...But we do not really know yet.  Some branches of business and industry are welcoming the change.
> 
> However as I said, sitting on our hands is a solution to nought.




Exoplod, exactly...we do not know and it is a huge gamble in these economic times.

  Of course, business that are likely to profit will welcome the change.  Banks must be rubbing their hands together at so much forced trade where they can make a motza from bid/ask spreads.  I assume you know what that means, Explod?  It can be a painful thing when trading Aussie options but unlikely to be understood by Aussie share traders.

And sitting on our hands doing nothing is a whole lot better than risking the bulldozing of the Australian economy.  I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities.  Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.

I have no problem with research and development into alternative power sources, however, they are not sufficiently established at this point in time to tax the hell out of our current baseload power.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Exoplod, exactly...we do not know and it is a huge gamble in these economic times.
> 
> Of course, business that are likely to profit will welcome the change.  Banks must be rubbing their hands together at so much forced trade where they can make a motza from bid/ask spreads.  I assume you know what that means, Explod?  It can be a painful thing when trading Aussie options but unlikely to be understood by Aussie share traders.
> 
> And sitting on our hands doing nothing is a whole lot better than risking the bulldozing of the Australian economy.  I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities.  Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.
> 
> I have no problem with research and development into alternative power sources, however, they are not sufficiently established at this point in time to tax the hell out of our current baseload power.




You still miss my point.  

It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> You still miss my point.
> 
> It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.




We might have to agree to disagree, Explod...

You are focused on the tiny reduction and I am more concerned about our future economy for my grandkids.  I don't trust treasury's modelling - they were a laughing stock over the mining tax and there's absolutely no guarantee that they have got their numbers right on pricing carbon.

While this link is from last year, it doesn't inspire one with confidence at the ability of treasury to get these big taxes right: Treasury tarnished by turn of events over mining super tax


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> You still miss my point.
> 
> It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.



Explod, I doubt very much that Sails is missing your point.
She is simply overriding the romantic wishful thinking of it with some objective and absolutely rational arguments.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering.  *(Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..*)



(My bolds) 

I think an  elderly surfer is more in tune with climate change than your 99% of IPPC climate scientists living and working in splendid isolation, mucking around with modelling. 

And who is this "elder statesman" you are sneering at? Don't forget that your chief admirer on this thread, explod, is no spring chicken.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go,* but it is a start*
> 
> There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.
> 
> Effect very little at this stage.  It is about changing *sentiment* getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking.  Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.
> 
> Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.




If the government was interested in changing pollution levels they could do so by giving industries targets that they must attain within certain timeframes.
For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020. This would be achievable as the technology and infrastructure is already there to support it.
The down side is the government don't get extra tax from the carbon tax and also loose tax from the petrol excise tax. They are just full of crap, it has nothing to do with cleaning up the atmosphere it is all to do with an easy tax grab. More money that they can waste, as they have been doing.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> If the government was interested in changing pollution levels they could do so by giving industries targets that they must attain within certain timeframes.
> For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020. This would be achievable as the technology and infrastructure is already there to support it.
> The down side is the government don't get extra tax from the carbon tax and also loose tax from the petrol excise tax. They are just full of crap, it has nothing to do with cleaning up the atmosphere it is all to do with an easy tax grab. More money that they can waste, as they have been doing.




I agree, in my view the approach is crap too.

My argument is about *sentiment* and it is bringing it to the surface.  This thread is evidence enough of that.

There is no doubt that the weight of numbers will find a much better way in due course.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> There is no doubt that the weight of numbers will find a much better way in due course.




If you mean the "weight of numbers" of the  warmist alarmists you will be sadly disillusioned. They are not interested in a better way. They are rusted on to the punitive taxation model.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> If you mean the "weight of numbers" of the  warmist alarmists you will be sadly disillusioned. They are not interested in a better way. They are rusted on to the punitive taxation model.




Who knows which direction the weight of numbers will take us, but the starting gun has *sounded*.

..."sadly dissilusioned"... bit of passion there ole Pal, ..."alarmists"..., very touchy.


----------



## Happy

sails said:


> …  I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities.  Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.
> ….




Funny thing is that this “0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time” might be a good thing if we are heading toward next mini-ice age.
Since supposedly temperature is slightly dropping in last 10 years instead of continuously rising I don’t think this is not a possibility.


----------



## Boggo

The apparent reality ?

http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2455


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020.



Such high use of LPG creates an upstream supply problem, at least unless a lot of refineries are reconfigured to intentionally crack crude oil into butane / propane. I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties in bringing that about in such a short timeframe.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Such high use of LPG creates an upstream supply problem, at least unless a lot of refineries are reconfigured to intentionally crack crude oil into butane / propane. I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties in bringing that about in such a short timeframe.




It has to be cheap when compared to what they are suggesting regards power stations. Also the technology is there to facilitate the change.
With regard timeframes I just plucked them out of the air, with a study sensible timeframes could be ascertained.
The main thrust of the suggestion was to show there is technology readily available that could make a huge improvement to air quality in cities right now.
However the government chooses to not agressively pursue it, therefore in reality is the intent to raise a tax, or to clean up our atmosphere?
Actually it would probably send a bigger message to the world that we are serious about tackling pollution than the carbon tax does.


----------



## Logique

Again it's only the older, established scientists that feel safe to speak out. But of course, we must not forget, the science is in, Gregory Ivan told us so.

A Nobel laureate makes a stand against the global warming faith:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the *1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13*, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.” 

The official position of the *American Physical Society* (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. 

Giaever does not agree… 

“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.


----------



## wayneL

Gore-athon flops, truly a bore-athon.

Even warmists dry wretch.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> Gore-athon flops, truly a bore-athon.
> 
> Even warmists dry wretch.




Not too fast....I'm sure basilio will soon deliver another "book post" that asserts millions more have been on-boarded as AGW believers due to the compelling non-evidence from the bore and the rigged models. The bore event now claims all bush fires and floods are now attributed to man's deadly 3% component of all Co2 and are considered extreme events that were predicted years ago - along with the rains that would never come.


----------



## basilio

OzWaveGuy said:


> Not too fast....I'm sure basilio will soon deliver another "book post" that asserts millions more have been on-boarded as AGW believers due to the compelling non-evidence from the bore and the rigged models. The bore event now claims all bush fires and floods are now attributed to man's deadly 3% component of all Co2 and are considered extreme events that were predicted years ago - along with the rains that would never come.




Oz, Your just full of sxxx..


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Oz, Your just full of sxxx..




Nasty! Your true nature is showing through basilio.


----------



## sails

lol basilio.

FYI, I have found OWG's posts far more sensible than yours on climate change.  Going back a couple of years, I passively believed the AGW line but didn't take too much notice of it really.

When we were threatened with Rudd's ETS, then I did sit up and take notice - probably like many other Aussies who decided we needed to know more.

Among other things, I read the for and against posts and have to say that yours didn't make much sense while those from OWG, WayneL, etc made complete sense.  Someone here called me a "denier" - and that was the final tipping point.  AGW was clearly a cultist style organisation to be segregating people in this distasteful manner.

I still remain mildly open that not ALL AGW is  a lie to extract money from an unsuspecting public.  But I will not be convinced until the money (tax) issue is removed and when scientists no longer fear the pulling of funding if they don't produce the required results.

So, if it's between you and OWG being full of the inedible to which you allude, then I would have to say it is you...


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> lSomeone here called me a "denier" - and that was the final tipping point.  AGW was clearly a cultist style organisation to be segregating people in this distasteful manner.
> 
> I still remain mildly open that not ALL AGW is  a lie to extract money from an unsuspecting public.  But I will not be convinced until the money (tax) issue is removed and when scientists no longer fear the pulling of funding if they don't produce the required results.



Likewise. 

Logic suggests that tinkering with the Earth's atmosphere probably isn't the smartest thing to be doing, but the "denier" tag reveals the whole thing for what it is.

Virtually all scientific knowledge and overall human advancement came about due to those who questioned conventional wisdom and looked for alternative answers or methods. To be ridiculing such people represents a rather blatant attempt to suppress future discoveries and overall progress. 

Now, if someone promoting a scientific theory want to suppress research and thought then that sets of all sorts of alarm bells. If the science is settled then WHY don't the proponents of AGW want you or me questioning it? If the science stacks up then there simply should not be a problem with anyone questioning it.

20 years ago I believed it to be true and a valid issue. I now believe it to be perhaps 80/20 scam/fact due to the "denier" argument. When someone tries to stop you, me or anyone else from thinking then there's a reason for that and the answer is never good.

I would personally consider the related issues of oil depletion, groundwater contamination from natural gas production, the multiple problems surrounding nuclear energy and the very real threat of war over oil and gas resources to be more worthy of attention than CO2 coming out of a coal-fired power plant. The whole AGW thing has achieved little other than to divert attention and resources away from the real energy, resource and environmental problems we face. Indeed by encouraging a shift toward gas for power generation it has actually made the resource problem worse rather than better.

And then there's soil degradation, toxic accumulation in the food chain, phosphate run-off (and phosphate resource depletion), running out of helium, overfishing...


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> ...I would personally consider the related issues of oil depletion, groundwater contamination from natural gas production, the multiple problems surrounding nuclear energy and the very real threat of war over oil and gas resources to be more worthy of attention than CO2 coming out of a coal-fired power plant. The whole AGW thing has achieved little other than to divert attention and resources away from the real energy, resource and environmental problems we face. Indeed by encouraging a shift toward gas for power generation it has actually made the resource problem worse rather than better.
> 
> And then there's soil degradation, toxic accumulation in the food chain, phosphate run-off (and phosphate resource depletion), running out of helium, overfishing...




Totally agree.  There are far more concerning problems for the future without seeing billions of our dollars going offshore when we need our hard earned to stay in this country and to help finance our own problems.

After all, we are a country of around 22 million people.  There is only so much the people can give away financially before we can no longer look after ourselves.

I can only think that those who are pro carbon tax are placed to gain financially from this tax.  Perhaps they have bought up business overseas which will collect our taxpayer funds for their own benefit. I don't know, but nothing else makes much sense if one really wants the best for this country.

I know of a farmer who is not overly concerned with the tax as he said he will plant more trees and will make a motza on carbon credits.  And what about Turnbull and his banking experience?  Is he placed to make money from bid/ask spreads from banks and other carbon friendly businesses?  I don't know the answer, but I wonder if those so in favour are positioned to make a lot of money (like Al Gore) if this carbon tax goes through.

If so, they will be taking money from hard working Aussies who may not be able to afford to heat their homes for their families.  If this is so, I can only say shame on them.


----------



## Knobby22

Grea article in the Sunday Age today.

*Conservatively speaking, the climate threat is real *

Compares conservative parties around the world and who is for and agiast climate change action. Read the article here but summarising: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...he-climate-threat-is-real-20110917-1kf5x.html

Conservative acting:  
New Zealand John Keys National Party
Britain David Cameron  Conservative Party
Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
Canada  Conservative Party Steve Harper
South Korea - Grand National Party
Italy Sylvio Burlisconi

Against:
Australia LDP/Nat coalition
Czech Republic Vacly Klaus
US - Many of the Republicans especially tea party faction and possible President Rick Perry.

Personally if Rick Perry gets in he will be another George Bush II, I hope someone better knocks him off.


----------



## Smurf1976

What about those who are neither conservative nor taking action?

And what about those who have a policy of taking action but which are not actualy doing anything in practice?

And what about those who are reducing CO2 emissions by means of directly contributing to other environmental problems? 

I wonder how many on this forum or in Australia generally realise that much of the woodchips controversially exported from this country are not used to produce pulp but rather, are fed straight into the boilers of Japanese power stations as a means of reducing CO2 emissions compared to using coal? As I've said many times, reducing CO2 emissions comes at a high price environmentally and is not something we ought to be doing unless we're damn sure it's necessary.

I wonder also just how many give a thought to where that merbau timber commonly used to build decks comes from and just how trashed the forests are really becoming? For that matter, I wonder to what extent there is any real knowledge of anything environmental in the general community other than what the media feeds them?


----------



## Knobby22

The point is that there are many Conservative parties around the world who are damn sure.

With regard to to the woodchips. This is a matter of governments formulation good policy. If we are willing to sell them then it should go to the highest bidder. If you against woodchips being made then that is an Australian resposibility.  This goes for looking after our forests full stop which is what helped create the Greens.

I suppose you could say the Japanese conservative party is another example that has acted (through the Kyoto protocol).


----------



## bellenuit

Knobby22 said:


> Grea article in the Sunday Age today.
> 
> *Conservatively speaking, the climate threat is real *
> 
> Compares conservative parties around the world and who is for and agiast climate change action. Read the article here but summarising: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...he-climate-threat-is-real-20110917-1kf5x.html
> 
> Conservative acting:
> New Zealand John Keys National Party
> Britain David Cameron  Conservative Party
> Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
> Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
> France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
> Canada  Conservative Party Steve Harper
> South Korea - Grand National Party
> Italy Sylvio Burlisconi
> 
> Against:
> Australia LDP/Nat coalition
> Czech Republic Vacly Klaus
> US - Many of the Republicans especially tea party faction and possible President Rick Perry.
> 
> Personally if Rick Perry gets in he will be another George Bush II, I hope someone better knocks him off.




It couldn't be a well researched report. Australia's coalition are for taking action, but not via a carbon tax or ETS.

Perhaps they asked Bob Brown what the coalition's policy is, rather than ask the coalition themselves.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> The point is that there are many Conservative parties around the world who are damn sure.
> 
> With regard to to the woodchips. This is a matter of governments formulation good policy. If we are willing to sell them then it should go to the highest bidder. If you against woodchips being made then that is an Australian resposibility.  This goes for looking after our forests full stop which is what helped create the Greens.
> 
> I suppose you could say the Japanese conservative party is another example that has acted (through the Kyoto protocol).




I thought Japan together with other countries doesn't plan to enter into a new Kyoto agreement in 2012. From the SMH:

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.​
Read more: *Kyoto deal loses four big nations*


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> ...Conservative acting:
> New Zealand John Keys National Party
> Britain David Cameron  Conservative Party
> Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
> Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
> France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
> Canada  Conservative Party Steve Harper
> South Korea - Grand National Party
> Italy Sylvio Burlisconi
> 
> ...




Knobby - I have a few questions...

1. Have these countries actually reduced co2 emissions or simply achieved a money-go-round where the worker is generallythe one ripped off?

2. Do these countries have reliable baseload power such as hydro, nuclear, etc?

3. Is this article actually comparing Australia with other comparable countries?  

4. New Zealand emits about one tenth of Australia's co2 emissions.  It seems nothing short of craziness that they would do this as Australia can probably only achieve a spit in the ocean of co2 reduction so NZ can achieve one tenth of a spit in the ocean reduction?

And NZ has hydro power.

I think we have to look at Australia on it's own merits and not try to keep up with other countries who have different resources to our own.


----------



## Knobby22

sails

I think the article speaks for itself but the point is that those countries are acting with conservative leaders. The lie that Australia is leading the world is just that.

Not that I fully agree wth the proposal Labor has come up with. It could have been done much better. I do agree with Combe though that once its in the Libs won't remove it though I am sure they will modify it.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> sails
> 
> I think the article speaks for itself but the point is that those countries are acting with conservative leaders. The lie that Australia is leading the world is just that.
> 
> Not that I fully agree wth the proposal Labor has come up with. It could have been done much better. I do agree with Combe though that once its in the Libs won't remove it though I am sure they will modify it.




Thanks for the reply Knobby.  I had a quick read through the article and it didn't seem to address the questions - that's why I asked them.  Perhaps someone else will have a go at them.

I don't understand why we are proceeding with this tax when there seem to be no evidence of co2 reduction in other countries which have priced carbon when they are adjusted to similar conditions we have in Australia and adjusted for economic variables.  In fact, it's difficult to find any such data let alone adjusting it. 

 Strange...very strange.

It seems to be far more about the money than the environment from where I see it.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Whilst the alarmist in this thread continue to provide plenty of compost, a much more important event is occurring this week. The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation has an inquiry into Australia's clean energy future.....

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Thursday 22 September 2011 . Please refer to our brochure called preparing a submission for more information.​
For those like me who are actually concerned about this scam can send in emails and documents into the committee by this Thursday. Committee membership is primarily made up of Labor and greens so realistically I doubt there will be any serious showstoppers since the "science is settled" and  I doubt even a serious reading of any submissions will take place.

However, I will be using my legal evidence as a result of the *several Notices previously sent* as attachments under another lawful Notice as a submission to this so called inquiry. As public servants, I will be directing them to abandon the Bills. Of course I doubt it will do any good, but it will again establish under law a default and a disregard of legal evidence. All fine with me as I will have a legal paper trail that shows corruption, lies and misrepresentations with complete agreement from the respondents for further action down the track.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> With regard to to the woodchips. This is a matter of governments formulation good policy. If we are willing to sell them then it should go to the highest bidder. If you against woodchips being made then that is an Australian resposibility.  This goes for looking after our forests full stop which is what helped create the Greens.
> 
> I suppose you could say the Japanese conservative party is another example that has acted (through the Kyoto protocol).



The thing is, there are going to be a lot more "bidders" and a lot more logging if this biofuels nonsense catches on. The last thing the planet needs is a boom in the wood price and the rampant growth in (often illegal) logging that will inevitably follow.

As for Japan, their emissions have shot up with the demise of the nuclear industry. If they're going to meet their Kyoto targets then they've simply got to get reactors up and running and to hell with the consequences (safety etc). That says it all really... 

Fix one problem and cause another - I doubt that's what the average person was thinking of when considering the CO2 issue and yet that's exactly what's happening. 

Personally, I certainly do acknowledge that we can't keep burning coal, oil and gas forever and I doubt that anyone would really disagree there. But I disagree absolutely that we ought to be clearfelling and nuking the lot in order to bring about the transition ASAP unless there really is compelling scientific evidence to warrant such destruction. A slower, less environmentally destructive, transition would be vastly preferable in my opinion. That doesn't suit the politics of it all however.


----------



## sails

Hi OWG,

I received this template in an email - does this look OK to send off?



To the persons responsible for the carbon tax bills, after a cursory reading of said bills please receive my submission as follows.

 As an Australian citizen by birth, I, [insert your name and address] am deeply concerned that the proposed laws are unsound, unjustified, incomprehensible, or just plain wrong, particularly as:

     An overwhelming majority of Australian voters believed that there would be NO carbon tax (or anything similar) from either major political party at the last federal election.

    They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.

    The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.

    There is NO economic benefit to Australians in increasing their cost of energy, particularly as we have an abundant, and relatively cheap, source of coal.

    There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.

    Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.

    The need for so-called ‘carbon polluters’ to buy emission-permits will see a massive transfer of Australia’s inherent wealth to other countries with NO benefit for Australians, nor the environment, nor humanity.

    There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.

    NO future government will be able to change these laws easily to suit the prevailing conditions without a substantial expense to the Australian taxpayer. See Note (+) below.

    If there is really a need to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels then the proposed laws are NOT rational, NOT logical, and do NOT cover all aspects and users of all of those fuels. 

In summary, I submit that the propose laws covered by the carbon tax bills are against the express wishes of a majority of Australian citizens and they do not make any economic sense in any regard whatsoever, especially in today’s global financial uncertainty, and that they should be abandoned, immediately.





Yours sincerely



[your name]​


Then it has a whole lot of quotes - but is it OK to modify the submission so that the large amount of notes isn't necessary?  It was way to much to put in this post...


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> The point is that there are many Conservative parties around the world who are damn sure there is extra tax revenue to be had.




There, completed the statement properly. :


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Grea article in the Sunday Age today.
> 
> *Conservatively speaking, the climate threat is real *
> 
> Compares conservative parties around the world and who is for and agiast climate change action. Read the article here but summarising: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...he-climate-threat-is-real-20110917-1kf5x.html



It's a bit disingenous to be quoting this, or at least if you're just reporting what you have read, it's disingenuous on the part of the author of the article.




> Conservative acting:
> New Zealand John Keys National Party



The National Party inherited  a form of ETS at an extremely low price from the previous government and is in the process of scaling it back.



> Britain David Cameron  Conservative Party



They have produced a statement of intent, i.e. a feelgood policy which has a very clear clause for review in, I think, 2014, which says (paraphrasing) if the rest of the world has not done likewise they will dump their scheme.




> Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party



There is a screed of text available to discredit that Germany is adopting anything like the carbon tax proposed for Australia.
Here is just one small extract which explains what they do have:


> # Germany does not have a carbon tax, only energy and electricity taxes. Renewables are exempt from the electricity tax and good quality combined heat and power (CHP) pays a lower rate. However, there is no formal link between tax rate and carbon content. Most strikingly, brown coal and hard coal, which are very high in carbon content, are exempt from the energy tax.






> Canada  Conservative Party Steve Harper



Canada does not at all have a national carbon tax or ETS.  A few provinces have made some attempt in this direction.

I can't be bothered going through the others.  The above, except for Germany which I looked up, I knew about already.  It would seem unlikely that the others quoted would be much different to those essentially discounted above.

So lots of spin in this article, it would seem.

And if anyone comes up with the EU ETS, let's remember that it's much better known for the incredible level of corruption and abuse it has spawned than any alteration in the climate.

I try to stay out of this debate, but just get irritated when people make blanket statements which are simply not true, or at best only partly true.  It's just dishonest.


----------



## Smurf1976

Germany's scheme as described would seem to be more about dealing with future shortages of gas and oil than dealing directly with CO2, hence the exemption for coal.

As for emissions cuts overall:

Coal use has never been higher than it is now.
Oil production is at an all time record.
Gas use has been rising strongly for years.

Quite simply, the world as a whole is not cutting emissions no matter what anyone may like to claim. Record production of coal and oil is all you need to know as far as emissions cuts are concerned - it's just not happening...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> Hi OWG,
> 
> I received this template in an email - does this look OK to send off?
> 
> 
> 
> To the persons responsible for the carbon tax bills, after a cursory reading of said bills please receive my submission as follows.
> 
> As an Australian citizen by birth, I, [insert your name and address] am deeply concerned that the proposed laws are unsound, unjustified, incomprehensible, or just plain wrong, particularly as:
> 
> An overwhelming majority of Australian voters believed that there would be NO carbon tax (or anything similar) from either major political party at the last federal election.
> 
> They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.
> 
> The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.
> 
> There is NO economic benefit to Australians in increasing their cost of energy, particularly as we have an abundant, and relatively cheap, source of coal.
> 
> There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.
> 
> Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.
> 
> The need for so-called ‘carbon polluters’ to buy emission-permits will see a massive transfer of Australia’s inherent wealth to other countries with NO benefit for Australians, nor the environment, nor humanity.
> 
> There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.
> 
> NO future government will be able to change these laws easily to suit the prevailing conditions without a substantial expense to the Australian taxpayer. See Note (+) below.
> 
> If there is really a need to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels then the proposed laws are NOT rational, NOT logical, and do NOT cover all aspects and users of all of those fuels.
> 
> In summary, I submit that the propose laws covered by the carbon tax bills are against the express wishes of a majority of Australian citizens and they do not make any economic sense in any regard whatsoever, especially in today’s global financial uncertainty, and that they should be abandoned, immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> 
> 
> [your name]​
> 
> 
> Then it has a whole lot of quotes - but is it OK to modify the submission so that the large amount of notes isn't necessary?  It was way to much to put in this post...




Hi Sails

Just in the process of finishing mine. Will post in the morning.

The template you've received implies you're an employee of the organisation,  hence this will be legally interpreted as a request and not an order to a public servant (which is exactly what these folks are). You must provide directives to these pubilc servants as you are the shareholder of the company, not an employee - I tell them so in my notice. Also note that the Joint Select Committee can elect not to use your document, hence I instruct them to do so.

The body of your letter above has the right questions, you will need to instruct them to cease this legislative process until your questions are answered by someone in affidavit form (otherwise they can simply direct you to a meaningless blurb on a web site with a legal disclaimer). 

Golden rule - You must treat them as an employee.....which they are.....

I'm not even going to call my submission a submission, since they are my employees and directors don't submit to their employees.

For example,  

My opening line goes something like:

*Notice Of Demand for dissolution of Clean Energy Bill 2011 and Demand for a Lawful Investigation into Individuals and Organisations advising on Climate Science and Policy​*
*NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES​*
To the Public Servants of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation, you are hereby instructed to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
..
..
my legal blurb of facts goes in here from my previous notices
...
....
These facts of law cannot remain unnoticed to the Joint Select Committee, therefore the Public Servants of the Joint Select Committee are hereby instructed to immediately remove the Clean Energy Bill 2011 from the legislative process and commence an immediate lawful investigation into the integrity of all individuals, departments and organisations that have provided the Australian Government with advice, information and research into man's CO2 emissions supposedly driving global temperatures. 

Failure of the Joint Select Committee to take notice of this notice and to act on these facts of law and instructions herein creates an operation of law that also cannot go unnoticed as it is an injustice to the men and women of the land commonly known as Australia.

For the purposes of this matter, permission is granted to the Joint Select committee to reproduce copies of this document and references for distribution to each member of the committee. No private information such as mailing address and telephone numbers may be reproduced for the public record.

Please take notice that the land known as Australia is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Common Law. 

Please take notice for this matter, I am not a public servant, not an agent of the Government and not acting as a function of Government.

You are deemed to have been served this notice and ordered to comply with immediate effect​


----------



## sails

OWG, thanks for the reply.  My concern using your style of submission is the lack of legal backup.   If there is any hope of getting Aussies to put in masses of submissions, it probably has to be something fairly easy - and time is running out with  only three days before submissions close.  

Surely there should be a longer period of time for submissions for such major policy?  This seems indecent haste, imo.  Or perhaps these submissions are not going to have any effect?  A referrendum would be better.

I don't understand why this is not being more widely and predomininantly broadcast when the people could have their voice heard - not unless it is really a waste of time and any negative submissions will be ignored.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> OWG, thanks for the reply.  My concern using your style of submission is the lack of legal backup.   If there is any hope of getting Aussies to put in masses of submissions, it probably has to be something fairly easy - and time is running out with  only three days before submissions close.
> 
> Surely there should be a longer period of time for submissions for such major policy?  This seems indecent haste, imo.  Or perhaps these submissions are not going to have any effect?  A referrendum would be better.
> 
> I don't understand why this is not being more widely and predomininantly broadcast when the people could have their voice heard - not unless it is really a waste of time and any negative submissions will be ignored.




No problems Sails, let me post a template that excludes the prior legal notices this afternoon - there's plenty of material that can be used. Express post will get your document there overnight.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Here you go sails, feel free to use this.....

View attachment CC Joint template.doc


This treats the public servants as employees or trustees
It provides orders to the public servants
Definitions are included since the definition of certain terms are not what you think they are when talking to government (see the Interpretation Act)


----------



## IFocus

Classic


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Classic




lol IFocus...

Gillard would actually do better if she did take more notice of the polls.  Even the Essential Media Report which is leftie leaning judging by their home page can't get the majority to accept carbon pricing.



> Q. Do you support or oppose the Government?s proposal to introduce a carbon pricing scheme from 1 July 2012, which will require industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit?
> 
> Total Support...37 (down 2% from 1st August)
> * Total oppose....52% (up 1% from 1st August)*
> Don't know...12% (up 2% from 1st August)




http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/support-for-carbon-pricing-scheme-2/

John Howard made the same mistake at the end of his political career with work choices and stopped listening to the people.  After all, policitians are our elected *representatives* who are paid by us to represent us in matters of government.

They are not elected or paid to do their own thing - at least not in a democracy.  If Gillard put the Pacific Solution back together and took her carbon tax to the next election, I would expect to see some re-bounding in labor polls.  But to carry on in defiance of the majority will of the people is political suicide.  And the bigger mess she leaves, the longer labor will likely be in the wilderness.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> They are not elected or paid to do their own thing - at least not in a democracy.  If Gillard put the Pacific Solution back together and took her carbon tax to the next election, I would expect to see some re-bounding in labor polls.  But to carry on in defiance of the majority will of the people is political suicide.  And the bigger mess she leaves, the longer labor will likely be in the wilderness.



I couldn't agree more, Sails.  Julia Gillard clearly sees any change in policy as unacceptable weakness, whereas I think if she were to do as you suggest above, much of the electorate would say, well thank heaven for that, and begin to take her seriously again.

There's nothing wrong with a politician saying to the electorate:  "we've listened to your concerns, and as a result ........."

However, fat chance!


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Classic
> 
> 
> View attachment 44559



And, who was responsible for that outcome ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I, yesterday flew from Horn Island along the Queensland coast to Townsville. It is a trip I have done many times before over many years.

Even after so much weather, the coast seems unchanged, no signs of any significant change in beach, land or sea.

I really feel these weather jokers have it wrong. Then I don't believe anything on the ABC, it's so propagandised. 

It was a beautiful day.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Whilst the alarmist in this thread continue to provide plenty of compost, a much more important event is occurring this week. The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation has an inquiry into Australia's clean energy future.....
> 
> The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Thursday 22 September 2011 . Please refer to our brochure called preparing a submission for more information.​




And here's a link to the *submissions*

Looking at 5 or 6 of them, surprise surprise, they support the bills. Funny how none from individuals who are opposed have yet to make the cut. Democracy at work.


----------



## sails

OzWaveGuy said:


> And here's a link to the *submissions*
> 
> Looking at 5 or 6 of them, surprise surprise, they support the bills. Funny how none from individuals who are opposed have yet to make the cut. Democracy at work.





Only 326 submissions.  I was a bit surprised that the coalition didn't help make the public more aware that this opportunity isted.  But perhaps it was always going to be futile.  Our only hope is a new election soon.


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> Only 326 submissions.  I was a bit surprised that the coalition didn't help make the public more aware that this opportunity isted.  But perhaps it was always going to be futile.  Our only hope is a new election soon.



ASF is the only place I've even seen it mentioned. And that's for someone with an above average interest in the subject. Pretty clearly it has not been well promoted and there's always a reason when a government chooses to not promote something...


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Whilst the alarmist in this thread continue to provide plenty of compost, .




Guess what, the denialists are lying in their adverts. Surprise surprise.

AUSTRALIA'S chief climate-change bureaucrat has disputed claims in an industry advertising campaign that Australia's carbon pricing scheme will be far bigger than the European Union's.

Climate Change Department secretary Blair Comley has told a parliamentary inquiry that an ''equivalent'' comparison between the two schemes would show the EU's to be five times larger than Australia's.

An industry group coalition - the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance - is running a $10 million ad campaign against the tax. One ad suggests the EU scheme over its first six ½ years raised $4.9 billion in revenue, while the Australian scheme would raise $71 billion over its first six years.

Story continues below But Mr Comley rejected the figures, saying they sought to compare the Australian scheme with the early ''pilot'' phase of the EU scheme, which will be beefed up from 2013.

He also said it was ''curious'' that the alliance excluded the value of free permits given to industry in EU revenue numbers but included similar permits in Australian estimates.

Mr Comley said a comparison of ''equivalent market size'' between 2013-15 showed the EU emissions trading scheme would be about $145 billion, compared to about $27 billion for the Australian carbon price.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/anticarbon-tax-adverts-disputed-20110921-1kl8j.html#ixzz1Yd6J0wFP


----------



## sails

Do you think the following was rather misleading in the YES TV ad?:

1. Co2 is a colourless gas - why does the ad show it in grey?

2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2?

3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist?

4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines?

5. When Blanchett pulls the screen down and displays a clear blue sky, isn't that misleading due to Co2 being invisible and doesn't darken the sky in the first place?

6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas

7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't?


----------



## Knobby22

I will give you points 1 and 5 as weak but fair calls but the rest are not lies in my view. 
The anti add though clearly seeks to distort. I though they were the good guys???


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I will give you points 1 and 5 as weak but fair calls but the rest are not lies in my view.
> The anti add though clearly seeks to distort. I though they were the good guys???




2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2? Soot and hydrocarbons etc can rightly be called pollution, but calling co2 pollution is like calling o2 or n2 pollution. It's nonsense. As far as that ********'s analogy of putting your head in a bag of co2, try that with nitrogen (~80% of the atmosphere).

3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist? Knobby it is not possible to have alternative base load energy unless you have geothermal or hydro. Not available in most places in Oz.

4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines? How can you dent this point?????

6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas Not a lie. but exposes the truly monumental hypocricy (and perhaps lack of true conviction?) of the carbonistas.

7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't? Knobby why is this not a good point? The ad is propaganda pure and simple.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> 2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2? Soot and hydrocarbons etc can rightly be called pollution, but calling co2 pollution is like calling o2 or n2 pollution. It's nonsense. As far as that ********'s analogy of putting your head in a bag of co2, try that with nitrogen (~80% of the atmosphere).
> 
> 3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist? Knobby it is not possible to have alternative base load energy unless you have geothermal or hydro. Not available in most places in Oz.
> 
> 4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines? How can you dent this point?????
> 
> 6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas Not a lie. but exposes the truly monumental hypocricy (and perhaps lack of true conviction?) of the carbonistas.
> 
> 7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't? Knobby why is this not a good point? The ad is propaganda pure and simple.




1. It is pollution as it causes an effect that is not desirable. It doesn't have to be a contaminant to be considered pollution.

3. Wind and solar are not the a viable alternative for base load -agreed, but they caan provide some power and they should be encouraged. The add is a quick 30sec thing, it can't go into fine detail.

4. Where is that in the add? It is a argument against, not a statement the add makes.

6. We live in a free country. I am going to a holiday to Hamilton island next month. I'm not camping in the cold in Torquay hugging trees or living in a hole in the ground. It is not necessary to live as a hippy to think the world should do something. This argument is very weak and is used on everyone who wants some form of action. 

7. It means opinion but it is a good point. I am not in favour of the carbon tax in its present form and there is elements of propaganda in it but what about the anti carbon add I referred to earlier - BARE FACED LIES are used, that is what I call propaganda, straight lying to the public. Much worse in my view.


----------



## wayneL

1. It is pollution as it causes an effect that is not desirable. It doesn't have to be a contaminant to be considered pollution.

What undesirable effects are these? (and remeber we are talking scientifically here not politically). How do we know any effects are negative, if so, there may be positive effects that counterbalance or outweigh the negative. These things we do not yet know.

3. Wind and solar are not the a viable alternative for base load -agreed, but they caan provide some power and they should be encouraged. The add is a quick 30sec thing, it can't go into fine detail.

I agree on energy security grounds, but on co2 grounds some may be counterproductive.

4. Where is that in the add? It is a argument against, not a statement the add makes.

It is nevertheless a valid point

6. We live in a free country. I am going to a holiday to Hamilton island next month. I'm not camping in the cold in Torquay hugging trees or living in a hole in the ground. It is not necessary to live as a hippy to think the world should do something. This argument is very weak and is used on everyone who wants some form of action. 

Yes, free to preach the carbon mantra and do precisely nothing. The feedom to be a hypocrite. And the freedom to point out hypocricy. 

7. It means opinion but it is a good point. I am not in favour of the carbon tax in its present form and there is elements of propaganda in it but what about the anti carbon add I referred to earlier - BARE FACED LIES are used, that is what I call propaganda, straight lying to the public. Much worse in my view.[/QUOTE]

Knobby, I cannot believe that you can say this with a straight face! The warmists use so many, mistruths, untruths, data manipulation and yes bare faced lies, it's laughable. this is just a sympton of the politicization of the debate.


----------



## Knobby22

Knobby, I cannot believe that you can say this with a straight face! The warmists use so many, mistruths, untruths, data manipulation and yes bare faced lies, it's laughable. this is just a sympton of the politicization of the debate.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the earlier post?


----------



## macca

Is the mood turning, are scientists starting to actually tell the truth or is it just that they can now get stories published instead of being suppressed.


<<BRITISH scientists say a prestigious world atlas is misleading the public about the effects of climate change by incorrectly showing a 15 per cent loss in Greenland's ice cover in just 12 years. >>

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/atlas-wrong-about-greenland-ice-melt/story-fn6ck45n-1226142077025


----------



## IFocus

Just weather all good

Mass forest deaths in Perth Hills 



> BIG swaths of forest from Perth to the South-West the size of 50 Kings Parks have died from drought and may never recover, scientists warn.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...-hits-in-big-dry/story-e6frg19l-1226145214545


----------



## wayneL

An interesting comment in reply to the incredibly specious Map of Organized Climate Change Denial that appeared in the NYT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/




> 2.
> Adrian O
> State College, PA
> October 2nd, 2011
> 11:04 pm
> 
> 
> I am a mathematical physicist.
> 
> A year and a half ago I started to look for actual measured data,
> 
> which I certainly can read,
> 
> to find out what is really going on with the anthropogenic global warming.
> 
> It took about 50 hours of digging to find the actual data
> 
> (which is one of the reasons, I suppose, for which so few people have seen it.)
> 
> It showed nothing unusual whatsoever.
> 
> In temperatures, sea level rise, ice, glaciers rate of melt.
> 
> When looked at historically.
> 
> All the unusual things were in "adjustments",
> 
> 10C warming imagined in the unmeasured Arctic,
> 
> serious imagined warming of the unmeasured deep oceans
> (which does not translate, through dilation, into unusual sea level rise at the top.)
> 
> Trees with unreliable ring thickness in the last, measured, 60 years,
> which are imagined to be perfectly reliable a thousand years ago.
> 
> Glaciers which, when measured, are melting at the same rate as 60 and 120 years ago. With earlier melting natural and current identical melting imagined to be man made.
> 
> Tornado and hurricane activity which, when counted, is weaker than 50 years ago.
> 
> The people obsessed with the extra 100 ppm of CO2 = 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere put up by humans have never made a case. Other than in imagined models, which as far as real science goes, if they don't agree with reality are junk.
> 
> In other words, there is nothing to deny in the first place.
> 
> Where exactly does that put me on that list?


----------



## noco

How on earth can Professor Tim Flannery hold out his hand to collect his $180,000 per year with his erroneous predctions on the state of our water supplies to capital cities over the past 8 years.

He should be sacked and hold his head in shame. 




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...those_rains_the_experts_swore_would_not_fall/


----------



## orr

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I, yesterday flew from Horn Island along the Queensland coast to Townsville. It is a trip I have done many times before over many years.
> 
> Even after so much weather, the coast seems unchanged, no signs of any significant change in beach, land or sea.
> 
> I really feel these weather jokers have it wrong. Then I don't believe anything on the ABC, it's so propagandised.
> 
> It was a beautiful day.
> 
> gg




What did the dead dugongs look like,  And the how was the smell of those decaying sea turtles from up there? (of course that all might be propaganda I probably heard it reported on the ABC) I suppose it's all perspective; feet on the ground or head in the clouds.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> What did the dead dugongs look like,  And the how was the smell of those decaying sea turtles from up there? (of course that all might be propaganda I probably heard it reported on the ABC) I suppose it's all perspective; feet on the ground or head in the clouds.




And this is something to do with climate change because...?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> And this is something to do with climate change because...?




And the comment before that did ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And the comment before that did ?




Did what?


----------



## disarray

/stir


----------



## tothemax6

disarray said:


> /stir



Wow, it really is a sick f-king world, isn't it?


----------



## GumbyLearner

The banking crisis is here and now. Let's deal with a non-protein diet later.

I'm willing to talk about the climate once the climate dudes accept that their analysis involves the bankster dudes. And those same climate dudes realize that most protesters on Wall Street are just ordinary people who don't eat lentil burgers. 


Here's the Dudes analysis


----------



## GumbyLearner

GumbyLearner said:


> The banking crisis is here and now. Let's deal with a non-protein diet later.
> 
> I'm willing to talk about the climate once the climate dudes accept that their analysis involves the bankster dudes. And those same climate dudes realize that most protesters on Wall Street are just ordinary people who don't eat lentil burgers.
> 
> Here's the Dude and his friend Walter's analysis. The Jesus Quintana is another treat.
> Especially when Jesus has to go around the neighborhood.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Did what?




Nought.  

In fact the amount of hot air around here may be a problem too.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Nought.
> 
> In fact the amount of hot air around here may be a problem too.




Agree that appears to be a major problem... that and "adjustments" of data.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Agree that appears to be a major problem... that and "adjustments" of data.




Yes, the sceptics and power lobbies have certainly done a good job of that.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yes, the sceptics and power lobbies have certainly done a good job of that.




Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.




Absolute childish rubbish.   

The whole debate on climate change is subjective at best.  However the risks of erring on any possibility *may] have devastating consequences.

And in that I am referring to the discussions by ASF'ers who cannot be but slanted towards the nice fuzzy feeling of business as usual. *


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Absolute childish rubbish.
> 
> The whole debate on climate change is subjective at best.  However the risks of erring on any possibility *may] have devastating consequences.
> 
> And in that I am referring to the discussions by ASF'ers who cannot be but slanted towards the nice fuzzy feeling of business as usual. *



*

Why is it childish to point out that climate science is subject to arbitrary adjustments?

Why is it childish to be concerned about other environmental issues which require addressing and are not so subjective?

Perhaps any point you don't agree with is childish? Just an ad hominem slur because you have zero logic with which to counter with? (Too common with alarmists  )

And there's that Pascal's Wager yet again.*


----------



## sails

disarray said:


> /stir




Thanks for sharing that, Disarray.  I had never heard of Irene Sendler and she most certainly deserves major recognition.  She put her own life at risk and suffered terrible treatment for her selfless efforts.  

However, those children she rescued would always hold her in high esteem.  Such a shame that a money hungry person like Al Gore takes the prize when someone far more deserving is shelved.

It's another nail in the coffin for anything AGW that I used to passively believe until a couple of years ago when I was labelled a "denier" here at ASF.  That got the shackles up and I realised we were dealing with something very cult like, imo.




wayneL said:


> An interesting comment in reply to the incredibly specious Map of Organized Climate Change Denial that appeared in the NYT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/




And from that quote, Wayne, I think this fits the bill perfectly.  I have never denied natural climate change...

*"In other words, there is nothing to deny in the first place.

Where exactly does that put me on that list? "*​

And wouldn't warmists have had a field day 39 years ago with the massive heat wave that hit SE Qld?  I had a six week old baby with no aircon to keep cool for around two weeks. She survived OK and is about to have her 39th birthday which has reminded me of that relentless heat wave.

How do warmists/alarmists account for severe heat waves all those years ago?  I really can't make any sense out of the scare tactics of AGWers.


----------



## Smurf1976

I do suspect that putting a whole lot of CO2 into the air probably isn't a good thing in itself and I think most would agree at least in principle.

But where the whole AGW movement comes unstuck is with their practice of stunts. Make some claim that it will never rain again (now changed to increasing floods by the way) etc and everyone gets excited and willing to do something. Then the inevitable happens, the claim is shown for what it really is, and so the movement responds with either a refusal to discuss the issue (witness the carbon tax "debate") or an even bigger stunt.

It's like a bad boss who loses an argument with the workers over a perfectly reasonable idea and who then enforces the management view by means of authority. In the long term, that's a failed management strategy simply because it relies on ever increasing authority, an a workforce willing to put up with it (ie paid highly), in order to work. A point inevitably comes where such a strategy fails.

Likewise with the carbon issue. We have ever increasing authority and what amount to bribes in order to ram it down the public's throat, the actual debate having long since been lost as the public realised that the drought would indeed break and that emissions are rising globally no matter what we do here in Australia.

In the long term, the strategy of losing a debate then responding with ramped-up authority always works in the short term and always fails eventually. The government may well get its carbon tax through, but will fail at some future date over something else as a direct result of burning through such massive amounts of goodwill over this one issue.

No doubt there are some genuine researchers in this field, and no doubt the climate will change (for whatever reason) over a period of time. But the generic "CO2 = imminent disaster = must take draconian action NOW" argument has worn more than a bit thin with anyone who cares to think critically rather than simply accepting what they are told.


----------



## explod

Smurf1976;662936[QUOTE said:
			
		

> I do suspect that putting a whole lot of CO2 into the air probably isn't a good thing in itself and I think most would agree at least in principle.




Good and honest, as laymen we can go no further.




> But where the whole AGW movement comes unstuck is with their practice of stunts. Make some claim that it will never rain again (now changed to increasing floods by the way) etc and everyone gets excited and willing to do something. Then the inevitable happens, the claim is shown for what it really is, and so the movement responds with either a refusal to discuss the issue (witness the carbon tax "debate") or an even bigger stunt.




This is the most common argument and biggest error.   Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile.  And it is.   There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity.  More rain at times in some areas and much less in others.  Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.

Its become a bit like the markets, things do not seem to be right so its becoming more volatile.  

On the weather, it is just the simple matter of temperature and cloud cover.  More heat which makes more cloud which in turn creates greater volatility.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> This is the most common argument and biggest error.   Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile.  And it is.




Is it?

Such claims require statistical substantiation.

Lets see it.


----------



## JTLP

explod said:


> Good and honest, as laymen we can go no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most common argument and biggest error.   Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile.  And it is.   There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity.  More rain at times in some areas and much less in others.  Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.
> 
> Its become a bit like the markets, things do not seem to be right so its becoming more volatile.
> 
> On the weather, it is just the simple matter of temperature and cloud cover.  More heat which makes more cloud which in turn creates greater volatility.




This is something that irks me to tears. Can science explain the ice age or any other strange weather phenomenon's of the last x amount of years? Did man cause these problems? Man is kidding himself if he thinks he is the one causing all these so called weather 'problems'. When we were in drought was Africa in drought also? Is it just not the climate these countries are subject to?

Yawn. The funniest thing of all was when it was called "Global Warming" and when things weren't exactly warming it went to "Climate Change".


----------



## explod

JTLP said:


> This is something that irks me to tears. Can science explain the ice age or any other strange weather phenomenon's of the last x amount of years? Did man cause these problems? Man is kidding himself if he thinks he is the one causing all these so called weather 'problems'. When we were in drought was Africa in drought also? Is it just not the climate these countries are subject to?
> 
> Yawn. The funniest thing of all was when it was called "Global Warming" and when things weren't exactly warming it went to "Climate Change".




Yes it can be explained and is in a book "the Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995)


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Is it?
> 
> Such claims require statistical substantiation.
> 
> Lets see it.




Hot air rises cool air falls, moisture moves with it and of course the elements of evaporation are a part of it.

Did you do chemistry, are you able to reason and think independently.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Smurf1976 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile.  And it is.   There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity.  More rain at times in some areas and much less in others.  Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But that does not lend any credibility whatsoever to the claims that the drought was permanent, or the very recent claims (after 3 wet winters in a row) that we'll now see a rise in flooding.
> 
> Permanent drought and now flooding. These people very clearly do not understand the subject themselves, and yet they would have us believe that they are the appropriate people to be leading public debate on the issue.
> 
> Periodic droughts and floods I can understand. But permanent? Clearly that is not the case and it is claims like that, from people like Tim Flannery and Bob Brown, combined with clearly ineffective "solutions" which have substantially destroyed credibility of the whole issue in the minds of the general public.
> 
> Stick to the science, based on proper research and that will eventually help build up credibility if there is indeed a problem. Likewise stick to actual solutions, not socialism in disguise or handing money to bankers, and that too will eventually restore public confidence if there is indeed a problem.
Click to expand...


----------



## sails

Three scientists, Professor Peter Ridd, Professor Bob Carter and Emeritus Professor Garth Pattridge  speak about their take on AGW and the carbon tax.  They have some good points, imo:


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Hot air rises cool air falls, moisture moves with it and of course the elements of evaporation are a part of it.
> 
> Did you do chemistry, are you able to reason and think independently.




You said the weather has become more volatile. So far you have not produced a a shred of evidence that it is so.

Questioned on this, you once again resort to playing the man and not the ball... all this subsequent to you having the temerity to accuse me of childishness for asking pertinent questions.

I asked for statistical substantiation, not a grade two science class which has SFA to do with the topic at hand.

I want facts Mr Plod, not a pissing contest.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You said the weather has become more volatile. So far you have not produced a a shred of evidence that it is so.
> 
> Questioned on this, you once again resort to playing the man and not the ball... all this subsequent to you having the temerity to accuse me of childishness for asking pertinent questions.
> 
> I asked for statistical substantiation, not a grade two science class which has SFA to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> I want facts Mr Plod, not a pissing contest.




I have given anecdotal examples.  I am not a scientist.

I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.

This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue.  And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.


----------



## Logique

explod said:


> I have given anecdotal examples.  I am not a scientist.
> I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.
> This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue.  And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.



G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves. 

Change and innovation will come, as they always have. Saw a program on the weekend about a new building in China with a built-in wind generator, solar panels over large areas, and a double skin of glass, very energy efficient. Even the elevators are used to produce power, through a link to a built-in generator.    

I just think many of the so-called 'warmists' got impatient, and wanted change to happen imprudently fast (in view of the times), and in the case of a small selection of them, with political gain in mind.


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves.
> 
> Change and innovation will come, as they always have. Saw a program on the weekend about a new building in China with a built-in wind generator, solar panels over large areas, and a double skin of glass, very energy efficient. Even the elevators are used to produce power, through a link to a built-in generator.
> 
> I just think many of the so-called 'warmists' got impatient, and wanted change to happen imprudently fast (in view of the times), and in the case of a small selection of them, with political gain in mind.




Agree with your take.

The uncertainty of course raises individual concerns which in turn narrows the outlook down to our own particular beliefs.

It is a shame that at the ordinary (non scientific) level we are not able to find some reasonable understanding of where we are headed and what we might do about it.

I think that this is played on too in order to confuse the real science.

Good post Loqique


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I have given anecdotal examples.  I am not a scientist.
> 
> I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.
> 
> This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue.  And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.




You speak of anecdotes only and think I'm on the back foot for using an anagram?

Dear Lord!

As I have ably demonstrated that you have no idea what you are arguing about, my work here is done.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You speak of anecdotes only and think I'm on the back foot for using an anagram?
> 
> Dear Lord!
> 
> As I have ably demonstrated that you have no idea what you are arguing about, my work here is done.




Ably achieved what? and why do I have no idea?  because I suspect you talk in riddles, a bit like that Bolt, and changes the subject (or cuts them of) as soon as he is cornered too.

We have pacific islands sinking into the sea and you think its all okay.

Well I do not and I do not run away either.

And its your "work"; now that is an interesting insight.   King Cong of the kids hey.


----------



## young-gun

I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".


----------



## explod

young-gun said:


> I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
> 
> It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".




You can come back now wayneL because we are both in the boxes and doing a good job spreading the word on ASF.  And I do not mind at all you being the Boss.  

Thanks for posting up young-gun


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Ably achieved what? and why do I have no idea?  because I suspect you talk in riddles, a bit like that Bolt, and changes the subject (or cuts them of) as soon as he is cornered too.
> 
> *We have pacific islands sinking into the sea and you think its all okay.*
> Well I do not and I do not run away either.
> 
> And its your "work"; now that is an interesting insight.   King Cong of the kids hey.






> Auckland University's Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.
> 
> "Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
> 
> *"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.*




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

Get your facts straight please


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
> 
> Get your facts straight please




There is always someone to try and counter twist, can just depend on it.  There is a lot of tectonic plate shifting which needs to be acounted for too, new islands and mountains out of the depths.  This does not explain away the sinking of islands due to rising sea levels and some of that too is due to larger more violent storms.

If one cannot get in one way we nit pick.  Sounds like A Bolt again too.

But one good thing, the argument rolls on for good attention.


----------



## trainspotter

Incorrect summation again explod. The article referred to attests to 80% of studied islands are INCREASING and not decreasing. The islands that are sinking are due to the inhabitants pumping the ground water out for drinking purposes. 

The violent storms you refer to actually throw up more coral and debris making the islands larger and not smaller BTW.


----------



## wayneL

young-gun said:


> I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
> 
> It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".




:sleeping:

Yet another (elaborate) version of Pascal's Wager.

The same sort of thing can be applied to any perceived threat.

LOL about "spread the word". This is what Al Bore, James Hansen, Cate Blanchett, basilio et al are doing.

Spreading the word and maintaining large carbon footprint lifestyles (which the above are doing) will do exactly nought.

I'm happy to act (in fact I'll wager that I already do more for the environment than any alarmist) if I can be convinced by the science. So far, the science is unconvincing and dominated by political expediencies.

Sorry, the video might scare a few uninformed muppets, but not anyone who has looked into this properly.


----------



## wayneL

Even alarmists are disowning Gore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/al-gore-science-climate-weather?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## young-gun

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> Yet another (elaborate) version of Pascal's Wager.
> 
> The same sort of thing can be applied to any perceived threat.
> 
> LOL about "spread the word". This is what Al Bore, James Hansen, Cate Blanchett, basilio et al are doing.
> 
> Spreading the word and maintaining large carbon footprint lifestyles (which the above are doing) will do exactly nought.
> 
> I'm happy to act (in fact I'll wager that I already do more for the environment than any alarmist) if I can be convinced by the science. So far, the science is unconvincing and dominated by political expediencies.
> 
> Sorry, the video might scare a few uninformed muppets, but not anyone who has looked into this properly.




I fail to see how you can apply this to any perceived threat? IF global warming is happening AND it is caused by us, then this is something that can be slowed or potentially stopped with money, policies, and a forced shift in our position to climate change. 

If yellowstone goes up, you're not stopping that. Tsunamis? i think not. Please feel free to elaborate on threats that i may be blatantly overlooking in regards to nature. Not to mention that we aren't causing either of these disasters.(Not to say we are definitely causing global warming!)

I agree with you on spreading the word, no one takes celebrity echo-warriors seriously.

The fact is if it is happening(which you cannot disprove)then i dont think you can disagree that pumping money into now would be a bad thing. money is getting blown on far less important things like QE anyway...


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
> 
> Get your facts straight please




I have taken the time to locate and read the paper referred to by Kench and Webb.

http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/The_dynamic_response.pdf

A careful read will indicate that it is a very inconclusive study at this stage.  On the one hand he finds that the sea levels have risen in the last 200 years by 600 mil and then goes on to compare variences of at most 3 mil over about 21 years, and these by comparing old photos against current satelite images.

Of course the few islands he worked from in fact are such a small sampling of the number of Pacific Islands overall that we have to be joking to think that there is anything of conclusive value at this early stage of this research.

And this is one of the main points.  There are so many facits to the science of climate change/global warming; (and I group them together) and then there are so many thousands of different scientists involved that I would challange anyone to be able to declare where we are at all.  And is where Al Gore made his error.  Of course the multitude of information (scientist's and different fields) also makes it ripe for those on opposing sides to be selective in support of their own agenda's.

However there are a lot of anecdotal observatiosn that can be made (as I have made some over the last few pages of this thread) that suggest *we may have a problem.

If we may have a problem then we need to take the matter seriously at least.  To knock it blindly out of hand is the domain of fools.*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> Even alarmists are disowning Gore
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/al-gore-science-climate-weather?CMP=twt_gu




I agree. Event attribution, as practised by ole Al, is the domain of the mediocre.

Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article. 

gg


----------



## LostMyShirt

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree. Event attribution, as practised by ole Al, is the domain of the mediocre.
> 
> Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article.
> 
> gg




It's funny you mention that, gg. I am sure I have heard something similar quite recently which considers certain weather conditions attributed to a disturbance in the Ionosphere in the form of vibration which can also result in Earthquakes - or something along those lines. I don't really understand how. 

I never did follow it up.


----------



## artist

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article.
> 
> gg




The article you reference is probably the one listed on the New Scientist site when you click on the "Environment" tab. To read it (if you are not a subscriber) it is necessary to register (free) and then you have access for 12 hours. Why do you characterise it as a "digracefully unscientific" article?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

artist said:


> The article you reference is probably the one listed on the New Scientist site when you click on the "Environment" tab. To read it (if you are not a subscriber) it is necessary to register (free) and then you have access for 12 hours. Why do you characterise it as a "digracefully unscientific" article?




Post it up artist and I'll discuss it. I wouldn't register with that site after reading that article. It was scuttlebutt and propaganda, more worthy of Al Gore than a science publication.

gg


----------



## artist

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Post it up artist and I'll discuss it. I wouldn't register with that site after reading that article. It was scuttlebutt and propaganda, more worthy of Al Gore than a science publication.
> 
> gg




The article is way too long for that, three pages with lots of links and an interactive graphic. I believe it is against ASF policy to cut and past an article of that length.

However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water."

The article contains many instances, modern and ancient, where this cause and effect relationship is thought to hold. 

To be sure, the author quotes one volcanologist (McGuire) who "thinks we will we see a clear effect on volcanoes and earthquakes when climate change really gets going. "Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions over a hundred years would cluster. You need a certain amount of strain to accumulate and climate change may bring forward the time that takes," he suggests. This will mean more earthquakes and eruptions in a given period, rather than more in total, he says."

It appears to me that the author subscribes to AGW and near the end there is this paragraph "Overall, then, the evidence does point to a small but real increase in the likelihood of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and tsunamis over the next century or so as a result of climate change. The effect is likely to be greatest in areas where few people live, minimising the threat to lives. Even those who live far from any volcanoes or quake zones, however, could feel the economic and practical consequences."

I am genuinely mystified as to why you are so disparaging of it. I recognise that you are not persuaded that AGW is real, and maybe you doubt GW/climate change in general (I can't be sure without backtracking all of your posts and I don't have time to do that, and whether or not I agree with you is not at issue here) but the article's point is that changes in mass distribution increase the likelihood of earthquakes. If GW doesn't happen then there will not be a corresponding increase in tectonic movents. Be that as it may, it is not a new thesis or hypothesis, National Geographic had an article in January 2007 discussing the role of coal mining in causing earthquakes http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070103-mine-quake.html and when I was studying geology at uni the professor (head of school) discussed how the mass transfers that occur in the mineral extraction industry were thought even then to initiate, or predispose to, earthquakes in susceptible areas. 

So in short the article isn't arguing for or against the reality of global warming, but is elaborating one fairly-well understood consequence (which it tries to put in perspective) if that is the reality. My question to you is still why you regard the article as scuttlebut and propaganda.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

artist said:


> The article is way too long for that, three pages with lots of links and an interactive graphic. I believe it is against ASF policy to cut and past an article of that length.
> 
> However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water."
> 
> The article contains many instances, modern and ancient, where this cause and effect relationship is thought to hold.
> 
> To be sure, the author quotes one volcanologist (McGuire) who "thinks we will we see a clear effect on volcanoes and earthquakes when climate change really gets going. "Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions over a hundred years would cluster. You need a certain amount of strain to accumulate and climate change may bring forward the time that takes," he suggests. This will mean more earthquakes and eruptions in a given period, rather than more in total, he says."




It all sounds as if they have made their minds up and then look for evidence.
Put some more quotes up.

gg


----------



## macca

Don't you love the corruption in the GW camp

<<However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water.">>

This has been going on for thousands of years, its always happens at the end of an ice age.

Buried somewhere in this gigantic thread is a statement released by the Uni of ... (California I think) that states that as the USA rises each year because the ice has melted they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it. 

If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling (and that is not going to keep funding coming is it  )


----------



## artist

macca said:


> Don't you love the corruption in the GW camp
> 
> *Even if one accepts this, how is it relevant to the article gg referred to (if the one I found is indeed the one he read  initially)?*
> 
> <<However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water.">>
> 
> This has been going on for thousands of years, its always happens at the end of an ice age.
> 
> *You just agreed with one of the lines of evidence the author presents for the likelihood of it happening again if GW (A or otherwise) comes about. *
> 
> Buried somewhere in this gigantic thread is a statement released by the Uni of ... (California I think) that states that as the USA rises each year because the ice has melted they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it.
> 
> 
> *I would like to read that post if you can locate it. As I interpret your comment, they say that as the ice melts in any given year so the USA rises that year (again, this is consistent with the article in New Scientist), so "they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it." Otherwise, "If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling ". Does the article explain what they do when the ice and snow re-form in the ensuing winter, and the USA presumbly sinks back down once the mass increases? *
> 
> If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling (and that is not going to keep funding coming is it  )




My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

artist said:


> My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.




I'll try and chase the article online for you artist, and if it has been taken down by New Scientist, I will scan it in from my print edition.

It appears from memory to be similar to macca's paraphrase, a motley collection of basic science, e.g mass and gravity = pressure under the mass etc etc and quite fanciful unproven hypotheses about the future.

I also resent the word denier. It has religious/fascist connotations.

I merely think AGW is bollox.

gg


----------



## derty

artist said:


> My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.



Artist, just use the advanced search feature using *Isostasy* as the keyword and display results by post. This will take you to around where the discussion took place. It is both an interesting and amusing read.

Induced seismicity is a known and well understood phenomena. It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled. The unloading of the crust and subsequence isostatic rebound as a result of the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the previous ice age is still occurring today. One would assume that the induced seismicity would be greatest following the initial unloading and would taper off with time. The level of seismicity would be a function of the volume, area and rate of unloading. 

While the article is entirely correct with respect to the phenomena, invoking a heaving Earth unleashing volcanoes and earthquakes is getting a bit too excited. In reality while the effects may be statistically observable over time it is unlikely that we would see a significant increase in catastrophic events.


----------



## artist

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'll try and chase the article online for you artist, and if it has been taken down by New Scientist, I will scan it in from my print edition.
> 
> It appears from memory to be similar to macca's paraphrase, a motley collection of basic science, e.g mass and gravity = pressure under the mass etc etc and quite fanciful unproven hypotheses about the future.
> 
> I also resent the word denier. It has religious/fascist connotations.
> 
> I merely think AGW is bollox.
> 
> gg




I didn't know the word denier had that commotation to you. I didn't actually have you in mind when I wrote "I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen," as I don't know what your opinion is on that issue (as I noted earlier). No offence meant, and I shan't use it again.

If you can find the article and give your analysis of it, that is what I asked about in the first instance.


----------



## artist

derty said:


> Artist, just use the advanced search feature using *Isostasy* as the keyword and display results by post. This will take you to around where the discussion took place. It is both an interesting and amusing read.
> 
> Induced seismicity is a known and well understood phenomena. It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled. The unloading of the crust and subsequence isostatic rebound as a result of the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the previous ice age is still occurring today. One would assume that the induced seismicity would be greatest following the initial unloading and would taper off with time. The level of seismicity would be a function of the volume, area and rate of unloading.
> 
> 
> While the article is entirely correct with respect to the phenomena, invoking a heaving Earth unleashing volcanoes and earthquakes is getting a bit too excited. In reality while the effects may be statistically observable over time it is unlikely that we would see a significant increase in catastrophic events.




Thanks derty. This is the sort of analysis which gg seems to have made too, and what I asked for was his reasoning. I can't agree or disagree until I know that, not that my agreeing or otherwise has any significance for him. But I might learn something I didn't know by seeing these things elucidated.

FWIW the sentence  "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" I quoted from the article was the 'header' to get attention and might not represent the author's point of view or preference, in which case the editors are to be criticised - who knows? I included it as I neeeded to give some pegs as gg requested.


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled.




Well the oceans already slosh around a bit due to lunar pull, tides etc. Although regular, the loading and unloading would surely be far greater than that speculated by warmists?

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Just a thought.


----------



## artist

wayneL said:


> In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.




Funny you should mention that, one of the better known Australian Gann enthusiasts has said that earthquakes (as well as wars and stock markets amongst other activities) follow "natural" - and therefore predictable, cycles. Whether I can find this having been claimed in print is another matter, but is was said in the presence of several people I know.


----------



## Knobby22

The tide actually does vary the crust height by a couple of centimetres according to National Geographic.

I worked in Jakarta and the whole place is sinking because of the large heavy buildings being built.

By the way, does anyone know why I always have a gap after my postings as if i typed a few carriage returns?


----------



## derty

wayneL said:


> Well the oceans already slosh around a bit due to lunar pull, tides etc. Although regular, the loading and unloading would surely be far greater than that speculated by warmists?



The loading has to be sustained over a reasonable amount of time. Diurnal or even annual variations won't really have an effect as the phenomena of isostasy is caused by the pressure on the crust causing the underlying mantle to flow.



wayneL said:


> In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.
> 
> Just a thought.



There are crackpots all over the place, one guy is claiming that sunspot activity can be used as a predictor of earthquakes.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> ...By the way, does anyone know why I always have a gap after my postings as if i typed a few carriage returns?




Probably caused by Global Warming...

Or perhaps it's Mr Abbott's fault...


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Probably caused by Global Warming...
> 
> Or perhaps it's Mr Abbott's fault...




And there I was thinking it was Bob Brown.


----------



## macca

I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.

Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.

What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.


----------



## basilio

That was a really interesting find on Post Glacial rebound Macca. Certainly opens ones mind to the range of forces acting on the earths surface.

However it is simply untrue to say scientists are unfairly adjusting sea level data. They just have to take many factors into account in what is a complex  situation.



> Recent global warming has caused mountain glaciers and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to melt and global sea level to rise. Therefore, monitoring sea level rise and the mass balance of ice sheets and glaciers allows us to understand more about global warming.
> 
> Recent rise in sea levels has been monitored by tide gauges and Satellite Altimetry (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon). In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors. Thus, to understand global warming from sea level change, one must be able to separate all these factors, especially postglacial rebound, since it is one of the leading factors.
> 
> Mass changes of ice sheets can be monitored by measuring changes in the ice surface height, the deformation of the ground below and the changes in the gravity field over the ice sheet. Thus ICESat, GPS and GRACE satellite mission are useful for such purpose.[20] However, glacial isostatic adjustment of the ice sheets affect ground deformation and the gravity field today. Thus understanding glacial isostatic adjustment is important in monitoring recent global warming.


----------



## macca

basilio said:


> That was a really interesting find on Post Glacial rebound Macca. Certainly opens ones mind to the range of forces acting on the earths surface.
> 
> However it is simply untrue to say scientists are unfairly adjusting sea level data. They just have to take many factors into account in what is a complex  situation.




Hi Bas,

Found something on it, read post #1703 on this thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

macca said:


> I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
> 
> The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.
> 
> Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.
> 
> What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.




You have encapsulated the core argument against the catastrophic global warming believers. 

They have a premise, and then rejig the data to fit in with that premise, when the data no longer suits them.

Popper would not be pleased.

gg


----------



## ghotib

macca said:


> I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
> 
> The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.
> 
> Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.
> 
> What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.



Macca, when I look at that Wikipedia page I see maps that show both rising and sinking land. 

I read this about adjustments: 


> Vertical datum
> 
> The vertical datum is a theoretical reference surface for altitude measurement and plays vital roles in many human activities, including land surveying and construction of buildings and bridges. Since postglacial rebound continuously deforms the crustal surface and the gravitational field, the vertical datum needs to be redefined repeatedly through time




And this reference to global warming: 


> Recent rise in sea levels has been monitored by tide gauges and Satellite Altimetry (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon). In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors. Thus, to understand global warming from sea level change, one must be able to separate all these factors, especially postglacial rebound, since it is one of the leading factors.




I'm bewildered that you could look at the same page and make the assessment you did. Why do you say that the "AGW team" (whoever they are) adjusts the level of the land, or that the adjustment is directly related to changes in sea level?  What is dishonest about attempting to separate all the factors that affect sea level? 

I was intrigued by the term "Vertical Datum". Turns out that vertical and horizontal datums (that's what the engineers call them) are critical to GPS systems as well as surveying and construction. This comes from a 1998 seminar http://geosun.sjsu.edu/paula/285/285/marc.htm:


> To truly understand how to properly use or make a map, you must understand how datums, coordinate systems and map projections tie together. With GPS, and other improved surveying techniques, coordinate accuracy and precision is better today that in the past. Due to these technological changes and earth processes, such as plate tectonics and isostatic rebound, coordinates on the earth's surface shift over time. This shift, known as a datum shift, is a change of the parameters determining the latitude, longitude, and elevation of points on the earth's surface. The following is a very simplified explanation of the topic.
> 
> *Datums*
> 
> There are two general types of datums: vertical and horizontal. A vertical datum is a calculation based on a mean sea level calculated over several years. The U. S. uses the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). Horizontal datums are calculated using a mathematical calculation for the approximation of the shape of the earth, known as an ellipsoid. Most ellipsoids are calculated for a geographic region such as North America, India, or Australia. The U. S. uses the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) based on Clarke's ellipsoid of 1866 (Clarke 1866). Today, most newly generated geographic data sets use North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) based on the Geodetic Reference System ellipsoid (GRS80). Using different datums causes an error known as a datum shift and causes some confusion due to the adoption of NAD83 for newly mapped data by federal agencies and everyone else who still use the older NAD27. A datum shift is not a simple mathematical calculation. Changes in surveying techniques (GPS), levels of accuracy and precision, earth changes, and other error generators all lead to difficulty in matching surveys conducted under different datums (Bower 1996).




Everything is always more interesting than it looks on the surface 

Ghoti


----------



## macca

This is where all this hysteria is leading, this is the first I have read about but how many more to come. They can't get the weather forecasts right 3 days in advance yet this council accepts the forecast of what will happen 90 years from now, utter cr**

<<A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.>>

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...perty-owner-drowning-in-opinions/2323421.aspx


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> This is where all this hysteria is leading, this is the first I have read about but how many more to come. They can't get the weather forecasts right 3 days in advance yet this council accepts the forecast of what will happen 90 years from now, utter cr**
> 
> <<A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.>>



It's really the "legal system" you need to blame for that one. Unfortunately we live in a society where people can and actually do sue for practically anything that happens to them.

If the council allowed building amidst widespread community knowledge that there were predictions of a rising sea level then the council would have little chance legally if sea levels did rise. Practically every industry has to think like that these days, at great detriment to the majority of people, and local government is no exception.

I know that my local council employs someone whose primary (only?) role is to walk the streets looking for anything that may give someone a chance to sue the council. Things like uneven footpaths that could be tripped over etc. That's because 30 years ago if someone fell over then they got up and walked on. These days they fake an injury and call their lawyer. Sad but true...


----------



## basilio

Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.

*Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns*



> *Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect
> *
> 
> Ian Sample, science correspondent
> guardian.co.uk,
> 
> *Climate sceptics' criticisms of the evidence for global warming make no difference to the emerging picture of a warming world, according to the most comprehensive, independent review of historical temperature records to date.*
> 
> Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, investigated several key issues that sceptics claim can skew global warming figures and found they had no meaningful effect on world temperature trends.
> 
> Researchers at the Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.
> 
> This figure agrees with the estimate of global warming arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.
> 
> "My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the Berkeley Earth project, told the Guardian.
> 
> "Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues," he said.
> 
> In the Berkeley Earth project, Muller sought to cool the debate over climate change by creating the world's largest open database of temperature records, with the aim of producing a transparent and independent assessment of global warming.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined  to destroy the  current scientific case against GW. 

Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these  changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.

*
Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims*



> *Report says refugees forced to leave homes by weather caused by global warming may end up in even worse afflicted areas*
> 
> Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
> guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30
> 
> *Hundreds of millions of people may be trapped in inhospitable environments as they attempt to flee from the effects of global warming, worsening the likely death toll from severe changes to the climate, a UK government committee has found.*
> 
> Refugees forced to leave their homes because of floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and other effects of climate change are likely to be one of the biggest visible effects of the warming that scientists warn will result from the untrammelled use of fossil fuels, according to the UK government's Foresight group, part of the Office for Science.
> 
> But many of those people are likely to move from areas affected by global warming into areas even worse afflicted – for instance, by moving into coastal cities in the developing world that are at risk of flood from storms and rising sea levels.
> 
> "Millions will migrate into, rather than away from, areas of environmental vulnerability," said Sir John Beddington, chief scientific advisor to the UK government, and head of the Foresight programme. "An even bigger policy challenge will be the millions who are trapped in dangerous conditions and unable to move to safety."
> 
> The scientists, in a report entitled Migration and Global Environmental Change, found that between 114 million and 192 million more people were likely to be living in floodplains in urban areas of Africa and Asia by 2060, partly as a result of climate change.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report

It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.


----------



## Calliope

> Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns




Writers for The Guardian are extremely skewed towards Global Warming, and should not be given much credibility. The same applies to the Pravda on the Yarra. Naturally these are your favourite rags.

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, 

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.
> 
> *Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics
> 
> Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined  to destroy the  current scientific case against GW.
> 
> Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these  changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.
> 
> *
> Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report
> 
> It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.




Pielke Snr comments:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Writers for The Guardian are extremely skewed towards Global Warming, and should not be given much credibility. The same applies to the Pravda on the Yarra. Naturally these are your favourite rags.
> 
> Ian Sample, science correspondent
> guardian.co.uk,
> 
> Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
> guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30




You'll find pretty much the same story in any newspaper that sees this as newsworthy Calliope. The Guardian is just repeating their Press releases. 

Would you give them any more credance if they have another reference ?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Y
> Would you give them any more credance if they have another reference ?




No. Actually, I don't even read your long-winded discredited propaganda any more. It is too predictable.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Have the AGW extremists on this thread found the Observed evidence yet? I see Basilio is still gulping the propaganda with useless studies that can only suggest possibilities that may, could, perhaps, <legal disclaimer>, predict some far off calamity without any linkage to man's 3% contribution to total CO2.

Basilio, your continuous desperation in this thread can only mean you have an agenda or perhaps even a paid one?


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> No. Actually, I don't even read your long-winded discredited propaganda any more. It is too predictable.




Nice to know I'm not the only one...

And Japan and the EU are having second thoughts on pricing carbon (bold is mine0:



> TOKYO””Japan is reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to a rethinking of its energy future, and the country is *worried that it is spending too much on carbon-credit programs*, a senior government official said on Wednesday.



Read more from the Wall Street Journal by MARI IWATA:
*Japan Reconsiders Plan to Cut Carbon Emissions* 

and on the EU (bold is mine):



> BRUSSELS””The European Union is *for the first time clearly questioning whether it should press ahead with long-term plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions if other countries don't follow suit,* in what could herald a significant policy shift for a region that has been at the forefront of advocating action to combat climate change.




Read more from the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Alessandro Torello, The Wall Street Journal:
*Europe Reconsidering Its Unilateral Climate Policy* 

Thanks to *Andrew Bolt's blog*  for providing the links...


----------



## startrader

basilio said:


> Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.
> 
> *Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics
> 
> Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined  to destroy the  current scientific case against GW.
> 
> Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these  changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.
> 
> *
> Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report
> 
> It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.




I really don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously.  The climate has been changing for millions of years and is going to keep changing, regardless of what we do.


----------



## Julia

> Climate Change Act
> Main article: Climate Change Act 2008
> 
> On 26 November 2008, after cross-party pressure over several years, led by environmental groups, the Climate Change Act became law. The Act puts in place a framework to achieve a mandatory 80% cut in the UK's carbon emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), with an intermediate target of between 34% by 2020 which would have risen in the event of a strong deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.




The above is from the UK's climate change policy.  I recall that this policy had a 'get out' clause which said such a target would be moderated if the rest of the world did not act similarly by a particular date.  Sorry, can't now remember when but think it was 2013.

Today ABC Radio broadcast an item which says this policy has already been substantially moderated, now being that the UK would do "no more or no less" than other like nations.  The program presenter suggested this would represent max of 20%.
Just the first step in wiping it entirely perhaps, to bring the UK in line with the US and other trading competitors.


----------



## basilio

Well it seems clear that the next piece of legislation we need is to wipe out Climate Change itself.  I don't think anyone sees an extra 2-3-5 degrees of warming as improving the planet (although Siberia will probably become more habitable ) so if we intend to not reduce CO2 emissions we should undertake  a clear, co ordinated international legislative approach to ban CC.

I think we have a few creative lawyers in our midst ? Could you come up with a  draft for strong, practical legislative framework than can abolish CC ? It would certainly come in useful for the Liberals and Nats  next election platform and I'm sure it would be far more popular amongst voters than the bloody carbon tax.


----------



## Julia

Your sarcasm is duly noted, basilio.
What would probably be more useful, however, is a plan to deal with any difficulties resulting from climate change, regardless of its cause, in other words adaptation.

Re Siberia becoming more habitable, I expect it would take an increase in temperature of more than a couple of degrees to make it pleasant.  Dozens of countries which, imo, would be a hell of a lot more pleasant if they were five degrees or more warmer, my home country of NZ being just one.


----------



## basilio

I don't quite think it was  meant to be sarcasm Julia (although I can see where you are coming from)

Basically if most of the other contributors to this forum can wave their hands and dismiss CC why can't I join in the fun? 

As far as adapting to whatever changes might occur ? That might not be as easy as it sounds.... One would have to do some research about where we could be heading and somehow work out a  "plan".

By the way. Almost all the evidence suggests that an average of 5 degrees rise in global temperatures would leave very little land inhabitable by people. I much prefer the legislative approach.

http://www.theclimatehub.com/topics/the-problem/climate-models/impacts-by-degree?resource=overview


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Well it seems clear that the next piece of legislation we need is to wipe out Climate Change itself.  I don't think anyone sees an extra 2-3-5 degrees of warming as improving the planet (although Siberia will probably become more habitable ) so if we intend to not reduce CO2 emissions we should undertake  a clear, co ordinated international legislative approach to ban CC.
> 
> I think we have a few creative lawyers in our midst ? Could you come up with a  draft for strong, practical legislative framework than can abolish CC ? It would certainly come in useful for the Liberals and Nats  next election platform and I'm sure it would be far more popular amongst voters than the bloody carbon tax.




You obviously don't know the difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. Climate Change is a natural process. Global Warming is a figment of the imagination dreamed up by fundamentalist crazies like you, to frighten the uninformed into believing the end is nigh. Why stop at 2-3-5 degrees? Why not  20-30-50?  I remember you saying that we would cook. Th Basilio barbeque.

Salvation can only be achieved by accepting the Gospel according to Saint Basilio.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> You obviously don't know the difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. Climate Change is a natural process. Global Warming is a figment of the imagination dreamed up by fundamentalist crazies like you, to frighten the uninformed into believing the end is nigh. Why stop at 2-3-5 degrees? Why not  20-30-50?
> 
> Salvation can only be achieved by accepting the Gospel according to Saint Basilio.




Thank you Calliope for those kind words. But I certainly can't take any credit for 30 years of research by many thousands of scientists across almost all disciplines. You'll have to check their Gospels because I only read them, not write them. 

And you did inspire me to offer a strong legislative approach to abolishing CC or GW as the best way to tackle the issue.  Any ideas ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> ....30 years of research by many thousands of scientists across almost all disciplines. You'll have to check their Gospels because I only read them, not write them.




But like like those pro AGW "scientists", you suffer the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.

Pielke Snr - Comment On The Quality Of The 2007 IPCC WG1 Report In Response To A Post On Climate Etc



> In Judy Curry’s post on Climate Etc titled
> 
> Laframboise on the IPCC
> 
> she wrote
> 
> “Does the problems with the IPCC mean that WG1 science is incorrect? Not necessarily, but I agree that a “new trial” is needed. WG2 and WG3 reports pretty much belong in the dustbin, as far as I can tell.”
> 
> WG1 is incorrect because it suffers from “sins of omission”. I documented this in the Appendix to my Public Comment




and 



> To this list, based on new knowledge, including what is presented on Judy’s weblog, the role of natural climate variability, even in terms of global averages, needs to be elevated in importance.
> 
> The 2007 IPCC WG1, in my view, was a failure in the assessment of the understanding of the human role in the climate system, as well as the extent to which the natural forcings and feedbacks influence the climate.




And for a damning expose' on the machinations of the IPCC 

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken As The Worlds Top Climate Expert

From just one review from Amazon.com



> ...Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line.
> 
> Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda.
> 
> They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists!
> 
> The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents.




So basilio, what you appear to have taken as gospel is from very shoddy politically motivated non science.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> And you did inspire me to offer a strong legislative approach to abolishing CC or GW as the best way to tackle the issue.  Any ideas ?




Yeah. Neither you nor Bob Brown nor Al Gore can abolish Climate Change. You will have to go back to the Old Testament for that one. I seem to remember that you are a Creationist.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> By the way. Almost all the evidence suggests that an average of 5 degrees rise in global temperatures would leave very little land inhabitable by people. I much prefer the legislative approach.




In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).

As usual Basilio your assertions lack conviction and credibility. Again I ask, are you paid to be posting on this thread or are you a member of a AGW extremist group? Nothing wrong with spilling a little truth for once to the folks here.


----------



## macca

Have we all noticed that now that "The Tax" has been slapped on us poor suckers that we are flooded with AGW alarmist reports from all the cheer squads.

Like Copenhagen all over again, they must save these things up until they get the signal to flood the media, the sillier and shriller the better


----------



## sails

macca said:


> Have we all noticed that now that "The Tax" has been slapped on us poor suckers that we are flooded with AGW alarmist reports from all the cheer squads.
> 
> Like Copenhagen all over again, they must save these things up until they get the signal to flood the media, the sillier and shriller the better




ahha - that explains the nasty attacks on Bolt's private life 25 years ago - apart from two court cases during his journalistic career of probably thousands of articles, they are now digging into his young personal life in a seeming effort to discredit him.

I wonder if it had anything to do with him allowing three professors recently on his TV show who gave some useful information on why we don't need this tax.

If so, it shows nothing but sheer desperation to try and get the public to accept this nonsense tax.  And trying to discredit people unfairly rarely works.  It often ends up backfiring.


----------



## basilio

> But like like those pro AGW "scientists", you suffer the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.   Wayne






> So basilio, what you appear to have taken as gospel is from very shoddy politically motivated non science.  Wayne




Mighty big jumps you have made there  Wayne..

I introduced the  Berkley study which promised to check every climate record available and once and for all put to rest the concerns of people who thought the urban heat island effect was distorting our measurements of climate change  . It was in effect a detailed, overarching, independent recheck on the range of temperature graphs that have been attached by those who don't accept the results of climate scientists to date.

And the result is that in fact the Berkley study confirmed the validity of the original figures. The urban heat island effect was a furphy. (because in fact they had been acknowledge and accounted for)  *The only way to show that the climate is not warming is to  find a whole new set of  worldwide data  over the last 40 years with lower figures than  actually exist. *

And you want to call this confirmation bias ?

With regard to the beating up of the IPPC. In the end they can only report on the  total findings of climate scientists.  I can't see any honest dissection of climate scientists research that shows they are wrong. Perhaps that would be a good place to start rather than trying to destroy the credibility of  the  organisation that is essentially the messenger for the scientific community

What I have seen have been dissections of Mr Moncktons lectures where it has been show over and over again that the man lies through his teeth when pulling graphs  and information from the work of cliamte scientists.

I have seen Professor  Bob Carters work similarly dissected with scores of serious mistakes identified with regard to his research and maths. 

*If you want to find evidence of politically motivated non science then the work of Moncton and Carter are first hand examples.*

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-2-green-jobs.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-3-surface-temperature-record-cherries.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-1-anthropogenic-warming.html


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

Obviously you have not bothered to read the several rebuttals of the Berkely study.

Firstly, (and to repeat this point yet again) nobody questions that climate changes. What is questioned is:


The measured extent of climate change and subjective adjustments
The extent to which anthropogenic co2 emissions have affected climate and what effects may occur in the future, as opposed to completely natural effects
Policy responses to the above

...amongst other things

The Berkeley study does nothing to address these points, but merely, in effect, concludes that yes, climate has been changing.

Well Duh!


----------



## wayneL

Larry Pickering:


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio
> 
> Obviously you have not bothered to read the several rebuttals of the Berkely study.
> 
> Firstly, (and to repeat this point yet again) nobody questions that climate changes. What is questioned is:
> 
> 
> The measured extent of climate change and subjective adjustments
> The extent to which anthropogenic co2 emissions have affected climate and what effects may occur in the future, as opposed to completely natural effects
> Policy responses to the above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...amongst other things
> 
> The Berkeley study does nothing to address these points, but merely, in effect, concludes that yes, climate has been changing.
> 
> Well Duh!




1) We have increased average temperatures  by .8c in 40 years and look set to go to between 3 and 5 degrees in the next 40-100 years 


2) Scientists have long identified the extra CO2 that humans have emitted into the atmosphere  is accumulating and trapping the extra heat  thus causing the above documented warming. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

3) 20 years ago when scientists were first pretty clear that extra human produced greenhouse gases were warming the atmosphere we had some realistic options to decarbonise our economy and avert the worst of the global warming outcomes. 

10 years ago we may have had some chance of turning the tide.

But those options are now past.  I can't come up a realistic Plan C.

With regard to the Berkley re examination of climate data information.  As I remember it *very clearly * it was established to attempt to prove once and for all that the scientists were actually accurate in measuring the degree of global warming. 

We have had to endure for years the confident misrepresentations  "the urban heat islands were distorting the figures" that "the hockey stick was a lie" .  Well it is now clear that the climate scientists had been honest and accurate all along and that  Spencer, Watts and the various other proponents of the urban heat island effect were just blowing smoke.  ( But I won't wait for all those statements to be retracted .)


----------



## wayneL

Oh basilio!

Must we go through this all again? 

No, you will never desert your faith, even if hell freezes over.

It is so obvious you refuse to consider dissenting science.

That's fine, but forgive me for the multiple rolley eyes


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> 1) We have increased average temperatures  by .8c in 40 years and look set to go to between 3 and 5 degrees in the next 40-100 years
> 
> 
> 2) Scientists have long identified the extra CO2 that humans have emitted into the atmosphere  is accumulating and trapping the extra heat  thus causing the above documented warming.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
> 
> 3) 20 years ago when scientists were first pretty clear that extra human produced greenhouse gases were warming the atmosphere we had some realistic options to decarbonise our economy and avert the worst of the global warming outcomes.
> 
> 10 years ago we may have had some chance of turning the tide.
> 
> But those options are now past.  I can't come up a realistic Plan C.
> 
> With regard to the Berkley re examination of climate data information.  As I remember it *very clearly * it was established to attempt to prove once and for all that the scientists were actually accurate in measuring the degree of global warming.
> 
> We have had to endure for years the confident misrepresentations  "the urban heat islands were distorting the figures" that "the hockey stick was a lie" .  Well it is now clear that the climate scientists had been honest and accurate all along and that  Spencer, Watts and the various other proponents of the urban heat island effect were just blowing smoke.  ( But I won't wait for all those statements to be retracted .)



Trying to be balanced here... 

1. Is 40 years a sufficiently long enough period to identify a trend? I'd say probably yes in terms of practical use for infrastructure planning etc (eg water supply), but I'm not sure that it's really long enough in terms of a scientific approach to climate. Haven't there been natural variations in the past which lasted 40+ years?

2. Agreed with the CO2 theory. I've heard claims that it was understood as long ago as the 1880's, and I know that at least one Australian electricity utility had come across it by the 1950's. I've done my own experiments and, in the lab at least, the theory works. How well the theory matches reality in the real atmosphere is the big question...

3. Agreed that there is a long lead time to shift away from fossil fuels. That said, the easiest option I can think of 20 or 30 years ago is pretty straightforward - no globalisation. It would have fixed a few other problems too.

4. Heat islands are well accepted as fact and easily able to be demonstrated. Go to the outskirts of any major city and measure the temperature on a still day. Measure it also in the CBD of that same city and you'll find that the CBD is warmer. That said, in some cities (eg Sydney due to the harbour and Adelaide due to the parks) local factors will lead to some natural cooling of the CBD which complicates things somewhat. But the principle does seem to be fairly widely accepted, including outside of the climate change debate. It makes sense of course - cities generate massive amounts of heat so logically you would expect them to be a bit warmer than surrounding areas, likewise airports also tend to be relatively warm.


----------



## basilio

The point about the Berkley study is that a huge slab of the "dissenting" science was clearly killed.

The point about the gross lies and misrepresentations of Monkcton and Carter was that when one examines the "dissenting science " it proves to be lies. 

I havn't seen any credible dissenting science that will demonstrate the current warming is going to slow down and that we will not see rapid increase in global temperatures in the forseeable future.   

It has nothing to do with "faith". Thirty years ago if a scientist had suggested that rising CO2 levels would cause increasing temperatures the support for him/her could be based on faith that they were accurate in their analysis. When 30 years later the predictions are coming true we are dealing with irrefutable evidence.

(_ Oh yeah.  30 years ago there was a  peer reviewed scientific paper that identified CO2 as causing increased temperatures and that if it continued to increase there would be increases in global temperatures)_

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-hit-a-home-run.html


----------



## wayneL

Excuse me?

The Berkeley study did nothing of the sort.


----------



## basilio

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Ah shucks bas.   

Good to have you back.

gg


----------



## basilio

Thanks  GG.. Just multiple kisses for all the good friends on the forum.

Actually... I was not able to put up a post for a couple of hours so the last one was a test run. But the thought is still there.

___________________________________________________________

Waye I can't agree with your statement that the Berkley study did not kill a big slab of "dissenting" science. For years now Watts up and others have been running very strongly on the urban heat island effect and stating that it might be responsible for up to 50% of the registered temp increase. 

Whats were the results ? Lets see
*
“








			The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
		
Click to expand...


*


> Posted on 21 October 2011 by Andy S
> 
> A paper submitted for peer review by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1 °C on average since 1950.
> The Urban Heat Island Effect
> 
> It has long been observed that temperatures in cities are higher than in the surrounding countryside, caused, in part, by human structures that reduce albedo and evapo-transpiration, as well as by the effects of waste heat emissions, McCarthy et al 2010. Even though most (99%) of the Earth’s surface is not urbanized, some 27% of the Monthly Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-M) temperature stations are located in cities having populations of more than 50,000. Since urbanization has grown dramatically over the past few centuries, it seems reasonable to ask how much of the observed rise in global temperatures is due to urbanization.
> 
> *For example, McKitrick and Michaels claimed in 2007 that about half of the recent warming over land is due to urban heat island effect*, although this result  was disputed by Schmidt in 2009.
> 
> .




http://www.skepticalscience.com/BEST-October-2011.html


----------



## basilio

Just to lighten the mood a little. 

How about a Climate Change doc that doesn't give a rats rectum whether you believe in this climate change stuff or not?

Check out the clip and then perhaps the web site.

I'd be interested in feedback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLs73KJI36w&feature=player_embedded
http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/home


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Thanks  GG.. Just multiple kisses for all the good friends on the forum.
> 
> Actually... I was not able to put up a post for a couple of hours so the last one was a test run.



Oh, how disappointing.  And here I was thinking you were going all warm and fuzzy toward us.


----------



## basilio

But Julia you didn't quote my last comment.



> "The thought was still there.."


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> How about a Climate Change doc that doesn't give a rats rectum whether you believe in this climate change stuff or not?
> 
> Check out the clip and then perhaps the web site.
> 
> I'd be interested in feedback.




You seem to have to have switched your emphasis from  your hysterical concentration on Global Warming to concentrating on Climate Change which is a natural cyclic phenomena. It appears you have realised that Joseph Goebbel's mantra which you once apparently espoused  if flawed;



> “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


----------



## sails

Despite warmists and Bob Brown declaring that AGW is causing more floods...



> a team from the National Technical University of Athens has now counted the floods over the past 30 years, and says, if anything, the world is getting fewer, not more




From Bolt's blog: *No link found between warming and floods*

For those who are terrified of Andrew Bolt's site...LOL - here is a direct link to the University site:  http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/

And from What's up with that: 
*Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective*


----------



## Knobby22

How comme the graphs end is 2000?
What happened to the last 11 years of data?

Looks like they copied someone elses report - beware of Greek students stating facts.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> How comme the graphs end is 2000?
> What happened to the last 11 years of data?
> 
> Looks like they copied someone elses report - beware of Greek students stating facts.




Which report are you looking at?  The 13 page PDF has quite a few graphs where the data goes past the 2000 mark.  On page 6 it says this:



> We also partitioned the total length of each time series into 30-year periods, (P1: 1891-1920, P2: 1921- 50, P3: 1951-80, P4: 1981-2010),




and I have seen other references to 2010, so not sure what you are on about, Knobby...


----------



## sails

sails said:


> ...And from What's up with that:
> *Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective*




and this from the What's up with that - again it mentions 2010 and it is another confirmation that weather is not getting any worse even IF the globe is going through a warming cycle:



> Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).
> 
> As usual Basilio your assertions lack conviction and credibility. Again I ask, are you paid to be posting on this thread or are you a member of a AGW extremist group? Nothing wrong with spilling a little truth for once to the folks here.




Basilio, will you ever provide the simplest of answers to the questions above. Now approaching 7months of side stepping and misleading posts. Facts please - not propaganda. Or can you simply admit there's no observed evidence - it's actually ok to *flip-flop* sometimes.


----------



## basilio

OzWaveGuy said:


> Basilio, will you ever provide the simplest of answers to the questions above. Now approaching 7months of side stepping and misleading posts. Facts please - not propaganda. Or can you simply admit there's no observed evidence - it's actually ok to *flip-flop* sometimes.




I replied to your questions many times Ozzie. The analysis that proves man made CO2 is the prime mover in global warming can be found  at

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

This brings together about 22 scientific papers that explore the human signature of global warming.

Unfortunately every time it's offered you reject this research as propaganda. I'm not interested in your refusal/inability to accept scientific research that you don't want to believe.
__________________________________________________________________

Moderators please note. *This is the last time* I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate. :


----------



## wayneL

This article highlights the desperate and laughable state of climate science and correctly summarizes BEST

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...warming-skepticism-or-the-birth-of-straw-men/



> The Death Of Global Warming Skepticism, Or The Birth Of Straw Men?
> 
> SNIP: The mainstream media has been spiking the football in the proverbial end zone ever since a paper released last Friday claimed two-thirds of global temperature stations show some warming occurred during the past century. *The media have been claiming the new paper delivers a death blow to skepticism, but the paper itself brings almost nothing new to the global warming debate and instead shows how far global warming advocates are from presenting credible evidence of a crisis.* Rather than delivering a death blow to skepticism, the media has merely invented and shredded an insignificant straw man.
> 
> SNIP: Far from marking the death of skepticism, the media’s over-the-top sensationalism of the Muller paper shows just how far global warming advocates are from supporting their assertions of a human-induced global warming crisis. The straw man may be dead, but skepticism of a human-induced global warming crisis is alive and well.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> I replied to your questions many times Ozzie. The analysis that proves man made CO2 is the prime mover in global warming can be found  at
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html
> 
> This brings together about 22 scientific papers that explore the human signature of global warming.
> 
> Unfortunately every time it's offered you reject this research as propaganda. I'm not interested in your refusal/inability to accept scientific research that you don't want to believe.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> Moderators please note. *This is the last time* I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate. :




This is becoming just too ludicrous....just so I've got this right, the climate alarmist establishment now refer to the inappropriately named "skeptical science" site, in fact a blog as the official site that publishes observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to CO2 as driving a nasty potential 5 deg of warming? If so, has anyone told Tim Flannery?

If this was a stock thread - your posts would be considered as ramping. Now, please provide a link to the paper(s) that are peer reviewed by all employed climate scientists that agree runaway global warming is from man's 3% CO2 contribution.

For example, proof of a *Hot Spot* would be a good starting point.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Moderators please note. *This is the last time* I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate.




If you can't stand the heat, why are you still hanging around preaching your spurious doctrines. You have a strange idea of "constructive debate'???


----------



## wayneL

It gets worse and worse for BEST, Judith Curry (an honest broker) rips Muller a new one and states the obvious thing that no alarmist wants to accept:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sed-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cI53cckE



> SNIP: Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
> In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
> ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
> However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.
> ‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.
> A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.
> 
> But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.
> This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.
> *‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’*


----------



## Calliope

> ‘*This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2*.




Wayne, does this mean that Ms Gillard will have to change the title of her Carbon Tax to Electricity Tax? This would be one way of validating her big lie.


----------



## basilio

Gee Wayne you have the take first prize for the most credulous. open mouthed  bait taker in history. Fancy swallowing that load of bollocks from of all places the Daily Mail.

Firstly did you notice something particularly interesting about the last value in the graph they used to show there was no warming ? It was a whopping  2.0 degrees below the trendline. It was an outlier. A freak figure that would certainly raise alarm bells when seen by scientists. Which of course it did and was duly corrected.

And when in the history of science has a slightly less than 10 year period been considered an accurate representation of long term climate trends? It is the equivalent of picking a 3 day cool spot in spring and using it to show temperatures don't rise in springtime! Just patently dishonest and totally daft.

I'm not going to copy and paste  the whole article but there is a very good scientific analysis of the data that BEST has brought together which demonstrates how dishonest the Daily Mail has been. This is not a good look for a scientist who wants to be taken seriously.


http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/


----------



## wayneL

Oh and once again the alarmists play the man an not the ball.

It's a bit rich... actually downright laughable to slag off The Mail when you constantly quote that Fabian propaganda rag, The Guardian.

Please basilio, don't make me laugh. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. 

Your blogger propagandist you linked to is no better, in true alarmist fashion, attacking JC's credibility and goofing around with least squares trendlines rather than arguing the science. And she is one of your's FFS! (I respect her however for her integrity, which cannot be said for most of the rest of the envirofascist cabal)

The truth is, contained in dozens of analyses of BEST, is that it offers nothing new... and certainly does not blow scepticism out of the water as you and your fellow apocolysts so breathlessly reported a few days ago.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I'm really not sure why Basilio is still quoting from blogs and online entities from around the net when he/she still has not answered the most basic and fundamental questions of all:



> In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).​




You continually side step the above question and provide links to propaganda blogs.

When you've answered the above question, the obvious next question is:  By how much will warming be forestalled by cutting 5%, 10% etc of man's 3% CO2 contribution to total CO2? 

Time to be credible for a change and provide some honest debate?


----------



## sails

Yes, it amazes me why there are no straight forward answers to such a simple question and the warmists wonder why so many people are not accepting their wierd theories.

Basilio didn't like this from Wiki which shows just how little Australia contributes to global c02.  I finally got a curt PM...


----------



## basilio

Wayne I offered an analysis which simply destroyed the created graphs put up by the Daily Mail journalist. The analyst was done by the mathematicians and scientists who  work in this field. It is interesting to note that Dr Pat Micahels, a noted climate science skeptic,  rejected  use of this technique because it was so easily disproved.



> Statistically flawed
> 
> Because it relies on looking at temperature behaviour over only short periods of time, the argument that "global warming has stopped" has been labelled statistically flawed.
> 
> In 2008, the Associated Press (AP) gave four statistical experts global temperature data which had been 'anonymised' so the analysts wouldn't know what the data represented.
> 
> According to AP:
> 
> Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
> 
> One of the experts, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina, concluded:
> 
> "If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect."
> *
> This argument has even been rejected by Dr Pat Michaels, one of the most prominent US climate skeptics. In this video, he urges the audience at a skeptic conference not to use the argument that global warming has stopped, because it is so easy to disprove it undermines their credibility.*




http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/has-global-warming-stopped

Incidentally this lie that somehow the last 10 years has shown a stop in global warming has been explained quiet clearly. The clever part in this little run was trying to debase the BEST analysis and using Judith Curry as a the stalking horse for the effort. 
________________________________________________________________

What is Ozzie saying now ? I can't be certain because I have put him on permanent ignore. However on the basis on past experience I reckon theres a 99% probability is asking the same or similar question I have repeatedly answered.

I can't help his belief that all traditional climate scientists are propaganda mouthpieces. I can't change his rudeness. But if he is simply trying to bait me he is behaving like a *troll*. If this forum is trying to keep some standard of behavior then this badgering needs to stopped.


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Yes, it amazes me why there are no straight forward answers to such a simple question and the warmists wonder why so many people are not accepting their wierd theories.




Yes, but when it is compared on a per person basis, we are the highest! China uses it against us at the UN.

How can we lecture other countries (like we appear to want to) about green energy ect. when we are the worst in the world??


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Now that Basilio has asserted all "Traditional Scientists" (whomever they are) agree man is indeed heating the earth, then it should be a simple matter of finding the elusive paper all these "traditional" folks are using that clearly provides the observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 contribution driving that crazy 5 degrees the alarmists here keep banging on about.

Perhaps Basilio's Traditional Scientists are those same traditional ones from the 1970s claiming humans were cooling the earth so significantly that they banged on about a new ice age and of course the standard "transfer of wealth" to "cure" this cooling problem. 

Like then, these "traditional" alarmist are being paid a thriving packet by us in order to establish a link between climate variability and humans. This simply demonstrates how the gullible alarmist simply repeats what they are told, or are paid to repeat.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> Now that Basilio has asserted all "Traditional Scientists" (whomever they are) agree man is indeed heating the earth, then it should be a simple matter of finding the elusive paper all these "traditional" folks are using that clearly provides the observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 contribution driving that crazy 5 degrees the alarmists here keep banging on about.



For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper. There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm. The Skeptical Science site provides explanations and links to hundreds of those papers. Do some reading for yourself and you might actually learn something.


> Perhaps Basilio's Traditional Scientists are those same traditional ones from the 1970s claiming humans were cooling the earth so significantly that they banged on about a new ice age and of course the standard "transfer of wealth" to "cure" this cooling problem.



.
For instance, you might learn that global cooling was a scare in the general press and scientists never claimed the earth was heading into a new ice age. In the scientific community it was part of the ongoing discussion about what factors affect global climate, to what extent, and how they interact.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper.




Utter rubbish ghotib. You're not an expert - so don't pretend to be one. A large portion of the alarmist argument initially claimed a "hot spot" signature would develop in the atmosphere from CO2, yet they cannot find one. So all we see now is dozens of papers saying the earth heats up, the seas will rise and the ice will melt. Well, look around, the temperatures do change all the time - now we're on a cooling trend.

If there is such overwhelming evidence of the 3% of CO2 driving temperatures - then prove it. Don't link to time wasting sites that claim everything is to do with CO2 because one of the dozens of models from alarmist claim it is so. It's debunked.

Anyone notice the infamous Mann hockey stick is no longer front page advertising for global warming, the ultimate "proof" was a scam and totally debunked. 

Now about that observed evidence of man's CO2? It shouldn't be that hard to find, there must be a tight cluster of papers that prove it,  somewhere in amongst the paid "traditional" scientists the alarmists here must certainly know about - somewhere a missing hotspot perhaps?

The alarmist position in this thread is utterly laughable and degrades this quality of this forum. Evidence thanks!


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm.




Ghotib that is not the argument. 

The argument is to what degree and whether there are other forcings that make this component relatively significant of insignificant.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Some background of Basilio's "traditional scientists" or at least climate "experts" perhaps?

*The high stature of IPCC authors *

The IPCC constantly claims its scientists are pre-eminent, world-leading specialists.

The reality: 

    Richard Klein, with a Master’s, became an IPCC lead author at the age of 25, after a stint as a Greenpeace campaigner. 

    Laurens Bouwer in 1999-2000 was an IPCC lead author even before getting his Master’s in 2001. Although a specialist in water resources, he was lead author for the chapter on Insurance and Other Financial Services. Why? Apparently because during part of 2000, he was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance. It was not till a decade after his IPCC lead-authorship, that he finally got his PhD. 

Closer to home, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monash in 2008, and got her PhD in 2009. Yet in 1999, a decade earlier, the IPCC had anointed her a contributing author (2001 report) and later, she became a lead author for the 2007 report.​
Are these part of the "4000 scientists running around in white coats measuring things" as Rudd had once asserted?


*The ‘rigorous’ IPCC review processes*

The IPCC’s supposedly rigorous “Review” processes involve thousands of experts but is toothless and uninquiring.

    The IPCC reviewers do not check papers underlying data – and one reviewer who sought a paper’s raw data, was threatened with the sack.

    If a reviewer points out a flaw in a lead author’s summary, the lead author, as judge and jury of his/her own case, can simply respond, “Rejected”. There is no independent referee. (The Himalayan-glacier howler did get picked by IPCC reviewers at draft stage but the IPCC authors let the text stand.)

    The UK published the contentious Stern report after all IPCC deadlines for the 2007 report had expired. Stern nonetheless got 26 references across 12 chapters of the IPCC report, subject neither to scientific peer review nor even IPCC reviewer review.​
But of course the alarmists in this thread will never subject themselves to questioning such corrupt methods - the headline of warming with some charts is all that is needed to keep them aboard the global warming tax train.

Plenty more to read at the link


----------



## Timmy

Here's something for everyone

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html



> I'm grateful to Matt Ridley for allowing me to post the text of his Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Ghotib that is not the argument.




Argue that one with OWG.......dare you


----------



## Ruby

Timmy said:


> Here's something for everyone
> 
> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html




This is a great article.   All those fanatically arguing the case FOR climate change catastrophe (and have not yet produced one shred of observed evidence to support their claims) should read it.   It is very balanced, rational, non-hysterical, and full of plain common sense.   do yourselves a big favour - READ IT!


----------



## sails

Nothing from our alarmist posters about the recent IPCC report?



> But it adds: "Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared with natural climate variability over this timeframe




Read more from the Australian: Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report 

and



> FOR extremes in climate change we often need not look at thermometers and rain gauges, but rather to the various elements of the global warming debate. Activists and politicians too often oscillate between those who deny any human impact on climate and those who deliberately engender alarm




Read more from the Austraian: Climate change science highlights uncertainties

And more on the IPCC and how it lines up with past predictions here: What say Gore, Flannery and Brown now?


----------



## wayneL

Climategate MkII coming at ya....

See usual sites.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> Nothing from our alarmist posters about the recent IPCC report?
> 
> ........
> And more on the IPCC and how it lines up with past predictions here: What say Gore, Flannery and Brown now?




Perhaps Basilio has some additional information that we are yet to see that explains and confirms via observed evidence the 5 deg rise in temperatures that has been asserted in this thread. Of course this assertion isn't supported by the IPCC, so over to you Basilio to properly inform us all of the hysterical dangers.


----------



## trainspotter

This thread is in danger of becoming hysterical ...... no wait ..... it is already there !!

The earth has warmed 5 degrees celsius just from the electricity used to power the computers to drive this thing and not to mention the endless kettle boiling to keep the caffeine intake up to the punters. LOLOLOL


----------



## sptrawler

Would this qualify as climate hysteria. LOL,LOL,LOL

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ise-without-emission-cuts-20111129-1o53h.html



''This is intended as an early warning of practical changes that will be needed in preparedness, in funding and disaster recovery,'' Professor McMichael said.

The head of the commission, Tim Flannery, said the report was not intended to alarm people but to give them the best information on which to plan, fund and organise healthcare.

Tim just trying to keep his funding on the bubble.IMO


----------



## spooly74

Ideology and climate change: How to silence journalists



> The moral of the story is not very encouraging - because Rahmstorf has had considerable success. The move that led to the article being withdrawn by the FR made it onto the front page of the New York Times, as Rahmstorf, obviously rather gratified, tells his readers in his blog of 25 May. His initiative is mentioned in the New York Times as one of several successful attempts by climate researchers to publicly correct grossly distorted or false reports. In some cases this may be justified. *In this particular case, it is nothing less than a demonstration of how to try and suppress unwelcome interpretations using an authoritarian concept of truth and with the help of a media conspiracy theory based solely on isolated cases and thus basically void of empirical substance*


----------



## sails

Interesting article by Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner on the sea levels scam - there is a copyright notice on the page, so have a read.  He has studied many of the low-lying regions in his 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data, conducted six field trips to the Maldives, trips to Bangladesh and Tuvalu and he believes there is no need to fear rising sea levels. His impressive qualifications as follows:



> Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003).




http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml


The Maldives is of interest as  a young 13 year old boy spoke at Durban who is from the Maldives pleading with other nations to save his country from rising seas due to AGW.  Why do emotions have to be mixed in with science?  If the science is so good, it shouldn't need these sorts of tactics, imo. And, as much as he looks a very bright kid, imo a 13 year old would only know what he has been taught.  





_Monyombo Nomphelo, 13, speaks at the UN Climate Change talks in Durban_

Image source and more from the Daily Mail UK

and this is the Maldives which sits around one and a half metres above sea level according to Wiki:


----------



## sptrawler

Hopefully I will be there next March, if it's underwater I will let you know. Also will be really annoyed.


----------



## So_Cynical

sails said:


> Interesting article by Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner on the sea levels scam - there is a copyright notice on the page, so have a read.  He has studied many of the low-lying regions in his 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data, conducted six field trips to the Maldives, trips to Bangladesh and Tuvalu and he believes there is no need to fear rising sea levels. His impressive qualifications as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml




That's an interesting read sails...thanks

How ever it looks like Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner is a denier and has an opinion not endorsed by the organization he is quoting.. INQUA is the International Union for Quaternary Research...now in the linked article he calls that organization experts in the field of sea level study...quote below.



			
				Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner said:
			
		

> The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution *(of which I am a former president)*, not at the IPCC.




Now ill quote the home page of the INQUA web site and link.



			
				INQUA said:
			
		

> The Quaternary Period in Earth History:
> 
> The Quaternary Period spans the last 2.6 million years of the Earth's history.
> 
> *The Quaternary is an interval with dramatic and frequent changes in global climate.* Warm interglacials alternated with cold ice ages. *The Earth is right now entering a time of unusually warm climate*. *Significant and potentially rapid environmental changes could pose major challenges for human habitability.*
> The expertise of Quaternary scientists is to interpret the changing world of the glacial ages and their impact on our planet's surface environments. Quaternary palaeoclimatic investigations play a key role in the understanding of the *possible future climate change on our planet*.




http://www.inqua.org/

So INQUA think that the climate is warming...mmm.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

So_Cynical said:


> Now ill quote the home page of the INQUA web site and link.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.inqua.org/
> 
> So INQUA think that the climate is warming...mmm.




Yes SC, the climate is changing as it always has and we are all in agreement with this as a fact, apparently even INQUA. Now if you could point out their evidence that proves man's 3% contribution of CO2 is driving the hysterical global warming as asserted by the diminishing alarmists in this forum then we can look at this information and make up our own minds.


----------



## basilio

With regard to the Nils -Akel Morner story in The Spectator.

Just a creative piece of fiction to keep GW deniers happy. All the credibility of a Daily Mail story.
George Monbiot went through it his normal style and detailed piece by piece the lies, distortions and misrepresentations in the paper.  Apparently this was totally beyond the editor of the Spectator



> *The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover*
> 
> *Fraser Nelson makes the biggest blunder of his career by putting Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner's, a serial promoter of nonsense, in his magazine
> *
> 
> ..MÃ¶rner turns up on the front cover of the Spectator, under the headline "The Sea Level Scam: the rise and rise of a global scare story". His wild assertions are published in the magazine without qualification or challenge. Far from it: they are proclaimed in the headline as "The truth about sea levels". Yet they are as far from the truth as his claims about dowsing and archaeology.
> 
> MÃ¶rner maintains that places such as the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tuvalu "need not fear rising sea levels." There is, he says, "no ongoing sea-level rise" and no link between sea levels and climate change. He makes the false claim that the rate of sea-level rise accepted by most climate scientists "has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong" (does he have a thing about Hong Kong?).
> 
> These claims have already been comprehensively debunked. To sustain them, MÃ¶rner relies on misinterpretations of scientific data so grave that even an arts graduate such as Fraser Nelson should have been able to spot them.
> 
> *( George goes through each piece of "evidence" Morner uses and points out the papers that expose  the lies or misrepresenations that are made.)*
> 
> MÃ¶rner also claims in the Spectator article to speak on behalf of the INQUA (the International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, whose members he says are "the world's true experts on sea level" – as opposed to the IPCC, which he asserts has "hijacked and distorted" the data. MÃ¶rner was indeed president of this commission until 2003. However, as documented by the Carbon Brief, INQUA now clearly dissociates itself from MÃ¶rner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that MÃ¶rner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims?intcmp=122


----------



## Knobby22

Quoting from the report:

CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.

Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.

I'm all ears.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It has been raining continuously in Townsville, for the last twelve hours.

The wet season has begun, as it has for millennia in this part of the world.

It is a gentle rain, the first since Cyclone Yasi of any moment or measure. 

The trees, plants, birds and other animals have responded, as they do to changes in weather. It is a beautiful morning here. I have just seen a 12 foot Carpet slide past my window.

I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.

gg


----------



## basilio

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining continuously in Townsville, for the last twelve hours.
> 
> The wet season has begun, as it has for millennia in this part of the world.
> 
> It is a gentle rain, the first since Cyclone Yasi of any moment or measure.
> 
> The trees, plants, birds and other animals have responded, as they do to changes in weather. It is a beautiful morning here. I have just seen a 12 foot Carpet slide past my window.
> 
> I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.
> 
> gg




Really glad that your having a fine day GG. 

_(Just not quite sure - as usual - what relevance it has to any bigger pictures..)_


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> Quoting from the report:
> 
> CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.
> 
> Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.
> 
> I'm all ears.




Knobby, you are not all ears.  In fact you have persistently refused to listen.  The links which answer your question have been posted many times, months ago, in this thread, by me and others.  I am not going to post them again - if you are really interested, find them and read them. Go back six months or more to the time when this thread was particularly active.  It's all there.

Empirical observation (as opposed to modelling) has shown that while global temperature initially rises in proportion to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, *it does not continue to do so beyond a certain limit*, and that limit has been reached.  The line has now flattened out.  While atmosperic CO2 continues to increase, the global temperature is *not *increasing.  This is *observed fact*, and it contradicts the models.  The feedback mechanisms at work here are not fully understood, but it does not alter the facts.

If empirical observation indicates one thing, and computer generated models indicate another, which is correct?????


----------



## Knobby22

Ruby said:


> Knobby, you are not all ears.  In fact you have persistently refused to listen.  The links which answer your question have been posted many times, months ago, in this thread, by me and others.  I am not going to post them again - if you are really interested, find them and read them. Go back six months or more to the time when this thread was particularly active.  It's all there.
> 
> Empirical observation (as opposed to modelling) has shown that while global temperature initially rises in proportion to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, *it does not continue to do so beyond a certain limit*, and that limit has been reached.  The line has now flattened out.  While atmosperic CO2 continues to increase, the global temperature is *not *increasing.  This is *observed fact*, and it contradicts the models.  The feedback mechanisms at work here are not fully understood, but it does not alter the facts.
> 
> If empirical observation indicates one thing, and computer generated models indicate another, which is correct?????




It may be flattening out, I hope so. Scientists are finding some negative feedbacks thatr are couteracting the global warming.
But you are saying that is has been caused by greenhouse gases. 
That is not what Medicowallet and some others say. They say it is a ruse by scientists acting together to fool everyone.


----------



## Smurf1976

What matters is what is actually likely to happen in the future.

If we continue to increase CO2 then is that likely to lead to ongoing warming or not? The "why" part is far less important in the broader debate than the "if" part of the question.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Quoting from the report:
> 
> CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.
> 
> Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.
> 
> I'm all ears.




Uh-oh, Just so I get this straight (let me try my hand at a "book" post since the AGW comedy is now quite substantial and supported by the alarmists here without question)....


The Hysterical alarmists here with a "theory" are claiming 5 deg of warming due to CO2 from man 3% contribution to total CO2 (to the end of the century - from memory) because a trace gas has increased.
They cannot prove it thru demonstrated scientific observations, but instead claim models prove it as fact. 
Many have asked for the observed evidence but it apparently lies in hundreds or thousands of papers and it's not easy to derive the observed facts
The earth warms and cools, there are storms, droughts, floods and fires - and CO2 is blamed for these events that are now not considered normal - but extreme (although alarmists claim CO2 is the reason, but in fact the numbers of extreme events such as hurricanes are decreasing and recent floods are no more extreme than previously encountered)
It is claimed by some extremists if you can see the ocean from your window, your house will most likely underwater in a few decades.
 The extremists claim the oceans will rise by 100m, 75m, 20m, 10m, 6m, 3m, 2m, 1m, well maybe really only 10cm over 100 yrs
The scientist involved in the scares are caught tampering with the data in climate gate I and II in order to support their defective models
 The earth has been on a cooling trend for the last decade, although AGW extremists claimed back in 2000 our children would never see snow again.
Dissenting voices are fired from their positions
Governments and state governments are caught hiding facts that don't agree with the extremist position on AGW.
 The inspiration to the AGW "cause" - The Mann Hockey stick that proved without doubt that AGW is real - was thoroughly debunked and is no longer used by AGW extremists, hence the use of "extreme weather" and "sea level rises" to re-establish the scare. 
 Carbon is advertised as pollution and is dirty. Although plants need CO2 to survive, CO2 is colourless and is not a pollutant
 It is claimed that we need to save the earth from Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, or Carbon Pollution, or something that makes us afraid...
 A carbon dioxide tax is proposed to save the world - yet the government admit it actually won't do anything to lower temperature (that's remotely measurable)
 Many of the same people involved in the AGW scare were pushing "the new ice age" in the 70's

Now you assert that anyone who questions this comedy should seriously provide you with an alternative "theory", otherwise the CO2 hypothesis must stand?

I've just one for you and basilio, quit lapping up the propaganda. You've both degenerated into spewing rubbish in this and other threads, is it because you have an agenda here or paid to do so?

The AGW "industry" is on a downward trend - the scares aren't scary enough anymore, the corruption too obvious, an ineffectual CO2 tax is seen simply as a obvious wealth transfer strategy - yes Knobby, I think there will be a change soon.


----------



## So_Cynical

OzWaveGuy said:


> Yes SC, the climate is changing as it always has and we are all in agreement with this as a fact.




No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.  see below.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> *I see no evidence* as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, *of any Global Warming*.
> 
> gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

So_Cynical said:


> No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.  see below.




Dear oh dear S_C,

I agree with seasonal warming and cooling, but not in Global Warming.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

So_Cynical said:


> No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.  see below.




So typical So_cynical - out of all the points you chose to address, you picked an opinion from another poster.

The climate comedy act continues with the extreme faithful unquestioning of the core issues. The show must go on....


----------



## sails

So_Cynical said:


> No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.  see below.




Where has anyone disputed that the climate changes ???

And I understand there has been no warming in the last decade.


----------



## Ruby

Knobby22 said:


> .................But you are saying that is has been caused by greenhouse gases. ..................




that is not what I said at all.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.  see below.



The climate is changing that I would agree with although I don't know whether it's natural or man-made.

One thing does have me puzzled though, and that is the link between rainfall here in Tassie and the national / international economy. Time and time again, we get to a point of severe drought with the dams nearly empty and then the economy falls in a hole. Thne we get the wet years and economic doldrums at the same time.

Now, I can't imagine that what happens down here is influencing anything other than local affairs so my assumption is that there's a link between _global_ weather patterns and the state of the economy.

Water storage bottomed at 17% in 2008 just before the GFC amidst a degree of panic and has since increased to 58.2%. Other historical bottoms were in 1991 at 22% ("the recession we had to have"), 1983 (30% and a recession) and 1967 (14.2% which is the all-time low and which came just after the start of a prolonged bear market internationally). 

Coincidence? Perhaps, but it does seem to have happened a few times now and I'm guessing that there's a link between global weather patterns and the economy. Climate change is thus an economic issue as well as an environmental one.

PS Before anyone points out (quite validly) that you can't really extrapolate global climate from dam levels in Tasmania, I'll simply point out that my "science" is at least based on actual measurements. And I do note that the linkage seems to be international, so presumably when it doesn't rain here there are certain weather patterns in effect elsewhere too which is the point I'm making.


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> ... I'll simply point out that my "science" is at least based on actual measurements. ...





Excellent point, Smurf...

It seems that so many of AGW predictions are based on computer modelling and not always on actual measurements.  See article below  and Doug Lord is not a sceptic but seems he lost his job because he was trying to publish real data.

From an article  by Miranda Devine
The Sunday Telegraph
December 04, 2011 12:00AM 



> But Lord's data showed they had exaggerated the rise by 1000 per cent. His measurement of 1mm a year gives you a sea level rise of no more than 90mm, (0.09m) by 2100.




and (bold is mine)



> Amid exaggerated predictions that sea levels would rise by 75m, Lord made the *career-ending mistake of actually measuring the sea level and trying to publish the results.*
> 
> This caused him to be *"let go" from his government job and have peer-reviewed scientific papers pulled at the last minute *from a conference in Shanghai last year, from a conference in Perth in September and from a journal where they were to be published this year.




and



> "I'm not a climate change sceptic. I believe in the climate change science but I see the need for the real data to be out there," he said



Read full article: Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead


----------



## Knobby22

Ozwaveguy

Lets just leave it at that. So you accuse me of being paid to do this, and you call me names and yet I am the one with the hysteria. 
You spout trash from News Limited and similar and you know they have an agenda.
You quote extremists and say that is how all scientists are.

I suggest you keep posting in this thread and I will talk the science in the other one. 

Last comment, NASAs latest figures, made obviously in your universe by a cabal of scientists twisting and distorting readings even though they will be struck off if found out and can be easily checked by other scientists. These amazing risks to their good names and career are taken so they can go to conferances and start a world government. 

Look at them if you can. I know you can't.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/


----------



## Whiskers

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing does have me puzzled though, and that is the link between rainfall here in Tassie and the national / international economy.




It's all to do with the those famous Tassie truffles. When the world can't get enough, they get depressed!


----------



## basilio

> Last comment, NASAs latest figures, made obviously in your universe by a cabal of scientists twisting and distorting readings even though they will be struck off if found out and can be easily checked by other scientists. These amazing risks to their good names and career are taken so they can go to conferances and start a world government.
> 
> Look at them if you can. I know you can't.  *Knobby*



. 
That is a very compelling set of graphs and explanations. 

It is sobering but what also concerns me is how many, many people won't actually  view the figures or if they do, find a way to deny the implications or even the possibility we are facing a serious problem. I was really taken by how temperatures have increased over the last 120 years

The rest of the website is equally informative. Have to say I can't recall having seen  it before.

Anyone else had a look and do you have any comments ?


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> You spout trash from News Limited and similar and you know they have an agenda.



What exactly is News Ltd's agenda?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I left one thing off the list: Delusional Assertions


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> .
> It is sobering but what also concerns me is how *many, many* people won't actually  view the figures or if they do, find a way to deny the implications or even the possibility we are facing a serious problem.



Reference?


> I was really taken by how temperatures have increased over the last 120 years



Less than 1 degree *globally*
Hardly new info?


----------



## prawn_86

Coldest start to summer in NSW for 50 years. Personally (not having lived in NSW all my life) i can't EVER remember a day in December with a max temp of 19 degrees.

Perhaps we're over the warmin and global cooling has already started...


----------



## Logique

Yes amazing weather for a NSW December. Two jumpers today. Plenty of rain too. I know we're starting to cover old ground in this long thread, but if anyone felt inclined to read it again, something in the piece for both warmists and sceptics:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
June 2011
"EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions. 
Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.....Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5

Take that Europe, economic tumult and 28cm of ice!


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Yes amazing weather for a NSW December. Two jumpers today. Plenty of rain too. I know we're starting to cover old ground in this long thread, but if anyone felt inclined to read it again, something in the piece for both warmists and sceptics:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
> June 2011
> "EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions.
> Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
> During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.....Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
> 
> Take that Europe, economic tumult and 28cm of ice!



Well Logique it's probably worth  recognising  the whole quote even for such a short story.



> Dr Frank Hill, of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network in Sunspot, New Mexico, said, "The fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation".
> 
> However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.
> 
> "Even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario, and, in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary," she said. "When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."



For anyone who would like  to examine  what Joanna Haigh is saying check out the presentation by Ian Dunlop

http://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/umwelt/Lehre/EWI/External_1.pdf

You can find the context of his talk at the following link

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...e-it-climate-change-seen-depletion-scientists


----------



## basilio

And now for something completely different.... _(but perhaps not)_

Is it possible for an industry that is producing a legal but dangerous product to disregard its own research, fake its own science and come up with a relentless, creative advertising campaign to ensure it's financial survival ?

This of course is the tobacco industry.  Have a look at the types of advertising that was used to gloss over any health concerns and keep smoking at the centre of culture. 

You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.

And remember that the industry was well aware of smokings effects from the early 50's.

http://lne.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> And now for something completely different.... _(but perhaps not)_
> 
> Is it possible for an industry that is producing a legal but dangerous product to disregard its own research, fake its own science and come up with a relentless, creative advertising campaign to ensure it's financial survival ?
> 
> This of course is the tobacco industry.  Have a look at the types of advertising that was used to gloss over any health concerns and keep smoking at the centre of culture.
> 
> You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.
> 
> And remember that the industry was well aware of smokings effects from the early 50's.
> 
> http://lne.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html




But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby. 

The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.

gg


----------



## basilio

Garpal Gumnut said:


> But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.
> 
> The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.
> 
> gg




Total, complete and utter  BS GG.


----------



## basilio

A simple sample of the lies the industry fed  the public. Can anyone recognise the same language as used by GW deniers ? It's because the same sociopaths are running the current campaign.


----------



## spooly74

Garpal Gumnut said:


> But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.
> 
> The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.
> 
> gg




You reminded me of these little snippets, gg.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Total, complete and utter  BS GG.




That's a compelling logical argument you have there basilio </sarc>. Having had the elephant in the room pointed out to you, you jump up and down and stamp your feet.

You appear to have been hoist by your own petard.


----------



## wayneL

Interesting article re sea level here.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/op-ed/sea-scandal-730




> The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that “there is strong evidence” of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: “Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data... This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century.”
> 
> Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.
> 
> *In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”*
> 
> This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate.


----------



## Logique

Ancient trees tell different climate story - Professor Liu Yu has studied untouched forests dating thousands of years along the remote Tibetan Plateau for clues to past and current weather - South China Morning Post, 6 Dec 2011 - http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCM...04310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=china&s=news

"Q: So what causes climate change?
Professor Liu Yu: 
We believe that the sun and atmospheric circulations play a vital, if not decisive, role in this. The millennial cycle of solar activity determines the long-term trends of temperature variations. Almost all sunspot minimums [periods of sometimes several decades when sunspots become rare] correspond with low-temperature intervals. Meanwhile, atmospheric circulations affect temperature changes from decade to decade. To quote Professor Zhu Kezhen, the father of climate change studies in China: "The big changes in the earth's climate have been *controlled by solar radiation*, but the small changes by atmospheric circulation."

Q: Can tree-ring records tell us anything about the future? 
Professor Liu Yu: 
Our results show that the temperature continued to increase until 2006, and * will now decrease until about 2068*. After 2068, the temperature will increase again until 2088."


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> And now for something completely different.... _(but perhaps not)_
> ..........
> You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.




I know someone's smoking something. Let me ask Basilio, a very simple question (and to the other faithful to the hysterical cause), Is the Mann Hockey stick fact or fiction? 

Surely you don't doubt it since it's built on robust "science" and not pseudo science, right? Everyone for the AGW cause is using it today to prove their point as clear evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions driving aggressive temperature trends not seen in thousands of years, aren't they? Even our very own Dept of Climate Change, right? And of course Al Gore is still using it in every presentation he gives to this very day to win the hearts and minds of anyone who doubts AGW is real and a clear and present danger, right? It's the smoking gun, it's undeniable, it can't be ignored, it's the observed evidence, right?

When was your last point pontificating the robustness of this AGW marvel as clear evidence versus posting the delusional rubbish we're seeing from you and knobby?  Surely this smoking gun, this undeniable evidence is your core foundation to all your AGW arguments and beliefs which must as solid as stone, right?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## basilio

Good to see us getting back to  some science analysis of global warming.

I'm not quite sure why Ozzie wants to try and say the Mann hockey stick is a a fraud. After all it has been a measure of the sharp increase in current global temperatures as compared to all recent historical records (say the last few thousand years). 

The BEST team which reported back a few months ago and remeasured and re calibrated all global waring temperatures came to the same conclusion - the earth is warming very rapidly.

You can see the graphs and discussion at the following url
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

On a longer time scale, say 2000 years,  check out the following analysis which also identifies the sharp increases in recent temperatures compared to anything that has previously happened. In particular this compares the question of  how the medieval warming period compares to the current situation.



> We can already see a notable difference between modern warming and the MWP: modern temperatures are hotter. The warmest single year in the northern hemisphere is 2005, with temperature anomaly (relative to the 1961-1990 reference period) 0.90 deg.C, while the warmest single year in the Moberg reconstruction is 1105, at temperature anomaly 0.37 deg.C. So the warmest modern year is 0.53 deg.C hotter than the warmest medieval year, according to Moberg.
> 
> The eye suggests another possible difference: modern warming is steeper than medieval warming. The “modern global warming era” covers about the last 30 years. How does the modern warming rate compare to what was observed in medieval times?
> 
> I computed the rate of warming for every possible time span, from each year to 30 years later, in the Moberg reconstruction. The fastest warming occured from 867 to 897, at a rate of 0.0183 deg.C/yr. I also computed the rate for every similar-length time span in the thermometer record; the fastest warming is from 1976 to 2006 (which is the most recent, by the way, since 2007 isn’t over yet) at a rate of 0.0300 deg.C/yr. That’s quite a lot bigger than 0.0183; in fact it’s 64% bigger.




http://web.archive.org/web/20080220174450/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/not-alike/


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> The BEST team which reported back a few months ago and remeasured and re calibrated all global waring temperatures came to the same conclusion - the earth is warming very rapidly.
> 
> You can see the graphs and discussion at the following url
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html




BEST Data "Quality"



> Of the 39028 sites listed in the data.txt file, arbitrarily counting only sites with 60 months of data or more, 34 had temperature blips of greater
> than +/- 50 degrees C, 215 greater than +/- 40 C, 592 greater than +/- 30 C, and 1404 greater than +/- 20 C. That is quite a large number of faulty temperature records, considering that this kind of error is something that is so easy to check for. A couple hours work is all it took to find these numbers.
> In the engineering world, this kind of error is not acceptable. It is an indication of poor quality control. Statistical algorithms were run on the data without subsequent checks on the results. Coding errors obviously existed that would have been caught with just a cursory examination of a few site temperature plots. That the BEST team felt the quality of their work, though preliminary, was adequate for public display is disconcerting.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Good to see us getting back to  some science analysis of global warming.
> 
> I'm not quite sure why Ozzie wants to try and say the Mann hockey stick is a a fraud. After all it has been a measure of the sharp increase in current global temperatures as compared to all recent historical records (say the last few thousand years).




Let's get back to the specific questions at hand. Basilio is implying the Mann Hockey stick is fact (even though Basilio you don't actually say it, please correct me if I'm wrong). 

So in your non-biased approach to establish the facts you looked at both sides of the science and determined that the Hockey Stick is fact and the medieval warming period didn't exist after all, even though hundreds of papers have established the Medieval warming. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## basilio

Ozzie the paper I quoted showed the temperature ranges during the Medieval Warm period and the current times.The current climate is  significantly warmer and on all indications will continue to heat up.

Manns hockey stick analysis has been verified many times. Global temperatures have spiked remarkably in the past 30 years.

Trying to find "evidence" that the world has not warmed by around .8C in the last 50 years is grasping at delusional straws.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Manns hockey stick analysis has been verified many times.



References? 

Here is a link that points to it being, well, a sloppy pile of ****e http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/



> Trying to find "evidence" that the world has not warmed by around .8C in the last 50 years is grasping at delusional straws.



Change 50 to 100 and your strawman statement still holds.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Basilio is hanging on, at least I'm not on the ignore list anymore.....

Basilio is tacitly admitting agreement to the Hockey Stick fraud - as even the IPCC decided the MWP had to go.....to create "unprecedented" temperatures.

This posted over a year ago on ASF from those truthful scientists, well perhaps in AR1 and AR2, but it seems the graph wasn't scary enough for Al Gore.

Briffa was also *caught out* using a small subset of tree ring data that supported a hockey stick in 2009, rather than use all the data which of course showed no hockey stick at all. 




It's all pure science isn't it basilio? Everyone else just needs more practice at lapping it up. Now if we could only find a way to get questioning people to lap to the 3% of man's CO2 driving that hockey stick as easily as you do then this pseudo science would become science, right?


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Basilio is hanging on, at least I'm not on the ignore list anymore.....
> 
> Basilio is tacitly admitting agreement to the Hockey Stick fraud - as even the IPCC decided the MWP had to go.....to create "unprecedented" temperatures.
> 
> This posted over a year ago on ASF from those truthful scientists, well perhaps in AR1 and AR2, but it seems the graph wasn't scary enough for Al Gore.
> 
> Briffa was also *caught out* using a small subset of tree ring data that supported a hockey stick in 2009, rather than use all the data which of course showed no hockey stick at all.
> 
> View attachment 45431
> 
> 
> It's all pure science isn't it basilio? Everyone else just needs more practice at lapping it up. Now if we could only find a way to get questioning people to lap to the 3% of man's CO2 driving that hockey stick as easily as you do then this pseudo science would become science, right?



The reason for the large MWP in AR1 and AR2 has been explained to you before in detail within this thread before OWG. As has the Mann hockey stick and supporting studies that use numerous other datasets that replicate the anomaly. I will just assume you have a poor memory.

It's hockey sticks all the way down. All the way down.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

derty said:


> The reason for the large MWP in AR1 and AR2 has been explained to you before in detail within this thread before OWG. As has the Mann hockey stick and supporting studies that use numerous other datasets that replicate the anomaly. I will just assume you have a poor memory.
> 
> It's hockey sticks all the way down. All the way down.




Sorry, my "lapping" ability isn't as sophisticated. Er, so 1 study from Mann using 12 tree rings to create a hockey stick invalidates the hundreds of peer reviewed MWP studies and even the IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports. Yes, you've made perfect sense - the IPCC invalidates the IPCC. The magic show is pulling a puppy out of a hat...where's the bowl?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Over the past 5 days we have had 61.8 mm of rain in Townsville.

The average is included in the table below, gleaned from Elders, a company with an interest in weather.

http://www.eldersweather.com.au/dailysummary.jsp?lt=site&lc=32040



> December 2011
> September   October   November   [December]
> date	 min to 9am	 anomaly	 max from 9am	 anomaly	 rain to 9am
> °C	 °C	 °C	 °C	mm
> Thu 01/12/2011	25.1	+1.0	31.7	+0.3	0.0
> Fri 02/12/2011	25.3	+1.2	32.1	+0.7	0.0
> Sat 03/12/2011	24.5	+0.4	30.8	-0.6	0.2
> Sun 04/12/2011	23.4	-0.7	26.6	-4.8	3.6
> Mon 05/12/2011	23.0	-1.1	29.6	-1.8	47.8
> Tue 06/12/2011	22.9	-1.2	30	-1	10.2
> 
> December 2011 Average	24.0	 	30.1
> December 1940-2008 Average	24.1	 	31.4
> December 1940-2008 Highest	28.8	31st 2001	42.1	30th 1984
> December 1940-2008 Lowest	17.9	5th 1998	22.9	6th 1964
> 
> December 2011 Total	 	 	 	 	61.8	4 day(s)
> December 1940-2008 Average Total	 	 	 	 	125.7	9.7 day(s)
> December 1940-2008 Wettest Total	 	 	 	 	458.0	1975
> December 1940-2008 Driest Total	 	 	 	 	0.0	2001




So with less than a week in to December we have had nearly half of our average rainfall going back to 1940.

I would prefer to follow the evidence rather than a hockey stick.

And the temperatures are pretty average too.

gg


----------



## derty

OzWaveGuy said:


> Sorry, my "lapping" ability isn't as sophisticated. Er, so 1 study from Mann using 12 tree rings to create a hockey stick invalidates the hundreds of peer reviewed MWP studies and even the IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports. Yes, you've made perfect sense - the IPCC invalidates the IPCC. The magic show is pulling a puppy out of a hat...where's the bowl?




Don't really know what lapping is. I have re-quoted below the previous explanation to you for the AR1 and 2 graphs to jog your memory. 



derty said:


> You keep trotting out this 'the IPCC killed the MWP' and hockey stick has been discredited meme.
> 
> 1. The graph displayed in the 1st IPCC report was a hand drawn schematic. The y-axis on the graph is dimensionless.
> 2. The data that the schematic was based on was collected in 1965, taken from a single site in Central England as 50 year averages.
> 3. When newer and more widespread data became available new graphs were created. This data did not remove the MWP, it just reduced its magnitude and placed the peak of it around the 1950 levels.
> 4. Of the various attacks on the 'hockey stick' they have either been dismissed out of hand or the errors that have been found have not effected the main conclusions.
> 5. As stated before, post the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 'hockey stick', a swag of additional studies have been done using various different proxies and all, while confirming the presence of the MWP, do not have it exceeding the current temperature.
> 
> View attachment 42914




Mann didn't use 12 tree rings - he used multiple series of tree ring proxies. The 12 tree ring study you are attempting to use is Briffa's Yamal study that used tree found preserved in the melting permafrost in Siberia. Here is what Steven McIntyre had to say about that study: 







> Even McIntyre denounces the more vocal sceptics with their conspiracy theories. In an apparent response to a challenge from the climate scientists' website RealClimate, he wrote to the American Spectator last October: *"While there is much to criticise in the handling of this [Yamal] data, the results do not in any way show that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a 'fraud', nor that this particular study was a 'fraud'.* There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary … is unfair to them."




When you refer to the 100's of MWP studies I assume you are talking about that collection that was trotted out where the MWP occurred over a 1000 year period dependant on which paper was looked at, most didn't include the current period, many had been superseded by subsequent data and papers, most were localised studies and many were not papers specifically on climate change _per se_. All they really do is show that climate is locally variable and do nothing to support the "IPCC killed the MWP" meme.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Yes derty, those initial IPCC AR graphs weren't drawn to scale, the X axis was a little out and the Y axis was a bit off and there were just too many issues with them not showing the right trends, yet they seem to align well to the many studies describing the last 1000 years. I wonder why they would publish incorrect data in the first place, perhaps it standard practice at the IPCC? But I guess the climategate scientists found some new data to get hysterical about, perhaps some new funding had them excited too?

I wonder if they'll find some new data soon helps them re-adjust their graphs once again to better fit the actual temperatures and to avoid the criticisms from their peers. Then they'll be able to say they told us so and have everyone lapping from the AGW bowl.


----------



## Logique

This is the same Paul Ehrlich, during a recent visit feted as a guru  by 'not your' ABC - hanging on his every word.

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1964/a-history-of-scientific-alarms
A history of scientific alarms.  IPA REVIEW ARTICLE - Dr Kesten Green lists the 20 most unscientific scares.

*6.* Population growth and famine (Ehrlich), 1968
Early Malthus reheated by butterfly biologist Paul Ehrlich, who *also forecast global cooling and, later, global warming disasters*. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote, ‘*The battle to feed humanity is over*. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death'.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Logique said:


> This is the same Paul Ehrlich, during a recent visit feted as a guru  by 'not your' ABC - hanging on his every word.




Freezing cold here in Canberra this week. 

Let's see who's at Durban lapping up all our money while we freeze...







Perhaps they will discuss the need for new funding and create an updated version of the temperature history to show even more accelerated warming and make scary statements about weather or maybe a new video that shows children exploding?

Is this the entourage?


----------



## Logique

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
"..The number of [climate coverage] articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds 'declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak' according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive. 

But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends: 

The *Sydney Morning Herald* placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the *Australian Broadcasting Corporation* increased its climate coverage by 60 percent. 

*The love media*. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.."


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
> "..The number of [climate coverage] articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds 'declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak' according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.
> 
> But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:
> 
> The *Sydney Morning Herald* placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the *Australian Broadcasting Corporation* increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.
> 
> *The love media*. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.."




Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. 
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)


----------



## ghotib

On the other hand:  


> Some of Australia's leading newspapers have been so negative in their reporting of the Gillard government's carbon policy it's fair to say they've campaigned against it rather than covered it according to a new report by Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney.
> 
> The first of a two-part analysis of Australian press coverage of climate change, A Sceptical Climate, has found that between February and July this year negative coverage of the carbon policy across 10 major newspapers outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent.
> 
> Report author Professor Wendy Bacon said the overall result was driven by News Ltd group publications (82 per cent negative versus 18 per cent positive), compared to a more balanced result for the Fairfax press (57 per cent positive articles outweighing 43 per cent negative).



http://imlweb04.itd.uts.edu.au/acij-ds/investigations/detail.cfm?ItemId=29219 contains a link to the full report, which I have not read. 

Bless the Murdoch Press and its automaton-beat tuneless cacophony.

Ghoti


----------



## moXJO

ghotib said:


> On the other hand:
> 
> http://imlweb04.itd.uts.edu.au/acij-ds/investigations/detail.cfm?ItemId=29219 contains a link to the full report, which I have not read.
> 
> Bless the Murdoch Press and its automaton-beat tuneless cacophony.
> 
> Ghoti




Thats because the Carbon tax is a stupid idea that has little to do with the environment.


----------



## Logique

I've lost track of whether we've tipped yet or not. Not much heard lately about the tipping point(s) of global warming.  Certainly we've reached a taxation tipping point, if you want to use mains electricity anyway. What's this got to do with a stocks forum? I understand that publicly listed industrial companies use mains electricity. Some like BHP and RIO are also slated to pay a super profits tax. 



> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
> An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer [2007] —a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point..
> 
> ..This week [Dec 2007], after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."


----------



## Calliope

It's a strange climate. While Perth is melting in a heatwave, it was 25 max today here, and the rain is bucketing down - 250 mls since 9AM and still pouring, with more to come. And that's just a rain depression.


----------



## orr

Calliope said:


> It's a strange climate. While Perth is melting in a heatwave, it was 25 max today here, and the rain is bucketing down - 250 mls since 9AM and still pouring, with more to come. And that's just a rain depression.




No. What your actually decribing is weather... but why do I bother?


----------



## Calliope

orr said:


> No. What your actually decribing is weather... but why do I bother?




Because you are trying to be smart, I suppose.


----------



## basilio

I suppose Orr was trying to offer the most basic principle  in the climate change  debate (the difference between short term weather and longer term climate changes ) to a forum member who has is proud of the factthat he has no capacity or willingness to understand the difference. 

So yes it is a rather forlorn gesture. 

Now for something completely different. Skeptical Science has produced a neat little summary on how scientist and communicators might tackle the problems of accidental and deliberate misinformation about many topics including climate change.  Worth a check.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I suppose Orr was trying to offer the most basic principle  in the climate change  debate (the difference between short term weather and longer term climate changes ) to a forum member who has is proud of the factthat he has no capacity or willingness to understand the difference.




It is alarmists like you who most confuse weather with climate, so I can do without smarta*se lectures from you.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> It is alarmists like you who most confuse weather with climate, so I can do without smarta*se lectures from you.




See ? Sheer ignorance. 

Stuff that happens from day to day is the weather.  Longer term changes in temperatures , rainfall patterns reflect changes in the climate.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> See ? Sheer ignorance.
> 
> Stuff that happens from day to day is the weather.  Longer term changes in temperatures , rainfall patterns reflect changes in the climate.




Good for you basilio. Your extended lay-off from this thread has apparently taught you the errror of long-winded lectures, but has done nothing to abate your sheer arrogance.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Good for you basilio. Your extended lay-off from this thread has apparently taught you the errror of long-winded lectures, but has done nothing to abate your sheer arrogance.




Thanks calliope.  Nothing arrogant about being factually correct. Probably just not interested in discussions with people who don't know what they are talking about and decline to find the correct answers to relatively simple ideas - for example the difference between weather and climate.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Thanks calliope.  Nothing arrogant about being factually correct. Probably just not interested in discussions with people who don't know what they are talking about and decline to find the correct answers to relatively simple ideas - for example the difference between weather and climate.




I don't understand how you could get your knickers in a knot over an innocuous remark I made about differing climatic conditions in Perth and S/E Qld. Your supercilious attitude is quite rude.



> Climate is the typical weather conditions experienced at any location or area. To better understand our climate, the Bureau collects information from across Australia, including rainfall, wind, temperature, fog, thunder, humidity, pressure, ocean temperatures and sunshine data.
> Our seasonal and longer range outlooks also enable us to look at Australia's future climate.




http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> I don't understand how you could get your knickers in a knot over an innocuous remark I made about differing climatic conditions in Perth and S/E Qld. Your supercilious attitude is quite rude.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/




Okay lets step back a bit and look at what you have quoted Calliope. BOM says that climate is the typical weather conditions experienced at a location or area. It is saying that the total of a range of weather conditions make up the (total) climate. For example Perth has a Mediterranean climate because it has long hot dry summers and milder winters which produce its rain. North Queensland has more Tropical climate which means the weather is uniformly hot and fairly wet.  (But your quite right to note the difference in  overall climate between Perth and S E Queensland )

The climate is the sum of the weather events.  The individual weather events are not the climate.

In the original exchange with Orr you might said something like _"Oops I meant the weather " _which would recognise that you were talking about the current weather events and not confusing them with longer terms changes in climate.

The trouble is that in the climate change debate many people bang on about day to day weather events as "proof" that climate change isn't (or sometimes is) occurring.   Good ol GG for example waxes lyrical about the weather in Townsville as if that is the total required proof that Climate change is a fiction. How many times do we see  someone saying how cold it is  right now  and just dissing the CC debate  because of the current weather conditions ?

When the BOM and other meteorological organizations look at the bigger picture of the total changes in weather patterns which taken together define the climate it is absolutely clear climatic conditions around the world are changing and at an unprecedented rate. And the BOM website is  a great source of information on the observed changes to our climate. But as far as I can see only a few forum members accept even these observations.  

Any clearer ? 

Cheers


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> When the BOM and other meteorological organizations look at the bigger picture of the total changes in weather patterns which taken together and adjusted, define the climate; it is absolutely clear climatic conditions around the world appear to be changing and at an unprecedented rate. And the BOM website is  a great source of information on the adjusted changes to our climate. But as far as I can see only a few forum members accept even these observations.
> 
> Any clearer ?
> 
> Cheers




Altered for accuracy.

I guess folks like their data raw and unadulterated basilio.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Any clearer ?




What is clear is that you are a complete bore.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I see the alarmist have decided to slowly sneak back into this thread - hopefully with all the answers to the questions, the observed evidence and the proof that the 3% of total co2 (the bit from man) is solely responsible for the asserted "unprecedented" changes in temperatures. So unprecedented, that the global temps have been flat for over a decade.

So I guess Basilio, as for the last several years, more of the same from you in 2012 - climate nonsense, claims with no substance, bizarre assertions whilst unable to answer the most simple questions and still not answering if you have an agenda in this thread or are paid to post here. And yet you and the rest of the alarmists wont change your lifestyle to avoid the impending doom from killer co2 - yet pontificate all others need to change - will you be simply copying your posts from last year?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Altered for accuracy.
> 
> I guess folks like their data raw and unadulterated basilio.




_" And so it was decreed on high that the seasons would return to their true paths, the ice mountains would refreeze and the trees stop their travels to the far north when the voice of the almighty pronounced the error of the  non believers."_

The Book of Waynus 3.28


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> What is clear is that you are a complete bore.




It was a bit long for you wasn't it Calliope ?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> It was a bit long for you wasn't it Calliope ?




Boring sermons are always too long, Father Basilio.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Boring sermons are always too long, Father Basilio.




Now, now that wasn't a sermon. That was just a friendly heads up on the difference between weather and climate.

Cheers


----------



## sptrawler

Hey Basilio, you ever thought of posting on a Chinese, Indian, European and American forums and getting them to stuff up their manufacturing for us?
I only see us ,really pushing hard to drop our living standards for 'The greater cause'.
No doubt I will be sitting behind you in the centrelink queue.LOL
Bring the tamborine brother, I'll bring the plate. LOL


----------



## sptrawler

Actually while you are on there you might get them to stop buying our coal mines.
Tell them we don't want to use it because it will kill the planet. 
So they shouldn't buy the mines and burn the coal thereby killing the planet. 
That should work.
Hearing it from someone as well versed on climate change as yourself, should be winner. 
They are sure to listen.
Thank god a break through at last.


----------



## wayneL




----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Now, now that wasn't a sermon. That was just a friendly heads up on the difference between weather and climate.
> 
> Cheers




I see you are now preaching on the "Risk" thread. Don't forget to tell them that if they don't heed your advice they will be cooked.


----------



## bellenuit

wayneL said:


>




I bought one a few months ago and it exploded on first use. I thought the 185 degrees maximum allowed from the self sustaining heat generation was in centigrade. I should have know that it was Fahrenheit, being a US (NASA) manufactured product.


----------



## wayneL

bellenuit said:


> I bought one a few months ago and it exploded on first use. I thought the 185 degrees maximum allowed from the self sustaining heat generation was in centigrade. I should have know that it was Fahrenheit, being a US (NASA) manufactured product.




Well the same company did make the Challenger....


----------



## Calliope

I like this bit;

*Chicken must be above absolute zero when initially inserted*

I guess it would be

Absolute zero equates to −459.67 on the Fahrenheit scale.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The trouble is that in the climate change debate many people bang on about day to day weather events as "proof" that climate change isn't (or sometimes is) occurring.



To a very large extent I think this comes down to tit for tat retaliation between the two opposing sides.

One will say that the dams will never fill up as proof of climate change. The other side then brings up the weather as the very same dams overflow as proof of no climate change. Etc. 

There's little or no actual science in any of the "predictions" popular with either side. Dams will never fill? Oh really.... We have "proof" that the climate isn't changing? How can you prove that in such a short time? 

Both sides are simply playing politics in order to further their own objectives. And of course, the first casualty of politics as with any war is the truth.

The only things we can have any real certainty about is that yes, we are burning a lot of coal and this does emit CO2 and heat. Likewise we can be certain about the current weather at any given location, and we can be certain about runoff over the past century or so into established water catchments. 

But that's about all we can be certain of - and a quick look at the number of air-conditioners producing heat / cold air exhaust within a short distance of the BOM's official monitoring location here in Hobart shows that whilst we can be certain of the weather at that location, it may not represent what is happening anywhere other than there. I'd be surprised if this was the only situation like that.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I wonder if *these 16 scientists* fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists? The continuous assertion from the alarmist with an agenda is that all scientists agree global warming is unprecedented and is a result of man's 3% contribution to the world's total CO2.

"The lack of warming for more than a decade””indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections””suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."​
Basilio - still waiting for your answers on the fundamental questions you've been dodging. Shall we assume that you cannot answer them and your climate assertions are based on a religious belief and not one of fact?


----------



## bandicoot76

OzWaveGuy said:


> I wonder if *these 16 scientists* fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists? The continuous assertion from the alarmist with an agenda is that all scientists agree global warming is unprecedented and is a result of man's 3% contribution to the world's total CO2.
> 
> "The lack of warming for more than a decade””indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections””suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."​
> Basilio - still waiting for your answers on the fundamental questions you've been dodging. Shall we assume that you cannot answer them and your climate assertions are based on a religious belief and not one of fact?




sweet post ozzie! i havnt been bothered posting here for awhile as it seemed a waste of time, those that believe in AGW do so with religious zeal and those that are sceptical demand irrefutable observed proof NOT computer generated model predections.... 

its been a stalemate that had become uninteresting ,and to tell the truth quite boring, to me but the fact some high profile scientific fellows from eminent institutions all over the globe have now come out and broken the silence is very interesting and may even be a game-changer and could possibly open the floodgate for like minded ppl, who were previously too scared of retribution, to now speak up!

 i personally know a csiro researcher who privately thinks AGW is complete BS but maintains the "company line" for fear of retribution from 'above'

whats even more astonishing i the fact that it was printed in the wall street journal!!!!! an 'establishment' rag if ever there was one! the big boys must have already creamed all the cash they could have from their AGW scare-mongering scams before it was all discovered to be a fraud so now its back to business as usual with total deniability!


----------



## Knobby22

bandicoot76 said:


> whats even more astonishing i the fact that it was printed in the wall street journal!!!!! an 'establishment' rag if ever there was one!




Exactly. It is the establishment aims being promoted in the article.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Exactly. It is the establishment aims being promoted in the article.




Funny post, are you pontificating that the AGW alarmist spin is only taken up by non-establishment media.

and the real story with the 16 scientists - any comments?


----------



## sails

OzWaveGuy said:


> I wonder if *these 16 scientists* fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists? The continuous assertion from the alarmist with an agenda is that all scientists agree global warming is unprecedented and is a result of man's 3% contribution to the world's total CO2.
> 
> "The lack of warming for more than a decade””indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections””suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."​
> Basilio - still waiting for your answers on the fundamental questions you've been dodging. Shall we assume that you cannot answer them and your climate assertions are based on a religious belief and not one of fact?





Good find, OWG...

I don't know what's happened to global warming here in SE Qld. It's been wet and periods of torrential rain with daily temps in the mid 25s.  So much for no more dam filling rains, huh.

I see no difference in weather patterns.  We owned a school uniform clothing factory for many years and wet weather when the kids start school is nothing new.  We would often be looking for a breather with the back-to-school uniforms delivered before the first week of school only to start getting urgent tracksuit orders soon after school started due to the wet weather.

I see no difference in the weather now than I did 20 years ago...LOL


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Funny post, are you pontificating that the AGW alarmist spin is only taken up by non-establishment media.
> 
> and the real story with the 16 scientists - any comments?




No, the establishment spins the global warming debate to create doubt, and the "scientists" aren't even all scientists. Many were in fields not related and some were the usual suspects. I thought that was your beef against Tim Flannery?

Why is it surprising that it is in a Murdoch paper when they are the heart of the establishment wanting to slow change? If it was published in a respectable paper then I may have more interest. 

The article was pretty short on facts and long on spin solely aimed at keeping the converted believing against the facts. Just like a religion. Keep praying!


----------



## Knobby22

As I have said before: follow the money!
I am sure security was tighter than for this one.


_The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[37] Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."[_9]


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> If it was published in a respectable paper then I may have more interest.




Like The Age for instance.


----------



## Calliope

I suppose Knobby that you consider this bit of dirt in the SMH is your idea of respectable newspaper comment.


----------



## Knobby22

An example of a reputable publication.

New Scientist 22 October 2011

IPCC wrong on melting effects.

Until recently the IPCC was predicting that the vast ice sheets of Antartica would grow over the 21st century as warming increased the water content of the atmosphere leading to higher snowfall.
The picture on the ground already looks rather different. Satellite measurements show that both Antartica and Greenland are already losing large quantities of water and the rate of loss is accelerating. If current trends continue -we don't know if they will-the loss of ice from these sheets will raise the water level by 0.5metres on this effect alone.

It was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting but it now seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect. This is bad news because warm water melts ice much faster than warm air. Warm currents can melt the floating ice shelves that hold back ice on land. In west Antartica ice sheets rest on land that is below sea level and so could be exposed directly to warm water.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Knobby22 said:


> An example of a reputable publication.
> 
> New Scientist 22 October 2011
> 
> IPCC wrong on melting effects.
> 
> Until recently the IPCC was predicting that the vast ice sheets of Antartica would grow over the 21st century as warming increased the water content of the atmosphere leading to higher snowfall.
> The picture on the ground already looks rather different. Satellite measurements show that both Antartica and Greenland are already losing large quantities of water and the rate of loss is accelerating. If current trends continue -we don't know if they will-the loss of ice from these sheets will raise the water level by 0.5metres on this effect alone.
> 
> It was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting but it now seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect. This is bad news because warm water melts ice much faster than warm air. Warm currents can melt the floating ice shelves that hold back ice on land. In west Antartica ice sheets rest on land that is below sea level and so could be exposed directly to warm water.




Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.

Nonetheless it is interesting if it is proven through the scientific method to be true.

gg


----------



## basilio

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.
> 
> Nonetheless it is interesting if it is proven through the scientific method to be true.
> 
> gg




The scientific method of  proving how much ice is melting in the Antartic is simple and transparent. NASA uses its Grace satellite to measure gravity data (see below) . The discussion and analysis of what is happening in the Antarctic can be found on their website.



> *Is Antarctica Melting?*
> 01.12.10
> 
> 
> *Graph of Antartic Mass Variation since 2002The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
> Larger Image*
> 
> There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. *Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway*? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.




http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html


----------



## Knobby22

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.
> 
> gg




Pffft
Proof please.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> I wonder if *these 16 scientists* fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists?



Strange question OWG, seeing as the article itself doesn't claim that the signatories are climate scientists, traditional or otherwise. But out of curiosity I took a look. The short version is that 12 are unequivically not climate scientists, three might be under a generous definition, and just one definitely is. 

_Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;_ 
Academic field was geochemistry where his work is highly regarded. For the last 20 years he's been at least a part-time politican, reaching the level of Minister for Education. I haven't found a list of his academic publications, but his popular book on climate change is such a muddle of basic factual errors that the kindest excuse is that he was writing outside his field. Climate scientist? Nope.

_J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; _
From his Web page, under the Wharton Marketing Department at U. Penn: "In addition to forecasting, Professor Armstrong has published papers on survey research, educational methods, applied statistics, social responsibility, strategic planning, and scientific peer review. Most recently, his research activities have involved political forecasting (he is a co-founder of PollyVote.com) and forecasting for conflicts and terrorism". Climate Scientist, Nope. 

_Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; _
I didn't bother to look this one up; if he's a climate scientist he's in the wrong department. Nope.

_Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; _
"... holds a Ph.D. in physics and is a former Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs for ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. He has more than forty years experience in the electronics and energy industries.... He is currently working with a group of partners on developing and commercializing a technology for extracting carbon dioxide from the air." Claims to have discovered that the IPCC "case for climate change" is flimsy only after he retired in 2004. Climate scientist, Nope. 

_Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;_ 
Can't find anything definite. He might be Edward E. David Jr., who was born in 1925, took a PhD in Electrical Engineering in 1947, was a Science Advisor to President Nixon, directed research for major companies including Bell Labs and Exxon, and is still a director of Ronson Corporation. If this is the guy he's remarkable, but he's not a Climate Scientist.

_William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; _
"I am interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and in the application of these spin-polarized systems in other areas...In most of our work we use circularly polarized laser photons to pump angular momentum into electron spins, and we use hyperfine interactions to transfer angular momentum from the polarized electrons to the nuclei. In appropriate containers, the polarized nuclei can be stored for hours or even days with little loss of spin. Much of our present work is aimed at understanding the slow loss of spin which occurs in these containers."
Scientist yes, Climate Scientist, Nope.

_Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; _
From his Webpage on the Cambridge website: ".... From 1992-2002 he was Professor of Physics and Electronics at the University of Surrey, including a term as Head of the School of Electronics and Physical Sciences. During 2003-5, we was the Executive Director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute, an £80M project which brings together academics from Cambridge and MIT to work on research, education and industrial outreach for the benefit of the UK economy." Distinguished scientist Yes. Climate scientist, Nope. 

_William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; _
Hmmmm. A PhD is the usual qualification for a research scientist and he doesn't have one.  OTOH he worked at BOM for 38 years, including over a decade as head of BOM's climate section.  

_Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; _
Yes. 

_James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; _
From his personal website, hosted under Virginia Tech, his research interests are: "Synthesis and characterization of high performance matrix polymers and structural adhesives, new composite matrix and adhesive polymers for possible use in aerospace, new high-temperature polymer dielectrics for computer development, fire-resistant polymers and composites; and new sulfonated aromatic polymers for proton exchange membranes (fuel cells)."  Climate science, Nope. 

_Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; _
Judging by his bio as published by his current employer, career emphasis is technology, executive, and advocacy more than science. Nope

_Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; _
Say huh??  Designed wonderful air and spacecraft, but says himself that he's not a climatologist. Nope.

_Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; _
When did he have time to become a climate scientist, or any other sort of research scientist for that matter. Nope. 

_Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; _
Practising astrophysicist who holds that cosmic rays are a primary driver of climate change on earth and disputes the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity. His research interests are to do with stars, galaxies, and the early universe, but I'll accept him under my very broad classification as a climate scientist. Yep.

_Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; _
Background and reputation seems to be in the fields of turbulence and flight, but I haven't found much information, possibly because I'm only looking in English. I have no reason to doubt that he was director of the Royal Dutch Met, so I'll class him as a climate scientist on the precedent of William Kininmonth.

_Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva_
Born 1929 and made his name in nuclear physics. No, not a "traditional" climate scientist. The World Federation of Scientists is organised into Permanent Monitoring Panels each focussed on one planetary emergency. There is a PMP for Climatology, which is chaired by Dr Christopher Essex, an applied mathematician, and which says that its "Summary of the Emergency" and "Priorities for Dealing with the Emergency" are both being revised. Christopher Essex is also not a climate scientist.


----------



## Logique

The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16. And they are all (surprise) well established in their profession. Sadly their junior colleagues can't be open-minded if they expect to get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all. 

No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.

Warmists, face it, it's all over.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16 dissenters out of thousands trained scientists. And they are all (no surprise) well established in their non related profession. Happilly their departments will be rewarded so they can  get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all.
> 
> No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.
> 
> Deniers, face it, it's all over.




I'll just fix that  Follow the money.

Another example of climate scientists being threatened by the established money. 
http://www.theinterdependent.com/11...ances-to-climate-scientists-thwart-their-work


----------



## Knobby22

And if you work for a the government and dare to find out things that the powers that be don't want you to find about climate effects then don't expect to keep your job!!!

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/26/nation/la-na-arctic-scientist-20110826


----------



## ghotib

Logique said:


> The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16. And they are all (surprise) well established in their profession. Sadly their junior colleagues can't be open-minded if they expect to get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all.
> 
> No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.
> 
> Warmists, face it, it's all over.



One of those scientists is 91 years old. If nobody junior to him can build a science career, how did the other 15 manage it? 

You seem to think that "science" is a single discipline. How many fields do these 16 signatories represent?


----------



## mexican

And the qualifications of Professor Ross Garnaut and Professor Tim"our dams will never be full again and I will buy a waterfront property while the sea level rises 1mt in the next 100 years"Flannery????

And whose pay roll are these guys on???

And you wonder why there are sceptics of global warming opps.....climate change opps.....extreme weather!!


----------



## wayneL

:sleeping:

C'mon you guys. You can't run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

The hypocrisy here is astonishing.


----------



## macca

<<The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.>>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html


----------



## Calliope

macca said:


> <<The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
> 
> The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.>>
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html




We should increase our emissions of CO2 just to be on the safe side. Pour on the coal.


----------



## DB008

Carbon cuts here will be offset by more from China


> While Gillard might actually believe the nonsense from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that China "is taking action on climate change" that shames us in our tardiness, he must know the simple truth that it is actually going to double its CO2 emissions by 2020.
> 
> Again, Gillard might actually believe it when she says that China is closing more and more coal-fired stations.
> 
> But Combet knows that in net terms, China is planning to increase its coal-fired generation capacity by close to 500GW by 2020.
> 
> While Gillard might actually believe the nonsense from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that China "is taking action on climate change" that shames us in our tardiness, he must know the simple truth that it is actually going to double its CO2 emissions by 2020.


----------



## Smurf1976

It has been 13 degrees most of the day today. That's winter weather, literally, in the middle of Summer.

Now, this is of course just weather and nothing to get too excited about. But you can be pretty sure that if we were having a heatwave in July then the usual suspects would be more than happy to proclaim climate change as the cause.


----------



## prawn_86

Smurf1976 said:


> It has been 13 degrees most of the day today. That's winter weather, literally, in the middle of Summer.




Yesterday was the first day this summer (60 days in) over 30c in Sydney. I only moved here 2 years ago, but i remember 5 - 10 years ago back in SA when you didnt get a day UNDER 30 all summer.

I'm with you Smurf, i think global weathering has kicked in...


----------



## Logique

It's just weather, except when it's hot in summer, then it's climate.

*Scores dead as cold snap freezes Europe* - February 1, 2012 - SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...-cold-snap-freezes-europe-20120201-1qrx2.html
"Scores of people have died in a cold snap across Eastern Europe, authorities said on Tuesday, forcing some countries to call in the army to help secure food and medical supplies and set up emergency shelters for the homeless.

The temperature in Ukraine sank to minus 33C, the coldest in six years, while eastern Bosnia experienced lows of minus 31C and Poland, Romania and Bulgaria minus 30C.

Forecasters said the cold spell would last until Friday with further heavy snow expected across the region on Wednesday......January temperatures in Ukraine do not normally sink below minus 15C."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...ezes-europe-20120201-1qrx2.html#ixzz1l4sCtzk7


----------



## OzWaveGuy

ghotib said:


> Strange question OWG, seeing as the article itself doesn't claim that the signatories are climate scientists, traditional or otherwise. But out of curiosity I took a look. The short version is that 12 are unequivically not climate scientists, three might be under a generous definition, and just one definitely is.
> 
> _Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;_
> Academic field was geochemistry where his work is highly regarded. For the last 20 years he's been at least a part-time politican, reaching the level of Minister for Education. I haven't found a list of his academic publications, but his popular book on climate change is such a muddle of basic factual errors that the kindest excuse is that he was writing outside his field. Climate scientist? Nope.
> 
> ...
> 
> ....




Would you be kind enough to do the same for the "4000 'scientists' running around in white coats measuring things" at the IPCC?


----------



## orr

Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.5% per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High Resolution Image

December 2011 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite record is -3.5% per decade.




Is this a localised weather event? or a Climatic trend?
Welcome your inputs.


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> Would you be kind enough to do the same for the "4000 'scientists' running around in white coats measuring things" at the IPCC?



Maybe I will, if you would be kind enough to provide the names of some of the "4000 scientists .... at the IPCC" you'd like to know more about. I'm sure you don't expect me to do all your research for you.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.5% per decade.
> 
> Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
> High Resolution Image
> 
> December 2011 compared to past years
> Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite record is -3.5% per decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a localised weather event? or a Climatic trend?
> Welcome your inputs.




Get us a graph of the last 2000 years and we will have a better idea.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Get us a graph of the last 2000 years and we will have a better idea.




SAP 1.2 DRAFT 3 PUBLIC COMMENT
1	CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2 2	Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes 3 4	Chapter 8 ”” History of Sea Ice in the Arctic 5 6	Chapter Lead Author
7	Leonid Polyak, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University
8	Contributing Authors
9	John Andrews, University of Colorado
10	Julie Brigham-Grette, University of Massachusetts 11 12	Dennis Darby, Old Dominion University
13	Arthur Dyke, Geological Survey of Canada 14	Svend Funder, University of Copenhagen
15	Marika Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research 16 17	Anne Jennings, University of Colorado
18	James Savelle, Geological Survey of Canada
19	Mark Serreze, University of Colorado 20 21	Eric Wolff, British Antarctic Survey
22
Chapter 8 Sea Ice	1
SAP 1.2 DRAFT 3 PUBLIC COMMENT

The volume of Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining, and to put that decline into perspective 25	we need to know the history of Arctic sea ice in the geologic past. Sedimentary proxy records 26	from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts can provide clues. Although 27	incomlete, existing data outline the development of Arctic sea ice during the last several million 28	years. Some data indicate that sea ice consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no 29	less than 13–14 million years, and that ice was most widespread during the last approximately 2 30	million years in relationship with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of
31	considerably reduced ice cover or even a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean probably punctuated 32	even this latter period. Ice diminished episodically during warmer climate events associated with 33	changes in Earth’s orbit on the time scale of tens of thousands of years. Ice cover in the Arctic 34	began to diminish in the late 19th century and has accelerated during the last several decades.

Full artical
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-ch8.pdf

And so if 2000 years is the now prerequisite to comment, we'll hear no more piffle about whether it raining today or not.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

How do the warmists explain the bitterly cold conditions in Europe at present?

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

orr said:


> Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.5% per decade.
> 
> Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
> High Resolution Image
> 
> December 2011 compared to past years
> Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite record is -3.5% per decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a localised weather event? or a Climatic trend?
> Welcome your inputs.




Yes, Yes - we all know that there are trends over the longer terms - some up, some down:

1. Perhaps you could put up a chart of the Antarctic - since your assertion is that Global Warming is in fact global - the antarctic ice extent should be declining as well?
2. And the observed evidence that man's 3% of CO2 contribution to total CO2 which is driving all the ice away is where exactly?

The summer here in Canberra has been sweltering to new extremes, I've considered putting the heating on to keep warm


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> And so if 2000 years is the now prerequisite to comment, we'll hear no more piffle about whether it raining today or not.




Agreed.

Can you inform the alarmists of the same?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Can any alarmists sufficiently answer the questions posed in this thread? Why is it that alarmists are quick with "spin" headlines but lack answers to the simplest of questions?

Is part of the reason this? (of course this has nothing to do with man's CO2 emissions since nobody has proven a correlation)






Is this the runaway warming preached by alarmists? Should we start to ask about penalizing those that have wasted the billions and recovering our hard earned labour?


----------



## basilio

Thanks Ozzie for bringing the discussion back to the evidence regarding climate change.

With regard to what is happening  to our climate in the past 120 years  the most complete reference is produced by the American National Climatic Data centre. It pulls together land and sea surface temperatures.  You can check out how they obtain their data in the background FAQ
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

If you go to the url you can see just how much the overall temperature has increased and the  very large increases since 1979

Going back to the period you  have picked. There are a couple of ways of looking at  temperature changes. When seen as a big picture it is clear global temperatures have been rising very quickly in terms of climate changes. 

If on the other hand you choose to look at small sections of the data you can find periods where temperatures are falling or not moving.

Check out





With regard to you  questions on how the human produced CO2 affects climate* and is identified as doing *so  I'll refer back to the same  information  we did at  least 5 times previously. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html


----------



## explod

> If on the other hand you choose to look at small sections of the data you can find periods where temperatures are falling or not moving.




And in the general discussions since the 70's scientists have continually pointed out that as the temperature increases the movement of air changes, there is more evaporation which in turn increases cloud cover, so yes, more rain in some places, large disparages in temperature and increasingly violent storms.  Insurance companies are starting to get a bit fed up too.

On the cold in Europe.   It has been feared for many years now that the loss of ice further north from the arc tic would cause the warm seawater (called the Gulf Stream) currents to dissipate as they now seem to be.   If this continues we are going to see  survival difficulties emerge in some very populated areas.


----------



## wayneL

Mr Plod, any evidence that the gulfstream is dissipating, or is this an ASSumption to fit events? Even the cretins at RealClimate haven't leapt this this delusion.

Elsewhere, The Gore effect strikes again:



> Hansen, Trenberth and Gore went to the Antarctic Peninsula to highlight melting ice. The ice there is close to 200% of normal. Will they tell the truth, be silent, or flat out lie about it? http://www.real-science.com/antarctic-peninsula-sea-ice-double-normal


----------



## basilio

( Earlier reference to expansion of Antarctic sea ice)

That is a very, very, narrow perspective from a  no name. no science blogger.

The larger picture on the world wide melting of ice has been establised by NASA satellites. Worth a look to see what is happening.
*



			NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
		
Click to expand...


*


> PASADENA, Calif. - In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth's melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.
> 
> Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> *The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.*
> 
> "Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier."
> 
> About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.




http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-036#4


----------



## Calliope

*Chicken Little Vindicated *



> Chicken Licken was right, the sky really is falling. NASA satellite data has shown that the Earth’s cloud tops have been lowering over the last decade.
> 
> Cloud-top height fell 1 percent on average between March 2000 and February 2010, according to measurements from the multi-angle imaging spectroradiometer mounted on NASA’s Terra satellite. That 1 percent means a reduction of 30 to 40 meters in the average maximum height of clouds, during the 00s.
> 
> While the short record means it’s difficult to draw any strong conclusions from the data, it does hint towards a longer-term trend. Roger Davies, the lead researcher on the project, warns that it’s something that should be monitored in the coming decades to determine how significant it is for global temperatures.




http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/clouds-sky-falling/


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> Thanks Ozzie for bringing the discussion back to the evidence regarding climate change.
> 
> With regard to what is happening  to our climate in the past 120 years  the most complete reference is produced by the American National Climatic Data centre. It pulls together land and sea surface temperatures.  You can check out how they obtain their data in the background FAQ
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
> 
> If you go to the url you can see just how much the overall temperature has increased and the  very large increases since 1979
> 
> Going back to the period you  have picked. There are a couple of ways of looking at  temperature changes. When seen as a big picture it is clear global temperatures have been rising very quickly in terms of climate changes.
> 
> If on the other hand you choose to look at small sections of the data you can find periods where temperatures are falling or not moving.
> 
> Check out
> View attachment 45977
> 
> View attachment 45976
> 
> 
> With regard to you  questions on how the human produced CO2 affects climate* and is identified as doing *so  I'll refer back to the same  information  we did at  least 5 times previously.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html




What fantastically pathetic graphs.  Can they make ones which go back a few hundred years at the very least?   Oh, no, that would not fit our short term argument, based on very short term warming. 

Science has not shown that man is contributing to dangerous global warming (and that CO2 only makes a very minor impact is well known)

So keep trying to spin up some belief in people who have no understanding of science.

Well done on that front.

MW


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is pissing rain here at the moment.

I do not know what the temperature is and care less.

My smalls on the line are soaked.

This has happened before, you jokers on the Climate Hysteria Bandwagon need to proffer proof that we are in for a change.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is pissing rain here at the moment.
> 
> I do not know what the temperature is and care less.
> 
> My smalls on the line are soaked.
> 
> This has happened before, you jokers on the Climate Hysteria Bandwagon need to proffer proof that we are in for a change.
> 
> gg




As the heat continues to pump more moisture into the air the rain *should* continue.  From an unpopular source and now unfunded.

Maybe you could rescue the underdacks by poking a curtain rod out the window.


----------



## explod

medicowallet said:


> So keep trying to spin up some belief in people who have no understanding of science.
> 
> 
> 
> MW




So how about a bit of a rundown on why they have no understanding ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So how about a bit of a rundown on why they have no understanding ?




How about answering my earlier question.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> How about answering my earlier question.






> Re: Resisting Climate Hysteria
> Mr Plod, any evidence that the gulfstream is dissipating, or is this an ASSumption to fit events? Even the cretins at RealClimate haven't leapt this this delusion.
> 
> Elsewhere, The Gore effect strikes again:




Its just a *theory* that may have some credence.   And if the probabilities are greater than the deniers need for absolute proof beyond any doubt do we not have a duty to take the steps (like the carbon tax) to prepare our community, science and industry towards solutions.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> ...do we not have a duty to take the steps (like the carbon tax) to prepare our community, science and industry towards solutions.




No!


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> No!




So you care for no one but yourself?


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> So you care for no one but yourself?




No. It just means that I am not tied to Green's policies as you are. As I have often said, common sense will beat ideology every time.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> No. It just means that I am not tied to Green's policies as you are. As I have often said, common sense will beat ideology every time.




“It is the obvious which is so difficult to see most of the time. People say 'It's as plain as the nose on your face.' But how much of the nose on your face can you see, unless someone holds a mirror up to you?” 
― Isaac Asimov, I, Robot


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Its just a *theory* that may have some credence.   And if the probabilities are greater than the deniers need for absolute proof beyond any doubt do we not have a duty to take the steps (like the carbon tax) to prepare our community, science and industry towards solutions.




There is no evidence that the gulf stream is having any influence in the cold winters Europe is experiencing.

None

Zippo

Nadda

Sweet FA

etc


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> No. It just means that I am not tied to Green's policies as you are. As I have often said, common sense will beat ideology every time.




I do my own thinking, the Greens philosophy happens to be nearer to my ideals than any other.

Surely you are not tied to all of the draconian policies of the right.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> There is no evidence that the gulf stream is having any influence in the cold winters Europe is experiencing.
> 
> None
> 
> Nadda




In fact there appears to be a counter factor that may mean the gulf stream won't stop.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131809.htm


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> There is no evidence that the gulf stream is having any influence in the cold winters Europe is experiencing.
> 
> None
> 
> Zippo
> 
> Nadda
> 
> Sweet FA
> 
> etc




No need to get angry and swear like that either.

And there is no evidence that it is not changes to the gulf stream causing the problem either.

However the weather does seem to be a problem more often and in more places than living memory from my view.

So on the anecdotal we should at least be giving the whole argument attention and erring on the side of caution.  A reduction in fossil fuel burning is not only a start, its getting scarce and expensive anyway so could be a lot of money to be made in supporting and investing in alternatives.  

Due to the rising costs of power a number of people I know are moving to self sufficiency in home power.  There is a lot of good literature about now on some of the great innovations and homes which are totally self sufficient in water, waste, heating and cooling.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> No need to get angry and swear like that either.
> 
> And there is no evidence that it is not changes to the gulf stream causing the problem either.
> 
> However the weather does seem to be a problem more often and in more places than living memory from my view.
> 
> So on the anecdotal we should at least be giving the whole argument attention and erring on the side of caution.  A reduction in fossil fuel burning is not only a start, its getting scarce and expensive anyway so could be a lot of money to be made in supporting and investing in alternatives.
> 
> Due to the rising costs of power a number of people I know are moving to self sufficiency in home power.  There is a lot of good literature about now on some of the great innovations and homes which are totally self sufficient in water, waste, heating and cooling.




Swear? Angry? 

Where I grew up FA stands for Fanny Adams, so Sweet Fanny Adams.

Gotta watch those acronyms plod, don't leap to conclusions.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Swear? Angry?
> 
> Where I grew up FA stands for Fanny Adams, so Sweet Fanny Adams.
> 
> Gotta watch those acronyms plod, don't leap to conclusions.




Off topic and *unconvincing*


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Off topic and *unconvincing*




The topic is " Resisting Climate Hysteria."  Most of your posts stray off topic.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> The topic is " Resisting Climate Hysteria."  Most of your posts stray off topic.




Well the climate bit seems to be okay and you are certainly resistant, to which I respond in kind, so the only thing left perhaps is the hysteria.  And that seems to be coming from the deniers.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> And there is no evidence that it is not changes to the gulf stream causing the problem either.



The onus in science is proof of the theory, not proof of the opposite.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Due to the rising costs of power a number of people I know are moving to self sufficiency in home power.  There is a lot of good literature about now on some of the great innovations and homes which are totally self sufficient in water, waste, heating and cooling.



Just because someone has a standalone power system doesn't mean they are not emitting CO2. The emissions associated with these systems aren't exactly trivial once batteries are involved.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Well the climate bit seems to be okay and you are certainly resistant, to which I respond in kind, so the only thing left perhaps is the hysteria.  And that seems to be coming from the deniers.




Hmmm, "deniers" is not a nice thing to call other ASF members (or anyone for that matter) just because they don't agree with you.

It's actually very rude and on another forum, it is now a banned word.  Maybe that should be so here too.

Your use of "denier" is far more offensive than anything Wayne put in his post.


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> Hmmm, "deniers" is not a nice thing to call other ASF members (or anyone for that matter) just because they don't agree with you.
> 
> It's actually very rude and on another forum, it is now a banned word.  Maybe that should be so here too.
> 
> Your use of "denier" is far more offensive than anything Wayne put in his post.




Agree 100%.  And, explod, there has already been a discussion about this which you will be absolutely aware of.


----------



## Julia

Here is the exchange between you and Wayne on the topic some months ago.



wayneL said:


> Plod
> 
> You will note that those who disagree with the big bang theory (electric universe theory etc) are not called big bang deniers.
> 
> Those who disagree with the prevailing theory of evolution are not called evolution deniers.
> 
> There are no Higgs Boson deniers; to my knowledge there are only two field where dissenters are referred to as deniers:
> 
> 1/ The Jewish Holocaust
> 
> 2/ Anthropogenic climate change
> 
> 
> Do you wonder why AGW sceptics take exception to the term?






explod said:


> On overview many of our positions I now admit are not too distant on the issues at all.
> 
> The cost is a big matter and so is belief, it is a very emotional mix.  I had not realised that the word "denier" was such a problem or the bad connotations it connects with for some people.  However some people will put on a reaction to weaken another side of the argument too.   To my mind words are merely that, it is the overall intent behind them that is important.   In my past I have had to turn the other cheek to some frightfull descriptions but have always tried to see beyond that to the real cause.   I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes but we can only do our best and nor should we be deterred from putting all of our views and ideas forward.


----------



## wayneL

In addition, Mr Plod (et al.) knows that scarcely anyone "denies" that climate changes. In fact I have personally outlined many many times on this forum the extent to which I believe humans have influenced climate (i.e. roughly along the lines of Pielke Snr).

The argument is both qualitative and quantitative IOW on the causation and extent.


----------



## wayneL

BTW

I hope you all are keeping abreast of developments in the Heartland saga



> On February 20, Peter Gleick confessed to stealing documents from The Heartland Institute with the intent of exposing its funding sources and damaging its reputation. He also disseminated a fake “climate strategy memo” that he and other environmental activists on the left claim describes Heartland’s “secret strategy” to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change.
> 
> At first Gleick claimed he obtained the fake memo along with other documents from The Heartland Institute. Now he claims it came from an anonymous source before he stole the documents. Heartland has consistently and unambiguously said the memo is a forgery and was not produced by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute.






> On February 14, DesmogBlog and ThinkProgress posted on their Web sites the stolen documents, plus a forged document allegedly describing the “secret plans” of The Heartland Institute. One day later, the Huffington Post joined the gang.
> 
> A flagrant violation of ethics
> 
> Amazingly, members of the Fakegate Gang refuse to take down the false and defamatory documents, even though almost everyone admits they are either stolen or faked.




http://fakegate.org


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Hmmm, "deniers" is not a nice thing to call other ASF members (or anyone for that matter) just because they don't agree with you.
> 
> It's actually very rude and on another forum, it is now a banned word.  Maybe that should be so here too.
> 
> Your use of "denier" is far more offensive than anything Wayne put in his post.




And equally to what I may allude, but the insinuation is that I may be hysterical if I put the case for man made climate change.  

Not liked when the boot is transferred to the other foot. 

Are not all ASF'ers equal, or are some "...more equal"


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Are not all ASF'ers equal, *or are some "...more equal"*




That would be socialism. :


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> That would be socialism. :




Which we may indeed need a lot more of.

Maslow's basics for all and then perhaps we could move forward.

But if we keep burning the nest at the current rate, in my view, then all are going to lose this game.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Which we may indeed need a lot more of.
> 
> Maslow's basics for all and then perhaps we could move forward.
> 
> But if we keep burning the nest at the current rate, in my view, then all are going to lose this game.




Well we're getting off topic, but pure socialism has shown not to be very successful as providing basics... unless you're talking a tin shanty and a bowl of rice a day.

Socialism has always required capitalism to prop it up financially.

To keep it on topic, Socialism would not solve environmental problems... would exacerbate them IMO.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And equally to what I may allude, but the insinuation is that I may be hysterical if I put the case for man made climate change.




Just on this point... have you considered that you may be suffering some degree of hysteria?

Just a few posts back, you assigned the cold European winter to a failure of the Gulf Stream without a shred of evidence or even citing any recent speculation from warmists.

When this was pointed out to you, you played the man, not the ball.

Then a suggestion of totalitarian socialism to mitigate some imagining.

Not so long ago, the first documented cases of Global Warming Hypothesis induced psychosis were reported.

Just a thought Plod.


----------



## explod

> =wayneL;687522]Well we're getting off topic, but pure socialism has shown not to be very successful as providing basics... unless you're talking a tin shanty and a bowl of rice a day.




My last sentence?



> Socialism has always required capitalism to prop it up financially.




There are degrees, in fact the US Fed's capitalisation of collapsing housing industry was just that so the concept as you indicate has precedents but in this case it was capitalism (expansionism) that may have failed here.



> To keep it on topic, Socialism would not solve environmental problems... would
> exacerbate them IMO.




Agree to the degree that it may not exacerbate, if the utilities of power for example, became public and greened up so to speak in preference to or at least alongside the efforts of the carbon tax then we are right on topic.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> There are degrees, in fact the US Fed's capitalisation of collapsing housing industry was just that.




That had nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with several years of statist interference.


----------



## explod

> =wayneL;687525]Just on this point... have you considered that you may be suffering some degree of hysteria?




Of course.



> Just a few posts back, you assigned the cold European winter to a failure of the Gulf Stream without a shred of evidence or even citing any recent speculation from warmists.




Anecdotal, at best I admit. 



> When this was pointed out to you, you played the man, not the ball.




Oh, so you never do mon ami.



> Then a suggestion of totalitarian socialism to mitigate some imagining.




That style is nearer communism, big difference.



> Not so long ago, the first documented cases of Global Warming Hypothesis induced psychosis were reported.




Now that would be open to some wild misinterpretation.   There would be no possibility of cases on the deniers side of course.   Phwew spare me.



> Just a thought Plod.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Oh, so you never do mon ami.




I highlight behaviour that jeopardizes the quality of debate. It's not really playing the man.

The Christians term it - Lover the sinner, hate the sin.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I highlight behaviour that jeopardizes the quality of debate. It's not really playing the man.
> 
> The Christians term it - Lover the sinner, hate the sin.




There are very different standards of qualification and in fact some on this forum get away without any.  And of course full qualification would inhibit good discussion so how about being more liberal on all sides.

Of course  it seems to just depend on which side of the popular consensus table one sits.

There is a tremendous amount of *anecdotal* evidence that global warming is going to be a problem due to man's footprint but it gets absolutely no truck on this forum at all. The debate is continually stymied by ridicule or sacasim at best in my view.

And the science, we are not scientists so how can anyone be *certain  *.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> There is a tremendous amount of *anecdotal* evidence that global warming is going to be a problem due to man's footprint but it gets absolutely no truck on this forum at all. The debate is continually stymied by ridicule or sacasim at best in my view.
> 
> And the science, we are not scientists so how can anyone be *certain  *.




Yes the arguments are a bit on-sided, but your twisted logic needs to be treated with respect, even if it is hard to keep a straight face.  You seem to be the only supporter of Global Warming Hysteria left standing. Where is Basilio when you need her?:dunno:


----------



## basilio

Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.

I can no longer  see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont  examine the evidence for manmade  climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.

I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.  

Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.
> 
> I can no longer  see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont  examine the evidence for manmade  climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.
> 
> I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.
> 
> Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.




Good for you . Sorry that I ruffled your feathers and brought on a hissy-fit and head banging. Yes I am a non-scientist. What are your scientific qualifications? 

Incidentally I agree with Sails advice to Knobby;



> When Basilio stops posting delusional rubbish, I will stop pointing out his nonsense. If you consider that rude, you need toughen up...lol


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.
> 
> I can no longer  see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont  examine the evidence for manmade  climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.
> 
> I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.
> 
> Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.




Well now, it turns out that this "vast majority" are continually and increasingly being proven wrong.

How are all those Hansen predictions going basilio? 

Anyways, what do you call someone who hold your increasingly untenable views and still has the lavish western lifestyle?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Well now, it turns out that this "vast majority" are continually and increasingly being proven wrong.
> 
> How are all those Hansen predictions going basilio?
> 
> Anyways, what do you call someone who hold your increasingly untenable views and still has the lavish western lifestyle?




This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co  endlessly  repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier.

It is easy to prove your first two statements are untrue Wayne. Go to any scientific body that researches the whole body evidence around climate change and check it out. 



> *Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation*
> 
> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. *Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. *This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?




http://www.skepticalscience.com/


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co  endlessly  repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier.
> 
> It is easy to prove your first two statements are untrue Wayne. Go to any scientific body that researches the whole body evidence around climate change and check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/




There are a lot of scientists that dispute MMGW and the alleged evidence in the comments on that site with references to other studies, it doesn’t really clear much up either way for the average punter. And thats on a pro GW site


----------



## basilio

moXJO said:


> There are a lot of scientists that dispute MMGW and the alleged evidence in the comments on that site with references to other studies, it doesn’t really clear much up either way for the average punter. And thats on a pro GW site




I just don't know how you can say that Moxjo. Certainly there are other points of view expressed. But what makes the site stand out is the way it takes each anti global warming argument  and  compares it against the peer reviewed research and scientific principles.  It is at stage that the overwhelming nature of the evidence comes through.

The site is also particularly effective at dissecting the statements of Monchton, Carter, Plimer etc and  showing where they have misrepresented papers, made up facts and ignored evidence. 

It is all in bite sized chunks as well and written at at least 2 levels so people can read the information at appropriate levels.

It's obviously not true to say we know everything about climate change. But what is understood and so far proven at the moment says we have a critical problem to deal with.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> I can no longer  see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum.




Welcome back basilio. Your "scientific" links are badly needed. Explod was running into trouble trying to sell your message with his "anecdotal" evidence.


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> I just don't know how you can say that Moxjo. Certainly there are other points of view expressed. But what makes the site stand out is the way it takes each anti global warming argument  and  compares it against the peer reviewed research and scientific principles.  It is at stage that the overwhelming nature of the evidence comes through.
> 
> The site is also particularly effective at dissecting the statements of Monchton, Carter, Plimer etc and  showing where they have misrepresented papers, made up facts and ignored evidence.
> 
> It is all in bite sized chunks as well and written at at least 2 levels so people can read the information at appropriate levels.
> 
> It's obviously not true to say we know everything about climate change. But what is understood and so far proven at the moment says we have a critical problem to deal with.




I was talking about some of the comments on that site that argued against some of the evidence. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=82&&n=18
GMB argues in the comments below and is then demonised by other posters after asking for evidence.

I'm all with climate change and while this has nothing to do with that site.



> In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".
> 
> Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.
> 
> In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
> 
> Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.
> 
> In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".
> 
> Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.
> 
> All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.
> 
> So let's check on them, too.
> 
> In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.
> 
> As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...
> 
> "In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."




straight out BS like this from a government man clouds the issue for many on the severity of Climate change, or even of how predictions will pan out. We have the exact opposite of what he said would happen.


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> It's obviously not true to say we know everything about climate change. But what is understood and so far proven at the moment says we have a critical problem to deal with.





Is time here to remind some people of last octobers release of the (conservative)Koch brothers climate science study findings, or is it as unreliable a document as all the others that recommend anything but Business as usual:

_The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.'_
To quote the 'christian science monitor'  on the Koch study findings, hardly the bastion of Enviro fasinistas.
Is that the same NASA that Hansen (How are all those Hansen predictions going basilio? ), that Mr wayneL mentions a few posts back.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co  endlessly  repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier...




Basilio, denier has more to do with the holocaust than the money grab of pricing carbon.  Shame on you guys for coining such a derogatory term.

And, no facts?  How about this?

LOL - Brisbane has had the coldest summer in TWELVE years.  

Read all about it: *Brisbane’s coldest summer in 12 years*


----------



## sails

And, is carbon tax REALLY about the environment?  Not according to Penny Wong:



> THE Finance Minister, Penny Wong, has warned that Kevin Rudd's proposal to review the carbon tax after six months with a view to *easing the $23-a-tonne starting price could blow a hole in the budget*.




Read more: *Budget risk in carbon tax review *



And this is what Wong USED to say about carbon tax, it makes it look even more that's all about ripping off the workers to pay for wasteful spending:


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Basilio, denier has more to do with the holocaust than the money grab of pricing carbon.  Shame on you guys for coining such a derogatory term.
> 
> And, no facts?  How about this?
> 
> LOL - Brisbane has had the coldest summer in TWELVE years.
> 
> Read all about it: *Brisbane’s coldest summer in 12 years*




Sigh, you do know we are in a La Nina weather pattern at present?


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Basilio, denier has more to do with the holocaust than the money grab of pricing carbon.  Shame on you guys for coining such a derogatory term.



"Surreal" was the term for a distorted type of painting style, today is is used as "unreal"

"Denier" can be many things but have often noted the denier's love to bring the holocast into the argument.

See all the icebergs stacking up on the banks Macquarie Island on TV last night.  The commentator reckoned he had not seen it as bad as that before, but he was just a kid.


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> LOL - Brisbane has had the coldest summer in TWELVE years.




On the other hand Tasmania is playing its small part in perpetuating the GW myth.

Tasmania had it's third warmest summer on record.


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> Sigh, you do know we are in a La Nina weather pattern at present?




So why did Climate Change Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery tell us otherwise, didn't he know?
Surely he would have had the latest info from scientific research considering its government funded. Did they all overlook it or was it a scare campaign to get the tax in?



> In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".




I'm not against the science or even think I know whats going on regarding CC. But it hardly seems an open and shut case that either side makes it out to be.


----------



## Julia

moXJO said:


> . But it hardly seems an open and shut case that either side makes it out to be.



 And this is the fundamental source of all the squabbling.  If the case had been presented with less in the way of dire and absolute predictions of the total doom of the world and everyone in it, and a more moderate description of some of the challenges for the future, it's my bet there would have been a more consistently accepting response.

People are rightly distrustful of exaggerated claims.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Sigh, you do know we are in a La Nina weather pattern at present?




Sigh indeed! Why did your political expert on GW say this last year, when he blamed the coal miners for the floods. 
The term La NiÃ±a refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific.



> ''There's very little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the hottest oceans we've ever seen off Australia, which in turn the scientists are saying very clearly is responsible for the quite extraordinary and harrowing floods that we've seen,'' Senator Brown said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...er-comments-20110117-19u5f.html#ixzz1nkDEzKHc


----------



## Knobby22

moXJO said:


> So why did Climate Change Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery tell us otherwise, didn't he know?
> 
> I'm not against the science or even think I know whats going on regarding CC. But it hardly seems an open and shut case that either side makes it out to be.




Everyone said he didn't have the right background and they were right, he didn't and so he mucked up. 

Its not an open and shut case. There is global warming occurring but also a lot of feedback effects that are slowly being understood. What upsets me is not the doubters or the skeptics, it is the generally paid denialists who operate to a political agenda they have been told to follow to create confusion.

Caliope, one thing that could be expected is greater rainfall in a la nina and we seem to be getting it though scientists will say it is still too early to confirm it. More time is needed. You can't just say there is definitely nothing in it either.


----------



## macca

Julia said:


> And this is the fundamental source of all the squabbling.  If the case had been presented with less in the way of dire and absolute predictions of the total doom of the world and everyone in it, and a more moderate description of some of the challenges for the future, it's my bet there would have been a more consistently accepting response.
> 
> People are rightly distrustful of exaggerated claims.




And the brainwashing of our children, the perpetual pro warming slant of every documentary coming out of BBC and ABC. The fact that unless you make mention of the climate change agenda in your acceptance speech don't expect to be given any award by the govt.

Mention of the climate change in thousands of articles which are absolutely nothing to do with climate or the weather, like water on a rock, it will eventually wear down resistance. Another tactic is spread enough sh** and some of it will stick. Repeat something often enough and eventually the mugs will accept it as fact.

On and on ad nauseum.... disgusting tactic perfected by the communist and totalitarian regimes now being used by the climate change alarmists to refill the trough every week.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co  endlessly  repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier.
> 
> It is easy to prove your first two statements are untrue Wayne. Go to any scientific body that researches the whole body evidence around climate change and check it out.




1/ Sorry basilio, I stick by what I say because I look at a broad range of sources of information.

2/ I note you persist with using the offensive term 'denier', to include anyone that does not agree with the worst case 'hypothesis'.

3/ I also note you neatly sidestepped my question re the lifestyle choices of alarmists.

From these three points, one is able to make certain conclusions about you.


----------



## explod

> wayneL;687802] I note you persist with using the offensive term 'denier', to include anyone that does not agree with the worst case 'hypothesis'.




Offensive my foot.  In public I have been called a pig and scum and I did not bat an eyelid.  If you are going to be tough you need to also toughen up



> I also note you neatly sidestepped my question re the lifestyle choices of alarmists.




And what have those choices to do with the argument?



> From these three points, one is able to make certain conclusions about you.




Conclusions, pray tell, interesting profiling or for the little black book perhaps.  Maybe we are going back to the Special Branch days.


----------



## MACCA350

Gee my lawn is loving this global warming, it's never been greener through the last few summers.........oh wait

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22

MACCA350 said:


> Gee my lawn is loving this global warming, it's never been greener through the last few summers.........oh wait
> 
> Cheers




Yes, I live in Melbourne too, we have had more floods and storms this year than I can remember, you would think we were living in the tropics....oh wait:
cheers


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Offensive my foot.  In public I have been called a pig and scum and I did not bat an eyelid.  If you are going to be tough you need to also toughen up



We are not talking about policing Mr Plod. As a policeman you are also expected to receive abuse and are probably trained for it.

We are talking about a supposedly scientific debate where the goal is to arrive at a considered conclusion. As I have pointed out before, debate in other scientific spheres (eg big bang vs electric universe theory etc) does not attract such loaded labels.




> And what have those choices to do with the argument?



Absolutely everything Mr Plod. In the short/medium term, the only way to curb co2 emissions is to curtail our lifestyles. 

basilio, along with high profile alarmists all have lifestyles which produce large carbon footprints. I've been preached at about GW by Range Rover driving, stately energy hungry house owning, large family producing, elaborate packaging and consumer society purchasing mamas in what hits you in the face as a gargantuan hypocrisy.

I'm not immune to a bit of environment preaching myself. One of my concerns is the trashing of our oceans by unsustainable fishing practices. Would it be then ok to go and buy some fish harvested by such practices? No! That we make me a tw@t of the highest order.

When Al Bore, Suzuki, Flannery, Hansen et al. turn off the heating, sell their big houses and eschew fossil fueled travel, maybe folks will take them more seriously. 

I doubt you live in a paradigm of ecological sustainability from your Mt Martha digs either.




> Conclusions, pray tell, interesting profiling or for the little black book perhaps.  Maybe we are going back to the Special Branch days.




Oh nice straw man argument there Mr Plod. Is that how you fitted up suspects in your copper days? Pulleeeeze.

Clearly, I am referring to cognitive inconsistencies.


----------



## Logique

Warragamba Dam is expected to fill and spill this week, first time in 14 years. It supplies 80% of Sydney's water supply, and along with the lake it creates, contains 4 times the volume of Sydney Harbour. Largest urban water supply in Australia.  

Every megalitre of water from the ($2Bill) Sydney desal plant costs between $700 and $800. A megalitre from Warragamba would be between $100 and $200.

Tim Flannery in 2005: 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
_ABC Lateline, June 10, 2005: 
I’M afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . . _

Pic is from The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...am-over-the-edge/story-e6freuzi-1226284445265


----------



## Knobby22

In the US

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-01/9-killed-in-us-tornadoes/3861352

The deadly storm marks an early start to tornado season in a region still recovering from record-breaking severe weather outbreaks.

Some 545 people were killed by tornadoes in 2011, which was the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the third-worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.

And in my state

Record rain on the way for Victoria‎

NEWS.com.au - 5 hours ago
RECORD rainfall is forecast for parts of the state as severe weather strikes again - and again. Another 200mm or more could be dumped on Victoria's ...


Go short insurance companies.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is all weather.

Flannery is a fraud.

Even the Sydney Morning Herald cannot deny it is raining.

Where is the Climate Change Drought we were promised.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...d-sends-residents-packing-20120301-1u61h.html




> At Cooma, in the Snowy Mountains, almost 1000 people had fled their homes last night. A levee built to only contain a one-in-20-year flood was threatening to burst overnight. A further 600 people had been evacuated in Goulburn (see report page 2) and 100 more in parts of Bega. Water cut roads and isolated 367 people in Towamba near Eden.
> By this morning, as much as three-quarters of the state was forecast to be either flooded or isolated by flood.
> Cooma was expected to receive a year's worth of rain - about 500 millimetres - inside the first 65 days of this year. The Bureau of Meteorology was forecasting as much as 80 millimetres of rain would fall on metropolitan Sydney in the 12 hours from midnight.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...nts-packing-20120301-1u61h.html#ixzz1ns8BnslV




And Flannery and his kind are on the public purse.

What a waste of money.

It is all weather.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Take Knobby's advice folks.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!


----------



## ghotib

Of all the lies and distortions you have propagated on this thread Wayne, that one might take the cake. 

Heartland does no climate research. All its money goes to spin, distortion, and lies. 

Every other organisation does real work which includes climate research - whose results are publicly available and which Heartland consistently and deliberately abuses - but also includes many other activities. 

Are you really a Libertarian? How can you support an organisation that is so utterly and criminally irresponsible. How can you call yourself responsible when you ignore an argument built on verifiable data because of your assumptions about the political views of the people who present it?

Climate doesn't do politics.


----------



## basilio

ghotib said:


> Of all the lies and distortions you have propagated on this thread Wayne, that one might take the cake.
> 
> Heartland does no climate research. All its money goes to spin, distortion, and lies.
> 
> Every other organisation does real work which includes climate research - whose results are publicly available and which Heartland consistently and deliberately abuses - but also includes many other activities.
> 
> Are you really a Libertarian? How can you support an organisation that is so utterly and criminally irresponsible. How can you call yourself responsible when you ignore an argument built on verifiable data because of your assumptions about the political views of the people who present it?
> 
> Climate doesn't do politics.




End of story. Well put Ghoti


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> End of story. Well put Ghoti




Not quite;

"The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

I can understand why you socialists hate it so much. Your solutions to social and economic problems are also Bob Brown's.


----------



## ghotib

Calliope said:


> Not quite;
> 
> "The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."
> 
> I can understand why you socialists hate it so much. Your solutions to social and economic problems are also Bob Brown's.



If their mission statement actually directed their activities then they would be discovering, developing and promoting free-market solutions for the social and economic problems arising from the warming planet. Workable solutions don't start by denying physical facts.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Of all the lies and distortions you have propagated on this thread Wayne, that one might take the cake.




What lies would they be Ms Fish? That funding to support the AGW hypothesis outweighs sceptical funding by many times?

That it is impossible to gain public funding if your hypothesis might contradict AGW ortrhodoxy?

In fact the pro AGW lobby has shown their willingness for lies and distortion outweighs the propensity for sceptics to do likewise by many many times. That toerag Gleick being the latest example.

I'm sorry, I view your statement with contempt as it is grossly hypocritical.



> Are you really a Libertarian? How can you support an organisation that is so utterly and criminally irresponsible. How can you call yourself responsible when you ignore an argument built on verifiable data because of your assumptions about the political views of the people who present it?
> 
> Climate doesn't do politics.




1/ Libertarianism is not at issue here and I am astonished that you have somehow linked these issues with the same. 

2/ I am equally astonished (but not surprised) that you fail to see the political aspect, after all that has been exposed in the last two years, of the pro AGW lobby. Laughable.

3/ Verifiable data? Do you mean pre or post adjustment? Equally, data is only one aspect. The scientific method (or lack thereof) applied to such data is important... ref previous arguments re causation.



ghotib said:


> If their mission statement actually directed their activities then they would be discovering, developing and promoting free-market solutions for the social and economic problems arising from the warming planet. Workable solutions don't start by denying physical facts.




What facts would they be? Computer models are now physical facts? ROTFLMAO!

The physical facts will play out over time. Already, the physical facts are embarrassingly divergent from alarmist predictions. In addition, there is poor understanding of the causation of actual physical facts with regards to climate.

Meanwhile, more pressing facts present themselves... and the world is sidetracked by nonsense.


----------



## Knobby22

There are two things wrong with that chart, 
1) it assumes the EPA, NASA etc. are evil organisations providing distorted science and propaganda when they are doing no such thing. 

I like the EPA being there in particular, The Simpsons Movie spoofed it by having the EPA being the bad guys. One of the Republican nominees, forget which one now, said they would close the EPA if they got in power. 
In some eyes, the EPA is in the new axis of evil with Nasa, laughable.

2) The second thing that is wrong with the chart is that it only has the Heartland Institute arguing the other side when there are many forces at work. The money goes elsewhere too! It is very effectively used.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The physical facts will play out over time. Already, the physical facts are embarrassingly divergent from alarmist predictions. In addition, there is poor understanding of the causation of actual physical facts with regards to climate.
> 
> Meanwhile, more pressing facts present themselves... and the world is sidetracked by nonsense.




In fact the wild variations of weather and out of ordinary floods are not mirages, of course deniers use the extra wet to confirm their own delusions and ignore the real reasons.

It is I agree selective, but this is on both sides as we are not the real experts.

Anecdotally, *I repeat,* things look crook with the climate so we should at least not rule out that there may be a problem and be prepared to defend ourselves accordingly.

Head in the sand and full support for the upcoming Grand Prix (an ultimate icon of polluting expansionism) is not the way to go in my view.  And on the races, it just breeds hoon behaviour down the track anyway.

And my house wayneL was built in 1950, two bedreem, tin roof, fibro exterior and on stumps.  Large backyard with big productive veggie garden (I also work my elderly neighboughs backyard for produce too and trade for eggs over the back fence), open fireplace, chip heater for showering in which we burn collected recycled wood and we are continually working at reducing the footprint.  Alternative power (my own made solar panels) I am currently working on.   Being from the farm community originally am able to organise fresh mutton.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> There are two things wrong with that chart,
> 1) it assumes the EPA, NASA etc. are evil organisations providing distorted science and propaganda when they are doing no such thing.
> 
> I like the EPA being there in particular, The Simpsons Movie spoofed it by having the EPA being the bad guys. One of the Republican nominees, forget which one now, said they would close the EPA if they got in power.
> In some eyes, the EPA is in the new axis of evil with Nasa, laughable.




Nowhere does it intimate those organisations are evil, it is a simple comparison of funds to highlight the nonsense of highly funded sceptical groups.

As we have argued, such funds are only available for pro AGW hypothesis research.



> 2) The second thing that is wrong with the chart is that it only has the Heartland Institute arguing the other side when there are many forces at work. The money goes elsewhere too! It is very effectively used.




OK lets quadruple the Heartland sum... screw it, lets multiply by 10! Ok lets make it 20x.....

It's still David vs Goliath Knobby.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> OK lets quadruple the Heartland sum... screw it, lets multiply by 10! Ok lets make it 20x.....




Hysteria ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Hysteria ?




Plod please try to keep up.

Knobby thought that Heartland's funds are not the total amount. Probably not, but even if it is 20 times spread amongst those organizations trying to restore balanced debate, it is still chump change compared to what the gray trainers are getting.


----------



## basilio

You don't have to be a socialist watermelon to  recognize the reality of human induced global warming and the consequences that will entail. In fact true conservatives can be at the  forefront of wanting to protect and restore  the natural environment. Simply denyiny the physical realities and denigrating the scientific knowledge that explains what is happening is the province of conscienceless, self interested individuals/corporations.

There are a number of "conservatives" who recognise reality. I just came across the Republicians for Environmental Protection - The Green Elephant. Interestingly enough their website and newsletters has some of the most cogent and clearly articulated analysis of global warming issues I have seen. And they appear to represent some sitting republican members.

Worth a look. 

[







> B]Facts and Myths about Global Warming:
> A Conservative Perspective[/B]
> 
> by John R. E. Bliese, Ph.D.
> 
> Global warming is one of our most critical environmental problems, but it is surely the most misunderstood. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and there has also been a disinformation campaign by some special interests who want to protect their short-term profits by preventing us from solving the problem. Unfortunately, some conservative organizations and publications have participated in this disinformation campaign.
> 
> There is no justification for this, just as there is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.
> 
> Global warming is a highly complex issue, so all I can do here is deal briefly with a few points.
> 
> 
> Myth: There is a huge debate among scientists about whether global warming is a real problem.
> 
> False. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both “sides” equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current state of climate science. The earth’s climate is enormously complex, so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The “debate” about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed pages of the newspapers.
> http://www.rep.org/global_warming.html




http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> .
> There are a number of "conservatives" who recognise reality. I just came across the Republicians for Environmental Protection - The Green Elephant.




The Devil May Quote Scripture to His Own Ends.


----------



## DB008

Just seen this on Bloomberg



> *Oceans Acidifying Fastest in 300 Million Years
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Earth’s oceans may be acidifying faster than at any point during the last 300 million years due to industrial emissions, endangering marine life from oysters and reefs to sea-going salmon, researchers said.
> 
> The scientists found surging levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forced down the pH of the ocean by 0.1 unit in the last century, 10 times faster than the closest historical comparison from 56 million years ago, New York’s Columbia University, which led the research, said today in a statement. The seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid. The lower the pH level in the seas, the more acidic they are.
> Past instances of ocean acidification have been linked with mass extinctions of marine creatures so the current one could also threaten important species, according to Baerbel Hoenisch, the paleoceanographer at Columbia who was lead author of the paper that appeared today in the journal Science.
> 
> “If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about -- coral reefs, oysters, salmon,” Hoenisch said.
> 
> The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said ocean pH may fall another 0.3 units this century, according to Columbia. The closest change to the current pace occurred during the so-called Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 56 million years ago, when a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide may have pushed pH levels down by 0.45 units over 20,000 years, according to the researchers.




Link


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

DB008 said:


> Just seen this on Bloomberg
> 
> 
> 
> Link




Just don't worry about it mate.

Ask the poor bastards in Bathurst who were promised drought for 50 years by the same or similar experts, and being deluged tonight.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just don't worry about it mate.
> 
> Ask the poor bastards in Bathurst who were promised drought for 50 years by the same or similar experts, and being deluged tonight.
> 
> gg




http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...9447_1_heavy-rains-climate-north-east-monsoon

http://www.climategrump.net/2011/04/how-much-do-you-pay-for-fuel-no-really/

and a quote from the second link:- 



> In an individuals world, petrol costs Rupees 63 a litre and diesel costs Rupees 51 a litre. We all know that. We also know that carbon emissions as a result of burning fossil fuels has increased atmospheric carbon levels which traps the suns radiation and heat within the atmosphere causing rapid warming and sending the natural climate patterns into chaotic change. Here are some other costs we don’t often consider or link to our fuel and energy expenses:
> 
> THE ADDED COSTS OF UNSEASONAL RAINS & THE EXPENSES THEY BRING WITH THEM
> Every time there are unseasonal rains and floods as an effect of climate change, massive damage is done, crops are destroyed, food supply is hit….causes shortage and spiralling prices as a consequence. The damage needs to be repaired, compensation needs to be paid and whether you like it or not…everyone bears the cost of these unseasonal floods and rains. It’s not as simple as not getting Mangoes on time, millions and billions even are lost each year owing to these changes in rain patterns


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> The Devil May Quote Scripture to His Own Ends.




If there is not enough sand in which to hide one will quote myth.  Which deniers typically do when all else is failing.

And a further in depth article on weather extremes including storms and huge rains:- 

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5020&method=full


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> If there is not enough sand in which to hide one will quote myth.  Which deniers typically do when all else is failing.




And global warming alarmists do it all the time.


----------



## lindsayf

The tone and use of language in here is like a debate between opposing religious extremists.


----------



## wayneL

lindsayf said:


> The tone and use of language in here is like a debate between opposing religious extremists.




Because in many cases, thats exactly what it is.


----------



## explod

Those who believe that climate change *may* be a problem are not the ones who introduced the word "extremists" or the heading "hysteria".

The "extremists" so called are concerned that man's footprint is indeed having an adverse effect on climate, be that the combination of droughts, floods and storms.

However the rhetoric and slinging matches are introduced into arguments when all else is failing and to detract from the real issues and the subsequent growing evidence.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Those who believe that climate change *may* be a problem are not the ones who introduced the word "extremists" or the heading "hysteria".
> 
> The "extremists" so called are concerned that man's footprint is indeed having an adverse effect on climate, be that the combination of droughts, floods and storms.
> 
> However the rhetoric and slinging matches are introduced into arguments when all else is failing and to detract from the real issues and the subsequent growing evidence.




Sorry plod, I cannot agree.

In every generation the crusties, lacking god to beat us with, invent a new apocalypse.

So called " Global Heat" is the 2012 iteration of a misguided university led false faith.

Meanwhile the rest of us toil and pay taxes to keep these bludgers in a job.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

I wonder how many house buyers in Western Sydney, bought a house on the belief 'climate change Proffesor' Tim Flannery knew what he was talking about.
Didn't he say the dam will never fill again due to global warming, what a dick.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...s-after-sydney-dam-spills-20120303-1u9a0.html

Just the sort of person labor surround themselves with. LOL,LOL,LOL Talk up a storm, bring in a tax, blow your feet off in three easy steps.


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry plod, I cannot agree.
> 
> In every generation the crusties, lacking god to beat us with, invent a new apocalypse.
> 
> So called " Global Heat" is the 2012 iteration of a misguided university led false faith.
> 
> Meanwhile the rest of us toil and pay taxes to keep these bludgers in a job.
> 
> gg




The real polluters pay, with government subsidies thrown in, almost no tax whilst some of us top earners who have really worked pay towards 48 cents in the dollar.

Of course there is the guise that they employ a lot of people.  With modern tools I bet very few are employed weighted per capita against earnings.

Bit of resentment there against uni backgounds, interesting.

And it would be interesting to dig deep and see who the real bludgers are GG


----------



## orr

explod said:


> However the rhetoric and slinging matches are introduced into arguments when all else is failing and to detract from the real issues and the subsequent growing evidence.




Sort of akin to the increasing  frisson between the troposphere and the stratosphere, unless of course you deny that observed fact. And I might add fits with predictive models, and the Koch's Climate study Findings.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> The real polluters pay, with government subsidies thrown in, almost no tax whilst some of us top earners who have really worked pay towards 48 cents in the dollar.




WOW! The copper's superannuation pension fund must be a real beauty, and all paid for by the Victorian taxpayer.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> WOW! The copper's superannuation pension fund must be a real beauty, and all paid for by the Victorian taxpayer.




You* are *a mean SOB. Exactly what relation does anyones super fund have to to this topic? And if you want to have a look at super fund ripoffs perhaps we can examine the tax payer subsidised accounts of high flyers with fancy accounts and generous tax breaks. They are costing the rest of us a packet.

Stick to your anti global warming nonsense calliope. At least that is on topic.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> WOW! The copper's superannuation pension fund must be a real beauty, and all paid for by the Victorian taxpayer.




Actually that is not correct, apart from my early career the  Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme was private and largely self funded apart from an employers contribution, being no more than most in private enterprise.   In fact in my latter years 25% of my pay was going into my super.  After leaving the Force I created a SMSF so the taxpayers has been completely spared now for 14 years. 

And some rolleyes to you too champ.

Now lets get back to these links that show that global warming may be causing the floods.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> You* are *a mean SOB. Exactly what relation does anyones super fund have to to this topic?




There, there, no need to get nasty and all motherly.  I was just responding to Plod's :topic claim that he was paying 48 cents in the dollar tax on his pension.



> Stick to your anti global warming nonsense calliope. At least that is on topic.



I'll leave the global warming nonsense to you. Just remember that being boring is worse than being :topic


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> There, there, no need to get nasty and all motherly.  I was just responding to Plod's :topic claim that he was paying 48 cents in the dollar tax on his pension.
> 
> I'll leave the global warming nonsense to you. Just remember that being boring is worse than being :topic



   and



> Meanwhile the rest of us toil and pay taxes to keep these bludgers in a job.
> 
> gg




Plod was merely responding to GG who of course throws up the screen at any time that he feels that rat.ags like yourself start losing the plot/I mean argument.

And lets face it, it was a very stupid nasty thing to say to anyone.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Sorry, I didn't intend to inflame the situation. I'd be happy to have my post deleted. Religion and politics as in Global Heat always seem to inflame posters. It is all weather in my simple opinion.

gg


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> And lets face it, it was a very stupid nasty thing to say to anyone.




Yes, calling someone an SOB is pretty nasty. It's obviously intended as an insult to my mother.


----------



## explod

So where were we:-

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...h-east-monsoon

http://www.climategrump.net/2011/04/...uel-no-really/

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...20&method=full

From posts earlier in the day and on topic.


----------



## moXJO

explod said:


> So where were we:-
> 
> http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...h-east-monsoon
> 
> http://www.climategrump.net/2011/04/...uel-no-really/
> 
> http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...20&method=full
> 
> From posts earlier in the day and on topic.




none of those links work


----------



## IFocus

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry, I didn't intend to inflame the situation. I'd be happy to have my post deleted. Religion and politics as in Global Heat always seem to inflame posters. It is all weather in my simple opinion.
> 
> gg




Weathers still dry in Perth could you use some of your contacts to send some of the floods over thanks GG


----------



## derty

Gee it is like ground hog day in here. 



lindsayf said:


> The tone and use of language in here is like a debate between opposing religious extremists.




I think you will find it is a debate with a heavy smattering of mountaineers with numerous trolls amongst the crags. 




Had a quick look back a few pages, suprised I didn't see OWG proclaiming from the mountain top that the 'IPCC killed the MWP'. He must have had a bad fall.


----------



## sails

Artic ice melting...really - the chart below says artic ice is a fine.  Sound like another AGW prediction that has failed.  

And, it seems that Fairfax will report the climate scares, but not the reasurances - is that selective and biased reporting or what?  Maybe Gina will insist on ALL information being reported and that would be a good thing for this country, imo.







Read all about it: No news for Fairfax: the Arctic ice is doing fine


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Artic ice melting...really - the chart below says artic ice is a fine.  Sound like another AGW prediction that has failed.
> 
> And, it seems that Fairfax will report the climate scares, but not the reasurances - is that selective and biased reporting or what?  Maybe Gina will insist on ALL information being reported and that would be a good thing for this country, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read all about it: No news for Fairfax: the Arctic ice is doing fine




Mentions extent but not thickness.
I know where you appear on derty's graph.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's pissing rain in Townsville at the moment.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

We were having, in the public bar here, quite an interesting Kantian discussion on whether all that is or could be experienced is thinkable.

And then the bloody rain came, and we can hardly hear ourselves think.

gg


----------



## explod

Knobby22 said:


> Mentions extent but not thickness.
> I know where you appear on derty's graph.




This fact has been brought to attention on here a number of times in the past but we find no one is really comfortable with the facts.

Same with the rain, ye ole GG will still be cursing as his mates, pub and all, are being washed away by the g/w torrents.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> Mentions extent but not thickness.
> I know where you appear on derty's graph.




lol Knobby - your opinion only...

Take away the funding for scientists to promote AGW and it would be interesting to see how many professionals still prop up this unbelievably stupid hypothesis.  Flannery's predictions clearly continue to flop.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> This fact has been brought to attention on here a number of times in the past but we find no one is really comfortable with the facts.
> 
> Same with the rain, ye ole GG will still be cursing as his mates, pub and all, are being washed away by the g/w torrents.




What are the facts Mr Plod?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What are the facts Mr Plod?






> About 15 million years into the Cenozoic Era, the Arctic Ice Cap formed over the Arctic Ocean, virtually covering the entire sea with a sheet of ice. As the continents continued to move, climatic changes, brought about by shifts in water and air currents, caused the Earth to gradually cool down. This created the glaciers that mostly dominated the land masses through the end of the Great Ice Age in the Pleistocene Epoch, about 10,000 to 1.8 million years ago These glaciers still exist today on Greenland.
> 
> The same climatic conditions that created the glaciers, which are essentially great ice sheets formed on land, also formed the Arctic Ice Cap. Yet the ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean rests directly on top of the ocean instead of land, and it has remained relatively stable and frozen since it was formed… until now.
> 
> The Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking dramatically. Roughly the size of the United States, it has lost an area roughly the combined size of Massachusetts and Connecticut each year since the late 1970s. Since the 1950s, when data was first collected on the Arctic, the ice cap has lost nearly 22 percent of its volume. It is projected that in another 50 years, nearly half of the Arctic Ice Cap will be gone.




http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/11/earth-warms-thinning-arctic-ice/

And sure it has happened before but never at this rate, ref:- "The Sixth Extinction"  by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995)



> “Extreme” rain follows global warming
> 
> Heavy rain is coming more of*ten as glob*al warm*ing con*tin*ues””an in*crease that is out*strip*ping sci*en*tists’ pre*dic*tions, ac*cord*ing to a stu*dy.
> 
> The find*ings imply that warm*ing-induced changes in the glob*al wa*ter cy*cle could have more dras*tic im*pacts than ev*er im*ag*ined, its au*thors said.
> 
> Heavy rain is oc*cur*ring more of*ten as glob*al warm*ing con*tin*ues””and the in*crease is out*strip*ping sci*en*tists’ es*ti*mates based on sim*ula*t*ions, ac*cord*ing to a stu*dy.
> 
> The find*ings “re*veal a dis*tinct link be*tween rain*fall ex*tremes and tem*per*a*ture, with heavy rain events in*creas*ing dur*ing warm per*i*ods,” wrote the au*thors, Rich*ard P. Al*lan of the Uni*ver*s*ity of Read*ing, U.K. and Bri*an J. So*den of the Uni*ver*s*ity of Mi*ami, Fla.
> 
> The re*port is to ap*pear in the Aug. 8 is*sue of the re*search jour*nal Sci*ence.
> 
> Al*lan and So*den used sat*el*lite ob*serva*t*ions and com*pu*ter sim*ula*t*ions to study the rela*t*ion*ship be*tween trop*i*cal rain*fall and changes in Earth’s sur*face tem*per*a*ture and at*mos*pher*ic mois*ture.
> 
> The ob*serva*t*ions point to a di*rect link be*tween warm*er cli*mate and an in*crease in ex*treme pre*cipita*t*ion based on both sat*el*lite da*ta and sim*ula*t*ions, they wrote. But the ob*served in*crease in ex*treme rain*fall is larg*er than the in*creases pre*dicted by sim*ula*t*ions, sug*gest*ing the pre*dic*tions are too low, they added.
> 
> The pair warned that it’s cru*cial to find out the cause for this dis*crep*an*cy as soon as pos*si*ble in or*der to un*der*stand glob*al warm*ing and its ef*fects on the wa*ter cy*cle. In past stu*dies, sci*ent*ists have also sug*gested global warm*ing may wors*en the im*pact of hurri*canes and wild*fires.
> Source(s):
> Aug. 7, 2008
> Courtesy Science
> and World Science staff


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> What are the facts Mr Plod?






Garpal Gumnut said:


> We were having, in the public bar here, quite an interesting Kantian discussion on whether all that is or could be experienced is thinkable.
> 
> And then the bloody rain came, and we can hardly hear ourselves think.
> 
> gg




Methinks explod reads Kant.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Methinks explod reads Kant.
> 
> gg




Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"

whew, welcome aboard GG,   that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"
> 
> whew, welcome aboard GG,   that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.




If the godbotherering warmists are correct, this could be the night that the Ross Island Philosophy Club is taken out, there is much thunder and lightning, and rain by the bucketful.

We do have enough beer, spirits, wine, port and liquers to last a moderate flood though.

Where is Flannery when you need him?

I shall report post hoc as must turn off the computer because of the wrath of god and bobbrown.

gg


----------



## Julia

At the risk of being off topic, I really feel for all those people whose homes are under water in NSW and parts of Qld.  Must be so heartbreaking and disruptive.
And then when they can get home, they face that huge and horrible clean up and the apparently inevitable battle with their insurance companies.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"
> 
> whew, welcome aboard GG,   that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.





I don't get this.  Flannery bleated on about no more dam filling rains because of AGW.  Now you are saying AGW is causing the rain?

Make up your mind.  

It seems that when a prediction fails, it is too easy to change your story to suit the current (and normal) conditions.  Either the modelling got it right or got it wrong.

It clearly got it wrong.


----------



## wayneL

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Methinks explod reads Kant.
> 
> gg




Methinks Plod is unable to distinguish the difference between hypothesis and fact.

Plod,

Once every few weeks I get people knocking at my door trying to present another certain book as fact.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> I don't get this.  Flannery bleated on about no more dam filling rains because of AGW.  Now you are saying AGW is causing the rain?
> 
> Make up your mind.
> 
> It seems that when a prediction fails, it is too easy to change your story to suit the current (and normal) conditions.  Either the modelling got it right or got it wrong.
> 
> It clearly got it wrong.




sails, no matter if the earth were to freeze and plummet into an ice age it would be a clear indication to the agw extremists in this thread that man's 3% of co2 was 100% responsible. All bets are off when dealing with AGW religion - it simply must be so, even in the face of massive fraud and years of dud predictions.

The only choice open to the extremists here is to continue with the 'religion' no matter what may happen to the weather, and for some - continue to pick up a paycheck for posting propaganda.


----------



## Knobby22

We have been going through a solar lull - looks like its ended.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-08/earth-braces-for-biggest-space-storm-in-five-years/3875508


----------



## Knobby22

Ozwaveguy, increase in C02 in the atmospere has gone from 280ppm to 392ppm. I don't know which religous tome gives you 3%.

You are right in one way though, the effects are small at this level.
Earlier tornados in the USA, slightly worse droughts, slightly increased rainfall, minor global warming. *We have a long way to go yet*. Its just starting.

Skeptical scientists argue 
-what about the effects of methane which doesn't last long in the atmosphere? 
- negative feedback effects.
- sensitivity of CO2 with regard to global warming etc.

They don't argue that its not occurring -that's the area of Newscorp and other dishonest purveyors of ignorance and lies. They have cash and political reasons to do this. That article from Andrew Bolt was a classic example - twist the truth and con the public.

Also, Flannery (according to Newscorp was wrong but I would like to check the context since I don't trust the source), he is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for the scientific community, he is an economist as has oft been said.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Methinks Plod is unable to distinguish the difference between hypothesis and fact.




There is of course the inconvenient fact that 'uber' conservation Koch foundation funded climate report, was, and is in agreement with IPCC, NASA, and the vast majority of scientific opinion AGW.

The following link will help anybody interested critical thinking on the full spectrum across thoughtful comment  through to reactionary Ideologically skewed twaddle quoted in this thread. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Interesting graph in the modelling critique, on arctic sea ice.(intermediate level) 

To qualify 'Ideologically skewed' please read 'Merchants of Doubt' Oreskes & Conway(2010)


----------



## ghotib

sails said:


> Artic ice melting...really - the chart below says artic ice is a fine.  Sound like another AGW prediction that has failed.



Um...  
What is the blue dotted line?
What is the grey shadow on the blue dotted line?
What was the state of the ice extent in May 2009?  And in September 2009?
What was the state of the ice extent in April 2010?  And in October 2010?
What does this chart say about the probable ice extent in September/October 2012
If you can answer those questions and still think that arctic ice is fine, then I have a nice piece of coastal land to sell you.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Also, Flannery  he is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for the scientific community, he is an economist as has oft been said.



 He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.




Yes Julia, $180,000 pa  and I read somewhere he puts in 3 days a week.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.




Yes, which corrupts him.


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> Um...
> What is the blue dotted line?
> What is the grey shadow on the blue dotted line?
> What was the state of the ice extent in May 2009?  And in September 2009?
> What was the state of the ice extent in April 2010?  And in October 2010?
> What does this chart say about the probable ice extent in September/October 2012
> If you can answer those questions and still think that arctic ice is fine, then I have a nice piece of coastal land to sell you.




Ghoti - there is a legend on the chart which should answer your questions.

The probable ice extent in Sep/Oct would follow a similar pattern as provided by the chart.

This chart shows annual patterns. Nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening.  

Oh, and we already have coastal property.  Not interested in purchasing more at this stage.


----------



## orr

sails said:


> This chart shows annual patterns. Nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening.







 Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km², the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

This one suggests something is


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, which corrupts him.




Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.


----------



## basilio

Andrew Bolt (and others)  are just spewing nonsense when they deride Tim Flannery for suggesting that many Australian cities would run out of water the effects of Climate Change.

Firstly Tim Flannery was just echoing the CSIRO climate model which, over the long term, predicts a much warmer and  overall drier Australia.  But even in that model they pointed out there would be weather extremes including floods that would be the result of global warming.  The increase in evaporation would result in more extreme weather events. 

Australia has simply been lucky with the last two El Niño years.  If they had been delayed by 12 months Melbourne and Sydney (and other cities) would have run out of water and that would have been a full blown catastrophe.

The floods in the last 2 years in no way change overall Global Warming.  Despite other climatic influences like El Niño the Arctic is still melting rapidly and extreme climatic conditions are more frequent.

The  climate picture is bigger and more complex than one element.  And despite the knowledge base of climate scientists much more will be learnt.  The most certain knowledge at the moment is that the extra huge amount of human produced  greenhouse gases are trapping extra heat, warming the earth and changing the climate in quite drastic ways.  This is in addition to many other  short and long term effects on the earths climate.


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> Andrew Bolt (and others)  are just spewing nonsense when they deride Tim Flannery for suggesting that many Australian cities would run out of water the effects of Climate Change.
> 
> Firstly Tim Flannery was just echoing the CSIRO climate model which, over the long term, predicts a much warmer and  overall drier Australia.  But even in that model they pointed out there would be weather extremes including floods that would be the result of global warming.  The increase in evaporation would result in more extreme weather events.
> 
> .




It was nothing but a scare campaign run by Flannery, end of story.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.




This vilification of Tim Flannery is rubbish. He is an outstanding scientist with over 100 published peer reviewed papers. When he wrote the Weather Makers he used his scientific skills to examine and interrogate  the climate science field and represent its findings in an accessible form. He did a remarkably good job in that book.

Because he became the  very effective public face of global warming awareness he has been attacked by mish mash of organizations who do not want to recognise reality. 

Tim Flannerys understanding of climate science is elite. It is the Andrew Bolts who refuse to or can't understand the science behind what is happening to our climate who are fraudulent.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> This vilification of Tim Flannery is rubbish.




What vilification? People have merely highlighted where his definitive statements have mean incorrect



> He is an outstanding scientist with over 100 published peer reviewed papers.
> 
> When he wrote the Weather Makers he used his scientific skills to examine and interrogate  the climate science field and represent its findings in an accessible form. He did a remarkably good job in that book.




How can it be remarkably good when it is remarkably wrong?



> Because he became the  very effective public face of global warming awareness he has been attacked by mish mash of organizations....




Oh dear! The big oil conspiracy theory again. 


> ...who do not want to recognise reality.




Which reality is that basilio?



> Tim Flannerys understanding of climate science is elite.




This is the bloke that said we should flood the atmosphere with N2O right? Basilio, all you have is an untestable hypothesis and some computer models. There is no elite understanding.



> It is the Andrew Bolts who refuse to or can't understand the science behind what is happening to our climate who are fraudulent.




Bolt is a journalist and is merely the opposite side of the coin to the likes of Moonbat et al.

However there are many bona fide scientists (who do understand the science) who oppose the hypothesis as put forward by Alarmists Inc, or who have a more moderate view.


----------



## basilio

Calliope called Tim Flannery fraudulent with no knowledge of cliamte science. I think that is libelous and in a fairer world wouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged. 

With regard to the discussion about Tims "definitive" statements regarding the risk of running out of water. How did you manage to lose the fact that the CSIRO and BOM and practically all other climate scientists shared that fear ? The fact we escaped that fate two years ago doesn't change the overall picture on global warming.

And yes Wayne if you ever chose to look you will discover that Big Oil and Big Coal are largely behind the misinformation on global warming. It would be just too inconvenient to their interest to have to change our energy use. The entire future value of the oil and coal industry lies in their reserves. So they have to obfuscate the GW debate to protect the value of these assets. The discussion by Bill McKibben the second reference makes this very clear.

*Your point of view of course is the opposite. That somehow 99% of the climate scientists are in cahoots to create a completely wrong theory on what is causing the sharp increase in temperature.  *  That really does make sense doesn't it ? 

Finally there are no bona fide scientists who have put up a case that discredits the current understandings on CO2 induced global warming. There are people grasping at straws to come up a plausible alternative - and they don't cut it. In fact when the peer reviewed papers do come up they are proven inaccurate or simply wrong. That is what peer reviewed science is about.

Of course that doesn't stop your Moncktons, Carters and Pilmers distorting facts to  create doubt.  Of course when their presentations are examined the misrepresentations and lies just keep coming out.

Anyone who wants to see just how these presentations just don't stack up should check the final  references.



> *Lindzen's Junk Science
> Posted on 8 March 2012 by dana1981*
> 
> This is a re-post from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate regarding another Lindzen misrepresentation in the seminar discussed in Lindzen's London Illusions.  As noted by Skeptical Science reader WheelsOC, the graphic in question used by Lindzen in his London presentation appears to have been created by Howard Hayden and posted on Junk Science.  This suggests that the error discussed by Schmidt was actually made by Hayden and then uncritically reproduced by Lindzen (who also did not provide a reference citation for the faulty graphic in his presentation).
> 
> *Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful*. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencers-junk-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/18/wh...millions-or-oil-companies-doing-what-they-do/

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/climate_change_denials_new_offensive/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Calliope called Tim Flannery fraudulent with no knowledge of cliamte science. I think that is libelous and in a fairer world wouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged.




Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard  of "cliamte" science. I haven't.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard  of "cliamte" science. I haven't.




No but you do support a lot of the other silly geese who do.

And that is the point, anyone who is on the side of denial is the friend of the big people (where the money is). greed rules.

And an excellent post Basilio.

wayneL, your call for fact is not possible for a trend follower.  The evidence is a collective of overall information that leads one to conclusions.

If you are going to be so bombastic  it may do you some good to actually read some books.  And the good ones do state verifiable facts with references.  The "Sixth Extinction" is a good one but will make you uneasy.  Arrh what the heck, open another stubby and enjoy, the world is ........ anyway     

I conclude that we do have a problem due to co2 emissions, you do not.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard  of "cliamte" science. I haven't.




The topic was about Tim Flannery and the amount of money he was being paid to talk about Global warming. You suggested he was fraudulent because he knew nothing about the topic. 

Just par for the course - but not true.


----------



## sptrawler

Even Bob Brown the other night on lateline said that the coal will be burnt overseas. So what are we achieving.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I conclude that we do have a problem due to co2 emissions, you do not.




For one who purports to read, you sure have trouble with comprehension Plod.

How many times must I detail my views?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> The topic was about Tim Flannery and the amount of money he was being paid to talk about Global warming. You suggested he was fraudulent because he knew nothing about the topic.
> 
> Just par for the course - but not true.




I'm afraid, Bas, that Flannery's qualifications on climate science are the same as yours - diddly squat.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid, Bas, that Flannery's qualifications on climate science are the same as yours - diddly squat.




And exactly what do you know about either Tim or me to make that observation ?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> For one who purports to read, you sure have trouble with comprehension Plod.
> 
> How many times must I detail my views?




You make little sense and perhaps that is your faÃ§ade.

Your bluster merely takes the discussion into circles and of course it would be a tactic to ensure confusion on the topic.

You do not specifically detail views at all, you target and put others down with little or no substantiation.

One can only conclude that you must surely have a big stake in the oil or coal industry.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You make little sense and perhaps that is your faÃ§ade.
> 
> Your bluster merely takes the discussion into circles and of course it would be a tactic to ensure confusion on the topic.
> 
> You do not specifically detail views at all, you target and put others down with little or no substantiation.
> 
> One can only conclude that you must surely have a big stake in the oil or coal industry.




Plod surely you are not that much of a dill... are you?


----------



## sails

orr said:


> View attachment 46355
> 
> 
> Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km², the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).
> 
> This one suggests something is




LOL - I wonder if the 2100 model will turn out to be like "no more dam filling rains".

Models are purely that...models.  They are not fact until those models are proven correct by history.  So far, AGW model predictions seem to be failing dismally.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> And exactly what do you know about either Tim or me to make that observation ?




Tims qualifications are an open record. You I know little about, except that you love posting links to support your claim that one day we will cook and it will serve us right. And that you resort to intemperate language when someone criticises the other half of your comedy duo...Plod.


----------



## ghotib

Crikey sails, I sure hope you're not a chartist. 

The graph orr posted shows that observed Arctic sea ice is well below the range calculated by models. Another way to say the same thing is that actual Arctic sea ice decline is much faster than the range calculated by models. Is that what you mean by a failed prediction? That things are much worse than the IPCC reports stated?  

The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong. 

Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st  century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected. Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible. How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Crikey sails, I sure hope you're not a chartist.
> 
> The graph orr posted shows that observed Arctic sea ice is well below the range calculated by models. Another way to say the same thing is that actual Arctic sea ice decline is much faster than the range calculated by models. Is that what you mean by a failed prediction? That things are much worse than the IPCC reports stated?
> 
> The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.
> 
> Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st  century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected. Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible. How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?




Fishb

Satellite data is not very old. The big questions are 'what is the long term ice extent?' and what factors other than temperature affect ice extent?'. If satellite data starts at a high (of which there is evidence that it did), we get an inaccurate picture of 'normal'.

Your other points take the alarmist line and can be effectively argued.

"Projections" are just models and likely wrong.

But I agree we need to act on the environment, but as I've consistently pointed out, the focus on CAGW is incorrect and detracts from the actions humans should be taking to preserve the environment.

Once CC alarmism dies the miserable death it deserves, the environmental movement will be irreparably damaged and all other concerns will be regarded simply as another scare campaign whether bone fide or not.


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected.




Excellent. We've finally reached some agreement on the inaccuracy of IPCC reports and projections. This does of course lead me to wonder why climate change proponents keep citing IPCC findings given their unreliable track record.



> Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible.




Why is it that every time someone chooses to confess their own ignorance, they always seek to include the entire human population as a party to their misconception?



> How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?




Taking action on the basis of misinformation can often be more dangerous than simply taking no action at all! 

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people whom lack the intelligence to recognise just how precious little is truly known, (let alone understood).

I sometimes wonder what happened to the scientists from prehistoric times. 
Did they also try to arrest the natural processes of evolution on this planet? (I haven't seen many woolly mammoths or sabre toothed tigers recently - have you?). 
Did it ever occur to any of our climate change "experts" that virtually everything on our planet is going through an evolutionary process (one that is essential to the survival of the entire planet) and that these changes (weather, ocean, technology, economy, ecosystems etc.) are an inevitable part of said process? (Attempt to arrest this process at your own peril!) 

Is mankind so conceited as to actually believe themselves to possess power beyond the forces of mother nature herself? (Please enlighten me, which God was it that died and left such a disorderly bunch of  simpletons to assume the vacancy?) 

Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.


----------



## Calliope

cynic said:


> Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.



 +1

It is obvious that whenever someone gets hooked on the Global Warming teat, common sense flies out the window.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> +1
> 
> It is obvious that whenever someone gets hooked on the Global Warming teat, common sense flies out the window.




A good point, *common sense*.

A number of us have iterated that we are not scientists and that we do not really know.  The evidence is in the realms of *probability*.

Many of the signs that some of us as laypersons observe lead us to believe that we have a problem with too much co2 going into the atmosphere.

Then of course we have the three way conundrum, should we have acted sooner, now, or when the signs are proven to be fact when it may be far too late.

There is a lot of technology already in place and producing cheaper cleaner energy so why do we need to wait and perhaps gamble with the future of our generations to come.

Very dumb I may be wayneL and do gladly accept the tag.   In fact being from such an esteemed one (and so constantly) I take it as an endearing compliment.   

There is no axe to grind at my end, just concern for the future of this fragile planet.


----------



## basilio

> A good point, common sense.
> 
> A number of us have iterated that we are not scientists and that we do not really know. The evidence is in the realms of probability.
> 
> Many of the signs that some of us as laypersons observe lead us to believe that we have a problem with too much co2 going into the atmosphere.    Plod




This is probably the essence of the climate change debate.

Lets accept that absolute certainty is very rare in almost any field.  However if there is probable evidence that allowing CO2 emissions to increase will disrupt our climate shouldn't common sense dictate taking preventative action ?  
____________________________________________________________

Cynic when the evidence shows that polar ice caps are melting even faster than the IPCCs highest predictions it doesn't mean they wrong. 

In laymans terms it is the equivalent of a doctor saying you have 6months to live after diagnosing you with cancer and then falling off the perch at 3 months because the cancer has accelerated.


----------



## Julia

cynic said:


> Excellent. We've finally reached some agreement on the inaccuracy of IPCC reports and projections. This does of course lead me to wonder why climate change proponents keep citing IPCC findings given their unreliable track record.
> 
> Why is it that every time someone chooses to confess their own ignorance, they always seek to include the entire human population as a party to their misconception?



+1.  Great post, cynic.


----------



## explod

> The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.




Well put ghotib.


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> Fishb
> 
> Satellite data is not very old. The big questions are 'what is the long term ice extent?' and what factors other than temperature affect ice extent?'. If satellite data starts at a high (of which there is evidence that it did), we get an inaccurate picture of 'normal'.
> 
> Your other points take the alarmist line and can be effectively argued.
> 
> "Projections" are just models and likely wrong.
> 
> But I agree we need to act on the environment, but as I've consistently pointed out, the focus on CAGW is incorrect and detracts from the actions humans should be taking to preserve the environment.
> 
> Once CC alarmism dies the miserable death it deserves, the environmental movement will be irreparably damaged and all other concerns will be regarded simply as another scare campaign whether bone fide or not.




Agree Wayne.  I do believe that this "crying wolf" over co2 is likely to have a massive voter swing against anything to do with the environment for a long time.  There are environmental issues that surely deserve far more attention than co2.

  Overpopulation would surely be a bigger issue and yet our government continues to pay all and sundry unlimited baby bonuses.  No wonder boat arrivals come here and then possibly produce like rabbits. IMO, it should be restricted to perhaps two per mother or, at least, a declining amount with each subsequent child. 

When there is a money grab by governments (or anyone for that matter), one always needs to look at motive.  It seems that carbon tax has very little to do with the environment and everything to do with money.

I had a phone call a couple of weeks ago with someone trying to flog their latest 25% or maybe it was 50% return stock market wares.  I felt exactly the same saying NO to him as I do to saying NO to carbon tax.  They both look like a ripoff, quack like a ripoff and waddle like a ripoff.

And "Fishb" - I love it.  Especially when said fish makes rude personal comments...ROFL




cynic said:


> ...Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.




You raise some excellent points - thanks for an excellent post, Cynic...


----------



## Knobby22

I am actually happy with the agreement of the more conservative members here.
It backs my theory, so I will make a prediction.

Originally the argument was that the earth wasn't warming, now it is the scientists can't predict it. *There is an out clause!*

My prediction is, as tornados, floods and droughts increase that - in around 8 years -a Republican Presdent will declare war on global warming (they always declare war) and suddenly the Murdoch Press and other behaviour controllers will be on side and the Democrats will be blamed for not doing more. And these people above will be influenced the other way.

Its how the world works.

Remember when it happens that I predicted this!


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I am actually happy with the agreement of the more conservative members here.
> It backs my theory, so I will make a prediction.
> 
> Originally the argument was that the earth wasn't warming, now it is the scientists can't predict it. *There is an out clause!*
> 
> My prediction is, as tornados, floods and droughts increase that - in around 8 years -a Republican Presdent will declare war on global warming (they always declare war) and suddenly the Murdoch Press and other behaviour controllers will be on side and the Democrats will be blamed for not doing more. And these people above will be influenced the other way.
> 
> Its how the world works.
> 
> Remember when it happens that I predicted this!




Eh? The world has been warming since the mini ice age. The argument has been on the observed extent (sans "adjustments").

I predict your prediction will go the way of most alarmist predictions... down the shyte shute.

Oh and your working the Murdoch press into your post... entirely predictable. :::


----------



## basilio

> Eh? The world has been warming since the mini ice age. The argument has been on the observed extent (sans "adjustments").



 Wayne

Really Wayne ? 

In *fact* the increase in world global temperatures has been concentrated in the last 40 years and the  main reason according to the scientific community is the explosion in human produced CO2 that is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere. The last point of course is the problem

And the little quip about "adjustments" ? Total rubbish.  For years some people have tried to argue that naughty scientists have been adjusting the graphs to deceive us or using information from weather stations that are affected by changes in local conditions

To address the above issue the BEST investigation last year took every scrap of temperature records  and after careful perusal agreed with the climate scientists that the temperature graphs were real and not "adjusted". But they didn't come up with the right result did they ?

Of course your welcome to still ignore their work and create your own version of science. It's done every day of the week.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I have to take the Arnage up to Cairns from here in Townsville, over the weekend for a service.

If all this modelling is so good, can anyone here predict how many points of rain will fall between the Bohle River and the Barron River from midnight tonight, until midnight on Monday, when I am due to return.

I am afeared of rising creeks.

Or is it all weather?

And should I bring an umbrella?

gg


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne
> 
> Really Wayne ?
> 
> In *fact* the increase in world global temperatures has been concentrated in the last 40 years and the  main reason according to the scientific community is the explosion in human produced CO2 that is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere. The last point of course is the problem
> 
> And the little quip about "adjustments" ? Total rubbish.  For years some people have tried to argue that naughty scientists have been adjusting the graphs to deceive us or using information from weather stations that are affected by changes in local conditions
> 
> To address the above issue the BEST investigation last year took every scrap of temperature records  and after careful perusal agreed with the climate scientists that the temperature graphs were real and not "adjusted". But they didn't come up with the right result did they ?
> 
> Of course your welcome to still ignore their work and create your own version of science. It's done every day of the week.



BEST?

We've dealt with the BEST nonsense bas.


----------



## IFocus

All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................keep up the faith fingers in ear, eyes closed  and screaming nah nah nah nah nah nah

Gee lucky we built de-sel plants we would be screwed other wise................

Keep up the good work bagging those scientists  we don't need any of that knowledge crap...........blissful ignorance is the new wave, please shut down those institutions of rubbish called universities pumping out science degrees blogs is where the truth is the rest is a conspiracy .


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................




And yet Brisbane had quite a cool summer with temps below average.  How does that fit in with global warming?

It sounds far more like normal weather cycles to me.


http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/qld/brisbane.shtml


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Good to see Basilio and Knobby in good form once again with Plod as winger...I can testify the more you 3 spout nonsensical rubbish the more people can see the true ambition of the AGW "elite".

Basilio's presentation of Tim Flannery as an elite scientist was brilliant. A man who has got it so wrong for so long, preaches gaia, buys oceanfront and a liability to AGW lap dogs - yet behold, Basilio presents him as an "elite" scientist for the "cause", brilliant.  

Yet still no evidence of man's 3% of CO2 driving these "crazy" temperatures that haven't ultimately changed for 15 years. No Atmospheric hotspot as claimed by AGW extremists but instead plenty of rain and snow that our children would never see.

Is there an elephant in the closet with you and the faked models Basilio? Perhaps the well named skeptical science blog has more answers. 

Maybe the 3 stooges should look at becoming climate realists in order to better damage the skeptics of the AGW scam since you're all doing a brilliant job for the AGW cause. Perhaps they are in fact paid by skeptics in order to damage the AGW elite - again a brilliant strategy. 

Still waiting for real observed evidence from real scientists - 1 year and counting. Pls post some more skeptical science material, hopefully we can work together to convert more AGW extremists from the rubbish posted


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have to take the Arnage up to Cairns from here in Townsville, over the weekend for a service.
> 
> If all this modelling is so good, can anyone here predict how many points of rain will fall between the Bohle River and the Barron River from midnight tonight, until midnight on Monday, when I am due to return.
> 
> I am afeared of rising creeks.
> 
> Or is it all weather?
> 
> And should I bring an umbrella?
> 
> gg





Typical warmist socialists, nobody gives a stuff whether or not my Arnage and I get washed away by an inundation at Damper Creek, or some other croc infested waterway in the morn.

I want some modelling.

Or should I just look out the door at the sky,  as my ancestors have done for millenia.

gg


----------



## explod

> OzWaveGuy
> 
> Still waiting for real observed evidence from real scientists




The sources are pasted up but you take no heed of it.



> And yet Brisbane had quite a cool summer with temps below average. How does that fit in with global warming?




Explanations and sources of extremes of weather with global warming but no heed of it either.

But then this is the *Resistance* after all.

And I suppose that    "ignorance *is* bliss"


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> And I suppose that    "ignorance *is* bliss"




Then I guess you and basilio are blissful. 



> Basilio's presentation of Tim Flannery as an elite scientist was brilliant. A man who has got it so wrong for so long, preaches gaia, buys oceanfront and a liability to AGW lap dogs - yet behold, Basilio presents him as an "elite" scientist for the "cause", brilliant.



You nailed it OWG. I think she has a crush on Tim and this impairs her judgment.


----------



## bellenuit

IFocus said:


> All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................keep up the faith fingers in ear, eyes closed  and screaming nah nah nah nah nah nah
> 
> Gee lucky we built de-sel plants we would be screwed other wise................




Actually Perth rainfall hasn't been bad at all over the last 6 months. Way above average since September. Our dams aren't faring that well, but there are other factors than climate, such as increasing demand from an increasing population. I do agree that the de-sal plants are a good insurance policy. These are the rainfall stats:

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/R/rainfall.cfm


----------



## spooly74

ghotib said:


> Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st century, *and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. *




What figures are you looking at re the above (my bold) for the clear rise in both physical and financial terms?
Is this global, domestic, or both?

Below is a graph from Munich Re which seems to contradict your statement, particularly for the 21st C.


Here is a blog post relevant to the US.

An Embarassment of Riches
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/embarassment-of-riches.html

Climatewire reports uncritically a claim coming from Swiss Re that "the financial toll of global weather disasters amounts to between 1 and 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product annually." This totals $160 billion to almost $2 trillion.
*Reality Check:* The actual number for global losses as a percent of US GDP is closer to 0.1%, with the maximum about 1.2% in 2005. The total cost of all hurricanes since 1900 in normalized dollars is about $1.4 trillion. The media (in general) rarely question numbers given to them from the reinsurance industry and on disasters and climate change have a strange aversion to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Innumeracy.

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
*Reality Check:* Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving.

Swiss Reinsurance and the Reinsurance Association of America teamed up yesterday with a few US Senators to call for the US government to adopt policies to protect their industry from extreme events resulting from climate change. They also ite the NOAA billionz analysis and explain via press release ""From our industry's perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear," said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America."
*Reality Check:* The ability of the reinsurance industry to accurately reflect the state of the science of disasters and climate change has long been questionable. The industry is currently awash in money, a condition that Guy Carpenpter characterized just a few months ago as "the reinsurance sector remains adequately capitalized with a significant excess capital position" (PDF). In such a context, when reinsurers ask the government to take on some of their risks justified by "climate change," you should hold tight to your wallet. Conflicted.


----------



## dbeyat45

Regarding natural disasters, I came across this interesting (and very large) PDF titled "A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events" from James A. Marusek (a retired nuclear physicist & engineer).  
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

It covers the period 2 A.D. thru to 1900 A.D.

Interesting reading, looks well researched and may dampen the enthusiasm of those who believe that we are seeing "something terrible" is about to happen.


----------



## sails

dbeyat45 said:


> ...Interesting reading, looks well researched and may dampen the enthusiasm of those who believe that we are seeing "something terrible" is about to happen.





Welcome to ASF dbeyat45...

Unfortunately, nothing seems to dampen that enthusiasm.  Not Flannery's and other AGW modelled predictions which have failed miserably.  They still march on in support of their beliefs even though the model's inputs of AGW theory  are becomming more questionable by the day.


----------



## dbeyat45

Thanks for the welcome Sails.  

I hope I will be able to contribute something to the discussion of climate & weather.  When I come to grips with the search mechanisms here, I will try to avoid posting on subjects that have been well covered already.


----------



## sails

dbeyat45 said:


> Thanks for the welcome Sails.
> 
> I hope I will be able to contribute something to the discussion of climate & weather.  When I come to grips with the search mechanisms here, I will try to avoid posting on subjects that have been well covered already.




lol - most of the climate (and political) discussions are in a perpetual merry-go-round with neither side seemingly never giving an inch!  

There is an easy search function at the top right hand corner of the screen - just type in your request and hit the button.  To the left is a link to the "Advanced Search" and you can then choose if you want the results in threads or as individual posts.  If you want to see posts from an individual poster, just left click on their name on the left of one of their posts and choose "show forum posts".


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> BEST?
> 
> We've dealt with the BEST nonsense bas.




Yeah. Just deny it and it will go away. 

Same treatment as the remainder of the evidence.


----------



## basilio

Thanks for the fascinating piece of scholarship dbeyat45. Makes one appreciate the broader history of humanity.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Yeah. Just deny it and it will go away.
> 
> Same treatment as the remainder of the evidence.




Deny what and what will go away?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/why_best_will_not_settle_the_climate_debate.html


----------



## ghotib

> After 2006, I took part in an internet discussion forum, initially adopting the role of agnostic on serious anthropogenic climate change, arguing with both extremes; let’s call them “alarmists and deniers”, for want of better labels. This experience was what eventually changed my mind on the seriousness of climate change and the idea that climate scientists had an alarmist bias. Every time I examined a denialist argument, a little research quickly convinced me that they were wrong; invariably their references were unreliable and their arguments incoherent. When it came to disagreeing with the alarmists, even if the worst outcomes they predicted were questionable and sometimes overstated, their overall case was coherent and based on solid references. Over a period of a few years, I drifted away from my lukewarmer stance. I can thank a handful of deniers for provoking me to do my homework, which helped me change my mind; but I don’t think I had any success in changing their minds.



I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all  attempts to elicit information.  But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework. 

The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html


----------



## Smurf1976

I've long thought (since the late 1980's) that there was logic behind the underlying argument about CO2 trapping heat etc. It certainly does work in a lab at least.

But it's the politics which turns me off the whole thing. Extreme claims that are proven wrong, and advocates for reducing emissions who then stand in the way of the very things needed in order to achieve that. Etc. Maybe it's serious, maybe it isn't, but even those who say it's serious don't seem to actually be doing anything about it. Action speak louder than words...


----------



## explod

> Created on: January 16, 2008
> 
> Ted Koppel, the host for Nightline, whom Gore had approached, blamed Gore for profiling the scientists simply because they did not agree with his point of view. "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore [is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis", Koppel is quoted as saying (Singer, 294). But the question is, was Gore really persecuting the opposing scientists, or was he trying to maintain the integrity of science? In the end, all this criticism only goes to show that the line between politics and science is difficult to define, even for the experts themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> "We have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs. blue, Republican vs. Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren't political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth" (Crichton). The underlying debate in the case of controversial topics is the validity of science after it has been politicized. Global warming is no longer a debate about the future of the planet, instead a battle between powerful factions. The information available about global warming is not conclusive enough to be decisive, as shown by the many skeptics out there for both sides of the argument. In the opinions of Crichton and Gore, politics should not interfere with the discoveries of science, but science should be granted the power to steer politics in the right direction.




The whole debate is a difficult one from all sides.  Singer appears to be a bit on his own for his stance and a look at his credentials would indicate that his physics are more in line with engineering satellites than with nature and its changes.  He has made some good calls too but to rest your hat on him against the majority of the science community sounds a bit like political bias to me.

Again the concern needs to be that, if Co2 emissions *prove to be a problem* will it be too late to make any correction.


----------



## basilio

ghotib said:


> I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all  attempts to elicit information.  But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.
> 
> The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html




That article was very interesting Ghotib.  Probably one of the most useful contributions  I have seen on the discussions about why we believe what we believe re climate change.

FWIW I think  everyone on this forum ( regardless of position)  would get a genuinely different insight after considering this story.

Cheers


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> He has made some good calls too but to rest your hat on him against the majority of the science community sounds a bit like political bias to me.




It is reassuring to know that a staunch Greenie like you has no political bias. What do you think is driving the GW debate if it is not politics? And don't give me that crap that it is about making a better world for our grandchildren. My grandchildren don't give a rat's about GW, even though they were indocrinated at school.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all  attempts to elicit information.  But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.
> 
> The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html




Is that supposed to be some compelling evidence for CAGW?

People are persuaded around to different points of view all the time... many sceptical scientists used to be warmists and visa versa I'm sure.


----------



## dbeyat45

wayneL said:


> Is that supposed to be some compelling evidence for CAGW?
> 
> People are persuaded around to different points of view all the time... many sceptical scientists used to be warmists and visa versa I'm sure.



Interesting point WayneL.  I wonder ho much "leakage" there has been from one "side" to the other over the years since, say 1988 when James Hansen spoke to the US Congress.  Maybe someone is keeping count?


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Again the concern needs to be that, if Co2 emissions *prove to be a problem* will it be too late to make any correction.



We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. It's not as though reducing CO2 doesn't come with an environmental downside.

Nuclear power is an obvious one as are proposals to burn native forest woodchips to generate electricity. The latest example of this I've heard about is that environmentalists are upset about plans to dredge on the Great Barrier Reef due to the LNG projects. A classic "fix one problem and cause another" situation.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. .




Here's an attempt at it:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...56314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pd 

to quote from the 2006 Stern review into climate change...'The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs'

Tragically it spawned an obscurantist industry led by the likes of Monckton that have served their purpose well, by confusing a great many. To the advantage of the intrenched vested interests. And  it's the remnents of  this confused blinkered bewildered directionless straw clutching rabble, we're still attempting to lead out of pre-copernican  wilderness.
 But I take heart, From the closing verses of Eric Bogles ode to a lost campaign 'The band Played Waltzing Matilder' 
But year after year there numbers get fewer
Someday no one will march there at all

try this quick quizz
One of the following has a political bias
a/ science
b/ Money
c/ lots of Money


----------



## Knobby22

Love it orr - practically literature !

Quote of the week "pre-copencican wilderness"

Reminds me of one of the allies of the anti climate change movement - "the Flat Earth society". 

Is the answer (c)  ???


----------



## wayneL

Yes a lovely piece of writing, the use of language exemplary; I enjoyed reading it.

However this is the post's only redeeming feature, the factual content being bullshyte. 

The answer is actually a) + c)


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Yes a lovely piece of writing, the use of language exemplary; I enjoyed reading it.
> 
> However this is the post's only redeeming feature, the factual content being bullshyte.
> 
> The answer is actually a) + c)




Need to clutch that straw a lot harder against the wind ole pal, getting stronger.

And the winner, graciously decreed and bestowed upon by (c)    

is (b)


----------



## bellenuit

I don't know whether to classify this as light hearted relief or just damn scary.

*U.S. senator: God says that there can’t be global warming*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...r-god-says-that-there-cant-be-global-warming/


----------



## sails

I remember a conversation some time ago where there were taunts that Flannery never said anything about no more dam filling rains.  Well, here is an ABC Landline transcript from February, 2007.  And here is an excerpt (bolds and underline is mine):

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, *which is clearly an impact of climate change,* but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. *That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture.* *So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,* and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.​
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

And now, AGWers are trying to imply that the floods are caused by global warming?  If the models predicted no more dam filling rains, how can that now be changed?  

Why would anyone believe anything that is predicted by these models ever again?  Surely historical weather cycles and patterns are a far more reliable predictor...


----------



## sails

Expensive ripoff (imo) as per modelling by the Centre for International Economics consultancy.



> AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.
> 
> The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne - key elements of the current package - will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.




Read more: *Carbon tax about to cost us $30b*


----------



## mexican

I wonder Sails...... if Flannery and Roy are going to make Two men and a tinny Part2!
Very much doubt it!!


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> Expensive ripoff (imo) as per modelling by the Centre for International Economics consultancy.



I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing.  But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.


----------



## medicowallet

Julia said:


> I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
> Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing.  But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.




I think you've hit the nail on the head.

It would give Liberals much less firepower.
Show that Labor is starting to listen with Ms Gillard's tenth resurrection.
Show that Labor is looking after the economy and that the Greens are not controlling the agenda.


----------



## sails

Julia said:


> I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
> Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing.  But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.





Swan has apparently flatly refused to lower the price presumably because it would be too much loss of revenue for the government.  Seems to prove again that this tax is all about money and little, if anything, to do with the environment.  



> Wayne Swan, asked yesterday whether the government would reopen the carbon package after Professor McKibbin's call for a $10-a-tonne price, said: "No."




Read more: *Cut carbon price to $10, Labor told*


----------



## wayneL

Warmists have truly entered the twilight zone now.

Eugenics anyone?

Plus opinion manipulation via drugs?

Holy sheeeit!

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...uman-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/


----------



## Logique

Julia said:


> I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment...



Never get this past the Greens, to whom the whole point is the keep winding the tax upward, until all the coal burning plants shut down, and the steel mills are running on solar cells and wind power.


----------



## basilio

CSIRO and BOM have just released the latest review of climate observations.

Greenhouse gases are continuing to rise steeply and we are on track for  large  increases in temperature and changing rainfall patterns across Australia. Green house gases are at their highest level for 800,000 years.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greenhouse-gases-on-rise-after-lull-20120313-1uyhi.html

Of course they could be hopelessly wrong couldn't they ?


----------



## basilio

Earlier  this year the wall Street Journal published  a couple of Op Eds  by 16  scientists and engineers on Climate Change.  It was another calculated effort at muddying the waters and denial and distortion. It was particularly interesting to see how the graphs they used to deny climate change did not include the error bars that are part of every, single scientific paper.

The Real Climate website picked apart their statement and showed just how  *deliberately dishonest* the writers were in their presentation. 

And the signatories are the cream of the group arguing against global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/#more-11066


----------



## basilio

*Pentagon leads charge for renewable energy*

Its been brought up a few times but bears repeating. The Pentagon is making big changes in how it meets its energy needs. They are also aware of the risks of climate change and the international turmoil that will create.

http://www.truth-out.org/japan-pentagon-and-future-renewable-energy-battle-lines-form/1331072292


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> * They are also aware of the risks of climate change and the international turmoil that will create.*



*

But woddathaygunnado with wayneL?

Bring up the water cart and all hands to the hoses.*


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> But woddathaygunnado with wayneL?
> 
> Bring up the water cart and all hands to the hoses.



 I have no idea what you mean by that mr plod. But I will continue to look at the available evidence on balance and come to the best conclusion i can. I have read nothing that will shake me from my stated position Which is markedly different to the position which you Disingenuously assign to me.

Perhaps that water hose would be more effectively directed to thosesuch as yourself who are incapable Of comprehending simple english Or on balance the full range of bona fide and unadjusted scientific data


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> CSIRO and BOM have just released the latest review of climate observations.




Perhaps the alarmists here could also provide a link to the CSIRO paper that proves through observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions is driving this temperature change? The article the Basilio entity refers to simply states the obvious - temperature changes, yet weaves in CO2 as the absolute cause without proof.

Another way to read the article: Eliminating man's CO2 implies that without Co2, the temperature wouldn't change at all - laughable. I guess that's why the IPCC needed to change the historical temperature history between AR1 and AR3 by introducing the discredited hockey stick. 

If there's no CSIRO paper, perhaps Basilio could refer us all to an elite scientist instead?


----------



## MrBurns

> Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.




I think the data from 800,000 years ago was corrupted by Fred Flintsone because he was after a Govt grant.


----------



## Knobby22

MrBurns said:


> I think the data from 800,000 years ago was corrupted by Fred Flintsone because he was after a Govt grant.




...and who said dinosaurs don't still walk the earth.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ... Or on balance the full range of bona fide and unadjusted scientific data




And you can


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And you can?



Despite your heinous lack of punctuation, I suspect that your post is interrogative.

1/ I am confident of my English comprehension skills

2/ Equally, I am confident of balance in interpreting opposing arguments.

You do not indicate the basis of your query, but on either count, the answer is yes.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Perhaps the alarmists here could also provide a link to the CSIRO paper that proves through observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions is driving this temperature change? The article the Basilio entity refers to simply states the obvious - temperature changes, yet weaves in CO2 as the absolute cause without proof.
> 
> Another way to read the article: Eliminating man's CO2 implies that without Co2, the temperature wouldn't change at all - laughable. I guess that's why the IPCC needed to change the historical temperature history between AR1 and AR3 by introducing the discredited hockey stick.
> 
> If there's no CSIRO paper, perhaps Basilio could refer us all to an elite scientist instead?




Basilio - you'll need to point us in the direction of an elitist scientists since the CSIRO are covering themselves on CO2 evidence

*Is CSIRO involved with CO2 separation research?*

Currently CSIRO is not actively involved in CO2 separation research.  CSIRO's focus in this area is on carbon sequestration.  

While we're on topic with the CSIRO, I wonder if there are any specific legal conditions or disclaimers on their site...

*Always check the information*

Information at this site:

    is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
    is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
    is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
    may not be accurate, current or complete
    is subject to change without notice
    should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.​
The usual "we can say whatever we like and change it whenever we want" clause.

Gotta love the "is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice". Until the individual departments (esp on climate change) take personal responsibility on what they publish, expect ever more propaganda, although the tables are slowly turning. Time for a pay rise Basilo? Your alarmist services may be further needed.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Information at this site:
> 
> is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
> is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
> is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
> may not be accurate, current or complete
> is subject to change without notice
> should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.[/INDENT]




Lawyer speak, they have their noses everywhere, god I hate them.
With them and marketing, its like we all live in a Dilbert cartoon.


----------



## dbeyat45

Cooling maybe ..... ?

From the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics .... a long paper, lots of graphs and discussion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

    Abstract

    Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, *but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle.* This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.


Researchers:

    Jan-Erik Solheima, a (janesol@online.no)
    Kjell Stordahlb, b (Kjell.Stordahl@telenor.com)
    Ole Humlum, c d (Ole.Humlum@geo.uio.no)

    a. Department of Physics and Technology, University of TromsÃ¸, N-9037, TromsÃ¸, Norway
    b. Telenor Norway, Fornebu, Norway
    c. Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
    d. Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway

Received 22 June 2011. Revised 2 February 2012. Accepted 7 February 2012. Available online 16 February 2012.​http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008


----------



## dbeyat45

Jockey shortage reported!

No need to worry  .... there will soon be plenty of short people:

*The Short People Solution to Climate Change*
http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/12/the-short-people-solution-to-climate-cha





Short  people are more climate-friendly argue researchers at New York  University and Oxford University in a provocative new paper, Human  Engineering and Climate Change, to be published in the journal Ethics,  Policy and the Environment. This is not the first time that  environmental concerns have motivated such a suggestion.​And, for those of you with a slightly sadistic streak .... here is more detail from Professor Liao (Philosophy and Bioethics, NYU):
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...uld-be-the-solution-to-climate-change/253981/


----------



## dbeyat45

*New Study: Russian Astrophysicist Predicts Global Cooling*

“_We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of  total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042 ±11 and the 19th deep  minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055 ±11. After  the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect  the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 ±11._” –Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 1 February 2012 

*Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age*
Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2012


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks dbeyat45 

I like that scientific paper. 
So it claims 40% of global warming, at least in the northern zones (the effect appears to be more pronounced the further you go towards the poles) is caused by the sunspot cycle and importantly the next cycle, which can be measured to prove the theory, should be downwards.  I like theories that can be tested.

I fervently hope that their theory is correct as this will give us more time. 
If true, nature and humanity are very lucky as it will help offset global warming by greenhouse gases in the short to medium term allowing the world more time to come up with other solutions.


----------



## Logique

Working beautifully there dbeyat45. 

For those wanting to pursue the theory of sunspot activity related global cooling, there's also Kevin Long's work, see: http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html

It is anything but a fringe theory, I've seen discussion from a variety of credible scientific sources.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> I fervently hope that their theory is correct as this will give us more time.
> If true, nature and humanity are very lucky as it will help offset global warming by greenhouse gases in the short to medium term allowing the world more time to come up with other solutions.




Uh-oh, more delusion thinking -  exactly how much will the world's temperature fall should man's Co2 be reduced back to the 2000 levels (or the 1950 levels take your pick)? And how long will this take? I understand an "elitist" scientist indicated approx 1000 yrs....Some very simple questions that can help with some perspective on alarmist speak.

Perhaps you could also eloborate how the IPCC multiplies the effect of Co2 by x3 due to "forcings" and if the models are in fact accurate? Does the IPCC continue to assert the "impact" of increased is CO2 linear in the earth's atmosphere? Again, some simple questions need answering for balanced perspective v's the standard "we are doomed" alarmists nonsense.


----------



## Knobby22

Ozwaveguy, humanity is pretty resourceful. We may be able to offest the rise in CO2 by other technologies. In fact it is well known that one right wing think tank is expending a lot of money doing just that even though they are publically espousing the alternative.

Most scientists are not engaged in modelling by in measurement and theorising. Because the models are necessarily incomplete does not let the basic facts disappear.

Also there are many models that are continually being modified and you cherry picking one element of one of them out of context doesn't help.

I would really like to see you progress to the level of skeptic however that will require a change of mindset.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Also there are many models that are continually being modified and you cherry picking one element of one of them out of context doesn't help.
> 
> I would really like to see you progress to the level of skeptic however that will require a change of mindset.




Change of Mindset? What mindset do I need to change to Knobby? Are you asserting I should stop asking questions that you/basilio et al have never answered sufficiently or at all?

Cherry Picking? Simply asking questions on the fundamental foundation of alarmist AGW assertions is considered cherry picking? Perhaps you could just answer them?

To make it easier for the alarmist, perhaps the skeptics should simply follow the fictional con-census  "*97% of climate scientists assert....*" routine.

As I've asserted before - it's the alarmist lap dogs that have demolished the confidence in the AGW scare and forced people to look closely at the facts and to ask pertinent questions - and hence, confidence in AGW alarmist double speak is continuing to fall.


----------



## dbeyat45

It's interesting to note that the Arctic, according to all the agencies, is showing a late season spurt in ice growth .....

Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (Ice Area):
http://arctic-roos.org/observations...e/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area_small.png
Arctic ROOS (Ice Extent):
http://arctic-roos.org/observations...ce/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext_small.png
DMI (Ice Cover):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
NSIDC (Extent):
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Meanwhile, there is a continuing upward trend in the Antarctic sea ice anomaly ....

University of Illinois:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
 ... and Antarctic sea ice extent continues above the 1979-2000 mean (NSIDC):
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Isn't the ice supposed to be melting and the Arctic ice free by <insert_date_here>?


----------



## explod

dbeyat45 said:


> I
> University of Illinois:
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
> ... and Antarctic sea ice extent continues above the 1979-2000 mean (NSIDC):
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
> 
> Isn't the ice supposed to be melting and the Arctic ice free by <insert_date_here>?




On the first reference, its not area but depth that is the problem issue.

The second chart is just the normal fluctuation by season and there has been a bit more cloud about this year.


----------



## explod

dbeyat45 said:


> It's interesting to note that the Arctic, according to all the agencies, is showing a late season spurt in ice growth .....
> 
> Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (Ice Area):
> http://arctic-roos.org/observations...e/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area_small.png
> Arctic ROOS (Ice Extent):
> http://arctic-roos.org/observations...ce/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext_small.png
> DMI (Ice Cover):
> http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
> NSIDC (Extent):
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png




Again these charts all appear to measure area not quantity and the last in fact indicates that the ice cover is decreasing.

The issue down south are the thick blocks, some miles in depth, are/were millions of years old that are breaking up as the warmth eats away at the perma frost areas and warmer waters flow underneath and dislodge them.


----------



## dbeyat45

explod said:


> Again these charts all appear to measure area not quantity and the last in fact indicates that the ice cover is _decreasing_.
> 
> The issue down south are the thick blocks, some miles in depth, are/were millions of years old that are breaking up as the warmth eats away at the perma frost areas and warmer waters flow underneath and dislodge them.



Explod, have another look at this:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Do you still see something in the chart that indicates _decreasing_?

I would be interested to see a reference for your second paragraph ...

Also, can you provide something on the cloud cover (_a bit more cloud about_) as it affects the above average Antarctic sea ice extent?


----------



## basilio

Hi Dbeyat

With regard to the  reference for the overall decreasing mass of ice in Antarctica check out the following URl.  It also discusses why there is some increase in sea ice cover in some parts of Antarctica. Unfortunately there is an overall substantial net melting.

The most recent GRACE study also identified the amount and source of  melting of global ice.  Greenland and Antarctic are responsible for 303 billion tones of ice melt. The attached  story/video is a good analysis of that research paper.

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/13/grace-and-glacial-ice-melt/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

You also opened a discussion on the effect of sunspot activity as a large cause of global warming and cooling.

Changes in the level of solar activity are recognised as one of the many background factors that affects our climate. However in the context of the much larger effect of greenhouse gases almost all climate scientists give it a minor influence. Check out the following reference for that discussion. It references many, many studies on the topic

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm


----------



## basilio

With regard to the effect of the sun and cosmic activity on the earths cliamte.

A few years ago The Great Global Warming Swindle attempted to show how the earths climate followed solar activity.  

Unfortunately they managed to leave out  data from 1980 onwards over the last 30 years that murdered their "story". The following video shows this up particularly well and also examines the bigger picture of cosmic activity as significant effect on our cliamte.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w&index=5&feature=plcp

______________________________________________________________________________________

On a similar note there is a fascinating story on how Global warming was identified by scientists in the 1950's.

The attached video opens this discussion and thens examinines how the worlds cliamte has changed over  the more recent past.  Very, very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdALFnlwV_o&feature=related


----------



## macca

NSW Tidal Water measures report:

<<Figure 4 shows monthly average and yearly averaged water level data from Fort Denison. The record has not been adjusted for anomaly drivers (such as MSLP), so represents the measured water level at the gauge. The long-term sea level trend of 0.94 mm/year is clearly apparent, as are variations to the average rate of rise.
The last 20-year period, covering the data range of the other MHL gauging sites, is associated with sustained El Niño conditions, generally associated with drier, less stormy conditions in Australia. This causes a depressing of regional sea levels and is seen as a slowing of sea level rise in the Fort Denison data to 0.4 mm/year for 1986-2007 (MHL1881). This would imply that gauges across NSW with data sets of approximately 20 years will underestimate sea level rise.>>

http://www.coastalconference.com/2011/papers2011/Ben Modra Full Paper.pdf

So it would seem that should we experience dryer weather (El Niño) as predicted by Mr Garnaut then we can expect sea levels to rise 0.4MM per year.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

In order to help those skeptics here change their "mindset" to that of an elite "scientist" such as Tim Flannery as Basilio and Knobby portray, we will need to learn (and accept) a new mindset that includes how to change recorded temperatures to show warming trends where there are none...

Good to see *Alice Springs gets a mention* in the GISS surface temperature analysis....

BEFORE Adjustment...





AFTER Adjustment...





A missing hockey stick perhaps?

Hopefully that's concluded the first lesson for skeptics that are in the process of changing "mindsets" as the alarmist here insist. 

Perhaps Basilio or Knobby can highlight some other alarmist fantasies that we must adopt and accept as fact in our endeavors with mindset change?


----------



## Timmy

Don't really wanna get all hysterical on ewes but ... well ... this is real dudes:



> An influential US consumer watchdog is investigating online reports that Apple's new iPad throws off an unusually large amount of heat and will publish ...
> A Dutch tech website has 'proved' the the new iPad is warmer, with a thermal camera picture that shows the new tablet is 5.3  °C hotter than an iPad 2.




http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-throws-off-too-much-heat-20120321-1vil4.html

3 million new iPads were sold over the weekend.
3,000,000*5.3 degrees C = 15.9 million degrees C, dudes

Gotta be fair, report not released yet.
But it is feelin' warmer in here.


----------



## Logique

Of all the causes of global warming, Apple iPads is one I had overlooked. Hoping for iPad owners to use responsibly.

SOI chart below: it can be announced that global warming is about to resume. Chartists on ASF will confirm that the SOI weighted mean seems to have made a lower high, with now downward momentum, the reading approaching the signal line.


----------



## wayneL

Timmy said:


> Don't really wanna get all hysterical on ewes but ... well ... this is real dudes:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-throws-off-too-much-heat-20120321-1vil4.html
> 
> 3 million new iPads were sold over the weekend.
> 3,000,000*5.3 degrees C = 15.9 million degrees C, dudes
> 
> Gotta be fair, report not released yet.
> But it is feelin' warmer in here.




So that's why the hard disc on my PC overheated and blew itself up last week! 

Apple responsible for an overheated NASDAQ as well.

AGW - We are doomed. :


***A*pple induced *G*lobal *W*arming.


----------



## Timmy

wayneL said:


> So that's why the hard disc on my PC overheated and blew itself up last week!
> 
> Apple responsible for an overheated NASDAQ as well.
> 
> AGW - We are doomed. :
> 
> 
> ***A*pple induced *G*lobal *W*arming.




 

And if I do it in Fahrenheit s  its even worse. 

And I'm not gonna even try in Kelvins - Freak ewes out too much.


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> So that's why the hard disc on my PC overheated and blew itself up last week! :eek7.....



Wayne put this utility on your computer -  CrystalDiskInfo at:  http://download.cnet.com/CrystalDiskInfo/3000-2086_4-10832082.html 

There's a more recent version than in the link, V4.1.3, which I'm using, so look for that. 1.4MB download (free). CrystalDiskInfo is a HDD health monitoring utility. It displays basic HDD information, monitors S.M.A.R.T. values, and disk temperature. You can leave it open and set a resample interval. Great for summer.


----------



## Logique

Timmy said:


> And if I do it in Fahrenheit s  its even worse...



Dear God no Timmy, it's warm enough already!


----------



## Timmy

Logique said:


> Dear God no Timmy, it's warm enough already!




 
OK, I wont.


----------



## Calliope

The environmentalist's dream of fossil fuel energy being replaced with an affordable alternative energy is just pie in the sky.



> This will be surprisingly costly. Britain's Carbon Trust estimates that the cost of expanding wind turbines to 40 gigawatts, to provide 31 per cent of electricity by 2020, could run as high as pound stg. 75 billion ($113bn). And the benefits, in terms of tackling global warming, would be measly: a reduction of just 86 megatons of CO2 a year for two decades. In terms of averted rise in temperature, this would be completely insignificant. Using a standard climate model, by 2100, *Britain's huge outlay will have postponed global warming by just over 10 days*.(



My Bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...wing-in-the-wind/story-e6frgd0x-1226306609578


----------



## wayneL

I've had a couple of interesting conversations that last couple days. Was whingeing about the crap summer to the bloke where I get my LPG supplies... "It's climate change, the Antarctic is melting and causing the cold and rain here in NZ" (paraphrased).

Me - "Really? The Antarctic is melting?"

Yep

The guy was genuinely depressed and worried about the 'end of civilization'. 

Me - I think you should do some more research.

2/ Was at a clients place whose son was down from his PhD studies in Environmental Science... done ice core sampling in the SI glaciers the whole shebang.

Me - So what's your view on AGW?

Him - Yes humans are having an impact on the climate, but in different ways than portrayed by the IPCC.

Me - You mean impact of land use etc?

Him - Yes, CO2 does play a role, but land use considerations and non co2 air pollution are more important considerations. Also there are more important concerns with regard to general pollution. CO2 a minor concern.

Me - So do you think the preoccupation with co2 induced climate change is an unnecessary detraction from productive and necessary protection of the environment.

Him - Most definitely so.

(paraphrased)

I wanted to hug him. 

Conversation moved on to projects he had worked on.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> I've had a couple of interesting conversations that last couple days. Was whingeing about the crap summer to the bloke where I get my LPG supplies... "It's climate change, the Antarctic is melting and causing the cold and rain here in NZ" (paraphrased).
> 
> Me - "Really? The Antarctic is melting?"
> 
> Yep
> 
> The guy was genuinely depressed and worried about the 'end of civilization'.
> 
> Me - I think you should do some more research.
> 
> 2/ Was at a clients place whose son was down from his PhD studies in Environmental Science... done ice core sampling in the SI glaciers the whole shebang.
> 
> Me - So what's your view on AGW?
> 
> Him - Yes humans are having an impact on the climate, but in different ways than portrayed by the IPCC.
> 
> Me - You mean impact of land use etc?
> 
> Him - Yes, CO2 does play a role, but land use considerations and non co2 air pollution are more important considerations. Also there are more important concerns with regard to general pollution. CO2 a minor concern.
> 
> Me - So do you think the preoccupation with co2 induced climate change is an unnecessary detraction from productive and necessary protection of the environment.
> 
> Him - Most definitely so.
> 
> (paraphrased)
> 
> I wanted to hug him.
> 
> Conversation moved on to projects he had worked on.




Excellent but now science has been destroyed for a generation or two how are you going to get buy in for change in the areas requiring attention?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is all weather in my humble opinion.

It has all happened before and it will happen again.

There is too much thought and talk about naught in this climate hysterical debate. 

gg


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Excellent but now science has been destroyed for a generation or two how are you going to get buy in for change in the areas requiring attention?




Practicing proper science would be a start. Environmental science needs to restore its integrity.

This will take time.


----------



## Boggo

Stop everything, we have found the problem, how could we have missed it


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Boggo said:


> Stop everything, we have found the problem, how could we have missed it




That would fit with my observations.

We do not have or need daylight saving in North Queensland, and we still experience weather, all year about.

gg


----------



## Julia

Is that weather settling down now in Townsville, gg?
It carried on down the coast but at least without that tornado like event which must have been so terrifying.
Hope your own domicile is unaffected and the puppies unafraid.


----------



## wayneL

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/

Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC


> More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica........
> 
> ..........A proper temperature record for Antarctica is particularly interesting, as it illuminates one of the main debates in global-warming/climate-change: namely, were the so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age merely regional, or were they global events? The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2 (the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent CO2 right now; this figure might climb to 0.07 per cent in the medium term).


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/
> 
> Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC




Core sample results from Antarctica suggest otherwise.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Core sample results from Antarctica suggest otherwise.



 citations please


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> citations please




You should do your homework and read that book, "The Sixth Extinction"

Absolute and carefully controlled core sampling with the results clearly explained with documentation.


----------



## wayneL

You should read the link I have cited.... peer reviewed BTW.

Again, your citation please.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You should read the link I have cited.... peer reviewed BTW.
> 
> Again, your citation please.






> We have achieved our success in large part by the efficiency with which we breed, and are (alas) slave to our evolutonary past. Unfortunately all the Goulds, Leakeys, and Lewins will not be persuasive enough to enable the uneducated masses to rise above the imperitives of their genes. But they can try, and this book is a grand attempt.




The above comment on the Sixth Extension speaks volumes on our conversation here; we will believe what is convenient and what we want to.

It is impossible to quote and put together all of the references needed in this space.  On top of that the science is attacked from all angles on weak summations and argument in order to distort the real situation.  And of course that is why there is so much of it and why it is impossible for the layperson unless he is interested and tuned in to get the picture.

And as you rightly brought to attention a few days ago, it is not just about co2, the debate is about deforestation, dams and but the big one, overpopulation and we could elaborate further.

The point is, we may have a problem and our attention should be *to that*.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The point is, we may have a problem and our attention should be *to that*.




1/So still no citation?

2/Of course there is a problem. But climate alarmists divert attention to the wrong problem.


----------



## notting

wayneL said:


> 2/Of course there is a problem. But climate alarmists divert attention to the wrong problem.




I'd say short sighted business minded dick heads that don't have the courage to look at any of the problems causing the massive problem are the problem and the ones diverting attention to the wrong thing.  Not the minority climate alarmists that are ridiculed more than they are taken seriously.

GROWTH is *not* the answer to a globe that has reached capacity and will swing from unaffordable oil, food and resources to devastating recessions. This cycle will see-saw like a converging triangle until something greater happens - sea levels, a war or some yet to be identified consequence of environmental degradation from carbon, forestry or garbage floating in the ocean etc.  In the meantime insurance will become dysfunctional and that should cause a few ruptions hopefully even a wake up call because it will burn the heart out of the business paradigm that is so clung to by the majority who can't vote beyond tomorrows salary.


----------



## moXJO

notting said:


> I'd say short sighted business minded dick heads that don't have the courage to look at any of the problems causing the massive problem are the problem and the ones diverting attention to the wrong thing.  Not the minority climate alarmists that are ridiculed more than they are taken seriously.
> 
> GROWTH is *not* the answer to a globe that has reached capacity and will swing from unaffordable oil, food and resources to devastating recessions. This cycle will see-saw like a converging triangle until something greater happens - sea levels, a war or some yet to be identified consequence of environmental degradation from carbon, forestry or garbage floating in the ocean etc.  In the meantime insurance will become dysfunctional and that should cause a few ruptions hopefully even a wake up call because it will burn the heart out of the business paradigm that is so clung to by the majority who can't vote beyond tomorrows salary.




Yeah or business investment into technology will save us


----------



## spooly74

Hat tip to the IPCC on this one.



> The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC -- they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest -- sometimes it just takes a little while.
> 
> A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):
> *"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
> "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
> "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"*
> The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:
> *"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; HÃ¶ppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."*




http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/handy-bull****-button-on-disasters-and.html


----------



## wayneL

Solar Activity/Ozone the major driver of climate change?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867

Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations
N.A. Kilifarska, 
National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, BAS
Received 19 August 2011. Revised 5 March 2012. Accepted 8 March 2012. Available online 21 March 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.03.002,
ABSTRACT
The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone – reported previously – is analyzed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T) – driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ) – explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analyzed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.
Highlights
► An increased climate sensitivity to ozone variations is analyzed. ► O3 driven model of surface T explains the greatest part of its variability. ► Impact of different factors on lower stratospheric O3 variability is estimated. ► Galactic cosmic rays have a greatest influence on O3. ► Mechanism for ozone influence on climate is described.


----------



## CanOz

Thanks forthat Wayne......you means it's not all our fault after all?


Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## MrBurns

CanOz said:


> Thanks forthat Wayne......you means it's not all our fault after all?
> Cheers,
> CanOz




Na bugger that, if you pay more tax it will save the earth Julia said so.


----------



## Knobby22

Can't access it without shelling out a fair bit of money.

I find the theory doubtful.

When you see a curve matching something precisely using a non linear relationship, you get the feeling that they are matching the data and working backwards, rather like beginners developing an algorythm in the sharemarket to match future performance.

of course the amount of ozone is affected by cosmic waves - thats been known for decades. The leap of faith is how changing ozone in the atmosphere effects land temperatures.  It doesn't sound very plausible. 
As I said I would love to see the paper and see the context.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Can't access it without shelling out a fair bit of money.
> 
> I find the theory doubtful.
> 
> When you see a curve matching something precisely using a non linear relationship, you get the feeling that they are matching the data and working backwards, rather like beginners developing an algorythm in the sharemarket to match future performance.
> 
> of course the amount of ozone is affected by cosmic waves - thats been known for decades. The leap of faith is how changing ozone in the atmosphere effects land temperatures.  It doesn't sound very plausible.
> As I said I would love to see the paper and see the context.




Knobby, you'll have to come up with something a bit better than 'I don't like what it says so I don't believe it'. 

Some scientific basis for refutation would be good.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Knobby, you'll have to come up with something a bit better than 'I don't like what it says so I don't believe it'.
> 
> Some scientific basis for refutation would be good.




As I said some scientific basis for the theory would be good also.
Can you get the relevant part of the paper?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Lesson 2 for skeptics changing to an AGW mindset.

Part 1 of lesson: Understand the AGW alarmist spin and ensure you can repeat it:

*A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a "spin sheet" encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.*

Part 2: Ignore any observed historical evidence and blame all weather events on AGW

Skeptics: Please try to ignore these charts as much as possible, they will not help you with AGW mindset change.







This ok knobby? Is this the process you went thru to establish a religious quest to push AGW alarmism whilst not actually doing anything yourself about "deadly" CO2?


----------



## Knobby22

Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small? In the case of cyclones the El Niño effect is stronger than the minimal climate change that has occurred so far.

Just remember you are reading the Australian - one long daily spin sheet produced by a very corrupt company. I am looking forward to some big names going to prison over the next few years, but I suppose you are on top of the latest scandal that even the FBI is getting involved with.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> I haven't been.
> Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small?
> 
> Just remember you are reading the Australian - one long daily spin sheet produced by a very corrupt company. I am looking forward to some big names going to prison over the next few years, but I suppose you are on top of the latest scandal that even the FBI is getting involved with.




Knobby, I understand that Fairfax are not as pure as the driven snow either.  Just because someone or a few people in an organisation break the law, doesn't mean that everyone else in that organisation does.

Murdoch media often give information that the other media do not bother to print.  I would rather be an informed voter with as much information as possible.

It seems to be a feeble attempt to stop full disclosure to try and rubbish one media who give a different viewpoint to the left.  Goodness, the majority of voters in this country have had a gutfull of the ABC and Fairfax left biases.  And ABC should be more neutral, imo -  at least moving with the majority as shown by professional opinion polls.  But no.  They seem to be free advertising for alp - but even that's not fooling the majority of Australian voters any more either.  In fact, I think it's only making them more angry.

But if rubbishing the Australian is the only defence you have for this nonsense tax, then you really are grasping at straws...


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> But if rubbishing the Australian is the only defence you have for this nonsense tax, then you really are grasping at straws...




I have never defended the tax, I am against it as I have stated previously.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> I have never defended the tax, I am against it as I have stated previously.




My apologies - your posts seem to be always defending this climate nonsense.  I do believe there are environmental issues that should be addressed, however, I also feel that co2 has been a convenient excuse to take more money from the people.

They use "scientific" arguments - even though the prediction based on this so call "scientific" input has failed miserably.

Even if there is any truth in AGW, I think this thing has cried "wolf" just too many times and the majority of people will no longer believe it - and even more so if it takes a big hunk of money from their wallets.


----------



## Knobby22

Just look at this and say there is nothing in it.

There is a lot of money going around to obscurate the science. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> Just look at this and say there is nothing in it.
> 
> There is a lot of money going around to obscurate the science.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/





Knobby, NASA.gov is clearly government funded.  CSIRO is government funded.  I have read and heard reports of retired scientists who have explained that, if they didn't go along with AGW ideas, they would not get funding.

Both NASA and CSIRO could have a conflict of interest due to their need for funding.  Not saying it is, but it is entirely possible.







http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/grants_thumb.jpg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small?




Lesson 3. Adapt your AGW alarmism to suit the current trends and make people believe you actually predicted it years ago. eg No Snow, continuous droughts, accelerated sea levels.

Hold anyone who produces CO2 responsible for weather. For example, Perhaps we could penalise the *Coal industry for the Brisbane floods*


----------



## Knobby22

Sails, just be skeptical about the "information" provided by organisations formed to provide this "information" for financial reasons. We had a classic example a month back in this thread. That's all I ask. Be wary. Notice it was a Newscorp cartoon which I am sure is an organisation paid to muddy the science and create political conflict over it.

OzWaveGuy, I can't argue with you but the IPCC hasn't changed their view on this issue only detailed it further. Please, please look into it.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> We had a classic example a month back in this thread.




You mean the Gleik/Heartland Fakegate saga?

I think the alarmist camp scored a huge own goal there Knobby. 

I wouldn't have mentioned that one if I wanted to maintain credibility... if I were you.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You mean the Gleik/Heartland Fakegate saga?




Who's talking in riddles now.  Some qualification for the uneducated please?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Sails, just be skeptical about the "information" provided by organisations formed to provide this "information" for financial reasons.




You have no shame.

Lesson 4. Have no shame.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Who's talking in riddles now.  Some qualification for the uneducated please?




Google "Fakegate"


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Lesson 5. Use AGW and Green Hysteria to promote oneself for gain and luxury and for the control of others.

How we doing Knobby? Let me know when you think my mindset has been changed to be like you and basilio.


----------



## Knobby22

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730092544.htm

It appears that the figures quoted earlier in this thread have been "adjusted" as have the tornado figures (to take into account poor reporting, political needs etc.)  The US weather bureau won't even provide the unadjusted figures. Hmmm

btw  last years record breaker tornados are also interesting.
Here is a scientific paper showing "unadjusted" tornado frequency. Again differs markedly from the "official govenrnment source which shows no increase "after adjustments"

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange02/tornado/website/tornado.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Lesson 6. Use AGW material from those that are paid large grants to support greater Government control and taxes. Do not question the IPCC even if there is clear indication of corruption of the scientific method. Believe Al Gore, believe the Mann made hockey stick, believe in Models, believe in the cause, don't worry about the AGW "leaders" owning multiple houses, dozens of cars and bikes, jets and boats.

Skeptics: You should now be close to displaying and regurgitating AGW propaganda....only a few more lessons left, including how to avoid answering basic questions on observed evidence.


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> Skeptics:  including how to avoid answering basic questions on observed evidence.




Your good at that.

I have some other stuff to come but haven't the time at this stage.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Lesson 7. Never put into perspective the CO2 facts otherwise it will damage the AGW propaganda campaign and never ever describe to people the real amount of CO2 emitted by humans v's nature. Instead, ensure you use tax payers funding to create TV ads that show sooty clouds and black smoke plumes from abandoned power plants.


----------



## Logique

Another run at The Science Is In.  "..well known and almost certainly.." "Contrarians" are "desperate", "ignorant", or "fossil fuel lobbying". Note to school students, save a copy of this article, you'll do well in your science exams.
I think we know who's desperate.



> http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/sceptics-case-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html
> Sceptics' case melts more - Gerard Wynn -SMH -April 7, 2012
> 
> A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans.
> 
> The reports, published in various journals in recent weeks, add new detail to the theory of climate change and by implication cast contrarians in a more desperate light.
> 
> To be clear: there's nothing wrong with doubting climate change; but doubts based on ignorance, a political bias or fossil fuel lobbying don't help.
> 
> The basics, well known, are that rising greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly responsible for raising global average surface temperatures (by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 1980-2010), in turn leading to sea level rise (of about 2.3 millimetres a year from 2005-2010) and probably causing more frequent bouts of extreme heatwaves and possibly more erratic rainfall.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html#ixzz1rIjIPZqr


----------



## basilio

Duplicate post . Deleted


----------



## basilio

Logique many people have seen that article.  It brings together a sweep of recent scientific papers that have clearly sharpened the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. 

The point about the conversations in this forum is the refusal/inability of many people to  acknowledge the capacity of scientists to be honest and accurate  about the work they do in this field. So you simply dismiss it out of hand. 

You can't have a sensible conversation win people who have their hands over the eyes and keep shouting la,lal la to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

____________________________________________________________

And Ozzie regarding that piece of absolute rubbish you posted on the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere using grains of rice. 

Do you realise that even Monchton and Lindzer acknowledge that CO2 does change the  climate through the processes that every scientist understands from high school studies? It is that simple.

The video is pure dishonest crap. Anyone with 2 neurones in communication would understand that simply using the relative smallness of a chemical is no indication of its potency or effect. Consider nerve gas, botulism, plutonium dust for example. 

All the video does is  eloquently demonstrate how dishonest the presenter is and how willing some people are to grasp any imaginary figleaf they can use to justify  rejecting the clearly accepted facts of  basic science understandings of chemical processes.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Well it is now doona time her in North Queensland. It was 20 degrees last night, a bit of a shock to the system and I had a doona ready but did not need it. Some pleasant light showers last night. We expect a high of 30 today. 

Spring moving towards winter as one would expect.

I think these alarmist warming people need to get a life.

This is as it has always been.

gg


----------



## basilio

GG do you ever consider events that don't happen outside your front window ? Or are they just too far away to be significant


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> GG do you ever consider events that don't happen outside your front window ? Or are they just too far away to be significant










gg


----------



## basilio

*Major re evaluation of Global Warming study.*

Quite significant discussion on Real Climate website discussing a significant breakthrough in climate science. Offers much food for thought.



> *‘Wrong sign paradox’ finally resolved?*
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate Science
> 
> A group of colleagues has all but solved one of the greatest remaining puzzles in climate science. But the story is not one of scientific triumph – r*ather, it is so embarrassing that we had controversial discussions in our group whether to break this to a wider public at all.*
> 
> The puzzle is known amongst climatologists as the “wrong sign paradox” – our regular readers will probably have heard about it. Put simply, it is about the fact that a whole number of things in climate science would fit very nicely together, if only the sign were reversed. If only plus were minus.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/#more-11329


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Thanks for that lesson Basilio.....

Lesson 8. Play the man, not the facts.

Always obfuscate any issue brought forth by skeptics and claim AGW "traditional scientists" know best. Real scientists and experts who do not support AGW and alarmism are not climate "scientists". Try to use the "97% of scientists" agree propaganda to support said belief of the cause.

At this point mindset change to AGW alarmist should almost be complete. This will help drive the AGW fraud and help raise taxes.


----------



## basilio

And it was good to see that respondents in the Real climate website recognised  the value of  openly acknowledging reassessments of  data



> I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/


----------



## Logique

basilio said:


> Logique many people have seen that article.  It brings together a sweep of recent scientific papers that have clearly sharpened the evidence for anthropogenic climate change...



Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.




Near term that is correct, but the truth will win out long term.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. 
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)


----------



## explod

Knobby22 said:


> Near term that is correct, but the truth will win out long term.
> 
> (1809 - 1865)




Long term will be to late.

One may need to be bold, but with caution.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Logique said:


> Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.




Please refer to my lessons for skeptics - this will guide you in crossing the floor to a new and wonderful mindset and a new utopia of sustainable consensus.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> *Major re evaluation of Global Warming study.*
> 
> Quite significant discussion on Real Climate website discussing a significant breakthrough in climate science. Offers much food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/#more-11329






basilio said:


> And it was good to see that respondents in the Real climate website recognised  the value of  openly acknowledging reassessments of  data
> 
> I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this./QUOTE]
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/




Personally, I liked this one 



> Amazing, I made it all the way to the line about solar activity and ran right smack into the words ‘coincides with the deepest solar minimum’ when I realized the paradox was the relationship between the science outlined in the article and the time segment on a per anum scale


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's a beautiful evening in Townsville. The sun is setting. It is a bit overcast. Temperature is 26.4 , so I won't need the doona tonight. There is a light breeze. The honeyeater has returned to it's perch on a black cane plant near the back door, it's head under it's shoulder prepared for the night. I wonder if it is aware of all this kerfuffle over weather? It is much as it has been here for some hundred of years.

gg


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Long term will be to late.
> 
> One may need to be bold, but with caution.




Long term the sun WILL turn into a red giant and engulf the earth... that will be real global warming.

What do the greens propose to do about that?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Long term *will *be to late.
> 
> One may need to be bold, but with caution.




Plod you've gone from 'may' to 'will'.

Can I ask how you know with such certainty?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod you've gone from 'may' to 'will'.
> 
> Can I ask how you know with such certainty?




You have finally convinced me. 

Happy Easter.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is a balmy night here. A possum has re-established her position in the roller door. Let us wait for little possums.







25 °C 

Clear			
Wind: SE at 13 km/h			
Humidity: 67%

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> And Ozzie regarding that piece of absolute rubbish you posted on the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere using grains of rice.




Please elaborate on the % of man's CO2 v's that produced by nature (of course please reference material that all scientists agree with v's only the AGW "traditional" or "elitist" scientists who's mission is to unanimously support new government taxes and levies. 

Are you suggesting the Cate Blanchett tv ad was not rubbish and is based on fact? 







> Instead, ensure you use tax payers funding to create TV ads that show sooty clouds and black smoke plumes from abandoned power plants.



 Please clarify for us all since you didn't comment on the above quote.

Perhaps we can use your response for another lesson on mindset change.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Could anyone appraise me of the impact of human flatus upon global warming?

gg


----------



## wayneL

The totalitarians are getting anxious... I've noticed a big step up in the politics in recent weeks, revealing their true agenda.

Just as the science is getting more uncertain than ever, the Hansen nutter has just called for a worldwide carbon tax.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> The totalitarians are getting anxious... I've noticed a big step up in the politics in recent weeks, revealing their true agenda.
> 
> Just as the science is getting more uncertain than ever, the Hansen nutter has just called for a worldwide carbon tax.




Interesting times isn't it. I was talking with the owner of the local post office the other day and he indicated a number of people were legally challenging the carbon tax. It's not going to be smooth sailing for the corrupt.


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Could anyone appraise me of the impact of human flatus upon global warming?
> 
> gg




Good point GG, plenty of it floating around here but not much focused info on the hot air and the associated crapola at this time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Could anyone appraise me of the impact of human flatus upon global warming?
> 
> gg






explod said:


> Good point GG, plenty of it floating around here but not much focused info on the hot air and the associated crapola at this time.




I hesitate to post the following, but perhaps if one struck a Redhead between one's buttocks on passing flatus, the effect on global warming might be lessened.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I hesitate to post the following, but perhaps if one struck a Redhead between one's buttocks on passing flatus, the effect on global warming might be lessened.
> 
> gg




Agree on the technical point.  

And with the strike of a redhead match near that domain it would be run for your life.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is a balmy night here. A possum has re-established her position in the roller door. Let us wait for little possums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 25 °C
> 
> Clear
> Wind: SE at 13 km/h
> Humidity: 67%
> 
> gg




You just cannot predict, weather that is, can you.

Tonight.






28C

Partly Cloudy			
Wind: E at 21 km/h			
Humidity: 51%

Lots of chirping birds, but none in the air. What do they know?

Definitely no doona.

gg


----------



## drsmith

Looks a bit like Perth.

After an inch of rain last week, the weather has turned to paradise mode.


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> Just as the science is getting more uncertain than ever, the Hansen nutter has just called for a worldwide carbon tax.



If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me.

It is the "escape route" of simply offshoring production which will bring about most of the economic cost and about which many are so concerned.


----------



## basilio

> If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me.  Smurf 1976




A Global carbon tax makes  sense in terms of redirecting investment to non CO2 polluting technologies. And regardless of global warming issues we need to find long term renewable energy technologies. Fossil fuels can only disappear in the foreseeable future.

_____________________________________________________________
You are an exceptionally special piece of work Wayne. Calling Dr Hansen a nutter given his universally recognised capacities as a climate scientist is breathtakingly brilliant.  I'm quite certain none of his academic foes would countenance such a comment.

And then you try to suggest the science of cliamte change is getting more and more uncertain.  The evidence, the actual scientific research, just continues to fill in the dots that confirm what Dr Hansn and almost all other scientist in the field  have been saying for decades. The article from the SMH that Logique introduced and you derided brought together many new pieces of research. What a sick sad joke.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> If it was a global tax then the impact on Australia would be greatly reduced, to the point that it wouldn't really bother me.
> 
> It is the "escape route" of simply offshoring production which will bring about most of the economic cost and about which many are so concerned.






basilio said:


> A Global carbon tax makes  sense in terms of redirecting investment to non CO2 polluting technologies. And regardless of global warming issues we need to find long term renewable energy technologies. Fossil fuels can only disappear in the foreseeable future.
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> You are an exceptionally special piece of work Wayne. Calling Dr Hansen a nutter given his universally recognised capacities as a climate scientist is breathtakingly brilliant.  I'm quite certain none of his academic foes would countenance such a comment.
> 
> And then you try to suggest the science of cliamte change is getting more and more uncertain.  The evidence, the actual scientific research, just continues to fill in the dots that confirm what Dr Hansn and almost all other scientist in the field  have been saying for decades. The article from the SMH that Logique introduced and you derided brought together many new pieces of research. What a sick sad joke.




Dear Lord, your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Bas, perhaps you should do some more research on your false messiah.

BTW, can you point to ANY of his predictions that have come to pass?

Re global carbon tax.

I see Smurf's logic from a Oz centric point of view.... IF carbon tax is an inevitable outcome of the current Green politics.

However I urge those who give the idea the nod to consider the governance implications and why the totalitarians are so excited at the prospect.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Dear Lord, your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, can you point to ANY of his predictions that have come to pass?




Front Cover


Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Issue 29
 By James Edward Hansen, American Geophysical Union
  This paper was published 1984, a succinct prediction is inferred pgs 255 to 261 regards temperature rise (k) due to the green house effect and disappearance of sea ice. There's  more, but I just love the Arctic ice sheet, there's just no arguing with, its so dumb. It just begs the question how many examples do you need, and how silly do you want to be proven.
Oh and the 'uber right Koch foundation' Climate Report agree's with Hansens findings. I'd love your critique of it, 'in your own words'.
( I'll take your one patronise and raise you a snide(just a pity it has to be pointed out) )


----------



## moXJO

Is this guy credible?
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2692



> By Dr Vincent Gray
> 
> It is a persistent claim by the IPCC and its supporters that since carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming its increase in concentration before any increase in  temperature should be apparent in “proxy” measurements of both these quantities from past geological ages.
> 
> 
> 
> The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome  ice cores show that  the temperature rises before the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for most of the past 42,000 years.
> 
> A recent paper claims the reverse: that CO2 change precedes temperature change:
> 
> “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard   Nature 484,49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915”





> There is currently no evidence that increased human-based emissions of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases” have any measurable effect on the climate. This view is based upon my experience as an expert reviewer of all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate and an intimate knowledge of everything in them.
> 
> The climate is such a complex system that any system which purports to understand it has to prove that it can forecast future climate over the whole range for which it is considered suitable, to a satisfactory level of accuracy, before it can be accepted. This exercise has never been made, let alone established as valid for the “Greenhouse” theory, so it should be ignored.
> 
> The claims of the IPCC Reports are based on estimates of various levels of “likelihood” that model “projections” are possibly true by the authors themselves. These estimates are not only entirely subjective, but they are also made by those paid to supply the models, and are therefore compromised by conflict of interest. The numerical levels of “significance” attached to these estimates have no basis in a scientific statistical study.






> The assertion that “the earth is warming” is also without scientific basis, since it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface. The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” is so riddled with statistical errors that their realistic assessment would render any supposed “trend” to have an extremely low significance.
> 
> Much is made by the IPCC of the supposition that correlation, however unconvincing, is evidence of causation; in defiance of the ancient Greek logical maxim. To conceal this solecism they change the word “correlation” to “attribution”.
> 
> In the abstract to the above paper the authors seem reluctant to perjure themselves by denying the validity of such an ancient logical certainty, so they go only so far as to “suggest” “a close link” “between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages”. This opinion is supported by a compilation of 80 Globally distributed “proxy” measurements made by a variety of methods.
> 
> However, the title of the paper claims that this “suggestion” is a proven fact
> 
> The abstract also claims that “the temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is the most recent) deglaciation.”
> 
> So, how good isthe correlation and how “general” is the lag of temperature behind CO2?


----------



## OzWaveGuy

moXJO said:


> In the abstract to the above paper the authors seem reluctant to perjure themselves by denying the validity of such an ancient logical certainty, so they go only so far as to “suggest” “a close link” “between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages”. This opinion is supported by a compilation of 80 Globally distributed “proxy” measurements made by a variety of methods.
> 
> However, the title of the paper claims that this “suggestion” is a proven fact




No surprise here. Every paper (and/or web site from where they are downloaded) used or published by the Australian Gov contains legal disclaimers in order to avoid legal action. 

This tries to protect the guilty, however, individuals cannot avoid legal action if a plaintiff suffers loss or harm based on corrupt/fraudulent conduct


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Please elaborate on the % of man's CO2 v's that produced by nature (of course please reference material that all scientists agree with v's only the AGW "traditional" or "elitist" scientists who's mission is to unanimously support new government taxes and levies.
> 
> Are you suggesting the Cate Blanchett tv ad was not rubbish and is based on fact?  Please clarify for us all since you didn't comment on the above quote.
> 
> Perhaps we can use your response for another lesson on mindset change.




I see Basilio and the AGW alarmists still cannot answer the basic facts....perhaps more Cate Blanchett TV ads are required?


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Front Cover
> 
> 
> Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Issue 29
> By James Edward Hansen, American Geophysical Union
> This paper was published 1984, a succinct prediction is inferred pgs 255 to 261 regards temperature rise (k) due to the green house effect and disappearance of sea ice. There's  more, but I just love the Arctic ice sheet, there's just no arguing with, its so dumb. It just begs the question how many examples do you need, and how silly do you want to be proven.
> Oh and the 'uber right Koch foundation' Climate Report agree's with Hansens findings. I'd love your critique of it, 'in your own words'.
> ( I'll take your one patronise and raise you a snide(just a pity it has to be pointed out) )




Orr,

I have just returned from our festival of Eastos celebration, where we basically burn copious quantities of fossil fuel and consume unsustainably harvested creatures of the sea...

...along with organic Hawkes Bay _vino locale._ 

Just to let you know I will address this in my own time, and it will be like taking candy from a baby.

I'll see you a snide and raise you a dose of reality (sans de rigueur leftist ad hom).


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> A Global carbon tax makes  sense in terms of redirecting investment to non CO2 polluting technologies. And regardless of global warming issues we need to find long term renewable energy technologies. Fossil fuels can only disappear in the foreseeable future.



Agreed that there is ultimately no future in fossil fuels. However:

1. A purely Australian carbon tax, or even one that includes (say) the EU, is completely ineffective in this regard. It must be either global, at the same rate everywhere, and backed with rigid tariffs and/or sanctions against non-taxing countries.

2. The carbon tax encourages the use of natural gas, a relatively scarce resource, in preference to the far more plentiful coal whilst doing basically nothing to address the oil situation. As a means of bringing about action to address fossil fuel depletion, it is an incredibly blunt tool that is in many regards counterproductive.

Agreed that we need to move away from oil, gas and coal in that order, but this tax or an ETS isn't an effective means of facilitating that shift. For a start, they focus very heavily on electricity generation when the main near term fuel problems relate to transport.


----------



## qldfrog

Basilio, I also believe you are right for the concept and general aim : we need to move on from fossil fuels and reduce pollution but as Smurf pointed: the carbon tax we have  in no way help going in the right direction: transport fuel will not even be affected and we are just reducing our competitiveness without even taxing carbon dirty imports....
sheer madness but what can i expect from this government...


----------



## macca

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed that there is ultimately no future in fossil fuels. However:
> 
> 1. A purely Australian carbon tax, or even one that includes (say) the EU, is completely ineffective in this regard. It must be either global, at the same rate everywhere, and backed with rigid tariffs and/or sanctions against non-taxing countries.
> 
> 2. The carbon tax encourages the use of natural gas, a relatively scarce resource, in preference to the far more plentiful coal whilst doing basically nothing to address the oil situation. As a means of bringing about action to address fossil fuel depletion, it is an incredibly blunt tool that is in many regards counterproductive.
> 
> Agreed that we need to move away from oil, gas and coal in that order, but this tax or an ETS isn't an effective means of facilitating that shift. For a start, they focus very heavily on electricity generation when the main near term fuel problems relate to transport.




Excellent post !

If only the whole thing could be approached with a reasoned, long term view that allows open discussion using unadulterated data we may actually make some progress.

In Australia we have effectively given away our greatest bargaining tool buy bringing in a useless tax without getting agreement from the worlds major polluters. Every manufacturer we drive offshore means we encourage more pollution to be released as we have far better pollution controls that China or India.

To use a "mobile" source of energy like liquified gas to produce electricity clearly illustrates the fact that the people making these decisions have NFI what they are doing


----------



## OzWaveGuy

"Houston, we have a problem", *Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models*

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.​
And yes, we need to find effective alternatives to fossil fuels...but somehow I don't think that's a priority by the AGW extremists, otherwise the $80B+ spent on AGW propaganda since the 1980's could have been easily used for research into fossil fuel  alternatives.

Lesson 9. Use feelgood environmental strategies to drive political agendas. Use UN Agenda 21 as the playbook and derive local agenda 21 initiatives and taxes.


----------



## Knobby22

Yep, NASA had better toe the line or there funding will be cut further.

The US weather bureau toed the line already, removing access to their data and providing limited "modified data" to keep their funding.


----------



## Knobby22

While we are at it, lets close down the research facilities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/28/science-pearl-arctic-research.html

If we don't know about it, it will go away! 

And if you only listen to sources that distort and miss out facts when reporting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-denial-gcca_b_1397534.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/

And ignore clear evidence that extremes are increasing, for example in Nature, the worlds most respected publisher of scientific reports:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html


Then this is the point where you can see if you are a denier or a skeptic. 

If you figuratively put your hands on your ears and say "not listening, not listening" i.e. cannot bring yourself to read the threads posted, then I am afraid you are a denier.

If you read them and can argue a case against the information provided then you are a skeptic.


----------



## basilio

Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of  clear denial.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of  clear denial.




lol Basilio - it's not just members of this forum - your problem is with most of Australian voters...


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> While we are at it, lets close down the research facilities.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/28/science-pearl-arctic-research.html
> 
> If we don't know about it, it will go away!
> 
> And if you only listen to sources that distort and miss out facts when reporting:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-denial-gcca_b_1397534.html
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/
> 
> And ignore clear evidence that extremes are increasing, for example in Nature, the worlds most respected publisher of scientific reports:
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html
> 
> 
> Then this is the point where you can see if you are a denier or a skeptic.
> 
> If you figuratively put your hands on your ears and say "not listening, not listening" i.e. cannot bring yourself to read the threads posted, then I am afraid you are a denier.
> 
> If you read them and can argue a case against the information provided then you are a skeptic.






basilio said:


> Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of  clear denial.




Oh brother! 

I lost count of the quantity of argumentative/logical fallacy in these two posts.

Let's keep the conversation above kindergarten level shall we ladies?


----------



## basilio

Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world.  This is distinct from  liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest.  (_I was particularly struck by a columnist from The Australian who faithfully  quoted the IPPC on areas of the world that showed colder temperatures -  and then ignored the next 3 paragraphs which highlighted the  huge increases in other spots. _

Then Wayne old boy, after actually reading the research,  you just have to offer a cogent, intelligent alternative explanation for what is being documented around the world. 

Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world.  This is distinct from  liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest.




I'll repeat and reassert a previous comment: It's the AGW alarmists in forums such as this that have played an ongoing role in destroying the credibility of AGW research.

Legitimate research is now almost impossible to identify and cannot be appropriately acted upon. The default answer alarmists use is CO2 and warming are the enemy of mankind without any substantive reasons or rationale and are unable to show real observed evidence - except a warming trend that is no different in rate to any other.  

I thought the development of alternative energy sources would be a key focus for the people that want to move off fossil fuels - knowing that solar and wind is not going to fulfill the need. As I too mentioned over a year ago to Basilio, Knobby, why aren't you leading a discussion on practical energy alternatives? v's the impractical and improbable rubbish you keep posting here? I think the simple answer is that you're not interested in alternatives at all, but believe everyone else must fulfill your beliefs. 

What exactly are you doing in your lives to help? Why aren't you protesting about the Green MPs who continue to use gassy cars are planes? Why do you continue to "educate" those here on your views on AGW alarmism when it's clear it's not working and the evidence doesn't support your beliefs? Why don't you respond openly and honestly to the failure of models to predict climate change? Why do you both avoid presenting observed evidence of man's CO2 driving temperature (with agreement from scientists from all sides) v's dancing around the topic?

Until you both can address some of these fundamental questions, your ongoing comments remain controversial and highly questionable at best.

I suspect the folks at NASA have had enough of the AGW spin being published too.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ...Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.




And I suspect AGW will get voted out with carbon tax.  IF there is any truth buried somewhere in the hype, it will probably never be seen or heard of again for many, many years.


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> And I suspect AGW will get voted out with carbon tax.  IF there is any truth buried somewhere in the hype, it will probably never be seen or heard of again for many, many years.



I suspect you are right there. Which is a shame, because climate change is a legitimate field for scientific research and there is a genuine need to move away from fossil fuels, especially oil. But I suspect this will be lost amidst a revolt against the carbon tax.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world.  This is distinct from  liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest.  (_I was particularly struck by a columnist from The Australian who faithfully  quoted the IPPC on areas of the world that showed colder temperatures -  and then ignored the next 3 paragraphs which highlighted the  huge increases in other spots. _
> 
> Then Wayne old boy, after actually reading the research,  you just have to offer a cogent, intelligent alternative explanation for what is being documented around the world.
> 
> Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.




You see that's all you have; the claim that people are sticking their fingers in their ears and are 'deniers'. The truth is quite the opposite of course with people walking the middle line, looking at data from both points of view, considering the politics, vested interests and ulterior motives and coming up with a conclusion for themselves.

To repeat ad nauseum, I'm actually a 'lukewarmer'. I think we are having an effect. But I think co2 the least of our worries in this regard. I've said this a hundred times in this thread, but you continue with your idiotic 'you're a denier'.

You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you. You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.

The proof is in, now unequivocal and along with your refusal to have the courage of your convictions and live in a cold damp cave somewhere (and that's hyperbole  BTW to make a point), it proves you are also a hypocrite of the highest, most obnoxious, most pompous and most repugnant order.

It is fitting that that sociopathic quack James Hansen is your idol.

With your predilection with sticking things in ears, I advise you kindly stick that in your ear and desist from the mendacious misrepresentation that folks are 'deniers' because you don't like what they have to say.


----------



## sails

Well said, Wayne...

And let me repeat your last sentence to make sure Basilio  gets the message and stops his childish name calling:

*With your predilection with sticking things in ears, I advise you kindly stick that in your ear and desist from the mendacious misrepresentation that folks are 'deniers' because you don't like what they have to say*.​
If Basilio thinks we are some sort of criminals because we choose to look at things more rationally than himself, he is completely delusional, imo.

Although, I have my suspicions that those who push AGW with so much fervour are possibly being driven by money.  There is big money in AGW - just look at how much Al Gore has made.  

I suspect many fervent AGWers have investments or are positioned to make big money IF  carbon tax gets up and running in this country.  It seems they seem to care less about the economical health of this country.

If so, shame on them.


----------



## basilio

Lets clarify a few points folks.

I don't own the  global warming evidence.  I never made the  countless observations, did the intricate analysis, go through all the possible theories  and attempt to understand  what is happening to the climate and what might be the cause.

All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of observation supported by  clear evidence that

1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented  in geological history
2) The cause of this this warming ,* in this particular circumstance*,  is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.

Your argument folks is not with me - it's with the scientists that have done all the spade work, with the physical reality of how greenhouse gases trap heat and with the observed effects of this fact.

The body of evidence supporting points 1 and 2 is now completely overwhelming.  I often use the skeptical science website as a reference point because it is extremely effective at pulling together the thousands of papers and identifying how each one adds to the body of knowledge we have. 

It is also excellent at unpicking the mistaken and sometimes completely fraudulent representations of commentators who attempt to  muddy the waters on what is happening to our climate.

This current flurry of discussion comes after a number of new research papers and  extreme weather events have sharpened the evidence on what is happening to our environment. The invitation Knobby and I made was to read the evidence and come up with an alternative explanation beyond simple denial.

With regard to the  _"sociopathic  quack James Hansen"_. He is a scientist who started his research into climate science over 30 years ago and  has built a body of knowledge probably second to none in the scientific world.  As indicated earlier you can find his earliest research  in 1981 and 1984 predicted how temperatures would rise and why. 

Along with Dr Hansen there are hundreds of scientists whose research depends understanding of our world.  Are they all quacks too because they agree that the world is warming and/or that greenhouses gases are currently the major contributor? 

The ducks are all lined up folks and quacking loudly. But it seems the only quacks you hear are the amplified noise of fossil fuel lobbies.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/ 

A review of a paper Dr Hansen wrote in 1981 on global warming. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

This pulls together all the basic evidence on global warming science from the impact of CO2  to the many indicators that the world is warming rapidly.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Lets clarify a few points folks.
> 
> I don't own the  global warming evidence.  I never made the  countless observations, did the intricate analysis, go through all the possible theories  and attempt to understand  what is happening to the climate and what might be the cause.
> 
> All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of observation supported by  clear evidence that
> 
> 1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented  in geological history
> 2) The cause of this this warming ,* in this particular circumstance*,  is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.




Are you admitting your incompetent? You have always asserted "thousands of scientists" yet only reference those that support AGW - in your biased belief system there are none that don't support AGW or you are incompetent, which is it?


----------



## basilio

*Now This Is Interesting: A Climate Prediction From 1981*
By James Fallows

Apr 10 2012, 7:33 AM ET

It is very much worth checking out an item on Real Climate, from two Dutch scientists. They have found a paper by James Hansen and others from 1981, before climate change was even an occasion for political disagreement.

Hansen is now famous in the world of climate studies, and infamous to the world of the right wing, but back then he was a 40-year-old researcher who came up with a projection of how rising CO2 levels might affect global temperatures. Science lives for the "falsifiable hypothesis" -- a claim that can be tested against the evidence -- and that is what the paper by Hansen and his colleagues offered up. Three decades later, his worst-case projections were matched against what has happened since then. You should read their full findings, but this gives you the idea:

HansenProjection.jpg

As the Dutch scientists say at the end of their Real Climate post:

*To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%...  It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science.*

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...esting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981/255658/
________________________________________________________
Obviously this is  a quote from another source. Worth the check to see why Dr Hansen is  respected as a leader in climate science research


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Yes Yes, Hansen and Flannery are elitist - we already know, their predictions are all true  I can only summarize Basilio has perhaps lost it. The conduct demonstrated in this thread is ample enough to show why AGW alarmists/extremists are bias and are incompetent to truly research the topic and have a honest conversation as many here have asserted.

Basilio does your belief system allow you to look at some of the surveys on climate change/global warming/extreme weather that might provide some remote guidance to you on the general view in the world? A wake up call on how these approaches to educate us all on AGW are working?

Let's all lie back on the couch and continue, you were saying something about Hansen? Does he believe in aliens like Bob Brown?


----------



## basilio

Gary Ablett snr and Jnr are hack footballers. Pele was hugely overrated.  WW2 was really just a hiccup in history.

Ozzie can please post up some piccies of the Pyramids when you get back home.  (or wake up .)


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Gary Ablett snr and Jnr are hack footballers. Pele was hugely overrated.  WW2 was really just a hiccup in history.




More humour.
This, in addition to post #3311 & #3313, which of course you knew was an April fools' joke by Real Climate.
F



			
				Waynel said:
			
		

> You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you. You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.



+1


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> *Now This Is Interesting: A Climate Prediction From 1981*
> By James Fallows
> 
> Apr 10 2012, 7:33 AM ET
> 
> It is very much worth checking out an item on Real Climate, from two Dutch scientists. They have found a paper by James Hansen and others from 1981, before climate change was even an occasion for political disagreement.
> 
> Hansen is now famous in the world of climate studies, and infamous to the world of the right wing, but back then he was a 40-year-old researcher who came up with a projection of how rising CO2 levels might affect global temperatures. Science lives for the "falsifiable hypothesis" -- a claim that can be tested against the evidence -- and that is what the paper by Hansen and his colleagues offered up. Three decades later, his worst-case projections were matched against what has happened since then. You should read their full findings, but this gives you the idea:
> 
> HansenProjection.jpg
> 
> As the Dutch scientists say at the end of their Real Climate post:
> 
> *To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%...  It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science.*
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...esting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981/255658/
> ________________________________________________________
> Obviously this is  a quote from another source. Worth the check to see why Dr Hansen is  respected as a leader in climate science research




Thank you for the wonderful corroboration of my point.


----------



## Ruby

basilio said:


> All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of *observation* supported by *clear evidence* that
> 1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented  in geological history




This  is arrant nonsense.  There is no such observation or 'clear evidence' - it is all modelling.  There *is* however, clear evidence that the world has been through previous periods of much greater warming.



> 2) The cause of this this warming ,* in this particular circumstance*,  is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.




Also blatantly untrue.  It has not been proven that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.  There is some evidence that the warming may cause the increase in CO2, not the other way round - the feedback mechanisms are not fully understood.



> Your argument folks is not with me - it's with the scientists that have done all the spade work, with the physical reality of how greenhouse gases trap heat and with the observed effects of this fact.




Once again - not observed facts.



> The body of evidence supporting points 1 and 2 is now completely overwhelming.




No it is not.



> I often use the skeptical science website as a reference point because it is extremely effective at pulling together the thousands of papers and identifying how each one adds to the body of knowledge we have.




Basilio, it is a shame you don't look at some other websites and broaden your knowledge on the subject.  You quote that website constantly.  You refuse to read anything presenting the other viewpoint.  You refuse to acknowledge the thousands of reputable scientists who do NOT agree that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and it is caused by the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans.  I once posted a link that listed the names of about 1,000 of them.

There are plenty of fraudulent scientists on your side of the argument, who muddy the water for financial or political gain, so you should be careful about whom you accuse and of what.

You keep saying the same old things.   You never take up the challenge and answer any questions put to you.  It makes me laugh when I read you accusing those who don't agree with you of "putting their hands over their ears" because that is exactly what you have done since the beginning of this thread.  You don't even get your facts right, and you just keep shooting yourself in the foot.  You don't even present a cogent argument.


----------



## explod

Ruby said:


> You keep saying the same old things.   You never take up the challenge and answer any questions put to you.  It makes me laugh when I read you accusing those who don't agree with you of "putting their hands over their ears" because that is exactly what you have done since the beginning of this thread.  You don't even get your facts right, and you just keep shooting yourself in the foot.  You don't even present a cogent argument.




All of what you have stated is as well supposition.  You do not really know but like most, punt with the popular choice as the change that may be required would not fit well.

Yes it has happened before but very differently.  Get the "Sixth Extinction" from the library and read the facts, it is by Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995) 

And I would be pleased to check out your 1000 scientists if you would kindly post up a link.


----------



## sails

Great post, Ruby...

Sadly, Basilio probably won't read it because his head is too far stuck in the sand and fingers in his ears.  Whether it is for financial gain or some other reason, he religiously holds to his beliefs.  And he is entitled to do so and we are also entitled to make up our own minds.

All his rantings only make me shake my head in disbelief and push me further to the opinion that the science is not settled.  And so are many Aussie voters who seem to be coming to the same conclusion as myself.


----------



## Calliope

Ruby, you have defrocked Mother Basilio with finesse. However criticism to him/her is water off a duck's back. I have no doubt that basilio and knobby are sincere in their beliefs, however no amount of rational argument will stop them from spreading their mischief. It converts nobody. It only gives encouragement to an unscrupulous government to raise taxes on the pretext of preventing global warming.


----------



## derty

Ruby said:


> This  is arrant nonsense.  There is no such observation or 'clear evidence' - it is all modelling.  There *is* however, clear evidence that the world has been through previous periods of much greater warming.



Yes there is evidence of  previous episodes of climate change (warming and cooling) that appear to be of the same magnitude or greater than that which we currenty see. Conveniently there are several contained within the ice record. Most have been attributed to rapid changes in the thermohaline systems which are known to produce huge regional climate variations in the northern hemisphere and less variation in the southern hemisphere due to the ratio of ocean to continental area. The variations taht we see today cannot be explained by thermohaline, orbital or solar causes. 




Ruby said:


> Also blatantly untrue.  *It has not been proven that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.*  There is some evidence that the warming may cause the increase in CO2, not the other way round - the feedback mechanisms are not fully understood.



hehe, if someone can prove that it doesn't cause warming they will have themselves a Nobel Physics prize, they will have also rewritten and proven incorrect large parts of existing thermodynamics and quantum physics. Ruby if you are basing your stance on this you may want to do a little more self-education so you are at least coming at this from a position of some understanding.   



wayneL said:


> To repeat ad nauseum, I'm actually a 'lukewarmer'. I think we are having an effect. But I think co2 the least of our worries in this regard. I've said this a hundred times in this thread, but you continue with your idiotic 'you're a denier'.
> 
> You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you.* You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. * It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.



If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck.... Your confirmation bias shows through as strong as basilo's. By your own definition you are equally unqualified. 

You are obviously a very intelligent man wayne, though your advocacy of Monckton is an enigma to me. That you support him when it has been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the man consistently misrepresents and fabricates data and conclusions on numerous occasions. And continues to do so even when his conclusions are contradicted by the very sources that he qoutes. I can only conclude that it is due to an ideological or confirmation bias. 

Though I suspect you are more a fan of his orative, argumentative and diversionary skills than his ability to interpret scientific data.  



wayneL said:


> Solar Activity/Ozone the major driver of climate change?
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682612000867



So you are happy present that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.00006% may be the major driver of climate change but consider that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% cannot possibly be main current driver? OWG you should be all over this!



Anyway that is it for me in ASF's own little special olympics. I think CO2 is the current main driver in long term climate change. People seem to expect that because houses aren't currently being innundated and the heavens are not aflame then it is obviously a load of bunkum. Likewise people are attributing every significant weather event to climate change. I think we are starting to see some evidence of the warming of the atmosphere above the noise that is short term climate and weather variability. It probably won't be unequivocal for decades yet. As the science improves and the observations continue I think it will become undeliable. Those that do deny/are sceptical will continue to be driven back to smaller and smaller gaps in the science from where they can take a stand, and history will stick them on the shelf with the creationists and flat Earthers. 

Catch you in 2027 for another look .  

OWG keep up the good work mate. You are a mountaineer here without peer. 

Oh and btw people, you can think that the carbon tax is a bad idea and still support CAGW. They are not mutually exclusive


----------



## wayneL

derty said:


> If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck.... Your confirmation bias shows through as strong as basilo's. By your own definition you are equally unqualified.



All humans suffer from CB. Me, you, right up to probably God Himself</hyperbole>.

There are degrees of such however, But I take pride in keeping it at a low level. A raging CB is another thing altogether.



> You are obviously a very intelligent man wayne, though your advocacy of Monckton is an enigma to me. That you support him when it has been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the man consistently misrepresents and fabricates data and conclusions on numerous occasions. And continues to do so even when his conclusions are contradicted by the very sources that he qoutes. I can only conclude that it is due to an ideological or confirmation bias. Though I suspect you are more a fan of his orative, argumentative and diversionary skills than his ability to interpret scientific data.




Do I advocate Monckton??  Monckton and those like him (Rick Morano for eg) are just the flip side of the coin of Monbiot et al; they are necessary as a counterpoint to the alarmist's tune and misrepresent the facts to no more of a degree than the likes of Monbiot, Al Gore and the like.... in fact probably less so.

Why won't anyone debate him?

You could be right on an ideological bias however. Climate change has become much more than an argument about science, it is being used as a tool to further the great ideological goals of groups such as The Fabians. 

I will always resist these politics.





> So you are happy present that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.00006% may be the major driver of climate change but consider that a gas with an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% cannot possibly be main current driver? OWG you should be all over this!




Derty both you and I know this is a misrepresentation, or at best disingenuous.


----------



## Smurf1976

derty said:


> Oh and btw people, you can think that the carbon tax is a bad idea and still support CAGW. They are not mutually exclusive



I would argue that it doesn't work in reverse.

Anyone who supports a massive expenditure of limited resources for essentially no benefit would seem to be not overly concerned about the problem in the first place.

That's basically the situation with the carbon tax. Using all the ammunition without delivering even one blow to the enemy. For anyone to support such a move suggests them to be not overly concerned with the enemy, and to be more concerned with getting rid of the ammunition for the sake of it. 

A massive cost, unlikely to ever be repeated, for virtually no reduction in CO2 emissions. There was one likely chance to spend seriously on fixing the problem, and we've chosen to do something which doesn't actually fix it. 

That alone is the single greatest reason I doubt the science of climate change - those who proclaim there to be a serious problem have chosen to divert resources and attention away from any real action to address it, using their time and resources to address other issues instead. Actions speak louder than words, and actions suggest that there isn't really much concern about this.


----------



## Calliope

Thanks Smurf for an excellent post. One of Bob Brown's legacies is that he was a party to this massive fraud - the carbon tax.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Mostly Cloudy			
Wind: S at 24 km/h			
Humidity: 65%

24degC

Much as I would expect at this time of year.

gg


----------



## macca

Smurf1976 said:


> That alone is the single greatest reason I doubt the science of climate change - those who proclaim there to be a serious problem have chosen to divert resources and attention away from any real action to address it, using their time and resources to address other issues instead. Actions speak louder than words, and actions suggest that there isn't really much concern about this.




Which is why Bob Brown and Flannery are quite happy to live in waterfront properties


----------



## Ruby

derty said:


> hehe, if someone can prove that it doesn't cause warming they will have themselves a Nobel Physics prize, they will have also rewritten and proven incorrect large parts of existing thermodynamics and quantum physics. Ruby if you are basing your stance on this you may want to do a little more self-education so you are at least coming at this from a position of some understanding.




Derty...... no, I am not a scientist, and I assume from reading your posts that you are, but I am not ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics, so there is no need to patronise me.

I base what I say on the extensive reading I have done.  I know that increased CO2 causes a rise in termperature, and climate scientists looking for that correlation have been surprised to find it doesn't quite work that way.  What works in the laboratory doesn't always work in the atmosphere apparently.  They don't fully understand the feedback mechanisms.  Some emminent climate scientists think there is evidence that rising temperatures are the *cause *of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere - not the other way round.

This is not my opinion or my "stance" but the opinion of many respected climate scientists.  They are saying that the matter is not just a simple one of "increased CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by human activity, therefore correspondingly increased global temperatures".  I am not going to post links because I have posted them all before.

I used to be in the AGW camp, and it was only after a lot of reading and investigation that I changed my view, so you can see I have approached the issue with an open mind.

As a scientist you would have to agree that the onus of proof is on he who makes the claim.   The absurd claims made by some members of this forum, such as "global temperatures are going to increase so rapidly and by so much that we will 'cook' within about 20 years (or was it by 2020?  Can't remember.)" are simply not backed up by empirical evidence.  Some scientist who expound this theory have been exposed as frauds.

I don't think anyone on this forum would deny that the climate is changing.  What we (or at least, I) don't support is the extreme alarmist view and all the nonsene that goes with it - because the evidence to support it is not there.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> And I would be pleased to check out your 1000 scientists if you would kindly post up a link.




I was slightly wrong Explod - it's been a while since I posted it!   It's not a list of names, it's a list of 900 peer reviewed papers supporting arguments *AGAINST *AGW alarm.  Link below.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy

It's interesting that the AGW alarmists so frequently avoid the "CO2 Hot Spot" topic - at all costs. The "fingerprint" of Human CO2 emissions (according to AGW alarmists and the IPCC)  would appear 10km above the surface as a hot spot....Joanne Nova has covered this topic in several posts and has continued to provide evidence from actual measurements v's models - an *update to the missing CO2 "fingerprint"* discussion has been posted.

Hopefully Basilio or Knobby can provide some honest insight v's propaganda with links to real studies with observed evidence that may show otherwise - corrupt AGW/IPCC models not accepted.


----------



## ghotib

Ruby said:


> I was slightly wrong Explod - it's been a while since I posted it!   It's not a list of names, it's a list of 900 peer reviewed papers supporting arguments *AGAINST *AGW alarm.  Link below.
> 
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html



1.  Which is less than 1% of the total number of peer-reviewed papers published in the fields that make up climate science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html  2nd half of the article)

and

2.  Which includes papers whose authors have explicitly stated, more than once, that their work does not support arguments against anthropogenic global warming (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading


----------



## ghotib

OzWaveGuy said:


> It's interesting that the AGW alarmists so frequently avoid the "CO2 Hot Spot" topic - at all costs. The "fingerprint" of Human CO2 emissions (according to AGW alarmists and the IPCC)  would appear 10km above the surface as a hot spot....Joanne Nova has covered this topic in several posts and has continued to provide evidence from actual measurements v's models - an *update to the missing CO2 "fingerprint"* discussion has been posted.
> 
> Hopefully Basilio or Knobby can provide some honest insight v's propaganda with links to real studies with observed evidence that may show otherwise - corrupt AGW/IPCC models not accepted.



Hopefully you're misquoting Jo Nova, because she knows better than this. It's not a CO2 hot spot and it's not a CO2 fingerprint. This article describes what it is and gives an overview of the scientific literature on satellite measurement and uncertainties in atmospheric temperatures. I don't find it easy reading, but then I don't have a background of 20 years or more in these things. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Primer-Tropospheric-temperature-measurement-Satellite.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

> Weather for Townsville QLD
> 23 °C |  °F		Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri
> 
> Clear
> Wind: N at 0 km/h
> Humidity: 88%	30 °	21 °	30 °	21 °	30 °	22 °	30 °	22 °
> Detailed forecast:	The Weather Channel	-	Weather Underground	-	AccuWeather




Much as we have had since settlement. And probably before settlement according to my indigenous mates.

gg


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> 1.  Which is less than 1% of the total number of peer-reviewed papers published in the fields that make up climate science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html  2nd half of the article)
> 
> and
> 
> 2.  Which includes papers whose authors have explicitly stated, more than once, that their work does not support arguments against anthropogenic global warming (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading




There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.


----------



## qldfrog

wayneL said:


> There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.




Wayne, please...
I work for a mining company who would be please to "help" any denial researcher with valid proof.So do energy producers and oil lobbies who do fund denial focused institutes.

You have a point in the alarmist bit but keep level headed: this is working both way.
Every one is entitled to draw his own conclusions but I sometimes wonder where your "energy" comes from?
Anyway, real work waiting..


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.




Well over blown rhetoric we're used to. The Uber Conservative Koch Foundations 'inconvenient" Climate Report, put the sword to this trite little quip.
Of course you can truck with Rick Santorum... 'it's a hoax', and the dozens of other flim flamers
Or 97-98% of scientists who work in the field of climate research, yes even conservative funded ones, given to the  prerequisites of peer reviewed scrutiny of their arguments. 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf


----------



## Knobby22

(Can't resist this)

I think Clive Palmer is worried about climate change?
Why else would he build a big shp like that???


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> (Can't resist this)
> 
> 
> Why else would he build a big shp like that???




I heard he invited every member of parliament on the maiden voyage.


----------



## Logique

Looked like a stunt from the ABC, Miranda Devine gives her opinion.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...legraph/comments/climate_alarm_is_turned_off/
> *Climate alarm is turned off*  - Miranda Devine, 28 April 2012
> 
> ...She [climate activist Anna Rose] didn’t even try to meet Minchin half way. It was as if sceptics were supposed to be pathetically grateful to get airtime on the ABC at all.
> 
> The alarmists have only been driven to dialogue with the enemy through desperation, as public opinion deserts them...
> 
> ...They tried ignoring the sceptics. But that just made them look shifty and insecure. They tried to smear sceptics by linking them to Big Tobacco or Big Oil but that made them look mean and tricky. They tried accusing sceptics of violence and death threats but it didn’t wash. They even talked about suspending democracy.
> 
> Now when they’re licked, they deign to talk. Big concession...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

David Evans goes into detail about the "simulated" climate from models v's observed evidence - something the media and Government avoid covering in light of the carbon tax....

And before Basilio and Knobby react - yes yes - we know the world's climate changes and we know who the "elist" scientists like Flannery are and their "superb" track record of predictions...and yes we all know you haven't answered questions on observed evidence except pontificating that the answer is in thousands of "scientific" reports that can be found in a John Cook blog...and yes we know you love to continuously use the surface temperatures even though they are proven to be corrupted....now for some context and reality...

...As David often points out, the mainstream media have never shown this data anywhere in the world, ever, even though it is extremely relevant, from mankind’s best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, and is publicly available....​


----------



## basilio

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion around the evidence regarding climate change Ozzie.

I had a close look at the Dr David Evans videos and was very surprised at the first statement which basically said there was no discernible increase in temperature since 1988 as measured by the NASA satellites. He also said this was from "mankinds best instruments, impeccable sources"  and so on. He also dismissed land based  temperature records because of location biases etc.

Firstly the dissing of surface based temperature figures is just plain wrong.  For years skeptics tried to point to particular weather stations and argue they were contaminated by local conditions. The BEST analysis of all climate records (which had significant funding from the Koch brothers and was instigated by a climate change skeptic) ended up acknowledging that surface based climate records were accurate. Dr Evans effective dismissal of this analysis suggest he just didn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient truth.

With regard to the UAH satellite figures. These have been around since 1979.  However there is no way they are gospel or absolutely accurate. The facts are that the measurements that are made are very complex and in fact have been *repeatedly * reinterpreted as instruments become more sensitive and  measurement problems identified and resolved. 



> "As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.  It’s also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully."
> 
> Dessler is referring to the complex nature of constructing a global temperature series from the satellite observations. The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don't actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and the intensity of this radiation is a proxy for air temperature.  Given that the radiation reaches the satellite sensors having travelled through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere, that bias exists between the various sensors, issues with orbital decay, and a host of other obstacles, there's a lot of careful and painstaking analysis required, and much that can go wrong.




One of the issues with the UAH graphs is that Roy Spence and John Cristy have been the foremost analysts of this information. Both these scientists have been at the forefront of denying/minimizing global warming and have used the UAH information as important parts of their argument. However when their figures are checked by other scientists it becomes clear that their interpretations don't stand up to scrutiny. 

The figures don't add up.

Dr Evans dismisses around 6 other scientific temperature records in favour of 1  record  and then uses the interpretation of a couple of scientists who have been repeatedly caught out misusing this data.  He just isn't credible.

   ________________________________________________________________
For those who are interested in the science surrounding this question check out the link.



> *UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence*
> Posted on 27 December 2011 by dana1981, Albatross
> 
> Christy Crocks November 2011 marked the 33rd year of  atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments.  Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-basic.htm
This analysis goes into further detail on the correlation of UAH figures and ground level temperature records.


----------



## sails

Basilio - how about stop calling people "sceptics" simply because they do not agree with YOUR viewpoint?

Are you calling the majority of Aussie "sceptics"?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Presently 24C in Townsville, expecting a low of 20C, with some showers a possibility, and looking at a high of 29C tomorrow.

Much as one would expect this time of year.

I see no evidence of warming. This warming business would have to be the greatest con of a generation. The guilty should be sued for all the bother they have caused.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

thanks for the john cook blog links...the web site is so credible, lets ditch the satellite data, argo buoys and the other devices used to measure temperatures in favour of ground based thermos. next to ac machinery and upon rooftops.

lets then add x3 forcing, and magically adjust early temps lower and recent temps higher to create a magical 5deg of warming using "proven" models - we can then call this sound scientific ipcc process

feel free to create some more  credible process whilst lying on the couch there basilio - your mission in helping people uncover the facts and question alarmists like yourself and so called gov experts is working.

does the BOM follow the same process too?


----------



## orr

Max Planck has jumped into my imagination. Planck who buried four of his children and his first wife.
On quantum mechanics he said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

On Evans's tropical hot spots
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/ 

This aspect of his blurb fails the credibility test.
I look forward to the first paper that he puts up for pier review. As I suspect do many.
Send him your encouragment Oz, to get on with it.


----------



## sails

And the handful of carbon tax enthusiasts here wonder why so many  feel this whole "climate change" is nothing more than an excuse for a fabian styled wealth redistribution...



> The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters.




Read full article from the UK daily mail:
Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters







And this massive power hungry machine is obviously only as good as it's inputs.  It got the April forecast for the UK horribly wrong - forecasting drought and instead they had massive rain...lol

From the BBC: April is the wettest month for 100 years

Comments from Whattsupwiththat: 
Met Office April Forecast: “…drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable.”

The proof of the pudding...FAIL..the pic below says it all really...


----------



## wayneL

Orr

Scientific truth? Good Lord even that has redefined by the Fabian alarmist lobby.


----------



## Logique

We ridiculed these claims  at the time. According to this article, we were right. The FOI adjudicator found 10 of the 11 emails were harmless, and the 11th '..perhaps alluding to a threat..'

Climate blogger Simon Turnill had to work hard to access the documents under FOI, as the ANU initially refused to release them.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg8y6-1226345224816
Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke, Christian Kerr From: The Australian May 03, 2012  (Subscription required)


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> We ridiculed these claims  at the time. According to this article, we were right. The FOI adjudicator found 10 of the 11 emails were harmless, and the 11th '..perhaps alluding to a threat..'
> 
> Climate blogger Simon Turnill had to work hard to access the documents under FOI, as the ANU initially refused to release them.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg8y6-1226345224816
> Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke, Christian Kerr From: The Australian May 03, 2012  (Subscription required)




Sounds like it was no more than propaganda - here's the definition from a google search:



> *prop·a·gan·da
> Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.*


----------



## Logique

I found this truly shocking. A ponzi scheme of the worst kind, the insiders include union superann funds, and we're subsidizing it through rising kWh rates for coal-fired energy.

Wind farm scam a huge cover-up
James Delingpole May 03, 2012  (Subscription needed)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...huge-cover-up/comments-e6frgd0x-1226345185075


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> I found this truly shocking. A ponzi scheme of the worst kind, the insiders include union superann funds, and we're subsidizing it through rising kWh rates for coal-fired energy.
> 
> Wind farm scam a huge cover-up
> James Delingpole May 03, 2012  (Subscription needed)
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...huge-cover-up/comments-e6frgd0x-1226345185075





And yet some here seem so dense that they don't understand why people have a healthy, questioning attitude to this whole AGW thing.  

The more that comes out now, it seems the smellier this AGW thing gets.  Which makes carbon tax look like one big scam, imo


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> And yet some here seem so dense that they don't understand why people have a healthy, questioning attitude to this whole AGW thing.
> 
> The more that comes out now, it seems the smellier this AGW thing gets.  Which makes carbon tax look like one big scam, imo




I suggest some of the alarmists that frequent this thread actually work for agencies/NGOs pushing the AGW scam. Arguably, it's not that they are "dense", they are on a mission since their career may somewhat depend on it.

The AGW agencies and NGOs need to have their funding shut off if their predictions  are false or they use misleading information and data. Legal action against individuals using false and misleading information is also necessary to drive accountability.


----------



## explod

On the anecdotal, a few more are starting to get the message.   Something just not right perhaps.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NE05Dj02.html


----------



## So_Cynical

I watched an interesting episode of Catalyst this afternoon. (link with video below)

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm

Apparently there is a bit of a Global tree die off going on, has been for the last decade or so.

Of course the deniers will say trees die all the time, have done for century's right, even in Townsville...google turned up some more reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?pagewanted=all

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2252


----------



## basilio

So_Cynical said:


> I watched an interesting episode of Catalyst this afternoon. (link with video below)
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm
> 
> Apparently there is a bit of a Global tree die off going on, has been for the last decade or so.
> 
> Of course the deniers will say trees die all the time, have done for century's right, even in Townsville...google turned up some more reading.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2252




Well thats all very well but global temperatures can't be rising can they ? After all according the most accurate scientific instruments and measurements available there has been no significant change to global temperatures since 1988..  

So the trees and ecosystems have just got it all wrong again.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well thats all very well but global temperatures can't be rising can they ? After all according the most accurate scientific instruments and measurements available there has been no significant change to global temperatures since 1988..
> 
> So the trees and ecosystems have just got it all wrong again.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/




When did weather become climate again?


----------



## wayneL

*Heartland's faux pas*

I expect basilio et. al will be here breathlessly reporting Heartlands advertisement equating belief in AGW with terrorists (now pulled).

From most AGW sceptics point of view is was distasteful and disgracefully hypocritical. We hate it precisely because it was hypocritical. Non have been more scathing than a majority within the sceptical camp.

Of course the alarmist camp has been awash with indignation and faux moral outrage in what must be the _creme de la creme_ of hypocrisy.

After the 10:10 video, various calls to gaol, medicate and/or genetically interfere with sceptics... and of course the reporting of Anders Brevik's(SP?) scepticism, I cannot believe that alarmists can criticize what amounts to their own modus operandi with a straight face.

Heartland's ad was wrong and deserves criticism, but it serves to highlight the *duplicity* and disgraceful conduct of the alarmists over a period of years.

My


----------



## Knobby22

Further to Wayne' comments above- some information of the add follows.
I have to say I am not indignant, not surprised either. Just like to know who the sponsor was and whether they stand to gain by slowing action on global warming..

*Global Warming Ad Quickly Dropped
By RACHEL NUWER
Published: May 5, 2012   New York Times* 
A new ad campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to murderers has foundered, with its conservative sponsor pulling a digital billboard down less than 24 hours after it went up in Chicago. 

Drivers cruising along the city’s inbound Eisenhower Expressway on Friday may have been surprised to see Theodore J. Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, staring at them from a huge billboard. “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” the billboard said. Just below was the Web address www.heartland.org. 

The billboard was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization based in Chicago that describes its chief mission as promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It said it chose to feature “some of the world’s most notorious killers” on the billboards “because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the ‘mainstream’ media and liberal politicians say about global warming.” 

But late Friday, the organization canceled the ad, which had drawn criticism from some global warming skeptics as well as mainstream climate scientists.


----------



## basilio

Came across a good piece which IMO summed up the situation with regard to Gloabal warming debate.



> For most of my career, I have worked as an industrial scientist, either as an employee or consultant. It has been my responsibility to offer advice to employers and clients on when to go ahead, when to wait to get more data or when to drop a project. In practice, the data are usually inconclusive, often there is a real risk that the underlying technical model is wrong, and even successful outcomes have a large range of uncertainty. How do I know I’m right? I don’t. All I can do is honestly lay out all the pros and cons and use my best judgement in my recommendation.
> 
> Philosophically speaking, we can never claim perfect knowledge or certainty, especially about how events will unfold in the natural world. The best that we can do is to avoid bias, use multiple lines of evidence and to refine our ideas through discussion, criticism, testing and logic. From all my reading and attending conferences over the past few years, I am sure that climate science meets the highest standards of enquiry. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that our greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from fossil fuel use, are changing the atmosphere and that this will change the climate. It is going to get hotter and weirder, even if nobody knows precisely how hot, how weird or how fast the change will be.
> 
> No successful businessman can wait to make an investment decision until he has proof that all uncertainties and risks have been reduced to zero. Any delay, in the real world, means that the opportunity will go away or that someone else will seize it. Some climate skeptics claim that important decisions cannot be made until all the risks and uncertainties have been eliminated. These people obviously have never worked in a successful business.
> 
> We can’t ever know we are right. All we can do is rely on the best information we can get. Luckily, the knowledge provided by modern climate science is solid and consistent. But reliable information is only valuable if we act on it.
> 
> Andy S




http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-are-we-sure-were-right-2.html

With regard to the Heartlands ad. 

I thought it made sense. 

The Heartlands Group want to paint climate scientists and those who accept their research as criminal, crazy fanatics. A good way to do that is to figuratively and literally pair them up with current crazy fanatics.  

After all the brohaha has died down most of the punters will just remember the  association of  climate change scientists with mad fanatics and think there must be something in it. I wouldn't try to overthink it. 

When did "weather" become climate  Wayne ?  When  temperature and rainfall patters  change over a substantially long period of time. One way to check if the climate is changing is to see if  ecosytems that normally survived  and thrived in a particular climactic environment start to collapse because of ongoing significant changes to the climate. Which was the whole point of So Cynicals stories.


----------



## basilio

There was an excellent series of short videos produce a few years ago by a science teacher which treated global warming as a risk management and logic  issue.  Well  worth a look .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=youtu.be

a more current video offers a great way of tackling most issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E_tM_dI5eA&list=UUOBU1nNlXVzepsKFqxrq56g&index=1&feature=plcp


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> With regard to the Heartlands ad.
> 
> I thought it made sense.
> 
> The Heartlands Group want to paint climate scientists and those who accept their research as criminal, crazy fanatics. A good way to do that is to figuratively and literally pair them up with current crazy fanatics.
> 
> After all the brohaha has died down most of the punters will just remember the  association of  climate change scientists with mad fanatics and think there must be something in it. I wouldn't try to overthink it.




Of course it makes sense to you. As I pointed out that sort of garbage is standards alarmist MO.

Of course Heartland didn't need to go A Bridge Too Far with the unibomber and his ilk, they need only pick out a few of the quotes from established climate loons and certifiable nutters such as Hansen and the like.

Plenty of wacko misanthropic stuff right there.



> When did "weather" become climate  Wayne ?  When  temperature and rainfall patters  change over a substantially long period of time. One way to check if the climate is changing is to see if  ecosytems that normally survived  and thrived in a particular climactic environment start to collapse because of ongoing significant changes to the climate. Which was the whole point of So Cynicals stories.




Not really, pestilence comes and goes with cycles of weather. Read up on history Bas.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Not really, pestilence comes and goes with cycles of weather. Read up on history Bas.




You only have to look at the inconsistencies in the bible to know how reliable history is.

You're a joke w


----------



## wayneL

Plod, 

A bit of pathetic ad hom is the best you can do?

Once again, the interweb version of flapping the gums, devoid of any discernible argument or even a shred of logic. 

Well done on the display of towering intellect.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> When did weather become climate again?




lol

gg


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Not really, pestilence comes and goes with cycles of weather. Read up on history Bas.




If you looked at an organic system billions of years age, millions of years tweaking its own stability, then comes an uppity  industrialised simian that in a couple of short century's is to ten fold its number, beyond the limits of sustainability and who's only mantra is growth(like cancer), throwing it all akimbo... A pestilence that comes and goes?  
Those who do not learn from their history are bound to repeat it.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> If you looked at an organic system billions of years age, millions of years tweaking its own stability, then comes an uppity  industrialised simian that in a couple of short century's is to ten fold its number, beyond the limits of sustainability and who's only mantra is growth(like cancer), throwing it all akimbo... A pestilence that comes and goes?
> Those who do not learn from their history are bound to repeat it.




Indeed.

That has been my consistent position with regards to general pollution, and the longer the AGW ruse exists, the longer focus is directed away from genuine environmental challenges.

AGW is the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## CanOz

Without going though all this thread, i have some views here. 

1.) I do not believe that the world is warming solely because of CO2. If the world is warming overall then its probably because of a combination of things...fewer trees, more cows, less ozone, more gamma rays, blah blah blah, who really knows for sure?

2.) If the world is indeed warming because of what human kind is doing then we are doomed. We cannot even muster the political will to agree on how to pay off national debt, let alone change the climate!! lol!!

3.) One thing history has shown us, that is sure to repeat....*the climate will change*

CanOz


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Plod,
> 
> A bit of pathetic ad hom is the best you can do?
> 
> Once again, the interweb version of flapping the gums, devoid of any discernible argument or even a shred of logic.
> 
> Well done on the display of towering intellect.




So* So* good wayne.  An inestimable command of the Queens  english to skewer the unholy. 

Now what is the chance you will actually say something honest in your posts ? Perhaps have a look at the video links I posted and start a conversation about risk management.  Perhaps even realise that the stock in trade of Heartlands is packaged deception and vilification. 

Nah. Don't bother. You would just give the rest of us a heart attack.


----------



## explod

> Plenty of wacko misanthropic stuff right there.




This comment on what was a reasonable assertion is even further out there *W*

Obviously loosing it ole pal.

When it goes against them most will move on, but as this climate problem becomes clearer some are obviously going to go nuts.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> There was an excellent series of short videos produce a few years ago by a science teacher which treated global warming as a risk management and logic  issue.  Well  worth a look .
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=youtu.be
> 
> a more current video offers a great way of tackling most issues.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E_tM_dI5eA&list=UUOBU1nNlXVzepsKFqxrq56g&index=1&feature=plcp




lets put it in context - the definitition of alarmist risk management looks remarkably similar to hoovering up taxes and funding from the middle class for the elite to spend as they see fit - the couch alarmists pontificating the usual pigs in the trough scenario whilst everyone else must adjust their lives to address a non-issue.
perhaps you could let everyone which organisation you belong to - this can provide folks here with better context of your extreme views and drivel from your posts.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> This comment on what was a reasonable assertion is even further out there *W*
> 
> Obviously loosing it ole pal.
> 
> When it goes against them most will move on, but as this climate problem becomes clearer some are obviously going to go nuts.




Oh Mr Plod! How tiresome!

Still no argument
Still no logic
Still going the Ad Hom

Climate problems? Clearer? LOL! You guys can't even make your models work in hindsight, that's the only problem. 

ROTFL!


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Oh Mr Plod! How tiresome!
> 
> Still no argument
> Still no logic
> Still going the Ad Hom
> 
> Climate problems? Clearer? LOL! You guys can't even make your models work in hindsight, that's the only problem.
> 
> ROTFL!




You did not even address the question.  Just heaps of ho hum ho hum.

Bluster may turn some but not this ole black duck I thrive on it.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You did not even address the question.  Just heaps of ho hum ho hum.
> 
> Bluster may turn some but not this ole black duck I thrive on it.




No you don't. You just keeping digging a bigger hole...

What question?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> When did weather become climate again?




So lets just go back a few steps to the post targeted.

The extremes of wild weather increasing droughts and millions starving is but a mere repeat of the past in your view.

Well it is not mine,.. and all the huff and puff you like is not going to change the fact *that, "Houston we have a problem"*

And steps such as the carbon tax, with its many problems will however usher in not only a change of mindset but new innovative ways of making the world a cleaner and better place for future generations.


----------



## CanOz

explod said:


> steps such as the carbon tax, with its many problems will however usher in not only a change of mindset but new innovative ways of making the world a cleaner and better place for future generations.




In your OPINION.

CanOz


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So lets just go back a few steps to the post targeted.
> 
> The extremes of wild weather increasing droughts and millions starving is but a mere repeat of the past in your view.
> 
> Well it is not mine,.. and all the huff and puff you like is not going to change the fact *that, "Houston we have a problem"*




Plod, instead of reading propaganda, perhaps you should dig up the actual statistics on frequency of storms etc, correctly interpreted for advancements in reporting and impact due to increasing population.

You will find the reality is at odds with your imaginings.



> And steps such as the carbon tax, with its many problems will however usher in not only a change of mindset but new innovative ways of making the world a cleaner and better place for future generations.




Oh it will usher in changes, none of which will be positive for you, or your grandchildren.


----------



## sails

CanOz said:


> In your OPINION.
> 
> CanOz




So true, CanOz...


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> And steps such as the carbon tax, with its many problems will however usher in not only a change of mindset but new innovative ways of making the world a cleaner and better place for future generations.



 Oh, right then.  How silly of anyone to worry that - in the absence of similar global action - all it will do is render Australia non-competitive as a place to do business, and further stress already stretched households and individuals, many of whom are failing to make ends meet as it is.

Congratulations on your romantic idealism, explod.  Would that you would exchange such nonsense for some realistic appreciation of the actual effect of the carbon tax, which was only legislated as a demonstration of Gillard's obedience to the extreme Greens which are keeping her in power.  (Well, so far, probably not for much longer).

Your attitude typifies that of the Greens overall, i.e. a total lack of pragmatic understanding of what is realistically sensible for an economy and therefore the lives of the citizens.

You don't give a stuff for the difficulties in business and for individuals as long as your lofty, romantic nonsense is catered for.
All this in a global environment which is looking more threatened by the day.

I'm so utterly sick of it.


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> Oh it will usher in changes, none of which will be positive for you, or your grandchildren.




viz:



Julia said:


> Oh, right then.  How silly of anyone to worry that - in the absence of similar global action - all it will do is render Australia non-competitive as a place to do business, and further stress already stretched households and individuals, many of whom are failing to make ends meet as it is.
> 
> Congratulations on your romantic idealism, explod.  Would that you would exchange such nonsense for some realistic appreciation of the actual effect of the carbon tax, which was only legislated as a demonstration of Gillard's obedience to the extreme Greens which are keeping her in power.  (Well, so far, probably not for much longer).
> 
> Your attitude typifies that of the Greens overall, i.e. a total lack of pragmatic understanding of what is realistically sensible for an economy and therefore the lives of the citizens.
> 
> You don't give a stuff for the difficulties in business and for individuals as long as your lofty, romantic nonsense is catered for.
> All this in a global environment which is looking more threatened by the day.




Thanks Julia for stating what I couldn't be bothered to. 

Well said.


----------



## Ruby

explod said:


> And steps such as the carbon tax, with its many problems will however usher in not only a change of mindset but new innovative ways of making the world a cleaner and better place for future generations.




Explod, this is what the Carbon tax will *NOT *do.  Furthermore, you seem to have failed to notice that people have been finding new and innovative ways of making the world a cleaner place for decades - without the benefit of a carbon tax.


----------



## orr

Ruby said:


> Explod, this is what the Carbon tax will *NOT *do.  Furthermore, you seem to have failed to notice that people have been finding new and innovative ways of making the world a cleaner place for decades - without the benefit of a carbon tax.




I'll tell you something that I noticed, I noticed Dr Zhengrong Shi(Suntech)
http://am.suntech-power.com/about/people.html
 Developments in solar technology at the university Of NSW being completely neglected by successive governments and industry in this country from the early 1980s, only to ultimately up sticks and take the whole cabooble to China to become one of the wealthiest people on the planet and is now able to sell his product out the factory gate at a price getting toward the holly grail of $1 /watt. Now you do the calculations on what that actually means, if your capable.
 So a company structure, that in form could have resembled Apple or Nokia or Ikea, and could  be returning to Australia royalties, Jobs, patients, kudos  from advancements  developed on our shores is lost to us forever. 
If you and others can't connect the dots to a carbon price and something like Suntech, there is no helping you.
 But we'll be all-right we can sell rocks.


----------



## bandicoot76

orr said:


> I'll tell you something that I noticed, I noticed Dr Zhengrong Shi(Suntech)
> http://am.suntech-power.com/about/people.html
> Developments in solar technology at the university Of NSW being completely neglected by successive governments and industry in this country from the early 1980s, only to ultimately up sticks and take the whole cabooble to China to become one of the wealthiest people on the planet and is now able to sell his product out the factory gate at a price getting toward the holly grail of $1 /watt. Now you do the calculations on what that actually means, if your capable.
> So a company structure, that in form could have resembled Apple or Nokia or Ikea, and could  be returning to Australia royalties, Jobs, patients, kudos  from advancements  developed on our shores is lost to us forever.
> If you and others can't connect the dots to a carbon price and something like Suntech, there is no helping you.
> But we'll be all-right we can sell rocks.




....and if you cant see that without our cheap energy advantage (yes that nasty but abundant black stuff we have called coal) our industries will not be able to compete and ALL our manufacturing companies will pull up stumps here and do a 'suntech' and head overseas to take advantage of countries that have the advantage of both a lower labour costs AND no carbon tax... well then there is no helping you! kiss goodbye to both our steel & aluminium industries post carbon tax... then ALL we'll have to sell are our rocks!


----------



## moXJO

orr said:


> I'll tell you something that I noticed, I noticed Dr Zhengrong Shi(Suntech)
> http://am.suntech-power.com/about/people.html
> Developments in solar technology at the university Of NSW being completely neglected by successive governments and industry in this country from the early 1980s, only to ultimately up sticks and take the whole cabooble to China to become one of the wealthiest people on the planet and is now able to sell his product out the factory gate at a price getting toward the holly grail of $1 /watt. Now you do the calculations on what that actually means, if your capable.
> So a company structure, that in form could have resembled Apple or Nokia or Ikea, and could  be returning to Australia royalties, Jobs, patients, kudos  from advancements  developed on our shores is lost to us forever.
> If you and others can't connect the dots to a carbon price and something like Suntech, there is no helping you.
> But we'll be all-right we can sell rocks.




That was more to do with Australia's expensive IR and manufacturing. You think the carbon tax is going to make us more competitive when compared to china then think again.


----------



## wayneL

moXJO said:


> That was more to do with Australia's expensive IR and manufacturing. You think the carbon tax is going to make us more competitive when compared to china then think again.




So true.

This is where the Greenie's thinking gets as fuzzy as those vegetables sitting in the crisper drawer of your fridge for six months you forgot about.

Doctor whoever blah blah blah, solar panels blah blah, wind, blah blah blah whatever! 

Using such examples they shoot themselves in the foot and highlight how very detached from reality they truly are.


----------



## wayneL

About those _purported_ death threats on climate scientists: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/death-threat-fictions


----------



## bellenuit

An interesting perspective (audio):

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/d/3/8/d388e5...36530362&hwt=f347da957d22a314780f27c4c3883c59


----------



## Smurf1976

There was a proposal for a silicon production plant to be built in Tasmania a while ago. The attractions of this location being (1) cheap electricity (2) access to plenty of wood which is also required (3) access to other raw materials. (This proposal was completely separate to the silicon smelter that briefly operated at Electrona during the late 1980's and early 90's). 

It never went ahead but I'll let you connect the dots between China's almost total dominance of solar manufacturing, their burning of 50% (and rising) of the world's coal production and why Australia couldn't successfully compete for such an industry even with all the raw materials on the doorstep of the plant. We're just too expensive, and the looming carbon tax and the resultant 60% or so increase in industrial bulk power prices is one of the big reasons why.


----------



## bandicoot76

Smurf1976 said:


> There was a proposal for a silicon production plant to be built in Tasmania a while ago. The attractions of this location being (1) cheap electricity (2) access to plenty of wood which is also required (3) access to other raw materials. (This proposal was completely separate to the silicon smelter that briefly operated at Electrona during the late 1980's and early 90's).
> 
> It never went ahead but I'll let you connect the dots between China's almost total dominance of solar manufacturing, their burning of 50% (and rising) of the world's coal production and why Australia couldn't successfully compete for such an industry even with all the raw materials on the doorstep of the plant. We're just too expensive, and the looming carbon tax and the resultant 60% or so increase in industrial bulk power prices is one of the big reasons why.




a similar scilicon plant was proposed to be built near lithgow in nsw some years ago... but went to asia instead for the same reason, but hey a huge increase in operating costs via the CT on energy production will be GREAT for our economy... just ask the greentards pushing the AGW/CC/CT agenda. MORONS!


----------



## Ruby

Worth a read - for those alarmists with their heads still firmly stuck in the sand....

"100 reasons why climate change is natural"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-Xviw9PBk&feature=endscreen&NR=1


----------



## So_Cynical

Ruby said:


> Worth a read - for those alarmists with their heads still firmly stuck in the sand....
> 
> "100 reasons why climate change is natural"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-Xviw9PBk&feature=endscreen&NR=1




You have got to be kidding...i only watched to number 8 before all credibility was lost, why do people persist with this dribble...the earth has experienced periods of warming and freezing before...well no **** sherlock.


----------



## basilio

For a more indepth read on how Climate Science has evolved check out the following  reference.

So many different sets of information, research, models and analysis to sharpen up the current understandings.

Parts 1 and 2 are also very interesting reads.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-3.html


----------



## wayneL

Hansen slapped down by NOAA’s extreme weather expert, Martin Hoerling

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ather-in-a-warming-climate/?comments#comments


----------



## rumpole

> You don't give a stuff for the difficulties in business and for individuals as long as your lofty, romantic nonsense is catered for.
> All this in a global environment which is looking more threatened by the day.




Old tech businesses who don't change will die and will be replaced by businesses using new technology and ideas. That has been the way of the world for centuries, and will be even more so as we face fossil fuel rundown. The revenue going into the Clean Energy Fund will finance new tech industries and will create more jobs than it costs.

 It's a pity to see so many dinosaurs here who underestimate the capacities of their fellow Australians to adapt to inevitable change by innovation and initiative.


----------



## Logique

We are as little a 25 to 30 years away from nuclear fusion power plants, and much sooner if decent funding was allocated. Fusion power will be i) almost limitless  ii) requiriing only miniscule material inputs and iii) clean.

Why don't the AGW/clean technology crowd ever mention this, why are they pushing us down the blind alley of solar and geothermal wishful thinking.

It's a race between laser and plasma induced fusion, with the US and South Korea making big strides. They can already create small scale fusions, now it's just a matter of perfecting repeat cycles.

This is the future, the real future, the real science.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> It's a race between laser and plasma induced fusion, with the US and South Korea making big strides. They can already create small scale fusions, now it's just a matter of perfecting repeat cycles.
> 
> This is the future, the real future, the real science.




Yes, the European fusion plant looks like it may be a dead end.
I though the US and South Korean were still in early development.
Good point though.


----------



## spooly74

Logique said:


> We are as little a 25 to 30 years away from nuclear fusion power plants, and much sooner if decent funding was allocated. Fusion power will be i) almost limitless  ii) requiriing only miniscule material inputs and iii) clean.
> 
> Why don't the AGW/clean technology crowd ever mention this, why are they pushing us down the blind alley of solar and geothermal wishful thinking.




Because they and the general populace are more afraid of anything with Nuclear in the title than they are of global warming.


----------



## rumpole

> We are as little a 25 to 30 years away from nuclear fusion power plants,




We have been 20 years away from fusion for the last 50 years.

I hope they can get it to work, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Proven technologies are already here. If you want a bit of speculative technology , look at Thorium powered fast breeder reactors.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> For a more indepth read on how Climate Science has evolved check out the following  reference.
> 
> So many different sets of information, research, models and analysis to sharpen up the current understandings.
> 
> Parts 1 and 2 are also very interesting reads.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-3.html




Still weaving and ducking around the elephant in the room there Basilio? Just can't leave the "scientific" John Cook blog alone huh?

Should I put down the -4 in Canberra this morning as an extreme weather event for May and be hysterically alarmed and create fault with a trace gas? Can't wait for that 5 degrees of warming, maybe I could enjoy at least a 1 degree in May.

Shouldn't be too long, basilio's couch friends *predict the Artic will be ice free in just a few more months...* These charts show "massive" decline and are about to flatline at zero right Basilio? Perhaps the Cook blog will let us all know when there's no ice left so we can get in front of everyone else who plan to holiday in the Antarctic.  







Save me a seat.


----------



## joea

Interesting.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../and_then_i_saw_the_facts_now_im_no_believer/

joea


----------



## Smurf1976

spooly74 said:


> Because they and the general populace are more afraid of anything with Nuclear in the title than they are of global warming.



CO2 might be a significant risk to the natural environment.

Nuclear power based on uranium, the only form of commercial nuclear power in use and on which the public can be expected to form an opinion, is a significant risk to the natural environment. 

Given the choice, it's not surprising that people would rather something that "might" be a problem than something which "is" a problem.


----------



## Logique

rumpole said:


> ...Proven technologies are already here...



Green dissembling Rumpole. Name one Greens-approved 'proven' technology capable of providing baseload power generation, for industry, for the human journey into deep space.  

Take another look, fusion power is an advanced scientific project. It's later than you think.  If only it were funded adequately, fusion would provide baseload power, and soon. Unless that's a problem?


----------



## DB008

Just saw this on BBC

*Arctic melt releasing ancient methane *



> Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.
> 
> The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.
> 
> Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this ancient gas could have a significant impact on climate change.
> 
> Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability.
> 
> There are many sources of the gas around the world, some natural and some man-made, such as landfill waste disposal sites and farm animals.
> 
> Tracking methane to these various sources is not easy.
> 
> But the researchers on the new Arctic project, led by Katey Walter Anthony from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF), were able to identify long-stored gas by the ratio of different isotopes of carbon in the methane molecules.


----------



## cynic

Have those researchers in the Arctic adjusted their readings to account for the methane produced by their own flatulence?

If so could somebody describe the methods, and accompanying rectal instrumentation, employed so that I may verify the accuracy of their findings/assertions.


----------



## rumpole

Logique said:


> Green dissembling Rumpole. Name one Greens-approved 'proven' technology capable of providing baseload power generation, for industry, for the human journey into deep space.
> 
> Take another look, fusion power is an advanced scientific project. It's later than you think.  If only it were funded adequately, fusion would provide baseload power, and soon. Unless that's a problem?




It's not a problem for me, I said I hope they can get it to work...


----------



## MrBurns

Thee a whole lot of reports such as this getting about now, co incidentally just prior to everyones cash being theived again by Gillard.
This ones by "an expert" by jove we better sit up and take notice after all he's an *EXPERT*



> Country towns told to brace for climate change
> 
> A population expert says the effects of climate change will not necessarily decimate rural communities if the right plans are laid.
> 
> Professor Graeme Hugo is the director of the new Population and Migration Research Centre at the University of Adelaide.
> 
> He says annual rainfall is already declining in south-eastern parts of the country but says rural communities can survive if governments start preparing now.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-21/climate-change-regional-communities/4024218


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> Just saw this on BBC
> 
> *Arctic melt releasing ancient methane *




Link please.

Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> Link please.
> 
> Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source




Here's one link found via google:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093


----------



## DB008

wayneL said:


> Link please.
> 
> Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source




Sorry Wayne, l must of deleted it when l edited my post. 
Sails has it.

If not, click here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Link please.
> 
> Regarding isotopes, I recall reading somewhere that the isotope signature of atmospheric methane had a more tropical source... will have to dig up the source




It does.  The earth has moved its axis a few times since inception.

All in "The Sixth Extinction" really should get it out and have a read Wayne.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> It does.  The earth has moved its axis a few times since inception.
> 
> All in "The Sixth Extinction" really should get it out and have a read Wayne.




You are claiming that atmospheric methane persists in the atmosphere long eniugh to still be hanging around since axis shifts?

Better check your science there. I'm not a chemist, but I believe methane breaks down to other molecules relatively quickly.


----------



## wayneL

Interesting headline out of Russia:



> Russische Wissenschaftler melden: Globale ErwÃ¤rmung geht zu Ende!
> 
> Die globale ErwÃ¤rmung geht zu Ende: In den nÃ¤chsten Jahren wird die Temperatur auf dem ganzen Planeten fallen, wenn auch die AbkÃ¼hlung einen schonenden Charakter haben wird. Diesen Schluss zogen die russischen Wissenschaftler aus der PhysikuniversitÃ¤t der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
> Der Prozess des allgemeinen TemperaturrÃ¼ckgangs hat laut Forschung bereits begonnen. Nach einer Spitze im Jahre 2005 ging nun die durchschnittliche Temperatur auf der Erde um 0,3 Grad auf das Niveau der 1996-1997er Jahre zurÃ¼ck.
> 
> Laut den Wissenschaftlern werden die globalen Temperaturen bis 2015 um weitere 0,15 Grad sinken, was dem Klima der frÃ¼heren 1980er Jahre entsprechen wÃ¼rde.




or



> Global warming is coming to an end: In the coming years the temperature over the entire planet will fall and the cooling will provide a character of relief. This is the conclusion reached by Russian scientists from the Physics University of the Russian Academy of Science.
> 
> The process of a general temperature decrease has already begun, according to the research. After having peaked in 2005, the average temperature on Earth is now returning to the level of the 1996-1997 years, 0.3 °C lower.
> 
> According to the scientists, global temperatures will fall another 0.15 °C by 2015, which corresponds to the climate of the early 1980s.”




Uncited, but interesting


----------



## macca

In Daily Telegraph Monday, an article drawing attention to the fact that throughout the world mankind is pumping water back out of the ground onto the surface, which in turn runs down eventually, into the sea.

Not sure how a CO2 tax will fix this 

<<SEA levels are indeed rising - but is the draining of water on land, not climate change, the main culprit? >>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-for-rising-seas/story-e6freuy9-1226361545596


----------



## sails

macca said:


> ...Not sure how a CO2 tax will fix this ...




Will it even actually reduce co2 with it's money-go-round?

We pay more for our electricity so money can be sent to tree farms in the likes of Uganda where poor African people have been evicted from their land so British businesses can buy it up to plant trees?

EU, World Bank Brutalize Africans for “Carbon Credits”

So, the extra money we pay in power (plus the massive compounding effect which may result in prices going up all over the place) will go to pay people with trees?

And, by paying someone else on the other side of the world for our tiny percentage of co2 emissions at massive cost to Australia, how is this supposed to reduce our co2 emissions?  Presumably to make us so poor we can no longer afford it - but then many are to be compensated, so they will carry on regardless. 

Australia's global emission of co2 is around 1.3% - and of that only a tiny percentage is man made.  It seems it is nothing but an excuse to take money from hard working Aussies.

And the UN to take 10% of all carbon tax raised?  See video below where Gillard does not refute it.

Massive money scam is what comes to mind with very little, if any, help to the environment.


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> <<SEA levels are indeed rising - but is the draining of water on land, not climate change, the main culprit? >>



I've long thought this but have been ridiculed for suggesting it in the past.

Draining of underground aquifers is one source. Extraction of oil and gas also brings up water. Land use change also in many cases liberates water to the atmosphere and ultimately to the oceans.

The huge amounts of water released from fossil fuel combustion (as distinct from water directly flowing from oil and gas fields) is another - Victoria's coal-fired power stations alone dump 40 billion litres of it into the air each year (which then falls as rain and ends up in the oceans). That's not water taken from rivers, it's "new" water that was previously locked up in coal. Scale that up globally and it's rather a lot I would think.

Now what about all the solid things dumped into the ocean over the years? Go to any significant coastal city and you'll find at least some amount of reclaimed land, in some cases lots of it. Now add in the dumping of everything from ships to silt to tailings to jarosite into the oceans over the years and it's an awful lot of stuff that has been added. 

Remember what happens to the water level when you get in the bath? The same applies to the oceans - add more land, ships, soil industrial waste or whatever and it's going to displace and equal mass of water. That means the sea level goes up.

Man does all sorts of things which add directly to sea levels independently of any warming-related rise. 

About the only thing we've done which works in the opposite direction is building large dams. Every drop of water in practically every dam is water that would otherwise be in the oceans.


----------



## brty

I am one who about a hundred pages ago in this thread was identified as a 'denier' yet I have always been a sceptic, of both sides of the debate.

Clear science shows that the increase in CO2 levels will increase heat absorbtion in a greenhouse, like wise for other gasses. 

We have had a period of a solar minimum with extreme length, history shows that temperatures should be lower because of it, yet they are not. The only conclusion I can draw is that something is keeping temperatures up. This is in the favour of the CO2 camp.

My overall opinion is that something is definately changing in the climate (the flowers on the fruit trees around here have been blossoming on average earlier over the last 30 years), yet so many want to deny anything is happening other than weather.

Overall when the jury is fully in beyond any doubt, it will be too late to do anything meaningfull, it probably already is.

We as humans must adapt to whatever the climate throws at us, we know it is always changing from history. Anyone who thinks it will remain the same in the future has a poor understanding of history. So the question is warmer with higher seas, or colder with lower seas for the future? 

Evidence seems to be pointing to a warmer future, we must adapt.

PS There is no evidence that stopping all CO2 emmisions will do anything to prevent climate change, not that there is any chance of that happening.


----------



## Smurf1976

brty said:


> PS There is no evidence that stopping all CO2 emmisions will do anything to prevent climate change, not that there is any chance of that happening.



For me that is the crux of the whole argument. There is no realistic prospect of CO2 emissions actually being reduced, therefore there is no point pretending that such an outcome is an option.

On one hand we hear calls to switch power generation to gas, catch the bus to work and take shorter showers. Meanwhile, the very same government advocating such things is also advocating the development of an entirely new export industry - brown coal.

Yep, literally every tonne of coal not burnt at Hazelwood, Yallourn, Loy Yang etc ends up exported as that's the aim of the plan once someone works out how to physically export the stuff in an economic manner. Once you realise that, well then you realise that calls to put on a jumper and turn off the Playstation are about as relevant to the climate as trying to draw a link between owning a dog and learning to play the piano.

Mainstream politics is to CO2 reduction what Steel Panther are to heavy metal. Amusing and an escape from reality with no intention of doing anything even remotely serious. That said, whilst there's fun to be had with cover bands and musical parody, I think most would prefer our politicians to be somewhat more serious.


----------



## bandicoot76

Smurf1976 said:


> Mainstream politics is to CO2 reduction what Steel Panther are to heavy metal. Amusing and an escape from reality with no intention of doing anything even remotely serious. That said, whilst there's fun to be had with cover bands and musical parody, I think most would prefer our politicians to be somewhat more serious.




love the steel panther gag smurf old mate! classic!


----------



## OzWaveGuy

The discredited Hockey Stick continues to make news....and recent investigations show how the data was corrupted. This is the Mann hockey stick that erased the medieval warming period that continues to draw alarmists such as basilio, knobby nodding in full agreement without question to the AGW lapping bowl, whilst others of a more inquiring mind dig into the reality....

*.....By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year,* an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.​






....But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent decision from the U.K.’s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffa’s cherry-picked data indicated.....​





No matter, Basilio's assertion that "elitist scientists" constructed the original hockey stick must be believed because they are in fact climate scientists (provided they support AGW) that could "never" be corrupted. The scam continues to unravel for those at the AGW lapping bowl. Perhaps there's some impending legal action that may soon sink AGW scam a little further. Let's see.


----------



## Logique

We might be wishing for some of that global warming by winter's end, and some rain for the crops. Kevin Long is a Victorian scientist who studies sunspot activity.



> http://www.thelongview.com.au/forecast.html
> THE WINTER FORECAST FOR CENTRAL VICTORIA 2012
> As predicted by Kevin Long  - 18/5/2012
> 
> ...LOWEST SUN SPOT CYCLE FOR 100 YEARS POINTS TO *SOLAR MININUM PERIOD - 2015 TO 2045* -NASA has changed their sunspot prediction from extremely high sun spot activity *to the lowest for 100 years*.
> ( See details in the recent paper on my website: “NASA’s latest predictions support global cooling” )
> 
> THE WINTER FORECAST In brief: A very dry growing season should be expected.
> The Winter rains will be sporadic. Small rains will sometimes be produced by the passing cold fronts, generally when the moon is close to its Northern declination point (low in the northern sky and close to new moon phase).
> 
> • Frosts this Winter will be *more intense than they have been for many years*. These intensifying frosts will be the first noticeable signs of a general *cooling trend that will last for many decades*...


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> We might be wishing for some of that global warming by winter's end, and some rain for the crops. Kevin Long is a Victorian scientist who studies sunspot activity.




thanks for that, Logique!  However, our resident warmists will probably dismiss this as weather...lol

Seems that anything cold = weather and anything hot = AGW...


----------



## DB008

And from the guardian, yesterday


Warming gas levels hit 'troubling milestone'



> AP Science Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) ”” The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
> 
> Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
> 
> So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
> 
> "The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."
> 
> Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
> 
> 
> Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
> 
> So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
> 
> Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395 parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said.
> 
> The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist.
> 
> "This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said.
> 
> Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and Butler said it was "a troubling milestone."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10266256


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> And from the guardian, yesterday
> 
> 
> Warming gas levels hit 'troubling milestone'
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10266256




Thank God. It's been ****ing freezing here.


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> Thank God. It's been ****ing freezing here.




It's rather cold here in SE Qld too...


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Team AGW will try to invent new ways to make us feel warm....perhaps artificially raising the sea levels to make us all believe as Tim Flannery and Basilio do that we will soon be swamped by 8 story high seas....Jo nova takes a look at the "adjustments" - and yes, they are always upward adjustments.....surprise surprise: 

*the Topex Poseidon satellite array showed virtually no rise at all from 1993-2001*. Surely not, I thought. I asked sea-level expert Nils Axel-Morner, and he confirmed: “Yes, it is as bad as that.“  Now, given that Envisat (the European satellite) showed no rise from 2003-2011 (until it was adjusted) that means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise.​
As some of the non-corrupted climate scientists have suggested - we may well be into a significant cooling trend. The unadjusted data from multiple sources seems to suggest that as well. Don't worry Basilio, the scientist i'm referring to aren't "elitist" like Tim Flannery so they cannot be real scientists according to your AGW propaganda sheet.


----------



## Calliope

OzWaveGuy said:


> Team AGW will try to invent new ways to make us feel warm....perhaps artificially raising the sea levels to make us all believe as Tim Flannery and Basilio do that we  Don't worry Basilio, the scientist i'm referring to aren't "elitist" like Tim Flannery so they cannot be real scientists according to your AGW propaganda sheet.




Basilio and his "real scientists" promised us global warming. I am sitting here tonight shivering and the weather is cold and miserable. When are they going to deliver on their promise. I would like to share in a bit of the warmth before Gillard's Carbon Tax kicks in and puts the brakes on GW.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> Basilio and his "real scientists" promised us global warming. I am sitting here tonight shivering and the weather is cold and miserable. When are they going to deliver on their promise. I would like to share in a bit of the warmth before Gillard's Carbon Tax kicks in and puts the brakes on GW.



Heat your house by burning coal. Strangely enough, you should actually be able to avoid paying carbon tax on this (in theory at least) and by adding extra CO2 you'll be doing your bit for raising the earth's temperature. :

(Serious note - burning black coal in a domestic wood heater can overheat the appliance and pose a safety hazard if you cram lots of the stuff into the firebox and open the air fully. It can be used with reasonable common sense however.)


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> Heat your house by burning coal. Strangely enough, you should actually be able to avoid paying carbon tax on this (in theory at least) and by adding extra CO2 you'll be doing your bit for raising the earth's temperature. :




:???.  You are getting childish.


----------



## basilio

Just  brilliant folks.

An entire scientific discipline; a few billion research papers, enough global records to sink a battleship and you can collectively decide on the evidence of AGW by putting your head outside on cold winters morning and shiver. Priceless.

If ignorance is truly bliss then you must all be skipping across the fields in Nirvana.  

Enjoy !!


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Just  brilliant folks.
> 
> An entire scientific discipline; a few billion research papers, enough global records to sink a battleship and you can collectively decide on the evidence of AGW by putting your head outside on cold winters morning and shiver. Priceless.
> 
> If ignorance is truly bliss then you must all be skipping across the fields in Nirvana.
> 
> Enjoy !!





Basilio - AGW does not appear to be proven, it seems to be no more than a hypothesis and any scientist who disagrees with it is considered loopy at best.  Emotional tactics are not scientific.

Flannery's forecasts didn't pan out too well, did they?  Shows the inputs to AGW computer modelling were not correct and this money grab based on an unproven hypothesis has speeded up the total rejection of such nonsense by the majority of voters.

This was the opinion polls around the time Gillard defiantly passed her carbon tax legislation:



> A clear majority of electors (57%, up 1% since August 2011) oppose the Gillard Government’s Carbon Tax ”” despite the legislation passing Federal Parliament in recent weeks compared to only 37% (down 1%) that support it.




http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4710/

Similar polling in July 2011 - so Gillard knew she was legislating against the wishes of the majority and, in the spirit of democracy, I believe she should have waited one more year and taken it to the people for a vote.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4686/


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> An entire scientific discipline; a few billion research papers, enough global records to sink a battleship and you can collectively decide on the evidence of AGW by putting your head outside on cold winters morning and shiver. Priceless.




You have just reinforced you major weakness basilio. You rubbish those who are not convinced, yet you think that having "enough global records to sink a battleship" is a convincing argument. What rubbish.

Remember;  "It is quality rather than quantity that matters."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> You have just reinforced you major weakness basilio. You rubbish those who are not convinced, yet you think that having "enough global records to sink a battleship" is a convincing argument. What rubbish.
> 
> Remember;  "It is quality rather than quantity that matters."




Agree, Calliope,

From the High Priest Al Gore down, there are many with a financial interest in administering an industry based on naught but belief.

It reminds me of the Middle Ages, when millions of words were written as to how many angels fitted on the head of a pin. 

It was raining here yesterday, a miserable day, but there is glorious sunshine today. A day fit for angels.

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Just  brilliant folks.
> 
> An entire scientific discipline; a few billion research papers, enough global records to sink a battleship and you can collectively decide on the evidence of AGW by putting your head outside on cold winters morning and shiver. Priceless.
> 
> If ignorance is truly bliss then you must all be skipping across the fields in Nirvana.
> 
> Enjoy !!




lol. And with those billions of reports you still cannot answer the simplest of questions relating to observed evidence. instead you continue to blather about models, the corrupt "scientists" such as Mann, flannery, Hansen etc. Time to have another rest on the agw  couch and keep yourself from overheating, let the big boys and girls sort out the reality of facts and the agw scam .


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> :???.  You are getting childish.



In what way? A coal fire will fix the problem of you being cold, and (in theory at least) is not subject to carbon tax.

The real tragedy in all of this is that a legitimate field of scientific research has been effectively wrecked by politics. Even if AGW were demonstrated as being real, many people wouldn't care less since their willingness to consider the issue has been destroyed by the tax grab and threats to democracy thus far associated with it.


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> In what way? A coal fire will fix the problem of you being cold, and (in theory at least) is not subject to carbon tax.
> 
> The real tragedy in all of this is that a legitimate field of scientific research has been effectively wrecked by politics. Even if AGW were demonstrated as being real, many people wouldn't care less since their willingness to consider the issue has been destroyed by the tax grab and threats to democracy thus far associated with it.




Agree Smurf.  It will most likely be a case of the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> In what way? A coal fire will fix the problem of you being cold, and (in theory at least) is not subject to carbon tax.
> 
> The real tragedy in all of this is that a legitimate field of scientific research has been effectively wrecked by politics. Even if AGW were demonstrated as being real, many people wouldn't care less since their willingness to consider the issue has been destroyed by the tax grab and threats to democracy thus far associated with it.




I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz. :


----------



## wayneL

Calliope said:


> I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz. :




Cal, the emoticons are the only way to try and add some 'body language' to the posts. They are not there to be childish, but to add a little bit that unspoken dimension that is missing in text conversation such as fora.

In person it might be done with a raised eyebrow, feigned indignation or a hundred other ways that is not possible in print.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz. :



I was responding to your "I am sitting here tonight shivering" post which, given that short term weather is no indication of climate change or otherwise, I took to be somewhat light hearted  in nature.

In an equally light hearted manner, I suggested that if you are cold then you could burn some coal to keep warm.

I don't think either post was intended as being particularly serious (apart from my safety related comment for anyone who does burn coal at home). 

All is good - no harm intended to anyone.


----------



## Logique

Smurf and Calliope,
those of us who know you both - never thought this was anything else but a misunderstanding.


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> Smurf and Calliope,
> those of us who know you both - never thought this was anything else but a misunderstanding.




Yes Logique I over-reacted, but when I was a kid sticking out the tongue was a rude gesture. I was just surprised that Smurf, whose views I respect, thought it added anything to his post. It was the sort of gesture I would have expected from the warmists. Never mind, _revenons a nos moutons_.


----------



## wayneL

The alarmist hypocrisy/green illusion.

First, vehicle such as the Toyota Pious are revealed as net more polluting than an equivalent normal car; now this!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098



> BERKELEY, Calif., June 4, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.
> 
> Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.
> 
> The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098#ixzz1wrB5blik


----------



## herzy

sails said:


> Basilio - AGW does not appear to be proven, it seems to be no more than a hypothesis and any scientist who disagrees with it is considered loopy at best.  Emotional tactics are not scientific.
> 
> Flannery's forecasts didn't pan out too well, did they?  Shows the inputs to AGW computer modelling were not correct and this money grab based on an unproven hypothesis has speeded up the total rejection of such nonsense by the majority of voters.




Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:

1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?

2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported. 

3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is 19c here in Townsville at present.

We had a high of 25C, a beautiful winter's day.

We expect a low of 15C

Much as it has ever been in these parts.

Let us hope nobody from the University of East Anglia ever relocates to JCU. Gawd knows what climate we would have.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

herzy said:


> Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.



The reason for the public disregarding it is pretty straightforward.

1. "Suspending democracy" in no way helps resolve the problem.
2. Sending money to the UN doesn't help either.
3. Too many "boy who cried wolf" predictions of imminent disaster have lead to people tiring of the issue.
4. Imposing a tax whilst boosting coal production is clearly not doing anything to help.

The public may well consider that action needs to be taken, but they are not being presented with any credible means of doing so. The 3 major political parties are all proposing to do effectively nothing, whilst attaching all sorts of unrelated causes to the issue to which large sections of the community are opposed.

Anyone who really wanted to fix the problem would propose doing just that. Fixing it. Labor, Liberal and Green have all failed to do so, indicating that none of our "leaders" see it as a top priority. It is thus no surprise to find that the average citizen is somewhat dismissive of the issue.


----------



## Julia

I agree with Smurf's comments.

Herzy, aren't you perhaps interpreting the widespread rejection of the need for the carbon tax for a definite assertion by the electorate that there is no such thing as AGW?

Imo they are two separate issues.

I personally am agnostic about AGW, but I'm totally opposed to Australian business and the ordinary population being economically disadvantaged via a tax which exceeds that anywhere in the world.

Possibly a quite different story if there were a global acceptance and adoption of this, thus not rendering Australian business at such a disadvantage.

People are rightly angry about the imposition of a tax which will - in the absence of global action at least - do nothing to change the climate but further impact on their already stressed cost of living, so perhaps don't be so dismissive of genuine concerns of ordinary people.

Just as an aside, there are some countries in the world (my native NZ for one) where the inhabitants would absolutely welcome an increase in temperature.  Consideration is never given to this.  The people in much of Europe, Canada etc with snow up to their windowsills every winter would probably be very happy to have somewhat less of it.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

herzy said:


> Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:
> 
> 1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?
> 
> 2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.
> 
> 3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.




Since Herzy chooses to simply believe the "scientific" consensus as does basilio who continues to use the worn and fraudulent "97% of scientists believe" statement, once again and for the record perhaps Herzy can reference the source of survey? Better still, here's the write up....from *wattsup*

....This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.​
Let's welcome herzy to the AGW alarmist carrot club. Perhaps you may have better luck referencing the Mann hockey stick - there couldn't be any fraud there, right? Or is there selective cherry picking there too? Thanks for your opinion - but we're only concerned with the facts - not spin and fraud.


----------



## wayneL

herzy said:


> Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:
> 
> 1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?



This is the problem with the debate as it stands Alarmists continue portray a polarized debate characterized by 1/ a catastrophic worst scenario where life on earth is virtually destroyed and 2/ Outright denial. In fact the sensible debate resides somewhere in the middle, viz, 1/ how much climate change is due to anthropogenic factors and haow much is natural 2/ What anthropogenic factors they are, GHGs, land use etc



> 2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.



You will find a range of views, only a few escapees from the asylum and those with a political support the catastrophic hypothesis.



> 3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.




You plead the proper use of science and then use unscientific stats as highlighted by OzWave. Tsk Tsk just another 'believer' I'm afraid.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> 3. Too many "boy who cried wolf" predictions of imminent disaster have lead to people tiring of the issue.





This is were the lunatics took over the asylum unfortunately and now you have discredited bigger lunatics weighing in from both sides being quoted continually in the general media and by politicians depending on their personal agendas.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> This is were the lunatics took over the asylum unfortunately and now you have discredited bigger lunatics weighing in from both sides being quoted continually in the general media and by politicians depending on their personal agendas.




Yes it would appear Tim Flannery can allow his own biases and personal prejudices to cloud his judgement.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/vindicated-after-the-agony-of-a-lifetime-20120616-20ghe.html


----------



## basilio

A contribution to the AGW debate from a prominent conservative professor. 

If you click on the link and read the article he supports James Hansons proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax..



> *A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change*
> 
> Guest post by Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and regular contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy
> 
> No environmental issue is more polarizing than global climate change.  Many on the left fear increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases threaten an environmental apocalypse while many on the right believe anthropogenic global warming is much ado about nothing and, at worst, a hoax.  Both sides pretend as if the climate policy debate is, first and foremost, about science, rather than policy. This is not so. *There is substantial uncertainty about the scope, scale, and consequences of anthropogenic warming, and will be for some time, but this is not sufficient justification for ignoring global warming or pretending that climate change is not a serious problem.*
> 
> Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern.  I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative.  Even if some parts of the world were to benefit from a modest temperature increase -- due to, say, a lengthened growing season -- others will almost certainly lose.
> .




http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> A contribution to the AGW debate from a prominent conservative professor.
> 
> If you click on the link and read the article he supports James Hansons proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/




hmmm, that's a nice warm statement basilio, thanks for thinking of us - what makes you think anyone trusts warmists with their tax monies in the first place? Perhaps you could address the corruption issues in the so called "science" first before we consider addressing any alledged problem. However, your conduct in this thread strongly suggests you support corruption in order to have green ideology orchestrated, so i guess we'll never see honest answers to a mulitude of corruption issues by agw extemists in the foreseeable future.

I was a little surprised when the mann hockey stick equivalent for australia was published a few weeks ago and you didn't post it here. Unfortunately it was recently taken down because of inherent errors and corrupt methods - no surprise.


----------



## basilio

Ozzie, did  Jonathan Alder say anything that made you think again ?


----------



## Calliope

Environment summit is a waste of time.



> Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. Even if we assumed unreasonably that it caused all deaths from floods, droughts, heatwaves, and storms, this total would amount to just 0.06 per cent of all deaths in developing countries. In comparison, 13 per cent of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution.
> 
> So, for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels (such as dried animal dung) indoors, and from breathing polluted air outdoors.
> 
> By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realise that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-at-wrong-goal/story-e6frgd0x-1226398020777


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

From the SMH, a fine journal, heading towards a more independent less left wing driven editorial policy.



> The meeting was never intended to reach a binding agreement, but the deal it did reach was so watered down that many activists and some ministers were openly questioning whether it was worth the massive effort of bringing 45, 381 participants and almost 100 world leaders to Brazil.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaO5LRTf




How much energy did these boofheads waste flying all over the planet on this absolutely futile exercise.

And La Gillard was up front with all the other muppets.












gg


----------



## Julia

In addition to the 'massive effort' what about all the emissions they created in getting to this talkfest?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> In addition to the 'massive effort' what about all the emissions they created in getting to this talkfest?




One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair.

Be fair Julia, be fair.



> Ms Clinton complimented Ms Gillard on "everything she has been doing" and on her hair.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaWs7zFR









I do wish they had invited the "real" muppets to the Rio talkfest, perhaps something might have been achieved.

gg


----------



## explod

All this cold making the north polar ice cap melt twice as fast as had been thought.

Be more gas fields opening up up there to keep warm apparently


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> All this cold making the north polar ice cap melt twice as fast as had been thought.
> 
> Be more gas fields opening up up there to keep warm apparently




Please educate yourself on this matter explod.


----------



## Julia

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair.
> 
> Be fair Julia, be fair.



I am very fair.  I quite like her hair also, or at least I would if she would tone down the colour a bit.
Good to see that Mrs Clinton took note.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Please educate yourself on this matter explod.




Merely quoting yesterday's news Champ.

Pick on someone who cares


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair...





Was the Clinton lady just being polite?  We will never know, of course.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Merely quoting yesterday's news Champ.
> 
> Pick on someone who cares




News isn't science or fact Chief.

I'm merely pointing out there has been some recent science regarding factors that affect summer Arctic melt... if you are interested. 

But as you indicated, probably don't care about that.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> News isn't science or fact Chief.
> 
> I'm merely pointing out there has been some recent science regarding factors that affect summer Arctic melt... if you are interested.
> 
> But as you indicated, probably don't care about that.




As basilio keeps tacitly agreeing with, the warmists don't care about the profuse corruption by the agw warmist movement either. Does plod fit within this corrupt mindset too? I suggest so.  it's interesting that none of the warmist here have raised  a word on the corruption in agw politics and science - hence the downfall of the agw meme


----------



## wayneL

From the spelling and grammar thread:



Calliope said:


> Thanks basilio. Your conversion to a seeker of the truth in such a trivial matter is refreshing. Let's hope it is reflected in your GW posts.




Fritz Vahrenholt converted to seeker of truth also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...g-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html



> For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.




and 



> The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.


----------



## wayneL

Again from the spelling and grammar thread: 



basilio said:


> Well Calliope when you and the rest of the CC deniers decide to recognise some  climate science that is measured, peer reviewed and real instead of the fanciful BS that you don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion.




Questions:

1/ Who else are you labeling with that reprehensible term, denier?

2/ Is the peer review you refer to the same peer review that the IPCC literature uses? (see my above post)

3/ Can non empirical modeling be considered 'fanciful BS' as opposed to empirical observation/data?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Again from the spelling and grammar thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1/ Who else are you labeling with that reprehensible term, denier?
> 
> 2/ Is the peer review you refer to the same peer review that the IPCC literature uses? (see my above post)
> 
> 3/ Can non empirical modeling be considered 'fanciful BS' as opposed to empirical observation/data?





Start with the mirror Wayne... 

I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS  after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are  just summarily dismissed.  

I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.

And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson.  I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field.  But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.

I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole  CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Start with the mirror Wayne...
> 
> I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS  after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are  just summarily dismissed.
> 
> I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.
> 
> And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson.  I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field.  But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.
> 
> I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole  CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.



1/ Hansen is demonstrably a nutter. Sorry if you have the hots for him, but it's true IMNTBCHO.

2/ How about answering my questions instead of sidestepping, particular the question of who you are disgracefully  labeling as denier?

3/ also the question of empirical evidence vs modelling.

4/ Oh well you may as well answer the question about the quality of the rubbish contained in IPCC literature as per Vahrenholt above.


----------



## basilio

Wayne if you insist on calling James Hansen a "nutter" (which is kinder than you previous piece of disparagement) then you stand as either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.

And in any case if you had any semblance of respect for the topic you wouldn't be  debasing the discussion by smearing one of the most respected scientists in the field.  You may as well smear everyone else as well.

With regard to Vahrenholt's observations.  There are quite extensive analysis of the deliberate or accidental errors he has made.  The most detailed account is carried by climate scientist Bart Verheggen. Probably one of the most critical errors made by Vahrenholt was attempting to claim that the sun was responsible for current global warming. Part of Verheggens response was as follows



> However, the observations show that both surface temperatures as well as ocean heat content started to increase (during the 1970s and 80s) long after solar activity had reached its plateau (during the 1950s). This is inconsistent with a lagged response to the sun, as suggested by Vahrenholt and LÃ¼ning. The relatively steady rate of warming of both ocean and atmosphere over the past four decades indicates that this must be caused by another process.* The sun cannot be responsible for the warming of the past four decades, irrespective of how strongly one wishes to amplify its effect.*
> 
> Updated graphic of total heat content from Church et al 2011
> 
> Vahrenholt and LÃ¼ning cite the work of Solanki and co-authors in support of their claim. However, Solanki et al made the same point as we do: "This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant" (Solanki et al., 2003), and: "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." (Solanki et al., 2004, referring to their 2003 paper). This is just one of many examples where Vahrenholt and LÃ¼ning misinterpret what is written in the literature in order to bolster their point of view.




It was also interesting to note how Vahrenholt misused the work of Solanki in trying to bolster his argument.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...nse-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/

*
With regard to the comparison between models and empirical evidence .*

Vahrenholt was again echoed by the climate denier chambers when he  promoted a piece from Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim which attempted to argue that James Hansen's projections in 1988 were way off the mark.  

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/See 

Again this was a litany of misrepresentations. Start with the simple figure of just how much of a temp increase James Hansen was projecting



> *Whopping Wrong Temperature Change Claim*
> 
> Solheim claims that "Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 °C, which is a whopping 150% wrong."  Yet Scenario A - the emissions scenario with the largest projected temperature change - only projects 0.7 °C surface warming between 1988 and 2012.  Even if emissions were higher than in Scenario A (which they weren't, but Solheim wrongly claims they were), they would have to be several times higher for Hansen's model to project the ~2.3 °C warming over just 23 years (1 °C per decade!) that Solheim claims.  Solheim's claim here is simply very wrong.




The analysis then goes on to highlight the changes in greenhouse gas emissions that were not recognized by Solheim and the use of distorted temperature data.

The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2  degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. 

So where does this leave us ?



> The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> In fact I think the whole  CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.




Don't give up Bazza. Nobody is as well suited as you to run the hysteria side of the debate. 

You have said I "don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion."That's right. No need. Common sense will beat a thousand peer reviewed IPCC eco-scientists modelling and pissing in each other's pockets.  Try it sometime. You may be surprised.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne if you insist on calling James Hansen a "nutter" (which is kinder than you previous piece of disparagement) then you stand as either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.




Your binary choice is bogus. 'Accurate' is the other correct option.



> And in any case if you had any semblance of respect for the topic you wouldn't be  debasing the discussion by smearing one of the most respected scientists in the field.  You may as well smear everyone else as well.




Nonsense. There are a number of honest brokers who consider all data, these are the so-called lukewarmers. I have very high respect for these.



> With regard to Vahrenholt's observations.  There are quite extensive analysis of the deliberate or accidental errors he has made.  The most detailed account is carried by climate scientist Bart Verheggen. Probably one of the most critical errors made by Vahrenholt was attempting to claim that the sun was responsible for current global warming. Part of Verheggens response was as follows
> 
> 
> 
> It was also interesting to note how Vahrenholt misused the work of Solanki in trying to bolster his argument.
> 
> http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...nse-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/
> 
> *
> With regard to the comparison between models and empirical evidence .*
> 
> Vahrenholt was again echoed by the climate denier chambers when he  promoted a piece from Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim which attempted to argue that James Hansen's projections in 1988 were way off the mark.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/See
> 
> Again this was a litany of misrepresentations. Start with the simple figure of just how much of a temp increase James Hansen was projecting
> 
> 
> 
> The analysis then goes on to highlight the changes in greenhouse gas emissions that were not recognized by Solheim and the use of distorted temperature data.
> 
> The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2  degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
> 
> So where does this leave us ?
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html




There may be errors all round and the reason the science is not settled. I prefer reasonable discussion over polarized tribal dogma.

I suggest you do a bit of navel gazing with regards to your obvious dogma and refusal to consider all vectors in the discussion.

This is why I disrespect you, Hansen and other such catastrophists; there is no consideration for proper debate on scientific grounds. Just doom-mongering based on dodgy modelling.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Start with the mirror Wayne...
> 
> I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS  after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are  just summarily dismissed.
> 
> I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.
> 
> And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson.  I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field.  But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.
> 
> I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole  CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.




Whoops...let me help you back onto your couch basilio....it seems you also have some company from the corrupt elephant in the room that you can't hand wave away. The seriously delirious alarmists are admitting to the corruption. the rorts. the misrepresentation of data, etc - thanks to an army of bloggers keeping the corruptible in check. Hence any so called "discussion" must address the corruption and the misleading "adjustments" of data and of course the observed evidence that continuously eludes you. 

Either participate in an honest discussion and acknowledge that there are some significant elements in the AGW meme that are far from satisfactory as pointed out by thousands or continue to be the typical bias, lying and corrupt basilio we've seen who lurks in this forum as a AGW propagandist serving an ideology.


----------



## basilio

So lets go through the responses to date.

Wayne originally asked for a response to the Vahrenholt stories which cast doubt on AGW ands also criticized James Hansen for being hopelessly wrong with his 1988 modeling on climate change.

When Vahrenholts claims are investigated it becomes clear that he has simply misrepresented the original data and  misrepresented other scientists he suggest supports his view.  This wasn't  another view; the most charitable explanation is an error or alternatively deliberate misinformation.

Probably the most telling point in the whole discussion is the question of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling. 



> The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
> 
> So where does this leave us ?
> 
> *The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.*




Wayne you suggest we need a proper debate on scientific grounds. There is 30 years of research along multiple paths that bring the overwhelming number of scientists to accept that AGW is very real.  We still don't know the full picture but the main story has been well and truly established.  In the early 80's James Hansen and other climate scientists recognised the steady increase in CO2 levels  could only mean an equally steady rise in the heat retained on earth and this temperature rises.

No one else has come up with  a credible alternative explanation for temperature rises in the current situation. Full stop.

And I do not accept your position of luke warmer. It’s difficult to define exactly what “lukewarmer” means, because many deniers want to be considered “lukewarmers”, because the term makes them sound reasonable.

So I think “lukewarmer” is just a subset of “denier” – generally someone who accepts humans are causing some global warming, but denies the abundance of scientific evidence  showing that climate sensitivity is approximately 3 °C (likely between 2 and 4.5 °C) for 2xCO2, and that the consequences of several degrees of warming (business as usual) will be quite bad.

In most cases “lukewarmers” accept the basic science but fall in the “climate sensitivity is low” camp and deny the consequences will be bad. So you look  reasonable and yet continue to oppose greenhouse gas emissions cuts, which ultimately is the motivation behind all climate denial. 

IMO  more and more “deniers”  will transition to this form of “lukewarmer”-ism because it is a less unreasonable position, but allows them to maintain their ideological opposition to climate solutions.

*Other comments ?*

Calliope doesn't give a fig about science so nuff said there. 


Ozzie somehow thinks that the whole scientific community has bodgied up all the global temperatures to make it look as if we have warming when of course we havn't.

Somehow the small details of the massive change to ecosystems, plant  cycles, melting of glaciers etc as a result of increasing temperatures plays no part in his thesis. They must be in on the deception as well.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Calliope doesn't give a fig about science so nuff said there.




Your science beliefs are very selective. If I remember correctly you are a Creationist!


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Your science beliefs are very selective. If I remember correctly you are a Creationist!




Che ?? Che !!!!  Please,  remind me when I said/suggested/ even remotely inferred I was a creationist ??


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Che ?? Che !!!!  Please,  remind me when I said/suggested/ even remotely inferred I was a creationist ??




Is that a denial? Are you indeed a denier? Both the old and new testaments of the bible have numerous warnings that because god created the world he can also destroy it. They all follow your adopted philosophy that unless we repent the world will be destroyed by fire flood and famine etc.

Like the prophets of old you have continually warned us that unless we accept the Gospel according to you and your 1000 scientists we are doomed to be be cooked, drowned, or starved in the coming holocaust. In fact you have suggested that it is too late now to avoid it.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Is that a denial? Are you indeed a denier? Both the old and new testaments of the bible have numerous warnings that because god created the world he can also destroy it. They all follow your adopted philosophy that unless we repent the world will be destroyed by fire flood and famine etc.
> 
> Like the prophets of old you have continually warned us that unless we accept the Gospel according to you and your 1000 scientists we are doomed to be be cooked, drowned, or starved in the coming holocaust. In fact you have suggested that it is too late now to avoid it.




WOW  That must be great great stuff your smokin Calliope.  I was desperately trying to figure out just how you saw me as a creationist and , *Praise the Lord,*  you mange to pull one of the alltime blinder posts on ASF. In fact it almost tops your other line about lesbians being discriminated against because the couldn't be sperm donors. 

There is nothing Biblical about the consequences of GW. Just what happens if it all gets too hot to handle. :headshake


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So I think “lukewarmer” is just a subset of “denier” –



You have just disqualified yourself from reasonable discussion altogether.

If it was possible for me to having a lower opinion of you, this comment would have done it.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> WOW  That must be great great stuff your smokin Calliope.  I was desperately trying to figure out just how you saw me as a creationist




More obfuscation - no denial.


----------



## wayneL

More empirical data conflicting with models http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/



> Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.
> 
> "Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.
> 
> According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:
> 
> It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
> 
> The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> You have just disqualified yourself from reasonable discussion altogether.
> 
> If it was possible for me to having a lower opinion of you, this comment would have done it.




Well given that you have never been capable of having a reasonable discussion that is no loss. 
In fact the real problem with "luke warmer" just being  a subset of "denier" is its accuracy.  As I pointed out it's not a good look to be an out and out denier. It is therefore it is far more strategic to suggest that while AGW may be true (even though the evidence is not all in .. and of course never will be . ..)  in your view  the impact of AGW will not be that bad. We can all cope with it.

Trouble is the overwhelming evidence to date does not support that view. 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

I suppose a more constructive question is to ask what scientific evidence would cause you to acknowledge that AGW was not only real but capable of causing quite traumatic effects on the environment and our place in it ? 

Or alternatively how absolutely certain are you that there won't be the dramatic effects currently predicted by climate scientists? In the business world no business would accept even a 1-2% chance of a catastrophic outcome ie plane crash, bridge failure.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Discussing Climate with basilio is like talking to a screaming child....there is no longer any logic, just emotional tears and the impending "end of days" unless a bottle can be found.





A baby simply cannot understand waves of corruption or the now too obvious agenda behind a carbon tax that won't actually change the temperature.

Back to the AGW lapping bowl.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> More empirical data conflicting with models http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/




Excellent.. Perhaps the ice is not melting as quickly as feared in Antarctica.  But did you also notice the other story on the same page referring to the rising sea levels off Americas East and West Coast ?  

Wayne I could fill this thread with a thousand current studies which delineate the rapid rate of change of ecosystems and temperature patterns around the world.  Trying to deflect the argument with one or even a few more "no change stories" just doesn't balance the far greater majority of research evidence.

The depressing part about the changes we have seen is that (according to scientists) there is at least another 1 degree C warming that will happen regardless of any change we make because of the current CO2 levels and stored heat in the oceans. 

For what its worth anyone can check out the latest offerings from our scientific community at the  Royal Society reference below.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/sea_level_reports/
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1549/2019.full.pdf


----------



## Calliope

Where's basilio when you need him?



> BRISBANE temperatures have failed to make 20C for four days in a row, the largest run of cold days in four years - and there's more to come.
> 
> Large parts of the state also face more cold and miserable school holiday weather today and tomorrow and more comfortable conditions are not expected until Friday.
> 
> Some places struggled to get into double figures over much of the central and southern half of the state yesterday.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Calliope said:


> Where's basilio when you need him?





The the bubble of make believe AGW warming is further discussed.....*here*

I suggest Basilio is suckling on the corrupt bottle of AGW hysteria somewhere.


----------



## Smurf1976

Failed to reach 20?

Try 7 degrees. And that's inside this morning at my house. Outside was about zero - frost on the ground and the car was iced up.


----------



## sptrawler

Also smurph, when I phoned my elderly aunty in U.K last weekend, she said it was freezing and summer hadn't arrived. We are talking late June


----------



## sails

sptrawler said:


> Also smurph, when I phoned my elderly aunty in U.K last weekend, she said it was freezing and summer hadn't arrived. We are talking late June





Coldest weather in Qld since the mid 1980s.

If the globe is warming, surely we shouldn't be having record cold weather?  Doesn't make sense.  It's nothing but an excuse to lift more money from hard working and self supporting Aussies.  Shameful, imo.


----------



## basilio

Just to put another perspective on AGW cast your eyes on what is happening in America at the moment (and perhaps recall the catastrophic bushfires in OZ in feb 2008)




> *US wildfires are what global warming really looks like, scientists warn*
> 
> *The Colorado fires are being driven by extreme temperatures, which are consistent with IPCC projections*
> 
> Scorching heat, high winds and bone-dry conditions are fueling catastrophic wildfires in the US west that offer a preview of the kind of disasters that human-caused climate change could bring, a trio of scientists said on Thursday.
> 
> "What we're seeing is a window into what global warming really looks like," said Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author for the UN's climate science panel. "It looks like heat, it looks like fires, it looks like this kind of environmental disaster … This provides vivid images of what we can expect to see more of in the future."
> 
> In Colorado, wildfires that have raged for weeks have killed four people, displaced thousands and destroyed hundreds of homes. Because winter snowpack was lighter than usual and melted sooner, fire season started earlier in the US west, with wildfires out of control in Colorado, Montana and Utah.
> 
> The high temperatures that are helping drive these fires are consistent with projections by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said this kind of extreme heat, with little cooling overnight, is one kind of damaging impact of global warming.
> 
> Others include more severe storms, floods and droughts, Oppenheimer said.
> 
> The stage was set for these fires when winter snowpack was lighter than usual, said Steven Running, a forest ecologist at the University of Montana.
> 
> Mountain snows melted an average of two weeks earlier than normal this year, Running said. "That just sets us up for a longer, drier summer. Then all you need is an ignition source and wind."
> 
> Warmer-than-usual winters also allow tree-killing mountain pine beetles to survive the winter and attack western forests, leaving behind dry wood to fuel wildfires earlier in the season, Running said.
> 
> "Now we have a lot of dead trees to burn … it's not even July yet," he said. Trying to stop such blazes driven by high winds is a bit like to trying to stop a hurricane, Running said.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/29/us-wildfires-global-warming-scientists?intcmp=122


----------



## Glen48

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/doomsday-called-off/
 Some thing to ponder:


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Just to put another perspective on AGW cast your eyes on what is happening in America at the moment (and perhaps recall the catastrophic bushfires in OZ in feb 2008)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/29/us-wildfires-global-warming-scientists?intcmp=122




Are you suggesting that there's been no bushfires until now, because of a trace gas? And humans contribute 3%  of this trace gas and you claim as other extremists do that it causes fires? And what about the floods? caused by the same human component of co2 as well?

you're a 100ml short of Full bottle of hysteric awg milk, keep lapping, I'm certain that your the only one left listening to this dribble.


----------



## Calliope

OzWaveGuy said:


> Are you suggesting that there's been no bushfires until now, because of a trace gas? And humans contribute 3%  of this trace gas and you claim as other extremists do that it causes fires? And what about the floods? caused by the same human component of co2 as well?
> 
> you're a 100ml short of Full bottle of hysteric awg milk, keep lapping, I'm certain that your the only one left listening to this dribble.




Aw, I don't know. I think that Doomsday Baz adds a touch of comedy to this thread. However I am sure he is aware that tomorrow is the Tipping Point when the world will slowly start to regress to another Ice Age, when a bushfire would be welcome.

*Tomorrow Gillard's Carbon Tax Kicks In.*


----------



## Smurf1976

4 years ago, there seemed to be a lot of genuine concern in Australia about climate change and thoughts along the lines of what we can do about it.

I don't recall hearing anything about that for quite some time now. The entire debate, at least so far as the general public is concerned, has become about the carbon tax itself and not about actual climate change. I have no firm basis to say this, it is just my observation, but my perception is that the Australian population has essentially lost interest in climate change as such, but is very focused on the carbon tax as a tax.

I see and hear plenty of people worried about electricity bills, installing solar panels and the like. But I don't see to many doing anything non-tax related to address the issue. There's still no major trend against air travel for example and much of the push for economical cars seems to have died out too. Just an observation that the tax itself, rather than actually reducing emissions, has become the main focus of the debate.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> There's still no major trend against air travel for example and much of the push for economical cars seems to have died out too. Just an observation that the tax itself, rather than actually reducing emissions, has become the main focus of the debate.



Something people will slowly come to understand is the above comes with time as the cost of these activities is pushed slowly but surely beyond the reach of a greater percentage of the population.


----------



## sails

It will be interesting when people get their first power bills after carbon tax is implemented.  And their rates bills, etc.  Some things won't go up by much, but collectively they will add up.

Why should people pay for a tax that is supposed to help the environment but is most unlikely to do anything of the sort.  Shameful, imo.


----------



## Glen48

Peoples attitudes will change as the depression deepens and all of a sudden it will be fighting for survival and the carbon tax will be as about important as who won the 1932 a Melbourne cup. 
 As things get worse all will move down a notch as each hiccup comes along.


----------



## MACCA350

Was just looking at the Melbourne Water site and found this graph showing the Thompson Dam storage levels from 1985 to 2011:



If you look at this page http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/water_report.asp you'll see that Thomson Dam is currently at 63.9% capacity. If you draw that on the graph we are back to pre 1998 levels.

Looks to me like the drought has broken. 10yrs of wet, 10yrs of dry, looks like a cycle to me.......nothing more.

Cheers


----------



## Glen48

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/
 Why temps dropped for 40 years.


----------



## Logique

OzWaveGuy said:


> Are you suggesting that there's been no bushfires until now, because of a trace gas? And humans contribute 3%  of this trace gas and you claim as other extremists do that it causes fires?....



The Greens caused larger and hotter, more expensive and ecologically damaging bushfires, by opposing winter time broad area fuel reduction. 

Land agencies, having prepared the requisite 50 page environmental study (green tape), conduct a few tiny management burns of a few acres each, all they're game to do. Then they can say, we support fuel management and have an ongoing program.

If this seems fantastic to readers, go and ask any rural fire brigade volunteer in the country, it's common knowledge.


----------



## sails

This is interesting.  UN climate scientists pleading for immunity from criminal prosecution - do they know they haven't been truthful?  Can't see why else they would be begging for immunity which surely should not be given?



> Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).
> 
> The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story. The perplexing plea will likely reverberate throughout the general scientific community as further affirmation that many climate scientists were not conducting honest research after all. John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, questioned the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”




Read more: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution


----------



## basilio

Anyone noticed it's been a bit warm in the US in the past few weeks ? And they havn't reached the normal summer hot spots.

Temperatures records across the country are being broken and rebroken almost daily.  And some very colourful maps. 



> *NBC Meteorologist On Record Heat Wave: ‘If We Did Not Have Global Warming, We Wouldn’t See This’*
> 
> By Joe Romm on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:43 am
> 
> 
> It is friggin’ hot!
> 
> How hot is it? It’s so hot that all-time records are being set in June: “Nashville has reached its hottest temperature on record…109 degrees at 314 pm. The previous all time record was 107 from July 27th and 28th of 1952.”
> 
> UPDATE: Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters has more all-time heat records:
> 
> 109 ° Columbia, SC (old record 107 ° on two previous occasions)
> 109 ° Cairo, IL (old record 106 ° on 8/9/1930)
> 108 ° Paducah, KY (ties same on 7/17/1942
> 106 ° Chattanooga, TN (ties same on 7/28/1952)
> 105 ° Raleigh, NC (ties same on 8/21/2007 and 8/18/1988)
> 105 ° Greenville, SC (old record 104 ° 8/10/2007 although 106 ° was recorded by the Signal Service in July 1887)
> 104 ° Charlotte, NC (ties same on 8/9 and 10/2007 and 9/6/1954)
> 102 ° Bristol, TN (ties same on 7/28/1952-this site now known as `Tri-State Airport’)
> 109 ° Athens, GA. This is just 1 ° shy of the Georgia state record for June of 110 ° set at Warrenton in 1959.




http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...idnt-have-global-warming-we-wouldnt-see-this/


----------



## basilio

And just in case you might think that todays weather in the US is out of the box cast your mind back to...

*March 2012* . Like 4 months ago.  This is what was happening then.



> *March Came In Like A Lamb, Went Out Like A Globally Warmed Lion On Steroids Who Smashed 15,000 Heat Records
> *
> By Joe Romm on Apr 10, 2012 at 11:49 am
> 
> March 2012 Statewide Temperature Ranks Map
> *
> It’s official. This was “the warmest March on record” since records began in 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.*
> 
> *How hot was it? It was so hot that NOAA reports “there were 15,272 warm temperature records broken (7,755 daytime records, 7,517 nighttime records).”
> *
> NOAA released some amazing charts and factoids yesterday:
> 
> Hundreds of locations across the country broke their all-time March records. There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date.
> A persistent weather pattern led to 25 states east of the Rockies having their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest.
> NOAA’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index, an index that tracks the highest 10 percent and lowest 10 percent of extremes in temperature, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones, was 39 percent, nearly twice the long-term average and the highest value on record for the January-March period [see figure]:




http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...n-on-steroids-who-smashed-15000-heat-records/


----------



## mexican

basilio said:


> Anyone noticed it's been a bit warm in the US in the past few weeks ? And they havn't reached the normal summer hot spots.
> 
> Temperatures records across the country are being broken and rebroken almost daily.  And some very colourful maps.
> 
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...idnt-have-global-warming-we-wouldnt-see-this/




Give it up Bas...becoming very boring!!!!


----------



## sails

And record cold in Aus?  Or don't you watch Aussie news, Basilio?

So globally temps would most likely be averaging normal!


----------



## basilio

mexican said:


> Give it up Bas...becoming very boring!!!!




So it's okay for the rest of the troops to blather on about how nippy it is for a couple of days in Melb/Sydney/ wherever but looking at the US turn into a potato crisp is so boring ? How surprising.. 

I can't recall the last vaguely logical comment offered by the head in the sand crew on this forum.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> This is interesting.  UN climate scientists pleading for immunity from criminal prosecution - do they know they haven't been truthful?  Can't see why else they would be begging for immunity which surely should not be given?
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution




Hmmm, you think they know about some upcoming legal action? They can beg for immunity all they like - it doesn't matter if the UN provide it or not (I suggest they will get it since the UN IPCC are just as corrupt and have actively falsified or used the very same falsified scientific data). Under international law they can't escape if fraud has been committed as any man/woman/enitiy can seek remedy privately. Although I doubt any such legal action would be undertaken in the private.

Thousands of government sponsored scientists and MPs have actively used the endless list of corrupt data and it's on the record  We should soon start to see legal action being brought against many of these people who knowingly participated in the coordinated AGW scam.

I see Basilio is having a hot tantrum again, seems unusually cold everywhere else. Let me warm a bottle....


----------



## mexican

basilio said:


> So it's okay for the rest of the troops to blather on about how nippy it is for a couple of days in Melb/Sydney/ wherever but looking at the US turn into a potato crisp is so boring ? How surprising..
> 
> I can't recall the last vaguely logical comment offered by the head in the sand crew on this forum.




Can't recall the last logical comment from you Bas.......BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JTLP

basilio said:


> Anyone noticed it's been a bit warm in the US in the past few weeks ? And they havn't reached the normal summer hot spots.
> 
> Temperatures records across the country are being broken and rebroken almost daily.  And some very colourful maps.
> 
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...idnt-have-global-warming-we-wouldnt-see-this/




So what was happening in the 30's/40's/50's for these previous highs? The years inbetween experienced no hotter? Seems pretty cyclical to me 

PS Isn't the Earth always moving? Maybe it's changing the season timings too...


----------



## basilio

mexican said:


> Can't recall the last logical comment from you Bas.......BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Then clearly you can't recognise logic can you mate ? 

___________________________________________________________________________

No problems folks. This has become a totally fact free, feel good place where uncomfortable realities are flicked to the bin and replaced with a Pina Colada in the sun.  

Lets talk footy !!

Cheers


----------



## sails

mexican said:


> Give it up Bas...becoming very boring!!!!




I think Bas is trying to quickly move past this post of mine...



> Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).
> 
> The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story. The perplexing plea will likely reverberate throughout the general scientific community as further affirmation that many climate scientists were not conducting honest research after all. John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, questioned the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”




More here: *UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution*


----------



## basilio

Sails I read that story and a few more posts from that writer.

He has to be the most wilfully stupid, lying piece of rubbish I have seen on the net. (And there is plenty of competition for that spot)

With regard to the issue of lying Climate scientists.  It's just ignorant, self serving rubbish.  If  some of these lying pieces of rubbish actually had any evidence of serious deliberate or systemic errors in the science they would have published it years ago. There is no deception - there is no hoax full stop. 

Do you you want to find deliberate, systematic  distortion of evidence Sails?  I can fill this forum with the omissions and distortions served up by Monckton, Carter and co.  

But whats the point ? You want to believe this drivel - go right ahead. It's a free country isn't it ?


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Sails I read that story and a few more posts from that writer.
> 
> He has to be the most wilfully stupid, lying piece of rubbish I have seen on the net. (And there is plenty of competition for that spot)
> 
> With regard to the issue of lying Climate scientists.  It's just ignorant, self serving rubbish.  If  some of these lying pieces of rubbish actually had any evidence of serious deliberate or systemic errors in the science they would have published it years ago. There is no deception - there is no hoax full stop.
> 
> Do you you want to find deliberate, systematic  distortion of evidence Sails?  I can fill this forum with the omissions and distortions served up by Monckton, Carter and co.
> 
> But whats the point ? You want to believe this drivel - go right ahead. It's a free country isn't it ?





Basilio - I have not been given any valid reasons to believe your side of the story.  You use words like "denier" against those with whom you do not agree.  Insults like that are unnecessary if your science is strong and by using such insults it removes much of your credibility, imo.

And the failed AGW predictions have also weakened your argument.  You quote scientists who are on government pay rolls.  There can be strong motives for socialist governments to want certain endorsements from scientists.  I have often posted links to scientists who have confirmed there is little funding unless you take the government line on AGW.

All these factors have given me doubts about the validity of AGW.  It seems it is nothing more than an excuse to milk money from hard working people.  And that is shameful, imo.

I hope we still live in a free country.  Will be relieved when the libs are back in control even with their imperfections.


----------



## basilio

On reflection I was wrong to pass judgment on the writer of the comment Sails offered.

When I had  a look on the web there were scores of mirror websites with just as much bile and dishonesty and it wouldn't be fair to pick out one particular miscreant as the worst. They all try so hard to plumb those depths.

Just thought I'd say that...


----------



## basilio

Sails I have written many, many posts offering the scientific explanations and evidence surrounding AGW. Anyone who cares to spend an hour on the topic can see why the overwhelming numbers of the scientific community are sure that :

1) The earths climate is warming rapidly 
2) The main driver of this change *in this case * is human produced excessive greenhouse gases.

The term denier is now used when it becomes clear that no matter how strong the scientific evidence is  the person will refuse to acknowledge it or attempt to distort it.  In this forum for example many members will refuse to acknowledge the work of peer reviewed climate scientists full stop. When I put up links that offer clear explanations for the case of AGW they are summarily dismissed as "liars".  

But if you have a spare hour or so check it out. The cleanest most accessible document I have found was put together by a group of scientists at the Skeptical science blog.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf


----------



## bandicoot76

Logique said:


> The Greens caused larger and hotter, more expensive and ecologically damaging bushfires, by opposing winter time broad area fuel reduction.
> 
> Land agencies, having prepared the requisite 50 page environmental study (green tape), conduct a few tiny management burns of a few acres each, all they're game to do. Then they can say, we support fuel management and have an ongoing program.
> 
> If this seems fantastic to readers, go and ask any rural fire brigade volunteer in the country, it's common knowledge.




i am a RFS volunteer and i can confirm this post 100%

cheers...the bandicoot


----------



## bandicoot76

basilio said:


> And just in case you might think that todays weather in the US is out of the box cast your mind back to...
> 
> *March 2012* . Like 4 months ago.  This is what was happening then.
> 
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...n-on-steroids-who-smashed-15000-heat-records/




you are a joke, you sneer at "deniers" for their ignorance for thinking that "cold weather" disproves climate change, then trot out exactly the same scenerio "hot weather" as being proof of climate change!

 you are either brainwashed or a brainwasher imo.


----------



## wayneL

bandicoot76 said:


> you are a joke, you sneer at "deniers" for their ignorance for thinking that "cold weather" disproves climate change, then trot out exactly the same scenerio "hot weather" as being proof of climate change!
> 
> you are either brainwashed or a brainwasher imo.




After her comments categorizing all except those who 'believe' in the worst case (modelled) scenario as 'deniers', I believe you are dead right.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The cleanest most accessible document I have found was put together by a group of scientists at the Skeptical science blog.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf




Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.




Wayne that summary didn't troll the net for mindless distortions and downright lies.  It uses the work of 68 peer reviewed papers to back up its explanations.  They probably could have multiplied it by 10 or 100 but that would be rediculous. 

How would it be useful to use scientific papers that other scientists would simply deconstruct because the evidence was non existent, or faked ? Or just related to a small set of data that didn't cover the whole picture ?

The critical problem with the anti AGW case is it's rejection of almost the whole body of climate  science in favour of people who cherry pick data, deliberately distort evidence and refuse to use logic.

_______________________________________________________________________________

With regard to bringing up the current massive heat waves as evidence of Global Warming. Are we not talking about an overall increase in global temperatures as a result of more heat being trapped in the atmosphere by extra greenhouse gases ?  I would have have thought the massive nationwide examples in the US  of such a heat wave was relevant to the discussion.

No one has ever suggested that weather around the world will rise in lock step.  But what is clearly happening is the extra heat energy in the atmosphere is changing the climate in a number of ways. The strength and depth of the heatwaves  is a clear indication that is not just the same weather  cycles but significantly stronger systems.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> The critical problem with the anti AGW case is it's rejection of almost the whole body of climate  science in favour of people who cherry pick data, deliberately distort evidence and refuse to use logic.




Get the feeling that your posts seem to attracting an increasing amount of negativity? Perhaps because of your  demonstrated: support for corruption,  inability to provide observed evidence of man's 3% contribution of CO2 on temperatures, continual referencing of 2nd rate blogs, inability to accept IPCC and others have admitted to using corrupted data and processes, and above all your unequivocal inability to answer basic questions on the impact of human CO2. 

The trend is simple to understand: 3yrs ago, some would listen to the dribble from your posts including Knobby and a few others, however, you're in complete denial of the mounting evidence of corruption in AGW so called "science" (and cooler temperatures). There's a few words to describe entities like you which I won't post here, but one thing's for certain your tainted and corrupted view of so called climate change is educating many here of the kind of people that we don't want pontificating lies and deceit to us or anyone else here in Oz.


----------



## basilio

Ozzie you have been directly answered a score of times. You just can't or won't read the  scientific data.  The reference I put in my previous post addresses your questions.

And by the way Skeptical science pulls together all the peer reviewed science in this field. Calling it a second rate blog site is surreal.

I take  your point about the lack of support for me on this forum. It reflects the reality that all  other science based contributers have given up discussing the issue when its clear evidence and logic are not part of the discussion.

(I think i just have too much time on my hands...)


----------



## Glen48

Why Jesus turned green:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAS3Tmz7IYI&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## Calliope

Basilio's hero George Monbiot is complaining bitterly that oil reserves in the ground are huge.



> There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.
> 
> But right now I'm not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-lot-of-us-20120703-21fbi.html#ixzz1zctFdgvR


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> Basilio's hero George Monbiot is complaining bitterly that oil reserves in the ground are huge.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-lot-of-us-20120703-21fbi.html#ixzz1zctFdgvR




The funny thing is that US and Europe petrol usage has dropped dramatically since the GFC a combination of better technology and everyone being broke. Even China is flattening on their use of petrol. Australia, (proudly?) has done no such thing but we are in the minority.

Read in New Scientist recently that the new battery technologies are also taking hold and can be expected to further reduce our reliance on oil. Peak oil nearly happened imo but now is looking a fair way off.

Interesting times...


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne that summary didn't troll the net for mindless distortions and downright lies.  It uses the work of 68 peer reviewed papers to back up its explanations.  They probably could have multiplied it by 10 or 100 but that would be *rediculous*.




I presume you meant 'ridiculous'.

I also presume you have attended the Goebbels School of Propaganda judging by the number of times you have repeated the phrase 'mindless distortions and downright lies'.

Unfortunately for you (et al), we are all onto that now. Repetition does not imply truth any more, quite the opposite actually.

We have been over the problems with modelling, soft science and purported peer review a number of times now on this thread.... sorry ma'am, that just doesn't cut it. What we are interested in is hard science and proper scientific method. In cases where hard science is available, it increasingly favours the moderate 'lukewarm' view.

Awaiting your next troll post in eager anticipation. </sarc>


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> In cases where hard science is available, it increasingly favours the moderate 'lukewarm' view.
> 
> Awaiting your next troll post in eager anticipation. </sarc>




So post some links to this up';

and awaiting yours


----------



## wayneL

Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):



			
				Joe Bastardi said:
			
		

> Global temps remain below normal for the year
> http://policlimate.com/climate...
> 
> and  if not for the  Warm AMO,  it would be even  be colder  (  forces the warmth north of Russia)
> 
> notice most land masses  are colder than normal
> 
> 3 year  trend  is  jagged and down since  pdo shift
> 
> http://policlimate.com/climate...
> 
> The US is less than  10%  of the globe.   Moral is you are being deceptive using  The US. Scandinavia  had coldest June on record  Australia  is having a bad winter.  A coffee freeze may ht  Brazil within  next  15 years.
> 
> Please if you want to talk globally, use  global  weather, not just an area less than 10%  it is deception when all facts are not shown.. or even some of them
> 
> *btw  25 states  had  RECORD LOWS  last week too*
> 
> Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-climate.html#comment-575334775#storylink=cpy


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> Peak oil nearly happened imo but now is looking a fair way off.



Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):




A couple of years is meaningless.

Like my claim that more rain is due to more moisture rising due to higher temps down south. And more cloud causing lower temps up the latitudes.

You and I as laypersons just do not know.

I just do not think that head in the sand on any angle are worth the risks.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> A couple of years is meaningless.
> 
> Like my claim that more rain is due to more moisture rising due to higher temps down south. And more cloud causing lower temps up the latitudes.
> 
> You and I as laypersons just do not know.
> 
> I just do not think that head in the sand on any angle are worth the risks.




But you can raise *any fear* and demand action on the same basis. Also you are suffering (as layman) a cognitive bias that my fear is subordinate to your fear. That is both fallacious and arrogant.

And skeptics do not have they're head in the sand Plod, they are examining the the *HARD* evidence.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> But you can raise *any fear* and demand action on the same basis. Also you are suffering (as layman) a cognitive bias that my fear is subordinate to your fear. That is both fallacious and arrogant.
> 
> And skeptics do not have they're head in the sand Plod, they are examining the the *HARD* evidence.




And the evidence on all side is still subjective.  However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.

And *arrogance*.  Strewth, you are certainly not able to see yourself objectively ole Pal, but keep working.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And the evidence on all side is still subjective.  However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.



So your subjective indications are worth more than my subjective indications?

I have a list of cognitive biases for your self-realization. 



> And *arrogance*.  Strewth, you are certainly not able to see yourself objectively ole Pal, but keep working.




Again, you believe me unable to see myself objectively, yet you believe you see yourself objectively?

FFS Plod, I have often wondered about your capacity to review data dispassionately and with a minimum of bias; but your latest comments leave me with no doubt - People with a minimum cognitive ability should disqualify themselves from strongly held opinion.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Again, you believe me unable to see myself objectively, yet you believe you see yourself objectively?
> 
> .




I do not see myself objective in this debate, unless one is a scientist in the specific field how can one.

You still do not see what I am saying in an objective manner and on this I am not referring to climate. 

Is there someone else out there who can help the lad, I am obviously not up to it.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I do not see myself objective in this debate, unless one is a scientist in the specific field how can one.
> 
> You still do not see what I am saying in an objective manner and on this I am not referring to climate.
> 
> Is there someone else out there who can help the lad, I am obviously not up to it.




Classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Not every scientist is objective, nor is every non-scientist subjective.

Empirical evidence trumps all.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Not every scientist is objective, nor is every non-scientist subjective.
> 
> Empirical evidence trumps all.




Again you assert your own perfection.  You are UYOA ole son and cannot see it.

It is a wonder anyone bothers with you at all, but I will stick around myself for the fun of it.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Again you assert your own perfection.  You are UYOA ole son and cannot see it.
> 
> It is a wonder anyone bothers with you at all, but I will stick around myself for the fun of it.




Eh?

Can you please quote line and verse, my assertions of my own perfection?

I merely assert what i think is logical on the grand scale of things and stand to be corrected.

Further logical fallacy on your part does not do you any favours old bean.


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.




A few years ago I was expecting $200 a barrel combined with a Depression! 
Once again through ingenuity and luck we seem to have avoided the worst and given ourselves time to change how our economy works. Humanity is lucky, if other alien races are watching us they must gasp to see our wars, weapons, energy usage, posioning of environment and yet we always seem to escape.

Even global warming won't be all bad. The arctic sea will be trafficable. Our farms will be able to grow plants quicker. 
Sure the other creatures we share the earth with will suffer, and some third world countries in Africa and Asia. And our insurance premiums will continue to rise but hey in Australia and New Zealand we can just ignore it, perhaps providing a bit of aid to salve our consciences.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):




Um Wayne, Did you (or anyone else) read the article you posted? And the other links don't work!

*Summer might change minds of climate change skeptics *
*WASHINGTON – Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat*.
 EUGENE ROBINSON; The Washington Post

Published: 07/03/12 12:05 am Updated: 07/03/12 12:26 am 

  WASHINGTON – Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat. 
As I write this, the nation’s capital and its suburbs are in post-apocalypse mode. About one-fourth of all households have no electricity, the legacy of an unprecedented assault by violent thunderstorms Friday night. Things are improving: At the height of the power outage, nearly half the region was dark.
The line of storms, which killed at least 17 people as it raced from the Midwest to the sea, culminated a punishing day when the official temperature here reached 104 degrees, a record for June. Hurricane-force winds of up to 80 miles per hour wreaked havoc with the lush tree canopy that is perhaps Washington’s most glorious amenity. One of my neighbors was lucky when a huge branch, headed for his roof, got snagged by a power line. Another neighbor lost a tree that fell into another tree that smashed an adjacent house, demolishing the second floor.
Yes, it’s always hot here in the summer – but not this hot. Yes, we always have thunderstorms – but never like these. The cliche is true: It did sound like a freight train.
According to scientists, climate change means not only that we will see higher temperatures but that there will be more extreme weather events like the one we just experienced. Welcome to the rest of our lives.
This is the point in the column where I’m obliged to insert the disclaimer that no one event – no heat wave, no hurricane, no outbreak of tornadoes or freakish storms – can be definitively blamed on climate change. Any one data point can be an anomaly; any cluster of data points can be mere noise.
The problem for those who dismiss climate change as a figment of scientists’ imagination, or even as a crypto-socialist one-worldish plot to take away our God-given SUVs, is that the data are beginning to add up.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the past winter was the fourth-warmest on record in the United States. To top that, spring – which meteorologists define as the months of March, April and May – was the warmest since record-keeping began in 1895. If you don’t believe me or the scientists, ask a farmer whose planting seasons have gone awry.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which monitors global surface temperatures, reports that nine of the warmest 10 years on record have occurred since 2000. The warmest year of all was 2010; last year was only the ninth warmest, but global temperatures were still almost a full degree warmer than they were during the middle of the 20th century.
Why might this be happening? Well, the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 35 percent greater than in 1880, NASA scientists report, with most of the increase coming since 1960. And why might carbon dioxide levels be rising? Because since the Industrial Revolution, humankind has been burning fossil fuels – and spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – at what could turn out to be a catastrophic rate.
Scientists’ predictions about how quickly temperatures would rise – and how rapidly assorted phenomena, such as melting polar ice and rising sea levels, would proceed – have turned out, thus far, to be conservative.
There comes a point where anomalies can start looking like a trend. What much of the country has seen the past few days is no ordinary heat wave. Temperatures reached 105 in Raleigh, 106 in Atlanta and 108 in Columbia, S.C., and Macon, Ga., 109 in Nashville – all-time highs.
Meanwhile, the most destructive wildfires in Colorado history were destroying hundreds of homes – a legacy of drought that left forests as dry as tinder. Changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns in the West cannot, of course, be blamed on climate change with any certainty. But they are consistent with scientists’ predictions.
It becomes harder to ignore those predictions when a toppled tree is blocking your driveway and the power is out.
One other observation: As repair crews struggle to get the lights back on, it happens to be another sunny day. Critics have blasted the Obama administration’s unfruitful investment in solar energy. But if government-funded research managed to lower the price of solar panels to the point where it became economical to install them on residential roofs, all you global warming skeptics would have air conditioning right now. I’m just sayin’. 
Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist. Email him at eugenerobinson@washpost.com. 

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...comment-575334775#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy


----------



## wayneL

I certainly did knobby. Bastardi's Comments were in response to the article


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> I certainly did knobby. Bastardi's Comments were in response to the article




Sorry, my mistake  (hits forehead with lower palm of hand). Mistakenly thought you posted it.


----------



## explod

explod said:


> However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.




The more important angle you dodged wayneL, com on pal ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The more important angle you dodged wayneL, com on pal ?




:sleeping:

Been there, done that with you several times already.

Besides, your argument is logically fallacious.


----------



## wayneL

Nobel prize winner ”” Ivar Giaever ”” “climate change is pseudoscience”

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nobel-prize-winner-ivar-giaever-climate-change-is-pseudoscience/


----------



## white_goodman

im amazed people still believe in this nonsense, at worst you are a shill or at best completely intellectually deranged..

If i was a real greeny id be pissed so much BS time is wasted on this.

Anyone find its funny how the Armageddon-mongerers describe 'skeptical' politicians as dangerous..


----------



## moXJO

[video]http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/EmbeddedPlayer.aspx?id=1410[/video]
Here's the video have to agree with a lot of his points
Covers a lot  of the points most of those in favor of GW ask of skeptics

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/#/Video?id=1410


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> A few years ago I was expecting $200 a barrel combined with a Depression!
> Once again through ingenuity and luck we seem to have avoided the worst and given ourselves time to change how our economy works. Humanity is lucky, if other alien races are watching us they must gasp to see our wars, weapons, energy usage, posioning of environment and yet we always seem to escape.
> 
> Even global warming won't be all bad. The arctic sea will be trafficable. Our farms will be able to grow plants quicker.
> Sure the other creatures we share the earth with will suffer, and some third world countries in Africa and Asia. And our insurance premiums will continue to rise but hey in Australia and New Zealand we can just ignore it, perhaps providing a bit of aid to salve our consciences.





use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority..

Regarding oil say its goes to $1000 a barrel (lets say due to whatever doomsday peak oil fetish scenario seems most apt), what would happen? Ud see replacement technology come in at a cheaper price, most likely 'clean' tech at the right price, without coercion by the moral emperors of the champagne classes, simply the price mechanism. Is it any wonder the factories, cars, manufacturing the list goes on, was getting cleaner, cheaper without some iron fist from government telling people to do so, we arent living in some Dickins nightmare (which is a whole other topic of discussion)...

Stop openly petitioning for a group of narcissists in the nations capital to save the world or whatever Malthusian fantasy you happen to dream up while you have your pants around your ankles and a box of kleenex..


----------



## Knobby22

white_goodman said:


> use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority..
> 
> Regarding oil say its goes to $1000 a barrel (lets say due to whatever doomsday peak oil fetish scenario seems most apt), what would happen? Ud see replacement technology come in at a cheaper price, most likely 'clean' tech at the right price, without coercion by the moral emperors of the champagne classes, simply the price mechanism. Is it any wonder the factories, cars, manufacturing the list goes on, was getting cleaner, cheaper without some iron fist from government telling people to do so, we arent living in some Dickins nightmare (which is a whole other topic of discussion)...
> 
> Stop openly petitioning for a group of narcissists in the nations capital to save the world or whatever Malthusian fantasy you happen to dream up while you have your pants around your ankles and a box of kleenex..




Nice last paragraph, start in the gutter and maybe one day you can rise above it. 

I'm pretty much in agreement though, I am not for petitioning the Australian Government to do anything unless the world acts together. I'm not even saying we should interfere with market forces so I don't know where you got that from. Read it again! ...and get off your low depraved horse.


----------



## sails

white_goodman said:


> use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority.....






So true - why are the majority of Aussies being slugged with this tax when they didn't want carbon to be priced and many don't believe it is even necessary.

Those who want to feel warm and fuzzy to pay for something that may not need fixing should go ahead and pay.  But don't rob money from the others.


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> Nice last paragraph, start in the gutter and maybe one day you can rise above it.
> 
> I'm pretty much in agreement though, I am not for petitioning the Australian Government to do anything unless the world acts together. I'm not even saying we should interfere with market forces so I don't know where you got that from. Read it again! ...and get off your low depraved horse.




the world acts together..  when has the world acted together on anything? And if it has who was deciding that?
Let individuals deal with this in the marketplace, this whole climate agenda stinks of statism, propaganda and corruption... You want to feel good and save the world, invent clean energy at low cost or wait for fossil fuels to be so high price that they become cheaper by default..

Government, banks, and the granted scientific community, what an unholy triumvirate of climate armageddon, the useful idiots also paly there part.


----------



## white_goodman

where are the real greenies in all of this? corrupted by the money thrown at them? Keeping silent out of fear of professional Siberia?


----------



## lusk

wayneL said:


> Nobel prize winner ”” Ivar Giaever ”” “climate change is pseudoscience”
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nobel-prize-winner-ivar-giaever-climate-change-is-pseudoscience/




"Gieavar (sic) found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements””and small enough not to matter in any case."

Finally someone calls it how it is, if you set out *TODAY* with the best equipment, that was calibrated, done to a standard and logged all around the world you would be lucky if the error in measurement was 0.5C

So what did they do 30 years+ ago to measure the earths temperature. We are only talking a 1C rise in global temperature.


----------



## basilio

Lots of thread grasping going in with this topic..

So the latest line some people want to run is that somehow the measurements made by meteorologists over the last 150 years are somehow inaccurate.  Just not precise enough  ...

What absolute obvious dribble.. Firstly I don't think any meteorologist would accept the systematic corruption of temperature data.  Whether you accept or reject AGW at least the figures are recognize as accurate.

Secondly  there is the small matter of major ecological changes that have occurred as result widespread warming.  Earlier summers, changes in plant habitat as trees  start spreading into warmer climates. Scores and scores of studies have examined the changes in plants and ecosystems as the climate has warmed. Nature doesn't need to read thermometers to know its getting hotter out there. 
________________________________________________________________

Wayne in an earlier post  wanted to take the discussion back to the scientific basics.  He suggested that there was now good evidence to show that "luke warmers" - those who accept  we have global warming as a result of extra  greenhouse gases  but that it is too small to really matter - had a better case  based on hard observations rather than the models he claimed climate scientists were using.

In fact that argument has been dissected and dismissed by scientists.  The main paper (as I understand) that argued this view was produced by Lindzen and Choi in 2009 and then updated in 2011. The basic point they tried to make was that climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 was very low - approximately .5C .  Virtually all other research  using many different lines of evidence  comes up with a figure of between 2 and 4.5C.

*Lindzens paper remains unpublished because none of the reviewers including the ones Lindzen chose could  accept his logic or very narrow observations.*

There is an analysis of why Lindzens theory doesn't hold water on Skeptical science. I have included the final summary but the rest is worth reading.



> *LC11 - Overhyped and Under-Supported*
> 
> Ultimately the main flaws in LC11 are the same as those in LC09 - Lindzen and Choi simply did not address most of the problems in their paper identified by subsequent research, and what few issues they did address, they failed to explain why their results differ from those who attempted to reproduce their methodology.
> 
> Nevertheless, LC09 and LC11 have become extremely over-hyped.  Frequently climate contrarians (for example, Christopher Monckton and John Christy) claim that mainstream climate sensitivity estimates rely wholly on models (which is untrue), whereas lower climate sensitivity results are based on observational data.  When they make this assertion, they are referring to LC09 and LC11.
> 
> *This is a key point for climate contrarians, whose arguments are effectively a house of cards balanced atop the 'low climate sensitivity' claim.  Since the body of research using multiple different approaches and lines of evidence is remarkably consistent in finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity of between 2 and 4.5 °C for doubled CO2 (whereas a 'low' sensitivity would be well below 1.5 °C), climate contrarians reject the body of evidence by (falsely) claiming it is based on unreliable models, and attempt to replace it with this single study by Lindzen and Choi under the assertion that it is superior because is observationally-based.
> 
> However, subsequent research identified a number of fundamental errors in LC09 which simply were not addressed in LC11, which is why the PNAS reviewers - even those chosen by Lindzen himself - unanimously agreed that the journal should not publish the paper.  While LC09 and LC11 are based on observational data, they also rely on a very short timeframe, mainly on data only from the tropics, and their methodology contains a number of problems.*
> 
> Quite simply, this one paper is insufficient to overturn the vast body of evidence which contradicts the 'low climate sensitivity' argument.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html


----------



## basilio

Marine scientists have just released their latest report on ocean acidification.  The excess CO2 humans are poring into the atmosphere is being partially absorbed by the oceans and increasing the acidity.

Is this consequence of out of control fossil fuel use sufficient to persuade us we have to change direction ? 



> *
> Rising ocean acid levels are 'the biggest threat to coral reefs'*
> 
> The speed by which oceans' acid levels have risen has caught scientists off-guard, says the head of NOAA
> 
> Associated Press
> guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 July 2012 12.00 BST
> Comments (…)
> 
> 'Bleached' coral reef off Caye Caulker, Belize. Oceans' rising acid levels are one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, scientists say. Photograph: Str/Reuters
> 
> Oceans' rising acid levels have emerged as one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, acting as the "osteoporosis of the sea" and threatening everything from food security to tourism to livelihoods, the head of a US scientific agency said Monday.
> 
> The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.
> 
> "We've got sort of the perfect storm of stressors from multiple places really hammering reefs around the world," said Lubchenco, who was in Australia to speak at the International Coral Reef Symposium in the northeast city of Cairns, near the Great Barrier Reef. "It's a very serious situation."
> *
> Oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in acidity. Scientists are worried about how that increase will affect sea life, particularly reefs, as higher acid levels make it tough for coral skeletons to form. Lubchenco likened ocean acidification to osteoporosis a bone-thinning disease because researchers are concerned it will lead to the deterioration of reefs.*
> 
> *Scientists initially assumed that the carbon dioxide absorbed by the water would be sufficiently diluted as the oceans mixed shallow and deeper waters. But most of the carbon dioxide and the subsequent chemical changes are being concentrated in surface waters, Lubchenco said.
> *
> "And those surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested," she said. "It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/acid-threat-coral-reef?intcmp=122


----------



## basilio

The dots are coming together.  This  is New Scientists take on the current rounds of extreme weather events and the role that AGW is playing.


> *
> 
> As freak weather becomes the norm, we need to adapt[/B]
> 
> 09 July 2012
> Magazine issue 2872. Subscribe and save
> For similar stories, visit the Editorials and Climate Change Topic Guides
> 
> IT HAS been yet another week of extraordinary weather. Torrential rainfall caused chaos across the UK. A record-breaking heatwave drifted across the US, broken by freak thunderstorms that left a trail of destruction from Chicago to Washington DC. Meanwhile, in India and Bangladesh more than 100 people were killed and half a million fled when the monsoon arrived with a vengeance.
> 
> We have become used to reports of extreme weather events playing down any connection with climate change. The refrain is usually along the lines of "you cannot attribute any single event to global warming". But increasingly this is no longer the case. The science of climate attribution - which makes causal connections between climate change and weather events - is advancing rapidly, and with it our understanding of what we can expect in years to come.
> 
> From killer heatwaves to destructive floods, the effects of global warming are becoming ever more obvious - and we ain't seen nothing yet. Our weather is not only becoming more extreme as a result of global warming, it is becoming even more extreme than climate scientists predicted.
> 
> Researchers now think they are starting to understand why (see "How global warming is driving our weather wild"). Human activity cannot be held solely responsible for all of these extreme events, but by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we have loaded the climate dice. Only political leaders and corporate masters have the power to do anything about that - but they are doing little to help.*



*

http://www.newscientist.com/article...eather-becomes-the-norm-we-need-to-adapt.html*


----------



## Knobby22

Good article Basilio. I regularly read New Scientist and they treat global warming as just another scientific issue and often it is not mentioned between 10 issues. 

The counter argument that is trotted out is that extreme weather events have occurred before and our history of weather watching with accurate measurement has been too short so therefore we are jumping to unfounded conclusions.

I think the effects of global warming will become much clearer over the next 20 years. The trouble is we can't experiment but can only observe so it is difficult to prove causality in such a complex system as our atmosphere.
It is a mistake however to say that this means that the causality is not real!


----------



## white_goodman

there is nothing extreme about the weather at present.. repeating something ad nauseum doesnt make it true, perception arent facts, short term memories doesnt make recent events more severe than those forgotten


----------



## Glen48

If you are a scientist and need funding to say study Squirrels collecting Nuts in winter you may not get the funding , but if you as to study the effects of GW in there some where you are home and hosed.
 They need to keep the carbon Credits going for a select few


----------



## wayneL

So what do our resident alarmists think of Jeff Master's latest [ahem] pronouncement?


----------



## Knobby22

Is this what you mean?
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html


----------



## basilio

The big news in climate science this week has been the release of peer reviewed scientific papers that for the first time have attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves to human induced climate change.

Essentially scientists have gone through each event and attempted to show how particular floods or temperature extremes were likely to be related to natural climate variations or the effects of AGW.




> *Scientists attribute extreme weather to man-made climate change*
> 
> Researchers have for the first time attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves, to human-induced climate change
> 
> *Climate change researchers have been able to attribute recent examples of extreme weather to the effects of human activity on the planet's climate systems for the first time, marking a major step forward in climate research.*
> 
> The findings make it much more likely that we will soon – within the next few years – be able to discern whether the extremely wet and cold summer and spring so far experienced in the UK this year are attributable to human causes rather than luck, according to the researchers.
> *
> Last year's record warm November in the UK – the second hottest since records began in 1659 – was at least 60 times more likely to happen because of climate change than owing to natural variations in the earth's weather systems, according to the peer-reviewed studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, and the Met Office in the UK. The devastating heatwave that blighted farmers in Texas in the US last year, destroying crop yields in another record "extreme weather event", was about 20 times more likely to have happened owing to climate change than to natural variation.*
> 
> ....Peter Stott, of the UK's Met Office, said: "We are much more confident about attributing [weather effects] to climate change. This is all adding up to a stronger and stronger picture of human influence on the climate."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/extreme-weather-manmade-climate-change?intcmp=239

(Why does this thread continually refuse to upload any longish quotes ?)


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The big news in climate science this week has been the release of peer reviewed scientific papers that for the first time have attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves to human induced climate change.
> 
> Essentially scientists have gone through each event and attempted to show how particular floods or temperature extremes were likely to be related to natural climate variations or the effects of AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/extreme-weather-manmade-climate-change?intcmp=239
> 
> (Why does this thread continually refuse to upload any longish quotes ?)




Where are the citations?

C'mon bas that is nothing more than a propaganda piece, they have done nothing of the sort.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Is this what you mean?
> http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html




http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/one-in-1594323-chance-heat-wave-not/


----------



## wayneL

Bas, let's have some real science as opposed the really stinky bulls##t from the Grauniad.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

Nature's article http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html


----------



## basilio

Real science Wayne ?  Perhaps like the complete dribble you  referred to from the  physicist Nobel laureate who knew absolutely nothing about global warming and educated himself from the disinformation on Watts Up ect.

With reference to the recent extreme weather conditions in US and elsewhere I found the more original statement.  It's all pretty obvious.  We have always had heat waves  it's just that global warming is taking those heat waves to  a  significantly more intense level.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...limate-change/2012/07/10/gJQAdv9waW_blog.html

(_Unfortunately whenever I try to quote a piece from a story the server is being reset. Not once , not twice. every ......... time. 
Do we have a problem here ?_)



> Meet Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory. I recently participated with him and several other climate scientists in a Google Hangout conversation.
> 
> 
> “....the globally averaged temperature of the planet has risen beyond any doubt beyond where you would expect ... with natural variability alone...”
> 
> . . .
> “... [O]n the heat wave story. Sometimes you’ll see ‘that heat wave was due to climate change’ That’s not a very accurate statement, not a very helpful statement. But it’s not entirely untrue either.”
> 
> *“It may well be that 90 percent of [a given] heat wave was natural, but that the 10 percent that pushed it to record proportions was due to climate change.”*
> 
> “There’s a certain chance that ... a daily maximum temperature record is going to be set any place any given day...”
> 
> “. . .* [Presently] we’re breaking high temperature records much more frequently than by chance. And, by some estimates, the ratio of that exceedance of breaking highs compared to what you would expect by chance would lead to us say to that there’s about an 80 percent chance that the record high you experienced was due to climate change.”
> *
> “That’s a very nuanced statement when you start thinking about it but it’s a very interesting statement. It speaks to the power at which climate change is operating.”
> 
> “A heat wave itself - most of it is due to natural variability. But that extra little step to record proportions pushing over a prior threshold is what climate change is doing. It’s adding an edge to that heat wave.”
> 
> How confident is Hoerling in his statement that there’s an 80 percent chance record highs being set are due to climate change?:
> 
> “[It’s] a strong statement and a defensible scientific statement,” he said.
> 
> *Consider Hoerling is no climate change alarmist. An expert on detection and attribution of climate change, Hoerling has even been criticized by peers and bloggers for being too conservative in connecting the dots between climate change and extreme weather.*


----------



## basilio

Of course Wayne science  is still not *absolutely sure* that our current activity of pouring extra greenhouses gases into the atmosphere is radically changing the climate.  

If we want to certain of the result we need to wait for a couple of thousand years don't we ? Or perhaps just a hundred or so ?


----------



## basilio

I have attached further detail on  how  climate scientists are assessing the role global warming is playing in the recent weather extremes.



> *Finally, climate scientists see a way to stop being so wishy-washy and start assigning blame, through a technique called “fractional risk attribution.” This technique uses mathematical models of how the atmosphere would work if we had not goosed carbon dioxide to 389 ppm (from 278 before the Industrial Revolution), plus data about ancient (“paleo”) climates and historical (more recent) weather. The idea is to calculate how many times an extreme event should have occurred absent human interference, explains climate scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and the probability of the same extreme event in today’s greenhouse-forced atmosphere. Result: putting numbers on extreme weather.*
> 
> In their biggest success, climate scientists led by Peter Stott of the British Met Office analyzed the 2003 European heat wave, when the mercury rose higher than at any time since the introduction of weather instruments (1851), and probably since at least 1500. After plugging in historical and paleo data, and working out climate patterns in a hypothetical world without a human-caused greenhouse effect, they conclude that our meddling was 75 percent to blame for the heat wave. Put another way, we more than doubled the chance that it would happen, and it’s twice as likely to be human-caused than natural. That’s one beat shy of “Yes, we did it,” but better than “There’s no way to tell.”




http://www.sharonlbegley.com/can-we-blame-extreme-weather-on-climate-change


----------



## sails

Who cares what scientists on government payrolls sprout? 

the weather just keeps doing it's own thing as it always has.

We don't need screeds of quotes to prove otherwise.  Reality and history says it all.

But then there is no money in the common sense approach.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Where are the citations?
> 
> C'mon bas that is nothing more than a propaganda piece, they have done nothing of the sort.



I can't be sure that it was with reference to the same claims, but yesterday Radio National's "PM" had an item on this.  It was decidedly less definitive than basilio's quotes.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3543820.htm
Extract:  







> , July 11, 2012 18:10:00
> EMILY BOURKE: So does this report go so far as to say that climate change is directly responsible for these extreme weather events?
> 
> KARL BRAGANZA: No really the way to think about it is that it’s basically loading the odds or loading the odds, or loading the dice in favour of these types of events


----------



## basilio

Julia both stories are reading off the same information. Essentially the extra heat kept in the atmosphere by additional greenhouse gases is adding to the normal temperature patterns.  So a 42 c heatwave becomes a 45-46c heatwave.

Another factor is that the extra heat cause more evaporation and therefore more risk of flooding rains. 

Finally the extra heat energy in the atmosphere changes the current weather pattens. 

Another way of seeing the situation is imagining a roulette wheel.  Normal there are 22 red 22 black and 1 ZERO.  When zero comes up the house wins and effectively takes it cut.  

However if there are 2 or 3 zeros the probability of the house winning goes up sharply.  The more zeros the more likely you are to lose  your shirt. The extra greenhouse gases are adding more zeroes to the wheel.

Check out the previous links.

Cheers
.


----------



## wayneL

So what we have is:

Because predictive models have utterly failed, retrospective 'curve fit' models to link any extreme event to AGW.

Oh please basilio! 

This is akin to the guy with the banana to 'prove' God.


----------



## Ijustnewit

I have noticed that everyday since the Carbon Tax came into effect the ABC News Homepage has had a news story on Climate Change and it's dire effects. One day it was The Barrier Reef , The next day Aboriginal Communities in the Outback , next day the effects on Rural Communities that will wiped out. The list goes on, Feel Good stories about Solar Power Stations , How rain will affect the sugar harvest ect ect. 
Is this just coincidence or more Labor Auntie ABC propaganda to try and win back some votes and quell the anger ?


----------



## Glen48

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/australian-thought-police-target-free.html

This is the next problem gagging the free speech and accused guilty until proven innocent.
 Notice how much cooler it is now CT has come in.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> So what we have is:
> 
> Because predictive models have utterly failed, retrospective 'curve fit' models to link any extreme event to AGW.
> 
> Oh please basilio!
> 
> This is akin to the guy with the banana to 'prove' God.




You are absolutely, totally and completely clueless arn't you Wayne ?  Predictive models failed ?? What rubbish.  I have repeatedly cited  James Hansens work in the early eighties which  on the information then available gave a good description of how the climate would change as greenhouse gases rose.  You choose to ignore those papers.

And what is this other rubbish ?  Climate scientists are just noting what climate would "normally" be like given past experience and  postulating that the extra temperatures and severe events are most likely caused by the extra heat of global warming.  Simply speaking if we didn't have this extra heat in the atmosphere it wouldn't be so hot.. Simple enough ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> You are absolutely, totally and completely clueless arn't you Wayne ?  Predictive models failed ?? What rubbish.  I have repeatedly cited  James Hansens work in the early eighties which  on the information then available gave a good description of how the climate would change as greenhouse gases rose.  You choose to ignore those papers.
> 
> And what is this other rubbish ?  Climate scientists are just noting what climate would "normally" be like given past experience and  postulating that the extra temperatures and severe events are most likely caused by the extra heat of global warming.  Simply speaking if we didn't have this extra heat in the atmosphere it wouldn't be so hot.. Simple enough ?




1/ Ahh straight to the ad hom. You really want to lift your game there if you want to be taken seriously.

2/ As I have repeatedly pointed out, Hansen is demonstrably a nutter. His models suck and are way off the mark and only remotely work if data is retrospectively adjusted. 

3/ As I said, curve fit garbage.

4/ To avoid further embarrassment, please review 'heat in the atmosphere' data.

5/ Can you please address your raging confirmation bias and admit science 'in toto'? We may have a remote chance of a reasonable conversation if so.


----------



## wayneL

basilio,

Clearly, you have supped from the CAGW cup of Kool-Aid and are a fervent believer, and acolyte/disciple of the Hansonist religion.

Apart from ear-bashing us all with junk science (which has no possibility of standing up to proper scientific scrutiny), perhaps you can detail how you are personally addressing what you believe?

Are you living in a power-less cave? Walking to your job at the Australian Goebells Foundation? Terminating the fruit of your womb? etc.

TBH, Missus and I made a decision, inter alia,  not to have children on environmental [and other social engineering] grounds and I am sick of being preached at by pompous hypocrites.

How are you showing up your alarmist mates?


----------



## Julia

Glen48 said:


> http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/australian-thought-police-target-free.html
> 
> This is the next problem gagging the free speech and accused guilty until proven innocent.
> Notice how much cooler it is now CT has come in.



Glen, I'm usually all for free speech, but with the stuff referred to in that link, I'd believe there is a genuine case for not propagating its use.
There was quite a deal about it a year or two ago on one of the Health programs on Radio National and, although superficially it might appear to be effective, in reality it can exacerbate many types of skin cancer.
Like most 'alternative' preparations, AFAIK it has never been properly clinically tested.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> TBH, Missus and I made a decision, inter alia,  not to have children on environmental [and other social engineering] grounds and I am sick of being preached at by pompous hypocrites.




Pompous and hypocrites!!!.   With a lot of assumption also there pal.

Your tone is that of guessing now, *you would not have a clue*.

And a need to bring the missus into it too, jeeze, the lad's about to cry.

The posts of Basilio over the last few days have been well researched, put together and quote references relevant to the urgency now of the real issues.  

I recommend anyone new to this thread or uncertain to read back over them.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Pompous and hypocrites!!!.   With a lot of assumption also there pal.
> 
> Your tone is that of guessing now, *you would not have a clue*.
> 
> And a need to bring the missus into it too, jeeze, the lad's about to cry.
> 
> The posts of Basilio over the last few days have been well researched, put together and quote references relevant to the urgency now of the real issues.
> 
> I recommend anyone new to this thread or uncertain to read back over them.




You are not qualified to make those judgement calls, by your own admission and as is obvious by what you post here. 

I also recommend people read basilio's posts, but science does not progress by swallowing the confirmation bias of this new breed of Armageddonists. It progresses by argument, point and counterpoint. It progresses by transparency of data so that others can analyse. It progresses with empirical evidence.

On all these points, it is evident that argument should also be taken from sceptics if you want to form a balanced view as the empirical evidence diverges from modelling.

Now go away and play with someone of your own brain size.

NB. Isn't it curious that modern day brown-shirts come under the banner of Green. Paradoxical that.


----------



## Logique

So we graduate from indoctrination at school, but never fear, 8c a day radio and television is there to ensure we don't stray from the path of righteousness. The pathway to independent thought is steep, and increasingly litigious, ask Andrew Bolt. And the Press Council.

We are being asked to believe that Labor, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, have a belated moment of clarity about the Greens. It wasn't me Mum it was him!

AGW is the new Intelligent Design, and at the same time the obverse of it.  







> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...da-on-lnp-summit-hit-list-20120712-21ygz.html
> A push to ban “environmental propaganda” from schools and teach “normal science” about climate change is among motions set to be discussed at the Liberal National Party convention beginning today..
> 
> At last year's conference, LNP president Bruce McIver questioned the role of humans in driving climate change, arguing the climate was always changing and children were being “brainwashed” in the way climate science was taught....




Happy Bastille Day tomorrow to all, but please don't go storming things, there are peaceful ways.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

it appears the green alarmists here are still bleating about temperatures that always change (and are cooling) and a trace gas that if reduced may make 1/1000th degree change (if you believe a trace gas has any impact at all). It's also interesting to note that the loudest extremist here seems to always be quoting from alarmist blogs v's what the IPCC and Dept of Climate change actually support. 

Legally, these government organization believe they have escaped accountability by the numerous disclaimers they post on AGW web sites, documents, reports and studies etc then hope 4th rate blogs can take up the slack. I think not. 

Hence, Basilio never elaborates on any such disclaimers in the plentiful reports it posts on this thread, however, what gives the falsehood away is the plentiful use of terms like: likely, maybe, may, could, perhaps, in the future......

Perhaps legally changing the term "Green" to "Gullable" is the first step, since these terms could mean the same thing, and may accurately represent the truth in the future, or perhaps now, but could show and perhaps mean the same thing after all....


----------



## Knobby22

OzWaveGuy said:


> (if you believe a trace gas has any impact at all). ]




Lol, just because it is a trace gas doesn't mean it has no effect, OWG.
Stay in a room with some trace carbon monoxide and see how long you live.

I've got some definitions also.

blind   /blaɪnd/ Show Spelled [blahynd] Show IPA adjective, blind·er, blind·est,  verb, noun, adverb 
adjective 
1. unable to see; lacking the sense of sight; sightless: a blind man. 
2. unwilling or unable to perceive or understand: They were blind to their children's faults. He was blind to all arguments. 
3. not characterized or determined by reason or control: blind tenacity; blind chance. 
4. not having or based on reason or intelligence; absolute and unquestioning: She had blind faith in his fidelity. 
5. lacking all consciousness or awareness: a blind stupor.


----------



## prawn_86

I think that World governments should take no action on climate change, and focus solely on reducing known pollutants (mercury, sewage into waterways etc), until this thread can come to an agreement amongst the main posters here on ASF


----------



## explod

> Hence, Basilio never elaborates on any such disclaimers in the plentiful reports it posts on this thread, however, what gives the falsehood away is the plentiful use of terms like: likely, maybe, may, could, perhaps, in the future......




And that is the whole point *"perhaps"*

And *perhaps* if the changes now will turn out to be catastrophic and we are not doing something about it then is that responsible?

Of course the evidence is unclear, but the strong anecdotal is compelling enough in my view for us to be concerned and taking the action *that has commenced*.


----------



## herzy

sails said:


> Who cares what scientists on government payrolls sprout?
> 
> the weather just keeps doing it's own thing as it always has.
> 
> We don't need screeds of quotes to prove otherwise.  Reality and history says it all.
> 
> But then there is no money in the common sense approach.




1. The consensus of scientists support human induced climate change. It still baffles me that lay people refuse to accept scientific viewpoint in this one area, and are willing to accept drivel from lay people spouting bias and government payroll crap. Are we all this questioning of other scientific consensus? I think not. Perhaps this is because they would rather believe that the status quo is fine, and hence discredit or disbelieve what scientists have been telling us for years. Is this akin to westerners continuing to eat unhealthy diets (high meat/cholesterol, processed foods and sugars) with low exercise despite health warnings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. The quote a few comments above is a perfect example of lay people relying on assertions ('reality and history says it all' 'the weather just keeps doing it's own thing') - what kinds of people actually ignore scientists and belief this crap?

3. WayneL you talk about impartiality and empirical data. I wonder why it is that you continually discredit scientific research and consensus. Surely this is forming your opinion and then trying to find examples to back you up? This would be the complete opposite of the scientific method you supposedly support.

4. LOL at the 'trace elements' argument. The whole idea is that of balance. For example, if you have more CO2 in the atmosphere, this increased concentration will cause more carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in water) in the ocean, which increases the acidity of the ocean. Irrespective of climate change issues, this in itself is damaging enough. The specific quantity of each gas is not relevant - it is the relative proportions, and how we are changing them that matters. Sulphur is only a trace element in the human body, but good luck functioning without it. What stupidity. This is akin to the 'it's naturally produced' argument, and the 'it's clear and non-toxic' argument... Proportion, origins and irrelevant chemical properties distract from the true argument.


----------



## herzy

prawn_86 said:


> I think that World governments should take no action on climate change, and focus solely on reducing known pollutants (mercury, sewage into waterways etc), until this thread can come to an agreement amongst the main posters here on ASF




don't worry, mercury is just a trace element. As are lead, other heavy metals and radioactive elements.


----------



## white_goodman

the same scientists who were in consensus that we had global cooling coming in the 70's, the ones that said our dams would never be full again? Of course in this armageddon scenario the climate 'scientists' dont too bad out of it, grants galore $80b has roughly been spent on climate programs by the US govt up till 2009, then look at the multi multi billions out of the carbon trading by the major banks... throw in the IPCC scandals and none of this raises any suspicion?

Even if man made global climate destruction was real, there is so much corruption and self interest going on that its akin to a mafia racquet.

If you dont agree imagine what career a scientist against the narrative would have, science without debate is propaganda. If 99% of funding went into why the earth is the centre of the solar system vs the skeptical sun is the centre crowd, whats the bet that the scientists tired to do ptolemy justice  and come up with as much geocentric modelling as possible. Common sense aint that common

its amazing after all the history of human action that people still have a healthy trust in big govt.. i put it down to ignorance or being a shill


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".   

Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.

Perhaps this* link* can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.

Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.


----------



## Julia

herzy said:


> Are we all this questioning of other scientific consensus? I think not. Perhaps this is because they would rather believe that the status quo is fine, and hence discredit or disbelieve what scientists have been telling us for years. Is this akin to westerners continuing to eat unhealthy diets (high meat/cholesterol, processed foods and sugars) with low exercise despite health warnings?



Perhaps not such a good analogy, given the rapidity with which nutritionists et al change their minds about what we may eat and remain healthy.  It's not so long ago, e.g. that eggs were deemed immensely dangerous for anyone, let alone those with elevated cholesterol.  Now, it seems, that advice was rubbish and we may all eat as many eggs as we like.

Ditto the advice before such a high proportion of the population became overweight and obese to 'eat lots of carbohydrate:  "It will never make you fat".  And the wonderful olive oil which, it was suggested by these gurus, we could all drink by the bottle and - because it was such a healthy fat - the massive numbers of calories were irrelevant.  What total rubbish it all has turned out to be.





OzWaveGuy said:


> Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".



+1.  As we fork out for massive increases in electricity and everything we consume where it's a component, it would warm our hearts to know we are saving the planet.  Please?


----------



## Ferret

Julia said:


> Perhaps not such a good analogy, given the rapidity with which nutritionists et al change their minds about what we may eat and remain healthy.  It's not so long ago, e.g. that eggs were deemed immensely dangerous for anyone, let alone those with elevated cholesterol.  Now, it seems, that advice was rubbish and we may all eat as many eggs as we like.
> 
> Ditto the advice before such a high proportion of the population became overweight and obese to 'eat lots of carbohydrate:  "It will never make you fat".  And the wonderful olive oil which, it was suggested by these gurus, we could all drink by the bottle and - because it was such a healthy fat - the massive numbers of calories were irrelevant.  What total rubbish it all has turned out to be.




Yes - bottom line is everything in moderation.  And that includes CO2.


----------



## sails

> NZ Scientists “stunned”, “shocked” by mere 1% rise in CO2 absorption. What spin!
> 
> The NZ Herald reports a new study showing that since 1988 there has been a sudden increase in the absorption of CO2 over land. It’s in the order of a billion tons of CO2 a year and amounts to 10% of all human emissions. As usual, the spinmeisters frame it in terms of our guilt instead of their ignorance. “Look! Things would have been worse and even warmer if not for this new unknown factor.”
> 
> But globally plants already emit about 80Gt per year. Finding one extra Gt of absorption is both predictable and largely insignificant. What this episode really shows is just how far the alarmist PR departments will go to find any excuse to cover up for two decades of poor predictions.




Read more: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nz...d-by-mere-1-rise-in-co2-absorption-what-spin/


----------



## OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy said:


> Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".
> 
> Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.
> 
> Perhaps this* link* can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.
> 
> Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.




Surely there must be someone from team gullable who can easily provide an accurate assessment? I keep hearing temperature rises of 5C will be upon us in less than 100yrs from the basilio drivel. So how much will the temperature change by reducing human co2 by 5%? Citations pls and any disclaimers from the referenced sites and calculations to also be provided. Basilio asserts there's a 1000 peer reviewed papers on Global Warming all proving increased temps from man's 3% contribution to natures 97% of co2. The proof and calculations should be located after page 1 in the first report, right?

Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?


----------



## So_Cynical

OzWaveGuy said:


> Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?




I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.

I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.


----------



## sails

So_Cynical said:


> I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.
> 
> I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.





SC, the co2 in our atmosphere will be nothing like the concentrations in a glass house.  Long way off the mark.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

So_Cynical said:


> I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.
> 
> I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.




Good thread distraction - if this was a thread on Roses then I might respond, but it's not, but I'm sure there are experts to be found thru Google that could shed some more light on your assertions.

Now back to the original question - anyone with verified calculations pls? Disclaimers included.


----------



## sails

“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda  by William F. Jasper

An excerpt:



> It is the best of times, it is the worst of times ”” for science. Over the past several years, the world has been spectator to an alarming meltdown as one serious scandal after another has publicly exposed many of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, institutions, and publications as being captives of rigid ideologues who employ rigged computer models, fraudulent “evidence,” censorship, and intimidation to advance a radical “green” political agenda and to squelch genuine scientific inquiry and debate.
> 
> Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.


----------



## herzy

white_goodman said:


> imagine what career a scientist against the narrative would have, science without debate is propaganda. If 99% of funding went into why the earth is the centre of the solar system vs the skeptical sun is the centre crowd, whats the bet that the scientists tired to do ptolemy justice  and come up with as much geocentric modelling as possible. Common sense aint that common
> 
> its amazing after all the history of human action that people still have a healthy trust in big govt.. i put it down to ignorance or being a shill




Given the sluggish way in which governments are responding to threats to climate change (see responses to the Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen, etc) I think it's a fairly misguided statement that belief in climate change stems from a trust in government. I trust science, not governments who refuse to act on what scientists tell them. As I said above (or meant to say above) if anyone comes up with real science which shows that climate change is not human induced, and/or that increased CO2 levels by man will not affect the climate, I will be ecstatic. Fantastic news, because it means there will not be the dangers to ecosystems and biodiversity that I far are inevitable. Given the lack of such data, I assume the worst - and it baffles me that people conclude otherwise with a complete lack of scientific basis, and based purely on their own conclusions. 

Unlike religion or dogma, scientists are always happy (or at least should always be happy) to be impartial and respond to what their data and findings put out. This is in contrast to the biased, oil-funded groups who have tried (and failed) to refute climate science findings. Yes, it hasn't been pinned down accurately - please name a single area of science which, from the outset, has been completely accurate? - and the inaccuracies of weather forecasts are enough to show that this is a particularly difficult area to model accurately. That does not, however, mean that the entire premise is false.

I humbly suggest that your denial of climate science is derived from significantly greater ignorance of the area than the scientists that publish and research this area.

Scientists go 'against the narrative' all the time. There are no repercussions for this, assuming the findings are based on good and accurate research. Science is continually changing, and scientists accept this. There are many more recent examples than Ptolemy (which incidentally was a time when there were many more scientific misconceptions - by today's understanding of science - than merely the centre of the solar system).



OzWaveGuy said:


> Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".
> 
> Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.
> 
> Perhaps this* link* can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.
> 
> Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.




No, I can't. I'm not a climate scientist. Even climate scientists can't accurately (and shouldn't try to). Neither can Lord Mockton, who is definitely NOT a climate scientist (what a joke). Why is it that people are willing to listen to Lord Mockton because their opinion is in line with his, and ignore and discredit people who actually know about this area?



Julia said:


> +1.  As we fork out for massive increases in electricity and everything we consume where it's a component, it would warm our hearts to know we are saving the planet.  Please?




Julia and OzWaveGuy you assume that a reduction by 5% is intended to save the world. It is not. Australians are the biggest per capita producers of CO2 in the world. Assuming for a moment that CO2 produced by man will change the climate, if Australia wants to operate on a global stage, and negotiate and convince other countries to be taken seriously, and convince other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, how can they do that without first doing something themselves. Yes, our CO2 contributions are minuscule on a global scale, and when compared with China, India, America, etc - but (at least for me) that's not the point. Australia is the first country to have come out and done something proactive, and can now put political pressure on others to do the same. It breaks the deadlock between developed and non-developed countries refusing to change before the other does. We should be proud. Will a 5% reduction by Australia make a difference? No. Will the implementation of the policy make a difference to global politics? Maybe. 

And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation. 



OzWaveGuy said:


> Surely there must be someone from team gullable who can easily provide an accurate assessment? I keep hearing temperature rises of 5C will be upon us in less than 100yrs from the basilio drivel. So how much will the temperature change by reducing human co2 by 5%? Citations pls and any disclaimers from the referenced sites and calculations to also be provided. Basilio asserts there's a 1000 peer reviewed papers on Global Warming all proving increased temps from man's 3% contribution to natures 97% of co2. The proof and calculations should be located after page 1 in the first report, right?
> 
> Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?




Not sure if this is what you are after, but I think you are confusing the issue. CO2 is a radiatively active gas, which in short means that it traps heat into the atmosphere. Whether this property alone is sufficient for you to consider it a pollutant I can't answer. Mercury and CO were examples of elements being 'bad' in small amounts. Also look at CFCs, and many other things. This was to counter the rubbish argument that 3% of atmospheric CO2 is man made. This argument is rubbish, because it doesn't matter - if a 3% increase is enough to upset the balance, this is significant. If a 300% would be required to upset the balance, then 3% would probably be of less interest. 

Anyway, in brief this is what the IPCC says on CO2 in one of their glossaries. 

"Carbon dioxide (CO2): A naturally occurring gas, also a by-product of burning fossil fuels from fossil carbon deposits, such as oil, gas and coal, of burning biomass and of land use changes and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential of 1."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf


----------



## Tannin

herzy said:


> *Australia is the first country to have come out and done something proactive*, and can now put political pressure on others to do the same.




Not even close to the first. We are we are well back, in the peloton if you like, and a long way behind the leading group.

Australia is around about the 45th country to introduce a carbon price (rough figure, you can argue it up and down a little depending on the exact way you define the the question, but between 40 and 50 is certainly true), and the 16th country in the world to do that in the form of a tax. 

The massive mistake in the Australian system is that we have failed to tax imports. By exempting exports and taxing imports - exactly what we do with GST - we cxould make a massive difference _and_ improve the position of our import-competing manufacturers. That's a win-win.


----------



## Julia

herzy said:


> Yes, our CO2 contributions are minuscule on a global scale, and when compared with China, India, America, etc - but (at least for me) that's not the point.



Maybe just try to remember that the important phrase here is  *(at least for me)*.  We are not all obliged to see it similarly.



> And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.



Are you actually claiming the carbon tax will not be represented as an increase on electricity bills?  Plus the additional GST?


----------



## sails

herzy said:


> ...And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation....





Unbelievable statement.  If that is so, then why is Gillard handing out compensation specifically for electricity?  Your statement would have to be absolute propaganda which means "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." (Source: google search)

And more proof this carbon tax is hurting people:  *Businesses forced to dump carbon tax hike on customers *

It is you who needs to stop misleading people, imo.


----------



## wayneL

Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/


----------



## Tannin

Just the facts:







Red: distribution (poles, wires, switching equipment)
Blue: retailers share (includes marketing and various other items)
Green: power generation expense
Yellow: carbon tax


----------



## cynic

herzy said:


> I trust science, not governments who refuse to act on what scientists tell them. As I said above (or meant to say above) if anyone comes up with real science which shows that climate change is not human induced, and/or that increased CO2 levels by man will not affect the climate, I will be ecstatic. Fantastic news, because it means there will not be the dangers to ecosystems and biodiversity that I far are inevitable. Given the lack of such data, I assume the worst - and it baffles me that people conclude otherwise with a complete lack of scientific basis, and based purely on their own conclusions.
> 
> Unlike religion or dogma, scientists are always happy (or at least should always be happy) to be impartial and respond to what their data and findings put out. This is in contrast to the biased, oil-funded groups who have tried (and failed) to refute climate science findings. Yes, it hasn't been pinned down accurately - please name a single area of science which, from the outset, has been completely accurate? - and the inaccuracies of weather forecasts are enough to show that this is a particularly difficult area to model accurately. That does not, however, mean that the entire premise is false.




The science of mathematics has proven itself to be a very dependable branch of science. Interestingly enough, logic is an essential component of mathematics, so I find it unsurprising that so many "pseudo" scientists are challenged in its (logic) application.

It could be considered unscientific (and foolish) to accept wildy inaccurate computer model projections as supportive of any view on anything other than the inefficacy of the computer models in question.
It would seem logical to consider a suitably large cross section of all available data prior to arriving at any conclusion and/or forming an opinion. 

Sadly, many of the climate change protagonists appear to be approaching this process in reverse (i.e. actively seeking evidence to support a predetermined opinion/conclusion whilst at the same time dismissing as erroneous any contrary evidence - hardly the actions of a truly "impartial" scientist).

A quick glance at scientific discoveries throughout history (even as recently as the past century) should highlight the problem with basing unproven theories on a "consensus" of peers. On many occasions I've witnessed the voice of reason being drowned out by a chorus of fashionable opinion.

So how exactly is the acceptance of inaccuracies in computer projections impartial?



herzy said:


> I humbly suggest that your denial of climate science is derived from significantly greater ignorance of the area than the scientists that publish and research this area.




"Humbly"  suggest??? Really? 

You're attributing "significantly greater ignorance" to a person for expressing an opposing viewpoint! How is that humble? 
(I think you might have the words "humbly" and "arrogantly" confused.)



herzy said:


> Scientists go 'against the narrative' all the time. There are no repercussions for this, assuming the findings are based on good and accurate research. Science is continually changing, and scientists accept this. There are many more recent examples than Ptolemy (which incidentally was a time when there were many more scientific misconceptions - by today's understanding of science - than merely the centre of the solar system).




I believe that there are some scientists going against the CC "narrative" as I type. Given the quality of the CC prophecies/computer projections that we've been hearing to date from our revered CC prophets/scientists, whom I dare not disagree with lest I be accused of heresy/denial and thereby condemned to: 
(i) roast for all eternity, 
(ii)starve to death in a famine/drought, 
(iii)be struck down by a horrible disease (melanoma), and 
(iv) be drowned in a flood covering the entire planet from melting icecaps.
(v) etcetera

Please remind me again, just who was it that said science wasn't a religion?



herzy said:


> No, I can't. I'm not a climate scientist. Even climate scientists can't accurately (and shouldn't try to). Neither can Lord Mockton, who is definitely NOT a climate scientist (what a joke). Why is it that people are willing to listen to Lord Mockton because their opinion is in line with his, and ignore and discredit people who actually know about this area?




So you've actually noticed that some people unreservedly accept "expert" viewpoints, regardless of credentials, provided the expressed opinions align with their own.

How is this different to your acceptance of the authority of "experts" with, by your own admission, a proven history of inaccuracy?

If I were to give an alternative account for the phenomena that CC protagonists are raising alarms about, an explanation which accounts anthropgenic CO2 emissions as being an important part of this planet's natural evolutionary cycle and therefore not a matter for mankind to be unduly concerned with, would you accept my assertion simply because the climate scientists were unable to disprove it?



herzy said:


> And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.




Don't tell me! Let me guess! The dog ate your homework and the cheque's in the mail!

Sure thing Herzy! - we all believe you! We ruullly, twuuulllly do!!


----------



## sails

Tannin said:


> Just the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red: distribution (poles, wires, switching equipment)
> Blue: retailers share (includes marketing and various other items)
> Green: power generation expense
> Yellow: carbon tax





Herzy - you said "...And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation...." and yet even  Tannin's pie chart shows that carbon tax DOES cause price increases.  We all know it and yet you try to pretend it doesn't?????


----------



## Tannin

^ A misleading post. 

*100%* of the price increases you have experienced so far have got nothing to do with the carbon tax. 

Less than 20% of the price increases you will have experienced by the end of this year are to do with the carbon tax. 

Around *80%* of the price increases have to do with massive, long-term systematic under-investment in the infrastructure over the past couple of decades. 

Most Australians (far more than half) will pay the same or pay less overall because of the substantial July income tax cuts (which have been paid for by the carbon tax, of course).

Any Australian wishing to dodge paying the carbon tax is free to do so. Indeed, you are _officially encouraged_ to *dodge the tax*. The less harm you do to the planet and the more care you put into your children's future, _the less tax you pay!_ If you don't want to pay the carbon tax, use more renewables and conserve more effectively and don't pay the tax!


----------



## sptrawler

Tannin said:


> ^ A misleading post.
> 
> *100%* of the price increases you have experienced so far have got nothing to do with the carbon tax.
> 
> Less than 20% of the price increases you will have experienced by the end of this year are to do with the carbon tax.
> 
> Around *80%* of the price increases have to do with massive, long-term systematic under-investment in the infrastructure over the past couple of decades.
> 
> Most Australians (far more than half) will pay the same or pay less overall because of the substantial July income tax cuts (which have been paid for by the carbon tax, of course).
> 
> Any Australian wishing to dodge paying the carbon tax is free to do so. Indeed, you are _officially encouraged_ to *dodge the tax*. The less harm you do to the planet and the more care you put into your children's future, _the less tax you pay!_ If you don't want to pay the carbon tax, use more renewables and conserve more effectively and don't pay the tax!




What about when it goes on diesel in 2014 and is incorperated in transport costs, don't eat?
If you are so concerned about harm to the planet, why aren't we shutting down coal mines instead of selling them to China and India?
Why has the only solar panel manufacturer in Australia moved offshore, this year? Surely this is the new technological green industry the government is meant to be supporting with grants from the tax.
In Perth a solar hot water system manufacturer is reported to be shutting down? due to shutting down of 'green'
government schemes.
Maybe one of you pro carbon tax posters could give me an example of one, just ONE productive industry that has 
benefited since the carcon tax has been announced.
Like I said, give me a link to ONE manufacturing company that is doing well? 
There must be heaps in this new Bob Brown, Julia Gillard clean energy and new technology future. Jeez the tax and incentives must be breeding new companies daily, hell all you have to do is dream. LOL
What a bunch of dicks.


----------



## cynic

Tannin , did the dog eat your homework too?!

Or is the dispensing of misinformation just one of your pastimes?  


I recently received a letter from my electricity retailer which clearly states:



> ...writing to let you know that your electricity prices will increase from 1 July 2012....The increase is largely related to the introduction of the carbon price by the Australian Government on 1 July 2012...".




So in effect I have already been experiencing the impact of this carbon tax in the form of higher electricity prices that are being billed to my account.


Further to this, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the increased energy prices will feed into the delivery and production costs associated with most consumables. As such I find it difficult to understand how anyone living in Australia could evade its impact (except for those whom are planning to emigrate or possibly expire).


----------



## Tannin

Cynic, it is very simple.

First, the very large electricity increases you have already experienced have got nothig to do with the carbon tax. Absolutely nothing.  The letter you have, if you are quoting it accurately, is at best disingenuous, and certainly misleading. If that really is the text of it, you should send it to the ACCC so that the liar who wrote it can be prosecuted for misleading conduct under the fair trading laws.

Over the next year or so, you will see further price rises. Only about one third of these have anything to do with the carbon tax. The continuing push to upgrade distribution systems and sting customers for it - often beyond the bounds of sense or reason now - has already produced large rises, and will continue to produce more. 

Second, unless your income is something like $100,000+ you just had a large tax cut. For the great majority of Australians, this very significant tax reform means that you can pay the 10%  increase in electricity and the 0.9% increase in other items which contribute to the cost of living _and still have money left over_. 

It makes no sense to complain about the carbon tax when you are either better off because of the income tax reforms (most Australians are) or else receiving much more than the average income. 

Best of all, *you don't have to pay* the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!


----------



## wayneL

Tannin said:


> Best of all, *you don't have to pay* the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!




Perhaps you could detail how people can do this.


----------



## moXJO

Tannin said:


> Second, unless your income is something like $100,000+ you just had a large tax cut. For the great majority of Australians, this very significant tax reform means that you can pay the 10%  increase in electricity and the 0.9% increase in other items which contribute to the cost of living _and still have money left over_.
> 
> It makes no sense to complain about the carbon tax when you are either better off because of the income tax reforms (most Australians are) or else receiving much more than the average income.
> 
> Best of all, *you don't have to pay* the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!




What a load of shyte.


----------



## Tannin

wayneL said:


> Perhaps you could detail how people can do this.




Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). *There are endless ways to doge tax.*


----------



## Julia

moXJO said:


> What a load of shyte.



+100.



Tannin said:


> Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). *There are endless ways to doge tax.*




You seem to assume people are not already doing all the above.  We are not idiots.  Of course electricity is already being used very conservatively.
It is impossible, however, especially for renters, to have total control.  Weeks of wet weather with several small children - young mothers have to use the drier.  When it's cold, we need at least some heating.


MoXJO very appropriately summed up your posts above.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Tannin said:


> Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). *There are endless ways to doge tax.*




Been pretty chilly down here in Tassie . I'm on my third pile of renewable forest logs already. Tried to move my house to face the sun but it was to heavy.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

It appears Team Gullible have conceded that:

Proof that reducing man's CO2 emissions by 5% will have zero measurable impact to temperatures. I wonder then if man reduced CO2 by 50% what the impact would actually be?​
However, what we know for sure is that alarmists from the team are quick to claim: "Roses could die from too much CO2, CO2 like anything should be in moderation, we should reduce our carbon footprint - it's not hard to do, there's no carbon tax in your electricity bill, i'm not a climate scientist so cannot provide any info"

All wonderful and lovely options on why team gullible cannot provide hard proof.

All we need now is the leader from team gullible to post copious urls from a 4th rate blog and to avoid disclosing the disclaimers - unlike the Dept of Climate Change who in their online disclaimer doesn't stand by anything they produce. Interesting why anyone then would take what's effectively a fairytale and weave a tax around it. Should make for some interesting legal questions. 

I would also like to reassert that nobody from the team gullible is actually doing anything to reduce deadly CO2 gas themselves, but are happy to provide armchair opinion on what others must do.


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists
> 
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/



Interesting this has been ignored. 


Still interested in your comments ladies.


----------



## Tannin

Julia said:


> You seem to assume people are not already doing all the above.  We are not idiots.  Of course electricity is already being used very conservatively. It is impossible, however, especially for renters, to have total control.




If you are renting, then you are typically on a low to middle income, and you are now *substantially better off* because of the recent *income tax cuts*.


----------



## wayneL

Tannin said:


> If you are renting, then you are typically on a low to middle income, and you are now *substantially better off* because of the recent *income tax cuts*.




What about those on very low, fixed incomes, such as retirees relying on interest.

Perhaps you can do a worked example of how someone would be better off under the 'send production to China tax'?


----------



## Ferret

OzWaveGuy said:


> Time's up. No response. The process of law now kicks in. Notices of Default will be sent to each respondent. This matter is res judicata and stare decisis and the Respondent's are in estoppel by Respondent’s failure to respond.




I have huge doubts that this went anywhere, but perhaps OWG can provide an update?


----------



## Tannin

wayneL said:


> What about those on very low, fixed incomes, such as retirees relying on interest.




I already deal with that in an earlier post. You could try reading it.

But, just for you, that problem _only_ applies where the person on the fixed income _does not pay any tax_ even under the old, higher-tax system. Those people - not all that many of them it is true, but certainly some - are worse off. But most fixed income earners are significantly better off because they no longer have to pay income tax. That's a huge saving.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Ferret said:


> I have huge doubts that this went anywhere, but perhaps OWG can provide an update?




Lol...I have huge doubts that many alarmists here are sane.

Happy to answer questions on the status of the legal challenge for persons who have a legitimate interest. Folks can pm me.

At a high level: agreement was reached between the parties that climate science contains fraud and misleading information. Now that the carbon tax is here and is based on admitted fraud the next process is about to commence under notary seal that uses the prior admission to create a foreign judgement, followed by a claim for damages. 

The learning curve is significant, but well worth the effort


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> This is interesting.  UN climate scientists pleading for immunity from criminal prosecution - do they know they haven't been truthful?  Can't see why else they would be begging for immunity which surely should not be given?
> 
> Read more: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution




Something was up when I saw this post about the basilio's so called incorruptible "experts" whining for immunity from prosecution, something is indeed unfolding. Perhaps the IAC report on IPCC processes and procedures is causing some at the center of the AGW scam to suddenly realise they may be actually accountable....something is indeed heating up...

July 16, 2012
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
By Joseph L. Bast

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."
....
The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure.  Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22).  In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).  Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18).  In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
......

​


----------



## wayneL

Tannin said:


> I already deal with that in an earlier post. You could try reading it.
> 
> But, just for you, that problem _only_ applies where the person on the fixed income _does not pay any tax_ even under the old, higher-tax system. Those people - not all that many of them it is true, but certainly some - are worse off. But most fixed income earners are significantly better off because they no longer have to pay income tax. That's a huge saving.




Thank you you are truly a generous individual


----------



## Logique

Reappearance of the shameless old catastrophist on _We're All Luvvies Together _tonight, which some people know as _The Project_. 

Steve Price said to Dr Flannery, 'that sounds like more scare mongering to me'. What, daring to question  accepted dogma? Charles and the panel could not have looked more surprised had it been revealed that Julia Gillard was actually a Martian in disguise.   

Later on there was a story about about UFO sightings. Ah, now here, the panel had an open mind.


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> wayneL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists
> 
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting this has been ignored.
> 
> 
> Still interested in your comments ladies.
Click to expand...



Bumpity bump.

Also a new addition to the 'Hansen has lost the plot' file. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ates-again-that-he-is-completely-incompetent/


----------



## wayneL

Steve Goddard is really doing some excellent sleuthing.

History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

Once again, I'm interested in comments from the MIA warmists.


----------



## Calliope

Lucky Greenland. The real estate people will be rubbing their hands in glee.







A crescent shaped crack (C) is pictured in the Petermann Glacier in Greenland


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> Lucky Greenland. The real estate people will be rubbing their hands in glee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A crescent shaped crack (C) is pictured in the Petermann Glacier in Greenland




Seems it is a normal 150 year event (on average) - so not something warmists can claim as part of AGW - these melts has been going on before we became so industrialised.



> *According to glaciologist Lora Koenig, who was part of the team analyzing the data, melting incidents of this type occur every 150 years on average.
> 
> "With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," Koenig said.*




http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/304091/satellites-pick-up-unprecedented-greenland-ice-melt


----------



## OzWaveGuy

wayneL said:


> Steve Goddard is really doing some excellent sleuthing.
> 
> History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured
> 
> Once again, I'm interested in comments from the MIA warmists.




Perhaps they are following the theme of this thread?

As usual, there's a growing list of substantial questions being left unanswered or insufficiently answered by the agw team, but plenty of opinions without hard evidence.


----------



## Knobby22

I'm going on holiday but the answer is I don't believe your sources. Where are the graphs coming from? No sources are provided. 
There are groups out there deliberately lying and have stated it is their policy to do so to slow action on climate change and are paid to do so. It is just propaganda.

I prefer Japanese, European and USA sources.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I'm going on holiday but the answer is I don't believe your sources. Where are the graphs coming from? No sources are provided.
> There are groups out there deliberately lying and have stated it is their policy to do so to slow action on climate change and are paid to do so. It is just propaganda.
> 
> I prefer Japanese, European and USA sources.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html




I don't believe your sources... boom boom!

Goddard is a proper scientist with no vested interest, he deserves more than a passing disrespect.


----------



## DB008

Just saw this and thought it would be good to post in this thread.

*Climate-change denier changes his mind*



> THE verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.
> 
> This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
> 
> The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago.
> 
> However, the difference now is the source: Muller is a longstanding, colourful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
> 
> In an opinion piece in Saturday's New York Times titled The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, Muller writes: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.
> 
> "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
> 
> "I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
> 
> The Berkeley project's research has shown, Muller says, "that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.55 Celsius) over the most recent 50 years.
> 
> "Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."
> 
> He calls his current stance "a total turnaround."




Link - http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/story-e6frfkui-1226438454547?from=public_rss


----------



## wayneL

LOL Dannyboy

Muller has never been a sceptic, much less a (and there's that obnoxious word again) a denier.

Re Muller's BEST: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/#more-68366

Watts' paper, re suface station data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

Read it and weep.


----------



## wayneL

...and Pielke Snr's comments: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ork-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/


----------



## Julia

Professor Muller's contrived research has been receiving saturation coverage on ABC Radio in the last 24 hours.
Of course.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Professor Muller's contrived research has been receiving saturation coverage on ABC Radio in the last 24 hours.
> Of course.




We all know the ABC's political bias.

I perused the various news outlets for their reportage on these two papers (Muller et al and Watts et al) and noted that the more left leaning, the more Watts is ignored. No surprises there , but certainly shows a political motivation and intellectual dishonesty.

I am coming to regard the 'War On Terror' to be the battle against catastrophic climate change fear mongering.


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> Just saw this and thought it would be good to post in this thread.
> 
> *Climate-change denier changes his mind*
> 
> 
> 
> Link - http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/story-e6frfkui-1226438454547?from=public_rss




Re Muller's "skepicism", It appears that is yet another ruse encased in camel dung.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html



> Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism,
> 
> "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
> - *Richard Muller, 2008*
> 
> "There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - *Richard Muller, 2008*
> 
> "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - *Richard Muller, 2003*


----------



## Julia

I was going to use your above quotes from Prof Muller, Wayne, to send in with a complaint to Radio National's "Drive" program last night where Walid Ali interviewed the good professor.  I don't think I've ever heard anything so contrived in my life.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/climate-sceptic-gets-cold-feet/4164634

However, after finally receiving a reply from ABC Complaints in response to an email I sent a couple of months ago, I doubt it's worth the bother.  My irritation back then was Jon Cleary, host of late Sunday night talk program where he always has ultra Left guests.  They attract the predictable following.  One of these acolytes asserted that "98% of asylum seekers ended up in Australia anyway when the Libs were in charge" and there was no attempt by the host to correct this.

The following is the ABC's justification of this for anyone who can be fussed wading through it:
I'll put it in a separate post as, once again, the system is not accepting the full text when I click on Submit.


----------



## Julia

Oh dear, now I'm being told that the post I have entered is too short.  Hopefully this extra will cure the sensitivity.


> Thank you for your emails to the ABC.
> 
> In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards. In the course of doing so, we seek comment from the relevant division, in this case, ABC Radio.
> 
> We understand your concerns to be centred on the accuracy of statements made by a talkback caller during the 'Chat Room' segment of the 'Sunday night with John Cleary' program at approximately 1.45 am on Monday 9 July.  You are concerned that neither John Cleary nor his guest corrected the caller's assertion that "...98% of those people in Nauru were made Australian citizens...".  You provide some alternate figures in your email which we acknowledge and have passed onto John Cleary for his information.


----------



## Julia

And the rest of their remarks:


> The program in question must comply with the ABC's factual accuracy requirements. These are set out in section 2 of the Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/20110408/EditorialPOL2011.pdf) as follows:
> 
> "2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
> 2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information
> 
> These standards are supported by a set of principles.  Of relevance to your concerns, the principles state:
> 
> "Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to: o the type, subject and nature of the content; o the likely audience expectations of the content; o the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and o the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.
> 
> While we acknowledge that the figure for resettlement in Australia quoted by the caller was inaccurate, it is unreasonable and impractical for every statement made by a talkback caller to be challenged or corrected by the host. We believe that a reasonable listener would understand that callers are expressing personal convictions and are not to be relied upon for hard information. In this particular case, the caller was not particularly coherent and was unlikely to be seen as fully credible by the reasonable listener.
> 
> Given this, we are of the view that the discussion complied with factual accuracy requirements.
> 
> Thank you again for taking the time to write. Please be assured that your views on the program's partiality have been noted by Audience and Consumer Affiars and by radio management.
> 
> For your reference a copy of the ABC's Code of Practice can be found at: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (http://www.acma.gov.au).


----------



## DB008

Here is another one off the Ars Technica website.



*Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming*

BEST extends the temperature record to the 1700s, but gets the same result.









> Despite plenty of indications that the Earth has gotten warmer””like melting glaciers and ecosystems that are shifting toward the poles””there are a number of climate skeptics who simply don't accept the temperature records produced by three different organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the CRU). Many of them pinned their hopes on physicist Richard Muller, who was also not convinced the professionals had gotten it right. But Muller did something about it, forming the Berkeley Earth project, and building a huge database of land temperature records.
> 
> Back in October, Muller dropped his findings in a rather unconventional location: an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. Despite the hype, the results were rather bland. He produced a temperature record that was nearly identical to that of the other organizations. But now, Muller is back for round two, and this time he has chosen the New York Times as an outlet for his climate musings.
> 
> As before, his team uses a different statistical method of reconstructing temperatures that works well with short records, taken at sites that were shut or moved. NASA, NOAA, and the CRU use methods that require long records, so they have to make adjustments to the data from sites that have shifted or gotten new equipment. This compensates for the fact that these changes will lead to discontinuities in the record. Since Berkeley Earth doesn't need the same length, it can just skip adjustments entirely: any record with a discontinuity is just split there, and treated as two records. The team has now also pushed its analysis back to almost 1750, adding a century to the land temperature records produced elsewhere.




Link to article - http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/berkeley-earth-project-is-back-to-re-re-confirm-earth-is-warming/


----------



## Calliope

I think this covers all the the GW nasties and parasitic hangers-on.



> James Delingpole in his blog for Britain's The Daily Telegraph:
> 
> THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th-century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it . . . What (Anthony) Watts (of the Watts Up With That? blog) has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island Effect . . . . . . Poor Professor Muller has been telling anyone who'll listen . . . that as a former "sceptic" he has now been forced by weight of evidence to conclude that global warming is definitely man-made and there has been lots of it (a whole 1.5 degrees C -- Wow! that's like almost as much as you'd get if you drove from London to Manchester!!!) since 1750. Tragically as Watts has very reluctantly and by-no-means-experiencing-any-kind-of-Schadenfreude had to point out the data used by Muller to draw these conclusions was unreliable to the point of utter uselessness. *So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory, I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts's findings will have on The Guardian's battalion of environment correspondents, on The New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion. That would be plain wrong*.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-work-at-the-age/story-fn72xczz-1226438913695


----------



## OzWaveGuy

DB008 said:


> Here is another one off the Ars Technica website.
> 
> 
> 
> *Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming*
> 
> BEST extends the temperature record to the 1700s, but gets the same result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to article - http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/berkeley-earth-project-is-back-to-re-re-confirm-earth-is-warming/




"Here is another one" - Quite right DannyBoy

Can the AGW alarmists explain which temperature graphs we should all be using - the IPCC temperature graph with the medieval warming period from AR1, or the new and improved version without the medieval warming but with a debunked hockey stick in AR4, or the one above, or one of many from the Basilio collection posted from a 4th rate blog?

Please include disclaimers including: what adjustments have been made and why, the before and after graphs, and do scientists from both sides of the debate support the adjustments and raw data? 

I think we're all getting tired of the typical AGW doomsday'ers posting up rubbish, failing to answer basic fundamental questions, scurrying away for a "holiday" and then re-appearing with some other pathetic distraction.

And the impact to temperatures by lowering man's 3% of CO2 emissions v's 97% of natures CO2 by 5% by 2020 or 2100 is......?


----------



## wayneL

Basilio was fond of referring to AGW as "liars" in addition the the repugnant "denier".

As it turns out clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably, it is the alarmists who are the liars, from climategate, fakegate, to the BEST laughing stock and Muller's preposterous lie that he was a skeptic.

I wonder if she will have the integrity to post a retraction and apology? :frown:

DannyBoy

BEST was rejected by peer review 

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Did they forget to tell you that?


----------



## DB008

Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
> If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.




Do you not find the peer review rejection interesting?


----------



## sails

DB008 said:


> Please wayneL, l am not taking sides on this issue.
> If l see something on the net that could be useful to this thread, I post with a link.





Danny - whether our global temperatures have actually risen a little or the temps have been fiddled, I don't know, but one thing is clear to me and that is our weather is no more extreme in any direction than what we have seen over the last couple of hundred years.  Clearly, any man made co2 is not making any changes to our historical weather/climate patterns.  This from the Brisbane Courier in *1889*:

THE PREDICTED DROUGHT. Australian weather statistics 1782 - 1889.
" In order to throw some additional light on the above question, I will furnish a few condensed Australian weather statistics of the last 107 years, and if anyone can found a positive forecast on them he is welcome to do so ; all that I can see in them is the simple fact that floods and droughts alternate out here with "lucid intervals" of ordinary settled and moderately wet or dry weather.

Captain Cook in 1770 says little about the weather. Dampier in 1690 or thereabouts was equally silent.
Captain Matthew Flinders reports drought and bush fires from 1782 to 1792.
There was a great drought in 1797 for 100 miles round where Melbourne now stands ; 1799 to 1806 were very wet years, and in 1806 the floods culminated by a rise of 101 ft. at Windsor, on the Hawkesbury River.
The crops were destroyed, wheat rose to 80s. a bushel, and a famine prevailed.

The excessive rain kept on till 1810, but 1811 cut it short, and was so dry that water was worth 8d. per bucketful in Sydney.
This drought was sharp but short, and there was plenty of increasing rain for years afterwards, till in 1820 the Hunter River rose 37ft.

Ten years now elapsed without any more floods, and it was so dry from 1826 to 1829 that water at last became worth 4d. a gallon in Sydney. 1830 saw the first flood for ten years.

Ordinary weather followed till 1837, but 1838 and 1839 saw the champion drought of the century. Stock were all but exterminated. The Murrumbidgee is a great river, 150ft. wide, 60ft. deep, and overflows its banks, like the Nile, when the head snows melt, for five miles on each side to a depth of 3ft. This gives a volume of water equal to a river of 1450 ft. wide and 120 ft. deep, and besides this it fills a group of lakes each from seven to eighteen miles in diameter.
Yet this great river dried up so thoroughly in 1839 that the fish died and putrefied at the bottom of it.

I make no comments on what such a drought now would do to Queensland, and I am at present only going for dry facts and bald statistics.
1841 broke up this drought with the champion flood of Queensland; the Bremer River rose 70ft., and the Brisbane bar not being then dredged, there was no quick "get away" for the water, and it filled the lower story of the commissariat stores here, and Ipswich was very short of rations for some days.

Moderate rain carried the colony of Now South Wales (then the only one) on till 1849, when dry weather began and lasted till May, 1851.

The scattered bush fires of Victoria got " boxed" into one mighty whole on 6th February, 1851 (" Black Thursday "), before a southerly hurricane which sent smoke and leaves across Bass Straits.

1852 brought a flood that swept Gundagai away and drowned the inhabitants ; 1853 saw great overflows of the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, and Darling rivers, but not from local rain ; 1854 was dry; 1855 and 1856, ordinary weather; 1857 was a flood year, with three months ceaseless rain from February to May.
Settled weather lasted till 1863, which, with 1864, both gave heavy flood. The weather settled again till 1873 (bar a small drought up North in 1866), which, with 1875, was very wet, and gave a flood each.

Settled weather again carne, with a small local flood in 1879-80 ; 1882 very wet: 1883 to 1886 very dry; 1887 very wet; 1888 very dry; 1889 moderately wet.

Here we have 107 years of statistics, and who can discern from them the rule that guides the weather ? A matter which enters so largely into our health and comfort, happiness and prosperity, that I hope to be excused for thus dwelling upon it. ......
N. Bartley  The Brisbane Courier 1889 "​
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> Basilio was fond of referring to AGW as "liars" in addition the the repugnant "denier".
> 
> As it turns out clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably, it is the alarmists who are the liars, from climategate, fakegate, to the BEST laughing stock and Muller's preposterous lie that he was a skeptic.
> 
> I wonder if she will have the integrity to post a retraction and apology? :frown:




Not until hell freezes over.



> Scientists are no longer "persuaded" by evidence but "converted", turning away from the dark forces of scepticism towards the eternal light of truth. Academic papers read like evangelical tracts, threatening sorrow and damnation. Those who fail to repent the sin of carbon gluttony are condemned to wail and gnash their teeth, as the flood waters rise around them. Woe betide anyone who questions the climate change priesthood, for as Clive Hamilton warned us earlier this year, "It's heretical to reject the overwhelming consensus among those qualified to judge". We hesitate to mention the Spanish Inquisition, but didn't Galileo face that charge at his trial in 1633?




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-they-who-repent/story-e6frg71x-1226439798459


----------



## sails

Found on Bolt's Blog - and warmists wonder why the world is not swallowing their pathetic attempts to make us believe their lies - such as this one blaming melted lights on global warming when it was due to a fire:











And here is the real cause of the melted lights:




Read more: If warmists believed this, they’ll believe anything


----------



## OzWaveGuy

sails said:


> Found on Bolt's Blog - and warmists wonder why the world is not swallowing their pathetic attempts to make us believe their lies - such as this one blaming melted lights on global warming when it was due to a fire:
> 
> 
> View attachment 48375
> 
> 
> View attachment 48376
> 
> 
> View attachment 48378
> 
> 
> And here is the real cause of the melted lights:
> 
> View attachment 48377
> 
> 
> Read more: If warmists believed this, they’ll believe anything




Dang! You beat me to it. 

Just saw it on Bolt's blog and figured this is the same exact nonsense we've seen here in this thread by alarmists pushing the warming headlines of a false warming. 

Still seems to be no takers on helping to determine the impact on temperatures by lowering man's "killer" CO2 contributions, even posted a link with links to the IPCC methodology. Surely Basilio's elitists scientist have an answer that's been peer reviewed? Perhaps it's easier to say - all this useless fuss has been over nothing, but for only the gullible to believe. So, who needs to pay back all those billions wasted, hmmm....


----------



## noco

My oh My, how the scientific alarmist manipulated the concenses of Global Warming by declaring a majority of scientists agreed.

It is an absolute farce!


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_we_won/


----------



## Knobby22

One of the most quoted climate skeptics is scientist Richard Muller. He has changed his mind and now says global warming is real!!

Excellent article of why he changed his mind is published in the Wall Street Journal. Definitely worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> One of the most quoted climate skeptics is scientist Richard Muller. He has changed his mind and now says global warming is real!!
> 
> Excellent article of why he changed his mind is published in the Wall Street Journal. Definitely worth a read.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html



Haven't you been reading the whole thread?   Muller was never a genuine sceptic.
Start by reading Wayne's post above No. 3685.


----------



## Knobby22

Sorry been away in Phuket.

He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it. 
Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.

So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts. 
His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".


----------



## Knobby22

Conservapedia - love this site - quote Richard Millar as a skeptic-

"To be fair, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing,[13] and, in 2011, a study conducted by global warming skeptic Richard A. Muller, largely funded by the oil industry,[14] confirmed the results of the scientists involved in climate gate, concluding that "Global warming is real."[15] However, the study makes the baseless conclusion that just because the Earth is warming, humans are causing it ('anthropogenic global warming' versus 'global warming'), falling victim to the old liberal 'bait and switch' technique.[16] "

http://conservapedia.com/Climategate


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry been away in Phuket.
> 
> He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
> Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.
> 
> So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
> His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".




Knobby, please.

1/ Muller has demonstrably never been a skeptic.

2/ BEST has not passed peer review.

3/ Muller has been disowned by his own alarmist community.

It's propaganda and amateurish propaganda at that. Anybody even half awake has recognised Muller and BEST as outright dross.

Meanwhile, the Watt's et al study has buried the BEST nonsense under an avalanche of reality, and the likes of Steven Goddard have shown how the warmist's temperature record has been exaggerated. Also there has been a host of other interesting studies.

Any truly unbiased scientific minds will be tending towards the moderate view.

BTW, what have you done to ameliorate your carbon output due to international travel?


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Conservapedia - love this site - quote Richard Millar as a skeptic-
> 
> "To be fair, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing,[13] and, in 2011, a study conducted by global warming skeptic Richard A. Muller, largely funded by the oil industry,[14] confirmed the results of the scientists involved in climate gate, concluding that "Global warming is real."[15] However, the study makes the baseless conclusion that just because the Earth is warming, humans are causing it ('anthropogenic global warming' versus 'global warming'), falling victim to the old liberal 'bait and switch' technique.[16] "
> 
> http://conservapedia.com/Climategate




We all know conservapedia is as egregiously biased as the left wing versions thereof.

Best to just ignore them.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> BTW, what have you done to ameliorate your carbon output due to international travel?




Farted as we took off to help lift.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry been away in Phuket.
> 
> He is more a critic of the hockey stick graph in which he critiscised the maths behind it.
> Also critiscised the Al Gore documentary, saying it was 80% bulldust. I have still not seen it by the way.
> 
> So yes, you are right, he is just a typical scientist testing the facts.
> His own research showed the world was warming and so he has obviously joined the "dark side".




Joining Basilio at the bottom with zero cred? At least you're keeping up with the model that demonstrates how alarmists here operate...



> I think we're all getting tired of the typical AGW doomsday'ers posting up rubbish, failing to answer basic fundamental questions, scurrying away for a "holiday" and then re-appearing with some other pathetic distraction.


----------



## gav

Today on Environment Victoria's twitter page:
"Hazelwood's contribution to global emissions will cause flooding affecting 10,000 people"

I find it quite ironic that such statements can be made, but if a business raises their prices due to the Carbon Tax, you better be able to prove that to the ACCC...


----------



## bellenuit

Knobby22 said:


> Farted as we took off to help lift.




Tut, tut. That provides no lift if your are inside a plane. You need to be outside, strapped to the undercarriage.


----------



## Logique

Just to let everyone know that global warming will accelerate this summer in eastern Australia.  Every year the bushfire authorities say this will be the worst season ever, well they'll be closer to the truth in 2013-2014. Farmers know because they follow the SOI. 

The emails will be running hot between the CSIRO and Prof Flannery as they monitor these developments.

Ahead of summer, now is the time to get those air conditioners serviced.  And clean out the gutters.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> We all know conservapedia is as egregiously biased as the left wing versions thereof.
> 
> Best to just ignore them.




Just to prove it that arch Trotskyist Arctic ice sheet is up there again proving it's hair shirt rabid green agenda by continuing its trend toward disappearance, just out of sheer spite. And hand in glove with those commie science egg head predictions of thirty'n  forty years ago. tell ya guy's there's sleepers amungst us.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 In spite of all the evidence put forward as to how much better off it should be under the lousy 3% man made  increase of only 280ppm( stasis of the pre industrial era) to soon to be 400ppm( if that maths doesn't stand up I don't know what would)
I've had it with all this book learn'n bunkum, from now on i'm check'n the temp the way nature intended , yep , dropping the the back flap on the dungeries & lett'n the wind blow free. it was good enough for old grand pappy and its good enough for me.


----------



## white_goodman

orr said:


> In spite of all the evidence put forward as to how much better off it should be under the lousy 3% man made  increase of only 280ppm( stasis of the pre industrial era) to soon to be 400ppm( if that maths doesn't stand up I don't know what would)




we do not live in a linear world, its very obvious to me you shouldnt be talking about maths when making points, take note for future


----------



## basilio

Whats happening in the Arctic.



> *
> The staggering decline of sea ice at the frontline of climate change*
> 
> Scientists on board Greenpeace's vessel exploring the minimum extent of the ice cap are shocked at the speed of the melt




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/decline-sea-ice-arctic


----------



## wayneL

From 1923 - One of hundreds of examples from the past.

Keep that Champagne on ice basilio.


----------



## basilio

Well Wayne I'm glad that on the strength of a 1923 story in the Perth Daily News we don't have anything to be concerned with regarding rapid melting of the Artic ice cap. 

Have you considered forwarding this to the Climate scientists at Real Climate ect ?  Perhaps Watts up can constuct a scientific paper around the story to provide balance to what is currently happening.  I'm sure Andrew Bolt and Plimer etc will welcome the opportunity for another approach.

And it certainly is an interesting story - particularly when you read it in its entirity .  I'm going to check it out a bit further.

 Seriously...

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74081229


----------



## basilio

There actually is quite a good paper that investigates the causes for the sharp increase in Artic temperatures at some points  around 1923.

Also  some interesting info on Watts Up regarding Artic sea ice. 

http://www.arctic-warming.com/_FIN_Feb2010_WEB_CC_Arctic1919.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well Wayne I'm glad that on the strength of a 1923 story in the Perth Daily News we don't have anything to be concerned with regarding rapid melting of the Artic ice cap.
> 
> Have you considered forwarding this to the Climate scientists at Real Climate ect ?  Perhaps Watts up can constuct a scientific paper around the story to provide balance to what is currently happening.  I'm sure Andrew Bolt and Plimer etc will welcome the opportunity for another approach.
> 
> And it certainly is an interesting story - particularly when you read it in its entirity .  I'm going to check it out a bit further.
> 
> Seriously...
> 
> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74081229




Arctic sea ice is one factor, to be studied and taken in conjunction with data from the entire planet.

For instance, recently sea ice at the Antarctic was apparently at historical highs for the date.


----------



## cynic

I must confess that I am just a little envious of people whom enjoy a life so bereft of problems that they feel the need to travel all the way to the Arctic to find one!

The more I hear from these characters, the more convinced I become that such self appointed "environmental crusaders" cling to their fallacious dogma in order to avoid a humbling confrontation with their own personal inadequacies. In effect, they have to find a problem somehow (or somewhere) in order to justify the continuance of their personal facade as "saviours" of the planet! The failure of many to amend their living habits in compliance with their professed beliefs testifies to their self deception.
It seems that many find it so terribly easy to "talk the talk", but when it comes to "walking the walk" creative excuses/justifications for personal non-compliance abound.


----------



## sptrawler

Hey Basilio, can you give me the name of a company(in Aust) that has started up since the clean energy future was announced?
I mean a company that actually produces something e.g solar panels, wind generators, tidal power, molten salt storage,geothermal generation anything remotely connected to sustainable energy.
I think not, but you will find the government has backflipped on shutting down brown coal fired power stations, the worste poluters.
What's your take on that?


----------



## sails

sptrawler said:


> Hey Basilio, can you give me the name of a company(in Aust) that has started up since the clean energy future was announced?...




And which can operate without government subsidies...


----------



## basilio

Its all interesting...

The report on the rapid collapse of the Arctic ice cap was highlighting just how quickly our climate is changing with the increase in temperatures, particularly in Arctic regions.

The other concern is that the loss of Arctic sea ice will be a tipping point to further  escalation of temperature rises. Sea ice reflects the suns heat. Open water allows summer sun to warm the Arctic ocean and substantially add to the earths heat load. This will also hasten the melting of glaciers around Greenland etc as the warmer water undercuts glaciers.

It doesn't matter whether you think environmentalists arn't wearing enough hairshirts. The failure of governments to recognise the need to change how we generate power is  a different problem. These are just distractions to the issue. 

They don't change what is happening.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Its all interesting...
> 
> ...It doesn't matter whether you think environmentalists arn't wearing enough hairshirts. The failure of governments to recognise the need to change how we generate power is  a different problem. These are just distractions to the issue.
> 
> They don't change what is happening.




Yet another excuse for not "walking the walk". This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post. Climate protagonists are terribly adept at laying the blame at the feet of government (or society in general), but, when it comes to amending their personal lifestyles, seem unsurprisingly reluctant to do so!! Hypocrisy is the word that springs to mind!!


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Yet another excuse for not "walking the walk". This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post. Climate protagonists are terribly adept at laying the blame at the feet of government (or society in general), but, when it comes to amending their personal lifestyles, seem unsurprisingly reluctant to do so!! Hypocrisy is the word that springs to mind!!




BS. No one is laying the blame at a particular group. The issue is whether the climate is rapidly warming (largely because of our human activities) and what are we going to do about it. Slagging off at the scientists and other observers won't change the facts.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Its all interesting...
> 
> The report on the rapid collapse of the Arctic ice cap was highlighting just how quickly our climate is changing with the increase in temperatures, particularly in Arctic regions.
> 
> The other concern is that the loss of Arctic sea ice will be a tipping point to further  escalation of temperature rises. Sea ice reflects the suns heat. Open water allows summer sun to warm the Arctic ocean and substantially add to the earths heat load. This will also hasten the melting of glaciers around Greenland etc as the warmer water undercuts glaciers.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think environmentalists arn't wearing enough hairshirts. The failure of governments to recognise the need to change how we generate power is  a different problem. These are just distractions to the issue.
> 
> They don't change what is happening.




But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors... and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.

Cynic has nailed the hypocrisy issue succinctly also.

NONE of you neo-Armageddonists are doing a jot personally.


----------



## basilio

Remembering Frank Fisher



> *
> Remembering Frank Fisher*
> 
> Frank Fisher (d. August 2012) was a long-time supporter and critic of Environment Victoria. His support was not limited to his generous financial contributions to our organisation over more than a decade. It included challenging our fundamental assumptions, critiquing our positions and questioning our motivations and approaches to achieving environmental change.
> 
> Frank influenced thousands of students, colleagues, peers and practitioners over his decades as an educator and academic at Monash and Swinburne Universities, including many in Environment Victoria’s extended family. Like history’s great teachers, there was no division between Frank’s teaching and his life. He lived what he taught. He donated large portions of his earnings to charities; he famously produced less than a one litre milk carton of ‘waste’ per week, and did not own a car. Far from being austere or spartan, Frank lived a rich and generous life. All elements of his thinking and living were open to his students for interrogation. One of the great satisfactions of studying with Frank was hearing him say incredulously “My god I have never thought of that. You’re right!”
> He was inspired by Gary Ablett Senior’s footy for Geelong, and set essays applying systems theory to AFL football teams.
> 
> For Frank, trying to live sustainably asks us to change the way we think, not just the way we use resources.




http://environmentvictoria.org.au/blog/posts/remembering-frank-fisher


----------



## basilio

> But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors... and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.




Wayne that is just provably wrong.  If you can't accept or understand the evidence that shows we are warming rapidly you never will.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne that is just provably wrong.  If you can't accept or understand the evidence that shows we are warming rapidly you never will.




1/ I draw your attention to my oft stated view which you consistently, illogically, unintelligently and mendaciously ignore and/or misrepresent

2/ If it is provable, why is there debate.

Basilio, provable for you is by disregarding any data competing with your penchant for The Apocalypse.


----------



## basilio

Don't waste your time BS with me Wayne when you state 



> other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.




Have a go at The Royal Society, Scientific American, Creationists (!) and scientists who observe the changes in plant and animal behaviour as the planet warms. 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01333.html
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1534/3321.abstract
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Don't waste your time BS with me Wayne when you state
> 
> 
> 
> Have a go at The Royal Society, Scientific American, Creationists (!) and scientists who observe the changes in plant and animal behaviour as the planet warms.
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
> http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01333.html
> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1534/3321.abstract
> http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
> http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
> http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full




Well you are clearly one of the faithful my dear.

Can you detail what you personally are doing to save the world?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Don't waste your time BS with me Wayne when you state




By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## orr

white_goodman said:


> we do not live in a linear world, its very obvious to me you shouldnt be talking about maths when making points, take note for future




Whitey impress us all with your mathematical acumen and show us, as your teacher would have insisted, with method, your calculations that show the increase of 280ppm to 390ppm (so thats 110ppm increase industrial mans contribution of carbon dioxide, you come to this result by subtracting the smaller number from the larger one ) is a contribution of 3% as stated in posts #3534 and #3634 and others, by someone  as equally 'independently' psychologically arranged as yourself. 
Here's the future 'me presenting you with an ignoble prize for a none existent branch  of mathematics '
Rudy Kalmam is still with us, send  him your working sheet. give him a laugh.

Oh and Wayne if your out there, and we know you are(_way out there_) Loved the clipping from 1923, by extension the deck chairs  and Pina colada's will soon be out side by side with fossilised shell fish atop Everest. And how are going on outing those old Koch Brothers as closet Fabians... 
but you've chosen to remain quite on the Koch's independent study , ignore it long enough it will go away... which is kinda sorta what Max Planck had to say about those unable to adjust to a new reality.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Whitey impress us all with your mathematical acumen and show us, as your teacher would have insisted, with method, your calculations that show the increase of 280ppm to 390ppm (so thats 110ppm increase industrial mans contribution of carbon dioxide, you come to this result by subtracting the smaller number from the larger one ) is a contribution of 3% as stated in posts #3534 and #3634 and others, by someone  as equally 'independently' psychologically arranged as yourself.
> Here's the future 'me presenting you with an ignoble prize for a none existent branch  of mathematics '
> Rudy Kalmam is still with us, send  him your working sheet. give him a laugh.
> 
> Oh and Wayne if your out there, and we know you are(_way out there_) Loved the clipping from 1923, by extension the deck chairs  and Pina colada's will soon be out side by side with fossilised shell fish atop Everest. And how are going on outing those old Koch Brothers as closet Fabians...
> but you've chosen to remain quite on the Koch's independent study , ignore it long enough it will go away... which is kinda sorta what Max Planck had to say about those unable to adjust to a new reality.




Orr,

All I ask is that you Armaggedonists consider all untainted data, and stop assigning reasonable people with extreme positions.

My views are here in this thread a multitude of times, yet you catastrophists refuse to acknowledge them.


----------



## basilio

Well Wayne you have piqued my curiosity

Your position as  you seem to have repeatedly stated it is 



> and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.




As I read that you seem to be saying we don't actually have any significant warming of the planet. Its just the temperature figures have been fiddled and /or the weather stations are badly sited. 

Thats it wayne. *According to you we just don't have a global warming problem at all. * (This is completely separate from questioning what might be causing any increases in temperature )

*So out of interest how many other posters on ASF would agree that global temperatures have not increased in any significant way in the past 100 years ? *

Just asking. It would be useful to see what are the range of views on this particular point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have previously cited a range of literature to back up the view that temperatures have risen. 
Wayne your welcome to cite any evidence that backs up your statement that there is no actual global warming - just fiddled figures.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, you have once again (probably intentionally) distorted what I have said on this thread.

I am not playing with disingenuous and nasty little trolls such as yourself and repeating myself yet again. 

Do the work yourself.... and perhaps answer my question above.


----------



## basilio

Wayne I have not distorted what you have said. In fact I was so astonished at your statement I tried to make sure it wasn't a slip up on your part.

Your repeated comments were


> and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.




Unless you wan't to clarify it in some way that statement denies any significant global warming at all because you believe the measuring mechanisms are severely compromised

Again I would be interested to hear other views on your position.


----------



## basilio

Did you know...??

Hitler was fooled about climate change until almost the very end.  He was totally appalled when he realized  his 1000 year Reich would be undermined by global warming...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF97cf6x6c&feature=related


----------



## basilio

Of course Hitler isn't the only person to be seriously concerned about global warming and the particular effect on ice levels in the Arctic.

This is how NASA sees the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UMZjP2abE&feature=related


The Antartic is also facing some big problems. (big for us anyway.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK6HQmJaSM0&feature=related


----------



## basilio

But in the end Hitler and the Nazis had the last laugh on climate change because they escaped to Antarctica to become part of the civilizations that flourish under the earth.

Seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-sE16b77M&feature=related


----------



## wayneL

Like I said, just a troll with confirmation bias.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Like I said, just a troll with confirmation bias.




Really Wayne ?  In which case I'll have to join the rest of the scientific community which measures with care and works off all the evidence rather than made up nonsense.

With regard to your views on the issue of AGW.  I had tenatively believed you classified yourself as a "luke warmer".  In that sense you accepted the reality that temperatures were rising but did not accept that human produced CO2 played a significant role in the increase. In that context you would then believe there would be a relatively small rise in any future temperatures and that attempts to stop this by drastically reducing O2 emissions would be counterproductive.

*And now you come out with the statement that you don't actually accept there is any significant temperature rise at all.*  That in effect we don't even have some substantial, measurable temperature increase across the planet and in particular the polar regions. 

IMO that position is seriously deluded. It's about as close to reality as hollow earth fantasies and retro Hitler conversions to climate change.

And by the way, if after all the posts I have written on this forum you think I'm a troll your just confirming your escape from reality.

_______________________________________________________________________

I'm still interested in knowing if  other forum members view on the question of a significant increase in global temperatures. Any takers ?


----------



## wayneL

In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.

As evidence emerges, I reserve the right to adjust my view, something you Apocolysts are philosophically and intellectually incapable of and something bona fide scientists (rather than vested interest advocates) will do.

Now please, go take one of your Valiums will you?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.
> ?




Well that all makes sense- in  a Kaffasque type of way. According to the new evidence you have seen there is no global warming to worry about. 

Thats great isn't it Wayne? It means we can go to sleep soundly at night and be assured that those heat waves, wild weather and droughts are just figments of our imagination that really arn't happening because there is now new evidence that global warming isn't happening.

I started this recent little flurry with the observation that summer ice in the Arctic reached its lowest level and appears almost certainly to be running down on an exponitial scale. To put it simply as more ice melts, the Arctic ocean absorbs far more summer heat which in turn will melt more ice. 

These are the facts on the ground. There are a million other similar facts that indicate the earth is warming rapidly and will continue to do so. Coming up with some cherry picked, tricky set of numbers to "prove" otherwise just makes the proponents completely irrelevant to the debate.



> *Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years*
> 
> *As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes
> *
> 
> One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.
> 
> In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> Well that all makes sense- in  a Kaffasque type of way. According to the new evidence you have seen there is no global warming to worry about.
> 
> Thats great isn't it Wayne? It means we can go to sleep soundly at night and be assured that those heat waves, wild weather and droughts are just figments of our imagination that really arn't happening because there is now new evidence that global warming isn't happening.
> 
> I started this recent little flurry with the observation that summer ice in the Arctic reached its lowest level and appears almost certainly to be running down on an exponitial scale. To put it simply as more ice melts, the Arctic ocean absorbs far more summer heat which in turn will melt more ice.
> 
> These are the facts on the ground. There are a million other similar facts that indicate the earth is warming rapidly and will continue to do so. Coming up with some cherry picked, tricky set of numbers to "prove" otherwise just makes the proponents completely irrelevant to the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice




in 4 years when nothing happens will you and scientists of this ilk please shutup


----------



## orr

white_goodman said:


> in 4 years when nothing happens will you and scientists of this ilk please shutup




Further to Basilo's requests for confirmation. The above quote to me at least strikes as, "Head in the sand" but that just might be me. I need conformation to be sure. 
But those with Whitey's mathematical acumen can deduce 97% of scientist opinion of those who work in the field of climatic research as being a ridiculously small minority easily dismissed  . See his method soon to published as requested in post #3724 above...  or it all might be getting just a bit too hard, so you might be better to just 'shut  up'. I don't know what it's like where you come from Whitey but around my way, we're born with two eyes two ears and one mouth.  

And Wayne The reason the dog whistle goes out to equate global warming as another 5th  coulomb crypto 'commo' socialist greeny totalitarian take over ruse... is because it is... any conversation you'd like have with that northern vain glorious  ice cap will prove it.
'viva the meritocracy'


----------



## wayneL

And round and round we go.

:sleeping:


----------



## white_goodman

ill make a bet with you Orr, the end of the arctic ice sheet scenario drawn above, if it happens within 4 years ill give u a sum of money, and vice versa... though for someone who joins a investing website, makes not one post with regards to investing might not have the wallet to back up his beliefs .. keep on keepin on my linear minded friend


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> Further to Basilo's requests for confirmation. The above quote to me at least strikes as, "Head in the sand" but that just might be me. I need conformation to be sure.
> But those with Whitey's mathematical acumen can deduce 97% of scientist opinion of those who work in the field of climatic research as being a ridiculously small minority easily dismissed  .




As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts (#3645), there have been numerous historical occurrences which attest to the validity of Whitey's assertions. 



cynic said:


> ....A quick glance at scientific discoveries throughout history (even as recently as the past century) should highlight the problem with basing unproven theories on a "consensus" of peers. On many occasions I've witnessed the voice of reason being drowned out by a chorus of fashionable opinion...




However, when it comes to the assertions of the envion-"mental" movement, unfolding events frequently disprove their purportedly "factual" claims.



white_goodman said:


> in 4 years when nothing happens will you and scientists of this ilk please shutup




Based upon the historical performance of these religious zealots, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Certainly the ice caps will be breathing a huge sigh of relief at this news as those predicting their demise have been proven to be wrong far more often than not! 

Anyway, when the ice caps actually do fail to comply with these "learned" predictions, the "crusaders" will simply have to find another natural event to justify the perpetuation of their facade (usual modus operandi of pseudo scientists!). Accepting the humility (and responsibility) for having made such serious misjudgments, will likely prove to be a much too confronting challenge for such unevolved beings. 

This "climate" campaign is terribly adept at holding the general populace accountable for alleged environmental crimes and yet the proponents repeatedly fail to accept any personal accountability for their own mistakes and inactions. Repeated questions of various posters regarding  their personal commitment to their cause have failed to elicit anything more than derisive remarks, evasive responses, and heavy doses of propaganda! The evidence of my own eyes tells me that most do not truly believe in their own cause!!!

This would have to be one of the most prevalent role playing games on this planet! There's an abundance of mythical dragons and everyone who joins the crusade gets to feel heroic and superior without taking any personal risk! When a player actually does get defeated by having one of their dragon myths dispelled, the game still continues because there're always other dragon myths to be found!!! (Of course those whom choose not to play are promptly invalidated and branded as "deniers" for the sole crime of decrying the illusion!)

I grow weary of being held personally accountable for the misconceptions of religious activists, and as such am unwilling to disguise my utter contempt when posting to this thread. I look forward to the day that these zealots discover the meaning of the phrase "personal accountability", but I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## Calliope

Prophetess Basilo and her disciple Orr.


----------



## white_goodman

the religious notions of original sin and apocalypse seem to have found a new home in the church climate alarmism


----------



## basilio

Well the possum has been well and truly stirred..

Wayne now believes that we don't actually have global warming because he has now accepted evidence that negates  the millions of climate records across the world and through the last couple of hundred of years....

Frankly I was astounded at this particular leap. Up until now I thought most people in the discussion at least accepted  we had an increase in world temperatures and the argument was what was causing it and would it continue.

*And then I appreciated how simply brilliant Waynes new position is.* ( I'm assuming here he has accepted this view from  the work of other parties)

One of the serious problems with explaining temperature increase has been finding some other feasible story. So we had volcanoes,  solar storms, cosmic rays and ABC (anything but CO2). 

The trouble with this line of argument was that they never actually stacked up. Scientists were able to routinely identify the mathematical, logical and evidential  problems with each explanation. So what to do ?

*Simple...*  Just state there actually isn't any rise in global temperature. Argue that the temperature records are compromised/adjusted/ wrong.

So now instead of having to create a score of small stupid lies that have to be defended and end up contradicting each other causing lots of friendly fire .....

*You just have one super lie to defend*

With one super lie you can *deny *global warming until the cows come home.  You can *deny* the integrity of all science, all observations all events.  Whatever actually happens on the earth cannot be associated with global warming because *there is no global warming. * It's been denied out of existence 

Isn't that just so clever? Stalin, Mao and Goebbels would be proud of this work.

So in that sense I can now understand why Wayne has moved to the view that the figures are all wrong and therefore global warming isn't happening.  The movement now has just one neat, simple monstrous lie to spread and regurgitate on demand.

______________________________________________________________________________________

*Apocalypse Now.*

It's interesting isn't it that no one here has bothered to actually challenge the observations of ice melt or the science behind the warming of the planet.  Nope - climate scientists have been cast as Apocalyptic priests sowing the seeds of brimefire and damnation. Forget the evidence behind what is said. Ignore the reality of current changes in climate.  Just trash the messengers, turn then into high priests from hell and then ridicule them or burn them at the stake. (Figuratively of course) Is that about right ?

So lets consider other scientific predictions.

When a meteorologist picks up a monster cyclone coming into the coast and threatening widespread devastation do we call them High Priests from hell?

How about the scientists who  track earthquakes and predict the possibility of tsunamis rolling through our shores?  More High priests from hell ? Or vulcanologists who warn of impending eruptions ?

How do we regard  the work of scientists who warn about bird flu ? Outbreaks of disease ? 

How about those who discover that industrial chemicals are causing widespread cancers amongst workers and the community ? Perhaps the deaths of millions of people from say smoking ?  More scaremongers here ? More doomsayers that need to be demonised and then disregarded ? 

Folks you are been totally stooged. I'm in no way happy with what scientists are almost uniformly saying is happening re global warming.  I don't want to believe it any more any one else does. But how dumb would I be to ignore credible warnings of storms, flood or other natural disasters just because I didn't want to know about it ? What will happen to our society if we disregard the expertise of people who know what they are talking about in deference to those who simply havn't got a clue ?


----------



## wayneL

*Cynic,*

Great post... what I wished I had taken the time to type out.

Most notable that, just like television evangelists, they do not practice what they preach. Reminds of of the saying - "what you do speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you say".


----------



## wayneL

basilio

1/ You continue to misconstrue, ergo, have no honour.

2/ You refuse to address the elephant in the room as regards your own actions (despite repeatedly being asked to do so), ergo, continue with the above-mentioned hypocrisy of megalithic proportions.

3/ You continue to ignore data contrary to your belief, ergo, wouldn't now scientific process if it king hit you in the back of your obviously below average IQ skull case.

Either you are not aware of these and are simply struggling to discern advocacy and belief from science, or you are aware and simple a troll... or suffer from psycopathy as outlined by cyinc.

Either way, you have an acute credibility problem and cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## Knobby22

white_goodman said:


> ill make a bet with you Orr, the end of the arctic ice sheet scenario drawn above, if it happens within 4 years ill give u a sum of money, and vice versa... though for someone who joins a investing website, makes not one post with regards to investing might not have the wallet to back up his beliefs .. keep on keepin on my linear minded friend




Since the scientists are saying the arctic will be ice free sometime between 2025 and 2030, I would advise Orr not to take up the sucker bet. 

From the Calgary Herald, Canada, today. (The nadir has been reached and so the ice will begin to build up again over winter.)

In mid-September, Arctic ice covered 3.41 million square kilometres, down dramatically from the previous low in 2007, when it measured 4.17 million square kilometres, Stroeve’s agency reported.

“The record is unbelievable,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia. “This is a stunning loss of ice. To say that it is anything less than stunning would be an underestimate.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/techno...cent+history/7267358/story.html#ixzz26xVkzUOE


----------



## Knobby22

In defence of Wayne, he did say global warming is occurring but the figures are being exagerrated by scientists and influenced politically and that he believes the effect is a lot less calamitous than we are being led to believe by some parties.
Also, that some actions proposed are ill thought out, which is true and there are a lot of chancers taking a ride on the movement, which is true.

There are kernals of truth in that; however there is definitely a counter movement that is willing to distort facts, lie and scaremonger to try to slow down action. Unfortuantely this use of propraganda has been effective - witness the "religion" argument that is so regularly espoused.


----------



## basilio

> In defence of Wayne, he did say global warming is occurring but the figures are being exagerrated by scientists and influenced politically and that he believes the effect is a lot less calamitous than we are being led to believe by some parties.




I'm not sure about that Knobby

I originally thought that was a rough summary of Waynes position. However in the last few days he appears to have shifted ground to the repeated position that


> other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.




On the face of it Wayne is saying the only warming on the planet is coming from dodgy figures. He has held and repeated that view since he first made it a few days ago.  He agreed later on that this was a new stance he had taken after seeing fresh evidence of these arbitrary adjustments ect.

I have already offered my view on the assault to reality and implications of saying there is no real global warming beyond dodgy figures.  Wayne has still has not offered a single reference to back up a claim that contradicts millions of independent current and historical records not to mention physical observations of changes in animal behaviour, plant behaviour and rapid changes in glaciers and  global ice coverage all indicating widespread increases in global temperatures.

Enoughs enough for me.


----------



## wayneL

Bang on Knobby!

Basilio is indulging in an appalling political pissantery.

Lower than a snake's belly bas.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Bang on Knobby!
> 
> Basilio is indulging in an appalling political pissantery.
> 
> Lower than a snake's belly bas.




Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.

Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett

wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t

And methane comes from a cow.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.
> 
> Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett
> 
> wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t
> 
> And methane comes from a cow.




Mr Plod

Based on previous interchanges and my observations on your intellectual capacity, I am pretty comfortable with regarding anything you say here as completely ignore-worthy.

This post of your's serves to reinforce that view.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Mr Plod
> 
> Based on previous interchanges and my observations on your intellectual capacity, I am pretty comfortable with regarding anything you say here as completely ignore-worthy.
> 
> This post of your's serves to reinforce that view.




So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?

You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.

Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.

If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.

And you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread.   Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?
> 
> You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.
> 
> Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.
> 
> If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.
> 
> And you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread.   Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.




Thanks so very much Plod for providing such an accurate summation of the practices of the acolytes of the esteemed Church of Climatology!

Many of us heretics do try our utmost to remain humble, but as I'm sure you can understand, humility can be difficult to maintain when in the presence of so many self abasing zealots, many of whom obviously prefer not to seek remedy for the selective amnesia with which they are acutely afflicted.

P.S. Jeremy Who?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?
> 
> You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.
> 
> Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.
> 
> If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.
> 
> And *you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread.*   Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.




Oh Dear Lord Plod. ROTFLMAO

The subject of the thread is *"Resisting Climate Hysteria"*. 

I've never read Jeremy Leghorn, but Google reveals him to be just another vested interest advocate living it large while advising the rest of us to live shivering in the dark... unless of course you purchase his wares. Hypocrite. Re his "Revelations", I suspect they will have much in common with the original Biblical version; scarey, but basically the figment of someones vivid imagination.

As far as arguing the "facts": That is a scientific argument whereas what we have here are warmist advocates who will not admit contrary data. So far it has been futile discussing anything with screaming Fabian Gaurdian readers.

For instance, while on the face of it the arctic may be distressingly low on sea ice at the moment, warmists ignore the record highs being set at the other end of the earth and fail to consider a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> ....a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.




Yep http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Yep http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml




Thanks Wayne.  Just fascinating...

So you come up with a scientific peer researched paper which compares the Arctic and Antartic ice levels this century.

Interesting certainly. Does this now mean you will be looking at the merits of the remining scientific, peer researched papers which outline how our earth is warming up and argues on why this is happening ? 

And can you find some similar peer researched papers that tackle the question of why so many ecosystems are changing in line with the effects of increasing tempeartures when there is supposed to be no significiant increase in temperatures "apart from badly sited weather stations and arbitary temperature adjustments."


----------



## basilio

I did find further references to increases in Antartic ice levels.



> The Antarctic ice sheet, however, is expected to grow during the 21st century because of increased precipitation




a b c d e Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le QuÃ©rÃ©, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan (2007). "Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (PDF). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.. Retrieved 2007-12-29.

Now if you want to discuss the rest of this analysis feel free. Lets  start with a longer selection from one section

*Consistency of evidence for warming*

11 key indicators of global warming.[3]

[4] Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends (see Instrumental temperature record). *The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced Arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.* Some of these indicators are further discussed in this article.
*Global average temperature*

[5] Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4 °F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La NiÃ±as, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.
*Diurnal temperature*

[2] There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.
Indirect indicators of warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_impacts_of_climate_change


----------



## basilio

To follow up on the discussion regarding Surface temperature accuracy there was a debate on PBS televison in America between Richard Muller and Anthony Watts.

Sckeptical science did a summary of this interview. Couple of points are worth highlighting.


> *
> When asked to describe his 'skepticism' about human-caused global warming, Watts went into a long discussion about his concerns that encroachment of human development near surface temperature stations has introduced a bias into the temperature record.  However, what Watts failed to mention is that the scientific groups who compile the surface temperature record put a great deal of effort into filtering out these sorts of biases. *
> 
> Watts also failed to mention that there have been many peer-reviewed scientific studies investigating whether these efforts have been successful, and they have almost universally concluded that those extraneous influences on the temperature record have been removed.  For example, Fall et al. (2011) concluded that for all temperature stations classifications with regards to the influence of urban influences, the long-term average global warming trend is the same.
> 
> "The lack of a substantial average temperature difference across classes, once the geographical distribution of stations is taken into account, is also consistent with the lack of significant trend differences in average temperatures....average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes."
> 
> *The second author on Fall et al. is a fellow who goes by the name of Anthony Watts.*




http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> And can you find some similar peer researched papers that tackle the question of why so many ecosystems are changing in line with the effects of increasing tempeartures when there is supposed to be no significiant increase in temperatures "apart from badly sited weather stations and arbitary temperature adjustments."




Just a few q's:

- do ecosystems remain in stasis? Were there habitat and species extinctions before man?
- If the globe is warming which I have no problem admitting, is it dangerous?, is it largely man induced? how much is it warming? 
- do climates remain in stasis? 
- Has there ever been natural disasters before industrial revolution, is it more prevalent in the last 30 years or does it just seem more prevalent due to our own experiences etc?
- Is climate science all known, and perfected? Is there allowed to be debate or is the AGW theory meant to be treated as self evident, infallible and dogma?
- What is the history of scientists and modelling/forecasting? What are the parallels of the geniuses/experts of modelling in less complex fields? (finance)
- Is it wrong to address the obvious self interest incentives of a) the government  grant crowd pushing the political ideology of the day, what is the career prospects for those researching against the theory of the day? b) the finance industry where the carbon market will be potentially bigger than US treasuries?

imo the whole global warming fraud has done more detriment to the environmental movement that anything big oil could do... probably why you are seeing many classify themselves as an environmentalist but not an AGW amrmageddon-ist. In the next decade my pick is that Lenin's 'useful idiots' might have played into the interests of big finance and big government.... lets wait and see, but for certain this isnt 'the crucial decade' and its not "this time is different"


----------



## wayneL

Bas

refer to knobby's comments and then go and reflect on why you have lost all respect here.

Everything is consistent with warming. Heat cold rain drought wind no wind.

But I repeat my question to you for perhaps the fifth time - what are you personally doing that is congruent with your belief?


----------



## explod

explod said:


> Hysteria you call it.   The rubbish is from your side of the argument.  The broard generalisations and weak anecdotal without support other than what you selectively take from the past is clear enough.   Your concern at changes that are being made to the detriment from your point to the real estate industry, coal et.al. exposes the bias.
> 
> Global warming and outright deterioration of the planet is clearly self evident without the need of science, (though an objective look at the science is compelling)we can see and feel it with our own senses.
> 
> Al Gore is not a scientist he merely puts forth his view as a concerned citizen.
> 
> Yes the planet, has been here before in different ways. (the Book "The Sixth Extinction" paints it clearly) but in those periods, the species have been decimated to the tune of 90%    You want us to go down that path.
> 
> And I will not go down the path of reminding of the huge number of clear and observable changes, but will say, that if even 10% of what appears to be happening, happens, then all efforts need to be put in place to safeguard our planet and species from any where near the projected outcomes.
> 
> And I believe this thread ought be linked into the thread headed "Climate Change...".




As true today as when posted in 2009.

And wayneL on your last post digging into the private habits of other posters is a further attempt to discredit without fact.  

Your credibility continues to slide.


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.
> 
> Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett
> 
> wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t
> 
> And methane comes from a cow.




on that compare the studies done by type petro crowd and those done by the church of climate... the difference is staggering, almost 5000 times the difference... when 99% of the funds are going into one side is it a wonder why the debate isnt over, yet its not


----------



## basilio

Whats the problem with addressing evidence Wayne ? 

Why do you continue to attack me personally and refuse to discuss the material you present and the errors that are continually exposed with your sources ?

Will anyone else who quotes this materiall be smeared as well. Clearly almost every other forum member who doesn't agree with you has left the building because its not a great feeling to be put down relentlessly.

There was another comment from the PBS interview which highlighted how hopelessly contradicted Anthony Watts is in his attack on the accuracy of temperature records.



> *Peer-Review Irony*
> 
> *When asked about the research of Muller and the BEST team, which has also confirmed the accuracy of the surface temperature record, Watts provided a very ironic response.
> 
> "Unfortunately he has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review."
> 
> Anthony Watts himself has co-authored two peer-reviewed scientific papers, one of which was the aforementioned Fall et al., which confirmed the accuracy of the surface temperature record with respect to the average global surface warming.
> 
> On his blog, Watts has attempted to defend his claims on PBS news hour by referencing a preliminary, unsubmitted, unpublished paper he has drafted  which purports to identify problems in the temperature record.  However, that preliminary paper contains numerous fundamental flaws which entirely negate its conclusions, and since it has not passed peer-review, according to Watts' own comments it is not "a successful inquiry."
> 
> So we have Watts dismissing Muller's comments because his research has not passed peer-review, and yet Watts' own comments contradict the results of his own peer-reviewed paper.*




http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html

And what do I do ? The best I can. Clearly it will never be enough. And clearly whatever I do will never be enough for you. And since whatever I say about my personal life isn't provable why believe it ? How about sticking to more verifiable information instead of personal attacks.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Oh Dear Lord Plod. ROTFLMAO
> 
> For instance, while on the face of it the arctic may be distressingly low on sea ice at the moment, warmists ignore the record highs being set at the other end of the earth and fail to consider a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.




Its true, the sea ice has increased, but the land ice has reduced! Why was that not mentioned by the skeptics in their articles?
Many would argue the land ice is more important as this increases sea levels. The observation period is pretty short however.
I find the graph a bit scary, hope it slows down.





Estimates of Total Antarctic Land Ice Changes and approximate sea level contributions using many different measurement techniques. Adapted from The Copenhagen Diagnosis. (CH= Chen et al. 2006, WH= Wingham et al. 2006, R= Rignot et al. 2008b, CZ= Cazenave et al. 2009 and V=Velicogna 2009)


----------



## Knobby22

white_goodman said:


> on that compare the studies done by type petro crowd and those done by the church of climate... the difference is staggering, almost 5000 times the difference... when 99% of the funds are going into one side is it a wonder why the debate isnt over, yet its not




It is over!
With regard to the petrochemical lobby:
 ""The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race."    Whitlam, Gough


----------



## Happy

After reading material on what happens with the Sun I understand that Global Warming is real, not sure how big/small part human’s contribution is.

Even yesterday on “Quantum” explanation was on how energy is created, that is emitted from the Sun.

Figure mentioned was something like:
 4 TRILLION Kilograms of Sun’s mass is converted to energy EVERY SECOND.

What wasn’t said that this minutely reduced Sun’s total mass, reduces Sun’s gravity and gradually causes Sun to become larger.

(But don’t worry it can be read in Australian “New Scientist” mag, don’t remember the number, but it is there and most probably it is not only source for this information)


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Whats the problem with addressing evidence Wayne ?
> 
> Why do you continue to attack me personally and refuse to discuss the material you present and the errors that are continually exposed with your sources ?
> 
> Will anyone else who quotes this materiall be smeared as well. Clearly almost every other forum member who doesn't agree with you has left the building because its not a great feeling to be put down relentlessly.
> 
> There was another comment from the PBS interview which highlighted how hopelessly contradicted Anthony Watts is in his attack on the accuracy of temperature records.




I have addressed evidence on numerous occasions, only to have advocacy presented as a counter, rather than proper science.

The evidence is vast and well beyond the scope of ASF, with multifaceted vested interests, biases, red herrings, junk science and BS. Decent science is actually quite thin.

Thinner still is causation and likely effect.

I merely point out your biases and you think that personal attack. No, it is just logic.



> http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html



Advocacy. Clever, and obviously an intelligent debater, but still more advocacy, smoke and mirrors, than science.



> And what do I do ? The best I can. Clearly it will never be enough. And clearly whatever I do will never be enough for you. And since whatever I say about my personal life isn't provable why believe it ? How about sticking to more verifiable information instead of personal attacks.




You think asking about your personal response to the purported threat is a personal attack?

I just want to know whether you are as hypocritical as the other warmists, because at heart I am a greenie, I do consider my impact and I am thinking of the possible irony of our personal actions.

For instance, my profession requires a source of heat, up to 2,000 degrees. Instead of using fossil fuels, I have a hot air capture system in place, collecting and storing the hot air from warmists and releasing it in a controlled way as needed. That is why I continue in this seemingly futile debate.

I do have to be careful and regulate emissions as it can sublimate high carbon tool steel lickety split. :


----------



## basilio

For those who care to see what has been happening to the ice cover in the Arctic since 1979 check out the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZYaubXBfVqo#!


And if you prefer an alternative view check out this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJK0MWAITM&feature=related


----------



## Knobby22

*Rio shift on climate change.*  Despite their coal interests, Rio Tinto recognise the facts are too strong. Looks like the money for the obscuration movement is going to continue to dry up in the face of reality.


RIO Tinto's language on climate change has shifted, with the company now recognising that global warming is ''largely caused by human activities''.

Previously, Rio had accepted that human activities were making ''a contribution'' to climate change.

In a speech yesterday, Rio's head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion, said the company recognised the value of action on climate change.

''The scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world's increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges,'' he said.

''We support a co-ordinated global approach to reduce emissions. Until that is in place, as well as after, we recognise that it will be necessary for individual jurisdictions to take actions.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/rio-shift-on-climate-change-20120928-26qxl.html#ixzz27zzP7CIq


----------



## JTLP

Knobby22 said:


> *Rio shift on climate change.*  Despite their coal interests, Rio Tinto recognise the facts are too strong. Looks like the money for the obscuration movement is going to continue to dry up in the face of reality.
> 
> 
> RIO Tinto's language on climate change has shifted, with the company now recognising that global warming is ''largely caused by human activities''.
> 
> Previously, Rio had accepted that human activities were making ''a contribution'' to climate change.
> 
> In a speech yesterday, Rio's head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion, said the company recognised the value of action on climate change.
> 
> ''The scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world's increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges,'' he said.
> 
> ''We support a co-ordinated global approach to reduce emissions. Until that is in place, as well as after, we recognise that it will be necessary for individual jurisdictions to take actions.''
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/rio-shift-on-climate-change-20120928-26qxl.html#ixzz27zzP7CIq




I read this as "Coal boom is being hit from all angles so we need another money making process in place..."


----------



## Knobby22

JTLP said:


> I read this as "Coal boom is being hit from all angles so we need another money making process in place..."




I read it as when the sh.. hits the fan as our scientists advice shows it will, we don't want to be in the position of being sued for trying to block climate change action and so need to appear to be on the front foot supporting action.


----------



## Calliope

An ice-free Arctic is not all bad.



> Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first to traverse the Northwest Passage 106 years ago.
> 
> The route is now seasonally ice-free as global warming linked to greenhouse gas emissions melts the polar ice cap, with access leading to a rush of prospecting, oil and gas exploration and new tourism.
> 
> According to the US Geological Survey, the region contains one fifth of the world's undiscovered oil reserves.
> 
> Internet giant Google also started mapping the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in August for its online map service.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ic-party-central/story-e6frg6so-1226487028442


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> An ice-free Arctic is not all bad.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ic-party-central/story-e6frg6so-1226487028442




Absolutely Calliope. There is always a silver lining to every cloud.

As the Arctic becomes ice free as a result of global warming caused by greenhouse emissions there will certainly be a number of silver linings

1) The extra oil and gas reservesthat will  become available can help speed up global warming to enable even more tourism.

2) Huge areas of Siberia and Northern Canada and Northern Europe will  become much warmer and open the way for frontier land developments

3) Decaying seaside developments will be washed away and the creation of new shorelines will allow new building opportunities on the newly created seashore

4) Engineering companies will become far more profitable as some seaside locations decide to keep their current development in place and build bigger and bigger levies instead. This will be an ongoing project as, of course , we can't be certain just how how much sea levels will rise...

5) Melbourne will cease having its dreary, damp winters and enjoy a climate much like Mildura.  Lots and lots of sunshine and much less rain.

And I'm sure there will be many additional opportunities accruing from global warming. 

Bring it on and lets bask in the warmth that only a complete change in world wide climate patterns can offer.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, not all negatives as basilio said.

There will be massive savings in ship transport due to the shorter route for many countries for Russia etc. linking to the USA especially between Eastern Europe and the USA helping to increase trade as the sea ice is removed over the summer months.

There will also be huge increases in fish populations in the polar cap region. This is already occurring, I read about it recently.

There are negatives. Top Gear will have to choose somewhere else to do a special. I think there may be a few other problems a little more serious.


----------



## Knobby22

I read this in New Scientist, it was part of an article  by Stefan Rahmstorf head heads the systems analysis department for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

For the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade.
When looking for the cause of this a physicist will look for a heat source. One possibility is that the oceans are releasing heat. But measurements show the opposite: the oceans are soaking up heat at present. The other possibility is that that the heat is coming from above, and indeed it is: more radiation is entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it.

Superimposed on this global warming is short term variability. Some notably 2005 and 2010 stick above the trend line while 2008 and 2011 were below it. But overall temperatures are creeping upwards within a corridor of +/- 0,2 degress around the trend line.

The three known factors explaining the short term variability is:
volcanic eruptions - The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines was followed by three cold years.
Te Suns' variability, mostly in the form of the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Finally there is the irregular oscillation between warm El Niño and cold La Nina conditions in the Pacific.

We have independant measurements describing all three that can easily correlate to global temperature changes. For example the figgerence netween the solar maximum and minimum is about 0.1 C
The maximum temperature effect from El Nini occurs about four months after the El Niño peaks..

I'm not going to type the whole thing but -

Solar activity is on the way back up.
El Niño is expected to only be a matter of time before it occurs possibly next year.
So he is predicting a big jump in temperatures unless a volcano occurs. 
The reason is that the ocean releases heat during an El Niño (and recharges its heat store during a La Nina).


----------



## Julia

In today's "Weekend Australlian":  Antarctic Ice Increases.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nds-against-odds/story-e6frg8y6-1226489479585


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> In today's "Weekend Australlian":  Antarctic Ice Increases.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nds-against-odds/story-e6frg8y6-1226489479585




Note they use the words "sea ice". They are weasel words.
They ignore the big drop in ice on the continent of Antartica (refer graph I published up on this page post 3764)
This is where most of the ice is and its loss directly adds to rising sea levels. 
The longer they can fool the public, the longer they can slow world wide action.


Let's see what happens next year when El Niño returns.


----------



## macca

Definitely getting warmer or is it just the weather doing it's thing ?

<<Once-in-century October snow across SA
Thursday October 11, 2012 - 15:11 EDT
ABC image
Residents of Hallett woke to a layer of white - ABC

Rare at any time, there has been October snow across some southern areas of South Australia.

The weather bureau in Adelaide said the last reports of snowfall in the Adelaide and neighbouring Mount Lofty Ranges region in October were a century ago.>>

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/once-in-century-october-snow-across-sa/22638


----------



## Logique

Dear Government,
please ease back on the carbon tax, it's working too well. Or at least give us time to knit more jumpers.  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/rain-clearing-after-lunchtime-downpour-20121012-27hld.html Pic by SMH on 12 Oct 2012.


----------



## Julia

+1.  We  have had a heater on this evening.  In Queensland.  In October.


----------



## basilio

We have had blast of winter weather in the past few days. 

When you look at the very large changes that are happening to the climate around the world are we just trying to kid ourselves that nothing is actually happening because of a winter blast ?

For example August and September were extremely warm months across Australia. The BOM website details just how our climate is  changing.  

We know that the last 2 years have been cooler and wetter because of the La Nina effect.  This year we will probabaly return to a normal hot summer - with a bit extra because of overall global warming.

(At this stage the BOM believes we will not have an El Niño )



> Temperatures
> 
> September maximum temperatures averaged across Australia were very warm, with a national anomaly of +1.94  °C, ranking as the third warmest September of 63 years. All of the States were well above average for the month, with WA fourth warmest (1.96  °C above average), SA sixth warmest, both NSW and Queensland ninth, and the NT tenth in 63 years of records.




http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201209.summary.shtml


----------



## sptrawler

Yeh, we know basilio.
The climates changing, the government has brought in a new tax. They are not shutting down 'dirty' coal fired stations and it is snowing in southern Queensland.


----------



## spooly74

Climate Spin is Rampant



> Along with colleagues around the world, I've been studying climate change and disasters for almost 20 years, and we just had a scientific paper accepted for publication this week on damage from U.S. tornadoes since 1950. What we found may surprise you: _Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way._
> 
> Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe.* After adjusting for patterns of development, **over the long-term there is no climate change signal ”” no "footprint" ”” of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.*
> 
> What about the United States?, Flooding has not increased over the past century nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. _The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century._
> 
> Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.






> *So if the science is so clear on this subject, why then are companies and campaigners, abetted by a willing media, engaged in spreading misinformation?*


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> We have had blast of winter weather in the past few days.
> 
> When you look at the very large changes that are happening to the climate around the world are we just trying to kid ourselves that nothing is actually happening because of a winter blast ?
> 
> For example August and September were extremely warm months across Australia. The BOM website details just how our climate is  changing.
> 
> We know that the last 2 years have been cooler and wetter because of the La Nina effect.  This year we will probabaly return to a normal hot summer - with a bit extra because of overall global warming.
> 
> (At this stage the BOM believes we will not have an El Niño )
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201209.summary.shtml




wow dangerous


----------



## DB008

Article from the UK's Mail online



> Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
> 
> The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
> The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
> This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GwvsoTe


----------



## Calliope

A big win for the global warming alarmists. If the alarmists were subject to the same discipline, i.e. they cannot exaggerate or tell lies, there would be a shortage of "external trainers" because they are all alarmists.



> ACMA has ordered all 2GB news and current affairs staff to undergo training in factual accuracy by next month.
> External trainers will conduct training sessions for Jones and other news and current affairs staff at 2GB.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ent-apology-20121019-27v88.html#ixzz29iwE336W


----------



## explod

Temperatures are measured at ground level.  The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.

The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.

Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past.  One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,

what is alarmist about a such *view*?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Temperatures are measured at ground level.  The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.
> 
> The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.
> 
> Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past.  One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,
> 
> *what is alarmist about a such view*?




The fact that it is incorrect?


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Temperatures are measured at ground level.  The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.
> 
> The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.
> 
> Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past.  One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,
> 
> what is alarmist about a such *view*?




because its not based in reality, we are not getting more floods or wild storms...


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The fact that it is incorrect?




How?


----------



## explod

white_goodman said:


> because its not based in reality, we are not getting more floods or wild storms...




we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.




Stats confuse. Read Freakonomics.

Basic arithmetic is better.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Stats confuse. Read Freakonomics.
> 
> Basic arithmetic is better.




Did, and your run for shelter is a meaningless scoff at reality.

Surely you can do better than that.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Did, and your run for shelter is a meaningless scoff at reality.
> 
> Surely you can do better than that.




Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.

Pielke Jnr oped :



> Along with colleagues around the world, I've been studying climate change and disasters for almost 20 years, and we just had a scientific paper accepted for publication this week on damage from U.S. tornadoes since 1950. What we found may surprise you: Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way.
> Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal ”” no "footprint" ”” of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.
> 
> What about the United States? Flooding has not increased over the past century, nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century.
> 
> *Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.*
> 
> 
> Read more: Guest Commentary: Climate spin is rampant - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21752735/climate-spin-is-rampant#ixzz29q3LpqCB
> Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.
> 
> Pielke Jnr oped :




But Wayne, since when did we decide to allow the truth to get in the way of a great Story?

P.S. Keep up the good work, the tireless churning of the propaganda mill by these religious fanatics is starting to exhaust me.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.




So obviously you quote Dr Pielke as an example of un-reality. 



> ...damage has declined after accounting for development...



  and 







> ...After adjusting for patterns of development,...




Or are you providing an example of why data often needs adjusting before it can provide meaningful information? 

Or both?

Whatever, good point. Thank you.

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> So obviously you quote Dr Pielke as an example of un-reality.
> 
> and
> 
> Or are you providing an example of why data often needs adjusting before it can provide meaningful information?
> 
> Or both?
> 
> Whatever, good point. Thank you.
> 
> Ghoti




Such tiresome logical fallacy.  <<--(just so you wouldn't be disappointed)

Can you lease illustrate why adjustment of temp records is analogous to adjusting raw damage incidence for increases in exposure via population increases etc?


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Such tiresome logical fallacy.  <<--(just so you wouldn't be disappointed)




How kind; I hope they don't hurt. 



> Can you lease illustrate why adjustment of temp records is analogous to adjusting raw damage incidence for increases in exposure via population increases etc?




Well, in both cases the aim is to see if a trend exists and if so what it is. That's one reason they're analogous. Then in both cases we know of some irrelevant factors that could hide or disguise a trend. For costs of damage from extreme weather they include demographic changes and inflation. For surface temperature they include changes in the location of weather stations (e.g. Wellington, where there's a height difference of over 120 metres, as you probably know  http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/c...rature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington). That's another reason.


----------



## Knobby22

Well this is the actual graph. From a "skeptic" site. 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...t-not-their-strength-say-clemson-researchers/





It has to be "adjusted' because we have better methods for detecting them however who chooses the adjustment?
Definitely analogous. The raw data doesn't appear to be so unclear. And how much adjustment is "really' needed after 1970??


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.




facepalm.jpg


----------



## white_goodman

Knobby22 said:


> Well this is the actual graph. From a "skeptic" site.
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...t-not-their-strength-say-clemson-researchers/
> 
> View attachment 49408
> 
> 
> It has to be "adjusted' because we have better methods for detecting them however who chooses the adjustment?
> Definitely analogous. The raw data doesn't appear to be so unclear. And how much adjustment is "really' needed after 1970??





frightening, who can i tax for this outrage!?


----------



## basilio

> Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.




  From Waynes quotation of  Roger Pielke Jnr story...

Well there you are folks  !!  Clearly the IPCC can now be properly cited (in red of course ) as an authoritative body on climate change.

Do we now want to go back the endless streams of scientific evidence that the IPCC uses to prove that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human produced greenhouse gases ? There is only about 40 years research on this topic by thousands of scientists but that is still not enough is it Wayne ?

But lets go back to Rogers little story.  When you think about it logically the lack  of attribution* is not the same as a lack of causality*! IPCC is saying that the evidence of a connection is not proven to 95% confidence (by the usual experimentalist’s definition). They do NOT claim that the LACK of a connection is proven at all. If there really were clearly no connection, then it would be sensible to say the science is “so clear”. But in fact, “has not been attributed” is very different from “has been refuted”.

Something that has not been attributed can later be attributed, once more or better evidence arrives.

And in fact no scientist to my knowledge attempts to say that a particular weather event is directly attributed to climate change.  The observation is that climatic events are intensified by the effects of global warming.  So a heatwave becomes hotter and longer as a result of the extra warmth in the atmosphere.

Rainfall events become more intense because the extra heat has cause more evaporation and thus more rain can fall.  Hurricanes will get an extra kick from warmer than usual oceans which supply the energy to these storms.

Which brings us back to Munich Re as the largest re insurance company in the world deciding there is something to worry about with the effects of global warming on climate. 

They have to pay on results. Roger Pielke is just playing with words.


----------



## wayneL

Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.

Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.

Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.


----------



## basilio

Lets keep it simple Wayne. 

Basically Roger Pielkes  case, which you freely quote,  relies on cheery picking slivers of data while ignoring a mountain of other evidence that clearly demonstrates the world is warming and that human produced greenhouse gases are the prime cause.

Real simple.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Lets keep it simple Wayne.
> 
> Basically Roger Pielkes  case, which you freely quote,  relies on cheery picking slivers of data while ignoring a mountain of other evidence that clearly demonstrates the world is warming and that human produced greenhouse gases are the prime cause.
> 
> Real simple.




That is completely missing the point basilio.  

Rog is a warmist. You clearly cannot discern between the stratas of cc thought. For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.


----------



## white_goodman

wayneL said:


> That is completely missing the point basilio.
> 
> Rog is a warmist. You clearly cannot discern between the stratas of cc thought. For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. *For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.*




ding ding ding, imagine what he thinks about the growing movement of environmentalists not buying into the AGW armageddon?!

Imagine how angry he will get when he finds out that hes Trotsky's useful idiot for the finance/trading industry.


----------



## wayneL

white_goodman said:


> ding ding ding, imagine what he thinks about the growing movement of environmentalists not buying into the AGW armageddon?!
> 
> Imagine how angry he will get when he finds out that hes Trotsky's useful idiot for the finance/trading industry.




Yes, there are multiple levels of irony in this whole saga.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.
> 
> Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.
> 
> Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.




Describing things you do not agree with with all sorts of dogmatic names is not even argument let alone credible in rebutting the science taking in the whole picture.  You actually come across as a dogmatic bully who will not take in another's point of view at any cost.  It may take awhile but in my view you are going to lose this one eventually as more evidence comes to the fore.  

The big side of town and the oil industry go to great lengths to produce rubbish via scientists on their payroll.

Geremy Leggett let that out of the bag in 2005


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Describing things you do not agree with with all sorts of dogmatic names is not even argument let alone credible in rebutting the science taking in the whole picture.  You actually come across as a dogmatic bully who will not take in another's point of view at any cost.  It may take awhile but in my view you are going to lose this one eventually as more evidence comes to the fore.
> 
> The big side of town and the oil industry go to great lengths to produce rubbish via scientists on their payroll.
> 
> Geremy Leggett let that out of the bag in 2005




...and the ironies continue.


----------



## basilio

> For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.    Wayne L




I don't have second sight Wayne. I can't read the future. I havn't got a crystal ball. 

Will climate change be a significant but manageable problem or a serious one or perhaps catastrophic ? No one can say with any certainty can they ?  All that we ever do in life is take action on probabilities and try to manage risks.

No business man, military officer or engineer works with certainty.  They deal with probabilities and risks and take whatever actions they think are necessary to get a good outcome. Engineers will make sure the planes they design won't fall out of the sky; Generals have plans, contingencies and reserves.

My view, which has been informed by the best science to date, is that direction we are going with changing the climate runs the risk of  creating significant to very serious problems for all ecosystems. In the real world those risks would be acknowledged and actions taken to lessen the risk as far as possible.

In the echo chamber of denial the inhabitants refuse to accept any evidence that points to what is happening. *They also refuse to accept any possibility no matter how small * that there might be consequences of CC that would shake our systems. 

That's not logical, smart or practical ; its just wilful blindness.


----------



## ghotib

Mon cher Monsieur Wayne, 


wayneL said:


> Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.
> 
> Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.
> 
> Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.



Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.

Signor Basilio pointed out some apparent contradictions in your, or perhaps Dr Pielke's, attitude to the IPCC. He didn't need mental gymnastics for that; just to pay attention to what you've written on this thread over the years. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it's OK to cite the IPCC as an authority in this case after treating their work with scorn and contempt in so many others. 

Ciao


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Do we now want to go back the endless streams of scientific evidence that the IPCC uses to prove that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human produced greenhouse gases ? There is only about 40 years research on this topic by thousands of scientists but that is still not enough is it Wayne ?



That's not in dispute here.
This is about extreme weather events, obviously.



> But lets go back to Rogers little story.  When you think about it logically



Logically, there is currently no 'footprint' in extreme weather.
Simple.



> And in fact no scientist to my knowledge attempts to say that a particular weather event is directly attributed to climate change.



There are others. Post #3603


			
				basilio said:
			
		

> The big news in climate science this week has been the *release of peer reviewed scientific papers that for the first time have attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves to human induced climate change.*






> Which brings us back to Munich Re as the largest re insurance company in the world deciding there is something to worry about with the effects of global warming on climate.
> 
> They have to pay on results.



Seems reasonable after adjusting for patterns of development?
No?


----------



## basilio

Good pick ups Spooly.

There is some semantics going on with attributing extreme weather patterns to global warming.  What I was saying (quoting  the current science)  is that global warming is *accentuating *particular weather patterns.  In effect adding an extra couple of degrees to heat waves, more rain to storm events and so on.

The recent paper that analysed the  heat wave in USA and other events  pointed out the extreme temperatures recorded are way out of any current "normal" and in the view of the researchers, influenced by GG emissions and  the ongoing warming of the planet. They called it climate dice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Mon cher Monsieur Wayne,
> 
> Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.




No it didn't.

If I can draw a further analogy - in the stock market, a share split requires an adjustment because there is a definitive relationship between valuation and shares on issue.

However any biased retrospective arbitrary adjustments are most likely out of order.



> Signor Basilio pointed out some apparent contradictions in your, or perhaps Dr Pielke's, attitude to the IPCC. He didn't need mental gymnastics for that; just to pay attention to what you've written on this thread over the years. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it's OK to cite the IPCC as an authority in this case after treating their work with scorn and contempt in so many others.
> 
> Ciao




Just a couple of linguistic points; mesdames is French in origin, not Italian, but still does not invoke the pretentiousness of English/foreign hybrid verbiage, as "mesdames" has been in common usage in English for quite some time (as an address of females in the plural).

Also, I believe your amiga to be a signora...  or similar. 

Superficially, I will cop on the chin the apparent double standard of citing IPCC authority, however, as I was using the ironical sense, there is no hypocrisy.


----------



## basilio

> However any biased retrospective arbitrary adjustments are most likely out of order.



Indeed  if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.  

But the fact is that the scientific community doesn't make capricious arbitrary adjustments to date. For a start there are scores of other scientists in the relevant field who will check the rationale behind any adjustments and if they think there is an error or something has been missed they will speak up.  Science is a collaborative endeavor when it comes to trying to ensure the most accurate information is used when measuring data.

I can remember for instance the pains that scientists went to the properly adjust satellite temperatures when it became clear that orbits were degrading and sensors deteriorating.

Your problem Wayne is that you pick and choose which adjustments you want to believe in.  If they suit your case you'll take them. If they don't you diss them.

The fact is it doesn't matter WTF you believe ( about data, people or scientific facts). When it comes to fairly hard objective evidence facts stay facts.

It is a *fact* that the planet is warming at a rate higher than science has observed for hundreds of thousands of years.

It is highly probable that the major factor  causing that warmth is the extra GG gases humans contribute to the atmosphere.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Indeed  if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.
> 
> But the fact is that the scientific community doesn't make capricious arbitrary adjustments to date. For a start there are scores of other scientists in the relevant field who will check the rationale behind any adjustments and if they think there is an error or something has been missed they will speak up.  Science is a collaborative endeavor when it comes to trying to ensure the most accurate information is used when measuring data.




But they are speaking up basilio, they are just not listened to in your closed circle where dissent is dissallowed.



> I can remember for instance the pains that scientists went to the properly adjust satellite temperatures when it became clear that orbits were degrading and sensors deteriorating.



That may be a bone fide reason, but that's not the sort adjustments referred to.



> Your problem Wayne is that you pick and choose which adjustments you want to believe in.  If they suit your case you'll take them. If they don't you diss them.



No ma'am.

In fact that is possibly the most hypocritical statement you have made thus far.



> The fact is it doesn't matter WTF you believe ( about data, people or scientific facts). When it comes to fairly hard objective evidence facts stay facts.



Indeed basilio. Nor does is matter what you and the Acolytes of the Apocalypse believe.

However "facts" in the world of the climate catastrophist are rather subjective. You can't have 'fairly hard' data from soft science. In "fact", there is much contradictory evidence in the hard data.



> It is a *fact* that the planet is warming at a rate higher than science has observed for hundreds of thousands of years.




No ma'am, not without subjective interpretation of climate proxies, which your lot have been caught out on time and again. You see, there can be no hundreds of thousands of years of direct observation can there? Scientists must construct a record from proxies. Hence the possibility of subjectiveness and bias.

I would love to waste even more time with the numerous cites, but I have other stuff to concentrate on... and no need to repeat the work of others.


----------



## basilio

To get to the heart of the issue Wayne you have come to the conclusion that world is not actually warming to any significant degree.  That whatever temperature observations made by scientists around the world are in fact too suspect to accept because of adjustments to records.

If in fact the only evidence of a warming planet was temperature records  there could be a case for this argument. And of course if there was no observable result as a consequence of increasing temperatures we wouldn't have anything to worry about ?

But that isn't true is it ?  There are hundreds of papers around the world which show how ecosystems are changing because of the impact of increasing temperatures. Whether it is the spread of forest northwards, the melting of glaciers, changes in  the flowering plants,  melting of permafrost,  record heat waves  in USA, Europe , Asia the *physical *evidence for a warming climate is indisputable. 



> * Observed impacts*
> 
> With very high confidence, Rosenzweig et al. (2007)[74] concluded that physical and biological systems on all continents and in most oceans had been affected by recent climate changes, particularly regional temperature increases. Impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.[75]
> 
> The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans.[76]:6 Using models, it is possible to identify the human "signal" of global warming over both land and ocean areas.[76]:6




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

The entire wiki article pulls together the evidence and science around climate change. It covers almost all natural science fields as well as the physical sciences. And all this you categorically reject.

What a testament to the power of invincible ignorance.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> The recent paper that analysed the  heat wave in USA and other events  pointed out the extreme temperatures recorded are way out of any current "normal" and in the view of the researchers, influenced by GG emissions and  the ongoing warming of the planet. They called it climate dice.
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html




From the opening paragraph re: Moscow.



> It follows that we can state with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and *Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small*.




But this is not what NOAA conclude.



> The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study.
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html




But wait, from the author of the NOAA paper, Martin Hoerling.



> “It appears that parts of Russia are on the *cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly*,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html




Hang on, now this from the same author



> In other words, the 2010 situation isn’t following on the heels of a progression of more and more of these things happening ether over Russia, or frankly over any other place that we can see over the Northern Hemisphere. So it stands out as a . . . black swan.
> http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3503#more-3503




So what do we know?



			
				basilio said:
			
		

> To get to the heart of the issue Wayne you have come to the conclusion that world is not actually warming to any significant degree.




Quite correct. 
In the last 100 years, 0.74 of 1 degree. :


----------



## Knobby22

spooly74 said:


> In the last 100 years, 0.74 of 1 degree. :




Well yes  and I think basilio would generally agree - a so called "black swan event" occurred which is more likely to occur due to the additional energy in the atmosphere. I would consider 0.74 degrees average across the whole world a substantial increase, particularly as it is still continuing.The NOAA say it didn't happen again the following year so its just an unlucky event. The point is that it is more likely to happen, not going to happen every year, it is still an extreme weather event of low probability.

As I quoted earlier, for the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade. Taking your 0.74 figure it will be over 1 degree in 20 years. 

Sure probabilities are difficult to quantify however the reality will be how many more "black swan events" occur over the next 20 years.

 BTW I think this black swan event creeping into our language everywhere is causing the meaning to be debased. A true black swan event would be a massive volcano or something we have never seen before. It really should be called a low probability event that can be assumed to occur again.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Well yes  and I think basilio would generally agree - a so called "black swan event" occurred which is more likely to occur due to the additional energy in the atmosphere. I would consider 0.74 degrees average across the whole world a substantial increase, particularly as it is still continuing.The NOAA say it didn't happen again the following year so its just an unlucky event. The point is that it is more likely to happen, not going to happen every year, it is still an extreme weather event of low probability.
> 
> As I quoted earlier, for the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade. Taking your 0.74 figure it will be over 1 degree in 20 years.
> 
> Sure probabilities are difficult to quantify however the reality will be how many more "black swan events" occur over the next 20 years.
> 
> BTW I think this black swan event creeping into our language everywhere is causing the meaning to be debased. A true black swan event would be a massive volcano or something we have never seen before. It really should be called a low probability event that can be assumed to occur again.




Linear?

I think there would be plenty who would be willing to debate you on that point.


----------



## wayneL

Warmist David Appell 
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/about-sandy-and-ultimate-in-cherry.html



> Storms happen. As far as I can tell, Hurricane Sandy was a Cat 1 that just happened to coincide with (1) a storm from the west, (2) a cold front from the north, and (3) and full-moon tide.
> 
> Climate science is all about trends -- where are they?




There are some interesting graphs at the post.



> The Bill McKibben's and Brad Johnson's who jump on every storm in service of their cause are just as misguided as climate change deniers. It is the ultimate cherry pick -- wait until an event happens, and they proclaim it as typical. There needs to be just as strong a term for them -- "climate exaggerators," perhaps -- because despite what they think they are doing, they are ruining the cause of controlling carbon and minimizing future impacts. They have turned religious on the issue, and like all zealots they believe their cause justifies any lie.
> 
> They have become clowns who can always be counted on to parrot their beliefs, regardless of the facts. And that makes people dismiss the issue, not understand it.




And this has been my argument against the Goreist Climate Apocalypse Cult all along. It causes people to not only diss even reasonable climate science, it causes them to diss reasonable environmental science altogether.

Unfortunately, there is no branch of science more full of nutters and the pollution of political advocacy than the environmental sciences.

People see through that, but don't see far enough to see the real concerns. It is a massive own goal if these clowns want to benefit the planet.


----------



## Knobby22

Sandy was still unusual even without the full moon and connection to northern cold front. If the bell curve has been shifted to the right, we would expect to see more unusual events.

From Mish's blog.

_Sandy is classified as a Hurricane 1 status, a low-grade hurricane. However, don't let that fool you in terms of impact. It's not the absolute magnitude of the hurricane, but rather the magnitude vs. what the infrastructure can handle that matters.

Barometric pressure is 27.76, the lowest pressure recorded for a storm in the Northeast. Sandy is unprecedented in size as well. The hurricane is likely to reach shore with a full moon high tide raising storm surges several more feet_.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogs...ndy-update-first-100.html#xEIe4QMb7dW7Itco.99


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> Sandy was still unusual even without the full moon and connection to northern cold front. If the bell curve has been shifted to the right, we would expect to see more unusual events.
> 
> From Mish's blog.
> 
> _Sandy is classified as a Hurricane 1 status, a low-grade hurricane. However, don't let that fool you in terms of impact. It's not the absolute magnitude of the hurricane, but rather the magnitude vs. what the infrastructure can handle that matters.
> 
> Barometric pressure is 27.76, the lowest pressure recorded for a storm in the Northeast. Sandy is unprecedented in size as well. The hurricane is likely to reach shore with a full moon high tide raising storm surges several more feet_.
> 
> Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogs...ndy-update-first-100.html#xEIe4QMb7dW7Itco.99




Didnt they have a big one back in the late 1930s?


----------



## basilio

Back to your familiar head in the sand approach Wayne. 

The question abut whether Sandy was caused by global warming is misleading . There have been storms before and there will always be storms. 

The issue is *how much is global warming affecting the severity and outcomes of these storms.
*.  



> While Emanuel said that there is a clear link between climate change and general trends toward more intense tropical hurricanes, in the case of Sandy more long-term study is required to determine whether climate change played a major role.
> 
> Other scientists say climate change likely aggravated whatever unique circumstances produced Sandy. They include the global warming that has caused ocean temperatures and sea levels to rise, contributing to more destructive flooding and other damage.
> 
> 
> "Sea level rise makes storm surges worse and will continue to do so in the future," said Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany.
> 
> World sea levels have risen by 20 centimetres (8 inches) in the past 100 years, a trend blamed on melting ice and expanding water in the oceans caused by rising temperatures. "Every centimetre adds to damage," Rahmstorf said.
> 
> ...All debate aside, US states still reeling from Sandy say they need to take a lesson from the increased threat of monster storms. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said he has no doubt there are more extreme weather events.
> 
> "That's not a political statement; it's a factual statement," Cuomo said after a tour of New York City's ravaged infrastructure. New Yorkers will have to deal with "a new reality" when it comes to weather patterns, he said



.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...andys-cause-20121101-28l5j.html#ixzz2AvRbTyEZ


----------



## Knobby22

moXJO said:


> Didnt they have a big one back in the late 1930s?




True - from wiki

_The New England Hurricane of 1938 (or Great New England Hurricane, Yankee Clipper, Long Island Express, or simply the Great Hurricane) was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane[1] on Long Island on September 21. The hurricane was estimated to have killed between 682 and 800 people,[2] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 Billion in 2012)._

The fact we have had another one is neither here nor there. Global warming only has a small effect at this stage. 
It will be interesting to see if they become more common.

The hurricane was so strong because it moved at 50km/hr - sort of bounced off the existing weather system and didn't have time to degrade. Very different to Sandy. It's all quite fascinating but I have no desire to experience one.


----------



## Knobby22

Actually if you look at the number of hurricanes influencing New York according to Wikipedia over recent times you get interesting results:

1900-1949        11 - including that shocking 1938 one (though it missed New York itself)
1950-74            15
1974 - 1999       21
2000 - 2012       19     (over only 12 years!)

Maybe the data is faulty but incidence appears to be increasing rapidly!!

Maybe the size and frequency of hurricanes hasn't increased but the warmer northern waters have increased the numbers hitting New England?


----------



## moXJO

Knobby22 said:


> Maybe the data is faulty but incidence appears to be increasing rapidly!!
> 
> Maybe the size and frequency of hurricanes hasn't increased but the warmer northern waters have increased the numbers hitting New England?




Or you could look at it that times between major incidents are roughly the same
1869-1938  69 years
1938-2012   74 years


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> It's all quite fascinating but I have no desire to experience one.



"Fascinating" might not be the word the thousands of people without electricity or water, many still trapped in high rise buildings, would use.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> "Fascinating" might not be the word the thousands of people without electricity or water, many still trapped in high rise buildings, would use.




I find crocodiles fascinating, but if I was in one's jaws, I am sure other emotions would probably take over.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Back to your familiar head in the sand approach Wayne.




Oh bassa, rather than direct tit for tat ad hominem, which is all rather tedious and puerile, let me just make this observation:

There are a number of egregious pissants in this world, mendacious morons to a (wo)man are they; and I wonder why you seem so increasingly determined to join their ranks. I would have thought you would aspire to better. :shake:

Now, if you can explain to me how desiring a more holistic consideration of environmental issues and the sober consideration of Sandy rather than knee jerk Rommisms, is having my head in the sand, I'd appreciate it.

Also do you think David Appell has his head in the sand?

How about Pielke Jnr? http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/sandy-and-top-20-normalized-us.html and via Terrance Corcoran http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/29/terence-corcoran-frankenscience/

How about Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/30/frankenstorm/#more-10332

How about Martin Hoerling of NOAA

_"Great events can have little causes. In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard. As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades (see IPCC 2012 SREX report).

So, while it will rain like “black cats and Frankenweenies” over the midatlantic, this is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces….unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Stuidios fame!"_

ET AL



> The question abut whether Sandy was caused by global warming is misleading . There have been storms before and there will always be storms.
> 
> The issue is *how much is global warming affecting the severity and outcomes of these storms.*



*

A fair point, but one which shows no clear trend. (as per above links )*


----------



## basilio

> Now, if you can explain to me how desiring a more holistic consideration of environmental issues and the sober consideration of Sandy rather than knee jerk Rommisms, is having my head in the sand, I'd appreciate it



.

Because Wayne, all intelligent, honest, climate scientists in the world are in furious agreement that climate change caused by human produced excessive greenhouse gases is the most critical environmental issue facing us. Its effects will  dominate our landscape and irrevocably change  our way of life.

One of troubling issues we will face is that we won't be able to tackle all the environment issues we face. We will have to prioritise and attempt to solve as many as we can using creative solutions rather than one solution actions.

For example ... reducing and eliminating fossil fuel energy in favour of clean renewable energy will reduce toxic smoke emissions,  stop the destruction of water resources, tackle climate change and dramatically reduce our reliance on  limited fossil fuels. 

We should be taking this path anyway if we were serious about tackling   broader environmental issues.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> .
> 
> Because Wayne, *all intelligent, honest, *climate scientists in the world are in furious agreement that climate change caused by human produced excessive greenhouse gases is the most critical environmental issue facing us. Its effects will  dominate our landscape and irrevocably change  our way of life.
> 
> One of troubling issues we will face is that we won't be able to tackle all the environment issues we face. We will have to prioritise and attempt to solve as many as we can using creative solutions rather than one solution actions.
> 
> For example ... reducing and eliminating fossil fuel energy in favour of clean renewable energy will reduce toxic smoke emissions,  stop the destruction of water resources, tackle climate change and dramatically reduce our reliance on  limited fossil fuels.
> 
> We should be taking this path anyway if we were serious about tackling   broader environmental issues.




Mendacious exaggeration is not answering the question. And many so called climate scientists have proven to be less than honest.

Need I go to the drudgery of having to list them?


----------



## basilio

Yep Wayne all of the climate scientists are liars arn't they ?  The world has not gotten any warmer in the past 100 years. Its just dodgy figures.

Sea levels havn't risen either have they ?  More dodgy figures .. And of course there hasn't been a clear increase in sea temperatures as a result of the  "dodgy" increase in overall temperatures.

Glaciers havn't dried up either have they ? They have just changed places perhaps.  And the Arctic and Green land of course arn't having their warmest climate since god knows when and melting at  rates never see for many thousands of years. 

All just lies isn't it Wayne ?  

For the sake of readers who may not share your views on the complete corruption of modern science I'll finish  with a summary which highlights what has happened with Sandy.

If you want to see the *evidence* for these statements  read the whole story.  I'm off to bed.



> [QUOTE*]Extreme Weather on Steroids*
> 
> The bottom line is that while global warming did not cause Hurricane Sandy, it did contribute to the "Frankenstorm" at least by causing higher sea levels (and thus bigger storm surges and flooding), warmer sea surface temperatures (and thus a stronger hurricane), and more moisture in the atmosphere (and thus more rainfall and flooding).
> 
> More importantly, as Francis noted and as many impacted residents are coming to realize, this type of extreme weather has and will continue to become more commonplace as the planet continues to warm.  We know that many types of extreme weather events have already been linked to global warming, including hurricane intensity.  A warmer world will "load the dice" and make extreme events, including strong hurricanes, more likely to occur.  It's important not to lose sight of the long-term trends in arguing about whether or not climate change contributed to any single extreme weather event.  As Dave Roberts notes,
> 
> "There is no division, in the physical world, between “climate change storms” and “non-climate change storms.” Climate change is not an exogenous force acting on the atmosphere. There is only the atmosphere, changing. Everything that happens in a changed atmosphere is “caused” by the atmosphere, even if it’s within the range of historical variability."
> 
> And as Stephan Lewandowsky put it,
> 
> "We are living with climate change.
> 
> It is happening now.
> 
> Debating the extent to which Frankenstorm Sandy was put on steroids by climate change is a distraction.
> 
> Nearly all weather events now have a contribution from climate change and it is up to us to manage and reduce that risk with mitigative action."



[/QUOTE]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-climate-connection.html


----------



## wayneL

basilio, you seem incapable of grasping the point of the discussion. It is not that climate is or isn't change. It is not whether the Earth is warming, or even whether humans are affecting climate.

We have repeatedly established these things to a greater or lesser degree.

The greater point is whether change will ultimately be catastrophic, this is the area of disagreement. 

The minor point that has arisen, is the integrity of the catastrophists (which you have once again resorted to argumentative fallacy to try to deflect the awful truth).

After, climategate, fakegate, BESTgate, the Gore ruling, the disingenuous ranting of lunatics like Romm, Hansen et al, and now the Mann fiasco (and a hundred other issues that have arisen over the years).

In addition, I can't think of one catastrophist who is willing to change their usually fossil fueled lavish lifestyles. They are even blatant in their consumption at their yearly jaunt.

As for you, your tacit admission of your refusal to change your lifestyle in accordance with your beliefs is typical.

This is all in a rotten pattern of dishonesty and you have the temerity to claim that catastrophists are honest?

Puleeze.

Not to say some individuals aren't making best efforts to be honest (but may be unwittingly promulgating tainted data), however as a group, there is a very big problem.


----------



## basilio

Wayne you know xxxx all about me and the assumptions you do make are so wrong its laughable.

After the  years of  watching your  dissembling on this forum I simply don't trust you enough or care about you sufficiently to want to correct you.

But in the end all that is a just a possum running across the road. A distraction to take our eyes  off the main picture.  What really gets up my nose with your comments is how you attempt to debase an entire scientific set of observations on a sliver of alleged incidents (which then prove to be totally unremarkable)

I refer to millions of independent observations which show rising sea levels, increased ocean warmth, massive ice melt, rising wold temperatures and clear changes in biology as result of these changes. Your response? An abuse of the scientists involved that *never, ever ever* actually has the gonads to show where the evidence showing widespread climate change is wrong. Its just a smear without substance.

The hypothetical question is "Will Climate change ultimately be catastrophic " ?  Well this is 2012 and we are already seeing climate events like Sandy, and the American heat waves and Russian heat waves that are on 3rd and 4th Standard Deviation  of previous normal weather. Their impacts are very serious. Catastrophic may simply be having them repeat themselves every 5-10 years. After all how many times can you afford to rebuild a city.

But this is just the start Wayne. Climate science is clear that the amount of greenhouse gases  already in the atmosphere  (390 + PPM CO2 )will cause at least a further .6 C temperature rise on top of the .8C we already have. And that doesn't add the effects of many tipping point events already unfolding around the world. ( Loss of Arctic summer ice , melting of permafrost, rising ocean temperatures reducing CO2 absorption and so on )

From the earliest days scientists realised how CO2 trapped heat and kept our planet warm.  After that was established the question of what would happen if CO2 levels were raised caused concern.  We are now way past that point.


----------



## ghotib

From the famously climate catastrophist organisation, Bloomberg: 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid#p1



> The broadening consensus:
> “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.


----------



## moXJO

ghotib said:


> From the famously climate catastrophist organisation, Bloomberg:
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid#p1




So what caused the storms previously in 1869-1938?
This was more a case of storms coinciding with high lunar tides at the wrong time of the month. I'm sure GW may have contributed, but hardly a case of GW causing it or being a major player.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

basilio said:


> Wayne you know xxxx all about me and the assumptions you do make are so wrong its laughable.




I think the folks in this forum know precisely what you are from the garbage profusely spewed


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> Wayne you know xxxx all about me and the assumptions you do make are so wrong its laughable.
> 
> After the  years of  watching your  dissembling on this forum I simply don't trust you enough or care about you sufficiently to want to correct you.
> 
> But in the end all that is a just a possum running across the road. A distraction to take our eyes  off the main picture.  What really gets up my nose with your comments is how you attempt to debase an entire scientific set of observations on a sliver of alleged incidents (which then prove to be totally unremarkable)
> 
> I refer to millions of independent observations which show rising sea levels, increased ocean warmth, massive ice melt, rising wold temperatures and clear changes in biology as result of these changes. Your response? An abuse of the scientists involved that *never, ever ever* actually has the gonads to show where the evidence showing widespread climate change is wrong. Its just a smear without substance.
> 
> The hypothetical question is "Will Climate change ultimately be catastrophic " ?  Well this is 2012 and we are already seeing climate events like Sandy, and the American heat waves and Russian heat waves that are on 3rd and 4th Standard Deviation  of previous normal weather. Their impacts are very serious. Catastrophic may simply be having them repeat themselves every 5-10 years. After all how many times can you afford to rebuild a city.
> 
> But this is just the start Wayne. Climate science is clear that the amount of greenhouse gases  already in the atmosphere  (390 + PPM CO2 )will cause at least a further .6 C temperature rise on top of the .8C we already have. And that doesn't add the effects of many tipping point events already unfolding around the world. ( Loss of Arctic summer ice , melting of permafrost, rising ocean temperatures reducing CO2 absorption and so on )
> 
> From the earliest days scientists realised how CO2 trapped heat and kept our planet warm.  After that was established the question of what would happen if CO2 levels were raised caused concern.  We are now way past that point.




if we are past the tipping point why are you still using computers, cars, producing carbon with everything that you do, your fetish for alarm-ism is the only thing to be alarmed about

or are you the classic inner city progressive douche making coffees


----------



## wayneL

Oz, White_G.....  Indeud. 

Well back to science and an great post from _Warmist_ Eric Berger: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/there-will-be-fewer-sandy-like-storms-in-the-future/

Snip: 

_My concern is whether the end justifies the means. My concern is setting expectations that Sandy, that large, destructive hurricanes striking the United States, is the “new normal.” My concern is that we’re telling people that we’ve entered an era in which super-storms are the new normal and that there will be a mega-disaster every year.

My concern is that we’re not debating facts when it comes to hurricanes and climate science.

*IT’S SCIENCE, STUPID
*
Science tells us this is not a new normal.

Science tells us climate change has not had a discernible impact on global hurricane activity. A warmer climate, of course, is changing hurricanes. But, scientists consistently tell us, that change is so small it cannot be measured at the present and likely won’t be measurable until the middle of this century._

Snip:

_Of course Sandy’s effects were exacerbated by rising sea levels. According to NOAA data, the sea level in Manhattan has risen by about half a foot during the last century. Some, but not all, of that rise is attributable to human greenhouse gases. So the surge was a few inches worse because of climate change.

But that’s as far as the science goes. And my purpose here is to follow the science, not an agenda to change U.S. carbon emissions policy nor deny science or climate change.

So where does the science take us in regard to hurricanes and climate?

*WHAT SCIENCE TELLS US*

I have already posted about an influential paper in Nature Geoscience, published in 2010, that surveyed all of the recent climate science and hurricane literature. *In summary, after studying past and present hurricane data the scientists did not conclusively find any detectable human influence on hurricane activity.*_

Snip:

*It is true that Sandy was a human-caused disaster. We build cities on the coast. We don’t adequately protect them. We don’t heed evacuation warnings. That is where the blame lies for this one, not climate change.*

Bolds Mine


----------



## basilio

That was an excellent post you found Wayne. I read it all and it was very illuminating.

I can see the writers analysis regarding how much impact global warming was having on the strength of hurricanes. I'll be interested to see other views on that but it's worth throwing into the mix.

But I also noticed that he seemed quite confident that global warming was a real issue and certainly something to be concerned about.  

Or did you miss those particular comments ?  I really hope he is correct in believing that stronger hurricanes might not be as big a problem as we thought. 


> SUMMARY
> 
> My point is far from casting doubt on climate change and humanity’s role in increasing greenhouse gases. My point is that while there are a lot of very good reasons to be concerned about climate change, notably heat, drought and rising sea levels, an increase in “super” storm activity at present is not yet detectable, and science tells us it won’t be until the middle of the century at least.


----------



## basilio

Saw that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York,  has come out in support of President Obama based  in a large part on the need for decisive action on climate change.. 

He doesn't agree with everything Barack Obama does but  he has put the issue of tackling CC on the agenda.

His argument  is not about certainty regarding global warming; it is about managing a clear risk.



> The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.
> 
> *The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods -- something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.
> 
> Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action. *




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Saw that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York,  has come out in support of President Obama based  in a large part on the need for decisive action on climate change..
> 
> He doesn't agree with everything Barack Obama does but  he has put the issue of tackling CC on the agenda.
> 
> His argument  is not about certainty regarding global warming; it is about managing a clear risk.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html




So would mitigation or adaption be better suited to New Yorks case? or both?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloa.../section_3f_coastal_storm_hazard_analysis.pdf



> Mayor Bloomberg's Deft Climate Politics
> 
> ....
> 
> Yet, Mayor Bloomberg is also an elected leader. What is he going to do about the fact that his city was less prepared than it should have been for a disaster that was expected and one of a sort will certainly recur, climate change or not?
> 
> If the media devotes 10% of the energy to this topic that it is devoting to the climate change connection, New Yorkers will be well served.


----------



## basilio

Good story Spooly. 

There is no doubt that New York is vulnerable to extreme climate events (in fact all coastal cities are by definition also venerable to storm. flood etc to a  larger or smaller degree) 

The mitigation or adaption question is also raised by climate scientists.  The current projections for increasing temperature as a result of global warming would see all coastal cities under threat of flooding.  Doing nothing about GW would,  if we accept the current climate science, result in runaway warming and effectively catastrophic scenarios within 100 years.

At this stage the science is saying we need to reduce GG emissions drastically to minimise  temperature increases as well as considering the changes necessary to adapt to  a warmer world with higher oceans levels and larger weather extremes. 

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/nov/01/hurricane-sandy-warning-science/


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Good story Spooly.



No more than your usual diatribe 



			
				basilio said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that New York is vulnerable to extreme climate events (in fact all coastal cities are by definition also venerable to storm. flood etc to a  larger or smaller degree)



and ....?



> The mitigation or adaption question is also raised by climate scientists. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah



Whats your opinion in New Yorks case?
Again.


----------



## basilio

> Whats your opinion in New Yorks case?
> Again. Spooly 74




Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper



> *
> Business warned to prepare for catastrophic impacts of climate change*
> 
> New climate change report from PwC says radical action needed to decarbonise the global economy and warns investors to consider negative outcomes on certain investments
> 
> *Investors in coastal cities and low-lying regions (New York...) need to consider more pesimistic scenarios, warns a new report from PwC.* Photograph: Jenny E Ross/Corbis
> 
> PricewaterhouseCoopers, the world's largest professional services firm, is not known for scaremongering. So it is worth paying particular attention to its latest annual low carbon economy index.
> 
> Behind the understated language, it points to a catastrophic future unless radical action is taken now to combat climate change.
> 
> "Business leaders have been asking for clarity in political ambition on climate change," says partner Leo Johnson. "Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world – not just 2C, but 4C or even 6C."
> 
> The trigger for its dire warning comes from the failure of the global community to reduce carbon emissions by anywhere near the amount needed to restrict temperature rises.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
> http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml




Well I give a damn Basilio, particularly for my eight Grandchildren.

And the noise of concern is certainly gaining momentum now.

As I said a few weeks back, you are not going to win this one Wayne.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Well I give a damn Basilio, particularly for my eight Grandchildren.
> 
> And the noise of concern is certainly gaining momentum now.
> 
> As I said a few weeks back, you are not going to win this one Wayne.




Win what?

There is only truth. The truth is that it was a storm. Storms happen. Statistics reveal something about frequency and intensity perhaps and the truth is there is no trend.

Plod the truth will win eventually unless we truly do enter a "Nineteeneightyfour" era, a more scary proposition that actual climate change. This is what I would fear for your grandchildren plod.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
> http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml




Pretty straightforward question given the effects from Sandy were not unusual and in NYC it could get a lot worse with nothing to do with ACC.

Don't stress your noodle though.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Roger Pielke is just playing with words.




Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:
			
		

> With regard to my "hobby horse".  Firstly I didn't think this was a forum on CC . Was there a need to drag it in here ? But you have chosen to make it a criticism - my seemingly endless "paternalistic proselytizing" which I force on everyone... so I'll respond
> 
> Lets consider another perspective. On this forum I am one of the very few people left who can articulate  and also supports the evidence  presented by the overwhelmingly majority of scientists on this topic.




We have already gone a million times over the problems with your purported evidence for the catastrophic worst case scenario... it is simply a religious observance, a moronic and untenable extrapolation from actual empirical data which show more benign outcomes




> The consequences of being wrong on CC are the biggest our civilizations will ever face.  But most other other people in ASF who agree the problem is real have stopped beating their heads against the repeated abuse from the usual suspects.




Abuse? When did disagreement of an hypothesis become abuse? This is not religious dogma here, we are not discussing infallibility doctrine here. I rather think Armageddon fantasists have disappeared as the case for climate apocalypse crumbles. 



> *I've chosen to stay in the conversation.*  Obviously no amount of evidence or analysis is capable of changing the minds of Wayne, or Noco, or White GoodMan or the usual suspects.  So clearly I'm not directly addressing them.
> 
> But I'm hoping my contributions can inform other readers who have an open mind, can follow URls and are prepared to learn more on the topic.




How noble of you.  </sarc>

I'll not speak for the others, but basilio I won't stand for your unscrupulous mendacious misrepresentation of my views. In fact my understanding has metamorphosed a great deal in the last twenty years and continues to do so

If your goal was to inform, you would present argument, but what you present is advocacy... big difference there lady.


----------



## basilio

I'll go back to the facts Wayne.

1) The temperature on earth is a lot warmer in the past 30 years than it has been for  10's of thousand of years.

2) There is scientific certainty that green house gases like Co2 and methane (and others) trap heat in the atmosphere.  Historically this has given earth a habitable environment

3) The amount of GG gases in the atmosphere has increased from 280 PPM to 390 PPM since the start of the industrial revolution in 1800's.  

4) There is overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that this increase in GG gases plus the increases that will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuel will  be the dominant factor in our climate causing temperatures to continue to rise.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=96

5) There is absolute certainty that as temperatures rise a number of ecosystems will release even more GG gases which will speed up the process. Melting of the tundra,  warming of oceans which will release CO2  and about 12 others

6) We can see and measure the effect of  relatively small increases in temperature across the world.  Plants , animals and ecosystems are rapidly changing.

If you want to see the evidence that backs up these points check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

But they are all wrong arn't they Wayne ? The vast majority of the scientific community in this field, the biologists, physicists, have just misunderstood or made up a fanciful story to keep themselves in grants and take us on the path to a world global government.


----------



## spooly74

Troll.


----------



## explod

spooly74 said:


> Troll.




What sort of content is that?

Rubbish.

Being part of a farming family, concerned about effects of weather back to 1870, the anecdotal evidence is clear and Basilio's post spot on.


----------



## spooly74

explod said:


> What sort of content is that?
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> Being part of a farming family, concerned about effects of weather back to 1870, the anecdotal evidence is clear and Basilio's post spot on.




The conversation has clearly moved on from basilio's last post.
Basilio continually misrepresents other posters views on the topic and bleats on with the same catastrophic mantra while refusing to answer direct questions on-topic.
My content is undeniable.
Basilio is a troll.

Whats you farming anecdotal evidence and what's it evidence for?


----------



## explod

spooly74 said:


> The conversation has clearly moved on from basilio's last post.
> Basilio continually misrepresents other posters views on the topic and bleats on with the same catastrophic mantra while refusing to answer direct questions on-topic.
> My content is undeniable.
> Basilio is a troll.
> 
> Whats you farming anecdotal evidence and what's it evidence for?




Well the changes are catastrophic for a start.

Basilio backs up all of his statements with references of fact, whether you want to believe them, or read them all properly with an  objective mind or not.

My anecdotal observations are built on the observations and thoughts of hundreds of farmers over more than 60 years.   And have you read the very good book backed up by scientific facts "The Sixth Extinction"  It sure has all happened before but not in this way.

Actually one of the very big problems is the release of old stored Co2 from the ice caps (mentioned above) and the depletion of snow cover which used to help reflect heat back off the earth surface.  One could go on but an objective read over this thread reveals it all if one *wants to see.*


----------



## basilio

spooly74 said:


> Troll.




What a  sublimely, magnificent riposte!! No need for any overthinking of the issue,  in fact... any thinking at all..

I'm sure it got thunderous applause from the gallery

 ________________________________________________________________________________________

I actually thought I brought the discussion back to the basic scientific facts and left enough references to let anyone who cares check them up. Anyway I choose to read other peoples references (in full) and then make a further comment.

Thought it was interesting that the PwC report on how global warming was unfolding was studiously ignored. If you want to see catastrophe thats a good place  to start.


----------



## basilio

Better understanding about Antarctic Sea ice and Arctic sea ice




> *Poles apart: satellites reveal why Antarctic sea ice grows as Arctic melts*
> 
> US military satellite data exposes complexity of climate change and impact of changing wind patterns on polar regions
> 
> 
> Damian Carrington
> guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 November 2012 18.01 GMT
> 
> The mystery of the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica, at the same time as global warming is melting swaths of Arctic sea ice, has been solved using data from US military satellites.
> 
> Two decades of measurements show that changing wind patterns around Antarctica have caused a small increase in sea ice, the result of cold winds off the continent blowing ice away from the coastline.
> 
> "Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon using computer models," said Paul Holland at the British Antarctic Survey. "Our study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change.
> 
> *"The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming."
> 
> The extent of sea ice is of global importance because the bright ice reflects sunlight far more than the ocean that melting uncovers, meaning temperature rises still further.*




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/11/poles-scientists-antarctic-sea-ice


----------



## spooly74

explod said:


> Well the changes are catastrophic for a start.
> 
> Basilio backs up all of his statements with references of fact, whether you want to believe them, or read them all properly with an  objective mind or not.




Is that a joke? because Basilio cant tell the difference sometimes?



> My anecdotal observations are built on the observations and thoughts of hundreds of farmers over more than 60 years.




What are some of the specific observations then?
What area of the country?



> And have you read the very good book backed up by scientific facts "The Sixth Extinction"  It sure has all happened before but not in this way.



LOL
No wonder your grandkids are ****ting themselves.

7 Billion people on the planet now.
I can't think of anything capable of wiping out the entire human race in the next 2 hundred years. After that, nothing will.



			
				basilio said:
			
		

> Thought it was interesting that the PwC report on how global warming was unfolding was studiously ignored. If you want to see catastrophe thats a good place  to start.



That's a private company FFS.


----------



## Logique

Miranda Devine on the CSIRO, where she once worked. All too true I'm afraid, and not only at CSIRO.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/
> ...With the Kyoto protocol due to run out on December 31 we are witnessing the desperate last roll of the dice from climate alarmists who have cried wolf once too often...


----------



## white_goodman

Logique said:


> Miranda Devine on the CSIRO, where she once worked. All too true I'm afraid, and not only at CSIRO.




what is this anti-earth smear campaign!


----------



## Logique

On Cadel Evans and "Carbon Cate", from the "Great Satan" Bolt. 

Blanchett's AGW stance hurt me deeply, as I thought her _Galadriel_, the Lady of Lothlorien, cinematically luminous.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ -on 9 Dec
> 
> ..But don’t pretend it took courage [Cadel Evans] to parrot what the government, the media class, the funding agencies and, for a long while, the public were all saying, too.
> 
> There’s nothing brave in the sound of baa.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

I had kinda thought the flapping alarmists here that are influenced by AGW corruption and the gravy train would have rushed to show the world the latest AR5 leaked draft from those gassy uncorruptible "scientists" or rather policy makers at the IPCC - although I thought the science was settled (although I haven't heard this phrase peddled in awhile)....maybe that "dangerous" 3% of CO2 from man isn't so deadly after-all...

*Bolt's post has the highlights*

Professor Roger Pielke Jr sums up via tweets

    IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

    IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”

    Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
    on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

    On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”

    Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”

    More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”

    IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”

    IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”

    More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

    More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt​
I'm sure Basilio and Knobby can find some scary wording from the policy paper to have us running scared from a life giving trace gas  LOL.


----------



## Knobby22

I'm not sure that you can say scientists are corrupt when you are quoting scientists. 

Just keep believing the propaganda if it makes you feel good.


----------



## OzWaveGuy

Knobby22 said:


> I'm not sure that you can say scientists are corrupt when you are quoting scientists.
> 
> Just keep believing the propaganda if it makes you feel good.








Keep flapping, is that a piece of sky falling?


----------



## Calliope

OzWaveGuy said:


> View attachment 50016
> 
> Keep flapping, is that a piece of sky falling?




Knobby and basilio are lucky they don't live in China.



> CHINESE police have detained more than 100 people, among them members of a fringe Christian group, for spreading rumours about the world's impending end, state media reports.


----------



## DB008

Canada Announces Exit From Kyoto Climate Treaty

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/science/earth/canada-leaving-kyoto-protocol-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdb66522-2519-11e1-8bf9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FRi4tLSz

http://ens-newswire.com/2012/12/17/canada-leaves-kyoto-protocol-lets-china-buy-into-oil-sands/


----------



## Logique

Could hardly blame Canada, massive penalties were likely.



> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/sc...ange.html?_r=0
> 
> ..Mr. Kent said Canada could meet its commitment only through extreme measures, *like pulling all motor vehicles from its roads and shutting heat off to every building in the country*. He said the Liberal Party had agreed to the treaty “without any regard as to how it would be fulfilled.”
> 
> He also said the failure to meet the targets *would have cost Canada $14 billion in penalties*..


----------



## Sdajii

basilio said:


> I'll go back to the facts Wayne.
> 
> 1) The temperature on earth is a lot warmer in the past 30 years than it has been for  10's of thousand of years.




Such a naive statement. That's just like beginning your observations at 10am and at 10.15am saying "Oh my god, it's warmer now than at any point in the last 15 minutes! Previous data suggests it hasn't been this warm for hours! By this time tomorrow the planet will be uninhabitable!"

The climate hasn't just been kicking around for tens of thousands of years, it has been cycling around for hundreds of millions of years, and during that time it has been warmer than at present many times before. Even in the last one million years (very recent by global standards) it has been warmer several times. Before the industrial revolution the trend was already up. Since the industrial revolution that trend has simply continued, and is still unremarkable in comparison to recent (last few hundred thousand years) times, and very unremarkable in terms of the last few hundred million years, the relevant timeframe to be considering.



> 2) There is scientific certainty that green house gases like Co2 and methane (and others) trap heat in the atmosphere.  Historically this has given earth a habitable environment




Yep, so? We've known this since before I was born. Big deal. The current situation is unremarkable.



> 3) The amount of GG gases in the atmosphere has increased from 280 PPM to 390 PPM since the start of the industrial revolution in 1800's.




And? We're still within the limits of normal, natural fluctuations. Many times before humans even existed the normal, natural fluctuations of the planet included peaks above and dips below current levels.

What's a GG gas by the way? Or is it just like an ATM machine?



> 4) There is overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that this increase in GG gases plus the increases that will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuel will  be the dominant factor in our climate causing temperatures to continue to rise.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=96




Hmm... some truth and some dubious statement there. Yes, we're almost certainly going to keep producing more CO2, and yes, it'll probably raise temperatures a little. The most popularly publicised material may say this will be 'the dominant factor', but that's a bit dubious (the sun continuing to shine will probably be a more dominant factor, for example). Whether or not the increase in greenhouse gases will be the biggest change is difficult to predict, but saying "We're not really too sure" doesn't make news or get research funding like "Oh my god we're going to die" does, so the research and publicity is biased.



> 5) There is absolute certainty that as temperatures rise a number of ecosystems will release even more GG gases which will speed up the process. Melting of the tundra,  warming of oceans which will release CO2  and about 12 others




This is a complete misrepresentation of facts based on the tactic of cherry picking. There is also absolute certainty that as temperatures rise, a number of ecosystems will absorb even more carbon dioxide which will slow down the process. Warmer water means more algae means more photosynthesis means more CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere, for example. There are countless stabilisation processes. If that wasn't the case we'd have naturally had a runaway greenhouse effect completely cooking the planet hundreds of millions of years ago.



> 6) We can see and measure the effect of  relatively small increases in temperature across the world.  Plants , animals and ecosystems are rapidly changing.




What's your point? You say that like it's bad or unusual. In very recent history, even in the last few tens of thousands of years (extremely brief and well within human history, but well before the industrial revolution or any relevant human impact) climate change has produced and destroyed countless plant and animal species. Climate change is a natural, normal aspect of the planet. It's what has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. It is *supposed* to happen and would be happening even if humans had never existed.


----------



## white_goodman

very well said Sdajii


----------



## wayneL

It's obvious that _*catastrophic*_ AGW (but not _*benign*_ natural and anthropogenic climate change) as a scientific topic and an intellectual concept is as dead as a dodo.

Only advocacy and politicking remains.


----------



## explod

Just listened to a report on Local ABC radio that in 2011 the ocean temperature rose 6 degrees off the West Australian coast from a heat wave.  Killed off a lot of fish stock apparently.

It takes more than a heat wave to move temperatures up like that.  

Are the powers that be keeping science releases in check to stop the hysteria perhaps.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

We are getting good rain here in Townsville today, as we often do at this time of year.

All this talk about weather,really,  is "Climate Hysteria"

Temperatures are around average since records began.

gg


----------



## macca

explod said:


> Just listened to a report on Local ABC radio that in 2011 the ocean temperature rose 6 degrees off the West Australian coast from a heat wave.  Killed off a lot of fish stock apparently.
> 
> It takes more than a heat wave to move temperatures up like that.
> 
> Are the powers that be keeping science releases in check to stop the hysteria perhaps.




A pity we can't send some of the warmth to Russia, I am sure they would appreciate it

<<Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.>>

http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Just listened to a report on Local ABC radio that in 2011 the ocean temperature rose 6 degrees off the West Australian coast from a heat wave.  Killed off a lot of fish stock apparently.
> 
> It takes more than a heat wave to move temperatures up like that.
> 
> Are the powers that be keeping science releases in check to stop the hysteria perhaps.





Explod, you should know that heat waves of varying degrees are normal at this time of year...

And Russia is experiencing the coldest weather in 70 years... But then warmists only want to discuss heat waves in summer and seem to conveniently ignore any extreme cold weather...

We have always had weather extremes!


----------



## OzWaveGuy

explod said:


> Just listened to a report on Local ABC radio that in 2011 the ocean temperature rose 6 degrees off the West Australian coast from a heat wave.  Killed off a lot of fish stock apparently.
> 
> It takes more than a heat wave to move temperatures up like that.
> 
> Are the powers that be keeping science releases in check to stop the hysteria perhaps.




Hmmm, that's nice, a pocket of deadly co2 gas maybe. Perhaps you could use your investigative skills and report back on what's caused it - or is that asking too much? Maybe  you could let the forum know if it's man's 3% of co2 or nature's 97% with the hard evidence you find.

lol, Don't hold back - I'm sure the truth is there or a piece of fallen sky


----------



## Logique

Would love to know more about this.

*Inquiry call on CSIRO 'bullying'*
The Sydney Morning Herald
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/inquiry-call-on-csiro-bullying-20121226-2bwdi.html#ixzz2GCAD1Q4j



> AN INQUIRY should be held into Commonwealth science agency CSIRO and the treatment of its 6600-strong workforce amid claims ''of criminal conduct and commercial fraud'', the federal opposition says...
> ...''There may have been *tens of claims of workplace bullying, intimidation and/or harassment*, and other related forms of misconduct that have not been fully or adequately investigated, and where *a strong possibility exists that, at the very least, due process has been breached*.''....
> ...Chief executive Megan Clark has assured staff the CSIRO is ''on track'' to comply with the improvement notice.
> The CSIRO staff association, a division of public sector union CPSU, has called for a ''zero-tolerance'' approach by senior management to problems with bullying and harassment.
> But Mrs Mirabella said in her letter she was not satisfied with the response and highlighted the existence of a group of aggrieved former CSIRO public servants who were *campaigning for change in the organisation*..
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/inquiry-call-on-csiro-bullying-20121226-2bwdi.html#ixzz2GCAWHyXC


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> Would love to know more about this.
> 
> *Inquiry call on CSIRO 'bullying'*
> The Sydney Morning Herald
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/inquiry-call-on-csiro-bullying-20121226-2bwdi.html#ixzz2GCAD1Q4j




The bullies at CSRIO are probably trying to stifle those knowing the truth as to how bad things are really starting to get with the man made co2 emissions


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The bullies at CSRIO are probably trying to stifle those knowing the truth as to how bad things are really starting to get with the man made co2 emissions




Like US Secretary of State nominee and Klimate Klaxon *John Kerry?





* Who owns five luxury homes, a 76-foot yacht,  an SUV, and a private jet.


----------



## Logique

http://victimsofcsiro.com/2012/12/17/article-posted-in-nature-magazine/
An article posted 17 December 2012



> *Researcher quits over science agency interference*
> Australian research funding body under fire for ordering major changes to a peer-reviewed paper.
> By Stephen Pincock: http://victimsofcsiro.com/2012/12/17/article-posted-in-nature-magazine/
> 
> ...Australia’s national science agency has been accused of trying *to substantially alter a peer-reviewed paper that was critical of carbon-trading schemes*, leading a prominent researcher to quit the agency this week...[Paper author] * Spash resigned on 2 December, just days after those changes were outlined*...
> ...In a letter sent to Australia’s science minister Kim Carr this week, he writes: “When Dr Spash sent us a copy of the suggested changes to the paper, *it became clear that the CSIRO is asking not for minor but for major changes in the central arguments of the paper*. This is clearly unacceptable to the author. I should add that is also unacceptable to me as the editor of the special issue. It involves interference in our own peer-reviewing procedures that would be incompatible with the academic integrity of the journal.”...
> ...According to O’Neill, *the original paper argued that emissions-trading schemes will not solve, and potentially could exacerbate, the problem of human-induced climate change*. “The version *as rewritten by the chief executive of the CSIRO and her staff wants him to argue for a weaker position*, that any problems with emissions trading are a matter of design,” he writes. “If the chief executive of the CSIRO wants to argue for a different position to that of Dr Clive Spash she can do so by publicly replying to the paper and presenting arguments for the contrary position.”...
> ...“What is *clearly improper is for her to use her position to insist on changes to the paper* which alter its conclusions prior to publication.”...
> ...Spash says that the affair reflects wider problems within the agency. “*CSIRO cannot continue to operate as an organization which favours some and not others due to their policy opinions*...


----------



## wayneL

Another fracking lunatic to join the Nutters Club along with Hansen, Schmit, Mann, Romm, et al:

Professor Richard Parncutt - _“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Consequences

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives."_

More - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/de...warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> ... They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. ...




Where are these "future people"?


----------



## sails

explod said:


> The bullies at CSRIO are probably trying to stifle those knowing the truth as to how bad things are really starting to get with the man made co2 emissions





Looks like you are WAY off the mark there, Explod...

This excerpt from the article posted by Logique (my bolds to make it easier to read...lol):



> Australia’s national science agency has been *accused of trying to substantially alter a peer-reviewed paper that was critical of carbon-trading schemes*




and 



> According to O’Neill, the original paper argued that *emissions-trading schemes will not solve, and potentially could exacerbate, the problem of human-induced climate change.  The version as rewritten by the chief executive of the CSIRO and her staff wants him to argue for a weaker position*.


----------



## cynic

Doubtful as the original premise is, even in the unlikely event it could be proven, one could just as easily argue that the GW denier is doing a service to the planet because a percentage of those future people would themselves be GW deniers!


----------



## wayneL

burglar said:


> Where are these "future people"?




If you go to the link, this guys thinking is riddled with faults of logic, just like the other nutters.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Looks like you are WAY off the mark there, Explod...
> 
> This excerpt from the article posted by Logique (my bolds to make it easier to read...lol):
> 
> 
> 
> and




Argue for a weaker position on the *carbon scheme* or on the *climate outlook*, that second para you put up could be taken two ways, or of course, and I suppose, any way in which any one wants for his or her own argument or lack of thereof, so to speak, etc., and a eta cetera.

Thanks for the , one for you too


----------



## noco

GLOBAL WARMING AT WORK OR IS IT CLIMATE CHANGE?

Northern China experiences record low temperatures.

Where are the Global Warming Alarmist. Their slence is deafening.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ows-of-minus-40c/story-e6freoo6-1226548495688


----------



## Some Dude

noco said:


> GLOBAL WARMING AT WORK OR IS IT CLIMATE CHANGE?
> 
> Northern China experiences record low temperatures.
> 
> Where are the Global Warming Alarmist. Their slence is deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ows-of-minus-40c/story-e6freoo6-1226548495688




I did a quick check and found a lot of information going back a number of years about about how local record lows fit into the larger global warming concept. Do you need some help finding some information?


----------



## explod

Some Dude said:


> I did a quick check and found a lot of information going back a number of years about about how local record lows fit into the larger global warming concept. Do you need some help finding some information?




I have tried to point it all out in the past but they do not listen to the other side of the coin on this site.

Increased heat = more cloud cover = colder spots in some areas where it was not so cold in the past etc. 

Can pick and choose any particular targets to feel good from the armchair.

Obviously not good for the respective investments perhaps; and, *it is the money Ralf*

Could not really be bothered with this thread anymore.


----------



## Smurf1976

All this stuff about local weather events is very much a "they started it first" type of debate.

All those "dams will never fill again" type predictions did a lot to discredit the public perception of the overall issue and unfortunately it's been reduced to a he said / she said type of argument.

From a purely scientific perspective, I'm no scientist but I can follow the logic that increasing average temperatures may well lead to record lows being recorded in some areas. That doesn't make such events "proof" of climate change, but I can certainly follow the logic.


----------



## Knobby22

Wasn't there a new record temperature for Hobart recently Smurf? Or do I have it wrong?


----------



## Smurf1976

41.8 Friday last week which is an all time record (previous record was 40.8). Records have been kept in Hobart since the 1800's.

It was continuously above 40 for several hours, it wasn't just a quick spike, and would probably have been even hotter if it wasn't for the smoke from the fires blocking the sun by mid-afternoon.


----------



## white_goodman

Smurf1976 said:


> 41.8 Friday last week which is an all time record (previous record was 40.8). Records have been kept in Hobart since the 1800's.
> 
> It was continuously above 40 for several hours, it wasn't just a quick spike, and would probably have been even hotter if it wasn't for the smoke from the fires blocking the sun by mid-afternoon.


----------



## medicowallet

Smurf1976 said:


> 41.8 Friday last week which is an all time record (previous record was 40.8). Records have been kept in Hobart since the 1800's.
> 
> It was continuously above 40 for several hours, it wasn't just a quick spike, and would probably have been even hotter if it wasn't for the smoke from the fires blocking the sun by mid-afternoon.




Before that it was probably higher, with a lower CO2 conc and lower with a higher CO2 conc... who knows?

41.8 will be hard to break, I wonder how many hundreds of years will be required for this?  I would assume if people who believe that CO2 is driving dangerous global warming, it should be very soon indeed as CO2 levels rise each year, and will continue to do so for many hundreds of years.

MW


----------



## Some Dude

Smurf1976 said:


> All this stuff about local weather events is very much a "they started it first" type of debate.
> 
> All those "dams will never fill again" type predictions did a lot to discredit the public perception of the overall issue and unfortunately it's been reduced to a he said / she said type of argument.
> 
> From a purely scientific perspective, I'm no scientist but I can follow the logic that increasing average temperatures may well lead to record lows being recorded in some areas. That doesn't make such events "proof" of climate change, but I can certainly follow the logic.




Likewise, I'm not a climate scientist either but my post was providing some assistence with the notion of silence, or more accurately that record lows are not already factored into the metrics for modelling.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Wasn't there a new record temperature for Hobart recently Smurf? Or do I have it wrong?





Meanwhile

Perth in 2012: One of the hottest years on record

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/wa/perth.shtml


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> Perth in 2012: One of the hottest years on record
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/wa/perth.shtml





And meanwhile in China:  Low temps break 28-year record, more cold to come

What's your point, IF???


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Let's hold off this thread for the moment.

People are losing lives.

I'm willing like most to re-assess my views in the light of these dreadful events.

I feel indecent even posting on it, for purely emotional reasons, due purely to the suffering, whether I am right or wrong in my views on weather.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Let's hold off this thread for the moment.
> 
> People are losing lives.
> 
> I feel indecent even posting on it, for purely emotional reasons,
> 
> gg




I will not say a thing now. Except we are in tough times in my view.

waneL will eventually lose this one.

Brother and I increasing the home vegie patch on his 4 acres, lucky to have good bore water too.

On the alternative power, currently working on storage.  Rebuilding thrown out batteries the latest idea.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> I will not say a thing now. Except we are in tough times in my view.
> 
> waneL will eventually lose this one.
> 
> Brother and I increasing the home vegie patch on his 4 acres, lucky to have good bore water too.
> 
> On the alternative power, currently working on storage.  Rebuilding thrown out batteries the latest idea.





Explod, so you don't have much confidence in carbon tax to adequately alleviate your concerns?

 I thought the carbon tax was supposed to fix everything for AGWers and the tax was supposedly meant to save us from the sort of catastrophes you are trying to avoid?

I'm puzzled...


----------



## Smurf1976

Climate change itself - I do agree that the climate is changing. There is more than enough evidence that things are significantly different now as compared to what was considered "average" for the 20th Century. 

Causes - May or may not be man-made but commonsense does suggest that something would likely happen in response to a change in composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

It's the politics of it all I detest. The harsh reality is that the use of coal and gas is soaring whilst oil use is also slowly but surely grinding upwards. No amount of propaganda changes these facts. To deceive the public into thinking that Kyoto or the carbon tax is actually fixing the problem is what I take issue with. It's an outright lie at best.

If the problem is indeed real then I suspect action will be much like that in any crisis. It will come about only due to the lack of any alternative. If we're going to scrap fiat money and the notion of constant GDP growth being desirable, then that's not likely to happen voluntarily. It will take weather events, or a physical shortage of fossil fuels, to actually force that change the hard way.

Same goes for the large scale adoption of alternative energies. Technically we can do it but people aren't likely to accept a world where energy harvesting is itself a dominant activity until there is no choice. At some point we're going to do a lot with geothermal, wind, solar and we will likely build more big dams too. But with few exceptions the community isn't ready to accept that yet so we'll stick with fossil fuels until either something drastic happens or the whole issue is debunked.

Humans don't act until there's a crisis. That's just how it is.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I will not say a thing now. Except we are in tough times in my view.
> 
> waneL will eventually lose this one.
> 
> Brother and I increasing the home vegie patch on his 4 acres, lucky to have good bore water too.
> 
> On the alternative power, currently working on storage.  Rebuilding thrown out batteries the latest idea.




What exactly am I going to lose?

I feel a strawman coming on. Are you dishonestly misrepresenting my views again?


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> What exactly am I going to lose?




I'm not even going to guess at what you own, to suggest what you may stand to lose, or gain for that matter.
But if I were an individual with coastal tourist interests in south east Queensland. By coincidence, one of which I looked at last week, that have taken a 40% hair cut already on their book value(( a Korean backed development at Paradise Pt) and still over priced). the confirmed Irakandji jelly fish stings that have occurred off Fraser Is since Xmas, the latest being today, the latest of four;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...on-fraser-island/story-e6freoof-1226549285977

Puts a dark cloud on the very near  Northern Horizon to Noosa and the Skin Cancer Coast.

And Warning from one of those alarmist scientists from five years ago;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-the-move-south/story-e6frg6oo-1111113237301

Remind us, what did  Monkton Plimer et al have to say on the issue.

Ahh what the heck, on this issue, I'll go out on limb and take a wild guess and say... 'your credibility'


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> Humans don't act until there's a crisis. That's just how it is.




And I agree with your other comments re: politicization. The method of creating change through taxes and free market economic thinking is not the way to go. The way is to encourage new energy sources and more efficient technologies to be developed combined with government regulation.


China being a controlled economy is acting -for its own interest of course.  Maybe we can beg for them to let us have the technology at a high price in the future.

*If China can crack thorium, it will have clean energy for 20,000 years.*

A thorium reactor could even help clean up hazardous waste. 

THE Chinese are running away with thorium energy, giving an edge to a global race for the prize of clean, cheap and safe nuclear power. Good luck to them. They may do us all a favour.

Jiang Mianheng, son of former leader Jiang Zemin, is spearheading a project for the Chinese Academy of Sciences with a start-up budget of $US350 million. He has already recruited 140 scientists working full time on thorium power at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics. He will have 750 staff by 2015.

The aim is to break free of the old pressurised-water reactors fuelled by uranium - originally designed for US submarines in the 1950s - in favour of thorium reactors that produce far less toxic waste and cannot blow their tops like Fukushima.

''China is the country to watch,'' said Bryony Worthington, head of Britain's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy, who visited the Shanghai operations recently.

''They are really going for it, and have talented researchers. This could lead to a massive break-through.''

The thorium story is by now well known. Enthusiasts believe it could be the transforming technology needed to drive the industrial revolutions of Asia - and to avoid an almighty energy crunch as 2 billion more people climb the ladder to Western lifestyles.

At the least, it could do for nuclear power what shale fracking has done for natural gas - but on a bigger scale, for much longer, perhaps more cheaply, and with near zero carbon dioxide emissions.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/s...a-pipedream-20130107-2ccqh.html#ixzz2HLWtbcP5


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What exactly am I going to lose?
> 
> I feel a strawman coming on. Are you dishonestly misrepresenting my views again?




Well perhaps I overstate as usual.

The problem I find difficult to deal with is the word in this thread called *Hysteria*.

Perhaps would could think of the subject as being *Climate Concern*

I do appreciate wayneL that you have concerns.  It is the conditions, we have been there before and just part of the natural cycle.  Or it is different this time and some of us are alarmed.

Yes we have hacked around the edges of this cloth before but I believe more effort should be made to give all sides a greater airing and not just stomp it on the head out of hand.


----------



## basilio

Why are scientists confident that human producing CO2 is the core of current global warming and  larger increase in the near future ? 

Came across and excellent review of the evidence around this position on Skeptical Science. All the reasons have links.



> Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
> Posted on 25 July 2012 by Tom Curtis
> Anthropogenic CO2?
> 
> The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises.  As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming.  One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight.  So what is the full range of supporting evidence?  There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:
> 
> The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
> Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
> Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
> Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
> Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
> Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
> Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
> Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
> Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
> Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

  ____________________________________________________________________________________

PS The BOM has added some new colours to its climate graphs to indicate expected temperatures in Australia above 50C in the coming days. 

And we have already smashed temperature records across the country.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...stralia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html


----------



## Some Dude

basilio said:


> Why are scientists confident that human producing CO2 is the core of current global warming and  larger increase in the near future ?




I also find circumstances like these compelling.



			
				Richard Muller said:
			
		

> CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
> 
> ...
> 
> The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> I'm not even going to guess at what you own, to suggest what you may stand to lose, or gain for that matter.
> But if I were an individual with coastal tourist interests in south east Queensland. By coincidence, one of which I looked at last week, that have taken a 40% hair cut already on their book value(( a Korean backed development at Paradise Pt) and still over priced). the confirmed Irakandji jelly fish stings that have occurred off Fraser Is since Xmas, the latest being today, the latest of four;
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...on-fraser-island/story-e6freoof-1226549285977
> 
> Puts a dark cloud on the very near  Northern Horizon to Noosa and the Skin Cancer Coast.
> 
> And Warning from one of those alarmist scientists from five years ago;
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-the-move-south/story-e6frg6oo-1111113237301
> 
> Remind us, what did  Monkton Plimer et al have to say on the issue.
> 
> Ahh what the heck, on this issue, I'll go out on limb and take a wild guess and say... 'your credibility'




That would be right out on a limb orr. In fact it is the climate pseudo-scientific/political advocacy lobby which is suffering a credibility crisis. This is why you clowns are losing support generally.

I'll stand by my views as a lukewarmer and reserve the right to change them in either direction as evidence dictates. 

I won't have a religious adherence to an extreme view like you (et al).


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> I also find circumstances like these compelling.




LOL!!! We've had our way with that little untruth on this thread already Some Dude.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> LOL!!! We've had our way with that little untruth on this thread already Some Dude.




I look forward to your direction on the matter then


----------



## IFocus

Mean While

And the country has set a new national average maximum of 40.33 degrees on Monday, beating the previous record - set on December 21, 1972 - by a "sizeable margin" of 0.16 degrees, Dr Jones said, adding that the figures are preliminary.

"Today is actually shaping up to be hotter - and it could be a record by a similar margin," he said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html#ixzz2HNB7h3rC


----------



## sydboy007

I suppose I'm in the lucky (sic) position of having no children and being 40 yrs old  will hopefully have fallen off me perch before the forecast full effects of climate change have ravaged the world.

My feeling is if we're dubya stoopid to not change our ways, then let the natural course take its way.

People don't seem to realise how fragile the global economic system is.  A few years of drought in the USA / Australia / Russia and suddenly the major food exporters are not feeding the world.  The US drought is still ongoing.  I would say get ready for anything wheat based to get expensive as the year progresses.  It's not looking too good for a lot of Aussie farmers this year either.  Food sotckpiles are at historically low - unless an slight increase in rice production gives you confidence (has to be the least nutritionally major food crop)

Production dislocation through civil unrest in parts of the world is something I see happening in the not too distant future.  A regional war over fresh water is also pretty much a given with the way resources have been polluted and depleted - water tables pretty much everywhere are falling at alarming rates.  Building a new dam on the Mekong river could be classified as an act of war.

It is the grandchildren of my generation I worry about.  They are going to grow up in a very insecure world.  I'm already a pretty frugal energy consumer, so feel I've done my part.  If the rest of you want to keep buying record number of 4WDs and run the aircon at all hours of the day, well I hope you can live with any negative consequences the may or may not arise.

How anyone can argue with a push towards energy efficiency is beyond me.  The current carbon price in Australia is negligible, though has hopefully made Australians realise that energy efficiency is prob the cheapest form of insurance against climate change we can make.  the argument is we're too small, can't make a difference is simply wrong.  Gandhi was one man and helped to topple an empire.  Actions speak louder than words, and generally provide far better encouragement for others to follow.


----------



## explod

Top post there sydboy007


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose I'm in the lucky (sic) position of having no children and being 40 yrs old  will hopefully have fallen off me perch before the forecast full effects of climate change have ravaged the world.
> 
> My feeling is if we're dubya stoopid to not change our ways, then let the natural course take its way.
> 
> People don't seem to realise how fragile the global economic system is.  A few years of drought in the USA / Australia / Russia and suddenly the major food exporters are not feeding the world.  The US drought is still ongoing.  I would say get ready for anything wheat based to get expensive as the year progresses.  It's not looking too good for a lot of Aussie farmers this year either.  Food sotckpiles are at historically low - unless an slight increase in rice production gives you confidence (has to be the least nutritionally major food crop)
> 
> Production dislocation through civil unrest in parts of the world is something I see happening in the not too distant future.  A regional war over fresh water is also pretty much a given with the way resources have been polluted and depleted - water tables pretty much everywhere are falling at alarming rates.  Building a new dam on the Mekong river could be classified as an act of war.
> 
> It is the grandchildren of my generation I worry about.  They are going to grow up in a very insecure world.  I'm already a pretty frugal energy consumer, so feel I've done my part.  If the rest of you want to keep buying record number of 4WDs and run the aircon at all hours of the day, well I hope you can live with any negative consequences the may or may not arise.
> 
> How anyone can argue with a push towards energy efficiency is beyond me.  The current carbon price in Australia is negligible, though has hopefully made Australians realise that energy efficiency is prob the cheapest form of insurance against climate change we can make.  the argument is we're too small, can't make a difference is simply wrong.  Gandhi was one man and helped to topple an empire.  Actions speak louder than words, and generally provide far better encouragement for others to follow.




You need to take the condoms off or reverse your vasectomy and have a good root mate.

The godbotherers will outnumber people with your ethic well before you would have grandchildren.

There seems to be a cognitive dissonance between infertility and a good earth.

Buggered if I know how you professors come to that conclusion.

The first time I ever came in to land at an airport in a third world country a bloke sitting beside me said.

"There are three things in common with all these godforsaken places.

The smell of smoke, the smell of **** and the number of children."

And he was right.

And the misogynists in the ALP give Tony Abbott a hard time for having three kids and a stable family life, in a proud Australia.


gg


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You need to take the condoms off or reverse your vasectomy and have a good root mate.
> 
> The godbotherers will outnumber people with your ethic well before you would have grandchildren.
> 
> There seems to be a cognitive dissonance between infertility and a good earth.
> 
> Buggered if I know how you professors come to that conclusion.
> 
> The first time I ever came in to land at an airport in a third world country a bloke sitting beside me said.
> 
> "There are three things in common with all these godforsaken places.
> 
> The smell of smoke, the smell of **** and the number of children."
> 
> And he was right.
> 
> And the misogynists in the ALP give Tony Abbott a hard time for having three kids and a stable family life, in a proud Australia.
> 
> 
> gg




GG

the reason why I don't have children is because a long time ago I decided I was too selfish to devote the time and energy to them.  Don't really care if that makes me a good or bad person.  I think at least I show a level of honesty far higher than most.

I find your responses targeting other posters quite annoying, especially as you make assertions that are based solely on your, frankly, warped point of view.  I also find it quite offensive for you to tell me how to live my life!  Your lack of civility tells more about your character than mine!

So how about you stick to the facts, less of your biased attacks.

Oh, and the best form of contraception is literacy.  Do a bit of research and you will find that as a society becomes more educated and prosperous, the fertility rate declines.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> The current carbon price in Australia is negligible, though has hopefully made Australians realise that energy efficiency is prob the cheapest form of insurance against climate change we can make.  the argument is we're too small, can't make a difference is simply wrong.  Gandhi was one man and helped to topple an empire.  Actions speak louder than words, and generally provide far better encouragement for others to follow.



If it were to be effective then we'd need to take action to prevent the relocation of energy-intensive production offshore. 

Trade barriers or tariffs is where this one leads. I'm not necessarily for or against them, but if you're an energy-intensive industry by nature and have a tax adding 60% to your electricity costs then it's hard to compete without protection that's for sure.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

IFocus said:


> Mean While
> 
> And the country has set a new national average maximum of 40.33 degrees on Monday, beating the previous record - set on December 21, 1972 - by a "sizeable margin" of 0.16 degrees, Dr Jones said, adding that the figures are preliminary.
> 
> "Today is actually shaping up to be hotter - and it could be a record by a similar margin," he said.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html#ixzz2HNB7h3rC




And who is Dr.Jones one might ask?

Can he take out tonsils? no.

Can he take out an appendix? no.

He is funded.

He who pays the piper plays the tune.

He robs the Sun of it's rays. What happens when that runs out?.



> DR DAVID JONES
> Bio 21 Institute
> 
> 
> Dr David Jones received both his BSc (Hons. 1986), and PhD (Chemistry) (1995) from the University of Tasmania. He completed postdoctoral research periods in Sheffield, UK (Organic Chemistry) and Cardiff, UK (organometallic chemistry and catalysts) before moving to Imperial College London where he was the Team Leader in the BP catalysts discovery team headed by Professor Vernon Gibson.
> 
> In 2004 Jones joined Professor Andrew Holmes at Cambridge University before relocating with Professor Holmes to the Bio21 Institute at the University of Melbourne.  *He is currently the Project Coordinator for a Federally funded, International Science Linkage (International Organic Solar Cell Consortium) $1.07M, including A-Star IMRE as a partner, and a Victorian Government funded grant under the Energy Technology Innovation Strategy DPI (Victorian Organic Solar Cell Consortium) $12M to develop printable organic solar cells.*
> 
> Jones is also a member of the University of Melbourne *Energy Institute Solar and Energy Futures *research groups.




gg


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> And I agree with your other comments re: politicization. The method of creating change through taxes and free market economic thinking is not the way to go. The way is to encourage new energy sources and more efficient technologies to be developed combined with government regulation.
> 
> 
> China being a controlled economy is acting -for its own interest of course.  Maybe we can beg for them to let us have the technology at a high price in the future.
> 
> *If China can crack thorium, it will have clean energy for 20,000 years.*
> 
> A thorium reactor could even help clean up hazardous waste.
> 
> THE Chinese are running away with thorium energy, giving an edge to a global race for the prize of clean, cheap and safe nuclear power. Good luck to them. They may do us all a favour.
> 
> Jiang Mianheng, son of former leader Jiang Zemin, is spearheading a project for the Chinese Academy of Sciences with a start-up budget of $US350 million. He has already recruited 140 scientists working full time on thorium power at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics. He will have 750 staff by 2015.
> 
> The aim is to break free of the old pressurised-water reactors fuelled by uranium - originally designed for US submarines in the 1950s - in favour of thorium reactors that produce far less toxic waste and cannot blow their tops like Fukushima.
> 
> ''China is the country to watch,'' said Bryony Worthington, head of Britain's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy, who visited the Shanghai operations recently.
> 
> ''They are really going for it, and have talented researchers. This could lead to a massive break-through.''
> 
> The thorium story is by now well known. Enthusiasts believe it could be the transforming technology needed to drive the industrial revolutions of Asia - and to avoid an almighty energy crunch as 2 billion more people climb the ladder to Western lifestyles.
> 
> At the least, it could do for nuclear power what shale fracking has done for natural gas - but on a bigger scale, for much longer, perhaps more cheaply, and with near zero carbon dioxide emissions.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/s...a-pipedream-20130107-2ccqh.html#ixzz2HLWtbcP5




Interesting post Knobby, $350m isn't much of an investment for China, but the theory has merit.
Like I said great post.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose I'm in the lucky (sic) position of having no children and being 40 yrs old  will hopefully have fallen off me perch before the forecast full effects of climate change have ravaged the world.
> 
> My feeling is if we're dubya stoopid to not change our ways, then let the natural course take its way.
> 
> People don't seem to realise how fragile the global economic system is.  A few years of drought in the USA / Australia / Russia and suddenly the major food exporters are not feeding the world.  The US drought is still ongoing.  I would say get ready for anything wheat based to get expensive as the year progresses.  It's not looking too good for a lot of Aussie farmers this year either.  Food sotckpiles are at historically low - unless an slight increase in rice production gives you confidence (has to be the least nutritionally major food crop)
> 
> Production dislocation through civil unrest in parts of the world is something I see happening in the not too distant future.  A regional war over fresh water is also pretty much a given with the way resources have been polluted and depleted - water tables pretty much everywhere are falling at alarming rates.  Building a new dam on the Mekong river could be classified as an act of war.
> 
> .




Sydboy, don't worry about food production for China. They are buying up W.A agricultural land and are also buying up the new irrigation areas of the ord river irrigation.
Labor paid out on Barnett for suggesting running an irrigation water pipe down W.A.
I don't think it fell on deaf ears in China.LOL


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Sydboy, don't worry about food production for China. They are buying up W.A agricultural land and are also buying up the new irrigation areas of the ord river irrigation.
> Labor paid out on Barnett for suggesting running an irrigation water pipe down W.A.
> I don't think it fell on deaf ears in China.LOL




If the Chinese are willing to take the risks of buying up agricultural land in Australia with the hops it will feed them should the worst happen, then more fool them.

As was seen during SARS, when the chips are down even slightly, it's every country for themselves.

China would be better off stopping the desertification of their own country, reforming their agricultural sector to attain the efficiency of the US and Australia in terms of output rather than buying land somewhere else and hoping we will ship the produce to them.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> If the Chinese are willing to take the risks of buying up agricultural land in Australia with the hops it will feed them should the worst happen, then more fool them.
> 
> As was seen during SARS, when the chips are down even slightly, it's every country for themselves.
> 
> China would be better off stopping the desertification of their own country, reforming their agricultural sector to attain the efficiency of the US and Australia in terms of output rather than buying land somewhere else and hoping we will ship the produce to them.




Why? when you can purchase land outside of your borders, that already has been cleared has infrastructure, all it requires is water. 
The cost placed on pumping water from the ord to Perth was $12B, that was using diesel not gas. 
That is a pittance to China, when they own enough land, they could put it in and charge us for the water.LOL

We are such a bunch of dicks, but we will be able to watch our demise on high speed NBN broadband, for $50b.

Like our NBN driven IT sector is going to lead us to the forefront of the world. Jeez
Even if we came up with something the  U.S,  U.K  or China would buy it out.

The only advantage we have is minerals on the surface and a small population.
We should be using the mineral wealth to develop the food bowl, which will be ongoing.IMO


----------



## ghotib

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And who is Dr.Jones one might ask?
> 
> Can he take out tonsils? no.
> 
> Can he take out an appendix? no.
> 
> He is funded.
> 
> He who pays the piper plays the tune.
> 
> He robs the Sun of it's rays. What happens when that runs out?
> gg



Is that supposed to be a joke GG? I thought it might be a test but it seem a bit too simple for that - Is there more than one Dr Jones Yes/No/Anything for a cheap shot

This Dr Jones is a senior climatologist with the BoM. His B,SC and Ph.D are from Uni of Melbourne. 

I live in a corner of the Illawarra region of NSW. The region was one of those designated Catastrophic Fire Conditions today. Our corner was merely Extreme, but we still spent the day with the car packed and attention divided between the dam, the sky, the radio and the Rural Fire Service twitter feed. 

I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that 







> "All those "dams will never fill again" type predictions did a lot to discredit the public perception of the overall issue and unfortunately it's been reduced to a he said / she said type of argument.



 makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread. 

If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007. Here's the question and Flannery's answer:


> SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?
> 
> PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.



http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Both question and answer contain "if"s. Both question and answer are in the context of farming through a long drought. The answer is a general description of long term (to 2100) changes whose initial impacts on rainfall and water storages were already visible. It doesn't say and doesn't mean that the dams would never fill again from the day of the interview till eternity. It does mean that IF certain trends continue then at some time dams and river systems will run dry. 

So much misunderstanding. Such terrible results. So very sad.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Why? when you can purchase land outside of your borders, that already has been cleared has infrastructure, all it requires is water.
> The cost placed on pumping water from the ord to Perth was $12B, that was using diesel not gas.
> That is a pittance to China, when they own enough land, they could put it in and charge us for the water.LOL
> 
> We are such a bunch of dicks, but we will be able to watch our demise on high speed NBN broadband, for $50b.
> 
> Like our NBN driven IT sector is going to lead us to the forefront of the world. Jeez
> Even if we came up with something the  U.S,  U.K  or China would buy it out.
> 
> The only advantage we have is minerals on the surface and a small population.
> We should be using the mineral wealth to develop the food bowl, which will be ongoing.IMO




i think food produced within your country's borders is far more secure than outside.

Just look at what happens when some food crops were low due to drought a few yrs back.  Half of Asia stopped exporting rice, Russia banned wheat exports.

If China wants to take the risk to expand food production within Australia, good for them, but don't for a minute think that if the Australian Govt was faced with a food crisis that they would allow it to be exported if it was required to feed the local population.


----------



## sydboy007

ghotib said:


> Is that supposed to be a joke GG? I thought it might be a test but it seem a bit too simple for that - Is there more than one Dr Jones Yes/No/Anything for a cheap shot
> 
> This Dr Jones is a senior climatologist with the BoM. His B,SC and Ph.D are from Uni of Melbourne.
> 
> I live in a corner of the Illawarra region of NSW. The region was one of those designated Catastrophic Fire Conditions today. Our corner was merely Extreme, but we still spent the day with the car packed and attention divided between the dam, the sky, the radio and the Rural Fire Service twitter feed.
> 
> I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that  makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread.
> 
> If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007. Here's the question and Flannery's answer:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
> 
> Both question and answer contain "if"s. Both question and answer are in the context of farming through a long drought. The answer is a general description of long term (to 2100) changes whose initial impacts on rainfall and water storages were already visible. It doesn't say and doesn't mean that the dams would never fill again from the day of the interview till eternity. It does mean that IF certain trends continue then at some time dams and river systems will run dry.
> 
> So much misunderstanding. Such terrible results. So very sad.




+1

The debate out climate change is so politically charged.  It's a shame that the economy and environment have been so divorced from each other with the world of economics.

We all need to realise we need to do a lot more with a lot less.


----------



## wayneL

Just a sidebar and with reference to the 'big oil funding' strawman argument, did anyone notice this little deal?

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/gore-went-to-bat-for-al-jazeera-and-himself/



> Television executives and observers were surprised by both the big price tag and the decision by Mr. Gore, one of the best-known proponents for action to combat global warming, to sell to a Middle Eastern monarchy built with oil wealth.
> 
> The headline on a FoxNews.com op-ed on Thursday was “Global warming guru Al Gore becomes rich hypocrite with sale of Current TV to Qatar, Inc.” Several analysts said that Al Jazeera overpaid for Current.


----------



## basilio

> The headline on a FoxNews.com op-ed on Thursday was “Global warming guru Al Gore becomes rich hypocrite with sale of Current TV to Qatar, Inc.” Several analysts said that Al Jazeera overpaid for Current.



  compliments of Wayne

Ah thats great. Wayne wants to use Fox news as a reference for reality.  

Of course when you actually read the story in the New York Times you realise that  Al Gore felt more comfortable with Al Jazzera as a buyer than, say, Glen Becks company.  In fact Al Jazzera is recognized as an exceptionally evenhanded and competent international news agency. Gosh even GG says that !!

By the way Wayne are you still of the view that global temperatures aren't actually rising because of urban heat island effects/ dodgy sitings and so on ? Just wondering .  Obviously there must be some serious urban heat islands around Oz at the moment.  

Along similar lines it appears, according to GG, that because the senior meteorologist Dr Jones is paid by the Commonwealth government he can't be trusted with reading the results of the daily temperatures. Something about "He who  pays the piper calls the tune" (And I offered GG as a reference on Al Jazzera !!)

Welcome to Some Dude and sydboy007 to this thread. It's good to see some fresh thoughtful contribution. 

And Ghotlib that was an excellent contribution of the full text of Tim Flannerys Landline interview in 2007.  It was never hard to understand why Tim Flannery and  most scientists could foresee problems with keeping up water supplies in a warming climate. The deliberate distortions of the comments used by Andrew Bolt and co in the climate discussion have just been used to discredit Tim Flannery and  and by extension other scientists in this discussion.


----------



## explod

> In February 1992, at the UN in New York, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - a lobby group representing Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, BP and many other oil, coal and auto companies - used professional sceptic Fred Singer to attack the IPCC science at a press conference during the fifth session negotiations.  The GGC issued a briefing entitled "Stabilising carbon-dioxide emissions would have very little environmental benefit".  This kind of tactic became a feature of the negotiations: the deployment of one or more of a tiny group of well known contrarians against hundreds of scientists - most of them in government service, including the US's - who populated the IPCC side.




It has worked too well and though at this late stage the number of circling Indians are honing in, my own fear is that we may too late.

The quote from p.157 "Half Gone" Leggett 2005


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that  makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread.
> 
> If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007.



All I can say is that I was personally quite involved so far as the issue of rainfall (well, stream flows) are concerned back in 2008 and 2009.

Been to meetings, seen the charts, heard the predictions and so on. I was also personally shouted down (by someone from government) for daring to point out that "zero flows" was an unlikely scenario.

It is a reality that Australian state governments all bought the "zero flows" line as at least being possible back in circa 2008 - 2009. All the mainland states went into desal to "drought proof" urban water supplies and did so amongst considerable panic with the associated cost blowouts and so on.

Look in the newspapers and public comment is much the same. "Water is more valuable than oil", "water is the most precious resource" and so on. Even the likes of Bunnings jumped on the bandwagon with an assortment of "water saving" devices for sale. Drought hysteria was everywhere.

Then there were the dams, public perception being that they were useless because we'd never be able to fill them. In complete ignorance of the facts, the argument goes along the lines of "what's the point of having more storage if we can't fill what we've got?". Never mind that filling it up when it does rain is the whole point of storage.

In much the same manner as talk of buying stocks is hard to avoid during the last days of a mania (those old enough will no doubt remember the dot com hype all too well). It was hard to escape the "water crisis" back then, and there were certainly plenty of people making predictions as to how long the water would "last" based only on what was already in storage. That, as much as (if not more than) Flannery, is where this "never fill the dams again" myth comes from.

Needless to say, once you've associated "permanent" drought with climate change then public support drops like a rock once the rain starts and the floods arrive. It's like anything to do with reputation - up the stairs and down the fire pole. 

Adding to the public's lack of confidence were things like calls for "permanent" water restrictions, a move that makes a mockery of the prospect of future drought whilst also inconveniencing people for no necessary reason. It's a grab for control for the sake of it.

Personally, I'm very well aware of what's going on so far as stream flows are concerned and the trend isn't good that's for sure. Likewise I'm a regular bush walker and I know what I see there too and it's the same trend. Even after the "good" rains of 2010 and 2011, there's no shortage of "permanent" creeks that are still dry today (and yes, some of those are in water catchment areas). The stream flow decline in SW WA is well known and documented meanwhile Hydro Tas has released a lot of data publicly about what's going on in Tasmania. I'll add that we are now in a period where storage levels are very likely to trend downward.

But I also know that people are fed up with hearing "scientists" argue for taxation (I have personally heard this one on radio news) and so on. Stick to the facts, the actual science, and drop the politics.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> All I can say is that I was personally quite involved so far as the issue of rainfall (well, stream flows) are concerned back in 2008 and 2009.
> 
> Personally, I'm very well aware of what's going on so far as stream flows are concerned and the trend isn't good that's for sure. Likewise I'm a regular bush walker and I know what I see there too and it's the same trend. Even after the "good" rains of 2010 and 2011, there's no shortage of "permanent" creeks that are still dry today (and yes, some of those are in water catchment areas). The stream flow decline in SW WA is well known and documented meanwhile Hydro Tas has released a lot of data publicly about what's going on in Tasmania. I'll add that we are now in a period where storage levels are very likely to trend downward.
> 
> But I also know that people are fed up with hearing "scientists" argue for taxation (I have personally heard this one on radio news) and so on. Stick to the facts, the actual science, and drop the politics.




It worked pretty well with sorting out sulphur emissions and acid rain

Seems to have worked fairly well on cutting down cigarettes too.

Maybe more of an emphasis on energy efficiency could help.  I am annoyed that we allow too many highly inefficient products into this country.

A focus on higher fuel efficiency for cars would go a long way too.  We could cut billions off our oil import bill if the Australian car fleet had similar efficiency levels as the Japanese and Europeans.

maybe less about saving the planet, more about securing our competitiveness and economic security in a more multi-polar and fractured future.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> It worked pretty well with sorting out sulphur emissions and acid rain
> 
> Seems to have worked fairly well on cutting down cigarettes too.
> 
> Maybe more of an emphasis on energy efficiency could help.  I am annoyed that we allow too many highly inefficient products into this country.
> 
> A focus on higher fuel efficiency for cars would go a long way too.  We could cut billions off our oil import bill if the Australian car fleet had similar efficiency levels as the Japanese and Europeans.
> 
> maybe less about saving the planet, more about securing our competitiveness and economic security in a more multi-polar and fractured future.



Cutting SOx emissions really only worked in those countries that wanted to do it. Also there's that little point that installing an FGD plant is a "bolt on" fix for existing power stations, smelters and the like and is reasonably cheap. It's akin to the idea of cheaply capturing and storing carbon - that's a very similar concept to what actually happens with sulphur. And of course the by-products of capturing sulphur, either as sulphuric acid or gypsum, are themselves valuable.

With cigarettes, there are still countries where smoking rates are extremely high and even increasing. Likewise cigarettes are still advertised by various means in much of the world. Even in places like California they are still advertised - and yet go into a cafe and there's a nice big warning sign telling you that the coffee, cakes and anything else they sell might give you cancer (true). 

My real point though is that doctors focus on the health dangers of smoking and urge patients to quit. I don't recall my GP ever campaigning directly on taxation policy or urging the introduction of tradeable smoking permits and an exchange to trade them on complete with a futures market etc. 

If you hear a "scientist" urging taxation reform then at best this "scientist" has proclaimed themselves an expert on markets and economics. It reeks of jumping on the bandwagon with regard to a specific, widely promoted solution to the problem. They'd be better off sticking to the science, and letting others work out how to bring about the emissions reduction.


----------



## macca

I don't think we have had this link have we ?

http://www.climatecooling.org/

Interesting stuff from someone who has worked with IPCC in the past


----------



## basilio

What has been the contribution of human emitted greenhouse gasses to global warming in the last 16 years ?

Nifty video manages to  identify and separate the effects of volcanic eruptions and El Niño effects from temperature changes.  Short sweet and simple. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Some Dude

macca said:


> I don't think we have had this link have we ?
> 
> http://www.climatecooling.org/
> 
> Interesting stuff from someone who has worked with IPCC in the past




Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?





SD - are you a teacher by any chance?  Or an ex-teacher?...


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> SD - are you a teacher by any chance?  Or an ex-teacher?...




Heh. I have done teaching but I am a software engineer by trade. I taught software development and project management for a small time.

Why do you ask?


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Heh. I have done teaching but I am a software engineer by trade. I taught software development and project management for a small time.
> 
> Why do you ask?




SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework.  I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and I dread these sort of loaded questions when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework.  I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and I dread these sort of loaded questions when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...




Well, fortunately for you, I am not the teacher, and macca isn't your grandchild 

What I find when looking at series of claims is that is that is better to focus on the main salient point that the person finds convincing so that I don't waste my time investigating points that will ultimately prove irrelevant.


----------



## wayneL

Oh those Russians!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/



> Global warming, the tool of the West
> 04.01.2013
> 
> 
> By Stanislav Mishin
> 
> 
> 
> For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.
> 
> What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.


----------



## orr

sails said:


> SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework.  I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and* I dread these sort of loaded questions *when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...




This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years"

_"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades"_

It's the bit I liked best in the Article.

Use it next time your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work/indoctrination?... It may elucidate an uncomfortable  question or two. But that's what learning is about. Or there is the 'Blissful' alternative.

'Life' ahhhhhhh... It's getting very tiring isn't it Sails, so many disagreeable things, ghastly things. Go and have a BEX and a good lie down, in or about the late 50's.


----------



## Some Dude

orr said:


> This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:
> "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years"
> 
> _"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
> 
> In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades"_
> 
> It's the bit I liked best in the Article.




Do you object to us digging a little deeper into both that research, the author, and why you like it best?

If you don't object:

What about that point appeals to you. Is that a piece of information that you find compelling with regard to your belief about the topic?


----------



## explod

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK29Dj01.html

Not only puts the current heating situation in perspective but also addresses questions the other day on peak oil, gas etc.


----------



## sails

orr said:


> ... Go and have a BEX and a good lie down, in or about the late 50's.




Haha - now what did I do to deserve such a swipe???  Sounds like you are deliberately trolling to flame emotions.

But I laugh at the desperation of the left who resort to personal attacks.  It seems you guys have nothing left to defend!!!

SD wasn't offended by my question, so why should you be?


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Well, fortunately for you, I am not the teacher, and macca isn't your grandchild ...




So true - I will leave it to Macca...


----------



## sails

sails said:


> Haha - now what did I do to deserve such a swipe???  Sounds like you are deliberately trolling to flame emotions.
> 
> But I laugh at the desperation of the left who resort to personal attacks.  It seems you guys have nothing left to defend!!!
> 
> SD wasn't offended by my question, so why should you be?




Oh and I should add that when you have full time care of two young grandkids due to circumstances beyond your control and have to help care for their mother with numerous doctor appointments, sometimes you are just so dog tired at night the last thing you need is to try and help an upper primary school child with learning problems with these sort of assignments.

So, before you criticise, perhaps you should stop to think that the other person's circumstances might not be the easy life that you might have...LOL


----------



## Calliope

orr said:


> This is a quote lifted from a direct link *From maccas artical*:




It is not too late to attend remedial English classes.



> Use it next time your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work/indoctrination?.




I hope you confine "your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work" to indoctrination Please don't attempt to help them with English. Maybe they could help you.


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> It is not too late to attend remedial English classes.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you confine "your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work" to indoctrination Please don't attempt to help them with English. Maybe they could help you.




Good pick up on the indoctrination thing there, Calliope.  It's the school that is indoctrinating on climate change and they teach it as FACT even though it is not proven.  It is a hypothesis as far as I can ascertain and there are many who don't believe it is fact at all.  It is still controversial.

Rather than indoctrinating my grandkids, I try to teach them to have an open mind.  And yes, they are told that not every one agrees with what they are taught at school on this issue and that they should keep an open mind, look at both sides of the argument and learn to weigh things up for themselves.

Orr, how is that indoctrinating???  Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word?


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> It is a hypothesis as far as I can ascertain and there are many who don't believe it is fact at all.  It is still controversial.




Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.


----------



## white_goodman

Some Dude said:


> Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.




weve got a fair amount of threads rolling around the internet saying its controversial, look at smh commentary everyday there's a pro or anti AGW story.. few govts/politcal parties around the world that have been rolled for supporting the case might find it a controversial issue

i think the climate change debate is up there with athiest v religion debates in terms of people getting riled up

*controversial issues arent just topics you disagree with


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.




Instead of asking silly questions, do you own research. Obviously if you don't think it is controversial, then George Monbiot of the Guardian is your man and of course basilio. They have no doubts and will reinforce your lack of skepticism.


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.





You might have to read a bit more, SD...

I passively used to accept AGW as fact a couple of years or so ago, but after reading the threads and both sides of the argument, I realised it probably wasn't as cut and dried as I thought.  

Then, when asking genuine questions here at ASF, one smart AGWer called me a "denier"...  Silly person - that got my shackles up as that approach was way too cult-like, imo.    However, that dumb statement really made me sit up and think that this was probably more of a cult than being realistic.

So, I started to research both sides with more interest and decided that the AGW and "climate change" seems to be more about taking money from people than actually doing anything for the environment.  And, I haven't noticed any real change in weather in my 60+ years on the planet.

The media are all carrying on about a heat wave here in Qld, and I agree it's hot, but I have known it hotter.  My second child was born two months before the 1972 heat wave - now that's a heat wave with temps soaring above 110 degs for almost two weeks without a cloud in the sky and on the sunshine coast (not out west where temps can climb even higher under normal conditions).  We were giving extra water to the baby and bathing every couple of hours.  No air cons either!  That was 40 years ago so I do have trouble buying into the propaganda that we are experiencing something worse than we have had before.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> You might have to read a bit more, SD...
> 
> I passively used to accept AGW as fact a couple of years or so ago, but after reading the threads and both sides of the argument, I realised it probably wasn't as cut and dried as I thought.
> 
> Then, when asking genuine questions here at ASF, one smart AGWer called me a "denier"...  Silly person - that got my shackles up as that approach was way too cult-like, imo.    However, that dumb statement really made me sit up and think that this was probably more of a cult than being realistic.




I'd be very happy to accept reading direction to anything that you find conclusive. As you and white_goodman note, there can be a cult or religious like nature to these discussions with the potential for a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. To mitigate this, I try to identify one point at a time and address that before moving onto the next. I want to be sure I have understood the point and what informed you about that point.

I have zero expectation of changing minds on these matters but I do hope to be able to hold discussions with people on these forums about what they believe and why.



sails said:


> So, I started to research both sides with more interest and decided that the AGW and "climate change" seems to be more about taking money from people than actually doing anything for the environment.  And, I haven't noticed any real change in weather in my 60+ years on the planet.
> 
> The media are all carrying on about a heat wave here in Qld, and I agree it's hot, but I have known it hotter.  My second child was born two months before the 1972 heat wave - now that's a heat wave with temps soaring above 110 degs for almost two weeks without a cloud in the sky and on the sunshine coast (not out west where temps can climb even higher under normal conditions).  We were giving extra water to the baby and bathing every couple of hours.  No air cons either!  That was 40 years ago so I do have trouble buying into the propaganda that we are experiencing something worse than we have had before.




Stipulated that you believe AGW is based on propaganda and that you have done your research. I felt a dsicussion on the big picture would be too large of a topic to handle, especially on a forum, hence I try to focus on one point at a time. In this case, how we determine that something is controversial in the context of AGW.

If that will be too annoying, I'm happy to let it go without comment as we have had good discussions previously about the difference in the level of details we operate at and is why I asked whether you minded first instead of just jumping in.


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> ...If that will be too annoying, I'm happy to let it go without comment as we have had good discussions previously about the difference in the level of details we operate at and is why I asked whether you minded first instead of just jumping in.




thanks SD...

I would suggest you  read through this thread and follow up on the links by both sides.  Honestly this subject has been thrashed to death here and I don't want to get into in-depth discussions on it.  There are others here with far more knowledge than myself and, much as a jury are selected for trials, the average Aussie voter will weigh up both sides and come to their own conclusions without having to be an expert.  I fit more into that category than being able to argue as an expert.  There are experts on both sides and I think they have been mentioned in this thread.

I do find the calling names such as "denier" to people who hold a different opinion as being unnecessary if they a rock solid case.  Also, the calling for "skeptics" to be put to death is unbelievable and does the cause no good, imo.  The implementation of an unwanted tax that will see billions of our hard earned go off shore and to the UN  doesn't bode well as a being something authentic.  It seems to be far more about the money and little, if anything, to do with the environment - at least how I see it at this point in time.

Jurors don't have to be experts to come to decisions.  Voters are much the same and look for arguments that stack up, they look for truthfulness.  Many voters are older and know, like I do, that our weather extremes are no worse than in our life time.  History tell us extreme weather has always been with us.


----------



## Calliope

A little common sense is needed.



> *In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane*. While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ther-its-climate/story-e6frg71x-1226552318601


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> Honestly this subject has been thrashed to death here and I don't want to get into in-depth discussions on it.




Any thoughts on why people keep posting comments then? I'm responding to what gets posted now as opposed to rehashing the past. Obviously I don't understand the rules well enough


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Any thoughts on why people keep posting comments then? I'm responding to what gets posted now as opposed to rehashing the past. Obviously I don't understand the rules well enough




I don't know why people keep posting - perhaps it is because there are still two sides to this thing and, because of the carbon tax, it has heated the debate more.  It if were really a settled and proven fact (one way or the other), this thread would probably slip into the archives without notice.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> A little common sense is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane.
Click to expand...



I agree. Would you agree that the modelling performed and projections by climate scientist are based on time frames beyond a decade?



			
				The Australian said:
			
		

> While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.




I assume they are referring this New Scientist article?



			
				New Scientist said:
			
		

> And the temporary cooling would be deceptive. Due to the greenhouse effect, the planet as a whole would still be accumulating heat - it's just that vast amounts of heat would be going into melting ice and warming water. "It's a redistribution of heat energy," says Daniel Sigman of Princeton University, who studies the end of the last ice age and was not involved in Hansen's work.
> 
> ...
> 
> Most climate scientists think the "freezer door" will remain firmly shut this century, but not Hansen. He has longed warned that there could be a huge rise in sea level this century and, with colleagues Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, he recently simulated the possible effects. Hansen included a brief summary of some of the results in an analysis of Greenland ice loss released in December. He told New Scientist a full paper is being prepared for publication, but would not discuss the details.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Other climate scientists are reluctant to comment before seeing the full details*, but Sigman points out that climate modellers have long done experiments looking at the complex effects of melting ice sheets. These experiments also typically show regional cooling, but in Hansen's simulation the effect is much greater. The likely reason for the difference is because his simulation assumes a much more rapid acceleration of ice loss, doubling every 10 years.




About the author.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> On public policy, Hansen is critical of what he sees as efforts to mislead the public on the issue of climate change. He points specifically to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's commercials with the tagline "carbon dioxide””they call it pollution, we call it life", and politicians who accept money from fossil-fuel interests and then describe global warming as "a great hoax." He also says that changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries. He was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change. Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."




I find what The Australian wrote to be misleading of the New Scientist article, let alone the unpublished paper, wouldn't you? The deliberation and debate is about the extent of the damage. I'll read the published paper and post back here if you would like? I'd also be happy to discuss the Met Office story mentioned in the editorial? That is another fascinating story


----------



## Smurf1976

In my opinion the reason it has been done to death, and will be done to death for quite a while yet, is because it is essentially a religious and political issue rather than a scientific one.

Political subjects, particularly it seems those involving energy and resources, have a tendency of hanging around forever. It may not be front page news these days, but you'd be very wrong if you thought that issues such as exporting natural gas, uranium mining and building hydro-electric dams were "settled".

There are many who are concerned about the export of natural gas, noting that we are essentially selling off a key industrial feedstock and our future supply of automotive fuel at a bargain basement price. The re-industrialisation of parts of the US on the back of cheap gas adds weight to the argument.

Same goes for uranium. We export the stuff but there are many who are uncomfortable with this. Likewise practically any opinion poll shows that the community is deeply divided over the question of nuclear energy being used in Australia.

And then there's dams, the issue which lead to formation of what is now the Greens. Even today, mention of energy inevitably prompts a few "dam the Franklin" calls in Tasmanian newspapers - that issue certainly hasn't died as such and I suspect it never will. There's no firm proposal now, but if the CO2 issue turns out to be serious enough or is taken as such (ie increasing carbon price) then you don't need to be Einstein to foresee that we'll re-run the debate about SW Tasmania once again at some point in the future. Various opinion polls over the years also show that the community remains divided over the dams question (not referring to any specific dam or river) although support for hydro is stronger than for nuclear.

It's the same with things like ideas of bringing water from Northern Australia to the southern parts. The idea has been around over a century and it will always be around unless either it becomes obsolete (climate change makes it pointless or cheap desal gives us plenty of water) or something is actually built. Likewise the various railway proposals that never seem to go anywhere - they won't die in peoples' minds.

Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.

If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> I find what The Australian wrote to be misleading of the New Scientist article, let alone the unpublished paper, wouldn't you? The deliberation and debate is about the extent of the damage. I'll read the published paper and post back here if you would like? I'd also be happy to discuss the Met Office story mentioned in the editorial? That is another fascinating story




To tell you the truth I find the whole issue very boring. Maybe we can blame basilio with his long winded proselytising for this.

I thing Smurf has got it right;



> Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.
> 
> If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> ...............If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense.




I agree with all *but* this.e.

From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion. 

There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.

I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.

..... I feel like a broken record.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> I agree with all *but* this.e.
> 
> From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.
> 
> There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.
> 
> I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.
> 
> ..... I feel like a broken record.




No you are not a broken record, I agree totally with your comments and this nonsense needs to be resisted.

From the 50's onwards religion began to be questioned in the west and science overtook it as a new faith, with verifiability and Popperism being it's golden tenets.

In the 80's and 90's science began a slow descent in to the religious dissonance, abandoning Popper's tenets.

Scientists now rely on modelling or predictions far out in to the future while ignoring events far in to the past. At least they have improved on the religious who hold to both.

It is driven by funding and self-interest , as religion was for centuries.

Spin has now taken over the Weather Global Warming ( Used to be Cooling) cabal.

The British Met Office released a variation to their warming predictions on Christmas Eve, probably to conceal it in the festivity news.

The University of East Anglia has been discredited over collusive emails some years ago.

There are a whole priestly hierarchy in our universities with rich political believers funding this new religion.

I have no doubt that industrialisation has had an effect on the environment, but their gloomy predictions fit in more with a heaven and hell scenario, than rigid science.

And they call those who question them " Deniers " as the religious used call people " Heretics " , and the former find it difficult to get even junior posts in universities, the new religious seminaries.

I shall buy a scuba tank to escape death or burning when I am thrown in the pond by these clerical "scientific" fanatics.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No you are not a broken record, I agree totally with your comments and this nonsense needs to be resisted.
> 
> From the 50's onwards religion began to be questioned in the west and science overtook it as a new faith, with verifiability and Popperism being it's golden tenets.
> 
> In the 80's and 90's science began a slow descent in to the religious dissonance, abandoning Popper's tenets.
> 
> Scientists now rely on modelling or predictions far out in to the future while ignoring events far in to the past. At least they have improved on the religious who hold to both.
> 
> It is driven by funding and self-interest , as religion was for centuries.
> 
> Spin has now taken over the Weather Global Warming ( Used to be Cooling) cabal.
> 
> The British Met Office released a variation to their warming predictions on Christmas Eve, probably to conceal it in the festivity news.
> 
> The University of East Anglia has been discredited over collusive emails some years ago.
> 
> There are a whole priestly hierarchy in our universities with rich political believers funding this new religion.
> 
> I have no doubt that industrialisation has had an effect on the environment, but their gloomy predictions fit in more with a heaven and hell scenario, than rigid science.
> 
> And they call those who question them " Deniers " as the religious used call people " Heretics " , and the former find it difficult to get even junior posts in universities, the new religious seminaries.
> 
> I shall buy a scuba tank to escape death or burning when I am thrown in the pond by these clerical "scientific" fanatics.
> 
> gg




Indeed!

The parallels you have outlined seem "undeniable".


----------



## Knobby22

Just some deniable facts. Damn scientists always puting their oar in. Should be left to common sense.

But you know, religion has often attacked science as Galileo would agree.

*Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission*

The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change.

It says the number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960


*Ice sheet warming faster than thought: study*

Map: Antarctica
A study of temperature records over more than half a century shows the west Antarctic ice sheet is warming nearly twice as quickly as previously thought.

A re-analysis of temperature records from 1958 to 2010 revealed an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius over the period, three times the average global rise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-24/antarctic-ice-sheet-warming-faster-than-thought-study/4442722


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Just some deniable facts. Damn scientists always puting their oar in. Should be left to common sense.
> 
> 
> *Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission*
> 
> The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change.
> 
> It says the number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960
> 
> 
> *Ice sheet warming faster than thought: study*
> 
> Map: Antarctica
> A study of temperature records over more than half a century shows the west Antarctic ice sheet is warming nearly twice as quickly as previously thought.
> 
> A re-analysis of temperature records from 1958 to 2010 revealed an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius over the period, three times the average global rise.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-24/antarctic-ice-sheet-warming-faster-than-thought-study/4442722




zzzz....zzzzz.....zzzzz....zzzzz....

Knobby, ferchrissake! Do you understand what the last few posts are about??

Sheeeezuzzzz!


----------



## sptrawler

Untill there is a global accord on climate change and how to address it, nothing will be resolved. 
Putting a carbon tax on us and then telling the power generators it's ok to burn coal, we won't shut you down, is just a scam.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

reply to Knobby.

I'll post it as two posts as it's a long document.

from the BBC a left wing media outlet.



> Climate models yield confidence question
> 
> Grand statements about climate change impacts are all very well for scientists - a global average temperature rise of so many degrees Celsius, a global change in precipitation of such-and-such percent.
> 
> But no-one lives on the global average. We all have a home - and what might be very useful, be you a farmer or a city-dweller, would be some precise indications of what the future holds for your farm, your street, your village.
> 
> It's precisely what many people here at the UN climate talks are worrying about.
> 
> A couple of years ago, the UK government, using science from the Met Office and elsewhere, published a detailed study of likely climate impacts across the UK itself.
> 
> The idea was to tell authorities, businesses and communities what they could expect in decades to come in terms of rainfall changes and other parameters important when planning the future.
> 
> The project came in for a kicking from some climate modellers who said it was simply impossible to make localised projections with any kind of confidence, given the current state of modelling science.
> 
> Now, on the fringes of the UN talks, the Met Office - at the government's request - has published a new study plotting likely climate impacts on 24 countries around the world.
> 
> Twenty-one computer models of climate were quizzed for answers on issues such as vulnerability to floods, rainfall changes and suitability for growing crops.
> 
> And you can interpret at least some of the findings, again, as an exercise in the unfeasible.




As I said before we should not be commenting on present circumstances in Australia until the fire danger is past. It is not decent and not something a good chap should do.

I felt compelled to comment though as the Alarmists have hoed in.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

continuation 



> The UK is actually one of the best-studied countries in the world owing to a tradition of weather measurements that dates back centuries.
> 
> So the findings for the UK are among the most definite in the report.
> 
> As the Daily Telegraph put it, "good news for farmers" - virtually all of the UK's farmland is set to become more productive.
> 
> As the Guardian reported it - "millions more at flood risk".
> 
> When you look at the figures a little more, however, you see distinct differences in the confidence associated with each of those conclusions.
> 
> In calculating the proportion of UK farmland likely to become more fertile, the models' answers ranged from 60% to 99% - pretty firm stuff - and only one projected any losses in any parts of the country.
> 
> The flooding picture, however, is different, with estimates ranging from a 56% reduction in flood risk to a 180% increase.
> 
> Looking into other countries, even bigger discrepancies materialise.
> 
> The change in flood risk to Bangladesh - surely one of the most flood-prone countries in the world even without climate impacts - ranged from -59% to 557%
> 
> Dry Egypt could be better off by 100%, or worse off by 206%.
> 
> And an eagle-eyed colleague spotted that the proportion of Peruvians likely to be under more serious water shortages was calculated to be a round 0%.
> 
> The Met Office team explained that the impacts of melting glaciers were not included in their modelling - and that's set to be a serious issue not only in Peru but the much more populous nations around the Himalayas.
> 
> When quizzed about these figures, one of the Met Office scientists said that many other projections were based on single computer models.
> 
> Putting the range of uncertainty in the public domain from this large suite of models was, she said, "intellectually honest".
> 
> Fair enough. But the exercise also surely gives you an insight into the limits of current modelling when the various models, each of them supposed to be "state-of-the-art", reach such divergent conclusions.
> 
> As a policymaker, as a business leader, as a citizen, would you make decisions on the basis of these models?




gg


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> Just some deniable facts. Damn scientists always puting their oar in. Should be left to common sense.
> 
> But you know, religion has often attacked science as Galileo would agree.
> 
> *Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission*
> 
> The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change.
> 
> It says the number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960...]




And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?  
I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...

We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse.  Again, what is your point?


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
> I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
> 
> We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse.  Again, what is your point?




I think Knobby is having a touch of climate hysteria. A few hot days will do that to impressionable people. A cold shower could help.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> I think Knobby is having a touch of climate hysteria. A few hot days will do that to impressionable people. A cold shower could help.




You could probably get a gig on the "Professors" blog.

http://theconversation.edu.au/too-hot-to-sleep-heres-why-11492

One of his mind boggling original tips to stay cool at night is to have a cold shower.

Where would we be without Professors !!

gg


----------



## burglar

Knobby22 said:


> ... Should be left to common sense. ...




There's not enough common sense to fill a thimble.


----------



## burglar

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... to stay cool at night is to have a cold shower. ...




During heatwaves, the ambient temperature of water
in pipes is warm/hot, even overnight!

So! You get up, travel to Siberia ... have a cold shower.



Read it earlier, I have only just realised the absurdity!


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> To tell you the truth I find the whole issue very boring. Maybe we can blame basilio with his long winded proselytising for this.
> 
> I thing Smurf has got it right;




My apologies, I did not seek to impose.


----------



## Some Dude

Smurf1976 said:


> In my opinion the reason it has been done to death, and will be done to death for quite a while yet, is because it is essentially a religious and political issue rather than a scientific one.




Do you mean the climate research done by climate scientists or the discussion about it in the general public?



Smurf1976 said:


> Political subjects, particularly it seems those involving energy and resources, have a tendency of hanging around forever. It may not be front page news these days, but you'd be very wrong if you thought that issues such as exporting natural gas, uranium mining and building hydro-electric dams were "settled".
> 
> There are many who are concerned about the export of natural gas, noting that we are essentially selling off a key industrial feedstock and our future supply of automotive fuel at a bargain basement price. The re-industrialisation of parts of the US on the back of cheap gas adds weight to the argument.
> 
> Same goes for uranium. We export the stuff but there are many who are uncomfortable with this. Likewise practically any opinion poll shows that the community is deeply divided over the question of nuclear energy being used in Australia.
> 
> And then there's dams, the issue which lead to formation of what is now the Greens. Even today, mention of energy inevitably prompts a few "dam the Franklin" calls in Tasmanian newspapers - that issue certainly hasn't died as such and I suspect it never will. There's no firm proposal now, but if the CO2 issue turns out to be serious enough or is taken as such (ie increasing carbon price) then you don't need to be Einstein to foresee that we'll re-run the debate about SW Tasmania once again at some point in the future. Various opinion polls over the years also show that the community remains divided over the dams question (not referring to any specific dam or river) although support for hydro is stronger than for nuclear.
> 
> It's the same with things like ideas of bringing water from Northern Australia to the southern parts. The idea has been around over a century and it will always be around unless either it becomes obsolete (climate change makes it pointless or cheap desal gives us plenty of water) or something is actually built. Likewise the various railway proposals that never seem to go anywhere - they won't die in peoples' minds.




Working in one of those fields, I am very aware of about controversy in the general public but there is a difference between being politically controversial and scientifically controversial. My interest in people's perception is drawn more to the notion of how we determine that something is controversial, specifically scientifically controversial. Ultimately, everyone has no choice back to turn to the science but the controversies there are not what people think they are. If you would like, we can elaborate on this?



Smurf1976 said:


> Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.
> 
> If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.




The underlying determination regarding whether it is happening or not is purely a scientific issue and the science was settled within the relevant scientific circles a long time ago whether others believe it or not. Like with evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, and just about any other scientific principle currently in progress, the mechanics, consequences, implementations, and solutions are certainly being debated with much controversy as it should be.

There are many who consider that evolution and vaccinations as issues are not settled, should not be taught to children in school as fact, and are controversial. Certainly they are controversial in a political sense that some people do not want to accept our current overwhelming scientific understanding of those issues but I find it problematic to also imply that that means there is scientific controversy about the veracity of the underlying principle within the relevant scientific researchers.

The faith labels are interesting in that there is some truth to that but the implications are probably not what you want them to be. Do you have faith that the scientific process has established that general relativity is a better and improved explanation for gravity than the law of universal gravitation? Or did you do the math yourself?


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
> I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
> 
> We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse.  Again, what is your point?




I could take this up if you like?


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> I agree with all *but* this.e.
> 
> From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.
> 
> There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.
> 
> I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.
> 
> ..... I feel like a broken record.




Could you cite some of those valid peer studies you refer to?


----------



## sydboy007

sails said:


> And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
> I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
> 
> We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse.  Again, what is your point?




Considering global warming scientists have always said the natural variations of weather will continue as they always have, i see no issue with some places baking and some places freezing at above avg levels.

It is the extremes that will become more common place.  They already seem to be.

How regularly do "extreme" weather conditions occur, before they are common place?

Anyone arguing the current weather is all about climate change is a looney, just as i feel anyone arguing against the petabytes of data out there now showing that there has been an upward trend in global temperatures.  I really think the insurance industry needs to start drawing lines on a map and being very explicit as to the changes in risk they have seen over the last few decades.  Along the lines of Suncorp no longer offering flood insurance in Roma till the state Govt finally built a levee.  $500 million in flood damage all because a $10-12 million levee couldn't be funded.

With the way society has excised the environment from the economy, it seems until you can put a $ figure on something, it's not relevant.

I'd suggest anyone who see climate change as left win propaganda is to back your belief with some hard cold cash and buy some coastal property.  If you're right you should make a lot of capital gains, if you're wrong, well you can see what coastal erosion and storm surges are all about.


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> I could take this up if you like?




SD, thanks for asking, however, I really don't have time to be spending a lot of time as these  things take time to go into the sort of detail you would want.  No offence intended and accept that is your style, but I suspect you have more time than myself!   There are historical charts and records out there and, if I get time, I will post again.

It seems that scientists are more interested in their computer modelled projections (which aren't always right - like Flannery's prediction of no more dam filling rains in Qld before the recent flood) rather than look at history and see that climate cycles have always been with us and to varying degrees.  

So much fuss is being made on the media about this heatwave even here in Qld and yet on the Gold coast we only reached a max of 32 degrees yesterday and it was supposed to be a "heat wave".  32 degrees with high humidity is NOT exceptional in this part of the country.




sydboy007 said:


> ...I'd suggest anyone who see climate change as left win propaganda is to back your belief with some hard cold cash and buy some coastal property.  If you're right you should make a lot of capital gains, if you're wrong, well you can see what coastal erosion and storm surges are all about.




We live on waterfront...lol

And so does your AGW promoter, Flannery....

It would seem he has no fear of waters rising.


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Could you cite some of those valid peer studies you refer to?




There are a few interesting ones here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Highlights


----------



## sails

Mickel said:


> Resisting climate hysteria
> by Richard S. Lindzen
> 
> July 26, 2009
> 
> A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
> 
> 
> 
> Link-  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria





SD, here is the very first post in this thread which you might find interesting.  I did read it at the time, however, I haven't read it fully again now so I won't be up for dissecting it! It might give you a little background history on this thread....


----------



## burglar

sails said:


> ... We live on waterfront...lol
> 
> And so does your AGW promoter, Flannery....
> 
> It would seem he has no fear of waters rising.




He has a tinny, ... and a mate!!


----------



## Logique

Prof Karoly and the Climate Commission didn't miss their opportunity. Right in the middle of a bushfire crisis and heat wave, and dutifully relayed on the ABC news. Shameful timing, exploiting the fear of a captive audience. 

Climate Commission, or was that the Ponds Institute.



> ..The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change..




Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission  - 12 Jan 2013 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> Prof Karoly and the Climate Commission didn't miss their opportunity. Right in the middle of a bushfire crisis and heat wave, and dutifully relayed on the ABC news. Shameful timing, exploiting the fear of a captive audience.
> 
> Climate Commission, or was that the Ponds Institute.
> 
> 
> 
> Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission  - 12 Jan 2013
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960




They are playing on psychology, imo.  The more you talk about how hot it is, the hotter one feels!

As I said earlier, we reached 32 degrees here and yet the weather news are all displaying charts with plenty of alarming red colours on it.  They are crowing about records being broken, but I believe the 1972 record was only broken somewhere by a few points of a degree.

*1972 - that's 41 years ago*

And it has taken this long to reach that temperature again?  *41 years!!!!!*

What caused it 41 years ago? I would think normal climate cycles which dish up extremes from time to time.

From the article I just posted and a quote from Vaclav Klaus, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles":

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”​
And that is unacceptable in this country, imo.


----------



## sails

And all the fuss being made about temperatures out west in places such as Birdsville is actually not that unusual.  Here is a chart of AVERAGE temps:





Source: http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Australia/Queensland/Birdsville/climate-profile.aspx


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
> I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
> 
> We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse.  Again, what is your point?




My point is that religion gets in the way of science. Religous dogma. Like the anti-evolution crowd searching for any minor point to try to say evolution never happened and the earth is 5000 years old. I just threw a few facts at the religous dogma. Didn't expect a result. Keep reading your prophets.

GG seems to relate it to the present heat wave which is breaking records but that should be in the context of continually increasing records over the last 50 years.


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> My point is that religion gets in the way of science.




Yep - AGW has shown many traits similar to religious cults...


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> There are a few interesting ones here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Highlights




Which one have you read that you found most compelling?


----------



## noco

sails said:


> They are playing on psychology, imo.  The more you talk about how hot it is, the hotter one feels!
> 
> As I said earlier, we reached 32 degrees here and yet the weather news are all displaying charts with plenty of alarming red colours on it.  They are crowing about records being broken, but I believe the 1972 record was only broken somewhere by a few points of a degree.
> 
> *1972 - that's 41 years ago*
> 
> And it has taken this long to reach that temperature again?  *41 years!!!!!*
> 
> What caused it 41 years ago? I would think normal climate cycles which dish up extremes from time to time.
> 
> From the article I just posted and a quote from Vaclav Klaus, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles":
> 
> “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”​
> And that is unacceptable in this country, imo.




Sails, I don't know how old some of these ASF posters are, but I would hazard a guess they have just started shaving and still a bit wet between the ears. 

I noted you have related to 1972, well I am a bit old in the tooth these days so I can take you back to the 40's and the 50's where I worked as a plumber for some years in south west Queensland out around Roma, Goodiwndi and Dirranbandi mostly on sheep stations.

Tempertures over 40 c
Severe drought with cracks in the ground big enough for one to get his foot stuck in. 
Marooned on one station for two weeks due to floods. No helicopter food drops in those days.
Help fight fires which raged on for days.
Extreme freezing conditions in the winter.

So what is new today that did not happen over 60 years ago. Climate change yes, Global warming Bull$h!t.

I will also relate to the Gold Coast where my family spent many holidays and long weekends at Palm Beach. I now go back to the late 30's. A beach which used to be 100 yards wide. We would often have wild weather eroding the sand dunes and leaving sand cliffs 9 and 10 feet high. Six months later the sea breezes would blow the dry sand off the beach to reform the sand dunes back to there original state.

As time progressed, the local authorities, who were either very naive or money hungry allowed the building of houses on the sand dunes. I had a friend who told me he was about to retire and was building a house on the sand dunes at Palm Beach. Even though I told him what takes place from time to time, he neverthe less went ahed and built his house. Come 1963 more wild weather hit the coast washing away the sand dunes and my friends house was threathened causing him to spend 3000 pounds ($6000) to place rocks in front of his house and his next door nieghbor had to do the same; a lot of money in those days when you could build a house for the same amount of money.  Palm Beach now has a ROCK WALL the entire length of the beach.

So you know what those so called scientist can do with their modelling and predictions? They can shove it up where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> Yep - AGW has shown many traits similar to religious cults...




I find these types of comparisons problematic and can be made anywhere. For instance:

Religious people object to evolution being taught in schools because they don't believe it is a fact, or at best it is just a theory, for which there is plenty of controversy or scientific alternatives.

People will cite references, or references to references, seemingly not having read them but because someone told them that it supports their underlying world view.

Religious people will try to establish that atheism is a faith or religion and that as such, they don't have enough faith to believe in atheism. I don't think I need to reference this back to a post, do I?

On a tangent, has anyone here heard of the Gish Gallop?


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> On a tangent, has anyone here heard of the Gish Gallop?




You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.




The GW Alarmists are the new 16th Century Popes of the 21st Century.

Intolerant, abusive, hateful of science, addicted to meddling and modelling, and unwilling to listen to questioning scientists with a different opinion.

They elect their own to University Departments and control the Media.

Long live Free Science. Bring back Luther to rid us of the GW Alarmist priests, seeking indulgences for the supposed sins of the past.

gg


----------



## Knobby22

Sorry. I shouldn't show religous intolerance. You are entitled to your beliefs.

There are supporters who you can look for guidance. The flat earth society also agrees there is no such thing as global warming. Or are they part of a different faith?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Which one have you read that you found most compelling?




No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.

This is rather like pro warming studies.

However, these things must be considered _in toto_; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

wayneL said:


> No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.
> 
> This is rather like pro warming studies.
> 
> However, these things must be considered _in toto_; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.




Good post.

From another, Popper, who also spent some time in New Zealand and who would agree with you.

Falsibility is absent from the present Warmist's view. GW has become a Religion.




> In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.
> 
> For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found that is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "It will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.
> 
> The concept first popularized by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable. "Falsifiable" is often taken to loosely mean "testable." An adage states it loosely as "if it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific". But the state of being falsifiable or scientific says nothing about its truth, soundness or validity, for example the unfalsifiable statement "That sunset is beautiful."




The Warmists have a positivist attitude and belief.

gg


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry. I shouldn't show religous intolerance. You are entitled to your beliefs.
> 
> There are supporters who you can look for guidance. The flat earth society also agrees there is no such thing as global warming. Or are they part of a different faith?




Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.




And I would think the flat earthers are far more like AGW alarmists as both are (were) based on predictions rather than absolute fact.

Those who believe in natural climate cycles (with extremes) use the FACT of history.

One side is based on prediction (which has already failed) and one on facts provided by history. 

Big difference.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.




Obviously that explains why I try to identify a single point to discuss and reach agreement about before moving onto the next one.


----------



## Smurf1976

Some Dude said:


> Do you mean the climate research done by climate scientists or the discussion about it in the general public?



I am referring to public perceptions and attitudes rather than the actual science.

To illustrate the point, consider another example. Smoking tobacco.

So far as the science is concerned, it's pretty clear that smoking is harmful to health. So far as attitudes are concerned, we're getting to the point that the younger generation may not realise that not that long ago smoking inside shopping centres, offices, restaurants and even hospitals was acceptable and quite a normal thing to do. Don't even mention how thick the smoke used to be inside some pubs and especially nightclubs.

These days however, nobody would seriously suggest that smoking be permitted inside a hospital or even a pub. Attitudes have changed and there's very little chance that we'll ever go back to what it used to be. I'd consider that one "settled" so far as public opinion is concerned.

The same goes for a few other things too. The world didn't end when they stopped putting lead in petrol and that debate is dead in developed countries. It seems that functional engines were indeed quite practical without needing to poison anyone. Again, that issue is "settled".

But so far as the climate is concerned, there is no consensus amongst politicians or the general community on what to do. We can't even agree if there's a real problem or not, and even if there is a problem them practically nobody in a position of power seems to have a workable solution to actually fix it. If anything, public opinion seems to be drifting somewhat away from the issue.

Smoking, for example, was settled because most came to realise that it's just not good to be in a room full of it all day. Add in that the majority of the population doesn't smoke, and throw in the implied threat of legal action, and it's a no brainer that it shouldn't be allowed inside. And so it was banned.

Leaded petrol went away simply because there were alternatives available at minimal cost. Add in that there is a clear link between lead exposure and health damage and there was really no reason to continue with it apart from private profit for those wanting to continue manufacturing outdated engine designs. And so it was phased out in Australia from 1985 onward and disappeared entirely about 20 years later.

Climate change is nowhere near that point yet. Regardless of what the science says, the general community isn't convinced, at least not sufficiently to accept the costs (including the environmental costs) of doing something about it. People don't seem willing to accept the economic and environmental costs of reducing CO2 in the absence of overwhelming proof that it's actually a problem. Add in that we have no easy "bolt on" or "drop in" solution and that puts it firmly in the too hard basket for the time being. Hence we get some token action for political reasons but that's it.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.




It would be nice if you had some humour in your posts.


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> And I would think the flat earthers are far more like AGW alarmists as both are (were) based on predictions rather than absolute fact.
> 
> Those who believe in natural climate cycles (with extremes) use the FACT of history.
> 
> One side is based on prediction (which has already failed) and one on facts provided by history.
> 
> Big difference.




Creationists and flat earthers ignore the science. I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway going to play golf. See you later.  I'll just post this again as a reminder that the earth is warming. Based on *measurements.*

"The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-1...hfires/4461960


----------



## burglar

Knobby22 said:


> ... "The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer." ...




A record is only recorded if the previous record is surpassed.
That is the fundamental nature of records.

Or do I have that wrong?


----------



## Some Dude

I appreciate how we are conducting this discussion WayneL, thank you.



wayneL said:


> No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.
> 
> This is rather like pro warming studies.




Agreed.



wayneL said:


> However, these things must be considered _in toto_; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.




The original post that prompted me to ask was this.



wayneL said:


> From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.
> 
> There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.
> 
> I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.




I started doing a review of the topics in the list, the authors, etc and making sure I reviewed the rebuttals to criticism section. It was a good read, thank you.

I find the criticisms about authors in the list who were funded by Exxon etc as convincing as the arguments used on this forum about academics and funding so we can agree that we can set aside where funding is coming from in future discussions? I did find it problematic that the same names kept appearing but that doesn't matter as long as they can demonstrate their ideas.

I chose one paper at random to check it out. In what should make us both happy, the resulting information showed that the concept had been heavily debated and contested in the relevant scientific community. It would appear that they are not being ignored, only that the thesis in this example was not not considered persuasive by others.

Science in action 

If we are to count papers from scientists in all fields and older papers going back to 1955, how many peer reviewed articles support AGW? I don't have the number immediately at hand but I could look it up?


----------



## burglar

Some Dude said:


> ... If we are to count papers from scientists in all fields and older papers going back to 1955, how many peer reviewed articles support AGW? I don't have the number immediately at hand but I could look it up?




Would you go to a GP for surgery? No! You would go to a Surgeon.
Would you go to "scientists in all fields" re AGW? No! You would go to C_L_I_M_A_T_O_L_O_G_I_S_T_S.


----------



## Some Dude

burglar said:


> Would you go to a GP for surgery? No! You would go to a Surgeon.
> Would you go to "scientists in all fields" re AGW? No! You would go to C_L_I_M_A_T_O_L_O_G_I_S_T_S.




I concur entirely. But the 1,100+ list that WayneL provided contained geologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. Would you like me to pare the 1,100+ list provided by WayneL back to only climatologists?


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> Creationists and flat earthers ignore the science. I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway going to play golf. See you later.  I'll just post this again as a reminder that the earth is warming. Based on *measurements.*
> 
> "The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-1...hfires/4461960





Scientists on government payrolls who are using computer modelling to project the scaremongering.  Yeah right!  What about Flannery's alarmist claims about no more dam filling rains in Qld a few years ago?

I think that forecast  was the result of computer modelling.

You don't need scientists on government pay rolls to try and change what history has shown us perfectly well - and that is weather/climate runs in cycles.  Extremes are part of our weather.  There is nothing new.

In any case, Australia's massive $23 carbon tax isn't going to make much difference as we only contribute about 1% of global co2.  And so many are being compensated for political purposes, many are not going to change their electricity use anyway.  Seems a pretty stupid way to fix a problem even IF it did actually exist.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> Scientists on government payrolls who are using computer modelling to project the scaremongering.




Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> Obviously that explains why I try to identify a single point to discuss and reach agreement about before moving onto the next one.






> Would you like me to pare the 1,100+ list provided by WayneL back to only climatologists?






> Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?




Why not...if that's what turns you on.


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?




If there is a conflict of interest, I would agree.  I see a huge conflict of interest from scientists on government pay rolls whom the government then uses to whack us with a tax to supposedly fix a projected problem (that might not actually exist).  

And what is this tax actually going to do?  It does seem to be more about taking more money from the people than actually doing anything much at all about the environment.

Here is an article written by one such scientist:
http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Garth Paltridge on the consensus.pdf


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> Why not...if that's what turns you on.




Could you clarify?

Are you acknowledging the problem reconciling the Gish Gallop with my desire to where possible, politely ask someone to identify a single point to focus on?

Or are you agreeing with me that the 1,110+ list starts to look very slim when the non climate scientists are removed?

Or are you agreeing that that 1,100+ list gets even smaller when you remove those with a potential conflict of interest from fossil fuels?

I'm unsure from your multiple selection of conversations I am having with different people.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> It would be nice if you had some humour in your posts.




Will this do? Actually I think it is Tony Abbott's fault.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> If there is a conflict of interest, I would agree.  I see a huge conflict of interest from scientists on government pay rolls whom the government then uses to whack us with a tax to supposedly fix a projected problem (that might not actually exist).




I understand your concern. If a Coalition government were to win power, as seems likely in future, does the same thing concern you? What I mean is if a government that you believe is not interested in whacking us with a tax becomes convinced of the issue, is that when your view would on this topic would change?


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> Will this do? Actually I think it is Tony Abbott's fault.
> 
> View attachment 50412




That's gold


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> I understand your concern. If a Coalition government were to win power, as seems likely in future, does the same thing concern you? What I mean is if a government that you believe is not interested in whacking us with a tax becomes convinced of the issue, is that when your view would on this topic would change?




SD, my view would remain the same as now and be as upset with them as I am with labor.  I was relieved to see Turnbull go for this very reason. I was also relieved to hear Gillard promise "no carbon tax" before the last election but sadly it seems she didn't mean a word of it.

Without the money grabbing, it would give more credence to the possibility of AGW, but the greedy money grabbing removes much credibility, imo.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> SD, my view would remain the same as now and be as upset with them as I am with labor.  I was relieved to see Turnbull go for this very reason. I was also relieved to hear Gillard promise "no carbon tax" before the last election but sadly it seems she didn't mean a word of it.
> 
> Without the money grabbing, it would give more credence to the possibility of AGW, but the greedy money grabbing removes much credibility, imo.




Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume 

Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.

What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.


----------



## noco

Some Dude said:


> Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume
> 
> Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.
> 
> What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.




Now listen here Junior, AWG is not real!

It is politically motivated tactic to extract a tax that nobody wants or believes it will do anything to reduce the essenetial carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This was all started in the United Nations where by the Secratary General who is a GREENIE[/COLOR ]through and through.

Kevin Rudd is also on the so called UN Climate Change committee of which we contribute 10% of all the carbon tax collected, in Australia, to the UN.

Climate Change has been going on for millions of years and nothing and I mean nothing will change what we are going through now or 70 years ago.

I hope you read and absorbed my post #3987 on this thread.


----------



## Some Dude

noco said:


> I hope you read and absorbed my post #3987 on this thread.




I read your post #3987 and the first thing that came to mind when you said:



noco said:


> So you know what those so called scientist can do with their modelling and predictions? They can shove it up where the sun don't shine.




Was the Monty Hall Problem.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The problem was originally posed in a letter by Steve Selvin to the American Statistician in 1975 (Selvin 1975a) (Selvin 1975b). One well known statement of the problem was published in Marilyn vos Savant's "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade magazine in 1990 (vos Savant 1990a):
> 
> Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
> 
> Vos Savant's response was that the contestant should switch to the other door. If the car is initially equally likely to be behind each door, a player who picks door 1 and does not switch has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the car while a player who picks door 1 and does switch has a 2 in 3 chance, because the host has removed an incorrect option from the unchosen doors, so contestants who switch double their chances of winning the car.
> 
> Many readers refused to believe that switching is beneficial. After the Monty Hall problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming that vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Decision scientist Andrew Vazsonyi described how Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until Vazsonyi showed him a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).
> 
> The Monty Hall problem has attracted academic interest because the result is surprising and the problem is simple to formulate.


----------



## MrBurns

Love the way the "climate commission" comes out saying global warming is upon us and this is a taste of whats to come if we don't act .....because we've had a week or 2 of hot weather in Summer.

They must have been chatting with their master Gillard, any opportunity no matter how vague to prop up their theory.


----------



## basilio

MrBurns said:


> Love the way the "climate commission" comes out saying global warming is upon us and this is a taste of whats to come if we don't act .....because we've had a week or 2 of hot weather in Summer.




Maybe it's been more than a week or 2 of heat weather and more like a nation wide hot spell that has shattered all previous records.

Maybe it's because the normal northern summer monsoons that break up the inland heat just havn't arrived yet.

Maybe it's because this is January and the really hot times in summer usually come around February.

And looking at climate change around the world? Care to check out what is being said in USA.






> *US scientists in fresh alert over effects of global warming
> *
> US National Climate Assessment reveals that severe weather disruption is going to be commonplace in coming years
> 
> 
> *Global warming is already having a major impact on life in America, a report by US government scientists has warned. The draft version of the US National Climate Assessment reveals that increasing storm surges, floods, melting glaciers and permafrost, and intensifying droughts are having a profound effect on the lives of Americans.
> 
> "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers have observed changes in their local climate that are outside of their experience," states the report.*
> 
> Health services, water supplies, farming and transport are already being strained, the assessment adds. Months after superstorm Sandy battered the east coast, causing billions of dollars of damage, the report concludes that severe weather disruption is going to be commonplace in coming years. Nor do the authors flinch from naming the culprit. "Global warming is due primarily to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels," it states.
> 
> The uncompromising language of the report, and the stark picture that its authors have painted of the likely effects of global warming, have profound implications for the rest of the world.
> 
> ...The report highlights, among other things, that 13 American airports have runways that could be inundated by rising sea levels, and that billions of dollars will be needed to repair Alaskan roads, pipelines, sewer systems, buildings and airports where melting permafrosts are disrupting the landscape. These are problems that will not just affect the US. They will be repeated across the planet.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/12/us-scientists-effects-global-warming


----------



## MrBurns

basilio said:


> Maybe it's been more than a week or 2 of heat weather and more like a nation wide hot spell that has shattered all previous records.
> 
> Maybe it's because the normal northern summer monsoons that break up the inland heat just havn't arrived yet.
> 
> Maybe it's because this is January and the really hot times in summer usually come around February.
> 
> And looking at climate change around the world? Care to check out what is being said in USA.




You don't make statements about global warming based on one summer and the scientists in the US are the same as here, seeking funding by whipping up a scare.

Thr climate will/has changed and will continue to do so over time but the juries out on whether humans are responsible.


----------



## burglar

We had a hot day in Adelaide last week.
I mean a stinker!

I became a believer!

I don't know if it was a record or not. 
I don't watch news, weather or current affairs.

But today I awoke to an orchestra of snare drums beating on the tin roof.
It drizzled slowly for hours!
My neighbour assured me it was 10 millilitres.

It's cool again. 
Now, I am resisting hysteria once more.


----------



## Calliope

burglar said:


> We had a hot day in Adelaide last week.
> I mean a stinker!
> 
> I became a believer!
> 
> I don't know if it was a record or not.
> I don't watch news, weather or current affairs.
> 
> But today I awoke to an orchestra of snare drums beating on the tin roof.
> It drizzled slowly for hours!
> My neighbour assured me it was 10 millilitres.
> 
> It's cool again.
> Now, I am resisting hysteria once more.




You once told me you didn't worry about things you couldn't do anything about.

I think you were worried there for a while about the hotapocolypse.


----------



## burglar

Calliope said:


> You once told me you didn't worry about things you couldn't do anything about. ...




I can take a cold shower!



Calliope said:


> I think you were worried there for a while about the hotapocolypse.




Did you mean: hot apocalypse 


I was worried about my garden! 
As it turned out, I lost this year's stone fruits.
And thus far, little else.


----------



## noco

MrBurns said:


> You don't make statements about global warming based on one summer and the scientists in the US are the same as here, seeking funding by whipping up a scare.
> 
> Thr climate will/has changed and will continue to do so over time but the juries out on whether humans are responsible.





Mr. Burns, I would say from the attached link the sceptics are on a roll of support and all this crap about AGW will die of natuaral death along with the GREENIES,



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-stop-and-think/story-fn558imw-1226553109233


----------



## explod

noco said:


> to reduce the essenetial carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.




Not concerned at the spelling but would be pleased for you to elaborate on "essential carbon dioxide"

Would you say that co2 from Coal burning is essential?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Mr. Burns, I would say from the attached link the sceptics are on a roll of support and all this crap about AGW will die of natuaral death along with the GREENIES,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-stop-and-think/story-fn558imw-1226553109233




You are wrong, in fact the increasing number of new posters concerned at GW arriving on this threat would indicate the contrary.


----------



## MrBurns

Yes it's definitely coming up to funding time, the graphic shows what might happen if seas rise by some centimetres and if they rise by a meter, why didn't they include if the seas rise by a kilometer ? It could happen, we better pay more tax immediately to prevent this happening 



> Rising seas may put $300b of property at risk: scientists




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/how-will-rising-seas-impact-australia/4460688


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You are wrong, in fact the increasing number of new posters concerned at GW arriving on this threat would indicate the contrary.



Where is your link buddy or is it just your say so?

Or perhaps wishful thinking!!!!!!!!!

Essential carbon dioxide!!!!!!!! Plant life can't survive without it.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Where is your link buddy or is it just your say so?
> 
> Or perhaps wishful thinking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Essential carbon dioxide!!!!!!!! Plant life can't survive without it.




Would you say noco that motor cars and coal fired power stations are having no ill effects on the environment.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Would you say noco that motor cars and coal fired power stations are having no ill effects on the environment.




Correct me if I wrong, but don't cars emit carbon monoxide?

From what I have observed with coal fired power stations, the majority have carbon resistant devices and what you see is steam coming from the wide concrete chimneys.

If you are a GREENIE, I guess you will be turning a blind eye to all the fossil fuel being burnt in all the bush fires around the counrty. I would imagine that the current bush fires would be emitting enough to equal coal fired power station emmissions for the next 100 years.

I also learnt many years ago that the bush fires in Australia link up with cold air streaming south east via Indonesia to create the monsoonal system in the northern part of Australia. If I can find a link I will post it.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Correct me if I wrong, but don't cars emit carbon monoxide?
> 
> From what I have observed with coal fired power stations, the majority have carbon resistant devices and what you see is steam coming from the wide concrete chimneys. Please ignore the Green/Labor propaganda on that advertisment with Kate Blanchett standing in front of smoke billowing out of tall chimneys as that photo was purported to have been taken 50 years ago. Infact I understand that particular power station does not even exist anymore
> 
> If you are a GREENIE, I guess you will be turning a blind eye to all the fossil fuel being burnt in all the bush fires around the counrty. I would imagine that the current bush fires would be emitting enough to equal coal fired power station emmissions for the next 100 years.
> 
> I also learnt many years ago that the bush fires in Australia link up with cold air streaming south from the Himalays east via Indonesia to create the monsoonal system in the northern part of Australia. If I can find a link I will post it.



The attached link does provide the connection between the cold air from the Himalayas and the extreme heat in Australia. I will probe more for the bush fire connection

http://www.abc.net.au/storm/monsoon/what.htm


----------



## noco

Perhaps this link may help the Alarmists to understand CLIMATE CAHNGE a little better or will it?


http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/climate.htm


----------



## bellenuit

noco said:


> I would imagine that the current bush fires would be emitting enough to equal coal fired power station emmissions for the next 100 years.




Actually a similar claim to that was made by, I think, Senator Abetz last week. I have not heard it contradicted by anyone.

If true, wouldn't that suggest that we are far better off spending resources on preventing bush fires than on trying to combat the problem with what are obviously ineffective taxation policies? I'm not saying the claim is true, its just that I haven't heard it disputed.

I know President Reagan made a similar statement in relation to carbon monoxide emissions from some big Alaskan or Washington State volcano (sorry, but I can't remember the name), saying that it equated to something like 100 years of car emissions of carbon monoxide, but his claim turned out to be way off the mark when some scientists did the calculations.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Perhaps this link may help the Alarmists to understand CLIMATE CAHNGE a little better or will it?
> 
> 
> http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/climate.htm




Wow - that was great project produced by the students and  teachers from West Tisbury school. Impressive.

It just has no relevance to the effect additional greenhouses gases are having on the worlds climate. It doesn't try to discuss the issue. It is simply an excellent  discussion  directed to Upper primary/Lower secondary students on the types of climates that occur around the world.

 __________________________________________________________________________
Noco  you also offered the suggestion that the bushfires 







> would be emitting enough CO2 to equal coal fired power station emissions for the next 100 years



.

Not true. An ANU scientist took the trouble to calculate just how much CO2 was produced by the current bushfires versus CO2 produced by coal fired power stations.

Turns out out coal fired power stations produce 200 millions tonnes of CO2 a year while the bushfires to date have produced around 4million tonnes. (And much of this will be returned to the forests as trees regenerate quickly after fires.)

That piece of information /research also challenges your comment that coal fired power stations have some "carbon resistant devices" attached to them

They don't Noco. One of the measures the coal industry has offered to combat the release of CO2 has been attempting to create add on carbon capture.  This hasn't been done to date and the added capital costs and loss of efficiency  make it unlikely to be cost effective.  It would be cheaper to go to wind or solar.

*Car emissions*

Yes cars emit Carbon monoxide. However the main emission by volume is Carbon Dioxide.



> Passenger car emissions summary
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates of average passenger car emissions in the United States for July 2000           [25] Component           	Emission Rate 	                     Annual pollution emitted
> Hydrocarbons 	        2.80 grams/mile (1.75 g/Km) 	          77.1 pounds (35.0 kg)
> Carbon Monoxide 	         20.9 grams/mile (13.06 g/Km) 	   575 pounds (261 kg)
> NOx 	                         1.39 grams/mile (0.87 g/Km) 	          38.2 pounds (17.3 kg)
> CO2 - Green house gas     0.916 pounds per mile (258 g/km) 	11,450 pounds (5,190 kg)





Very interesting link on how monsoons are caused. There are certainly many effects on our climate.

Cheers


http://theconversation.edu.au/fact-check-do-bushfires-emit-more-carbon-than-burning-coal-11543
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_emissions

Apologies. I couldn't format the table for easier reading. Check the reference for clarity.


----------



## Logique

bellenuit said:


> ..suggest that we are far better off spending resources on preventing bush fires than on trying to combat the problem with what are obviously ineffective taxation policies?..



Bingo. 

They say yachting is like standing under a cold shower, tearing up $100 notes. Well just wait until you see the total bill for the bushfires (both dollar and carbon) - that's if the general public are told at all. 

All those aircraft, and all the other emergency funding and compensation payouts, it does not come cheap.


----------



## basilio

Well Logique our country does put many efforts into reducing bushfires. Public education, quick response teams whatever.

Bushfires will always be a problem of course. It goes with the territory of hot summers, lightening strikes accidents and human activity.

What will make the problem far worse will be* hotter summers*, and more extreme heat waves which will be the inevitable result of global warming.  The Black Saturday bushfires demonstrated that what might have been just manageable fires in a certain  temperature setting become totally monstrous with a few extra degrees.


----------



## Some Dude

bellenuit said:


> If true, wouldn't that suggest that we are far better off spending resources on preventing bush fires than on trying to combat the problem with what are obviously ineffective taxation policies? I'm not saying the claim is true, its just that I haven't heard it disputed.




Could we work towards a mitigation solution for both at the same time?


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> Well Logique our country does put many efforts into reducing bushfires. Public education, quick response teams whatever.
> 
> Bushfires will always be a problem of course. It goes with the territory of hot summers, lightening strikes accidents and human activity.
> 
> What will make the problem far worse will be* hotter summers*, and more extreme heat waves which will be the inevitable result of global warming.  The Black Saturday bushfires demonstrated that what might have been just manageable fires in a certain  temperature setting become totally monstrous with a few extra degrees.




make sure you genuflect after these statements


----------



## basilio

Neat video encapsulates what has happened in USA in 2012 and the effect this is having on peoples understandings on the changing climate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GKBq53f7tWM#!


----------



## basilio

Mitigation to reduce the worst effects of climate change is apparently still possible.


> *Climate change damage can be limited by carbon cuts: study
> *
> Date
> January 14, 2013 - 1:16PM
> 
> 
> The world could avoid much of the damaging effects of climate change this century if greenhouse gas emissions are curbed more sharply, research shows.
> 
> The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first comprehensive assessment of the benefits of cutting emissions to keep the global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, a level which scientists say would avoid the worst effects of climate change.
> 
> It found 20 to 65 per cent of the adverse impacts by the end of this century could be avoided.
> 
> "Our research clearly identifies the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - less severe impacts on flooding and crops are two areas of particular benefit," said Nigel Arnell, director of the University of Reading's Walker Institute, which led the study.
> 
> *In 2010, governments agreed to curb emissions to keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C, but current emissions reduction targets are on track to lead to a temperature rise of 4 degrees or more by 2100.
> 
> The World Bank has warned more extreme weather will become the "new normal" if global temperature rises by 4 degrees.*
> 
> Extreme heatwaves could devastate areas from the Middle East to the United States, while sea levels could rise by up to 91 cm (3 feet), flooding cities in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, the bank has said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-cuts-study-20130114-2covq.html#ixzz2Huf6XkWd


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Mitigation to reduce the worst effects of climate change is apparently still possible.




Possible...:dunno:

Probable...:shake:


----------



## basilio

I mentioned in an earlier post that there was National Climate Assessment report compiled and now published in draft form in the USA.  

It outlines what scientist see as the effects of climate on America both currently and in the future. The story in The Guardian higlights some of the main findings




> *Climate change set to make America hotter, drier and more disaster-prone*
> 
> Draft report from NCA makes clear link between climate change and extreme weather as groups urge Obama to take action
> 
> 
> 
> Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
> guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 January 2013 21.26 GMT
> Jump to comments (568)
> 
> Future generations of Americans can expect to spend 25 days a year sweltering in temperatures above 100F (38C), with climate change on course to turn the country into a hotter, drier, and more disaster-prone place.
> 
> The National Climate Assessment, released in draft form on Friday , provided the fullest picture to date of the real-time effects of climate change on US life, and the most likely consequences for the future.
> 
> The 1,000-page report, the work of the more than 300 government scientists and outside experts, was unequivocal on the human causes of climate change, and on the links between climate change and extreme weather.
> 
> "Climate change is already affecting the American people," the draft report said. "Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense including heat waves, heavy downpours and in some regions floods and drought. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and Arctic sea ice are melting."
> 
> The report, which is not due for adoption until 2014, was produced to guide federal, state and city governments in America in making long-term plans.
> 
> By the end of the 21st century, climate change is expected to result in increased risk of asthma and other public health emergencies, widespread power blackouts, and mass transit shutdowns, and possibly shortages of food.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ange-america-hotter-drier-disaster?intcmp=239

The article has a link to the Draft report. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

The report itself is very big - over 1000 pages.  I thought the 2 appendices on the Science of Climate Change  and Answers to Commonly asked  Questions  were  useful

 Appendix I: NCA Climate Science - Addressing Commonly Asked Questions from A to Z

Appendix II: The Science of Climate Change  

You will have to access these documents through the original URL. Happy reading.
Cheers


----------



## wayneL

zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz

same ol' same ol'


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz
> 
> same ol' same ol'




Yep, asleep in the armchair.

No sleeping here.  My brothers experiment with the car alternator excellent.  Half an hour peddling charges the 12 volt batter which will run the fridge for a week.

Age today with a number of letters and articles of concern.  One take "Science is telling us that extreme weather events now happen more often"  Ian Lowe (cummorn get into him like the *bolt* of stupidity)

And we know anecdotally that growing numbers of species of trees and animals are becoming extinct due to the weather changes.  These are species that have taken billions of years to evolve.  To laugh this off as just a usual cycle and has happened recently before (ice age a century or so back) is having the head in the sand.  Or napping of course zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## wayneL

Plod.

Let us deal with empirical data, not anecdotes.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Age today with a number of letters and articles of concern.  One take "Science is telling us that extreme weather events now happen more often"  Ian Lowe (cummorn get into him like the *bolt* of stupidity)




It is very hard to follow what you are saying, but the gist seems to be that you and your mentor basilio love to gloat about any news predicting dire weather events.

By the way, who is spreading these anecdotes?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> It is very hard to follow what you are saying, but the gist seems to be that you and your mentor basilio love to gloat about any news predicting dire weather events.




+1

gg


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> It is very hard to follow what you are saying, but the gist seems to be that you and your mentor basilio love to gloat about any news predicting dire weather events.
> 
> By the way, who is spreading these anecdotes?




Anecdotal is what one sees and what is being discussed in main-street; "the vibe".

If you grew up on the land, have been a people person, have always been interested in nature the land and the environment you get the vibe.  = anecdotal.

Predictions, OMFG, open your eyes, better still wake up and get up off the couch, 

oh and see we just woke gg too.


----------



## wayneL

Plod.

Through my  trade, I know a multitude of folks 'on the land'. I dont knpw anu who subscrobe toCAGW.

Not one.

On my phoneand  cant be bothered to.correcttyppps.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod.
> 
> Let us deal with empirical data, not anecdotes.




The empirical is not conclusive (I accept that) but what has emerged raises concerns IMV.  Can we afford to wait till it is bolted down, it will be too late then.  We need to employ two bob each way and encourage people to change now.

But of course there are some of us who will be able to live in solar powered air conditioned caves and walk up to the shops at night.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The empirical is not conclusive (I accept that) but what has emerged raises concerns IMV.  Can we afford to wait till it is bolted down, it will be too late then.  We need to employ two bob each way and encourage people to change now.
> 
> But of course there are some of us who will be able to live in solar powered air conditioned caves and walk up to the shops at night.




..._......do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness._ - Max Ehrmann

What other imagined apocalypses must we prepare for?


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> If you grew up on the land, have been a people person, have always been interested in nature the land and the environment you get the vibe.  = anecdotal.




What a load of codswallop.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ..._......do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness._ - Max Ehrmann
> 
> What other imagined apocalypses must we prepare for?




As a nine year old I did not imagine the puddles alive with tadpoles every year in the early fifties when the ground was water logged every winter till late November. (the frogs became extinct on that farm in 1969 was the year My Dad died, that drought effected him, but he also had other issues)  At the sale yards in those days listening to the dairy farmers and their stories, they looked forward to the summer when, mud up to their knees in winter, would dry out.  The ground is firm underfoot in all the winters there now.   Dad's farm had been cleared just before the blocks were allocated to him and his peers back from the second world war.  There is no doubt that this clearing of the land is what changed the rainfall there too. 

Dad and Grandfather talking about changes to rain and water tables.  Grandfather recalling his Grandfather's stories such as the conditions in Ireland and why they had to leave, around 1850 I think.  (this is not environmental but just their knowledge and judgement of things which gave me a yard stick anecdotally).

Dad's penchant for the prophecies of Indigo Jones and back in the 60's how her predicted droughts to come at the turn of the century (2000) and his concern that beyond that he saw it as bad.

The concern at the Liberal Premier Henry Bolte in allowing the Haystebury land, next to the Otway ranges to be opened up to farming.  Turned into a disaster environmentally. Big lesson to me, you should not cut down the trees.

As a 19 year old shearer in Queensland observing the overstocking and again, ball and chains knocking down the bush and the ensuing five years till in 1969 the sheep had to be transported out and in a lot of those places never to return.  West of Winton now mostly desert.

I have lived the land, sought out farmers as they are interesting to talk to and to get the most you have to know and understand them, they will not just open up to everyone as some of the ideas and theories sound stupid and alien to outsiders.

And from those days it has been with me till now.  1970 as shearing on the wain in the good places became a plod but soon stationed in the bush and stayed for seven years among farmers, at times not a lot of other things to do but talk to farmers over the fence whilst out and about.  

I could write a book on this stuff.  The point is, to sense the vibe of nature and how it is feeling you need to be a part of it.  A bit like trying to get comfortable wealthy people understand the poor and downtrodden.  Having an insight here helps me understand the divide on these fronts.  Its why I like sociology.

None of this is related to global warming directly so is off topic but these anecdotal feelings can make one also  sense what pollution, coal burning is doing, because you can see the changes, the bands of orange cloud, from the cars, throughout my career in Melbourne, the much warmer air there than over the mountains away from it.  

Just the vibe


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Anecdotal is what one sees and what is being discussed in main-street; "the vibe".
> 
> If you grew up on the land, have been a people person, have always been interested in nature the land and the environment you get the vibe.  = anecdotal.
> 
> Predictions, OMFG, open your eyes, better still wake up and get up off the couch,
> 
> oh and see we just woke gg too.






wayneL said:


> Plod.
> 
> Through my  trade, I know a multitude of folks 'on the land'. I dont knpw anu who subscrobe toCAGW.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> On my phoneand  cant be bothered to.correcttyppps.






wayneL said:


> ..._......do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness._ - Max Ehrmann
> 
> What other imagined apocalypses must we prepare for?






Calliope said:


> What a load of codswallop.




+1

I'm awake, tired out by religious nuts who have abandoned religion in droves for the new belief in an apocalypse.

Bloody Global bloody Warming.

I have for the first time understood how Galileo felt when he went with the popish doctrine.

Just plain tired with the lunatics about him.

gg


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> for the new *belief *in an apocalypse.
> 
> 
> gg




Science and first hand observation a far from belief.   

Do agree that the latter is for the religious nuts.


----------



## wayneL

Well Plod thanks you've just highlighted one of my greater points, viz: There are many environmental issues that deserve attention, mitigation and/or solutions. While the CAGW ruse is in existence, it detracts from thes eother REAL issues.

The psychological outcome is that otherwise concerned folk become anti-green (small g green, not the Watermelons whom folk SHOULD be agin), the integrity of the scientific community so damaged that even good science is not trusted.

Just the vibe Mr Plod.


----------



## cynic

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> I'm awake, tired out by religious nuts who have abandoned religion in droves for the new belief in an apocalypse.
> 
> Bloody Global bloody Warming.
> 
> I have for the first time understood how Galileo felt when he went with the popish doctrine.
> 
> Just plain tired with the lunatics about him.
> 
> gg




+2 

I am certain than many others share your sentiments in this regard, please keep up the good fight!



wayneL said:


> Well Plod thanks you've just highlighted one of my greater points, viz: There are many environmental issues that deserve attention, mitigation and/or solutions. While the CAGW ruse is in existence, it detracts from thes eother REAL issues.
> 
> The psychological outcome is that otherwise concerned folk become anti-green (small g green, not the Watermelons whom folk SHOULD be agin), the integrity of the scientific community so damaged that even good science is not trusted.
> 
> Just the vibe Mr Plod.




+1


----------



## Knobby22

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> I have for the first time understood how Galileo felt when he went with the popish doctrine.
> 
> 
> gg




Now you are quoting me. Yawn.
You should get me locked up for quoting scientific results.


----------



## sydboy007

explod said:


> The concern at the Liberal Premier Henry Bolte in allowing the Haystebury land, next to the Otway ranges to be opened up to farming.  Turned into a disaster environmentally. Big lesson to me, you should not cut down the trees.




Reminds me of a book by Jared Diamond "Collapse - How Societies choose to Fail or Survive"

Only have to look at the Anasazi Indians and how they turned the pretty fertile Chaco Canyon into a desert.  No trees, no precipitation.

Easter Island used to support the tallest known palm trees, while other trees reached 100 feet.  These days you'd be lucky to find something that grows over 7.  The author asks the question " What did they think as they cut down the last tree"

Look at the early Greenlanders who thought they had discovered a land of boundless opportunities.  Within a few years of clearing they discovered how fragile the land really was.  They were probably the first society that actually limited its population by choice so as to live within the sustainable capacity of the land.

The stories he gets from some farmers in Montana are well worth a read too.  He does some modern takes on Australia and China and the picture aint pretty.


----------



## basilio

Further to the National Climate Assessment report from USA our Climate Commission has put together a brief on what is happening in Oz



> *Off the Charts: Extreme Australian summer heat*
> 
> Key messages
> 
> * The length, extent and severity of the current Australian heatwave is unprecedented in the measurement record.
> 
> Although Australia has always had heatwaves, hot days and bushfires, climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heatwaves and more extreme hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions.
> 
> Climate change has contributed to making the current extreme heat conditions and bushfires worse.
> 
> Good community understanding of climate change risks is critical to ensure we take appropriate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to put measures in place to prepare for, and respond to, extreme weather.*
> 
> Australia is a land of extremes. As global temperature rises, very hot days are becoming more frequent and heatwaves are becoming more prolonged across many parts of Australia.
> 
> The heatwave affecting Australia in late December and early January brought extreme heat to most of the Australian continent over a sustained period. Temperatures above 40 °C and 45 °C were unprecedented in their extent across the continent, breaking new records for Australian averaged maximum temperatures.  The heat was also unprecedented in its duration.
> 
> The Climate Commission has received questions from the community and media seeking to understand the link between climate change and the very unusual weather. This document provides a summary of the influence of climate change on Australia’s temperature and extreme heat events.
> 
> Understanding the link between heat extremes and climate change is important because efforts today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will influence the severity of these types of events in the future. Having a good understanding of climate change risks can ensure that we take appropriate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to put measures in place to prepare for, and respond to, more extreme weather.




http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC_Jan_2013_Heatwave4.pdf


----------



## sails

Knobby22 said:


> ...You should get me locked up for quoting scientific results.





Don't you mean computer modelled predictions by *some* scientists  on government pay rolls? There have also been quotes by highly trained scientists who do not agree with AGW - do you listen to those too?

And how about Flannery's "scientific" prediction about no more dam filling rains in Qld BEFORE the floods came?

sorry, you guys only put me off even more by rabbiting on about "science" when history gives us fact which is conveniently ignored unless an occasional record is broken to confirm AGW bias.

And even IF it is a genuine problem do you give a scientific issue to politicians to fix?  Then they give compensation to so many that they are not likely to change their ways - that in itself makes it look like even the government are not really concerned and scientists are not serious about fixing the problem by giving the solution to politicians.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Further to the National Climate Assessment report from USA our Climate Commission has put together a brief on what is happening in Oz
> 
> 
> 
> http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC_Jan_2013_Heatwave4.pdf




Scaremongering at best, imo.

And  this is simply another PREDICTION.  Will this one have the same fate as Flannery's "no more dam filling rains in Qld"???  TIME WILL TELL...


----------



## basilio

Sails the USA report and our Climate Commisssion are largely reporting on what is currently happening to our climate. These are the current  facts on the ground if you like.

They have happened as the world wide temperatures have risen by .8C fuelled by the very large increases in greenhouse gases.  (See the USA appendix) It is the view of the hundreds of scientists who have researched this field that the continuing emission of GG gases will result in average global temperatures increase of at least 2 degrees C and most likely 4-6 degrees C.  In fact the current level of GG gases is consistent with a further .7degrees warming - it just hasn't worked its way through the system as yet.

Of course they could all be totally and completely wrong. But at this stage the facts on the ground are pointing in one direction.

What is the value in disregarding or dismissing out of hand this understanding of how the world is working ?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> They have happened as the world wide temperatures have risen by .8C fuelled by the very large increases in greenhouse gases.  (See the USA appendix) It is the view of the hundreds of scientists who have researched this field that the continuing emission of GG gases will result in average global temperatures increase of at least 2 degrees C and most likely 4-6 degrees C.  In fact the current level of GG gases is consistent with a further .7degrees warming - it just hasn't worked its way through the system as yet.




Bas, you are totally off topic This thread is about *resisting* Climate Hysteria.


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> Don't you mean computer modelled predictions by *some* scientists  on government pay rolls?




No results. Not predictions. I posted it twice. I'm sure you must have read it.

Let's just leave it for a while till the next lot of results come out. I think we are all tired arguing about theology (though you are one of the better ones sails).

And let me put this on the record again. The approach the present Government has to global warming is incorrect and I am happy for it to be rolled back. I'm sure there are many who agree that global warming is occurring but think the present scheme is flawed.

That's it from me. See you when the next lot of interesting results come out. Like the arctic has melted to another record. Then GG can go all religous on me again.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Bas, you are totally off topic This thread is about *resisting* Climate Hysteria.




Yeh, good point as the sceptics are possessed with the hysteria of resistance of late (and it is late IMHO) to the emergent facts and "the vibe" .


----------



## ghotib

sails said:


> Scaremongering at best, imo.
> 
> And  this is simply another PREDICTION.  Will this one have the same fate as Flannery's "no more dam filling rains in Qld"???  TIME WILL TELL...



Aaaaaaarghhh!!!   FLANNERY DIDN'T SAY THAT!!

I posted the transcript of what he actually said up thread - page 132 I think. You are dismissing a "prediction" that was never made. The media who persistently spread this alleged prediction are misleading you. 

If your information about the IPCC, the Climate Commission, the Academy of  Sciences or any other scientific assessment of climate change comes mainly from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs, then you do not know what scientists are really trying to tell you. 

If you've learnt about climate science from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs then you're quite right to reject it, because what they present is a twisted cartoon version of less than half the message. 

Climate science is not about politics or ideology; it's about physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, biology, and systems. The planet doesn't care whether humans exist, let alone who's in government. We release fossil carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere, the planet gets warmer. We release enough fossil carbon, the planet gets too warm for our comfort. We release more fossil carbon, the planet gets too warm for our survival. The planet won't care;  we will.


----------



## explod

ghotib said:


> If your information about the IPCC, the Climate Commission, the Academy of  Sciences or any other scientific assessment of climate change comes mainly from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs, then you do not know what scientists are really trying to tell you.




Posted about the distortion and in fact bias of the IPCC (due to petro/co infiltration) a week or so back but ignored or over the heads here.

Only want to accept what is comfortable.

Interesting on the dam filling, the rain squalls now so severe at times that the dam walls are almost being knocked down.  Another point not accepted is that due to warmth, more cloud in places at times = wilder weather and seemingly a cooling.  

Good post ghotib.


----------



## dutchie

Does an unusually cold winter in China cancel an unusually hot summer in Australia?


----------



## explod

dutchie said:


> Does an unusually cold winter in China cancel an unusually hot summer in Australia?




No just further evidence as the increased activity of hot impacting on cold has increased the gulf stream flows, bringing the very cold conditions of the arctic down to places like China and last year Europe and the British Isles and already early very cold conditions in the upper US.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> No just further evidence as the increased activity of hot impacting on cold has increased the gulf stream flows, bringing the very cold conditions of the arctic down to places like China and last year Europe and the British Isles and already early very cold conditions in the upper US.




And if you don't put a shilling in the Church of Climate Change's plate of a Sunday you will go to Hell  !

gg


----------



## sails

ghotib said:


> Aaaaaaarghhh!!!   FLANNERY DIDN'T SAY THAT!!....




Ghoti, are you saying that landline did not write the transcript correctly?  This is what it says (quoting Flannery):

*"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems"*​
That is pretty close to my summary of "no more dam filling rains".  How else do you plan to spin it?

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And if you don't put a shilling in the Church of Climate Change's plate of a Sunday you will go to Hell  !
> 
> gg




Good point gg.  Moving on from the bicycle powered alternator mentioned her a day or so backto charge batteries our next project is a steam powered generator.  This involves the simple method of preheating water though black pollie pipes (as with home swimming pools) then using natural gas to give the final boost to turn the turbine.  We are thinking about an alternative natural gas source, (from rubbish/garden/toilet refuse) to do this but one step at a time to fill the padre's plate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Good point gg.  Moving on from the bicycle powered alternator mentioned her a day or so backto charge batteries our next project is a steam powered generator.  This involves the simple method of preheating water though black pollie pipes (as with home swimming pools) then using natural gas to give the final boost to turn the turbine.  We are thinking about an alternative natural gas source, (from rubbish/garden/toilet refuse) to do this but one step at a time to fill the padre's plate.




Good one plod.

Sometimes protagonists are closer than you think.

Please get the Greens back to Green issues, and away from Rhiannon/Commo ideology, and you would probably get a few preferences next election.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> Ghoti, are you saying that landline did not write the transcript correctly?  This is what it says (quoting Flannery):
> 
> *"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems"*​
> That is pretty close to my summary of "no more dam filling rains".  How else do you plan to spin it?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm



So far as I'm concerned, the real point here isn't about Flannery per se but that over the top statements like this have undermined the public credibility of the entire issue. 

The same goes for scientists handing taking party political lines rather than sticking to the science - again it undermines public confidence in the issue.


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume
> 
> Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.
> 
> What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.




SD - yes, don't assume... 

SD, I haven't forgotten about this question as I wanted to give it some thought. I did start to type up a reply and I realised the biggest issue comes down to the lack of  honesty and transparency, imo.   

Voters, like myself, will decide much along the lines that a jury will decide by weighing up truth from perceived lies and then mix it with a good dose of common-sense. 

So, transparency and honesty would be a good start.  No more stunts like colouring clear co2 a nasty black looking colour coming out of power stations in official TV ads.  No more scaremongering predictions as if they are fact - it does the AGW cause no good when those predictions fail miserably. Taking the carbon tax to an election would have been another step in honesty instead of legislating it against the majority as shown by opinion polls.

Giving so many compensation gives the appearance that the government do not believe we have a serious problem, imo.

A willingness for government to hold honest, transparent debate taking into consideration the expert opinion of scientists who have a differing view point.  A willingness to look at climate history instead of putting all the eggs into the one basket of predictions and trying to pretend it is worse than it use to be.  A willingness to see that 0.8 degree rise in temperature may have other causes other than AGW - there are also long term heating and cooling cycles which could easily move our temperature by that much.

Is such honesty and transparency possible for those promoting AGW?  It should be if it is real.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as I'm concerned, the real point here isn't about Flannery per se but that over the top statements like this have undermined the public credibility of the entire issue.
> 
> The same goes for scientists handing taking party political lines rather than sticking to the science - again it undermines public confidence in the issue.




Agree, scientists, need to stick to science.

Then it is up to politicians, the public, and philosophers, not necessarily in that order to decide our course of action.

It has been nerdsville and comedians for the last 30 years,

When I was a lad guys like Flannery and Doyle would have been hard put to get not just a **** but within cooee of said ****.

Now they are on Radio National.

gg


----------



## basilio

sails said:


> SD - yes, don't assume...
> 
> SD, I haven't forgotten about this question as I wanted to give it some thought. I did start to type up a reply and I realised the biggest issue comes down to the lack of  honesty and transparency, imo.
> 
> Voters, like myself, will decide much along the lines that a jury will decide by weighing up truth from perceived lies and then mix it with a good dose of common-sense.
> 
> So, transparency and honesty would be a good start.  No more stunts like colouring clear co2 a nasty black looking colour coming out of power stations in official TV ads.  No more scaremongering predictions as if they are fact - it does the AGW cause no good when those predictions fail miserably. Taking the carbon tax to an election would have been another step in honesty instead of legislating it against the majority as shown by opinion polls.
> 
> Giving so many compensation gives the appearance that the government do not believe we have a serious problem, imo.
> 
> A willingness for government to hold honest, transparent debate taking into consideration the expert opinion of scientists who have a differing view point.  A willingness to look at climate history instead of putting all the eggs into the one basket of predictions and trying to pretend it is worse than it use to be.  A willingness to see that 0.8 degree rise in temperature may have other causes other than AGW - there are also long term heating and cooling cycles which could easily move our temperature by that much.
> 
> Is such honesty and transparency possible for those promoting AGW?  It should be if it is real.




That sounds so reasonable Sails.  And I guess your  comments and sense of reasonableness would be echoed by other ASF posters who  believe AGW is just not the problem it is cracked up to be (or really don't want to believe it could be a very serious problem)

It seems to me however that  very few people  here follow the findings of the scientists who study this topic in exceptional detail. Whenever I post material from CSIRO, The Climate Commission, USA climate authorities or the Sckeptical Science website (which effectively marries all these sources and more) I am derided. The response is that somehow all these scientists are wrong , or wrong headed. That they are part of some conspiracy to  make up stories to enable further grants to be made; that it all part of an attempt to cripple the economy or take over the world.

The alternative view as I understand it accepts a very small number of scientists and non scientist views that suggest

1) Green house gases arn't going to affect the climate as much as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe
2) The actual increase in temperatures is not real. It is a product of poor or deliberately wrong measuring techniques
3) That something else is causing any temperature increases. Could be the sun, natural causes, or simply "the climate is always changing" argument 

There are about 100 more excuses/reasons to dismiss the current science on climate change. That report I cited from the USA attempted to answer them all.

As scientists have said all along *there is no absolute certainty in almost all science*.  It is possible all  the climate scientists are wrong in their analysis and predictions.

The question for a reasonable person then is to ask

"How willing am I to believe that all these scientists have got it completely wrong and that we don't have to take steps to reduce GG emissions?"

Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the  best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers


----------



## Ijustnewit

ABC Environment Reporter Sarah Clarke sets out to provide the answers. A five part series.

Nice timing ABC it's the middle of Summer , yes it's hot and there will be fires and yes there will be king tides and Cyclones ect. Nice way of drumming a bit of fear into us. Also note the Carbon Tax Explained running down the outside of the article.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/how-will-rising-seas-impact-australia/4460688


----------



## MrBurns

Ijustnewit said:


> ABC Environment Reporter Sarah Clarke sets out to provide the answers. A five part series.
> 
> Nice timing ABC it's the middle of Summer , yes it's hot and there will be fires and yes there will be king tides and Cyclones ect. Nice way of drumming a bit of fear into us. Also note the Carbon Tax Explained running down the outside of the article.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/how-will-rising-seas-impact-australia/4460688




Another fine piece of work from ALP TV.


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the  best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers




Just on balance any reasonable person looking at all the issues critically can see *we may* have a problem.  An understatement of course.

We have alternatives which if subsidised to the degree the petro's were they are cheaper and clean.

 basilio


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> That sounds so reasonable Sails.  And I guess your  comments and sense of reasonableness would be echoed by other ASF posters who  believe AGW is just not the problem it is cracked up to be (or really don't want to believe it could be a very serious problem)
> 
> It seems to me however that  very few people  here follow the findings of the scientists who study this topic in exceptional detail. Whenever I post material from CSIRO, The Climate Commission, USA climate authorities or the Sckeptical Science website (which effectively marries all these sources and more) I am derided. The response is that somehow all these scientists are wrong , or wrong headed. That they are part of some conspiracy to  make up stories to enable further grants to be made; that it all part of an attempt to cripple the economy or take over the world.
> 
> The alternative view as I understand it accepts a very small number of scientists and non scientist views that suggest
> 
> 1) Green house gases arn't going to affect the climate as much as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe
> 2) The actual increase in temperatures is not real. It is a product of poor or deliberately wrong measuring techniques
> 3) That something else is causing any temperature increases. Could be the sun, natural causes, or simply "the climate is always changing" argument
> 
> There are about 100 more excuses/reasons to dismiss the current science on climate change. That report I cited from the USA attempted to answer them all.
> 
> As scientists have said all along *there is no absolute certainty in almost all science*.  It is possible all  the climate scientists are wrong in their analysis and predictions.
> 
> The question for a reasonable person then is to ask
> 
> "How willing am I to believe that all these scientists have got it completely wrong and that we don't have to take steps to reduce GG emissions?"
> 
> Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the  best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers




Basilo, you miss the main point of my post.  It was about honesty, not more spin...


----------



## sails

I was looking up heatwave history and found this article.  My question is that if it has been as hot many years ago when there was less industrialisation, then something else caused it (like normal weather patterns...lol).  Surely the same forces that caused heat waves in the past could cause them again.  

It's time to put this heatwave into perspective by having a look at history - here are some excerpts:



> Sure, Australia is enjoying a heatwave, but history will tell us that it is not that unusual.
> 
> We are told that the hottest average maximum temperature recorded across Australia reached a record 40.33 degrees on Monday, however, it was more interesting to note that this broke a record set in December 1972 - yes, 1972.






> As predictions of hot weather continue, it was even more interesting to look at historical data. Sydney hit 42.5 degrees this week and sent everyone into meltdown but it wasn't a patch on Sydney's record 45.3 degrees set in 1939 - the year that World War II started.
> 
> And, that record in 1939 beat the previous record set in 1896.
> 
> In terms of Australia's hottest day, well, that record of 50.7 degrees was set at Oodnadatta Airport in 1960.






> There is plenty of debate about the lack of fuel reduction burns and their ability to subdue major fires. These burns have become politically incorrect in these environmentally sensitive times when, in fact, cool autumn burns are good for safety and good for nature.




http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1231415/heatwave-a-hotter-topic/?cs=97


Trying to pretend this heatwave is something worse than we've had before is the sort of dishonesty that bothers me with AGW.

And do AGWers realise that some of the more frequent bush fire activity is very likely due to the lack of fuel reduction burns?  That's a policy issue and has nothing to do with AGW.  Again, it's the dishonesty of all this that puts me right off.  It looks like it is a fake when dishonesty and partial truths (distorting the real truth) are used so freely.  If it really is a problem, surely there is no need for deception?


----------



## sails

And the other thing is extreme cold seems to be ignored by AGWers.  China has recently broken records on cold.  Not unusual in winter just as heatwaves are not unusual in summer.

Andrew Bolt is still on holidays and is in Los Angeles with an unusual cold snap:



> Temperatures in downtown Los Angeles fell to 34 degrees, breaking the previous record of 36 degrees set on Jan. 14, 2007.
> 
> A week or two ago I was caught outside in Boston in the coldest weather of my life:
> 
> While locally, lows ranged from the low 20s to near 30 (F.), there was some bone-chilling cold to our north. Parts of Vermont and upstate New York dropped from -10 to -20 , colder than anything experienced all of last winter. Boston even dropped to 7, just one degree warmer than its low in 2012.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._type_this_message_to_a_warmist/#commentsmore


----------



## explod

sails said:


> And the other thing is extreme cold seems to be ignored by AGWers.  China has recently broken records on cold.  Not unusual in winter just as heatwaves are not unusual in summer.
> 
> Andrew Bolt is still on holidays and is in Los Angeles with an unusual cold snap:
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._type_this_message_to_a_warmist/#commentsmore




Answered this question yesterday.

Increased cloud from warming is altering jet streams from the poles.  There is an evening out of temperatures, less cold on the arctic tip equals more air movement towards the centre.

That is why we are now getting greater extremes of hot and cold.  Places like Northern Scandinavia have had minus 40c below in the winter time as normal.  Altering jet streams are  now bringing such temperatures to other places at those latitudes and even further south/(or north depending on which end you are standing)


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Answered this question yesterday.
> 
> Increased cloud from warming is altering jet streams from the poles.  There is an evening out of temperatures, less cold on the arctic tip equals more air movement towards the centre.
> 
> That is why we are now getting greater extremes of hot and cold.  Places like Northern Scandinavia have had minus 40c below in the winter time as normal.  Altering jet streams are  now bringing such temperatures to other places at those latitudes and even further south/(or north depending on which end you are standing)





Explod, we have always had hot and cold extremes.  This is what I find dishonest about AGW is trying to pretend that extremes which have always been with us are now something new.  

So what caused the extreme heat and cold 100 - 200 - 300 - 500+ years ago?  Not much industrialisation to blame then AND much few people on earth.

The use of extreme weather (which has always been around) to support AGW doesn't hold water, imo.

And, if we are experiencing heat waves and other countries are experiencing record cold, surely that averages out that the globe is not heating overall?


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Answered this question yesterday.




Yeah, with some garbage about the Gulf Stream affecting China's climate. Surely your "vibes" tell you that the Gulf Stream is in the Atlantic...not the Pacific.


----------



## sails

So now it seems it is not just Global Warming - it includes Global Cooling...LOL

Much like Flannery saying what he said about the rain not filling dams (yes I have posted a transcript) because of Global Warming and then when the rains came, the rains were blamed on Global Warming...

Surely you AGWers can see the changing of the goal posts and the subterfuge that goes on removes much credibility?  Too bad if there really is a problem because most people are getting fed up with these sort of tactics.  

If AGW were real, there should be no need for subterfuge.  Truth can stand on it's own.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> I mentioned in an earlier post that there was National Climate Assessment report compiled and now published in draft form in the USA.
> 
> It outlines what scientist see as the effects of climate on America both currently and in the future. The story in The Guardian higlights some of the main findings




Interesting.



> So while many advocates in science and the media shout "Alarm" and celebrate its depiction of extremes, another question we should be asking is, *how is it that it got things so wrong? Either the IPCC and the scientific literature is in error, or the draft USGCRP assessment is* -- But don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.
> 
> Extreme Misrepresentation: USGCRP and the Case of Floods






			
				explod; said:
			
		

> Yeh, good point as the sceptics are possessed with the hysteria of resistance of late (and it is late IMHO) to the emergent facts and "the vibe"




What should it matter whether skeptics get the 'vibe' or not?
Governments have all the power they need to take action.
Doesn't matter whether skeptics come late, or at all.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Explod, we have always had hot and cold extremes.  This is what I find dishonest about AGW is trying to pretend that extremes which have always been with us are now something new.
> 
> So what caused the extreme heat and cold 100 - 200 - 300 - 500+ years ago?  Not much industrialisation to blame then AND much few people on earth.
> 
> The use of extreme weather (which has always been around) to support AGW doesn't hold water, imo.
> 
> And, if we are experiencing heat waves and other countries are experiencing record cold, surely that averages out that the globe is not heating overall?




We did not get such wide ranging extremes as we are heading into now.  A whole species of possum perished on B lack Saturday along Belcombe Creek Mount Martha where they had evolved over millions of years.  Saw them the next day on the ground along the walks.   It was 47 in Victoria that day.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> We did not get such wide ranging extremes as we are heading into now.  A whole species of possum perished on B lack Saturday along Belcombe Creek Mount Martha where they had evolved over millions of years.  Saw them the next day on the ground along the walks.   It was 47 in Victoria that day.




Explod - do you ever look at history?  While the black friday Victorian bushfires of 1939 with similar temps as the black saturday?  And what about the 1851 where unofficial records show temps around 47?

These temperatures have been reached before.  Once *160 years ago!!*  What do you think caused the mercury to climb so high then?

I know we have differing opinions, but please don't try to make this look like something we've never had before when a quick google search shows otherwise.  It is this sort of subterfuge that is removing credibility, imo.


This from Wiki on the 1939 black friday fires:

In the days preceding the fires, the state capital Melbourne experienced some of its hottest temperatures on record at the time: 43.8  °C (110.8  °F) on 8 January and 44.7  °C (112.5  °F) on 10 January. *On 13 January, the day of the fires, temperatures reached 45.6  °C (114.1  °F)*, which stood as the hottest day officially recorded in Melbourne for the next 70 years. (*Unofficial records show temperatures of around 47  °C (117  °F) were reported on the Black Thursday fires of 6 February 1851*).[2]

The summer of 1938–39 had been hot and dry, and several fires had broken out. By early January, fires were burning in a number of locations across the state. Then, on Friday 13 January, a strong northerly wind hit the state, causing several of the fires to combine into one massive front.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1939)


----------



## explod

sails said:


> Explod - do you ever look at history?  While the black friday Victorian bushfires of 1939 with similar temps as the black saturday?  And what about the 1851 where unofficial records show temps around 47?
> 
> These temperatures have been reached before.  Once *160 years ago!!*  What do you think caused the mercury to climb so high then?
> 
> I know we have differing opinions, but please don't try to make this look like something we've never had before when a quick google search shows otherwise.  It is this sort of subterfuge that is removing credibility, imo.
> 
> 
> This from Wiki on the 1939 black friday fires:
> 
> In the days preceding the fires, the state capital Melbourne experienced some of its hottest temperatures on record at the time: 43.8  °C (110.8  °F) on 8 January and 44.7  °C (112.5  °F) on 10 January. *On 13 January, the day of the fires, temperatures reached 45.6  °C (114.1  °F)*, which stood as the hottest day officially recorded in Melbourne for the next 70 years. (*Unofficial records show temperatures of around 47  °C (117  °F) were reported on the Black Thursday fires of 6 February 1851*).[2]
> 
> The summer of 1938–39 had been hot and dry, and several fires had broken out. By early January, fires were burning in a number of locations across the state. Then, on Friday 13 January, a strong northerly wind hit the state, causing several of the fires to combine into one massive front.​
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1939)




Sorry for that



> The early 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave was a heat wave that commenced in late January and led to record-breaking prolonged high temperatures in the region. The heat wave is considered one of the, if not the, most extreme in the region's history.[2] During the heat wave, fifty separate locations set various records for consecutive, highest daytime and overnight temperatures. The highest temperature recorded during the heat wave was 48.8  °C (119.8  °F) in Hopetoun, Victoria, a record for the state.[3] Many locations through the region recorded all-time high temperatures including capital cities Adelaide, which reached its third-highest temperature, 45.7  °C (114.3  °F), and Melbourne, which recorded its highest ever temperature on record, 46.4  °C (115.5  °F). Both cities broke records for the most consecutive days over 40  °C (104  °F), while Mildura, Victoria recorded an all time record twelve consecutive days over 40  °C (104  °F).




A record for the state they said


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Sorry for that
> 
> 
> 
> A record for the state they said




Explod - I'm not denying the current heat waves, I'm just mystified why there seems to be an attempt to make it sound worse than we have had in the past.

*47 Degrees in victoria 160 years ago *couldn't be due to industrialisation level we have now.  Why do you think it got so hot then?

And I well remember the 1972 heat wave as I had a two month old baby to keep cool for nearly two weeks.  That was *40 years ago *and aircons were not common back then.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> *47 Degrees in victoria 160 years ago *couldn't be due to industrialisation level we have now.  Why do you think it got so hot then?




Agree and the point is pedantic.  However a high back then of 47 against 48.8 now is a rise of 1.8

Scientists are saying just one degree average is of enormous concern.

That is why the vibe or anecdotal to me is the only way I think a layman can come to grips with it.  As a long time watcher of the land and the weather I see huge changes and they do not look too good.  

But that's me.


----------



## basilio

It is  important to recognise what scientists are saying about actual and projected temperature rises.

An increase in the average world wide temperature of 1 degree C represents an enormous increase in the total heat energy on earth. It is this overall increase in heat energy that increase evaporation, dries soils much more than normal, warms the oceans, incresaes the energy levels of storms.

One off temperature records with extremely high readings do not represent this amount of extra heat energy.

When looking at the breaking of temperature records in Australia this month the most critical observations are the length of the heat waves and the very big jump in average daily temperature.  These show just how widespread the change in climate is happening. 

As Explod points out the cold extremes happening around the world are likely to be part of the change in weather systems created by the overall global warming. Weather and climate are complex.


----------



## burglar

Calliope said:


> You once told me you didn't worry about things you couldn't do anything about.
> 
> I think you were worried there for a while about the hotapocolypse.




Another stinker in Adelaide today!

"Adelaide 43 °"


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> If AGW were real, there should be no need for subterfuge.  Truth can stand on it's own.




Very true, assuming your perception of any given individual is correct, do you think that is then representative of all, or even the majority, of climate scientists?

How do you feel about AGW coverage in The Australian's over the last 1-2 weeks with regard to truth etc?

A interesting graph from NASA regarding temperature anomalies in the US since 1895. Further global temperature anomalies can be found here (NASA).


----------



## noco

Some Dude said:


> Very true, assuming your perception of any given individual is correct, do you think that is then representative of all, or even the majority, of climate scientists?
> 
> How do you feel about AGW coverage in The Australian's over the last 1-2 weeks with regard to truth etc?
> 
> A interesting graph from NASA regarding temperature anomalies in the US since 1895. Further global temperature anomalies can be found here (NASA).
> 
> View attachment 50474




Even Hanson from NASA concedes there has been no increase in gobal temperautres in the last 16 tears.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../even_hansen_concedes_a_pause_in_the_warming/


----------



## Some Dude

noco said:


> Even Hanson from NASA concedes there has been no increase in gobal temperautres in the last 16 tears.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../even_hansen_concedes_a_pause_in_the_warming/




I followed through to the study by Dr James Hansen.



			
				Dr James Hansen said:
			
		

> The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.  It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Niño of the century.  However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that  "global warming has stopped".  Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
> 
> ...
> 
> A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade, but it cannot explain the standstill, because it is known that the planet has been out of energy balance, more energy coming in from the sun than energy being radiated to space.
> 
> The planetary energy imbalance is due largely to the increase of climate forcings in prior decades and the great thermal inertia of the ocean.  The more important factor in the standstill is probably unforced dynamical variability, essentially climatic "noise".
> 
> ...
> 
> Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Niño conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1).  Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades.  *We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it  is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.*




Always go to the source.


----------



## sydboy007

sails said:


> Explod, we have always had hot and cold extremes.  This is what I find dishonest about AGW is trying to pretend that extremes which have always been with us are now something new.
> 
> So what caused the extreme heat and cold 100 - 200 - 300 - 500+ years ago?  Not much industrialisation to blame then AND much few people on earth.
> 
> The use of extreme weather (which has always been around) to support AGW doesn't hold water, imo.
> 
> And, if we are experiencing heat waves and other countries are experiencing record cold, surely that averages out that the globe is not heating overall?




I'm waiting for when the gulf stream finally stops - they've already detected a marked decrease in the water flow and have recorded several virtual stops.  It's the main reason the UK has such a temperate climate compared to other countries in the same latitude.

My understanding of global warming is that while warming will occur over the planet:

* the warming will occur most at the poles and high latitudes

* weather extremes will occur more often - so much colder and hotter extremes.

Cyclone Sandy is a prime example of what happens.  When you have trillions of liters of water 0.6c warmer than usual, well I don't know how to express that in energy, but you can see what that can do over a huge area.

I'm expecting somewhere between 2025-2035 that the issue will be finally resolved because what we now call extreme will be considered at the upper end of normal.

The focusing on singular events in my mind is very disengenous.  To say a heat wave or a cald snap is ALL about global warming is wrong, and I would doubt any serious proponents would say this.

Are the extremes so extrememe and occuring more often because of global warming.  I certainly believe so.

Do I care?  Not anymore.  I've got probably 40 or 50 years left and no children or grandchildren to worry about.  AFAIC if we change our environment to the point where modern "civilisation" is no longer viable, then hopefully the next species to come along wont make the same mistakes


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Do I care?  Not anymore.  I've got probably 40 or 50 years left and no children or grandchildren to worry about.  AFAIC if we change our environment to the point where modern "civilisation" is no longer viable, then hopefully the next species to come along wont make the same mistakes




+1. I have grandchildren, but they couldn't care less. This is one of them.


----------



## basilio

The Bureau of Meteorology has spelt out how extreme the recent heat wave has been in Australia in terms of the temperatures reached, the extent of the heat and the duration of the weather.

The article examines the historical context of the heat wave and then explains in detail how Climate Change has  intensified the results.  

http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628

And does anyone know that Sydney just smashed its Summer heat record ?


----------



## burglar

burglar said:


> Another stinker in Adelaide today!
> 
> "Adelaide 43 °"




Cool change "Adelaide 26 °"

One hot day does not a summer make!!
But two hot days, that's a little bit different.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> And does anyone know that Sydney just smashed its Summer heat record ?




OK. No wonder you're smiling. Good news for you. Not so good for Sydney...or the bush.


----------



## wayneL

Calliope said:


> OK. No wonder you're smiling. Good news for you. Not so good for Sydney.




This is what I find so repugnant, the breathless and *gleeful* reporting of any extreme *weather* event these clowns believe bolsters their case.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> This is what I find so repugnant, the breathless and *gleeful* reporting of any extreme *weather* event these clowns believe bolsters their case.




Could it be hopeful instead of gleeful? As in hopeful that people will understand their concern?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Could it be hopeful instead of gleeful? As in hopeful that people will understand their concern?




Nope.......... Why would you hope for catastrophic climate change with a smile?


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Nope.......... Why would you hope for catastrophic climate change with a smile?




If the blue-green planet is truly absorbing too much warmth, change the colour!
Thereby increasing the albedo of the planet!!


Or perhaps, we could give each other a cold shoulder.
:


----------



## wayneL

Just a thought, if, as claimed, that record lows are a sign of global warming, could it be these highs are actually a sign of global cooling?


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Nope.......... Why would you hope for catastrophic climate change with a smile?




I agree entirely. Why would someone concerned about AGW hope for catastrophic climate change with a smile.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Just a thought, if, as claimed, that record lows are a sign of global warming, could it be these highs are actually a sign of global cooling?




If there is a climate model that can adequately explain observable data better with a global cooling model than the global warming model, then yes!

Are you aware of any modelling that indicates such?


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> Another stinker in Adelaide today!
> 
> "Adelaide 43 °"



Hot weather in Adelaide in Summer is a bit like rain on the West Coat of Tasmania in Winter. A normal and expected even that would be unusual if it didn't occur.

The first time I visited Adelaide, one thing I noticed quite quickly is that houses are built so as to keep the heat out. I saw more roller shutters and the like in half an hour than I'd seen in my entire life prior to that. Some go as far as planting trees on the Western side of the house, thus blocking the sun completely during the afternoon.

I wouldn't say that 43 in Adelaide is extreme. That said, I'm hoping for some sensible weather when I'm there in a few weeks' time - mid 20's would be nice especially on 2nd March.


----------



## spooly74

Some Dude said:


> Could it be hopeful instead of gleeful? As in hopeful that people will understand their concern?




Whats your concern an why is 'their' concern even relevant?
Don't Govt's have all the power they need?


----------



## spooly74

Smurf1976 said:


> H
> I wouldn't say that 43 in Adelaide is extreme. That said, I'm hoping for some sensible weather when I'm there in a few weeks' time - mid 20's would be nice especially on 2nd March.




Hit 52.1 in Innamincka last Sunday.
By all accounts, Effin warm was the call!

See ya there on 2nd


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> If there is a climate model that can adequately explain observable data better with a global cooling model than the global warming model, then yes!
> 
> Are you aware of any modelling that indicates such?




I am not aware of any models that reflect observable data at all.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> I am not aware of any models that reflect observable data at all.




By reflect do you mean precisely predict, best fit, or something else?


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> Could it be hopeful instead of gleeful? As in hopeful that people will understand their concern?




No. What concern? It is straight-out  gloating at the discomfort of others. He is smiling because he sees it as a precursor of  coming catastrophe. You can make excuses for him. I can't.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> No. What concern? It is straight-out  gloating at the discomfort of others.




Including their children? They have no concern, no matter how misguided you may think it is, about their children? They are hopeful for the discomfort of their children?


----------



## explod

Not too sure why everyone is getting excited.  The weather does not warm right up till after school gets back.

The real hot days are mid to late Feb.


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> Including their children? They have no concern, no matter how misguided you may think it is, about their children? They are hopeful for the discomfort of their children?




Who's this "they?" Basilio is the one who was gloating. I doubt that he gives a damn about anyone or anything except his fanaticism, and his inability to concede that he could ever be wrong.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> Who's this "they?" Basilio is the one who was gloating. I doubt that he gives a damn about anyone or anything except his fanaticism, and his inability to concede that he could ever be wrong.






Some Dude said:


> Could it be hopeful instead of gleeful? As in hopeful that people will understand their concern?




My mistake then, I generalised it to people, hence they.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Who's this "they?" Basilio is the one who was gloating. I doubt that he gives a damn about anyone or anything except his fanaticism, and his inability to concede that he could ever be wrong.




You are so one eyed ole Pal, we will and can all concede that we may be wrong.  We can work only on the balance of probabilities.  And there is a strong possibility that the earth is warming up and that it is man made.

And the subject is not one for gloating.  Your one way/eyed inferences do not do you justice, surely you are better than that.


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> This is what I find so repugnant, the breathless and *gleeful* reporting of any extreme *weather* event these clowns believe bolsters their case.




How about an unprecedented weather event...like today.

What i find repugnant is denial in the face of overwhelming reality.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> How about an unprecedented weather event...like today.
> 
> What i find repugnant is denial in the face of overwhelming reality.




All records are unprecedented weather events, cold or hot.

However science casts a wider net than a one day record, cold or hot.

A sum of events make an overwhelming reality, not a single event, to imply this is repugnant.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> All records are unprecedented weather events, cold or hot.
> 
> However science casts a wider net than a one day record, cold or hot.
> 
> A sum of events make an overwhelming reality, not a single event, to imply this is repugnant.




Do you have any graphs that visualise the sum of events that match overwhelming reality?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Do you have any graphs that visualise the sum of events that match overwhelming reality?




They are detailed and debated in the public domain, beyond the scope of a blog post, but a snippet:



> Letter to the Editor of The Australian
> 
> A pattern of extreme weather should not be confused with climate change.
> 
> The recent heat wave across much of Central Australia and its occasional extension east and south is a pattern of extreme weather. Climate is the recurring patterns of weather that inure us to such extremes. The climate of Alice Springs is exemplified by 1887, the previously hottest January with an average maximum of 40.7oC. The extreme, nearly 5oC above the long term January average, was made possible by a spell of 11 days over 40oC, a brief respite then another 10 days over 40oC.
> 
> Climate change, of course, is a persisting significant departure from the experienced pattern of weather. The current pattern of extreme weather is not outside the envelope of experience that describes Central Australian climate.
> 
> William Kininmonth
> 
> William Kininmonth headed Australia‘s National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> What i find repugnant is denial in the face of overwhelming reality.



Is the weather hot in Sydney today? At 45.8 degrees the answer is quite clearly "yes".

Is the climate changing? Hard to absolutely prove but there's a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is different now to 30 years ago.

Is there a change due to man-made CO2? Possibly but it's unproven. Where's the proof that it's not due to man-made direct heating effects (for example)?


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> They are detailed and debated in the public domain, beyond the scope of a blog post, but a snippet:




Does he have an opinion about the persistent rise in anomalous extreme temperatures over the last 100+ years?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Does he have an opinion about the persistent rise in anomalous extreme temperatures over the last 100+ years?




Ignoring the argumentative fallacy, I suppose so, you can ask him yourself.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Ignoring the argumentative fallacy, I suppose so, you can ask him yourself.




Have you got a link for that one? I just checked so that I could work out what you meant but I couldn't find it? What is the "argumentative fallacy"?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is weather.

We only have records going back to Settlement.

Much of the "evidence" is forward "looking" computer generated projections.

Ian Plimer puts a totally different argument to the Alarmists but is seldom listened to.

gg


----------



## Some Dude

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We only have records going back to Settlement.




I assume you mean human records for Australia?



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Much of the "evidence" is forward "looking" computer generated projections.




What about the models for historical observed data that are the basis for the projections?



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ian Plimer puts a totally different argument to the Alarmists but is seldom listened to.




Is it possible that he is listened to but his position is rejected as untenable?


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... houses are built so as to keep the heat out. ...



Not mine, ... timber frame. asbestos cladding, corrugated iron roof and large picture windows facing north.
Upside ... it cools down* real fast.*



Smurf1976 said:


> I wouldn't say that 43 in Adelaide is extreme. ...



You're right, I was sitting under an air con both days! 

I refer to Bureau of Meteorology data:
Hottest ever this month 	45.7 ° 	28/01/2009
Hottest this year 	                45.0 ° 	04/01/2013

http://www.meteorology.com.au/local-climate-history/sa/adelaide

I was in Tassie once.
Locals apologized for the weather when it became overcast!


And there was snow on Mt Wellington in January. My kids loved it!!


----------



## Some Dude

Others may be already aware but there is a very good forum (Weather Zone) dedicated specifically to Australian weather discussions. I'm not just talking about AGW discussions but includes observational weather discussions about what is happening now. I have been a lurker on the site for sometime now and can recommend it to anyone wanting to start learning about weather without opening the science books. In particular, the storm chasers have some great knowledge about the daily mechanics and is fascinating to follow, especially when the big events happen.


----------



## spooly74

wayneL said:


> I am not aware of any models that reflect observable data at all.




You won't find any.

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)


----------



## Some Dude

spooly74 said:


> You won't find any.
> 
> “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)




That is a very perceptive point. Gravity for example is wrong, but useful. The science of gravity got us to the moon and back. Some dude named Einstein figured out a better model which better explained the observable data, and thus we then had Relativity. It's wrong also but we are still arguing about what is better, still it is the best we have at this point in time (badoom).

Which leads me to your introductory sentence. Why won't we find any any models that reflect observable data? The climate scientists seem to disagree. Can someone identify where they have got it wrong such that the current models are not just wrong in the useful sense, but that they are useless?


----------



## sails

burglar said:


> Another stinker in Adelaide today!
> 
> "Adelaide 43 °"




And 27 today...


----------



## sails

Smurf1976 said:


> Is the weather hot in Sydney today? At 45.8 degrees the answer is quite clearly "yes".
> 
> Is the climate changing? Hard to absolutely prove but there's a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is different now to 30 years ago.
> 
> Is there a change due to man-made CO2? Possibly but it's unproven. Where's the proof that it's not due to man-made direct heating effects (for example)?




Smurf, what about the heatwaves Sydney has had before?  I posted this earlier in the thread and Sydney has had two other heatwaves of about the same temperature.  What would have caused these over 70 and  160 years ago?

It seems to me there is nothing new.  Nothing has changed. Extreme weather comes as it always has and especially in this country where weather extremes are normal.


This from Wiki:

In the days preceding the fires, the state capital Melbourne experienced some of its hottest temperatures on record at the time: 43.8  °C (110.8  °F) on 8 January and 44.7  °C (112.5  °F) on 10 January. *On 13 January, the day of the fires, temperatures reached 45.6  °C (114.1  °F)*, which stood as the hottest day officially recorded in Melbourne for the next 70 years. (*Unofficial records show temperatures of around 47  °C (117  °F) were reported on the Black Thursday fires of 6 February 1851*).[2]

The summer of 1938–39 had been hot and dry, and several fires had broken out. By early January, fires were burning in a number of locations across the state. Then, on Friday 13 January, a strong northerly wind hit the state, causing several of the fires to combine into one massive front.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1939)


----------



## sails

Some Dude said:


> Very true, assuming your perception of any given individual is correct, do you think that is then representative of all, or even the majority, of climate scientists?
> 
> How do you feel about AGW coverage in The Australian's over the last 1-2 weeks with regard to truth etc?
> 
> A interesting graph from NASA regarding temperature anomalies in the US since 1895. Further global temperature anomalies can be found here (NASA).




SD,  You don't get it...

You can't post a chart of something and use it to try and deflect from the lack of real honesty.  I haven't read the Australian this week about climate change so will pass on your questions of which I am tiring of answering.

When there has been deception, people no longer believe anything else that is dished up.  How do I know if your chart is accurate?  Too much subterfuge has been going on for me to trust anything about climate change from the side that has been dishonest.  Have you ever read the story of the boy who cried wolf?  It might explain why many Aussies are not listening any more.

You can carry on all you like promoting this stuff and most won't even bother to read it. Over and out from me.


----------



## Some Dude

sails said:


> Have you ever read the story of the boy who cried wolf?




Yep. I believe I understand what you are saying.



sails said:


> You can carry on all you like promoting this stuff and most won't even bother to read it. Over and out from me.




Thanks for taking the time to read.


----------



## Calliope

This will be a thing of the past when the Carbon Tax really kicks in.


----------



## Some Dude

The cartoon reminded me of this picture (NASA) that I saw the other day. Posted for interest, not to make any point.





Anyone interested, be sure to read the text. Those bright spots are across a time frame, not all happening at once.


----------



## basilio

Well wasn't that fascinating....

I put up a post from the the Weather Bureau detailing how extensive the recent heat wave has been, how far off the  records it is and the connections with global warming that demonstrate why we should be concerned about the future.

I finished the post with a  throwaway reference to the one day record heat event in Sydney.

And the smiley ? I was just trying to be friendly. Rather than say gloomy or catastrophic.

So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and  a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .

Then there are the  3600 odd posts  jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have no relevance to the topic

And of course as the physical events  mounts that our climate is changing as predicted over many years  Wayne continues to assert there just isn't any evidence for any change.

Congratulations Wayne . You are well on the way to winning the  Lance Armstrong award.:mad


----------



## basilio

And these are the other smileys I couldn't fit on the previous post.

:bad:


----------



## spooly74

Some Dude said:


> That is a very perceptive point. Gravity for example is wrong, but useful.
> The science of gravity got us to the moon and back. Some dude named Einstein figured out a better model which better explained the observable data, and thus we then had Relativity. It's wrong also but we are still arguing about what is better, still it is the best we have at this point in time (badoom).




Gravity is wrong? 
The science of 17th century mathematics got us to the moon and back, Its the same math that gets us to Mars. You could you Einstein's theory, but it would just take longer and you'd get the same result.
Einstein introduced pressure, and its the most tested theory ever.
When was it shown to be wrong and who is arguing about whether its better?

Would you call a mathematical equation a model?



> Which leads me to your introductory sentence. Why won't we find any any models that reflect observable data?The climate scientists seem to disagree. Can someone identify where they have got it wrong such that the current models are not just wrong in the useful sense, but that they are useless?




I should have been clearer. Jumped the gun.
You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate. 
They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> This is what I find so repugnant, the breathless and *gleeful* reporting of any extreme *weather* event these clowns believe bolsters their case.




LOL oh man..........................BTW its Fu(king hot but don't panic its just weather or some twisted plot LOL.


----------



## IFocus

spooly74 said:


> Gravity is wrong?
> The science of 17th century mathematics got us to the moon and back, Its the same math that gets us to Mars. You could you Einstein's theory, but it would just take longer and you'd get the same result.
> Einstein introduced pressure, and its the most tested theory ever.
> When was it shown to be wrong and who is arguing about whether its better?
> 
> Would you call a mathematical equation a model?
> 
> 
> 
> I should have been clearer. Jumped the gun.
> You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
> I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate.
> They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
> That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.




A bit off topic but one thing I have found fascinating is how accurate the weather forecast is these days for WA particularly cyclones and their intended path so far out.

I surf so I watch the weather forecasts closely and generally 1 to 2 weeks out they get it pretty close the last cyclone that came down the WA coast was forecast perfectly by these guys spot on. http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forec...tralia!pop!od!oper!public_plots!2012082500!!/

Most of it is modelling which has certainly come a long way.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> .
> 
> So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and  a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .
> 
> Then there are the  3600 odd posts  jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have* no relevance to the topic*




Typical basilio exaggerations and hissy-fit...and the topic is - wait for it - *Resisting Climate Hysteria*.


----------



## Some Dude

spooly74 said:


> That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.




I agree. My post was a reflection of the quote you provided.



spooly74 said:


> “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)




My observations were an acknowledgment that scientific theories are models in the context of that quote, wrong but useful. General relativity is a more accurate model than Gravity but it isn't reconciled with Qauntum theory, hence research into other areas attempting to develop the next better model.



spooly74 said:


> Would you call a mathematical equation a model?




By itself, no. E = MC^2 is not a model but it is instrumental in the context of mass and energy within the general and special relativity model.



spooly74 said:


> You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
> I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate.
> They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
> That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.




Agreed. I think we are on the same page but correct me if I am mistaken.



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> I am not aware of any models that reflect observable data at all.






spooly74 said:


> You won't find any.
> 
> “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)






Some Dude said:


> Which leads me to your introductory sentence. Why won't we find any any models that reflect observable data? The climate scientists seem to disagree. Can someone identify where they have got it wrong such that the current models are not just wrong in the useful sense, but that they are useless?




I was seeking clarity here regarding that chain of comments. As with your atom example, it isn't reality but it does reflect a substantially useful version of reality. My understanding is that climate models do reflect reality for previous data in a sufficiently demonstrable manner to the relevant scientific community, even though they are not perfect, and as such provide the best mechanism we currently have for predictions.

In that sense and the context of WayneL's comment, I was clarifying with you that we "won't find any" and "all models are wrong, but some are useful".


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> Typical basilio exaggerations and hissy-fit...and the topic is - wait for it - *Resisting Climate Hysteria*.




Oohhh.. I always read that the other way around. Resisting the hysterical objections to climate science


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> Oohhh.. I always read that the other way around. Resisting the hysterical objections to climate science




Yes, misrepresenting things is a habit of yours, but, of course, deceit is part of the warmists' agenda.

My post was the third on this thread.



> A very rational and timely expose`of climate change hysteria Mickel. Unfortunately the alarmists have very short and selective attention spans and they won't read it. It has to be something lifted from the Age or the Guardian to get their attention.
> 
> On the other hand I seldom read their rubbish (except for a laugh.) So it's a Mexican stand-off.
> 
> By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> My post was the third on this thread.




My post was teasing you in jest 

Would you like me to review and critique the article in your post, the third in this thread?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well wasn't that fascinating....
> 
> I put up a post from the the Weather Bureau detailing how extensive the recent heat wave has been, how far off the  records it is and the connections with global warming that demonstrate why we should be concerned about the future.
> 
> I finished the post with a  throwaway reference to the one day record heat event in Sydney.
> 
> And the smiley ? I was just trying to be friendly. Rather than say gloomy or catastrophic.
> 
> So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and  a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .
> 
> Then there are the  3600 odd posts  jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have no relevance to the topic
> 
> And of course as the physical events  mounts that our climate is changing as predicted over many years  Wayne continues to assert there just isn't any evidence for any change.
> 
> Congratulations Wayne . You are well on the way to winning the  Lance Armstrong award.:mad




Lance at least came clean in the end. You and your ilk will tout misrepresentations _ad infinitum_.

I will leave it to your imagination as which dark hole you can shove the above quoted nonsense in.


----------



## Calliope

Some Dude said:


> My post was teasing you in jest
> 
> Would you like me to review and critique the article in your post, the third in this thread?




Jest! From an alarmist. No thanks, your "reviews and critiques" are too boring.:bad:


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> LOL oh man..........................BTW its Fu(king hot but don't panic its just weather or some twisted plot LOL.




Oh! It's summer!

IIRC it's hot in summer in WA.

I remember competing in the WA state championships in early november and it was 42... back in the 80's

I remember out fencing in Caversham in the late 70's, in 45.7 degree heat. All our candles melted and flopped over.

Confirmation bias, the most unintelligent bias of all.

All irrelevant because we must look globally for evidence of warming.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> Jest! From an alarmist. No thanks, your "reviews and critiques" are too boring.:bad:




A pity because your characterisation of the Monbiot encounter had me intrigued.



Calliope said:


> By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.




Fascinating stuff when they finally debated.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Lance at least came clean in the end. You and your ilk will tout misrepresentations _ad infinitum_.
> 
> .




Ah our first response to nomination for the Lance Armstrong award from that most worthy of nominess of the Global Warming Deniers fraternity !

Lets remember why we have a special Lance Armstrong award. It recognizes the memory of a man whose chiseled features, confident bearing and ruthless conniving managed to secure fame and millions of dollars on a series of lies.

Who managed to BS everyone while denying  thousands of pages of forensic evidence compiled by the cycling authorities. 

Who finally "gave it up" when  all the evidence was put into a huge volume which spelt out in exhausting detail how corrupt he was.  (_He didn't just own up because he felt bad about it did he now ?_)

Don't feel specially honored for this nomination Wayne. There are are far more accomplished liars in your camp that will will have their own day in the limelight when the penny drops.

Cheers.


----------



## wayneL

ASF code of conduct prevents me saying what I really want to say to you, but once again basilio, you show you are totally devoid of honour by referring to me as a denier, despite my oft stated position on the matter.


----------



## Mister Mark

I just think it was .5 degrees hotter for one day, recorded in different ways 70 plus years apart. Call me silly.


----------



## white_goodman

scary..


----------



## Knobby22

Someone tell her she's dreamin'


----------



## Smurf1976

sails said:


> Smurf, what about the heatwaves Sydney has had before?  I posted this earlier in the thread and Sydney has had two other heatwaves of about the same temperature.  What would have caused these over 70 and  160 years ago?
> 
> It seems to me there is nothing new.  Nothing has changed. Extreme weather comes as it always has and especially in this country where weather extremes are normal.



I don't doubt that there have been heatwaves before. But I also don't doubt that at least two Australian state capital cities have set new temperature records in the past two weeks. 

I also don't doubt that stream flows are changing. What used to be permanently flowing minor creeks are now permanently dry except during a flood. They used to still trickle at the end of Summer but now they're dry even after Winter rains. That's an observable change. 

Likewise I don't doubt that SW WA has dried out incredibly over the past 40 years or so and that the same trend is well established in Tasmania. Look at the water authority data in WA and it shows a clear change beyond dispute and has driven the water authority first to ground water and then to desalination as inflows to dams dried up. 

It's similar in Tasmania, with a clear change (downward) in run-off compared to that which prevailed through most of the 20th Century. In both cases, the trends start in the 1970's.  

The one that really puzzles me is the "rain hole" (my invented term but I know others who have adopted it also) during Autumn in Tasmania. There's a reasonably steep decline and if you take a rolling 5 year average then it's almost linear. There isn't much change in Winter, Spring or Summer but there's a huge decline in Autumn which drives a modest (about 15%) decline in annual water inflows. That decline would be even larger if not for the annual cloud seeding program in Tasmania during Winter and Spring.

I won't claim to understand the reasoning behind all this but I do know that things are drying out. I can see it in the data and I can see it on bushwalking trips. It's drier now than it used to be, even after the recent "wet" period which hasn't fully offset the previous drought. Something must be driving that change, and if it's occurring in both WA and Tas then the cause is unlikely to be local.

I'm not claiming a link to CO2 here (though it's possible). I'm just noting that the climate has changed in my local environment and this creates issues with human activities (farming, urban water supply, power generation, fire fighting etc) trying to cope with the changes.


----------



## explod

Very good post Smurf1976.

Close to what I feel and observe for my vibe but cannot express it as well as that.

The cause is not defined but when it is I argue it will be too late to save humans.  We in fact should be throwing our car keys away, turning off the tellie and living in the dark now, anything else is gambling the future.  

Some people are in fact living that way happily; as long as you can get a feed have shelter and enjoy the odd wellington boot.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Very good post Smurf1976.
> 
> Close to what I feel and observe for my vibe but cannot express it as well as that.
> 
> The cause is not defined but when it is I argue it will be too late to save humans.  We in fact should be throwing our car keys away, turning off the tellie and living in the dark now, anything else is gambling the future.
> 
> Some people are in fact living that way happily; as long as you can get a feed have shelter and enjoy the odd wellington boot.




And stuffing investors in WHC around with solar powered notebooks and mobile phones using sophisticated forgery software.

Give us a break plod, yer dreamin.

gg


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> referring to me as a denier, despite my oft stated position on the matter.




Stated or otherwise the venom you impart at times suggests that you have no truck with the take of those *believing* (as opposed to knowing) that fossil fuel burning is the cause.  You do I know accept that we may have a warming problem, your issue is the source. 

I do feel (another vibe) that your type of business or philosophy causes a scotoma effect on your intuitive values.

The overbearing tone in addition to your official role to vet on ASF is in my view a considerable conflict.  As much as you want to be involved I would be standing aside.

This debate is a very important and no one should feel encumbered.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Stated or otherwise the venom you impart at times suggests that you have no truck with the take of those *believing* (as opposed to knowing) that fossil fuel burning is the cause.  You do I know accept that we may have a warming problem, your issue is the source.
> 
> I do feel (another vibe) that your type of business or philosophy causes a scotoma effect on your intuitive values.
> 
> The overbearing tone in addition to your official role to vet on ASF is in my view a considerable conflict.  As much as you want to be involved I would be standing aside.
> 
> This debate is a very important and no one should feel encumbered.




I have not used or implied any moderation on this thread Plod, nor will I when I am involved in a conversation. Nor will I accept that because of my role, that I should stand aside from any conversation I am interested in.

As basilio's and your continued bile filled attacks and misrepresentations show, there is no feeling of restraint on your part either.

I believe your attempted slur here is disgraceful.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I believe your attempted slur here is disgraceful.




Have another read, not a slur at all, you do a very good and probably thankless job.

But I would be surprised if others do not agree that you can be condescending.  Yes a bit sharp on it myself but not with any billigerant tone, in my vw;  I try, but often fail, to explain it.  

off topic now, happy to continue elsewhere


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Very good post Smurf1976.
> 
> Close to what I feel and observe for my vibe but cannot express it as well as that.
> 
> The cause is not defined but when it is I argue it will be too late to save humans.  We in fact should be throwing our car keys away, turning off the tellie and living in the dark now, anything else is gambling the future.



Personally, I gave up all hope of cutting emissions once I realised two things:

1. How fiat money works and that it requires constant growth, noting the huge forces any change is up against.

2. That those opposing globalisation have essentially lost that battle and that the likes of China, India etc are indeed industrialising.

The sheer scale of it all is the problem. A generation ago there was some concern about the amount of fuel, particularly oil and gas, being used (particularly in "non-critical" things like power generation). Now look at the massive ramp up of LNG going on right now - it makes the amount of gas we burn at Torrens Island (the largest gas-fired power station in Australia, located in Adelaide) seem absolutely trivial by comparison. And yet 30 years ago there was real concern by the SA government about the amount of gas being used there.

Same goes for coal. The increase in coal mining and use makes all "old" uses seem trivial. What's the point worrying about Hazelwood power station (which generates about 20% of Victoria's electricity) being 10% less efficient than a more modern plant when China is building a new plant that size every week or two anyway? 

It's pointless to pretend that we can actually do something about this one. At best, it's like using a water pistol against a raging bushfire. A slight slowing of the disaster (at best) but everything still ends up being burnt, even if it is all of 3 seconds later than it otherwise would have happened.

If CO2 causes warming then we're going to have warming. The best we can do now is plan to cope with that as best we can.


----------



## wayneL

From Der Spiegal: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...-fuer-pause-der-klimaerwaermung-a-877941.html



> Klimawandel: Forscher rÃ¤tseln Ã¼ber Stillstand bei ErderwÃ¤rmung
> 
> Von Axel Bojanowski
> 
> Wie stark erwÃ¤rmt sich unser Klima wirklich? Nasa-Forscher belegen, dass der Temperaturanstieg seit 15 Jahren eine Pause macht. Gleichzeitig gibt es Indizien dafÃ¼r, dass sich das Problem verlagert: Die Umwelt kÃ¶nnte sich vorlÃ¤ufig an ganz anderer Stelle erhitzen.




IOW



> Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming
> 
> By Axel Bojanowski
> 
> How much our climate is warming real? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise in 15 years takes a break. At the same time, there are indications that shifts the problem: The environment could be a completely different place preliminary heat.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> From Der Spiegal: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...-fuer-pause-der-klimaerwaermung-a-877941.html




English translation of link.



			
				Der Spiegal said:
			
		

> What is next?
> 
> Plausible explanations for why the heating is only temporarily slowed down, so there is plenty. The number of guesses but also shows how inaccurate the climate is understood. Warming could brake as La NiÃ±a not seem continue cooling? "Advise the jury still in this thing," NASA explains.
> 
> The bottom line, however, remain several questionable signs of warming: The sea level rise , the summer Meereeis in the Arctic has been halved , glacier melt . In some places, there is evidence that extreme weather events are increasing . "There are many signs of global warming," said Kevon Trenberth, "the surface air temperature is only one."
> 
> But again and again surprise new data: soon will see a study that shows that soot particles from unfiltered diesel exhaust and open fires contribute twice as much to heat as expected. Because of soot in developing countries has been increasing for a long time, would be the effect have already been felt. But there are positive surprises: Recently computer simulations showed that the warming tropical cyclones has been rare. The strongest hurricanes could nevertheless gaining momentum.




That was a good read, thanks!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

We in N.Queensland, are waiting to get pissed upon by the monsoon.

It's a little late.

Then it is some years.

I think the global warming crew have overstretched themselves.

gg


----------



## Some Dude

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We in N.Queensland, are waiting to get pissed upon by the monsoon.
> 
> It's a little late.
> 
> Then it is some years.




There is a very active discussion happening at Weather Zone for this event.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Some Dude said:


> There is a very active discussion happening at Weather Zone for this event.




A very uninteresting site.

I respect bom.gov.au even though only warmists get promoted therein.

The scientists make sense there, the ones who do science, not promotion.

Give it a go.

gg


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally, I gave up all hope of cutting emissions once I realised two things: ...
> 
> ... If CO2 causes warming then we're going to have warming. The best we can do now is plan to cope with that as best we can.




Onya Smurf, best post I've seen on the topic!


----------



## Some Dude

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A very uninteresting site.
> 
> I respect bom.gov.au even though only warmists get promoted therein.
> 
> The scientists make sense there, the ones who do science, not promotion.
> 
> Give it a go.




Weatherzone has a very large forum community of active weather enthusiasts, including people such as Anthony Cornelius and Jeffrey Higgins. Some of the individuals certainly seem qualified and worth reading. Even the CMC found them interesting.

How interesting that you would find such a site about weather with informed people uninteresting.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Some Dude said:


> Weatherzone has a very large forum community of active weather enthusiasts, including people such as Anthony Cornelius and Jeffrey Higgins. Some of the individuals certainly seem qualified and worth reading. Even the CMC found them interesting.
> 
> How interesting that you would find such a site about weather with informed people uninteresting.




I'll look at the site more fully when I'm not cleaning me gutters and preparing for ****loads of rain.

On the link you sent me to, the page to which I went, it looked like a winkey wankey bird convention.

gg


----------



## Some Dude

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'll look at the site more fully when I'm not cleaning me gutters and preparing for ****loads of rain.
> 
> On the link you sent me to, the page to which I went, it looked like a winkey wankey bird convention.




Sorry if I got the page wrong, the link is meant to send you to the specific thread for the major rain event you are experiencing. There are a lot of people posting their realtime observations, updated graphs, etc.

Good luck and I hope any damage is minimal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Some Dude said:


> Sorry if I got the page wrong, the link is meant to send you to the specific thread for the major rain event you are experiencing. There are a lot of people posting their realtime observations, updated graphs, etc.
> 
> Good luck and I hope any damage is minimal.




Thanks mate.

I'll look at the site down the track and get back.

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/watch-62-years-of-global-warming-in-13-seconds-15469

Interesting video from NASA.  I don't understand the cause of the warming planet (man made or natural cycle), but it looks bad doesn't it?


----------



## basilio

Excellent new book that introduces the science behind Climate Change as part of introductory science courses.



> *
> Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis
> *
> Volume One of a two-volume treatment of climate change science designed for an introductory science course
> Describes the discipline of Climate Change Science, and individual climate change scientists whose expertise spans Earth history, geology, geography, biology, oceanography, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering and more
> Examines evidence of global warming that has entered mainstream discussions of climate change
> Discusses the ideas and tactics of climate skeptics and deniers
> 
> Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis introduces the principles of climate change science, emphasizing the empirical evidence for climate change and a warming world. Divided into eleven sections, this comprehensive book opens with an introduction to basic scientific principles including the scientific method, the laws of thermodynamics, the gathering and interpretation of data, biographical notes on a few of the giants of science and their contributions, profiles of selected climate change scientists and their contributions, Newton’s laws of motion and more.
> 
> The remaining sections include an Overview of Climate Change Science; Earth’s Atmosphere; The World Ocean and Climate; Earth’s Cryosphere and Climate History; Land and Its Climates; Climate Models; Paleoclimatology; Future Climates and Mitigation; Skeptics and Deniers of Global Warming and Specific Declarations against Climate Science and Climate Scientists. The book offers extensive coverage of the major aspects of climate change and its effects and interactions with the atmosphere, the World Ocean, glaciers and land. Modeling the Climate receives its own chapter, and there are sections on past climates and a chapter outlining the ideas of climate change skeptics and deniers and the scientific evidence that either refutes or substantiates their claims.
> 
> Each chapter opens with a list of “Things to Know.” The book goes on to offer chapter-length discussion of the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and anthroposphere and their inter-relationships and much more. Designed as an introductory text for use at the undergraduate level, Climate Change Science assumes no science background on the part of the reader.




http://www.springer.com/environment/book/978-94-007-5756-1


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Excellent new book that introduces the science behind Climate Change as part of introductory science courses.




Obviously just more indoctrination.



> Volume One of a two-volume treatment of climate change science designed for an introductory science course
> Describes the discipline of Climate Change Science, and individual climate change scientists whose expertise spans Earth history, geology, geography, biology, oceanography, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering and more
> Examines evidence of global warming that has entered mainstream discussions of climate change
> *Discusses the ideas and tactics of climate skeptics and deniers*


----------



## basilio

Hoped you would spot that Calliope. Always makes sense to identify exactly what lies are being told by the various range of skeptics and  outright deniers. I believe they take great pains to examine as many pseudo science "facts" as possible to enable students to understand scientific practice versus hokum.

And on the topic of changing reality check out how  Spencer, Watts and Co dealt with the fact that Amercia had its warmest year on record in 2012.




> *2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality*
> Posted on 14 January 2013 by dana1981
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) recently announced that 2012 broke the record for the hottest average annual surface temperature for the contiguous United States by a wide margin – a full degree Fahrenheit (Figure 1).  Given that this is a very inconvenient fact for certain groups, we should perhaps not be surprised that the NCDC has come under attack for reporting this year's record.
> 
> Most prominently, Fox News ran a story quoting Roy Spencer (a contrarian climate scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville [UAH]), Anthony Watts (a blogger and broadcast meteorologist), and Steven Goddard (a pseudonym for a climate blogger who goes to the extreme in denying human-caused global warming), all of whom directly or indirectly accused the NCDC of somehow fudging the data to introduce a false warming trend and make 2012 the record hottest year.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-us-temp-record-fox-denial.html


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Hoped you would spot that Calliope. Always makes sense to identify exactly what lies are being told by the various range of skeptics and  outright deniers. I believe they take great pains to examine as many pseudo science "facts" as possible to enable students to understand scientific practice versus hokum.




Spoken like a true egoist.



> And on the topic of changing reality check out how  Spencer, Watts and Co dealt with the fact that Amercia had its warmest year on record in 2012.




No thanks. Not really interested. I never read your biased and verbose posts or links. I just cherry-pick for clangers.


----------



## basilio

Well there are are.

I actually do read and check up on most of the posts that are put up that challenge current climate change science. Always useful to understand  another point of view. (In many cases  the full story contradicts what the poster has tried to say but thats par for the course here)

Clearly Calliope you have no need to read anything else. You know it all...


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> S I just cherry-pick for *clangers.*




And that is the measure of it ole Pal.

You could not really care less either way


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Always makes sense to identify exactly what lies are being told by the various range of skeptics and  outright deniers.



Why. What harm are they doing to anyone?



			
				 some dude said:
			
		

> My understanding is that climate models do reflect reality for previous data in a sufficiently demonstrable manner to the relevant scientific community, even though they are not perfect, and as such provide the best mechanism we currently have for predictions




On the whole, I don't have a problem with climate models, and generally agree with your general comment above 
Currently though, all you hear about is a call to restrict temp under 2 degrees by 2010, or else...., based on modelling. Simply, thats 0.2 per decade. IIRC most of that heat was to occur in the first couple of decades this century. If thats the case, we need to start seeing massive increases in the avg global temp over the next 10-15 years, and that's just to hit the lower limit.




			
				smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If CO2 causes warming then we're going to have warming. The best we can do now is plan to cope with that as best we can.



We know a tax or a trading scheme won't remove CO2.
Have you heard of any large bio or man-made engineering projects to remove excess CO2?
I'm sick of hearing what the scientists have to say. Lets hear from some engineers.


----------



## basilio

Well Spooly some interesting observations.

You ask what harm are skeptics and deniers doing with their lies? I would give them very large credit for stalling almost all effective action against reducing CO2 levels and the effect on our climate.

Ask yourself  where would we be if the fossil fuel industry agreed that excessive CO2 emissions were dangerous and that they would be moving heaven and earth to  develop non polluting energy sources or minimise their own emissions.  For example what would have happened if in the 70's the tobacco industry had acknowledged that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer and offered to voluntarily close up shop? 

You can't easily tackle a problem when some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have  a vested interest in denying the issue.

I'm not sure of your logic with regard to keeping global temperatures to a minimum increase. If you accept the  models are accurate ( which you appear to ?) then wondering whether we get cooked in 30 years or 60 years or 90 years appears moot. 

No one pretends the climate changes in lock step with CO2 emissions. There are other climatic factors  at play and in any case the earth can warm considerably in the oceans, through ice melt while showing only a modest increase in average temperature - for a while.  But inevitably the extra heat energy will drive average temperatures up.

With regard to solutions to removing CO2.  As I said earlier while we have a core group of powerful people denying what is happening it is hard to see how things will change.

I believe you are being unfair about the effect a well constructed carbon tax would have on CO2 emissions.  If one makes CO2 emitting energy more expensive than clean fuels the economic market place will move in that direction. It's business self interest at work.

As far as  other schemes to remove CO2.  They seem to be expensive and  incapable of doing the job. And really wouldn't it be simpler to start by reducing the CO2 emissions in the first place ?


----------



## Surly

basilio said:


> As far as  other schemes to remove CO2.  They seem to be expensive and  incapable of doing the job. And really wouldn't it be simpler to start by reducing the CO2 emissions in the first place ?




Basilio,

Wouldn't it be fantastic if nature had invented a way of removing carbon from the air and locking it up in some way, that may also provide a further cooling and moderating effect on the climate 

cheers
Surly


----------



## explod

Surly said:


> Basilio,
> 
> Wouldn't it be fantastic if nature had invented a way of removing carbon from the air and locking it up in some way, that may also provide a further cooling and moderating effect on the climate
> 
> cheers
> Surly




Nature did, it is called trees

and we need to plant them all back again and camp in the ones they want to chop down.

Why do you think I am a Greenie?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> . You know it all




Oh! The irony.

You mustn't give up, bas. I get a lot of laughs out of you and the faithful Plod. You remind me of the gallant knight, Don Quixote and the faithful Sancho Panza on a mission to save the world...but tilting at windmills.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> Well Spooly some interesting observations.
> 
> You ask what harm are skeptics and deniers doing with their lies? I would give them very large credit for stalling almost all effective action against reducing CO2 levels and the effect on our climate.
> 
> Ask yourself  where would we be if the fossil fuel industry agreed that excessive CO2 emissions were dangerous and that they would be moving heaven and earth to  develop non polluting energy sources or minimise their own emissions.  For example what would have happened if in the 70's the tobacco industry had acknowledged that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer and offered to voluntarily close up shop?
> 
> You can't easily tackle a problem when some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have  a vested interest in denying the issue.




When its a case of policies on emissions reductions vs economic growth. The latter will prevail every time.
It's the Iron Law of Climate Policy.
Skeptics aren't stalling action, you just wish they were.


----------



## basilio

spooly74 said:


> When its a case of policies on emissions reductions vs economic growth. The latter will prevail every time.
> It's the Iron Law of Climate Policy.
> Skeptics aren't stalling action, you just wish they were.




I think there is a lot of truth in your comment. In fact the current need to make and use more and more stuff regardless of  actual need and the waste it entails is part of the problem of global warming.

My point was the  power  and vested interests of current fossil companies to keep using their products and to  hold onto the value of their reserves. It is just unimaginable to them to see trillions of dollars of oil and coal reserves  brought to nothing because we decide we cannot create more CO2.  Essentially it is the issue of stranded assets.

That is why a  well constructed Carbon Tax is a excellent tool  to encourage non CO2 polluting energy production Vs  coal/oil/gas based production. For example encouraging  hydrogen based  technologies.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf


----------



## noco

It would appear from the link below that the Global Warming Alarmist have been exaggerating their claim for years.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...rmist_scientist_admits_whoops_we_exaggerated/


----------



## Some Dude

noco said:


> It would appear from the link below that the Global Warming Alarmist have been exaggerating their claim for years.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...rmist_scientist_admits_whoops_we_exaggerated/




Really? What about the study that you read indicated that they were exaggerating?

Edit: And as usual, find the author and he says something very very different to what Bolt is implying.



			
				Phys.org said:
			
		

> Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth's mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2 °C and 4.5 °C, with the most probable being 3 °C of warming.
> In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9 °C as the most likely level of warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
> Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.




I wonder why people don't apply these terms like exaggerate to Bolt? It's the most peculiar phenomenon.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> I believe you are being unfair about the effect a well constructed carbon tax would have on CO2 emissions.  If one makes CO2 emitting energy more expensive than clean fuels the economic market place will move in that direction. It's business self interest at work.



Agreed in principle but the tax we have today is anything but well constructed. That problem, rather than the tax itself, is I think the underlying objection many have to it.

What are the biggest problems with it? Firstly it applies at a markedly different rate depending on the location of the point source of the CO2 being emitted. Secondly it is open to speculation and manipulation, thus resulting in a wealth transfer unassociated with actual emissions reduction.

Fix those two points and I have no objection to it.


----------



## MrBurns

> Core of my heart, my country!
> Land of the Rainbow Gold,
> For flood and fire and famine,
> She pays us back threefold-
> Over the thirsty paddocks,
> Watch, after many days,
> The filmy veil of greenness
> That thickens as we gaze.




My Country
by
Dorothea Mackellar
(1885 - 1968)

So whats new except for climate scientists milkng peoples fear for financial gain ?


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> My Country
> by
> Dorothea Mackellar
> (1885 - 1968)
> 
> So whats new except for climate scientists milkng peoples fear for financial gain ?




How often do we have to have abnormally hot days before it's normal?

I think the below graph shows quite clearly what hs been happening over the last 50 years - at least in the Sydney area


----------



## basilio

Follow up from Nicolas Stern who produced the 2008 Stern review on Climate Change.



> Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change




http://sustainablesecurity.blogspot...te.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

_*"As the facts change so do thinking peoples views"*_


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Follow up from Nicolas Stern who produced the 2008 Stern review on Climate Change.
> 
> 
> 
> http://sustainablesecurity.blogspot...te.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> _*"As the facts change so do thinking peoples views"*_




Thanks for posting up Bas.

The problem we have is that it does not exist in the mind of people unless it is proven beyond doubt and the evidence of the destruction is clear and happening.  Like that of a bush fire, or the dreadful floods we are witnessing now, when it can be seen in front of you it is then far too late.


----------



## MrBurns

> Chinese smog chokes Japan
> 
> Smog from China is now drifting over parts of Japan, triggering health warnings for the young and sick.
> 
> Japanese media has been saturated with coverage of the thick, choking smog blanketing Beijing and other Chinese cities in recent days.
> 
> News programs have also broadcast maps showing the pollution being pushed west by the winds towards southern Japan.
> 
> Japanese health experts are warning that people with respiratory problems and small children are susceptible to the smog, which is worst on the southern island of Kyushu.
> 
> The website of Japan's environment minister has been choked with users logging on to monitor the level of pollution heading their way.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-05/chinese-smog-chokes-japan/4500760

Lets make sure we pay more tax and tell Granny to turn her heater off to stop all this


----------



## sails

It's been nice weather here on the Gold Coast.  Funny how this thread goes quiet when the weather completes a little heatwave and goes back to more comfortable temperatures (as it has been doing for all of my life time).

Are the warmists amongst us waiting  for the next normal heatwave to hit so they can once again blast us with their scaremongering tactics?


----------



## burglar

sails said:


> ... Are the warmists amongst us waiting for the next normal heatwave to hit ...




Not just normal _heatwaves_ but also _cold snaps_, _storm activity _ or any _unseasonal _weather.


----------



## Logique

Dr Karl K. beloved of the ABC, was made to look very silly this week. It was pointed out that he'd exaggerated by 6 times the warming reported by the UK Met. His response? He deleted the Twitter posts where he'd said this. No apology, no explanation.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Logique said:


> Dr Karl K. beloved of the ABC, was made to look very silly this week. It was pointed out that he'd exaggerated by 6 times the warming reported by the UK Met. His response? He deleted the Twitter posts where he'd said this. No apology, no explanation.




I missed that Logique, what did he say?

gg


----------



## Logique

*A question for Dr Karl, the warmist*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/
> 
> *Dr Karl, debating the figures of Britain’s Met, asserts the world has warmed 0.3 degrees in 16 years* - which still isn’t that much, actually.
> 
> But the Met’s figures, as tweeter Bill correctly informs him, actually show a *warming just one-sixth of what Dr Karl claimed*. That is so small that scientists say it’s statistically insignificant. It’s indistinguishable from background noise. Essentially zero.
> 
> Just in case there is any doubt about what the Met figures show, *here is the Met in its own words*, excuses and all:
> 
> The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03 °C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of *0.05 °C over that period*...


----------



## sails

Here is a snapshot of the apparently now removed tweets found on the same link provided by Logique:





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


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Thanks Logique and sails.

I can't understand why he will not apologise.

If I ever have tonsillitis I won't be going to him as a doctor. 

What a duffer, he can't multiply. More scary talk from the godbothering warmists.

Is he really a doctor?

gg


----------



## white_goodman

the lack of warming is evidence of global warming, surely thats the spin


----------



## basilio

Theres is a very good reason for Dr Karl to  simply ignore Andrew Bolt and the other climate  change deniers on the blogger sphere (including ASF)

Andrew Bolt is a sociopathic liar.  His columns are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies. Its why no one with any sense of rationality would accept his line on most issues unless there is  other evidence.

With regard to the question of changes in the earths temperatures from 1997 to 2012.  As indicated in  Bolts column this period of time cheery picks the peak of an El Niño year with the bottom of a La Nina one



> The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03 °C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05 °C over that period...




As has been shown in numerous occasions global warming doesn't go up in lock step. There are other factors at play. You can see Andrew deception at work when you read the next paragraph where he takes this cheery picked period and attempts to extrapolate it for the next century.


> Or put it this way: if this rate of warming is real and was maintained for the rest of the century, the world by 2100 would be hotter by about 0.27 of a degree. You’d struggle to even measure it. You certainly wouldn’t notice a change in the climate, other than the natural ones that have always been with us.




This is Andrew sophistry at its best. Pick one window of figures between the 2 most favourable points and then attempt to *deny* the rest of the evidence that shows a serious long term problem.

Karl K. made an error in his maths. But apologizing to Andrew Bolt ?  No xxxxxxx way. 

For a  few facts on the long term movement in temperatures check out the following Url.  And it also highlights how one can cherry pick any short term period and use it to say "nothing has happened".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> This is Andrew sophistry at its best. Pick one window of figures between the 2 most favourable points and then attempt to *deny* the rest of the evidence that shows a serious long term problem.
> 
> Karl K. made an error in his maths.



Well, this is  basilio sophistry at its best.  Made an error in his maths???
He made a completely misleading statement.  Leave Andrew Bolt right out of it.
He simply needs to apologise for making an incorrect assertion.


----------



## wayneL

Lol... thanks for more material for my hypocrisy thesis basilio.

yep Bolt is a piece of work. but no mor so than the skeptical science crank et al. Two sides of the same coin.

And doesn't absolve Karl one iota.


----------



## basilio

Well what else would I expect from you Wayne ?  One one hand we have a sociopathic  liar (Andrew Bolt) who  deliberately distorts data to undermine the credibility of  the climate change scientific community.

And on the other side there are hundreds of scientists who have checked, cross checked and understand this issue as far as  can be done .

And you put them on an equal footing... 

Bravo  Wayne!! I assume this means you still think the world has not warmed in the last century as per your repeated claims last year ?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

And just for the sake of actually *looking at the facts* of what is happening to the worlds temperatures how about a conversation on the link I posted which illustrates the problem we are facing.?

Or is that too uncomfortable ?


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ...Andrew Bolt is a sociopathic liar.  His columns are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies...





Isn't this defamatory?


----------



## Calliope

sails said:


> Isn't this defamatory?




Guess whose posts "are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sails said:


> Here is a snapshot of the apparently now removed tweets found on the same link provided by Logique:
> 
> View attachment 50904
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/




So has he apologised or corrected his mis-statements.

I am sure his patients won't be too pleased that he makes such basic errors. 

Imagine if he gave you a dose of amoxal that was one tenth of the proper dose when you had bronchitis. It could be serious.

gg


----------



## DB008

http://www.vkooten.net/?p=469


----------



## sails

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So has he apologised or corrected his mis-statements.
> 
> I am sure his patients won't be too pleased that he makes such basic errors.
> 
> Imagine if he gave you a dose of amoxal that was one tenth of the proper dose when you had bronchitis. It could be serious.
> 
> gg





Let's hope he's not an anaesthetist...


----------



## basilio

Something to think about..




> *Keep playing dirty
> *
> PEOPLE claim Australia is ”ahead of the game” in cleaning up sport. That doesn’t wash. One of the most successful arguments against taxing carbon is that we must not get ahead of the game. And just as all right-thinking Australians believe we should do nothing to make fossil fuels dearer for Australian businesses, so they will believe we should do nothing to make it harder for our athletes to get drugs and continue to win.
> 
> We must insist that nothing be done to clean up sport in Australia that is not also being done in every other country. We must ensure that athletes from Fourth World countries that have never won so much as an Olympic bronze are not enabled to steal our gold medals because we have put our athletes in a politically correct straitjacket.
> 
> What’s the use of cleaning up your economy or your sport while everyone else is playing dirty? If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it, surely we can cope with doing bugger-all to save sport in Australia as we know it.
> 
> Colin Smith, St Kilda




Letter to The Age


----------



## Smurf1976

A better analogy would be to say that our athletes need to keep taking drugs because if they don't then they will be removed from the competition and replaced by someone else who is taking drugs.

It's not as though we have the choice to play clean, at least not without reintroducing tariffs and other forms of protection for domestic industry.

For what it's worth, my crystal ball tells me that tariffs etc are exactly where we'll head once it becomes clear to all that there are no industries at which we are competitive against lower standards (employment, environment, safety etc) offshore.

There are plenty of news reports about the black skies in China. How can any manufacturer, of anything, in Australia hope to compete against a country where that sort of thing is allowed?

A much fairer system would be to have the same rates of pay and the same environmental laws globally, thus giving advantage only to those who are genuinely more efficient rather than those who simply do things cheap. That won't likely happen, which leads us to the back door method - tariffs, duties, quotas etc.

I'm not against free trade in principle. But it's ridiculous to think that Australia can compete, at anything, against others with wages at $1 per hour and stuff all regulation over safety and the environment. Mining works only because that has to be done where the minerals are - if someone finds heaps of iron ore etc in China then we'll be out of the game pretty quickly.


----------



## Judd

> If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it,




Interesting.  I wonder what Mr Colin Smith will write to _The Age_ about "securing...life on Earth" when the Yellowstone Caldera finally does its thing, which it will at some unknown time?


----------



## wayneL

Judd said:


> Interesting.  I wonder what Mr Colin Smith will write to _The Age_ about "securing...life on Earth" when the Yellowstone Caldera finally does its thing, which it will at some unknown time?




We can prevent that with a caldera tax.


----------



## Happy

Carbon Tax must be working, as we recently had coldest day in 45 years.


----------



## wayneL

So I have a minute to answer this garbage



basilio said:


> Well what else would I expect from you Wayne ?  One one hand we have a sociopathic  liar (Andrew Bolt) who  deliberately distorts data to undermine the credibility of  the climate change scientific community.
> 
> And on the other side there are hundreds of scientists who have checked, cross checked and understand this issue as far as  can be done .




No that is not what we have, we have one blogger (Bolt) and another blogger (Cook)



> And you put them on an equal footing...




Yes, both manipulate data for an agenda. Cook is rather more clever, but no less dishonest.



> Bravo  Wayne!! I assume this means you still think the world has not warmed in the last century as per your repeated claims last year ?




I want you to consider how utterly dishonest and dishonourable you have been in repeating this lie once again.

On this thread I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.

I have also stated that we humans have other more pressing environmental concerns of our own doing.

So please do not repeat this dishonesty again or else the inevitable conclusion would at that point be inescapable, that you are pathological liar, preferring to lie and misrepresent, to further an agenda and sully the reputation of an opponent over actual empirical data.



> And just for the sake of actually *looking at the facts* of what is happening to the worlds temperatures how about a conversation on the link I posted which illustrates the problem we are facing.?
> 
> Or is that too uncomfortable ?




I look at all the 'facts' I can find, but never on face value due to political and financial agendas, paticularly within the warmist agenda. And I never consider a single source.

I have both cause for hope and worry, but I am comfortable with my views on climate change.

You however, should be uncomfortable about the ethics of your discourse here.


----------



## wayneL

BTW, here is another lukewarmer often vilified as a "denier" by dishonest alarmist brownshirts.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/too-much-hot-air-about-global-warming-says-researcher-rv-1

I can identify with Steve's views also.

Would you like to call Steve a denier as well basilio?


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> ... What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario. ...
> 
> I have also stated that we humans have other more pressing environmental concerns of our own doing. ...
> 
> ... I am comfortable with my views on climate change....




The argument as I see it:
Too much CO2 up there and man is responsible for some of it!
Apparently we have to pay trillions and change our lifestyle to reduce emissions.

Too much methane up there and sheep, cows and various ruminants are reponsible for some of it!
Apparently we have to pay billions and change their lifestyle to reduce emissions.

Supposedly the tropics are to increase in area. An estimated 3% MORE MALARIA cases.
Apparently we cannot cure malaria, that would be way too clever. 
Some islands will go under water. Apparently the obvious won't work (seawall, emigration, stilts ...?)
Again ... it's back to the caves and reduce emissions.

I am not entirely with you wayneL, but ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

With thanks to DotMatrix@AyesHavit on Twitter.







gg


----------



## basilio

Ok Wayne lets go back through your responses to my post claiming


> Well what else would I expect from you Wayne ? One one hand we have a sociopathic liar (Andrew Bolt) who deliberately distorts data to undermine the credibility of the climate change scientific community.
> 
> And on the other side there are hundreds of scientists who have checked, cross checked and understand this issue as far as can be done .
> 
> And you put them on an equal footing...
> 
> Bravo Wayne!! I assume this means you still think the world has not warmed in the last century as per your repeated claims last year ?




Firstly you say that Andrew Bolt and John Cook are both simply bloggers and that both distort  information to suit their agenda.

What drivel.  The Skeptical science website pulls together hundreds of  scientific, peer reviewed papers which dissect  the research that is happening around climate change. In addition these scientists also dissect the  arguments proposed by Monckton. Lindzen, Pielke and co.  In fact it is these analyses which demonstrate how dishonest the arguments are against AGW.

And there is an critical difference between Bolt and the Skeptical science website.  *Andrew Bolt writes some of the  most read newspaper and internet columns in the country. *His capacity to deceive people is magnitudes higher than the more complex  analysis undertaken on the Skeptical Science website. So when, for example, he cheery picks a 15 year period of information and then extrapolates it for the rest of the 21st Century to dismiss concerns about future warming we have a  very big deception. 

With regard to your considered views on global warming.



> On this thread I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.




I don't have a problem with this statement Wayne. It's arguable even if I disagree with it.

*But this was not what you repeatedly said  late last year.*

Lets refresh our memories please. Last year  Best came out with his  reanalysis of  world global temperatures. He confirmed that there in fact had been a significant rise in temperatures (which of course had already been well proven)

You then started to quote Watts who has been endlessly banging on about urban heat islands and arbitrary adjustments to temperature records. This was all in an attempt to deny the facts on clear increases in global temperatures.

On 16th September you finally came out with the following statement



> But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors..*. and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.*



  Post 3717

I was so surprised at that statement I challenged you in post 3719



> Wayne that is just provably wrong. If you can't accept or understand the evidence that shows we are warming rapidly you never will




We went back and forth for a few posts.  You managed to add another little snipe in post 3723



> By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.




This was the first time I had actually seen you attempting to say that there wasn't an agreed  recognizable increase in global temperatures. Instead you appeared to be blaming fiddles on temperature records.

I put this position  on the  next post



> Well Wayne you have piqued my curiosity
> 
> Your position as you seem to have repeatedly stated it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As I read that you seem to be saying we don't actually have any significant warming of the planet. Its just the temperature figures have been fiddled and /or the weather stations are badly sited.*
> 
> Thats it wayne. According to you we just don't have a global warming problem at all. (This is completely separate from questioning what might be causing any increases in temperature )
> 
> So out of interest how many other posters on ASF would agree that global temperatures have not increased in any significant way in the past 100 years ?
> 
> Just asking. It would be useful to see what are the range of views on this particular point.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have previously cited a range of literature to back up the view that temperatures have risen.
> Wayne your welcome to cite any evidence that backs up your statement that there is no actual global warming - just fiddled figures.
Click to expand...



Wayne I was astonished when you made your first statement and thought it was a error. You chose to repeat and confirm it.I expressed my views in post 3733



> Really Wayne ? In which case I'll have to join the rest of the scientific community which measures with care and works off all the evidence rather than made up nonsense.
> 
> With regard to your views on the issue of AGW. I had tentatively believed you classified yourself as a "luke warmer". In that sense you accepted the reality that temperatures were rising but did not accept that human produced CO2 played a significant role in the increase. In that context you would then believe there would be a relatively small rise in any future temperatures and that attempts to stop this by drastically reducing O2 emissions would be counterproductive.
> 
> And now you come out with the statement that you don't actually accept there is any significant temperature rise at all. That in effect we don't even have some substantial, measurable temperature increase across the planet and in particular the polar regions.




You confirmed this position in the your  next post 


> post 3734
> In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.




Enough !!  Lets accept your position Wayne as a Luke warmer. 

*But do not try and slander me as liar when I point out what you repeatedly said last year in relation to the clear increase in global temperatures. The posts are all there. *


----------



## white_goodman

basilio said:


> *But do not try and slander me as liar when I point out what you repeatedly said last year in relation to the clear increase in global temperatures. The posts are all there. *


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> How often do we have to have abnormally hot days before it's normal?
> 
> I think the below graph shows quite clearly what hs been happening over the last 50 years - at least in the Sydney area



For the Eastern part of the city, there is an apparent warming trend until the early 1980's followed by a slight cooling and no real trend after that.

For Parramatta there is a clear warming trend shown on the chart.

I contend that this is evidence of an urban heating effect and not of a climate trend. There has been massive development of Sydney heading west over the past few decades, to the point that Parramatta is now pretty close to being the actual geographic center of Sydney whereas once it was on the outskirts. 

On the other hand, there has been less development in the East (since it was already substantially developed) combined with the permanent shutdown of several power stations and other industries which used to discharge large amounts of heat. Offsetting that is that there are more office buildings, traffic and aviation than there used to be (all of which release heat) but overall it comes somewhere near to a balance it would seem.

I don't think you could really say anything based on that chart other than that Parramatta has warmed relative to Observatory Hill and that a plausible explanation is the one I've stated here. 

More useful information would be to look at somewhere that has not had significant changes in land use or heat emission over that time. Realistically, that means somewhere that isn't a city and which doesn't have heat emitting industry (unless that industry is unchanged in nature and scale over many decades).


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> For the Eastern part of the city, there is an apparent warming trend until the early 1980's followed by a slight cooling and no real trend after that.
> 
> For Parramatta there is a clear warming trend shown on the chart.
> 
> I contend that this is evidence of an urban heating effect and not of a climate trend. There has been massive development of Sydney heading west over the past few decades, to the point that Parramatta is now pretty close to being the actual geographic center of Sydney whereas once it was on the outskirts.
> 
> On the other hand, there has been less development in the East (since it was already substantially developed) combined with the permanent shutdown of several power stations and other industries which used to discharge large amounts of heat. Offsetting that is that there are more office buildings, traffic and aviation than there used to be (all of which release heat) but overall it comes somewhere near to a balance it would seem.
> 
> I don't think you could really say anything based on that chart other than that Parramatta has warmed relative to Observatory Hill and that a plausible explanation is the one I've stated here.
> 
> More useful information would be to look at somewhere that has not had significant changes in land use or heat emission over that time. Realistically, that means somewhere that isn't a city and which doesn't have heat emitting industry (unless that industry is unchanged in nature and scale over many decades).




Possibly Giles weather station at Warakurna in central Australia. 
One would think they have very accurate historical data, there's nothing within cooee to influence the data.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio. I do not resile from any of those comments and they do not contradict my stated view one iota. Ergo I stand by my comments above.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> *Basilio. I do not resile from any of those comments and they do not contradict my stated view one iota. Ergo I stand by my comments above*.




Ok......

So does that mean that in the future you can be accurately quoted as saying (and believing...)



> But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors... *and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.*




and 



> By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.





At first blush of course these statements may somewhat contradict your  now stated position that



> On this thread I have repeatedly *stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, *broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.




But hey !! there is no problem here at all is there ? You are welcome to invoke whichever of the following positions you please to square the circle

1) The Divine Right of Kings.  It is the Kings Right to rule and to be Right

2) Papal Infallibility.  

3) Never apologize,  never explain principle

4) Whatever other excuse takes your fancy...




> Never Apologize, Never Explain. -- Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893) -- [Of Whom It Was Said That What He Didn't Know Wasn't Knowledge.



http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Misce...-that-what-he-didnt-know-wasnt-knowledge.html

_PS No disrespect meant to Benjamin Jowett.  He was a noted scholar _


----------



## wayneL

Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.

I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.

Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.
> 
> I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.
> 
> Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.




"What we've got here is... failure to communicate." Cool Hand Luke (1967)


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.
> 
> I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.
> 
> Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.





I don't know about anyone else, but my eyes glaze over at Bas's lengthy posts cluttered with numerous quotes and I can't be bothered reading them anymore.  So much of the same stuff being regurgitated ad nauseum.  His posts have done nothing to convince me that  the globe is warming let alone it being man's fault - if anything he has put me off even further. 

 Maybe bas is young and hasn't yet witnessed the longer term repeating weather/climate cycles that keep rolling around.  I have not yet seen anything new or different in my lifetime.

Or, does Bas have a vested financial interest in pricing carbon?  I think that is a reasonable question given his vehemence in trying to promote something that doesn't stack up well.


----------



## sails

And this sort of thing does alarmists no good whatsoever. The picture below is of Saibai Island and seems to be a favourite of alarmists to scare people witless about AGW.  Claims that this island is being subjected to rising sea levels when it seems it has ALWAYS been prone to king tides during the wet season - this is clearly nothing but scaremongering, imo.  If something is legitimate, one doesn't have to resort to dodgy scaremongering to convince people:



> Saibai Island has a low, swampy topography that is prone to flooding during wet season and king tides. Fortunately, the town is built high enough above sea level to avoid the worse of this flooding.




and recent flooding is not new:



> After Saibai Island was devastated by abnormally high tides wave after WW2, a group of Saibai Islanders, led by Bamaga Ginau, accepted Government assistance to resettle on Cape York.









http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766640.htm?site=farnorth

Source of above quotes: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/workforus/profiles/TorresStrait/TS_SaibaiIs.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saibai_Island


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.
> 
> I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.
> 
> Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). *My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled.* But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.




Fair enough  Wayne. Thats your view.  

It just concerned me that you repeatedly went out on a limb last year to deny any warming was actually happening. For example your repeated comments blaming  poorly sited weather stations and rigged adjustments.

And I suppose I was even more concerned when you just abused me for suggesting that the entire scientific community might have got it a bit right in measuring the countless ways our world is definitely warmer.

And now of course we can appreciate that in Waynes (quantum) world one can both have our cake and eat  it.

Simultaneously.

In the same sentence you can state that  



> other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.
> 
> By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this,
> 
> In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.




and then without drawing a breath say 



> I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has warmed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change




I appreciate there are many subtleties in the shadowy half world of quantum physics.  But in the current Newtonian world acknowledging the clear reality of the temperature changes that have occurred in the past 150 years separates the deluded or the deniers from those you can still read figures.

Which world are you living in Wayne ? 

______________________________________________________________________

Sails

I agree it was a long post. Sorry if it was a bit hard to follow.

Wayne called me a total liar when I challenged him on his previous statements regarding the  lack of any legitimately  proven increase in the earths temperatures. He denied ever having made such statements

This forum has a history to hold people accountable for what they have said. 

That  is what I did.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Fair enough  Wayne. Thats your view.
> 
> It just concerned me that you repeatedly went out on a limb last year to deny any warming was actually happening. For example your repeated comments blaming  poorly sited weather stations and rigged adjustments.
> 
> And I suppose I was even more concerned when you just abused me for suggesting that the entire scientific community might have got it a bit right in measuring the countless ways our world is definitely warmer.
> 
> And now of course we can appreciate that in Waynes (quantum) world one can both have our cake and eat  it.
> 
> Simultaneously.
> 
> In the same sentence you can state that
> 
> 
> 
> and then without drawing a breath say
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate there are many subtleties in the shadowy half world of quantum physics.  But in the current Newtonian world acknowledging the clear reality of the temperature changes that have occurred in the past 150 years separates the deluded or the deniers from those you can still read figures.
> 
> Which world are you living in Wayne ?
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Sails
> 
> I agree it was a long post. Sorry if it was a bit hard to follow.
> 
> Wayne called me a total liar when I challenged him on his previous statements regarding the  lack of any legitimately  proven increase in the earths temperatures. He denied ever having made such statements
> 
> This forum has a history to hold people accountable for what they have said.
> 
> That  is what I did.




I repeat once again. I do not resile from any statement and there are no inconsistencies. If you examine the first statement, it acknowledges the warming trend. I could not adjust my view of a warming trend downward If this were not the case.

You have repeatedly called people, including me, "deniers". That is demonstrably a lie. The accountability is on your ticket ma'am, not mine.

Now please stop wasting everyone's time by trying to wiggle out of it.


----------



## orr

_ Re: Climate change another name for Weather
There is no AGW.

There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.

There is natural Climate Change on a macro scale. There is also anthropogenic climate change on a regional scale due to deforestation, heat sink effects of cities etc.
_  From Waynel post 39# Climate change another name for weather Thread, it goes on but you get the drift. The pangs of Pride must be like pitch forks for you.


----------



## wayneL

And......?

Are we going to dissect minutia in some petty kinderment?

Or are we going to see my broad view?

Must I repeat ad nauseum? I do not resile anything such as the catastrophists  are required to do.


----------



## basilio

Not dissecting minutia Wayne.  Just your credibility.

A key plank of recognising Global Warming is actually acknowledging the earth is actually warming. (One can argue about the actual causes later on.)

One of the key elements used by of deniers of Global Warming has been the rejection of the temperature records produced by meteorologists and scientists that show an increase in global temperatures and the heat load on earth .  These includeeduced ice cover, increased ocean temperatures, increases in ground temperatures.

For many years Watts and co used the argument of badly sited weather stations to deny the reality of increasing temperatures. You, Wayne,  quoted him an many occasions. 

In 2012 Best who at that stage was seen as a climate sceptic was bankrolled by the Koch brothers (amongst other people) to undertake a totally exhaustive review of all the climate record to determine if in fact official records were suspect.

When Best and his scientific team finished their analysis his results  mirrored what had already been proven many times. He confirmed what meteorologists and scientists had shown - the world had warmed sharply in the last 150 years.

Watts did not accept this review. He still banged on about dodgy weather stations. When I opened the discussion about Best's findings  in September last year your position was still



> *other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.*
> 
> *By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this,*




Absolutely no acknowledgment that in fact there was a clear increase in global temperatures. And of course the inevitable result of saying there is no global warming is to say there is no problem to worry about. 

Now you are attempting to justify two positions simultaneously - that is there is global warming  and that there isn't global warming.

You can do that in Quantum physics Wayne but your explanations to date just dissect your credibility.


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> Not dissecting minutia Wayne.  Just your credibility.
> 
> A key plank of recognising Global Warming is actually acknowledging the earth is actually warming. (One can argue about the actual causes later on.)
> 
> One of the key elements used by of deniers of Global Warming has been the rejection of the temperature records produced by meteorologists and scientists that show an increase in global temperatures and the heat load on earth .  These includeeduced ice cover, increased ocean temperatures, increases in ground temperatures.
> 
> For many years Watts and co used the argument of badly sited weather stations to deny the reality of increasing temperatures. You, Wayne,  quoted him an many occasions.
> 
> In 2012 Best who at that stage was seen as a climate sceptic was bankrolled by the Koch brothers (amongst other people) to undertake a totally exhaustive review of all the climate record to determine if in fact official records were suspect.
> 
> When Best and his scientific team finished their analysis his results  mirrored what had already been proven many times. He confirmed what meteorologists and scientists had shown - the world had warmed sharply in the last 150 years.
> 
> Watts did not accept this review. He still banged on about dodgy weather stations. When I opened the discussion about Best's findings  in September last year your position was still
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no acknowledgment that in fact there was a clear increase in global temperatures. And of course the inevitable result of saying there is no global warming is to say there is no problem to worry about.
> 
> Now you are attempting to justify two positions simultaneously - that is there is global warming  and that there isn't global warming.
> 
> You can do that in Quantum physics Wayne but your explanations to date just dissect your credibility.




The lowest forms of argument is name calling and strawmanning.

I do not think there are many "global warming deniers" who do not believe that the planet is warming, they just believe that CO2 is not the main driver of it.   There were corrections regarding the heat island effect, and you must clearly know this, so at the time when it was relevant, it was relevant to an extent.  Alternatively " AGW magnitude sceptics" could bring up many fraudulent claims made by many IPCC scientists, including our very own egomaniac David Karoly  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdUFUWQNS-4 ), or do you still believe in the hockey stick representation?

This then leads to an argument that we do not need to take drastic action to prevent AGW.   How else can you explain no warming in 16 years of increasing CO2 production, models that predict ocean warming well in excess of observed figures, sea levels rising at trend etc.   Don't fall for the media beatup of scientific regurgitation of poorly authored experiments.  

Perhaps global warming zealots  are better off targetting the increased CO2 production in China as opposed to the plateauing CO2 production in Australia.

MW
(A real scientist)


----------



## wayneL

Orr when you learn to play the ball and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists


----------



## sails

Meanwhile snow is falling and yet co2 is increasing.  Can't be co2 at fault after all.




> 2000 - a prediction from the centre of global warming alarmism:
> 
> According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
> 
> *”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. *
> 
> 2000:  a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research:
> 
> *Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.*




and the result in 2013:



> *A ski station in the French PyrÃ©nÃ©es has had to temporarily shut down because there has been too much snow*… Since the beginning of winter, Cauterets has had 15 metres of snow in total, the French television channel TF1 reported on Friday. Local residents say this winter has seen* the heaviest snowfalls in 30 years*.




lol - found some of the above on Andrew Bolt's blog - now watch the alarmists attack his credibility.  If alarmists have a credible theory, then surely the theory should stand on it's own merits rather than resort to attack the credibility of those who do not agree with them.  Sad really.

A ski station in the French PyrÃ©nÃ©es has had to temporarily shut down because there has been too much snow… Since the beginning of winter, Cauterets has had 15 metres of snow in total, the French television channel TF1 reported on Friday. Local residents say this winter has seen the heaviest snowfalls in 30 years.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/warmists_snowed_under_again/


----------



## basilio

Scientists are learning more and more about the effects of Global Warming Sails as the earths heat load increases.  Changes in climate are very complex. For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the  rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.

But don't worry there are still plenty of droughts  and extreme summer temperatures to go around. Would they make up for these events ?


----------



## explod

from Chapter 13, "The Sixth Extinction" Leakey and Lewin, 1995"-



> Why has there been this criticism of scientists whose expertise supposedly is the understanding of the dynamics of biodiversity? Perhaps one reason is that the message is so startling that people are simply unwilling to hear it, or, if they hear it, are unwilling to believe it. A human-caused mass extinction is startling. Ecologists' predictions therefore came to be viewed as "the outpouring of overwrought biological Cassandras," says Thomas Lovejoy, of the Smithsonian Institution. 7 Another reason for the incredulity, no doubt, was the disparity of predictions from different authorities of the scale of the imminent extinction, which ranged from 17,000 species lost a year to more than 100,000. If the experts are so uncertain about the magnitude of the alleged extinction, critics legitimately wondered, how can we believe anything they say?




And as we see they do not, just sit back in the armchair and it will all go away.  Or like some, point score, penny pinch and even try to twist what they themselves have said.  Everything but *consider that we may have a global warming problem* induced by man made pollution.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ... For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the  rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather....





I wonder what else they have missed?  13 years ago they were as adamant as they are now - and yet it seems they don't know it all.

Who knows, one day they might realise that they have been wrong in their assumptions or governments will want a new reason to tax so they will come up with another hypothesis...


----------



## explod

sails said:


> I wonder what else they have missed?  13 years ago they were as adamant as they are now - and yet it seems they don't know it all.
> 
> Who knows, one day they might realise that they have been wrong in their assumptions or governments will want a new reason to tax so they will come up with another hypothesis...




The reasoning that warming causes more moisture to rise and therefore more cooler areas away from the poles I have mentioned on here many times and was discussed and agreed by many scientists for very many years.

As said, you just do not want to believe it, * ie., the sceptics that just do not want to know it all*


----------



## sails

explod said:


> The reasoning that warming causes more moisture to rise and therefore more cooler areas away from the poles I have mentioned on here many times and was discussed and agreed by many scientists for very many years.
> 
> As said, you just do not want to believe it, * ie., the sceptics that just do not want to know it all*





*Then what caused the same cooling 30 years ago in the link I posted? * It's a 30 year record.  co2 wasn't doing as much then so what excuses do you have for that same cooling?

It's not that I just don't want to believe it - it simply doesn't make sense!  And I resent being called a sceptic for something that doesn't make sense.  For goodness sake, cut the personal attacks!

Why should I believe something that doesn't seem truthful?  But then AGW has never been about truth or common sense, imo.  It seems to be all about the money. Maybe if Gillard hadn't rammed a carbon tax down our throats that will do little, if anything, for the environment, AGW might have more credibility.


----------



## sails

and calling other posters sceptics or deniers simply because they do not see things the same way as you do is more insulting as calling someone an idiot.

Time to stop the insults.  I think these two words should be banned at ASF.  Childish bully behaviour to say the least.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Orr when you learn to play the *ball* and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists





You're absolutely correct Waynel, I should of labelled it as; 
_  duplicitous hypocrisy of denialists  transmogrified into the asinine, petty, puerile pea-brained and nauseatingly obvious hypocrisy we are subjected to these days_

I _wholeheartedly agree with the tenet of the article, but the comments of the lame-witted denialist numbskulls are so petulantly and unintelligently hypocritical that I can scarcely believe that they are made by people of a mental age greater than 3 1/2_.
I know I've read something similar somewhere recently, maybe you could help me?

How many times does the Koch Brother's report need to be put down the pitch for you to let it go through to  the keeper. It's a slow *ball* outside off stump. 
We'll all watch it go through to the keeper again...


----------



## explod

sails said:


> and calling other posters sceptics or deniers simply because they do not see things the same way as you do is more insulting as calling someone an idiot.
> 
> Time to stop the insults.  I think these two words should be banned at ASF.  Childish bully behaviour to say the least.




Well those of us who think that global warming is a problem are described as hysterical.  

Are there two rules on here sails?


----------



## explod

sails said:


> *Then what caused the same cooling 30 years ago in the link I posted? * It's a 30 year record.  co2 wasn't doing as much then so what excuses do you have for that same cooling?
> 
> It's not that I just don't want to believe it - it simply doesn't make sense!  And I resent being called a sceptic for something that doesn't make sense.  For goodness sake, cut the personal attacks!
> 
> Why should I believe something that doesn't seem truthful?  But then AGW has never been about truth or common sense, imo.  It seems to be all about the money. Maybe if Gillard hadn't rammed a carbon tax down our throats that will do little, if anything, for the environment, AGW might have more credibility.




Global warming has increased the extremes at each end of the scale and has also made it increasingly inconsistent and sporadic.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Orr when you learn to play the ball and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists




Discredited merely in your view; and

"catastrophists" your term and playing the man.  

The plural is the singular unless specified.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> You're absolutely correct Waynel, I should of labelled it as;
> _  duplicitous hypocrisy of denialists  transmogrified into the asinine, petty, puerile pea-brained and nauseatingly obvious hypocrisy we are subjected to these days_
> 
> I _wholeheartedly agree with the tenet of the article, but the comments of the lame-witted denialist numbskulls are so petulantly and unintelligently hypocritical that I can scarcely believe that they are made by people of a mental age greater than 3 1/2_.
> I know I've read something similar somewhere recently, maybe you could help me?
> 
> How many times does the Koch Brother's report need to be put down the pitch for you to let it go through to  the keeper. It's a slow *ball* outside off stump.
> We'll all watch it go through to the keeper again...




Yes I said something similar.

But is parry and counter-punch the same as preemptive ad hom such as yours?

No, absolutely not, my comments on the occasion were entirely warranted.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Discredited merely in your view; and
> 
> "catastrophists" your term and playing the man.
> 
> The plural is the singular unless specified.



 No, you people believe in catastrophic global warming, by your own admission.

Ergo, the tag is entirely accurate and warranted.


----------



## basilio

> No, absolutely not, my comments on the occasion were entirely warranted



. 

Isn't it interesting...

How every time Wayne abuses another poster, another view or a whole  scientific field his comments are entirely warranted

If anyone else  does it - they are of course  pathological liars, playing the man,  ad hominem attacks  ect, ect

It just fits in so neatly with being being able to say two completely opposing statements in the same breath and declaring undying love for both versions of reality.

Wayne you have out Chutzpahed the entire forum hands down.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> No, you people believe in catastrophic global warming, by your own admission.
> 
> Ergo, the tag is entirely accurate and warranted.




Rubbish, it is an assertion of error again and it is wrong. 

In my view we have a problem and it could well turn out to be catastrophic.

The use of the word *believe* indicates no real conviction of where you do in fact stand.

It is about playing mind and word games for amusement in my view.


----------



## sails

explod said:


> Global warming has increased the extremes at each end of the scale and has also made it increasingly inconsistent and sporadic.




So you are saying that global warming was the same 30 years ago to produce the same amount of snow? It seems the goal posts keep being changed with this AGW stuff.

And, when have I called you hysterical?

I just think to repeatedly call other posters sceptics simply because they have a different viewpoint to your own is pretty low.  Deniers is even worse due to the association with the holocaust.

If global warming has merit, there should be no need to resort to name calling.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> .
> 
> Isn't it interesting...
> 
> How every time Wayne abuses another poster, another view or a whole  scientific field his comments are entirely warranted
> 
> If anyone else  does it - they are of course  pathological liars, playing the man,  ad hominem attacks  ect, ect
> 
> It just fits in so neatly with being being able to say two completely opposing statements in the same breath and declaring undying love for both versions of reality.
> 
> Wayne you have out Chutzpahed the entire forum hands down.




Basilio, 

The alarmist community have been caught out lying and/or exaggerating several times now, and any dissenting scientific view is immediately met with attacks on credibility, Jesus basilio, even suggestions of gaoling and executions.

Don't give me freakin' chutpzah, for sheer audacity alarmist activists take the cake! I am not exaggerating on this, go and study what your alarmist community is actually saying about these things.

Another thing, pointing out hypocrisies, wrong-headedness, gaping chasms of logic etc is not abuse, it is debate; something your totalitarian buddies would like to shut down.

And show me where I have opposing views please basilio. As stated before, I have always maintained my right for my views to evolved as information becomes available, something climate alarmists should try, instead of shrill propaganda that is increasingly believed only by Grauniad readers and folk who form their life view at the behest of so called journalists.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Rubbish, it is an assertion of error again and it is wrong.
> 
> In my view we have a problem and it could well turn out to be catastrophic.
> 
> The use of the word *believe* indicates no real conviction of where you do in fact stand.
> 
> It is about playing mind and word games for amusement in my view.




Eh?

1/ You've shoved that work of fiction, "The Sixth *Extinction*" down our throats for years. The alarmist community speaks in terms of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Runaway Global Warming, Tipping Points, and preposterous predictions of disastrous sea level rise and extreme that have proved to be bunkum.

2/ My use of the word believe is in reference to alarmists, not myself. Can you not see that that is written in plain English? My view is stated unambiguously and there for all to see... and with conviction to spare I might add.


----------



## spooly74

wayneL said:


> The alarmist community speaks in terms of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Runaway Global Warming, Tipping Points, and preposterous predictions of disastrous sea level rise and extreme that have proved to be bunkum.




Not any more.
They tried selling 'fear for the future' and it hasn't worked.
The 'Extreme theme' is the current model. 
They're now selling 'fear of the present'.



			
				basilio said:
			
		

> For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.



Did you just make this up?


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> .. For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the  rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather...




I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled.  If it is settled, how come they are still learning?

Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't?  Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things.  Unbelievable.

And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming?  I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.


----------



## wayneL

Spooly we're a bit behind over here. TV program this week on how the melting ANTarctic is going to drown us all.


----------



## basilio

> I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled. If it is settled, how come they are still learning?
> 
> Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't? Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things. Unbelievable.
> 
> And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming? I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.




Are you serious Sails ? There is almost never any certainty including science. Every field of science is discovering and learning new things every day. 

As far as Global warming goes? This comes down to some solid scientific principles, observed facts and continued research.

The basic scientific principal at the heart of Global warming is the effects of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases to hold heat in the atmosphere. In fact we wouldn't have a temperate climate on earth if it wasn't for the CO2 component.

So if there is a substantial increase in CO2 and other Greenhouse gases ( methane for example) we would expect the earths temperature to rise. 

Current observations have show  an increase in the earths temperature as CO2 levels have risen. Climate researchers have  extended our knowledge of earths historic climate through drilling in the ice cores of Antarctica. This tells us how  CO2 levels climate have changed in the past and the consequent effect this has had on temperatures. 

*The overwhelming view of  climate scientists is that the unrestrained increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause increases in global temperature. *  The understanding of biologists and earth scientists is that our current ecosystems and physical environment will be drastically changed if  average earth temperatures are raised by any significant figure.  We already have .7C degrees increase.  A further 1.5 degrees is considered  very dangerous. Increases of  2-3-4C degrees will cause havoc to all current ecosystems and make most of the earth uninhabitable for humans.

Of course at this stage we also have total meltdown of the ice caps and  increases in sea levels of 80 plus metres.

How certain are scientists about the degree of global warming to come ? It depends on 
1) How high the concentration of greenhouse gases rise
2) How much effect will these GG gases have on the temperature. This is called climate sensitivity.
*
The climate sensitivity of CO2 is still not accurately known*.If it proves to be on the lower level of expectations then temperatures will rise more slowly than anticipated.  Of course if CO2 levels just keep going up temperatures will follow. And it will all get very messy

If you want a metaphor consider the following.

If you jump off a 1 metre high wall certain things might happen to you. Or they might not. 

Make the jump 5 metres and the first statement still holds. We don't know *exactly *what will happen if people jump off tall buildings.  But we are sure it will be messy and potentially lethal. Or you might be lucky. 
What risks are we prepared to take ? How much absolute certainty do we need of what will happen if we jump off a tall building ?

__________________________________________________________
My interest in "global warming"? Just wanting to survive in a benign world. Just wanting to see my children grow up in at least a similar environment to the one I have enjoyed.

Reference to Antarctic Ice Cores and Environmental Change
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html


----------



## basilio

> For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just make this up?
Click to expand...



Nope.It was reported in Science Daily



> Arctic Ice Melt Is Setting Stage for Severe Winters
> 
> June 6, 2012 ”” The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606132420.htm


----------



## basilio

*Bazinga *Sails  !!

That was very clever post your wrote lamenting the fact that scientists just didn't know everything about the climate and couldn't foresee the future. 

As I finished writing (yet another) explanation of the basics of AGW* I realised there was no way you could have been as silly/naive to actually believe what you said.* You were just successfully winding me up.

Well done


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Are you serious Sails ? There is almost never any certainty including science. Every field of science is discovering and learning new things every day.




Gillard has said herself that the science is settled.  Are you calling her a liar now?

Read it for yourself here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074

And I didn't ask for another bucket load of spam - so didn't read the rest of your post...sorry...


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> That was very clever post your wrote lamenting the fact that scientists just didn't know everything about the climate and couldn't foresee the future.
> 
> As I finished writing (yet another) explanation of the basics of AGW* I realised there was no way you could have been as silly/naive to actually believe what you said.* You were just successfully winding me up.
> 
> Well done




Sorry Bas, you need to go to comprehension school.  I was not winding you up.  The questions I asked were genuine and the sheer nonsense of all this simply makes me believe even more it is nothing but hot air.

Did you answer my question if you have a vested financial interest causing you to continually spam us here?

And you can stop spamming with the large letters too...


----------



## basilio

I was trying to be "nice" Sails.  To seriously argue that scientists should know everything about a topic ie climate change and be able to forsee the future is not credible. 

With regard to the science being settled on AGW ? The case for AGW is as a solid as the most basic understandings of science to date. I outlined those in detail.

How far it will go ? What will be the final impacts ? How will it all turn out ? I addressed that in my final sentence. 



> What risks are we prepared to take ? How much absolute certainty do we need of what will happen if we jump off a tall building ?




My financial interest in AGW ? Zilch beyond a desire to live in a benign world. 

And by the way this Forum is for all people to read and contribute. If you don't want to see my stuff put me on ignore.


----------



## medicowallet

I know some psychiatrists I can probably get you into fast Basil


Your post, grossly misrepresenting AGW realist scientists by highlighting that the science is settled on CO2 causing warming is just crazy, loopy, and downright stupidity.

Of course all scientists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is just that the use of it in models is flawed at the moment, and hence the horrendously inaccurate predictions/projections of the IPCC and the "good scientists"

also stating that CO2 was the driving force for temperature rises in the past is misleading as well, and anyone with any barely basic understanding of geology knows this to be true.

MW
(probably wasting my time)


----------



## explod

> sails;754932]I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled.  If it is settled, how come they are still learning?




Is the chart of a stock on the ASX settled, no we follow the chart.  Where has anyone claimed it is settled?



> Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't?  Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things.  Unbelievable.




Produce some evidence that they claimed it was settled, science does not make such claims.



> And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming?  I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.




What is you definition of spamming?

Highlighting a point is not.  Of course some points you do not want to read, understand or take in.

You re *Unbelievable*


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Produce some evidence that they claimed it was settled,




ROTFLMAO
Are you really Rip Van Winkle????



> science does not make such claims.




Indeed!!!!!


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Is the chart of a stock on the ASX settled, no we follow the chart.  Where has anyone claimed it is settled?




If im bullish am I an ASX denier?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO




In plain language what does this mean ?


----------



## explod

white_goodman said:


> If im bullish am I an ASX denier?




I do not put my hard earned into feelings of being bullish.  I follow the actual action.  

Bullish is a following emotion as the event is established.  The global warming problems in my view by what is happening around us is a chart on the move up. the degree heat gain over the last century is one key to that.  So it is something that needs to be given attention (as we are giving it here).

If it *might be a problem* then we need to get our powder dry.  Not sit back like old gawks and laugh at those who are trying to at least define things.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> In plain language what does this mean ?




http://www.acronymfinder.com/ROTFLMAO.html


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> http://www.acronymfinder.com/ROTFLMAO.html




Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.  

On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.   

But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.
> 
> On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.
> 
> But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.




Is it usually for you to go ad hom when embarrassed?

It was humourous that you denied they said the science is settled IMNTBCHO.

Such Acronyms are used to denote humour.

YMMV.


----------



## basilio

> Your post, grossly misrepresenting AGW realist scientists by highlighting that the science is settled on CO2 causing warming is just crazy, loopy, and downright stupidity.
> 
> Of course all scientists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is just that the use of it in models is flawed at the moment, and hence the horrendously inaccurate predictions/projections of the IPCC and the "good scientists"
> 
> also stating that CO2 was the driving force for temperature rises in the past is misleading as well, and anyone with any barely basic understanding of geology knows this to be true.



 MW

If you have read my posts MW you would be aware that I have extensive knowledge of the various impacts on climate on earth. In fact I discussed this a few times. The long cycles that precipitated the Ice Ages are a clear example.

As you saw however very few people on this forum want to read anything longer than a paragraph with simple words. And if it has anything to do with science its a gonner.

I focused on the current role of CO2 and GG gases because almost all current science shows this is the major factor driving our current temperature increases. If you look at the research one can see how  other climatic  factors - sun activity, El Niño/La Nina effects, volcanoes are identified and their effect noted.  But currently GG forcing is the dominant factor

I also recognised that science isn't complete and that for example, we are still unsure exactly how much forcing CO2 has on the temperature. 

You chose to believe  the impact will be  quite small - far less than the current spread of probabilities. 

I hope you are right.


----------



## white_goodman

explod said:


> Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.
> 
> On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.
> 
> But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.




coming from an intellectual pygmy, scathing


----------



## explod

white_goodman said:


> coming from an intellectual pygmy, scathing




There are many of us fools who make too much noise, 

however, the biggest fools take notice.


----------



## basilio

Just to bring the conversation back to  the topic - CC.

I mentioned earlier that climate scientists are still uncertain about how much forcing CO2 levels will have on global temperatures.

I came across a good (but very detailed analysis) of the climate scenarios we might face with different CO2 forcings.



> *
> A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios*
> Posted on 13 February 2013 by dana1981
> 
> *Recently there has been widespread discussion that perhaps the Earth's climate is not quite as sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 as climate scientists previously believed, which would be good news, because it would give us more time to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions before the worst climate change impacts are triggered*.  The case for a most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 2.5 °C average surface warming in response to a doubling of CO2, as opposed to 3 °C, is not yet very compelling, but it is certainly a possibility.  In fact, the value could very plausibly be anywhere between 2 °C and 4.5 °C.
> 
> This begs the question, what might the future climate look like in best case, most likely case, and worst case scenarios?  To answer this question, we will examine how much warming we can expect under various human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios if the real-world equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be 2 °C (best case), 3 °C (most likely case), or 4.5 °C (worst case).  There is a relatively small chance that the sensitivity could be lower than 2 °C or higher than 4.5 °C, especially if we consider very long timescales in which slow feedbacks can kick in, and the so-called "Earth System Sensitivity" may be in the range of 6 °C surface warming in response to doubled CO2.
> 
> Nevertheless, for our purposes here we will limit ourselves to the 2–4.5 °C likely equilibrium sensitivity range.  But first we have to investigate at what temperatures we expect various climate consequences to be triggered.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.

Hysteria.

Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.

Science is science.

The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.

This is unscientific.

They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.

gg


----------



## sails

explod said:


> ...You re *Unbelievable*




thanks for the compliment, Explod...


From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:



> A NEW report declaring mainstream climate science as settled....




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> thanks for the compliment, Explod...
> 
> 
> From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074




Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote  from renowned scientist Max Planck.

 “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” 
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers 

It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote  from renowned scientist Max Planck.
> 
> “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
> ― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers
> 
> It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.




Nice sentiment there Knobby... We have all noted the alarmists desire to kill and imprison skeptics. :frown:

Problem is, there are a great deal more skeptics than the self-serving bunkum of "the overwhelming majority" ficton suggests.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/



> Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
> 
> The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.


----------



## Knobby22

It depends on definition as the article states.  

And don't try to put words in my mouth and practise your spin.
I don't want the skeptics like Nick Minchin imprisoned, I just want to see him fade into irrelevance as the new overtakes the old. 

A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics". 

I personally find it amusing. Goodbye Nick!!


----------



## spooly74

Knobby22 said:


> A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".




I googled Quantum Theory Skeptics and found an interesting posthumous interview here.



> *Quantum mechanics has been extremely successful. How can you oppose a theory that always gets the right answers?*
> 
> I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory. I want to say straight away, however, that I will not deny that this theory represents an important, in a certain sense even final, advance in physical knowledge....  Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience.... In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.

She must be somebody's goyle.



gg


----------



## bellenuit

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.
> 
> She must be somebody's goyle.
> 
> 
> 
> gg





I came across that on the Michael Smith Blog and some of the people who commentated said that it was taken out of context. Apparently the previous segment was about climate change and some of the warmists were blaming everything and anything on it.

When the new segment started, this announcer was really asking tongue in cheek whether the meteorite was also the result of GW. More of a dig at the warmists rather than a dumb question.


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.
> 
> Hysteria.
> 
> Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.
> 
> Science is science.
> 
> The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.
> 
> This is unscientific.
> 
> They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.
> 
> gg




The data sets they are using for their models is publicly available.  My understanding is there are 3 data sets based on different ways to read the temperature.

There's nothing to stop those who question GW from doing their own modelling / analysis of the data sets.

All I ask is they don't cherry pick small subsets of the data but go back as far as the data will allow them.

Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.

You are showing the signs of someone who believes there is a conspiracy of glabal proportions, far larger than the lunar landings even, that only gets bigger each time there's an investigation / review that shows GW is happening.

I'm happy to admit that some of it is probably the natural variation in the climate, but you have to consider the fact that models used over a decade ago are starting to have their predictions come true now.  Advances in weather  and climate understanding are only make the forecasts more accurate.

As an example, now there is a better understanding  of how much extra moisture is int he atmosphere, and this is now showing up in a lot of US states where they get more extreme snow falls pre and post winter when the air is warmer and able to hold a lot more moisture.

The beauty of science is being able to argue the facts and data.  A lot of those against the idea of GW rarely base their case on the facts, or at best cherry pick the data that supports their view.

If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???


----------



## white_goodman

sydboy007 said:


> Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.




1) you musn't look very hard
2) despite it being toxic to an academics career there is still a large amount of peer reviewed studies with findings not conforming to the alarmist case 
3) you severely underestimate a humans ability to rationalise when the game of self interest is being played


----------



## white_goodman

sydboy007 said:


> If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???




science isnt a straw poll and despite this the link above would say otherwise

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I will say that 1/1 (100%!!!) Mammologists that have got themselves climate change handouts (Flannery) believe in the earth melting to death


----------



## basilio

> * There is no such thing as climate change denial*
> 
> In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. *No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural).* Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
> 
> There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.
> 
> A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger.
> 
> Two recent studies adopting different approaches have arrived at strikingly consistent results. *A survey of over 3000 Earth scientists found that as the climate expertise increased, so did agreement about human-caused global warming. For climate scientists actively publishing climate research (79 scientists in total), there was 97% agreement.*
> 
> This result was confirmed in a separate analysis compiling a list of scientists who had made public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate papers (908 scientists in total), the same result: 97% agreement.




So how come there are so many arguments about the validity of  the AGW evidence ?



> Expect to see reference to dissenting non-experts who appear to be highly qualified while not having published any actual climate research. Fake expert campaigns are launched with disturbing regularity. Recently, a group of NASA retirees issued a press release rejecting the consensus. While possessing no actual climate expertise, they evidently hoped to cash in on the NASA brand.
> 
> *A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change.*
> 
> There should be many cases of cherry picking but how do you identify a genuine cherry pick? *When a conclusion from a small selection of data differs from the conclusion from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking.* For example, a common cherry pick of late is the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years. This focus on short periods of temperature data ignores the long-term warming trend. Importantly, it also ignores the fact that over the last 16 years, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of over three Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. To deny global warming is to deny the basic fact that our planet is building up heat at an extraordinary rate.




http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763


----------



## wayneL

Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.




Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?




It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.




How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?

And the hypocrisy ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?
> 
> And the hypocrisy ?




You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.


----------



## explod

Cahnnel 24 at the moment, former UK Govt expert backing up all that us Hysterians have been putting forward


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.
> 
> Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.




Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.

And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem.  And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.

Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs.  Would like to know your experience of these things.


----------



## medicowallet

explod said:


> Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.
> 
> And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem.  And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.
> 
> Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs.  Would like to know your experience of these things.




I have been around a while too,

Nobody can claim that their experience is valid. 

Only relevant evidence over thousands of years will show trends, as the so called experts with egg on their faces found out when the temperature rise paused, the rain returned and the politics settled somewhat.

Stick to country bumpkining and let us scientists make comment on science 

MW


----------



## chiff

Are you a climate scientist Medico?


----------



## white_goodman

chiff said:


> Are you a climate scientist Medico?




I dont think he's a mammologist, so he atleast outranks our climate Tsar


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.




You can always tell when an article successfully skewers Waynes specious logic and dodgy science.

We see the shortest piece of vitriol with no attempt to address any statement.


----------



## medicowallet

chiff said:


> Are you a climate scientist Medico?




There is really no such thing is there?

However if the current behaviour of having a scientific (or non-scientific) degree, and having conducted peer analysed research, and then conducting searches and forming opinion on "climate" then yes, I probably would qualify as an unpublished "climate scientist" if I would ever, stupidly want to choose to do so.

Because isn't that what a lot of them are anyway?

I mean I can rejiggle, and regurgitate the poor science of other articles to fit into the crowd.

I can also conduct a literature review and conclude that there is no significant driving force of global warming from CO2, nor is there any proven increase in significant weather events, nor has the planet warmed for 16 years etc.


MW


----------



## explod

medicowallet said:


> I can also conduct a literature review and conclude that there is no significant driving force of global warming from CO2, nor is there any proven increase in significant weather events, nor has the planet warmed for 16 years etc.
> 
> 
> MW




And you will get the result that you seek, 

for or against.


----------



## wayneL

Ma'am, if you believe that article skewers anything othet than the authors's own credibility, then I truly worry for you.

Compare to Cook's aricles you contiuouslly spam this forum with, which contain at least well thought out and well argued points.... even if bised and intellectually fraudulent.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Ma'am, if you believe that article skewers anything othet than the authors's own credibility, then I truly worry for you.
> 
> Compare to Cook's aricles you contiuouslly spam this forum with, *which contain at least well thought out and well argued points.*... even if bised and intellectually fraudulent.




Hmmm.... Well this  exchange highlights a few points

1) Wayne thinks that John Cooks writing 







> contains at least well thought and well argued points




2) Wayne says he read the article  I quoted and dismisses it as asine and a load of rubbish

3) Wayne doesn't realise  that the article was written by John Cook and in fact forms part of his booklet on Understanding Climate Denial

4) Wayne hasn't a clue what he is talking about.....

I'll finish with the final comments from John Cooks article



> Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories. If you disagree with an entire scientific community, you have to believe they’re all conspiring to deceive you. A conspiracy theorist displays two identifying characteristics. They believe exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators. The scientific consensus on climate change is endorsed by tens of thousands of climate scientists in countries all over the world. A conspiracy of that magnitude makes the moon landing hoax tame in comparison.
> 
> Conspiracy theorists are also immune to new evidence. *When climate scientists were accused of falsifying data, nine independent investigations by universities and governments in two countries found no evidence of wrongdoing. How did conspiracy theorists react? By claiming that each investigation was a whitewash and part of the conspiracy! With each new claim of whitewash, the conspiracy grew larger, encompassing more universities and governments.*
> 
> A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.
> 
> This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.




http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763


----------



## wayneL

Clearly I overestimated Cook then. Not only an intellectual fraud but capable of writing pure bilge.

Thanks luv, very enlightening


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Clearly I overestimated Cook then. Not only an intellectual fraud but capable of writing pure bilge.
> 
> Thanks luv, very enlightening




And of course you don't waste your time actually reading* any* articles I quote do you ? A confident instant dismissal is far simpler and appropriate for this audience isn't it? Certainly no room for thinking is there ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And of course you don't waste your time actually reading* any* articles I quote do you ? A confident instant dismissal is far simpler and appropriate for this audience isn't it? Certainly no room for thinking is there ?




Thinking? Oh please. You have no weapon apart from misrepresentation of ASF member's views, which weapon is no better than a spit wad... annoying, harmless, vacuous, yet peurile and provocative.

There is no doubt that skeptics do a great deal more thinking than the parroting sycophantic acolytes of Cook, Hanson, the Moonbat et al.

You have nothing more than a religious like intolerance to anything other than the worst case delusion; evangelistic in the extreme, but kill/imprison/attempt (unsuccessfully) to discredit the infidels.

There is a Climate Taliban and ma'am you aspire to nothing less than a position as cleric in this poisonous cult.

Now if you would please consider proper debate rather than the hateful mendacity you frequently resort to, this thread might not be sidetracked with unproductive last-wordmanship.


----------



## basilio

Wayne What poisonous nasty drivel you spout. I don't think I have ever seen as many lies, insults and provacations in so few words.

As far as having the last word ? 

Clearly you always demand it as our local lord and master.

Getting back to the actual topic? Wayne you *never, never ever *respond to the content of any scientific material I present. As I noted  you find it far far easier to dismiss and vilify anything that you don't want to consider.

Consider for example the observation made by John Cook that climate denialists refused to accept the findings of 9 investigations into Cliamte gate on the basis that they were all in on the  AGW conspiracy.  Typical delusional drivel Wayne. 

And you are clearly part of it.


----------



## wayneL

Thanks Bas, A more clear illustration of my point could not be made. 

And stop copying my adjectives, go find your own.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Consider for example the observation made by John Cook that climate denialists refused to accept the findings of 9 investigations into Cliamte gate on the basis that they were all in on the  AGW conspiracy.  Typical delusional drivel Wayne.
> 
> And you are clearly part of it.




Hang on, let me get this straight (and obnoxious use of denialist term noted); you believe there was no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> you believe there was no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?




You know otherwise ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You know otherwise ?




I can only peruse what is in black and white. 

What do you think Plod?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I can only peruse what is in black and white.
> 
> What do you think Plod?




You wont' deal with the shades of grey.

It is uncertain to say the least so we should not be punting with the future lives of our species.  

Could you car less ?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> and obnoxious use of denialist term noted)




And you obviously need to get a life.

The evidence seems to be getting pretty strong and you wont have a bar of it, perhaps Bas's term is too polite.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I still believe it to be all weather.

As I post, a gentle shower of rain is descending on Gumnuthouse.

It has been a very hot summer.

Not unlike many before.

gg


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You wont' deal with the shades of grey.
> 
> It is uncertain to say the least so we should not be punting with the future lives of our species.
> 
> Could you car less ?




No ad hom, no tangents Plod, just answer the question.



> And you obviously need to get a life.




From here my life seems pretty full and content, .... what sort of life would you have me get?



> The evidence seems to be getting pretty strong and you wont have a bar of it, perhaps Bas's term is too polite.




I wouldn't give a rat's how polite or not it is, what I'm concerned about is it's accuracy. As we have shown in this thread, it is in outright misrepresentation, AKA a lie.

BTW, what evidence is it that I won't have a bar of?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> No ad hom, no tangents Plod, just answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> From here my life seems pretty full and content, .... what sort of life would you have me get?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't give a rat's how polite or not it is, what I'm concerned about is it's accuracy. As we have shown in this thread, it is in outright misrepresentation, AKA a lie.
> 
> BTW, what evidence is it that I won't have a bar of?




What does BWT mean ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> What does BWT mean ?




BWT means 



> BWT	Burrows Wheeler Transform (compression technology)
> BWT	Body Weight
> BWT	Best Water Technology (various locations)
> BWT	Birth Weight
> BWT	Boundary Waters Treaty (United States and Canada)
> BWT	Basic Warrior Training
> BWT	Ballast Water Tank (maritime engineering)
> BWT	Border Wait Time
> BWT	Bronchial Wall Thickness
> BWT	Block Wavelet Transform
> BWT	Binary Wavelet Transform
> BWT	Big White Truck
> BWT	Bi-orthogonal Wavelet Transform
> BWT	Bauchweg Training (Switzerland)
> BWT	Burst Waiting Time
> BWT	Black Water Tank
> BWT	Broadcast Warning T
> BWT	Biological Weapons Testing (Laboratories, Inc)
> BWT	Ballast Water Treatment
> BWT	Boys with Toys (band)




Although he said BTW.

Which I reckon means 

"by the way".

Although it could mean 



> BTW	By The Way
> BTW	Between
> BTW	By the Way (Red Hot Chili Peppers album)
> BTW	Back To Work (shorthand used in email)
> BTW	Be That Way (less common)
> BTW	Back to Wall (toilet style)
> BTW	Between the Wars
> BTW	Bring the Wheelchair (text slang)
> BTW	Bundesverband der Deutschen Tourismuswirtschaft
> BTW	Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde (Dutch: value added tax)
> BTW	Brothers of the Third Wheel (trikers organization)
> BTW	British Traditional Wicca
> BTW	Butuanon (SIL code, Philippines)
> BTW	Business and Technical Writing
> BTW	British Traditional Witchcraft
> BTW	Bike This Way
> BTW	Breaching the Web
> BTW	Blood Thirsty Warriors (gaming clan)
> BTW	Band-To-Wavelength
> BTW	Buried Transuranic Waste
> BTW	Barbarian: Total War (game mod)
> BTW	Beyond Tears Worldwide (Christian humanitarian and development organization)
> BTW	Burlington Trailways Charters and Tours
> BTW	Border Terrier Welfare (UK registered charity)
> BTW	Bite the Waffle
> BTW	Better Than Wolves (gaming)
> BTW	Beyond These Walls
> BTW	Bearing to Waypoint
> BTW	Belasting op Toegevoegde Waarde (Dutch: Tax On Added Value)
> BTW	Balls to the Wall
> BTW	Breast Test Wales (Welsh breast cancer screening program)
> BTW	Between The Words
> BTW	Boat Wave
> BTW	Born to Win
> BTW	Before the War
> BTW	Board Test Workshop
> BTW	BioTech World
> BTW	Below the Water
> BTW	Books That Work
> BTW	Behind the Wheel
> BTW	Bridging the Watershed (educational outreach program)
> BTW	Black Theatre Workshop (Canada)
> BTW	Below the Waist
> BTW	Born This Way
> BTW	Bridge the World
> BTW	Beyond the Wall
> BTW	Big Time Wrestling (various locations)
> BTW	Business Travel World (trade magazine; UK)




gg


----------



## explod

Thanks gg., always the saviour,

By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything.  Bas puts it up and he wont read them, if he did objectively in my view he would start to see it all.

I know in my career we used anachronims all the time then at Officers college we were not allowed.   They said, "they are weeds in sentences".  So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.

All I know is that it has not rained in this region since October and the water carters cannot keep up to the needs this year.

And the kids at the School across the road have never seen tadpoles.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

explod said:


> Thanks gg., always the saviour,
> 
> By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything.  Bas puts it up and he wont read them, if he did objectively in my view he would start to see it all.
> 
> I know in my career we used anachronims all the time then at Officers college we were not allowed.   They said, "they are weeds in sentences".  So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.
> 
> All I know is that it has not rained in this region since October and the water carters cannot keep up to the needs this year.
> 
> And the kids at the School across the road have never seen tadpoles.




I hear what you are saying plod.

Though I had cicadas and frogs last night serenading me to sleep.
And it rained today. They knew.

I trust you get rain soon.

Your allies in the global warming scare are such as Capn.Terrific and Bob Brown in our Southern Ocean.

They bring no answers to the problem, only putative causes and division.

Much as I detest Japanese whale killers, they are well suited adversaries with Greenpeace.

The issue is conflated on your side by poor science and dodgy proponents.

Sort that out, and you would have more like me willing to listen.

gg


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> Thanks gg., always the saviour,
> 
> By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything.  Bas puts it up and he wont read them, if he did objectively in my view he would start to see it all.
> 
> I know in my career we used anachronims all the time then at Officers college we were not allowed.   They said, "they are weeds in sentences".  So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.
> 
> All I know is that it has not rained in this region since October and the water carters cannot keep up to the needs this year.
> 
> And the kids at the School across the road have never seen tadpoles.




That's not climate, thats weather.

BTW is not an anachronim, it is an acronym, BTW :


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> Thanks gg., always the saviour,
> 
> By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything.




What! An ex high ranking police officer if unfamiliar with the acronym AKA?


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.



What?  When have I tried to correct your English?


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> What?  When have I tried to correct your English?




Actually I am sorry I said that in retrospect.  I do suffer from a foot in mouth and in the heat of the moment will stretch old perceptions of what I think which is not necessarily what I know.  I do need to focus more on the topic content and not the individuals posting it up.  More often the target is wayneL and will try to cut it right out from now on. 

Sorry for that Julia and thanks for drawing attention to it.


----------



## dutchie

explod said:


> Actually I am sorry I said that in retrospect.  I do suffer from a foot in mouth and in the heat of the moment will stretch old perceptions of what I think which is not necessarily what I know.  I do need to focus more on the topic content and not the individuals posting it up.  More often the target is wayneL and will try to cut it right out from now on.
> 
> Sorry for that Julia and thanks for drawing attention to it.




Nice post explod.


----------



## wayneL

Just areminder. I am still waiting for an answer to my question

Bas, Plod, do you believe there ws no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?


----------



## basilio

Re Climate gate .  

For whatever reason my original response cannot be uploaded. 

There were 9 separate investigations into this issue. Every one of them exonerated the scientists from any misconduct.

If you want to read the details of their findings check the URL.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm


----------



## wayneL

I'm not asking John Cook. we hve already established that he ia not to be truated.

I'm asking you.

ps bloody phone... cnt edit typos


----------



## basilio

Read The Url Wayne or at least the 9 quotes from the investigations.  

1) In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

2) In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

3)  In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

4)  In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

5)  In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

6)  In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

7)  In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

8) In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

9) In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

So exactly why should I disbelieve the results of 9 separate investigations into the emails?

Unless of course I summarily dismiss any representation from scientists in the Climate Research field as liars.


----------



## Julia

dutchie said:


> Nice post explod.



+1.  Thanks for sorting it out, explod.


----------



## wayneL

You attill haven't answered directly.

I don't want Cooks opinipn or veested intetests opinion. I want YOUR  opinion


----------



## DB008

Hmm....

Censorship is alive and well in Canada – just ask government scientists


----------



## basilio

What does a glacier look like when it breaks off and  becomes part of the sea?

Just saw a clip of the biggest glacier calving ever filmed. Amazing particularly when they show at the end the dimensions of the  break up.

The last few seconds also has a sting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> What does a glacier look like when it breaks off and  becomes part of the sea?
> 
> Just saw a clip of the biggest glacier calving ever filmed. Amazing particularly when they show at the end the dimensions of the  break up.
> 
> The last few seconds also has a sting.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU




That is sooo cool.


I blame the CO2 produced in the time preceding 1902 which obviously set this all up, darn all that China burning fossil fuels back in the 19th century, DARN it I say.

MW


----------



## orr

medicowallet said:


> That is sooo cool.
> 
> 
> I blame the CO2 produced in the time preceding 1902 which obviously set this all up, darn all that China burning fossil fuels back in the 19th century, DARN it I say.
> 
> MW




Isn't there an underlying priority somewhere along the lines of 'do no harm'. To which Geoffrey Edelston would add 'to your bank account'.... _medicowallet _, says it all, beautiful to watch in that unfolding train wreck kind'a'way.
If you haven't clicked, or should I say _ch-chinged_, It's called the precautionary principle.


----------



## Happy

Next month forecast is mentioned to have below average temperatures, but only after banging on for quite while how climate warmed up and how bad it is.

Looks that lower temperatures are part and parcel of Global Warming!
(Didn't know that, you always learn someting new)


----------



## Mickel

Perusing the last few days posts in this thread I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri's admission that the world hasn't warmed over the last 17 years-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

In another admission, rare for a pro warming advocate, he is quoted "People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning," Dr Pachauri said. TRUE but rarely mentioned in Australia, (remember Kevin 07 stating "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"so setting the agenda for scientists who wished to receive Govt grants).

While he says that it would take 30-40 years pause in temp increases to change the overall warming, it will be interesting to see if the next IPCC Report modifies their extravagant temp increases based on a 17-21 year pause.

Meanwhile, another leading Pro Warmist, Dr James Hansen, in a talk on Feb 21 2013 in Santa Fe, carried on regardless as reported here by Robert W. Endlich-

"One item after another struck me as being completely at odds with measurements. For instance, Hansen claimed Earth’s energy balance is out of balance, and we are warming rapidly, but recent global surface temperatures of land and water have not increased and in fact many measures show cooling over the past 17-19 years. In the US, there has not been a new state maximum temperature record set since 1995, and in spite of the claims to the contrary, July,1936, is still the warmest month on record, set when CO2 was less than 300 parts per million. CO2 is now 395 PPM ".

http://climaterealists.com/index.php

PS Read Endlich's expanded article and draw your own conclusions on the worth of Hansen's claims.


----------



## basilio

Always fascinating to see what Malcolm Roberts is up to in his quest to expose the perfidy of warmists. (Malcolm is the guy who is so extreme that Andrew Bolt distanced himself from his world wide conspiracy theories.  But Malcolm is still a great friend of Alan Jones.)

Malcom has decided that the CSIROh is an integral part of the Circle of Deception. So as his patriotic duty demands he has completed  an extensive investigation. forwarded his results to people of importance and demanded their immediate response.

Fascinating.


> *CSIROh! Climate of deception or first step to freedom? 	*
> CSIROh!
> Climate of Deception? ... Or First Step to Freedom?
> I've written to many of the people whose behaviours, opinions and/or claims are discussed in this report and whose core claim is that human CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming that ended in 1998. Most have responded. All have failed to provide empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning for the basis of their core claim. All seemed reluctant to address my questions adequately. They failed to meet my reasonable need for integrity, reassurance and understanding.
> 
> View PDF report
> 
> Exchanges of letters with politicians and others




http://conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Enjoy !!


----------



## basilio

Further to the first Malcolm Roberts post I found a reply from Ben Cubby a SMH journalist who recieved one of hos letters of demand.

Great fun.



> Malcolm-Ieuan,
> 
> In considering your request that I identify errors in the report you sent to me – CSIROh! Climate of Deception? Or First Step to Freedom? – I find myself confronting an unusual problem: how does one critically analyse a pile of horse ****?
> 
> Even by the exceedingly low standards of Australia’s climate skeptic community, your report is dire. You direct me to Appendix 13. It is littered with errors of all kinds: a mish-mash of muddled conjecture, impossible leaps of logic, fundamental misunderstandings of the scientific method, misread and misquoted research that has been poorly cited, internal contradictions, confused dates, spelling mistakes, and strangled grammar. It is, in all respects, a dud.
> 
> I am not going to comply with your demand that I ‘‘identify, specify and justify’’ all the errors in your report. There are too many. However, this should not be read as a reluctance on my part to address your complaints. You will recall that, many months ago, you asked me to provide you with some empirical evidence of human-induced climate change, and I immediately sent you a series of peer-reviewed papers that did just that.
> 
> You responded, a month later, after lengthy consultation with your science advisor Tim Ball (not ‘‘Tim Tall’’, as you call him in your report). You advanced an unpublished and frankly bizarre theory about underwater volcanoes. Apparently these hidden volcanoes conveniently rumbled to life at just the right rate to mimic both the rise and isotopic signature of human-generated atmospheric CO2. With theories like this, it is not difficult to see why even other climate skeptics have distanced themselves from your work.
> 
> Your report tries to allege that there are factual errors in my reporting. If you honestly believe this, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it: request a correction from the newspaper. Your requests will be independently considered on their merits by people other than me. It is remarkable that you allege thousands of errors, spanning a period of several years, yet have not sought to address them in this straightforward, transparent way.




http://www.readfearn.com/2013/02/climate-change-new-world-order-malcolm-roberts-ben-cubby/


----------



## Logique

Seems ever-increasing numbers of Polar Bears are relaxing on the banana lounge with a seal sanga - 'what global warming bro?'  How could our Climate Commissioner have missed this?

*Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears -2013*
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf
Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology and is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. She is the author of Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species.



> http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf
> 8) Global temperatures have not risen in a statistically-significant way in the last 16 years9 (see Figure 2) – a standstill not predicted by climate models and a phenomenon even the chairman of the IPCC has acknowledged – which suggests that the record sea ice lows of the last few years are probably not primarily due to CO2-caused increases in global temperatures.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is presently 24 degrees centigrade here, in Townsville, with a soft rain falling, which is slowly increasing.

Much as it has been in recorded memory.

When will the alarmists desist?

We often get quite a wet Easter, and Anzac Day can be cold and wet at the Dawn Service.

gg


----------



## basilio

The UK is currently freezing its nuts off with blizzards etc.

Anything to do with Climate Change/Global Warming ?  

Absolutely




> *Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss*
> 
> Melting sea ice, exposing huge parts of the ocean to the atmosphere, explains extreme weather both hot and cold
> 
> 
> John Vidal, environment editor
> guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 March 2013 17.03 GMT
> Jump to comments (572)
> 
> A snow-plough clears the A66 near Bowes, County Durham, where the road was closed for several hours due to heavy snow. Forecasters have warned that another cold snap is on its way - with parts of the country facing more snow and freezing temperatures.
> Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream, which affects weather in the northern hemisphere. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA
> 
> Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.
> 
> Both the extent and the volume of the sea ice that forms and melts each year in the Arctic Ocean fell to an historic low last autumn, and satellite records published on Monday by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, show the ice extent is close to the minimum recorded for this time of year.
> 
> "The sea ice is going rapidly. It's 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic," said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.
> *
> According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.
> 
> "This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes," she said. "It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It's now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around," she said.*




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ic-sea-ice-loss?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=SOCNETTXT8763I


----------



## basilio

For those interested in understanding how the jet stream has changed as a result of Arctic ice melt and the effect this has on weather and cliamte in the Northern latitudes check out the following  clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo


----------



## explod

Bas

Have averred to these understanding for a number of years on this thread.

And no names, but me ole Pal will come on and laugh at me again with some dim link to a petro scientist.

We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.


----------



## Knobby22

Thankyou Bas.
A very good video. It explains a lot for me also.
It's obviously been taken by students at their Professor's lecture.
The meandering effect is very interesting. We are going to see a lot more weird weather hitting the northern hemisphere. I feel sorry for England, Russia and North America.

I would love  to see a Southern Hemisphere analysis. Why is Victoria getting amazingly hot weather while Queensland is getting increasing wet weather? I know the off the cuff theories but a proper scientific theory like the Professor produced above would be very useful. The tornadoes on the NSW/Victoria boarder were also a bit weird.

The effects of global warming are only small at this stage. By 2030 the effects will become more obvious and discernible. The truth is the world will do nothing (due to the petrochemical money) so we should be looking at how this will affect us in the investment sense. If a trend can be caught then real money can be made.

By the way it is 32 degrees here and 34 degrees tomorrow! In Melbourne and its practically April!!! Amazing.


----------



## burglar

Logique said:


> ... *Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears -2013*
> http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf ...




If you can count them, you can manage them!


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Bas
> 
> Have averred to these understanding for a number of years on this thread.
> 
> And no names, but me ole Pal will come on and laugh at me again with some dim link to a petro scientist.
> 
> We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.




Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.
> 
> Duplicitous.




It was really great Wayne for all of us to support Explod through the difficult times his family had faced.

But unless you have completely and utterly changed your views I don't see how his comment was not a fair reflection of what you would say. It wasn't duplicitous just accurate. 

Do you want to share your view on the scientists observation of how climate change is affecting European climate ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> It was really great Wayne for all of us to support Explod through the difficult times his family had faced.
> 
> But unless you have completely and utterly changed your views I don't see how his comment was not a fair reflection of what you would say. It wasn't duplicitous just accurate.
> 
> Do you want to share your view on the scientists observation of how climate change is affecting European climate ?




Ma'am, I utterly disagree with your appraisal, but TBH expect no better.

IMO, this debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science _in toto_, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable. Ergo, conversation here is an exercise in futility and regresses to ad hom.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the argy bargy... when running on all twelve ( something you, as an intellectual lawnmower engine, will never experience). But there are times I can do without it.

The likes of the  duplicitous and two faced Plod (redundancy an' all)... and those blithely unaware of their cognitive biases such as yourself, use have used the good nature of forumites to score the cheapest of cheap points; capitalizing on our good nature's.

This is low.

So, I have tried to gracefully withdraw from this discussion, on the grounds that it could be damaging to those on a vulnerable emotional state, unbeknowns(?) to myself or others. But you of the moral nether regions come out fighting dirty at the first opportunity.

What a so very bad show.


----------



## basilio

Unbelievable Wayne.  Just xxxxing unbelievable...

I agree with you that the debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. I too have generally decided to give it away.

However I did decide that the evidence presented by meteorological scientists on how the melting of the Arctic ice caps was affecting the climate was worth posting.  It adds a factual content to the discussion.

There is no need to yet again turn this into another personal attack complete with the sniff of of burning martyr.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> The likes of the  duplicitous and two faced Plod (redundancy an' all)... and those blithely unaware of their cognitive biases such as yourself, use have used the good nature of forumites to score the cheapest of cheap points; capitalizing on our good nature's.




What cognitive biases do you have? If any of course.


----------



## Whiskers

I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but there are a number of factors that influence the cycles of weather on earth from the miniscule such as earth's polarity slowly changing and contentinal shift to more significant changes in solar flare activity. 

I think aligning all these factors, cycles and cycles within cycles goes a long way to explaining the cyclical changes we are experiencing, rather than just global warming. For me the last couple of years of hot steamy wet weather is reminicant of the 1970's.

This chart also aligns with long range forcasts I've seen, especially for southern Australia, for very wet seasons in the mid 2020's to 2030ish.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/


----------



## Logique

You might also be interested in the work of Kevin Long (Mech Engineer and lifelong weather observer - The Long View): http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html

Kevin is very interested in sunspot activity, which he also sees as declining in the near term, and he predicts a colder, dryer climate for 2010 - 2028.


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> What cognitive biases do you have? If any of course.




I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.

How about you?


----------



## Knobby22

But we have been in a period of low sunspot activity that's only really started increasing now (and is lower than last century) and yet the temperatures keep increasing. If there is an effect from solar activity, and there most probably is, it appears to be swamped by other effects. When the little ice age occurred there was similar low activity that occurred however the recent very low activity that has taken place over the last 20 years did not really see a major drop off in temperatures, just some flattening of the ever increasing temperature rise.

This from the NASA website that also shows the solar activity over time: _Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions_ so the effect it will produce will be by magnetic disturbance of the upper atmosphere. 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

If the effect is greater than thought then as we are entering a new sunspot phase we could see more massive temperature rises than normal. Logique, that site you posted tries to get out of it by saying the temperature rise that occurred was a delay from the previous sunspot cycle. It looks suspiciously like they couldn't get the figures to match so they just re-arranged the facts to suit themselves.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.




A very sensible disposition.



wayneL said:


> How about you?




As indicated previously, I think that irrational thought and thus cognitive bias is our natural state.



Some Dude said:


> Quite the contrary. I believe that our natural state is irrational thought, even when we think to ourselves that it is otherwise so, and that we have to work very hard to produce rational and logical thinking. I have not found it effective simply assuming that my thoughts are the objective ones with an inescapable conclusion. Quite the opposite, I have found it effete to do so




So in this context, I am pondering this premise:



wayneL said:


> On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science _in toto_, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable.




Is there any of any cognitive bias in that premise?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.
> 
> Duplicitous.




So I have to toe your line.  And very dissappointed in your comment as I had been very pleased to detect a human side.

I do not purport to ram facts down anyone's throat but I do have strong opinions based on my own life's observations.  My Great Grandfarther in 1860's used to drive a cattle drawn train from Nattieyallock (north west Vic) to Melbourne in sludge and mud from May till November.  There has not been a year since the late 1960's when you would not have raised dust on that trip most of the time.  And I have stated many other rough observations as I am a person who has lived close to the land .

I *think* global warming is caused by man made smoke, oil and coal burning.

I *think* we have passed the tipping point by recent reports of ice depletion and weather changes.

Note, *I think* and felt confident that I was allowed to state it, or is this perhaps not allowed on ASF, are we concerned for advertisers perhaps.  If you want me to go away then just say so and I will.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.
> 
> How about you?





Extraordinary claim not reflected in any way by your posts which are usually abusive and derogatory of other posters.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Extraordinary claim not reflected in any way by your posts which are usually abusive and derogatory of other posters.




Abusive?

Derogatory?

Specks and logs in eyes come to mind.


----------



## drsmith

As a matter of basic principal, it stands to reason that significant changes to the composition of the atmosphere can have unintended and perhaps undesirable consequences.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so if it's proportion increases relative to the other less-greenhouse atmospheric gases, more heat will be retained in the atmosphere. Beyond that it obviously becomes complex with feedback mechanisms, solar cycles and other factors, but that does not change the basic principal.

The question lies in the response both in a global context and as a nation in an economically competitive world.  What we don't want to do is jump too far ahead and respond economically out of proportion to the rest of the global economy as a whole. Doing that, we simply compromise ourselves for little net global gain.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Specks and logs in eyes come to mind.




Why do answers come back in hard to decipher riddles.  The subject, which your approach takes us from, is a serious one for many of us.

drsmith just put up a solid and constructive post, why can we not take this type of path.

And in everyday language is best for everyone.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> I would love  to see a Southern Hemisphere analysis. Why is Victoria getting amazingly hot weather while Queensland is getting increasing wet weather? I know the off the cuff theories but a proper scientific theory like the Professor produced above would be very useful.



I remember quite well it being the thing to do in the 1980's and 90's to aspire to retiring in Queensland. Work hard wherever, save the $ them move to Queensland and the weather was the single biggest supposed attraction.

Realistically, I'd be surprised if too many retirees these days are keen on the idea of moving somewhere that's subject to the sort of weather Queensland seems to be getting every year these days. Somewhere further down the coast in NSW would surely be a much more attractive option in terms of the weather.

So far as emissions etc are concerned, I'd still like to know what impact direct heat and water vapour emissions are having on the climate? We're burning through 6 billion tonnes of coal, 33 billion barrels of oil and heaps of natural gas each year which does add rather a lot of heat directly to the atmosphere. Add in nuclear energy, which whilst a relatively minor energy source does have a massive heat by-product and then add in hydro, wind etc too (which mostly ends up as heat eventually) and a bit of accelerated heat extraction from the earth via geothermal. All up, it's an awful lot of heat and I'd expect it to have at least some sort of effect.

As for water vapour, well there's thousands of cooling towers around the world with huge clouds of it coming out 24/7. Then add water evaporation increases due to construction or reservoirs, agriculture, irrigated gardens etc. Then add the direct chemical reaction of burning a hydrogen containing fuel (gas, oil and to a lesser extent coal) - there's massive amounts of water entering the atmosphere via all of this. Sure, it will come back down as rain I understand that, but not without some impact on the Earth's climate I'd expect.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Why do answers come back in hard to decipher riddles.  The subject, which your approach takes us from, is a serious one for many of us.
> 
> drsmith just put up a solid and constructive post, why can we not take this type of path.
> 
> And in everyday language is best for everyone.




Constructive is met with destructive, 
When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

So alive and dead are abstracted from nature,
Difficult and easy abstracted from progress,
Long and short abstracted from contrast,
High and low abstracted from depth,
Song and speech abstracted from melody,
After and before abstracted from sequence.

The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.

.....buuut consider from whence this latest interchange originated Plod.


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> As for water vapour, well there's thousands of cooling towers around the world with huge clouds of it coming out 24/7. Then add water evaporation increases due to construction or reservoirs, agriculture, irrigated gardens etc. Then add the direct chemical reaction of burning a hydrogen containing fuel (gas, oil and to a lesser extent coal) - there's massive amounts of water entering the atmosphere via all of this. Sure, it will come back down as rain I understand that, but not without some impact on the Earth's climate I'd expect.




I agree, Queensland is looking less attractive all the time as a place to live.

Yes, and with regard to the water vapour that's an interesting conundrum in itself. Of course we know that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour but there is also the cloud effect that reflects heat which helps during daytime hours but acts as a blanket at night. Increasing cloud will surely slow the temperature increase but conversely increase precipitation. I think that's where Queensland's problem is.

Also we are used to fronts going west to east in the Southern states but in Queensland the weather works off a completely different principle where the rain comes off the east coast. It's like there is an anticlockwise cyclone effect that collects water on the way. I don't really have an understanding of it.


----------



## Whiskers

Climate change hysteria revolved around the declining Arctic ice cap... BUT where did it all go? ... rising sea levels?

It went to Antarctica! 

Antarctica sea ice expanding, study finds

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...ice-expanding-study-finds-20130401-2h344.html


----------



## explod

> Published online in Nature Geoscience, the article suggests cool freshwater from melt beneath the Antarctic ice shelves has insulated offshore sea ice from the warming ocean beneath
> 
> Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...study-finds-20130401-2h344.html#ixzz2PIQswmkj




Note: "...from melt beneath ice shelves...",  why is this happening when below used to be solid permafrost?

Also note the broken ice blocks, these are breakaways from the prime ice sheet and as they increase they are going to spread outwards.  The extra cloud from warming of course creates more moisture in the air and more snow so the cycle just increases.

Another article carefully worded to make the sheeple continue to think that everything is okay, in *my view*.


----------



## wayneL

https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/552303471456645



> 3 weeks ago, a paper in Science showed the last 11,000 years of temperature. The claim, that went around the world was one of "an abrupt warming in the last 100 years", as the New York Times put it.
> 
> Today, the researchers admit this claim was wrong. The last hundred years is not only below the resolution of the reconstruction, but also not representative:
> 
> "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
> 
> It is worrying that they only tell us this *now*, after the story has been broadcast around the world.
> 
> And it is troublesome that they still haven't answered any of the many questions from Steve McIntyre, who has documented a large number of questionable issues with the paper (http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/)
> 
> New York Times now wonders "how the authors square the caveats they express here with some of the more definitive statements they made about their findings in news accounts." http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/
> 
> Roger Pielke points out that this whole affair comes close to scientific misconduct, and it is important that both Science issue a correction and the media update their stories with corrections.


----------



## Knobby22

If the magazine Science does issue a retraction I will sit up and listen as they are respectable ...though they are not "Nature".
Criticism of one paper, however justified, does not mean that all scientific papers are compromised.


----------



## wayneL

It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.


----------



## spooly74

wayneL said:


> It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.




I heard it went something like this


----------



## Logique

spooly74 said:


> I heard it went something like this
> View attachment 51568



Brilliant. That is how it's done folks. Get the research grant application ready.


----------



## Ijustnewit

I don't deny it's been a bloody terrible summer in Australia , but when the scientist come up with a graphic like this it looks like the whole of Australia is under water or burning up and ready to explode. It looks like something from a Hollywood movie, designed to frighten the begeevers out of old lady's and children.


----------



## basilio

Wayne, that was very deceptive piece of writing you quoted with regard to the paper which  explored global temperature changes over the past 11,300 years.

Lets go back to the point of the research. The scientists were trying to show through various proxy measurements how temperatures on Earth had changed over the past 11,000 plus years. This would add to our understanding of how climate changes over time.

The information they found was represented with the following graph.



The work done by the scientists is represented by the blue line. In effect it is the many temperature proxies they used to establish our climate over 11,300 years. ( The Green line is other research which looked at temperatures in the last ice age.)

*The small red line at the end are the temperature records kept in the last 150 years. Clearly they are the most accurate. *The extended orange line is the projected increases in temperature to 2100.  Its on the conservative side of current climate predictions running at around another 2.2 C.

But lets stick to the information directly gleaned by the current paper. 



So what does this show ?

The last deglaciation ended about 10,000 years ago. There followed a period of nearly 5,000 years when global temperature was surprisingly stable. In the 5,000 years following that, up to about 1800, global temperature declined a total of nearly 0.7 deg.C, culminating in the depth of the “little ice age.” From then until 2000, it rose by about 0.8 deg.C, and now exceeds temperature during any prior period of the holocene.

*The dangerous part is that it has happened so fast. In the span of a century or two, man-made changes to the atmosphere wiped out 5,000 years of natural climate change.*

The argument about the use of proxies in the past 200 years is a smokescreen to divert attention from the rapid increase in global temperature in the last century at a rate we havn't seen for 11,000 plus years.

That is the sort of change that causes rapid species extinctions. It is the rate of change that melt glaciers and polar icecaps. That causes whole ecologies to change as climate patterns change within a couple of generations.

And if  climate scientists are right on the ongoing effects of further increases in CO2 levels we will see much larger increases in temperature than the .8C currently.

Cheers

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/


----------



## basilio

Ijustnewit said:


> View attachment 51580
> 
> 
> I don't deny it's been a bloody terrible summer in Australia , but when the scientist come up with a graphic like this it looks like the whole of Australia is under water or burning up and ready to explode. It looks like something from a Hollywood movie, designed to frighten the begeevers out of old lady's and children.




It was a summer of extremes wasn't it ? In fact if you check out the report you'll see that the climate extremes of last summer were not expected until 2030. It basically says that climate change is not something that might/will happen sometime in the future _(where its thankfully out of our immediate concern_) but is already making its presence felt. 

The other point of course is that the website has been designed to make the issues* CLEAR*.  That means good graphics, strong  simple clear language and easily understandable  sections.

It is not written like a scientific paper with its complexities and subtleties which go over almost everyones head or are misrepresented as per the Marcott paper

Which makes it all the more critical to try and somehow reduce future effects and deal with what is already going to happen.

Alternatively we can sack all the climate scientists and insist there is no problem and this is all normal...

You can see this in the sort of analysis that greeted The Angry Summer report and tried to say that insurance losses were not that bad..

http://climatecommission.gov.au/media-releases/correction-misrepresentation-the-angry-summer/


----------



## Julia

Tim Flannery on Radio National's "Life Matters" this morning talking about the 'extraordinary number of severe events'.
After all his stuffing up (the dams will never fill again, etc) he can he still be paid to go on sprouting his dire predictions?

I've only lived in Queensland for 20 years but can never in this time remember such a cool, wet summer.  Hardly breaking any heat records here!


----------



## basilio

With regard to the Climate Commission website .

I made the observation in my previous post  that the main messages  were written clearly to get the major points across.

But don't be mistaken about the strength of its scientific background.  When you drill deeper you can find all the  papers you need to explain and justify what they are saying.

If you want to learn more about the recent reports and argue the toss with the commissioners check out the following event.

THE CLIMATE COMMISSION'S REPORT BRIEFING - 10th APRIL             

Climate Action Network Australia & Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute will introduce Climate Commissioners  Professors Tim Flannery and Will Steffen who will present the extreme weather report, followed by a forty five minute Q&A and discussion about the report.  It's free but you must register for this event at: http://www.trybooking.com/46591

*Wednesday 10th April, 6.00 pm*
University of Melbourne
Theatre G73, 200 Berkley St, Carlton, 3056


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> Tim Flannery on Radio National's "Life Matters" this morning talking about the 'extraordinary number of severe events'.
> After all his stuffing up (the dams will never fill again, etc) he can he still be paid to go on sprouting his dire predictions?
> 
> I've only lived in Queensland for 20 years but can never in this time remember such a cool, wet summer.  Hardly breaking any heat records here!




Julia why don't you visit the Climate Commission website and actually see what has been documented around Australia this summer ?

And given that Tim Flannery was simply commenting on *these facts* (not  future predictions) exactly what was he doing wrong ?

http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ExtremeWeatherReport_web.pdf


----------



## wayneL

Yet even the maniacal advocate Hansen has grudgingly doffed a cap to the "twenty years pause" in global warming.
And the acolytes are stuck on tthe dogma.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Yet even the maniacal advocate Hansen has grudgingly doffed a cap to the "twenty years pause" in global warming.
> And the acolytes are stuck on tthe dogma.




Really Wayne ??  Yes of course I can easily find Watts and Judith Curry and Climate Depot and The Australian in fact any number of  mindless repetition blogs parroting that line...

I'm trying to work out exactly what they are denying with their breathless commentary?

Are they saying that we havn't had a steep increase in global temperatures in the past 150 years ?

Are they saying global warming has stopped and will not increase again and there is nothing to worry about ?

Are they saying that CO2 and other greenhouse gases won't be causing any further increases in global temperature and that we should rewrite everything we know about science as a result ?

There is in fact an excellent discussion in Skeptical Science which picks up on all the increases in the earths energy over the past 20 years. 

Of course we also know how seriously James Hansen views the issue of global warming.  He has decided to quit his well paid position at NASA to work full time as an activist  to get us moving .

__________________________________________

Which takes us back to the last couple of topics Wayne. You brought up  a paper which confirmed global temperatures for 11,300 years and  demonstrated how quickly and sharply global warming has occurred with the increase in human produced green house gases.  Any observations on that ?

And how about the effects of this this climate change on Australian conditions as evidenced by the record temperature and weather events  this year.  Did they actually happen Wayne ? Is it all okay ?  



> *
> New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated*
> Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981
> 
> A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and KÃ¤llÃ©n (2013).  There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
> 
> *    Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years.  This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.*
> 
> As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans.  Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
> 
> Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.  Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
> 
> *    The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.*



http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/s...g-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?_r=0


----------



## basilio

Well folks you can breath easier now because  Lord Abbott has decreed that the Climate Commission will be no more when he is swept into office.

*That* should take care of all this argy bargy on global warming.



> *Abbott to 'shoot messenger' on climate
> *
> Date
> 
> Ben Cubby
> Environment Editor
> 
> 
> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he ''suspects'' Tim Flannery, the head of Australia's Climate Commission, would be made redundant if Mr Abbott becomes prime minister.
> 
> Mr Abbott has pledged to abolish the Climate Commission - the federal government's agency for explaining climate science to the public - if elected, along with repealing the carbon price.
> 
> ...A Climate Commission report released on Wednesday examined links between Australia's extreme weather and human-induced climate change. It found natural events were being influenced by climate change, because greenhouse gases are accumulating and trapping extra energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
> 
> The extra energy meant that natural events were being given an extra kick, meaning heavier bursts of rainfall, more intense heatwaves, and more prolonged dry spells. While heatwaves are not uncommon in summer, eight of Australia's 21 hottest days on record have occurred this year.
> 
> The report's lead author, Professor Will Steffen, said the report relies upon the known physics of the climate system, empirical observations of past and present weather, and the variety of mathematical models that can test assumptions from different angles.
> 
> ''We have seen this basic shift in the climate system, where natural events are amplified because there is more energy in the system,'' he said. ''The different lines of evidence all point to this conclusion.''




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-on-climate-20130403-2h776.html#ixzz2PRFo6elQ


----------



## wayneL

Good. Because it is nothing more than a propaganda unit.

I would like to see it replaced with a truthful science based unit explaining of host of environmental impacts, including, but not limited to the ways human do impact local and regional environment and climate via land use changes and general pollution.

I believe a more accurate, non-doomsaying, non-mendacious commission would be better and more widely received.

But perhaps Flannery and his band of Apocalyptic Loonies have done too much damage? Already they have spawned a sub-culture of lecturing religious evangelists spewing forth their hypocrisy of monumental proportions, dividing us into a polarised nation of pragmatists and fantasists.

That will take time to heal.


----------



## basilio

Well congratulations Mister Wayne !!!

I just don't think I have ever seen such a compacted series of lies and slander in so few words.

Such a comprehensive trashing of the CSIRO and the 40 years research from all the scientists in the field.

A masterful willful ignoring of what is  currently happening to our climate and the direction we are going.

And you clearly know so much about the other members of the Climate Commission to slander them so comprehensively.

_________________________________________________________

Ah no. This is just an Aprils Fool joke isn't it - only a few days late.


The other Commissioners are

*Mr Roger Beale AO*

Roger Beale is an economist and public policy expert, and currently the Executive Director of Economics and Policy at Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

*Mr Gerry Hueston*

Gerry Hueston is a prominent businessman who recently retired as President of BP Australasia, after a career with BP spanning 34 years in a variety of management and senior executive roles in New Zealand, Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom.


*Professor Lesley Hughes*

Professor Lesley Hughes is an ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and an expert on the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems.
*
Professor Veena Sahajwalla*

Professor Veena Sahajwalla is Associate Dean (Strategic Industry Relations), Faculty of Science, and Director, Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology, at the University of New South Wales.


*Professor Will Steffen*

Professor Will Steffen is a climate science expert and researcher at the Australian National University, Canberra. 


Not to mention of course the Science advisory panel.   Clearly mendacious lying hacks.  

To support its role in providing information and expert advice on the science of climate change and the impacts on Australia, the Commission is supported by a science advisory panel. The members of the Panel are:

    Professor Matt England, University of New South Wales, expertise in global-scale ocean circulation and its influence on regional climate.

    Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne, expertise in climate variability and climate change, including interannual climate variations due to El Niño-Southern Oscillation and weather extremes.

    Professor Andy Pitman, University of New South Wales, climate modeller with a major focus on land surface processes.

    Professor Neville Smith, Bureau of Meteorology, expertise in ocean and climate prediction.

    Professor Tony McMichael, Australian National University, expertise in impacts of climate change on environmental conditions and human health.

    Dr Helen Cleugh, CSIRO, expertise in the dynamics of carbon, water and energy cycles in Australian ecosystems and the effects on climate variability and change – especially the vulnerability of land-based carbon sinks.

    Dr Lisa Alexander, University of New South Wales, expertise in changes in the frequency and/or severity of extreme climate events.

    Professor Brendan Mackey, Griffith University, expertise in forests and climate.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.






basilio said:


> Wayne, that was very deceptive piece of writing you quoted with regard to the paper which  explored global temperature changes over the past 11,300 years.
> 
> Lets go back to the point of the research.




One theme seems to be quote some article, others go and check the article and source research, demonstrate that it has been misrepresented (at best), little to no response, move onto next article or sub topic, rinse and repeat. I wonder why people don't adjust where they get their sources of information from or how they evaluate what information they listen to?

Definitely seems like part of a theme...


----------



## orr

Dude !!!! it's important to _listen_ the right way:


----------



## noco

If I were Tony Abbott, when he becomes Prime Minister, on or before the 14th September, I would drop this idiot Flannery and his 1000 odd staffers on the first day in office.

What a saving that would be to the budget. Flannery alone with his $180,000 per annum. There will never ever be enough rain to fill the dams, so the stupid ALP State Governments of QLD, NSW AND VIC get conned into building costly desal plants, now all in moth balls.

And how about this other bloke Viner up north who stated kids would never ever see snow again in the Northern Hemisphere and what happened? The largest snow falls in decades in Brittain and the USA. 

What a pair of wankers





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...vered-with-viner/story-e6frgd0x-1226611185281


----------



## Whiskers

The Climate Commission is nothing more than a tool set up to try to promote the justification of a carbon tax/trading scheme.

It has preconcieved terms of reference that the current global warming is totally man made.

Did you know... Australia's average temperature has increased by 0.9 °C since 1910. Bottom right of webpage below. Talk about an alarmist revelation from two years of data.

Holy ****... at that rate we'll all be fried within a decade. The end of the world is nigh!!!

Seriously... 

I've lived and worked primiarily in the same area for over 50 years and the weather of the last couple of years or so, ie heat, humidity and rain is reminicent of a couple of periods, especially the 1970's... but then I suppose it's pretty easy to indoctrinate younger people who haven't been around long enough to see these things before, that it's an alarming concern. 

To blame climate change for this is obsurd, simply because it's not unprecedented. Even the flooding was only marginally higher than the late 1800's... and because the impact, ie more people were affected is simply a reflection of interference with the river flows and urban sprawn in flood prone areas since then.

Similarly, to blame 'climate change' for increased bushfires is absolute garbage. Bushfires have always been happening. The only difference is more people now live in or adjacent to rural acerages without proper property management practices for fire protection, ie no controlled burnoffs in the cooler months or proper fire breaks around their property and crown land.

http://climatecommission.gov.au/about/terms-of-reference/


----------



## basilio

Wkiskers the increase in temperatures in Australia of .9C has happened over a hundred years  period not two.  

*That* would be catastrophic...

Another observation.

How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong? 

Its a big call isn't it ?


----------



## Some Dude

basilio said:


> How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong?
> 
> Its a big call isn't it ?




Not if the science was done that could show that the work performed over the last 40 years demonstrating multiple lines of evidence is wrong. Imagine the funding, as is often implied for motive, that would be available to you if you could actually demonstrate that it is wrong.


----------



## Whiskers

basilio said:


> Wkiskers the increase in temperatures in Australia of .9C has happened over a hundred years  period not two.
> 
> *That* would be catastrophic...




Ooops, you're right... twas late and getting a bit droopy eyed.  



> Another observation.
> 
> How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong?
> 
> Its a big call isn't it ?




I'm not saying the entire knowledge base is wrong. I actually have concerns about pollution, over clearing and too much scorched earth from development and industry, but far more to do with synthetic toxic chemicals and depletion of good arable land than from a significant climate change perspective. Nature has an extraodinary ability to rebalance CO2. The southern ocean for example has a huge zooplankton population that thrives on algae, which consumes CO2.

I actually did get caught up in the hysteria a bit back in the 1990's, but two main things shone through after Al Gore started pumping the issue. The first was the controvosy over the actual data. There was a lot of selective locations and as I recall "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings. It seemed locations that didn't rise in conformoty with their notion were disregarded. The other was the financial issue, geared toward a new form of tax revenue and agencies setup to facilitate this.

One apparently confounding point from the article I posted earlier is the temp is apparently increasing more in the deep ocean and under the polar ice cap. That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core. 

The late Indigo Jones did a lot of long range weather forcast research back in the early 1900's based on solar flare activity with good results. He forcast the early 2000's drought within a year or so, fifty years ahead (and after his death) His work is carried on by his family with as good or better results than the BOM. 

Have a fiddle with the below solar position chart with particular reference to venus and Jupiter (the stronger gravitational forces) in relation to earth and the sun and solar spot/flare activity. Imagine the different forces at work. http://www.theplanetstoday.com/index.html


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> The first was the controvosy over the actual data.




Which apparent controversy do you refer to?



Whiskers said:


> One apparently confounding point from the article I posted earlier is the temp is apparently increasing more in the deep ocean and under the polar ice cap.




Would you post the source data and research associated with?

Thanks


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Which apparent controversy do you refer to?




It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html



> Would you post the source data and research associated with?
> 
> Thanks




The third paragraph of the article

... and note the last par in the context of previous post.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html




And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.





Whiskers said:


> The third paragraph of the article
> 
> ... and note the last par in the context of previous post.




And which part of that study suggested:



Whiskers said:


> That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.




Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .



> And which part of that study suggested:




Note they mention the decreasing sea surface temperatures in the southern ocean... decreasing as in getting colder.

Further, the north pole region around Iceland is one of the most active volcanic regions on Earth.

Because Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge, it is being split by the movements of the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate.  The tectonical plates move apart, towards east and west, and both the North American- and Eurasian systems move to the northwest across the hot spot. On top of hot spots is generally a 20-100% molten layer at the depth of 5-20 km, which supplies sufficient material for eruptions. Iceland is home to more than 100 volcanoes, over 25 of which have erupted in recent history.  The volcanism on Iceland is attributed to the combination of Mid Atlantic Ridge activity and hot spot activity. http://iceland.vefur.is/iceland_nature/geology_of_iceland/​
Maybe it's just that I have experience measuring soil temps for optiminal planting and fertigation that it's clear to me that deeper soil temps are not affected by atmospheric conditions.

PS: I'll throw in a map of ocean and wind currents as well.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .




1. Lack of real consensus. What lack of consensus are you referring to? Can you be specific by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
2. The politicking and intent to suppress. Can you be specific as to what was being suppressed by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.

Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.



Whiskers said:


> Note they mention the decreasing sea surface temperatures in the southern ocean... decreasing as in getting colder.




So the part where you said:



Whiskers said:


> That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core.




Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to? Was there anything in that study that asserts any kind of contradiction or doubt about of global warming? i.e. The seemingly confounding point can't sustain anybody categorising climate change science as hysteria?

From Nature:



> “The paradox is that *global warming* leads to more cooling and more sea ice around Antarctica,” says Richard Bintanja, a climate researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in Utrecht. *Bintanja and his colleagues show that enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet ”” which is losing mass at a rate of 250 gigatonnes yearly ”” has probably been the main factor behind the small but statistically significant sea-ice expansion in the region*.
> 
> Scientists have known for several years that meltwater from ice sheets can form a cold, fresh layer on the ocean surface that protects sea ice from the warmer waters below. But they were not sure whether that aided the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice as the new study suggests.




Study available at Nature Geoscience. Suplementary available for free download.


----------



## explod

> “The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around Antarctica,” says Richard Bintanja, a climate researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in Utrecht. Bintanja and his colleagues show that enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet ”” which is losing mass at a rate of 250 gigatonnes yearly ”” has probably been the main factor behind the small but statistically significant sea-ice expansion in the region.




I have been tyrying to get this vibe across for some time.

I admit to be nowhere near any explert.  But I follow my own observations and the news on it like some following football.

I think we *may* have a real problem with burning coal and oil to the point where we should be taking attention and doing something about it.

My closest Brother died last week so have been quiet.  I did not mention it as wayneL thinks I use such things to take advantage of everyone.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> So the part where you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to?




I suppose I should have repeated also, that they refered to melt from below the glaciers. Sure melt from atmospheric conditions can find its way down, but where is the conclusive proof that it's all from atmospheric and nothing to do with something else. 

As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.


Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?

What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?

Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?

Miles of charts here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> My closest Brother died last week so have been quiet.  I did not mention it as wayneL thinks I use such things to take advantage of everyone.




Not fair Plod.

However having lost my only sibling @19, I have empathy, you have my condolences.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> I suppose I should have repeated also, that they refered to melt from below the glaciers. Sure melt from atmospheric conditions can find its way down, but where is the conclusive proof that it's all from atmospheric and nothing to do with something else.




Let me know when you have read their study and emailed them about this. I look forward to reading the response. I'm sure that if open and honesty enquiry is your motivation that you will seek to do this before implying other conclusions.



Whiskers said:


> As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.




So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.



Whiskers said:


> Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?
> 
> What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?
> 
> Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?
> 
> Miles of charts here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
> 
> Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.




Choose a point for discussion, cite the source and research, and we will discuss. If all you want to do is say that something doesn't make sense to you, then by all means contact the relevant researchers and seek their input. If you believe you can demonstrate some conspiracy or problem then contact one of the many organisations that will fund you for being able to do so.

I look forward to hearing how you go.


----------



## spooly74

explod said:


> I think we *may* have a real problem with burning coal and oil to the point where we should be taking attention and doing something about it.





			
				explod said:
			
		

> We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.




Make your mind up.



			
				waynel said:
			
		

> Not fair Plod.



That's an understatement.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.




Not dishonest... simply cautious. 

The basic tenant of law is the same as in science. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, or to rephrase for science, a theory is just a theory until it can be proved and replicated.  

Sure there has been some global warming (and cooling) during human civilisation, but where the hysteria comes in is to paint that as some cataclysmic man made disaster.

Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying. The charts below from NASA  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  show the warming rate was higher in the northern hemisphere... note I say WAS! Also, since the peak abt 1997 they have been pretty much stable.

Consider the history of volcanic activity for Iceland (a couple of bigger ones a couple of years ago and abt 1940's) and see some sort of correlation with northern hemisphere warming. It could be argued that the pent up lava in Iceland causes warming of the land and sea and once it has had a decent snort and got it off it's chest, there is significant glacial melt and temps cool down again.


----------



## sptrawler

Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.

Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?

I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.

Or is it just another case of rope the dope.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying. The charts below from NASA  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  show the warming rate was higher in the northern hemisphere... note I say WAS! Also, since the peak abt 1997 they have been pretty much stable.




Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct? If not, modify the wording of your claim. Once we have agreed on a claim that you wish to make, we can assess that.



Whiskers said:


> Consider the history of volcanic activity for Iceland (a couple of bigger ones a couple of years ago and abt 1940's) and see some sort of correlation with northern hemisphere warming. It could be argued that the pent up lava in Iceland causes warming of the land and sea and once it has had a decent snort and got it off it's chest, there is significant glacial melt and temps cool down again.




You seem to like this concept. Two questions. Firstly, do you think that volcanic activity has not been taken into account with the climate models? Secondly, can you cite any source or research regarding this or is it simply something that makes sense to you?


----------



## Some Dude

sptrawler said:


> Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.
> 
> Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
> How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?
> 
> I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
> However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.
> 
> Or is it just another case of rope the dope.




Maybe you can ask Tony Abbott also? It appears that  a _"carbon tax"_ was an idea that he supported once upon a time also.



			
				Tony Abbott said:
			
		

> If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct?




According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently. 



> You seem to like this concept. Two questions. Firstly, do you think that volcanic activity has not been taken into account with the climate models? Secondly, can you cite any source or research regarding this or is it simply something that makes sense to you?




I don't recall the 'hysteria' mainly residing in the USA, taking into account anything other than their vetted surface temps.

I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can produce where they have.


----------



## sptrawler

Some Dude said:


> Maybe you can ask Tony Abbott also? It appears that  a _"carbon tax"_ was an idea that he supported once upon a time also.




So without reading through your 'spin', the answer is, ask Tony Abbott? LOL
excuse me I need to take a wizz I'm laughing so much, what a limp d#ck response that was.
Hope Basillio the great can come up with a more credible response.lol


----------



## sptrawler

sptrawler said:


> Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.
> 
> Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
> How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?
> 
> I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
> However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.
> 
> Or is it just another case of rope the dope.




So can one of you Labor, Green lovers, answer the question?

Some Dude, said ask Tony Abbott, he must be employed in the Labor party.lol


----------



## Some Dude

sptrawler said:


> So without reading through your 'spin', the answer is, ask Tony Abbott? LOL
> excuse me I need to take a wizz I'm laughing so much, what a limp d#ck response that was.
> Hope Basillio the great can come up with a more credible response.lol




The link is to Tony Abbott's site where he supported the idea of a carbon tax. Perhaps you could put some effort into reading what he said


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently.




Which means?


----------



## sptrawler

Some Dude said:


> The link is to Tony Abbott's site where he supported the idea of a carbon tax. Perhaps you could put some effort into reading what he said




Perhaps you could put some effort into answering my initial question? Rather than trying to deflect the issue.

To remind you, how many dirty filthy polluting brown coal power stations, that the carbon tax was going to shut down, because they are killing the planet.
Have been shut down, or even look like they are going to shut down?

What a bunch of dicks


----------



## Some Dude

sptrawler said:


> Perhaps you could put some effort into answering my initial question? Rather than trying to deflect the issue.




I couldn't surpass Tony Abbot's words in support for the idea of a carbon tax so I will leave it to him.



			
				Tony Abbott said:
			
		

> It may be instructive to compare the proposed treatment of carbon emissions with the actual treatment of another harmful practice. Would any government decide that, in order to halve smoking within ten years, say, decreasing numbers of permits should be issued to smokers who could then trade those permits among themselves? If such a scheme were adopted, the government would have to decide how many permits each smoker would get and, almost certainly, would decide that it would be unfair not to give heavier smokers more.
> 
> Reformed smokers could make a killing by selling their permits to their still-addicted brethren. Potentially, those who had originally been the worst smokers could make the most from their self-destructive habit. Speculators could buy permits when they are relatively cheap to sell them at a much higher price during the policy-induced nicotine drought. They would have to be compensated for their loss of property-in-permits should the government subsequently decide to change the scheme or to abandon it altogether because, say, of public revulsion at a new artificially-created means to exploit people.
> 
> It’s highly unlikely that any government would choose to treat smoking this way. Deciding on permit entitlement, managing the disputes with people who thought that they had been unfairly treated, monitoring smoking levels and regulating the subsequent market would be far more trouble than it’s worth. Instead, governments impose heavy taxes on cigarettes to put a price on nicotine and to discourage consumption.






sptrawler said:


> To remind you, how many dirty filthy polluting brown coal power stations, that the carbon tax was going to shut down, because they are killing the planet.
> Have been shut down, or even look like they are going to shut down?




You do raise an interesting question though. How many brown coal power stations did the government say that the "carbon tax", which Tony Abbott once supported, would shut down?


----------



## drsmith

None of our recent political leaders can cover themselves in glory over carbon pricing, least of all Julia Gillard.

A carbon price out of step with the global economy as a whole will do little to manage global fossil fuel output of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of which side of the climate change fence people sit.

All we have effectively done is create a reverse tariff on energy usage relative to the rest of world with the obvious economic consequences. These will become apparent over time an in particular, if there's a downturn in resources.


----------



## Some Dude

drsmith said:


> None of our recent political leaders can cover themselves in glory over carbon pricing, least of all Julia Gillard.




Agreed.



drsmith said:


> A carbon price out of step with the global economy as a whole will do little to manage global fossil fuel output of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of which side of the climate change fence people sit.
> 
> All we have effectively done is create a reverse tariff on energy usage relative to the rest of world with the obvious economic consequences. These will become apparent over time an in particular, if there's a downturn in resources.




Under the premise of implementing some kind of program i.e. setting aside for the moment which side of the fence we are all on, what do you think we as a country regardless of political party should do?


----------



## drsmith

Some Dude said:


> Under the premise of implementing some kind of program i.e. setting aside for the moment which side of the fence we are all on, what do you think we as a country regardless of political party should do?



As a broad principal, act only in step with our economic influence. We are only a small portion of the global economy and our influence is limited by that.


----------



## Some Dude

Some Dude said:


> Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct? If not, modify the wording of your claim. Once we have agreed on a claim that you wish to make, we can assess that.






Whiskers said:


> According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently.






Some Dude said:


> Which means?




Is there a claim that you would like to make about NASA's chart relating to the field of climate science? Or are you highlighting a selected data point that you wish others will infer something from?


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Is there a claim that you would like to make about NASA's chart relating to the field of climate science? Or are you highlighting a selected data point that you wish others will infer something from?




I'm trying to get you to provide some evidence, charts etc, of there being out of control climate change, or 'Global Warming', as the 'hysteria' was in the early 2000's. 

All I've done is to canvas a number of factors that have an effect on climate change and evidence that the cyclical  northern hemisphere warming (and cooling) is probably more to do with volcanic activity than human factors.   

Again, I don't deny climate change occurs, that human activity has some effect, or that we are in a longer term warming cycle... but what I'm not convinced about is the hysteria that:

global warming (now more all-inclusive climate change) is out of control
human emissions are totally responsible, and
nature will not and can not rebalance CO2 naturally


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> I'm trying to get you to provide some evidence, charts etc, of there being out of control climate change, or 'Global Warming', as the 'hysteria' was in the early 2000's.




One of the benefits of not making hysterical claims is that I don't need to conjure up hysterical evidence in an attempt to support it.

Could you provide the climate science sources or research that made the hysterical and out of control claims?


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Could you provide the climate science sources or research that made the hysterical and out of control claims?




The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start.



> One of the benefits of not making hysterical claims is that I don't need to conjure up hysterical evidence in an attempt to support it.




Maybe, but you appear to be denying there is/was hysteria and continually asking questions in response to questions and requests for the point of your questions. 

Asking questions is fine, but not to engage in dialogue about the response and just ask more questions is fruitless and leads to frustration and confrontation about one's intention or ability to comprehend and grasp what is presented. 

Continuous questions without any dialogue is also indicative of someone who is evasive, or can never be satisfied and keeps demanding 'impossible' (from their perspective) proof.

So, to avoid being ignored in future, please explain the point to your incessant questions? Is it that you agree with the Global Warming notion and deny there is hysteria?


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> Perhaps you could put some effort into answering my initial question? Rather than trying to deflect the issue.
> 
> To remind you, how many dirty filthy polluting brown coal power stations, that the carbon tax was going to shut down, because they are killing the planet.
> Have been shut down, or even look like they are going to shut down?
> 
> What a bunch of dicks




It is and will take time.  It is the principal that is importand.

Gradually more wind turbines are being erected and more solar panels going up, more countries being invloved.

Such change is huge and will take years (unfortunately) but we are on the way, not perfect but gradually things will be refined through public opinion and the ballot boxes and we will get there.


----------



## Knobby22

There is some great research taking place with storing the power produced. This is the big problem with wind and solar power. 

You can be sure we will be buying it off other countries as they solve these problems after we finishing arguing among ourselves and missing the boat (as usual).


----------



## burglar

Knobby22 said:


> ... after we finishing arguing among ourselves and missing the boat (as usual).




 Not missing the boat!

South Australia has close to half of the nation's wind power capacity, accounting for almost twenty percent of that state's electricity needs of as October 2010. Victoria also had a substantial system, with about a quarter of the nation's capacity, ...


----------



## Some Dude

I have reversed the order of your primary points i.e. I will address the procedural points before returning to the original point. If you object, let me know.



Whiskers said:


> Maybe, but you appear to be denying there is/was hysteria and continually asking questions in response to questions and requests for the point of your questions.




At the risk of contradicting my signature, appearances can be deceiving. I believe there is a substantial amount of hysteria on this (and other) topics. Anyone who suggest that hysteria is not potentially applicable to people or opinions is lacking the most basic awareness of human thoughts and emotions. Have you ever looked at this thread title and pondered whether it could apply to both sides of the discussion? Hysteria is an equal opportunity emotional response.

The conversational thread about hysteria from my perspective. If I have left out anything pertinent, let me know.



Whiskers said:


> I actually did get caught up in the hysteria a bit back in the 1990's, but two main things shone through after Al Gore started pumping the issue. *The first was the controvosy over the actual data*. There was a lot of selective locations and as I recall "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings. It seemed locations that didn't rise in conformoty with their notion were disregarded. The other was the financial issue, geared toward a new form of tax revenue and agencies setup to facilitate this.




Multiple points but trying to deal with the first one:



Some Dude said:


> Which apparent controversy do you refer to?






Whiskers said:


> It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it.
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html




The release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the British University of East Anglia. Again, appears simple enough given the availability of the information so I asked about that.



Some Dude said:


> And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.






Whiskers said:


> Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .




I'm not going to simply believe you without question or evidence, so I asked.



Some Dude said:


> 1. Lack of real consensus. What lack of consensus are you referring to? Can you be specific by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
> 
> 2. The politicking and intent to suppress. Can you be specific as to what was being suppressed by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
> 
> 
> Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.






Whiskers said:


> As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.






Some Dude said:


> So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.






Whiskers said:


> Not dishonest... simply cautious.
> 
> 
> The basic tenant of law is the same as in science. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, or to rephrase for science, a theory is just a theory until it can be proved and replicated.*
> 
> 
> Sure there has been some global warming (and cooling) during human civilisation, but where the hysteria comes in is to paint that as some cataclysmic man made disaster.




I found it interesting that the link you posted in reference to this incident states the following:



			
				Time Magazine said:
			
		

> The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change. But they do hand a powerful political card to skeptics at the start of perhaps the most important environmental summit in history.




If I was to demonstrate malfaesence, bad behaviour, politicking, etc on behalf of those who reject the scientific consensus about climate change, would that mean that you would adjust your views? Did you evaluate your position about the scientific research on politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perceptions, etc.?



Whiskers said:


> Asking questions is fine, but not to engage in dialogue about the response and just ask more questions is fruitless and leads to frustration and confrontation about one's intention or ability to comprehend and grasp what is presented.




It may come as no surprise to you that I believe that I have engaged in dialogue about your responses. But feel free to demonstrate where you believe that I have not and we can take up those points.



Whiskers said:


> Continuous questions without any dialogue is also indicative of someone who is evasive, or can never be satisfied and keeps demanding 'impossible' (from their perspective) proof.




I am very easily satisfied. If you make a claim that does not correlate with my understanding on this topic, I will ask you for the specific information that informed your opinion or belief. Another option is not assert opinions as fact. It's isn't that hard or impossible 



Whiskers said:


> So, to avoid being ignored in future, please explain the point to your incessant questions? Is it that you agree with the Global Warming notion and deny there is hysteria?




Ignore me or not as you wish but it will not stop me from asking for evidence relating to claims made on this topic. If you choose to ignore them then perhaps others should draw the same inference that you invited about climate scientists i.e. reasonable doubt? That would not be a valid conclusion to draw though would it? It may be instructive of how climate scientists have felt about or an example of how people generally react when confronted with what they perceive as difficult?

And I agree with you, people should be able to rationally discuss these issues in an open, honest, and supportable manner 

And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.

From that position though, I have very little to offer other than looking around and noting the hysteria.

(Snip/Reverse)



Whiskers said:


> The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start.




As earlier in my response, did politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perception, or other non scienctific aspects changed your views on the climate science?


----------



## Knobby22

burglar said:


> Not missing the boat!
> 
> South Australia has close to half of the nation's wind power capacity, accounting for almost twenty percent of that state's electricity needs of as October 2010. Victoria also had a substantial system, with about a quarter of the nation's capacity, ...




I was talking more about power storage, but point taken.

As an aside, which USA state uses windpower to supply 9.2% of their power needs?  Texas!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas


----------



## basilio

Whiskers you have posted  a number of comments which  in your mind suggest that Global warming is not what it is cracked up to be.  In fact you neatly summarized your ideas with the following comments


> All I've done is to canvas a number of factors that have an effect on climate change and evidence that the cyclical northern hemisphere warming (and cooling) is probably more to do with volcanic activity than human factors.
> 
> Again, I don't deny climate change occurs, that human activity has some effect, or that we are in a longer term warming cycle... but what I'm not convinced about is the hysteria that:
> 
> 1) global warming (now more all-inclusive climate change) is out of control
> 2) human emissions are totally responsible, and
> 3) nature will not and can not rebalance CO2 naturally




If you care to check out the following URL you will find all the evidence necessary to answer those questions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_New_Abridged_Skeptical_Science_Quick_Reference_Guide.html

I notice a wide range of hypothetical possibilities you canvas to explain current changes in our climate. Volcanoes. Cloud cover. Heat from inside the earth.

Sorry but these are all red herrings. Fairy dust. BS...

One can make a case for some contribution to changing climate from many factors. In fact climate scientists are quick to acknowledge that and take great pains to identify these factors and take them into account when evaluating the major causes of current climate change. 

*But the overwhelming major cause for current climate change is the huge additional human produced CO2.* This understanding goes back over 200 years. Again if you are interested in the depth of scientific research check out the following analysis.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html


----------



## Whiskers

Hey Dude, now that we've got more opinion (and less questions) and your position in all this, I can better deal with you.



Some Dude said:


> Have you ever looked at this thread title and pondered whether it could apply to both sides of the discussion?




Yes, but the title is "Resisting" Climate Hysteria. 

Hysteria is defined as behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic. The Global Warming and Climate Change sceptics are not the ones acting in fear and panic as in introducing half baked laws to correct the probably uncorrectable. 



> And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.




Therein lays one of the points I am trying to make about hysteria. 

Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise...  and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?

If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". *The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand. * 



> As earlier in my response, did politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perception, or other non scienctific aspects changed your views on the climate science?




All to some extent, plus more specifically the big far less controversal scientific climate picture.

Remember, hysteria is just an emotional state... until you start to act in panic on that fear. 

The onus is on the climate change activists to fully explain and justify the case for the continued need for their perceived 'panic' actions.


----------



## basilio

Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.  

One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change.  If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would  understand what is happening and why it is happening.

And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.

As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ?  If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.

We, businesses, governments  live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information *agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field *is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.


----------



## basilio

And one last point Whiskers about the use of the word Hysteria.

This thread is called that because someone wanted to poison the discussion from the very start and accordingly framed the debate to diminish the standing of the scientists in that field.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.
> 
> One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change.  If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would  understand what is happening and why it is happening.
> 
> And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.
> 
> As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ?  If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.
> 
> We, businesses, governments  live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information *agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field *is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.



Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.




Another typical wayne rubbishing.  Biggest BS artiste on the forum and chief poisoner of discussion.

Go forth and multiply.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Hey Dude, now that we've got more opinion (and less questions) and your position in all this, I can better deal with you.




Glad to hear that you feel more comfortable.



Whiskers said:


> Yes, but the title is "Resisting" Climate Hysteria.




Yes, I am resisting the hysteria on the topic of climate science.



Whiskers said:


> Hysteria is defined as behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.




Agreed.



Whiskers said:


> The Global Warming and Climate Change sceptics are not the ones acting in fear and panic as in introducing half baked laws to correct the probably uncorrectable.




Disagree but more importantly, this is a positive claim that is being made. For it to be valid, you need to demonstrate that panic is driving the laws and that they are half baked. Simply asserting it or disagreeing with a course of action does not make it so.



Whiskers said:


> Therein lays one of the points I am trying to make about hysteria.
> 
> Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise...  and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?




No. I have an opinion and belief that those who spend their professional lives in this field are better able to analyse and draw conclusions from data that is not even available to us yet. I am open to be being convinced that we who do not do this professionally are better qualified or better informed but that is a positive claim that you would need to demonstrate that to me. This is why I continually ask for the evidence. If you believe that you are in a better position to assess and formulate coherent ideas about the latest data on climate science then by all means enlighten us. Demonstrate to us how you are able to see more clearly than the overwhelming and vast majority of climate scientists who publish their work in a highly competitive environment.

Further, simply saying "maybe" does not make it so either. If I said that that there maybe individuals or groups within the climate change skeptic community that are actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise without evidence, would that change your mind?



Whiskers said:


> If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". *The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand. *




Correct. Not sure why you think that applies here though. I have an opinion and belief informed from reading, assessing and discussing as best I can within the bounds of my abilities. Part of that assessment is identifying who can sustain and logically sound and valid argument. If I am business owner, I don't need to understand Ethernet collision algorithms to assess the viability of network segmentation and switching. What I need to be able to do is assess metrics and outcomes so that I can make determinations on who is the most suitable or capable to provide the service or advice. If someone regularly makes claims that they can't substantiate then they are not deferred to when it comes to matters that I can't possibly invest the time or resources into investigating.

Regarding your ole mate Einstein:

Netwon's third laws of cliches. For each and every cliche, there is an equal and opposite cliche.

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics" - Richard Feynman

I endorse quantum mechanics even though I do not understand it. I endorse it because there is a scientific consensus of the overwhelming and vast majority of physicists.

Which leads to your comment about faith.



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> 2. belief that is not based on proof




I reject your notion about faith or blind faith. We have scientific evidence as proof, and I accept that I am not the best qualified or capable to assess the latest data and derive conclusions from it so I defer to those who demonstrate that they are.



Whiskers said:


> All to some extent, plus more specifically the big far less controversal scientific climate picture.




I am unclear what you mean here. Could you clarify this please?



Whiskers said:


> Remember, hysteria is just an emotional state... until you start to act in panic on that fear.
> 
> The onus is on the climate change activists to fully explain and justify the case for the continued need for their perceived 'panic' actions.




Burden of proof is an age old concept that is incumbent on those making positive claims.

For example:

Claim: Anthropomorphic Global Warming is the scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Correct, evidence is available for this positive claim.

Claim: Action being proposed by some group in response to the scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is panic.

Please, do fully explain with actual relevant scientific research the claim that some arbitrary group of "climate change activists" warrants the label panic.



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> 1. a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group of persons or animals.




Are you going to revisit the previous questions?


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.




You could always demonstrate how this is so?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> You could always demonstrate how this is so?




I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.

BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.

Ol' Soc always had a point that the questions always led to, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.
> 
> BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.
> 
> Ol' Soc always had a point that the questions always led to, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.




The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?




The point is illegitimate, ergo Socratic method can never lead to your point.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> I am unclear what you mean here. Could you clarify this please?




You asked what changed my view on the hysteria about climate change. My answer was (in part) the big climate picture, which is far less controversial, recognises cycles in, and a long term climate warming trend... the warming bit, the alarmists focus on the recent and that it's 'bad'.

Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be? 



> Are you going to revisit the previous questions?




No, except to say think more about this.

"My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​
Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria. 

People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.
> 
> BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.
> 
> Ol' Soc *always had a point that the questions always led to*, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.





Some Dude said:


> The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?





wayneL said:


> *The point is illegitimate*, ergo Socratic method can never lead to your point.




You sir, are an unrealised and unrecognised genius. The quantum point.




Whiskers said:


> You asked what changed my view on the hysteria about climate change. My answer was (in part) the big climate picture, which is far less controversial, recognises cycles in, and a long term climate warming trend... the warming bit, the alarmists focus on the recent and that it's 'bad'.




Do you believe in evolution? Or does it's supposed label as controversial by some groups make it less supported by the evidence? 



Whiskers said:


> Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be?




My preference is for stable but regardless of global warming I don't know if that is realistic.



Some Dude said:


> Are you going to revisit the previous questions?






Whiskers said:


> No, except to say think more about this.




Sorry to see you bail out on the dialogue.



Whiskers said:


> "My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​
> Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria.
> 
> People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.




You missed the most important part of that statement.

My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess *the most recent and validated data* related to the topic.

I don't have the equipment, training, resources, or involvement in the latest research, thinking, arguments, peer review, etc. with regard to the field of climate science. I can't possibly pretend with any credibility to be even in vague co-location to the forefront of the most recent modelling, assessments, etc. Are you?

The next sentence which you highlight as a possible contradiction is an acknowledgement that I try to keep up but I am at best playing catch up.

Thanks for the discussion though 

And we return viewers to the regular theme....



Some Dude said:


> One theme seems to be quote some article, others go and check the article and source research, demonstrate that it has been misrepresented (at best), little to no response, move onto next article or sub topic, rinse and repeat. I wonder why people don't adjust where they get their sources of information from or how they evaluate what information they listen to?
> 
> Definitely seems like part of a theme...


----------



## Whiskers

basilio said:


> Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.
> 
> One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change.  If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would  understand what is happening and why it is happening.
> 
> And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.
> 
> As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ?  If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.
> 
> We, businesses, governments  live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information *agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field *is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.




Basilo, I chose this reply of yours because you mentioned a few key concepts that when related to government hysterical policy and laws on climate change, demonstrate their lack of sincere concern with climate change, but more concern with revenue raising from new taxes and industry. 

*"Human induced climate change"* 
One of the main greenhouse gases is methane. The gov has laid plenty of blame on the rural sector for methane contribution from animal herds and are trying their best to use that as a means to tax them more.

Yet at the same time, the state and fed gov's have rushed in Coal Seam Gas (CSG) development under the Coordinator General provisions with initially no environmental controls but eventually modified with mild controls in some areas under public pressure.

There is plenty of current, living proof out there that the fracking process to develop CSG causes considerable methane and other gas to escape into the air and water table. You can go out into those areas and measure detectable increases around many wells, smell it and feel it burning your eyes and skin and even see it bubbling up in the creeks and rivers. 

When the hysterical and hypocritical climate change activists and government that not only allowed it, but endorsed it with open arms, do something pretty fast to stop all this extra methane and other undeclared chemicals leaking into the air we breathe and water we consume, then I'll start taking you seriously about climate change. 

*"And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned."*
If this sort of government contradiction keeps up, we'll all be poisoned long before the climate change has any marked effect on us.

*"A rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening."* 
The gov has bowed to the whims of climate extremists as a populous political election tool and a guise to introduce new tax revenue, create new industry and jobs for political gain... completely disingenuous about real environmental issues.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> My preference is for stable but regardless of global warming I don't know if that is realistic.




If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate.

One thing is certain in nature, nothing is stable, least of all climate. Everything evolves in cycles.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate.
> 
> One thing is certain in nature, nothing is stable, least of all climate. Everything evolves in cycles.




Wow, a breakthrough, I wonder if that is why I defer to climate scientists!

I am very comfortable in saying that I don't know because I don't pretend to know. What would concern me more would be if I couldn't sustain my assertions after the most basic of questions about them.

Doesn't that concern you?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> You sir, are an unrealised and unrecognised genius. The quantum point..




The nano-thin facade of reasonableness turns to sarcasm, the lowest form of wit... and a poor form of argument.

Dude, we have gone through all this before; the continuous flight to extreme by refusing to acknowledge valid dissent is getting boring and increasingly untenable....

.... which accounts for the increasing volume and pitch of shrill.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> The nano-thin facade of reasonableness turns to sarcasm, the lowest form of wit... and a poor form of argument.
> 
> Dude, we have gone through all this before; the continuous flight to extreme by refusing to acknowledge valid dissent is getting boring and increasingly untenable....
> 
> .... which accounts for the increasing volume and pitch of shrill.




Gosh, I'm flattered and thank you for the often attributed Oscar Wilde quote  How did that one finish?


----------



## wayneL

Some Dude said:


> Gosh, I'm flattered and thank you for the often attributed Oscar Wilde quote  How did that one finish?




Not how you think it finishes....  tsk tsk faulty research yet again. 

In fact the phrase "as is" pre-dates Wilde and any of the other illegitimate revisions.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Wow, a breakthrough, I wonder if that is why I defer to climate scientists!
> 
> I am very comfortable in saying that I don't know because I don't pretend to know. What would concern me more would be if I couldn't sustain my assertions after the most basic of questions about them.
> 
> Doesn't that concern you?




Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good. 

But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.

Are you diagnosed with some type of personality disorder or do you just enjoy baiting, selective moments of competence and circular conversations with limited moments of clarity to try to belittle those you strongly dissagree with?

If you want me to continue to engage in conversation with you, behave like the responsible, intelligent and logical person I know you can be... otherwise you go on my ignore list.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good.




Thanks, I would likewise compliment you on you conversational attributes.



Whiskers said:


> But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.




Would you elaborate by citing the specific examples so that we could discuss whether we can agree on these attributes?



Whiskers said:


> Are you diagnosed with some type of personality disorder or do you just enjoy baiting, selective moments of competence and circular conversations with limited moments of clarity to try to belittle those you strongly dissagree with?




Yes I have but would you elaborate by citing the specific examples so that we could discuss whether we can agree on them? Context also please i.e. make sure you include the preceding comment in the conversational examples.



Whiskers said:


> If you want me to continue to engage in conversation with you, behave like the responsible, intelligent and logical person I know you can be... otherwise you go on my ignore list.




Ignore me or not as you wish but I hope that you choose to demonstrate every point that you make in your posts with the understanding that your descriptions of the science, topic, people or behaviour do not have to be accepted without analysis or criticism. While I welcome you stating your opinions and making assertions, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you and stating why then you probably shouldn't make the comments.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Not how you think it finishes....  tsk tsk faulty research yet again.
> 
> In fact the phrase "as is" pre-dates Wilde and any of the other illegitimate revisions.




Oh darn, and I was so looking forward to your approval. Indeed the saying is incorrectly attributed to Oscar Wilde, hence "often attributed".


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Whiskers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you diagnosed with some type of personality disorder or do you just enjoy baiting, selective moments of competence and circular conversations with limited moments of clarity to try to belittle those you strongly dissagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have but would you elaborate by citing the specific examples so that we could discuss whether we can agree on them? Context also please i.e. make sure you include the preceding comment in the conversational examples.
Click to expand...




So that I can better understand where you are coming from, can you tell me what personality disorder you have been diagnosed with? 

Is it a form of Autism like Asperger Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder or an Obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD)?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> So that I can better understand where you are coming from, can you tell me what personality disorder you have been diagnosed with?




No but you can discuss with me privately why you think it is relevant.

Are you able to elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts? If so, will you?


----------



## explod

Whiskers said:


> So that I can better understand where you are coming from, can you tell me what personality disorder you have been diagnosed with?
> 
> Is it a form of Autism like Asperger Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder or an Obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD)?




Way off topic

Just answer the questions with *assertions* based on facts showing that climate change is not a problem.

We need to smarten up;................. in fact I am thinking of applying for an ASF monitors job.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

While I would agree with many of the bony legged Greens posting on Weather, that it has been an horrid Summer, it would appear in Townsville that we are returning to a normal clime.

The bush turkey chicks are growing, the grass is growing, a gentle rain has fallen for the last three days, much as one expects for early April.

Anzac Day Dawn may be cold, as it often is.

27C high today.
21C expected low tonight.

gg


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> No but you can discuss with me privately why you think it is relevant.
> 
> Are you able to elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts? If so, will you?




It is relevant for the reasons I made at post 4446 and wayneL made at 4443.

I recognise you have a genuine dissability which makes it difficult for you to relate in certain ways. I respect you for acknowledging that and hope you keep working to improve your diagnosis.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> It is relevant for the reasons I made at post 4446 and wayneL made at 4443.
> 
> I recognise you have a genuine dissability which makes it difficult for you to relate in certain ways. I respect you for acknowledging that and hope you keep working to improve your diagnosis.




So you are unable to elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts? Including your post #4446?



Some Dude said:


> Would you elaborate by citing the specific examples so that we could discuss whether we can agree on these attributes?




If all you are able to do is post assertions and avoid substantiating them, I think my "issues" will likely be the least of your problems.


----------



## Whiskers

explod said:


> Way off topic




On the contrary explod, a significant part of resisting climate hysteria is understanding where people are coming from and treating them accordingly. If I didn't suspect a personality disorder I probably would have been much harsher.



> Just answer the questions with *assertions* based on facts showing that climate change is not a problem.
> 
> We need to smarten up;.................




Indeed we need to smarten up. 

I've summarised why the treatment of climate change by our governments is hysterical nonsense in the below text in reply to Basilio. Feel free to try to rationalise their granting of CSG licenses which by definition and well established history creates a lot of uncontrolled methane gas leaks into the air and water reservoirs, without any environmental controls at all. 

Basilo, I chose this reply of yours because you mentioned a few key concepts that when related to government hysterical policy and laws on climate change, demonstrate their lack of sincere concern with climate change, but more concern with revenue raising from new taxes and industry. 

"Human induced climate change" 
One of the main greenhouse gases is methane. The gov has laid plenty of blame on the rural sector for methane contribution from animal herds and are trying their best to use that as a means to tax them more.

Yet at the same time, the state and fed gov's have rushed in Coal Seam Gas (CSG) development under the Coordinator General provisions with initially no environmental controls but eventually modified with mild controls in some areas under public pressure.

There is plenty of current, living proof out there that the fracking process to develop CSG causes considerable methane and other gas to escape into the air and water table. You can go out into those areas and measure detectable increases around many wells, smell it and feel it burning your eyes and skin and even see it bubbling up in the creeks and rivers. 

When the hysterical and hypocritical climate change activists and government that not only allowed it, but endorsed it with open arms, do something pretty fast to stop all this extra methane and other undeclared chemicals leaking into the air we breathe and water we consume, then I'll start taking you seriously about climate change. 

"And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned."
 If this sort of government contradiction keeps up, we'll all be poisoned long before the climate change has any marked effect on us.

"A rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening." 
The gov has bowed to the whims of climate extremists as a populous political election tool and a guise to introduce new tax revenue, create new industry and jobs for political gain... completely disingenuous about real environmental issues.​


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The nano-thin facade of reasonableness turns to sarcasm, the lowest form of wit... and a poor form of argument.
> 
> Dude, we have gone through all this before; the continuous flight to extreme by refusing to acknowledge valid dissent is getting boring and increasingly untenable....
> 
> .... which accounts for the increasing volume and pitch of shrill.




There is no content in this post which relates to the subject.

On one hand we have the science on the other a thread for discussion.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Not how you think it finishes....  tsk tsk faulty research yet again.
> 
> In fact the phrase "as is" pre-dates Wilde and any of the other illegitimate revisions.




As an experienced poster one would expect words to assist in understanding this difficult subject


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> When the hysterical and hypocritical climate change activists and government that not only allowed it, but endorsed it with open arms, do something pretty fast to stop all this extra methane and other undeclared chemicals leaking into the air we breathe and water we consume, then I'll start taking you seriously about climate change.




You're not concerned with whether what you believe and tell others is true or not, regardless of the actions of others?


----------



## explod

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While I would agree with many of the bony legged Greens posting on Weather, that it has been an horrid Summer, it would appear in Townsville that we are returning to a normal clime.
> 
> The bush turkey chicks are growing, the grass is growing, a gentle rain has fallen for the last three days, much as one expects for early April.
> 
> Anzac Day Dawn may be cold, as it often is.
> 
> 27C high today.
> 21C expected low tonight.
> 
> gg




Dosn't count, Townsville is another planet.  Remember visiting when in orbit from shearing at Richmond in my Dastun ute and read in the paper, (1977 it was) that two shearers and a man were badly injured when their car ran off the road near the Charters Towers turn off.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> So you are unable to elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts? Including your post #4446?
> 
> 
> 
> If all you are able to do is post assertions and avoid substantiating them, I think my "issues" will likely be the least of your problems.




With all due respect Some Dude, you substantianted them for me. I recognised some patterns of a personality disorder which you acknowledged you have.

I'm working on how we can better relate to each other and will get back to you.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> With all due respect Some Dude, you substantianted them for me. I recognised some patterns of a personality disorder which you acknowledged you have.
> 
> I'm working on how we can better relate to each other and will get back to you.




I'll give you a perfect way to achieve that. Elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts. If you can't then why should anyone accept your observations as valid?


----------



## Knobby22

Whiskers said:


> With all due respect Some Dude, you substantianted them for me. I recognised some patterns of a personality disorder which you acknowledged you have.
> 
> I'm working on how we can better relate to each other and will get back to you.




Not impressive Whiskers, resorting to attacking the messenger. I was hoping to see you provide some interesting scientific studies. Instead it appears that you are merely blindly listening to propaganda without using your critical facilities and relying on your prejudices to form your viewpoint on this issue.


----------



## Whiskers

Knobby22 said:


> Not impressive Whiskers, resorting to attacking the messenger.




Absolutely not attacking the messenger Knobby... far from it. If you read back I was complimentary where compliments were due and facilitating where I noticed a problem... ie noticing not just a personality style, but a personality disorder that was getting in the way of resolving the essentially circular conversation where one acknowledges little but keeps asking questions and broardening the conversation instead of narrowing the conversation to settle key points before moving on.

Surely you appreciate that certain types of personality disorders pose particular problems with communication and comprehension. The respectful thing to do is recognise it, as he has, and the onus is then on the rest of us to understand the nature of it and adjust accordingly. To ignore the condition exists is the worst thing you can do.




> I was hoping to see you provide some interesting scientific studies. Instead it appears that you are merely blindly listening to propaganda without using your critical facilities and relying on your prejudices to form your viewpoint on this issue.




Maybe it's because you are from melb and not very familiar with things in Qld and NSW, but I did spell out the particular issue of the qld gov approving the Coal Seam Gas (CSG) projects via the coordinator general process without any enviornmental assessements or restrictions and approved simillarly by the fed gov. The fracking process by definition 'blasts' the subterranean landscape to allow the methane gas to escape from the coal seam. Also by definition they have no control over, nor idea of where the fractures will traverse and let the methane plus all the fracking chemicals escape to, eg up the hole, into the water table or else where into the atmosphere as numerous reports in the history of fracking in the US and the 4 corners report showed. 

Refer to the Coal Seam Gas - an unregulated, unmitigated environmental & economic disaster thread for more details if you are not familiar with CSG.

Now getting back to the point, how can you reconcile the former Qld and current fed gov 'hysterical' position re global warming with allowing thousands of holes to be drilled for CSG a major greenhouse gas, methane with a long record of uncontrolled methane leakages into the enviornment without any enviornmental assessement first, let alone controls?

By awarding the projects via the coordinator general act, as special projects, they by-passed the normal assessement processes  to fast track the projects on the basis the economic benefit was worth more than the environmental damage. Do you not see the glaring contradiction with their climate change position!?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Absolutely not attacking the messenger Knobby... far from it. If you read back I was complimentary where compliments were due and facilitating where I noticed a problem... ie noticing not just a personality style, but a personality disorder that was getting in the way of resolving the essentially circular conversation where one acknowledges little but keeps asking questions and broardening the conversation instead of narrowing the conversation to settle key points before moving on.
> 
> Surely you appreciate that certain types of personality disorders pose particular problems with communication and comprehension. The respectful thing to do is recognise it, as he has, and the onus is then on the rest of us to understand the nature of it and adjust accordingly. To ignore the condition exists is the worst thing you can do.




The problem though is that having an opinion about that, and demonstrating it are two different things. Simply asserting that I demonstrate it with my posts without citing the examples for the labels that you have chosen is problematic.

Why should anyone accept your observations if you can't demonstrate them to be so? You don't even know what I was diagnosed with yet you are confident that that is the reason for whatever it is you think is happening.

Arguments can often be dismissed with the same level of evidence provided. In this case, the validity of your assertion regarding personality disorders and communication, for which you don't even know which I was diagnosed with, is supported by the equivelent of "read his posts".

Well, you're wrong. Just read your posts.


----------



## Knobby22

Hey, I'm not saying that governments walk the talk. The present government hasn't a clue.
The whole thing is a farce. 

I am just saying the world is obviously warming and in a geological way, incredibly fast. The evidence stacks up that it is human induced but I am open to how it operates. Methane is a good example as it is a very strong greenhouse gas that thankfully doesn't last in the atmosphere that long. 

As the earth continues to warm something will give politically. It just takes time.
I predicted a while back that it will be the Republicans who will declare war on global warming when the time is right. It is amazing how many of the so called hard right are investing in sustainable technologies in the knowledge that if they get it right they will get richer. For instance, at present plenty of money is going into alternatives to storing the energy made by wind power. Texas has a lot of wind power but it is useless when the wind stops. If they could store the energy then it could be used to meet peak loads.

There is also research going into air cars run off compressed air! (and so far it has been very successful).

The world is going to be a very different place in 30 years but until that takes place, powerful interests want to keep the status quo as long as possible, hence the Heartland institute and powerful media organisations pumping out the lies. 

There are of course overzealous types who have no idea what they are talking about in the "green" sphere as well but you have to keep going back to the facts.

We have had a solar lull. it will become very obvious in the next 5 years. I can wait.


----------



## wayneL

The hard right being anyone to the right of socialism?

Knobby, there is also the  issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> The hard right being anyone to the right of socialism?
> 
> Knobby, there is also the  issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.




The hard right are right of the right. The right are right of the centre. The socialists are similarly left and far (or silly) left.  I probably should have said the elite right though.

And I agree with your comment. They are great reasons. 

That does not mean they are not aware of the truth. 
What about that right wing think tank that publically espouses that global warming is rubbish while spending money on research to plant the atmosphere with a range of gases to cool the earth? It was on this thread well back but I am disinclined to search for it.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> ...there is also the  issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.




A good time to reaffirm this is a valid point. I actually agree with the policy to develop natural gas resources, but the issue is in the application of that policy in the context of the gov global warming stance and policy and proper long standing pollution and toxic spill issues and regulations.



Some Dude said:


> You don't even know what I was diagnosed with yet you are confident that that is the reason for whatever it is you think is happening.




Without even knowing or seeing you, but just from your writing and conversation style, my knowledge and judgement lead me to correctly conclude you had a personality disorder, didn't it. 

While respecting your request not to elloberate on that and not wishing to dwell on it too much, I can relate to you probably more than you think... for example, like a few other forum members I have personally experienced a personaly disorder/mental condition, (mild) depression  with the attached stigma.

But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.



> The problem though is that having an opinion about that, and demonstrating it are two different things. Simply asserting that I demonstrate it with my posts without citing the examples for the labels that you have chosen is problematic.
> 
> Why should anyone accept your observations if you can't demonstrate them to be so?




Some Dude, there are some things that I don't need to demonstrate to be true such as (regarding the CSG issue) the lack of enviornmental controls for the Gladstone CSG project and others. They are well documented in the government Coordinator Generals Office website under special/significant projects status. You can find it all at: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects.html They were also well presented in the 4 Corners report and other sources.

Similarly by definition, CSG refers to methane gas and fracking refers to the (toxic) chemicals used to break up the subterranean enviornment. I'll ask you check and confirm that for yourself. 

Regarding the history of fracking for CSG, search phrases like 'Coal Seam Gas', 'fracking for CSG' and 'US enquiry into fracking'. I could provide plenty of links, but to avoid being accused of bias, it's best you follow your own enquiry into these well established concepts and historic issues. 

To paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> As an experienced poster one would expect words to assist in understanding this difficult subject




"Mother Nature has an awesome agenda!" 

Given time, she will remove the difficultly, with or without our intervention!


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Without even knowing or seeing you, but just from your writing and conversation style, my knowledge and judgement lead me to correctly conclude you had a personality disorder, didn't it.




But can you demonstrate a causal effect on the relevant points of discussion. You say that you can tell by writing and conversation style, well cite and elaborate with regard to the validity of the discussion points.

If you are choosing to avoid substantiating your assertions because of some effect that you believe I was diagnosed with then why should anyone else who has not been diagnosed with something accept your assertions? Are you asserting that everyone else can see and accept what I can't?



Whiskers said:


> While respecting your request not to elloberate on that and not wishing to dwell on it too much, I can relate to you probably more than you think... for example, like a few other forum members I have personally experienced a personaly disorder/mental condition, (mild) depression  with the attached stigma.




Your status with regard to "I can relate to you probably more than you think" is irrelevant to me with regard to the relevant discussion points. I am more than happy to chat to you about other experiences etc in a different context, hence if you want to continue this aspect of the discussion let's do it in private.

For this discussion, I would like to return to the discussion points, namely please substantiate your assertions.



Whiskers said:


> But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.




I'd ask you to read this post. You don't need to fine tune anything to be honest in your assertions with everyone, not just myself.



Whiskers said:


> Some Dude, there are some things that I don't need to demonstrate to be true such as (regarding the CSG issue) the lack of enviornmental controls for the Gladstone CSG project and others. They are well documented in the government Coordinator Generals Office website under special/significant projects status. You can find it all at: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects.html They were also well presented in the 4 Corners report and other sources.
> 
> Similarly by definition, CSG refers to methane gas and fracking refers to the (toxic) chemicals used to break up the subterranean enviornment. I'll ask you check and confirm that for yourself.
> 
> Regarding the history of fracking for CSG, search phrases like 'Coal Seam Gas', 'fracking for CSG' and 'US enquiry into fracking'. I could provide plenty of links, but to avoid being accused of bias, it's best you follow your own enquiry into these well established concepts and historic issues.
> 
> To paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?




I tried obtaining an understanding about this in private but alas, we disagree there also, so be it.

I work professionally in the CSG industry and from my vantage point observe enough truth, myth, and hypocrisy from all parties to provide plenty of discussion for other people. I sought to be honest with you and declare why I will not be answering your questions instead of simply evading. None of this affects the basic principle that _if I was to make a statement of fact_ on the topic, regardless of my situation, I should be able to substantiate it if asked. This should not be confused for you posing a question not directly related to an assertion that you or I have made. It would be disappointing, yet illuminating for others, if you were to continue evading the burden of proof for _your assertions of fact_ by attempting to claim that I can't ask for substantiation when acknowledging why I won't be answering unrelated questions on one topic.

I can't and will not be commenting further on any issue directly related to this topic for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons. As with my medical diagnosis, I chose to be honest about it instead of simply ignoring it. I don't need to get into detail because both are irrelevant to you providing substantiation _*for your claims*_.

I will be continuing to highlight where I believe you are making statements of fact on other topics that appear to be unsupportable.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> I tried obtaining an understanding about this in private but alas, we disagree there also, so be it.




It's unfortunate that we could not get an understanding. I will not reveal our private discussions, but I have given you permission to if you wish.



> Are you asserting that everyone else can see and accept what I can't?




No, not everybody... but I note the few who have, are very intelligent and knowledgable, like yourself, and they have some training and or experience in managing conflict.

At this point I would refer back to a point I made earlier.



Whiskers said:


> But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in *the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue* and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.




Now, I gave you the benifit of the doubt, because I figured there was a personality disorder involved. If you think I've been harsh, then wait until you see how I normally treat a forum troll.

Diverging a bit off topic, but I promise everyone else we will end back on topic. 



> I'd ask you to read this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the parallels that you perceive to sport. I do have a philosophical inclination that motivates me i.e. I believe that a large part of the problem that adversely affects many _discussions_ in society at large is not what people believe but how or why they believe what they do and an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions _when communicating with others_. If arguing is a sport for me, or whatever other word is appropriate, I am but one amongst a large field of players, and a relatively passive player at, whom are proactively seeking to assert something to convince others.
> 
> If you mean I am much more practiced than most people then sure, I agree. Depends on what you meant.
> 
> 
> With regard to the words that we use, sometimes the choice of a word can be important. Take this example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to fine tune anything to be honest in your assertions with everyone, not just myself.
Click to expand...



I did, which leads to...



> But can you demonstrate a causal effect on the relevant points of discussion. You say that you can tell by writing and conversation style, well cite and elaborate with regard to the validity of the discussion points.




At this point I refer back to my post (4446) that you refer to.



Whiskers said:


> Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good.
> 
> But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.




Let's start with "Invalidation".

Invalidation - The creation or promotion of an environment which encourages an individual to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, values or physical presence are inferior, flawed, problematic or worthless.​
Non-PD’s often reach into their instinctive fight or flight responses when confronted with an invalidating comment. They may thus respond in an inappropriately aggressive manner, with anger and exasperation or they may feel the urge to take a defeatist response where they give in. Either way, the perpetrator gets what they want and the diversion is established.  What generally works better is an unemotional, yet assertive response.​
Coping with Invalidation

Invalidation is an aggressive form of emotional abuse. If someone uses invalidation on you it is important to recognize it and to understand that they are not looking for a compromise or a way to meet you in the middle at that particular moment. They are using a power play to win - to suppress your needs in favor of their own. 
http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Invalidation.html​
Now, was I not right again, in concluding from your writing and conversation that you had a genuine interest in this issue.

While I am empathetic with your diagnosed personality disorder, you will not divert me off on tangents that lead to endless circles of arguement.

I chose not to dwell on your disorder, but you chose to fight using it as an emotional card. 

If you want to "avoid" CSG issues you should not have bought into climate change debate. But, I know you just want to 'rattle' those who don't share your opinion.

The particular point I was putting was, to paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?

Now, you cede you work in the industry as a professional to insist you will not comment on it. But, the answer has nothing to do with you personally... it a physolophical issue... the answer of which is at the heart of the integrity of those portraying the validity of Climate Change.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Now, was I not right again, in concluding from your writing and conversation that you had a genuine interest in this issue.




I don't recall seeing you acknowledge that I have a genuine interest, as opposed to attempting to rattle and troll, but if that is what you are saying then that is a good starting point.

Thank you.



Whiskers said:


> While I am empathetic with your diagnosed personality disorder, you will not divert me off on tangents that lead to endless circles of arguement.




Feel free anytime to cite an example so that we can establish whether we can agree with your observation. Just because you believe some line of question or clarification was an endless circle does not necessarily make it so. You maybe right! You maybe wrong! But we won't establish common ground to move forward from until we can agree on some basic things first.



Whiskers said:


> I chose not to dwell on your disorder, but you chose to fight using it as an emotional card.




If you don't want to dwell on it then stop talking about it. I offered to take that portion to a private discussion, you did not take up that offer. This element of the conversation will cease the instant you stop mentioning it.



Whiskers said:


> If you want to "avoid" CSG issues you should not have bought into climate change debate. But, I know you just want to 'rattle' those who don't share your opinion.




Thanks for your opinion about that but I disagree. Was there a missing word in the initial section that I quoted? That last sentence does not appear to comport with the first sentence that I quoted.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> At this point I refer back to my post (4446) that you refer to.




I'm comfortable with the line of conversation that led to post 4446. Are you?



Some Dude said:


> And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.
> 
> From that position though, I have very little to offer other than looking around and noting the hysteria.






Whiskers said:


> Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise...  and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?
> 
> If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". *The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand. *






Some Dude said:


> No. I have an opinion and belief that those who spend their professional lives in this field are better able to analyse and draw conclusions from data that is not even available to us yet. I am open to be being convinced that we who do not do this professionally are better qualified or better informed but that is a positive claim that you would need to demonstrate that to me. This is why I continually ask for the evidence. If you believe that you are in a better position to assess and formulate coherent ideas about the latest data on climate science then by all means enlighten us. Demonstrate to us how you are able to see more clearly than the overwhelming and vast majority of climate scientists who publish their work in a highly competitive environment.
> 
> Further, simply saying "maybe" does not make it so either. If I said that that there maybe individuals or groups within the climate change skeptic community that are actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise without evidence, would that change your mind?
> 
> ...
> 
> Correct. Not sure why you think that applies here though. I have an opinion and belief informed from reading, assessing and discussing as best I can within the bounds of my abilities. Part of that assessment is identifying who can sustain and logically sound and valid argument. If I am business owner, I don't need to understand Ethernet collision algorithms to assess the viability of network segmentation and switching. What I need to be able to do is assess metrics and outcomes so that I can make determinations on who is the most suitable or capable to provide the service or advice. If someone regularly makes claims that they can't substantiate then they are not deferred to when it comes to matters that I can't possibly invest the time or resources into investigating.
> 
> Regarding your ole mate Einstein:
> 
> Netwon's third laws of cliches. For each and every cliche, there is an equal and opposite cliche.
> 
> "Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics" - Richard Feynman
> 
> I endorse quantum mechanics even though I do not understand it. I endorse it because there is a scientific consensus of the overwhelming and vast majority of physicists.
> 
> Are you going to revisit the previous questions?






Whiskers said:


> Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be?
> 
> ...
> 
> No, except to say think more about this.
> 
> "My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​
> Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria.
> 
> People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.






Some Dude said:


> Sorry to see you bail out on the dialogue.
> 
> ...
> 
> You missed the most important part of that statement.
> 
> My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess *the most recent and validated data* related to the topic.
> 
> I don't have the equipment, training, resources, or involvement in the latest research, thinking, arguments, peer review, etc. with regard to the field of climate science. I can't possibly pretend with any credibility to be even in vague co-location to the forefront of the most recent modelling, assessments, etc. Are you?
> 
> The next sentence which you highlight as a possible contradiction is an acknowledgement that I try to keep up but I am at best playing catch up.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion though






Whiskers said:


> If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate.
> 
> One thing is certain in nature, nothing is stable, least of all climate. Everything evolves in cycles.






Some Dude said:


> Wow, a breakthrough, I wonder if that is why I defer to climate scientists!
> 
> I am very comfortable in saying that I don't know because I don't pretend to know. What would concern me more would be if I couldn't sustain my assertions after the most basic of questions about them.
> 
> Doesn't that concern you?




And finally post 4446



Whiskers said:


> Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good.
> 
> But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.
> 
> Are you diagnosed with some type of personality disorder or do you just enjoy baiting, selective moments of competence and circular conversations with limited moments of clarity to try to belittle those you strongly dissagree with?
> 
> If you want me to continue to engage in conversation with you, behave like the responsible, intelligent and logical person I know you can be... otherwise you go on my ignore list.




After stating numerous times that I defer to climate scientists because I am not in the position to know and thus focus on the claims of fact made by people i.e. make claim, cite, check and read the supporting information, you comment that _"If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate"._

I disagree with your observation that this conversation thread demonstrates the characteristics that you claim, including invalidation. Am I assertive, you bet. Have you checked your posts against the list you provided?



Whiskers said:


> Let's start with "Invalidation".
> 
> Invalidation - The creation or promotion of an environment which encourages an individual to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, values or physical presence are inferior, flawed, problematic or worthless.​
> Non-PD’s often reach into their instinctive fight or flight responses when confronted with an invalidating comment. They may thus respond in an inappropriately aggressive manner, with anger and exasperation or they may feel the urge to take a defeatist response where they give in. Either way, the perpetrator gets what they want and the diversion is established.  What generally works better is an unemotional, yet assertive response.​
> Coping with Invalidation
> 
> Invalidation is an aggressive form of emotional abuse. If someone uses invalidation on you it is important to recognize it and to understand that they are not looking for a compromise or a way to meet you in the middle at that particular moment. They are using a power play to win - to suppress your needs in favor of their own.
> http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Invalidation.html​


----------



## Whiskers

Ok, Some Dude... you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you... I think we've got that clear now. 

So how about talking about whether the gov practised what they preached about Climate Change with regard to granting the CSG licenses in Qld and NSW. If you are uncomfortable talking about CSG, then discuss the principle of granting an oil and gas licenses in general, by the coordinator generals special project status.

Gov policy is that climate change is a very important issue that warrants all sorts of land use restrictions for the ordinary person and the introduction of new taxes... BUT, if a project is considered in the urgent economic interest of the state, we'll totally ignore the environmental impact and climate change.   

Is that a credible way to deal with climate change?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Ok, Some Dude... you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you... I think we've got that clear now.




What I am not sure is clear though is that the important element for myself is not that we disagree, it is how we disagree.

Have you considered communicating in a more neutral tone? For example, instead of saying "you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you", you could say something more neutral that does not set a negative context for the other person to discuss from. A suggestion for what I believe is your intended message above, albeit I maybe wrong, could be "we have struggled identifying common ground or a common perspective with each other.. I think that much is clear now". In this way, you don't ask by implication for the other person to accept by default the negative implication when there is disagreement about that very issue. This helps set some common neutral ground that we can both work from.



Whiskers said:


> Gov policy is that climate change is a very important issue that warrants all sorts of land use restrictions for the ordinary person and the introduction of new taxes... BUT, if a project is considered in the urgent economic interest of the state, we'll totally ignore the environmental impact and climate change.
> 
> Is that a credible way to deal with climate change?




Within the context of claims regarding climate science and what we use to inform our political and societal decision making process, I assume that all previous questions are considered finalised?

Tony Abbott previously indicated that he thought a carbon tax was the intelligent way to proceed so I am puzzled about the change of heart for many, including Tony Abbott's. Differences in how a carbon tax would be implemented, sure, but that outright a carbon tax, or trading scheme as is what we really have if my understanding is correct, is something that should not happen? Why did people change their minds?



			
				"Tony Abbott said:
			
		

> If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.




I have also been pondering drsmith's comment.



drsmith said:


> As a broad principal, act only in step with our economic influence. We are only a small portion of the global economy and our influence is limited by that.




In the context of accepting the premise we should implement some kind of program, I understand the logic behind this but have been contemplating whether this absolves us the responsibility for taking our own action regardless of what the rest of the world is doing. I am still processing it and if you have anything to add to that, I would welcome your comments.


----------



## Calliope

Surely you two guys could swap insults in private. No one else gives a stuff.  I have lost track of what you are on about.

 "Originally Posted by Tony Abbott".  I don't think so Dude.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Surely you two guys could swap insults in private. No one else gives a stuff.  I have lost track of what you are on about.
> 
> "Originally Posted by Tony Abbott".  I don't think so Dude.




Dissagree.  In amongst the banter there is very fair discussion on climate change in my view.  The tossing re our global influence just today for a start.

Maybe you do not give a real toss but just in there as you detest tree huggers. 

Anyhoooow, each to their own.


----------



## Some Dude

Calliope said:


> "Originally Posted by Tony Abbott".  I don't think so Dude.




Go check the link I posted preceding it, it's from Tony Abbott's website.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Surely you two guys could swap insults in private.



It started off reasonably, but quite understandably went rapidly downhill when Whiskers decided it was appropriate to ask Some Dude on a public forum if he had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Surely, even if it's appropriate to ask such a personal question at all, it should have occurred via PM?
I congratulate Some Dude on managing to remain civil in response.

As far as I know, Whiskers is not qualified to provide medical/psychological diagnoses in any instance, let alone on the basis of a typed message on a public forum.


----------



## Ves

Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?


----------



## explod

Ves said:


> Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?




No, checking the pulse of Simpson sitting on his donkey.

Statues have no effect on the climate in my *very humble* view.


----------



## Whiskers

Ves said:


> Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?




No... what do the say?


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> What I am not sure is clear though is that the important element for myself is not that we disagree, it is how we disagree.





That's true Some Dude, and I agree... at this point I'll take you back a bit to your post 4472 where you said: 
“I don't recall seeing you acknowledge that I have a genuine interest, as opposed to attempting to rattle and troll, but if that is what you are saying then that is a good starting point. Thank you.”​
Yes, it's important that you understand that I know you have a genuine interest here. 

I think it's unfortunate that we didn't share that understanding earlier. 

Do you know why it didn't get a higher priority in your memory?

We are making progress, but I'll leave it there for today and come back to you tomorrow or monday.


----------



## Ves

Whiskers said:


> No... what do the say?



I don't remember exactly.   I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.


----------



## Whiskers

Ves said:


> I don't remember exactly.   I was just curious as all - I didn't think there was that many people in SEQ interested in flouride.




Oh Yeah, there is... you wanna get me started on fluoridation. 

Actually, I probably need to get back to that thread again soon.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Yes, it's important that you understand that I know you have a genuine interest here.
> 
> I think it's unfortunate that we didn't share that understanding earlier.
> 
> Do you know why it didn't get a higher priority in your memory?




I wouldn't say that I know but I have an opinion about it.

My reading is that we essentially started talking past each other with posts 4398 and 4400 whereby I was seeking specifics about what was informing you comments so that I could assess veracity, and you were seeking alternative explanations from myself. I read as rhetorical questions because I could not relate them to a position or comment that I had made.



Some Dude said:


> Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.
> 
> So the part where you said:
> 
> ...
> 
> Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to? Was there anything in that study that asserts any kind of contradiction or doubt about of global warming? i.e. The seemingly confounding point can't sustain anybody categorising climate change science as hysteria?






Whiskers said:


> As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.
> 
> 
> Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?
> 
> What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?
> 
> Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?
> 
> Miles of charts here: <snip>
> 
> Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.




Once we were unable to establish a common framework from which we could then conduct the discussion, it is an easy mindset to adopt that the other person is inconsistent or rattle and trolling.



Some Dude said:


> So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.
> 
> ...
> 
> Choose a point for discussion, cite the source and research, and we will discuss.






Whiskers said:


> Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying.




I acknowledge and accept that we will likely have different perspectives about this and that is okay. I also believe that it is not a your fault or my fault issue and feel free to disagree as there are comments that I made which I believe were not helpful. But the fundamental root cause of the issue for me is not what comments we made about the other, it is the inability to establish a common framework for discussion. I think that is a common human interaction issue that can sometimes be amplified by the nature of online communication where interactivity can be stilted but it is certainly not confined to online discussions.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> I wouldn't say that I know but I have an opinion about it.
> ...
> But the fundamental root cause of the issue for me is not what comments we made about the other, it is the inability to establish a common framework for discussion.




I would agree there.

For me the theory and science is all very important, but what is most important is the application of that theory and science in the real world. Theory is all in our mind and on paper... it has no material effect on the world. 

To explain where I'm coming from I refer to Post 4421: "The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start."

I'd like to clarify the meaning of hysteria at this point.
hysteria; behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic in anticipation of some specific danger.​
For me, it's important that even if we conclude there is man induced climate change, that any action we and or the gov take in the name of climate change, is totally consistent with our belief and stated policies.

What I'm trying to establish is whether the gov's application of new projects, laws and taxes etc in practice is totally consistent with their stated beliefs and policies.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> For me the theory and science is all very important, but what is most important is the application of that theory and science in the real world. Theory is all in our mind and on paper... it has no material effect on the world.




Do you mind if we deal with this issue before moving on to any potential or contested implications etc. ?

Gravity is a theory, it's an old theory, we know that it is wrong and incomplete in a range of real world circumstances. But at the time, it was the best theory, or mathematical model, that provided enlightenment regarding why objects appear to fall downwards. It advanced our understanding of the material world and the effects that can happen, it was a major step forward because it enabled us to assert casual explanations and make predictions that while not perfect, were vastly better than the previous explanations.

In this context, I fundamentally disagree with your statement that they have no material effect on the world. Not because the equation e = mc^2 has a direct material effect on the world but that it enabled us to understand our universe better and the effect that we can and do have. Whether that effect is potentially very destructive as atomic weapons were, or beneficial as GPS has been, both emerging from e = mc ^2, is up to us.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Do you mind if we deal with this issue before moving on to any potential or contested implications etc. ?




Ok... I generally agree with your gravity analogy, but doesn't [my highlight]



> Whether *that effect * is potentially very destructive as atomic weapons were, or beneficial as GPS has been, both emerging from e = mc ^2, is up to us.




depend on someone taking action based on that science and theory?

That is, that an atomic weapon or GPS was created, is the effect, the stated 'objective'... whether it is perceived as destructive or benificial is an individual 'subjective' opinion one can have about the theory and science whether the weapon or GPS was actually created (effect) or not.

Take the earlier and simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation... it was sufficient to calculate the rotational behaviour of the solar system accurately enough to effect a number of purposes including orbital satellites and space travel successfully, while Einsteins more encompassing theory was still being fully understood. The fact that they effected orbital satellites and space travel is their stated objective, whether it is good or bad is our subjective opinion.

They didn't and still don't fully understand the nature of gravity, but they were able to demonstrate they knew enough to achieve certain theorised 'effects' using gravity such as the first orbiting satelite and space travel. Basically, the whole process from theory to application and resultant effect was consistent with their stated science and policy.

If the best recognised theory was e = mc ^2, and they claimed to be using e = mc ^2 in their 'application', but they actually used  e ≈ mc ^2, the resultant effect could be radically different couldn't it?

We are in a similar situation with climate change, we don't fully understand it, but if we are going to use the science and theory to achieve something based on climate change, shouldn't the application and result be consistent with the stated goal and not a mistaken formula or in the guise for something else?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Ok... I generally agree with your gravity analogy, but doesn't [my highlight]
> 
> ...
> 
> depend on someone taking action based on that science and theory?




Indeed, hence I used the word effect to correlate to your original statement about theories having no material effect on the world. While I accept the literal interpretation of that, the effects are vicariously manifest by how we inform ourselves about them and how we apply our values regarding what we do with them.



Whiskers said:


> That is, that an atomic weapon or GPS was created, is the effect, the stated 'objective'... whether it is perceived as destructive or benificial is an individual 'subjective' opinion one can have about the theory and science whether the weapon or GPS was actually created (effect) or not.
> 
> Take the earlier and simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation... it was sufficient to calculate the rotational behaviour of the solar system accurately enough to effect a number of purposes including orbital satellites and space travel successfully, while Einsteins more encompassing theory was still being fully understood. The fact that they effected orbital satellites and space travel is their stated objective, whether it is good or bad is our subjective opinion.
> 
> They didn't and still don't fully understand the nature of gravity, but they were able to demonstrate they knew enough to achieve certain theorised 'effects' using gravity such as the first orbiting satelite and space travel. Basically, the whole process from theory to application and resultant effect was consistent with their stated science and policy.
> 
> If the best recognised theory was e = mc ^2, and they claimed to be using e = mc ^2 in their 'application', but they actually used  e ≈ mc ^2, the resultant effect could be radically different couldn't it?




Indeed, or it could be insignificant, depends on the relevance and the specifics.



Whiskers said:


> We are in a similar situation with climate change, we don't fully understand it, but if we are going to use the science and theory to achieve something based on climate change, *shouldn't the application and result be consistent with the stated goal and not a mistaken formula or in the guise for something else?*




This doesn't make sense to me and I suspect it may be because of a combined application or objective, with science e.g. atomic weapons were not the stated objective of relativity (take your pick), it was an emergent technology. With this in mind, can you re-word or rephrase the part I bolded because I am having difficulty understanding your point here.

Further, for context, we don't fully understand gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics but we apply the scientific knowledge all the time.


----------



## Whiskers

Ok... staying with the "atomic" analogy, the chernobyl disaster is an example of _a mistaken formula._ The Russians objective was to use their current knowledge to build a safe nuclear power plant. They made mistakes in the ' application' of the theory and science in building it, hence it overheated and blew up contaminating the community it was meant to help.

If the stated objective was to apply our current scientific knowledge to build a nuclear powerhouse (say like the conflict with Iran) but they were actually designing and building a nuclear weapon, then they are using the theory and science _in the guise for something else._

Similarly, if the gov stated policy and goal was to protect the enviornment and reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming by switching to lower emission energy sources like natural gas, but they didn't apply at least the same standard of knowledge and theory of the science about enviornmental impacts that they normally apply to oil, gas and mining in the developmental approval process, is this not open to question whether they made a _mistaken formula_ or deliberately portrayed the project _in the guise for something else_ (greenhouse/climate change policy) but actually intending the project for say more tax/royalty revenue from industry and short term jobs growth?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Ok... staying with the "atomic" analogy, the chernobyl disaster is an example of a mistaken formula. The Russians objective was to use their current knowledge to build a safe nuclear power plant. They made mistakes in the ' application' of the theory and science in building it, hence it overheated and blew up contaminating the community it was meant to help.
> 
> If the stated objective was to apply our current scientific knowledge to build a nuclear powerhouse (say like the conflict with Iran) but they were actually designing and building a nuclear weapon, then they are using the theory and science in the guise for something else.
> 
> Similarly, if the gov stated policy and goal was to protect the enviornment and reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming by switching to lower emission energy sources like natural gas, but they didn't apply at least the same standard of knowledge and theory of the science about enviornmental impacts that they normally apply to oil, gas and mining in the developmental approval process, is this not open to question whether they made a _mistaken formula_ or deliberately portrayed the project _in the guise for something else_ (greenhouse/climate change policy) but actually intending the project for say more tax/royalty revenue from industry and short term jobs growth?




For the sake of the rhetorical landscape, let's grant your premise that the government is not being consistent in it's application. How is that relevant to what the science indicates is a problem? In other words, you can disagree with how a government is applying the knowledge, but that doesn't change what the science says. Using your Chernobyl example, the science says that mismanaging nuclear power can lead to various consequences, for which the results were amply demonstrated. If the science is indicating that mismanaging the climate, emissions, etc. will lead to consequences (even approximated ones), that the government may (rhetorical) be mismanaging the application has no bearing on veracity of the science that indicates a problem requiring addressing exists.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> For the sake of the rhetorical landscape, let's grant your premise that the government is not being consistent in it's application. How is that relevant to what the science indicates is a problem? In other words, you can disagree with how a government is applying the knowledge, but that doesn't change what the science says. Using your Chernobyl example, the science says that mismanaging nuclear power can lead to various consequences, for which the results were amply demonstrated. If the science is indicating that mismanaging the climate, emissions, etc. will lead to consequences (even approximated ones), that the government may (rhetorical) be mismanaging the application has no bearing on veracity of the science that indicates a problem requiring addressing exists.




Firstly, do you accept the Kyoto Protocol is the international gauge of the acceptance of climate science policy at the governmental level?

Climate science as the Kyoto Protocol standard is not unamiously accepted by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because Aus is one of a few (including part of Europe), that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Many major countries have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol with binding targets or have withdrawn.

If governments such as Aus adopt the Kyoto Protocol as policy, but don't act in strict accordance with that protocol doesn't it not only bring their integrity into question, but reflect badly on the Kyoto Protocol, the science and theory as best we know it claimed by a minority of gov's and whether the gov action is a guise for something else?


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> Firstly, do you accept the Kyoto Protocol is the international gauge of the acceptance of climate science policy at the governmental level?
> 
> Climate science as the Kyoto Protocol standard is not unamiously accepted by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because Aus is one of a few (including part of Europe), that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Many major countries have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol with binding targets or have withdrawn.
> 
> If governments such as Aus adopt the Kyoto Protocol as policy, but don't act in strict accordance with that protocol doesn't it not only bring their integrity into question, but reflect badly on the Kyoto Protocol, the science and theory as best we know it claimed by a minority of gov's and whether the gov action is a guise for something else?




Short version: If we, generally speaking, not just you or I, can't even agree on the science, what hope is there when you add politics to the equation?

Longer version:

Sure but it I think it is irrelevant to the most important part of the situation. Unless there is a genuine understanding and acceptance, note not compliance or submission i.e. not blind faith, of the science then any policy protocol is never going to represent actual requirements. Again by example, it would be like believing that high enough walls around a power planet by the ocean in a major earth quake zone was gold plating or panicking when the science (and history) indicated not only was it a possibility but that it happens with a measured frequency. If the science is not accepted as reasonable and relevant then it's not a question about the veracity of the science.

My opinion (which we can still haggle about) is that the science is independent to political i.e. decision making and this is where I believe the problem is. If we (generally speaking, not just you or I) can't even agree on the science of the issue, and instead we use metrics such as popularity, perceived short term cost, vested commercial interests (they are on both sides), then adding politics to the mix is never (my opinion, haggle away) going to clarify the issue albeit that is needed to achieve an outcome. It's like that joke about the swing being designed by a community in that the science says "hey this is what you need" but by the time it gets to being built after numerous interfering stages, it becomes almost something else entirely.

As for integrity, I do not think that what the current government is doing is the best thing. But I also think that people who believe the science is "crap", and say something else in public (integrity?), will present an even larger problem.


----------



## Whiskers

Some Dude said:


> Short version: If we, generally speaking, not just you or I, can't even agree on the science, what hope is there when you add politics to the equation?




I wouldn't say we totally dissagree on the science. We both agree the planet is in a warming phase. I'm just not convinced it's gaining momentum as a result of industrialisation to a point where it's out of control. I believe to a large extent as someone mentioned earlier, nature has an extraordinary ability to balance itself with or without our participation. 

The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population. 



> As for integrity, I do not think that what the current government is doing is the best thing.




We agree there in principle. I suppose it's just to what degree.



> But I also think that people who believe the science is "crap", and say something else in public (integrity?), will present an even larger problem.




Yes, that's always difficult to deal with when people aren't honest.

Which brings me back to my point... given that Aus Labor says it believes in the climate science of 'human induced out of control climate change', and is a very enthusiastic supporter of and has declared how it will deal with it via the Kyoto Protocol, if the gov doesn't practice what they preach, to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), isn't that a major blow to the integrity of the climate science that argues 'human induced out of control climate change.'

In other words, if the governments who claim to believe and support the climate scientists who advocate 'human induced out of control climate change' don't do what they say in public and treat new projects (behind closed doors) with less enviornmental oversight than normal, isn't this the biggest problem of all? 

I know you are trying to draw a line between the pure science and government, but at the end of the day, gov controlls the outcome of science to a large extent, particularly when it comes to the global scale and enviornmental policies and practice, so they are inextricably connected as far as what anyone can do about it.


----------



## Some Dude

Whiskers said:


> I wouldn't say we totally dissagree on the science. We both agree the planet is in a warming phase. I'm just not convinced it's gaining momentum as a result of industrialisation to a point where it's out of control. I believe to a large extent as someone mentioned earlier, nature has an extraordinary ability to balance itself with or without our participation.




Indeed, we don't totally disagree but my understanding of the scientific consensus at this point is that warming is happening, and that it is being substantially influenced by humans, and that it will have a range of effects known and unknown. Further, it is my understanding that proactive preventative action now will be cheaper than reactive remedial action later.



Whiskers said:


> The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.




The rise is due to [UTL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise"]thermal expansion and land based ice melt[/URL]. For some islands it would appear to be far more than a purely commercial priority.



Whiskers said:


> Which brings me back to my point... given that Aus Labor says it believes in the climate science of 'human induced out of control climate change', and is a very enthusiastic supporter of and has declared how it will deal with it via the Kyoto Protocol, if the gov doesn't practice what they preach, to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), isn't that a major blow to the integrity of the climate science that argues 'human induced out of control climate change.'




How is the ALP, or any other party for that matter, responsible for any part of the integrity of the world wide consensus in climate science?



Whiskers said:


> In other words, if the governments who claim to believe and support the climate scientists who advocate 'human induced out of control climate change' don't do what they say in public and treat new projects (behind closed doors) with less enviornmental oversight than normal, isn't this the biggest problem of all?




I agree, which is why people should also be even more suspicious of the coalition.



Whiskers said:


> I know you are trying to draw a line between the pure science and government, but at the end of the day, gov controlls the outcome of science to a large extent, particularly when it comes to the global scale and enviornmental policies and practice, so they are inextricably connected as far as what anyone can do about it.




I don't agree that government's control the outcome of science but I do agree that they attempt to interfere. For example, the field of evolutionary science has likewise had to struggle with interference from governing bodies due to religious motivations in much the same way that climate change science has had to contend with interference from those for whom the message threatens their commercial and political interests.


----------



## sydboy007

Whiskers said:


> The main so called consequences of global warming includes a shift to warmer climate and rising sea levels from polar ice melt. That seems to be a fear based on commercial interests more than anything else, ie more land under water and not available to be taxed or for commercial production to feed the increasing world population.




I thought it was pretty well agreed that through history sea levels have been much higher and lower than present.

The geological data is pretty easy to see and interpret.

It's pretty much agreed that one of the reasons humans made it to Australia 40 odd thousand years ago was due to the previous ice age and much lower sea levels - think up to 120M lower than present.

So to say that rising sea levels is not a major issue from global warming - whether it is caused by man or nature is not important - is leaving us to make some very painful adjustments in the future.

It's reasonably agree by scientists that the flooding in NYC from Cyclone Sandy due to the storm surges was so bad because sea levels are around 30cm higher than in 1870.  This is not controversial, it's been an easily measured increase, and the rate of increase has accelerated if you compare the period from 1950 to 2009 which was increasing at around 1.7mm a year, to the period 1993 to 2009 which was increasing at 3.3 a year, you can see that the issue of rising sea levels is probably something we will need to start facing up to within a few decades.

Considering that most of the worlds population lives on coastal areas, the amount of infrastructure that could be damaged is immense.  We're talking trillions of dollars.

personally I think we've gone past the point where we can get global consensus on tackling the issue, and we need to start doing what we can NOW to adapt to a world where sea levels are 30-50cm higher in the second half of this century and storm surges are flooding much larger areas of the coast.


----------



## basilio

Came across a paper from a amateur Meteorologist who in 1938 linked global warming to the burning of fossil fuel.
Fascinating




> *How the burning of fossil fuels was linked to a warming world in 1938*
> 
> This month marks the 75th anniversary of Guy Callendar's landmark scientific paper on anthropogenic climate change
> 
> Seventy-five years ago this month an amateur weather-watcher from West Sussex published a landmark paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society directly linking the burning of fossil fuels to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Guy Callendar was a successful steam engineer by trade, but in his spare time he was a keen meteorologist. In April 1938, his paper, "The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature" (pdf), which built on the earlier work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, was published with little fanfare or impact. It was only in the proceeding decades that the true significance of his conclusions would be heralded.
> 
> To mark the anniversary, two modern-day climatologists have published a co-authored paper (pdf) in the same journal celebrating not just his legacy, but also illustrating with modern techniques and data just how accurate Callendar's calculations proved to be.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/22/guy-callendar-climate-fossil-fuels


----------



## basilio

Australia is still getting hotter - and without any influence from El Nina effects. You just have to look at the figures.



> *Summer of record heat extends into May
> *
> Date
> May 1, 2013 - 10:02AM
> 
> 1741 reading now
> 
> 
> 
> Australia's run of exceptionally warm weather has extended into May, giving the country its second-hottest start to the year on record.
> 
> Big dry threatens crops
> Perth posts record April heat
> 
> The first four months of 2013 have seen average national daily maximum temperatures reach about 1.33 degrees above the average for 1961-1990, shy only of the blisteringly hot start to 2005, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> Compounding the warmer-than-usual conditions, much of the grain belts of NSW, Victoria and Western Australia posted below or very-much-below-average rainfall last month.
> 
> “The failure of the autumn [rain] break – this is what really worries the cereal croppers,” Karl Braganza, manager of climate modelling at the bureau, said.
> 
> Australia posted its hottest summer in more than a century of records over the December-February period, even without a dominant El Niño weather pattern over the Pacific – the conditions which typically produce exceptionally warm temperatures over much of the country.
> 
> In fact, a slew of other records have tumbled in 2013, including the hottest day and hottest month. The 11 months from June to the end of April were also the country's hottest for maximum temperatures, underscoring the persistence of unusually high mercury readings.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ds-into-may-20130501-2irue.html#ixzz2RzyT25On


----------



## Knobby22

Probably should put that in the weather thread Baz. 
Hopefully the rain comes late.


----------



## DB008

Ice Cores Reveal Green Arctic



> Analyses of sediment cores show that Arctic summers 3.6 million years ago were a good 8 degrees C warmer than they are today, and supported Douglas Fir and hemlock. Sophie Bushwick reports.
> 
> The Arctic wasn't always covered in ice. Samples of sediment layers beneath a frozen lake show this region used to be a lot warmer””and may thaw out again in the future. The work is in the journal Science. [Julie Brigham-Grette et al, Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia]
> 
> El'gygytgyn, a Russian lake 100 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, contains layers of sediment that date back to the lake's formation 3.6 million years ago. Analyses of sediment cores have revealed that back then summers reached about 15 to 16 degrees Celsius, a good 8 degrees warmer than modern Arctic summers. These warm temperatures, which supported plants like Douglas fir and hemlock, lasted until about 2.2 million years ago.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=ice-cores-reveal-green-arctic-13-05-10


----------



## wayneL

John Cook

...has actually done a good job in promoting climate alarmism to wannabe believers. It takes a pretty canny logician and a fair bit of capability to cut through the bullcrap that is (laughably named) Sceptical SCience.

But in one fell swoop, he pole-axed his entire credibility and esteem with his latest survey (the 97%) by the process being so transparently and ludicrously faulted and biased... and the conclusion (ie the 97%)so woefully and amateurishly manipulated, so easily exposed as a con.

Well done John.


----------



## Knobby22

I assume you are referring to:

97% of published papers (that are subject to peer group review) with a position on global warming agree that global warming is happening and we are the cause.

http://www.theconsensusproject.com/

Pretty good argument imo.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I assume you are referring to:
> 
> 97% of published papers (that are subject to peer group review) with a position on global warming agree that global warming is happening and we are the cause.
> 
> http://www.theconsensusproject.com/
> 
> Pretty good argument imo.




Yeah good argument, but only if you do not investigate further. 

If one uses proper scientific method and attempts to falsify, the argument disintegrates and vapourizes into a mushroom cloud, raining toxic fallout on the whole Orwellian alarmist movement; a watershed for proper science and a knock-out blow to the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.

Of course born again Apocalysts will refuse to be convinced and will turn up the volume on their shrill end times prophesies, but scientifically, the Cook MoFo has shot himself in the foo.... head.


----------



## burglar

Knobby22 said:


> ... global warming is happening and we are the cause. ...




We are not the cause, we are exacerbators.

What we have to ask is this:
Is our contribution significant?
Will it push us past a tipping point?

Where is the tipping point anyway??




PS. We have all been doomed since I learnt to read!!


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> ... the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.
> 
> Of course born again Apocalysts will refuse to be convinced and will turn up the volume on their shrill end times prophesies, but scientifically, the Cook MoFo has shot himself in the foo.... head.




Hogwash.. We had a meeting and decided that we need to be a big tent group so called it Carbopocalypsemageddonacaust.


----------



## basilio

> But in one fell swoop, he pole-axed his entire credibility and esteem with his latest survey (the 97%) by the process being so transparently and ludicrously faulted and biased... and the conclusion (ie the 97%)so woefully and amateurishly manipulated, so easily exposed as a con
> 
> If one uses proper scientific method and attempts to falsify, the argument disintegrates and vapourizes into a mushroom cloud, raining toxic fallout on the whole Orwellian alarmist movement; a watershed for proper science and a knock-out blow to the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.



.

Yes of course.  If you bash/deride/demonise the scientific community as loudly and voraciously as possible then nothing they say can possibly be taken seriously. Can it Wayne ?  

On this topic your totally full of it mate. one stinking cesspit of bile.


----------



## Knobby22

Denial of climate change is a belief system equal in validity to its belief partner, creationism.

Saw this quoted - maybe a touch strong but I generally agree with it.


----------



## wayneL

Dont  shoot the messenger ma'am.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby are you still stuck on the denial word? Really? That old straw man argument ..... again?


----------



## Knobby22

Ask Sarah Palin.


----------



## wayneL

I didn't know she was a member of ASF..

Anyway, the quote is fallacious, as both extremes require a belief system akin to religion and does not add anything useful to the discussion


----------



## Knobby22

I won't mention religion if you don't.


----------



## basilio

And I'll talk nicely if you (Wayne..)  stop trashing the entire scientific community that currently recognizes the significance and gravity of human produced climate change.


----------



## wayneL

Answering from my phone only short messages possible, home now on the 'puter



basilio said:


> .
> 
> Yes of course.  If you bash/deride/demonise the scientific community as loudly and voraciously as possible then nothing they say can possibly be taken seriously. Can it Wayne ?



I see you are using your favourite argumentative fallacy again. 

Firstly, the scientific community is a broad church and I have never bagged the scientific community wholesale, that is extremely disingenuous of you to say. I will slag off on 'bad' science however and I think you will find many within the community will support and join me in this.

Secondly, part of scientific method is the process of falsification... childs play in this particular instance (Cook's 'survey'). The whole thing nuked in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I apologise if that sublimates one of the central tenets of your religion, but 'that's science'.



> On this topic your totally full of it mate. one stinking cesspit of bile.




I love it when you talk dirty to me LOL

Mere ad hominem, I could see you and raise you tenfold.... it would be fun, but not productive, so I'll let that go through to the keeper.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And I'll talk nicely if you (Wayne..)  stop trashing the entire scientific community that currently recognizes the significance and gravity of human produced climate change.




You mean you'll talk nicely if I agree with you... LOL

Thank you for the kind offer, but I think I'll pass.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Secondly, part of scientific method is the process of falsification... childs play in this particular instance (Cook's 'survey'). The whole thing nuked in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I apologise if that sublimates one of the central tenets of your religion, but 'that's science'.




You won't mind then passing on the reference to the qualified peers falsifying the survey given that it takes the time to make a cup of coffee?


----------



## basilio

Ah how delightful is the delusional world of _Wayne_.  A place where only the (97%) of the scientific community that disagrees him is derided as bad science.  A place where not a single piece of contradictory research is every offered to demonstrate the invalidity of the clear evidence of climate change observed in every continent.

Its a majikal world isn't it ? where merely deriding the most eminent climate scientists as "psychopathic nutters" is sufficient to sweep away decades of research by hundreds of professionals in an instant.

Waynes world in a nutshell.

I think just to stick right up you Wayne (sideways of course - I know how much you like that!!) I'm going begin reposting the regular climate research that relentlessly tells us what we don't really want to know.

______________________________________________________________________________________

There was recent paper published by Alexander Gotto from the University of Oxford which actually got recognition from climate sceptics. The paper suggested that maybe climate sensitivity to increases in CO2 emissions just might not be as high as other cliamte scientists had previously thought.  They thought it might be a little lower than some current models suggest.  



> *
> Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate*
> 
> *The climate sceptic's interpretation of my study as final endorsement of his position means we can move on.
> *
> It isn't often, as a climate scientist, that you find your research being enthusiastically endorsed by climate sceptic Matt Ridley in the Times. We published a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best estimate of 1.3C for the warming expected due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time when carbon dioxide levels reach double what they were before the industrial revolution (known as Transient Climate Response, or TCR).
> 
> Ridley is excited about this, because he feels it means that until his teenage children reach retirement age, they won't have to worry about global warming. And he is worried that government policies are misguided because they place their faith in climate models, like one of the Met Office models that puts the warming instead at 2.5C, almost twice our estimate.
> 
> But no one places their faith in any single climate model, and no one has done so for 20 years. Climate scientists are all well aware the Met's model (HadGEM2) is at the top end of the current range. The Met Office's advice to government is based on the range of results from current climate models, not just their own.
> 
> The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5C response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN's climate science panel in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8C. Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate


----------



## wayneL

Tip: Extend your reading beyond the climate canon, which preaches to the choir.


----------



## wayneL

Just a tidbit for you dude

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Tip: Extend your reading beyond the climate canon, which preaches to the choir.




So what exactly is the problem with the Journal of National Geoscience Wayne ? Is that also part of the bad science just can't get it right?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So what exactly is the problem with the Journal of National Geoscience Wayne ? Is that also part of the bad science just can't get it right?




I don't know, link it and let's have a look.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Just a tidbit for you dude
> 
> https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441




Have you read the survey, the methodology for selection, ratings, etc?

The author seem to have addressed the point raised in the tidbit but I will look further into that one.

Given recent events, not with you WayneL, I feel compelled to be very specific about something because some people seem incapable understanding that others may think differently to them. I feel there are valid criticisms of the study from the information I have read that agree or disagree the study. I'm interested in what you have read that has informed your view whereby you have formulated the opinion that the study is invalidated. Once I track down more information, we may still disagree and that is fine, queue whatever jibes you wish to make which I often find quite funny.

Do I think he methodology is perfect? No, there seem to be some ridiculous deficiencies in the methodology that superficially I believe that I would not have made within the context that I have not written a scientific paper, so walk a mile in someone's shoe etc. But I am not convinced (yet) that the deficiencies that I find invalidate the conclusion, including the incorporation of correlating multiple supporting surveys or studies.

An example of a deficiency as I perceive it is their rating system, especially for neutral papers. While I find that a deficiency, I am unqualified to express an certitude about it. It would be like me expressing certitude about your jibes regarding my semi-socractic method. I do not purposely choose that, have never been taught it, so have no idea whether you are right or not. I am simply engaging and asking in a manner that appears to make sense to me.

In other words, I am developing my opinion from conversation, asking questions,  and not hiding where I think something that someone has said is unsupportable. Seems easy in my mind but some people, again not directed at you WayneL, can't seem to see past their own opinions to accommodate others having differing and/or developing ones.

Please excuse the defensiveness, but I am tiring of people with hysterical overreactions, not directed at you, automatically assuming that questions or disagreement means insincerity.

Resume normal operations with whatever responses you want...


----------



## Some Dude

Some Dude said:


> The author seem to have addressed the point raised in the tidbit but I will look further into that one.




Checking Richard Tol's tweet's, he is asserting (without confirmation yet) that some of his papers were misclassified. The author of the paper has already addressed the issue regarding paper selection i.e. wide search terms will produce a greater number of papers but that is not indicative of a change in the classification percentages subject to a substantial reclassification of a majority of the papers.

Of interest, Richard Tol asserts that global warming is real, just that they got some of their classifications wrong.



			
				Richard Tol said:
			
		

> Richard Tol - @michstaff Climate change is a problem where complexity meets poor data meets ethical choices. You can't be clear and honest at same time.






			
				Richard Tol said:
			
		

> Richard Tol - @dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm"




We would need to see whether the classifiers/methodology concur with the author i.e. Abstracts were checked and there may not have been a clear indication in the abstract. As I note above, the methodology maybe flawed and revisions may need to occur but I would hesitate to say it is completely invalidated/falsified. The Author does have a FAQ about some of these issues, if not specifically this author.


----------



## wayneL

Dude,

The issue here is not whether there are anthropegenic factors in climate change, even most skeptics agree that there is (the degree is different topic than the one at hand). The issue is the scientific integrity of Cook's survey, which has been shown to be a pile mendacious malodourous garbage.

Anthony Watts has some posts on it along with a piece from the alarmist's favourite Viscount. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/#more-86773

Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “*human activity* is very likely causing most of the current *anthropogenic* global warming”.

Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.

It's like saying 100% of deaths are caused by birth.


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> The issue here is not whether there are anthropegenic factors in climate change, even most skeptics agree that there is (the degree is different topic than the one at hand). The issue is the scientific integrity of Cook's survey, which has been shown to be a pile mendacious malodourous garbage.
> 
> Anthony Watts has some posts on it along with a piece from the alarmist's favourite Viscount. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/#more-86773
> 
> Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “*human activity* is very likely causing most of the current *anthropogenic* global warming”.
> 
> Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.




Would you agree that there is a substantial section of the wider community that do not accept that?


----------



## Some Dude

If anyone is interested in this, the discussion is continuing as we speak between Richard Tol and Dana Nuccitelli about the issue WayneL and I are discussing.


----------



## Some Dude

The literature survey in question can be found here.



> Abstract
> 
> We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.






> An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).






> We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.






> Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.






> The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).




WayneL,

I've selected what I think are relevant sections but the whole paper is an interesting read. Would you be able to provide a couple of points from the rebuttals that you find convincing so that we can evaluate them against the the paper?


----------



## basilio

Thanks Dude for the URL on the Literature Survey research.

It was a very tight analysis and achieved what was intended - to establish that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the climate science field accept that climate change is real and that the current changes are the result of human activity.

Climate skeptics have attempted to spread doubt about the science by claiming that consensus on the reality and cause of climate change is failing. It's worth highlighting the conclusion of the paper to put this into context.



> *The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).* However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
> 
> *Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.* In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
> 
> *The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (AllÃ¨gre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.* The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.




http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


----------



## basilio

I find it fascinating Wayne that you quote the work of Monckton via Watts Up to dismiss the literature analysis done by Peter Cook.
*
Monckton takes the absolute prize of all the people who have deliberately lied and misrepresented the science behind climate change.  He is serial liar.*

And yet Watts and yourself still choose to use his work in discussing the issue ? 

 Anyone interested can check out just how dishonest he is from the following papers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

The latter reference is a detailed breakdown of one of Christopher Moncktons presentations which highlights the scores of deliberate or misinformed statements he makes to dismiss climate change and our current role..


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Some interesting comments on the post, the most interesting of which highlights what everyone seems to have missed, the tautology in the framing of the question that “*human activity* is very likely causing most of the current *anthropogenic* global warming”.
> 
> Of course there should be 100% consensus on that.






Some Dude said:


> Would you agree that there is a substantial section of the wider community that do not accept that?





I failed to address your point correctly, apologies.

This portion of the study appears to address the point made.



> An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). *We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).*




They do appear to be making the distinction through the paper i.e. AGW is a substantive cause of GW.



> Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, *the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW*. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, *57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity* (Pew 2012).






> We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that *most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations*).




Apologies for not addressing your point correctly the first time.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> I don't know, link it and let's have a look.




This is the paper that has been published in the Geo Science Journal. Check it out.

http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf


----------



## basilio

Bill Mckibben is in Australia for a series of talks re Climate Change. Very inspiring.

For the short story on what he and his organization 350.org are about check out his video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eSuzNSHPv6c#!

Cheers  !


----------



## basilio

Always interesting to see how the Heartland Institute is travelling in their relentless quest to deny cliamte change.

A few weeks ago they attempted to trumpet a substantial change in position by the Chinese Acedemy  of Science they said



> "The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."
> 
> "The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"
> 
> "Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."




Turns it was just typical Heartland BS.  The Chinese Acaaemy responded with teh following  kick in the family jewels



> the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement", which reads in part:
> 
> "the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation. The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false..."
> 
> *    "If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group."*




Wouldn't it be a hoot to see this lot bankrupted by the Chinese for wilful defamation ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heartland-cas-fantasy.html


----------



## basilio

And just to add to the current research around climate change.  It appears that ice melt around the Antarctic is coming largely from underneath the  glaciers and caused by sea warming.

What could it mean ? No-ones quite sure at the moment but it does raise questions about how quickly sea levels could rise if the Antarctic suddenly starts to lose a lot more ice than currently understood.




> *Look Out Below: Antarctic Melting From Underneath*
> 
> Published: June 17th, 2013
> 
> Michael D. Lemonick	Ba
> 
> Ice experts have long known that Antarctica is losing ice at the margins of its vast ice sheets, where the frozen continent meets the sea ”” presumably, they thought, from icebergs breaking off and floating away.
> 
> *According to a report published in Science,* however, more than half the ice loss is coming from warming ocean waters, which are melting the ice from underneath.
> 
> "This has profound implications for our understanding of interactions between Antarctica and climate change,” said lead author Eric Rignot, of the University of California, Irvine, in a press release.
> 
> Those interactions are crucial because Antarctica holds enough ice to raise sea level by a catastrophic 180 feet if it all melted or slid into the sea. That won’t happen anytime soon. But even without significant Antarctic melting, climate scientists project that the oceans, which have already risen by an average of 8 inches since 1900 as a result of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, could go up by another 2 feet or more by the end of this century. Combined with the storm surges that accompany hurricanes and other major coastal storms, the risks to lives and property will continue to grow.



http://www.climatecentral.org/news/look-out-below-antarctic-melting-from-underneath-16128


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Wouldn't it be a hoot to see this lot bankrupted by the Chinese for wilful defamation ?




Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.




Look  Calliope I'm so sorry global warming hasn't quite touched S/E Queensland. Can i suggest you move to the Arctic where temperatures have increased  by double the amount around the world due to global warming ?

Cheers  !!

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...TFqmiiAeEiICgCQ&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1036&bih=577


----------



## drsmith

A one in two possibility that we'll be extinct by 2100 ??

http://video.news.com.au/2393150278/Spin-of-the-week


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> A one in two possibility that we'll be extinct by 2100 ??
> 
> http://video.news.com.au/2393150278/Spin-of-the-week




Considering how fragile the global economy is, it wouldn't surprise me to see a marked reduction in the numbers of humans around by 2100.

Just a bad cropping season in Russia and India would put enormous pressure on food availability.  Drought in Thailand would have a huge impact on rice exports.

12 million hectares a year of arable land is being lost to desertification, a process that is only going to get worse as droughts become longer and rainfall more concentrated.

I can see in around 20 years time that poor rainfall in some areas would see war over fresh water as weather extremes keep on increasing - just have to see the bickering over rivers in Australia to see what can happen between countries.  Building a dam on a river flowing through a number of countries may be considered an act of war.


----------



## explod

sydboy007 said:


> Considering how fragile the global economy is, it wouldn't surprise me to see a marked reduction in the numbers of humans around by 2100.
> 
> Just a bad cropping season in Russia and India would put enormous pressure on food availability.  Drought in Thailand would have a huge impact on rice exports.
> 
> 12 million hectares a year of arable land is being lost to desertification, a process that is only going to get worse as droughts become longer and rainfall more concentrated.
> 
> I can see in around 20 years time that poor rainfall in some areas would see war over fresh water as weather extremes keep on increasing - just have to see the bickering over rivers in Australia to see what can happen between countries.  Building a dam on a river flowing through a number of countries may be considered an act of war.





A good read on just these scenarios backed by some well researched evidence is "Climate Wars" by Gwyne Dyer, 2008


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.




Yeh and looks like sand on which to sunbake getting scarce again up your way too.

Strewth these hundred year wave surges seem to be every month or two now.  And cant blame the moon because the sun and the moon are pulling against each other at the moment which cancels them both out.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yeh and looks like sand on which to sunbake getting scarce again up your way too.




....and this is relevant because?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ....and this is relevant because?




Increasing extremes of weather events indicating climate change on the move even in paradise.   

On where this started a few posts back, colder mornings were discussed.   Caused by warmer air, particularly at the poles leading to increased cloud, more hot and cold, juxtaposed into higher winds, seas, rain and storms in some places and less in others.  

The problem we have is that the extremes to the wet and cold side lead those opposed to the idea of global warming to say "aha, it is all false"

These points were explained to the US Congress in 1988 by NASA Scientist James Hanson.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Increasing extremes of weather events indicating climate change on the move even in paradise.
> 
> On where this started a few posts back, colder mornings were discussed.   Caused by warmer air, particularly at the poles leading to increased cloud, more hot and cold, juxtaposed into higher winds, seas, rain and storms in some places and less in others.
> 
> The problem we have is that the extremes to the wet and cold side lead those opposed to the idea of global warming to say "aha, it is all false"
> 
> These points were explained to the US Congress in 1988 by NASA Scientist James Hanson.




Hansen..LOL

Man has certainly affected the beachfront, but I suggest you encompass a range of anthropogenic and natural factors when considering beach erosion, rather than rushing to blame AGW.

 Just one easily found article http://www.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-living/coastal-erosion-natures-way-or-man-made-problem

You might want to check your weather stats too


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Hansen..LOL
> 
> Man has certainly affected the beachfront, but I suggest you encompass a range of anthropogenic and natural factors when considering beach erosion, rather than rushing to blame AGW.
> 
> Just one easily found article http://www.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-living/coastal-erosion-natures-way-or-man-made-problem
> 
> You might want to check your weather stats too




Why would a farrier flog a dead horse?  

:horse:


----------



## wayneL

It is a well known fact that if you ever need to know anything, ask your farrier We get oir information straight from the horses mouth .


----------



## wayneL




----------



## Knobby22

Damn those scientists. They should be banned from doing research that doesn't agree with Conservative orthodoxies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Damn those scientists. They should be banned from doing research that doesn't agree with Conservative orthodoxies.




That's your retort the McQuarrie's disgraceful treatment of Murry Salby, that scientists must conform to CONSERVATIVE dogma?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> That's your retort the McQuarrie's disgraceful treatment of Murry Salby, that scientists must conform to CONSERVATIVE dogma?




It seems to be a regular motif that people confuse the demonstrating with claiming.




As happened recently with Coppage and JPL, I'll wait until the facts are known.


----------



## wayneL

Dude, I suppose you have seen Salby's case?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/ma...s-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/


----------



## basilio

Have seen Professor Salbys case.

According  Macquarie University he was sacked because he refused to teach as per his contract. With regard to his work on climate change it really was  poor science.  He hasn't had a peer reviewed paper published and his presentations have been analysed and found in critical error.

If in fact Professor Salby could present a  coherent case for overturning the role of human produced CO2 impacting on the climate he would deserve a Nobel Prize. But the maths doesn't stack up and he just doesn't understand the carbon cycle and how it works.

http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/...ing-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Dude, I suppose you have seen Salby's case?
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/ma...s-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/




You mean the one I provided a link to (last one)? I assume you also know about Mr Carter?

Having been involved for years in discussions about evolution and intelligent design with creationists, I am very familiar with claims of academic bias. It is a claim often cited when someone loses their job in this context but the real reasons can differ from the ones given by either claimant.


----------



## wayneL

Cookesque bullsh*t aside ladies, what do you have to say about Salby's Claims?


----------



## Some Dude

wayneL said:


> Cookesque bullsh*t aside ladies, what do you have to say about Salby's Claims?




If as claimed his contract was terminated because of his scientific opinions then that was wrong and I hope he and his union (assuming he is a member of one) litigates his former employer for it. I am also a believer that there is a major imbalance in the employer and employee dynamic when it comes to these types of situations in everyday life for everyone. It's one of the reasons I am philosophically opposed to legislation that generally speaking makes it easier to terminate employee contracts.

But as is the primary theme that I try to make people here aware about through all topics, there is a world of difference between a claim and a claim with veracity. The Coppage link I provided above is but one example where the mantle of being the victim is often cited but rarely demonstrated for these types of situations. I will be approaching this like all other claims, yes it is possible but simply saying so doesn't make it so. All parties are just as capable of, to borrow your word, bullsh*t. It's substantiating it that makes the difference. I follow these types of situations because they are good litmus tests to see how others deal with potentially conflicting philosophical imperatives i.e. do they allow their disagreement with the person to inform how that person should be dealt with.

As to the specifics, I am still collecting facts from all perspectives on this manner and am not letting my disagreement with his scientific opinion affect whether he his employment situation has been correctly and fairly dealt with. For reference, this story was also in Crikey on Friday.



> The case of Salby is an interesting one that Crikey has monitored for some months. So what happened to him? Macquarie University says it terminated him because he refused to teach as required and breached the university's travel rules. He claims he was treated poorly and denied resources, and links this to his research on greenhouse gas emissions. Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):
> 
> Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change. Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):




A question for you. Do situations like this present pause for thought to concepts generally proposed by the Coalition to make it easier to terminate people's contracts?


----------



## basilio

Certainly worth reading the Crikey report with regard to Salbys claims. Apparently he was behind a story produced in The Australian which attempted to debunk the  Angry Hot summer story which highlighted the temperature extremes in Australia over 2012-2013.



> Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):
> 
> Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change.* Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):*
> 
> *"The Bureau stands by its climate analysis that portrays the last Australian summer as exceptional. So many temperature records were broken over such a wide area of the continent during this summer past, that it is absurd to argue otherwise. The Bureau rejects assertions that surface based climate observations made and analysed by the Bureau of Meteorology are somehow fatally flawed."*
> 
> .........
> *So Salby's op-ed for The Australian, which claims to show that the climate is not warming insofar as Australian summers are not getting hotter, is based on records taken up to 10 kilometres above the earth's surface, which "don't always align" with temperatures on the earth's surface.*
> 
> So astronauts have no need to worry about climate change, then.




For some reason I can't upload the full text of this section.


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks basilio.
Salby sounds like a complete crank and conspiracy theorist.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Orr,
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know I will address this in my own time, and it will be like taking candy from a baby.
> 
> I'll see you a snide and raise you a dose of reality (sans de rigueur leftist ad hom).





Dude just a bit of background;
This is wayneL's response to a request to critique the Koch's brothers sponsored climate report that confirmed the work  of James Hansen with regards predictions from as far back as the mid 80's, see my post#3336 from april last year. No response ever came.
So as to the the pit fall you've set for wayneL above? can we only assume he's 'Pleading the Fifth' ' ? again...
As for Salby: Where will the ever thinning ranks of 'the Merchants of Doubt' find the solace of their own 'leper island' to see out their affected lives. My I suggest a low lying one.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Dude just a bit of background;
> This is wayneL's response to a request to critique the Koch's brothers sponsored climate report that confirmed the work  of James Hansen with regards predictions from as far back as the mid 80's, see my post#3336 from april last year. No response ever came.
> So as to the the pit fall you've set for wayneL above? can we only assume he's 'Pleading the Fifth' ' ? again...
> As for Salby: Where will the ever thinning ranks of 'the Merchants of Doubt' find the solace of their own 'leper island' to see out their affected lives. My I suggest a low lying one.




Well I apologize for not sitting in front of a computer twelve hours a day, fretting about an imaginary Armageddon, jousting with obnoxious leftist evangelical alarmists.

To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded




Yep Wayne lets have a look for confirmation bias shall we. How about  searching peer reviewed scientific papers published  between Jan 1 1991 and Nov 9 2012. Lets say we look for keyword phrases "Global warming" or Global climate change".

What do you think we might find with that little look ? How about a total of  *13,950 papers *And guess how many have rejected global warming ?  

Thats right * 24 papers .* Total. Complete out of 13, 950

So clearly if one was looking outside of ones raging confirmation bias you would have to *discard *13,926 scientific papers on the topic and *focus *most keenly on 24 of them. 

Cheers.



> *Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart*
> Repost This
> Comment on this StoryEmail this story
> 
> This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.*
> 
> Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
> 
> I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
> 
> I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
> 
> .... *By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming*. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.




http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Well I apologize for not sitting in front of a computer twelve hours a day, fretting about an imaginary Armageddon, jousting with obnoxious leftist evangelical alarmists.
> 
> To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded




You are ever ready to pounce on an opportunity for your cause Champ.  However I note a gradual withdrawal as the content leaks out of the can.

22 degrees here in Victoria today.  All time highs according to the news at lunch time.  However we have to batten down as a high wind rain storm is about to hit us here at Portarlington.  Wife has not had to use the clothes drier for weeks *so all good*.


----------



## basilio

And while we are on the topic of people with no credibility lets have another look at the poor, persecuted Professor Salby.

Did you know for instance that he was banned from research funds in America for 3 years because of deceptive conduct in his research work? In essence he misappropriated around $300,000 and lied through his teeth about the research.

Unfortunately for Macquarie Uni they just didn't check him carefully enough before offering him a position.


> *Climate Sceptic Professor Sacked From Australian University Was Banned By National Science Foundation For "Deceptive Conduct"*
> Repost This
> Comment on this StoryEmail this story
> 
> *A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.*
> 
> Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.
> 
> The investigation (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.
> *
> We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.*
> 
> The NSF subsequently decided to only “debar” Dr Salby for three years, preventing him from accessing any NSF research grants or being involved in work related to them. The investigation was carried out by NSF’s Office of Inspector General - an arms-length organisation providing oversight to the NS
> 
> ..[/B]




http://desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/mu...niversity--banned-national-science-foundation

- - - Updated - - -

I would like to have added a few more paragraphs about the conduct of Professor Salby but, as usual, the website was offline when I pressed send.

Just always seems to happen when I outlining some juicy exposure of a climate denialist fraudster.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded




Look mate as hard as it is for you to believe this; I appreciate the back ally's you've taken me down, too look at things from as many different perspectives as deemed worthy, But it is not for you I post here. Through History the gullible have have lined the pockets of snake oil sales men, I don't see you, as in that bucket. The quacks you proffer though, are protagonists for an elite who know no limits to their greed, nor do they give one iota for the broader project of humanity. A transition will be made through time to  a carbon neutral dynamic to the benefit of all and not just human beings, accept those who disproportionally benefit through saturation. The real question is how much damage will be done before that point is reached. To expose here to ridicule the twaddle no matter arcanely scripted that is presented by those who are either deluded, lickspittles, or payed mouth pieces to the misanthropic elite mentioned above is my small effort to help a broader audience.

As to your hours online 'blathering', check your post rate to mine 'cooky boy'. Maybe One of us needs to get a life.


----------



## basilio

I was reflecting Waynes insistence that one should look outside the usual suspects to obtain a more balanced understanding of cliamte science.

So I did.  I decided to have a look some of the work of the real Climate scientists who had published the 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that had rejected global warming as a real concern. 

Professor Patrick Michaels wrote 4 such papers. He is one of the more outspoken scientists attacking the general consensus on the issue. He is quoted extensively by Fox News  Wasington Post and CNN. 

Trouble is when you look at his history of predictions  re climate change he is just so, so wrong. Where its betting on cooling trends,  Ice Ages, Green technology, Temperatures in the hemispheres, the Urban heat island effect, Satellites and so on.

This is the other side of the story.




> *Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong*
> Research July 10, 2013 9:57 AM EDT ”º”º”º SHAUNA THEEL
> 36
> Print
> 
> *A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. *
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> .
> As to your hours online 'blathering', check your post rate to mine 'cooky boy'. Maybe One of us needs to get a life.




Orr. Check my join date. Then, if you'd done your research (which you obviously need to brush up on),  know I've traded for a living exclusively for nearly ten years. Initially due to injury,but for a long time because I enjoy it. It would seem to follow that I would have a lot of posts on a STOCK forum.

I'm an active guy though. I like making sh*t, playing with horses and chatting with hot women... even not so hot women with beautiful personalities (you don't have to be beautiful to be beautiful). I still trade, but I've resumed my previous business which permits all those things.

So between my business, sport, trading and spending time with my gorgeous wife, who by some miracle is still with me after 31 years together, life is full and enjoyable. This crowds out my minor hobby of verbal sword play with obnoxious clowns on the interwebs.

So, as you were saying?


----------



## Some Dude

basilio said:


> Certainly worth reading the Crikey report with regard to Salbys claims. Apparently he was behind a story produced in The Australian which attempted to debunk the  Angry Hot summer story which highlighted the temperature extremes in Australia over 2012-2013.




Some more information emerging about Salby.



> Salby had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money after the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that Salby's "actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies."
> 
> The NSF report found that Salby had funneled himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grant money through a for-profit company he created, of which he was the sole employee. To justify his salary payments to the NSF, Salby claimed to be working for this company for an average of 14 hours per day for 98 consecutive days, which aside from being entirely implausible, would also have left him no time to fulfill his university obligations. The NSF concluded that Salby's behavior was likely fraudulent, but by the time the report was completed, Salby had resigned from the University of Colorado and moved to his job at Australia's Macquarie University.




Past history but it won't help his situation.


----------



## Calliope

This is what the lunatic left greenies have saddled us with...AND FOR WHAT???



> It takes a special kind of incompetence to create the developed world’s highest power prices in a land blessed with so much cheap coal:
> 
> US giant Peabody Energy has slashed another 170 positions from its Queensland and NSW coal operations, weeks after it cut 450 employees
> 
> The latest job cuts in the sector, which has been suffering from low commodity prices and high costs, takes the total positions lost from the industry over the past year to more than 11,000…
> 
> Peabody chairman and chief executive Greg Boyce ...  said Australia now had the most expensive power in the developed world, while cost pressures, eroding productivity and a maze of project approval requirements had plagued new coal projects.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## basilio

Ahh Andrew Bolt, Calliope and Peabody Mines - a collective trio of willful ignorance, unfortunate ignorance and blind self interest.

All this story says is that the price of coal has fallen making the mines unprofitable to Peabody. End of story.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> willful ignorance, unfortunate ignorance and blind self interest.




Ahh! There we have basilio in a nutshell, plus the usual bit of nastiness and arrogance thrown in.


----------



## Zedd

Those lunatic greenies again! Why did we listen to them when they were lobbying for excessive overdesign and gold-plating of our grid infrastructure. Bastards!


----------



## Knobby22

So its the greenies fault that gold plating occurred! 
Who publishes this rubbish?
It has been caused by failed privatisation and regulation. Didn't anyone read the articles?
The regulators have been gamed by the companies.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> This is what the lunatic left greenies have saddled us with...AND FOR WHAT???
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/




So the Greenies caused a hyraulic fraking revolution in the USA which caused natural gas prices to drop from over 12 USD to below 3 USD per 1M BTU.

This price drop caused natural gas to be a cheaper fuel than coal so there's been a major shift to using natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation in the USA.

This in turn has caused a major reduction in coal demand, so US coal producers have basically flooded the seaborne thermal coal market.

As you know, when supply increases, and demand decreases, prices fall.  It's how markets work.

I'd also argue that Peabody probably signed up to stupic work practices with the unions making the mines uneconomic without 100 year high coal prices.

So between a flood of thermal coal from the USA and poor management practices at the mine, how is that in any way related to "greenies"


----------



## basilio

Sdyboy you really wouldn't want to to us "facts" or "logic" in this conversation. They left years ago.

Andrew Bolt serves up any old tripe that suits his interest in bashing environmental/climate change discussions. And others just parrot him.

And naturally of course if  you were looking for a coal company determined to trash the science behind Climate Change you couldn't go past Peabody. 



> In February 2010, Peabody Energy Corp. filed an inch-thick critical response to a U.S. EPA finding that power plant emissions tied to global warming endangered human health.
> 
> The St. Louis-based coal company laid out its arguments against global warming and the need to regulate emissions through a recounting of what climate skeptics were calling "Climategate." The short-lived scandal broke in 2009 when published emails among scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit opened the door for interest groups to pounce on the science supporting climate change.
> 
> In its regulatory filing, the nation's largest coal producer cast a wide net and pulled no punches. Peabody accused top scientists of manipulating data, and it sought to cast doubt on findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By then, the U.N.-led body of science analysts had concluded that industrial greenhouse gases were amassing in the atmosphere and causing potentially irreversible damage.
> 
> *Peabody argued, in contrast, that burning fossil fuels was good for the environment and for human health.
> 
> "Because GHG emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, are so closely tied with all facets of modern life, a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare is akin to saying that modern life endangers public health or welfare," Peabody said in its petition to EPA. "But plainly just the opposite is the case."*
> 
> Peabody continued: "Indeed, the obvious benefits of combusting fossil fuels present a paradox to EPA in making its Endangerment Finding: as the world has combusted more and more fossil fuel and therefore has emitted more and more GHGs, virtually every measurement of public health and welfare has improved."
> 
> Investors at the time embraced the spirited rebellion against the nation's environmental regulator. And it appeared to matter little that Peabody's strategy in Washington put it at odds with a broad scientific consensus




Of course a really basic fact about coal fired power stations is damage done by airborne particles, destruction of environment through rapcious mountain levelling coal mining and so on - apart from the CO2 emissions. 

But as I said this is a fact free zone.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059983899


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> Sdyboy you really wouldn't want to to us "facts" or "logic" in this conversation. They left years ago.




I hear ya.  I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.

If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.

My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I hear ya.  I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.
> 
> If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.
> 
> My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.




What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol

Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol
> 
> Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.




This is the guy who said I was rude to call him a Greenie.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> I hear ya.  I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.
> 
> If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.
> 
> My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.




Like Hansen, Mann, Romm, Gleik et al?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol
> 
> Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.




So we have X milions of hectares up north that Tony wants to develop

How does one go about narrowing down where to focus their efforts

Oh um, lets see:

How much water can we reliably use without degrading the environment would be a good start.

Then in those areas we have water we can focus on the soil quality.  If you'd ready any of the reports I provided links to you, you would see they all mention POOR soil quality as a major issue.

My main argument is so far Abbotts hasn't show he's interested in a scientific analysis of what can be done up north, and most of the reports I've read, indicate that firstly water will be the main issue, after which poor soil quality will be another major inhibiting factor.

Throw in pests and wild life feeding on a lot of the crops that have previously trialled up north, and I don't see it likely we can double food production by going north.  Abbott hasn't mention if he will allow GM crops, which is the only way I can see us overcoming water, poor soil, pests as an issue.  Once you move in land, the issues of transportation costs become relevant issue as well.


----------



## springhill

sydboy007 said:


> So we have X milions of hectares up north that Tony wants to develop
> 
> How does one go about narrowing down where to focus their efforts
> 
> Oh um, lets see:
> 
> How much water can we reliably use without degrading the environment would be a good start.
> 
> Then in those areas we have water we can focus on the soil quality.  If you'd ready any of the reports I provided links to you, you would see they all mention POOR soil quality as a major issue.
> 
> My main argument is so far Abbotts hasn't show he's interested in a scientific analysis of what can be done up north, and most of the reports I've read, indicate that firstly water will be the main issue, after which poor soil quality will be another major inhibiting factor.
> 
> Throw in pests and wild life feeding on a lot of the crops that have previously trialled up north, and I don't see it likely we can double food production by going north.  Abbott hasn't mention if he will allow GM crops, which is the only way I can see us overcoming water, poor soil, pests as an issue.  Once you move in land, the issues of transportation costs become relevant issue as well.




The problem with 'reports' is that they are usually written by someone who has never worked the land. I have an uncountable number of state govt dept reports, federal dept reports here that I wouldn't wipe my backside with.

Sand is an exceptionally poor quality soil, probably the worst, but you can still grow all kinds of vegetables and even fruit in it.

You obviously have no idea, and no practical experience growing food commercially.

You read it on the internet, therefore it must be true.

Stop embarrassing yourself by quoting reports as fact.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> All this story says is that the price of coal has fallen making the mines unprofitable to Peabody. End of story.



Peabody CEO says 'policies such as the carbon tax and renewable energy target had hurt the sector and called for whoever (sic) won the federal election to repeal the carbon tax and streamline the project permitting system'.
It's wrong to suggest the only problem is the lower price of coal.



Knobby22 said:


> So its the greenies fault that gold plating occurred!
> Who publishes this rubbish?
> It has been caused by failed privatisation and regulation. Didn't anyone read the articles?
> The regulators have been gamed by the companies.



I don't know about the rest of Australia, but regional Qld electricity suppliers are all owned by the government, so no way of blaming privatisation here.

There seems to be rather a lot of attributing cause and effect in accordance with the philosophy of the person attempting to make the argument.


----------



## qldfrog

Julia said:


> Peabody CEO says 'policies such as the carbon tax and renewable energy target had hurt the sector and called for whoever (sic) won the federal election to repeal the carbon tax and streamline the project permitting system'.
> It's wrong to suggest the only problem is the lower price of coal.





well if this was the case, coal mines in China, Mongolia or Brazil would be booming.They are not...
The ghost town in inner mongolia was built during the coal rush up to 3 years ago and then coal crashed.
Nothing to do with carbon tax or anything specifically australian, coal is out of demand, US is becoming a major exporter as they have huge new gas production ramping up for domestic consumption
and the world economy is not that healthy.
While Australia is a major exporter of coal, its actual production is not that big on the world scene: most countries are producing their own (us/china/india) especially for thermal coal which will probably slow down drastically in the next decades.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> I don't know about the rest of Australia, but regional Qld electricity suppliers are all owned by the government, so no way of blaming privatisation here.




I don't think Queensland has suffered from gold plating to anywhere near the extent Victoria has.

"There is a fundamental flaw in the structure of the power industry. Thanks to its regulated returns on assets, the more the power companies spend the more money comes through the door."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/goldplating-the-power-grid-20120705-21iv5.html#ixzz2a8Brpcub


----------



## Zedd

Julia said:


> I don't know about the rest of Australia, but regional Qld electricity suppliers are all owned by the government, so no way of blaming privatisation here.
> 
> There seems to be rather a lot of attributing cause and effect in accordance with the philosophy of the person attempting to make the argument.






> Government-owned corporations have a stake in about 65% of the state's generation capacity, but the numbers of partially or fully privately owned power stations are increasing. The Queensland Government plans to reduce the share of the aggregate capacity the state owns or operates in Queensland to around 50%, primarily as a result of new capacity requirements being met by the private sector.



http://www.business.qld.gov.au/indu...electricity-queensland/electricity-generation

Generation - Shared public private
Distribution - Public
Retail - Private

Even the public owned and operated areas though are now through government-owned corporations, that are in my understanding run on profit-orientated models so gold-plating is still in their best interest. I haven't had much to do with the electrical industry, but saw first hand where all the money was going as SE QLD switched over to government corps vs council run water provider/distributers and saw massive hikes in water prices with virtually no new investment occurring at the coal face.



Knobby22 said:


> So its the greenies fault that gold plating occurred!




I thought my comment was dripping with sufficient sarcasm to splatter the keyboards of all who read my post. Apologies if that wasn't clearer. The greens had nothing to do with lobbying for privatisation, and certainly had nothing to do with company policies aimed at increasing book values of assets by which allowable returns are judged.


----------



## orr

springhill said:


> You obviously have no idea, and no practical experience growing food commercially.
> 
> You read it on the internet, therefore it must be true.
> 
> Stop embarrassing yourself by quoting reports as fact.





This might be usefull to pass on to party HQ 'Sprinkles' " Lessons From The Ord "

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-2.pdf

And that's just for starters more reading on the intrigues that promoted the original development through the Menzies admin is well worth the effort. Check the name of the 'Whitey' who first trudged the  banks back in the late 1800's, notice any relationship to an operator in the region these days?

 All fits well with the deeply ingrained ethos of agrarian socialism kept just beneath the tweed of the squatocracy.

Oh and wayneL, ' so I was saying' was in the paragraph directly above your lifted quote. To compare you to a goldfish would be...well, unfair to goldfish. So when your ready to come out from under the bed with your chewed plastic sword, only to be skewered again, whilst revealing the porosity of intellectual rigour of the charlatans you present... Just answer the questions,  your 'Mills & Boon' is off topic.


----------



## springhill

orr said:


> This might be usefull to pass on to party HQ 'Sprinkles' " Lessons From The Ord "
> 
> http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-2.pdf
> 
> And that's just for starters more reading on the intrigues that promoted the original development through the Menzies admin is well worth the effort. Check the name of the 'Whitey' who first trudged the  banks back in the late 1800's, notice any relationship to an operator in the region these days?
> 
> All fits well with the deeply ingrained ethos of agrarian socialism kept just beneath the tweed of the squatocracy.
> 
> Oh and wayneL, ' so I was saying' was in the paragraph directly above your lifted quote. To compare you to a goldfish would be...well, unfair to goldfish. So when your ready to come out from under the bed with your chewed plastic sword, only to be skewered again, whilst revealing the porosity of intellectual rigour of the charlatans you present... Just answer the questions,  your 'Mills & Boon' is off topic.




My God, written in 1982. Could it be any less relevant?

If i was using practices from 1982 in my business today I would be in serious financial trouble, as well as breaching a whole load of laws.

Perhaps we should go right back to the industrial revolution and run a google search for a report from then?

Another 'internet urban farmer'.

:headshake


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Oh and wayneL, ' so I was saying' was in the paragraph directly above your lifted quote. To compare you to a goldfish would be...well, unfair to goldfish. So when your ready to come out from under the bed with your chewed plastic sword, only to be skewered again, whilst revealing the porosity of intellectual rigour of the charlatans you present... Just answer the questions,  your 'Mills & Boon' is off topic.




Mills & Boon... hah I'll grant you that.

However, it's nicer in my "Mills and Boon" reality than your negative, nasty, nihilistic, apocalyptic delusion where ad hominem is a valid substitute for empirical data and real world observation.

In your world, only pseudo scientific Don Quixotes, tilting at windmills gain admittance to your litany of dogma. A world where intellectual rigour is only applied to those with whom you disagree, ignoring the gaping chasms of both science and logic in your faith based Armageddon scenario.

The real world, even with its real environmental challenges, is far preferable to your (in the collective sense) Revelational  imaginings and failed climatic models.

While I admit a certain amount of hypocrisy here, I also admit that my observations are in fact empirically accurate, rather than just the poisonous name calling you and your fretting coffee klatch of malcontents indulge in on this forum.


----------



## explod

> wayneL;786197] ...I also admit that my observations are in fact empirically accurate,...




A joke surely ?


----------



## basilio

explod said:


> A joke surely ?




Surely not Explod.  We know,* because  Wayne  told us* ,that the world is actually not warming at all.  It's just urban heat island effects and dodgy recalibration of temperature records by the BOM  et al.

That is empirically certain. Nothing to worry about as far as the climate. Just a bunch (of  about 10,000) pseudo scientists who want to get billions of dollars in grants to study ice that isn't melting, floods that aren't occurring, extreme cliamte events that aren't happening  and species that aren't going extinct.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Surely not Explod.  We know,* because  Wayne  told us* ,that the world is actually not warming at all.  It's just urban heat island effects and dodgy recalibration of temperature records by the BOM  et al.
> 
> That is empirically certain. Nothing to worry about as far as the climate. Just a bunch (of  about 10,000) pseudo scientists who want to get billions of dollars in grants to study ice that isn't melting, floods that aren't occurring, extreme cliamte events that aren't happening  and species that aren't going extinct.




Basilio, I knew you would fly your true colours eventually. You misrepresentation of my position is bordering on libelous, an out and out lie, evidenced on this forum in black and white with my oft stated view.

So not only are you monumentally hypocritical by tacitly admitting you do nothing to mitigate your own emissions, a grotesque misanthrope who openly salivates at the prospect of the death of the majority of humans on this planet, you are also an out and out liar. 

This is not opinion, the incontrovertible evidence is here on these pages.


----------



## springhill

basilio said:


> That is empirically certain. Nothing to worry about as far as the climate. Just a bunch (of  about 10,000) pseudo scientists who want to get billions of dollars in grants to study ice that isn't melting, floods that aren't occurring, extreme cliamte events that aren't happening  and species that aren't going extinct.




All events that have been happening since the dawn of time and will continue to happen regardless of human influence.

If it wasn't detailed in one of your sycophantic global warming..... oops climate change reports then it didn't occur did it?

You are one of the most myopic clowns to grace this forum.


----------



## Knobby22

springhill said:


> All events that have been happening since the dawn of time and will continue to happen regardless of human influence.
> .




Duh! What about things that happen because of human influence?


----------



## springhill

Knobby22 said:


> Duh! What about things that happen because of human influence?




You should me credible, peer reviewed (by a independent body, not a for/against group) scientific statistical evidence that there are more:

-Eathquakes
-Cyclones/Tornadoes/Hurricanes
-Tsunamis
-Volcanic Eruptions
-Floods
-Wild Fires

Than there were:

-10,000
-100,000
-1,000,000
-10,000,000
-100,000,000
and 1,000,000,000 years ago and I will reconsider

Until then it is all clap-trap and ****-talking.

Carbon is the new vehicle to control the masses and the money, now that Western religion is in its dying days.


----------



## Knobby22

You stated humans don't influence the world.
Obviously this is untrue. We make animals extinct, we turn areas into deserts...and yet we can't influence the weather????

You can't accept scientific peer review, you can't even read the facts on the sudden rise in temperatures, the melting of the arctic, the massive rise in sea levels and yet you call basilio myopic? Pot kettle.


----------



## springhill

Knobby22 said:


> You stated humans don't influence the world.
> Obviously this is untrue. We make animals extinct, we turn areas into deserts...and yet we can't influence the weather????
> 
> You can't accept scientific peer review, you can't even read the facts on the sudden rise in temperatures, the melting of the arctic, the massive rise in sea levels and yet you call basilio myopic? Pot kettle.




Nice dodge of the question. 

The timeframe you are talking about is but a pimple of the butt of time.

That is why I ask for data ranging back further than the last 1,000 years.

You have no proof, nor did your quick google search turn up anything.

You are unable to construct a scientific argument or provide one scrap of data.

As I said clap-trap and ****-talking.

You are a disciple of carbon. 

One of the lemmings needed to perpetrate and spread the propaganda.

It is about deceiving a critical mass of people.

Your ticket has been stamped.

I stand by my comments.


----------



## Zedd

springhill said:


> You should me credible, peer reviewed (by a independent body, not a for/against group) scientific statistical evidence that there are more:
> 
> -Eathquakes
> -Cyclones/Tornadoes/Hurricanes
> -Tsunamis
> -Volcanic Eruptions
> -Floods
> -Wild Fires




I haven't back-read this whole thread yet, so not sure of you're understanding on the subject. I assumed that you're constant use of "global warming ... oops climate change" was just **** stirring, but the above comment suggests you don't understand the basic principles behind the theory of global warming.

An increased proportion of so called greenhouse gases in a closed atmosphere have been shown to retain heat. 
It's also well known that temperature levels and temperature differentials have significant influence over weather patterns. Coupled together it is plausible that a sufficient proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could see changes in weather patterns that may result in an increased frequency or severity of cyclones, floods, droughts and wild fires.

Personally I'm not convinced that it's conclusive if and when any long-term damage will be done, although I'd rather err on the side of caution, and think our general level of pollution needs to be addressed anyway, as does the rapid depletion of finite resources

Argue back and forth on the significance of the effect of mankind all you want.

Last I checked though no-one was suggesting that changes in atmospheric temperatures, even at the extremes of any projections, would have any effect on magma flows or tectonic plate movement. Have you?


----------



## wayneL

On extreme weather events, Pielke Jnr  has the oil on that. Here is is recent statement to the US senate hearing:

(It should be noted that Rog is a warmist, but with I think a moderate view that can be supported  scientifically)

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15


----------



## Knobby22

It is pleasing to see the US senate talking to a true scientist. 
I hope he is allowed to talk to them about other aspects of climate change.


----------



## springhill

Zedd said:


> *I haven't back-read this whole thread yet*, so not sure of you're understanding on the subject. I assumed that you're constant use of "global warming ... oops climate change" was just **** stirring, but the above comment suggests you don't understand the basic principles behind the theory of global warming.
> 
> An increased proportion of so called greenhouse gases in a closed atmosphere have been shown to retain heat.
> It's also well known that temperature levels and temperature differentials have significant influence over weather patterns. Coupled together it is plausible that a sufficient proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could see changes in weather patterns that may result in an increased frequency or severity of cyclones, floods, droughts and wild fires.
> 
> Personally I'm not convinced that it's conclusive if and when any long-term damage will be done, although I'd rather err on the side of caution, and think our general level of pollution needs to be addressed anyway, as does the rapid depletion of finite resources
> 
> Argue back and forth on the significance of the effect of mankind all you want.
> 
> Last I checked though no-one was suggesting that changes in atmospheric temperatures, even at the extremes of any projections, would have any effect on magma flows or tectonic plate movement. Have you?




Perhaps you should


----------



## basilio

springhill said:


> Perhaps you should




No mate... Life is too short...


----------



## Zedd

basilio said:


> No mate... Life is too short...




No, no, I will. It looks like there's collectively a decent amount of papers and thoughts, and it's been quite a while since I refreshed my knowledge on the topic. 

Mainly though I want to see the reasoning for how global warming is going to shift the tectonic plates and cause more earthquakes and volcanoes. Sounds like a fascinating twist, on what is otherwise a fairly straightforward concept.


----------



## basilio

Zedd said:


> No, no, I will. It looks like there's collectively a decent amount of papers and thoughts, and it's been quite a while since I refreshed my knowledge on the topic.
> 
> Mainly though I want to see the reasoning for how global warming is going to shift the tectonic plates and cause more earthquakes and volcanoes. Sounds like a fascinating twist, on what is otherwise a fairly straightforward concept.




Good luck to you Zedd on reviewing this thread. 

With regard to the reasoning behind global warming (possibly) causing more earthquakes and volcanoes and shift tectonic plates.

As I see it climate scientists and earth scientists are always researching and learning. One of the consequences for example of widespread melting of the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps will be a reduction in the billions of tons of ice sitting on earth below. This will result in these areas of the earth springing up.  This happened and is still happening after the last last ice age finished and kilometers of ice receded from Europe, Asia etc. There is an argument that the releasing of this pressure will allow tectonic plates to move more freely effectively more earthquakes and volcanic activity. (Volcanic activity increases as molten magna forces its way between shifting tectonic plates.) Check out the reference from carbon brief below.

If you are interested in refreshing your knowledge on the topic the Skeptical Science website is, IMO, one of of the most comprehensive, best organized and accessible resources on the subject. Again check out the link for a sample discussion. 

I believe almost all the information comes from peer reviewed papers but the commentary is constructed at a number of levels of complexity.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/can-climate-change-cause-earthquakes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html


----------



## sydboy007

from marcobusiness today

There has been no growth in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia over the last decade, despite economic growth of 31% over the same period, a new report has found.

The findings show that conversion to a green economy need not be painful and is already underway in Australian industry.

The report, released today by Monash University research unit ClimateWorks, said stable emissions levels despite economic growth was achieved through reduced deforestation, increased tree-planting, a big boost in industry energy efficiency and sharp drops in power emissions.

So the sun continues to rise in the east and the sky hasn't fallen on us.  I'm still trying to see where the wrecking ball cobra striking python gripping economic destroyer will come from.


----------



## wayneL

Skeptical Science is a brilliant piece of advocacy and propaganda, but portrays a rather one side view... and let's not mention the standard of Cook's science with his roundly criticized consensus survey ('cept by evangelistic apostles of the apocalyptic CC cult).

Interesting chart here:


----------



## Knobby22

Have you got the land ice chart?


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Have you got the land ice chart?




No. But as we know, if land ice is substantively reduced via melt, it will impact sea levels. We know sea level rise has been relatively constant for some decades /centuries, I doubt there is any issue.


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> Have you got the land ice chart?




Interesting graph from Wayne on sea ice in Antartica.  I wonder what it suggests ? Perhaps that the global warming/climate change issue is not as troubling as almost all climate scientists clam? Is there a bigger picture with an overall view rather than a focus on one elemnt ?

Yep...

If you check out  Skeptical science you will find all the information relevant to the discussion about the expanding Antarctic sea ice. In fact it is a function of climate change  -  and it isn't a good news story about the ambiguity of the question.


> *Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?*
> 
> Link to this page
> The skeptic argument...
> *
> Antarctica is gaining ice*
> *"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." *(Greg Roberts, The Australian)
> 
> Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
> 
> Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.
> 
> In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

I would like to have added further information from the post which highlights the critical differences between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice and then goes on to examine the reduction in the Antarctic ice mass.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way Yayne did your original reference  outline any further information than the single graph showing the increase in sea ice ?


----------



## basilio

In the last post I quoted from a paper on Skeptical science regarding the expansion of Antarctic Sea ice.

After the explanation there was an expansive discussion by other posters on the paper. Was it real ? Were there holes in the maths, the models or the reality ?

One of the posters was quite insistent that there was a problem and over a number of posts other contributors picked through his arguments and showed where there were errors. In the end someone pulled together the comments as follows.




> KR at 09:48 AM on 16 April, 2013
> 
> Readers - There is actually a useful lesson in the last exchange(s) with Kevin. What he did was to selectively quote-mine old analyses (ignoring the last quarter-century of work), cherry-pick the data (East Antarctic while ignoring Antarctica as a whole), and misrepresent implications (wrongly equating increased snowfall with mass balance, ignoring greatly increased melt and calving). And concluding with a Bizzaro-world interpretation exactly opposite that of the IPCC.
> 
> This is in fact a fairly common denier tactic - select tiny bits of the science out of context and miscast them in contradiction to the whole. I strongly suggest reading the original sources (which isn't difficult if you start with abstracts and work your way up as you can or as desired), and check the quotes and sources.
> 
> IMO denial is broadcast with selective reading and presentation, some of which (see anything from Lord Monckton) is simply false. Armor yourself by checking the assertions from all participants.




Comment 189 from the discussion Antarctica losing ice. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=196&&a=21


----------



## wayneL

As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.

However let me be the first to admit, the chart doesn't prove or disprove anything, merely a point of interest and was posted as such.... seeing that arctic sea ice is often such a point of focus.


----------



## spooly74

wayneL said:


> As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.



There was some refreshing language from a climate scientist on this a few days ago.

Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies



> I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.
> 
> They call me an "honest broker", asking for "more Dr Edwards and fewer zealous advocates". Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream.
> 
> But it's not just about improving trust. In this highly politicised arena, climate scientists have a moral obligation to strive for impartiality. We have a platform we must not abuse. For a start, we rarely have the necessary expertise. I absolutely disagree with Gavin that we likely know far more about the issues involved in making policy choices than [our] audience.
> 
> ..........
> 
> 
> We must be vigilant against what Roger Pielke Jr in The Honest Broker calls "stealth issue advocacy": claiming we are talking about science when really we are advocating policy. This is clearly expressed by Robert T Lackey:
> 
> "Often I hear or read in scientific discourse words such as degradation, improvement, good, and poor. Such value-laden words should not be used to convey scientific information because they imply a preferred … state [or] class of policy options ... The appropriate science words are, for example, change, increase, or decrease." (Science, Scientists and Policy Advocacy)


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.
> 
> However let me be the first to admit, the chart doesn't prove or disprove anything, merely a point of interest and was posted as such.... seeing that arctic sea ice is often such a point of focus.




Interesting response.  For a start Cook does not write all the commentary on Skeptical Science . There are a number of  science writers who dissect the papers on climate change and the responses by various people.

Wayne you posted a single graph which showed a steadily increasing rate of sea ice in Antarctica. On the face of it it could be seen as evidence that the Antarctic is not warming -  in fact actually  cooling.  But when one examines the whole picture of  Antarctic ice a different reality emerges.

Thats why I inquired as to whether the source you lifted the sea ice picture also acknowledged the wider perspective.  Or whether like Kevin, the hapless poster on that thread, your source is content to use one very narrow perspective to uphold  an otherwise untenable position.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio,

Unskeptical Science is still an advocacy site, no matter which advocate or group of advocates write there. Ergo, a biased view is presented. Hence it is corrupt, from a scientific perspective.

One should seek out honest brokers for more balanced discussion.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio,
> 
> Unskeptical Science is still an advocacy site, no matter which advocate or group of advocates write there. Ergo, a biased view is presented. Hence it is corrupt, from a scientific perspective.
> 
> One should seek out honest brokers for more balanced discussion.





I find it so hard to understand or credit this view. Skeptical science uses the material of peer reviewed scientists as the basis of its comments. At last count there were about 12,000 plus papers to choose from. Interestingly enough there are only 24 similar peer reviewed papers that reject the case against global warming. 

It also examines all comments and papers relating to climate change discussions.  Spencers, Lindzens, Moncktens, Carters, Watts  and so on.  They are not ignored. However these papers like all others are subject to careful review to establish the evidence behind the assertions and the logic of their statements. Sadly in almost all cases this is lacking. If you want to I can start posting up example of these analysis.

In the end of course there is very little absolute scientific certainty. We can only go on the most proven and coherent recent knowledge. Currently that lies with the  vast group  of scientists who have identified that CO2 and other greenhouse gases seem almost certainly to be the major cause of the last 150 year jump in temperatures and that this will continue  to the point where current ecological systems will be untenable unless the rise in CO2 is stopped and reversed.


----------



## wayneL

It's because you are a "believer"  basilio.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> It's because you are a "believer"  basilio.




No it's because I can read and evaluate evidence from the widest range of credible sources,

Its the same belief which recognizes gravity, x rays, neutron stars, the existence of the ice ages and a million other scientific understandings. 

It's not absolute. I'm open to credible alternatives that can offer enough evidence to re evaluate my  current beliefs. 

If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked  they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> No it's because I can read and evaluate evidence from the widest range of credible sources,



 Like Skeptical Science and the Graniad? 



> Its the same belief which recognizes gravity, x rays, neutron stars, the existence of the ice ages and a million other scientific understandings.




The problem is that there is repeatable empirical evidence to support most of those theories. The catastrophic climate scenario revolves around failed models that can't even model the past, never mind the future. The science is much softer than those other fields.



> It's not absolute. I'm open to credible alternatives that can offer enough evidence to re evaluate my  current beliefs.



 No, actually, you're not.



> If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.




This is where you go to belief. Nobody seriously questions the greenhouse effect or that additional greenhouse gases will somewhat affect climate. 

The question is what will be the effects, whether regional or global, whether they'll be net negative, or net positive, whether anything can, or should, be done, or whether mitigation is a more sensible strategy. However, you are a believer in the worst case, catastrophic scenario. This is just not supported by empirical evidence. Every single catastrophic prediction concluding with a recent date has failed utterly.

In addition, the shrill apocalypticism(sic) of the catastrophists have the opposite effect, encouraging people to push against them, distorting debate by polarizing it.

You like a Christian, but not a moderate, but like Jim Jones.


----------



## basilio

We aren't even in the same library are we Wayne.? 

I won't go past your first comment - outright dismissal of the Skeptical science website as an authoritative source of information.

The website takes all of its base information from the peer reviewed work of the scientific community.  When you reject that as a basis for discussion then thats the end of discussion based on the best science currently available.

Bye.


----------



## wayneL

You won't go past because you can't get past your faith, and are unable to address the further points.


----------



## basilio

Fascinating how language can be twisted.  George would be proud of you Wayne.

Only on this forum could accepting the tested evidence  and observations of 10,000 plus scientists  on a particular field be construed as "faith".  Last time I looked faith was belief in something with little or no substantiating evidence. 

I notice Wayne how reluctant you are to respond to any discussion of the myriad scientific papers around the causes and effects of climate change/global warming. Clearly,  according to you, if they have been quoted in Skeptical Science they can only be articles of faith rather than valid science.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Fascinating how language can be twisted.  George would be proud of you Wayne.
> 
> Only on this forum could accepting the tested evidence  and observations of 10,000 plus scientists  on a particular field be construed as "faith".  Last time I looked faith was belief in something with little or no substantiating evidence.
> 
> I notice Wayne how reluctant you are to respond to any discussion of the myriad scientific papers around the causes and effects of climate change/global warming. Clearly,  according to you, if they have been quoted in Skeptical Science they can only be articles of faith rather than valid science.




Incorrect and as usual a misrepresentation.

On some points, Cook and his coffee klatch of climate catastrophists have some points worthy of note and should be conceded on honest debate. True skeptics are happy to concede these points in the honest search for scientific truth. However Cook et al will never concede valid points of true skeptics, ah lah valid scientific method, preferring to skew data with omission, subterfuge, confirmation bias and plain common garden variety bullshyte.

This is the hallmark of an advocate, not a genuine scientist... and sycophantic acolytes such as yourself, swallow it uncritically, holus bolus, ipso facto, substituting faith for enquiry.

Faith does not necessarily exclude all truth, but merely includes only that truth it wants to and excludes competing data.


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> ... and sycophantic acolytes such as yourself, swallow it uncritically, holus bolus, ipso facto, substituting faith for enquiry ...






> Sycophancy is obsequious flattery. Botticelli's illustration of Dante's Inferno shows
> insincere flatterers grovelling in excrement in the second pit of the eighth circle ...




Sorry Wayne, I feel the debate is sinking to new lower lows!

Suggestion: Lift your game or back away!! :


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked  they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.



Look no further than Cook's own paper on the 'consensus'.
lol




> The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
> 
> that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
> 
> If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
> 
> Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
> 
> Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.* This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
> 
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/


----------



## basilio

Spooly that was a fascinating reference you offered which suggested that John Cooks  scientific consensus on AGW was basically a fraud. I  was particularly taken by the statement that 


> If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
> 
> Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
> 
> Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.* This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.




So according to Brandon Schollenberger (blog author of your quote)  only 65 papers out of the 12,000 odd papers surveyed actually support the proposition that humans are responsible for more than 50% of global warming.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird ? If I told you that Brandons process *eliminated the papers of Hanson, Mann*  and a score of other climate scientists who clearly believe that AGW is very real wouldn't you think it was a bit dubious ?

I read the whole article  and the responses to Brandons special massaging of the figures.  It is simply not the case that only a minuscule number of papers take the view that global warming is very real and that man is largely responsible. This is a fabrication.

One respondent noted that he was asked to take part in the survey but ultimately withdraw.  He believed the survey was too conservative in its analysis and his comments are worth noting.



> Tom Curtis (Comment #113458)
> May 19th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
> 
> Lucia, you and others continue to push the false view that the Concensus Project team put a low bar on belonging to the consensus when it is evident both from the paper, and from the hacked forum contents that they did not. Put simply, if an abstract said “the Earth is warming rapidly due to anthropogenic and natural causes” without further quantification, it would have been rated as neutral or possibly even are rejecting the concensus. If it said, “mostly due to anthropogenic causes, but also due to natural causes” it would have been rated as supporting the concensus, whereas if it said the reverse, it would have been rated as rejecting the concensus.
> 
> The tricky case is when it says something like “the rapid rise in CO2 concentration has resulted in rapid warming” which would be rated as supporting the concensus (assuming it had no other relevant content). You can argue that somebody can claim that while believing that natural forcings are the dominant forcings in recent temperature rises. Technically that claim is correct, but it is very unlikely. Unlikely both because of the way the debate is framed, and unlikely because people tend not to ignore what they consider to be the most important factors.
> 
> So, allow that the rating system can generate false positives. That is going to be a problem with any rating from abstract and does not undermine the paper. It can be demonstrated that in fact the rating system generated more false negatives than false positives; and any rating system must perforce seek a balance between the two. In fact, false negatives where generated at 2.5 times the rate of false positives, indicating the rating method was very conservative.


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> So according to Brandon Schollenberger (blog author of your quote)  only 65 papers out of the 12,000 odd papers surveyed actually support the proposition that humans are responsible for more than 50% of global warming.




No, only the abstracts do.

It was more tongue in cheek.

a bit of ..
lol


----------



## basilio

For another view on the Peter Cook research check out the following comments

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18863


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> For another view on the Peter Cook research check out the following comments
> 
> http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18863




Yeah, a fair bit of nitpicking going on.
The Saga Continues

Interesting observations here.
Models v. Observations: AR5 RCP4.5


----------



## Logique

Professor Brian Cox has gone down in my opinion. 

Should have known the globetrotting junket, interspersed with the occasional (establishment approved) junior high school physics axioms would come at a price.

Here I am in Arizona, now look at me in the Arctic, now I'm in Australia. I'm groovy, I'm a global thinker. I must be right about climate science, of course we're warming the planet, the physics is simple (says Cox the particle physicist). (Unspoken) of course the climate science grants must continue in abundance! 

"And, as it turns out, Brian is about as rebellious as Captain Mainwaring." -James Delingpole.



> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...x-prettier-than-brigstocke-but-just-as-wrong/
> *Prof Brian Cox: prettier than Brigstocke but just as wrong*
> By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 5th, 2010
> 
> This year’s BBC Huw Wheldon lecture was delivered by pop star and celebrity-physicist Brian Cox, who was telling us how science should be reported on television.
> Brian looks like a rebel.  One of the kids.  He has long hair and wears a T-shirt under his jacket.  But appearances can deceive.  I’ve met countless grungy greens who are every bit as censorious and freedom-hating as the most well-ironed Nazi.
> 
> And, as it turns out, Brian is about as rebellious as Captain Mainwaring.
> 
> He says it’s the job of documentary makers to relay to the public science which has been approved by the scientific establishment.
> 
> He described a film of mine – The Great Global Warming Swindle – which naughtily did not tow the line, as ‘polemical cack’.   Like many censors, he starts by waving the flag for free speech.  Far be it from him to stifle views which are outside the mainstream.  But …   There were many buts.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> Professor Brian Cox has gone down in my opinion.




I know. These scientists have this blind spot where they prefer to follow scientific studies by other scientists that go through a review process and follow the scientific principle.

I don't know why they don't take seriously newspaper columnists like James Delingpole that are paid to trot out opposite views supporting the interests of their masters as well as giving an opportunity to get their books published and make additional money. Anyone can see he is spouting the truth while all the scientists have been corrupted.


----------



## burglar

Logique said:


> Professor Brian Cox has gone down in my opinion. ...




Hi L,
I see what your saying!
But surely, he is still the best physicist on TV since Professor Julius Sumner Miller!


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I know. These scientists have this blind spot where they prefer to follow scientific studies by other scientists that go through a review process and follow the scientific principle.
> 
> I don't know why they don't take seriously newspaper columnists like James Delingpole that are paid to trot out opposite views supporting the interests of their masters as well as giving an opportunity to get their books published and make additional money. Anyone can see he is spouting the truth while all the scientists have been corrupted.




These are the scientists who can't seem to get a prediction right and got caught fudging data?


----------



## spooly74

No need to worry about Greenland’s waterslides
http://blogs.plos.org/models/no-need-to-worry-about-greenlands-waterslides/



> We’ve had a new study published about the slippery slopes of Greenland. If we’re right they’re not as slippery – and therefore as worrying – as we first thought.
> ....
> 
> We’re the first to test this idea using models of the Greenland ice sheet, comparing the effect on sea level with the usual baseline projections that don’t include the Zwally effect. What we found surprised us – it made very little difference. Even in our worst case scenario, enhanced basal lubrication by surface meltwater added only 8mm to sea level over two hundred years, less than five percent of the baseline sea level rise. In some of our tests, it even reduced it.


----------



## Logique

Quick, somebody contact Professor Brian Cox, there must be a Year 10 physics axiom, delivered from a mountain top in upper Krygzstan,  that can counteract this!

*Warmist scientist: 15 years of “warming stagnation” is “no longer consistent” with models*



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...tion_is_no_longer_consistent_wi/#commentsmore
> ...we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.




Even at the 2% confidence level. Oh my, how embarassment. And the physics so simple Prof Brian!


----------



## spooly74

Replies of Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. to Questions from Senate EPW
21 August 2013

Questions from Senator David Vitter



> 1) Dr. Pielke, as I read Mr. Nutter’s testimony, he appeared to be trying to tell us that businesses face a disaster that is happening now. But according to a recent Lloyd’s of London survey of almost 600 corporate executives about the risks faced by their business, they ranked climate change #32 behind “piracy” but ahead of “space weather.” High taxation was ranked #1. Regulation was ranked #5. Why do you think they placed climate change at #32?
> 
> PIELKE REPLY: Human-caused climate change likely ranks low in the Lloyd’s 2013 Risk Index because the vast majority of impacts associated with such changes that would be of direct concern to global businesses in 2013 are presently small or even undetectable at present in the context of historical climate variability, as discussed in my testimony.






> 2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?
> 
> PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.






> 3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.
> 
> a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?
> PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.
> 
> b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?
> PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.
> 
> c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?
> PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.






> 4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)
> 
> PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge.




http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html


----------



## sydboy007

By the sounds of it the older conservatives are surviving due to the warmer winter.  At this rate the Queensland coast will be decimated as the winter nomads find life is quite OK where they are.

Wont be any hysteria, maybe dementia instead??


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see that  the weather over Australia was responsible for the significant drop in world wide ocean levels in 2010-2011.

It wasn't simply the huge amount of rain that fell in the La Nina years of 2010-11.  In Australia much of this water didn't make it to the sea again but replenished underground aquifers.




> *Australian floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level to drop
> *
> Puzzled oceanographers who wondered where the sea level rise went for 18 months now have their answer – it went to Australia
> 
> Tim Radford
> 
> Rain - in effect, evaporated ocean - fell in such colossal quantities during the Australian floods in 2010 and 2011 that the world's sea levels actually dropped by as much as 7mm.
> 
> Rainwater normally runs swiftly off continental mountain ranges, pours down rivers, collects in aquifers and lakes and then winds across floodplains into the sea. But Australia, as any Australian will proudly claim, is different.
> 
> Rain that falls in the outback of the largest island - also the smallest continent - tends to dribble away into inland waterways and seemingly get lost, without ever making it to the coast, or to collect in shallow inland seas and stay there till it evaporates.
> 
> "It is a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is", says John Fasullo, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research. "The smallest continent in the world can affect sea level worldwide. Its influence is so strong that it can temporarily overcome the background trend of rising sea levels that we see with climate change."




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/australian-floods-global-sea-level


----------



## wayneL

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: “It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong”


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... In Australia much of this water didn't make it to the sea again but replenished underground aquifers ...




Mother Nature has an awesome agenda!


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: “It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong”




Sure wayne, at the end of your excerpt a poster states:



> "[QUOTEThat earlier 97 or 98% “study” was the same. These zealots belong to the cult, or they’re no starved for money they’ll say anything to get another easy government grant.]



[/QUOTE]


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Sure wayne, at the end of your excerpt a poster states:




...............and????

The fact is, the survey has knobs on it, intellectually, scientifically and morally corrupt.

Ya can't polish a turd Mr Plod


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> ...............and????
> 
> The fact is, the survey has knobs on it, intellectually, scientifically and morally corrupt.
> 
> Ya can't polish a turd Mr Plod




And that piece of insight comes you Mr Wayne ? 
The epitome of intellectual rigour, scientific thoroughness and impeccable moral values.

What total dribble.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And that piece of insight comes you Mr Wayne ?
> The epitome of intellectual rigour, scientific thoroughness and impeccable moral values.
> 
> What total dribble.




Howzabout playing the ball Ms trash talker?

The irrefutable fact is that the survey is junk. You  just can't get around that.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Howzabout playing the ball Ms trash talker?
> 
> The irrefutable fact is that the survey is junk. You  just can't get around that.




Yes, *tained by the self interest *of oil companies, coal producers and governments who excercise full constraints over what scientists are allowed to say and publish.

We most certainly know where the hysteria lies* Mr waynel*


----------



## wayneL

Now you're a conspiracy theorist plod?

- - - Updated - - -

Come on ladies, if you are interested at all about scientific integrity, you have to admit the truth, That survey is junk.


----------



## basilio

Truth stings doesn't it Wayne ? 

You have zip credibility/integrity in any area of this discussion. Thats why we don't waste any energy talking with you.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Truth stings doesn't it Wayne ?
> 
> You have zip credibility/integrity in any area of this discussion. Thats why we don't waste any energy talking with you.




That's nothing but a tedious straw man argumentative fallacy basilio. 

My credibility is not relative to the point at hand, the substantive point is the integrity of the survey and John Cook's mendacious design of the same. 

You ladies attempting to defend it, albeit only tacitly by shooting at (and missing wildly) the messenger, reeks of your own credibility chasm. 

So instead of once again playing the man and not the ball, I'd like to hear you either admit it is junk, or make a fool of yourselves by denying that the survey is a piece of crap.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You ladies attempting to defend it, albeit only tacitly by shooting at (and missing wildly) the messenger, reeks of your own credibility chasm.
> 
> So instead of once again playing the man and not the ball, I'd like to hear you either admit it is junk, or make a fool of yourselves by denying that the survey is a piece of crap.




So this is suddenly from the left side ole Pal.  Bash the ladies if all else is failing.  A standover oil and coal man does seem to fit the profile of the domestic basher to some degree.

On topic; even Abbott today at the Press Conference concedes a global warming problem.  So olepal you ought surely concede that concern for man made climate change is no hysterical whim anymore.


----------



## wayneL

Plod you are still avoiding the point at hand (*and still ignoring my 'in print' position on CC*). The point is the integrity of Cook's "survey", which has shown to be corrupt.

Cook's survey is a politicized piece of rubbish which ignores actual range of proper science out there. What must be particularly irritating for you ladies, is that Cook has been called out by his own side. 

Now please, tell us whether you think Cook et al is bona fide science or, as Tol, Lomborg et al has shown, a piece of toilet paper.


----------



## wayneL

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html



> Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland
> Dear Professor HÃ¸j,
> 
> I was struck by a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters with John Cook, a University of Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.
> 
> My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail............................


----------



## wayneL

The doo-doo gets deeper for Cook et al:

via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...w-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998



> Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
> 
> David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. *Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus:* that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.




bolds mine

Also in the same post, latest Cook & Nuticelli paper taken out with the garbage.

That Cook and his minions are advocates not remotely interested in proper science, is now beyond doubt.


----------



## wayneL

It's still a bit cold up there apparently


----------



## Knobby22

Some reporter obviously mucked up or talked to a crank to get a headline.

The arctic won't be mostly ice free for another 30 years and won't be completely ice free till the turn of the next century. it will be ice free enough however for shipping which is why the Chinese are building ships suitable for this to transport coal from Canada.

I'm with Rupert.

Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.
*Rupert Murdoch *

I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue. 
*Rupert Murdoch *
Read more at http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/rupert-murdoch/quotes.htm#4b8CrVZJAvr5xclQ.99


----------



## Sdajii

Knobby22 said:


> Some reporter obviously mucked up or talked to a crank to get a headline.




Nice summary of the entire issue of climate change you have there!


----------



## basilio

Wayne you really peddle and believe in such absolute rubbish on climate change and the scientific research around it. 

For weeks now you have quoted all sorts of obscure gibberish from protagonists whose life work is to undermine any/all research that connects human generated activity with substantial changes in our climate. 

However  if we stand back and look at the body of peer reviewed scientific research on climate change the overwhelming body of work accepts there is evidence of rapid climatic change. In the research that looks to the causes of this change again the overwhelming body of work identifies the excessive human produced CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution (and particularly the last 50 years) as the main (but not sole) culprit.

Cooks research is not the only piece of work in this area. As you know there have been at least 4 other examinations along similar lines which demonstrate just how broad an agreement there is amongst the scientific community of this issue. 

What all the huffing and puffing  attempting to debase this work does is remind of us of  the way the tobacco lobby and their pet doctors spent decades steadfastly denying the connections between smoking and cancers. (meanwhile deliberately burying every scrap of evidence that pointed in the wrong direction).

It also reminds of of the way some  people kept trying to say the world temperature records are dodgy /adjusted/misread - anything to avoid acknowledging that global temperatures have actually risen by .8c in the  past century.

_(Hell I can still vividly remember one particular Forum member who still  expressed that view after the BEST report finally backed up what climate scientists had been saying for 40 years) 
_
Does overwhelming consensus on a position offer total and absolute proof ? Of course not. But in the real world where there are very few absolute certainties we depend on the strong balance of probabilities to make our decisions. 

For anyone else interested in looking at big picture of this issue checkout the following.

http://theconsensusproject.com/

Links to the following papers can be found at the above URL.

The scientific consensus on climate change
(Naomi Oreskes, 2004)

Examining the scientific consensus on climate change
(Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)

Expert credibility in climate change
(William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)

The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?
(Naomi Oreskes, 2007)


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, once again you create a fraudulent straw man around which to create your fallacious arguments.

1 I have no desire to take down climate science. I fully support climate science and the study of anthropogenic effects on climate. I have always been on record for this as I must state for the millionth time. I do not support the advocacy of an unsupported catastrophic scenario for political or psychological reasons. This is why I rail against doom mongers such as yourself and advocates such as Cook.

2 The takedown of Cooks fraud is based on the facts and in fact now peer reviewed. It is now part of the scientific record and you can't spin it otherwise. It's junk pure and simple.

That is the fact of the matter.


----------



## basilio

Wayne your takedown of Cooks analysis will not stand any inspection.

The simplest questions are
1) Do the vast majority of climate scientists accept that we have significant warming ?
2) Is human activity a substantial cause of this warming.?

*These questions were directly asked by Cook of the scientists whose work was reviewed.  97% agreed with the questions* How much clearer do you want this position to be ?

Cooks work as well as the other three reviews back up this position.  

As I said the efforts to cast doubt on the overwhelmingly agreement by researchers in the field on the above points is just a repeat of the serial distortions used by lobbyists in the tobacco industry and other health/science fields where action is demanded in the name of public health. (Consider asbestos issues,  effects of lead in paint and cars.)

Again if anyone with an open mind wishes to see just how black can be turned white check out the following.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ...  how black can be turned white check out the following.




Michael Jackson *Black or White* Lyrics:



> It doesn't matter if you're black or white








: Sorry, couldna help myself!


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne your takedown of Cooks analysis will not stand any inspection.




Will you please stop using fallacy.



> via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...w-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
> 
> David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. *Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus:* that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bolds mine
> 
> Also in the same post, latest Cook & Nuticelli paper taken out with the garbage.
> 
> That Cook and his minions are advocates not remotely interested in proper science, is now beyond doubt.
Click to expand...



I have not taken down Cook at all, however, Tol, Curry, those mentioned in quotes and others have done. Once more, the take down is peer reviewed.

Yet you still parrot Cook's line, fingers stuck in ears, singing alalalalalalalalal.

Laughable really.


----------



## basilio

Simply simple simple Wayne.  So simple even someone like you might possibly be able to follow .

Have look at those authors of your quoted takedown papers.

Willie Soon  was investigated  over his work on climate change research and 13 scientists ripped his paper apart.. (Lord)  Christopher Monckton is  a serial liar. Proven and reproven.  There is almost nothing he can't corrupt with a bit of  graph fiddling, cherry picking, misleading analysis. 

David Legates is a strident critic of anthropogenic global warming. 

No one in the climate science field would accept any papers they wrote without some excellent independent corroborative evidence.




> 2003: Climate Research controversy
> Main article: Soon and Baliunas controversy
> 
> In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[19]
> 
> Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[20][21] There were three main objections: 1. Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; 2. they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and 3. they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[20][21] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these claims.[22]
> 
> After disagreement with the publisher and other members of the editorial board, Hans Von Storch, Clare Goodess, and 2 more members of the journal's 10 member editorial board, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[23][24] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[25]
> 
> Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[26][27][28][29




How about finding someone who might be so neutral and doesn't just make up stories to defend their position ?  Or don't they exist? 
http://www.desmogblog.com/realclimate-reveals-willie-soon-s-scientific-sleight-hand


----------



## basilio

For anyone interested in understanding how totally distorted Waynes paper was check out the analysis on Skeptical Science.  There is a particularly excellent discussion on how the master dissembler Christopher Monckton managed to show that only .3% of Climate scientists supported the idea of human caused global warming.

*Truly only Monckton would have the chutzpah to come up with that line.*

I thought it was also instructive to see the quote from Richard Tol who has also been quoted in his attacks on the paper.



> Tol's Rejected Comment
> 
> Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013).  It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:
> 
> *    "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."*




Wayne you and the rest of the climate denial industry are just quoting rubbish.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html


----------



## wayneL

It's still peer reviewed, therefore valid. It still exposes the survey's fatal flaws, whether you do an ad hom on the authors or  not.

And you have forgotten Curry, Tol et al.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a filthy liar basilio, because you have once again referred to objective viewpoints as denial.

There is no denial, however you miss the point that the survey is still junk, rubbish, trash, spucatum tauri, camel dung, whatever.

This has been shown, it is on record, Cook's credibilty at an all time low.

- - - Updated - - -

...and you have the temerity to quote SkS? Please, find something which credibility is not in tatters.

Cook has lost his skin in this came luvvy.


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> It's still peer reviewed, therefore valid. It still exposes the survey's fatal flaws, whether you do an ad hom on the authors or  not.
> 
> And you have forgotten Curry, Tol et al.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> You are a filthy liar basilio, because you have once again referred to objective viewpoints as denial.
> 
> There is no denial, however you miss the point that the survey is still junk, rubbish, trash, spucatum tauri, camel dung, whatever.
> 
> This has been shown, it is on record, Cook's credibilty at an all time low.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...and you have the temerity to quote SkS? Please, find something which credibility is not in tatters.
> 
> Cook has lost his skin in this came luvvy.




Wayne, don't let this guy provoke you. He (she?) is only trolling. He (she?) couldn't possible be dumb enough to believe all the nonsense he (she?) posts.


----------



## basilio

So wayne you now accept/embrace a Peer reviewed paper as acceptable scientific evidence?

Thats a turn up for the books isn't it ? I mean you have spent the last umpteen years trashing the rest of the climate research world despite the thousands of  peer reviewed studies  exploring the evidence behind global warming. Somehow they were always dodgy and totally unacceptable.

And you are so uncritical in your rush to sprout this dribble that you manage to swallow Christopher Moncktons conclusion that, in fact, only .3% of papers on the subject support the consensus.



> *Taking Consensus Denial to the Extreme*
> 
> One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education.  The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog.  Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).
> 
> The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme.  *It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%.  The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process*.




Does this sort of statement remotely pass the common sense test ? I also wonder how on earth a peer review process managed to allow such a distortion to pass. 

And was there something you missed about the credibility of Willie Soons writings on Global Warming ? the part where his 2003 paper was dismantled by 13 scientists because he  misrepresented the figures etc ? 

Anyway keep your head in the  sand Wayne and your eyes firmly closed. You'll never have to be concerned about any of this stuff will you you ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So wayne you now accept/embrace a Peer reviewed paper as acceptable scientific evidence?
> 
> Thats a turn up for the books isn't it ? I mean you have spent the last umpteen years trashing the rest of the climate research world despite the thousands of  peer reviewed studies  exploring the evidence behind global warming. Somehow they were always dodgy and totally unacceptable.




You see this is the sort of fallacious argument that makes you such an objectionable little clown.

By your comments below, you tacitly admit that peer review has some problems and then accuse me of hypocrisy. This serves to highlight your own hypocrisy. No, I do not believe peer review is a perfect process. Your own oft quoted journal of all things liberal (in the commie pinko sense) highlights the problem in this article http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

However, there is enough in the paper, along with analysis from other climate (etc)  scientists that expose Cook's survey as a cooked book. The whole SkS site is run on the same lines - advocacy, rather than pure science and therefore not authoritative.



> And you are so uncritical in your rush to sprout this dribble that you manage to swallow Christopher Moncktons conclusion that, in fact, only .3% of papers on the subject support the consensus.
> 
> Does this sort of statement remotely pass the common sense test ? I also wonder how on earth a peer review process managed to allow such a distortion to pass.




The paper does what it set out to do, and that is expose rubbish. Whether we take that particular slant on the stats does not matter, that the methodology is totally septic and intellectually putrid is beyond doubt



> And was there something you missed about the credibility of Willie Soons writings on Global Warming ? the part where his 2003 paper was dismantled by 13 scientists because he  misrepresented the figures etc ?




Previous writings are not relevant to this point. What is relevant is the topic at hand 



> Anyway keep your head in the  sand Wayne and your eyes firmly closed. You'll never have to be concerned about any of this stuff will you you ?




Can you possibly be any more detestable. Can you be any more mendacious in misrepresenting people.

Mate, in light of your support for a carbon tax vis a vis substantially higher energy prices (with no net effect on emissions), your support of the extreme scenario in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary and the failure of the catastrophic scenario to eventuate, I have developed a theory about you.

I thought you were just a zealot replacing some or another fundamental deity based religious adherence, for another - some deep psychological need for an apocalypse to believe in.

But I think it's something else, perhaps a pecuniary interest. I'd like to know what you do for income and whether it relies on high energy prices and/or the fear of high energy prices, zealously perpetuated in your own greedy self interest.


----------



## springhill

Here is an inconvenient truth for the carbon bashers...

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...edium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel


----------



## Calliope

springhill said:


> Here is an inconvenient truth for the carbon bashers...
> 
> http://finance.townhall.com/columni...edium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel




A serious shortage of global warming!!! 



> Try as we might, the Amazon rainforest is still around, and we have yet to see California erode into the Pacific Ocean. C’mon people. . . This is America. We can do better. I suggest we launch a full fledged campaign to help push California into the Pacific.


----------



## basilio

Wayne were are certainly getting better at vigorous debate arn't we ! Not to mention a searching analysis of the qualities of  "Peer reviewed papers".

 So because  somehow Soon et all managed to get their paper past a peer review process you believe this gives them the star of approval as quality science.

On the other hand you deny that "star of approval" to the thousands of other papers that have routinely shown that

1) Climate Change is real
2) It is having a multitude of effects around the world
3) That on all the best evidence the biggest factor in our current climate change is  excess human produced CO2 (plus other greenhouse gases)

Lets be clear - you repeatedly defamed the leading scientists in the field ; you routinely ignore any reference to  papers that quote their work ; you selectively quote from a range of material that has almost never seen a peer review process.

The science around climate change is not based on a single paper or even a hundred. The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge the reality and cause of  current climate change is the breadth  and depth of the research. That is the 12,000 plus papers that Cook et al worked through.

Cook and co (like the 3 other researchers before them ) found that when one examines the scientific literature the overwhelmingly majority of scientists agree withe the reality  and probable cause of our our current warming.

That simple wayne. 

Yet somehow you choose to believe a single  ridiculous paper from a number of discredited scientists/fake commentators that tries to discredit the overwhelming consensus of the rest of the scientific community. 

And finally you stand under the banner of "peer reviewed science" to back up your argument.

Give us a break go have a Bex and a good lie down.


----------



## Mickel

This latest news  (reference below)confirms my long held view that the science is far from settled regarding anthropogenic global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864604579067243988516908.html


----------



## Mickel

Further to my last post-

By GAUTAM NAIK
 CONNECT

The area of Arctic sea ice was nearly 30% greater in August than a year ago, according to recent satellite data, though projections based on longer-term trends suggest the sea ice will continue its decline over time.

Arctic sea ice covered 2.35 million square miles in August, up from 1.82 million square miles a year earlier, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC, in Boulder, Colo. The level recorded last year was a record low.

Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and re-forms in the winter. "It's been much colder in the Arctic this summer, so not much ice has melted," said Julienne Stroeve, climatologist at NSIDC. The measurements were based on data obtained from U.S. weather satellites. The nearly 30% year-to-year increase partly reflects the extreme low level of sea ice in August 2012.

"If you get a record one year, you don't expect another record the next year," said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London. He also noted that data on the area of sea ice doesn't capture the whole picture, because it doesn't include the thickness””and therefore volume””of sea ice. Scientists say they need to obtain better data to gauge changes to Arctic ice volumes.

Arctic sea ice will be a key issue addressed in an October report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is expected to reiterate a long-term declining trend in Arctic summer sea ice. NSIDC data show that monthly August ice extent in the Arctic declined 10.6% a decade from 1979 to 2013. Estimates for further declines vary, but some models suggest that the Arctic will lose its August ice cover entirely by 2060, according to Dr. Stroeve.

The primary significance of this year's increase is that "the narrative of the 'spiral of death' for the sea ice has been broken," according to Judith Curry, climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen."

Scientists are continuing to debate the cause of the decline in the rate of warming over the past 15 years. A significant contributing factor seems to be associated with a shift in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns. 

Write to  Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com 

A version of this article appeared September 11, 2013, on page A5 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Arctic Ice Grows Almost 30% After Record Melt in 2012.


----------



## explod

Such reports are based on airial observations, surface snow/ice and not vulome.  

In the bigger scheme they mislead the public.  A few metres of changing surface snow/ice is vastly different to ice blocks 100s  of metres thick sliding into the ocean due to temperature rising underneath them.


----------



## Knobby22

Its a fair report, I don't see how you could say that doesn't support the science, Mikei. Of course it is a complex dynamic system so we can't understand all the variables.

Climate is not weather. 

We are getting a general increase in temperatures but weather is highly variable and changes from day to day and year to year. You can still expect hot years and cold years, however the direction is that the climate is warmer overall and so the mean of the weather temperatures is increasing.

If what happened in the previous year happened again then there would be little ice left. If this had of occurred we all would have been surprised and worried that possibly the climate models were wrong and climate change was accelerating instead of being linear as what has occurred over the last 30 years.

I notice they mentioned the Pacific. Something's happening down here with that. Records are just tumbling in Australia at present.


----------



## Knobby22

Note, they use Judith Curry to try to soften the overall report.

Here's some information about her.

Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick. 

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler. 

Some other stuff she's been wrong about: 
Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4] 
The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5][6] 
(From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[7] 
Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.

Of course she is probably being paid by the Heartland Institute. There is heaps more embarrassing stuff on her if you wish to look.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby can you please attribute that passage.

Also, I am disappointed you didn't find to big tobacco, big asbestos, CFCs, the Bildebergers, reptilian aliens or the Yakuza.... Or News Corp


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, sorry.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Obviously its a bit partisan.

More on rational wiki. They are basically the equivalent to the Australian Skeptics Society. 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page


----------



## Mickel

On Catalyst (ABC 1) tonight palaeontologists stated that parts of Australia were 12 degrees hotter some millions of years ago. This is hugely more than climate scientists are predicting over the next 50-100 years (ie 4 to 6 degrees).

My view is that significant anthropogenic global warming is yet to be proved and most of the modelling of such is flawed.


----------



## Knobby22

A few billion years back before that, the earth was just a ball of molten rock. So you could argue that we are in a cooling phase


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It is all weather as has been proven by independent scientists.

Climate is too long term to be modelled with data over such a short time span.

It is all weather.

gg


----------



## moXJO

IPCC admits it got it wrong with its temperature predictions?


----------



## MrBurns

moXJO said:


> IPCC admits it got it wrong with its temperature predictions?







> UN's mild climate change message will be lost in alarmist translation -
> 
> 
> ON September 26, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will present the summary of its most recent assessment report, the fifth in 23 years. Although the IPCC is not perfect -
> 
> it famously predicted that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 2035, when the more likely year is 2350 - its many experts generally give us the best information on the fractious issue of global warming. Because of extensive leaks, the report's contents are mostly known.
> 
> And, because we have done this four times already, how the report will play out politically is also mostly known. But because 20 years of efforts to address climate change have not amounted to anything serious, it might be worth exploring a different strategy this time.
> 
> The new report's fundamental conclusion will be that global warming is real and mostly our own doing. Much will be said and written about the fact that the IPCC is now even more certain (95 per cent, up from 90 per cent in 2007) that humans have caused more than half of the global rise in temperature since 1950. But this merely confirms what we have known for a long time - that burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, which tends to warm the planet.
> 
> As climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University tweeted: "Summary of upcoming IPCC report: 'Exactly what we told you in 2007, 2001, 1995, 1990 reports' " More specifically, the report's June draft shows "similar" temperature rises to the earlier reports, about 1C-3.7C by the end of the century. For sea-level rise, the IPCC now includes modelling of glacier responses of 3cm-20cm, leading to a higher total estimate of 40cm-62cm by century's end - much lower than the exaggerated and scary figure of 1m-2m of sea-level rise that many environmental activists, and even some media outlets, bandy about.
> 
> Similarly, the IPCC has allowed for lower temperature rises by reducing the lower end of its estimate of so-called climate sensitivity.
> 
> It is also less certain that humans have caused hurricane and drought events since 1950. The 2007 report was more than 50 per cent certain that they have; now it is less than 21 per cent certain. Yet these sensible and moderate findings will be met with a predictable wall of alarmism. Many will mimic the blogger Joe Romm, who has declared that "this ultra-conservative and instantly obsolete report ignores the latest science", and continues to claim 5C temperature rises and six-foot (1.83m) sea-level rises. Romm and many others made similar arguments following the release of the 2007 IPCC report, claiming that the latest, much more alarming, research had been left out.
> 
> The bigger problem for the IPCC is that global temperature has risen little or not at all in the past 10-20 years. To be clear, this slowdown does not mean that there is no global warming - there is; but it does call into question how much.
> 
> To its credit, the IPCC admits that "models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years". This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt. Compared with the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159 per cent.
> 
> A new Nature Climate Change study shows the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the past 15 years by more than 300 per cent. Several studies from this year show that the slowdown could be caused by a natural cycle in the Atlantic or Pacific that caused temperatures to rise more in the 1980s and 1990s but that has slowed or stopped global warming now. Global warming is real, but it has probably been exaggerated in the past, just as it is being underestimated now.
> 
> This highlights the fact that the IPCC has always claimed only that more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans, although in public discussion it has usually been interpreted as all. As the IPCC emphasises, climate change is a problem. But the report contains none of the media's typical apocalyptic scenarios, no alarmism, and no demands from natural scientists to cut emissions by X per cent or to lavish subsidies on solar panels.
> 
> All of this is almost certain to be lost in the hullabaloo from lobbyists clamouring for action and media hungry for bad news. Indeed, though the IPCC, according to its own principles, is a policy-neutral organisation, its head, Rajendra Pachauri, will feed the frenzy by insisting that "humanity has pushed the world's climate system to the brink", and that we need to complete a "transition away from fossil fuels", maybe with some kind of "price of carbon". As a result, the likely outcome of the report's release will be more of the same: a welter of scary scenarios, followed by politicians promising huge carbon cuts and expensive policies that have virtually no impact on climate change. Maybe we should try to alter this scenario. We should accept that there is global warming.
> 
> But we should also accept that current policies are costly and have little upside. The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05C. The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources.
> 
> To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in R&D to reduce green energy's cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming - without the angst. Bjorn Lomborg directs the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. -
> 
> See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-fni1hfs5-1226719580947#sthash.JlUXceru.dpuf



...


----------



## MrBurns

Here's a good post from the ABC web site that miraculously got published.



> The adults are now marching through Canberra removing all the deadwood and dismantling the boondoggle bureaucracy that was a hallmark of the Rudd-Gillard-RuddII triumverate.
> 
> More amusing is watching the couch experts in the Greens and the ACF squealing as the iconoclastic toe-cutters move through the crowd of climate carpetbaggers and rentseekers cleansing the country of this combined cabal of crooks and their enablers


----------



## basilio

(As usual) just can't believe how quickly people want to to jump on  and promote papers that are trying to  guess and downgrade what the IPCC report will say.

Is it so obvious to point out that what you are seeing and promoting is the spin from those who want to diminish the essence of what is happening to our climate ?  Regardless of what the report will say in its entirety  these slanted stories are intended to destroy the full picture.  Just ask yourself :

*"When was the last time The Australian published an analysis of global warming that coincided even vaguely with the  reports of the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists ?
*

Thats right. The last blue moon.

Lets see what what the bare facts are.

1) Excessive CO2 production (fossil fuel burning) is and will cause increases in global temperature

2) We are are not yet* certain* of how hot it will get but we already have .8C and we are on the path for at least another 1 to 3.7 C by the end of the Century

3) Given that we are on a steeply rising trajectory of  increases in CO2 because of current fossil fuel policies (burn everything in sight) there seems no way we will stop at the bottom end of the projections.

4) If/when we do go over 2-3 degrees C temperature increase we will have a climate that cannot support the overwhelmingly majority of ecosytems we currently enjoy. Simply speaking kiss goodbye to most of the environment that currently supports us and consider what might replace it. ( Hint check out Central Australia with floods.)

But don't worry folks.  By then we will have rockets ready to take us boldly to Mars and beyond ... or perhaps some cosy mountain tops in Siberia ?

If somehow cliamte sensitivity to CO2 turns out to be lower than current estimates it just means it will take a few decades longer to reach these higher temperatures ie when CO2 levels reach 5-6-700 PPM. 

Don't worry. At the current accelerating rate  we seem likely to reach 900-1000 PPM by  2100.  So just how warm will it be then ? 

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate


----------



## wayneL

You forgot to say "Amen" at the end of your sermon basilio.


----------



## Whiskers

Listening to the news (abc24) and cries of concern about new research claiming a 1m sea rise by end of century and flooding in Brisbane etc, regardless that the worst case scenario is being substantially degraded every few years because the previous trend forcasts weren't holding up in reality... What are we really supposed to do!?

If, we completely stopped human CO2 emissions, ie completely shut down industry, can they guarantee the world won't warm a bit more and sea levels won't rise anyway!!!

How many of you are so dedicated that you will go without air conditioning and heating and not own a motor vehicle to lead by good example to save our planet?

PS: Maybe I've missed something, but what are the current estimates of how much CO2, temp rise and sea rise will be averted if we do something you suggest? 

Eg, say we taxed a billion dollars per year, how, ie by what physical, chemical or other process is that going to lower all these things and by how much?


----------



## Logique

Guru Flannery is out on his figurative ear, and the 'Salary-Change' Commission to follow. As one blogger remarked, "Gaia heard Australia’s prayers".

New Environment Minister Greg Hunt makes a major contribution to climate science, in his first week!



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...aldsun/comments/flannery_sacked/#commentsmore
> 
> PROFESSOR Tim Flannery has been sacked by the Abbott Government from his $180,000 a year part time Chief Climate Commissioner position with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately.
> 
> Environment Minister Greg Hunt called Prof Flannery this morning to tell him a letter formally ending his employment was in the mail…
> 
> All other climate commissioners will also be sacked with the move to save more than $500,000 this financial year and $1.2 million next financial year.
> 
> The Coalition will now take advice on climate change from the Department of the Environment..


----------



## basilio

Whiskers said:


> Listening to the news (abc24) and cries of concern about new research claiming a 1m sea rise by end of century and flooding in Brisbane etc, regardless that the worst case scenario is being substantially degraded every few years because the previous trend forcasts weren't holding up in reality... What are we really supposed to do!?
> 
> If, we completely stopped human CO2 emissions, ie completely shut down industry, can they guarantee the world won't warm a bit more and sea levels won't rise anyway!!!
> 
> How many of you are so dedicated that you will go without air conditioning and heating and not own a motor vehicle to lead by good example to save our planet?
> 
> PS: Maybe I've missed something, but what are the current estimates of how much CO2, temp rise and sea rise will be averted if we do something you suggest?
> 
> Eg, say we taxed a billion dollars per year, how, ie by what physical, chemical or other process is that going to lower all these things and by how much?




From all understandings the current levels of greenhouse gases will cause extra warming. It just takes time for the effects to follow through.  So your quite right in saying that if we stopped all industry right now we would still see extra warming.

The  relevant question however is *"What will be the consequences of doing nothing and allowing greenhouse gases to continue increasing "* Again from current understandings by almost all climate scientists global temperatures will increase dramatically. Certainly nothing of our current ecosystems would survive.

So what is required to turn the ship around ? Some very quick work in moving to renewable energy sources almost certainly stimulated by pricing carbon based fuels; very large efforts at pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere through agriculture, carbon capture whatever. 

If this is all too much to think about we can just decide to enjoy the next 30-50 years and Que Sera Sera.


----------



## springhill

Oh dear further inconvenient truths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Guru Flannery is out on his figurative ear, and the 'Salary-Change' Commission to follow. As one blogger remarked, "Gaia heard Australia’s prayers".
> 
> New Environment Minister Greg Hunt makes a major contribution to climate science, in his first week!



Someone last year made the appropriate tribute to Guru Flannery.


----------



## Whiskers

springhill said:


> Oh dear further inconvenient truths.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html






> Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fPHPevWz
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




I seem to recall hearing of this news some time ago. Very inconvenient indeed that the temp escalator stopped before it even got a head of steam up... and the correlation between CO2 and Temp is therefore badly wounded and sea levels were to rise by something north of 2 meters, no the best worst case argument is 1m.

On their own projections by another decade, well be back to zero sea rise and a decade after that, hell... sea levels will be falling and we'll be starting a new ice age.



basilio said:


> From all understandings




No offence basilio, but what you say is true, it's much more poor understanding and populous opinion and much less hard, reliably understood and consistent data. 

Dr Dennis Jensen MP, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, FAIP explains the logic quite brilliantly.

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

"Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."

It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument," Dr Jensen said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ce-minister-20130912-2tltt.html#ixzz2fPLoeihr​


> If this is all too much to think about we can just decide to enjoy the next 30-50 years and Que Sera Sera.




While I do advocate doing better to clean up the environment generally, I'm afraid with CO2 it will largely be Que Sera Sera. It increasingly appears nature has it's own carbon sinks and will get things done in it's own ways of recycling in it's own time. 

I know some of these scientists have ridiculed the prospect of algae for example taking it's time to play a significant role in recycling CO2, but that ridicule is further dismissed the more they overstate the problem and nature underperforms their dire expectations.


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> Guru Flannery is out on his figurative ear, and the 'Salary-Change' Commission to follow. As one blogger remarked, "Gaia heard Australia’s prayers".
> 
> New Environment Minister Greg Hunt makes a major contribution to climate science, in his first week!




The climate sceptics' job is made much easier when the loony left pay homage to crazy global catastrophe advocates such as as Flannery and Suzuki. They may be darlings of the ABC, but that is par for the course.


----------



## Mickel

As Professor Curry has received "some curry" from Knobby recently, I thought I'd give her a right of reply. This is her summation of her article in the Weekend Australian today on the soon to be released 5th IPCC Report. Seems very scientific to me.

"SCIENTISTS do not need to be consensual to be authoritative. Authority rests in the credibility of the arguments, which must include explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance, and more openness for dissent. The role of scientists should not be to develop political will to act by hiding or simplifying the uncertainties, explicitly or implicitly, behind a negotiated consensus. I have recommended that the scientific consensus-seeking process be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns. I think such a process would support scientific progress far better and be more useful for policymakers. 

The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate-change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the "consensus to power" approach for decision-making on such complex issues. 

Let's abandon the scientific consensus-seeking approach in favour of open debate and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues surrounding climate change. 

*Judith Curry is a professor and chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the US, and president of Climate Forecast Applications Network. She is proprietor of the blog Climate Etc.*

judithcurry.com 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-climate-picture/story-e6frg6zo-1226724019428

*No PHD's for guessing that the 5th IPCC Report WILL NOT " include explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance, and more openness for dissent."*


----------



## Mickel

An interesting item I discovered today about Edmond Halley of Halley's Comet fame. From Wikipedia-

"In 1676, Halley visited the south Atlantic island of Saint Helena and set up an observatory with a large sextant with telescopic sights to catalogue the stars of the southern hemisphere.[4] While there he observed a transit of Mercury, and realised that a similar transit of Venus could be used to determine the absolute size of the Solar System.[5] He returned to England in May 1678. In the following year he went to Danzig (Gdańsk) on behalf of the Royal Society to help resolve a dispute. Because astronomer Johannes Hevelius did not use a telescope, his observations had been questioned by Robert Hooke. Halley stayed with Hevelius and he observed and verified the quality of Hevelius' observations. The same year, Halley published the results from his observations on St. Helena as Catalogus Stellarum Australium which included details of 341 southern stars. These additions to contemporary star maps earned him comparison with Tycho Brahe: e.g. "the southern Tycho" as descrbed by Flamsteed. Halley was awarded his M.A. degree at Oxford and elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society.

*In 1686, Halley published the second part of the results from his Helenian expedition, being a paper and chart on trade winds and monsoons. In this he identified solar heating as the cause of atmospheric motions. He also established the relationship between barometric pressure and height above sea level. His charts were an important contribution to the emerging field of information visualization".*

In more recent years, some scientists view solar flares (or a lack of them) as more a cause of climate change than CO2.


----------



## Calliope

A courageous decision from a politician? I don't think so. :headshake  



> What seems clear is that whatever our response to climate change, whether it is geoengineering or replacing fossil-fuelled electricity generation with low-carbon power stations and wind farms, the *bills are likely to be astronomical. As long as public confidence in climate science is falling, it would take a brave political leader to sanction spending on that scale.*




 See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...limate-sceptics/story-fnb64oi6-1226724567322?


----------



## basilio

Slashing the Climate Commission to save $5m over years and give Tim Flannery , The Greens and the ALP a collective kick in the xxxx ?  Great move - particularly when Tim and co decide to relaunch it with  public support and on a pro bono basis.

I was particularly interested in the comments from Rear Admiral Barrie on the value of the papers they produced.

I can see the new Climate Council having even more effect as a non government funded body that essentially promotes the  research of the CSIRO and BOM - assuming of course these bodies will be allowed to continue collecting data and doing research in  the climate change field.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/tim-flannery-to-relaunch-climate-commission/4976608


----------



## Whiskers

basilio said:


> Slashing the Climate Commission to save $5m over years and give Tim Flannery , The Greens and the ALP a collective kick in the xxxx ?  Great move - particularly when Tim and co decide to relaunch it with  public support and on a pro bono basis.
> 
> I was particularly interested in the comments from Rear Admiral Barrie on the value of the papers they produced.
> 
> I can see the new Climate Council having even more effect as a non government funded body that essentially promotes the  research of the CSIRO and BOM - assuming of course these bodies will be allowed to continue collecting data and doing research in  the climate change field.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/tim-flannery-to-relaunch-climate-commission/4976608




basilio, while I don't agree entirely with your views on climate change, or flannery, this highlights the lack of wisdom of egotistical and impetuous slash and burn for political expediency that I've been referring too.

To put a fine point on it... extreme intolerance and treatment of an opposing point of view will always lead to political terrorism. 

If one chooses to win by playing the person rather than playing the ball, one risks empathy flowing to the opponent even if one wins the game, unfairly.

Since the LNP appear not to strengthen alternative scientific analysis sources, they could have changed the terms of reference of the Climate Commission to do away with the preconceived notion of the cause and effect of global warming and write in a new terms of reference akin to a true scientific research organisation to supplement the CSIRO and BOM. 

Then, they would have maintained control of the vehicle and occupants boots and all.

It's worth remembering a lesson from the Iraq war... the US didn't appreciate that people joined Saddam Hussein's political party because it was a prerequisite to getting a good job, not that they were necessarily egotistical supporters of him.

Similarly, in political parties and government agencies, especially where there is a written policy, one tends to abide by those rules if one wants to keep the job.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> basilio, while I don't agree entirely with your views on climate change, or flannery, this highlights the lack of wisdom of egotistical and impetuous slash and burn for political expediency that I've been referring too.
> 
> To put a fine point on it... extreme intolerance and treatment of an opposing point of view will always lead to political terrorism.
> 
> If one chooses to win by playing the person rather than playing the ball, one risks empathy flowing to the opponent even if one wins the game, unfairly.




Whiskers, was the irony intentional? If so, that was brilliant.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Whiskers, was the irony intentional? If so, that was brilliant.




Maybe!

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” 
― Harlan Ellison


----------



## Mickel

From The Aus today, a different view on sustainability-



Profitable path to sustainability  

 Dennis Jensen •
  The Australian  •
 September 27, 2013 12:00AM 

"BJORN Lomborg has stated "if it is not economic, it is not sustainable". That single statement encapsulates all that is wrong with the climate change debate. It also points to a potential solution. For those who know me, don't be confused. I have not changed my view that human activity is not a major driver of global warming. Indeed, the more than decade-long lack of warming, opposed to the warming predicted by the global circulation models referred to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, simply reinforces my view. The problem is the debate has become polarised. Perhaps what is needed is refocusing on how a position can be reached where there is benefit to people on all sides of the argument. Looking at the past, punitive measures have been recommended and put in place. First the carbon tax, followed by emissions trading the last government put in place. The latter is the worst of all worlds, as it ends up with the effective payment of "indulgences" to overseas carbon traders for shonky carbon credits while emissions in Australia continue to increase. "

and

"By putting money into energy research, many benefits will follow. For those concerned with global warming, it provides potential for a real energy solution globally that conforms to Lomborg's statement and would have global energy consequences. For Australia, it provides a realistic prospect for large windfalls as a result of the intellectual property generated, giving a positive return on the investment put into the research, unlike the other methods of trying to solve the anthropogenic global warming problem, which are a financial burden to Australians. Last, but by no means least, it provides a means of reinvigorating our struggling science sector, giving realistic prospects of careers in scientific research and improving the quality of the intake of those aiming for a science-related profession. Win, win, win - plus the prospect of coming up with a path on the climate change issue on which most, if not all, could agree. ''

Former CSIRO research scientist and defence analyst Dennis Jensen is the federal Liberal member for Tangney in Western Australia. 

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226727881468#sthash.zi8WndLn.dpuf


----------



## Whiskers

Dr Jensen, regardless of being a Lib MP, is a very logical and knowledgeable mind on this issue. 

If I can summarise; 

The warming trend is erratic, not a clear linear trend as we were initially led to expect. It has flat lined for quite awhile. 
The association between global warming and increased CO2 emissions is becoming more questionable, less clear than originally speculated.
The association between Global Warming, CO2 and sea level predictions have become less clear, with most recent predictions halving initial sea level predictions.
The issue of whether human activity is causing or just hitching a ride on climate change seems to be leaning more to the latter.
Is there any real prospect of stopping a natural global warming cycle anyway, whether it be micro or macro, and why would we want to waste our time and resources trying?
Having said that, I'm certainly not dismissive of cleaning up our human footprint for sustainability reasons if nothing else.


----------



## Mickel

Yes, good points Whiskers.

This reference below, from Prof Judith Curry's blog gives a detailed description of the rejection by the IPCC, of a reasonable scientific paper twice, the second time after an original reviewer joined as a co author. Why, you ask ? Because it didn't fit in with the IPCC's "so called consensus".

Judith Curry sums up- "Three years later, it seems pretty obvious and widely acknowledged that climate models have been unable to correctly capture the earth’s surface temperature evolution over the past several decades. Lucia continues to do good work on this subject; head over to her blog for a technical discussion on this topic and the Michaels et al. paper.

And we see where ‘pause denial’ has led the IPCC, potentially to a crisis point in the AR5.  It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in Stockholm next week.''

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/19/peer-review-the-skeptic-filter/

No wonder many people are finally waking up to the folly of the extreme predictions of the IPCC.


----------



## Calliope

The IPCC is a sick joke.:bad:


----------



## explod

The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.

You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
> 
> You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.




:screwy:


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
> 
> You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.




Define deniest.


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Define deniest.




 Second-person singular simple present form deny.



Note : No redundant commas!
Do I get my prize now?


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Define deniest.




The closest a google search could come up with was "dentist".


----------



## burglar

Julia said:


> The closest a google search could come up with was "dentist".




google this: 
"deniest" def


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Define deniest.




Head in the sand and soon to drown, 


in this context


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Head in the sand and soon to drown,
> 
> 
> in this context




As there is no evidence that anyone is about to drown due to AGW anytime soon, I presume this just an obnoxious repeat of the purulent ad hominem tactic, in place of actual intelligent debate?


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> Head in the sand and soon to drown,
> 
> 
> in this context




I beg to differ!

A deniest is a rational person,
(who may or may not have head in the sand, near the high water mark),
waiting for hard evidence of a problem, 
before overreacting to a hypothetical model.

As the water level rises,
a deniest will have the prerogative of changing their mind.

As a deniest, I intend to move away from the high water mark.
While you, my friend, try to turn back the tide.


----------



## Whiskers

explod said:


> The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
> 
> You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.




Maybe, explod... but I repeat I'm not if favour of shutting down the research as in like to take an ostrich approach, or selective amplification and broadcasting of certain aspects of the science. I'm from a rural background and as such rely heavily on scientific research and data from water and soli quality to weather and longer term climate forecasting. It's an integral part of how we operate.

The biggest issues I have is firstly with the quality and interpretation of the basic scientific data. Sure it's not a perfect science as we know from day to day weather forecasting, but the science is getting better at it and people trust it more. 

The Climate issue has been over run with 'activists' to push an agenda and is clearly clouding the so called facts, interpretation of the scientific data. Admissions they got it wrong previously, even though it might be only one little point, the ramifications of that one little error in the actual results and confidence in public perception of them has suffered an enormous blow... not so much because they got a detail wrong, more that they (the stronger activists) made such a noise about the coming disaster... the boy who cried wolf and then nobody believed him when the wolf turned out to be a puppy sort of thing. 

Sometimes less is more... less prediction that can go wrong is more credible.

It is better to emphasise what is verifiably factual... ie sea levels are rising by x... but the problems come with accuracy and credibility when they try to extrapolate and forecast too much, ie human activity most likely caused...  

There are too many assumptions upon assumptions in much of what is being bleated out the loudest by activists... hence why we should have left and arguably returned this issue back to the fold of the CSIRO, BOM etc who rely more on demonstrable improving accuracy in results for their funding existence as opposed to funding from activist or self-interests groups for a more ideological or political agenda.


----------



## burglar

Whiskers said:


> ... the science is getting better ...




Que Sera, Sera


----------



## Mickel

explod said:


> The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
> 
> You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.




Firstly Explod, I don't deny global warming. I am sceptical of the IPCC's projections because they are extreme and not validated by recent evidence. By the way, they studied evidence up to 2012 for the latest report. Pity they couldn't take in the recent evidence of 60% increase in Artic Ice for the Report.

If you could call the 5th IPCC Report "watered down" it is not because of the oil lobby but because many scientists were stating the evidence did not support their original conclusions . The lead authors then decided to moderate (some) of their findings to maintain some consensus.

I again draw your attention to The Australian article by Prof Curry some days ago that I posted on this thread regarding consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific and in any case it has been manipulated by some lead authors on occasions.


----------



## Aussiejeff

Mickel said:


> Firstly Explod, I don't deny global warming. I am sceptical of the IPCC's projections because they are extreme and not validated by recent evidence. By the way, they studied evidence up to 2012 for the latest report. Pity they couldn't take in the recent evidence of 60% increase in Artic Ice for the Report.
> 
> If you could call the 5th IPCC Report "watered down" it is not because of the oil lobby but because many scientists were stating the evidence did not support their original conclusions . The lead authors then decided to moderate (some) of their findings to maintain some consensus.
> 
> I again draw your attention to The Australian article by Prof Curry some days ago that I posted on this thread regarding consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific and in any case *it has been manipulated by some lead authors on occasions*.




Some "lead authors" seem to be making an AWFUL lot of money out of this whole debate. Especially the GW mob. Must be human nature, that. Greed. Even "greenies" get greedy? Well, I never...


----------



## basilio

So far almost all ASF posters (as usual) either reject outright the concerns expressed through the IPCC or believe there is too much uncertainty in the information to take it seriously - at this stage.  The theory for those holding the second view  is that,  at some stage, when all the evidence is in that we are increasing global temperatures to  levels that will make most of the current ecosystems untenable (extinct) we should start to do something.

And how much sense does that make ? 

*We will never have perfect science on how we are effecting climate change. Never, ever, ever*. We will always be learning something new.

We don't have certain medical science on how smoking causes cancers. After all many people who smoke don't die of cancer. We don't have certainty on how well seat belts save lives.  Medical science doesn't have certainty on how excessive drinking causes cirrhosis of the liver or a host of other diseases. 

And what about the effect of asbestos dust on health ? That can't be certain can it? After all industries in the field were extremely strenuous in denying these effects and even now there is no way that everyone who has been exposed to asbestos has fallen ill. 

The full evidence is just not in is it ? So in any sensible world we deal with the best information we have at the time as a risk management issue. If there is a significant likelihood a course of action will cause harm we address the problem.

Mickel you gave a 5 point summary from Dr Jenson which you suggested encapsulated the lack of certainty in this field. Certainly enough in his mind and yours to delay any action that would reduce CO2 emissions.

In 5 sentences Dr Jenson has summarily dismissed 30 years of research, the thousands of papers from scores of scientists and the physical evidence of substantial change that has already occurred.  I could pick apart each line with a score of papers but you can also read if you chose to go beyond dubious 5 point answers.

But do you want to ? Or is it more comfortable to pretend that the Global Warming issue is just a gigantic conspiracy by almost all scientists and just can't be true ?

______________________________________________________________________________

I will address just one statement from your 5 points. 



> The warming trend is erratic, not a clear linear trend as we were initially led to expect. It has flat lined for quite awhile.




This is the current piece of misinformation being repeated by everyone who wants to downplay what is happening to our climate. How is it achieved ?

1) It takes  a narrow 15 year time frame which starts from 1998 which was an El Niño year of extreme worldwide temperatures and finishes now when basically we have reached that temperature again.

2) It studiously ignores *at least 6 other measures* of increases in total global energy over that period. Why does it do that ? Because clearly all the other measures show a steady increase in heat retained. An analogy would be saying that a person with a dangerous fever was recovering because there was just a maintenance of the dangerously high temperatures for a couple of weeks rather than a relentless increase.

3) It also studiously ignores the huge variations in temperature changes around the  world. For example the Arctic and Antarctic areas are growing rapidly warmer as evidenced by the escalating rate of Arctic and Greenland ice melt in the past decade. Are these consistent with a safe  world ?

If you want to see the whole picture of how the earth is continuing to warm check out the following URL.  It is longer than 5 sentences. - but then it would have to be.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nrc-report-on-ocean-heat.html


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/nrc-report-on-ocean-heat.html




Can you find an alternative source basilio, we have already demonstrated that source untrustworthy.


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... to delay any action that would reduce CO2 emissions ...




Reducing CO2 emissions had best not be the right step forward.
It will cost trillions and leave billions of people in abject poverty.

It would be far better to see what is damaged by AGW 
Then target specific problems with specific solutions.

Dwelling on disappearing coastline .... move away from the coast!!

#3% more tropics and 3% more people exposed to Malaria .... cure Malaria !!

You would rather hold back the tide???



I do, however, like the idea of clean air (for breathing purposes you understand )


----------



## Mickel

Bas , most of your argument has been covered by the last 2 posters.

 I will just clarify that we are referring to AGW (ie that caused by CO2). You say that the last 15 yrs is only a short period or "narrow time frame" but this last 15 yrs is when the most CO2 has been emitted per year. You would expect that the temp would increase if CO2 was "mainly" responsible for the Global Warming in this situation. 

 The main problem is the projections can't be scientifically confirmed by the evidence. 

 As previously stated, the consensus of "wild" projections has been manipulated to some extent, and in any case, such consensus is itself not scientific. At one time all (or almost all) scientists of the time thought the world was flat, until one proved them wrong.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Can you find an alternative source basilio, we have already demonstrated that source untrustworthy.



A waste of time as you would shoot any reference made from the banks of the myriad oil lobby material available to the skeptics (sorry about denier,s, a badly chosen word the other day)

The problem looming appears enormous, and sorry, rectification will be painful in the short term. Already we are seeing cheaper power from wind in some places, india is one.  For the savvy these new ways present huge financial opportunities too.

A concern that we maybe on the wrong path by relying on coal and oil going forward is not being hysterical.  Coming together to find mutual solutions is the way forward now.


----------



## basilio

The evidence for continued global warming is there if one chooses to read it.  A more complete analysis of global warming trends and the various impacts on this comes from Real Climate.


> *
> What ocean heating reveals about global warming*
> Filed under:
> 
> 
> 
> ”” stefan @ 25 September 2013
> 
> *The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing.  That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming*.
> 
> NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans.  For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:
> 
> *The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007).*  The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity.  The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor.  Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.
> 
> If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.
> 
> If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.
> 
> The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
> 
> The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database.  Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database.  The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans.  One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone.  During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).
> 
> *How to deny data*
> *
> Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one.  Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester.  Anything goes when you have to deny global warming*.  Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.




There are about a dozen papers cited in this analysis. The main points are noting the increase in ocean temperatures which reflect the continued heating of teh earth and teh fact that we have had 3 La Nina years in the past decade which has lowered temperatures somewhat. And of course 1998 was the humdinger of an El Niño year.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/


----------



## sydboy007

burglar said:


> Reducing CO2 emissions had best not be the right step forward.
> It will cost trillions and leave billions of people in abject poverty.
> 
> It would be far better to see what is damaged by AGW
> Then target specific problems with specific solutions.
> 
> Dwelling on disappearing coastline .... move away from the coast!!
> 
> #3% more tropics and 3% more people exposed to Malaria .... cure Malaria !!
> 
> You would rather hold back the tide???
> 
> I do, however, like the idea of clean air (for breathing purposes you understand )




Generally it's cheaper to not cause damage or a problem than to clean up the mess eg oil spills, tailing dams releasing their contents in the surrounding area.

Curing Malaria ain't that easy.  It's had a few thousand years to become quite adept at infecting us.  Then there's dengue fever, and heck quite a few other tropical diseases making there way to more and more areas as things heat up.  Loss of arable land isn't easy to overcome.  GM foods can only go so far.

What proof do you have than we can't move forward in a way that also reduces CO2E emissions?


----------



## burglar

sydboy007 said:


> ... Curing Malaria ain't that easy ...




Needed regardless!



sydboy007 said:


> ... Loss of arable land isn't easy to overcome.  GM foods can only go so far ...




Reduce population!
If we don't, Mother Nature will!! She has an awesome agenda!



sydboy007 said:


> ... What proof do you have than we can't move forward in a way that also reduces CO2 emissions?




Not sure if CO2 is the bulk of the problem (methane? )... also not sure how big the problem is.
Hence the hysteria!


----------



## bellenuit

I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.

The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.

He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.

In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels. 

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Julia

I heard the same interview, bellenuit.  Made sense to me also.
Good for the ABC this time in allowing him to speak freely.


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.
> 
> Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.
> 
> Makes sense to me.




The Clean Energy fund was one way Labor was achieving this.  We already have some reasonable technologies that provide low to emissions free energy.  The problem is getting the mass production and economies of scale into play.  You only have to look at the cost of solar PV over the last 5 years to see how fast prices can come down once the market is involved.

Helping the market decide on the technologies it's willing to partially fund is a good way to let the market pick winners, not Government.  My understanding is the Clean Energy fund was run along the lines of the EFIC, and as yet I've not heard of any claims that the money has been 'wasted"

There's unlike to be some magical single technology to help us move away from fossil fuels.  I'd love to see funding to the CSIRO and universities increased, along with importing some talent from Silicon valley so that the brilliant ideas this country is continually creating can be further developed here rather than being sold off as too early a stage because we're just too focused on the houses and holes economy to want to invest in anything else.


----------



## Logique

bellenuit said:


> I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.
> 
> The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.
> 
> He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.
> 
> In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).
> 
> His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.
> 
> Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.
> 
> Makes sense to me.



Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg was it? http://www.lomborg.com/ 

Irrespective, Lomborg is one of the more realistic and rational commentators.


----------



## DB008

bellenuit said:


> The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.
> 
> His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.
> 
> Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.
> 
> Makes sense to me.




I agree with this.

Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build *huge* solar farms.


----------



## wayneL

bellenuit said:


> I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.
> 
> The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.
> 
> He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.
> 
> In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).
> 
> His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.
> 
> Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.
> 
> Makes sense to me.




I heard that too. Was a great interview and made absolute sense to me also.

- - - Updated - - -



Logique said:


> Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg was it? http://www.lomborg.com/
> 
> Irrespective, Lomborg is one of the more realistic and rational commentators.




Yes it was Lomborg... and agree.


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build *huge* solar farms.




Doesn't even have to be that.  We're a huge LNG exporter now.

With a lot more funding I'm sure this CSIRO project could be reaping us $$$ - http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx

LNG with 25% extra energy content.  I've no idea what a LNG tanker costs to rent but if you can get the equivalent of 5 loads in 4 then that's got to be a decent cost competitive advantage to Australian LNG exports.

Much stricter building codes would help too, and making car efficiency similar to Europe would cut our petroleum import bill by billions, and increasing the frequency of the energy start rating upgrades would also help to improve the minimum efficiency of appliances sold here.

We have so much low hanging fruit that has such a fast rate of return.  We're a energy intensive economy, and a lot of that is due to inefficiency.  We need to aspire to be up there with the Japanese and Germans in terms of how much energy per unit of GDP we need.


----------



## basilio

Excellent analysis in The Guardian on the various  climate change scenarios  produced in the 2013 IPPC report (as compared to the 2007 report).  Great graphs.



> *UN climate change panel: two graphs that tell the real story of the IPCC report*
> 
> The sensitivity of the climate is not as important as how much carbon we can 'safely' emit, as these graphs show
> 
> 
> Millions of words have been written about the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But for me, two key messages stand out – one for its importance, the other for its lack of importance, relative to the attention that it has received. Since our interactive graph about temperatures in your lifetime has generated so much interest, I thought I'd do a graph to explain each of these two points too.
> The thing that doesn't matter (much): revisions of climate sensitivity




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report


----------



## explod

DB008 said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build *huge* solar farms.




He he, why would you bother supporting that if you do not believe in the hysteria, so called.  

And wayneL ole Pal, notice you assent to the windfarm comment also.  As I intimated some time back now, I see capitulation coming.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> He he, why would you bother supporting that if you do not believe in the hysteria, so called.
> 
> And wayneL ole Pal, notice you assent to the windfarm comment also.  As I intimated some time back now, I see capitulation coming.




What on earth are you talking about Plod?


----------



## sydboy007

maybe not climate hysteria, but certainly causing some grief to the electricity suppliers

From SP Ausnet and the effects of increasing building efficiency standards.


----------



## Knobby22

Anyone notice the change in emphasis in the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun?
Now they are supporting the science of global warming. With record breaking weather and massive bushfires in Spring, in NSW, it became a bit hard to tow the same line. 
I think though that orders have been given from above.


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> Anyone notice the change in emphasis in the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun?
> Now they are supporting the science of global warming. With record breaking weather and massive bushfires in Spring, in NSW, it became a bit hard to tow the same line.
> I think though that orders have been given from above.




No I hadn't noticed Knobby. But then I don't actually read them in detail.  Has this gone as far as saying that a price on carbon is actually a good idea if we want to slow things down and that TA should reconsider his policies ?

Does this extend to Andrew Bolts views ? Could we anticipate any significant change in his strident denial of everything to do with the topic ?


----------



## Knobby22

No, but they acknowledge global warming is real and a problem.

Also saw Steve Price on "The Project" towing the line, albeit a bit uncomfortably. You could sense the other members of the panel smiling as they got him on it.

Someone has told the right wing commentariat to change their tune. It's amazing watching them act in unison.
I can't wait for Andrew Bolt's next column on this subject though he may resist as Gina is his touchstone.

As I said a few years back, in about 6-10 years time the Republican party will declare war on global warming and the change will be complete. 

Humanity may be emotional and tribal but we are still rational and in my view generally the more conservative elements of society are more rational than the left, so though new ideas may be resisted, change occurs.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/41594-what-firefighters-say-about-climate-change.html

_"You do not find many climate change sceptics on the end of [fire] hoses anymore… They are dealing with increasing numbers of fires, increasing rainfall events, increasing storm events. – A senior Victorian fire officer, interviewed in 2012 for a recent National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility report."_


----------



## basilio

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/41594-what-firefighters-say-about-climate-change.html
> 
> _"You do not find many climate change sceptics on the end of [fire] hoses anymore… They are dealing with increasing numbers of fires, increasing rainfall events, increasing storm events. – A senior Victorian fire officer, interviewed in 2012 for a recent National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility report."_




Nope.  The skeptics have been classified as Liberal PM material and are now running thecountry.


----------



## sydboy007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia

interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.

I'm not focusing on the actual starting cause of the fires, but more that the firies are right and it's drier and much easier for fires to start out there now there's generally less soil moisture and hot drier weather that's perfect for fires to start and grow very quickly.


----------



## basilio

sydboy007 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia
> 
> 
> I'm not focusing on the actual starting cause of the fires, but more that the firies are right and it's drier and much easier for fires to start out there now there's generally less soil moisture and hot drier weather that's perfect for fires to start and grow very quickly.




Interesting isn't it ? We have a repeated reality that long hot dry spells, days of extreme temperature and high winds will turn any fire into a major disaster. Thats why we have extreme bushfire warnings and days of Total Fire Ban.

The evidence of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that temperatures have increased markedly in the past 30 years and that extreme weather events are now more likely than ever before. 
The science of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that greenhouse gas emissions will will continue to increase global temperatures and that days of extreme fire risk will become the norm rather than the exception in the next 20 years.

And despite 30 years of research and clear evidence the PM stills denys there is an connection between "TITCBD" and extreme bushfire behaviour.

Go figure.


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... days of extreme fire risk will become the norm rather than the exception ...




I would argue that has been the norm for living memory.

The ferocity or frequency of bushfires has much to do with development in high risk areas.
(and the stupidity of greenies 
and also the rise and rise of pyromania in 8 year olds.)

IMO very little to do with a creep of average temperature!!


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> The evidence of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that temperatures have increased markedly in the past 30 years and that *extreme weather events are now more likely than ever before.*



Careful, bas.
You might start getting labelled a skeptic.



> “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
> 
> "There is *limited evidence* of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
> 
> “Current datasets indicate *no significant observed trends* in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … *No robust trends* in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
> 
> “In summary, there continues to be a* lack of evidence and thus low confidence* regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
> 
> “In summary, *there is low confidence* in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
> 
> “In summary, the current assessment concludes that *there is not enough evidence at present to suggest* more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
> 
> “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 *is low*”
> 
> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
> Chapter 2 on Extremes


----------



## basilio

Be really interested to see the totality of that summary Spooly. 

Just for clarification lets re examine "extreme weather events are more likely than ever before".

In the context of the discussion I was referring to particular extended days of high heat and long periods of below average rainfall. In any forest setting that is a recipe for particularly dangerous bushfires situations. Look at Victoria 2009 for example.

In your reference the extreme weather events referred to hurricanes and local hail storms.  Clearly this is not what I was talking about.

There is no way that the sections you have presented conflict with the overall understandings of IPCC 5.  The projections for continued warming and the scientific confidence of their certainty is higher than ever.

Burglar you argue that urban creep has taken us further into the bush and thus at greater risk of bushfires regardless of extreme weather conditions.  Couple of thoughts.

1) Extreme weather conditions have been proved to turn nasty bushfires into completely catastrophic events.  The Victorian disaster of 2009 resulted in a  total rewrite of previous bushfire advice as fire fighters recognised that the ground rules had changed with the new climate patterns

2) I believe that many more people were living in rural bush areas 30-40- 60 years ago.  The facts are that over the last 60 years  bush populations have steadily decreased as people have died or moved to the city. In that sense bush fires in the 30's, 50's and 60's would have threatened significantly more people than currently.  
But I do agree  with you that at the cities edges populations are more at risk.

On that note back in the early 60's Melbourne had massive bush fires that threatened areas of Mitcham which at that stage was a fringe suburb.



> 14-16 January 1962
> 
> Fires in the Dandenong Ranges and on the outskirts of Melbourne caused thirty three fatalities and destroyed over 450 houses. Areas severely affected include The Basin, Christmas Hills, Kinglake, St Andrews, Hurstbridge, Warrandyte and Mitcham.




http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/firesum.html


----------



## basilio

Nice comment from The Guardian which identifies  and skewers) the  straw man argument Tony Abbott is using with regard to bushfires in Australia.




> *Bushfires: Coalition deploys straw man against burning issue of climate change*
> *
> Government is desperate to keep bushfires and climate change apart for fear its emissions reduction policy will be found wanting*_
> _
> 
> Lenore Taylor
> 
> 
> The Abbott government is desperately constructing a straw man to help it fight the potentially big political problem of rising public concern about climate change and scrutiny of its Direct Action policy.
> 
> *The straw man is the contention that anyone making a perfectly reasonable and scientifically justifiable point – that climate change is likely to cause a higher prevalence of the weather conditions that pose a bushfire risk – has actually been making the unreasonable and scientifically unjustifiable point that climate change has caused a particular fire.*
> 
> And once the straw man contention has been ridiculed, the Coalition quickly skips over the justifiable connection and contends that fires are “part of the Australian experience” and that nothing different is happening.
> 
> The straw man was wielded most recently against the executive secretary of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, Christiana Figueres, who said in an interview with CNN there was “absolutely” a link between climate change and bushfires.
> 
> She did not say that climate change causes bushfires. She did say climate change causes increasing heatwaves – in other words, bushfire weather.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/bushfires-coalition-straw-man-against-burning-issue


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.




It may be interesting, but it is also bullsh!t. And this list doesn't include November!



> The Canberra Times, August 21, 1994:
> 
> EARLY start to bushfire season.
> 
> The Canberra Times, September 27, 1965:
> 
> HOTTEST September Day. Early bushfires widespread.
> 
> Sydney Morning Herald, October 24, 1951:
> 
> FIREFIGHTERS battled yesterday with more than 100 bushfires near Sydney and in the country.
> 
> SMH, October 25, 1951:
> 
> HUGE N.T. Blaze ... Biggest Fire Ever.
> 
> SMH October 25, 1951:
> 
> *BUSHFIRES Devastate 64 State Forests ... described as "the worst in history".*
> 
> SMH October 25, 1951:
> 
> BUSHFIRE in N.S.W. in the last 10 days have destroyed at least 250 million super feet of timber
> 
> SMH October 12, 1948:
> 
> QUEENSLAND'S Director of Meteorological Services, Mr. A. S. Richards, last night described the dust storm as one of the worst in ... history.
> 
> SMH, October 13, 1948:
> 
> MORE than 40 homes were threatened by bushfires in the Mount Colah district yesterday.
> 
> SMH October 22, 1948:
> 
> BUSH Fire Threatens Farms Near Mona Vale. Thirty firemen, police, and civilians fought throughout last night and early this morning to prevent bushfires engulfing two Mona Vale farm properties.
> 
> SMH, October 28, 1948:
> 
> MANY Bushfires ... as the temperature again soared over 90 degrees to set a four-year record.
> 
> The Brisbane Courier, September 27, 1932:
> 
> HUGE Bushfire. Farms In Danger. Rockhampton Menace.
> 
> SMH, October 8, 1928:
> 
> FIRES and Storm. The city was encircled by bushfires, and many buildings were Unroofed. ... In common with the greater part of NSW and the whole of the southern states, the city experienced an exceptional wind storm and excessive heat, which created a maximum of discomfort. In the early afternoon, great volumes of dust from inland districts and smoke from extensive bush fires produced a thick yellow haze.
> 
> Townsville Daily Bulletin, September 26, 1918:
> 
> A TERRIFIC Bushfire - Enormous Damage In Tambo District. Mitchell




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-fn72xczz-1226744792166#sthash.RnrikpMP.dpuf


----------



## Knobby22

I like the last two paragraphs of the article Basilio.

_After interviewing Hunt, the BBC spoke to Professor Roger Jones from Victoria University, who took the same history of disastrous Australian bushfires Abbott had listed to make his “it’s all part of the Australian experience” argument and pointed out how many years had elapsed between them.

“Twenty-nine years, 14, 11, nine, six, four … you might detect a pattern in that in that the gap between the fires is getting shorter,” he noted_

Add that to syd's point: "interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December."

Nothing to see here.


----------



## burglar

Knobby22 said:


> ... “Twenty-nine years, 14, 11, nine, six, four … you might detect a pattern in that in that the gap between the fires is getting shorter,” he noted ...




You should juxtapose natural bushfires, accidental bushfires and deliberately-lit bushfires against those gaps.
Also some measure of development in those areas.


Else totally misleading!!!


----------



## burglar

BHP boss rejects climate change criticism

 bhp-boss-rejects-climate-change-criticism


----------



## basilio

> BHP boss rejects climate change criticism




Interesting article. Ian Dunlop is standing for the BHP Board and his argument is that currently BHP is so focused on fossil fuel development it is not recognising the impact of CC on the world.  In particular he believes they will be caught with billions of dollars of fossil fuel resources that will be worthless if  they are not allowed to be developed by changes in legislation..

This is the carbon bubble idea.


----------



## Whiskers

burglar said:


> You should juxtapose natural bushfires, accidental bushfires and deliberately-lit bushfires against those gaps.
> Also some measure of development in those areas.
> 
> 
> Else totally misleading!!!




Not to mention that off season controlled burn offs have increasingly been reducing due to pressure from irresponsible extreme conservation elements in some, but not all areas. 

A properly managed off season controlled burn off goes hardly noticed in rural areas simply because it burns so slowly with very low intensity, even patchy (ie not burning everything in sight to a cynder) with little impact on the community or environment.

Off season controlled burn offs have become extinct in many new rural residential areas because people don't know how to manage them or prefer to live in (un)idealistic 'natural' surroundings... until  the natural consequences catch up with them.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.



Just completely untrue, syd  and Knobby.  See Calliope's list (which I was about to go and dig out from my copy of The Australian).  



Calliope said:


> It may be interesting, but it is also bullsh!t. And this list doesn't include November!


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Nice comment from The Guardian which identifies  and skewers) the  straw man argument Tony Abbott is using with regard to bushfires in Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/bushfires-coalition-straw-man-against-burning-issue




Yeah, well we are all aware Lenore Taylor is a socialist left wing Greenie so nothing would surprise me as to what comes out of her mouth.

I have seen how she performs on Insiders and she is a good mate of David Marr and Barry Cassidy.

I am old enough to remember severe bush fires in the 30's and 40's and experienced them first hand in the early 50's when working on sheep stations in south west Queensland. 

The only thing in those days people were not so stupid to be building in such well wooded country, hence we did not hear of the loss of life and homes.

CLIMATE CHANGE???????????????? WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE are we talking about?


----------



## IFocus

Nope nothing happening here keep moving........... WA's records every time I look at them I weep


http://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply-and-services/rainfall-and-dams/streamflow


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

IFocus said:


> Nope nothing happening here keep moving........... WA's records every time I look at them I weep
> 
> 
> http://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply-and-services/rainfall-and-dams/streamflow




The real problem, with your data and argument is, iFocus, that warmists have overegged it.

We are looking at computer projections and data input.

You may very well be correct, you may be not.

It has been presented though in an anorak and thong method of political debate, akin to godbothering, by sad sacks agin everything modern.

"Repent ye eejits, or ye will burn." type people.

We need to look at data sans godbothering.

Flannery and his ilk have damaged the cause of science for decades.

gg


----------



## IFocus

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The real problem, with your data and argument is, iFocus, that warmists have overegged it.
> 
> We are looking at computer projections and data input.
> 
> You may very well be correct, you may be not.
> 
> It has been presented though in an anorak and thong method of political debate, akin to godbothering, by sad sacks agin everything modern.
> 
> "Repent ye eejits, or ye will burn." type people.
> 
> We need to look at data sans godbothering.
> 
> Flannery and his ilk have damaged the cause of science for decades.
> 
> gg




I agree with your thoughts GG unfortunately CC is real for the SW corner of WA and the fire seasons issues that go with it I get my fire pumps out tomorrow.


----------



## bellenuit

I don't know why the Abbott government is so defensive about the links between bushfires and global warming. So what if global warming is likely to increase either the number or severity of bushfires. The point they should be stressing is that a carbon tax or an ETS will have zero effect on global warming so long as they are not universally supported by the major emitting countries and at rates (at least for a CT) far in excess of where they are now. This is not the case now and will not be the case in the foreseeable future. Being defensive about the links gives the impression that they think a CT/ETS would stop global warming, but because a CT/ETS is not their policy, they have to make excuses as to why global warming is not relevant to the bushfire debate. 

The way the Greens/ABC and those of a similar ilk talk about a CT/ETS gives the impression that the only thing holding the world back from adopting such schemes is Abbott's intransigence. Australia would be going out on a limb by implementing Labor/Green policies and the effect would be negligible from a global warming point of view and disastrous from an economic point of view.

When proponents state that a CT or ETS is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions, they should be asked to state what the suppositions are to make such statements. Market mechanisms assume everybody or all those who matter are part of the market. It is no different to the nonsense we hear from Green/Labor councils like say Fremantle in WA that declare Fremantle a nuclear free zone as if that matters one whit. Feel good clap trap.


----------



## springhill

Wildfires have been occurring long before man started 'polluting the atmosphere with carbon'.

Our original inhabitants were well aware of this and took steps to mitigate this by burning off when appropriate.

Something that Greens have slapped a massive handbrake on.

Who is more responsible for, and aware of, the environment - the original Aborigines or the Greens?

I was right next to the bushfires in Kelmscott, in the Perth Hills, a couple of years ago. The only thing that stopped that fire from sweeping down the hill front that faces us and annihilating our neighbours was the prescribed burning and clearing of paths for firefighting units that happened only 6 months before.

Eye witness proof that prescribed burns work. No amount of climate change would have burnt that hillside.

If you wish to look for a reason for the prevelance of large bush fires, look no further than the levels of fuel load & the number of miscreant humans populating the earth (arsonists, cigarette butt flickers etc).

Was the army not responsible for the fires in NSW?

When you have an agenda (Bandt) it is more convenient to point to what suits your cause.


----------



## IFocus

springhill said:


> Wildfires have been occurring long before man started 'polluting the atmosphere with carbon'.
> 
> Our original inhabitants were well aware of this and took steps to mitigate this by burning off when appropriate.
> 
> Something that Greens have slapped a massive handbrake on.
> 
> Who is more responsible for, and aware of, the environment - the original Aborigines or the Greens?
> 
> I was right next to the bushfires in Kelmscott, in the Perth Hills, a couple of years ago. The only thing that stopped that fire from sweeping down the hill front that faces us and annihilating our neighbours was the prescribed burning and clearing of paths for firefighting units that happened only 6 months before.
> 
> Eye witness proof that prescribed burns work. No amount of climate change would have burnt that hillside.
> 
> If you wish to look for a reason for the prevelance of large bush fires, look no further than the levels of fuel load & the number of miscreant humans populating the earth (arsonists, cigarette butt flickers etc).
> 
> Was the army not responsible for the fires in NSW?
> 
> When you have an agenda (Bandt) it is more convenient to point to what suits your cause.




The resistance against prescribed burns in Perth / South West area (I am talking about the ones with political clout not the ones the governments conveniently blame i.e. greenies)are the residents complaining about the smoke haze and the health problems that go with it just watch channel 7 / 9 10 news after a big burn off.

The darling range will go up in flames big time one of these years (I hope not but think its just a matter of time)


----------



## basilio

Allow more cool burning off to reduce excess fuel ?  Great. Let's do it. In fact you will probably find most Greenies understanding and agreeing to that argument in light of the experience with massive fires.

One small  but very obvious problem.

With CC the available period for safe cool burns will sharply decrease. As the average temperatures rise and grasslands  dry quicker it will simply be too dangerous to burn off in march/april or even Sept/Oct. And obviously you can't do burns when everything is too wet.

I had experience in the farming community in the 80's.  In those days farmers would just trail a lighted kero soaked rag around a paddock(behind a ute) and then go the pub for the afternoon. (Truly!!) Most of the times the fires would do their job Sometimes they got away .. but  then xhit happens doesn't it ?

There is no way you could get away with such a blase approach in 2013. And on the same point Government environment departments that do controlled burns are also very careful/concerned about judgments on when to burn.

And its all because of "the issue that can't be discussed".  Or as most people here believe "the issue that isn't real"


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... Or as most people here believe "the issue that isn't real"




I see it as real. Just overrated!


And the solution does not lie in reversing change.
It lies in adapting to change.

Perhaps revelling in new opportunities.
e.g. Market gardens in Greenland!

Few will willing give up the lifestyle afforded us by fossil fuels.
You will be headbanging till the day you die!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

IFocus said:


> I agree with your thoughts GG unfortunately CC is real for the SW corner of WA and the fire seasons issues that go with it I get my fire pumps out tomorrow.




Stay safe and well.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, as you either:

a) are having difficulties with English comprehension, or

b) just being a petulant child,

allow me to clarify something.

There has never been any directive that climate change cannot be discussed, ever. There was however a suggestion that the Abbott thread was not the place for alarmist propaganda and evangelizing. That is all.

Now, would you please behave in manner commensurate with your chronological age.

Thanks


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio, as you either:
> 
> a) are having difficulties with English comprehension, or
> 
> b) just being a petulant child,
> 
> allow me to clarify something.
> 
> There has never been any directive that climate change cannot be discussed, ever. There was however a suggestion that the Abbott thread was not the place for alarmist propaganda and evangelizing. That is all.
> 
> Now, would you please behave in manner commensurate with your chronological age.
> 
> Thanks




I thought about your request that CC  issues not be discussed in the political thread.

As I said then and repeat now I believe it was a totally inappropriate direction.  CC is a critical issue  for the policy directions of this country.  How and what the government does in that regard is in the square of the general nature of that thread ie The Abbott Government.  As I pointed out then if you were so concerned about discussing particular issues then we should have separate threads for the various other elements of government policy - but that would be impartcial wouldn't it ?

My observation about "the issue that cannot be discussed" was spot on. The fact that the government is throwing enormous energy into denying the the role CC plays in intensifying bushfires in Australia underlines theirs and your determination to bury this discussion - preferably in a place that won't take it seriously.

This thread is called Resisting Climate Hysteria. It's major purpose has been to denigrate the scientific community and the evidence its offers on this topic.  Hence "the issue that isn't real".


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

The representations you have just made are utterly mendacious, as per detailed repeatedly already.

You should have a good think about that, and your intellectual integrity.

Lying is never a valid substitute for fair representation of thought and data. You should stop doing it.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> This thread is called Resisting Climate Hysteria. It's major purpose has been to denigrate the scientific community and the evidence its offers on this topic.  Hence "the issue that isn't real".




Please don't desert the thread basilio. You are our chief anthropogenic climate change hysteric.  Without you the thread would be redundant.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio
> 
> The representations you have just made are utterly mendacious, as per detailed repeatedly already.
> 
> You should have a good think about that, and your intellectual integrity.
> 
> Lying is never a valid substitute for fair representation of thought and data. You should stop doing it.




Lets be clear Wayne.  A discussion about the effects of CC policy, the effects of CC on the Australian landscape and the appropriate public policy actions are totally fair comment in a general politic thread.

I'm not the liar in this discourse.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Lets be clear Wayne.  A discussion about the effects of CC policy, the effects of CC on the Australian landscape and the appropriate public policy actions are totally fair comment in a general politic thread.
> 
> I'm not the liar in this discourse.




When misrepresentations are made, it does indeed.


----------



## basilio

> When misrepresentations are made, it does indeed.




Not sure what you are saying here Wayne. ? I thought I accurately reflected my comments /observations about your request to cease discussion of anything to do with CC policy or government action in The Abbott Gov thread.

My view of the situation is that you and perhaps other members cannot accept even the possibility ie risk, that we are heading for much warmer times. In that sense you arn't prepared to even have CC comments made in that thread - or indeed anywhere else except clearly delineated  places.

The fact is the consequences of CC are going to affect many, many aspects of our lives. It is only an academic discussion if nothing significant will ever happen. Is that what you and majority of members of this forum are saying?  Nothing to worry about here ? All just an overblown fantasy ?

By teh way calling each other liars is not cool.  I shouldn't have made the comments I did.


----------



## wayneL

Look, this is my last word on CC/policy interface:

Some of the longest and most contentious threads on ASF are Climate Change related. As it seems impossible to discuss CC policy without also including the emotive tag-words, such as denier etc, any discussion on the topic could go off policy and onto science/propaganda/etc very quickly, which for that thread is off topic.

The request from CanOz and subsequently myself to take it elsewhere was fair and politely asked. As mods we try to keep things relatively on track. You've had enough latitude to register your feelings, it is time to move on.

The topic of CC policy in the Abbott government deserves discussion and that is encouraged and probably deserves its own thread and I invite you to do just that. Or, this thread can suffice if opening a new thread is too philosophically repugnant for whatever reason.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Not sure what you are saying here Wayne. ? I thought I accurately reflected my comments /observations about your request to cease discussion of anything to do with CC policy or government action in The Abbott Gov thread.
> 
> My view of the situation is that you and perhaps other members cannot accept even the possibility ie risk, that we are heading for much warmer times.
> 
> By teh way calling each other liars is not cool.  I shouldn't have made the comments I did.




1xa) Clear and concise communication.
2xa) Risk = Reward ... 50/50 on this one. YES, yes, yes   ...    records have been broken on temperature levels in CERTAIN parts of Australalia. Good to be concerned but stick to the facts.
3xa) Spelling error ... Erratum ... Dos not compute calling each other Liars? 

:aus:


----------



## Calliope

> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor's pre-election position remained unchanged.
> 
> “Labor believes climate change is real and demands strong and sensible action,” he said through a spokesman.




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frg6xf-1226748889136#sthash.UNojzdWL.dpuf

And the spokesman should have added; "And our best course of strong and sensible action is to concede that there is nothing any political party, hysterical econuts, or even a 1000 peer-reviewed scientists can do to reverse it. So all we can do is to try to mitigate any effects". 

It could have breathed a bit of life into a moribund party.


----------



## basilio

*The short story on climate change.*

After all the argy bargy about what is happening with CC it's a blessed relief to have a simple, succinct story that accurately sums up the current state of play with the topic.

*And naturally of course its News Corp that is able to provide this information.*  Andrew Bolt is no doubt pleased that he isn't alone in his analysis of the situation.

Be 


> *10 simple points about climate change*
> Newscomau iPad app
> 
> October 31, 2013
> 
> 
> Many of us have been sucked into a divisive debate. Picture: The Day After Tomorrow: Source: NewsComAu
> 
> CLIMATE change is confusing. It's either the end of the world and we're all going to die. Or it's an overblown threat involving "warmists" and the "IPCC".
> 
> If you feel like you don't fully understand what's going on, you're not alone.
> 
> Plenty of people have an opinion on what is happening. But what are the facts and how does it affect you?




http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...t-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1226750488131


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> *The short story on climate change.*
> 
> After all the argy bargy about what is happening with CC it's a blessed relief to have a simple, succinct story that accurately sums up the current state of play with the topic.
> 
> *And naturally of course its News Corp that is able to provide this information.*  Andrew Bolt is no doubt pleased that he isn't alone in his analysis of the situation.
> 
> Be
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...t-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1226750488131




Accurately?

... and right at the bottom is:



> (Source: skepticalscience.com)




IOW worthless advocacy.... propaganda.

pfffft


----------



## Whiskers

I think I probably posted a bit of long range weather forecast for SE Aus some years ago about Inigo Jones and his forecast of the early 2000 drought to within a year or so, made about 40 odd years earlier. 

My sources based on Inigo Jones methods and cycles influenced mainly from solar activity, said 2011 to 2013 was going to be on the poor end of rainfall... and seems to be the case.

As for the future... 2014 to 2016 should be good rainfall and maybe a bit lighter from 2017 through 2020.

The next bad drought looks like about 2025. 

Inigo Jones and his successors have better than 70% accuracy in forecasting seasonal weather for growing regions. 

When the Climate Change lobby can start to come close to that, that is when they actually give a seasonl rainfall forecast for a set time frame in advance as opposed to generalisations like the dry periods will be drier and the wet, wetter... then I'll start taking notice of them.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Accurately?
> 
> ... and right at the bottom is:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW worthless advocacy.... propaganda.
> 
> pfffft




Yep it's a real shame when even News Corp starts using real scientists for their references  instead of the ratbag rubbish endlessly recycled by Bolt and yourself. 

You know Wayne I can't recall the last time you actually discussed any  piece of research in this topic. Just for the sake of introducing some reality into this conversation what did you think of the recent research which identifies the Arctic as the warmest its been for 120,000 years ? 




> *The last time the Arctic was this warm was 120,000 years ago*
> 
> New research is the first to present physical evidence that indicates the warming in the eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth during the Holocene epoch
> 
> Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the past 100 years are hotter than they have been in at least 44,000 years, and possibly as long as 120,000 years, according to a new study. The study of mosses emerging from beneath receding glaciers on Baffin Island ”” the world's fifth-largest island located west of Greenland ”” confirms that rapid Arctic warming has already put parts of the region in new climatic territory.
> 
> Arctic warming is transforming the Far North by melting sea and land ice, speeding spring snowmelt, and acidifying the Arctic Ocean. Arctic warming may even be redirecting the jet stream in the northern midlatitudes, making some types of extreme weather events more likely in the U.S. and Europe.
> 
> On Baffin Island, glaciers have been receding approximately 6.5 to 10 feet per year, and they are likely to be gone entirely within the next few centuries if current trends continue, said lead author Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder.
> 
> The new research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, is the first to present physical evidence that indicates the warming in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth during the Holocene epoch, which began after the last Ice Age ended about 11,700 years ago.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/31/last-time-arctic-warm-120000-years-ago


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Yep it's a real shame when even News Corp starts using real scientists for their references  instead of the ratbag rubbish endlessly recycled by Bolt and yourself.
> 
> You know Wayne I can't recall the last time you actually discussed any  piece of research in this topic. Just for the sake of introducing some reality into this conversation what did you think of the recent research which identifies the Arctic as the warmest its been for 120,000 years ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/31/last-time-arctic-warm-120000-years-ago




Just lol at this one .... _"The new research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, is the first to present physical evidence that indicates the warming in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth during the Holocene epoch, which began after the last Ice Age ended about 11,700 years ago."_

Europe has its coldest ever event ?

_Oct 9 (Reuters) - Northern and continental Europe are expected to see a possibly colder than normal December followed by a milder than normal set-up in the second half of the 2013/14 winter, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report._

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/09/europe-weather-forecast-idUSL6N0HZ19Q20131009

11,700 years ago? Cant pick the weather within 48hours ... how they gonna predict 11,700 years in advance?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Yep it's a real shame when even News Corp starts using real scientists for their references  instead of the ratbag rubbish endlessly recycled by Bolt and yourself.




We have demonstrated that the "scientists" in question do not have integrity, therefore not to be relied on for information.



> You know Wayne I can't recall the last time you actually discussed any  piece of research in this topic.



This is because of your raging cognitive biases.



> Just for the sake of introducing some reality into this conversation what did you think of the recent research which identifies the Arctic as the warmest its been for 120,000 years ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/31/last-time-arctic-warm-120000-years-ago




This piece of "research" has been roundly taken down by the like of Curry, Easterbrook, Bouldin *ET AL*

Basically, it should be chucked in the rubbish. Such crap is not useful at all in the study of climate change and your description of it as reality reveals above mentioned bias, AT BEST. That you endorse this in the face of the avalanche of take downs shows something about your lack of analytical ability on this topic.

FFS why can't we have some good research instead of politicized advocacy designed to get a headline?


----------



## basilio

That was a really special piece of work Wayne in response to my post.

So I'm waiting... I'm waiting for the stunned world wide response to the announcement of Curry and Co that the peer reviewed paper which shows how warm the Arctic is in comparison to 120,000 years ago is demonstrable garbage. (_But that will never happen will it because the entire CC scientific community is in a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to their carefully constructed deceit aren't they _?

I'm waiting (with bated breath) for the day you ever give any Climate Scientist who suggest we have a problem any credence.

Overall of course what a remarkable way to deal with any and all research that  suggests we have a CC problem

Step 1. *Trash the scientists in general*. We have "demonstrated" the scientists have no integrity.. Therefore they cannot be believed.

Step 2   *Say that Curry and Co have "taken done" that research. *It's rubbish. (Don't worry about references or any other support from wider scientific community.  You don't need evidence  you just need authoritative  sounding BS when taking down years of painstaking research.)

Step3.  * Personal attack. *If I actually believe/quote anything these CC scientists say I am a fool.

Welcome to bedlam. Absolutely no point in having a constructive discussion on this forum with you Wayne. You'll just go Step 1,2,3 in endless repetition.

_________________________________________________________________________________

PS I hope you are proud of your work  Wayne because I'm considering reposting your response on a few other blogs - just to let everyone know of the intellectual acuity of this forum.

It should also be useful for the other CC trolls who like to sound knowledgeable while they deny any science that suggests we have a problem. Might be a good way to pick up new members!!


----------



## qldfrog

I would like 
if it is allowed?
 to join Basilio there.
Wayne,
Learning you are a moderator in this forum is a shock as in my opinion it is incompatible with your extreme position on climate change.
Whether you understand science or not,and have a view or not on this subject should not influence your acts within that role.
Personally, you can think what you want, some people still are creationists and other are fanatic muslims hammering their foreheads everyday, so whatever
but the moderator role should be seen as the impartial judge.
my 20c


----------



## orr

Nailed it "frog"



qldfrog said:


> Wayne,
> Learning you are a moderator in this forum is....




On my reading of what goes on, increasingly, in this 'Forum', this is just a confirmation of my bias.
The ingulfing blackness of the decent into dust bin of irrelavnce....


----------



## macca

Did anyone else watch the show on SBS on Monday night on Volcanoes ?

Quite a good show, they explained how the earth was a frozen blob in space until volcanoes erupted and warmed the world up. They said that the release of CO2 created an atmosphere which in turn lead to the development of life as we know it.

It seems that there is one volcano in Africa that emits more CO2 than all of the European industries and people combined. They also said there is about 20 times more volcanic activity now than in the last Ice Age. They felt that perhaps Global Warming is causing the volcanoes to erupt more.

What I don't get is if volcanoes were the original cause for the world to warm up and we now have more volcanic activity than in the past, wouldn't it be logical that volcanoes are warming the world now ?


----------



## MrBurns

macca said:


> Did anyone else watch the show on SBS on Monday night on Volcanoes ?
> 
> Quite a good show, they explained how the earth was a frozen blob in space until volcanoes erupted and warmed the world up. They said that the release of CO2 created an atmosphere which in turn lead to the development of life as we know it.
> 
> It seems that there is one volcano in Africa that emits more CO2 than all of the European industries and people combined. They also said there is about 20 times more volcanic activity now than in the last Ice Age. They felt that perhaps Global Warming is causing the volcanoes to erupt more.
> 
> What I don't get is if volcanoes were the original cause for the world to warm up and we now have more volcanic activity than in the past, wouldn't it be logical that volcanoes are warming the world now ?




That makes sense.


----------



## Ijustnewit

macca said:


> Did anyone else watch the show on SBS on Monday night on Volcanoes ?
> 
> Quite a good show, they explained how the earth was a frozen blob in space until volcanoes erupted and warmed the world up. They said that the release of CO2 created an atmosphere which in turn lead to the development of life as we know it.
> 
> It seems that there is one volcano in Africa that emits more CO2 than all of the European industries and people combined. They also said there is about 20 times more volcanic activity now than in the last Ice Age. They felt that perhaps Global Warming is causing the volcanoes to erupt more.
> 
> What I don't get is if volcanoes were the original cause for the world to warm up and we now have more volcanic activity than in the past, wouldn't it be logical that volcanoes are warming the world now ?




I nearly fell off my chair when they said " That Global Warming was causing more eruptions". 
I thought the rest of the program was really interesting , but Global Warming now causing volcanoes to erupt ...please explain.


----------



## basilio

Didn't see the program so it would be worthwhile checking it out.

_Once-upon-a-time_ volcanoes were a major part of changing the atmosphere on the earth. However the current volcanic activity is only a tiny proportion of what people current emit through cars, power stations  agriculture ect.  See reference below.

As far a global warming causing greater volcanic activity. The argument goes that  as the ice melted from teh last Ice Age the release of weight on the earth allowed  movement in tectonic plates which then caused earthquakes and volcanoes. In theory further loss of ice will cause similar events.

http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emissions-no-match-human-activity

http://www.geotimes.org/nov07/article.html?id=nn_oxygen.html


----------



## trainspotter

EyjafjallajÃ¶kull, the volcano that erupted in 2010 causing airports across Europe to close as an ash cloud drifted towards the continent allegedly spewed between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day.  With European carbon market prices around the â‚¬14 per tonne mark at the time of eruption, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of â‚¬4.2 million. 

On the plus side of things it closed down a lot of European airports so theoretically the amount it spewed out was offset by the fact that no planes were flying thusly unable to dump their nasty CO2 into the atmosphere. Kind of like a carbon offset account but only bigger.

What about the recent changes in the price of carbon?

The EU carbon price has dropped to around AUD$4/tonne, largely because Europe’s economy is in recession.  The EU has a target to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.  Because of lower economic activity, the EU is expected to easily meet this target.  The lower carbon price reflects this. 

http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-me...opean-carbon-prices-–-your-questions-answered

It is a tradeable commodity ... yeppers does a lot of good for the economy


----------



## wayneL

qldfrog said:


> I would like
> if it is allowed?
> to join Basilio there.
> Wayne,
> Learning you are a moderator in this forum is a shock as in my opinion it is incompatible with your extreme position on climate change.
> Whether you understand science or not,and have a view or not on this subject should not influence your acts within that role.
> Personally, you can think what you want, some people still are creationists and other are fanatic muslims hammering their foreheads everyday, so whatever
> but the moderator role should be seen as the impartial judge.
> my 20c



So much to say here and so little time to say it. What little time I have to play at the moment, is spent in the option threads, so will come back to this later.

One point however, A moderator is not a judge. A moderator is a voluntary position to help the forum administrators, to vicariously maintain how they want it run.

If being a moderator mean that one cannot contribute to the discussion or have an opinion, I don't think there would ever be moderators, not voluntary ones anyway. So you are incorrect on that point.


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> So much to say here and so little time to say it. What little time I have to play at the moment, is spent in the option threads, so will come back to this later.
> 
> One point however, A moderator is not a judge. A moderator is a voluntary position to help the forum administrators, to vicariously maintain how they want it run.
> 
> If being a moderator mean that one cannot contribute to the discussion or have an opinion, I don't think there would ever be moderators, not voluntary ones anyway. So you are incorrect on that point.




+20

It seems the way the left work.  Attack a person with whom they do not agree rather than discuss the subject.


----------



## spooly74

> Global warming could lead to snakes as long as BUSES and horses shrinking to the size of CATS, scientists warn




Hmmm, No mention of pigs with wings?


----------



## trainspotter

http://youtu.be/00Y9EZDdpUw

Hmmmmmm ... are they mad? Do they not know the sky is falling? No wait ... the earth is getting hotter? No wait ... the ice caps are melting? No wait ... islands will be flooded as the sea levels are rising? No wait ... maybe we were wrong?



> *The science is nowhere near understood, let alone settled.*
> 
> On whether global warming has stopped, Hans von Storch says: “No. We don’t expect that. But it is indeed true that we have seen a considerably reduced warming trend compared to what our climate model scenarios showed over the last 15 years. We definitely have seen less warming than we expected.”




http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...initely-have-seen-less-warming-than-expected/

Who is Hans von Storch? Why none other than the man who said this:

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated _"So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."_

Also has a few credentials as a German climate scientist. He is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre (previously: GKSS Research Center) in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.


----------



## macca

I shouldn't laugh as the poor fellow is out of a job but Tim Flannery of all people to be saying "listen to the experts". Never has one person made so many incorrect forecasts and retained employment by the Labor Government

His response to John Howard's speech is here

'Particularly prime ministers should be reading the science and should be familiarising themselves with what the experts are saying rather than what some commentator happens to be saying,'' Professor Flannery said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...catastrophe-20131106-2wzza.html#ixzz2jvovgHZA

As JH was saying that people will exaggerate to get more funding I don't think anyone could argue with that about any research project.


----------



## trainspotter

Now National Geographic is getting on the bandwagon !

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ional-geographic/story-fn5fsgyc-1226755030317
*
FIVE major cities would be wiped out and Australia will be inundated by an inland sea the size of Ireland, maps showing the devastating effect of global warming have revealed.
No longer a nation girt by sea, we could well be a nation consumed by sea.
The interactive maps - released by National Geographic - demonstrate the catastrophic effect Earth's ice could cause if it melted and flowed into the oceans and seas.*

Might mention that all the ice caps would have to melt simultaneously to increase the sea level by 220 feet or so? Also it would take more than 5000 years to happen.


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> ...




Aquaculture ...

I see water sports ... fishing, boating ...

Tourism too.

And Australia will be further away from New Zealand, so we could increase airfares.

It's not all bad!


----------



## medicowallet

And there I was last week wondering at how many revs and for how many kms I would have to drive the Prado so that Tassie would be inundated with the polar ice melt.   

Looks like my fantasy will never come true.

Is life worth living?

MW


----------



## drsmith

burglar said:


> Aquaculture ...
> 
> I see water sports ... fishing, boating ...
> 
> Tourism too.



Is that a distant stampede I hear to buy future marina lots on the edge of the Lake Eyre basin ?

At least we fare better than Florida,


----------



## basilio

These maps of what the world would look like if all the ice melted with increases in global temperature have been around for a few years now. I know that Al Gore used some of the material in his 2006 presentation.

We don't have to wait for 5000 years though to see drama. One to two metre rises in the next 100 plus years would cause serious problems for coastal cities.

There is a really cool interactive map that shows the effects of increases from 1-70 metres all around the world.

The issue with GW is not just the fact that sea levels would rise by say a metre in a century. If as is expected global temperatures do continue to increase *we are certain to see a continuing increasingly rapid rise in ocean levels. *So it wouldn't be a matter of just  rebuilding on land 2 metres  higher because that would become vulnerable within another 50 years or less.  And there is also evidence that in the recent past there were examples of very rapid rises in sea levels as temperatures soared.



> *Coral Links Ice Sheet Collapse to Ancient 'Mega Flood'*
> 
> Apr. 3, 2012 ”” Coral off Tahiti has linked the collapse of massive ice sheets 14,600 years ago to a dramatic and rapid rise in global sea-levels of around 14 metres.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120403135516.htm

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel


----------



## basilio

Just spent a few more minutes looking over the information on the 

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel   website.

Very impressive work and well worth checking out .


----------



## wayneL

Don't worry basilio, Nibiru will get us before climate change


----------



## trainspotter

Based upon these hard hitting facts I am off to Uluru to negotiate with the traditional owners to purchase that big hunk of red rock to build my next house on!


----------



## wayneL

TS, I think it could be prevented with an interplanetary proximity tax, or perhaps a planetary passage trading scheme.

Australia must show the way on this !


----------



## Logique

trainspotter said:


> ...FIVE major cities would be wiped out and Australia will be inundated by an inland sea the size of Ireland.....[/B



This poll on Tim Blair's blog is hilarious:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/roast_that_city/
_Which city deserves to be destroyed by global warming?_

The punters have made good choices, although a bit harsh on Adelaide. 

Welcome back btw.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> TS, I think it could be prevented with an interplanetary proximity tax, or perhaps a planetary passage trading scheme.
> 
> Australia must show the way on this !




Time to assemble the old cast then? Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Owen Wilson, Will Patton, Peter Stormare, William Fichtner, Michael Clarke Duncan, Keith David and Steve Buscemi. Armageddon

_A massive meteor shower destroys the Space Shuttle Atlantis and bombards New York City, America's East Coast, and Finland. NASA discovers that a rogue comet the size of Texas passed through the asteroid belt and pushed forward a large amount of space debris. The Texas-sized asteroid itself will collide with Earth in eighteen days, creating another extinction event. NASA scientists, led by Dan Truman (Thornton), plan to bury a nuclear device deep inside the asteroid that, when detonated, will split the asteroid in two, driving the pieces apart so both will fly safely past the Earth._

Australia did not even get a mention in this flick?  No wait ... out of the window of the space shuttle .. is that ... is that my house on top of Uluru? :


----------



## trainspotter

Logique said:


> This poll on Tim Blair's blog is hilarious:
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/roast_that_city/
> _Which city deserves to be destroyed by global warming?_
> 
> The punters have made good choices, although a bit harsh on Adelaide.
> 
> Welcome back btw.




Canberra eh? Good choice from the public me thinks !

Thanks Logique. My sabbatical O/S was marvelous for the soul and liver.


----------



## wayneL

So you are suggesting "direct action"? 

Ooo all those pseudo-Keynesian economists won't like that at all!


----------



## trainspotter

High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2  ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. *Whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.*

3.2MM PER YEAR !!!!!!!! 3.2mm / annum = 312 years to rise one metre ? 

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

No wait ... down the bottom of the page ... the ocean expands and contracts seasonally


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> So you are suggesting "direct action"?
> 
> Ooo all those pseudo-Keynesian economists won't like that at all!




“Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity” 

Just think of the betting odds we could obtain from the SP Bookies !

But like you say the Keynesian economists would be asking for tax increases during this crisis to curb inflation.


----------



## basilio

This has taken such a droll turn hasn't it ? Far more fun ( and safer !) to speculate on asteriods, space junk and fantasy.

 _________________________________________________
Re the increase in sea levels Trainspotter.

Yep the oceans have risen by 3.2 +/- .04 mm a year as shown by the graph on the page you referenced. The oceans do rise and fall each year as well - but the overall steady increase still holds.

The projections for the next 100years and beyond recognize the influence of

1) Increasing warmth in the oceans from CC which will cause water to expand.
2) Reductions on Arctic/Antarctic ice levels again caused by CC which will deliver substantially more water into the oceans. 

A later graph in the same website shows a range of current projections for  2100.
After all that was how this current discussion started wasn't it ? Results of melting all the ice when Global temperatures increase by a couple of degrees. 

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> This has taken such a droll turn hasn't it ? Far more fun ( and safer !) to speculate on asteriods, space junk and fantasy.
> 
> _________________________________________________
> Re the increase in sea levels Trainspotter.
> 
> Yep the oceans have risen by 3.2 +/- .04 mm a year as shown by the graph on the page you referenced. The oceans do rise and fall each year as well - but the overall steady increase still holds.
> 
> The projections for the next 100years and beyond recognize the influence of
> 
> 1) Increasing warmth in the oceans from CC which will cause water to expand.
> 2) Reductions on Arctic/Antarctic ice levels again caused by CC which will deliver substantially more water into the oceans.
> 
> A later graph in the same website shows a range of current projections for  2100.
> After all that was how this current discussion started wasn't it ? Results of melting all the ice when Global temperatures increase by a couple of degrees.
> 
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html




I would not say droll in the least !

We've become so used to change that stability seems like a quaint novelty.

*So we'll no doubt find it quaint to discover that things might be falling on us from the sky with additional regularity over the next 100 years.*

You might have only just got over the news that an asteroid might -- just might -- hit us in 2032.

*But now, as The New York Times reports, scientists believe we should get used to the idea that asteroids might hit us every decade or two.*

It points to two research papers published in Nature, in which a group of scientists wonder about the future.
Both papers were stimulated by the asteroid that struck Chelyabinsk in Russia earlier this year.
It seems that current warning systems focus on asteroids that are at least 1 kilometer wide.
However, Edward Lu, a former NASA space shuttle astronaut who now is launching a private endeavor called B612 to spot the slightly smaller asteroids, believes radical plans and better telescopes are needed.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-5...rth-for-more-asteroid-strikes-say-scientists/

Sounds like fantasy to me ! Ummmmm wait a minute ... 

*ASTRONOMERS have revised their estimates of asteroids capable of hitting the earth, saying there could be 10 times more than previously thought.

Researchers who reanalysed records of meteor strikes, in the aftermath of the spectacular Chelyabinsk explosion in Russia early this year, have found a mismatch in telescope sightings of asteroids and impacts picked up by low-frequency sound detectors.*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...de-asteroid-risk/story-e6frgcjx-1226754418777

The Chelyabinsk meteor, which struck Russia in February, is estimated to have been less than 20m across. Yet it exploded with the force of 40 Hiroshima bombs and produced a flash 30 times brighter than the sun.

*It hospitalised about a thousand people, mainly injured by broken windows, with some also superficially burnt by the 30km-high explosion.*

Yeppers ... pure fantasy


----------



## basilio

Oops trainspotter. 

My reference to fantasy was the earlier post by Wayne on Nibiru.
Yeah asteriods are a risk. They should certainly be considered, monitored and in a worst case scenario "something done about them " (Exactly what ? xxxxxx if I know)

But to bring us back to the topic of this thread in a very relevant way.

The publics imagination is caught by the thought of an asteroid hit and the devastation this would cause. The best knowledge to date (and it changes) is that we are still dealing with small possibilities. But if we balance the devastation that would be cause by an asteriod against a small chance it might happen we would still want to do whatever it took to  reduce that risk - wouldn't we ?

Now why is it that such a risk management approach is not appreciated with regard to CC by  so many people ? Other issues perhaps ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Oops trainspotter.
> 
> My reference to fantasy was the earlier post by Wayne on Nibiru.
> Yeah asteriods are a risk. They should certainly be considered, monitored and in a worst case scenario "something done about them " (Exactly what ? xxxxxx if I know)
> 
> But to bring us back to the topic of this thread in a very relevant way.
> 
> The publics imagination is caught by the thought of an asteroid hit and the devastation this would cause. The best knowledge to date (and it changes) is that we are still dealing with small possibilities. But if we balance the devastation that would be cause by an asteriod against a small chance it might happen we would still want to do whatever it took to  reduce that risk - wouldn't we ?
> 
> Now why is it that such a risk management approach is not appreciated with regard to CC by  so many people ? Other issues perhaps ?




Oooops basilio ... Nibiru is a reality and not a fantasy. A large rock hitting Earth is a distinct possibility as per what happened in Russia. This one was only 20 metres wide !! Oh dear ... imagine one 100 metres wide?

Risk management in place already basilio ... how many countries have signed up for the Kyoto protocol?

Red means NO ... Green means YES ... Purple means Parties with no binding targets in the second period, which previously had targets.


----------



## macca

I thought the last big meteorite caused an ice age and wiped out the dinosaurs, maybe if we get more meteors we will all freeze to death. Damned if we do and damned if we don't


----------



## basilio

> Oooops basilio ... Nibiru is a reality and not a fantasy. A large rock hitting Earth is a distinct possibility as per what happened in Russia. This one was only 20 metres wide !! Oh dear ... imagine one 100 metres wide?




Can we try this one again ? 

I have no problem with discussions about possible asteroid collisions with earth. But Nibiru seems to be just cracked nonsense - or so the discussion at Wikipedia goes.



> The Nibiru cataclysm is a supposed disastrous encounter between the Earth and a large planetary object (either a collision or a near-miss) which certain groups believe will take place in the early 21st century. Believers in this doomsday event usually refer to this object as Planet X or Nibiru. The idea that a planet-sized object will collide with or pass by Earth in the near future is not supported by any scientific evidence and has been rejected as pseudoscience by astronomers and planetary scientists.[1]
> 
> The idea was first put forward in 1995 by Nancy Lieder,[2][3] founder of the website ZetaTalk. Lieder describes herself as a contactee with the ability to receive messages from extra-terrestrials from the Zeta Reticuli star system through an implant in her brain. She states that she was chosen to warn mankind that the object would sweep through the inner Solar System in May 2003 (though that date was later abandoned) causing Earth to undergo a pole shift that would destroy most of humanity. The prediction has subsequently spread beyond Lieder's website and has been embraced by numerous Internet doomsday groups, most of which linked the event to the 2012 phenomenon.






> Scientific rejection
> 
> Astronomers reject the idea of Nibiru, and have made efforts to inform the public that there is no threat to Earth.[22] They point out that such an object so close to Earth would be easily visible to the naked eye. A planet such as Nibiru would create noticeable effects in the orbits of the outer planets.[23] Some counter this by claiming that the object has been concealed behind the Sun for several years, though this would be geometrically impossible.[14] Most photographs showing "Nibiru" by the Sun are in fact of lens flares, false images of the Sun created by reflections within the lens.[24]
> 
> Astronomer Mike Brown notes that if this object's orbit were as described, it would only have lasted in the Solar System for a million years or so before Jupiter expelled it, and that there is no way another object's magnetic field could have such an effect on Earth.[25] Lieder's assertions that the approach of Nibiru would cause the Earth's rotation to stop or its axis to shift violate the laws of physics.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm

But hey why should we spoil a good story with anything scientists have to say ?


----------



## basilio

Well chasing this particular bunny down the worm holes of space leads us to  ever more exciting wonders.

That font of all knowledge (the internet no  less) has thrown up the following. Might have something to do with Nibiru - but lets pretend it does anyway shall we? Don't want to be party poopers do we?

This particular You Tube video *has had 448,770 view since Sept 2  2013*  Certainly must be close to the truth with all that following mustn't it ?

*26 Mile Alien Mothership in our Solar System *



> DNA Fingerprint of God unseen forces science physics mysteries solved revealed mind over matter spirit world sound light universe history truth earth mysteries of life mathematics placebo effect healing signs and symbols occult ancient sightings the matrix is real holographic intelligence sacred geometry quantum physics illusion of reality new paradigm 2012 shamanism cleansing mother earth climatic disaster native american change Extreme Weather  (and it continues for another 1000 words)




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83v5Rgeu2Yc


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Can we try this one again ?
> 
> I have no problem with discussions about possible asteroid collisions with earth. But Nibiru seems to be just cracked nonsense - or so the discussion at Wikipedia goes.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm
> 
> But hey why should we spoil a good story with anything scientists have to say ?




*Nibiru may refer to:*

Nibiru (Babylonian astronomy), a technical term in Babylonian astronomy
Nibiru, a pseudoscientific planetary object described by Zecharia Sitchin
*Nibiru cataclysm, a supposed impending disastrous encounter between Earth and a large astronomical object*
Nibiru Sociedad Astronomica (Nibiru Astronomical Society), the astronomy group at the National Autonomous University of Mexico
Nibiru: Age of Secrets, a computer adventure game released in 2005
Nibiru, a planet in Star Trek

So a 17 metre asteroid hits earths atmosphere and causes an explosion equivalent to 40 Hiroshima bombs and produced a flash 30 times brighter than the sun and you are pooh poohing it as fantasy? I could follow what WayneL was alluding to? 

_Mr Bolden told US lawmakers that prayer was all that the US or anyone could currently do about unknown asteroids and meteors that may be on a collision course with Earth.
An asteroid estimated to be have been about 55 feet (17 metres) in diameter exploded on Feb 15 over Chelyabinsk, Russia, generating shock waves that shattered windows and damaged buildings. More than 1,500 people were injured.
*Later that day, a larger, unrelated asteroid discovered last year passed about 17,200 miles (27,681 km) from Earth, closer than the network of television and weather satellites that ring the planet.*
The events "serve as evidence that we live in an active solar system with potentially hazardous objects passing through our neighborhood with surprising frequency," said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat._

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9943048/Nasas-advice-on-asteroid-hitting-Earth-pray.html

AS for the youtube video you must be a crackpot to believe CC .... ooops I mean Niburu has anything to do with that !!

You asked for what? A risk management approach and I posted up how many countries have signed up for the Kyoto protocol. WELL ??????? There's your risk management approach !!!!!!! Something IS being done ???? What more do you want basilio ??? Everyone to go back to horse and cart and shut down major industries cause the ocean has risen 3.2mm and temperature has risen 0.06 degrees in 20 freaking years ???????


----------



## explod

So much garbage on this thread and a conflicted Monitor to boot.

The earth has been cooling for 5 billion years then suddenly with the advent of the industrial age it is warming or at least in a holding pattern.

There have been no tadpoles at Hawkesdale West since the drought of 68/9


----------



## Logique

Using the same methods, they won on Tasmania's economy, the vehicle was the forest industries, which this article summarizes very well:  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/locking_up_tasmanias_forests_and_the_jobs/  Tasmania still struggles to recover.

Thus encouraged, they're now coming after the national economy, this time the vehicle is AGW.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So much garbage on this thread and a conflicted Monitor to boot.
> 
> The earth has been cooling for 5 billion years then suddenly with the advent of the industrial age it is warming or at least in a holding pattern.
> 
> There have been no tadpoles at Hawkesdale West since the drought of 68/9




I didn't realize your abilities Plod, such hidden talent. Very few people on the planet can fit so many logical/argumentative fallacies into so few words.


----------



## wayneL

Typhoon Haiyan hyped.

The Pravda network (ABC BBC Grauniad etc) have been hyping Haiyan as the strongest storm ever recorded.

A big storm, but apparently not the biggest, or anywhere near it. Still sorting fact from fiction, but don't be fooled by the alarmists.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Typhoon Haiyan hyped.
> 
> The Pravda network (ABC BBC Grauniad etc) have been hyping Haiyan as the strongest storm ever recorded.
> 
> A big storm, but apparently not the biggest, or anywhere near it. Still sorting fact from fiction, but don't be fooled by the alarmists.





Do you have a link last I heard quoted was largest in X amount of years


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Do you have a link last I heard quoted was largest in X amount of years




Even if it was X number of years - what caused a worse storm X number of years ago?

We are not stupid.  There have always been bad storms long before industrialisation.  It's a shame AGW extremists try to use fear of natural disasters to further their cause of taking people's hard earned.


----------



## jimmmaaay

wayneL said:


> Typhoon Haiyan hyped.
> 
> The Pravda network (ABC BBC Grauniad etc) have been hyping Haiyan as the strongest storm ever recorded.
> 
> A big storm, but apparently not the biggest, or anywhere near it. Still sorting fact from fiction, but don't be fooled by the alarmists.




It is the biggest storm in recorded history to strike Philippines.  There is no question about that, that is fact.  I have lived there for seven years, and I can tell you this happens every year.  It just depends where it hits as to the severity of damage.  Look up Typhoon Ondoy and Milenyo.  I lived in Philippines through those storms, and I can tell you its no small issue that only 'alarmists' hype.  During Ondoy specifically, i was stranded inside my apartment for 10 days with no food as the water reached 3m deep in the streets over 80% of the entire metro (which is almost as big as Sydney in land area, and approximately 15mil residents), approx. 50,000 dead.  During Milenyo I got stranded on Boracay island for three weeks, about 20,000 dead solely in Isabela, Quezon alone due to landslides.  

Believe me, there is no hyping.  These occurrences are just not widely publicized in the first world media, so people are not greatly aware.  This is nothing to do with climate change, (lol) this is just an unfortunate event that occurs very regularly.   

So, don't be fooled unless you've been there.


----------



## Julia

Good to have the perspective of someone who has lived there.  Seems a bit off to me to be simply looking at this awful event in political terms.  Thousands of people are probably dead, many more injured and homeless.


----------



## jimmmaaay

Very many no doubt, and people that can least afford such events. Once again it will be a huge humanitarian disaster that will go largely overlooked by the rest of the world because its not the eastern seaboard of the US.  

But Filipinos will still bear it with a smile, because they are used to this and its just their nature.  Still waiting to hear from a couple of people since comms are still down, but its looking like another severe depression is going to sweep through again within a week or two

edit: incidentally, thus far NZ has donated more aid than the US, while the Filipino govt has only chipped in $1.5m,..after a huge scandal outing the pilfering of billions by elected officials as thieves and launderers of US funds...shameful.


----------



## wayneL

My comments were not meant to trivialize this, which has been the effect. My apologies.


----------



## jimmmaaay

wayneL said:


> My comments were not meant to trivialize this, which has been the effect. My apologies.




respected ; )


----------



## Julia

Looking at the utter devastation on TV tonight, jimmmaaay, I hope you'll  soon hear from your friends there.
No communications, no water, no electricity, no food, roads cut so aid can't get to the people.  Hard to know where the aid agencies will even start.  Many more will die in the aftermath.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> Looking at the utter devastation on TV tonight, jimmmaaay, I hope you'll  soon hear from your friends there.
> No communications, no water, no electricity, no food, roads cut so aid can't get to the people.  Hard to know where the aid agencies will even start.  Many more will die in the aftermath.




+1

To donate 

https://www.ammado.com/community/142628

or

http://redcross.org.au/disaster-relief-and-recovery.aspx

gg


----------



## jimmmaaay

Julia said:


> Looking at the utter devastation on TV tonight, jimmmaaay, I hope you'll  soon hear from your friends there.
> No communications, no water, no electricity, no food, roads cut so aid can't get to the people.  Hard to know where the aid agencies will even start.  Many more will die in the aftermath.




Thanks Julia.  I was actually supposed to travel there on the 8th (same day), so delayed my flight.  Still no word as yet.  Lots of talk of aid being misappropriated already which is very disappointing, but wholly expected.  Will be going on the 20th to do some work.  I have no affiliation with anything whatsoever, but I do hope that people would care to give if they can. (just to be clear, not to me, to the philippine red cross etc)  

I've just been lurking on here for the last few months browsing and reading, but this particular topic really kind of urged me to comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7izclxD7ao


----------



## Mickel

Interesting article in The Aus today . In part -


It is not that the warmist theories have no validity. It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them. Science does not, and should not, work like this. 

Interestingly, a version of Lysenko's non-Mendelian theories - epigenetics - is now an accepted paradigm. This is a result of non-ideological scientific research. The Guardian should desist from using "denier" when describing those people who disagree with the current scientific paradigm as broadcast by itself, the IPCC and other media outlets. The word denier is clearly associated with denial of the Holocaust in the minds of many of us familiar with 20th-century history. 

The Guardian should be leading discussion, not playing the censorship card. There are many qualified climate scientists whose views are in synch with the IPCC. There are also many persons with some knowledge in the area and many more persons with no ability in the area who agree with it. 

There are many reputable climate scientists, however, who do not agree with the IPCC paradigm. These include, but are certainly not limited to, Freeman Dyson, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Nigel Calder, James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis), Roy Spencer, Stephen McIntyre, Richard Lindzen (meteorologist, lead author IPCC AR3) and Ivar Giaever (Nobel laureate in chemistry). 

There are some questions that should be asked by any thoughtful person who is interested in AGW climate change. Thoughtful persons can appreciate what are key questions, even if they do not possess a specialist scientific knowledge. 

In the same way, persons such as myself who help judge the awarding of scarce competitively allocated funds for scientific projects cannot possibly have a specialised knowledge in all of the subjects they are adjudicating. However, such persons are able to logically reason their way around the key issues. 

Frustratingly, it appears that the key questions on AGW climate science are not being asked by thoughtful non-specialist people because the same people have been encouraged to believe that the science is too complicated for them, and because they have been told that all expert climate scientists agree with the IPCC's position of certainty as regards AGW climate change. 

Here are four key linked questions: 

1. Is the rate of climate change increasing? Change is what climate does, so one does not need to be a climate scientist to deduce that it is important to address the question of whether the rate of change has increased. The IPCC has little to say on this scientifically, but continues to use phrases such as "unprecedented" global warming in its executive summaries. 

2. Is a significant portion of climate change determined by human activity? Although our human footprint is heavy, it is not the only influence on climate. Scientists in the field of climate research refer to these influences as "forcings". Forcings can be terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The CO2 greenhouse effect is an example of a terrestrial forcing. 

3. Is climate change significantly affected by human CO2 output, which nearly all warmists and sceptics agree is increasing? The IPCC modelling for the CO2 forcing effect has consistently grossly overestimated its effect on global warming. 

4. If CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, then what should be done to combat it? 

It is important for alternative views to be heard because an uncritical adherence to the AGW climate change paradigm could be siphoning off squillions that would be better spent on more important research and actions for the good of humanity and our Earth. A blinkered adherence to combating "the evils of CO2" can lead to solutions that do no good and may cause harm. 

Tim Florin is professor of medicine at the University of Queensland. 

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226756896514#sthash.UEenGyxP.dpuf


----------



## orr

Mickel said:


> Interesting article in The Aus today . In part -
> 
> 
> It is not that the warmist theories have no validity. It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them. Science does not, and should not, work like this.
> 
> Interestingly, a version of Lysenko's non-Mendelian theories - epigenetics - is now an accepted paradigm. This is a result of non-ideological scientific research. The Guardian should desist from using "denier" when describing those people who disagree with the current scientific paradigm as broadcast by itself, the IPCC and other media outlets. The word denier is clearly associated with denial of the Holocaust in the minds of many of us familiar with 20th-century history.
> 
> The Guardian should be leading discussion, not playing the censorship card. There are many qualified climate scientists whose views are in synch with the IPCC. There are also many persons with some knowledge in the area and many more persons with no ability in the area who agree with it.
> 
> There are many reputable climate scientists, however, who do not agree with the IPCC paradigm. These include, but are certainly not limited to, Freeman Dyson, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Nigel Calder, James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis), Roy Spencer, Stephen McIntyre, Richard Lindzen (meteorologist, lead author IPCC AR3) and Ivar Giaever (Nobel laureate in chemistry).
> 
> There are some questions that should be asked by any thoughtful person who is interested in AGW climate change. Thoughtful persons can appreciate what are key questions, even if they do not possess a specialist scientific knowledge.
> 
> In the same way, persons such as myself who help judge the awarding of scarce competitively allocated funds for scientific projects cannot possibly have a specialised knowledge in all of the subjects they are adjudicating. However, such persons are able to logically reason their way around the key issues.
> 
> Frustratingly, it appears that the key questions on AGW climate science are not being asked by thoughtful non-specialist people because the same people have been encouraged to believe that the science is too complicated for them, and because they have been told that all expert climate scientists agree with the IPCC's position of certainty as regards AGW climate change.
> 
> Here are four key linked questions:
> 
> 1. Is the rate of climate change increasing? Change is what climate does, so one does not need to be a climate scientist to deduce that it is important to address the question of whether the rate of change has increased. The IPCC has little to say on this scientifically, but continues to use phrases such as "unprecedented" global warming in its executive summaries.
> 
> 2. Is a significant portion of climate change determined by human activity? Although our human footprint is heavy, it is not the only influence on climate. Scientists in the field of climate research refer to these influences as "forcings". Forcings can be terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The CO2 greenhouse effect is an example of a terrestrial forcing.
> 
> 3. Is climate change significantly affected by human CO2 output, which nearly all warmists and sceptics agree is increasing? The IPCC modelling for the CO2 forcing effect has consistently grossly overestimated its effect on global warming.
> 
> 4. If CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, then what should be done to combat it?
> 
> It is important for alternative views to be heard because an uncritical adherence to the AGW climate change paradigm could be siphoning off squillions that would be better spent on more important research and actions for the good of humanity and our Earth. A blinkered adherence to combating "the evils of CO2" can lead to solutions that do no good and may cause harm.
> 
> Tim Florin is professor of medicine at the University of Queensland.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226756896514#sthash.UEenGyxP.dpuf




Is it just me? or does this mirror a PR response from the NRA after another school Massacre.
_Proffessessor Tim Flotsam(r) Uni of Queegsland "it not guns that kill people it's etc etc"

_

Plan are also a donation option.
http://www.plan.org.au/Crisis-Homepage.aspx


----------



## burglar

orr said:


> Is it just me? ...




Dunno ... definitely not me, though!!


----------



## basilio

Its great that everyone here is being sensitive about the devastation and tragedy that is happening the Philippines as a result of the super typhoon that has trashed everything in sight.

But lets not lose focus about the path the  world is taking as a result of human driven CC.



> To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of you armchair.
> 
> I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce.
> 
> Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America.
> 
> And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.
> 
> ...   “The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”
> 
> “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.”




Philippine representative Yeb Sano at Warsaw climate change negotiations.

And what is the current understanding of climate scientists about GW and cyclones?


> “…future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100.
> 
> Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre…” – Tropical cyclones and climate change, Nature Geoscience 3, 157 – 163 (2010)




http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...nge-pay-a-visit-to-the-philippines-right-now/


----------



## trainspotter

Great humanitarium effort ... Vietnam next victim. Thank God the storm has weakened. Climate change issue. Not the worst storm ever. Slow News week as Abbott is off the front page. Weather is a happening thing. Philli's get 5 hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones/depressions every season. This one is the biggest in 30 years. Previous to this one was not newsworthy as not enough infrastructure had been wrecked. I see lotsa cheap boats and pain for the insurance  companies as well as banks who have underwritten the financier. Risk factor is starting to underpin the markets. Lets hope the hedge funds are full this time.

30 yeas ago the Phillipines were mud huts and fledgling business. Not newsworthy at all.


----------



## jimmmaaay

trainspotter said:


> Great humanitarium effort ... Vietnam next victim. Thank God the storm has weakened. Climate change issue. Not the worst storm ever. Slow News week as Abbott is off the front page. Weather is a happening thing. Philli's get 5 hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones/depressions every season. This one is the biggest in 30 years. Previous to this one was not newsworthy as not enough infrastructure had been wrecked. I see lotsa cheap boats and pain for the insurance  companies as well as banks who have underwritten the financier. Risk factor is starting to underpin the markets. Lets hope the hedge funds are full this time.
> 
> 30 yeas ago the Phillipines were mud huts and fledgling business. Not newsworthy at all.




Philippines was not mud huts and fledgling business.  Again, don't be quick to jump to a conclusion if you don't know.  Philippines was the wealthiest country in Asia during the 30's 40's and 50's.  Even more so than Australia.  I would even hazard a guess that it still is.  Go there and you'll see how wealthy the wealthy are.  Only problem is that they control all of the wealth, backed up by american politics and military money launderers etc


----------



## trainspotter

jimmmaaay said:


> Philippines was not mud huts and fledgling business.  Again, don't be quick to jump to a conclusion if you don't know.  Philippines was the wealthiest country in Asia during the 30's 40's and 50's.  Even more so than Australia.  I would even hazard a guess that it still is.  Go there and you'll see how wealthy the wealthy are.  Only problem is that they control all of the wealth, backed up by american politics and military money launderers etc




Wealthiest country in Asia where in todays standards is $100 per month as an average wage for an Asian country. Go and look in the Pilbara for iron ore and yellow cake in the N.T.  Cost of living in Australia is 181% higher http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...t.jsp?country1=Philippines&country2=Australia in todays standards.

I have just spent 11 months in Asia ... Batam in fact. 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/gdp

PHILIPPINES GDP

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Philippines was worth 250.27 billion US dollars in 2012. In 2004 it was less than 80 billion.


AUSTRALIA GDP

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Australia was worth 1520.60 billion US dollars in 2012. In 2004 it was 466 billion. 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp

Please I understand where you are coming from but at least keep it in context. Resist climate hysteria.


----------



## basilio

> The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Australia was worth 1520.60 billion US dollars in 2012. In 2004 it was 466 billion.




Wow! I was totally amazed when you quoted that figure trainspotter - so i went to the source.

Absolutely spot on. But lets think about the implications for all this.

1) In 8 years our GDP goes up 350%!!! can anyone see where this 3.5 fold increase in wealth is reflected in our society ? Obviously the richest few cent have done very well but where has the rest gone?

2) I'm guessing the lions share of this GDP increase has come from the mining boom and the property market. Lets say the property market went up 150% over the time. Does this actually represent an increase in value to the community ?  A house is still a house whether it costs 100k or 300k . And the mining sales seem to have gone to many O/S investors and a small core of local businesses. And of course a decent flow on to  local employment and taxes. (but surely nothing like the extra trillion dollars  indicated.

In fact when you look at the other indicators of GDP it is all far more sensible. We can see how GDP has gone up an average of 3% a year since 2004. So over 10 years that should result in say 45% overall increase ? All a bit funny.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-growth-annual


----------



## basilio

Lots of concern about the "possibilities" of way out there increases in sea level but it seems that most folks on this forum believe the problem is either overstated or way off in the future.

Not so.  Interesting story  in The Guardia outlines the problems that face the new New York.   At the end of the story they highlight the  effects of rising sea levels coupled with more intense storms.



> Mayor Mike Bloomberg, aware of the urgent need for housing, has encouraged the development of New York’s waterfront neighborhoods. After Sandy, the Bloomberg administration created the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, which produced a massive report, released in June. The report found that the next hurricane could be even worse: “With greater winds and more rain, Sandy could have had an even more serious impact on the areas of Staten Island, Southern Brooklyn, and South Queens that experienced the most devastation during the storm. And while Sandy brought the full force of its impact at high tide for these southernmost areas of the city, it hit the area around western Long Island Sound almost exactly at low tide. As a consequence, parts of the Bronx, Northern Queens, and East Harlem were not as affected as they could have been.”
> 
> *But Sandy was plenty bad and its effects will last for years to come. On Monday, The New York Times reported that the Metropolitan Transit Authority will be forced to continue cutting back service and spending billions of dollars for years to come to deal with the damage Sandy wrought. While the MTA got the subways running again within days, it has recently had to shut down stretches of the R and G lines to repair tunnels that were flooded. There will be an estimated $3 billion worth of repair work for each of the next two years, about double what would otherwise have been needed.*
> 
> New York cannot afford to be unprepared for climate change. As Bloomberg’s report lays out, the city must invest in a wide array of both hard and soft anti-flooding infrastructure improvements. Buildings must be elevated, shorelines must be regraded, beachfront boardwalks must be rebuilt with gradual rises in elevation. Buildings must move their power supplies upward, while neighborhoods must move their power lines downward, wrapping them in water-resistant materials. Sidewalks will have to be made permeable, to wick floodwater back out to sea. Meanwhile, the city must continue its efforts to be a global leader in reducing its own carbon footprint.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/bill-de-blasio-challenge-climate-change


----------



## trainspotter

Not the first typhoon to smash the Philli's either  ...

http://www.typhoon2000.ph/stormstats/StrongestPhilippineTyphoons.htm

Ferdinand Marcos didn't take much out of the country in the 80's now did he?



> According to the FIES (Family Income and Expenditure Survey) conducted from 1965 to 1985, *poverty incidence in the Philippines rose from 41 percent in 1965 to 58.9 percent in 1985. *This can be attributed to lower real agricultural wages and lesser real wages for unskilled and skilled laborers. Real agricultural wages fell about 25 percent from their 1962 level, while real wages for unskilled and skilled laborers decreased by about one-third of their 1962 level.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Philippines_(1973–1986)

Soooo 30 years ago when a cyclone hit poverty stricken Phillipines it did not make the news so much as it was not newsworthy. Yes yes yes there are wealthy people there as well who at a minority of less than 10% control over 40% of the wealth. 

Back to resisting climate hysteria.


----------



## jimmmaaay

trainspotter said:


> Not the first typhoon to smash the Philli's either  ...
> 
> http://www.typhoon2000.ph/stormstats/StrongestPhilippineTyphoons.htm
> 
> Ferdinand Marcos didn't take much out of the country in the 80's now did he?
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Philippines_(1973–1986)
> 
> Soooo 30 years ago when a cyclone hit poverty stricken Phillipines it did not make the news so much as it was not newsworthy. Yes yes yes there are wealthy people there as well who at a minority of less than 10% control over 40% of the wealth.
> 
> Back to resisting climate hysteria.





I know its not, I mentioned just a bit further back that i lived in Philippines for a fair length of time, and I am very well aware of its history.   However quoting GDP figures for Philippines is in no way indicative of what is floating around there.  I know that it doesn't produce much, but its really very difficult to compare it with Australia's output since accountability stands for much more here.  There's billions of hidden (stolen) wealth in that country.  

Anyway, moving right along, resisting climate hysteria is exactly the point I was getting at with my first couple of posts.  I have seen and experienced first hand what these storms do and how regularly they inundate large areas.  It is a normal fluctuation between La Nina and El Niño in this particular location that creates such violent storms.  But using it as a political angle for 'climate change' as happened in question time today I find completely abhorrent.


----------



## sails

jimmmaaay said:


> I know its not, I mentioned just a bit further back that i lived in Philippines for a fair length of time, and I am very well aware of its history.   However quoting GDP figures for Philippines is in no way indicative of what is floating around there.  I know that it doesn't produce much, but its really very difficult to compare it with Australia's output since accountability stands for much more here.  There's billions of hidden (stolen) wealth in that country.
> 
> Anyway, moving right along, resisting climate hysteria is exactly the point I was getting at with my first couple of posts.  I have seen and experienced first hand what these storms do and how regularly they inundate large areas.  It is a normal fluctuation between La Nina and El Niño in this particular location that creates such violent storms.  But using it as a political angle for 'climate change' as happened in question time today I find completely abhorrent.




I agree and find it abhorrent that as soon as people are dying or suffering from a natural disaster AGW extremists are on their bandwagons scaremongering their  political view point.  And then we get so caught up in telling them how stupid they are when such natural disasters have happened many times before that  the human suffering hardly gets a mention anymore on these types of threads.


----------



## trainspotter

sails said:


> I agree and find it abhorrent that as soon as people are dying or suffering from a natural disaster AGW extremists are on their bandwagons scaremongering their  political view point.  And then we get so caught up in telling them how stupid they are when such natural disasters have happened many times before that  the human suffering hardly gets a mention anymore on these types of threads.




Hear hear .. as they would say in parliament or behind closed doors !


----------



## wayneL

I was listening to Milne's disgraceful rant on the radio yesterday... and that repulsive Scottish representative from the Fabians (can't remember his name). The false information, fallacious argument and politicization of current events was both astonishing and vomit inducing. The extent to which the left will use lies and memes for political capital has no precedence in the West. One must look to the former USSR and other totalitarian regimes... and the writings of George Orwell for such manipulative mendacity.

All in support of a tax that serves only to ship both jobs and emissions offshore, increasing both CO2 and pollution into the bargain (as discussed repeatedly in the past on this thread).

The English language no longer has words sufficient to convey my disgust.


----------



## explod

sails said:


> I agree and find it abhorrent that as soon as people are dying or suffering from a natural disaster AGW extremists are on their bandwagons scaremongering their  political view point.  And then we get so caught up in telling them how stupid they are when such natural disasters have happened many times before that  the human suffering hardly gets a mention anymore on these types of threads.




It has little to do with taking advantage of times when people are in stress or dying.  The increasing number and intensity of storms is a worrying trend to those who have closely observed the weather and nature all of their lives.

As far as experts are concerned we have scientists and we have rank and file persons like myself who have followed the weather and nature all of our lives.  Governments and some on here are not comfortable with the idea that our footprint is upsetting the prospects for continued comfort in our lives.  So the message of scientists are massaged to make it all sound a bit sweater.  George Sorros in his book "the crash of 2008" (about the second chapter, off the cuff) identifies the routine massaging of news and statistics to fit with keeping the people happy in front of the TV.  Murdoch is the perfect tool for the real money behind the scene in this.   Notice how the pollies almost bend on their knees to ensure they catch this power.

One could certainly continue the debate on the dire climate change now taking place but unless you are out and about and a part of it one soon realises that it does not exist in most minds.   This forum too, appears controlled by the self interest of bigtown, so that balanced discussion has become a blank and useless exercise.

I will however monitor the scene from time to time and explode now and then as is my right.  Christine Milne is being criticised as once was Donn Chipp and Bob Brown in earlier days.  She is a wonderful breath of fresh air.

And for those who are concerned we have a peaceful climate action day in cities and towns across the nation on this Sunday the 17th.


----------



## basilio

There is a vast gulf between people on understanding the science behind our current knowledge  of climate change and the various factors that contribute to it.

Clearly we will never have perfect knowledge. By definition we are always learning. So we go with the best available understanding. Wayne and many others on this forum believe a very small core of scientists / observers who do not accept that human  induced CC will be significant enough to be any real worry. The planet may warm a bit but that will just take the edge off our chill. There may be a few cms sea rise but we can "cope with that".

Against this view there is 50 plus years of research and evidence that the earth is warming at more rapid rate  than it has for  hundreds of thousands of years. There is evidence of widespread changes to ecosytems, climate conditions, sea levels etc. These studies form the large bulk of research into the effect of CC.

My question is "How can we dismiss this body of evidence so lightly ?" Why should we pick a few question marks and science  issues that are as yet unknown as the measure of our understanding? How can we ignore the vast range of information that confirms rapid changes in temperature and a well proven theory that identifies why this increase has occurred? ( increases in GG gases. In the past 200 years almost all human produced)

There has been much rage about bringing up the issue of CC in the context of the super typhoon that has trashed the Philippines. It isn't a  black and issue but I suggest the following analysis offers a worthwhile comment.



> The chief meteorologist for the Weather Channel in the US, Paul Walsh, asked to summarise the effect of climate change on Haiyan, told CNBC: ''I wouldn't say that climate change is a direct contributor to this. That's something that's still being discussed.
> 
> '*'But one of the things that makes these storms, particularly for the US east coast, more potentially damaging is that sea levels are rising and continuing to rise and even smaller storms can have a devastating impact.''
> 
> In other words, climate change is working to make ordinary weather patterns more dangerous. It doesn't seem to be happening through any direct causal link to cyclones. But it doesn't need to. A rising sea level will intensify the power of cyclonic winds to create bigger storm surges, according to the IPCC.*
> 
> Man-made climate change is real and dangerous. Is it causing more or bigger cyclones? There's no evidence that it is. But, again, it's a distinction without a difference. Because it's making normal cyclones more damaging. Rising sea levels will supercharge them.
> 
> There is no need for exaggeration and there is no excuse for inaction.




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/cl...or-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html#ixzz2kZPAH5bi


----------



## trainspotter

Methinks people should do a bit more research on typhoons in the Phillipines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoons_in_the_Philippines

Quite a regular occurrence apparently and this "super" typhoon is not the deadliest/strongest/most rainfall producing blah blah blah ... not by a long shot.

On a side note ... the Phillis have only just banned strip logging (deforestation) in February 2011. Maybe if they left the trees the windspeed on the ground would not have been as severe as well as preventing erosion and landslides. 

Typhoon Pablo smashed up the joint in 2012. Not a peep from the media then? Oh that's right ... it hit the least populated areas and the death toll reached 1,067 people. Where were the alarmists then?

It is the humanitarian aspect we should be focusing on and NOT the ocean rising. 

Anyone remember cyclone Tracy in 1974? Tracy killed 71 people, caused A$837 million in damage (1974 dollars) and destroyed more than 70 percent of Darwin's buildings, including 80 percent of houses. 

THE WHOLE WORLD KNEW ABOUT THIS ONE !! Why? Cause it happened on Christmas eve and there was total devastation. NO GLOBAL WARMING MONKEY POO FLINGING THEN ! Media is the key ... if it hit around Bynoe harbour area and wiped out a few settlements and knocked over a boab tree or three no one would give a ****.


----------



## basilio

This is actually a thread on CC.  The calamity in the Philippines deserves massive, urgent current attention. Lets hope its given and used.

But the question with CC is whether we can expect more extreme climate events as a result of increases in ocean temperature and increases in sea levels.  Whenever there is a tragedy either human or natural we have the opportunity to take a close look at whatever happened and  take measures to prevent/manage similar incidents in the future.  Thats why they are called "learning moments" . That is what this conversation is about.

I noted Trainspotter that you chose to comment on any of the questions I raised except for the typhoon in Philippines. (By the way on all current reports it was the biggest one yet)  . Any thoughts ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> This is actually a thread on CC.  The calamity in the Philippines deserves massive, urgent current attention. Lets hope its given and used.
> 
> But the question with CC is whether we can expect more extreme climate events as a result of increases in ocean temperature and increases in sea levels.  Whenever there is a tragedy either human or natural we have the opportunity to take a close look at whatever happened and  take measures to prevent/manage similar incidents in the future.  Thats why they are called "learning moments" . That is what this conversation is about.
> 
> I noted Trainspotter that you chose to comment on any of the questions I raised except for the typhoon in Philippines. (By the way on all current reports it was the biggest one yet)  . Any thoughts ?




You were the one crapping on that the intensity of typhoons will get worse cause the sea is rising has everything to do with the Phiilipines as they are regularly hit by the damn things  ERGO it will get worse ... my point is that the MEDIA is all over this cause this time the typhoon hit a heavily populated area. SHEEEEESH !!

You asked me what the naughty polluting countries were doing about Global Warming. I posted up a nice picture of the world with the countries clearly defined in pretty colours for you to understand as to which ones have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol  They are DOING something about reducing their carbon footprint.

I posted quotes and links to SCIENTISTS who began believing global warming then after they had done the research .... WHOOOPS !! Earths temperature has risen 0.06 degrees in 20 freaking years !!

STOP ...... READ ...... THINK ........ UNDERSTAND ....... in that order please.

This is a thread on CC right? So why did you post this in response to one of my comments?



> Wow! I was totally amazed when you quoted that figure trainspotter - so i went to the source.
> 
> Absolutely spot on. But lets think about the implications for all this.
> 
> 1) In 8 years our GDP goes up 350%!!! can anyone see where this 3.5 fold increase in wealth is reflected in our society ? Obviously the richest few cent have done very well but where has the rest gone?
> 
> 2) I'm guessing the lions share of this GDP increase has come from the mining boom and the property market. Lets say the property market went up 150% over the time. Does this actually represent an increase in value to the community ? A house is still a house whether it costs 100k or 300k . And the mining sales seem to have gone to many O/S investors and a small core of local businesses. And of course a decent flow on to local employment and taxes. (but surely nothing like the extra trillion dollars indicated.
> 
> In fact when you look at the other indicators of GDP it is all far more sensible. We can see how GDP has gone up an average of 3% a year since 2004. So over 10 years that should result in say 45% overall increase ? All a bit funny.


----------



## basilio

Hey lets drop the aggro shall we TS ? It doesn't make this any fun.

Points

1)  *The Philippines is a disaster area.*  We are really aware of it now (rather than say 50 years ago) because of the world wide media.  Apart from doing everything we can to help current survivors we owe it to them and us to learn from the disaster.  

Some examples of learning from disasters? After the Victorian bushfire tragedies of  2009 the entire firefighting system rewrote the book. We went from stay at home and defend to leave if the situation is going to be catastrophic. That was the new language of bushfire danger. We built community shelters.

That event was fuelled by years of drought, 5 days of 40C plus temperatures and a hot northerly wind. All the factors that make a bushfire dangerous went off the scale and the authorities recognized that CC had fundamentally increased the severity of summer weather conditions and this had to be factored into their firefighting equation. Much like the  Blue Mountains NSW bushfires in October this year...

The hurricane off New York has also resulted in massive planning change to deal with more intense hurricanes fueled by CC. This is not rocket surgury.

2) *Countries "doing something" about CC*. Sorry the  signatories to the Kyoto agreement are spitting in the wind. *No one. absolutely no one* believes the mere signing of the Kyoto protocal is more than a baby step on the way to effective action. I didn't respond  directly at the time because I was thinking a more comprehensive answer than the above. 

3) *Temperatures stopped rising for 15 years ? *  I'll offer you the most appropriate analogy. This is the equivalent of being diagnosed with cancer, watching the symptoms for 5 years and then because it doesn't get any worse for 3 months* declaring it has gone away*. 

The world is still warming Train Spotter. The oceans are absorbing heat. The Arctic is melting faster than anyone could have imagined a decade ago. The last 10 years have still produced the warmest years on record.  Is this the behaviour of a change that is going away ?

4) *My response to your figures on GDP.* I was amazed by the figures. I was interested enough to follow them up. I acknowledged you were quoting them accurately and offered some other examples of data from the same source. 

Was it off topic? Maybe. But I thought your comment was interesting and worth offering a constructive response. And I learned something from the activity that I believed was worth sharing.

If you are interested in seeing the bigger picture on how the world is still warming check out the URL. After all measuring the health/wealth of nation is not done with only one graph is it ? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________

PS I also checked out  your Wiki URL on most powerful and costliest typhoons in Philippines.  
Did you notice that 6/10 of the deadliest storms happened since 2000? 
That ALL of the most costly have happened since 1990 with six happening since 2008 ? 
Any thoughts on why this might be so ?


----------



## basilio

Strength of Typhoons


> *Typhoon Haiyan pushed the limit, but bigger storms are coming*
> Alan Boyle, Science Editor NBC News
> 
> Nov. 11, 2013 at 5:58 PM ET
> 
> Video: Typhoon Haiyan may be among the biggest ever recorded, peaking at more than 200 mph with a 20-foot storm surge. N
> Experts say Typhoon Haiyan was about as strong as it could theoretically get when it swept through the Philippines, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. But intensity limits have been rising over decades past ”” and climate models suggest they will keep rising over the decades to come, with the potential for bigger and more devastating storms.
> 
> "The tragedy of this particular storm is that it reached its limit just about the time it made landfall," Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NBC News.
> 
> Based on satellite imagery, the U.S. military's Joint Typhoon Warning Center estimated that Haiyan's winds reached a sustained peak as high as 195 mph shortly before it made landfall, with gusts rising to 235 mph. Estimates from Philippine weather officials were lower, suggesting that the storm packed sustained winds of 147 mph and gusts of 170 mph when it hit land. Either way, the typhoon ranks among the world's strongest tropical storms and appears to have been more powerful than Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
> 
> If the higher estimates are correct, the warning center said Haiyan's maximum strength would exceed that of its previous record-holder: Hurricane Camille, which hit the northern Gulf Coast in 1969 with sustained winds of 190 mph.
> 
> "This is at the top end of any tropical system that we've seen on our planet," said Bryan Norcross, The Weather Channel's hurricane specialist.
> 
> The definition of that top end has been shifting, Emanuel said. He was part of a team of researchers who predicted climate change could make tropical storms more intense, particularly in the Pacific.
> 
> "That part of the ocean, the Western Pacific, in November is pretty juicy," he said. "It has a high thermodynamic limit. That limit has been going up in time, perhaps in response to global warming. It's a little hard to say that for sure."



http://www.nbcnews.com/science/typhoon-haiyan-pushed-limit-bigger-storms-are-coming-2D11577486


----------



## sails

explod said:


> ...The increasing number and intensity of storms is a worrying trend to those who have closely observed the weather and nature all of their lives.




The charts I have seen don't indicate that these storms are increasing either in number or intensity. 

It is immoral to use the death or suffering of people for political point scoring. It's the first thing AGW extremists do as soon as there is a natural disaster and it's shameful, imo.

They are desperate to turn public opinion to keeping a useless tax.  How much do you think Australia reducing co2 by 5% in a few years time is really going to lessen a storm in the Philippines which has a history of similar severe weather?  We could always take a teaspoon from the ocean to say we are reducing sea levels too.


----------



## basilio

> The charts I have seen don't indicate that these storms are increasing either in number or intensity.



Perhaps you are looking at the wrong charts Sails.

Check out the Wiki URl that Trainspotter left highlighting typhoons in the Phillipines. As I noted above the last 10-20 years has seen the vast majority of the big and deadliest storms  ie the ones that will really knock your socks off.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon...he_Philippines


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Hey lets drop the aggro shall we TS ? It doesn't make this any fun.
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> PS I also checked out  your Wiki URL on most powerful and costliest typhoons in Philippines.
> Did you notice that 6/10 of the deadliest storms happened since 2000?
> That ALL of the most costly have happened since 1990 with six happening since 2008 ?
> Any thoughts on why this might be so ?




Hey lets drop the "Whiskers" approach then shall we basilio? It becomes droll after awhile and baiting is not my style.

Ummmm population expansion means more housing/infrastructure means more devastation when a cyclone hits it? Deadly as in deaths I am assuming? So in 	1867, on the September 22nd a typhoon named Angela wiped out 1,800 lives in the Phillipines. Pretty sure there would not have been many inhabitants in 1867 SO working it backwards with extrapolation I am thinking this cyclone was pretty awesome as it HIT a densely populated area perhaps? Not newsworthy for cyclone Pablo in 2012 as it did bugger all damage to infrastructure and was not "deadly" enough (no alarmists or media frenzy on this one) I am repeating myself here ....... 

1) *Phillipines is a disaster area - * (for cyclones) BIG TICK !! AGREE HERE !!! HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE !!
As for the NSW bush fires ... 5 years of build up of undergrowth is the fault of tree hugging greenies who should allow back burning etc to properly manage FIRE RISK !! Also due to population expansion with people living in these areas ... it is more likely to get on the news. 

During the severe,* Australia wide, 1902 Federation Drought* the total sheep population dropped to fewer than 54,000,000 from a total of 106,000,000 sheep. In the *1891 drought* cattle numbers fell by more than 40 per cent.

New York hurricane - once again severity due to media and population. Transit Authority due to lack of maintenance squealing they need more money from the government.

2) *Kyoto Protocol -* Europe will meet their targets due to them being in a recession. Reduction in CO2 is the name of the game is it not? Now IF we can only get the nasty polluting countries in the red to do something about it !

3) *GLOBAL Temperatures have risen 0.06 degrees in 20 years* But but but it was supposed to be getting hotter faster cause of CO2 and stuff .... right?    Can you please provide some evidence via a webpage or a scientist with some credibility please rather than making statements?

4) *This is a CC thread - * You chip me first then I respond and then you go all Chernobyl on me? CC thread remember ... let's keep it that way please.


----------



## wayneL

New paper finds Pacific cyclone activity is at the lowest levels of the past 5,000 years

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-pacific-cyclone.html


----------



## wayneL

New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> Perhaps you are looking at the wrong charts Sails.
> 
> Check out the Wiki URl that Trainspotter left highlighting typhoons in the Phillipines. As I noted above the last 10-20 years has seen the vast majority of the big and deadliest storms  ie the ones that will really knock your socks off.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon...he_Philippines




Bas - since when is Wikipedia an absolute authority?  Interestingly clicking on your link produces this:


----------



## sails

Never mind - you have posted a broken link.  This is probably the one you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoons_in_the_Philippines

Not all experts agree with what's written in Wiki - article below by Physicist Lubos Motl:

Some excerpts:



> Today in the morning, I was stunned by the dishonesty of the professional climate alarmists again. Their moral defects are just shocking. It seems completely obvious to me that they must know that they are lying 24 hours a day.
> 
> This controversy is about the claim that the typhoon Haiyan was the strongest tropical cyclone that ever made a landfall, and so on. You can see this preposterous misinformation almost everywhere. For example, start with the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Typhoon Haiyan....
> 
> All the mistakes are completely obvious and demonstrable, as I will argue below, but it is impossible to even fix basic errors on the Wikipedia page, or elsewhere. Such pages are being controlled by obsessed hardcore climate alarmist trolls and crackpots…
> 
> So let’s look at some real numbers and the origin of the flawed numbers…
> 
> So have a look at the list of the most intense tropical cyclones ever.
> 
> They are geographically divided to 8 regions ("basins"). Starting from the lowest pressure (strongest cyclones), they are (the minimum pressure of the strongest cyclone is added):
> 
> 870 hPa: Western North Pacific Ocean (Tip 1979)
> 882 hPa: North Atlantic Ocean (Wilma 2005)
> 890 hPa: South Pacific Ocean (Zoe 2002-03)
> 895 hPa: South-West Indian Ocean (Gafilo 2003-04)
> 900 hPa: Australian region (Gwenda 1998-99)
> 902 hPa: Eastern Pacific Ocean (Linda 1997)
> 912 hPa: North Indian Ocean (BOB 07 1999)
> 972 hPa: South Atlantic Ocean (Catarina 2004)
> 
> Most of the basins are dominated by cyclones in recent decades because reliable and continuous measurements of the pressure only began recently…
> 
> I wrote the strongest basin in the bold face because that’s the region in which Haiyan belongs. If you focus on the table for that basin, you will see than Haiyan is between 21st and 35th strongest cyclone in that region since the 1950s or so. In 60 years or so, one gets 21-35 cyclones just in that region that are equally strong or stronger. In other words, every 2-3 years, one gets a cyclone of the equivalent or greater magnitude…
> 
> CNN wrote (via Pielke Jr) that the storm surge was 40-50 feet; the actual figure from the meteorologists was 13-18 feet. CNN probably had no sensible source for the huge (doubled or tripled) figure at all.




Read more exaggerations exposed: Typhoon Haiyan: similar unspectacular cyclones arrive every 2-3 years


----------



## trainspotter

Sister has just come back from Vietnam after 2 weeks holiday there. Interestingly enough not a word was spoken about typhoon Haiyan and most of the locals were blissfully unaware there even was a typhoon heading towards them. Not newsworthy enough? 

Neither was Bangladesh in 1970?



> As terrible as the Haiyan typhoon has been for the Philippines, it is nowhere close to being the “worst storm ever,” as some media outlets have alleged. Current stories on Haiyan are describing it as the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history based on its extraordinary wind strength of 195 mph. However, in terms of loss of life, a cyclone that occurred 2,000 miles west of the Philippines some 40 years ago was far worse.
> 
> In November 1970, the Bhola Cyclone smashed into East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Bengal (India) and killed at least 500,000 people -- although the true death toll will never be known. That is at least 50  times the number of deaths recorded in the Philippines over the weekend.




http://www.ibtimes.com/philippine-t...adesh-cyclone-killed-half-million-people-1970


----------



## spooly74

> While there is continued uncertainty surrounding future changes in climate (Knutson et al. 2010), *current projections of TC frequency or intensity change may not yield an anthropogenic signal in economic loss data for many decades or even centuries* (Crompton et al. 2011). Thus, our quantitative analysis of global hurricane land- falls is consistent with previous research focused on normalized losses associated with hurricanes that have found no trends once data are properly adjusted for so- cietal factors.
> 
> http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf




No prizes for guessing the hot zone.
It would seem the science is pretty clear about applying any anthropogenic signal to large hurricanes and cyclone disasters. Its just the alarmists with their skeptical hats on versus the consensus, again.

Hurricane tracks and landfall location points for storms that make landfall at hurricane intensity (maximum 1-min sustained $64 kt) for the (a) NATL and EPAC (1944-2010), (b) WPAC (1950-2010), (c) NIO (1970-2010), and (d)SH (1970-2010). Each TC track line connects the 6-hourly best-track positions, with red squares indicating a hurricane-force landfall location point and blue circles indicating overland observations of tropical storm strength (wind speed between 34 and 63 kt).


----------



## wayneL

Interesting article "The Super Storm Meme"

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/super-storm-meme

SNIP:

Storm intensity is measured by central pressure, the atmospheric pressure at the core of a cyclone. The lower the core preasure, the more intense the storm. Haiyan, at its peak, was measured at 895 hPa (hectopascals). In the North Atlantic, Hurricane Wilma, in 2005, was measured at 882. You have to go back to 1979's Typhoon Tip, to find the most intense storm ever recorded in the Western North Pacific””it pulled 870 hPa and tops the list of all time most intense storms. In fact, when compared to that region's list of most intense storms, Haiyan ties with a clutch of other storms””most recently Yuri in 1991””for an ignominious 21st place. Not only was Haiyan not the most intense storm ever seen, it's not even in the running.


----------



## wayneL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones#Western_North_Pacific_Ocean




Hat tip - http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/


----------



## wayneL

Japan gets real

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/j...etback-to-un-treaty-talks-20131115-2xlzf.html


----------



## springhill

wayneL said:


> Japan gets real
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/j...etback-to-un-treaty-talks-20131115-2xlzf.html




Can the last country that leaves please turn out the lights....


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...al-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05  °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15]  °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14]  °C per decade).

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12  °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.


----------



## Logique

Let's be proud as a nation for standing against this nonsense. If we're being mocked by that crowd of rent seekers, then we are surely on the right track.

Canada, Japan, Australia, more to follow.



> http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=924834
> *Australian govt mocked at climate summit*  Friday November 15, 2013
> 
> "...*Australia has won its third 'fossil of the day' award at the UN climate talks in Warsaw*, as international environment groups attempt to embarrass the Abbott government on the world stage over its decision to scrap the carbon tax.
> 
> The dubious honour has been awarded each day of the annual talks to a so-called 'dinosaur' deemed by environment groups to have stalled progress on climate change.
> 
> ...The Climate Action Network said the Australian government's reluctance on climate financing, 'obtrusiveness' in negotiations and Wednesday's tabling of the carbon tax repeal laws had earned it three gongs.
> 
> Business groups at the summit are questioning recent policy changes in Australia.
> 
> Baker and McKenzie climate lawyer Ilona Millar said she had fielded questions from business delegates asking about the future of carbon pricing in Australia, and when the repeal was to occur.
> 
> 'A lot of people who are working in that space are a little bit perplexed about why you would move away from a market-based approach,' she told AAP from Warsaw on Friday.
> 
> Those excited about *Australia's carbon market linking with Europe's emissions trading scheme had expressed 'some disappointment*' at the prospect of it being dismantled, she said..."


----------



## basilio

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...al-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
> 
> Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05  °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:
> 
> Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15]  °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14]  °C per decade).
> 
> But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12  °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.




That was a very interesting paper.  What the authors noted was that the HadCRUT4 data had almost no measurements in the Arctic , Antarctic and a number of spots in Africa.

It has been clear for the last 15 years that the Arctic is warming at a considerably faster rate than the rest of the earth so incorporating temperature figures from the Arctic makes sense.

The delicious irony of the paper ?  *The source of the infill Acrtic temperatures was the satellite  measurements supplied by the University of Alabama from Christy and Spencer* who have repeatedly attempted to use the satellite  temperature figures to refute global warming.

Nice video abstract of the paper on you tube. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo


----------



## trainspotter

> Numerous journal articles have reported on studies of temperature trends in Antarctica, with  a remarkably consistent conclusion…….
> 
> Whereas climate models suggest that temperatures in Antarctica should have been warming in recent decades in response to increases in greenhouse gases, measurements show otherwise. Although some regions do show increases, the majority of the continent shows no significant trend or an actual decrease. There is evidence  that atmospheric and  ocean circulation patterns have much stronger impacts on Antarctic climate than do greenhouse gas increases.




http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/is-antarctica-getting-warmer-2/



> As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains, new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice.
> 
> The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/



> IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. *As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight*.
> 
> In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.
> 
> My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, *more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. *Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=0

So the Antarctic Peninsula which represents 15% of the continents land mass is warming and the rest is cooling? You do the maths


----------



## Knobby22

Did you read the article or just the proaganda??

Further sections follow, you should read it:

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals ”” thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals ”” all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth? 

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1&


----------



## trainspotter

Did you not see the headbang icon at the end of the sentence? One minute he is saying 15% of the land mass is warming but the rest is cooling BUT the overall trend is for warming as the ozone heals? 

Antarctica is *likely* to warm with the rest of the world? I am _*likely*_ to win lotto if I keep playing as well.



> Our summary statement pointed out how the_* cooling trend posed challenges to models *_of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change


----------



## Knobby22

Come on Trainspotter. 

He is saying he is sick of being misquoted by "skeptics" and having words put in his mouth that he didn't say by unreputable people.
You are continuing it! He stated that his paper represented the whole of Antartica, not the peninsula. 
How come you are misquoting? Read this bit. 

_In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear. _

_My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change. _

Rupert below says it best. He's no dummy.


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see what you find you look at the whole picture rather than carefully selected sections that are used to promote  distortions on the science around global warming.

As Knobby pointed out Peter Doran undertook research on climate change in the Antarctic and ended up having the paper selectively quoted to attack the science around CC.  He has gone on the record to explain the whole picture of his research and repeatedly requested to have his name taken off the list of scientists who doubt the reality of global warming.
_*
( Incidentally what are to  make of organizations that distort a scientists findings and then repeatedly use the distortion to boost their own argument? Look to the Heartland  Foundation  et al for that honour)*_

With regard to warming in the  Antarctic and the expansion of sea ice. The reality of GW doesn't necessarily mean every part of the earth will warm  in the same way. There are a host of local conditions which will impact on the local climate. Antarctica is a HUGE continent with warming and cooling happening in different areas. In fact the expansion of sea ice in Antarctic is allegedly a consequence on changes in the ozone layer and a freshening of the Southern Ocean.

Overall however Antarctica is losing significant volumes of ice from the landmass.





> *Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?*
> Link to this page
> What the science says...
> Select a level...	Basic 		Intermediate
> 
> Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
> *Climate Myth...*
> 
> Antarctica is gaining ice
> *"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)*
> 
> *Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.*
> 
> In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.
> 
> In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.
> 
> Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
> Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center
> 
> One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:




http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Come on Trainspotter.
> 
> He is saying he is sick of being misquoted by "skeptics" and having words put in his mouth that he didn't say by unreputable people.
> You are continuing it! He stated that his paper represented the whole of Antartica, not the peninsula.
> How come you are misquoting? Read this bit.
> 
> _In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the *lead author*, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, *the Antarctic Peninsula was warming*, and many people *assumed *that meant the climate on the *entire continent was heating up*, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about *15 percent of the continent’s land mass*, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear. _
> 
> _My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had *actually cooled*. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, *more of the continent had cooled than had warmed*. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend *posed challenges* to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change. _
> 
> Rupert below says it best. He's no dummy.




Come on Knobby22,

The peninsula represents 15% of the landmass which was warming and the rest was cooling? He then goes on to say it is likely that the rest of Antarctica will warm with the rest of the world? Contradictory at best. Fallacious at worst.

He wanted his name taken off the records due to a book by Michael Chricton which misrepresented his thesis.

My bolds. It does not make sense HENCE the headbang at the end of my sentence?

Rupert is no fool .. *sniff sniff* .. is that the smell of money?
_
"[W]e have saved millions of dollars by improving the energy efficiency of our day-to-day operations._
_
"Twentieth Century Fox's Ice Age franchise and the *most successful film of all time,* Avatar, prove that passionate environmental messages can be fodder for both blockbusters ..._

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html


Money money money !


----------



## basilio

Congratulations to Rupert Murdoch on his achievements to reduce CO2 emissions with News Corp and save a buck.

However if he was fair dinkum about his commitment he would not be allowing Andrew Bolt to be trashing climate scientists at every opportunity and misrepresenting the dangers. He would be giving the earth "the benefit of the doubt" as he put it in 2006

In a sense we are seeing Rupert make sure his stateroom in the Titanic is neat and tidy...


----------



## Knobby22

Basilio

Rupert knows it's real and needs to say so for two reasons:
1. It will reflect on his legacy.
2. It helps protect him from advocates 

However he is aligned with powerful interests who pay him money to serve their interests. He doesn't mind taking the money as long as he can be above it all. He will take money from whoever offers it. I'm sure he enjoys using his power to make movies like Avatar and shows like the Simpsons with their messages which are opposite to the so called "serious" commentators of Fox who feed the hard line Republican voters with what they want to hear.

Rupert has never been as conservative as he is portrayed. He supported Labor in Britain and Labor in Australia at various times. Don't forget Hilary Clinton's campaign was heavily backed by Rupert. I think he is playing with the Republicans at present. Read the link below.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2012/11/24/Fox-News-Republicans/


----------



## spooly74

sydboy007 said:


> But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12  °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.




Where & when did the IPCC 'mention' this  .12  °C per decade?
IIRC, its always been .2  °C per decade.

It might be exactly equal to the lowest estimates of warming. 
Luke warmers, anyone?


----------



## wayneL

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

The new maths 52% = 97%


----------



## medicowallet

wayneL said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
> 
> The new maths 52% = 97%




Gotta love Tom Lehrer.


----------



## Knobby22

Good article. Blows Cook away.

Some points though:

62% say both climate and human induced.

Also interesting was that the less qualified you are to comment, the more likely you are to be in the negative.
If you are publishing in the field of climate change then its 88%.

Finally this is a poll of only of US scientists in which the debate is politically charged.


----------



## spooly74

New Report Finds Climate Change Caused By 7 Billion Key Individuals



> In a landmark report experts say fundamentally reshapes our understanding of the global warming crisis, new data published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the phenomenon is caused primarily by the actions of 7 billion key individuals.
> 
> These several billion individuals, who IPCC officials confirmed are currently operating in 195 countries worldwide, are together responsible for what experts called the “lion’s share” of the devastating consequences of global warming affecting the entire planet.
> 
> “Our research has proved conclusively that, year after year, the acceleration of the rate of global warming and the damage caused by this man-made acceleration can be clearly linked to 7 billion main culprits,” explained lead author Dr. John Bartlett, noting that many of these individuals have links to climate change going back nearly a century. “Worse, the significant majority of damage was done within the past two decades, when the consequences of climate change were widely known and yet these specific individuals did nothing to curb or amend their practices.”





http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-finds-climate-change-caused-by-7-billio,34658/?ref=auto


----------



## wayneL

Judith Curry on Michael Mann: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/23/week-in-review-5/



> Up the level of your scientific game when discussing climate change with the public.  Most importantly, stop trashing other scientists that disagree with you.  It reminds the public of Climategate and all of the irresponsible and unethical practices that are the root source of why they don’t trust climate scientists.  You continue to damage the credibility of climate science in ways that you apparently can’t imagine.




Also some interesting stuff from Von Storch at the link

Also linked, which I invite all to read http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/the-police-visited-today/


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> ...
> Also interesting was that the less qualified you are to comment, the more likely you are to be in the negative.
> ...




Yes! I often say the same thing about people whom disagree with my infallible opinion! Especially on matters that are yet to be conclusively proven.

Everybody whom disagrees with my self esteemed opinion must therefore be unqualified to comment by merit of intellectual impairment, inexperience or conflict of interest! 

Does this misguided philosophy sound familiar to anyone?

Would anydody like a side order of fries with their order for cognitive bias?


----------



## noco

I have just read a letter dated 1st November 1913 posted to my mother from her brother who lived in Mt Morgan at the time.

He stated to her it was 101 degrees F AND THEY HAD NOT HAD ANY RAIN FOIR 4 MONTHS.

Global Warming....Climate Change......or was it caused by CO2 EMMISSIONS?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Yes! I often say the same thing about people whom disagree with my infallible opinion! Especially on matters that are yet to be conclusively proven.
> 
> Everybody whom disagrees with my self esteemed opinion must therefore be unqualified to comment by merit of intellectual impairment, inexperience or conflict of interest!
> 
> Does this misguided philosophy sound familiar to anyone?
> 
> Would anydody like a side order of fries with their order for cognitive bias?




Yes, you definitely have some.
The more qualified as a scientist in the field, the more likely you come to the conclusion shown. Is that so hard to fathom? 

It is like going to a doctor with heart problems, who will most likely provide the best diagnosis? the GP, the brain surgeon or the heart surgeon? Hardly a communist conspiracy


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> I have just read a letter dated 1st November 1913 posted to my mother from her brother who lived in Mt Morgan at the time.
> 
> He stated to her it was 101 degrees F AND THEY HAD NOT HAD ANY RAIN FOIR 4 MONTHS.
> 
> Global Warming....Climate Change......or was it caused by CO2 EMMISSIONS?




I think if he was here he would express shock that the new maximum record broken in 1990 was 113.5 degrees Farenheit!  And even this year it was over 102 degrees F.

I reckon he would be wondering what his descendants were doing about it.


----------



## trainspotter

This photo captures the River Murray near Mildura before the lock system was introduced on the river between 1922 and 1937. The Murray ceased to flow in the drought years of 1901, 1915 and 1923.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, you definitely have some.
> The more qualified as a scientist in the field, the more likely you come to the conclusion shown. Is that so hard to fathom?
> 
> It is like going to a doctor with heart problems, who will most likely provide the best diagnosis? the GP, the brain surgeon or the heart surgeon? Hardly a communist conspiracy




What is difficult to fathom is how any "qualified" scientist can continually dismiss factually relevant data that appears to contradict their treasured theories. This leads me to the logical conclusion that there is very likely an agenda that has no relevance to the environmental or general welfare of humanity or the planet!

History has shown the folly of subscribing to consensus opinions and that educational qualifications do not elevate anyone to the position of infallibility! 
Have you already forgotten about that unpopular high school drop out from the last centruy? (Albert Einstein was his name if my memory serves me correctly!) 

Need I say more?


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> I think if he was here he would express shock that the new maximum record broken in 1990 was 113.5 degrees Farenheit!  And even this year it was over 102 degrees F.
> 
> I reckon he would be wondering what his descendants were doing about it.




Did I mention anything about that 101 degrees F being a maximum recording?  

For all I know the temperature may have been higher in the following weeks....... after all that was at the beginning of November.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> It is like going to a doctor with heart problems, who will most likely provide the best diagnosis? the GP, the brain surgeon or the heart surgeon? Hardly a communist conspiracy




You're equating cardiology to climate "science"?

That is a false analogy as cardiology is a field where empirical science rules, climate science isn't.


----------



## wayneL

Furthermore...



Knobby22 said:


> Hardly a communist conspiracy




Is it still a conspiracy theory when they come right out and say it?

http://www.popularresistance.org/sleepwalking-to-extinction/



> the only alternative ”” impossible as this may seem right now ”” is to overthrow this global economic system and all of the governments of the 1% that prop it up and replace them with a global economic democracy, a radical bottom-up political democracy, an eco-socialist civilization.




Also read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/1..._never_read_our_climate_documents_bwahhahhah/


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You're equating cardiology to climate "science"?
> 
> That is a false analogy as cardiology is a field where empirical science rules, climate science isn't.




Rubbish, merely a matter of time line.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Rubbish, merely a matter of time line.




Substantiate please.


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> That was a very interesting paper.  What the authors noted was that the HadCRUT4 data had almost no measurements in the Arctic , Antarctic and a number of spots in Africa.
> 
> It has been clear for the last 15 years that the Arctic is warming at a considerably faster rate than the rest of the earth so incorporating temperature figures from the Arctic makes sense.
> 
> The delicious irony of the paper ?  *The source of the infill Acrtic temperatures was the satellite  measurements supplied by the University of Alabama from Christy and Spencer* who have repeatedly attempted to use the satellite  temperature figures to refute global warming.
> 
> Nice video abstract of the paper on you tube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo




From the book "Climate Wars" previously quoted, it was reported that in 2007 the IPCC refused to include the calculated effects of the methane excaping from under the ice caps.  And the acceleration is said to be many times worse than all coal fired activity.  *Sheeeez duck*

The massaging is one thing but for there to be no concern at *even a small possibility * that our current industrial footprint *could* be destroying our fragile planet is beyond me.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Substantiate please.




A study of our planets evolution that has taken place over the last 5.5 billions years and the chemical process involved makes it pretty clear that it has for example produced us humans.  When understood the intracacies of nature are such as can be compared to the human body.  The weather is a reaction of hot, cold, rain, you name it, all can be tracked and predicted by science, *if the science is not compromised by self interests*

The seperation inferred to support your argument is wrong.


----------



## wayneL

Plod,

Once again, cardiology is empirical, climate science is largely not empirical at all.


----------



## overhang

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/federal-funding-bid-for-king-island-wind-farm/5132738
"_It has been revealed Hydro Tasmania wants the Federal Government to help fund its $2 billion King Island wind farm project.

The state-owned hydro electricity generator is conducting a feasibility study into its plan to build 200 wind turbines on the Bass Strait island.

The proposal for Australia's largest wind farm* includes the construction of an underwater cable from King Island to Victoria.*"
_
My bolds, I'm not sure if Smurf resides in this thread but I'd like to hear is opinion on this.  It's seems a bit nonsensical to run a cable across the Bass Strait when Victoria already have plenty of available. land suitable for wind farms.


----------



## burglar

overhang said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/federal-funding-bid-for-king-island-wind-farm/5132738
> "_It has been revealed Hydro Tasmania wants the Federal Government to help fund its $2 billion King Island wind farm project.
> 
> The state-owned hydro electricity generator is conducting a feasibility study into its plan to build 200 wind turbines on the Bass Strait island.
> 
> The proposal for Australia's largest wind farm* includes the construction of an underwater cable from King Island to Victoria.*"
> _
> My bolds, I'm not sure if Smurf resides in this thread but I'd like to hear is opinion on this.  It's seems a bit nonsensical to run a cable across the Bass Strait when Victoria already have plenty of available. land suitable for wind farms.



Hi overhang,

Reading your post it would seem obvious that:

a.) King Island is windy.
b.) Hydro Tasmania can profit from a wind farm in Bass Strait.
c.) Nothing is stopping Victoria from getting a piece of the action.


----------



## overhang

burglar said:


> Hi overhang,
> 
> Reading your post it would seem obvious that:
> 
> a.) King Island is windy.
> b.) Hydro Tasmania can profit from a wind farm in Bass Strait.
> c.) Nothing is stopping Victoria from getting a piece of the action.




Hi Burglar, 
The thing is we actually have wind in Victoria too, I'm less than an hour drive to three separate wind farms.  My concern would be at what rate would Tasmania supply power to our grid in Victoria.


----------



## burglar

overhang said:


> Hi Burglar,
> The thing is we actually have wind in Victoria too, I'm less than an hour drive to three separate wind farms.  My concern would be at what rate would Tasmania supply power to our grid in Victoria.




South Australia gets power from Victoria even though we have a coal fuelled power station. 
Also co-gen and gas fired stations.
Locals have cashed in on generous subsidies with solar panels. 
We now have the scungiest rooflines/skylines in the world.

We actually have wind farms and are going to have geothermal stations too.

Its all about base-load power and a mix of Green solutions that don't yet deliver base-load power.

I imagine that one day we will get wave power!
Then the scungiest technology will be hidden under the sea.


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> South Australia gets power from Victoria even though we have a coal fuelled power station.
> Also co-gen and gas fired stations.



In very rough terms one sixth of SA electricity comes from the coal-fired plants at Port Augusta, about half comes from gas-fired plants in the Adelaide metro area and the rest is from wind and solar.

SA used to be heavily reliant on power from Vic, at one point it was supplying close to a third of the average load, but these days there's far less net transfer between Vic and SA.



> Its all about base-load power and a mix of Green solutions that don't yet deliver base load power




The King Island wind farm will have a load factor of about 45%. That is, a 600MW peak capacity and an average output of 270MW which makes it one of the most productive wind farms anywhere. This is possible simply due to the relatively consistent (compared to elsewhere) wind in Bass Strait. 

In contrast, most wind farms achieve a load factor in the order of 30%. For other wind farms operated by Hydro Tas, it's about 35% for Woolnorth (NW Tas) and 38% for Musselroe (NE Tas).

The King Island project is purely a business venture as such, noting that it doesn't even connect to the Tasmanian electricity grid at all. It goes straight to Victoria only.

But a logical second stage is to add a Tas - King Island cable thus forming a second HVDC link across Bass Strait. With that in place, plus further wind development either on KI or in Tasmania as such and operated in an integrated manner with the existing hydro system, Hydro Tas could indeed supply firm baseload energy to Victoria.

Hydro Tas has no pumped storage schemes at present. It has conventional storage hydro-electric schemes although some of these do include pumped diversions (ie water is pumped from one place to another, but never comes back the other way - it goes through a power station with a different discharge point instead and is a net source of baseload energy). But you could certainly build pumped storage in Tasmania if the need arose, and you could do that largely by reworking existing schemes. It doesn't make financial sense at present, but technically it is certainly viable. There is also the possibility of rebuilding parts of the system to transfer it from baseload production to peak load if it became worthwhile and in one case the required infrastructure (except the actual turbines and alternators) is already in place.

Tasmania is somewhat unique at present, being predominantly powered by renewable electricity and for having a complex, integrated hydro scheme that produces base load energy (as distinct from most hydro schemes which are intended primarily for peaking operation).

Hydro Tas would also benefit in other ways from the wind farm without needing to directly connect it to the Tasmanian system since there is already a Tas - Vic power link. In general terms, when the wind farm is producing at high output this would lower Victorian electricity prices somewhat, sending them back up when the wind isn't blowing. Hydro could simply buy some of this cheaper energy from Vic, thus conserving water in storage, and then sell back to Vic at a higher price at other times. It already does this as such, power flows in both directions across Bass Strait, but the wind farm would alter the Vic prices a little bit and there is an opportunity to take advantage of this. 

Hydro isn't in a position to fund the project, it doesn't have a spare $2 billion sitting around that's for sure, so its' role is likely to be that of a developer and operator with someone else owning it. As part of such a deal, Hydro would presumably ensure that engineering design work is directed to Entura, a reasonably large engineering consultancy 100% owned by Hydro.

Hydro currently operates (but does not own) two wind farms in Tasmania. It also owns and operates an integrated hydro-electric system comprising 53 large dams (and about 150 smaller structures - weirs etc) and 28 principal power stations (and one minor one) in Tasmania. It also has recently acquired the only gas-fired plant in Tas as well as dispatch rights to a small gas-fired plant in Victoria and the associated gas supply contracts. It also owns Momentum Energy, a Victorian-based retailer which sells electricity (and which will soon start selling gas) to the public and business however Momentum is prevented by state law from operating in Tasmania except on the Bass Strait islands where it is the only electricity retailer. Other Hydro assets include a diesel power system on Flinders Island, and a wind/diesel/solar power system and "smart grid" on King Island. The existing Bass Strait cable, Basslink, is privately owned.

Politically it's simply a case of playing the game and adapting to changing circumstances. It would suit Hydro quite nicely to retain the carbon tax but that isn't the way it's going. So they're just pursuing alternative opportunities instead and playing politics where necessary.


----------



## basilio

Excellent piece of research Smurf.  Much appreciated.

I suppose one the most salient points is that Victoria could replace at least part of its coal fired power stations with clean, consistent wind power  -  and very easily at that.


----------



## overhang

Thanks for the insightful post Smurf.

I have driven past wind farms many times that have all turbines off, is this because at this time the grid is at capacity?  Seems quite a waste to have the turbines sitting idle while coal is feeding the demand but I guess coal isn't too easy to just throttle back?


----------



## Smurf1976

The existing coal-fired plants in Vic are:

Loy Yang A (2240 MW)
Loy Yang B (1020 MW)
Hazelwood (1680 MW)
Yallourn W (1480 MW)
Morwell (190 MW)
Anglesea (160 MW)

Of that lot, Hazelwood currently has a nominal closure date of 2031 although it would be technically possible to extend this by a few years. But it won't still be going 30 years from now - it's not really practical to do that as it does have a finite life. Sometime in the 2030's it will close, the only question being whether it's at the start of the decade or at the end. Quite likely, it would be a staged closure just as it was a staged commissioning (1964 - 1971) when it was built.

Morwell also uses coal from the same mine as Hazelwood to fire the boilers. It's a very old plant, realistically they couldn't push it much beyond 2030 even if the coal is available - it will simply be worn out by that time. At present, it's barely operating (apart from as a briquette factory, although even that runs way below capacity these days) as the carbon tax makes it too costly.

Yallourn has a somewhat "firmer" closure in the mid-2030's as the coal runs out. There's really only one remaining area they could mine beyond that, but there's already things built on top of it and it's unlikely this will occur unless electricity is far more expensive than it is today.

Loy Yang A & B are newer plants (commissioned 1984 - 1996 in 6 stages between the two plants) and there's plenty of coal. For the foreseeable future they are likely to continue operating.

Anglesea has more than enough coal for the remaining life of the plant which could reasonably extend to sometime around 2040.

Bass Strait gas also has a finite lifespan. Exactly how long depends on what assumptions are made about production rates and future discovery, but we're talking 30 years or so give or take a decade.

So basically, Victoria loses roughly 45% of it's current power supply in the 2030's and all of its' gas supply in the 2040's if no action is taken. So far as electricity is concerned, realistically the likely scenarios are:

1. A new large brown coal plant.
2. A large nuclear plant.
3. Extensive development of renewables including from SA and Tas, with a smaller new coal or nuclear plant to the extent that renewables aren't sufficient.
4. If nothing else is done, closure of much industry plus the development of new gas-fired generation, possibly using LNG shipped in or alternatively gas (at export parity pricing) from NSW / Qld via pipeline.

Realistically, there isn't likely to be much support for option 4 unless it comes about by default (ie nothing else gets done). Also worth noting is that none of the options are viable at present electricity prices.

There's going to be an interesting energy debate in Victoria at some point.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> In very rough terms one sixth of SA electricity comes from the coal-fired plants at Port Augusta, about half comes from gas-fired plants in the Adelaide metro area and the rest is from wind and solar.
> 
> SA used to be heavily reliant on power from Vic, at one point it was supplying close to a third of the average load, but these days there's far less net transfer between Vic and SA.




Port Augusta PS burns sh!tty brown coal from Leigh Creek.
It was to be shut down under K Rudd's Climate Change policy.
Julia Gillard was unable to close it down. (though I don't know why?)

National Power built a pretty little PS at Pelican Point in 1999.
It burns gas from Moomba in the Cooper Basin.
That's fine you say!
But the gas they were allocated was taken away from Adelaide Brighton Cement.
They, in turn, have been burning sh!tty alternatives to gas.
If you ring and ask, they are burning clean,
but nearby residents claim they sometimes choke on acrid smoke.

Turns out that South Australia needed that pretty little PS for extra production of Copper plate in Roxby Downs.
Roxby Downs takes power from the National Grid, but buys it from Victoria. 
Physically, it probably comes from Port Augusta PS, being the nearest power station.

Somewhere, I wanted to mention that Victorian peak is a half hour ahead of SA peak.
So there is a mutual benefit of the SA-VIC interconnector.

Disclaimer: It has been 14 years since these events started and they may have been improved.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... There's going to be an interesting energy debate in Victoria at some point.




Hi Smurf,
I often look for your posts!

I'd like to echo the appreciation from other posters in regard to your knowledge of the topic and your very readable style.

(apologies about my posts, I was called away before I could polish them!)


----------



## basilio

burglar said:


> Hi Smurf,
> I often look for your posts!
> 
> I'd like to echo the appreciation from other posters in regard to your knowledge of the topic and your very readable style.
> 
> (apologies about my posts, I was called away before I could polish them!)




Ditto!!
Cheers


----------



## Ijustnewit

AAAA+++ posts Smurf thanks .


----------



## trainspotter

Nuclear anyone? 



> Our future choice of electricity mix will have a significant impact on the Australian economy. Greenhouse gas abatement cost, health damage from burning fossil fuels, electricity cost and the capital investment needed can all have economic consequences. With politicians like federal energy minister Gary Gray supporting a nuclear debate, now is the time to consider the financial implications of using nuclear power.
> 
> In late 2012, two government agencies produced models of Australia’s future electricity generation mix out to 2050. DRET released the Energy White Paper (2012) and CSIRO released eFuture. The EWP reflected current government policy and did not include nuclear power, while the CSIRO web-based modelling tool had provision to include nuclear.
> 
> The features of these models, and the scenarios from which they are drawn, made it possible to assess their respective impacts on the economy out to 2050 and hence to determine the specific impact of including nuclear energy in the mix.




http://www.businessspectator.com.au...s/how-nuclear-would-impact-australian-economy

http://australianmap.net/ Check out the capacity we have to generate clean electricity into the future.

http://australianmap.net/kojarena-echelon-base/ to see HOW we listened in on SBY purple circle phones. Shhhhhh they are listening right now !


----------



## wayneL

Eh?????????????????????????????

http://www.news.com.au/world/seven-...s-running-out-of/story-fndir2ev-1226777125170



> This one might not upset you that much, but for lovers of canned fish, Armageddon is just around the corner. It could soon be very difficult to find a can of sardines on our supermarket shelves.
> *Sardine populations tend to fluctuate according to water temperature - they require warm waters to breed. But heavy fishing and the cooling of sea temperatures has led to a sardine shortage.*
> A Canadian fleet of sardine-hunting ships recently returned with empty nets - that's $US32 million worth of potential sales down the drain.
> And both the US and Canada haven't done enough to decrease their fishing quotas to sustain the dwindling populations.
> We could be in store for several sardine-free decades if sea temperatures don't return to the optimal level required for our salty sea friends.




Bolds mine


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Eh?????????????????????????????
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world/seven-...s-running-out-of/story-fndir2ev-1226777125170
> 
> 
> 
> Bolds mine




Shirley it is a misprint?


----------



## ghotib

burglar said:


> Shirley it is a misprint?




Nope. The North East Pacific is in the cool (negative) phase of a multi-year pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is a bit like, and also partly related to, ENSO. 

Climatologists and oceanographers have terabytes of empirical data on ocean temperatures. Eh Wayne? 

Chrs,

Ghoti

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306684/


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Nope. The North East Pacific is in the cool (negative) phase of a multi-year pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is a bit like, and also partly related to, ENSO.
> 
> Climatologists and oceanographers have terabytes of empirical data on ocean temperatures. Eh Wayne?
> 
> Chrs,
> 
> Ghoti
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306684/





Yeah, missing heat an' all that... must be hiding at the bottom of the ocean. Eh Ghoti?


----------



## trainspotter

WHAT THE HELL?? I thought we were getting hotter and not colder?



> NEWLY analysed data from east Antarctica suggests the remote region has set a record low temperature.
> 
> *The record is minus 94.7C.*
> 
> A new look at NASA satellite data says the earth has set a new record for lowest temperature recorded.
> 
> It happened in August 2010 when it hit minus 94.7C.
> 
> Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: minus 92.9C.
> 
> The old record had been minus 89.2C.
> 
> US ice scientist Ted Scambos at the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced the cold facts at the American Geophysical Union scientific meeting in San Francisco on Monday.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...rd-of-minus-947c/story-fni0xqlk-1226779678913


----------



## macca

trainspotter said:


> WHAT THE HELL?? I thought we were getting hotter and not colder?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...rd-of-minus-947c/story-fni0xqlk-1226779678913




What an inconvenient truth, that bloke will never get a job at the ABC or the BBC


----------



## explod

It has been explained many times that with global warming we have increased evaporation and cloud cover.  This makes some areas colder than before.  It increases both the hot and cold ends of the scale.  Hence the increase in winds and storms that we are experiencing.  And of course some new records in cold.

However i do get a laugh out of those on here laughing.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> It has been explained many times that with global warming we have increased evaporation and cloud cover.  This makes some areas colder than before.  It increases both the hot and cold ends of the scale.  Hence the increase in winds and storms that we are experiencing.  And of course some new records in cold.




Plod. you might need to go and check up on the empirical science, you are almost entirely incorrect in this post.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Plod. you might need to go and check up on the empirical science, you are almost entirely incorrect in this post.




Actually Wayne you are totally incorrect with your assertion. 
Your welcome to provide evidence  to back up your claim.


----------



## Smurf1976

overhang said:


> I have driven past wind farms many times that have all turbines off, is this because at this time the grid is at capacity?  Seems quite a waste to have the turbines sitting idle while coal is feeding the demand but I guess coal isn't too easy to just throttle back?



There are basically 4 reasons why a wind turbine is idle.

1. Breakdown or maintenance either of the individual turbine, or of the electrical infrastructure (transformers, transmission lines etc). The latter will affect the entire wind farm or a large part of it, since multiple turbines are connected to common underground cables leading back to a very small number of control equipment, transformers and transmission lines. For example, the recently completed Musselroe wind farm (Tas) has 56 turbines with the entire output fed into the grid along a single transmission line. Whilst transmission lines are reliable, they are available for use 99%+ of the time typically, if it does need to be shut down for repairs or maintenance then that would force the entire wind farm offline. 

Why not build a second line? Simply cost. For the less than 1% of the time it would be of any benefit, there's just no point economically in doing it given that it's not critical to power system integrity (that is, wind farms are intermittent sources of energy anyway, so having one offline due to a transmission fault is no different to a situation of no wind).

2. Lack of wind. There's a minimum wind speed below which the turbines can't produce any useful power. In this instance, they'll simply sit idle.

3. Congestion on the transmission network. It's not a major factor in the operation of current wind farms, but typically what happens with building one is that you build the wind farm and a new transmission line connecting to the nearest existing line capable of reasonably handling the output of the wind farm. Since that existing line was built for other purposes (either to supply a load or to connect some other power station), it may not always have adequate capacity.

Transmission line capacity is not itself constant, and varies with temperature, solar exposure and wind speed - the basic issue being temperature of the line itself as well as system stability considerations in operation (basically that means what happens if it fails suddenly - there are limits on power flows on individual lines to avoid a situation where a single fault takes down the entire grid due to flow-on stability effects). 

Lines get hot when in use and will physically sag quite significantly if allowed to heat up too much. Sag presents an obvious danger if it gets too bad - worst case you end up with someone walking under the line and being electrocuted due to insufficient clearance (you don't actually need to touch the line to find yourself being blown up, simply getting reasonably close will result in an electrical arc from the line to ground via the person, vehicle, tree or whatever else is forming the path).

Lines can be upgraded or you can build a new line either in addition to, or as a replacement for, the existing one. But it comes down to economics. If you build a 200 MW wind farm and the existing line will be able to take the full 200 MW 95% of the time, then it's just not worth worrying about the few occasions when (1) the line can't take all 200 MW and (2) there's enough wind to actually produce that amount of power. In practice you won't lose 5%, it will be less than 1% in an example like that since rarely would you have both maximum wind generation and insufficient line capacity at the same time. So it's sensible economically to just take the occasional small loss and not worry about it.

4. The other reason a wind farm may be idle is too much wind. The turbines do have a maximum wind speed, above which (depending on specific design) they are shut down.

Design of them is basically a compromise. Build it for high winds and it won't work when there's less wind. Build it for low winds and that costs a fortune and causes problems in high winds. So it's a compromise to maximise power output from the wind available at a particular site.

There's a film of the Musselroe Wind Farm construction here for anyone who is interested which does show most of what's involved, including building the transmission line (which is built on large steel poles rather than towers in this case). This is the official Hydro Tas public video of this project so it's a bit corporate but all in layman's terms. Note that it's 21 minutes long. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZxeQeJ4jW-4


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Actually Wayne you are totally incorrect with your assertion.
> Your welcome to provide evidence  to back up your claim.




Ref. Pielke Jnr et al, inter alia.


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> Port Augusta PS burns sh!tty brown coal from Leigh Creek.
> It was to be shut down under K Rudd's Climate Change policy.
> Julia Gillard was unable to close it down. (though I don't know why?)
> 
> National Power built a pretty little PS at Pelican Point in 1999.
> It burns gas from Moomba in the Cooper Basin.
> That's fine you say!
> But the gas they were allocated was taken away from Adelaide Brighton Cement.
> They, in turn, have been burning sh!tty alternatives to gas.
> If you ring and ask, they are burning clean,
> but nearby residents claim they sometimes choke on acrid smoke..........




It's a bit more complex....

SA (and practically all electricity systems, only exceptions being predominantly hydro systems (eg Tas or NZ) which are constrained by water inflows - that is, constrained by total energy output over a given period not by peak production rates) is capacity constrained. So if the Port Augusta plant doesn't operate then, on a hot day at least, some other source of firm supply is needed. And that firm supply, since it must be available, would realistically be coal, oil or gas.

So closing Port Augusta would simply have lead to building another fossil fuel power station to replace it. Solar could do the job, but realistically on that scale it would have been fossil fuel more likely at this point in time.

SA, unlike most Australian states, has a long running issue with the supply of primary energy (fuel) to operate power stations. That is, the gas in the Cooper Basin is a very limited resource based on conventional production techniques (shale gas in the region could unlock more reserves, but "conventional" reserves are substantially depleted already). 

That has long been an issue, indeed 35 years ago the last two units at Torrens Island (Adelaide metro area) were designed with future conversion to coal firing in mind for this specific reason. It didn't go ahead, the plant burns gas and can also burn oil, but the boilers were sized to suit future use of coal (realistically it was assumed that this would be coal shipped in from somewhere else, most likely from NSW). 

Instead of going ahead with coal at Torrens Island, they built Northern Power Station at Port Augusta instead (commissioned 1985), originally with 500 MW capacity since upgraded slightly to roughly 530 MW. Along with the link to Victoria (1990) they replaced the old (1954) Playford A power station (90 MW) at Port Augusta (closed 1989 after the peak period) and the Osborne B (240MW and dating from the 1940's) plant in Adelaide. Playford A is still physically there at least on the outside (not sure if it's been stripped out internally or not) but Osborne was demolished some years ago. There's a newer plant at Osborne, at the soda plant site, with capacity of 180 MW that was built separately and which burns gas.

The 1960 Playford B (240 MW) plant at Port Augusta remained in service until being mothballed not that long ago. Its' mothballing is basically a response to surplus capacity, the poor economics and physical condition of the plant, the limited coal supply available to it and Northern PS and the carbon tax. In short, it makes more sense to use the very limited economically accessible coal in the more efficient Northern PS rather than using it at Playford B, especially in view of the carbon tax. That said, it's not impossible that Playford B could be returned to service - according to the owners it would take them 10 weeks to get it running. Northern PS is also only operating during the warmer half of the year, when prices are higher, for the duration of the carbon tax - a purely economic decision by the owners.

There is physically still a lot of coal at Leigh Creek (the only coal mine operating in SA) but most of the easily accessible coal has already been mined. Depending on what happens to future electricity prices and carbon pricing, it's entirely possible that most of the remaining coal will be left there and never mined, or that mining will be drastically scaled down with coal stockpiled at Port Augusta to facilitate intermittent operation of the power stations only on high demand days when prices spike high enough to make it profitable. On the other hand, if energy prices are high enough then they could well end up mining the harder to access coal. Or if prices are low enough then they could well decide to abandon it altogether as uneconomic which then raises the question about what replaces the capacity at Northern PS.

Due to the somewhat unique nature of Leigh Creek "coal" (it's not really brown coal as normally defined, although that's what it's usually considered to be, but it certainly doesn't meet any normal definition of black coal either) the boilers at the Port Augusta plants were specifically designed to use it. Converting them to run on some other coal could be done, but it's not as simple as just feeding the coal into the plant and expecting it to work without modifications.

A big issue in SA is the very peaky nature of the load there. On a hot day well over half the total load goes into air-conditioning and refrigeration. On a mild day (ie most of the time) that load simply disappears. Add in that wind supplies a significant amount of the load in SA intermittently, and it leaves a very stop - start type of operation for fossil fuel generation in SA as a whole. Basically, there are quite a few plants in SA that only ever run during a heatwave, and then only if it's also hot in Victoria.

To put it into perspective, here's some actual production data from 2pm (SA time) on Friday afternoon. This is for fossil fuel plants in SA only.

Angaston (50 MW, oil) = idle
Hallet (228 MW, gas) = idle
Dry Creek (156 MW, gas) = idle
Mintaro (90MW, gas) = idle
Playford B (240 MW, coal, mothballed) = idle
Port Lincoln (73.5 MW, oil) = idle
Quarantine (224 MW, gas) = idle
Snuggery (63 MW, oil) = idle

Ladbroke Grove (80 MW, gas) 39 MW
Northern Power Station (530 MW, coal) = 246 MW
Osborne (180 MW, gas) = 184 MW
Pelican Point (478 MW, gas) = 231 MW
Torrens Island (1280 MW, gas) = 120 MW

So overall you have:

Coal = 770 MW capacity of which 530 MW is operational and 240 MW is are mothballed. Actual output was 246 MW, all of which came from a single unit online at Northern Power Station.

Gas = 2716 MW capacity, actual output of 574 MW.

Oil = 187 MW, none of which was operating.

This was just a regular working weekday in SA with mild weather. Demand was 1335 MW, well under half what it gets to on a very hot day, with 820 MW being supplied by SA coal and gas generation. 39 MW came from Victoria, and the rest mostly from wind.

Note that the above figures do not include distributed generation (primarily residential rooftop solar) and that power station capacities are influenced by weather, with the stated capacities based on hot weather conditions which is when it matters. Hence the Osborne plant producing slightly over it's stated capacity as it wasn't a hot day.

So SA has a situation that's very different to elsewhere. A very peaky load, right up there amongst the worst in the world actually, and a limited remaining supply of coal and gas from currently developed resources. Playford B power station is pretty much worn out, and much of the gas-fired generation (eg Torrens Island) isn't exactly new either - it was commissioned 1967 to the early 1980's in 8 stages. Suffice to say that WA and Tas have both scrapped plants of similar age and technology to TI in recent times (Kwinana in WA and Bell Bay in Tas) and NSW and Qld have both scrapped coal-fired plants of similar age. That's not to say TI is worn out, technically it can be kept going for a while yet, but it's a massive plant relative to SA's overall electricity industry and it's getting old.

Carbon issues aside, Qld and NSW can carry on with black coal and, assuming they're willing to pay the likely much higher prices for it, gas for the foreseeable future. They're not running out of coal within the lifetime of a new power station built today.  

Arguments about a gas shortage in NSW are basically about price - there's plenty of gas in Qld but it goes to the highest bidder and that's about to be exports overseas not to NSW. But physically, building a gas pipe to Moomba (SA) which already has pipelines to Sydney and Adelaide is technically very straightforward. Likewise you could build a pipeline from offshore gas fields in WA or NT to Moomba. Or just build a pipeline from Qld to somewhere suitable in NSW. Lots of options there - it's an economic question largely. That's assuming that shale gas in the Cooper Basin doesn't produce enough in an economic manner - it may well do so but that remains to be seen on a large scale (but it will still be sold at the export parity price given the option of exporting it is becoming available).

Meanwhile the odds are that it won't stop raining or blowing in Tasmania. The state has always (since the 1890's) relied primarily on hydro for electricity and that's not likely to change. There could be some economic issues associated with the little bit that comes from gas, but the lights in Hobart won't be going out due to any physical resource problem.

Vic and SA are in a very different position however. Both heavily reliant on coal and gas from sources which are relatively limited going forward. They're not running out tomorrow, but there's a definite limit. Both Vic and SA have plenty of coal in undeveloped deposits, massive amounts of it actually, but using it requires an equally massive commitment. Nobody's going to develop a new coal mine and associated power station (and brown coal plants are hugely expensive to build) if there isn't some certainty about running it for 30 years at a minimum. And they're not going to develop baseload gas unless electricity prices are quite a bit higher than they are today given the known future need to pay export parity prices for the gas. So there's a significant question about future energy supplies in both Vic and SA - there are options but it's not clear what's actually going to happen.

You could summarise all this quite simply. Gas is going to get expensive and it's about to happen in the very near future. It's not an option for future baseload electricity generation unless we're prepared to pay significantly higher prices for electricity. 

Looking into Smurf's crystal ball, there will end up being a crisis. No sane company is going to build new baseload generation if a change of government makes it uneconomic. There is uncertainty about the CO2 emissions issue. There is uncertainty about support for renewable energy. There is uncertainty about the extent of future shale and especially coal seam gas extraction that will be permitted. There is also a definite possibility that a future government might directly intervene in the wholesale gas market. Or they might not intervene in the gas market. There is also the possibility of a politically-inspired nuclear or "clean coal" plant being built. Or there might not be a nuclear or clean coal plant built with taxpayer funds. Etc - there's just too much uncertainty due to the level of political involvement.

A baseload plant is a fixed investment. You can't easily relocate a coal or combined cycle gas (or a nuclear or hydro) plant once it's built. At best, you can salvage some main components and demolish the rest - but there's a huge financial loss in doing so.

In contrast, a peaking plant can be moved without too much hassle. There's a 300 MW one in Victoria that was relocated from New Zealand and converted from oil to gas firing. There's a 120 MW one in Tasmania that was previously in operation in the USA. The Hallet plant in SA is simply a collection of several gas turbines, each independent of each other, which were previously in operation in Finland, Chile and the Canary Islands. So you can certainly relocate a peaking plant quite easily, indeed the one in Tas actually made a return trip to the US at one point.

Wind also stacks up surprisingly well in this environment. With the ongoing uncertainty, it's a reasonably safe bet that wholesale electricity prices aren't likely to collapse in the near future. A wind farm has a relatively short life (25 years) and the subsidies which make them viable were introduced by a Liberal government and strongly supported by Labor and the Greens. It's not totally without risk, but the risk is low enough relative to returns that wind farms are being built.

So overall, there's a willingness to build wind and to build peaking plants but you'd be crazy, or at least a big gambler, to build new baseload generation. Keep doing that and eventually we end up with a crisis once the existing plants wear out and/or their specific fuel source is depleted. I suspect that we won't see any real policy action until such time as the crisis is clearly in sight (at best) or actually happens (at worst). Then we'll see a panic, the outcome of which will come down to politics. 

As for the cement works in Adelaide, I was in Adelaide last week (only came back home on Thursday) and I did notice some smoke coming out of that plant when flying into Adelaide. I wasn't consciously looking for it, just noticed the smoke then tried to figure out where it was coming from (thinking initially that it was one of the nearby power stations) but it looked to be the cement plant. I don't know a huge amount about that operation, although I know that they do burn waste carbon dust from the aluminium industry and also timber in the cement kilns as well as gas. The carbon dust should burn cleanly, it's just carbon, but the timber could produce some nasty fumes depending on combustion efficiency. 

There's a big cement works here in Tas that burns only coal, to the point that they also own the coal mines and they use roughly half of all coal in Tas in that plant. I haven't spent much time nearby, but I've never noticed anything that could be considered objectionable in terms of emissions. The coal mined in Tas is low grade black coal, all of which is used in manufacturing industry since there are no coal-fired power stations in Tas.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Ref. Pielke Jnr et al, inter alia.




Details please Wayne. Evidence to show that in fact we don't have significant global warming and that temperatures around the world arn't increasing at rates that havn't been seen for tens of thousands of years.


----------



## burglar

burglar said:


> Hi Smurf,
> I often look for your posts! ...




Hi Smurf,
Does your job require you to know this much?
I suspect your hobby is linked with your job.

Two more wonderful posts ... thank you!


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Details please Wayne. Evidence to show that in fact we don't have significant global warming and that temperatures around the world arn't increasing at rates that havn't been seen for tens of thousands of years.




That wasn't the question though was is basilio. Plod made two erroneous points

1/ that extreme weather is increasing.

2/ that cold events are evidence of global warming, vis a vis, confusing feedback mechanisms.

1/ is categorically incorrect as shown by Roger

2/ cannot be stated in such simplistic terms.

... From the husband couch, cites later including new MWP data.


----------



## Smurf1976

Smurf1976 said:


> A big issue in SA is the very peaky nature of the load there. On a hot day well over half the total load goes into air-conditioning and refrigeration. On a mild day (ie most of the time) that load simply disappears. Add in that wind supplies a significant amount of the load in SA intermittently, and it leaves a very stop - start type of operation for fossil fuel generation in SA as a whole. Basically, there are quite a few plants in SA that only ever run during a heatwave, and then only if it's also hot in Victoria.
> 
> To put it into perspective, here's some actual production data from 2pm (SA time) on Friday afternoon. This is for fossil fuel plants in SA only......



Things will look a lot different this Thursday to how they were just 6 days earlier. Forecast is for 40 degrees in both Adelaide and Melbourne, 36 in Hobart and 34 in Canberra.

The hot weather is of no major consequence (electrically) in Tas since 60% of Tassie homes don't have air-conditioning but it's the key driver of the power industry in SA and Vic that's for sure. 

That'll get a few more generating units online in SA, if only for a day or so. Assuming the hot weather actually happens, I'll post production data for the peak period.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Things will look a lot different this Thursday to how they were just 6 days earlier. Forecast is for 40 degrees in both Adelaide and Melbourne, 36 in Hobart and 34 in Canberra.
> 
> The hot weather is of no major consequence (electrically) in Tas since 60% of Tassie homes don't have air-conditioning but it's the key driver of the power industry in SA and Vic that's for sure.
> 
> That'll get a few more generating units online in SA, if only for a day or so. Assuming the hot weather actually happens, I'll post production data for the peak period.




We usually use gas for heating and cooking but after last summer here in Hobart we put in a 7.5 kw ac downstairs and a 5 kw ac upstairs . They will running on full bore in the next few days for sure , hope the grid can handle it .


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> That wasn't the question though was is basilio. Plod made two erroneous points
> 
> 1/ that extreme weather is increasing.
> 
> 2/ that cold events are evidence of global warming, vis a vis, confusing feedback mechanisms.
> 
> 1/ is categorically incorrect as shown by Roger
> 
> 2/ cannot be stated in such simplistic terms.
> 
> ... From the husband couch, cites later including new MWP data.




Erroneous in your view Champ,  we are all entitled to that.

There are the scientists, the governments and then; general consensus.  The latter group makes for healthy discussions such as this one.

Very strange cold wind from the east here this morning.  More mushrooms on the village green too.  Most people one runs into, (an elderly population here, mostly off farms) are saying, "this weather is very strange"

Just some, (have quoted many other in the past) anecdotal indicators of course, that we *may be  * (I said "may be" Wayne) ON THE WRONG PATHWAY.

Notice Coal is becoming a bit expensive too.  Will economics force the hand of the standover monetary powers to now embrace alternative cleaner energy.  We have always been very innovative as engineers in Australia.  Working on alternatives could be a wonderful way out for our loss of the car industry.  Production of food is going to be a very big one too, and one could go on.....

With the festive cheers flowing it would be a great time for you to join us wayneL.  Do you go out walking Champ? Apart from the exercise it is wonderful watching nature (what is left of it of course) and discussing it with others who one meets taking it all in too.

So instead of going crook all the time lets *have a think *about what we can do to make the world better for everyone.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> We usually use gas for heating and cooking but after last summer here in Hobart we put in a 7.5 kw ac downstairs and a 5 kw ac upstairs . They will running on full bore in the next few days for sure , hope the grid can handle it .



It's always possible that a distribution fault could occur, but the grid as such in Tas is pretty secure at the present time. As long as something unexpected doesn't happen then it should all work just fine.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> With the festive cheers flowing it would be a great time for you to *join us* wayneL.  Do you go out walking Champ? Apart from the exercise it is wonderful watching nature (what is left of it of course) and discussing it with others who one meets taking it all in too.




If you mean greenies, I've always been a greenie as I have explained on numerous occasions.

If you mean The Greens, I would consider it with two conditions

1/ The climate armageddonists were removed from the party, they stopped promulgating discredited junk science and they relied on empirical data, focussing on true green issues in a positive way.

2/ The communists and economic extreme left were removed from the party.

But I guess that would mean there would be no one left.


----------



## basilio

Actually Wayne who you *really, really *need to see drop kicked into ocean are all those scientists who refuse to accept that nothing significant is happening to our climate and that, _Sacre Bleau_, humanity had anything to do with it.  The Greenies don't make up the science - they just read it, understand it and want to live a bit longer.

*The latest papers on global climate science research has been released.* This is not one paper focusing on one particular aspect of climate change. 



> *'Whole world' at risk from simultaneous droughts, famines, epidemics: *scientists
> Research published by US National Academy of Sciences warns climate change impacts could be worse than thought
> 
> 
> An international scientific research project known as the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), run by 30 teams from 12 countries, has attempted to understand the severity and scale of global impacts of climate change. The project compares model projections on water scarcity, crop yields, disease, floods among other issues to see how they could interact.
> 
> The series of papers published by the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that policymakers might be underestimating the social and economic consequences of climate change due to insufficient attention on how different climate risks are interconnected.




Chronic water shortage, agricultural collapse and the future of North America and Europe are put in question. And this comes from * 30 scientific teams in a 12 countries.  *,  

There was an excellent point made to explain why these papers were brought together to give policy makers a clearer picture of where we are going.



> Potsdam director Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who co-authored several papers in the PNAS special feature, said:
> 
> "*There is an elephant in the room: current and future climate change impacts. But strangely, many people seem to be blind to it.
> 
> Many decision makers prefer to turn a blind eye to global warming consequences, while many scientists tend to focus on very specific aspects of climate change. So we resemble the fabled blind men, who unknowingly touch different parts of the same elephant: grasping the animal's trunk, one of the men is convinced he has a snake in his hand, whilst one other mistakes the tail for a rope.
> 
> To recognize the animal, they must talk to each other to properly identify the individual parts and to bring them together. This is exactly what this international project does*."




Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-climate-change-risk-drought-famine-epidemic


----------



## Knobby22

Reading that I think he was having a joke also. I wouldn't want to be the man holding the snake.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ?




Sorry basilio ... I could not resist ... so I read the article in question.



> Abrupt climate changes and impacts already under way are of immediate concern, the report says.  These include the disappearance of late-summer Arctic sea ice and increases in extinction rates of marine and terrestrial species.
> 
> Other *scenarios*, such as the destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, have potentially major consequences, but the *probability* of these changes _*occurring within the next century is not well-understood, highlighting the need for more research. *
> _
> In some cases, scientific understanding has progressed enough to determine whether certain high-impact climate changes are* likely *to happen within the next century.  The report notes that a shutdown in the Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns or a rapid release of methane from high-latitude permafrost or undersea ice are now known to be *unlikely this century*, although these *potential* abrupt changes are still worrisome over longer time horizons.




http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18373

*sce·nar·i·o * [si-nair-ee-oh, -nahr-]  noun, plural sce·nar·i·os.

1. an outline of the plot of a dramatic work, giving particulars as to the scenes, characters, situations, etc.
2. the outline or the manuscript of a motion picture or television program, giving the action in the order in which it takes place, the description of scenes and characters, etc.
3. *an imagined or projected sequence of events,* especially any of several detailed plans or possibilities: One scenario calls for doubling profits by increasing our advertising, the other by reducing costs.

*sniff sniff* smells like they want more funding to me ! 

They are scenarios IF these events happens ..... NOT that they ARE happening.



> *Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing *at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability. Specifically, the months of May, June, July, September and October show trends of *increasing sea ice extent that are just slightly above the mean year-to-year variability*. In more technical terms, the trends are statistically significant at the 95% level, although small.
> 
> Even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future,* it would not have a huge impact on the climate system*. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space *has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature*.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#wintertimeantarctic


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ? ...




Ever since I was born, there have been doomsday merchants.
When they are wrong they shut-up.
When they are right they soak up the adulation.

I was right in 1967!!

(So what!!)?


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, all I have to say to you is that your mendacious straw man argumentative fallacies are becoming increasingly tedious. Bugger off and cyber stalk someone else.


----------



## trainspotter

This is more of a worry for me than some scientists hypothesizing about what MIGHT happen in hundreds of years time. They can't even get the weather right next week let alone in the 2200's !! 

Pollution of our oceans. 

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natura...lution/facts-and-figures-on-marine-pollution/

Land-based sources (such as agricultural run-off, discharge of nutrients and pesticides and untreated sewage including plastics) account for approximately 80% of marine pollution, globally.

Agricultural practices, coastal tourism, port and harbour developments, damming of rivers, urban development and construction, mining, fisheries, aquaculture, and manufacturing, among others, are all sources of marine pollution threatening coastal and marine habitats.

Excessive nutrients from sewage outfalls and agricultural runoff have contributed to the number of low oxygen (hypoxic) areas known as dead zones, where most marine life cannot survive, resulting in the collapse of some ecosystems.

There are now close to 500 dead zones covering more than 245,000 km ² globally, equivalent to the surface of the United Kingdom.

Over 220 million tons of plastic are produced each year.

Plastics can contribute to reduce our carbon footprint. They provide improved insulation, lighter packaging, are found in phones, computers, medical devices, etc. but appropriate disposal is often not addressed.

Seven of the EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland recover more than 80% of their used plastics. These countries adopt an integrated waste and resource management strategy to address each waste stream with the best options. However, waste and disposal remain an issue in most of the world.

The United Nations Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic.

Once discarded, plastics are weathered and eroded into very small fragments known as micro-plastics. These together with plastic pellets are already found in most beaches around the world.
Plastic debris causes the deaths of more than a million seabirds every year, as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals.

Plastic materials and other litter can become concentrated in certain areas called gyres as a result of marine pollution gathered by oceanic currents. There are now 5 gyres in our ocean.

*The North Pacific Gyre, known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, occupies a relatively stationary area that is twice the size of Texas. Waste material from across the North Pacific Ocean, including coastal waters off North America and Japan, are drawn together.* Google this for a reality check !!

The Blueprint for ocean and coastal sustainability includes proposals to green the nutrient economy and reduce ocean hypoxia.


----------



## wayneL

Absolutely bang on there TS. Meanwhile the weather catastrophists divert attention away from such issues.


----------



## basilio

Very selective reading boys.  It's amazing how little you can see with your hands over your eyes.

"Scenario" is not a make world world Trainspotter in this context or any context where  we are trying to work out the consequences of particular actions.  Postulate a car crash and you can come up with any number of "scenarios" of results.  You may not be certain of how bad it will be but  if the speed is fast enough and the vehicles big enough you know it will be ugly.

Thats what scenario setting is about with this research.

As far as the problems in the  oceans goes. Absolutely agree it is serious.  And if you wanted to get really concerned you would also considers the effects of acidification caused by rapidly rising levels of CO2 being absorbed.

Interested ?

________________________________________________________________________________

_Wayne if you find it unrealistic to be civil in this forum please leave now. 
Otherwise I'll have to find a mod to have a quiet wordwith you.
_


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, this may be shattering news for you, but it is very difficult for us to be besties when, despite my repeated affirmation of my views on this matter, you continuously and disgracefully misrepresent them.

In fact, there is no lack of civility in me pointing this out and requesting you to cease and desist such harassment and misrepresentation.

Do what you feel you must, but stop the bald faced lies about my views.

I stand by my post.


----------



## basilio

Really Wayne ??

Is that why we only see half the story ?

Be nice or get off the thread.


----------



## wayneL

I do not recall you being appointed arbiter of participation rights to this thread basilio.

May I remind you the topic is "resisting climate hysteria", ergo I am completely on topic, whereas you, being a promoter of of a position not supported by empirical data, viz promoting climate hysteria, are off topic.

Additionally, despite your hypocritical whining, you are not averse to a bit of nastiness in the form of attempted character assassination, and mendacious misrepresentation, so I repeat once more, I stand by my post.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Very selective reading boys.  It's amazing how little you can see with your hands over your eyes.
> 
> As far as the problems in the  oceans goes. Absolutely agree it is serious.  And if you wanted to get really concerned you would also considers the effects of acidification caused by rapidly rising levels of CO2 being absorbed.
> 
> Interested ?




Bang goes THAT theory:



> CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. *Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.*
> 
> *In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming*, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either.
> 
> Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance.




http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_CO2.html

Whoooopssss ........ an inconvenient truth?



> Other scenarios, such as the destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, have potentially major consequences, but the probability of these changes occurring within the next century is *not well-understood,* highlighting the need for more research.




It is a scenario ...... IF the West Antarctic ice sheets destabilizes ... other scenarios include temperatures rising by greater than 5 degrees !!!!!!!

When in fact ..... this has happened:-

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has *increased by about 0.8 °Celsius (1.4 °Fahrenheit) since 1880*


----------



## basilio

*Ocean Acidifiction.
*
Trainspotter please check any one of a score of web sites on this problem. Start with National Geographic and keep going.

The reference you offered on the life giving properties of CO2 is accurate as far as it goes. I*t's just completely irrelevant to the issue of excess CO2 acidifying the ocean and causing serious grief.*

It also completely ignores the direct effects of CO2 in trapping heat and causing the green house effect (which in moderation keeps us warm)

As far as the scenarios discussed in the papers I referenced. Of course you can dismiss the possibility that the Antarctic ice cap will melt. But in fact that is at the further range of possibilities. There are plenty of other scenarios that are far more likely to happen if we continue on our present path.   

Trainspotter you point out that temperatures have risen by .8c C since 1880. If you looked more closely you would have noticed that the biggest chunk of this rise (.6 c)  happened in the last 40 years. 

If somehow, a magic wand perhaps, we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately *we would still face an increase in global temperatures of a further .7C 
* That is the increase already assured with the current CO2 levels. It just takes a few years for the Greenhouse  heating effects to take full effect. A world that is 1.5C warmer is radically different to what the current ecosystems have adapted to. That is why scientists see some grim consequences for agriculture in the near future.


----------



## basilio

Wayne you can stand by your posts till the comes home. It doesn' t make them any more honest. 

This thread is based on a lie. Your posts just support that misrepresentation. 

But you are right. No mod is ever going to haul you up for nastiness or mendacious lying are they ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> *Ocean Acidifiction.
> *
> Trainspotter please check any one of a score of web sites on this problem. Start with National Geographic and keep going.
> 
> The reference you offered on the life giving properties of CO2 is accurate as far as it goes. I*t's just completely irrelevant to the issue of excess CO2 acidifying the ocean and causing serious grief.*
> 
> It also completely ignores the direct effects of CO2 in trapping heat and causing the green house effect (which in moderation keeps us warm)
> 
> As far as the scenarios discussed in the papers I referenced. Of course you can dismiss the possibility that the Antarctic ice cap will melt. But in fact that is at the further range of possibilities. There are plenty of other scenarios that are far more likely to happen if we continue on our present path.
> 
> Trainspotter you point out that temperatures have risen by .8c C since 1880. If you looked more closely you would have noticed that the biggest chunk of this rise (.6 c)  happened in the last 40 years.
> 
> If somehow, a magic wand perhaps, we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately *we would still face an increase in global temperatures of a further .7C
> * That is the increase already assured with the current CO2 levels. It just takes a few years for the Greenhouse  heating effects to take full effect. A world that is 1.5C warmer is radically different to what the current ecosystems have adapted to. That is why scientists see some grim consequences for agriculture in the near future.




When National Geographic make broadbrush strokes statements like this it cracks me up:-



> On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.




http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

Just cause it comes out of NG does not mean it is right. Remember "Archaeoraptor" ? A fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. Whooopsies.

300 million years ago and they reckon they can tell that the pH level has averaged 8.2 ... REALLY?? 

I am assuming you are using Callendar's observations for the Co2 modelling? Or Keelings? 

But what is this ?? The ocean warming and cooling is cyclic?



> Trenberth and Fasullo, from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado, suggest that long term oscillations in the Pacific Ocean, known as Pacific Decadal Oscillations (or PDOs) drive alternate 20-plus year cycles of upper ocean warming and cooling which also involve heat being exchanged with the atmosphere. The implication of this is that when the Pacific is in a negative phase the upper ocean loses heat and so cools the atmosphere, and that when it is in a positive phase the upper ocean warms and so heats the atmosphere.




http://www.thegwpf.org/global-warming-pause-due-pacific-ocean-cycle-paper/



> The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification”  scam.




http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification-scam/



> Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne you can stand by your posts till the comes home. It doesn' t make them any more honest.
> 
> This thread is based on a lie. Your posts just support that misrepresentation.
> 
> But you are right. No mod is ever going to haul you up for nastiness or mendacious lying are they ?




We'll just gave smile about the tautology and let that go through to the keeper, but you are suggesting the Pielkes, Curry, Motl, and the thousands of scientists from various disciplines, who take a more moderate line are all liers? Tell you what basilio, why don't you get on to motl' blog and call him a lier, because these are the caliber of scientists from whom i have formed my own view.

Not only that, you are casting aspersions on the ASF moderating team?

Dude, I have not misrepresented anyone, never misrepresented your views, never created the sort of appalling straw man arguments you are guilty of. I have always been completely honest... and you have the bad form to try to call me and those scientists liers?

Good God man, you really need to give yourself an uppercut! Your lack of honour knows no bounds.

Also, I am s gentleman and a scholar, not nasty at all. Ask anyone who knows me ;-)


----------



## Smurf1976

Here's an update on a previous post for power generation 3:30 PM (SA time) today which was the time of the peak demand in Vic. Demand in SA did go slightly higher a bit later on, but not enough to offset the falling load in Vic after the peak. On a hot day in both states, for practical purposes Vic and SA tend to become one region electrically in an operational sense.

Format is power station name (capacity, fuel) = output today (output at 2pm SA time last Friday as previously posted).

Angaston (50 MW, oil) = 44 MW (0)
Hallet (228 MW, gas) = 203 MW (0)
Dry Creek (156 MW, gas) = 6 MW (0)
Mintaro (90MW, gas) = 0 MW (0)
Playford B (240 MW, coal, mothballed) = 0 MW (0)
Port Lincoln (73.5 MW, oil) = 0 MW (0) 
Quarantine (224 MW, gas) = 194 MW (0)
Snuggery (63 MW, oil) = 0 MW (0)

Ladbroke Grove (80 MW, gas) 73 MW (39 MW)
Northern Power Station (530 MW, coal) = 270 MW (246 MW)
Osborne (180 MW, gas) = 164 MW (184 MW)
Pelican Point (478 MW, gas) = 446 MW (231 MW)
Torrens Island (1280 MW, gas) = 940 MW (120 MW)

So overall you have:

Coal = 770 MW capacity of which 530 MW is operational and 240 MW is are mothballed. Actual output was 270 MW, all of which came from a single unit online at Northern Power Station.

Gas = 2716 MW capacity, actual output of 2026 MW. Of that, 610 MW was from combined cycle units, 940 MW from steam turbines and the remaining 476 MW from open cycle gas turbines.

Oil = 187 MW, actual output was 44 MW from diesel engines. None of the oil-fired gas turbines were in operation.

Total load in SA at this time was 2707 MW so just over double what it was on a mild afternoon 6 days earlier. 293 MW came from Vic (39 MW six days earlier) and a total of 2340 MW came from SA fossil fuel generation (820 MW six days earlier). 

So as you can see, there's a huge variation in the need for fossil fuel generation in SA that's driven primarily by temperature. Wind isn't a reliable replacement and a nuclear plant(s) would be hugely problematic (and uneconomic) in such intermittent usage.

Solar is more useful in meeting peak demand in SA, although beyond a reasonable limit it would have the problem that it also operates when it's not actually needed (assuming we're talking about distributed generation rather than large solar power stations). A precise figure isn't available, but there's around 350 MW of small scale solar installed in SA and it was likely producing somewhere around 130 MW at the time of peak demand give or take a bit since this is an estimate.

Realistically, SA is going to be burning gas, and likely coal and a bit of oil, for quite some time to come. Even though wind and solar (wind being the more significant) are approaching the point where they meet close to 30% of overall demand in SA on average, they aren't a reliable source for meeting the peaks and it's not a simple matter of scaling up wind + solar three and a bit fold in order to replace fossil fuels. It's not that simple unfortunately.  

Another thing I'll mention is price. It approached $12,500 per MWh in Vic and SA for a period this afternoon. That compares with a typical price in the $50 to $60 range. Suffice to say that a few high priced periods contribute a great deal to total revenue, and that prices are actually below the real cost for the vast majority of the time.


----------



## basilio

And indeed you are Wayne.  A gentleman beyond all measure. A scholar of impeccable credentials and unsurpassed intellect towering above the mere mortals  around you who just don't get it.

And this Forum you so proudly overview. Again a paragon of intellectual acuity and honest debate. Thriving on the close review of the worlds best scientific knowledge to help each other reach closer to the fundamental truths of the worlds climate systems.

It's true.  It's actually, finally,* indisputably *true.

2 and 2 does equal 5


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Also, I am s gentleman and a scholar, not nasty at all. Ask anyone who knows me ;-)




Now you are just taking the piss ..


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> We'll just gave smile about the tautology and let that go through to the keeper, but you are suggesting the Pielkes, Curry, Motl, and the thousands of scientists from various disciplines, who take a more moderate line are all liers? Tell you what basilio, why don't you get on to motl' blog and call him a lier, because these are the caliber of scientists from whom i have formed my own view.
> 
> Not only that, you are casting aspersions on the ASF moderating team?
> 
> Dude, I have not misrepresented anyone, never misrepresented your views, never created the sort of appalling straw man arguments you are guilty of. I have always been completely honest... and you have the bad form to try to call me and those scientists liers?
> 
> Good God man, you really need to give yourself an uppercut! Your lack of honour knows no bounds.
> 
> Also, I am s gentleman and a scholar, not nasty at all. Ask anyone who knows me ;-)




We can add self praise to the mix and to also end that old saying "...and your bloods worth bottlin"

Scientists are these days required to follow the status quo, unis have been gradually privatised so we have a staff bread and butter issue going on here now too.

As I have quoted in the past, the conference deliberations and consensus at the climate meetings are massaged prior to being acceptable and only then put up to be voted on.  And although current IPPC projections still do not look too good we need to remember that the evidence relating to methane was not allowed to be included as far back as 2007.

And wayneL, as a moderator one would expect impartiality at least.  But no, you demand answers from others but when answered the new questions raised are ignored by yourself.  

And a gentleman you say.  I have made blunders in the past but always quick to admit wrong and apologize.  It takes a lot to see ones weak side but to reach that point is to move forward in my view.

A good discussion is about working the conversation at a level that includes all links in the chain.  Mandella personified it.

But on this thread we (1) have a moderator involving himself emotively and (2) giving all the appearance of being biased, oh and (3) after the last statement, openly showing where he is up.

And as a bit of a leftie, does that mean my words have no merit Champ,  (the use of the term in Australia of "commo" began with Bob Menzies, and we know about his sales of pig ion to Japan so that they could shoot our own men too) just means that I started out as a hard worker, AWU member and have not forgotten my Grandma,s wisdom born of the great depression.  And now love helping the poor.  So I feel usefull to my fellow man being left. Caught the bus today and love walking.  Trying to reduce my footprints on the planet, worth thinking on.

Now where were we, 

ahhh I know, trying to argue with deniers on being really hot one day and freezing the next.


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> ... Caught the bus today and love walking. Trying to reduce my footprints on the planet ...




Catching the bus to reduce your footprints on the planet; whilst denying your love of walking ... 

Yeah would be good if I wasn't in my car, following your bus.
And John Wayne wasn't following us on his horse.

God it's hot today. 

I am hoping it is hot weather and not climate change.
Change is so unsettling!


----------



## banco

Releasing the direct action plan at 2 pm on the Friday before Christmas really demonstrates the Government's confidence in it withstanding scrutiny.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And wayneL, as a moderator one would expect impartiality at least.  But no, you demand answers from others but when answered the new questions raised are ignored by yourself.
> 
> And a gentleman you say.  I have made blunders in the past but always quick to admit wrong and apologize.  It takes a lot to see ones weak side but to reach that point is to move forward in my view.
> 
> But on this thread we (1) have a moderator involving himself emotively and (2) giving all the appearance of being biased, oh and (3) after the last statement, openly showing where he is up.
> 
> And as a bit of a leftie, does that mean my words have no merit Champ,  (the use of the term in Australia of "commo" began with Bob Menzies, and we know about his sales of pig ion to Japan so that they could shoot our own men too) just means that I started out as a hard worker, AWU member and have not forgotten my Grandma,s wisdom born of the great depression.  And now love helping the poor.  So I feel usefull to my fellow man being left. Caught the bus today and love walking.  Trying to reduce my footprints on the planet, worth thinking on.
> 
> Now where were we,
> 
> ahhh I know, trying to argue with deniers on being really hot one day and freezing the next.




Plod, you seem to have ignored the past discussions on moderating. A mod is just a volunteer, given the site owner a hand, it is not a paid or sworn position.

Being a mod does not mean that one should become disinvolved with the discussion, that would remove the motivation for the person to return to the site. So while in the process of moderation actions, the mod of course should try to remain dispassionate and impartial, but in the course of normal discussion, a mod is also just a normal member, with opinions, questions, and a right to defend against mischaractarizations, misrepresentations and malodourous malevalencies.

So your comments re my mod status are out of order, I am not participating in this thread in a moderating capacity, just a normal member... like you, like basilio.

You are also out of order in your accusation of not providing citations, look just a few posts above where I provided incontestable statistical analysis of the range of scientific opinion on this matter, vis a vis the lack of consensus, utterly destroying the John Cook et al 97% BS. I would provide more cites, but find myself wasting my allotted time defending malicious and mendacious ad hominem from basilio and yourself.

You also seem incapable of discerning tongue in cheek facetiousness regarding my gentleman and scholar comment, your lack of a sense of humour causing you to be hoist by your own petard, remarkably, resulting in you being in precisely the place you accuse me of being.

That said, I am indeed a gentleman and a scholar and just for once, it would be appreciated if you could give me reason to confer such status to you. 

Anyway, something to chew on => http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...al-november-2013-temperature-please-stand-up/


----------



## wayneL

As to my questioning of Alarmist scientist integrity Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> As to my questioning of Alarmist scientist integrity Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’




Of course, as I intimated


----------



## wayneL

The warmist's PR disaster of the century:

"Akademik Shokalskiy" 

As if the Gore effect isn't enough, this is hilarious. 

"Catastrophic Opinion Change" anyone?


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as the debate about moderators commenting on this thread is concerned, I'll say this.

The only time I have ever been informed that a post made by me on a forum was unacceptable was on ASF some years ago. And the post was directly relating to the climate change issue.

In short, it came down to the mod "being totally sick of" (or words to that effect, it was quite a while ago) people questioning the science. After all, "the science is settled" and thus worthy of no further debate.

Whilst I strongly disagreed with the decision, I accepted the reality that this is a privately owned forum and I must abide by the rules. It was very clearly outright censorship however, and I've limited my posts on the subject mostly to statements of provable fact ever since (primarily relating to the energy industry).

My post contained no unacceptable language, personal attacks etc and no objection was raised on such grounds. It was simply to the effect that we've had enough debate about this already so that's it, no more.

Don't remember the exact date or who the mod was but it was a few years ago. But this being so, I can't see a problem with a mod posting and taking a view which has been censored in the past by a different moderator. The term "balance" comes to mind. It's not as though those who disagree are being prevented from having that disagreement.


----------



## Mickel

wayneL said:


> As to my questioning of Alarmist scientist integrity Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’




Thanks for posting this link, Wayne. It is more evidence of the "Cons" that the IPCC have been imposing on the governments and peoples of the world.

I note in Prof Darriulat's full submission to the British Parliamentary Committee that he states -

"I consider that the IPCC scientists should feel morally compelled to produce a scientific summary of their work while refraining from giving the world a message.

They should feel morally compelled to answer the legitimate objections that have been voiced by people such as Professor Curry, in particular in her April 2013 testimony to the US House of Representatives, or Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT , to quote only two of the most emblematic figures."


----------



## Mickel

Just to make my position clear so there is no misrepresentation, I am NOT a denier.
I just doubt the extreme predictions of the IPCC, particularly as their models have not 
been borne out in practice over the last 15 + years.


----------



## Calliope

A ship of fools.



> Professor Turney's expedition was supposed to repeat scientific investigations made by Douglas Mawson a century ago and to compare then and now. Not unreasonably, it has been pointed out Mawson's ship was never icebound. Sea ice has been steadily increasing, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's gloomy forecasts. Had the expedition found the slightest evidence to confirm its expectation of melting ice caps and thin ice, a major new scare about the plight of the planet would have followed. As they are transferred to sanctuary aboard the icebreaker Aurora Australis, *Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise.*



(my bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ip-of-cold-fools/story-e6frg71x-1226793309195




Passengers link arms and stamp out a helicopter landing site.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... It's not as though those who disagree are being prevented from having that disagreement.




I agree Smurf!!


----------



## noco

GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GOBAL WARMING are we talking about.

What a load of crap.

CLIMARE CHANGE????????Yes the climate changes every year.....what is the big deal.

How embarrassing for those Climate Change scientist it must be after becoming ice bound on that Russian Ice Breaker....Surely they must give up their malicious propaganda......who will believe them from now on? 

It is a wonder Tim Flannery was not on board as well. 



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ip-of-cold-fools/story-e6frg71x-1226793309195


----------



## IFocus

2013 was hottest year on record in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology says



> Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> Average temperatures were 1.20 degrees Celsius above the long-term average of 21.8C, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C, the bureau said in its Annual Climate Statement.
> 
> All states and territories recorded above average temperatures in 2013, with Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia all breaking annual average temperature records.
> 
> And every month of 2013 had national average temperatures at least 0.5C above normal, according to the statement.
> Heat maps: Australia's hottest year
> 
> See our detailed graphical breakdown of the year's temperature and rainfall data.
> 
> The country recorded its hottest day on January 7 - a month which also saw the hottest week and hottest month since records began in 1910







> The country has experienced just one cooler-than-average year in the last decade - 2011.
> Video: BoM spokesman Neil Plummer says the statistics "speak for themselves". (ABC News)
> 
> Australian temperatures have warmed approximately 1C since 1950, consistent with global climate trends.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/2013-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-for-australia/5183040


----------



## wayneL




----------



## Logique

You'll see this US cold snap reported as 'weather'. Whereas hot temps in Australia is 'climate'.
Just as the people rescued off the ship, at massive expense, in Antarctica were 'tourists'. 

What is the credibility of any theory that needs this kind of one-sided media.

School was called off on Monday for the entire state of Minnesota, as well as cities and districts in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, among others.



> http://www.smh.com.au/world/polar-vortex-brings-extreme-cold-to-us-midwest-20140107-hv7mg.html
> *'Polar vortex' brings extreme cold to US Midwest*
> January 7, 2014
> 
> Chicago: A whirlpool of frigid, dense air known as a "polar vortex" descended on Monday into much of the US, pummeling parts of the country with a dangerous cold that could break decades-old records with wind chill warnings stretching from Montana to Alabama.
> 
> For a big chunk of the Midwest, the subzero temperatures were moving in behind another winter wallop: more than 30cm of snow and high winds that made travelling treacherous. Officials closed schools in cities including Chicago, St. Louis and Milwaukee and warned residents to stay indoors and avoid the frigid cold altogether.
> 
> The forecast is extreme: -35.5 degrees Celcius in Fargo, North Dakota; -29 in Madison, Wisonsin; and -26 in Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Chicago. Wind chills — what it feels like outside when high winds are factored into the temperature — could drop into the minus 45s and 50s.


----------



## macca

Logique said:


> You'll see this US cold snap reported as 'weather'. Whereas hot temps in Australia is 'climate'.
> Just as the people rescued off the ship, at massive expense, in Antarctica were 'tourists'.
> 
> What is the credibility of any theory that needs this kind of one-sided media.
> 
> School was called off on Monday for the entire state of Minnesota, as well as cities and districts in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, among others.




Yes, these sort of variations highlight to me just how wrong it is to get "hysterical" over records that are far too short a time frame to be placing too much trust in. 

People have been walking around on this planet for a million years yet because the climate does not conform between 2 very strict parameters for a couple of decades supposedly adult people throw tantrums. We have adjusted before and we will need to adjust again in the future, perhaps all the money being wasted duplicating studies in each state and country could be better spent on improving carbonless energy sources.

I continue to be mystified why there is no uproar over the amount of pollution being made by China and others. It is clearly visible to the eye, it is detected thousands of K's away from China yet no one is demonstrating about that. Perhaps if funding was available to study the effects of global pollution and it's spread around the globe then we may hear more about it.

Obviously, there would not be as much money to study that here in OZ so I guess that won't happen here 

The media was interviewing some Chinese tourists in Sydney on NYE, they were asked what did they like the best about Sydney, one said the bridge climb, another said the Opera House and the third said "blue sky" In Hong Kong we never have blue sky anymore, the other 2 then agreed. 

Think about how bad the pollution must be to make a statement like that


----------



## orr

macca said:


> I continue to be mystified why there is no uproar over the amount of pollution being made by China and others. It is clearly visible to the eye, it is detected thousands of K's away from China *yet no one is demonstrating about that*. Perhaps if funding was available to study the effects of global pollution and it's spread around the globe then we may hear more about it.
> 
> Obviously, there would not be as much money to study that here in OZ so I guess that won't happen here
> 
> The media was interviewing some Chinese tourists in Sydney on NYE, they were asked what did they like the best about Sydney, one said the bridge climb, another said the Opera House and the third said "blue sky" In Hong Kong we never have blue sky anymore, the other 2 then agreed.
> 
> Think about how bad the pollution must be to make a statement like that




'no one'... Funny that.

Memory's of the cultural revolution, Tiananmen Square, The harvesting of Organs from the Falung Gung, the Largest Standing Army on the planet focused more on internal unrest  more than any external threat, 'Ah' what ever the NSA's been up to you can add a big can of malevolence and stir it in and sprinkle it over the Middle Kingdom, Media control, Endemic corruption, no ballot box. There's a few that spring to mind that constrain dissent.

For those interested in not wanting to look silly,  a little reading up on the Arctic Vortex Oscillation might be of value... The cold being dumped at lower latitudes now, is the cold that was up until recently more deeply freezing the Arctic ocean. As documented by the 'cloying buffoons' who spend their working life putting up their research to be peer reviewed. So it can be pulled apart for error correction to be added to what we refer to as collected human knowledge  .... But as they say in the classics ... "move on, nothing to see here"

Any takers on when we might see the Arctic Ice sheet return anything like it's pre industrial condition?
My bet. Not in my children's lifetime....
That's a bet I'd be happy to lose.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> You'll see this US cold snap reported as 'weather'. Whereas hot temps in Australia is 'climate'.
> Just as the people rescued off the ship, at massive expense, in Antarctica were 'tourists'.
> 
> What is the credibility of any theory that needs this kind of one-sided media.
> 
> School was called off on Monday for the entire state of Minnesota, as well as cities and districts in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, among others.




If you look earlier in this thread, a few months ago from memory, there is a video of a female professor showing why the fronts are now meandering, causing in turn extreme cold (as above) and extreme warmth, as in Russia recently. Basilio do you have it? Too hard to find it.


----------



## basilio

There are a number of studies that have shown how the melting of Arctic ice is disrupting the jet stream and causing breakouts of Arctic air to impact on the weather in Europe and the US. 

It's not a finished work but at this stage the weather extremes currently experienced in the northern hemisphere appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/10/arctic-sea-ice-and-jet-stream-changes.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/climate-change-the-jet-stream
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract



> Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
> 
> Jennifer A. Francis1,
> Stephen J. Vavrus2
> 
> Article first published online: 17 MAR 2012




Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap


> Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likely—not less
> 
> Read more: Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather



 | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/#ixzz2phMLZod6


----------



## Knobby22

basilio said:


> Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap
> | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/#ixzz2phMLZod6




Thanks Basilio.
That Time magazine article is excellent.


----------



## Logique

The Fairfax US correspondent is careful to report it as cold _weather_.  Certainly it couldn't possibly be climate change like the hot temperatures in Australia. And in line with Basilios construct that the US low temps '..appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming..' 

Global warming, a bullet proof theory, both cold and hot temperatures prove it!



> http://www.smh.com.au/world/cold-weather-turns-lethal-across-the-us-20140107-hv7p9.html
> *Cold weather turns lethal across the US*
> January 8, 2014
> 
> Chicago: As the “polar vortex” bringing *record low temperatures* crept across America on Monday, the cold became so intense that for a time it became difficult to describe.
> Some weather forecasters began to simply refer to “dangerous cold” and newspapers published tips on avoiding frostbite and lung damage.
> “If you can stay indoors, please do so,” said Gary Schenkel, executive director of the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications. “Everyday activities may not be feasible.”
> 
> On Monday morning it was *colder at Chicago airport*, a record-breaking 26 degrees below zero - or 42 below with wind chill - *than it was at the South Pole*, where it was minus 23. The National Weather Service warned that “potentially life-threatening wind chills will continue through [until] Tuesday morning".


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> The Fairfax US correspondent is careful to report it as cold _weather_.  Certainly it couldn't possibly be climate change like the hot temperatures in Australia. And in line with Basilios construct that the US low temps '..appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming..'
> 
> Global warming, a bullet proof theory, both cold and hot temperatures prove it!




It is a weather event Logique because it is essentially a short term event. You would describe a change of temperatures  over a long period of time as closer to a change in climate.  ie the warmest year in Australia was 2013

And please be accurate. I was quoting a range of  scientific papers that are describing the spilling of the polar vortex into the northern latitudes as a possible consequence of  the melting of Arctic ice (caused by global warming).

It's their construct not mine. And it's quite possible for large scale warming in the earths climate to cause changes in local climate. Why not read the references for further information ?


----------



## wayneL

What then is the explanation of previous incidents of vortex creep?

Time also ran an article on a previous incidence blaming global cooling.

There are hypotheses regarding this, but nothing has been "shown".


----------



## noco

Chris Turney and his brigade of GLOBAL WARMING ALARMIST can't seem to decide whether the GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE is melting the ice or increasing the ice in Antartica.....He said some time back that penguins will die if the ice melts and now he is now saying the penguins will die because there is too much ice and they will have to travel 60 km to get food. 

I believe nature takes care of these anomalies because it has all happened so many time before and they all still seem to survive one way or another. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mes_warming_for_trapping_penguins_in_ice_too/


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Chris Turney and his brigade of GLOBAL WARMING ALARMIST can't seem to decide whether the GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE is melting the ice or increasing the ice in Antartica.....He said some time back that penguins will die if the ice melts and now he is now saying the penguins will die because there is too much ice and they will have to travel 60 km to get food.
> 
> I believe nature takes care of these anomalies because it has all happened so many time before and they all still seem to survive one way or another.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mes_warming_for_trapping_penguins_in_ice_too/




Typical trash journalism from Bolt, if he had actually researched he would have found they are two different breeds of penguins.  The ones in the article years ago were the Emperor penguins, the current article is about the Adelie penguins.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Typical trash journalism from Bolt, if he had actually researched he would have found they are two different breeds of penguins.  The ones in the article years ago were the Emperor penguins, the current article is about the Adelie penguins.




Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turney went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.

Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turney as well.


----------



## Valued

noco said:


> Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turley went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.
> 
> Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turley as well.




I read that this was not what they were trying to prove at all and they went to Antarctica for a completely different recent than to prove the ice was melting. 

That being said, the existence of ice is a prerequisite for the ice melting. The fact that they got stuck in ice does not mean it is not melting. Presumably, if global warming is correct, the melting would not occur fast enough to allow them to escape. Humans require food, water and heat to live. They cannot wait for ice to melt. 

I would also like to state I am neutral towards global warming, since I haven't bothered to research the evidence for myself. People always ask me how I can not be on board with it but I can't since I am a busy person and haven't reviewed the evidence for myself. I may not even understand the evidence if it's scientific. Further, if it does exist, I am sure we have very smart people working on that. I can't be of much help. My understanding though is that all professional scientific bodies in the world support or are neutral towards global warming. Given this, and the fact that on my very basic knowledge, global warming means the destruction of Earth as we know it, we should probably hedge our risk here and do something about it in case it does go wrong.

Everything in life is about probabilities. If there is even a 1% chance global warming is correct then we should treat it as a 1% chance our entire portfolios could be wiped out. This is actually a huge chance and an unacceptable risk, well worth hedging. We should spend a little time and money on insuring against this outcome in case it does happen. Once we prove global warming is not happening for sure, then we can stop hedging this risk.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turney went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.
> 
> Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turney as well.




I'm sorry to upset you nobo by insulting your idol.  You see the whole relevence of Bolt's article was to attempt to insinuate that Turney had contradicted himself over the penguins when in fact this isn't the case at all and they are two separate breeds, a little research by Bolt would have prevented this.  I don't need to discredit this right wing nutjob as he does enough of that himself, his court appearances speak volumes about his journalism.
Have you finished Cory Bernardi's book yet?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I'm sorry to upset you nobo by insulting your idol.  You see the whole relevence of Bolt's article was to attempt to insinuate that Turney had contradicted himself over the penguins when in fact this isn't the case at all and they are two separate breeds, a little research by Bolt would have prevented this.  I don't need to discredit this right wing nutjob as he does enough of that himself, his court appearances speak volumes about his journalism.
> Have you finished Cory Bernardi's book yet?




Firstly, please get my screen name right....it is noco not nobo.

Secondly, I guess you are are a fan of Professor Flannery and all his predictions. I would certainly like to know your opinion of that left wing nut case?

BTW.....I was around in the great depression and I am not talking about the recent GFC.....I have lived and breathed CLIMATE Change all those years......nothing has changed....I have experienced long draughts, floods, fire, extreme storms in Brisbane before WW11 with hail as big as tennis balls and have been through 3 cyclones in the north....my mothers house was reduced to match wood in Port Douglas in 1911. I witnessed time and time again the erosion of the Gold Coast where the sand dunes were washed out to sea and then replenished again by the prevaling winds to form again....there were no houses built on those sand dunes before WW11.....and the nut cases now blame GLOBAL WARMING for the houses that almost fell into the sea......it was the rock walls they built to prevent it happeneing......now look at the mess they created for interferring with nature.

My youngest son spent 6 momths at Davis in Anartica a few years ago....he salled on the Auroa Australis and they could not get the ship into Davis for two weeks in October...they had to walk 5 km to the base.

I am sure the peguins would have survived and adapted to the change in conditions.....unfortunately the dinasoars didn't survive.....I guess it must have been GLOBAL WARMING .????????

 GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?????????????? It's absolute crap and I don't have to take Andrew Bolts opinion or any other nut scientist for that matter.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Firstly, please get my screen name right....it is noco not nobo.
> 
> Secondly, I guess you are are a fan of Professor Flannery and all his predictions. I would certainly like to know your opinion of that left wing nut case?
> 
> BTW.....I was around in the great depression and I am not talking about the recent GFC.....I have lived and breathed CLIMATE Change all those years......nothing has changed....I have experienced long draughts, floods, fire, extreme storms in Brisbane before WW11 with hail as big as tennis balls and have been through 3 cyclones in the north....my mothers house was reduced to match wood in Port Douglas in 1911. I witnessed time and time again the erosion of the Gold Coast where the sand dunes were washed out to sea and then replenished again by the prevaling winds to form again....there were no houses built on those sand dunes before WW11.....and the nut cases now blame GLOBAL WARMING for the houses that almost fell into the sea......it was the rock walls they built to prevent it happeneing......now look at the mess they created for interferring with nature.
> 
> My youngest son spent 6 momths at Davis in Anartica a few years ago....he salled on the Auroa Australis and they could not get the ship into Davis for two weeks in October...they had to walk 5 km to the base.
> 
> I am sure the peguins would have survived and adapted to the change in conditions.....unfortunately the dinasoars didn't survive.....I guess it must have been GLOBAL WARMING .????????
> 
> GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?????????????? It's absolute crap and I don't have to take Andrew Bolts opinion or any other nut scientist for that matter.




Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?  

No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.

I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?

I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?
> 
> No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.
> 
> I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
> 
> Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?
> 
> I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.




I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.

I read your link on James Lawrance Powell and also the comments about him....some were not in agreeance....James Lawtance Powell has a degree in Geology and Geochemistry.....does that make him an expert on Global Warming?

He talks about the drying up of rivers in Colarado and that they never see rains again to fill the rivers....I remember Professor Flannery saying in 2007, Brisbane, Sdyney and Melbourne would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams and look what happened. The rains came, the rivers flowed and the dams filled but in the meantime three stupid Labor state governments belived him and they all spent billions of tax payers dollars on desal plants which aer now all in moth balls.  What a joke.!!!!!

Global Warming!!!!!!! what Global warming??????????


http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520254770


----------



## Judd

noco said:


> I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.




Um, no.  That belief is a myth.

From the time Pythagoras (600BC) postulated that the earth was round, and subsequently supported by Aristotle (400 BC) who also noted that in a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is round, and Eratosthenes (300BC) calculating the circumference of the Earth, no educated person believed the earth was round.  Even medieval sailors noted it was round due to the fact that the bottom of the ship was the first part to disappear over the horizon followed by the masts.  A Roman by the name of Ptolemy observed that as he approached a mountain it appeared to grow out of the ground confirming that the earth was round.  He actually devised a method of calculating latitude and longitude.

The myth seems to stem from a cat fight occurring between religious sects, mainly Catholics apparently, around the 1600's.  Some have argued it was one of the reasons the Pilgrims nicked off to America.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.
> 
> I read your link on James Lawrance Powell and also the comments about him....some were not in agreeance....James Lawtance Powell has a degree in Geology and Geochemistry.....does that make him an expert on Global Warming?
> 
> He talks about the drying up of rivers in Colarado and that they never see rains again to fill the rivers....I remember Professor Flannery saying in 2007, Brisbane, Sdyney and Melbourne would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams and look what happened. The rains came, the rivers flowed and the dams filled but in the meantime three stupid Labor state governments belived him and they all spent billions of tax payers dollars on desal plants which aer now all in moth balls.  What a joke.!!!!!
> 
> Global Warming!!!!!!! what Global warming??????????
> 
> 
> http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520254770




I'm not sure of the relevance of your analogy, the world being curved would have started with a theory just as global warming did, no doubt there were deniers regardless of the comprehensive evidence suggesting otherwise, probably is still today.

I don't think James Lawrance Powell not being a climate scientist has anything to do with that article, he merely collected the data, he didn't write the peer reviewed literature.  I also would have thought that being a geologist would put him in a position to write that book but without reading it I'm not sure if it covers other areas. 

Is there any amount of evidence that would possibly ever convince you that global warming is real?


----------



## noco

After reading the two articles below, I now more than ever convinced that GLOBAL WARMING IS CRAP.

The parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere now is the same as it was 420,000 years ago as scientist have proved from ice drillings in the Antartic.

Each week 600million tones of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere by plants and the oceans....that is 31.2 billion tonnes per year.......man made CO2 emissions are made up of 5.5 billion tonnes per year so the balance must come from bush fires, volcanos and the expelling of gases from cattle, sheep and other animals.

Please read the interesting comments from the two links. 

BTW. my wife an I did the cruise up the Alaskan Coast in September 2012 and The ship were on took us into Glacier Bay where we observed and took several photos of large chunks of ice as big as a bus falling from the glacier into the sea......My dear wife made a comment to me "that the ice falling into the sea are like the pictures we often saw on TV promoted by the Global Warming Alarmists that the Artic ice was melting". But most of us sane people know glaciers are moving all the time with increased snow falls putting pressure on the base of the glacier and so forcing the fall of ice into the sea.



http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> It is a weather event Logique because it is essentially a short term event. You would describe a change of temperatures  over a long period of time as closer to a change in climate.  ie the warmest year in Australia was 2013
> 
> And please be accurate. I was quoting a range of  scientific papers that are describing the spilling of the polar vortex into the northern latitudes as a possible consequence of  the melting of Arctic ice (caused by global warming).
> 
> It's their construct not mine. And it's quite possible for large scale warming in the earths climate to cause changes in local climate. Why not read the references for further information ?




Sorry to hijack, but isn't a climate data point 30 years?

So why would you accept 1 year of hot weather as representative of a position when it comes to climate?

We have very little directly measured "climate" data.

Perhaps we should go back and get more data points from the past, however, as people who have gone back far enough know, this makes some of the more extreme global warming assumptions look a bit silly.

MW


----------



## sptrawler

If climate change is happening, shouldn't everyone be embracing Abbotts plan to dam the North.
Obviously we are going to need the water.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> If climate change is happening, shouldn't everyone be embracing Abbotts plan to dam the North.
> Obviously we are going to need the water.




Yes my friend we should have been building dams with the money wasted on DESAL PLANTS in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.  Billions of taxpayers dollars down the drain thanks to that "DUMB WIT" Flannery who said in 2007 we would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams.....and what happened?.....the rains came and the dams all filled up to overflowing.

Flannery also said the ice would melt and raise sea levels to the height of 10 story buildings.....Then in recent times he is saying that perhaps the seas might rise 10cm by the turn of the next century.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?
> 
> No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.
> 
> I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
> 
> Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?
> 
> I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.




So much for the so called peer reviews....it had to be the GREENIES behind it all......it is all very political and the IPPC were captured by these WATER MELONS.

GIVEN the low-grade attacks on me following my piece "Crowds go cold on climate cost" (The Australian, Dec 31) readers of Fairfax publications and The Guardian may be shocked to hear I believe in climate change. I also accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The trouble is, I cannot reconcile the claims of dangerous human CO2 emissions with the observed record. 
I admit it. I am not a climate scientist. That said, I have closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s.

The climate consensus of the 70s, like the period since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, was dominated by politics, not science. I was reminded of how deeply political awareness has infected today's academies when I received an apology from a respected climate scientist who corrected his own public cheap shot at me. He said, "I attempt to be politically even-handed ... I try to steer a middle course as a scientist."

Really? Surely science is not about neutrality? It is about evidence and conclusions which fall where they will. So when an internationally acclaimed climatologist like Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville dispassionately analyses climate models covering 33 years and concludes that both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends that are below 87 of the 90 models used in the comparison, he does not politically neutralise his findings. They are empirical fact.

They eventually become political because the models he demonstrates to be seriously flawed are the bedrock on which the IPCC's global warming case is built. As Spencer said recently, "The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence of low climate sensitivity for many years ... The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new thing ... just one that is becoming more glaring over time."

Spencer is joined by celebrated Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen, who says: "I think that the latest (AR5) IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase." He is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now". Any takers?

The lengthening pause in global warming is influencing the political climate. The language has changed from the specific "global warming" to the more general "climate change" and now to the astrological "extreme weather events" where "I told you so" can be almost universally applied. For example, we are to believe the recent cold spell in the US and the heat wave in Australia are both examples of global warming. Yet 2013 was one of the "least extreme" weather years in US history.

Political will is also flagging. The Copenhagen summit was almost five years ago, yet there is still no global, legally binding international agreement on emission reduction targets. Only talk.

Canada's Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq last year discarded a proposal from her department to publicly state that the Harper government recognised scientific evidence that humans were "mostly responsible" for climate change and that it took this advice "seriously".

And now, no doubt in response to the political backlash from the economic cost of green schemes, the European Commission is to order Britain to end wind farm subsidies. According to Britain's The Telegraph: "The commission ... is about to argue that the onshore wind and solar power industries are 'mature' and should be allowed to operate without support from taxpayers." Germany's renewable energy industry virtually shut down for almost a week in December when nearly 23,000 wind turbines and one million solar panels ceased to generate. Faced with uncompetitive electricity prices and the fantasy of cheap, reliable renewable energy, Germany is building 10 coal-fired power stations over the next two years with 15 more planned. The green delusion is finally confronting economic reality.

What we now see is the unravelling of years of shoddy science and sloppy journalism. If it wasn't for independent Murdoch newspapers around the world, the mainstream media would be almost completely captured by the IPCC establishment. That is certainly true in Australia. For six or seven years we were bullied into accepting that the IPCC's assessment reports were the climate science bible. Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told us the IPCC relied solely on peer-reviewed literature. Then Murdoch papers alerted us to scientific scandals and Donna Laframboise, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, astonished us with her extraordinary revelation that of 18,000 references in the IPCC's AR4 report, one-third were not peer reviewed. Some were Greenpeace press releases, others student papers and working papers from a conference. In some chapters, the majority of references were not peer reviewed. Many lead authors were inexperienced, or linked to advocate groups like WWF and Greenpeace. Why are we not surprised?

The IPCC was bound to be captured by the green movement. After all, it is a political body. It is not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN. Its sole purpose is to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. It has spawned industries. One is scientists determined to find an anthropogenic cause. Another is climate remediation. And, naturally, an industry to redistribute taxes to sustain it all. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, this cartel will deny all contrary evidence. Its very survival depends on it. But the tide is turning and Mother Nature has signalled her intention not to co-operate.

In the meantime, childish personal attacks on those who point out flaws in IPCC reasoning and advice only increase scepticism. They are no substitute for empirical evidence and are well into diminishing returns. The party's over.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council.
facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail114
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ys-over-for-ipcc/story-e6frgd0x-1226801761168


----------



## sptrawler

Well it looks like Victorians must be thanking their lucky stars that Labor dicks didn't shut down their .dirty brown coal' Power Stations.
All hell would have broken out.lol
Apparently Victoria is $hitting itself, because one of the Loy Yang 'brown coal unit is out of service". It may cause rolling blackouts due to the heat wave.

Imagine if a complete Power Station had been shut down, as GG would say, it just shows how dumb the Labor brain farts are.

Changing the world, on the back of a serviette politics, dumb and dumber.

It would be interesting to hear Smurphs take on the Eastern States system security if Hazelwood, or Loy Yang had been shut down.


----------



## noco

Some interesting facts about decisions made by Chris Turney from a report by Steve McIntyre.

The first highlight of  Mc Intyres report is a must read.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...xcuse_for_having_his_ship_of_fools_stuck_in_/


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> It would be interesting to hear Smurphs take on the Eastern States system security if Hazelwood, or Loy Yang had been shut down.



It is 100% certain that there would have been blackouts in Victoria this week if any major power station had been shut down.

There's no ifs or maybes about it. If any of the big plants weren't running, there would have been blackouts (or alternatively power restrictions imposed). Would be the same again tomorrow (Friday) too.


----------



## Knobby22

Labor actually paid Hazelwood to keep it open.
Their rhetoric didn't match their actions.


----------



## DB008

*Climate change: Planet to warm by 4 degrees by 2100*



> Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong.
> 
> *The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia.*
> 
> Current models estimate a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - a level that may be reached by mid-century - will result in temperature rises of between 1.5 degrees and 5 degrees. Instead, the likely range will be 3-5 degrees for twice the amount of C02, the study found.
> 
> The publication of the research comes as the top business adviser to Prime Minister Tony Abbott has again caused controversy with comments about the ''delusion'' of global warming and an assertion that climate change policy has destroyed Australia's manufacturing sector and competitiveness.
> 
> In an opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, Maurice Newman, Mr Abbott's pick as head of his Business
> 
> Advisory Council, said high energy costs caused by the carbon tax and the renewable energy target, introduced under the Howard government, had eroded competitiveness.
> 
> Under Labor and the Greens, Australia had been taken hostage by ''climate change madness'', Mr Newman wrote.





http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2qpLyIsVU


----------



## noco

DB008 said:


> *Climate change: Planet to warm by 4 degrees by 2100*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2qpLyIsVU





But scientist are now saying the Sun's activity has fallen to its lowest in 100 years and we may be headed for another minI ice age where even the Thames River thorugh London could well freeze again.

Perhaps we can now forget about GLOBAL WARMING????????????????GLOBAL WARMING??????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING????????

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s-to-century-low/story-fnjwlbuh-1226805090679


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> But scientist are now saying the Sun's activity has fallen to its lowest in 100 years and we may be headed for another minI ice age where even the Thames River thorugh London could well freeze again.
> Perhaps we can now forget about GLOBAL WARMING????????????????GLOBAL WARMING??????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING????????
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s-to-century-low/story-fnjwlbuh-1226805090679



Everything old is new again Noco. The climate scare of the early 1970s was of a New Ice Age. 

The warmists really dislike this sunspot activity idea. You see, climate change is caused, and can only be fixed by humans, at a political level. The Sun?...pfft!


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Everything old is new again Noco. The climate scare of the early 1970s was of a New Ice Age.
> 
> The warmists really dislike this sunspot activity idea. You see, climate change is caused, and can only be fixed by humans, at a political level. The Sun?...pfft!




Yep how amazingly, stupefyingly, obviously predictable. The Courier Mail (and a score of other blogs) carry the possibility that sunspot activity will fall to the Maundy Minimum levels and poof ! * there is the excuse to trash the rest of the scientific evidence around climate change and suggest we are going back to the Ice Ages*

Let's see just how one eyed you folks are here. You'll jump of the bandwagon on one particular piece of science which suggests that global temperatures could fall as a result of a fall in sunspot activity. 
*At exactly the same time* you dismiss out of hand the extensive research on global warming which, together with the the temperatures rises we have already experienced takes us to a very hot future.

Is the information on solar activity and its influence on climate wrong ? NO . Not at alll. If you want to understand the full story on this phenomonen you can read it at the following URL.

The short answer is that a Maundy minimum phenomenon could result in a Global temp drop of .1 to .3C.  At the same time we have the overwhelming effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions which will cause a further 1.5 to 4C increase in global temperatures. 

Can you do the figures on this folks?


> *What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?*
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate Science
> Sun-earth connections
> 
> — group @ 19 June 2011
> 
> EmailShare
> 
> Guest commentary by Georg Feulner
> 
> During a meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, solar physicists have just announced a prediction that the Sun might enter an extended period of low activity (a ‘grand minimum’) similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century. In this post I will explore the background of this announcement and discuss implications for Earth’s climate.
> 
> It has been known for a long time that solar activity shows a very regular pattern. Every 11 years the Sun is particularly active, and numerous dark sunspots are visible on its surface. These maxima of solar activity are separated by times of low activity when only few (if any) sunspots appear.
> 
> ......Solar physicists do not yet understand how an extended solar-activity low like the Maunder Minimum arises. Yet there is recent observational evidence for an unusual behavior of the Sun during the current cycle 24, including a missing zonal wind flow within the Sun, decreasing magnetic field strength of sunspots and lower activity around the poles of the Sun. These observations prompted Frank Hill and colleagues to suggest that the Sun might enter a new Maunder-like minimum after the current 11-year cycle ends (i.e. after 2020 or so).
> 
> It remains to be seen whether this prognosis turns out to be true (there have been some doubts expressed), but since grand minima of solar activity did occur in the past, it is certainly interesting to explore what effects such a minimum might have on 21st century climate if it did occur. *This is precisely the question Stefan Rahmstorf and I investigated in a study published last year (see also our press release. (Earlier estimates for the size of this effect can be found here and here.) In our study we find that a new Maunder Minimum would lead to a cooling of 0.3 °C in the year 2100 at most – relative to an expected anthropogenic warming of around 4 °C. (The amount of warming in the 21st century depends on assumptions about future emissions, of course).
> *
> - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nto-a-new-grand-minimum/#sthash.eetyJcIo.dpuf


----------



## basilio

You might also be wondering about the views of Mike Lockwood whose research is constantly quoted in relation the possibility we can go back to a mini Ice Age.

As usual, (because they are completely dishonest  liars) Mikes words have been totally twisted. Want to see what he actually said and how you have been comprehensively stooged ?


> 25 percent chance” of Grand Solar Minimum
> November 3, 2013
> 
> Mike Lockwood is a solar physicist who became a target of climate deniers several years ago *when he wrote one of the definitive papers debunking the “it’s all caused by the sun” canard.
> *
> 
> Now check and see if this latest interview with him becomes some kind of teapot tempest among the usual suspects.
> 
> From Lockwood and Froelich 2007, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”
> 
> Watch for this to be spun – I am sure that Dr. Lockwood’s “don’t look for a little ice age” disclaimer’s below show that he is aware of how the game works. (see video above for an example of denialist standard O.P.)
> 
> New Scientist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”
> 
> Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspotsMovie Camera for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.
> 
> Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum, the late 17th century Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots for 70 years. Two years ago, Lockwood put the chances of this happening at less than 10 per cent (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI:10.1029/2011JD017013).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little ice age
> 
> The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling. Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4  °C.
> *
> But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85  °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*
> 
> http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/03/25-percent-chance-of-grand-solar-minimum/
Click to expand...



But you would never expect your run of the mill denialists to actually quote what a scientist said  without comprehensively twisting the truth out of it would you ?


----------



## wayneL

Interesting ironies basilio.

But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.

May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Interesting ironies basilio.
> 
> But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.
> 
> May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.




Give an evangelist enough rope and eventually, he will paint himself into a corner. :


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Interesting ironies basilio.
> 
> But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.
> 
> May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.




What this infested website really needs Wayne is a specific thread to detail *just how routinely and outrageously dishonest climate change denial has become.*

I notice you don't have the bottle to acknowledge how Mike Lockwoods research was deliberately twisted to come up with a conclusion he specifically and categorically refuted. 

And as I pointed out exactly where is the intellectual honesty(let alone numeracy capacity) in selecting one scientific possibility which could result in a.3C decrease in temperatures and then completely ignoring the remaining body of work which takes us in a completely different direction?  

Zilch, zero, 0

   ____________________________________________________________________________

So, should I start up a specific thread on the 1001 ways climate deniers work ? Or would the sound of apoplectic screams across the blogosphere melt the wires ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> What this infested website really needs Wayne is a specific thread to detail *just how routinely and outrageously dishonest climate change denial has become.*
> 
> I notice you don't have the bottle to acknowledge how Mike Lockwoods research was deliberately twisted to come up with a conclusion he specifically and categorically refuted.
> 
> And as I pointed out exactly where is the intellectual honesty(let alone numeracy capacity) in selecting one scientific possibility which could result in a.3C decrease in temperatures and then completely ignoring the remaining body of work which takes us in a completely different direction?
> 
> Zilch, zero, 0
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> 
> So, should I start up a specific thread on the 1001 ways climate deniers work ? Or would the sound of apoplectic screams across the blogosphere melt the wires ?




Attitude Polarization Bias baslilio.

When you concede valid points against your case, perhaps there could be meeting of the minds.

IOW, acquire some honour and we can talk.


----------



## wayneL

After another petulant and totally unprofessional attack on Judy's credibility (for which she has issued a challenge) from M Mann, she had this to say:

'Skepticism is one of the norms of science.  We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges.  If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.'

Think about that next time you feel like sinking into the intellectual gutter basilio.


----------



## basilio

There is absolutely nothing "skeptical" about deliberately misrepresenting a scientists findings on sunspot activity in an attempt to con people into believing we are going into a mini ice age.

That was the sum total of the hundreds of repeated stories relating to the possible decline in sunspot activities and the idea that we were going back to the freezes of the 18th century. Just deception and lies.

Is anyone here interested in learning about the science behind current understandings of CC? The US Senate committee had a 4 hour hearing last Thursday on the topic as they deliberated on how to tackle the problem.

The Guardian published an overview of this hearing and the full testimony of one of the main presenters is on the US Senate website. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...clear-and-present-danger?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
*



			What we know about climate change
		
Click to expand...


*


> Andrew E. Dessler
> Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
> Texas A&M University
> 
> My name is Andrew Dessler and I am a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. I have been studying the atmosphere since 1988 and I have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, including studies of the cloud and water vapor feedbacks and climate sensitivity.
> 
> In my testimony, I will review what I think are the most important conclusions the climate scientific community has reached *in over two centuries of work.*Let me begin by describing some important points that we know with high confidence””and how that has led me to personally conclude that climate change is a clear and present danger.



http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06


----------



## trainspotter

> Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.
> On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.




http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...-are-al-gores-stupidest-global-warming-quotes





And now for the Arctic ice situation ...



> The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice.
> 
> Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.
> 
> This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373




Al Gore anyone? http://www.generationim.com/

But, but, but he wants to save the world form nasty carbon polluters or is he out to line his own pocket first?



> Generation Investment Management, the private equity fund chaired by former U.S. vice president Al Gore, has acquired a 9.5 percent stake in Camco International Ltd, a carbon asset developer.
> 
> Generation, set up in 2004 by Gore and David Blood, former chief of Goldman Sachs's asset management arm, now holds 16 million Camco shares, Camco said in a statement.
> 
> Camco, which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios, works with companies to identify and develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits.




http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care

(_insert maniacal laugh here_)


----------



## Logique

Basilio,


> the short answer is that a Maundy minimum phenomenon could result in a Global temp drop of .1 to .3C. At the same time we have the overwhelming effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions which will cause a further 1.5 to 4C increase in global temperatures.



Citation? Just ridiculous zealotry. 

I think the mention of sunspot activity has upset you Basilio. Solar vs anthropogenic, we know which side you are on.


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Basilio,
> Citation? Just ridiculous zealotry.
> 
> I think the mention of sunspot activity has upset you Basilio. Solar vs anthropogenic, we know which side you are on.




The two posts I made provided 2 detailed references for the effects of sunspot activity. Please check.

And if you read the posts you would have seen me *clearly acknowledging the impact of sunspot activity. *After all it was the climate scientists who identified and quantified this effect. That was the basis for the  possible .1 to .3 decrease in global temperatures. 

My points were:

1) The comments from the papers completely misrepresented the work of the scientist in question. He made it clear that he didn't see any likelihood of a similar mini ice age because

             A) We have seen a .8C increase in global temperatures which takes us a long way from the climate of   
                  the 17th century
             b) The ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate  will far outway the very limited possible effects of 
                   solar activity.

2) Why are you so ready to accept one part of a scientists work on CC (solar activity) when it suits you and totally reject the rest of his research ? ( He wrote a paper a few years ago which comprehensively demonstrated that current warming cannot be explained by solar activity?


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ...
> b) The ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate  will far outway the very limited possible effects of
> solar activity. ...




By rotating our planet every day, we switch off the solar activity. 
The difference is noticeable, to say the least.

So your point is moot, at best!


----------



## basilio

burglar said:


> By rotating our planet every day, we switch off the solar activity.
> The difference is noticeable, to say the least.
> 
> So your point is moot, at best!




Pleeese ! You really are having us on arn't you ?

We have a 24 hour rotation cycle don't we? So yes we go from full sun to part sun to NO sun (100% loss) and then back again. So the Earth doesn't get too hot or too cold. Goldilocks stuff.

If you want to see what the prolonged effect of no sun/full sun is there are a couple of moons and planets that offer excellent case studies. 

Small (but  still significant) changes in the solar activity as discussed by Mike Lockwood have nowhere near as much change in the earths climate as daily rotation.

For a more complete analysis of the various impacts of the sun check out the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> Pleeese ! You really are having us on arn't you ?




Your point is moot, ... 
at best!

Here is what I am believing:



> The runaway greenhouse effect has several meanings ranging from, at the low end, global warming sufficient to induce out-of-control amplifying feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates, to, at the high end, a Venus-like hothouse with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and a surface temperature of several hundred degrees, a climate state from which there is no escape. Between these extremes is the moist greenhouse, which occurs if the climate forcing is large enough to make H2O a major atmospheric constituent.[8] In principle, an extreme moist greenhouse might cause an instability with water vapour preventing radiation to space of all absorbed solar energy, resulting in very high surface temperature and evaporation of the ocean.[9] However, simulations indicate that no plausible human-made GHG forcing can cause an instability and runaway greenhouse effect.[10]




Runaway_climate_change


----------



## orr

trainspotter said:


> And now for the Arctic ice situation ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373
> 
> View attachment 56430
> 
> 
> Al Gore anyone? http://www.generationim.com/
> 
> 
> (_insert maniacal laugh here_)




Congratulations you've spotted the turning point. Care to make some longer term predictions?





You may want to take into account the observed evidence. Or more likely you probably don't.

My hope is that there will be a slowing in the sequential decade average decline. But it doesn't look that good at this point. Does it?


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Congratulations you've spotted the turning point. Care to make some longer term predictions?
> 
> View attachment 56434
> 
> 
> You may want to take into account the observed evidence. Or more likely you probably don't.
> 
> My hope is that there will be a slowing in the sequential decade average decline. But it doesn't look that good at this point. Does it?




Congratulations you have spotted the tipping point. It would seem the wind has something to do with it. I would be predicting that the sea ice will continue to thicken as long as the wind is in the right direction keeping the floe in place 



> "This is why we're really quite surprised by what we've seen in 2013.
> 
> "We didn't expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume.
> 
> "But it has been. And the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic."
> 
> *Dr Don Perovich is a sea-ice expert at Dartmouth College, US*.
> 
> He said Cryosat's data tallied with observations made by other spacecraft. But after a *sharply colder summer* this year, the autumn volume number has gone up.
> 
> "In previous summers, some of the [multi-year ice] migrated over to the Alaska and Siberia areas where it melted. *But this past summer, it stayed in place because of a change in wind patterns. And so there'll likely be more multi-year ice next year than there was this year," *he told BBC News.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373



> Area/extent is easier to measure, but scientists regard thickness/volume to be the best metric with which to judge the health of the ice pack, which is why Cryosat's unique data-set is so important.







Sooo maybe the area/extent has declined but the thickness/volume is increasing ? Seeing how this satellite has only been functional for 3 years it has not produced enough empirical evidence as yet.


----------



## wayneL

Here is the point, basilio, Orr, et al:

Notwithstanding ad hoc incidences of misrepresentation of data, observations and individual's interpretation thereof  (which is prevalent from either camp), there is enough science to cause question of the the drivers and/or feedback involved in climate change. How much is anthropogenic, what are the important anthropogenic factors, is co2 a major factor or not. Are other anthropogenic factors important to a greater or lesser extent.


----------



## wayneL

...bloody phone

....ergo,it surely is intellectual bankruptcy of the highest order to deride skeptics with such gratuitously offensive tags as denier. This is antsc

- - - Updated - - -

Bugger it will finish this later


----------



## Logique

US Poll: Do You Believe in Global Warming?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/do-you-believe-in-global-warming,34998/


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> US Poll: Do You Believe in Global Warming?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/do-you-believe-in-global-warming,34998/




Lol. the Time magazine option was pretty funny, in a metaphorical sense .


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> US Poll: Do You Believe in Global Warming?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/do-you-believe-in-global-warming,34998/





Chris Turney and his 51 warmists still believes in GLOBAL WARMING even though are RED FACED about getting stuck in pack ice......They all arrived back in Hobart today....I'll bet the they are hoping the Earth will open up and swallow them before the media start talking to them. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hes_back/


----------



## drsmith

In the following, is there an implied criticism of capitalism by the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ?



> China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.




She then offers some examples but later in the article, there's this,



> China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ina-best-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Chris Turney and his 51 warmists still believes in GLOBAL WARMING even though are RED FACED about getting stuck in pack ice......They all arrived back in Hobart today....I'll bet the they are hoping the Earth will open up and swallow them before the media start talking to them.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hes_back/




The link below is how this epic event unfolded and Turney was the major factor in its disaster.....Had he followed the instructions of the Captain of the Russian ship, he would have saved the Australian tax payers some $1.8 to $2.4 million.

It is worthy to note Turney is the founder and Director of "CARBONSCAPE" which is method of capturing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere......Perhaps this is why he is determined to prove GLOBAL WARMING is man made.....He intends to make money out of his invention. 

BTW.....Tim Flannery is also a director of Carbonscape......nuff said.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mention_hes_a_professor_of_climate_change_ei/

http://www.rexresearch.com/carbonscape/carbonscape.htm


----------



## Knobby22

One big winner, if global warming occurred, would be Greenland and the world's supply of rare earth minerals. It's there but we can't get to a lot of it as it is stuck under 2km of ice.

http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/7...d-exploration-potential-hudson-resources.html


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> One big winner, if global warming occurred, would be Greenland and the world's supply of rare earth minerals. It's there but we can't get to a lot of it as it is stuck under 2km of ice.
> 
> http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/7...d-exploration-potential-hudson-resources.html




Interesting....
I wonder how the rest of the world would look if  the 2 klm of ice on Greenland melted? 

If Greenland goes I believe the equivalent sea level rise is around 7 metres.  

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/11/greenland-land-ice-melt-likely-to-drive-up-global-sea-levels/


----------



## macca

noco said:


> The link below is how this epic event unfolded and Turney was the major factor in its disaster.....Had he followed the instructions of the Captain of the Russian ship, he would have saved the Australian tax payers some $1.8 to $2.4 million.
> 
> It is worthy to note Turney is the founder and Director of "CARBONSCAPE" which is method of capturing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere......Perhaps this is why he is determined to prove GLOBAL WARMING is man made.....He intends to make money out of his invention.
> 
> BTW.....Tim Flannery is also a director of Carbonscape......nuff said.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mention_hes_a_professor_of_climate_change_ei/
> 
> http://www.rexresearch.com/carbonscape/carbonscape.htm




This sounded to rude to be true so I checked, Yep ! there they both are

https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/1882024

Can you imagine the screams from the ABC and twitterati if the roll was reversed, the silence about this obvious conflict of interest is further proof of the "faux hysteria" being generated and the chicken little mania is simply a con.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> It is worthy to note Turney is the founder and Director of "CARBONSCAPE" which is method of capturing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere......Perhaps this is why he is determined to prove GLOBAL WARMING is man made.....He intends to make money out of his invention.
> 
> BTW.....Tim Flannery is also a director of Carbonscape......nuff said.
> 
> 
> url]http://www.rexresearch.com/carbonscape/carbonscape.htm[/url]




Interesting isn't it ? Every scientist with any integrity acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the extra volume we put into the atmosphere is causing global warming.

*Even climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 is contributing to global warming.* (Their argument is that sensitivity levels of Co2 are not as high as all the other climate scientists are suggesting.

So Chris Turney  decides to take practical steps to  develop technology that will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

And in response to that you Noco and your friends who deride him for his efforts.

Just xxxxxxxx shameful.


----------



## wayneL

Well basilio, if GW activists keep travelling about in motorcades and private jets, who knows?

BTW, Ive just thrown all my Neil Young albums in the bin. Who'da think he would turn out to be the worlds biggest antiscience hypocrite?

- - - Updated - - -

BTW,the question wad rhetorical ;-)


----------



## macca

basilio said:


> Interesting isn't it ? Every scientist with any integrity acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the extra volume we put into the atmosphere is causing global warming.
> 
> *Even climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 is contributing to global warming.* (Their argument is that sensitivity levels of Co2 are not as high as all the other climate scientists are suggesting.
> 
> So Chris Turney  decides to take practical steps to  develop technology that will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.
> 
> And in response to that you Noco and your friends who deride him for his efforts.
> 
> Just xxxxxxxx shameful.




I don't care what enterprise people want to speculate in using their own resources, this thread is about the hysteria generated by the concerted efforts of those with their snout in the trough.

Turney and Flannery have got their arm in the cookie jar, just like Gore and the gullible media continue to act as a cheer squad when they should be exposing the conflict of interest.

The ABC is very quick to highlight any conflict of interest by a pollie and these guys are getting way more funding from us the tax payers, yet no mention of it, wonder why


----------



## wayneL

Macca, it would be interesting if basilio is honest enough to declare hi own vested commercial interests.

It would certainly contextualize this a bit here.

Over to you bas;-)


----------



## basilio

So this thread is no longer about climate science is it ? 

(Never was of course. It was just an excuse to bash all research which suggested we are heading into disaster as a result of human produced CO2)

As for my "commercial interest" ? Yeah they are mine. In this thread they'll stay mine thank you. But on a general note I think it makes far more sense to invest in constructive industries that improve the quality  of life and the environment rather than trash it.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> So this thread is no longer about climate science is it ?
> 
> (Never was of course. It was just an excuse to bash all research which suggested we are heading into disaster as a result of human produced CO2)
> 
> As for my "commercial interest" ? Yeah they are mine. In this thread they'll stay mine thank you. But on a general note I think it makes far more sense to invest in constructive industries that improve the quality  of life and the environment rather than trash it.




Sounds like another Y2K beat up to me? Global warming has become climate science and I am betting this stance will soften to "eco friendly green theme productivity education" in the very near future.

_"But on a general note I think it makes far more sense to invest in constructive industries that improve the quality of life and the environment rather than trash it"_

This is the most sensible thing I have read on this thread thus far. Here are a few more tips to chow down on:-

http://www.50waystohelp.com/


----------



## wayneL

You are wrong once again basilio.

This thread is about exposing the junk science element of the agw hypothesis and the "snout in the trough" Orwellian dystopian villains who promulgate said nonsense; self-aggrandizing narcissists like Hansen, Mann, Romm, et al ad nauseum.

That's what this thread is about, exposing dishonourable vested interests whose income depends on keeping people frightened, just like the clergy of the dark ages.

Real science is actually embraced here, that is science that is derived from uncooked (pardon the pun) data and observation... that is, apart from folks such as yourself whose business relies on junk science.


----------



## basilio

Well that was a pleasant way to win friends and influence people wasn't it Wayne ? 

Bye.


----------



## wayneL

As it is breathtakingly obvious. I nred not point out your hypocrisy.

Surely an invocation of Dale Carnegie could only come from a current practitioner of the art?


----------



## spooly74

Scientists say the Arctic has been ice free in summer for the last 4 years.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Interesting isn't it ? Every scientist with any integrity acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the extra volume we put into the atmosphere is causing global warming.
> 
> *Even climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 is contributing to global warming.* (Their argument is that sensitivity levels of Co2 are not as high as all the other climate scientists are suggesting.




There are lots of scientist with integrity who are also skeptics.

Do you have a link to your statement that "EVEN SKEPTICS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CO2 IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING"

Out of some 32 billion tones of GREEN HOUSE GASES induced into the atmosphere, only about 5.5 billion is man made....the balnce would be due to natural bush fires and volcanoes.    after all bush fires burn fossil fuel.......how do you overcome bush fires which are a natuarl phenomenon mostly started by lightning. Refer my post 4976.

I once read about the bush fires in the southern part of Australia, allied with a cold stream of air coming down from the Himilayas, creates the moonsoon rains in the northern part of Australia


----------



## trainspotter

spooly74 said:


> Scientists say the Arctic has been ice free in summer for the last 4 years.
> 
> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683




Article was written on  NOVEMBER 16, 2007 !!!!! 



> QUEBEC -- The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
> 
> Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).




But but but in 2013 the floe has increased by 50% from 2012 and the volume had increased by 9,000 cubic kms?

Read post #4996 please.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> There are lots of scientist with integrity who are also skeptics.
> 
> Do you have a link to your statement that "EVEN SKEPTICS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CO2 IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING"
> 
> Out of some 32 billion tones of GREEN HOUSE GASES induced into the atmosphere, only about 5.5 billion is man made....the balnce would be due to natural bush fires and volcanoes.    after all bush fires burn fossil fuel.......how do you overcome bush fires which are a natuarl phenomenon mostly started by lightning. Refer my post 4976.




noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)... 
Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric  CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the  fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and  doesn't effect the long term balance. 
Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat . 
All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)...
> Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric  CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the  fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and  doesn't effect the long term balance.
> Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat .
> All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
> Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
> or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.




LOL...LOL...


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)...
> Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric  CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the  fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and  doesn't effect the long term balance.
> Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat .
> All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
> Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
> or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.




Are plants really that fussed about where their CO2 comes from? 

CO2 is CO2 regardless of its origins. How can the plants tell one identical molecule from another?


----------



## noco

Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas




The natural resources of CO2 is 20 times than any human acyivity.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?



Wood does emit CO2 when burned (and under certain conditions can also emit CH4 (methane) as well as other things) but wood can be burned without necessarily being a net source of CO2 emissions.

Grow a tonne of wood in new trees and burn a tonne of wood from old trees. There's no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere there, it's taking with one hand and giving with the other assuming it's a naturally occurring fire. If it's man made (eg a fireplace) then there would be some net emissions from the chainsaw (petrol) used to cut the tree down, splitter (petrol) used to split the wood and the truck (diesel) use to cart it but there is no net emission from the wood itself as long as the trees are regrown.

The key point there being that trees are carbon neutral only if they are actually replanted. Clearing a forest and not replanting would certainly release CO2. But if you're logging, say, 1 million tonnes each year and also growing 1 million tonnes of replacement wood then overall it's in balance.

Fossil fuels on the other hand aren't normally regenerated, at least not on a timescale anywhere near comparable to the rate of extraction. So burning a tonne of coal (or using oil or gas) releases CO2 to the atmosphere without a corresponding absorption of CO2 by new coal (since you can't just go and plant a tonne of coal each time you dig one up). So the use of coal, oil and natural gas does add CO2 to the atmosphere whereas that may or may not be the the case with wood depending on whether or not it is regrown.


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Are plants really that fussed about where their CO2 comes from?
> 
> CO2 is CO2 regardless of its origins. How can the plants tell one identical molecule from another?




We're down to around 30% of the earths land area covered by forests, but clearign them at a rate of the size of Panama, or over 75,000 Square KM being lost to sugar cane and palm oil.

So yes, the remaining plants don't really care where a molecule of CO2 comes from, it's just unfortunate that there's less and less of them each year to try and scrub the increasing amounts of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere.


----------



## cynic

sydboy007 said:


> We're down to around 30% of the earths land area covered by forests, but clearign them at a rate of the size of Panama, or over 75,000 Square KM being lost to sugar cane and palm oil.
> 
> So yes, the remaining plants don't really care where a molecule of CO2 comes from, it's just unfortunate that there's less and less of them each year to try and scrub the increasing amounts of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere.




The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!


----------



## Smurf1976

cynic said:


> The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!




They are plants yes, but from an ecological perspective a sugar cane field or palm plantation is very different to a natural forest.

It's like swapping gold for aluminium. They're both metals but I can't see anyone buying an aluminium wedding ring anytime soon.


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!




Yes, thousand of square kilometres of commercial scale monoculture producing the white death and least healthy mass produced edible oil is just what we need.  I can just see people saying no need to visit the national park, lets visit the palm oil plantation since they're all just plants and trees.  Makes u wonder why we have botanical gardens 

You'd also find that a forest is absorbing more carbon than crops grown, especially when you consider in a lot of tropical forest areas the amount of peat like ground cover.  Just have to look to Indonesia to see how poorly things go when the corrupt companies light the firest to clear more area for farming.  The smoke blankets much of Asia.  The net effect is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Unless you believe that the atmospheric testing is a lie and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased over the last 250 years, then physics simply says more C02 HAS to increase heat absorption and retention.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  If burning fossil fuels isn't the cause of the increase of atmospheric C02, then what is?


----------



## cynic

sydboy007 said:


> ...
> If burning fossil fuels isn't the cause of the increase of atmospheric C02, then what is?




Mammalian respiration.

Humans and our mammalian livestock exhale CO2.

Did your learned scientists forget to take this factor into account in their measurements?


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> Mammalian respiration ...




Plant respiration too, also!


old vs young growth forestl


And sharks respire too!


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> ...
> And sharks respire too!




Thank Neptune for sea weed!

Where would we be without flake!


----------



## burglar

burglar said:


> ... And sharks respire too!




Nothing funnier than a fart!!
Shark Fart


----------



## IFocus

cynic said:


> The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!




trying not to be nasty but last time I checked they fu(ked the ecosystems needed to support life.......any life.


----------



## cynic

IFocus said:


> trying not to be nasty but last time I checked they fu(ked the ecosystems needed to support life.......any life.



If that's true, then by what miracle of nature can these species (sugar cane, palms) possibly still exist?!!


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Mammalian respiration.
> 
> Humans and our mammalian livestock exhale CO2.
> 
> Did your learned scientists forget to take this factor into account in their measurements?




So you don't dispute the increase of atmospheric CO2, just the cause?

Certainly ruminant livestock generate a lot of methane, around 100M tonnes a year, which converts to something like 2.5B tonnes of CO2 equivalent since it's a much more potent greenhouse gas.  Growing rice generates even more emissions, and the mini ice age people love to talk about was possibly partly caused by the large reduction in rice production due to the black plague that eventually made it's way to Europe a couple of years later.  

Compared to the 36B tonnes of CO2 released from burning fossil fuels last year I'm pretty confident in saying it's not the major cause of rising atmospheric CO2 levels.  We're burning through over 80 million barrels of oil a day (around 11M tonnes), 7.8 Billion tonnes of coal a year, along with deforestation at increasing rates, growing desertification in many regions.

As for the learned scientists, they've been looking at ways to help reduce the amount of methane produced by livestock since at least the mid noughties, so yes they're certainly taken the issue on board.  It's certainly been on the research agenda in Australia for quite some time, and they seem to be tackling the issue from a food point of view and also as a yield issue since the more gas expelled the less muscle formed.  They've even tried providing probiotics to change the gut bacteria to help better digest the food they eat.


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> If that's true, then by what miracle of nature can these species (sugar cane, palms) possibly still exist?!!




Probably because they replace the natural environment of the area.  All the local flora and fauna are either eradicated or forced to migrate to another area if they can.


----------



## cynic

IFocus said:


> trying not to be nasty but last time I checked they fu(ked the ecosystems needed to support life.......any life.






sydboy007 said:


> Probably because they replace the natural environment of the area.  All the local flora and fauna are either eradicated or forced to migrate to another area if they can.




Probably not!!!

The ecosystems may change in adaptation to the introduction of certain species, but, contrary to IFocus' outlandish assertions, life is still supported!



sydboy007 said:


> So you don't dispute the increase of atmospheric CO2, just the cause?



Correct!

Increases in CO2 levels can reasonably and logically be anticipated with our rising population irrespective of our choice of fuel!!


----------



## Smurf1976

cynic said:


> Mammalian respiration.
> 
> Humans and our mammalian livestock exhale CO2.



This is just part of the carbon cycle with no net addition. 

Growing of crops absorbs CO2, animals (including humans) then eat it and return the CO2 to the atmosphere where it came from with no net change assuming that we plant another crop each time one is harvested.


----------



## cynic

Smurf1976 said:


> This is just part of the carbon cycle with no net addition.
> 
> Growing of crops absorbs CO2, animals (including humans) then eat it and return the CO2 to the atmosphere where it came from with no net change assuming that we plant another crop each time one is harvested.




True. However you failed to notice the point that I am making!
The CO2 is in circulation, however, the amount in circulation must increase to support the larger populace, and it can be expected to impact our measurements!


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Probably not!!!
> 
> The ecosystems may change in adaptation to the introduction of certain species, but, contrary to IFocus' outlandish assertions, life is still supported!




So the extinction of dozens to hundreds of specifies of plants and animals had nothing to do with humans moving in and taking over?  What humans do allows for little adaptation these days.

Levelling a few thousand square kilometres for broad acre monoculture provides little fod and shelter for the majority of displaced animals and plants.



cynic said:


> Correct!
> 
> Increases in CO2 levels can reasonably and logically be anticipated with our rising population irrespective of our choice of fuel!!




So you're saying:


The increase in atmospheric CO2 is only due to there being more humans and animals on the planet?  
The burning of fossil fuels has no impact on atmospheric CO2 levels

A gallon of petrol has an energy content roughly equal to 400 human hours of labour.  I'd say the fact there's 7 odd billion of us on the planet has something to do with the massive amounts of fossil fuels we're burning, but at the end of the day the burning of fossil fuels is releasing far larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere than humans ever will.  A car churns out CO2 at a rate 11 times higher than a human.  A kw/h of electricity in Australia will give you close to 1KG of CO2, roughly what you'll expire in a 24 hour period.


----------



## Smurf1976

Take a great big, locked away store of anything.

Now dump that store into the surrounding environment be it air, land or water.

You don't need a science degree to work out that you'll now have more of that substance, whatever it is, wherever you dumped it. That applies to everything from coal to confetti. I can assure you there's a lot more confetti on the ground at a parade, concert or whatever after the event than there was prior to it being released from storage. Same with anything.

Whilst I have an open mind on the broad concept of human-induced climate change, there are a few things that are beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion.

1. Taking carbon from long term underground storage (coal, oil, gas), mixing it with oxygen and releasing it into the air as CO2 is going to lead to more CO2 being in the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case.

2. The climate is changing on a timescale that meaningfully affects both the natural environment and human activities.

The rest is contentious, but I don't see how anyone could really dispute either of those two points. It's like disputing that drinking a bottle of vodka will increase the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood or that the city of Melbourne is different now to how it was 50 years ago. Anything like that is just commonsense and beyond reasonable dispute in my opinion.

All that said, from a practical perspective I'm sure that humans don't fully understand the weather. Eg after years of research surrounding droughts in Australia it's only recently that a link has been made between rainfall in SE Australia and the Indian Ocean Dipole. So there's certainly a lot of things we don't understand. 

What can be said with reasonable certainty however is that there has been a change since the 1970's. Runoff in to water storages in South-West WA has very sharply declined, I don't have the figures handy but it's a massive decline, and even in Tasmania it has dropped 15% since the mid-1970's (most of the drop occurring in Autumn in what I term a "rain hole" because that's how it appears on an annual chart) so that's a definite change of significance to humans and the natural environment. That said, land use change may be a factor as well as the actual weather so it's somewhat complex. 

There is also an issue with how humans measure and perceive any change in climate. Eg a decrease in water runoff in WA wouldn't really matter if not for the city of Perth and agricultural activities. It's only because we're making such extensive use of the resource, based upon historical records and an assumption that the climate would not greatly change, that a change in the climate becomes relevant. If you use 1% of the available water and supply drops 50% then it doesn't matter, you still have more than you need and you're still only using 2% of the reduced available supply. But if you're using 100% to start with then even a slight change in runoff becomes a problem. The extent to which humans have developed natural resources has thus made us highly sensitive to any change in climate, far beyond the natural extent of change sensitivity.


----------



## cynic

sydboy007 said:


> So the extinction of dozens to hundreds of specifies of plants and animals had nothing to do with humans moving in and taking over?  What humans do allows for little adaptation these days.
> 
> Levelling a few thousand square kilometres for broad acre monoculture provides little fod and shelter for the majority of displaced animals and plants.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying:
> 
> 
> The increase in atmospheric CO2 is only due to there being more humans and animals on the planet?
> The burning of fossil fuels has no impact on atmospheric CO2 levels
> 
> A gallon of petrol has an energy content roughly equal to 400 human hours of labour.  I'd say the fact there's 7 odd billion of us on the planet has something to do with the massive amounts of fossil fuels we're burning, but at the end of the day the burning of fossil fuels is releasing far larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere than humans ever will.  A car churns out CO2 at a rate 11 times higher than a human.  A kw/h of electricity in Australia will give you close to 1KG of CO2, roughly what you'll expire in a 24 hour period.




Sydboy007,

You do have an unsavoury habit of misrepresenting my statements.

If you take the time to read my posts carefully, you should be able to recognise the inappropriateness of your efforts at misconstruance of same.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf, 
It is worth noting that rapid regional climate change is not unique to the post1970 period, and there isva strong case for rapid global changes also.

The Mayans experienced a regional change7 or 800 years aga that made their civilization unviable. Greenland has been mentioned several timesalso... etc.

What has been experienced in WA & Tas has most certainly beena regional change, but how that ties inwith the global scene is not certain and blaming co2 icreases for those particular changes is extremely tenuous, at best.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> This is just part of the carbon cycle with no net addition ...




And when I mentioned sharks, with tongue-in-cheek, I was also referring to a species on the increase.
But then you could argue that some species are on the decline.


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> What has been experienced in WA & Tas has most certainly beena regional change, but how that ties inwith the global scene is not certain and blaming co2 icreases for those particular changes is extremely tenuous, at best.



No argument that it's a local change. However, it just so happens that the trend started after 1975, the same time that global temperatures started to rise. Association does not prove causation, but both WA and Tas experienced the declining runoff trend in line with a rise in global temperature which is at least an interesting point.

In the case of Western Australia, WA Water Corporation data shows roughly a 70% decline in runoff post-1975. That said, a complicating factor is the decline in groundwater levels, driven by land use change and water extraction by various parties including the Water Corporation itself. Some research suggests that the drawdown of groundwater may have amplified the affects of any change in climate.

In the case of Tasmania, Hydro Tasmania data shows two step change points, one after 1975 and the other after 1995 with both being downward. The total decline is about 15%, although it is heavily concentrated at certain times of the year. Compared to historic data, for January the decline is about 25%, February it's 45%, March it's 40% but for the rest of the year it's very close to previous figures, with the exception of May which has seen roughly a 20% increase. These figures are despite cloud seeding to increase rainfall, noting that there's a definite season for cloud seeding which just happens to correspond to the times of year when rainfall remains above or close to the previous average, with cloud seeding not done in Jan, Feb or Mar (since the required weather conditions don't occur at this time of year). Presumably, without cloud seeding the data would show a rainfall decline which extends beyond the first 3 months of the year. 

A particularly notable point in Tasmania is that annual minimum inflows have not changed - the driest year on record is 1963, closely followed by 1967, 1950 and 1934. What has happened is that truly wet years have become far less frequent. Eg there were 14 very wet years between 1924 and 1975 versus only one truly wet year since (in 1995). 

So overall it's a complex situation, but there is a definite association with post-1975 rising global temperature and a decline in streamflow in WA and Tas both in terms of the total volume and the pattern, with the reduction taking the form of a decline during the first 3 months of the year, plus a large reduction in the frequency of high inflow years. This does not, of course, prove anything other than that runoff has declined in WA and Tas - but it happened at a very interesting time to say the least.


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Sydboy007,
> 
> You do have an unsavoury habit of misrepresenting my statements.
> 
> If you take the time to read my posts carefully, you should be able to recognise the inappropriateness of your efforts at misconstruance of same.




Then spell it out for me because I truly have no idea what your point is


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> So overall it's a complex situation, but there is a definite association with post-1975 rising global temperature and a decline in streamflow in WA and Tas both in terms of the total volume and the pattern, with the reduction taking the form of a decline during the first 3 months of the year, plus a large reduction in the frequency of high inflow years. This does not, of course, prove anything other than that runoff has declined in WA and Tas - but it happened at a very interesting time to say the least.




Other problem is that the generally warmer weather is also causing far less run off to occur since more water is absorbed into the ground before it can reach the dams.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/cli...ence/climate-change-impacts/western-australia

_Rainfall in south-west WA has already reduced by around 15 per cent since the mid-1970s. From 1911 to 1974 the average stream flow into Perth Dams was 338 gigalitres. From 1975 to 2000 average stream flow was almost half this value at 177 gigalitres. From 2001 to 2010 inflows again halved to approximately 75 gigalitres. There is evidence that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are responsible for half the decline in rainfall in south-west WA._

I'd say a major cause is the cutting down of trees.  Less trees less rainfall.  The Anasazi saw the wiping out of their civilisation due in part to cutting down all the trees over a few hundred square kilometres.  They turned an already tough environment into desert within 200 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/s...spurs-action-on-climate.html?ref=economy&_r=0

_“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”

Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, many in Southeast Asia, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain. In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its athletic clothes.

Both Nike and Coke are responding internally: Coke uses water-conservation technologies and Nike is using more synthetic material that is less dependent on weather conditions. At Davos and in global capitals, the companies are also lobbying governments to enact environmentally friendly policies._


----------



## cynic

cynic said:


> Are plants really that fussed about where their CO2 comes from?
> 
> CO2 is CO2 regardless of its origins. How can the plants tell one identical molecule from another?






cynic said:


> Mammalian respiration.
> 
> Humans and our mammalian livestock exhale CO2.
> 
> Did your learned scientists forget to take this factor into account in their measurements?






cynic said:


> Probably not!!!
> 
> The ecosystems may change in adaptation to the introduction of certain species, but, contrary to IFocus' outlandish assertions, life is still supported!
> 
> Correct!
> 
> Increases in CO2 levels can reasonably and logically be anticipated with our rising population irrespective of our choice of fuel!!




I believe that my earlier posts were sufficiently succinct for those willing to temporarily suspend their jaundiced perspective and I fail to see any need for retranslation or reinterpretation!


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> I believe that my earlier posts were sufficiently succinct for those willing to temporarily suspend their jaundiced perspective and I fail to see any need for retranslation or reinterpretation!




I think you are hinting at reduced procreation?
Vegetarianism?
Possibly eugenics?

Culling mammals?

Am I getting close yet?

I have to water my garden, there is a heatwave coming!

P.S. The average lawn is a net-producer of Oxygen, sufficient for the average family


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> I think you are hinting at reduced procreation?
> Vegetarianism?
> Possibly eugenics?
> 
> Culling mammals?
> 
> Am I getting close yet?
> 
> I have to water my garden, there is a heatwave coming!
> 
> P.S. The average lawn is a net-producer of Oxygen, sufficient for the average family




I believe sugar cane is a type of grass! (You could kill two molecules with one blade!)

Imagine that!

A lawn of sugar cane!!!

But you'll need to upgrade your mower!


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> ... you'll need to upgrade your mower!




Sugar Cane Harvester:





Made in China, of course!


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> I think you are hinting at reduced procreation?
> Vegetarianism?
> Possibly eugenics?
> 
> Culling mammals?
> 
> Am I getting close yet?
> ...



Almost!

My posts were aimed at drawing attention to the need for increased levels of CO2 to support our current populace.

From what I can discern of the incessant blathering of climate alarmists (whom appear to be intent on catalysing a global panic) is that this angle hasn't been given adequate (if any) consideration!

I'd be interested to know if any of the thousands of "peer reviewed papers" of "relevant scientists" have even gone so far as to quantify the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 required to support our current global ecosystem!


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> _Rainfall in south-west WA has already reduced by around 15 per cent since the mid-1970s. From 1911 to 1974 the average stream flow into Perth Dams was 338 gigalitres. From 1975 to 2000 average stream flow was almost half this value at 177 gigalitres. From 2001 to 2010 inflows again halved to approximately 75 gigalitres. There is evidence that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are responsible for half the decline in rainfall in south-west WA._




A complicating factor is the natural ratio of runoff versus rain falling into the catchment.

For example, if you have a situation where 80% of the rain falling onto the ground runs off and ends up in a river, then river flow is basically a function of rainfall. 

But if you have a situation where only 20% runs off and the other 80% evaporates due to agriculture or other land uses in the catchment, relatively low rainfall and also temperature factors then it becomes a very different situation. Drop the rainfall 30% and you'll have basically nothing actually getting into the river, significant runoff only occurring either in an unusually high rainfall event or toward the end of the wet season in a relatively wet year once the ground is saturated.

So in short, river flow volumes will amplify any change in rainfall and this probably explains the difference in the extent of decline in WA versus Tas. With one exception, the catchments in Tas generally have a high ratio of runoff relative to rainfall whereas the reverse is true in WA thus amplifying any change in rainfall and temperature.

South-West WA and Tasmania aren't exactly right next to each other, so I do find it interesting that there's a similar trend in both areas. Especially given that WA also seems to have experienced two "step changes" at about the same time as Tas although they were of far larger magnitude in WA. To me, that suggests that the cause isn't likely to be local and relates either to the oceans, wind, or something happening on land somewhere outside of Australia.


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> Almost!
> 
> My posts were aimed at drawing attention to the need for increased levels of CO2 to support our current populace.
> 
> From what I can discern of the incessant blathering of climate alarmists (whom appear to be intent on catalysing a global panic) is that this angle hasn't been given adequate (if any) consideration!
> 
> I'd be interested to know if any of the thousands of "peer reviewed papers" of "relevant scientists" have even gone so far as to quantify the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 required to support our current global ecosystem!




I am deeply concerned that alarmists will wind back
the atmospheric CO2 at any cost!
Only to find they were wrong.

Or even worse, Mother Nature swallows their efforts whole! 
And they don't even find out they were wrong.


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Almost!
> 
> My posts were aimed at drawing attention to the need for increased levels of CO2 to support our current populace.
> 
> From what I can discern of the incessant blathering of climate alarmists (whom appear to be intent on catalysing a global panic) is that this angle hasn't been given adequate (if any) consideration!
> 
> I'd be interested to know if any of the thousands of "peer reviewed papers" of "relevant scientists" have even gone so far as to quantify the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 required to support our current global ecosystem!




So you believe because there's more humans and domesticated animals that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to maintain some sort of balance?

But then don't we also need an increase in the amount of CO2 scrubbing from the atmosphere to maintain that balance?  Humans alone would put something like 620M tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere just from respiration.

Doesn't the burning of 7 odd billion tonnes of coal and 4 billion tonnes of oil each year mean the balance is tipped to over supply of CO2.  Levels have already doubled since the industrial revolution started, and we've seen a marked reduction in the land based areas devoted to photosynthesis.


----------



## cynic

sydboy007 said:


> So you believe because there's more humans and domesticated animals that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to maintain some sort of balance?




Correct!



sydboy007 said:


> But then don't we also need an increase in the amount of CO2 scrubbing from the atmosphere to maintain that balance?  Humans alone would put something like 620M tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere just from respiration.
> 
> Doesn't the burning of 7 odd billion tonnes of coal and 4 billion tonnes of oil each year mean the balance is tipped to over supply of CO2.  Levels have already doubled since the industrial revolution started, and we've seen a marked reduction in the land based areas devoted to photosynthesis.




About three decades ago, when I first came to understand the profound relevance of a certain passage within the "emerald tablet" I came to recognise what this planet truly is, and why the current burning of fossil fuels by mankind is a valid (and likely transitory) stage in the natural evolution of this planet. Before then I was at serious risk of becoming an anti-automobile activist! I laughed when I realised how terrribly wrong my previous beliefs had been! 
Carbon based fuels (of some form) that react with oxygen to produce heat, CO2 and water vapour will need to be consumed by mankind into the foreseeable future. This is essential for supporting the continued health of this planet! 
The reasons for this will likely remain unclear to those whom are too egotistical to recognise mankind's true function in respect to this planet!


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> I am deeply concerned that alarmists will wind back
> the atmospheric CO2 at any cost!
> Only to find they were wrong.
> 
> Or even worse, Mother Nature swallows their efforts whole!
> And they don't even find out they were wrong.




I share your fears and sentiments in this regard!
I might have been willing to entertain the possibility of being wrong in order to engage in courteous and logical debate. However, I have seen little evidence to suggest that such courtesy would be sufficiently reciprocated to enable a productive exchange.


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> ... a productive exchange.




I would define a productive exchange as inhaling and exhaling, 
whilst hoping that somewhere out there, 
sufficient photosynthesis was completing the cycle!




cynic said:


> ... little evidence to suggest that such courtesy would be sufficiently reciprocated ...




At least he can't physically smack you?!


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> Correct!
> 
> 
> 
> About three decades ago, when I first came to understand the profound relevance of a certain passage within the "emerald tablet" I came to recognise what this planet truly is, and why the current burning of fossil fuels by mankind is a valid (and likely transitory) stage in the natural evolution of this planet. Before then I was at serious risk of becoming an anti-automobile activist! I laughed when I realised how terrribly wrong my previous beliefs had been!
> Carbon based fuels (of some form) that react with oxygen to produce heat, CO2 and water vapour will need to be consumed by mankind into the foreseeable future. This is essential for supporting the continued health of this planet!
> The reasons for this will likely remain unclear to those whom are too egotistical to recognise mankind's true function in respect to this planet!




My preference would be a non transition to some form of primordial 'green grey' algae. But that's me,  but with a sage like philosophical mysticism Cynic has 'The Green Tablet" at his bosom... sorry 'Emerald'

Hey Waynel,and your fellow travellers, This guy's on your side of the fence.... Ahhh,  Keep him there .  

..... This line was redacted due to what may be the fragile 'health' of one this threads Contributors...

How are you going SydBoy. Jaw dropper or what????


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> My preference would be a non transition to some form of primordial 'green grey' algae. But that's me,  but with a sage like philosophical mysticism Cynic has 'The Green Tablet" at his bosom... sorry 'Emerald'
> 
> Hey Waynel,and your fellow travellers, This guy's on your side of the fence.... Ahhh,  Keep him there .
> 
> ..... This line was redacted due to what may be the fragile 'health' of one this threads Contributors...
> 
> How are you going SydBoy. Jaw dropper or what????




Oh I'm sorry! I thought this was the "Religion is Crazy" Thread!

Hang on a minute!!! It is a religious thread!!! (Just not the one that I thought it was!)

By the way, I am on my side of the fence and am willing to stand alone if need be! 

Would you care to relinquish the comfort of your devout peers and meet me in single debate on a field of logic and direct observation?


----------



## basilio

Cynic is expounding a very well developed argument on the value and virtues of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. 

He is certainly not alone in his views. If you find the right web sites with the right stories you can certainly find a justification for letting CO2 emissions rip and burning as much  fossil fuel as we can get our hands on.
_
(Or course one if accepts all that science on  the positive side of extra CO2 emission you have to be equally rigorous to weed out any evidence that extra CO2 will raise temperatures to dangerous levels..._

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/73/MenuGroup/Home.htm


----------



## basilio

And... surprise , surprise , surprise.

The "_Plants need CO2"_  is the love child of some of the largest coal owners and fossil fuel companies around.
Who would have guessed such a group would  be so interested in mankind and  so knowledgeable about the effects of the material they produce in abundance ?

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Plants_Need_CO2


----------



## sydboy007

cynic said:


> Correct!
> 
> 
> 
> About three decades ago, when I first came to understand the profound relevance of a certain passage within the "emerald tablet" I came to recognise what this planet truly is, and why the current burning of fossil fuels by mankind is a valid (and likely transitory) stage in the natural evolution of this planet. Before then I was at serious risk of becoming an anti-automobile activist! I laughed when I realised how terrribly wrong my previous beliefs had been!
> Carbon based fuels (of some form) that react with oxygen to produce heat, CO2 and water vapour will need to be consumed by mankind into the foreseeable future. This is essential for supporting the continued health of this planet!
> The reasons for this will likely remain unclear to those whom are too egotistical to recognise mankind's true function in respect to this planet!




I'm trying to work out if you're joking or serious.

Possibly you need to open the windows or get some plants as you're showing signs of the effects of high CO2 levels on a human


----------



## trainspotter

Post of the month right here @ #5070 ....lol


----------



## noco

The game is over for the Global Warming Scientist and their money making scam has been exposed. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._pause_may_destroy_the_reputation_of_science/


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as human brain performance is concerned, it would be interesting to know the typical CO2 concentration in various types of buildings. Houses, offices etc. In particular, I wonder how high it gets in buildings with unflued fuel burning (usually but not always gas) heaters which release significant CO@ into the indoor environment?

It would also be interesting to know how 600 ppm compares with a lower level, say 400 ppm or 250 ppm? Have we already reached a point where outdoor CO2 levels are high enough to have some impact?


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as human brain performance is concerned, it would be interesting to know the typical CO2 concentration in various types of buildings. Houses, offices etc. In particular, I wonder how high it gets in buildings with unflued fuel burning (usually but not always gas) heaters which release significant CO@ into the indoor environment?
> 
> It would also be interesting to know how 600 ppm compares with a lower level, say 400 ppm or 250 ppm? Have we already reached a point where outdoor CO2 levels are high enough to have some impact?




My understanding is we've already hit the 400 level in the atmosphere.  There was a major call for the unflued gas heaters in NSW schools to be removed or flued.  Other issues were the NOx formed from the burning of gas.

I'd be surprised if a lot of older office buildings don't have relatively high levels of CO2 considering the low levels of fresh air brought in and the fact the fresh air will have higher levels of CO and CO2.

Maybe CO2 will be our lead pipes equivalent of the Roman Empire


----------



## burglar

Keep hydrated folks!

/forecasts/adelaide


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> Keep hydrated folks!
> 
> /forecasts/adelaide




Adelaide just happens to be where I'm heading to tomorrow. And on Friday at least, I'll be outdoors all day in a nice, pleasant 40 degrees with the sun shining down. 

It was 38.9 in Hobart today however so I've had a bit of a trial run with the heat, or you could call that a "warm up" I suppose.


----------



## explod

Smurf1976 said:


> Adelaide just happens to be where I'm heading to tomorrow. And on Friday at least, I'll be outdoors all day in a nice, pleasant 40 degrees with the sun shining down.
> 
> It was 38.9 in Hobart today however so I've had a bit of a trial run with the heat, or you could call that a "warm up" I suppose.




Yeh, it was forcast for 36 but hit 43.2 here yesterday (could that be downramping).  Native possums all perished from the heat of the last few years.  Wonder why after taking a couple of millions of years to evolve here that they cannot take it anymore.

Cooled off to 24 today though.  Notice a large flock of galars on the southern peninisula here now.  50 years ago when I used to go north for the shearing we never saw galars till we hit NSW (And I was a Guild League bird watcher too).  Would you check the spelling of galars please wayne, not sure how to look it up and write at the same time.

Anyhow, not a good vibe here anymore; oh, and can you believe they are even telling us that coal smoke is just as good as wood smoke.


----------



## explod

sydboy007 said:


> My understanding is we've already hit the 400 level in the atmosphere.  There was a major call for the unflued gas heaters in NSW schools to be removed or flued.  Other issues were the NOx formed from the burning of gas.
> 
> I'd be surprised if a lot of older office buildings don't have relatively high levels of CO2 considering the low levels of fresh air brought in and the fact the fresh air will have higher levels of CO and CO2.
> 
> Maybe CO2 will be our lead pipes equivalent of the Roman Empire




You are correct SB.  In fact alarm bells were first pressed by scientists when we went over 250p/m.   It was Maggie Thatcher that then instigated the IPCC (??) to get the world behind reductions. Gotta laugh about that though cause then along came the oil and coal industry and the future of pollies pension fund. 

Currently thinking about radio laser transportation of Grandchildren.  But trying to increase the speed beyond light years is a stumbling block at the moment.


----------



## medicowallet

Nice musings about the weather above.  Not sure how this matters in a climate thread.  Perhaps talking about the recent weather in america would be a relevant addition to this weather debate.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> You are correct SB.  In fact alarm bells were first pressed by scientists when we went over 250p/m.   It was Maggie Thatcher that then instigated the IPCC (??) to get the world behind reductions. Gotta laugh about that though cause then along came the oil and coal industry and the future of pollies pension fund.
> 
> Currently thinking about radio laser transportation of Grandchildren.  But trying to increase the speed beyond light years is a stumbling block at the moment.




For the benefit of those whom don't understand science (many of whom frequent this thread!), a light year is not a measure of speed or velocity, it is a measure of the distance that light can travel in one year!


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> For the benefit of those whom don't understand science (many of whom frequent this thread!), a light year is not a measure of speed or velocity, it is a measure of the distance that light can travel in one year!




Slow down mate. We commonly talk about "the speed of light " which is currently the absolute limit for the speed/velocity of any object.  (To date the only objects that "might" be able to travel faster than the speed of light are tachyons) Speed of light is 300,000 klms/sec

When Explod was musing about radio laster transportation of grandchildren he was acknowledging the physical limits of breaking the speed of light. 

But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Slow down mate. We commonly talk about "the speed of light " which is currently the absolute limit for the speed/velocity of any object.  (To date the only objects that "might" be able to travel faster than the speed of light are tachyons) Speed of light is 300,000 klms/sec
> 
> When Explod was musing about radio laster transportation of grandchildren he was acknowledging the physical limits of breaking the speed of light.
> 
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.




Actually Basilio, I definitely do not require science lessons from those whom (like you) persist in reaffirming their faulty understanding of science in a public forum. The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories. Those whom understand and appreciate the logic of his theory of relativity would be unlikely to ever make such a preposterous claim.

The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!


----------



## basilio

Well there you are folks.

OK I'll bite. Cynic could you please offer some references that offer further explanation on "The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories." 

And clearly I would never, *ever* dare to offer you science lessons Cynic.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Well there you are folks.
> 
> OK I'll bite. Cynic could you please offer some references that offer further explanation on "The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories."
> 
> And clearly I would never, *ever* dare to offer you science lessons Cynic.




If you have a good understanding of mathematics (which I sincerely doubt), you'll be able to recognise it for yourself by examining the mathematical formulae that Einstein used to mathematically express his theory!

If you still cannot recognise it, then I suggest that you study the theory more intensely and when you finally arrive at an understanding of said theory, simply ask yourself: "How can this theory be seen to assert a limitiation on velocity?"

P.S. Apologies to ASF for going a little off topic, but I believe that scientific misconceptions, abysmal logic and faulty analysis are contributing factors to the climate change fallacy.


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> If you have a good understanding of mathematics (which I sincerely doubt), you'll be able to recognise it for yourself by examining the mathematical formulae that Einstein used to mathematically express his theory!
> 
> If you still cannot recognise it, then I suggest that you study the theory more intensely and when you finally arrive at an understanding of said theory, simply ask yourself: "How can this theory be seen to assert a limitiation on velocity?"
> 
> .




Hmm.... Actually I don't think I , personally, need to examine the mathematical formula around relativity or do an indepth study of the subject.

That type of deep mathematical/physics research is best left to  the boffins who understand the theory as well as it can be understood.

So if I want to find out if there are serious reservations about the theory of relativity and in particular  whether the  speed of light is sen as absolute I should just look for some papers in the field that have done the maths and come to this conclusion.

Trouble is... I can't find them Cynic. Can you ? 


On the other hand I can find some pretty authoritative  sources that insist teh Speed of light is an absolute.

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Hmm.... Actually I don't think I , personally, need to examine the mathematical formula around relativity or do an indepth study of the subject.
> 
> That type of deep mathematical/physics research is best left to  the boffins who understand the theory as well as it can be understood.
> 
> So if I want to find out if there are serious reservations about the theory of relativity and in particular  whether the  speed of light is sen as absolute I should just look for some papers in the field that have done the maths and come to this conclusion.
> 
> Trouble is... I can't find them Cynic. Can you ?



What's this?!! Lost at sea because you cannot find a scientific paper to support you!

I have no more serious reservations about Einstein's theory than I do about Newtonian physics. I get very irritated with the number of people whom, without even understanding said theory, erroneously make bold claims citing it as their justification. Anyone that takes the time to understand the underlying mathematics will recognise that the theory wasn't designed to consider velocities above that of light. However, the theory itself, in no way shape or form precludes the possibility of such velocities, it simply hasn't allowed sufficient scope to consider them!


----------



## sptrawler

cynic said:


> What's this?!! Lost at sea because you cannot find a scientific paper to support you!
> 
> I have no more serious reservations about Einstein's theory than I do about Newtonian physics. I get very irritated with the number of people whom without even understanding said theory, erroneously make bold claims citing it as their justification. Anyone that takes the time to understand the underlying mathematics will recognise that the theory wasn't designed to consider velocities above that of light. However, the theory itself, in no way shape or form precludes the possibility of such velocities, it simply hasn't allowed sufficient scope to consider them!




Pretty well sums up verbosity.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> 
> 
> On the other hand I can find some pretty authoritative  sources that insist teh Speed of light is an absolute.
> 
> http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light




Given that the following two contradictory paragraphs appear within your "authoritative" source:

"One of the most surprising features of special relativity is that a number of statements and results which we usually think to be absolute turn out to be observer-dependent. In particular, statements about space and time, distances and duration turn out to be relative."

"On the previous pages, relativity reigned supreme. Although we usually think of lengths and times as absolute, they turned out to be observer-dependent. On this page, the shoe is on the other foot. Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them turns out to be absolute: the speed of light."


I think we can reasonably conclude that these people haven't taken sufficient care in their examination of Einstein's theory.

For those whom don't immediately recognise the contradiction, I recommend that you consider the units of measure of velocity when assessing the integrity of the aforementioned statements.


----------



## orr

explod said:


> Anyhow, not a good vibe here anymore;





What? ... Well, I was almost of the same mind; Then "Whammo" through the post comes My own authentic reproduction of the The Green Tablet' ...sorry ' Emerald' .. Just three one monthly payments of $19.99 plus postage and handling    $99.95 From Mystics'R'Us. And would you believe it, I put  it up to window and 'blow me down with a feather' as the light passed through it, if it didn't come out faster than when it went in. Not only that the newly speeded up prismatically altered light gave me a secret message shining on the opposite wall "Green Hornet Ep6" ... So, I'm straight onto youtube ... I'm sure it has something to do with decoding Bruce Lees tattoo's ... Cynic and I are in discussion, 'in private' and he rekon's it got more to do with the advertising in the barber shop window in the second scene. I'll keep you updated.






This post is only 1/3 off topic, for the last page or so I've had to resist hysterical laughter


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Given that the following two contradictory paragraphs appear within your "authoritative" source:
> 
> "One of the most surprising features of special relativity is that a number of statements and results which we usually think to be absolute turn out to be observer-dependent. In particular, statements about space and time, distances and duration turn out to be relative."
> 
> "On the previous pages, relativity reigned supreme. Although we usually think of lengths and times as absolute, they turned out to be observer-dependent. On this page, the shoe is on the other foot. Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them turns out to be absolute: the speed of light."
> 
> 
> I think we can reasonably conclude that these people haven't taken sufficient care in their examination of Einstein's theory.
> 
> For those whom don't immediately recognise the contradiction, I recommend that you consider the units of measure of velocity when assessing the integrity of the aforementioned statements.




Cynic that website was *the* most authoritative reference you could find on the topic.  It's established by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. 

The analysis you were quoting was clear about the way the maths in Special Theory of relativity define the speed of light as an absolute figure. Simply speaking when/if one attempts to accelerate a particle past the speed of light you have to postulate infinite energy. That is impossible

To date the only theoretical concept of anything traveling faster than the speed of light is the concept of tachyons.  These (theoretical) particles have always been traveling faster than light.  (No one has yet discovered them but you never know)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Cynic that website was *the* most authoritative reference you could find on the topic.  It's established by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
> ...



Well then, it's a damned shame that they've made such an idiotic mistake!

It also happens that you neglected to consider my advice regarding the units of measure for velocity before deciding to side with their opinion.

Don't bother quoting wikipedia at me either as I can already demonstrate that it has contradictory statements between several of its articles on physics.

P.S. If you are willing to take the time to understand the mathematics underlying Einstein's theorem I will be able to explain why it doesn't prove the impossibilty of velocities beyond the speed of light.


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Well then, it's a damned shame that they've made such an idiotic mistake!
> 
> It also happens that you neglected to consider my advice regarding the units of measure for velocity before deciding to side with their opinion.
> 
> Don't bother quoting wikipedia at me either as I can already demonstrate that it has contradictory statements between several of its articles on physics.
> 
> P.S. If you are willing to take the time to understand the mathematics underlying Einstein's theorem I will be able to explain why it doesn't prove the impossibilty of velocities beyond the speed of light.




Pretty fast anyway.

Have to take care of pebble size on this thread. Bit hard to delineate direction of "the hysteria" too.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> Pretty fast anyway.
> 
> Have to take care of pebble size on this thread. Bit hard to delineate direction of "the hysteria" too.




Unsurprisingly, I believe you've missed the point!

Have you noticed what's just happened here?

Have you noticed how some here are only too willing to make bold claims about subjects of which they have little (if any) understanding?

Did you also notice how heavily reliant such individuals are on internet searches?

Did you happen to notice that I was expected to defer to the "infallibility" of an "authority" even after I'd highlighted logical contradictions within said "authority's" purportedly "infallible" statements?

Some of you may ask: "What's this got to do with climate hysteria?"

To which I reply: "Do I really need to spell it out for you?"

Blind faith is never a valid substitute for true comprehension and understanding. 

If you want to tell me that science has shown a problem then I'll entertain your claims when you demonstrate some understanding of science! 
My reason for saying this is that scientists do make mistakes! 
Some scientists deny their failings whilst hiding behind their "credentials", but those true to the art of science willingly embrace fallibility by learning from recognisable errors!


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!



I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)


----------



## burglar

Geez, it was hot today. And more to come!


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> ... Have to take care of pebble size on this thread ...




How big is Pebble?


----------



## sydboy007

For those who claim the variability of wind makes it "unreliable and expensive" since you need to have backup generation, the info from AEMO should help to show it's not particularly true.  Considering 450MwH of production died within 5 minutes when the Loy Yang A plant died during the recent heat wave it seems there's just as much need for backup of fossil fuel generators, and it's much easier to cope with small changes in production of wind and solar compared to a large coal powered generator going off line.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-politics/edis-dishonest-warmist-propagandist

The predictions by the AMEO 24 hours in advance for wind power production, matched fairly closely the actual production.  Also, most of the time wind farms were producing more than expected.

Germany is also having great success with integrating solar and wind into their electricity network.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/12...ale-electricity-prices-like-bad-habit-charts/


Now if we could have a major focus on demand management we mightn't need a repeat of the $40B in network upgrades again to cope with the summer and winter peaks


----------



## Smurf1976

Take a conventional (coal, gas, oil, hydro, nuclear) power system comprising multiple power stations and, assuming it's properly designed and run, it will have a definite "firm" rating for peak power which can almost certainly be supplied.

It comes down to probability. If you have 100 generating units in a system then the chances of having all 100 in service at any one time are pretty unlikely. Even if they are inherently reliable technology (hydro) and you have 60 of them well then suffice to say that it's pretty rare to have them all actually working at once. Major overhauls, shorter term maintenance works, breakdowns, capacity limitations for various reasons - you can't depend on the system ever working to 100% of its' nameplate capacity.

For example, here in Tas the Paloona power station is currently shut down for major works that will take about 12 months to complete. Wayatinah is offline at the moment too, for about 2 months. Rowallan has been out since November (about to be returned to service) and once it's back then Mackintosh will be taken offline for a few weeks. Meanwhile there are countless much shorter outages for inspections etc. It's not unknown to have every machine in service, but it's certainly not the normal situation to be doing that in a properly maintained system.

But you can have an extremely high probability that a specific, lower level of capacity can be achieved and it comes down to how often you accept failure. If you need 100% to work then it's going to be a problem quite often. But if you only need half the system to work, because it's massively over-engineered, then you're unlikely to see a single problem with meeting demand in your lifetime.

If we take that a 1 in 20 year failure is acceptable, then realistically you'll be able to depend on about 80% of the installed capacity. So if you have a peak load of 10,000 MW then you need 12,500 MW of capacity to do it. That's pretty much the standard that used to be followed in most states. If you tighten it to a 1 in 50 year failure then you'll still be able to rely on somewhere around 75% of the installed capacity.

So to meet the roughly 10,500 MW of demand in Vic then realistically you could do that with incredibly high reliability using about 13,100 MW of installed capacity based on coal, gas (with oil as backup) and hydro.

Oil as backup? That's because no sane person would rely on the gas supply. There have been plenty of problems historically around the world with gas supply disruptions and it comes down to not being able to store the stuff economically near the point of use. Once something goes wrong upstream, well then you lose fuel supply to the power station such that gas supply can be maintained to other users.

These days in the "competitive" market nobody worries too much about this, if the gas goes off then so too will a decent chunk of the power supply, but certainly in cases where reliability is considered important then you need a backup fuel (almost always oil). So if you look at, say, Tamar Valley power station (Tas) then the largest unit is gas only but the 4 smaller ones have oil as backup fuel. There's a simple logic there - failure of a single unit is always possible for whatever reason, be it loss of gas supply or something else, but losing multiple units due to a single point of failure (ie gas) creates a far bigger risk to the power system. Hence oil as backup and it's the same with the older gas-fired plants in other states - they had backup fuel when the former SECV etc was building them.

But what about wind? Well the problem is simply this. It may well be predictable but it is by no means reliable. We can get 8,000 MW from a 10,000 MW thermal / hydro system with reasonable certainty. But there's no guarantee that you'll get much at all from wind since, in practice, multiple wind farms completely fail at the same time due to a single point of failure - the wind itself isn't reliable.

If the forecast says that we'll get 100 MW from wind in SA tomorrow then we can't simply issue a formal direction to postpone the outage of natural wind and get another 500 MW of generation online. Nor can we build up a stockpile of wind at wind farms to cover such variation. Nor can we arrange interruptions in wind to occur in Autumn and Spring or on weekends. In short, whereas a thermal / hydro system can reliably operate to around 80% of it's nameplate capacity for wind it's roughly 8% and there's the problem. Building 100,000 MW of wind to run Victoria, generating on average 6 times the state's total power requirements, just to get some reliable peak capacity doesn't really work out too well financially, practically or environmentally.

Which brings us to storage. Hydro, batteries, compressed air, heat, hydrogen, whatever. If we're going to use intermittent sources of energy to supply most of the load then (1) there needs to be some over-engineering on the supply side (ie at times wind energy will supply 100% of the load with the rest going to waste) and (2) storage.

I flew over Tas today, with a nice view of the entire Mersey-Forth scheme (Rowallan, Fisher, Lemonthyme, Cethana, Wilmot, Devils Gate and Paloona power stations) plus part of the Great Lake scheme (Great Lake itself and also Lake Augusta) and a bit of the Derwent catchment too (Lake Echo). Now, this was a commercial flight by the way (Melbourne - Hobart) but I don't need to look at any lake level data to see that there's energy sitting there in storage. Simply looking out the window it's clear where the water is and isn't. Likewise a stockpile of coal, or a mine set up ready to quickly extract it right next to the power station, is also energy in storage. Likewise a tank full of oil or even a pile of firewood.

But we've got no wind in storage whatsoever. Right now Woolnorth is operating at 85% of capacity but Musselroe is only running at 7%. Both are constrained by how much wind there is right now. Suffice to say that if the ability to spin hydro turbines was dependent on it raining before people get up tomorrow morning then it would have been front page news long ago. 

Ultimately we have to go renewable, no doubt about that so far as I'm concerned, but it's not as simple as just scaling up operations and making forecasts unfortunately. Either we need a non-intermittent renewable or we need a means of storing it in decent quantity.


----------



## Smurf1976

An hour ago in Tasmania.

Wind generation = zero 

Solar generation (house roofs etc) = practically zero as it was sunset.

And it's not raining either. 

But we were still supplying all local load and over 500 MW to Victoria as well. 88% of that from hydro using water stored in dams and the other 12% from gas.

The inherent characteristic of renewables is that the energy arrives intermittently. But at least with hydro you can store it for future use whereas that's not the case with wind and current solar production (solar can be stored to a limited extent via solar thermal systems but that's large scale generation not panels on house roofs).

You need quite significant storage to make it all work too. Over the past 14 weeks since storages peaked we've drawn the equivalent of 7.6 weeks' of average hydro + wind production out of storage and the rest from inflows (hydro + wind) over that time.

If we're going to move to renewables as the major power source then we're going to need some form of storage to make it work reliably. Either that or massively over-engineer the whole thing such that even a dull day yields enough from solar etc and just have overnight storage but that would cost a fortune.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> An hour ago in Tasmania.
> 
> Wind generation = zero
> 
> Solar generation (house roofs etc) = practically zero as it was sunset.
> 
> And it's not raining either.
> 
> But we were still supplying all local load and over 500 MW to Victoria as well. 88% of that from hydro using water stored in dams and the other 12% from gas.
> 
> The inherent characteristic of renewables is that the energy arrives intermittently. But at least with hydro you can store it for future use whereas that's not the case with wind and current solar production (solar can be stored to a limited extent via solar thermal systems but that's large scale generation not panels on house roofs).
> 
> You need quite significant storage to make it all work too. Over the past 14 weeks since storages peaked we've drawn the equivalent of 7.6 weeks' of average hydro + wind production out of storage and the rest from inflows (hydro + wind) over that time.
> 
> If we're going to move to renewables as the major power source then we're going to need some form of storage to make it work reliably. Either that or massively over-engineer the whole thing such that even a dull day yields enough from solar etc and just have overnight storage but that would cost a fortune.




From what I've read, molten salt seems to be the only solar storage medium at this stage and it is limited.
Hydro is the only reliable storage at this point of our development.
However some do place a lot of faith in there own knowledge, whether their specialised field, or not.
Jeez I miss operating.lol
Thanks for your input Smurph.


----------



## basilio

Curious facts about Climate Change denial.

Did you know that one of the foremost cliamte change denial bodies in fact commissioned a study that explicitly acknowledged the effect of green house gases and its effect on the climate ?



> . The now-defunct Global Climate Coalition (GCC) included Exxon-Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, American Petroleum Institute, Shell, Texaco, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, and the American Forest and Paper Association. The GCC, established in 1989, operated from the offices of the National Association of Manufacturing. The GCC hired a PR firm which produced a video to combat the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. However, some of its member companies left the GCC; they thought it too risky to be publicly identified with global-warming denial, and feared the fate of Big Tobacco; it had ended up losing lawsuits for health-care costs of smokers, ultimately settling for damages of $251 billion. Beset by the defections, the GCC disbanded in 2001.
> 
> *During its lifetime, the GCC established a research arm, the Science and Technology Assessment Committee, which was staffed by industry scientists. A committee led by Mobil Oil chemical engineer L. C. Bernstein produced a confidential 1995 report which was circulated to the members of GCC: oil and coal companies, electric utilities, attorneys, National Mining Association, etc. In a stunning admission, the Bernstein Report concluded that “the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” The report knocked down one of the most popular contrarian arguments: that global warming could be attributed to changes in the Sun’s brightness. In opposition to the contrarian view, the Bernstein Report stated that changes in the brightness of the Sun were too small by at least a factor of five to cause the temperature change observed in the last 120 years. It pointed out that the deniers had no alternative theory of their own, saying “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”*
> *
> Thus, while the oil companies and their hired hands were proclaiming in public that global warming was not caused by burning fossil fuels, their own scientists were saying exactly the opposite in private.* If you have never heard of the Bernstein Report, you have lots of company. It did not surface until 2007, a dozen years after it was written, during a discovery process in a California court proceeding.




http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)




bump


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Curious facts about Climate Change denial.
> 
> Did you know that one of the foremost cliamte change denial bodies in fact commissioned a study that explicitly acknowledged the effect of green house gases and its effect on the climate ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda




basilio claims to have a sound scientific undersatnding of climate science, yet comes on here playing an obnoxious political hand.... and there is that putrid "denier" name-calling again.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Surely you are are not "denying" natural and non-co2 anthropogenic factors in climate change?

After all the more recent science on solar vectors, you won't accept the same?

The more you write, the further down the slippery slope, of sleazy sloppy non-science you slide basilio.

Here's a challenge for you, set aside you self centered mercantile interests and consider science _in toto_.

Go ahead and shock us all with some balanced scientific analysis.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> basilio claims to have a sound scientific undersatnding of climate science, yet comes on here playing an obnoxious political hand.... and there is that putrid "denier" name-calling again.
> 
> Absolutely disgraceful.
> 
> Surely you are are not "denying" natural and non-co2 anthropogenic factors in climate change?
> 
> After all the more recent science on solar vectors, you won't accept the same?
> 
> The more you write, the further down the slippery slope, of sleazy sloppy non-science you slide basilio.
> 
> Here's a challenge for you, set aside you self centered mercantile interests and consider science _in toto_.
> 
> Go ahead and shock us all with some balanced scientific analysis.




I wasn't calling *you* a denier Wayne ?  How could I given you are such a gentleman.

What I was drawing attention to was the* fact* that in 1995 a group of science experts were commissioned by an oil funded group to present a report on the causes of global warming and the probable significance of the the event. Sort of like trying to see what they were up against when they had to had to produce their spiel.

Unfortunately for them the scientists who did the research came back and said "Well actually the Greenhouse effect is very real,  CO2 is most definitely a major cause and frankly all the other possible causes are just relatively too small to be considered as significant" - or words to that effect. [_*B](So one don't have to ignore other contributors to CC Wayne.  You just have to see them in perspective ie as very small fish indeed)
*[/B]_
Of course that report was* not* what they wanted to hear so they promptly buried it (very deeply) and begin the doubt and confusion model that was used so successfully for years by the Tobacco industry to stall action against the promotion of smoking.

So what part of denial is absent when a body chooses to bury its own report which says Global Warming is real and CO2 is the main driver and then propagandizes the opposite statement ?

If anyone else is interested in reading just how the Fossil fuel industry systematically  deceived the world through it's various paid shills check out the review of the book below. It's an excellent summary of the book.

Cheers



> *
> The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry*
> John W. Farley
> more on Environment/Science
> Print | Email | PDF
> 
> John W. Farley teaches physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “Our Last Chance to Save Humanity?” a review of James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, appeared in Monthly Review in September 2010. He blogs at rabett.blogspot.com.
> James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 232 pages, $27.95, hardcover.
> 
> James Powell was inspired to write this important new book because of a remarkable paradox: among climate scientists, there is a near-unanimous consensus that global warming is occurring now, is largely human-made, and will cause very severe environmental problems if humanity continues business as usual. However, among the lay public the picture is much more mixed: only about half of the U.S. public agrees with the climate scientists. Why the enormous discrepancy?
> 
> Powell argues that “in the denial of global warming, we are witnessing the most vicious, and so far most successful, attack on science in history.” Although Powell himself is not a climate science researcher, he has an appropriate background to understand the field: *he holds a doctorate in geochemistry from MIT and became a geology professor, teaching at Oberlin College for over twenty years. He has been a college president at three institutions, and served for a dozen years on the National Science Board. Powell’s book is a sharp attack on the global-warming denial “industry,” a network comprised of corporate funding, think tanks, popularizers, and propagandists, who all work with a compliant mass media.*




http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump



bumpity bump.


----------



## basilio

Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.




basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations! 

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!


----------



## wayneL

Basilio you have disingenuously and dishonourably ducked the issue I've raised and requested you respond to - that you have made a political point with>20 year old documents that do not reflect the current state of science.

I ask again, do you reject the influence of solar cycles on our climate, at least in part?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio you have disingenuously and dishonourably ducked the issue I've raised and requested you respond to - that you have made a political point with>20 year old documents that do not reflect the current state of science.
> 
> I ask again, do you reject the influence of solar cycles on our climate, at least in part?




I agree that solar cycles have a small impact on the climate. It is however totally dwarfed by the impact of Greenhouse gases CO2, methane ect. 
*
Like almost scientific  issues it's worth investigating because it adds to our knowledge of what is happening.* But in the context of explaining current GW it has been exaggerated into just another red herring floated to create uncertainty.

And your right about the fact that the 20 year old documents don't reflect the current state of science. In 2014 the Climate scientists are even more certain about the cause and effects of climate change. In 1995 they were only 80% sure. But it's interesting how the  Oil Funded think tank decided to bury the actual report they  commissioned in favour of doubt, uncertainty and arguing about the locations of weather stations which of course they knew was not true.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/15jan_warming/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/10mar_greenhouseshift/


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic]bumpity bump.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!




Around we go again!

bump.


----------



## Logique

The climate models are correct, it's just that it's so darn windy over the ocean. 

How could we have missed this.


----------



## wayneL

Badilio,

Scientists cannot be more sure, if they are considering science in toto. More shrill, certainly, but not more sure.

The IPCC is hoist by its own petard, for instance. The purported 95% certainty skewered by its very own document, the gap in logic rendering the latest document no better that toilet paper and an acute embarrassment to true scientists.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Badilio,
> 
> Scientists cannot be more sure, if they are considering science in toto. More shrill, certainly, but not more sure.
> 
> The IPCC is hoist by its own petard, for instance. The purported 95% certainty skewered by its very own document, the gap in logic rendering the latest document no better that toilet paper and an acute embarrassment to true scientists.




Good gracious Wayne, what on earth are you talking about these days? This is complete nonsense. You used to be quite sensible - wrong, but sensible. What's happened??


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Good gracious Wayne, what on earth are you talking about these days? This is complete nonsense. You used to be quite sensible - wrong, but sensible. What's happened??




What happened? Well, nothing happened, apart from the completion of your indoctrination at the Ministry of Truth.

Re being wrong - I can state with a genuine 99% confidence interval that most of us across the whole spectrum of climate discussion are wrong. We are not in any way dealing with a deterministic topic, we are dealing in a chaotic system, hence from that point of view the IPCCs 95% confidence drivel can only be that - drivel.

An email from Monkton to Borenstein: Doesn't matter what you think of him, but his comments on stats apply.

_Dear Mr. Borenstein, - It would be appropriate to assign a statistical confidence interval as part of a statistical analysis of data, and only then. As you will know, a confidence interval of .95 corresponds to two standard deviations from the mean, and .99 to three standard deviations. However, there was no statistical analysis of the question whether most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us: therefore, no statistical confidence interval was appropriate, and the IPCC's attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible.

As you will also know, the IPCC was rightly criticized for having assigned a 90% confidence interval (not even a standard interval) to its "consensus" proposition in the Fourth Assessment Report. On that occasion, the political representatives of governments took the decision. Many nations wanted to plump for 95%, for purely political reasons (for there was and is no scientific basis for assigning any quantitative value to such a proposition), but China, for purely scientific reasons, wanted no confidence interval at all. In the end, 90% was settled upon as a compromise, and by no more scientific a process than a show of hands. And these people expect to be taken seriously when they demand the shutdown of the West in the name of Saving The Planet.

By the same token, Mr. Severinghaus' assertion of a 99% confidence interval to the proposition that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect is meaningless. It is demonstrable by simple experiment that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to an atmosphere such as ours will cause a radiative forcing that, ceteris paribus, can be expected to cause some warming.

However, temperature feedbacks, non-radiative transports, temperature homeostasis, and chaos in the climate object are among many complicating factors that make it near-impossible to determine with any reliability - even using probability density functions - how much warming will result from a given quantum of forcing, or when it will result, or how long-acting any temperature feedbacks will be. These and many other uncertainties - including the use of a feedback-amplification function at the heart of the climate-sensitivity equation that manifestly has no physical meaning in the real climate - render it impossible to determine whether most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Accordingly, the IPCC's pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence.

Frankly, this entire business of the fictitious confidence intervals has become a joke, particularly now that it transpires that just 0.3% of 11,944 papers on global climate change published since 1991 explicitly state support for the IPCC's version of "consensus".

In any event, only a Socialist who placed politics before science would believe or assert for an instant that scientific results are determined or reinforced by any form of mere head-counting among scientists. Aristotle demonstrated that argument by mere head-count was a fallacy 2350 years ago. The sheer dumbness of the IPCC's approach should at least be questioned by journalists, not merely paraded as though it were some sort of Gospel truth. The Holy Books of IPeCaC are no Bible.

There is a huge and fascinating story behind the loutish distortions of scientific, mathematical, physical, and statistical method that have led today's scientifically-illiterate classe politique to place their faith in propositions - such as the "95% confidence" proposition - that are obvious nonsense. Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game. This once-fashionable scare is going down and you don't want to be dragged down with it. Global warming is no longer cool. It is no longer a happening thing. Indeed, it is no longer happening. - Monckton of Brenchley_


----------



## basilio

Wow Wayne. And you really and truly  put forward Monckton as a reliable authority on this subject!

The man is a proven liar. His extensive  stories of CC have been dissected and practically every assertion  comes from a bodgy graph, a cherry picked quote, mistakes or delibrate lies.

That particular piece you quoted had one of the best examples of Moncktons bare faced BS.  Can you spot the line  or do you need someone to point out obvious?

Just bumf Wayne. Thats all he offers and all you repeat.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Now would I expect anyone here to accept my assertion that Monckton is an accomplished but proven liar without evidence ?

Of course not.

So check out the details of just how this piece of merde willfully  trashes science to destroy the work of thousands of climate scientists.

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html


----------



## wayneL

Basilio misses the point and just goes ad hom, true to form. Moncktons broader level of mendacity is neither here nor there - several from your side have been caught out as pathological liars and borderline criminals also. But I refer to a specific, objective point he makes regarding statistics. As for the rest of it... I am also not keen on his modus operandi so lets disregard that.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!






cynic said:


> Around we go again!
> 
> bump.




bumpity bump.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio misses the point and just goes ad hom, true to form. Moncktons broader level of mendacity is neither here nor there - several from your side have been caught out as pathological liars and borderline criminals also. But I refer to a specific, objective point he makes regarding statistics. As for the rest of it... I am also not keen on his modus operandi so lets disregard that.




What a load of rubbish... Don't feel personally attacked there  Wayne. I was just noting that using anything Monckton produced as part of a credible argument on CC is a joke.

And why is it a joke?  Because as I pointed out and  evidenced  he just lies, cheery picks and BS.
His "specific objective point "is just another example of his cherry picking dribble.  Did you notice for example his efforts to show that almost no climate scientists actually explicitly support GW?  Does anyone actually think that is true ? You wouldn't want to ask them directly of course would you because you might get the truth.

As for the line on  "pathological liars and borderline criminals" in CC science?  Typical cheap shot.  But of course you don't want to give names or quote examples. Far easier  and safer to slag the lot isn't it ?

Just for interest there is a court case coming up soon where the people like you who have defamed climate scientists are being sued for libel/slander. They will be brought before the law to prove their allegations. I am so looking forward to this case.

For myself I don't use the term liar and deceiver lightly.  I reserve it for particular specimens like Monckton whose work has been forensically dissected. I would be absolutely confident that court of law reviewing what he says  and the basis he uses for those statement would support assertions of lies and deception.



> *
> A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky*
> As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.
> 
> ””By Mariah Blake
> | Fri Jan. 24, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
> 
> Tweet
> 
> OklahomaHorizonTV/YouTube
> 
> In 2012””after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky””climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.
> 
> Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> *    Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.
Click to expand...



http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!






cynic said:


> Around we go again!
> 
> bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.




bumpity bump bump.


----------



## Calliope

Climate change is pretty "ho-hum" except for a few diehards who are still waxing hysterical.




> People won’t panic! Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, February 6:
> 
> AUSTRALIANS rank climate change well down on their list of concerns ... according to an annual survey ... by the CSIRO. On a list of 16 issues ... climate change came in at just 14th.




On a lighter note:  


> SCIENTISTS say a temporary increase in cat fertility in the Pacific is the explanation for a pause in global warming ... an Australian-led team ... has found that an uptick in the breeding of cats in the Pacific region is most likely to be behind the hiatus. The study found that the cats were spewing fur balls like a washing machine, insulating the Earth from the warmer climate and burying the excess heat in the fur balls ... Professor Gatto said. “ ... We’re about 12 to 13 years into the most accelerated part of the cat breeding spurt. It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse ... we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise ... We want the community to have confidence in the climate models. They are very good, but in this instance the cat breeding acceleration has been ... much stronger than what the models projected ... The CSARO’s Mike Mensonge said understanding the cat-breeding cycle was the key to understanding climate change. “What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean cat breeding. Over the last 50 years, 90 per cent of the extra heat stored by the Earth is found in fur balls. So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking at fur balls.”




www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cu...-of-civilisation/story-fn72xczz-1226826512332


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Climate change is pretty "ho-hum" except for a few diehards who are still waxing hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a lighter note:
> 
> 
> www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cu...-of-civilisation/story-fn72xczz-1226826512332




That's fantastic Calliope. I really have to check out the research on cat breeding and fur balls.  Do you think Monckton or Wayne could provide some critical material on the topic?

I can understand your frustration. After all we only have a few years left to live so why spoil it worrying about stuff that will only affect our spoilt kids and even more spoilt grandkids. Lets kick up our heels and party like it's 1999.

Cheers


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!






cynic said:


> Around we go again!
> 
> bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump bump.




bumpity bumpity bump bump.


----------



## Duckman#72

On a positive note, IF......and I say, IF, there is climate change occurring, and it means we are getting less rainfall, it means better conditions to watch the upcoming AFL season

The days of sleet, drizzle and freezing winds are over!!!!

Duckman


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> What a load of rubbish... Don't feel personally attacked there  Wayne. I was just noting that using anything Monckton produced as part of a credible argument on CC is a joke.
> 
> And why is it a joke?  Because as I pointed out and  evidenced  he just lies, cheery picks and BS.
> His "specific objective point "is just another example of his cherry picking dribble.  Did you notice for example his efforts to show that almost no climate scientists actually explicitly support GW?  Does anyone actually think that is true ? You wouldn't want to ask them directly of course would you because you might get the truth.




You are still playing ad hominem fallacies basilio and not addressing the point, to wit, IPCC equivocation and inappropriate use of confidence intervals. 

Regarding Monckton lying, cherry picking etc... Are you having a lend? Your alarmist lot are masters of the art, but fortunately real empirical data tells on them. I don't care about Moncktons otherwise credibility, he just highlights  a point made by a multitude of others.



> As for the line on  "pathological liars and borderline criminals" in CC science?  Typical cheap shot.  But of course you don't want to give names or quote examples. Far easier  and safer to slag the lot isn't it ?




It is not cheap when it is factual. As a matter of respect for Joe and ASF as publisher, I won't open the potential for vexatious litigation, however we have Climategate and the Gleick affair as matters of public record. We also have the takedown of the recent fraudulent representation of consensus.



> Just for interest there is a court case coming up soon where the people like you who have defamed climate scientists are being sued for libel/slander. They will be brought before the law to prove their allegations. I am so looking forward to this case.
> 
> For myself I don't use the term liar and deceiver lightly.  I reserve it for particular specimens like Monckton whose work has been forensically dissected. I would be absolutely confident that court of law reviewing what he says  and the basis he uses for those statement would support assertions of lies and deception.




Ah yes the serial whiner M Mann. Speaking of liars, what do you call someone who claims to be a Nobel Laureate.... and isn't. What does that say about someone?

basilio, vexatious lawsuits such as the one you mention is not about defamation, it is creating expenditure for the defendant, win or lose, believe me on that one.

For instance, Monckton could quite easily sue you (and ASF as publisher for that matter) for libel for your remarks here. I wouldn't matter if he won or not, but you (and possibly ASF) would be crippled financially by the end of it.



If you care to, you could address the point at hand, rather than playing this obnoxious political card.


----------



## trainspotter

Mount Kelud has erupted spewing volcanic ash and Co2 into the atmosphere. BAD. Virgin Airlines have cancelled all their flights to Bali til further notice. (therefore no Co2 from planes) GOOD. Does one cancel out the other?


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> Mount Kelud has erupted spewing volcanic ash and Co2 into the atmosphere. BAD. Virgin Airlines have cancelled all their flights to Bali til further notice. (therefore no Co2 from planes) GOOD. Does one cancel out the other?




99 mm of rain dumped on Adelaide this morning.

Eight or more police cars on four intersections directing traffic.
I have never seen so many policemen doing something useful! :

Relevance to topic:
How much sea level rise was cancelled out by this downpour?
And how much yesterday, when I was not measuring?


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as the public perception and politics of climate change is concerned, we've certainly had quite a few fairly obvious weather extremes recently. Ignoring the science, it will certainly get a few people thinking about the subject.

Extreme cold in the USA causing a lot of issues, problems distributing fossil fuels being one of them (there's an LPG shortage in some parts of the US - not due to a lack of it as such, but they can't move it to consumers quickly enough to cope with demand due to heating).

Very wet in the UK and causing all sorts of issues.

Very hot in SE Australia followed by the heaviest rainfall in 40 years today in Adelaide which has caused some minor flooding problems. And of course the fires in Vic, including one that has spread into an open cut coal mine (coal mine fires being difficult to put out once they get going).

130 km/h winds in Hobart last weekend caused some minor damage, a few roofs came off, power lines and trees down, outright chaos at the Elwick racecourse with marquees blowing around etc. 

I'm not saying that any of this is or isn't related to climate change, but it will get a few people thinking about the subject I'd expect.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... power lines and trees down ...




Not entirely off topic:

We have what is locally known as a "Significant Tree"!

Being of a certain stature, it is listed, and thereby made "Sacred".

In the next street is such a "Significant tree", which dropped a branch on Power Lines.
It caused two fires, a road blockage and a substantial outage.

The outage was accompanied by a huge surge.

Being an older suburb (workers' housing in the late forties, early fifties),
some were not equipped with surge arresters (self included)

(My neighbour lost $12k in damages though he claims to have had a surge arrester.)

I was at a loss, no TV!! :
So I went to the library and borrowed Louise Bedford's "Candlestick Charting"


The electrician has been. 
A claim form is in the post from the power company.

All good now.

Except for one thing.
There is still branches overhanging the power lines.
The power company is powerless to trim the tree.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> After all we only have a few years left to live so why spoil it worrying about stuff that will only affect our spoilt kids and even more spoilt grandkids. Lets kick up our heels and party like it's 1999.
> 
> Cheers




Now you're talking my language. Even Old Father Time can put aside his scythe for a little dalliance.


----------



## basilio

Good to see that true skeptics (you know who you are!!) are keeping science and the media honest and making sure we don't waste hard earned tax payers dollars on unnecessary public works.

Just saw this report on a debate between scientist Bill Nye and GOP Rep Gohmert.



> Bill Nye Science Guy to Debate GOP Rep Gohmert on Gravity
> By Juan Cole | Feb. 19, 2014 |
> Printer Friendly
> 
> Google +1 6
> 
> (By Juan Cole)
> 
> 
> David Gregory’s Meet the Press today hosted a debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on whether gravity is just a theory.
> 
> “Sure,” Gohmert said, “things fall down all the time. But that doesn’t mean gravity is a law. Look at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It’s still there after hundreds of years. Things don’t always fall down.”
> 
> Nye pointed out that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity in the 17th century and it is settled science.
> 
> Gohmert challenged Nye’s certainty. “The cultists who tout science always speak as though we know for sure that scientific discoveries are true. Gravity has only been theorized for a couple hundred years. It’s too early to tell. How much money do they want us to waste on suspension bridges and other expensive technology aimed at keeping things from falling down, on the basis of a theory?”
> 
> Nye tore off his bow-tie and began chewing on it in frustration.
> 
> “Wasn’t it an apple that hit Newton on the head?” Gohmert asked. “Well, I’ve read the Bible and I know that an apple was used to tempt Eve. Maybe the Serpent was just tempting Newton with a secular humanist theory.”
> 
> Nye said, “What?”
> 
> “Besides,” Gohmert went on, “we all saw that movie ‘Gravity.’ Obviously there’s no gravity in outer space. So if the theory doesn’t work everywhere, there must be something wrong with it.”
> *
> “The law of gravity says,” Nye replied, “that ‘any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.’ Gravity works in deep outer space, it is just that bodies there are distant from the earth. And in ‘Gravity’ they were just falling around the earth, in the grip of its gravity.”
> 
> Moderator David Gregory smirked. “That’s a lot of verbiage there, Bill. If you can’t explain something clearly, maybe it’s because there’s something wrong with the theory.”*
> 
> Gohmert angrily interrupted Gregory. “Besides, we all know that Muslims believe in gravity. That should make you suspicious of it, right there.”




http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/science-gohmert-gravity.html


----------



## trainspotter

Got my electrickery bill the other day and it was over $700 for the first time ... $67 of it was CARBON TAX !!! 

So I am doing my bit to stop using this stuff they call electricity that pollutes the world with it's nasty carbon dioxide that is raising sea levels and wiping out entire species and making us hotter. Might have to go and turn the air conditioning on again to cool down as it is 39 degrees here today


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> Got my electrickery bill the other day and it was over $700 for the first time ... $67 of it was CARBON TAX !!! ... nasty carbon dioxide  ...




Just a pity it won't go towards reducing emissions!

Or mitigating problematic catastrophic disaster!


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Good to see that true skeptics (you know who you are!!) are keeping science and the media honest and making sure we don't waste hard earned tax payers dollars on unnecessary public works.
> 
> Just saw this report on a debate between scientist Bill Nye and GOP Rep Gohmert.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/science-gohmert-gravity.html




Basilio, thanks for providing yet another fine example highlighting the folly of entertaining claims made by those unwilling or unable to differentiate between fiction, popular fallacies, contemporary science and recorded history. (Note the factually incorrect assertions by Gohmert in relation to biblical texts and contemporary physics).

P.S. I still await your response to my request for substantion of your "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" allegation. By my last tally zero have been presented! It may inerest you to know that there is a big difference between zero and one thousand.
If there were any real substance to your outlandish allegation, then surely you should be able to improve on that number!


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Good to see that true skeptics (you know who you are!!) are keeping science and the media honest and making sure we don't waste hard earned tax payers dollars on unnecessary public works.
> 
> Just saw this report on a debate between scientist Bill Nye and GOP Rep Gohmert.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/science-gohmert-gravity.html




????

What has this got to do with the debate on climate change?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ????
> 
> What has this got to do with the debate on climate change?





Basilio is referring to the power of distortion and confusion.

It has everything to do with the debate on climate change.  The tactics are to confuse the evidence and the debate to AN HYSTERICAL level, Wayno ole pal


----------



## basilio

explod said:


> Basilio is referring to the power of distortion and confusion.
> 
> It has everything to do with the debate on climate change.  The tactics are to confuse the evidence and the debate to AN HYSTERICAL level, Wayno ole pal




Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.

And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who  seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.


----------



## wayneL

It appears basilio is hoist by his own petard then.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> It appears basilio is hoist by his own petard then.




And Wayne, you clearly have NFI what you are talking about .


----------



## wayneL

wayneL's Law applies basilio, ergo you do not possess the objectivity to make that sort of qualitative assessment.

e.g. your evangelistic belief in Cook's discredited consensus paper.

Need I say more?


----------



## Logique

Graduate BA and MA holders seem to be running the alarmist campaign, e.g. that householder on the bank of the Hawkesbury River, the utterly ridiculous FlimFlammery.

They are specialists in propaganda, not science.

They need to understand, as WayneL does, that no true scientist would ever ever say _the science is decided and 97% of scientists agree.._

On their logic, let's have more zoologists and biometricians employed at Treasury.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.
> 
> And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who  seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.




That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others! 

Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all? 

Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?

P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads! 
(Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)


----------



## explod

"Objectivity" wayneL @_@$&xo,

Starooth, your personal feelings are like blood flowing all the wayvthrough this thread.

The oil lobby is alive and well and withvthe Murdock press in goverent the task of raising the truth just tougher.  But as i have repeated you are going to lose this one ole Pal.

Watch this space.


----------



## wayneL

Plod, your predictive prowess is running at 0% on this forum, showing yet again the veracity of wayneL's law.

There is never a better contrarian signal than one of your predictions.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod, your predictive prowess is running at 0% on this forum, showing yet again the veracity of wayneL's law.
> 
> There is never a better contrarian signal than one of your predictions.




I gave up predicting years ago.  Remember the trend is your friend till the bend.

Global warming induced by the burning of fossill fuels is on the up trend. You can see and feel it so you can even forget the guvnut induced scientists.


----------



## basilio

> They need to understand, as WayneL does, that no true scientist would ever ever say the science is decided and 97% of scientists agree..



 Logique

Is there space for a risk management approach here? 

Lets accept that there are very few things that are certain in life.  How much of a risk should we take that GW is very real and that if it continues (as most Climate scientists believe it will) we face a very sticky future ?

How much of risk would accept that your next plane flight will crash because of known faults with the engines ?

What is the acceptable cancer risk for smoking ?

There is a well developed discussion on this approach that simply covers the same logic that is used by all businesses and all governments when they have to make decisions on imperfect knowledge. Might be worth a read.



> *Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?*
> How a scientist looks at public discussions of climate change
> 
> ......To start, we should all recognize that no one wants to injure the planet, the climate, and the future economies and societies that our children will inherit. Even the radicals don't want to pollute the planet. Can you imagine James Inhofe sitting around the dinner table asking his family to find more ways he can pollute the air and water of this planet? I can't; it just doesn't happen.
> 
> ....We can discuss climate change without immediately falling back to debasing comments; when we inject more civility into the conversation, maybe it will be possible to find a new path. A new path formed by the majority that is concerned about climate change but wants to make sure our actions make sense. Actions that solve the climate problem without crippling industry. Actions that solve the problem without infringing on liberties. We all know that such solutions are available; we could start today… we just need to start.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nt/2014/feb/12/discussing-global-warming-hard


----------



## burglar

explod said:


> ... Global warming induced by the burning of fossill fuels ...




Some of the warming is induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
Most of it is produced by the Sun.

Leastways, that's the way I understand it.


----------



## wayneL

Yeahbut, carbon tax is not the way.

Everyone would like to see renewables become more viable on a number of levels, not the least of which is energy security. Skeptics just want a better world than the alarmists are proposing. The real science supports our view, not the catastrophist's view.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I gave up predicting years ago.




No you didn't. 

You predicted Liebor 55% Liberal 45% two party preferred only six months ago, and we know how that turned out. 

Also by indulging in alarmist quackery, you are making a prediction, just a few posts ago you implicitly predicted the Apocolypse, maintaining your 0% accuracy.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> No you didn't.
> 
> You predicted Liebor 55% Liberal 45% two party preferred only six months ago, and we know how that turned out.
> 
> Also by indulging in alarmist quackery, you are making a prediction, just a few posts ago you implicitly predicted the Apocolypse, maintaining your 0% accuracy.





Rubbish, i was not even on the trade.

Would have to admit to a bad case of ramping though.

However you continue to use attacks to distort the reality of Co2 induced climate change.


----------



## basilio

> Yeahbut, carbon tax is not the way.
> 
> Everyone would like to see renewables become more viable on a number of levels, not the least of which is energy security.



  Wayne L

Hmm... I somehow remember thousands of posts ago  suggesting that  the energy security and peak energy arguments were critical enough in themselves to say we should change direction towards renewables. The realization that this would take  at least a generation means the sooner one starts the better.

How to do it ?  In our current economic framework putting  tax on carbon to price its externalities is the cleanest most transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use. One of the bodies pushing and explaining that view is The American Conservative.



> How to Tax Carbon
> Conservatives can fight climate change without growing government.
> 
> Rather than acknowledge climate change as a major public-policy issue and draft a serious proposal to deal with it””to counter the left’s plan to expand dramatically the size, scope, and cost of the federal government””the right has too long pursued a course of obstructionism that amounts to little more than political theatre.
> 
> ....The best policy to address greenhouse gas emissions, while adhering to conservative principles, is a carbon tax combined with tax and regulatory reform. Merely uttering the phrase “carbon tax” strikes fear into the heart of many on the right. This is understandable, to the extent that what conservatives actually fear is a plan that would layer energy taxes on top of the overly burdensome tax and regulatory regime we already have.
> 
> But one need not engage in climate alarmism or capitulate to big government to make a case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. In fact, President Obama’s recent speech helps illustrate why the right needs to consider one more seriously.
> 
> A conservative carbon tax has three key components: revenue neutrality, elimination of existing taxes, and regulatory reform. When combined, these policies would yield a smaller, less powerful government; a tax code more conducive to investment and growth; and the emissions reductions the law says we must achieve.
> 
> The first and arguably most important component is absolute, bona fide revenue neutrality. The federal government is already too large and expensive. Conservatives routinely oppose efforts by the left to raise revenue in order to shore up lavish spending and broken entitlement programs. A carbon tax should no more be used to fund bigger government than any other tax. Every single dollar raised by a carbon tax must be devoted to tax reductions elsewhere in the code.




http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-tax-carbon/


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!






cynic said:


> Around we go again!
> 
> bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump bump.







cynic said:


> Basilio, thanks for providing yet another fine example highlighting the folly of entertaining claims made by those unwilling or unable to differentiate between fiction, popular fallacies, contemporary science and recorded history. (Note the factually incorrect assertions by Gohmert in relation to biblical texts and contemporary physics).
> 
> P.S. I still await your response to my request for substantion of your "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" allegation. By my last tally zero have been presented! It may inerest you to know that there is a big difference between zero and one thousand.
> If there were any real substance to your outlandish allegation, then surely you should be able to improve on that number!






basilio said:


> Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.
> 
> And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who  seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.






cynic said:


> That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others!
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all?
> 
> Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?
> 
> P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads!
> (Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)




...and around we go again!

bump


----------



## basilio

Cynic why do you  feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Cynic why do you  feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?




Why do you need to disown responsibility for your own allegations?


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... How to do it ? ...




Tax on carbon means householders putting money into Guvmint coffers.
Most likely place it goes from there, is into a pay increase for politicians!

Transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use?!

Pollies couldn't even close a coal-fired power station as promised!!


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, in the the Australian context, the only shift a carbon tax (inter alia) is/will be responsible for is a transfer of our industrial capacity to China and other jurisdictions in general, rendering us incapable of participating in ground floor shifts in energy production.

I agree government may have a role in facilitating this, but a carbon tax has the rverse effect ad far as we are concerned... and also increased emissions on the global scale.


----------



## basilio

burglar said:


> Tax on carbon means householders putting money into Guvmint coffers.
> Most likely place it goes from there, is into a pay increase for politicians!
> 
> Transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use?!
> 
> Pollies couldn't even close a coal-fired power station as promised!!




Why not read the paper I referred to and see what types of caveats they see as important in establishing a price mechanism to move to renewable energy ?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio, in the the Australian context, the only shift a carbon tax (inter alia) is/will be responsible for is a transfer of our industrial capacity to China and other jurisdictions in general, rendering us incapable of participating in ground floor shifts in energy production.
> 
> I agree government may have a role in facilitating this, but a carbon tax has the rverse effect ad far as we are concerned... and also increased emissions on the global scale.




And  that is the reason for a global approach to the issue.  Having an international approach to pricing energy to ensure all countries are moving in the same direction

At this stage in the game I also believe China is reviewing it's interest in coal fired power stations. The extent of the smog across their cities is now at critical levels. They just can't continue to put more smoke into the atmosphere.

And finally? You raised the point. I concur. Australia needs to move to a renewable energy system for long term energy security in itself. A system that puts a higher price on carbon based energy will encourage that movement. Otherwise we will have to wait until energy prices become so high - that......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-reaches-11-times-who-recommended-levels.html


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> But Cynic.  When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.






cynic said:


> ...
> The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
> 
> basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!






cynic said:


> I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
> (That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)






cynic said:


> bump






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






basilio said:


> Cynic your views on why we need to  artificially  produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
> 
> When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.






cynic said:


> basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
> 
> You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
> 
> The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
> 
> If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!






cynic said:


> Around we go again!
> 
> bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump.






cynic said:


> bumpity bump bump.







cynic said:


> Basilio, thanks for providing yet another fine example highlighting the folly of entertaining claims made by those unwilling or unable to differentiate between fiction, popular fallacies, contemporary science and recorded history. (Note the factually incorrect assertions by Gohmert in relation to biblical texts and contemporary physics).
> 
> P.S. I still await your response to my request for substantion of your "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" allegation. By my last tally zero have been presented! It may inerest you to know that there is a big difference between zero and one thousand.
> If there were any real substance to your outlandish allegation, then surely you should be able to improve on that number!






basilio said:


> Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.
> 
> And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who  seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.






cynic said:


> That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others!
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all?
> 
> Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?
> 
> P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads!
> (Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)






cynic said:


> ...and around we go again!
> 
> bump






basilio said:


> Cynic why do you  feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?






cynic said:


> Why do you need to disown responsibility for your own allegations?




Around and around this goes!
Where it stops - nobody knows! 

bump


----------



## trainspotter

Instead of wasting bandwidth in a pissing contest why not post some relevance to the topic of the thread?



> THE national weather agency is predicting Australia's climate will continue to warm, bringing more extreme heat and longer fire seasons across large parts of the country.
> A new report by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO *concludes the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rising*, and left unchecked further emissions *will cause more warming* this century.
> "Limiting the magnitude of future climate change requires large and sustained net global reductions in greenhouse gases," states the third "State of the Climate" report.




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...mate-predictions/story-e6frfku9-1226844241944


----------



## basilio

Great Trainspotter.  You have just unveiled the elephant in the room. 

I'll just get out of your way now to let  the  Naysayers explain  very clearly just how corrupt these figures are and how the BOM and CSIRO are a bunch of "*catastrophic, warmist alarmists*" who should be re educated quick smart. (don't let me down folks...)


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Instead of wasting bandwidth in a pissing contest why not post some relevance to the topic of the thread?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...mate-predictions/story-e6frfku9-1226844241944




True

And it looks like we are entering another El Niño which means hotter weather with less rain. 

The Bureau of Meteorology is hedging its bets but University of Southern Queensland climate scientist Roger Stone and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are warning an El Niño, associated with drier weather across eastern Australia, might take hold between May and July.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nino-on-the-way/story-e6frg8y6-1226810033167#


----------



## cynic

trainspotter said:


> Instead of wasting bandwidth in a pissing contest why not post some relevance to the topic of the thread?




Thankyou for your feedback T.S. 
The alarmists appear to have been very appreciative of your input on this matter. 

Given basilio's reluctance, would you care to stand in as champion by addressing my assertions regarding our increased respiratory CO2 needs?


----------



## trainspotter

cynic said:


> Thankyou for your feedback T.S.
> The alarmists appear to have been very appreciative of your input on this matter.
> 
> Given basilio's reluctance, would you care to stand in as champion by addressing my assertions regarding our increased respiratory CO2 needs?




From what I can make out it would appear that "some" of the scientific diagnostics that have been asserted by noted scientists (CSIRO for instance) who believe in global warming or that man is responsible for creating Co2 which in turn is directly attributable to increasing temperatures globally has some merit. Do I believe that there is scaremongering in the "scientific" community by both sides of the equation. You betcha. But to say that the earth's temperature is going to increase by 6 degrees in 20 years and polar ice caps are going to melt and the ocean is going to rise by X amount of metres is pure fantasy.

Given your persistence to remain as the undisputed "champion" of whatever you want to babble on about as gospel in this thread does not excite nor enthrall me one bit to ATTEMPT to have a meaningful discourse with you.

I was merely pointing out that wasting bandwidth on provoking someone into a response is neither productive nor satisfactory of someone of your intellect to further a sensible outcome to this debate which sometimes borders on the ridiculous with banal and wild accusations being thrown about by both sides. (bumpity bump bump ... REALLY cynic I thought better of you !)

Yes Co2 (or too much thereof) does increase the respiratory rate. That is a given. The body requires oxygen (another given) A person's breathing rate influences the level of CO2 in their blood. (givens everywhere today) 

Need I go on or do you wish to champion this worthless cause further than it needs to go?


----------



## cynic

trainspotter said:


> Yes Co2 (or too much thereof) does increase the respiratory rate. That is a given. The body requires oxygen (another given) A person's breathing rate influences the level of CO2 in their blood. (givens everywhere today)
> 
> Need I go on or do you wish to champion this worthless cause further than it needs to go?




Again, thanks for your feedback but that hasn't addressed my assertion regarding the increased population of humans and their livestock as being reasonably able to not only account, but indeed demand, an increased atmospheric presence of CO2 in circulation within our ecosystem.


----------



## trainspotter

cynic said:


> Again, thanks for your feedback but that hasn't addressed my assertion regarding the increased population of humans and their livestock as being reasonably able to not only account, but indeed demand, an increased atmospheric presence of CO2 in circulation within our ecosystem.




As you say in your own words ... your assertion ... have you any scientific proof to back up your affirmation? Still surprised by your appetition to be drawn into such an eristic parley?

Logically as humans and livestock increase in numbers so would their Co2 expulsion into the atmosphere. My understanding is that humans exhale somewhere between 700 - 900 grams (depending on diet, exercise, location, maturity etc) per day. Ipso facto, more humans breathing would also require more oxygen to be consumed.

Your point is what again cynic?

Are you suggesting that by culling the livestock and human population would be one way of reducing the amount of Co2 gas being exuded into the atmosphere?


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> ... Your point is what again cynic?
> 
> Are you suggesting that by culling the livestock and human population would be one way of reducing the amount of Co2 gas being exuded into the atmosphere?




I'm not goin' vegan!
So kill me, ... or plant a tree!! :


----------



## cynic

trainspotter said:


> As you say in your own words ... your assertion ... have you any scientific proof to back up your affirmation? Still surprised by your appetition to be drawn into such an eristic parley?
> 
> Logically as humans and livestock increase in numbers so would their Co2 expulsion into the atmosphere. My understanding is that humans exhale somewhere between 700 - 900 grams (depending on diet, exercise, location, maturity etc) per day. Ipso facto, more humans breathing would also require more oxygen to be consumed.




Beautifully expressed T.S. Although I didn't articulate it as well as your good self, those were the sentiments to which basilio responded with the bold accusation of "slaughtering a thousand scientifc facts".



trainspotter said:


> Your point is what again cynic?
> 
> Are you suggesting that by culling the livestock and human population would be one way of reducing the amount of Co2 gas being exuded into the atmosphere?




I was attempting to highlight the opposite scenario. By artificially reducing the atmospheric presence of CO2 the human populace may be sabotaging its very own ecosystem!


----------



## trainspotter

cynic said:


> I was attempting to highlight the opposite scenario. By artificially reducing the atmospheric presence of CO2 the human populace may be sabotaging its very own ecosystem!




Wanna put your thesis on the table in point form?


----------



## cynic

trainspotter said:


> Wanna put your thesis on the table in point form?




(i) Fauna such as humans and much of their livestock inhale O2 and exhale CO2.
(ii) Flora recycle CO2 into O2.
(iii) The conduit for circulatory exchange of CO2 and O2 between flora and fauna is generally considered to be our atmosphere.
(iv) The human population and accompanying livestock has increased giving rise to the increased expulsion of respiration related CO2 into our atmosphere.
(v) Consequently a measurably increased presence of CO2 in our atmosphere, pursuant to the aforementioned circulatory needs is to be expected.
(vi) This increase cannot automatically be assumed to be evidence of a problem until the circulatory component is reasonably accounted.
(vii) Hasty actions without due reference to humanity's respiratory needs could potentially lead to undesirable outcomes.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> And finally? You raised the point. I concur. Australia needs to move to a renewable energy system for long term energy security in itself. A system that puts a higher price on carbon based energy will encourage that movement. Otherwise we will have to wait until energy prices become so high - that......



From an energy security perspective, both globally and in the Australian context, by far the biggest problem is oil. Gas comes next, with coal (especially brown coal) being far less of an issue.

The trouble with the carbon tax is that it encourages a switch from secure energy sources (coal) to less secure ones (primarily gas and to some extent oil). The exact opposite of what we ought to be doing so far as fossil fuels are concerned. It's only a benefit to the extent that it encourages either outright demand reduction (not happening to any significant extent) or a switch to renewables (which is largely being driven by the Renewable Energy Target rather than the carbon tax).

Australian oil production is declining whilst demand is rising and we're already heavily reliant on oil imports. Meanwhile the LNG boom has seen practically all of our natural gas either committed to export or to existing domestic uses, leaving practically nothing to replace oil as a transport fuel or for new uses in industry. Even worse is the shift to gas for electricity - which as some are finally realising has given us a fleet of new gas-fired millstones around the power industry's neck for the next 30 years. Don't even mention that some of those gas-fired plants rely on oil for backup fuel when gas supply is constrained.

I'd rather see a fossil fuel tax as such than one based on carbon emissions. That would drive a switch to sustainable energy in a true sense, rather than a dead end dash for gas which isn't going to end well once the price shoots up over the next 3 years (which is pretty much now in a long term planning sense). We've already seen the demise of at least one industry (alumina refinery in the NT) as a result and it won't be the last.

From an energy security perspective, brown coal and non-export grades of black coal are the least of our worries really. It's oil and gas we need to be worried about.

Any tax-based action to address energy does, of course, need to be global in order to be effective. And "global" means the likes of South Africa, Russia, most South American countries etc not the EU (not really in the game anyway), Japan (not in the game at all) etc.

If I were making the decisions then I'd be focusing very heavily on transport fuels along with a longer term plan to phase out gas-fired power. Put freight onto rail, electric where practical, focus on fuel efficient passenger vehicles and the use of natural gas in transport, and stop the construction of new gas-fired power stations except in locations where there aren't any practical alternatives at present. Get electricity from renewables and coal, divert gas into transport and address the increasingly precarious oil supply situation.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> If I were making the decisions then I'd be focusing very heavily on transport fuels along with a longer term plan to phase out gas-fired power. Put freight onto rail, electric where practical, focus on fuel efficient passenger vehicles and the use of natural gas in transport, and stop the construction of new gas-fired power stations except in locations where there aren't any practical alternatives at present. Get electricity from renewables and coal, divert gas into transport and address the increasingly precarious oil supply situation.




No point in talking sense here smurph, it's all about headlines and emotions.


----------



## basilio

Good points Smurf. 

I agree it is not a black/white situatation. I see two objectives
1) Finding away to move from coal fired  power stations to renewable energy powered units to reduce CO2 emissions
2) Developing energy security with regard to our dependence on oil.

There would be a mixture of policies to deal with those needs


----------



## basilio

Always find it useful to discover intelligent analysis from people one might regard as climate skeptics.

Turns out *Judith Curry* has been well aware of the basic issues around climate change for many years.


In 2007 she analyzed Bjorn Lomborg work and made the following points. (among others)



> Lomborg's attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel's projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. *Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.*
> 
> The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security -- providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html


----------



## Smurf1976

I'd certainly agree that risk, as a general concept, is very much misunderstood. Common arguments relate to how likely something is to occur, completely missing the point about consequence.

A 1% chance of someone being killed at work is a far greater concern than a 50% chance of someone getting a paper cut for example.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Always find it useful to discover intelligent analysis from people one might regard as climate skeptics.
> 
> Turns out *Judith Curry* has been well aware of the basic issues around climate change for many years.
> 
> 
> In 2007 she analyzed Bjorn Lomborg work and made the following points. (among others)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html




IMO basilio, what the problem is, everyone agrees there is a problem with global warming.

One side wants us to lose our standard of living, become a third world economy and become martyrs.

The other side want a global solution, that's effective.

I'm supprised the Labor/ Greens aren't jumping up and down, a lot of carbon intensive industries are shutting up shop in Australia.

They should be rejoicing, all we need now is the 'clean energy jobs' Labor/ Greens were promising, to kick in.lol
Absolute Dicks.

Once it is accepted globaly, that a catastophe is inevitable a global solution will be formulated.
Untill then, you can flog yourself as much as you want, it will make no difference what so ever.
Appart from hurting your back.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> IMO basilio, what the problem is, everyone agrees there is a problem with global warming.
> 
> One side wants us to lose our standard of living, become a third world economy and become martyrs.
> 
> The other side want a global solution, that's effective.
> 
> I'm supprised the Labor/ Greens aren't jumping up and down, a lot of carbon intensive industries are shutting up shop in Australia.
> 
> They should be rejoicing, all we need now is the 'clean energy jobs' Labor/ Greens were promising, to kick in.lol
> Absolute Dicks.
> 
> Once it is accepted globaly, that a catastophe is inevitable a global solution will be formulated.
> Untill then, you can flog yourself as much as you want, it will make no difference what so ever.
> Appart from hurting your back.




Let's get real there's not going to be a global solution.  We are going to have learn to live with climate change.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Let's get real there's not going to be a global solution.  We are going to have learn to live with climate change.




Actually, I think not, there is a push toward reducing dependence on fossil fuel.

The uptake on home solar, has deferred the requirement for new base load power stations. 

This of course is a short term hit, as the industrial 24/7 load picks up, the overnight load increases and the home solar effect decreases.

At this point in our evolution, I think there needs to be a big push toward nuclear power generation, obviously with safety as a major concern.

However at this point, nuclear is the only low polluting, high energy density fuel, suitable for base load power generation. 

That is unless you have major sources of hydro generation available.

I see the next big step being, houses wired for low voltage.

There is no real reason, other than air conditioners, for houses to be supplied with 250v.

With the advent of high efficiency led lighting, soft start energy efficient 12v fridges, 12v led/lcd t.v's.

The only high current device that requires mains voltage(in a house) is the a/c and maybe a bore pump.

I would say the electricity supply companies are $hitting themselves. Only my humble opinion.lol

Now, if we can get the same energy density from batteries, as we do from fossil fuel.

It's game over.lol That is the key.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I think not, there is a push toward reducing dependence on fossil fuel.
> 
> The uptake on home solar, has deferred the requirement for new base load power stations.
> 
> This of course is a short term hit, as the industrial 24/7 load picks up, the overnight load increases and the home solar effect decreases.
> 
> At this point in our evolution, I think there needs to be a big push toward nuclear power generation, obviously with safety as a major concern.
> 
> However at this point, nuclear is the only low polluting, high energy density fuel, suitable for base load power generation.
> 
> That is unless you have major sources of hydro generation available.
> 
> I see the next big step being, houses wired for low voltage.
> 
> There is no real reason, other than air conditioners, for houses to be supplied with 250v.
> 
> With the advent of high efficiency led lighting, soft start energy efficient 12v fridges, 12v led/lcd t.v's.
> 
> The only high current device that requires mains voltage(in a house) is the a/c and maybe a bore pump.
> 
> I would say the electricity supply companies are $hitting themselves. Only my humble opinion.lol




I think new technology will help at the margins but not without Governments coercing people to use it with carrots and sticks (which was partly the purpose of the carbon tax you hate so much).  

To reduce carbon enough to make a serious dent in global warming you'd be looking at very aggressive regulation from countries around the world which would result in lowered living standards.  That's not going to happen.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I think new technology will help at the margins but not without Governments coercing people to use it with carrots and sticks (which was partly the purpose of the carbon tax you hate so much).
> 
> To reduce carbon enough to make a serious dent in global warming you'd be looking at very aggressive regulation from countries around the world which would result in lowered living standards.  That's not going to happen.




See this is why we get no where, you say I hate a carbon tax.
That is completely wrong, I want a global carbon tax. 
I don't want us to try and tell the world how to do it, and cut our wrists proving it.

Your second paragraph is actually completly wrong. 
The countries that need to reduce their emmissions China and India already have low living standards. China is being more aggresive than most countries to reduce their emmissions. Their air pollution is a huge problem.


----------



## Smurf1976

All this comes down to the existence of a cheap (excluding environmental effects) resource in the form of coal and gas being available, thus bringing about the natural human tendency to want to use it rather than using something more costly. 

Whilst there is certainly an environmental cost with coal, it's not a cash cost that consumers are paying today. So as with anything financial, there's the natural tendency to leave someone else to foot the bill when it arrives, safe in the knowledge that you won't be alive when most of it arrives.

Fossil fuels provide a massive leverage of human effort. Relatively few people are employed in order to produce a vast amount of energy, which then does the work of billions of people even in countries with a relatively small workforce.

Here's some facts and figures to illustrate the point. I've used data for Tasmania since I have the figures, but the same principle applies in any developed society (with the exception of the point that Tas uses more hydro and wood, and less coal and gas, than is typical of most places).

Oil = equivalent to a workforce of 80 million people.

Hydro-electricity = equivalent to a workforce of 62 million people.

Natural gas = equivalent to 31 million workers.

Wood (used as fuel) = equivalent to 29 million workers.

Coal = equivalent to a workforce of 17 million.

Wind = equivalent to 7 million workers.

Landfill gas = equivalent to 200,000 workers.

Solar electricity (rooftops) = equivalent to 135,000 workers.

Total workforce = equivalent to 226 million human workers, of which only 0.1% are actual humans. 

So we have Tasmania, population just over 500,000 people, with an effective workforce of 226 million. And only about 1% of the state's actual human workforce is employed in the energy industry in order to make this happen. Even the rotting garbage at a few rubbish tips in Hobart and Launceston contributes almost as much as the entire human workforce.

That's the sort of leverage I'm talking about and it's much the same everywhere. This is what makes our current lifestyle possible - we do 0.1% of the work ourselves, and get our almost free energy slaves to do the other 99.9%. Take that cheap energy away and everything falls in a heap real quick - there's no way that humans could do even 1% of what we get done with cheap energy today.

Now here's the problem. The energy sources we use presently don't require many people in order to operate. You have a few hundred workers running the hydro system producing the equivalent labour of 62 million. Or you have a few hundred workers at a coal-fired plant in another state doing much the same.

The trouble is that "alternative" energy sources typically offer less leverage of human effort. It takes more people to produce the same power in a reliable manner. We have to put more effort into it, thus diverting human labour away from something else and that leads directly to reduced living standards.

As for what could reasonably work as a solution, I'd be putting my efforts into geothermal, solar thermal, wind and hydro in the Australian context with geothermal being the big "game changer" if we can get dry geothermal working satisfactorily. It does need government backing in my opinion, as did coal, hydro and gas to get them up and running, and given the potential benefits it seems well worth putting some serious effort into it if the private sector doesn't get a move on.

Geothermal - we've got massive potential resources in several states within an acceptable distance of major loads. Since it could produce 24/7 baseload power, it's a real game changer.

Solar thermal - there are limits but certainly it's possible to get consistent power from the sun to supply a decent portion of the total load.

Wind - it's intermittent but the resource is pretty decent especially in SA and Tas, and combined with hydro it can indeed provide baseload energy.

Hydro - we could certainly build "another Snowy" if we wanted to, Australia isn't as lacking in hydro resources as seems to be the popular belief. The main role however would be to provide a storage and balancing means so as to integrate solar and wind at high levels into the grid and maintain a constant supply to consumers. There are many potential developments in Qld, NSW, Vic and Tas.

The trouble is, all of those are at present more expensive than coal. Brown coal in particular is incredibly cheap - the cost of mining a tonne of brown coal and running it through the boilers at the more modern power stations in Victoria is almost exactly the same as running water that falls free from the sky through hydro turbines in any existing scheme on a cost per unit of output basis. Running an existing coal plant is incredibly cheap when the fuel itself is worthless and everything is highly automated.

The crux of it is that coal is cheap and plentiful so we use it. If gold was cheap and plentiful then we'd make door knobs and especially electrical cables out of it. But since gold is scarce and expensive to extract, we're forced to accept the use of inferior materials for practically all applications. It's the same with coal - if there was very little coal on Earth and it cost a fortune to mine then we wouldn't be using it to generate electricity, having simply accepted the higher cost of using alternative methods. But since we do have cheap coal, we want to use it.

It's the same with anything. Once you have something cheap, in this case coal, humans don't want to lose it in favour of something that requires more effort and provides less leverage. Just like someone who earns $150 an hour doesn't want a pay cut to $25 and hour, but would be more than happy with $25 if the alternative was to earn nothing. That's essentially the problem we have - there are alternatives but they effectively involve a pay cut and most people tend not to be keen on that idea.


----------



## trainspotter

*A POX ON YOUR HOUSE (or body in this case)*



> *The danger is due to climate change*, which is causing frozen corpses in Siberia to thaw. Some of those bodies could have been infected with smallpox before they died, and experts fear the disease could remain in suspended animation because of the cold conditions.
> Last week, scientists from France and Russia said they had managed to revive a 30,000-year-old virus called Pithovirus sibericum, which had been frozen in Siberia’s vast tranches of permafrost. That has very obvious implications for smallpox.




http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ng-back-smallpox/story-fn5fsgyc-1226851404396

Wasn't there a movie about this with Kurt Russell as the lead actor ?? No wait ... that was "The Thing" :


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> *A POX ON YOUR HOUSE (or body in this case)*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ng-back-smallpox/story-fn5fsgyc-1226851404396
> 
> Wasn't there a movie about this with Kurt Russell as the lead actor ?? No wait ... that was "The Thing" :




Interesting stuff. I think I remember a similar concern with people who died from the 1919 Spanish Flu epidemic being thawed out.  The concern was with people who had died in Alaska or Siberia. The scientists actually did do this to learn more about the virus and help us fight any similar pandemics

It's quite conceivable that viruses like smallpox ect could survive in a frozen state. Very tough little buggers...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100900932.html


----------



## basilio

Nice to see a clear, succinct of te4h climate change debate.



> *Climate change body chief: 'bad guys' won when the 'good guys' lay down*
> 
> Bernie Fraser says ‘brazen falsehoods’ and ‘misinformation’ have confused a switched-off and fed-up public
> 
> One of the country’s most experienced policy thinkers draws a brutal conclusion about Australia’s climate change debate: the “good guys” have lost the argument because they failed to contest untruths peddled by “bad guys”, including the federal government.
> 
> Bernie Fraser, the chairman of the independent climate change authority, which the Abbott government intends to abolish, is a softly spoken former governor of the reserve bank and former secretary of the federal treasury, not known for simplistic assessments of major policy discussions.
> 
> *But he is clearly frustrated at what he believes has been the wilful misleading of a confused and increasingly fed-up public by politicians and industry groups who, he says, deliberately spread misinformation about climate science and the policies that might reduce Australia’s emissions.
> *
> The “bad guys” are winning because their “brazen falsehoods”, “untruths” and “misinformation” are often going unchallenged.
> 
> “The good guys are way behind and seem to be not making up ground,” he says, in an interview with Guardian Australia ahead of a speech he will make to the national press club on Thursday. “The public generally are getting bored with it all and switching off. The problem seems to be to be that the bad guys are spreading untruths and exaggerations and assertions without a lot of hard evidence and serious debate, cheered on by the big companies who make similar assertions and repeat those assertions without thorough debate.”




http://www.theguardian.com/science/...hief-bad-guys-won-when-the-good-guys-lay-down


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Nice to see a clear, succinct of te4h climate change debate.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/...hief-bad-guys-won-when-the-good-guys-lay-down




....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?

Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> ....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
> 
> Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.





Bernie Fraser a wanker wayneL, excuse me???

just for a minute think about what you have said.

For ASF to have (he he your name starts with a W) you as a moderator beggars belief and is why i bother little here anymore.

We work in areas to gain results.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> ....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
> 
> Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.




Bernie is squawking cause the Libs are going to abolish the Climate Change Authority which Bernie happens to be the Chairman of the board. A budget of 6.2 million last year to splash about on wanky TV adverts telling 23 million people that we produce too much carbon on a global level. There are more people in prison in the USA and there are more people living in Shanghai than inhabit Australia. 

His aim was to cut emissions by 25% by the year 2020 which would cost the economy approx 27 billion over 7 years in carbon credits alone ! (based on a rate of $30 per tonne) 

So not necessarily an expert on climate but more along the lines of getting his hands on some of that filthy lucre that Al Gore is so intent on selling everyone in the form of carbon credits


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> ....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
> 
> Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.




Bernie Frasers credibility is 40 years as one of the most  respected policy analysts in Australia. In short he demands evidence to back up assertions and can smell BS a mile off.

Even on this thread we agreed (?) that moving quickly to renewable energy resources made sense simply because of energy security issues and pollution issues.

Smurf amongst others pointed out that even a small risk of substantial/catastrophic results from Climate change is unacceptable.  We certainly wouldn't accept a small risk of  catastrophic failure in any other system we developed (cars, planes, bridges.) 

But clearly these almost self evident facts are insufficient to even move the debate along in a positive direction

Only in this fact free "debate" have we allowed people to get away with repeating lies after lies, misrepresentation and distortion beyond belief.

 ________________________________________________________

Actually I  forgot a couple of other "debates" with similar characteristics. The role of smoking with regard to health and effects of  unrestricted gambling on our societies. And of course Creationism


----------



## wayneL

TS

Nail
Head
Hit

Bernie is an economist after all.

I just found his argument fallacious and amateurish.

I stand by my comments, what a wanker.


----------



## wayneL

Plod, basilio 

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as a climate expert, Bernie makes a good economist...

...another soft science which breeds experts in retrospective analysis. Even then, most curve fit and data mine to appear credible, though thoroughly undeserved.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I would agree with wayneL that Bernie is not the brightest star in the firmament.

He is a bit stuck at times.

To the matter at hand, it has been the hottest summer I have ever experienced here in Townsville and I need to re-examine the evidence the hairy legged have put forward for weather change.

gg


----------



## basilio

Frankly  Wayne you don't care who made Bernie Frasers speech 

It wouldn't matter if  it was the entire school of Climate Scientists from every University in the world.

It wouldn't matter if it was Pope Francis, Putin, Merkel, Cameron and Obama singing  in tune off the same hymn sheet.

It just seems that many people  will not countenance  even the possibility that we have a serious problem on our hands with human induced CC. And to defend that position you will trash any argument from any person regardless of skills or competence.

You don't have to be Climate scientist to effectively examine the arguments and evidence peddled to refute the work of Climate Change scientists.  You just need a  keen, clear open mind. The arguments just don't hold water. 

Period.


----------



## wayneL

The categorization of good guys and bad guys in this debate is childish and asinine, not to mention a reprehensible load id camel dung... absolutely silly.

....and downright unscientific.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The categorization of good guys and bad guys in this debate is childish and asinine, not to mention a reprehensible load id camel dung... absolutely silly.
> 
> ....and downright unscientific.




Goodness gracious, and Holy Mary Mother of God save us.

The only one being childish and ungratious is yours truly. Starting to feel the pressure from peers ole pal.

As a sky and earth watcher from childhood it is in australia, 80 percent drier in most places, the frogs have mostly dissappeared, it is very much hotter, there is more cloud at times due to heat, causing much more wild wind. The plover chicks did not make it out of this spring.

Anecdotal, yes but, have a good hold of science and making of the planet from 5 billion years back.

The way it all evolved is so amazing and sensitive that i do know to ignore our footprint, in particular fossill fuel usevas we are doing is suicidal. To not at least give it a little thought in this way dear wayneL is the real meaning of hysteria.


----------



## basilio

Always interesting to look at appeals to expertise on issues.



> Tony Abbott or Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut - who do you believe?
> 
> Date
> March 13, 2014 - 4:21PM
> 
> Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut are lions of Australian economics. They carry more intellectual and institutional weight then most of us mere mortals put together.
> 
> So if they broadly agree on any course of action we should all probably sit up and listen, right?
> 
> In the past seven days all three have, in different ways, supported a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html#ixzz2vooG1nBB


----------



## trainspotter

SO are they going to tell that to Qantas? 100 million dollar carbon tax bill wont make people fly less? And it is not going to stop companies from polluting as they can simply purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions and this will then be borne by the consumer. What a stupid way of going about something. Let's tax it to make it more expensive to stop people from using it? Worked for smoking as well. $25 a packet hasn't stopped 'em? ... how about petrol? 40 cents or more is tax. Wine Equalisation Tax .. worked a treat that did ! What a stupid idea 

Economists should stay out of things they do not understand


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> ... Economists should stay out of things they do not understand




That would make them unemployed! :


----------



## burglar

> Bernie Fraser says ‘brazen falsehoods’ and ‘misinformation’ have confused a switched-off and fed-up public





You can't confuse a switched-off and fed-up public!




basilio said:


> Frankly  Wayne you don't care who made Bernie Frasers speech ...





It doesn't matter "authority", "peer revue" or "consensus"!

It matters only correct or incorrect!




basilio said:


> ... Putin ...





Mr. Putin is a little bit busy right now.
A matter of dÃ©tente in the Crimea


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> SO are they going to tell that to Qantas? 100 million dollar carbon tax bill wont make people fly less? And it is not going to stop companies from polluting as they can simply purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions and this will then be borne by the consumer. What a stupid way of going about something. Let's tax it to make it more expensive to stop people from using it? Worked for smoking as well. $25 a packet hasn't stopped 'em? ... how about petrol? 40 cents or more is tax. Wine Equalisation Tax .. worked a treat that did ! What a stupid idea
> 
> Economists should stay out of things they do not understand




I think you've lost the plot regarding the reason for the carbon tax TS.

It is NOT intended to necessarily reduce energy use. The main purpose is to make energy that emits CO2 more expensive than  non polluting energy sources. It gives the market place a signal that they should get out of coal and into solar/wind/wave whatever. Thats it.

In this particular case almost every economist, left right or centre,  would agree that making CO2 emissions taxable is the simplest way to redirect investment to non polluting energy.

The taxes on cigarettes do have an effect on consumption but they also fund extensive programs to encourage people to give up smoking. And of course the gov gets its hands on more cash as well.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I think you've lost the plot regarding the reason for the carbon tax TS.
> 
> It is NOT intended to necessarily reduce energy use. The main purpose is to make energy that emits CO2 more expensive than  non polluting energy sources. It gives the market place a signal that they should get out of coal and into solar/wind/wave whatever. Thats it.
> 
> In this particular case almost every economist, left right or centre,  would agree that making CO2 emissions taxable is the simplest way to redirect investment to non polluting energy.
> 
> The taxes on cigarettes do have an effect on consumption but they also fund extensive programs to encourage people to give up smoking. And of course the gov gets its hands on more cash as well.




Are you for real? My electricity bill went up $67 "attributable to the carbon tax" ... I don't see my power supplier going ... "OH DEAR !! We must make it cheaper for TS to have electricity and invest billions of dollars building a solar/wind/wave whatever." ... NOPE ... the user pays !!!  They just add it to your bill 

What about everyone going solar?? Weren't they supposed to be pumping electricity back into the grid to make the power stations not have to burn so much coal? Got a windfarm at the back of where I live and the capacity is supposed to be able to power 85,000 homes. We have less than 50,000 homes in this area. Did that make my electricity cheaper ??? NOPE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Don't get me started on my gas bill !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## basilio

TS just introducing the price on carbon was not going to change things overnight - obviously.  But in fact there was a significant change in the sourcing of electricity when the tax began as companies reacted to the charges.

But overall the point of a long term change in pricing is to encourage long term changes in energy production.

But don't take my word for it. Smurf is the resident expert on power generation.  Why not hear his understandings?

As for your gas bill ?  When that goes through the roof it will be almost solely due to the gas companies finding a way to price our gas at world prices because we are now building LNG gas trains in Queensland...


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> TS just introducing the price on carbon was not going to change things overnight - obviously.  But in fact there was a significant change in the sourcing of electricity when the tax began as companies reacted to the charges.
> 
> But overall the point of a long term change in pricing is to encourage long term changes in energy production.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Smurf is the resident expert on power generation.  Why not hear his understandings?
> 
> As for your gas bill ?  When that goes through the roof it will be almost solely due to the gas companies finding a way to price our gas at world prices because we are now building LNG gas trains in Queensland...




Long term changes in energy production will happen as technology improves.

Currently, as TS says, the tax just increases the cost of electricity.

The radical reductions at this stage, can be better achieved by reducing power consumption of household devices.
Also as is being done, by domestic solar installation, to mitigate a households usage.

The problem with this, is it reduces the amount of consumers who are supporting the infrastructure.

Therefore the cost keeps rising, and will do so untill power generation technology or power storage technology improves.

Currently, we are just grinding business into the ground, as they have to pick up more and more of the tab.


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> TS just introducing the price on carbon was not going to change things overnight - obviously ...




It is your own argument, sir, which bites you in the rump.

It is like paying car registration fees and expecting roads to improve.
And don't get me started on gas ...


----------



## Julia

burglar said:


> That would make them unemployed! :


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> It is NOT intended to necessarily reduce energy use. The main purpose is to make energy that emits CO2 more expensive than  non polluting energy sources. It gives the market place a signal that they should get out of coal and into solar/wind/wave whatever.




The problem is with the actual numbers.

Eg $40 per MWh from black coal, make that $60 with carbon tax.

$80 - $100 per MWh from wind and more from other non-hydro renewables.

Cheapest option is just pay the tax.

Flow-on effects are also not considered in most analysis of the carbon tax. Eg the tax theoretically makes gas-fired power cheaper than coal. However the tax doesn't increase the supply of gas, just the demand for it. So we get a slight increase in gas-fired generation, and the gas price rises to match that of carbon taxed coal. End result = most electricity still from coal, but gas prices have risen beyond the extent of the tax itself.

Meanwhile manufacturers etc can still access untaxed power overseas, so that's what they're doing. Relocation - either of existing facilities or by means of not expanding or building in Australia in the first place. 

All that said, in terms of actual electricity bills, the "reforms" of the past 20 years have contributed far more to power price rises than the carbon tax has that's for sure. If those objecting to the carbon tax are serious about wanting cheaper energy, they'd be looking to radically restructure the power industry as a higher priority than simply removing the carbon tax. 

It's worth noting that slowly but surely, the industry itself is unwinding much of the "reform" and reassembling itself into 3 large vertically integrated utilities - Origin Energy, AGL and Energy Australia. Slowly but surely they are acquiring most generation and most retail just as the "Big 4" banks ended up owning most of the banking industry. Trouble is, this new structure is less efficient and more costly than either the one it is absorbing or the one we had for decades until the 1990's. The carbon tax is largely insignificant, at least for household and small business users, compared to all that.


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> And don't get me started on gas ...



Gas is indeed just getting started in terms of price rises.....


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem is with the actual numbers.
> 
> Eg $40 per MWh from black coal, make that $60 with carbon tax.
> 
> $80 - $100 per MWh from wind and more from other non-hydro renewables.
> 
> Cheapest option is just pay the tax.
> 
> Flow-on effects are also not considered in most analysis of the carbon tax. Eg the tax theoretically makes gas-fired power cheaper than coal. However the tax doesn't increase the supply of gas, just the demand for it. So we get a slight increase in gas-fired generation, and the gas price rises to match that of carbon taxed coal. End result = most electricity still from coal, but gas prices have risen beyond the extent of the tax itself.
> 
> Meanwhile manufacturers etc can still access untaxed power overseas, so that's what they're doing. Relocation - either of existing facilities or by means of not expanding or building in Australia in the first place.
> 
> All that said, in terms of actual electricity bills, the "reforms" of the past 20 years have contributed far more to power price rises than the carbon tax has that's for sure. If those objecting to the carbon tax are serious about wanting cheaper energy, they'd be looking to radically restructure the power industry as a higher priority than simply removing the carbon tax.
> 
> It's worth noting that slowly but surely, the industry itself is unwinding much of the "reform" and reassembling itself into 3 large vertically integrated utilities - Origin Energy, AGL and Energy Australia. Slowly but surely they are acquiring most generation and most retail just as the "Big 4" banks ended up owning most of the banking industry. Trouble is, this new structure is less efficient and more costly than either the one it is absorbing or the one we had for decades until the 1990's. The carbon tax is largely insignificant, at least for household and small business users, compared to all that.




As per usual smurph, great post, hope many can get their head around it.

I just hope we have the renewables up and running before the gas runs out.lol


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS just introducing the price on carbon was not going to change things overnight - obviously.  But in fact there was a significant change in the sourcing of electricity when the tax began as companies reacted to the charges.
> 
> But overall the point of a long term change in pricing is to encourage long term changes in energy production.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Smurf is the resident expert on power generation.  Why not hear his understandings?
> 
> As for your gas bill ?  When that goes through the roof it will be almost solely due to the gas companies finding a way to price our gas at world prices because we are now building LNG gas trains in Queensland...




My electricity bill was $700 - $67 of this was CARBON TAX - so approximately 10% is a TAX - I get my electricity bill every 60 days = 6 bills a year = $400 EXTRA per annum.

GAS BILL is equivalent % increase.

All that is happening is the cost of living is going up and the electricity and gas prices are not going DOWN !! 

Has it stopped my electricity supplier from polluting? NOPE !! Just passed the bill onto me 
Has it forced my electricity supplier to suddenly build a NG power station so I can get cheaper electricity? NOPE !! 

And economists are saying that this is the way of the future ? Here is a picture of the economists that agree that this is the "quantum leap" forward in reducing our emissions.


BERNIE FRASER





KEN HENRY




ROSS GANAUD


----------



## basilio

Nice little rant TS.

Clearly you didn't bother to consider anything that Smurf had to offer with regard to the cost of energy. Perhaps there might be other forces at play in ensuring energy companies and their CEO's stay exceedingly profitable

It's so easy to be an abusive prat isn't it  TS ? And certainly this thread gives you every encouragement. Good luck to you.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Nice little rant TS.
> 
> Clearly you didn't bother to consider anything that Smurf had to offer with regard to the cost of energy. Perhaps there might be other forces at play in ensuring energy companies and their CEO's stay exceedingly profitable
> 
> It's so easy to be an abusive prat isn't it  TS ? And certainly this thread gives you every encouragement. Good luck to you.




Yes it was a thing of beauty wasn't it.

I read Smurf1976 post and fully comprehended the thrust and validity of his missive. And a carbon tax aint one of them. OK let's go and launch ourselves 36 years in the future ... the year is 2050 and ya know what? Our carbon footprint will be exactly the same if not more. Population explosion, more vehicles on the road (they might even be electric but to manufacture these cars CREATES massive Co2 and mineral depletion) There will be many windfarms and hydro and wave generation plants and guess what ... we will STILL be pumping Co2 at the same rate if not more.

The economists are exactly that. They are looking at the ECONOMY ..Ken Henry even reckons the GST has to be increased to cover the expenses for Chrissake. A benefit is that they are EXPECTING Co2 levels to drop. As Australia only creates less than 2% of global output this does not make a lot of sense to me !!!!!!!!

Bernie Fraser is the chairman of some quango which he has his snout firmly ensconced and does not want to miss out on his 6.2 million dollar cookie jar. 

Abusive prat? Did I personally sledge you? Did I in any way malign you? NOPE ... I pointed out that a carbon tax is increasing the cost of living and doing NOTHING to get the energy producers to "suddenly" go green so I can get cheaper electricity. Not now and certainly NOT IN THE FUTURE.

Now if you feel somehow that your view is more important than my view than good luck to you as well basilio.


----------



## basilio

Obviously touching different parts of the elephant here TS.

When I made the comment about abusive prat I was referring to your sledging of the economists as a bunch of twits. I just don't think thats cool or useful. 

You then  jump to 2050 and suddenly your crystal ball gives you an insight into just how our economy will look ? Impressive. Is our future that clear and that determined ? Or do you simply have the best crystal ball around ?

The point about putting price on carbon from an economist point of view is that business responds very quickly to price signals. You believed that the carbon tax didn't have any effect on the amount of CO2 produced by power stations - that in fact all that happened was our costs went  up.

Would you be surprised to learn that your crystal ball failed you on that point ?



> *Emissions drop signals fall in carbon tax take*
> 
> David Uren, Economics editor
> The Australian
> January 23, 2013 12:00AM
> 
> *
> CARBON emissions from the electricity sector have dived in the first six months under the carbon tax, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.*
> 
> While the government believes the 8.6 per cent fall in carbon emissions shows its policies are working, it also means it will collect less from the tax than the $4 billion it anticipated this year.
> 
> .....Total emissions from the electricity sector in the December half were 7.5 million tonnes lower than in the same half of 2011.
> 
> The government cautions that a big abatement task remains, cutting total emissions by 33 million tonnes from 2011 levels by 2020. The fall in electricity demand was not anticipated by the Australian Energy Market Operator and is unlikely to have been included in Treasury's budget forecasts.
> 
> Analysis by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's staff shows that total electricity production in the first half of the financial year fell by 2.7 per cent, compared with the corresponding period of 2011-12.
> *
> However, the analysis shows there has also been a big change in the mix of power, with much greater use of renewable energy from hydroelectricity from the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania, and also wind farms, while there have been cuts in use of both black and brown coal.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995#

____________________________________________

And if you want to see what the changes in CO2 emissions are as a result of the Carbon tax in 2014  check out the following analysis.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...missions-since-carbon-tax-20140205-320a6.html


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Obviously touching different parts of the elephant here TS.
> 
> When I made the comment about abusive prat I was referring to your sledging of the economists as a bunch of twits. I just don't think thats cool or useful.
> 
> You then  jump to 2050 and suddenly your crystal ball gives you an insight into just how our economy will look ? Impressive. Is our future that clear and that determined ? Or do you simply have the best crystal ball around ?
> 
> The point about putting price on carbon from an economist point of view is that business responds very quickly to price signals. You believed that the carbon tax didn't have any effect on the amount of CO2 produced by power stations - that in fact all that happened was our costs went  up.
> 
> Would you be surprised to learn that your crystal ball failed you on that point ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995#




Shot yourself in the foot basilio? *"cutbacks in consumption"* means exactly that !!! Taxing the people who least can afford it means OF COURSE they will stop using the airconditioner / heater / whatever that gobbles up electricity.

But but but YOU claimed this to NOT be the case  



> *It is NOT intended to necessarily reduce energy use*. The main purpose is to make energy that emits CO2 more expensive than non polluting energy sources. It gives the market place a signal that they should get out of coal and into solar/wind/wave whatever. Thats it.




Penalising the end user by increasing costs is the name of the game here and the electricity companies do not give a fat rats clacker that they are passing on the carbon tax to the consumer.

It does not take much brain capacity to figure out that in 2050 our population will have dramatically increased ERGO more vehicles on the road and more consumerism ad infinitum. 

So in 6 months the electricity companies quickly whipped up a hydro / wind / wave whatever to generate clean electricity? Hmmmmmmmmm ... 

My crystal ball is working just fine thanks.


----------



## basilio

Very selective reading TS.



> Big fall in electricity sector emissions since carbon tax
> 
> Date
> February 5, 2014
> 
> Peter Hannam
> 
> Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
> 
> 
> *Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.
> 
> This reduction, revealed in the September-quarter National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures released on Wednesday, was mostly countered by rises in emissions from sectors of the economy uncovered or only partially covered by the carbon price.
> *
> The total emissions, excluding increases in emissions from land-clearing, came in at 542.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the year to September, or 0.3 per cent lower than a year earlier. When changes in land use are added, overall emissions for the 12 months came to 567.5 million tonnes, or 1.2 per cent higher.
> Advertisement
> 
> *The inventory figures have largely tracked a similar path for many quarters. Emissions from the power sector have been dropping, particularly since the introduction of a $23 a tonne price on carbon in mid-2012, making renewable energy supplies more attractive. Demand for electricity has also been dropping as manufacturing shrinks and energy efficiency efforts take hold.*
> 
> Pollution from transportation, not covered by the carbon tax, has been rising steadily, while emissions from coalmine expansion and new gas plants have been soaring. The latter two sources are only partially covered by the carbon tax, now at $24.15 per tonne, with offsets or free permits reducing the cost to polluters.
> 
> John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, said companies in sectors with rising emissions, such as industrial processes, were often the recipients of free permits, particularly in trade-exposed industries.
> 
> 'Major headache'
> 
> For liquefied natural gas producers, the free permits covered about 65 per cent of their emissions, Mr Connor said.
> 
> ‘‘We’re just at the dawn of their emissions profile, and they’ll be really starting to crank up particularly towards the end of this year,’’ he said. ‘‘They will be one of, if not the major headache for the Coalition which is why they are desperate to find ways to slice off growth of emissions in that sector.’’
> 
> Fugitive emissions, mostly from coal mining, were up 8.3 per cent for the year to September, while transport emissions rose 2 per cent, agriculture 1.8 per cent and industrial processes saw a 0.4 per cent increase, the government said.
> 
> For the 12 months to September, emissions from the power sector were 5.5 per cent lower, or 11.3 million tonnes.
> 
> Political take
> 
> Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the drop in emissions from the power sector was only ‘‘very slight’’ and was prompted by the renewable energy target and reduced economic activity.
> 
> ‘‘The carbon tax is not cutting emissions in any meaningful or significant way,’’ Mr Hunt said, adding that it ‘‘does not work – plain and simple’’.
> 
> Fugitive emissions and those from industrial process and stationary power were rising even though they were covered by the carbon price, he said.
> 
> Greens leader Christine Milne, however, said emissions from the power sector had fallen each quarter since the carbon price had been introduced, and said Mr Hunt was ‘‘cherry picking’’ the data to ‘‘justify the Abbott government’s ideological opposition to effective action on global warming.’’
> 
> “Significant decreases in the electricity sector emissions have been neutralised by increasing fugitive emissions because of the Abbott government’s open slather rush to support the dangerous coal seam gas industry and coal mines,” Senator Milne said.
> 
> ‘‘Reducing free permits and ending fossil fuel subsidies to coal and gas would help to drive down emissions but the Abbott government is keen to maintain the culture of entitlement in those industries,’’ she said.
> 
> Trajectory
> *
> The premise of the debate about changes in emissions from last year is wrong, said Frank Jotzo, an associate professor at Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy and deputy director, ANU Climate Change Institute.
> 
> "What matters is not the comparison with last years' emissions levels, but with what emissions would be if it was not for the carbon price," Professor Jotzo said. "Australia's emissions have been on an increasing trajectory, projections without carbon pricing were for strong increases.*"
> 
> "Now we're seeing only very slight increases which is progress," he said.
> 
> While the electricity sector is seeing the largest impact of the carbon prices, the impact is not as big as it would be if businesses believed that the carbon price was here to stay, Professor Jotzo said.
> 
> "To stop increasing emissions in transport and extractive industries like LNG would require a carbon price much, much higher than what is currently in place," he said.
> 
> Repeal vow
> 
> The Abbott government has vowed to repeal the carbon tax, which Labor and Greens have foiled so far by using their majority in the Senate to reject the move.
> 
> The Coalition's alternative plan to achieve a 5 per cent reduction of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions on 2000 levels by 2020 is its "direct action" plan to pay polluters to cut back. Greenhouse gas emissions are blamed for increasing global temperatures and forcing climate change, and governments around the world have pledged to act to reduce them.
> 
> That policy has been criticised by business groups – and political opponents – as being unlikely to meet the reduction target, given the budget caps and vague details released so far.
> 
> A Senate inquiry in Melbourne on Wednesday will add to the scrutiny of the direct action plan.


----------



## wayneL

Yes basilio, the carbon tax has been a resounding success....



...at transferring industrial capacity (ergo emissions) offshore.

Nice work.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Very selective reading TS.




You did not bold this bit?



> The total emissions, excluding increases in emissions from land-clearing, came in at 542.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the year to September, or 0.3 per cent lower than a year earlier. When changes in land use are added,* overall emissions for the 12 months came to 567.5 million tonnes, or 1.2 per cent higher.*




Great ... electricity companies suddenly are dumping LESS Co2 into the atmosphere because consumers are using less electricity because it COSTS more !



> *Pollution from transportation, not covered by the carbon tax, has been rising steadily,* while emissions from coalmine expansion and new gas plants have been soaring. The latter two sources are only partially covered by the carbon tax, now at $24.15 per tonne, with offsets or free permits reducing the cost to polluters.




Which brings me back to my crystal ball and the year 2050 projections. MORE vehicles on the road and more consumerism ad infinitum which will INCREASE Co2 output regardless of what the coal fired powered electricity stations are doing. 

Does not change the fact that increasing power costs onto the consumer is magically going to force power supply companies to start building renewable energy power generation plants. Who pays for that? The consumer ... again !

So what is the point of having a Carbon Tax if you can buy carbon offsets or receive free permits for mine expansion and new gas plants ?? HUH ??


----------



## basilio

TS after reading your take on the articles I agree that further discussions on this topic is fruitless.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS after reading your take on the articles I agree that further discussions on this topic is fruitless.




I concur basilio. Co2 output is increasing irrespective of what the coal fired power stations are polluting into the atmosphere.


----------



## Judd

Some pretty pictures as your screen saver.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Yes basilio, the carbon tax has been a resounding success....




Not quite but a few company's I know waste an amazing amount of power the tax forced them to review at least some wastage but unfortunately not all.





> ...at transferring industrial capacity (ergo emissions) offshore.
> 
> Nice work.




Yes some impact but not quite the whole story. 

AUD above 70-75 cents is killing the manufacturing company's I know big time.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> Not quite but a few company's I know waste an amazing amount of power the tax forced them to review at least some wastage but unfortunately not all.
> 
> Yes some impact but not quite the whole story.
> 
> AUD above 70-75 cents is killing the manufacturing company's I know big time.




Power waste - agreed there. I walked past a place today that has 4 x PAR38 floodlights (the same type of globe commonly used in household sensor lights) to illuminate a wooden business sign out the front. The sun was shining brightly and so too were the globes. So that's 600 Watts being used for no reason at all (assuming they're 150W lamps which is the most common size of PAR38 lamps in Australia).

Another one is a large very well known organisation that has 4 x metal halide lights illuminating their outside entrance 24/7. No point in that, it's total waste when its' daylight.

For the record, the electricity industry itself doesn't waste its' product in the way that customers do. I can assure you that the lights aren't left running in an empty workshop, office or an unmanned power station (hydro plants generally operate with nobody there unless there's maintenance work being done) when there's no need. The industry itself doesn't generally waste energy - it's consumers who do that. 

As for manufacturing, it really depends on the specific industry. At two extremes:

A large scale brewery. Energy cost is a very minor part of the total production cost so no reasonable energy price is going to stop the production of beer either for the domestic market or for export. Wages etc are a far more significant cost.

Aluminium smelting, and to a lesser extent the smelting of other non-ferrous metals (eg zinc, manganese). Energy cost is huge due to the nature of the process. Electricity alone can be around 25% of the total production costs despite the generally cheap prices they pay for energy (smelters are always located in places with cheap power). When you're paying 3 cents / kWh and that's 25% of your production costs then paying another 2.5 cents due to carbon tax outright kills the economics of the business. End result = relocation overseas.


----------



## Smurf1976

I won't enter any personal debates, but here's how power generation is shifted from one source to another without actually building any new power stations.

This is for a hypothetical grid, but it's broadly similar to the situation in Victoria. Suppose that you have (for simplicity I'm ignoring maintenance outages etc here and keeping it in layman's terms).

Peak demand of 10,000 MW
Maximum load on a mild day of 6,000 MW
Average demand of 5,500 MW
Normal minimum (excluding blackouts due to storms etc) demand of 4,000 MW

Coal-fired generation of 6,000 MW
Hydro generation of 2,000 MW
Gas-fired generation 2,500 MW

On a hot day with peak demand, you have to run basically everything flat out or very close to it. You therefore have no choice as to where the power comes from - all available generation needs to be running and there's nothing to spare.

But at other times you have a lot of choice. Technical factors limit the ability to switch coal plants on and off, but they can certainly be ramped up and down from full load down to (depending on the plant design) 30 - 60% of capacity.

So on a mild day with 4,000 MW overnight and 6,000 MW during the day there are a lot of options:

You could meet the entire load from coal, apart from some hydro or gas online as spinning reserve (in case a unit breaks down suddenly).

Or at the other extreme you could have 2,500 MW of coal-fired plant online, only running at 2,000 MW, and fully use the available gas and hydro.

For hydro it is usually a case of having a limited water supply and choosing the best time to use it which is itself influenced by recent inflows. If it's dry then run it only to meet the peaks (saving water). If there's a flood then run it flat out 24/7. If it's moderately wet then just run it during business hours. Etc. This is how hydro is normally used in a predominantly thermal (fossil fuel or nuclear) system.

But for coal versus gas it is simply a question of economics. If coal is cheaper then you prioritise the use of coal and minimise the use of gas. Reverse that if gas is cheaper.

A complicating factor is that costs are not fixed per unit of output. Eg it costs money to have a coal plant online in the first place, but getting extra output from it is cheap once it's online (you already have staff there, everything is already running etc). So depending on the economics this will change the desirability of using gas versus coal and create a "lumpy" effect. Eg with a carbon tax at a high enough rate it makes sense to keep coal units offline where possible, but once it's running it may still be cheaper to run it flat out and use less gas.

But the overall principle is straightforward. Make coal cost more than gas, and some production will tend to shift from coal to gas, thus cutting the use of coal and increasing the use of gas. That said, it hasn't happened to any major extent with the actual carbon tax we have. There has been a bit of an increase in gas-fired baseload and shoulder period (ie business hours) running, but if you look at it right now then the brown coal plants in Victoria are, with one exception, running at or close to maximum capacity whilst the gas-fired plants are offline doing nothing. So you'd need a considerably higher rate of tax in order to bring about a large scale shift from coal to gas based on the existing power stations.

What about new power station construction? A carbon tax will certainly favour gas over coal. But once built, it still comes down to the day to day running costs. Eg Mortlake power station (Vic) is a brand new gas-fired plant of medium efficiency. It is sitting idle right now whilst the coal-fired plants are running. Meanwhile there are gas-fired units online in SA operating well below capacity with about 22% of the SA load being supplied from Victoria. Enough said.

For a hydro generator it is basically about having a limited supply of fuel (water) and trying to get the best price for it, subject to system constraints. 

It's public knowledge that Hydro Tas is pushing the system as hard as possible whilst the carbon tax is in place in order to maximise revenue. That is certainly not something that has ever been denied, indeed it was publicly announced in July 2012 when the tax commenced that this was the strategy being pursued. Needless to say, production will be throttled back as the carbon tax ends.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I won't enter any personal debates, but here's how power generation is shifted from one source to another without actually building any new power stations.
> 
> This is for a hypothetical grid, but it's broadly similar to the situation in Victoria. Suppose that you have (for simplicity I'm ignoring maintenance outages etc here and keeping it in layman's terms).
> 
> Peak demand of 10,000 MW
> Maximum load on a mild day of 6,000 MW
> Average demand of 5,500 MW
> Normal minimum (excluding blackouts due to storms etc) demand of 4,000 MW
> 
> Coal-fired generation of 6,000 MW
> Hydro generation of 2,000 MW
> Gas-fired generation 2,500 MW
> 
> On a hot day with peak demand, you have to run basically everything flat out or very close to it. You therefore have no choice as to where the power comes from - all available generation needs to be running and there's nothing to spare.
> 
> But at other times you have a lot of choice. Technical factors limit the ability to switch coal plants on and off, but they can certainly be ramped up and down from full load down to (depending on the plant design) 30 - 60% of capacity.
> 
> So on a mild day with 4,000 MW overnight and 6,000 MW during the day there are a lot of options:
> 
> You could meet the entire load from coal, apart from some hydro or gas online as spinning reserve (in case a unit breaks down suddenly).
> 
> Or at the other extreme you could have 2,500 MW of coal-fired plant online, only running at 2,000 MW, and fully use the available gas and hydro.
> 
> For hydro it is usually a case of having a limited water supply and choosing the best time to use it which is itself influenced by recent inflows. If it's dry then run it only to meet the peaks (saving water). If there's a flood then run it flat out 24/7. If it's moderately wet then just run it during business hours. Etc. This is how hydro is normally used in a predominantly thermal (fossil fuel or nuclear) system.
> 
> But for coal versus gas it is simply a question of economics. If coal is cheaper then you prioritise the use of coal and minimise the use of gas. Reverse that if gas is cheaper.
> 
> A complicating factor is that costs are not fixed per unit of output. Eg it costs money to have a coal plant online in the first place, but getting extra output from it is cheap once it's online (you already have staff there, everything is already running etc). So depending on the economics this will change the desirability of using gas versus coal and create a "lumpy" effect. Eg with a carbon tax at a high enough rate it makes sense to keep coal units offline where possible, but once it's running it may still be cheaper to run it flat out and use less gas.
> 
> But the overall principle is straightforward. Make coal cost more than gas, and some production will tend to shift from coal to gas, thus cutting the use of coal and increasing the use of gas. That said, it hasn't happened to any major extent with the actual carbon tax we have. There has been a bit of an increase in gas-fired baseload and shoulder period (ie business hours) running, but if you look at it right now then the brown coal plants in Victoria are, with one exception, running at or close to maximum capacity whilst the gas-fired plants are offline doing nothing. So you'd need a considerably higher rate of tax in order to bring about a large scale shift from coal to gas based on the existing power stations.
> 
> What about new power station construction? A carbon tax will certainly favour gas over coal. But once built, it still comes down to the day to day running costs. Eg Mortlake power station (Vic) is a brand new gas-fired plant of medium efficiency. It is sitting idle right now whilst the coal-fired plants are running. Meanwhile there are gas-fired units online in SA operating well below capacity with about 22% of the SA load being supplied from Victoria. Enough said.
> 
> For a hydro generator it is basically about having a limited supply of fuel (water) and trying to get the best price for it, subject to system constraints.
> 
> It's public knowledge that Hydro Tas is pushing the system as hard as possible whilst the carbon tax is in place in order to maximise revenue. That is certainly not something that has ever been denied, indeed it was publicly announced in July 2012 when the tax commenced that this was the strategy being pursued. Needless to say, production will be throttled back as the carbon tax ends.




You didn't mention renewables, for basillio.


----------



## Logique

What goes around comes around for the CSIRO. 



> http://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/csiro-support-staff-face-huge-job-cuts-20140314-34so6.html
> *CSIRO support staff face huge job cuts*
> 
> ..widespread expectation that much of the agency will be privatised with the loss of up to 3000 public service jobs..
> 
> ..Heads are also expected to roll among the CSIRO's executive ranks with the 22 bosses of divisions and flagships, who all have support staff, vying for just nine jobs heading up the restructured research flagships.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> You didn't mention renewables




In the context of electricity generation into the main grid in Australia, renewables are basically:

1. Large scale hydro. Primarily in Tas and NSW, with some also in Vic and Qld. Hydro is extremely flexible in operation, very predictable and controllable in terms of output, and historically has been the only real source of renewable energy into the grid. As it's directly controllable in the same manner as gas, coal etc and is a major source of generation (particularly NSW, Vic, Tas) I've included it.

2. Large scale wind farms. SA has a lot of them, with significant operations elsewhere too (notably Vic and Tas). But there are some elsewhere too. The trouble is that output is completely uncontrollable. You can have peak demand and wind farms sitting idle or vice versa. Since production is outside the control of any human, and will not in any way respond to short term price changes or to politics, I've excluded it. Existing wind farms will operate the same way regardless of whether coal costs nothing or if it costs $1 million per tonne. The only linkage between coal etc costs and wind is the decision to build wind farms in the first place. 

3. Solar PV. This is primarily located on rooftops, households mainly and a few business and government sites. Other forms of solar electricity are limited to trivial quantities or things like boosting the water temperature at coal-fired plants (ie the solar doesn't add to capacity as such, just displaces a bit of coal). As with wind, production from existing facilities doesn't respond to external price, political or other influences with solar output being a direct function of the weather. It thus does not respond, in the short term, to anything other than the sun.

4. Minor amounts are produced from bagasse (sugar cane waste), landfill gas, sewage gas etc. This is done in a relatively large number of individually very small facilities. These are not a constant power supply, and are not centrally dispatched. Much the same as solar and wind.

I am not in any way opposed to renewable energy, but my post is about the short term (2 years) response of the industry to the carbon tax. Apart from hydro schemes with larger storages, renewable generation from existing facilities is a direct function of short term weather and doesn't respond to the carbon tax (other than by means of a decision to build more renewable generation, but existing facilities carry on regardless).

If you look at any 12 month period, the only real variable in resource use is the total generation from coal, gas and large scale hydro. Everything else simply does whatever it does in accordance with the weather.

Looking ahead, what's likely is a drop in large scale hydro generation after Winter 2014, and a drop in gas-fired generation through to 2017 as the gas price goes up. In the absence of either a substantial fall in consumption and/or the construction of new renewable generation that means we'll see an increase in generation from coal. 

To that effect it is already announced that the Northern power station (coal, SA) will return to full production in August 2014. Likewise it is announced that Swanbank E (gas, Qld) is being mothballed whilst some coal-fired capacity is being returned to service in Qld. Also it's no secret that water release from major storage in Tas will be largely priced out of the market for 2 - 3 years thus cutting hydro generation.

The industry knows exactly where things are going even if politicians haven't figured it out yet. Existing coal-fired plants are set to become increasingly profitable first due to the end of the carbon tax, then as gas prices go through the roof.


----------



## basilio

Thanks for the analysis and summary Smurf.  Really clear.

So it seems that for the short term the direct effect of the carbon tax has been to switch power generators. from coal fired power stations to hydro as far as possible.  Current wind and Solar generators  just keep on going regardless of the carbon price. (I wonder however if the power companies can refuse to take supply if they can get it more cheaply from coal? I think however that the * current legislation *that demands a certain percentage of renewable energy takes care of that issue )

So when the carbon tax is taken off coal fired stations come back into full production including those that have been mothballed because of the tax. Up goes our CO2 emissions

And then the government attempts to use direct action to reduce CO2 emissions......

Is that an accurate interpretation ?

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976

Pretty close.... 

Generating companies have simply responded in a normal commercial manner to changed costs. Those with a cost increase (ie paying carbon tax) have upped their price for supply and, in some cases, concluded that they are uncompetitive at this higher price and have thus mothballed their plant. So this has tended to shift production from one plant to another to some extent.

Those not paying the carbon tax (eg hydro) are simply running a "sprint race" whilst the tax is in. If you look at what's being done, it really is akin to a sprint. Run hard for 2 years, then collapse at the end of it and let the coal-fired generators have their market back at least for a while.

It's no secret that, for example, there's about 270,000 litres of water going through Gordon power station (Tas, hydro) at the moment. That's 270,000 litres per second, and it's been that way since the beginning of last year. No prizes for guessing that the lake is shrinking - measured as a straight vertical drop it is currently about 27 metres from full supply level down to the water and falling at about 10cm per day. It's not about to run dry, there's still about 25 metres of water above the intake, but obviously this represents a "bringing forward" of future production. This is just one example, it's certainly not the only one.


----------



## basilio

*Who says we have a climate change problem and what is their evidence for saying it ?*

The UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences are the peak scientific bodies in both countries. They represent the best scientific minds in the system.

Together they have produced an updated document on CC that pulls together the key research, Basic questions and Answers and the figures behind their work. 

A bit longer than an Andrew Bolt blog but perhaps more scientifically based.




> *Climate Change: Evidence and Causes*
> 
> Climate Change Evidence and Causes Booklet
> Download the Booklet
> 
> Download the full booklet
> Download only the Q&A section of the booklet
> Download only the Climate Basics section of the booklet
> View a gallery of figures from the booklet
> 
> https://nas-sites.org/americasclima...ussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/






> About the Document
> 
> The leadership of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K.’s Royal Society convened a UK-US team of leading climate scientists to produce this brief, readable reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative information on the some of the questions that continue to be asked.
> 
> The publication makes clear what is well-established and where understanding is still developing. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national academies, as well as on the newest climate-change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It touches on current areas of active debate and ongoing research, such as the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming.


----------



## orr

Thanks for the link Bas and to you Smurf... 'your worth more money'


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Thanks for the link Bas and to you Smurf... 'your worth more money'




I did not want to say this but maybe they should be paid in "Carbon Credits" ?


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> I did not want to say this but maybe they should be paid in "Carbon Credits" ?



I bet Basillio, didn't know the ramifications of the current water usage, also the problem with having to supply the baseload to cover the unreliability of boutique renewables.

One has to wonder, how expensive we have to make our electricity, before we can  have a clear conscience.

Maybe when we become third world.

At least then asylum seekers won't be a problem.

The boats will be heading to Indonesia.lol


----------



## basilio

> I bet Basillio, didn't know the ramifications of the current water usage, also the problem with having to supply the baseload to cover the unreliability of boutique renewables.
> QUOTE]




One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems. The URL I listed below is well worth reading on this point

In the longer term the development of solar thermal power stations could replace coal with no need for  back up. The fast development of industrial size battery systems is also an option to temporarily store power from wind /solar energy.



> *Water consumption from coal plants*
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> Power generation has been estimated to be second only to agriculture in being the largest domestic user of water.[1] To produce and burn the 1 billion tons of coal America uses each year, the mining and utility industries withdraw 55 trillion to 75 trillion gallons of water annually, according to the US Geological Survey.[2]




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plants


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Thanks for the analysis and summary Smurf.  Really clear.
> 
> So it seems that for the short term the direct effect of the carbon tax has been to switch power generators. from coal fired power stations to hydro as far as possible.  Current wind and Solar generators  just keep on going regardless of the carbon price. (I wonder however if the power companies can refuse to take supply if they can get it more cheaply from coal? I think however that the * current legislation *that demands a certain percentage of renewable energy takes care of that issue )
> 
> So when the carbon tax is taken off coal fired stations come back into full production including those that have been mothballed because of the tax. Up goes our CO2 emissions
> 
> And then the government attempts to use direct action to reduce CO2 emissions......
> 
> Is that an accurate interpretation ?
> 
> Cheers




Not quite old chum ... The Carbon Tax is merely passed on to the consumer. The big power generating companies don't care how they generate their electricity as they do not pay the tax. They merely add it to the bill of the consumer 



> *QUEENSLAND'S largest power generator will today declare that Australia is one of the world's most expensive countries for energy and warn that the electricity market is being distorted by the carbon tax, mandatory renewables target and solar-rooftop subsidies.*
> 
> After Stanwell took the extraordinary step yesterday of *announcing it would mothball its biggest gas-fired power station and resurrect a coal facility built in the 1980s *- sparking predictions that gas-fired power plants would be withdrawn in other states - it will today call for a scaling back of the renewable energy target.
> 
> Before the introduction of the carbon tax, the RET scheme and solar feed-in tariffs, the abundance of coal had made Australia a source of low-cost electricity, the company will say.
> 
> "These policies appear to have been implemented for ideological reasons with little analysis of the impact on electricity prices and economic growth," Stanwell chief executive officer Richard Van Breda will say.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#

But but but that is not supposed to happen? 

But wait ... electricity demand has been falling PRIOR to the carbon tax as solar PV households takeup the demand:-



> As described above, *the continuing reduction in summer daytime demand *is manifestly cutting the lunch of the big generators, eating into their most profitable trading periods. Unsurprisingly, we are now seeing significant push-back by the energy utilities in an attempt to restrict further take up of the new distributed technologies, and the incentives that have motivated their take up.
> 
> While that’s hardly a surprising reaction from an incumbent, what is surprising is how long its taken for the industry push-back. Now some five years into the decline and the question is, is it too late?
> 
> In its crudest form, the electricity business model has been focussed above all else on selling more electrons. But after yet another summer on the NEM, it is clear that customers are not buying it.
> 
> And looking at the trends, you’d have to be crazy to think the decline will stop. Not only is demand for “poles & wires” electiricty declining because of the new technological drivers, but big energy users are also exiting the market, making for a perfect storm. The recent announcement that the Point Henry aluminium smelter will close, effectively commits a *further reduction in 350 megawatts *- representing about 1.5% of NEM consumption (~7% of Victoria).




http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/18/smart-energy/utilities-say-kodak

And none of this will mean jacksh!t as the population increases and so does transportation and consumerism.



> The total emissions, excluding increases in emissions from land-clearing, came in at 542.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the year to September, or 0.3 per cent lower than a year earlier. When changes in land use are added, *overall emissions for the 12 months came to 567.5 million tonnes, or 1.2 per cent higher*.
> 
> *Pollution from transportation, not covered by the carbon tax, has been rising steadily*, while emissions from coalmine expansion and new gas plants have been soaring. The latter two sources are only partially covered by the carbon tax, now at $24.15 per tonne, with offsets or free permits reducing the cost to polluters.




Crystal balls anyone?


----------



## trainspotter

But what is this? Australia not being told that global temperatures have not risen for 17 years? 



> Dr Pachauri's views contrast with arguments in Australia that *views outside the orthodox position* of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
> 
> Unlike in Britain, there has been* little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming.* Britain's Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134#

Views outside the orthodox position eh? So if you disagree with them then your views/opinions are not valid even though the FACTS are staring you in the face _*ie*_ global temperatures have not risen for 17 years.



> THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, *has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,* confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.




So let's sit back and see what happens in another 30 - 40 years then ... crystal ball anyone?


----------



## basilio

When you  almost solely  use material from The Australian as your source TS you are in trouble if you are trying to establish facts.  On CC The Australian is a systematic liar (with a very few honorable exceptions)
*
What has happened to the climate in the past 17years ?*

The big talking point from CC deniers in the past few years has been the alleged failure of temperatures to actually rise. Or at least that is the story The Australian and co want to push.

*The facts ?*
1) *For a start cherry picking a 17 year period and using that as the basis for saying that CC has halted is  shoddy science.* It  is simply too short a period of time when dealing with long term movements in climate.

2)* Guess what? In fact global temperatures did increase significantly in that period.* One of the issues that was conveniently overlooked was the failure to incorporate very large increases in Arctic temperatures in hat period. When these are included in the graphs - we see a temperature increase

3) *Global warming isn't simply increase in air temperature. *Yes we measure the temperature on land as one indicator of warmth. But there is also increase in ocean temperature, loss of ice cover (melting  ice requires heat) loss of perma frost (ditto). These have all shown steady increases.

4) *Other factors effect climate*  No surprises here. El Niño effects, volcanic eruptions, sun spot activity,other increases in aerosol production that dim the sun and so on. The last decade has seen these activities on a larger scale than "normal" . They have had an effect on increased temperatures . But, and this is the concerning part, despite the conflation of these factors *they  have only made a small dint in the overall effect of increased CO2 levels.  *

*What that suggest is that when we don't have El Niños and reduced sunspot activity etc the effects of CO2 on warming the atmosphere will not be masked.*

The attached references  offer a broader picture on these effects on our climate. And the referance is there to explain why CC denial is so much more attractive than recognising reality.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global_warming_still_happening.html
http://time.com/9717/volcanoes-may-be-slowing-down-climate-change/
http://theconversation.com/how-we-evolved-to-reject-climate-science-10711


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> When you  almost solely  use material from The Australian as your source TS you are in trouble if you are trying to establish facts.  On CC The Australian is a systematic liar (with a very few honorable exceptions)
> 
> The big talking point from CC deniers in the past few years has been the alleged failure of temperatures to actually rise. Or at least that is the story The Australian and co want to push.




Errmmmmmmmm Nope .. it was THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, who acknowledged a 17-year *pause* in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

So if the UN's climate change chief is acknowledging this FACT then there maybe something to this then? 

Which is why I quantified it with this _"So let's sit back and see what happens in another 30 - 40 years then ... crystal ball anyone"_

So Britain's Met Office is wrong? The UN's CC chief Rajendra Pachauri is making this up? Just the facts please.


----------



## wayneL

Oh basilio, whose only reference is the Graniad/Unskeptical Science axis? 

Oh the irony!


----------



## Smurf1976

The King Island Smart Grid iPhone app is about to be released, also the installations are on track as well as the monitoring website etc.

iPhone app provides live data on the grid itself as well as for the individual customer. Website has login for each customer (same as anything you log into - banking etc) and gives more detailed data on their load and smart grid interaction etc.

The images are generic samples, but this is basically how it all looks.

Current data - King Island is running 64% wind / 36% diesel right now. 

For the rest of Tas it's currently 69% hydro, 16% wind, 15% gas with 17% of total generation being sent to Victoria.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems. The URL I listed below is well worth reading on this point
> 
> In the longer term the development of solar thermal power stations could replace coal with no need for  back up. The fast development of industrial size battery systems is also an option to temporarily store power from wind /solar energy.
> 
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plants




Coal fired power stations use cooling water, to condense steam back to water, then reuse that condensed water to make more steam. The steam system and cooling water system are seperate entities. That is what makes me laugh when you see cooling towers in all the adverts,dumb $hit, to feed dumber activists

The solar power stations, you are talking about, will use the same amount of water to condense the steam back to water.

Maybe you should read up more on the thermodynamic cycle, before spewing crap.

It's garbage like that, which tilts the arguement, just based on, as GG would say a 'brain fart'.

Actually it is quite annoying that you, who make youself out to be some sort of knowledge guru with regard this subject.
Doesn't have that sort of fundamental knowledge, it just shows how shallow your arguements are, unfortunately.
Just my opinion. lol


----------



## wayneL

An interesting development at the American Physical Society:

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/



> Finally, Some Real Climate Science
> 
> The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned.......


----------



## basilio

SP I don't know where you find your facts or whether you simply make them up. 

There is excellent information on the amount of water used in Victorian Coal fired power stations. You'll notice if you actually read the reference that there is the opportunity to recycle water - but the Hazelwood plant doesn't do it. 

Solar thermal Power stations will also use water for cooling. But they won't have the extra use associated with coal production.

The simplest search will show how much water is used in coal fired  power stations as well as the whole coal industry. Trashing me for pointing that out is just crap.  Stay civil.

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/index.php?q=content/coal-and-water-use
http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets..._generation_industry_replace_final_280709.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Victorian_coal-fired_electricity_industry_and_water


----------



## basilio

*What we know about Climate Change*

The American Association for the Advancement of Science have released a new report again summarizing what is currently understood about CC. 



> *
> An Alarming Wake-Up Call From A Brand New Report On Climate Change*
> Dina Spector Today at 6:57 AM
> January 2014 Land and Ocean Temperature PercentilesAccording to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2014 was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest for January since reliable record keeping began in 1880.
> 
> The evidence linking human activities to climate change is as strong as the data supporting the idea that smoking causes lung cancer, a new report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) warned on Tuesday.
> 
> “Many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world,” according to the “What We Know” report.




http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...ement-of-science-climate-change-report-2014-3

The full report can be found at the following site

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

_
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world’s largest non-government general science membership organization and the executive publisher of Science, a leading scientific journal.* Its mission is “advance science for the benefit of all people.” Its goals include providing a voice for science on societal issues and promoting the responsible use of science in public policy. There may be no more pressing issue intersecting science and society than climate change and the What We Know initiative was born in response to that reality._


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> An interesting development at the American Physical Society:
> 
> http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/





Well that is going to be so fascinating...

Your skeptical scientists will have to be absolutely on their game if they are going to show evidence that somehow CC is just a myth (_or whatever they want to  say )_.  After all its easy to just make up stories ala Andrew Bolt but coming up with evidence that stands close scrutiny.  Thats another story.

I also suspect that the 50,000 members of the  American Physical Society will have something to say about any proposals.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> SP I don't know where you find your facts or whether you simply make them up.
> ]



I find most of my facts from operating a coal fired power station. Where do source yours? 



basilio said:


> Solar thermal Power stations will also use water for cooling. But they won't have the extra use associated with coal production.]




As I said, over 90% of water loss in steam generalting plant is from evaporation in cooling towers. 
If the power station is located on the coast they use sea water to perform the same function.

Water loss through steam process is minimal, as this has to be made up with demineralised water.

It doesn't matter whether the steam is produced by nuclear, oil, gas, coal or solar heat capture, the water loss and usage will be very similar.

"*One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems*" Is a very missleading statement.IMO

The material handling side may incurr more water usage, but the process water usage is the same. Some boilers actually fire three fuels, coal, gas and fuel oil, the water usage doesn't change.



basilio said:


> Trashing me for pointing that out is just crap.  Stay civil.
> r[/url]




Appologies, I had a bad day.


----------



## basilio

> Appologies, I had a bad day.



 SP

Thanks for that.

Yep you run a coal fired power station. So you certainly know your onions about water use in these systems.

When I said that "one of the biggest users of water at the moment are coal fired power stations" I was just quoting official figures on the subject.  Thats why I left the references. And of course there is the extra water use associated with mining and washing coal and associated pollution. Keeping up water supplies to coal fired powers stations is a very big deal and even more problematic if/when water supplies become critical with CC.

I agree that other steam fired energy sources (including solar thermal) will have similar water requirements. In fact that is  (obviously) one of the factors that needs to be taken into account when looking at alternative renewable energy sources. Can make Wind and Solar PV look better options.




> *Finding Alternative Water Sources for Power Plants with Google Earth*
> May 29, 2013 - 12:07pm
> 
> Technical Writer, Office of Fossil Energy
> 
> Sobering news from experts: Rising populations, regional droughts, and decreasing groundwater levels are draining the nation’s fresh water supply.
> 
> And it’s not just that we’re using that water for our personal consumption; even the electricity we rely on to power our society requires a lot of water.  In fact, major energy producers – like coal-fired power plants, which produce about 40 percent of our electricity – require about 150 billion gallons of fresh water per day to produce the electricity we need.  That withdrawal rate puts a strain on our fresh water supplies, and the shortages have forced coal-fired power plants to curtail or cease production due to a lack of available cooling waters.
> 
> What plant operators need is a system that catalogs in one place nontraditional water sources that can be used for electricity production instead of valuable, limited fresh water.  Now, thanks to a Department of Energy-supported project, there’s an app for that.




http://energy.gov/fe/articles/finding-alternative-water-sources-power-plants-google-earth


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> SP
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> Yep you run a coal fired power station. So you certainly know your onions about water use in these systems.
> 
> When I said that "one of the biggest users of water at the moment are coal fired power stations" I was just quoting official figures on the subject.  Thats why I left the references. And of course there is the extra water use associated with mining and washing coal and associated pollution. Keeping up water supplies to coal fired powers stations is a very big deal and even more problematic if/when water supplies become critical with CC.
> 
> I agree that other steam fired energy sources (including solar thermal) will have similar water requirements. In fact that is  (obviously) one of the factors that needs to be taken into account when looking at alternative renewable energy sources. Can make Wind and Solar PV look better options.







There is extra water used in sootblowing and some ashing functions, however the cooling towers are by far the biggest water loss in thermal generation.

Coal is really on the nose at the moment and its use is being minimised. However currently there are very few options available for base load generation. 

Therein lies the problem, the only "clean" fuel available is LNG, but it is such a waste to push it through a power station. A 200MW steam generator uses about 12kg/sec at full load.
Modern combined cycle use considerably less and are replacing older plants.

LNG can be used to operate any form of heat process (turbines, internal combustion engines, furnaces, household appliances etc) not many fuels have that ability.

We all hope to see the day when renewables are supplying our power requirements. 
Untill that day we really need to think about maximising the efficient use of existing fuels.

There is no point in partially reducing greenhouse gases, only to be forced into having to use coal, when the LNG runs out.


----------



## burglar

sptrawler said:


> ... Appologies, I had a bad day.




Did one bust one's boiler?


----------



## basilio

> We all hope to see the day when renewables are supplying our power requirements.
> Untill that day we really need to think about maximising the efficient use of existing fuels.



 SP

I don't think anyone is saying we can stop coal fired power today or in the near future. They are massive investments that underpin our current energy system.

The point of this part of the  discussion was that putting a price on carbon (in effect pricing the externalities of coal) sends an investment signal to business that non carbon based energy is going to become cost effective and encourages new investment to go in that direction.

The increase in energy costs also encourages industry and consumers to be more energy efficient.  It makes investment in energy savings  more attractive. Thats where maximising the efficient use of existing fuels come in. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation was established to directly support energy efficiency investment as well as developments in clean energy. For example they have just financed Carnegie Wave Energy to kick off their first commercial wave powered energy systems. 

As far as I can see every business model would accept the principle of using a price signal to direct investment in a certain direction.  But this government has decided all of these models are wrong and intends to undo these policies.  Just vandalism. 

http://www.carnegiewave.com/files/asx-announcements/2014/140319_CEFC%20$20m%20deal%20ASX%20announcement.pdf


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well that is going to be so fascinating...
> 
> Your skeptical scientists will have to be absolutely on their game if they are going to show evidence that somehow CC is just a myth (_or whatever they want to  say )_.  After all its easy to just make up stories ala Andrew Bolt but coming up with evidence that stands close scrutiny.  Thats another story.
> 
> I also suspect that the 50,000 members of the  American Physical Society will have something to say about any proposals.




Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth. 

You really should brush up on your integrity.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth.
> 
> You really should brush up on your integrity.





It is the cause being massaged ole Pal,

Is not your attempts to confuse an integrity issue.

And from a supposed referee no less.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> It is the cause being massaged ole Pal,
> 
> Is not your attempts to confuse an integrity issue.
> 
> And from a supposed referee no less.




I am not a referee, please refrain from trying to silence my opinion with such nonsense.

But a good referee will indeed call out unfair play Mr Plod; Basilio continuously misrepresents (AKA lying) the views of non-alarmists.

Non of those scientists, nor myself, purport climate change, or indeed global warming to be a myth. The aim is to clarify not confuse, to highlight dispassionate empirical science, not hysterical advocacy.

Also please do not preach integrity from a position of having none. Misrepresentation is not a position of integrity plod, not one iota.


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> ... Non of those scientists, nor myself, purport climate change, or indeed global warming to be a myth ...




Gee. Even I get that you have been saying this since day one!


----------



## burglar

The Dutch authorities know that flooding will be less manageable into the future 

So instead of trying harder (the basilio way), they are trying smarter!

One example is mitigating flood damage.
There would be minimal damage if houses could float!

floating_houses


----------



## burglar

Another example I posted earlier, was about the tropics growing 3 percent larger.
This would expose 3 percent more people to malaria.

A smart way would be to cure malaria.
A hard way would be to sequester billions of tonnes of CO2








Like Johnny Appleseed, I plant trees everywhere I go.


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> Also please do not preach integrity from a position of having none. Misrepresentation is not a position of integrity plod, not one iota.




Plod is a Greenie. A Greenie with integrity is an oxymoron.


----------



## trainspotter

Carbon Tax to stay 



> LABOR and the Greens have teamed up in the Senate to keep the carbon tax.
> Both parties helped defeat repeal legislation 33 to 29.
> “The Senate has rejected Tony Abbott’s do-nothing approach on global warming and voted to maintain the price on pollution,” Greens Leader Christine Milne said in a statement following the vote.




http://www.news.com.au/national/sen...l-the-carbon-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226860125531


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth.
> 
> You really should brush up on your integrity.




I believe that is why I bracketed _or whatever they want to say _.  We wouldn't want to upset your sensitive feelings would we?

You can say what you like Wayne. The takeaway message I get from you *is a total dismissal of the possibility that CC will pose a serious problem to our society. *

You may accept that something is "happening" with our climate. But it seems quite clear from all that you have said  that 
1) You do not see any likelihood of further significant increase in temperature and therefore
2) You will not acknowledge the possibility that  human caused CC could result in serious problems.

Simply if you did accept the possibility that there was at least a further 2 Degrees C. increase in global temperatures coming as a result of our emissions you would have to support actions to slow, stop or reverse the process. That increase alone will result in a rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap. 

Of course you are welcome to clarify your position at any time.

What do your learned friends believe ? We'll find out won't we when they produce their research at the Amercian Physical Society.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> As far as I can see every business model would accept the principle of using a price signal to direct investment in a certain direction.  But this government has decided all of these models are wrong and intends to undo these policies.




The problem is that the price signal is optional whereas it needs to be compulsory.

Someone can choose to pay the carbon price in Australia, or can put their operation somewhere else with no such price. In an industry where energy is a major cost, and those are the very industries which contribute most to emissions, relocation is a very workable way of avoiding the carbon cost.

So it needs to be applied at the same nominal rate in all countries, not just Australia, in order to work as intended. Therein lies the problem.....

As for the politics of it all, this one's going to be rather interesting I think. Labor and the Greens acting to keep the carbon tax. Where does that lead now? 

One potential problem for the power industry is that if the tax is scrapped but on some date other than 1st July and an attempt is made, for political reasons, to backdate it. 

The problem relates to impact on the dispatch process and thus prices. That is, how can a coal or gas power station know what prices to offer without knowing what their costs are? If the market price is $50 at the time and you're paying half that in carbon tax then it makes a huge difference. So potentially we would have generators operating on a carbon tax inclusive cost basis, then being credited back the tax paid after 1st July at some point. Trouble is, their actual operations would be significantly different in some cases with or without the tax. Do they gamble that they aren't going to have to pay the tax and operate accordingly? Or do they operate on the basis that the tax still applies? What if some do one thing and others do something different? It gets incredibly messy real quick.

So if it's still going to be repealed but there is uncertainty over the timing then the most workable approach is to not make any attempt to backdate it. That makes it a lot more workable for the industry (though makes things more complicated for the federal Treasury no doubt).


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I believe that is why I bracketed _or whatever they want to say _.  We wouldn't want to upset your sensitive feelings would we?



Rubbish, it was an intended mendacious slur and you know it.



> You can say what you like Wayne. The takeaway message I get from you *is a total dismissal of the possibility that CC will pose a serious problem to our society. *




That is because (as is obvious) you have a total incapability to objectively evaluate anything, from science to the comments of people on fora. I see climate change has severely affected several societies since time immemoriam. It may affect ours, however I do not know (and neither does anyone else) if, when and HOW that may happen. 



> You may accept that something is "happening" with our climate. But it seems quite clear from all that you have said  that
> 1) You do not see any likelihood of further significant increase in temperature and therefore
> 2) You will not acknowledge the possibility that  human caused CC could result in serious problems.




Also rubbish, Temperature may rise, fall, stabilize in any sequence according to a host of factors, have never denied any possibility



> Simply if you did accept the possibility that there was at least a further 2 Degrees C. increase in global temperatures coming as a result of our emissions you would have to support actions to slow, stop or reverse the process. That increase alone will result in a rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap.




And this is where we diverge basilio, you and your alarmist cult take this scenario to be a deterministic fact. I and presumably the scientists mentioned prefer to objectively view the climate as a chaotic (in the physics sense) system with many more inputs other than a fixation on CO2 levels. The empirical evidence thus far (IMO) indicates that any change will be beyond our capabilities to control, but less than catastrophic and at odds with the alarmist view.

That is, and has been my position for quite some time now, so please desist from misrepresenting that if you want to gradually separate yourself from your currently deserved reputation as a misrepresentative liar.


----------



## basilio

Funny  Wayne how you can continually misrepresent reality to suit your own purposes.  

Sure Climate changes as a result of many factors.  And clearly we know know far more about these than we ever have.  

And one of the things our scientific community has recognised is that greenhouse gases trap heat and that is why we have a far warmer Earth than we otherwise would.

In that context the human produced increase in greenhouse gas emissions has been identified as the major cause of increases in global temperatures in the last 100 odd years.  So continuing to increase GG gases at the current exponential is going to result in continued increase in temperature.  (not to mention a range of others issues like ocean acidification )

*Exactly *how much ? Well how certain can we be? Thats why I expressed  the situation as


> the possibility that there was at least a further 2 Degrees C. increase in global temperatures coming as a result of our emissions




Somehow you have managed to convince yourself that our CO2 emissions are just a small part of any climatic influence.  Therefore there is no point in trying to reduce CO2 emissions because that won't have any significant effect of the climate.

And anyway whatever change happens it won't be that bad.

Great mate.  Now lets see if your  hot shot scientists can come up with a cogent series of arguments backed up with evidence to convince the American Physical society.

But meanwhile of course you and your deluded mates are just so absolutely certain that 

1) we can do nothing and 
2 ) that nothing really really serious will happen anyway

that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.

*Now thats determinism*.

_____________________________________________________________________________

_Hope for the best. Prepare for the  worst._

(Thanks SP trawler)


----------



## trainspotter

FFS ... weather people / climate scientists / alarmists / whoever can't even predict whether or not it is going to rain / increase in temperature / snow / whatever with any accuracy in any given week. How the hell are we expected to believe or accept what MIGHT happen in 20 / 30 / 50 / insert digit here / years time? 

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Go and do some research in the grand scheme of things ...



> Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago).


----------



## basilio

Fascinating TS.  According to the graph you posted there appears to be no temperature increase from 1979 to 2009.

A couple of questions

1) Do you believe this graph accurately represents changes of temperature  on the earth since 1979 ?

2) Why do you accept this graph as an appropriate measuring stick ?

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Fascinating TS.  According to the graph you posted there appears to be no temperature increase from 1979 to 2009.
> 
> A couple of questions
> 
> 1) Do you believe this graph accurately represents changes of temperature  on the earth since 1979 ?
> 
> 2) Why do you accept this graph as an appropriate measuring stick ?
> 
> Cheers




There is a "slight" temperature increase basilio of 0.04% 

A couple of answers

1) Yes because it correlates with NASA graphs which evidence since 1880 the temperature has risen 0.51% since 1880. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/668

2) See answer above.





Yes I am aware one graph is the lower troposphere and the other is land based.


----------



## trainspotter

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-7.html

IPCC can't be wrong now can they ?


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-7.html
> 
> IPCC can't be wrong now can they ?




IPCC reports are adapted/massaged to fit with what is acceptable politically (the guvmints) before public release.

Source "climate wars"


----------



## basilio

TS I'm confused 

I'm trying to see how the graph you provided correlates with the NASA graph. For a start it only goes back to 1979 so clearly there is only a very short period to compare. 

Comments ?

_________________________________________________________
Also I would have thought the NASA graph was indicating that Global warming was very real and clearly demonstrated. Is that what you are trying to say ?


----------



## basilio

TS while your looking at pretty pictures from the troposphere check out the following graphs in the  URL. 

They show increase of between. .47 and .52 C for the same period. They use Spencers and Christys information.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/02/graph-of-the-day-satellite-temperature-records/


----------



## Smurf1976

The big problem with any change in climate is that practically all major man-made systems are based on our understanding of what is "normal".

Homes in Darwin are built with cyclones in mind but not snow. Homes in Tasmania are built with cold weather in mind but not cyclones. If it snows in Darwin and a cyclone hits Hobart then we'd likely see many deaths in Darwin due to the cold, and outright devastation in Hobart.

At a less extreme level the same applies. What is the temperature limit for the safe operation of the rail transport systems in Sydney or Melbourne? I don't know the answer, but there would certainly be a design limit. If we start exceeding that on a regular basis then it's not going be cheap to essentially rebuild the entire rail network, and to do so quickly.

Water supply, hydro power, irrigation and agriculture in general were all developed with respect to "normal" weather conditions at the time. Even a small change in rainfall and temperature wreaks havoc with all of these and we're talking about things which actually matter here - food, water, power so all pretty basic things to have available.

I'm not arguing for or against anything in particular with regard to CO2. But if the climate is changing, for whatever reason, then we'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences. This may require the relatively rapid investment of huge sums of money and physical resources. I wouldn't like to speculate on the actual costs, but we'd likely be rounding it to the nearest $10 billion I'd expect and needing to do it fairly quickly. 

The 1976 and 1997 climate "events" are a case in point. Both were a sudden, seemingly permanent (or at least long enough to be considered effectively permanent) change in weather. In the Australian context they primarily have affected south-west WA and Tasmania. Costs have been fairly significant thus far. Somewhere around $1.7 billion for urban water supply in WA. Hydro Tas is spending $400 million on capital works and in 2014 $ has incurred a $1.5 billion combination of higher operating costs / lower revenue in the meantime. Then there's the fortune being spent on irrigation in a place (Tas) that didn't really need it in the past. $220 million of government funds, plus an unknown but large amount of private money. Then there's the operating costs on top of all that.

So we get a relatively minor change that affects two parts of the country only, and it costs us $ billions to address only some of the impacts. We'd be wise to set aside a lot more than that in order to deal with any relatively sudden changes which affect somewhere more heavily populated.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.



Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.


> *Now thats determinism*.



You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.


----------



## basilio

> Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> 
> 
> 
> that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another dirty filthy misrepresentation. I realize that it is most likely impossible due to patholgy of some description, but you should try debating on honest terms sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> Now thats determinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not seem to understand what determinism means. However, if you do, this is another example of an appalling debating technique, obfuscating the point with purulent and tortuous distortions.
Click to expand...



Tone down the rhetoric/abuse please Wayne.

It's not a good look..


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Tone down the rhetoric/abuse please Wayne.
> 
> It's not a good look..




There is nothing rhetorical or abusive in that post, merely empirical observations.

Stop lying and I stop picking you up on it


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> There is nothing rhetorical or abusive in that post, *merely empirical observations*  ???.
> 
> Stop lying and I stop picking you up on it




Really ???

So sad..


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> The big problem with any change in climate is that practically all major man-made systems are based on our understanding of what is "normal".
> 
> Homes in Darwin are built with cyclones in mind but not snow. Homes in Tasmania are built with cold weather in mind but not cyclones. If it snows in Darwin and a cyclone hits Hobart then we'd likely see many deaths in Darwin due to the cold, and outright devastation in Hobart.




I do have to laugh though being an ex North Queenslander , that when we used to have a category 1 cyclone ( 90 kmr winds) 500 km for Cairns in the Coral Sea. The whole city would shut down and people would be taping their windows and stocking up on supplies like it was going to be world war III. And then nothing happens.
Here in Hobart we get 140 kmr winds blow through ,with little or no warning and it's just another windy day.:


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Here in Hobart we get 140 kmr winds blow through ,with little or no warning and it's just another windy day.:



Indeed, although I've often thought that the strongest winds we get (the highest I can remember is about 170 km/h) are getting pretty close to the point where something bad would happen if it was stronger.

I remember the big blow about 5 - 6 years ago. It was strongest on the Eastern Shore (170 km/h was the max recorded) and I woke up with a very loud noise that sounded like a saw cutting through wood (turned out to be roofing iron vibrating in the wind) and you could feel the house moving a bit. Give it another 30 or so km/h and I think there would have been a lot more destruction than just a few trees and power lines down etc.

It's like that feeling you get driving a car quickly around a bend or on a track etc. You just know that it's on the edge of losing control, any faster and you'll be in trouble. I think the same way about strong winds. Houses start to move, you can just feel it, trees come down, power lines come down, fences are blown over etc. I don't think it would need to be too much stronger in order to cause fairly serious damage.

PS - Just an addition to my previous post in that I do realise that Darwin has previously seen major devastation due to a cyclone. But to my understanding when they rebuilt, they built everything to withstand such events in case it happens again. That's my understanding at least, no doubt those who live there will be more familiar with it than I am.


----------



## basilio

The issue of pressure on water supplies as a result of increased energy demand is becoming clearer. This is particularly the case with coal fired power stations (or solar thermal) .  Clearlty far less of an issue with Solar PV or wind power.

Just another reason to reconsider the use of fossil fuels for supplyimg baseload power.




> *Growing global thirst for energy threatens water supplies*
> Soaring energy demands will pile pressure on already strained water resources, warns the UN on eve of world water day
> 
> \
> Claire Provost
> theguardian.com, Friday 21 March 2014 23.07 AEST
> *
> MDG : A coal power plant in Neurath, Germany
> Energy production accounts for almost 15% of global water usage. *Photograph: Reuters
> 
> Growing demand for energy will put increasing pressure on the world's already strained water resources, particularly in developing and emerging economies, the UN has warned.
> 
> "There is an increasing potential for serious conflict between power generation, other water users and environmental considerations," it says in the world water development report, published on the eve of world water day on Saturday.
> 
> Energy production accounts for close to 15% of the world's water usage, but that figure could rise. By 2035, water use for energy is projected to jump by 20%, the report says. Water demand, meanwhile, could increase by 55% by 2050.
> 
> Much of this is due to growing populations and economies in China, India and the Middle East, says the report, which pulls together data from a range of studies. Some 90% of the global increase in demand for energy in the coming years will come from outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), club of rich countries, it notes.
> 
> "Demand for fresh water and energy will continue to increase over the coming decades to meet the needs of growing populations and economies, changing lifestyles and evolving consumption patterns, greatly amplifying existing pressures on limited natural resources and on ecosystems," the report says.
> 
> *About 90% of power generation is water-intensive, says the report, which warns that less conventional oil and gas production, including via tar sands and fracking – along with biofuels – place particularly large demands on water resources.*



http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-supplies


----------



## basilio

The new IPCC Climate Change report is about to be released.  The Age has highlighted the Draft report.
The graphs indicating  the extent of extreme weather conditions is confronting. 



> *New IPCC climate report projects significant threats to Australia
> *
> Date
> March 23, 2014
> 
> 24 reading now
> 
> Fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.
> 
> Australia's multibillion-dollar mining, farming and tourism industries face significant threats as worsening global warming causes more dangerous and extreme weather, the world's leading climate science body will warn.
> 
> A final draft of a five-year assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - seen by Fairfax Media - details a litany of global impacts from intensifying climate change including the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, reduced crop yields and the loss of trillions of dollars from the global economy.
> 
> The report is the second part of the IPCC's fifth major assessment and focuses on climate change's impacts and how the world might adapt. It will be finalised at a meeting in Japan next weekend before its release on March 31.
> 
> *The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse, in particular high confidence that fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.*
> 
> There is also significant risk of increased damage and death from heatwaves resulting from more frequent extreme high temperatures. Flood risk too would be worse.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/n...o-australia-20140323-35b1r.html#ixzz2wlSloilW


----------



## basilio

Obviously a hotter Australia with many more days of 40plus temperatures means  bush fire danger will be extreme. California is facing that scenario this year.




> *California officials prepare for worst as historic drought deepens wildfire risk*
> *Severe lack of rain and sun-scorched earth means that when it comes to fire risks, California is now in a class of its own*
> 
> California is facing wildfires "outside of any normal bounds" as a historic drought turns drying brush and trees into a perfect tinderbox, officials have warned. The state recorded 665 wildfires from 1 January, about three times the average of 225 for this time of year, according to figures compiled by Cal Fire, the state's department of forestry and fire protection.
> 
> Each day without heavy rain deepened the risks of a catastrophic fire season and made it hard to deal with more wildfires if and when they broke out, officials warned. John Laird, the secretary for natural resources, told the Guardian: "This is going to be a fire season outside any normal bounds. Anything could happen at any time."




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/19/california-drought-wildfires-danger


----------



## Ijustnewit

Tasmanian Farmer pursues Hydro-Electric dream. Story from ABC & Landline .



www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-23/tasmanian-familys-hydro-electric-dream/5339476?section=tas


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Tasmanian Farmer pursues Hydro-Electric dream.




Have a farm with a river running through it, get yourself a job working with big hydro schemes, then build your own small one. Can't fault that strategy really.

Hydro-electricity is a bit like a lot of things. You either "get it" or you don't, and if you "get it" then all of a sudden you start to see water in a very different way. 

As for the political side of it, the constant changing of the rules is a massive problem for both large and small operators and makes it difficult for anyone to invest in power production be it hydro, wind, solar, gas, coal or whatever. It's all difficult when you have government constantly changing the rules.


----------



## basilio

I was just having a look at another thread on the carbon Tax and Noco was again strident in the view that volcanoes put out far more CO2 than human activity. His source was Ian Plimers book "Heaven and Earth"

*Ian Plimers assertion is simply wrong.* It has been disproved and discredited for years. But that hasn't changed the views of many people who hang on to what are just outright deceptions.

The reaction to Ian Plimers book has been interesting. On the one hand climate change deniers have  embraced it. Starting with Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, The Australian and finishing with Tony Abbott, Plimer received rave reviews and respect. If you check out the document you can find all the supporters and their comments noted at the end.

But on the other hand the scientific community in total  has completely dissed it 

I suppose the argument from a skeptic point of view is that "the scientists are just defending their dark, dirty secrets " or "they would say that wouldn't they ?"

So to respond to claims of self interest it's essential to know exactly what scientists found so *completely illogical, dishonest and unscientific *about Ian Plimers book.

Check out the following paper for that analysis. I have copied the introduction.



> *Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims*
> Ian G. Enting
> Version 2.2
> ARC Centre of Excellence for
> Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems
> The University of Melbourne
> 
> Overview
> Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse
> gases. Overall:
> 
> • it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
> 
> • *in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often misquoted*. Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations.
> 
> Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:
> 
> a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
> 
> b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
> ‘mainstream’ analyses;
> 
> c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points  a  and   b
> .
> Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:
> 
> *• misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
> 
> • has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
> 
> • has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
> what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
> 
> • has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source
> *



http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91


----------



## basilio

The following reference is for those who might like a more direct version of just how dishonest Ian Plimer was in his book.




> *The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”*
> Posted by Tim Lambert on April 23, 2009
> 
> 
> I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer’s approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no “evidential basis” that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming
> 
> 
> 
> is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion. For example, he blindly accepts EG Beck’s CO2 graph. And remember Khilyuk and Chilingar? The guys who compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn’t matter. As I wrote earlier:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn’t care whether what they write is true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plimer doesn’t cite them once he cites them three times.*
Click to expand...


http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/23/the-science-is-missing-from-ia/


----------



## trainspotter

Oh yes and the IPCC is NEVER wrong nor dishonest now are they?

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/02/ipccclimategate-criticism-roundup



> The section of the 2007 IPCC report that deals with climate impacts, called Working Group II, included a statement in its chapter on Asia (see p. 493) that *Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other glaciers on Earth* and “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” That statement was challenged by an Indian government report released late last year that suggested, qualitatively, that* “many” Himalayan glaciers were instead growing in size and that others were stable.* (The report’s conclusions were first widely publicized in a November story in Science, and the flimsy basis for the “very high” statement in the 2007 report is detailed here, in a letter to Science by a Canadian expert on glaciers.




Now back to the NASA Graph thingy .... (love the way they cover their @rse by making general statements)



> *Because of the large natural variability of climate,* scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do *expect* a continuing temperature rise over decades.




http://climate.nasa.gov/news/668

The graph from NASA was land based temperatures and comparing it to the other graph from http://algorelied.com/?p=1332 was lower troposphere evidenced that it depends on whose "science" you want to believe and who / how they created the "graph" and what "modelling" they used.

Is the globe getting hotter? It would seem that if you look closely at this graph below it clearly shows with empirical evidence that it does not matter who you believe but more along the lines of until China and the USA start controlling the pollution (read Co2) then what we do here in Australia means jack **** !!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> The issue of pressure on water supplies as a result of increased energy demand is becoming clearer. This is particularly the case with coal fired power stations (or solar thermal) .  Clearlty far less of an issue with Solar PV or wind power.
> 
> Just another reason to reconsider the use of fossil fuels for supplyimg baseload power.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-supplies




Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel. 



> HADERA, Israel ”” Israel has gone through one of the driest winters in its history, but despite the lean rainy season, the government has suspended a longstanding campaign to conserve water.
> 
> The familiar public messages during recent years of drought, often showing images of parched earth, have disappeared from television despite weeks of balmy weather with record low rainfalls in some areas.
> 
> The level of the Sea of Galilee, the country’s natural water reservoir, is no longer closely tracked in news reports or the subject of anxious national discussion.
> 
> *The reason: Israel has in recent years achieved a quiet water revolution through desalination.*
> 
> With four plants currently in operation, all built since 2005, and a fifth slated to go into service this year, Israel is meeting much of its water needs by purifying seawater from the Mediterranean. *Some 80 percent of domestic water use in Israeli cities comes from desalinated water*, according to Israeli officials.
> 
> Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/20/4903352/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html#storylink=cpy




Also means if Greenland and the North and South Poles melt and that the ocean levels rise means more water to be had to be desalinated thusly decreasing the ocean levels ... win bloody win for everyone I reckon 

Warmer climate, plenty of water, ocean levels steady ... where's the downside?


----------



## CanOz

Now if you can desal with renewable power that would be sweet....desal is still expensive...


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.




I think the point that is often not well understood is that we can have pretty much any material we like, provided that we have the energy to extract and refine it.

Energy is ultimately the primary limit so far as human activity is concerned. For example, without energy Australia's iron ore is absolutely worthless and so too is most of our agricultural land. No energy = no ability to refine metals and no ability to transport anything further than we can do it with muscle power.

Try living just one day in your own life without the use of oil, gas or electricity or things produced by them and see how you go. "Completely stuffed" is the answer most will very quickly come up with under this scenario.

As a society, we really need to come to grips with this one and devise a workable plan as to where we're going. It's an issue that goes far beyond questions of climate change or the impact of wind and hydro developments that have been debated at various times over the years. 

A few points:

1. Oil fuels practically all of our transport apart from a few electric trains. But even in Melbourne with its' substantial train and tram system, oil is still by far the dominant transport fuel. And in most of the country it's the only transport fuel we use at all.

But Australian oil production has peaked, and globally traded oil is also now shrinking. We are competing for an increasing slice of a shrinking pie. If this continues then there's likely to be trouble ahead at some point.

2. Gas fuels most industrial heat etc applications as well as much domestic and commercial heat. It also fuels a significant amount of electricity generation and is the only real alternative we have available for transport in most situations.

But we're now committing to export virtually all gas not already signed up for domestic use, thus leaving nothing for the future.

3. Electricity is actually the least of our worries. Sure, coal is the dominant source but at least we've still got a lot of coal in the ground. Electricity is also the only form of commercial energy that we can easily produce from renewables - wind, solar, hydro, geothermal - they all produce electricity, not transport fuels, as their output.

Solar is the only real exception there, it can provide direct heat, but its' only really useful in lower grade applications. Eg you can heat water quite easily with the sun, but good luck trying to run a solar powered steel works or even a paper mill would be problematic.

20 years from now, what are we going to be using as a transport fuel? That's the real, difficult question we need to be asking ourselves. CO2 coming out of the stacks at Loy Yang (huge power station in Vic) may well be a problem, but it sure isn't the only energy related issue we've got.

If the (mostly imported) diesel stops then Australia stops - that's a massive risk. No diesel = no trucks, no tractors and very few freight trains = we're in deep **** real quick.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.
> 
> Also means if Greenland and the North and South Poles melt and that the ocean levels rise means more water to be had to be desalinated thusly decreasing the ocean levels ... win bloody win for everyone I reckon
> 
> Warmer climate, plenty of water, ocean levels steady ... where's the downside?




TS is this for real ???  Really ? Truly ?

Do you want to tell us just how high sea levels will rise if even a part of Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt? And like, where that water will end up ?

You arn't a fool TS  are you ?


----------



## robusta

burglar said:


> Some of the warming is induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
> Most of it is produced by the Sun.
> 
> Leastways, that's the way I understand it.




Yep that's the way I understand it as well. So the next obvious question is what can we control?


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... No diesel = no trucks, no tractors and very few freight trains = we're in deep **** real quick.




Some of us understand this!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS is this for real ???  Really ? Truly ?
> 
> Do you want to tell us just how high sea levels will rise if even a part of Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt? And like, where that water will end up ?
> 
> You arn't a fool TS  are you ?




Yes basilio it is real. Israel is using desalination to turn saltwater to freshwater. As Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt it is unlikely that they will ALL melt at the same time so therefore as they are melting the desalination plants would pump the water out of the ocean at approx the same time. The desalination plants would use less electricity to turn saltwater to freshwater as the oceans would now be a lot less salty !! Just a theory of mine.

You started it with posting up IPCC as a credible source !!



> Struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.
> 
> 
> The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/



> In other words, global warming is a lot more complicated than we’ve been led to believe – and possibly a lot less catastrophic. There is growing evidence that the climate simply isn’t as sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as we thought it was.As for those much-hyped climate models – they’re worthless, at least in the short term. They couldn’t predict what’s just happened. *A recent study by Francis Zwiers and other scientists at the University of Victoria, published in this month’s Nature Climate Change, examined more than a hundred climate-model simulations and found that almost all of them had “significantly” overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.*When it comes to the intricacies of climate change, the science is notoriously unsettled.




http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...olf-vastly-overstating-what-the-science-says/


----------



## basilio

> Yes basilio it is real. Israel is using desalination to turn saltwater to freshwater. As Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt it is unlikely that they will ALL melt at the same time so therefore as they are melting the desalination plants would pump the water out of the ocean at approx the same time. The desalination plants would use less electricity to turn saltwater to freshwater as the oceans would now be a lot less salty !! Just a theory of mine.  T.S




This theory  is not going to fly TS.  Why ?
1) Unfortunately if/when Global Warming continues it's path all the ice is up for grabs. Obviously it won't all melt at once but be assured that whether it be glaciers, Greenland,  Arctic ice or Antarctic ice the ice melt will be considerable. They won't be waiting in turn...

2) The oceans are at their current level as a result of the current amount of water tied up with ice around the world.  The amount of water on Earth stays the same . So when we have glaciation sea levels fall as water is held in expanding ice packs. And conversely sea levels rise when the ice melts

3) Yes you can turn sea water into fresh water and pump it on land. But ultimately that water ends up as part of the water cycle and goes back into the ocean  (unless it freezes..)  We have a closed system

4) Sea water becoming less saline  as ice melts ? Hmm. Yes possibly - when the whole ice pack melts and sea levels are 80 metres higher.  Interested in finding out ?

Second thoughts ?

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> This theory  is not going to fly TS.  Why ?
> 1) Unfortunately if/when Global Warming continues it's path all the ice is up for grabs. Obviously it won't all melt at once but be assured that whether it be glaciers, Greenland,  Arctic ice or Antarctic ice the ice melt will be considerable. They won't be waiting in turn...
> 
> 2) The oceans are at their current level as a result of the current amount of water tied up with ice around the world.  The amount of water on Earth stays the same . So when we have glaciation sea levels fall as water is held in expanding ice packs. And conversely sea levels rise when the ice melts
> 
> 3) Yes you can turn sea water into fresh water and pump it on land. But ultimately that water ends up as part of the water cycle and goes back into the ocean  (unless it freezes..)  We have a closed system
> 
> 4) Sea water becoming less saline  as ice melts ? Hmm. Yes possibly - when the whole ice pack melts and sea levels are 80 metres higher.  Interested in finding out ?
> 
> Second thoughts ?
> 
> Cheers




1) Well they are melting and freezing at different rates now? What is the difference in the projected future from a scientific point of view? Got any links to prove this statement of yours?

2) 97% of Earths water is in the oceans with only 2% in the Cryosphere.  The remaining fraction at any given time in the atmosphere, in lakes and streams, and in the soil plays unique and important roles. The flow of water on the surface is a major determinant of the configuration of the physical environment. Soil moisture is essential to most terrestrial plant life. The stocks and flows of surface and ground water are major links in the transport and cycling of chemical nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and carbon) and important determinants of what kinds and intensities of human activity can be supported in what locations.

3) By pumping it on the land will create more arable and habitable areas for mankind to thrive. Less than 1 percent of available water is usable by humans and other members of the biosphere. Water is continually being shifted (recycled) from one of these reservoirs to another in the water cycle. The total amount of water in the different reservoirs remains nearly constant with time on a short time scale, but it can change for various reasons. These changes have profound effects on the biosphere. For example, it is known that the temperature of the Earth can fluctuate on time scales varying from years to centuries to thousands to millions of years. Therefore, both alpine and continental glaciers have decreased and increased in size as a result of regional and worldwide climatic change. A consequence of these fluctuations in the cryosphere is that the amount of water in each reservoir of the hydrologic cycle has changed over time.  

4) 80 metres?? Put the crack pipe down. The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37 °C, *so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.*

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. *If it melted sea levels would not be affected.* 

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another *7 meters *(20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

Second thoughts?


----------



## Smurf1976

We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).

Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).


----------



## Knobby22

Smurf1976 said:


> We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).
> 
> Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).




I worked on the St Kilda foreshore project which was done about 5 years ago.
As part of the works they built a sea wall 1 metre higher than what existed to protect the heart of St Kilda.
I am sure we can protect Melbourne through this method though it will be expensive. 
Not sure about Sydney though. In Hobart you can live on the hill :shrug:  

(you'd think there would be a shrug emoticon, there are so many stupid ones like ninja)


----------



## Samtheman

"Global warming" is a political/economical propaganda term havnt bothered reading books on it because i dont really care, in one of the finance lectures i was watching online the guy mentioned carbon credits were conceived at.... enron lmao. Gore must of thought it was a profitable business idea too. This is a Phd astrophysicist whos book i have read (on astronomy not on global warming) he gives a good run down on global warming i was hooked within listening to him within a few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HAGBC2Pdw


----------



## banco

Samtheman said:


> "Global warming" is a political/economical propaganda term havnt bothered reading books on it because i dont really care, in one of the finance lectures i was watching online the guy mentioned carbon credits were conceived at.... enron lmao. Gore must of thought it was a profitable business idea too. This is a Phd astrophysicist whos book i have read (on astronomy not on global warming) he gives a good run down on global warming i was hooked within listening to him within a few minutes.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HAGBC2Pdw




So you haven't read any books on it but are convinced it's BS?  You sound very well informed.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).
> 
> Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).




Yes it really cracks me up when you see the trailers to the U.S shows "ncis wherever, miami spice, or any other U.S seaboard port.
They are almost underwater already, and we should worry?

I'm sure if the oceans of the world lift 20cm, the backup levels further up the Rhine and Danube, will flood most of industrialised Europe.

The rest of the world has a much bigger problem than us, so why do we have to pin ourselves on a cross, when they don't see an issue.
Or on the other hand, are we beating up an issue, that no one else sees? Is it another little willy issue.


----------



## Smurf1976

Knobby22 said:


> I am sure we can protect Melbourne through this method though it will be expensive.
> Not sure about Sydney though. In Hobart you can live on the hill




The problem is really one of existing infrastructure. Eg there's a lot in Sydney that's based on the current sea level. That alone would cost a fortune to deal with.

Or even something as simple as roads. Eg in Hobart we have a very major road in the CBD (Davey St) that is just above sea level during a high tide at present. OK, so we could fix one road, but depending on the scale of a rise then we're talking about lots of roads in lots of places all over the country.

20cm = probably not a big deal.

10 metres = huge problem in practice. Everything from sewage works to bridges will need a fortune spent to move, modify or protect them.

I won't claim to know how much of a sea level rise is likely, I'm just observing the practical consequences if it did happen.


----------



## burglar

A shrug emote for knobby22



sptrawler said:


> ... They are almost underwater already ...




Ohhh sptrawler,

That's what makes them ports !!:


----------



## burglar

banco said:


> So you haven't read any books on it but are convinced it's BS?  You sound very well informed.




The way I read it:

He hasn't read any books on it because







> he doesn't care




Whether it is BS or no, was not in his discussion.
Though it may have been in the provided link, which I haven't opened because







> I don't care





Furthermore, the topic of the thread is clearly not about whether it is BS or no.
But rather about the alleged hysteria generated by vested interests.


----------



## basilio

Interesting discussion about the impact of rising sea levels. It wouldn't take much to cause very big problems would it ?

I  suggest  the *penny of consequences *is starting to drop with National governments around the world.  Check out the following story.




> *'Events, dear boy, events' have put climate change back on the agenda*
> 
> *The decline of climate change on leaders' agendas has been reversed – not by new analysis, but two years of extreme weather*
> 
> 
> British prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked what was the most difficult thing about his job. ‘Events, dear boy, events’ was his now famous reply.
> 
> Put more colloquially, and much less elegantly, stuff happens and politicians have to deal with it. Things that happen can transform the political landscape, for better or worse, in a flash as Margaret Thatcher discovered in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Her successful response to this event transformed a looming electoral defeat into victory.
> 
> *Analysis is a far less insistent driver of politics. Governments can, and often do, ignore analysis, even to the point of disaster.* Successive US governments were warned time and again by intelligence analysts that they were losing the war in Vietnam. But this was never enough to stop the war. One unmanned Sputnik briefly circulating the planet was, however, enough to release billions of dollars into the successful American effort to put a man on the moon.
> 
> Until the unfortunate climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 the politics of climate change was primarily driven by analysis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by governments in 1988. Its job is to advice the 120 participating governments on the science of climate change. In the subsequent 26 years it has published five assessment reports based on the published scientific literature on climate change.
> 
> Its summary for policy makers is agreed line-by-line by governments and has so far led to climate legislation in 66 countries. Each report has increased confidence in the science of climate change and alerted politicians to the magnitude and urgency of the issue. Copenhagen, however, revealed the depth of the political difficulty of taking their advice. Combined with the aftermath of the banking crisis, this led to a significant lowering of climate change on the agenda of global leaders.
> 
> *This decline has now been reversed. Among the global leaders who have already put their mark on the issue in the run up to the climate summit in Paris in 2015 are President Obama, President Xi, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. It is not new analysis that has led to the restoration of climate change to the leaders agenda. This has simply reinforced what we already know. It is events, in particular two successive years of extreme weather events all over the world, that are now drawing political leaders back to the issue. *




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/26/events-climate-change-extreme-weather


----------



## Knobby22

burglar said:


> View attachment 57368
> 
> A shrug emote for knobby22
> 
> :




Looks like he accidentally stood on something and doesn't want anyone to notice.


----------



## basilio

TS that was a pretty comprehensive response to my concerns about your theory on using  desalination to (effectively speaking) transfer melting ice caps to land irrigation.

I still cannot conceive how any type of desalination process will be effective at permanently moving Greenlands ice cap onto land.  The volumes are simply too big.   That puts aside the enormous energy requirements to do the desal in the first place. As Smurf indicated they will pose their own problems.

On the other hand I could take a long term view and consider the following scenario.

Carnegie Wave Energy in WA is developing a wave based energy system which could in fact act as a desalination plant. Imagine a continual supply of fresh water piped into a currently near desert environment to feed millions of trees.

Over an extended period of time these trees prosper with the continual supply of water. As they mature into a forest they become, in effect a "river of green" across the landscape. It's legitimate to call a forest an "above ground river" because it does embody a huge amount of water. In that sense I could see a longer term sequestering of water on shore.  (But I still don't think it will be anywhere near ice melt)

It's also fair to say that a forest as immense as suggested could recreate local climate with the transpiration of water from the trees.

I think projects of that type are well worth considering as a contribution to reducing CO2 levels and possibly ameliorating global warming.
___________________________________________________

I suggest the issues of sea level rise are far more challenging than you have acknowledged. Smurf identifies just how difficult it would be to cope with 1 metre sea rise let alone the many metres likely to occur if serious melting occurs.

Just to make that idea even more difficult exactly where do you rebuild if in 20-30 years time evidence of increasing ice melt and sea level rises becomes obvious? There is no argument about the amount of water that will be released over time from the melting of Greenland/Antarctica ect. Would it make any sense to relocate infrastructure to levels 1-2 metres higher than current positions with the knowledge that only 50 years down the track you would have to start all over again.?

How high would you go 5 metres ? 10 ? 30? 

When would one decide to abandon a city ? Where would you start rebuilding? Given that this is happening in every part of the country as well as the world what is it doing to our industrial capacity ?

Maybe it would be cheaper to simply go all out to reduce Co2 emissions as distinct from having to relocate and rebuild 50% of our worlds infrastructure ?


----------



## basilio

References for above post.

http://www.carnegiewave.com/index.php?url=/projects/desalination
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/rainfwld.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> When would one decide to abandon a city ? Where would you start rebuilding? Given that this is happening in every part of the country as well as the world what is it doing to our industrial capacity ?




If you go back a few decades, say half a century, then the basic limit on what we did was technology. We didn't go to the moon in 1964 because we didn't know how to do it yet. We didn't have a computer in every home because a sufficiently powerful, useful and practical computer for home use hadn't been developed yet on account of available technology. And so on.

But if you look at it today then the situation is very different. The reason we don't have either the original or a replacement Space Shuttle flying today is not technical, it is economic. We know exactly how to do it, but the only place you'll see a shuttle now is either on film or on the ground, they don't fly anymore and there's no direct replacement.

Or what about the Concorde? As with the Shuttles they were absolutely a very big symbol of technological progress at one time. But again, the reason we don't travel at that speed today is economic rather than technical. We know exactly how to build a modern version of the Concorde, but it's not viable under current economics to do so.

This comes down to two things really. The underlying economy and the reality that control has shifted from engineers, scientists etc to accountants and non-technical managers. Have a look in the archives and read some old annual reports of any company that was technologically advanced at the time and compare it to today. There's one huge difference. What was the "Chief Engineer" or "Chief Scientist" is now a "CEO" or some other financial type of role.

Back in ye olde days, the gas company had an Engineer in charge. So did the electricity company. So did the railways. So did every other company of a technical, scientific or engineering nature. Now they're run by all sorts of people - most of whom know little about gas, power or trains. And whereas the Cheif Engineer saw the goal as making sure every home had gas and electricity and the trains were running, the goal of the CEO is purely short term financial profit.

Back in the old days, if the previous year's profit was deemed too high then they'd just cut prices, thus benefiting the broader economy and growing the gas / electricity or whatever business in the long term as a result. Everyone wins except those wanting a quick gain. You'll never see such thinking applied today now that the goal is short term profit without regard for the long term. 

There's a lot of things that we could easily do but don't, simply due to the shift in thinking away from the pursuit of technical goals in favour of what is commonly known as economic rationalism. 

If we were starting from scratch today, we'd never build the Snowy Hydro scheme and Tasmania wouldn't have built it's hydro schemes either. For that matter, we wouldn't even build a statewide electricity grid to supply everyone - it's just not profitable outside the cities and large towns. Nor would we build anywhere near the number of railways or highways that we have today - they're not viable under current thinking. Witness the struggles of Qantas and practically every other airline - their business model works fine if the aim is to transport people and freight but fails miserably if the aim is to match the profits available through the financial industries.

If we still thought the way we thought 50 years ago then this thread would not exist, period. We'd just engineer our way out of the energy problem and spread the cost, with a modest return on investment, over the 25, 40, 60 or 100 year life of the renewable energy systems we built. Problem fixed. The only thing stopping us is the insistence that nothing can be done if it's not the single most profitable option available in purely financial terms. 

That's probably not going to be the most popular thing to say on a financial forum, but it's the crux of the problem we have. We can do it, but it doesn't make sense to do so if we're only looking at a short term period and counting every cent. The problem is a financial / accounting issue, not a technical one.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> The underlying economy and the reality that control has shifted from engineers, scientists etc to accountants and non-technical managers.
> 
> Back in ye olde days, the gas company had an Engineer in charge. So did the electricity company. So did the railways. So did every other company of a technical, scientific or engineering nature. Now they're run by all sorts of people - most of whom know little about gas, power or trains. And whereas the Cheif Engineer saw the goal as making sure every home had gas and electricity and the trains were running, the goal of the CEO is purely short term financial profit.
> 
> Back in the old days, if the previous year's profit was deemed too high then they'd just cut prices, thus benefiting the broader economy and growing the gas / electricity or whatever business in the long term as a result. Everyone wins except those wanting a quick gain. You'll never see such thinking applied today now that the goal is short term profit without regard for the long term.
> 
> There's a lot of things that we could easily do but don't, simply due to the shift in thinking away from the pursuit of technical goals in favour of what is commonly known as economic rationalism.
> 
> *not viable under current thinking*.
> Witness the struggles of .... the aim is to match the profits available through the financial industries.
> 
> If we still thought the way we thought 50 years ago then this thread would not exist, period. We'd just engineer our way out of the energy problem and spread the cost, with a modest return on investment, over the 25, 40, 60 or 100 year life of the renewable energy systems we built. Problem fixed. The only thing stopping us is the insistence that nothing can be done if it's not the single most profitable option available in purely financial terms.
> 
> but it's the crux of the problem we have. We can do it, but it doesn't make sense to do so if we're only looking at a short term period and counting every cent. The problem is a financial / accounting issue, not a technical one.




The subversion distilled in the above post, Staggering.... That moderators allow this blasphemy beggars belief. 
Alert yourselves All to this brazen 5th column.

But fear not my friends, tune to the Fox network and News Corpse and know that god is in his plushly appointed boardroom, while the many spend years of their life's stuck in traffic commuting from drudge to a hopefully financially solid domestic dream. Because remember, to question may bring about inconvenient _and uncomfortable_ (for the questioners) answers.
to the Fellows of the republic I say...to get rich is glorious. 

To the moderators of this thread, imagine in a jovial kind of way..... pockmarked walls.
 Sleep well.
Best regards 'The Dear Leader'


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> The subversion distilled in the above post, Staggering.... That moderators allow this blasphemy beggars belief.
> Alert yourselves All to this brazen 5th column.
> 
> But fear not my friends, tune to the Fox network and News Corpse and know that god is in his plushly appointed boardroom, while the many spend years of their life's stuck in traffic commuting from drudge to a hopefully financially solid domestic dream. Because remember, to question may bring about inconvenient _and uncomfortable_ (for the questioners) answers.
> to the Fellows of the republic I say...to get rich is glorious.
> 
> To the moderators of this thread, imagine in a jovial kind of way..... pockmarked walls.
> Sleep well.
> Best regards 'The Dear Leader'




I don't normally let this go but oh well  .... LOL !


----------



## Smurf1976

I could distill it even further....

Current way of thinking = how much money will this make in the short term? 

Older way of thinking = what is the long term potential of this in a practical sense, and how can we build a viable long term business based upon it that will be profitable in due course? 

The thing about renewable energy is that with very few exceptions it involves virtually all costs being incurred up front, followed by production over the following decades. Quite simply, this business model sits very well with the "old" way of thinking but not with today's.

As an example, this year marks the centenary of the Lake Margaret hydro power station (Tas). A century later it still does exactly what it was built to do, it still generates baseload electricity just as it did the day it opened and it still runs the original machinery. It is quite literally the "working museum" it is often referred to as, very little has changed inside over the years and the power station is officially heritage listed.

A century of production has repaid the original investment many times over and could thus be considered an outstanding success using the "old" way of thinking. Build it today, then get returns on that capital for a century and more. But the prospect of such a long time period would never excite anyone thinking the way we do today and that's why we're sticking to fossil fuels which despite ongoing fuel costs are cheaper to build upfront.


----------



## Smurf1976

Earth Hour still exists? It seems that it was last night but I haven't heard any mention of it this year until after the event.

Anyway, I do hope they see the irony. Burning oil (candles) to light the place up and make a point about climate change. Electric light is less polluting, even if the power is coming from coal that is still true.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2184826/canberra-glows-during-earth-hour-to-protect-the-reef/?cs=12


----------



## noco

Ban-ki-Moon is an out and out Greenie who was convinced back in 2011 that the rise in sea levels would swamp many major cities by 2050.

Kevin Rudd is still a member of the UN Climate Change committee and to top it off Combett committed Australia into a donation of $599,000 and 10 % of all monies collected from Labors carbon tax....This is the tax Keven Rudd said he would scrap. 




http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-warns.html


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> I could distill it even further....
> 
> Current way of thinking = how much money will this make in the short term?
> 
> Older way of thinking = what is the long term potential of this in a practical sense, and how can we build a viable long term business based upon it that will be profitable in due course?
> 
> The thing about renewable energy is that with very few exceptions it involves virtually all costs being incurred up front, followed by production over the following decades. Quite simply, this business model sits very well with the "old" way of thinking but not with today's.




This would make a good Alan Jones rant but not sure how it lines up with reality given the amount of Government money that's been spent on renewable energy ideas with middling results.


----------



## ghotib

banco said:


> This would make a good Alan Jones rant but not sure how it lines up with reality given the amount of Government money that's been spent on renewable energy ideas with middling results.



Doesn't this comment prove Smurf's point? The payback will come over the decades that the renewable energy generators incur no costs for fuel.


----------



## basilio

The IPCC has released it's latest  CC report which interestingly enough focuses on risks and risk management. I thought George Monbiot came up with the most insightful analysis of the choices we face and the situation we have ended up in. 

Really worth a read and a think.



> *
> So, after the IPCC report, which bit of the world are you prepared to lose?*
> *When people say we should adjust to climate change, do they understand what that actually means?
> *
> 
> George Monbiot
> 
> ‘It’s not only the Stern review that’s been forgotten, but also the floods which have so recently abated.'
> 
> To understand what is happening to the living planet, the great conservationist Aldo Leopold remarked, is to live "in a world of wounds … An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."
> 
> The metaphor suggests that he might have seen Henrik Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People. Thomas Stockmann is a doctor in a small Norwegian town, and medical officer at the public baths whose construction has been overseen by his brother, the mayor. The baths, the mayor boasts, "will become the focus of our municipal life! … Houses and landed property are rising in value every day."
> 
> But Stockmann discovers that the pipes have been built in the wrong place, and the water feeding the baths is contaminated. "The source is poisoned … We are making our living by retailing filth and corruption! The whole of our flourishing municipal life derives its sustenance from a lie!" People bathing in the water to improve their health are instead falling ill.
> 
> Stockmann expects to be treated as a hero for exposing this deadly threat. After the mayor discovers that re-laying the pipes would cost a fortune and probably sink the whole project, he decides that his brother's report "has not convinced me that the condition of the water at the baths is as bad as you represent it to be".
> 
> The mayor proposes to ignore the problem, make some cosmetic adjustments and carry on as before. After all, "the matter in hand is not simply a scientific one. It is a complicated matter, and has its economic as well as its technical side." The local paper, the baths committee and the business people side with the mayor against the doctor's "unreliable and exaggerated accounts".
> 
> Astonished and enraged, Stockmann lashes out madly at everyone. He attacks the town as a nest of imbeciles, and finds himself, in turn, denounced as an enemy of the people. His windows are broken, his clothes are torn, he's evicted and ruined.
> 
> Today's editorial in the Daily Telegraph, which was by no means the worst of the recent commentary on this issue, follows the first three acts of the play. Marking the new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Telegraph sides with the mayor. First it suggests that the panel cannot be trusted, partly because its accounts are unreliable and exaggerated and partly because it uses "model-driven assumptions" to forecast future trends. (What would the Telegraph prefer? Tea leaves? Entrails?). Then it suggests that trying to stop manmade climate change would be too expensive. Then it proposes making some cosmetic adjustments and carrying on as before. ("Perhaps instead of continued doom-mongering, however, greater thought needs to be given to how mankind might adapt to the climatic realities.")
> 
> ....When our environment secretary, Owen Paterson, assures us that climate change "is something we can adapt to over time" or Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian today, says that we should move towards "thinking intelligently about how the world should adapt to what is already happening", what do they envisage? Cities relocated to higher ground? Roads and railways shifted inland? Rivers diverted? Arable land abandoned? Regions depopulated? Have they any clue about what this would cost? Of what the impacts would be on the people breezily being told to live with it?




http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/ipcc-report-world-lose-habitats-climate-change


----------



## Smurf1976

banco said:


> This would make a good Alan Jones rant but not sure how it lines up with reality given the amount of Government money that's been spent on renewable energy ideas with middling results.




It comes down to how we went about it.

Suppose that you have $10 billion (to pick a random but reasonably large number) of taxpayers' money to spend on renewable energy. 

Give it to a politician and they will spend it on whatever they perceive will gain the most votes at the next election without regard to value for money or effectiveness as an energy source.

Give it to an engineer and they will:

1. Do a desktop study to produce a full list of all possible renewable energy sources. They will rank this by cost per unit of renewable energy produced, with additional columns on the spreadsheet for other attributes - what it produces (electricity, liquid fuel, heat etc), how proven the technology is, indicative location (eg possible states or regions where it would be practical to build).

2. For those at the lower end of the cost range, they would then undertake more detailed analysis to verify the costs. This will produce a final cost-based lists of projects to consider further.

3. For those within 20% of the cheapest cost, they will assume the actual cost to be similar given that there is always some uncertainty. These projects would then be ranked in terms of their other attributes. Eg something which produces firm electricity output is more useful than something that's intermittent. Liquid fuels able to be used as a "drop in" replacement for petrol are more useful than electricity. Any practical or environmental downsides need to be considered and some projects may be considered impractical despite being low cost and thus removed from further consideration.

4.Then you have a final list of suitable projects based on their cost effectiveness and non-financial benefits. Then it is a matter of looking at any final practical matters. Eg if you have two comparable projects but can only afford to build one, and if one was near a large town with high unemployment and the other was in the middle of nowhere, any rational engineer would choose the one near the town with workers available. Firstly that will make ongoing operation easier, secondly there's the social aspect of creating work etc. Proximity to other existing infrastructure, eg the power grid, will also be a factor.

5. Then it is just a matter of delivering the projects, and at that point the market comes in. Eg it has been determined to install 1000 MW of wind generation in SA - now let anyone who wants to built and operate it compete on an open tender basis with tenderers having full access to all data and the ability to choose how to go about it (eg build 10 small ones or 2 large ones?). The market can sort that bit out.

What would this have actually resulted in?

Solar on house roofs would be considered uneconomic for supply to the main grid but attractive in locations dependent on diesel generators. There would thus be a loan or subsidy scheme to encourage the installation of solar in such locations. Anyone on the main grid wishing to install solar would be free to do so of course - but at their own expense.

Solar hot water is attractive in some regions (especially those otherwise relying on diesel) and would be pursued in the same manner with any subsidies limited to locations where solar hot water is a low cost technology relative to grid power.

Centralised wind generation is attractive primarily in certain states and also in small diesel systems elsewhere and would be pursued in those areas.

Untapped hydro resources in Tas, Vic, NSW and Qld which can be developed without major environmental controversy would not have escaped attention and some projects would have been built. They'd have steered well clear of anything highly contentious, putting it in the "impractical at present" category given the uncertainty that it could actually be built in practice.

They would have insisted that a small but significant (say, 30MW) hot dry rock geothermal plant be built as a research project, noting the enormous potential of the technology but that much uncertainty exists about costs and real world operations. Properly determining the realities of this technology would be considered a high priority.

Biomass, particularly agricultural waste etc, suitable for conversion to liquid fuels is viable in some areas and would be developed via subsidy to private operators. An engineer would see the production of liquid fuels as having a higher inherent value than producing electricity or heat from a broader resource perspective, thus favouring such projects where economic and practical.

Cloud seeding is a proven technology and Tasmania is a world leader in its' application, having actually done it for 50 years to increase hydro-electric output. Given the incredibly low cost, an engineer would want to know where else it actually works and a trial would be conducted in potentially suitable locations both for hydro power and in water catchments as an alternative to energy-intensive desalination.

They would also have changed the definition of the overall scheme from "renewable energy" to "energy supplied without the additional use of non-renewable resources", thus enabling economically attractive (compared to renewables) projects such as heat capture from metal smelters to produce electricity to be funded.

The end result is that we'd have developed whichever renewable energy sources deliver the most "bang for buck" with a particular emphasis on reducing the consumption of, or increasing the supply of, liquid fuels where this can be done in an economical and practical manner. We would also have removed the uncertainty surrounding technologies such as geothermal and the broader application of cloud seeding.

In short, an engineering approach would have given us a much greater increase in renewable energy production, and additional side benefits, when compared to the political approach. It would also have given us a very clear path to follow should additional funding be available at a later time.

It's perhaps worth noting that if we'd done this 30 years ago then the above is how we'd have done it since that was the thinking back then. Political involvement would have been limited to final "sign off" before projects went ahead, with the overall direction being driven by those who understand such things rather than those who have never set foot inside a power station unless to cut a ribbon and declare the place open.

PS - it's worth noting that the energy industry itself has tried to pursue rational logic so far as practical. Eg AGL built a new hydro plant in Victoria and numerous companies have developed wind in SA which is a good place for it. Meanwhile Hydro Tas has what it internally refers to as "the 1000 GWh project" which is aimed at pushing the existing power stations harder on a sustainable basis. Hydro also has the King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project as a technology demonstration too. Unfortunately however, most of the actual taxpayer funds have ended up doing things that are relatively ineffective like putting panels on house roofs in the suburbs (mine included by the way).


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Doesn't this comment prove Smurf's point? The payback will come over the decades that the renewable energy generators incur no costs for fuel.




Sort of, although the problem is that in short, we've spent a lot of money building renewable energy generation that is more expensive (eg rooftop solar) than other things we could a have built instead.

In short, we were pretty good at spending the money but we didn't get good value from it in many cases. More power could have been generated at the same cost (or the same power at lower cost) so it was a missed opportunity really.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> The IPCC has released it's latest  CC report which interestingly enough focuses on risks and risk management. I thought George Monbiot came up with the most insightful analysis of the choices we face and the situation we have ended up in.
> 
> Really worth a read and a think.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/ipcc-report-world-lose-habitats-climate-change




Do you have solar panels basillio?


----------



## wayneL

An alarming abuse of scientific method by climate alarmists.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...-access-to-lewandowsky-poll-data/#more-106903


----------



## Smurf1976

This wasn't written by me, and it's on a different subject, but it sums up my thoughts pretty well.



> Looking overall at Australia, our engineers, architects, scientists, teachers, planners, police, firemen, defence forces, inventors, farmers, fishermen and environmentalists have done a fantastic job over the past 100 years or more, just look at what they have achieved. At the same time, looking at the results achieved, our politicians, judges, lawyers and accountants have done an appalling job, they have created an absolute shambles while feathering their own nests to the extreme. We really need to make some radical changes in the way these sectors operate



 Original is here: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e-of-gst-revenue/story-fnihsrf2-1226875116928

There are exceptions of course, but in general it is largely true (possible exception of judges - I accept that they do have a difficult job and that they know more than joe average about the issues involved).

So far as climate and clean energy is concerned, it's the financial system and politics which holds us back and nothing more. Engineers know how to make it happen, the materials and resources required are available, and we have plenty of people from draftsmen to electricians to truck drivers who could collectively turn it into reality.

Thinking the way we do today, we'd never have built the brown coal industry in Victoria. Nor would we have built the Hydro in Tasmania. Nor would we have built the Snowy. We wouldn't have even built the Leigh Creek mine and Port Augusta power stations in SA. We'd have stuck with black coal and gas, nothing else satisfying the demands of today's financial system which demands top returns on an artificial construct whilst completely ignoring other costs - environment etc. And going forward, this is why we're not doing far more with geothermal, solar etc than we are - it's an accounting and political limitation, not a technical or resource one.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> An alarming abuse of scientific method by climate alarmists.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...-access-to-lewandowsky-poll-data/#more-106903




Thats so interesting... and apposite.

The IPCC releases its latest report on the progress of global warming and its effects on the earth.  The report is effectively signed off by all significant countries representatives who tacitly agree with its findings.  And  as George Monbiot points out we are left with deciding just which parts of the world we are prepared to sacrifice. 

*Meanwhile*  the real "scientists"  (Monckton, Carter, Watt and co  )  are arguing about a paper which  identifies how far denialists  have buried their heads in the sand or up their collective bums. 

And that is their contribution to the debate.

.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Thats so interesting... and apposite.
> 
> The IPCC releases its latest report on the progress of global warming and its effects on the earth.  The report is effectively signed off by all significant countries representatives who tacitly agree with its findings.  And  as George Monbiot points out we are left with deciding just which parts of the world we are prepared to sacrifice.
> 
> *Meanwhile*  the real "scientists"  (Monckton, Carter, Watt and co  )  are arguing about a paper which  identifies how far denialists  have buried their heads in the sand or up their collective bums.
> 
> And that is their contribution to the debate.
> 
> .




Moonbat is an idiot, and the IPCC report id nothing but a collection of weasel words, incidentally, at odds with the original long version report.

So this is the new way to do science basilio? We make some obnoxious untenable hypothesis and then hide all the purported data?

Come on, not even you could fail to be embarrassed by such tosh.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Moonbat is an idiot, and the IPCC report id nothing but a collection of weasel words, incidentally, at odds with the original long version report.
> 
> So this is the new way to do science basilio? We make some obnoxious untenable hypothesis and then hide all the purported data?
> 
> Come on, not even you could fail to be embarrassed by such tosh.




GLOBAL WARMING???????????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/


----------



## Knobby22

Actually a good article noco.

The most important paragraph is the following.

“The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modelled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.”

There was a very good article in New Scientist regarding the subduction of heat into the ocean. The test will be when the next El Niño forms which is quite likely at present as this will reverse the effect if it is as powerful as some believe.

The Sun has had lower activity, so there may be something in that but I don't believe the effect is large enough to state that it has stopped the warming. 

We really don't understand the cloud feedback mechanisms. The more clouds we have, the more heat that will be reflected back into space. This effect may be a quite strong feedback mechanism.


----------



## explod

I cannot believe the amount of convoluted garbage.

Blind freddy can tell you that with increased heat we are, and we have, increased cloud.  This in turn cools things down.

But it will only temper things for awhile.

Forget the conjuxtamongalationtedness of the science,tists, just look around, judge and think for yourselves.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I cannot believe the amount of convoluted garbage.
> 
> Blind freddy can tell you that with increased heat we are, and we have, increased cloud.  This in turn cools things down.
> 
> But it will only temper things for awhile.
> 
> Forget the conjuxtamongalationtedness of the science,tists, just look around, judge and think for yourselves.





Increased cloud??????? I have been looking around for the past 80 years....nothing has changed in my time.....sounds like all woop woop belong bulla ma cow.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I cannot believe the amount of convoluted garbage.
> 
> Blind freddy can tell you that with increased heat we are, and we have, increased cloud.  This in turn cools things down.
> 
> But it will only temper things for awhile.
> 
> Forget the conjuxtamongalationtedness of the science,tists, just look around, judge and think for yourselves.




I think blind freddy is changing the story _ad hoc_.


----------



## Smurf1976

Here's my theory on it and it comes down to coal. Not CO2, but coal as such.

In developed countries coal is really only used in 3 situations. Power stations (by far the largest use), steel works (second largest) and large factories (things like cement works, smelters etc).

A key point there is that these facilities, with very few exceptions these days, have electrostatic precipitators and/or fabric filters to remove 99%+ of particles that would otherwise go up the stack. In most cases there are also fairly strict limits on sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions - either they are using coal with a low sulphur content (generally the case in Australia) or have equipment to remove the sulphur on site.

In developed countries there is very little use of coal for heating homes etc. And what little is used, is in most cases either naturally rather clean (anthracite coal) or is a manufactured "smokeless" fuel.

Coal use in developed countries hasn't changed a lot over the past 15 or so years. A bit of growth here, a bit of decline there, but no huge change overall. Meanwhile global coal use has risen 65% since the year 2000 with China alone accounting for around 70% of that increase. India accounts for 8% of the increase. All other countries combined account for the remaining 22% of the rise.

But a look at air quality in China reveals that quite obviously they don't have the same level of particulate and SO2 control on coal combustion that we have in Australia (for example). Indeed they use coal not only a power stations etc where such controls are practical (but not always fitted) but also at millions of smaller facilities (including individual homes) where pollution controls are completely impractical to implement. Hence the "brown cloud" of smog.

Go back to 2000 and the accepted explanation for global temperatures not rising between about 1950 and 1975 related to "dirt" going into the atmpsphere and in particular sulphur which reflects sunlight.

Well guess what? The earth appears to have again stopped warming at the same time as a huge rise in coal use in China and the associated emission of SO2 and particles.

In the long term CO2 may well increase temperature. But SO2 and particles have a much shorter life in the atmosphere, such that it current activity directly determines their concentration (ie stop burning coal tomorrow and the levels of SO2 and particles will fall a lot faster than CO2 would). The short term effect of coal use with minimal pollution controls is thus to reduce temperature until such time as the increasing CO2 offsets the effect of SO2 and particles.

I'm not putting this forward a proven theory. It's just my own thoughts although it is based on past research of others regarding SO2 and other visible ("smoke") pollution and the effect it has of reflecting sunlight.

Note that my comments about China aren't intended to be in any way racist etc. I'd be saying the exact same thing if it were Australia, the US, UK or anywhere else that had the same set of circumstances. But nobody would deny that China is burning a huge amount of coal now, and that the amount used has greatly increased in recent years. And the Chinese themselves are all too aware of air pollution issues caused by it.

Coal production figures for China and (rest of world excluding China) as follows. Figures are billions of tonnes.

1999 = 1.46 (3.57)
2000 = 1.51 (3.63)
2001 = 1.63 (3.76)
2002 = 1.72 (3.72)
2003 = 1.95 (3.81)
2004 = 2.13 (3.93)
2005 = 2.48 (4.06)
2006 = 2.65 (4.23)
2007 = 2.84 (4.31)
2008 = 3.02 (4.39)
2009 = 3.30 (4.36)
2010 = 3.51 (4.44)
2011 = 3.84 (4.62)


----------



## Knobby22

I like that theory Smurf. I mean the pollution sometimes gets to Malaysia.

So if the Chinese clean up their act, we all get cooked!


----------



## springhill

Smurf1976 said:


> Here's my theory on it and it comes down to coal. Not CO2, but coal as such.
> 
> In developed countries coal is really only used in 3 situations. Power stations (by far the largest use), steel works (second largest) and large factories (things like cement works, smelters etc).
> 
> A key point there is that these facilities, with very few exceptions these days, have electrostatic precipitators and/or fabric filters to remove 99%+ of particles that would otherwise go up the stack. In most cases there are also fairly strict limits on sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions - either they are using coal with a low sulphur content (generally the case in Australia) or have equipment to remove the sulphur on site.
> 
> In developed countries there is very little use of coal for heating homes etc. And what little is used, is in most cases either naturally rather clean (anthracite coal) or is a manufactured "smokeless" fuel.
> 
> Coal use in developed countries hasn't changed a lot over the past 15 or so years. A bit of growth here, a bit of decline there, but no huge change overall. Meanwhile global coal use has risen 65% since the year 2000 with China alone accounting for around 70% of that increase. India accounts for 8% of the increase. All other countries combined account for the remaining 22% of the rise.
> 
> But a look at air quality in China reveals that quite obviously they don't have the same level of particulate and SO2 control on coal combustion that we have in Australia (for example). Indeed they use coal not only a power stations etc where such controls are practical (but not always fitted) but also at millions of smaller facilities (including individual homes) where pollution controls are completely impractical to implement. Hence the "brown cloud" of smog.
> 
> Go back to 2000 and the accepted explanation for global temperatures not rising between about 1950 and 1975 related to "dirt" going into the atmpsphere and in particular sulphur which reflects sunlight.
> 
> Well guess what? The earth appears to have again stopped warming at the same time as a huge rise in coal use in China and the associated emission of SO2 and particles.
> 
> In the long term CO2 may well increase temperature. But SO2 and particles have a much shorter life in the atmosphere, such that it current activity directly determines their concentration (ie stop burning coal tomorrow and the levels of SO2 and particles will fall a lot faster than CO2 would). The short term effect of coal use with minimal pollution controls is thus to reduce temperature until such time as the increasing CO2 offsets the effect of SO2 and particles.
> 
> I'm not putting this forward a proven theory. It's just my own thoughts although it is based on past research of others regarding SO2 and other visible ("smoke") pollution and the effect it has of reflecting sunlight.
> 
> Note that my comments about China aren't intended to be in any way racist etc. I'd be saying the exact same thing if it were Australia, the US, UK or anywhere else that had the same set of circumstances. But nobody would deny that China is burning a huge amount of coal now, and that the amount used has greatly increased in recent years. And the Chinese themselves are all too aware of air pollution issues caused by it.
> 
> Coal production figures for China and (rest of world excluding China) as follows. Figures are billions of tonnes.
> 
> 1999 = 1.46 (3.57)
> 2000 = 1.51 (3.63)
> 2001 = 1.63 (3.76)
> 2002 = 1.72 (3.72)
> 2003 = 1.95 (3.81)
> 2004 = 2.13 (3.93)
> 2005 = 2.48 (4.06)
> 2006 = 2.65 (4.23)
> 2007 = 2.84 (4.31)
> 2008 = 3.02 (4.39)
> 2009 = 3.30 (4.36)
> 2010 = 3.51 (4.44)
> 2011 = 3.84 (4.62)




Setting aside the fact that your post was intelligent, well constructed and plausible - there was no 'computer modelling which involved perametres/variables set by humans - which means you are just a dirty stinking climate change denier......


----------



## basilio

Smurfs analysis of the effects of aerosols of temporarily slowing the increase in global temperatures is spot on. Unfortunately it doesn't stop the increase in CO2 levels having its long term effect on global temperatures. It just  puts a temporary brake on it.

http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969e.html
http://elmacombiano.com/NUMERO87/images/PDFfiles/SO2InitiatesClimateChange.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm


----------



## orr

It's been a while since there was a laugh on this thread, so three cheers for the the Minerals Council of Australia. 

Go to the twitter comments a the  end of the artical. 
Good to see you 'white anting' from deep inside Mitch... 'I love the smell of coal dust in the morning'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ign-fires-up-protesters-instead-of-supporters


----------



## burglar

orr said:


> ... 'I love the smell of coal dust in the morning'




It's a big, beautiful country!
Why would you live downwind of a coal mine?


----------



## Logique

Brendan O'Neill nailed it in my view:  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/in_praise_of_george_brandis/  (My bolds)



> ...He [George Brandis] isn’t a climate-change denier… But he has nonetheless found himself ‘really *shocked by the sheer authoritarianism* of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers’....
> 
> He describes how Penny Wong ... would ‘stand up in the Senate and say * “The science is settled”. In other words, “I am not even going to engage in a debate with you*”.
> 
> It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change.’ .... And to Brandis, this speaks to a new and illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism, to the emergence of ‘a habit of mind and mode of discourse which would deny the legitimacy of an alternative point of view, where *rather than winning the argument [they] exclude their antagonists from the argument’*…


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Brendan O'Neill nailed it in my view:  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/in_praise_of_george_brandis/  (My bolds)





Logique, What you are saying is the way communism works.....suppress all opposition...control 
the media.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Logique, What you are saying is the way communism works.....suppress all opposition...control
> the media.




This is also the modus operandi  of the Greenies  comrades.....They want to govern the world through Bank-ki- Moon and the united nations.


----------



## Smurf1976

My personal opinion, having read a lot on the subject and even gone as far as conducting my own lab experiments, is that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to result in a change in climate with that change likely to be a warming of surface temperatures.

That said, the way the debate was conducted in recent times has a lot to do with the public's apparent loss of interest in the subject. Go back to 2008 and it was everywhere - you couldn't watch TV or read a newspaper without hearing about climate change and most surveys showed that Australians wanted action on the subject. But look at it today - there is still a core group of individuals who are concerned but the issue has lost prominence overall.

If someone claims that something is "proven" then it's reasonable to expect that this can be demonstrated in some practical way. 

I can "prove" that drinking beer leads to a rise in blood alcohol concentration in humans, that is beyond doubt. If anyone does doubt it, then all you need to do is drink some beer and have a blood test for alcohol. 

I can "prove" that water falling down a hill inside a penstock can drive a turbine and generate large amounts of electricity. Should anyone doubt this then there are plenty of such plants in existence for you to have a look at and see for yourself, and at least one of them does regular public tours inside.

I can prove that driving any ordinary car into a concrete barrier at 100km/h results in major damage occurring to the car. Should you doubt this, just find yourself a concrete barrier and drive straight into it. Or watch film of others doing it for vehicle testing purposes etc.

The above are all easy to demonstrate concepts and can thus be considered "proven". Drinking beer raises blood alcohol concentration. Hydro is a practical means of generating electricity. Driving cars into concrete barriers leads to destruction. These are all easy to prove, real concepts and can be considered "settled" and "beyond doubt".

But can anyone actually "prove" that burning coal leads to a change in climate? Not really. We can prove that burning coal emits CO2 (easy to prove in a lab and well accepted as fact in terms of the practical aspects of using coal) but so far as the climate is concerned all we have is a theory backed with some lab experiments and computer modelling - it's not something we can "prove" as such.

We aren't even certain that emitting CO2 from coal directly raises the atmospheric concentration of it - logic says that it would, but this is complicated by natural processes that we don't fully understand. So far as us humans have been able to work out, it's not a 1:1 relationship or anything close to it between emissions of CO2 and atmospheric concentration. So again, we can only theorise that putting CO2 into the atmosphere leads to a rise in CO2 concentration globally - it's in the "theory says it would, but we're not certain in practice" category.

As such nobody can honestly say that anything is "proven" so far as burning coal and the world's climate is concerned. There is a plausible theory but it is not "settled" by any means.

As with any sensible person, I'm willing to accept new ideas. But when someone claims that a theory which cannot be demonstrated in practice with real data is "proven" or "settled" then I know they are telling lies. The theory may or may not be right, but the claim that it is "proven" most certainly isn't.

Do that often enough and slowly but surely, more and more people spot the lie and dismiss the argument as not being important. People don't like effectively being told to stop thinking and just "trust me" - and that's basically what was being said with the "science is settled" argument. 

Throw in the "dams will never fill again" type claims, which in reality were more about a "no dams" argument (ie build desalination and gas-fired power instead, ironically using more fossil fuels) rather than anything to do with the climate, and it's not hard to see why the issue has slipped down the agenda.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... it's not hard to see why the issue has slipped down the agenda.



Well writ, sir!


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I think blind freddy is changing the story _ad hoc_.




Where are you coming from here?

Like most denying folk you like talking in riddles (ridicule), anything to confuse the emerging truth.


----------



## wayneL

denying folk like me....

You know plod, you have no honour nor dignity.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> denying folk like me....
> 
> You know plod, you have no honour nor dignity.




You beat about the bush on it to some degree but you do deny that the burning of fossill fuels is leading to ecological disaster.


Your comment is not only rubbish but very nasty.

I have formed views on a lot of direct experience with nature and as a farm boy, the tales of older codgers who knew the weather as it effected thier livelihood.  And 20 years ago into real focus on such subject when Bob Brown saved trees in Tasmania.

It is clear that the current fossill fuel burning must be causing a danger.  Surely even you should accept that we should at least have two bob each way and so investigate other ways to generate energy etc.

Picking the man is not productive to debate on such an important issue.

I cannot understand how this site can continue to survive when such distractive approaches are maintained.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Brendan O'Neill nailed it in my view:  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/in_praise_of_george_brandis/  (My bolds)




And Adam Brandt from the Greens is also trying to suppress debate on the latest findings.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s_right_yes_the_greens_want_debate_suppressed


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Picking the man is not productive to debate on such an important issue.




I'd argue that playing the man isn't productive in any debate. 

Back to climate change and CO2, I used to think that we could solve this but my view changed about a decade ago and here's why.

Energy use is fundamentally linked to real (as distinct from financial transactions etc) GDP. And the world is still very much trying to achieve constant growth despite this being a finite planet. So long as that continues, we'll keep going "business as usual" until some serious event occurs to bring about change. By then it will be too late.

It took the killer smog in London to bring conventional (smoke, sulphur etc) air pollution to attention and get some action. It took actual deaths to focus attention on a problem that had been apparent for decades.

It took the 1973 oil embargo to bring energy in general to attention. But all we really did was switch to coal and gas and drill more oil wells outside the Middle East. It took a great deal of economic dislocation to bring this about - have a look at a chart of practically any economic measure and there's a trend break around 1973-74.

Forestry is another one. Much has been said about it over the past 30 years, particularly in Tasmania, but ultimately it kept going until it simply couldn't continue. It wasn't conservation that killed export woodchipping, but economics. Profit turned to loss, the losses then became bigger, and ultimately it collapsed financially. Many foresaw this outcome and thus considered that clearing native forest and replacing with plantations to be a pointless excercise since by the time the plantations were ready to harvest, doing so would be uneconomic. That day has now well and truly come - timber company Gunns went broke (even their former head office has since been demolished), the state government forestry department loses money, and nobody wants to buy the wood at a price that makes cutting it worthwhile. 

Climate change will be the same I expect. Either we run out of things to burn or something happens to force a change. But it would take something drastic, a weather event that does serious damage to a major city or a famine in developed countries, to bring that about. Nobody's going to take global action just because Perth is short on water, it will take something much bigger than that.

I first heard about this issue in 1987. Since then coal and gas consumption are both up by around 90% and oil is up by 50%. Much as I'd like to think we could do something about the CO2 issue, very clearly emissions are trending up not down.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Back to climate change and CO2, I used to think that we could solve this but my view changed about a decade ago and here's why.
> 
> Energy use is fundamentally linked to real (as distinct from financial transactions etc) GDP. And the world is still very much trying to achieve constant growth despite this being a finite planet. So long as that continues, we'll keep going "business as usual" until some serious event occurs to bring about change. By then it will be too late.




I've pretty much come to the same conclusion. The cost of getting new oil discoveries on line is so high, most companies can't actually afford it.  Except for a few of the largest state owned oil companies, debt levels in the industry are sky rocketing.  That can only occur for so long before lenders just stop lending.

Those who call for nuclear power to be expanded have no idea how ridiculously expensive it is.  The UK has had to provide tariff guarantees 3 to 4 times the whole sale rate in Australia last year to get the private sector interested.  Imagine the shock electricity prices 2 or 3 times their current levels would cause.

All the economic models and forecasts ignore we live in a finite world.  Population growth and increasing demands of the growing "middle class" in the emerging markets means it's practically impossible to reduce global energy demand, let alone all the other resources we're using.  The price of a barrel of crude oil has more than trebled since 2004, while global production has practically flat-lined at around 75 million barrels a day over that same period, leading to the view that we have reached the ceiling of our oil supply.

The shale oil boom in the USA costs around $80 a barrel to produce, so if oil prices drop much below $100 that source of extra production will dry up pretty quickly.  China has pretty much taken all the reduction in oil use from the rich countries due to their slowing economies and increasing energy efficiency.  India, Brazil, Indonesia will also want more as their economies keep growing.  If supply can't increase then price will have to reach levels that slow everyone down.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...e-We-Taking-More-Than-the-Earth-Can-Give.html

_"Iowa has some of the best topsoil in the world, yet in the past century it's eroded from an average of 18 inches to less than 10 inches (Pate 2004, Klee 1991). When topsoil reaches 6 inches or less (the average depth of the root zone in crops), productivity drops off sharply (Sundquist 2005). Soil erodes geologically at a rate of about 400 pounds of soil per acre per year (Troeh 2005). But on over half of America's best crop land, the erosion rate is 11,000 pounds per acre, 27 times the natural rate, and double that on the worst 7% of cropland (NCRS 2006), partly because farmers aren't paid to conserve their land, and partly because hired farmers wrench every penny of profit they can on behalf of short-sighted owners."_

_In the last 40 years, 20 million square kilometers of land have suffered degradation, which accounts for around 15% of the total land area of the Earth, while 30% of the originally available cropland is now unproductive. As noted for Iowa, the degradation of topsoil is occurring many times faster than t*he rate at which soil is generated by Nature, which can take longer than 500 years to form just an inch of it*._

_According to the U.S. National Agriculture Statistics there has been a decline from about 6 million bee-hives in 1947 to 2.4 million in 2008, representing a reduction by 60%. Over the past 10 years, beekeepers in both the U.S. and Europe have reported annual hive losses of 30%, and last winter losses of 50% in the U.S. were not uncommon, with worst case examples of 80-90%. Since one third of all food crops rely on bees to pollinate them, if this "bee-collapse" continues, the effect on world food production could be calamitous._

The only hope I have is somehow we do achieve the miracle of relatively cheap alternative energy within the next decade or so.  Any longer than that and I don't think the economic systems we have in place now will survive much past mid century, maybe less.  Anything that even slows global trade significantly will have massive consequences for all countries.  No one produces all the necessities any more, and Australia is far more vulnerable than most.  We import practically all our major capital equipment, have no way to produce spares if required.  Soon we wont even be able to make basic cars if we can't import.  Most workers have become so specialised they 'd have a steep learning curve to make a complete item.


----------



## explod

The last two posts are the sad truth of it all.

However one's heart breaks for those who are following in this life.

Money rules.


----------



## wayneL

Apparently, despite my oft stated position, it is neither nasty, ad hominem, or an outright lie to call me a denier.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Apparently, despite my oft stated position, it is neither nasty, ad hominem, or an outright lie to call me a denier.




My understanding is wayneL, that you do not accept that man made co2 emmissions are causing abnormal and detrimental climate change.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I've pretty much come to the same conclusion. The cost of getting new oil discoveries on line is so high, most companies can't actually afford it.  Except for a few of the largest state owned oil companies, debt levels in the industry are sky rocketing.  That can only occur for so long before lenders just stop lending.




Agreed with that.

There's a huge amount of energy resources worldwide - conventional fossil fuels, unconventional fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, biomass, other renewables, geothermal.

The trouble is the economics of developing them. Both the overall cost of production, and getting sufficient capital to build them in the first place.

The big problem I think, is that most just don't "get" the scale of the capital requirements. Even in the context of Australia, we're talking about $1 billion being a rounding error, loose change or however else you wish to express it. $1 billion is peanuts, it doesn't actually build that much really.

It's fairly well known and accepted in the power industry that we could not today build the Snowy. Nor could we build the Tas hydro system or even the Victorian brown coal stations. Even if the political will was there, the money isn't. Replicating the Tasmanian system alone would cost about $18 billion today - it just wouldn't happen in practice. 

I've thought for quite some time that despite the problems we have with energy supply, most energy resources will never be used due to economics. To that end it's perhaps worth noting that the only reason we can afford our current level of coal use is because the power stations are already built - it's highly doubtful that we could afford to replace them today and maintain current pricing and thus consumption levels.

Hence those 50 year old turbines at Hazelwood will be kept running as long as it's practical to do so. We can afford the financial cost of operating a 50 year old plant that's already paid for long ago, but we can't likely afford the cost of building and operating a replacement.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> My understanding is wayneL, that you do not accept that man made co2 emmissions are causing abnormal and detrimental climate change.




I accept empirical data, rather than models. I follow the science, not the politics. I am discerning about purported science, not gullible. That my interpretation of the science is different to some, yet in agreeance with others, does not entitly you call me a denier, you are grossly out of order.


----------



## banco

wayneL said:


> I accept empirical data, rather than models. I follow the science, not the politics. I am discerning about purported science, not gullible. That my interpretation of the science is different to some, yet in agreeance with others, does not entitly you call me a denier, you are grossly out of order.




I don't know about you but if someone asked me to make an assessment of the science relating to some issue in astrophysics or something I'd be quite incapable of doing so.....  I do find it curious that a lot of laypeople seem to think they can demolish articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change.


----------



## burglar

banco said:


> I don't know about you but if someone asked me to make an assessment of the science relating to some issue in astrophysics or something I'd be quite incapable of doing so.....  I do find it curious that a lot of laypeople seem to think they can demolish articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change.




Truth = Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Consensus * ≠* Truth

Theory  * ≠*  Truth

Hypothesis  * ≠* Truth

Modelling  * ≠* Truth



Articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change = articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change


----------



## banco

burglar said:


> Truth = Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
> 
> Consensus * ≠* Truth
> 
> Theory  * ≠*  Truth
> 
> Hypothesis  * ≠* Truth
> 
> Modelling  * ≠* Truth
> 
> 
> 
> Articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change = articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change




Of course peer reviewed journal articles can make erroneous conclusions.  But I'd trust them more than some guy with google and a tafe certificate to be right about their field of science.  Is it just journal articles on climate change that you disagree with (I notice you haven't nominated any particular articles)?  Do you write to (for example) the top medical journals to point out methodlogical problems with articles about cancer research?


----------



## burglar

banco said:


> (I notice you haven't nominated any particular articles)?  Do you write to (for example) the top medical journals to point out methodlogical problems with articles about cancer research?




I don't have cancer.

I grow trees, like Johnny Appleseed.
When I owned property I grew lawn.

I am an aerobic animal!! 
I do my bit to ensure O2 and CO2 are balanced in my sphere of influence.

I maintain a very small carbon footprint.

What more do you expect?


----------



## wayneL

banco,

I leave the scientific critique to the scientists. The trick is not to exclude those who are at odds with your beliefs.

I used to be a warmer, then a skeptic and now arrived at being a lukewarmer... somewhere in the middle, with a touch of agnosticism (in the true sense of the word, ie waiting for more evidence to emerge). I think Roger Pielke Snr is one who I most closely align my current thoughts.

That I particularly rail against the extreme alarmism of the likes of basilio and plod and those whom they are beholden to, does not make me a denier and it is a foul, lower than a snake's belly fallacy to accuse me of such.

As ever, I reserve the right to change my mind either way as the evidence presents itself.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> banco,
> 
> I leave the scientific critique to the scientists. The trick is not to exclude those who are at odds with your beliefs.
> 
> I used to be a warmer, then a skeptic and now arrived at being a lukewarmer... somewhere in the middle, with a touch of agnosticism (in the true sense of the word, ie waiting for more evidence to emerge). I think Roger Pielke Snr is one who I most closely align my current thoughts.
> 
> That I particularly rail against the extreme alarmism of the likes of basilio and plod and those whom they are beholden to, does not make me a denier and it is a foul, lower than a snake's belly fallacy to accuse me of such.
> 
> As ever, I reserve the right to change my mind either way as the evidence presents itself.




Indeed Wayne. Eloquent as ever. 

Of course your not a denier.  You never could be could you ? Because, after all, you say you are not a denier and your word creates reality doesn't it ?

Of course the real problem with your "non denial position" and the rest of your illustrious crew is i its complete refusal to consider even the possibility that the rest of the  scientific community might be right with the research and evidence regarding the cause and consequences of human produced climate change. I mean even if there was only a 10% chance they were right any sensible person would not want to risk the consequences of the world warming an extra 2-5 degreesC would they ?

But lets not just indulge in semantics here.  Why not actually review some of the most recent published work on CC ?




> *Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust*
> Nuccitelli et al. (2014) rebuts the argument that global warming is due to chlorofluorocarbon rather than carbon emissions
> 
> 
> A paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu last year claimed that solar activity and human chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, not carbon dioxide emissions, could explain the observed global warming over the past century. The journal has now published a rebuttal of that paper by myself and my colleagues Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Robert Way, Anne-Marie Blackburn, Martin Stolpe, and John Cook.
> 
> As I recently discussed, contrarian climate research blaming global warming on Anything But Carbon (ABC) tends to receive disproportionate media attention. Lu's paper was a prime example, being trumpeted by a University of Waterloo press release and Science Daily and Phys.org articles, all of which used exaggerated language like "Lu's theory has been confirmed." ABC News did a better job covering the paper, talking to climate scientist David Karoly, who expressed appropriate skepticism about a paper which purports to overturn decades and even centuries of well-established physics and climate science in one fell swoop. Characteristically, Rupert Murdoch's The Australian then criticized ABC News for failing to be "fair and balanced" because they interviewed an actual climate expert about the paper.
> 
> *However, Lu's paper contained numerous clear fundamental flaws. For one, the underlying argument was based on "curve fitting" or "overfitting," which is when the variables in a model are arbitrarily stretched to match the observational data. In this case, Lu took the global energy imbalance caused by CFCs (which are greenhouse gases) and scaled them up dramatically to match measurements of global surface temperatures.*




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nt/2014/apr/18/global-warming-carbon-not-cfcs

This is the way real science works isn't it Wayne? A scientist comes up with a hypothesis  for a situation, examines the evidence, puts together a paper and manages to get it published in an actual science journal .

*Then other scientists have a long hard look at the paper and see if it stands up to scrutiny*. Sadly (but ever so predictably) this paper didn't appreciate the scrutiny and has curled up and died. You can read the rest of the article to see just where Oing Bin Lus paper failed.

But it's worth highlighting the final comment because it sums up the position on non-deniers, non-believers, scientific agnostics, luke warmers, cold warmers and whatever other labels you care to use.



> Ultimately we can chalk CFCs up to another failed Anything But Carbon (ABC) hypothesis. The list of contradictory ABCs is extensive, for example blaming global warming on the sun, ocean cycles, CFCs, galactic cosmic rays, and volcanoes, all of which contradict the claims that the planet isn't warming or that it's cooling. Other contrarians contradict all of these arguments by accepting the reality of human-caused global warming, instead claiming that the climate just isn't sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect, or that global warming is a good thing.
> 
> While the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is consistent and cohesive, it seems like no two contrarians can agree on an alternative hypothesis, quite simply because none except human-caused global warming is supported by the full body of scientific evidence.




All yours Wayne.


----------



## basilio

While we are on the topic of what may happen if in fact 97% of the scientific community is close to the money  on the possibility that the earth will get a lot warmer let's consider another one of the myriad consequences.



> *Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels*
> One million cubic metres of waste near Sellafield are housed at a site that was a mistake, admits Environment Agency
> 
> Rob Edwards
> The Guardian, Monday 21 April 2014 00.28 AEST
> Jump to comments (601)
> 
> 
> Britain's nuclear dump is virtually certain to be eroded by rising sea levels and to contaminate the Cumbrian coast with large amounts of radioactive waste, according to an internal document released by the Environment Agency (EA).
> 
> The document suggests that in retrospect it was a mistake to site the Drigg Low-Level Waste Repository (LLWR) on the Cumbrian coast because of its vulnerability to flooding. "It is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now," it says.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...mbria-nuclear-dump-mistake-environment-agency


----------



## basilio

And finally...

We don't want to be fixated on simply one possible outcome of a warming earth.  Science Journalist Peter Hadfield presents his latest video on the effects on the earth as CC works its way through the environment.

Cheers 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

zzz...zzzz...zzzz


same ol' same ol'


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> I mean even if there was only a 10% chance they were right any sensible person would not want to risk the consequences of the world warming an extra 2-5 degreesC would they ?



Cost is the big factor here.

Cheap energy from fossil fuels versus a much more costly energy supply from renewables (which ultimately means lower GDP - it's not simply about household bills going up, households are a sideline in most countries so far as energy is concerned).

To use an analogy, I can book a flight Hobart - Melbourne with 4 airlines - Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar or Tiger. 

Qantas - the most expensive option but also the most reliable. 

Virgin - almost as reliable as Qantas and these days only slightly cheaper. 

Jetstar - significantly less reliable but also significantly cheaper.

Tiger - a lot less reliable and by far the cheapest.

Suffice to say that it seems that a large portion of travellers are willing to take the significant risk of delays (and suffice to say that when airlines have problems, Tas is never their highest priority) and choose to fly with the cheaper airlines. This is to the point that Qantas as such is ending most (all?) services on this route as the market just isn't big enough to support two "premium" airlines when most customers are focused heavily on price.

So there's an example of a situation where people are willing to take a risk of things going wrong simply in order to save money.

It is much the same with climate change. If we take the risk as being 10% then many people will choose to accept that rather than address the problem.

It's also not that easy to actually do it beyond a certain point. Eg if we look at France, a country that has pursued nuclear energy more enthusiastically than anyone else, the end result isn't what most assume. Sure, they have about 75% nuclear electricity (and a further 15% from renewables, mostly hydro) but electricity isn't the whole energy story. Overall, nuclear supplies 41% of total energy in France, next comes oil with 31%, gas 16%, coal 4% and the other 8% is renewable (mostly hydro).

So even with an ambitious nuclear program for the past 40 years and a bit of hydro too, France is still 51% reliant on fossil fuels for its' total energy supply (which includes non-electricity uses). And with 90% non-fossil electricity already, there isn't a lot of scope for "easy" measures to further cut fossil fuel use. Even if they went to 100% nuclear and renewable electricity, people in Paris will still be filling their cars with petrol or diesel, industry still needs fuel, trucks still run on diesel. You still need coal to make steel (not sure if France produces steel or not, but you get the point). Etc. 

Or what about Sweden, another country that underwent a major transition away from fossil fuels (particularly oil, same with France) after the 1970's oil price shocks. Electricity in Sweden is even more non-fossil than in France (55% renewable (mostly hydro), 39% nuclear, 3% gas, 1% coal, 1% oil) they still rely on a lot of fossil fuels overall. Renewables (largely wood and hydro) supply 35% of total energy, nuclear 29%, oil 28%, coal 5%, gas 3%. So overall Sweden still relies on fossil fuels for 36% of total energy, despite having 94% non-fossil electricity. 

Of what about the UK which famously closed most of its' coal mines amidst difficult cirumstances during the 1980's and 90's? Most of the mines are gone today, but coal still supplies 28% of UK electricity and 15% of total energy. Just because they largely stopped mining it didn't mean they stopped using it altogether - they replaced some of the lost production with imports and the rest mostly with gas. Here are the rest of the UK figures. Electricity is 46% gas, 28% coal, 16% from their heavily subsidised nuclear plants, 8% renewables (mostly "new" reneables - wind etc), 1% oil. So the UK still has 75% fossil fuel electricity, a figure that's barely changed despite the mine closures and the building of new renewables. Overall, UK energy comes from gas 40%, oil 35%, coal 15%, nuclear 8%, renewables 3%. So the UK is still 90% fossil fuel powered despite the mine closures, the collapse of North Sea oil production and declining gas production.   

Or closer to home there's Tasmania, the most hydro obsessed "dam the lot" place on earth through much of the 20th Century. It's 20 years since a new big dam was built and today it's 82% hydro for electricity, 10% gas, 9% wind (figures don't add to 100% due to rounding). So overall it's 90% renewable for electricity - comparable to France or Sweden. But once you look at total energy it's the same story, we're still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Overall it's oil (38%), hydro (30%), wood (11%), gas (11%), coal (6%), wind (4%). So that's 55% fossil fuels overall which is comparable to France's 51% with underlying economic factors (industry etc) explaining the difference between the two. The zinc works may well be running on renewable electricity as are the other smelters, my house may be heated with wood or electricity, but transport still relies almost totally on oil, industry still needs coal to fire the boilers, kilns and make alloys, gas is still gas. Etc.

So there's quite a few places that have done their best build nuclear, build hydro or close coal mines. But they are still substantially reliant on fossil fuels overall. Sweden has done pretty well on one hand whilst on the other, the UK hasn't really achieved anything apart from a switch from domestic production to imports. Overall, getting beyond about 50% non-fossil energy seems to be a real barrier, and even that is only achievable with (in practice) large scale hydro or nuclear. Not that nuclear is renewable or in any way "green" as such, but it's not technically a fossil fuel so I've considered it accordingly.

So long as the world continues to grow GDP we're going to use energy. And for the time being at least, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels. That's the harsh reality of it. 

Data sources - for the EU the data is official European Commission data "EU Energy in Figures" - a Google search will find it. For Tasmania the data source is Smurf's general knowledge, ultimately based on Hydro Tasmania, Tas Gas and state government data sources.


----------



## Smurf1976

This is more about established weather cycles than climate change, but thought I'd post it anyway.

Looks like we're in for another El Niño and possibly a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) as well. Both are associated with below average rainfall across much of Australia (particularly the South-East).

In short:

All models surveyed indicate an El Niño is likely in 2014, with 6 out of 7 suggesting it could form as early as July.

2 out of 5 suggest that a positive IOD is likely to develop early in Spring.

The BOM update is here (link to the latest version, regularly updated) - http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

As for the climate, ignoring any "evidence" that these cycles may or may not constitute, it will add to the output of coal-fired power generation to some extent. There's going to be a substantial slump in Australian hydro output soon even without a drought....


----------



## Logique

Warming could in theory resume (after a 17 year pause), but long term, a return to "icebox earth" is predictable.

So much for [the national broadcaster's] Emma Alberici's scientific consensus.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


> ...Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age.  If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere...
> 
> ...We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no...


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Warming could in theory resume (after a 17 year pause), but long term, a return to "icebox earth" is predictable.
> 
> So much for [the national broadcaster's] Emma Alberici's scientific consensus.
> 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html




If you're referring to Newman's little talk

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/tony-abbotts-business-guru-insists-the-world-is-cooling-16063

Newman’s reference to the peak temperature year in the late 1990s ”” 1998, at the height of an El Niño was for a time the hottest year on record, but those records are now taken up by 2005 and 2010 ”” are a typical crutch of the climate denialists. The fact that 13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred since the late 1990s, and that this decadal growth chart shows a continuing rise, does not seem to faze the likes of Newman …


----------



## Logique

You didn't follow the link did you. 

Your post is nonsense. Beginning to end. It is the climate alarmists who now desperately search for a crutch.

Clive Palmer and PUP are smarter than you.


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> Warming could in theory resume (after a 17 year pause), but long term, a return to "icebox earth" is predictable.
> 
> So much for [the national broadcaster's] Emma Alberici's scientific consensus.
> 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html




Here's a webpage on how the earth is run by giant lizards:

http://rense.com/general56/liz.htm


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> You didn't follow the link did you.
> 
> Your post is nonsense. Beginning to end. It is the climate alarmists who now desperately search for a crutch.
> 
> Clive Palmer and PUP are smarter than you.




Lets have a look at say the medieval warming period.  Not a global phenomenon.  Research suggest the tropical pacific was actually colder.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175842/medieval-warm-period-MWP

_Many studies show that the amount of warming occurring during the MWP varied by season and region. Some provide evidence of relatively warm temperatures (most pronounced during the summer months) in several regions, including the North Atlantic, northern Europe, China, and parts of North America, as well as the Andes, Tasmania, and New Zealand. Other studies maintain that the temperature conditions of certain regions, such as the Mediterranean, South America, and other locations in the Southern Hemisphere, were essentially no different from those of the present day._

As those sceptical of AGW say, regional changes are not proof.

Your link also refers to the little ice age.  Once  again it was regional in nature and not a global cooling.  Population decline around the world is also thought to have been a major cause.

Then this little nugget  - _"Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases."_

So land clearing for agriculture had no impact on the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere.  Rice is a huge generator of methane, especially using the style of farming still prevalent in Asia.  In South America large tracks of rainforest were burnt to support agriculture.  Increasing populations of ruminant animals would also see a large increase in emissions.  Sheep can produce up to 30 litres of methane and cows up to 200 a day.  Methane is about 30 times more heat trapping than CO2.

Whether these changes in land use and animal husbandry would have been enough to impact the climate, I don't claim to know, but to blatantly ignore them is a pretty poor effort.

_Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes _

So how do we explain the continued rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, or the increasing acidification of the oceans?  It's also not about the natural level, but the fact we're continually adding to the natural level of greenhouse gases.

---------

I don't claim to know how bad things will get if the current forecasts are even half true.  I do know our current economic set up is extremely vulnerable.  Our oil imports all go through 2 very easy to blockade areas.  The burning of fossil fuels has detrimental effects on health.  Every few years the forecasted years of use we have of our resources keeps dropping at an increasing rate.

At the very least we have to stop allowing the detrimental externalities of burning fossil fuels to be "free" to those using them.  We tax cigarettes because they have serious health affects and we know they cause a massive increase in health costs from those that use them.  So taxing them is partly to make people stop smoking due to the expense, and also to force them to pay for some of the increased medical expenses the public system will bear as well.  Why should it be any different for the burning of coal or oil?

We used an emissions trading scheme very successfully to reduce SO2 emissions so that acid rain is no longer something that happens in most of the world.

I say use the market to help move us to a less fossil fuel economy, because at least this way we have some control of how it's done.  The other option of continuing to dither and the eventual adjustment will be far more expensive and have a massive impact on the economy.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Whether these changes in land use and animal husbandry would have been enough to impact the climate, I don't claim to know, but to blatantly ignore them is a pretty poor effort.




It would come down to scale. Eg man has been doing agriculture, cutting wood and even burning a little bit of coal found near the surface for a very long time. But prior to the industrial revolution all of this, including agriculture, was on a scale that is small compared to today. Hence it could be argued that whilst we had agriculture a very long time ago, it wasn't on a big enough scale to really matter.

The whole debate is essentially about scale as are pretty much all environmental issues. Burning coal, logging forests, damming rivers or whatever - not even the Greens argue that we can't burn _any_ coal, that we should not cut _any_ trees or have _any_ dams. It's the sheer scale of it all that becomes a problem - it's one thing to cut 6,000 tonnes of wood to make furniture, an entirely different problem when you cut 6 million tonnes and export it all as woodchips.


----------



## trainspotter

Gotta love these alarmists and the climate change enthusiasts eh?

*April rainfall for Kalbarri WA*
Wettest this month	51.8mm	 27th April
Total this month	       61.2mm	 4 day(s)
Long-term average	18.4mm	3.7 day(s)
Wettest on record	98.2mm	1979
*Driest on record	0.0mm	1982*

But but but what about this?



> WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob says it is too early to say if mass plant deaths at Kalbarri National Park are a sign the region is experiencing the early effects of climate change.
> 
> A draft management plan from the State Government's Conservation Commission has proposed more than doubling the size of the WA tourist icon, in part to protect its biodiversity in the face of uncertainty about the impact of climate change.
> 
> It also highlighted the need to manage threats such as weeds, introduced animals and fire, and improve plant resilience.
> 
> Mr Jacob, who visited the park this month to open a $7.7 million facilities upgrade, said the plant deaths were noticeable.
> 
> "It's quite stark," he said. "*It's very dry.*"




Not anymore it aint !!! 52 mm in one day down the gorge is a freaking FLOOD !! So what happened in 1982? 0.0mm for the whole month of April !! Hmmmmmm reminds me of a Dorothea Mackellar poem,

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

Written in 1908 no doubt (I have only reproduced the second stanza for brevity and levity)

Let the feasting begin !


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Gotta love these alarmists and the climate change enthusiasts eh?




* One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.  Bit like the fly saying nothing changes over it's life span.

* Climate change is just as much about the increasing level of extreme events as anything else.  Certainly the last few years in Australia seems to have had plenty of extremes.  More than usual, can't be assed to do the research.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> More than usual, can't be *assed *to do the research.




I haven't come across this word before. In what context were you using it?



> -"Hey, are you ASSED?"
> "DUDE, I AM SO ASSED"
> 
> -"Hey, how ASSED are you??"
> "DUDE, I'm more ASSED than a ****bitch off the **** of her t1ts dicking the **** of the ****ter"
> 
> -"Im tryna get ASSED tonight so I can get some ASS and **** the assdick of the ******** in the bitchtit****"
> 
> -"**** is ****ED right now. IM ASSED"
> 
> -"******** bitch**** asscock nutdick dicked in the nip." <- Something someone might say if they were ASSED




http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assed


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> * One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.  Bit like the fly saying nothing changes over it's life span.
> 
> * Climate change is just as much about the increasing level of extreme events as anything else.  Certainly the last few years in Australia seems to have had plenty of extremes.  More than usual, can't be assed to do the research.




ABSOLUTE RUBBISH....nothing has changed in the last 80 years.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> * One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.



Agreed.

As an example, there's an established trend of declining inflows since 1976 in the Mersey-Forth catchment (Tas). But that doesn't preclude very high inflows occurring from time to time and between August and late October 2013 numerous spills occurred (including several weeks of constant spill beginning in August) during a sustained period of at times very high rainfall. And needless to say, this spill was despite constant 24/7 full load operation of the associated power stations once the storage had reached a reasonable level.  

Just because you have a flood one day, or even for a couple of months, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an underlying drying trend happening. 

Mersey-Forth scheme storage. 1 July 2013 (lowest for 2013) = 12.6% and on 19 Aug 2013 = 100% (all dams spilling).

The long term trend in inflows remains downward however. A couple of very wet months doesn't change this when you're looking at statistics over the long term.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> * One months stats are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.  Bit like the fly saying nothing changes over it's life span.
> 
> * Climate change is just as much about the increasing level of extreme events as anything else.  Certainly the last few years in Australia seems to have had plenty of extremes.  More than usual, can't be assed to do the research.




Just as one month means nothing, one region also means nothing. One must look globally at extreme events.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> ABSOLUTE RUBBISH....nothing has changed in the last 80 years.




.....and here comes noco the climate scientist.


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> Just as one month means nothing, one region also means nothing. One must look globally at extreme events.




If there's a measurable chance in Perth, Hobart, London, Los Angeles, Beijing or wherever then it is (1) obviously significant in terms of any local impacts and (2) is a data point so far as the overall climate is concerned.

It may well have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 (or perhaps it does), but the drying of South-West WA and much of Tas since the 1970's is an observed change in climate certainly. And the scale of the change, especially in WA, does bring practical consequences locally. Whether or not it is due to CO2 is uncertain, but something must have happened to cause this change be it man-made or natural. The situation now, is certainly very different to that which existed for the previous half century.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> .....and here comes noco the climate scientist.




I don't have to be Climate Scientist to remember the extremes you refer to.......I give you my assurance I have lived  through climate change conditions equal to or more severe what we have experienced in the last 20 or 30 years and more than likely before you were even born.

No increase in global temperatures for the past 17 years and the alarmist don't like it when you ram it down their throats

My mother often reminded me of the severe cyclone conditions in Port Douglas where she was born....the worst being in 1911...their house was reduced into matchwood.

I lived in Brisbane and experienced horrific hail storms in the 30's and 40's...Hail stones as big as cricket balls....roofs opened like a gigantic can opener....corrugated iron flying everywhere.

I have lived in Townsville  for the past 43 years and experienced the frightening experience of Cyclone Althea.

I worked in the south west Queensland in the early 50's and experienced extreme floods, fires and drought.

So you don't have to be factious with your unnecessary slur on me being a climate change scientist ....common sense is all that is required, something most alarmist like yourself don't have.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> So you don't have to be factious with your unnecessary slur on me being a climate change scientist ....common sense is all that is required, something most alarmist like yourself don't have.




Yes noco, common sense is sadly lacking in climate change hysteria. I suppose the alarmists work on the Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" theory;



> If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> If there's a measurable chance in Perth, Hobart, London, Los Angeles, Beijing or wherever then it is (1) obviously significant in terms of any local impacts and (2) is a data point so far as the overall climate is concerned.
> 
> It may well have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 (or perhaps it does), but the drying of South-West WA and much of Tas since the 1970's is an observed change in climate certainly. And the scale of the change, especially in WA, does bring practical consequences locally. Whether or not it is due to CO2 is uncertain, but something must have happened to cause this change be it man-made or natural. The situation now, is certainly very different to that which existed for the previous half century.




Smurf there have always been regional climate shifts. A classical case in point being the decline of the Mayans ~1000 years ago http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/applied_s...he-decline-of-mayan-civilization#.U166JlWSwuc 

I would also be the first to point out that regional climate shifts can be anthropogenic in nature, due to land use changes and other impacts. It is currently scientifically impossible however, to assign any co2 forcing to any regional climate change event.


Therefore if trying to find the fingerprints of co2 involvement, worldwide data should be used. Our landscape is shaped by extreme events... floodplains for example. It is totally unscientific and cognitively biased to assume a global affect because of a personal experience of one's own region. Also, other athropogenic factors must be considered, land use, general pollution etc.

The truth is that globally, extreme weather events are currently in decline eg http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/global-tropical-cyclone-landfalls-2012.html What has increased is the _*perception*_ that extreme weather events have increased, due to how and why these are reported.


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmmmmmm everyone seems to be missing what I was driving at in my post.

KATE EMERY - The West Australian - *April 28th, 2014*, 6:08 am wrote this article prattling on about "alleged" climate change and quoted Mr Jacob saying "It's quite stark," he said. "It's very dry." - 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23020471/drought-takes-toll-at-kalbarri/

But it RAINED on the *27th April, 2014*- 51.8mm	 to be precise !! 

WELL .. this particular national park is DRY and HARSH after a summer EVERY F@CKEN YEAR !!!!!!!

So 2 things here dear ASFers ...

1) Reporting on "alleged" climate change "could" be the reason that I am skeptical about climate alarmists or the media scaremongering the proletariat into believing this drivel written by an uneducated / ill informed hack. It's dry on the 28th April (as reported) ... no wait ... it rained 52mm on the 27th April.  Using words / sentences  like_ it is too early to say_ and _uncertainty about the impact of climate change_ does not give me any hope for the future if the alarmists/climate changers/scientists are allowing this kind of nonsense to be reported as fact when really it is only an opinion of an Environment Minister telling the reporter _"It's very dry"_

2) WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob is stating the bleeding obvious - "It's very dry" he said 
This would be the first time he has left his safe Liberal seat of Ocean Reef and looked at this particular National Park right at the end of summer just before the rains come and that is all he has to say? What's next ? The ocean "Is very wet" 

Now whilst some of you have jumped on the "monthly" statistics and referenced them as irrelevant in the time line of "global warming" please note I also referenced this fact - *Driest on record 0.0mm 1982* Surely this would have sent the alarm bells ringing? 

No wait ... there is actual evidence that this is a cyclic thing and has been going on for centuries 

Since 1860, when adequate meteorological recording commenced, the most severe droughts have occurred commonly at intervals of 11 to 14 years. Major droughts that were recorded later in the 19th century include:

*1829 Major drought in Western Australia with very little water available.*[5]
1835 and 1838 Sydney and NSW receive 25% less rain than usual. Severe drought in Northam and York areas of Western Australia.
1838−39 Droughts in South Australia and Western Australia
1839 Severe drought in the west and north of Spencer Gulf, South Australia.
1846 Severe drought converted the interior and far north of South Australia into an arid desert.
1849 Sydney received about 27 inches less rain than normal.
1850 Severe drought, with big losses of livestock across inland New South Wales (NSW) and around the western rivers region.
1864−66 (and 1868). The little data available indicates that this drought period was rather severe in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
1877 All States affected by severe drought, with disastrous losses in Queensland. In Western Australia many native trees died, swamps dried up and crops failed.
1880 to 1886 Drought in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); New South Wales (mainly northern wheat belt, Northern Tablelands and south coast); Queensland (1881–86, in south-east with breaks - otherwise mainly in coastal areas, the central highlands and central interior in 1883–86); and South Australia (1884–86, mainly in agricultural areas).
*1888 Extremely dry *in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); Tasmania (1887–89 in the south); New South Wales had the driest year since records began; Queensland (1888–89) had a very severe drought, *with much native scrub dying and native animals perishing*; South Australia had one of its most severe droughts; and Western Australia (central agricultural areas) lost many sheep.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

Hmmmmmm ... carry on everyone ... as you were.


----------



## noco

The Alarmist stated back in 2005, the Arctic ice would melt and kill off the polar bears but now the problem is the ice is so thick (16'), the polar bears may starve owing to the fact they cannot break through the thick ice.

GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|1|heading|homepage|homepage

And add this one also relating contrary predictions of rises in sea levels.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...for_robyn_williams_100_metres_of_rising_seas/


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> Ermmmmmmm everyone seems to be missing what I was driving at in my post.
> 
> KATE EMERY - The West Australian - *April 28th, 2014*, 6:08 am wrote this article prattling on about "alleged" climate change and quoted Mr Jacob saying "It's quite stark," he said. "It's very dry." -
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23020471/drought-takes-toll-at-kalbarri/
> 
> But it RAINED on the *27th April, 2014*- 51.8mm	 to be precise !!
> 
> WELL .. this particular national park is DRY and HARSH after a summer EVERY F@CKEN YEAR !!!!!!!
> 
> So 2 things here dear ASFers ...
> 
> 1) Reporting on "alleged" climate change "could" be the reason that I am skeptical about climate alarmists or the media scaremongering the proletariat into believing this drivel written by an uneducated / ill informed hack. It's dry on the 28th April (as reported) ... no wait ... it rained 52mm on the 27th April.  Using words / sentences  like_ it is too early to say_ and _uncertainty about the impact of climate change_ does not give me any hope for the future if the alarmists/climate changers/scientists are allowing this kind of nonsense to be reported as fact when really it is only an opinion of an Environment Minister telling the reporter _"It's very dry"_
> 
> 2) WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob is stating the bleeding obvious - "It's very dry" he said
> This would be the first time he has left his safe Liberal seat of Ocean Reef and looked at this particular National Park right at the end of summer just before the rains come and that is all he has to say? What's next ? The ocean "Is very wet"
> 
> Now whilst some of you have jumped on the "monthly" statistics and referenced them as irrelevant in the time line of "global warming" please note I also referenced this fact - *Driest on record 0.0mm 1982* Surely this would have sent the alarm bells ringing?
> 
> No wait ... there is actual evidence that this is a cyclic thing and has been going on for centuries
> 
> Since 1860, when adequate meteorological recording commenced, the most severe droughts have occurred commonly at intervals of 11 to 14 years. Major droughts that were recorded later in the 19th century include:
> 
> *1829 Major drought in Western Australia with very little water available.*[5]
> 1835 and 1838 Sydney and NSW receive 25% less rain than usual. Severe drought in Northam and York areas of Western Australia.
> 1838−39 Droughts in South Australia and Western Australia
> 1839 Severe drought in the west and north of Spencer Gulf, South Australia.
> 1846 Severe drought converted the interior and far north of South Australia into an arid desert.
> 1849 Sydney received about 27 inches less rain than normal.
> 1850 Severe drought, with big losses of livestock across inland New South Wales (NSW) and around the western rivers region.
> 1864−66 (and 1868). The little data available indicates that this drought period was rather severe in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
> 1877 All States affected by severe drought, with disastrous losses in Queensland. In Western Australia many native trees died, swamps dried up and crops failed.
> 1880 to 1886 Drought in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); New South Wales (mainly northern wheat belt, Northern Tablelands and south coast); Queensland (1881–86, in south-east with breaks - otherwise mainly in coastal areas, the central highlands and central interior in 1883–86); and South Australia (1884–86, mainly in agricultural areas).
> *1888 Extremely dry *in Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); Tasmania (1887–89 in the south); New South Wales had the driest year since records began; Queensland (1888–89) had a very severe drought, *with much native scrub dying and native animals perishing*; South Australia had one of its most severe droughts; and Western Australia (central agricultural areas) lost many sheep.[6]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia
> 
> Hmmmmmm ... carry on everyone ... as you were.



Yep I missed it but very much get your point now.

Unfortunately,  this is the modus operandi of the political green movement... often conscious and intentional, but also as often, cognitively biased due to propaganda.

Rarely are such statements bases on empiricism.


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> Therefore if trying to find the fingerprints of co2 involvement, worldwide data should be used.




Logically and according to most theories on the subject, any observed change would not be evenly distributed globally thus making the use of smaller regions worthwhile in the context of data collection and research.

If for example climate change turns the US into a dust bowl whilst Canada gets more rain and snow then at the global level there may well be no overall change. But from the perspective of either country it would be a very significant change indeed. 

If both South-West WA and much of Tasmania are experiencing the same trend, which started at the same time and which has had two abrupt "step changes" in both locations, then pretty clearly something has caused that be it man-made or natural.

If it were a slow, gradual change then it would be easier to understand but that hasn't been the case. Rather, it's two definite "steps" and in the case of Tas at least is very unevenly distributed seasonally - it's actually got a bit wetter in later winter and early spring, with the entire reduction overall due to a sharp decline over the first part of the year.

So something has changed there, the only questions are what and why? It might have absolutely nothing to do with CO2, although the first step down just happens to coincide with a resumption of warming in the mid-70's and the second step down coincides with an ending of warming in the late 1990's. That may be just coincidence, but I think that a reasonable person would at least consider that such timing is interesting to say the least and that it warrants proper research. A significant observed change locally, that coincides with a turning point globally - it's not proof by any means but it does suggest that something's going on that we don't really understand.

That warrants proper scientific examination in my view so as to gain a better understanding of whatever is going on since we clearly don't understand it at present. And needless to say, such research needs to be done in an unbiased manner by properly qualified people. Unbiased being a key word here - something's going on, the aim should be to understand the what and why of it.  



> The truth is that globally, extreme weather events are currently in decline




That may not be a bad thing, but it is a change nonetheless.


----------



## noco

One of the things that baffles me is the lack of discussion among these so called Global Warming scientists, who consistently blame it on man made pollution, is the relationship of the Sun and the Earth

I would like to observe a discussion between these scientists on the trajectory of the Earth in relation to the Sun, which as we all know, travels in an elliptical circuit.....At certain periods in time, the Earth is further from the Sun than at other times......As most of us also know, the Earth's axis can also vary by as much as 45 degrees.

The influence of the Sun on Earth is another subject I never hear these scientist talk about where they come up with these so called pier reviewed papers.......you never hear them talk about the Sun spots which are caused by massive explosion to the tune of 1 million Hiroshima atom bombs.....the radiation from the explosions must surely have an effect on our climate.

So instead of blaming man pollution on Global Warming or as they now call it Climate Change, why  not have such a discussion on the Sun and the Earth?


----------



## macca

If you want to see what happens when climate changes just take a drive up to Wilpena Pound in SA.
After you leave Hawker you will see a number of stone chimneys still standing in the paddocks showing where houses used to be.

This area was subdivided up into one square mile lots and sold off in the 1860/1870 era as prime farming land, times were good until the 1890 drought decade arrived and virtually all abandoned their land and left penniless. The better farmers and the better land holders were able to accumulate these deserted farms and create successful larger farms.

The interesting point is that this land was getting enough rain to farm for about 30 years, then the weather cycle reverted to normal and drought returned. They were warned by Goyder what would happen but they sold them anyway  

A link to a more detailed story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyder's_Line


----------



## burglar

noco said:


> ... these so called pier reviewed papers.......




pier 
a. A platform extending from a shore over water and supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, protect, and provide access to ships or boats.

:


----------



## noco

burglar said:


> pier
> a. A platform extending from a shore over water and supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, protect, and provide access to ships or boats.
> 
> :




Thanks for the correction...try PEER.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> So instead of blaming man pollution on Global Warming or as they now call it Climate Change, why  not have such a discussion on the Sun and the Earth?



I'd really like to see someone credible (a proper research organisation employing real scientists, meteorologists and other relevant people) look into the big picture.

We know about the sun. NASA etc has a lot of useful data there.

We know about ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) and various meteorological organisations have a lot of data about that one.

More recently we've become aware of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and again the meteorological organisations have data.

We know about man-made heat additions from the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear reactors, hydro power etc. The International Energy Agency (IEA), the Energy Information Administration (EIA, a US government agency), and BP (as in BP the oil company) all have very good data sets covering current and past energy production from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro. The only real uncertainty relates to biomass although there are some pretty good estimates available.

We don't have precise data, but some reasonable estimates are available (largely based on IEA, EIA and BP data) relating to other emissions too. SO2, NOx, CH4 and so on.

NASA and others have historical satellite images useful for determining the extent of large scale land use changes over time. Eg bitumen roads absorb solar radiation far more than a forest does. With proper analysis a lot of useful information could be gained from this.

And we know about the weather. Meteorological organisations have a lot of data on rainfall, temperature, wind speed and so on as well as things like sea surface temperatures. Others, such as water utilities and hydro-electric operators collectively have a huge amount of data relating to surface runoff. Others such as National Parks services, fire brigades, agricultural organisations etc have data relating to soil moisture levels both in developed and natural areas.

There are other possibly useful data sources as well. Eg highway departments, councils etc would in many cases have historic data about snow and ice impacts on roads. Airports and airlines might have some useful data relating to weather at airports too - it's definitely something they pay a lot of attention to operationally.

What it really needs is someone to put that altogether and come up with some plausible explanations as to what's going on. As I said, you don't have things like the two downward "steps" in runoff in south-west WA and much of Tasmania without there being a cause. There have been other observations of changes in various parts of the world too. 

It really needs someone credible to look at all the data from a proper research perspective. 

At present, all we've really got is politically tainted research which assumes a link to CO2 plus the various efforts of everyone from farmers to dam operators to economists trying to match various data sets in order to find some sort of linkage relating to their own specific area of interest.


----------



## basilio

The study of climate change has developed enormously in the past 30-40 years.  All of the areas mentioned (solar flares, changing orbits of the earth, El Niño/La Nina, land use changes and many others ) have been explored and continue to be explored in the context of our changing climate.

They do have an effect but to date the overwhelming effect of the change in climate over the past 100 plus years has been the increase in green house gases.

For those who are interested in the overall development of climate science in the past 150 years check out the last 3 graphs

Cheers

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=58
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=60
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=61
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=62


----------



## Smurf1976

But there's still a lot of stuff we don't know about the climate or even short term weather.

From a Hydro Tas media release today. This commences tomorrow and runs until the end of October. 

The full version is here. http://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/news/2014-04/start-hydro-tasmania-cloud-seeding-program



> The Southern Ocean is the source of much of the winter rain across southern Australia. However, some aspects of the ocean’s influence on weather patterns are poorly understood, resulting in limited ability to generate accurate long-term forecasts.
> 
> Gaining a greater understanding will support development of modelling tools that will result in improved long-term forecasting. This is vital to improving water resource management in many parts of southern Australia, including Tasmania.
> 
> Hydro Tasmania will conduct flights during the 2014 cloud seeding season to coincide with the passage of satellites over Tasmania, providing ‘in-situ’ validation of satellite measurements. Key measurements will be taken, including air temperature, wind and liquid water content of the atmosphere.
> 
> The research is being led by Monash University with support from scientists at Hydro Tasmania, Snowy Hydro, the Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (VIC).




Whilst this is about weather not climate, it's hard to assess any change in climate when we don't even properly understand what drives the weather. I mean, a few years ago the drought was being linked to CO2 and then someone took a look at the Indian Ocean Dipole, linked it with the Southern Oscillation data, and came to the realisation that the IOD was also a very relevant factor. Given the length of some of these cycles and the many combinations that are possible, it would be easy to assume that a particular weather pattern lasting many years is linked to CO2 even though there may well be another explanation for it.


----------



## basilio

I agree with you Smurf that there is no certainty about our ultimate knowledge of a subject.  Understanding the full details of local weather and longer term climate falls into that category.

The reason I posted the last links was to highlight the current understood range of influences on climate.  If you check them out you can see that there certainly are  an extensive range of short and long term influences. However on all the current evidence  the largest impact on the climate changes in the past 100 odd years have come from the steep increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. 

In the big picture the increased heat retention caused by extra greenhouse gases will drive up global temperatures. On a local level however there can easily be some differing results as a consequence of changes in wind patterns or other effects of an increase in global temepartures.

For example there have been concerns that the Gulf Stream might be threatened by global warming. If in fact the warm waters of the Gulf Stream stopped in their tracks Europe would rapidly freeze over.

I suppose thats why we now call it Climate Change rather than Global Warming. Things won't be simple

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/gulf_stream.htm


----------



## Logique

Logique said:


> You didn't follow the link did you.
> 
> Your post is nonsense. Beginning to end. It is the climate alarmists who now desperately search for a crutch.
> 
> Clive Palmer and PUP are smarter than you.



My apology to you Sydboy007 for this post of mine. 

The tone of it is below the standard I set myself for in here. Civility to all posters is the benchmark.


----------



## wayneL

Fwiw I think exampl3s of this can be found at both extremes of the debate


----------



## basilio

Latest research from glaciologists and Earth science researchers say that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is now unstoppable. 



> Antarctic ice sheet collapse ‘unstoppable’, scientists say
> 
> 
> ICE is melting in the western Antarctic at an unstoppable pace, US scientists say, warning that the discovery holds major consequences for global sea level rise in the coming decades.
> 
> They say the speedy melting means prior calculations of sea level rise worldwide made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will have to be adjusted upwards.
> 
> *“A large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat. It has passed the point of no return,” said Eric Rignot, professor of Earth system science at the University of California Irvine.*
> 
> He noted that surveys have shown there is no large hill at the back of these glaciers that could hold back the melting ice.
> 
> “It will raise sea level by 1.2 metres or four feet,” said Rignot, whose paper appears in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters journal.
> 
> A separate study published in the journal Science on Monday found that Thwaites glacier is melting fast and that its collapse could raise global sea level nearly 61 centimetres.
> 
> That study was based largely on computer modelling of the future, in addition to airborne radar measurements of the West Antarctic ice sheet.
> 
> Study author Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington, said the process is now expected to take between 200 and 1000 years.
> 
> Current projections of sea level rise, agreed upon by international surveys, do not account for the Antarctic ice sheet melting.



http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...e-scientists-say/story-e6frflp0-1226915299389
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...et-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn

It will be interesting to see how  politicians/countries respond to the research. This is not a "tomorrow" catastrophe -  but in geological terms a rise of 4 metres in sea level with the collapse of West Antarctic ice sheet would totally redraw the maps of the world.


----------



## sptrawler

The good thing about the report is that it claims the melt is irreversible.
Now they may get down to formulating a global plan and carbon reduction scheme.

It will certainly redraw the USA


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Latest research from glaciologists and Earth science researchers say that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is now unstoppable.
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...e-scientists-say/story-e6frflp0-1226915299389
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...et-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn
> 
> It will be interesting to see how  politicians/countries respond to the research. This is not a "tomorrow" catastrophe -  but in geological terms a rise of 4 metres in sea level with the collapse of West Antarctic ice sheet would totally redraw the maps of the world.




Now tell me, who do we believe?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...at-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208


----------



## burglar

noco said:


> Now tell me, who do we believe?
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...at-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208




Sea Ice is different to Land Ice ... but what would I know!


----------



## burglar

sptrawler said:


> The good thing about the report is that it claims the melt is irreversible.
> Now they may get down to formulating a global plan and carbon reduction scheme.
> 
> It will certainly redraw the USA




Do I detect a faint whiff of humour? :


Surely if it is irreversible, we can forget a carbon reduction scheme and teach our grandchildren .
to build floating homes!


----------



## wayneL

Watts' article on basilio's link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/...ark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/#more-109037


----------



## explod

The article in the Australian noco, is describing seasonal ice not the deep ice established over millions of years.

The seasonal ice dissipates completly in the summer.  It is caused by increased cloud from warming.  The odd effects of global warming give amunition to sceptics but unfortunately at our future peril.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The article in the Australian noco, is describing seasonal ice not the deep ice established over millions of years.
> 
> The seasonal ice dissipates completly in the summer.  It is caused by increased cloud from warming.  The odd effects of global warming give amunition to sceptics but unfortunately at our future peril.




Citations please.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Watts' article on basilio's link:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/...ark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/#more-109037




Thanks for the link Wayne. It was worth reading teh full Press Release from the science body that did the research

To be clear my original quote was from the News Media source. I added The Guardian link because it expanded on the story.

I think this a fundamentally revolutionary piece of research. Ok the  Western Antarctic ice shelf won't melt in a 10 years or 50 or 70.  The time line starts at 100 years.  But there will be ongoing and probably rapidly escalating melt (particularly if temperatures continue to rise on a business as usual basis) and in conjunction with other ice melting sea level rises for this century will most likely be on the high side of a metre

But in the long term it seems to be "gone" with all the implications of a sea level rise of at least 4 metres (this doesn't include any further contribution from the Greenland ice cap)

*Implications*
1)  Completely destroys climate skeptics  assertions about relatively small effects of climate change. 
2)  Puts the world on notice that for all intents and purposes major population centres on coastal fringes will be unlivable in a century or so.
3) Creates fundamental uncertainty about the future extent of sea level rises.  So exactly how far up the hill do we build ?
4) Raises the issues of  how do we deal with this seemingly certain but long time line catastrophe. ? For example how much more infrastructure development do we put into current cities versus  planning and building the cities for tomorrow ?

I would be interested Wayne in hearing the skeptics view of the strength of the Antarctic ice shelf research.  In fact I would be even more interested to hear how all other relevant scientists assess the work.


----------



## Sdajii

basilio said:


> Thanks for the link Wayne. It was worth reading teh full Press Release from the science body that did the research
> 
> To be clear my original quote was from the News Media source. I added The Guardian link because it expanded on the story.
> 
> I think this a fundamentally revolutionary piece of research. Ok the  Western Antarctic ice shelf won't melt in a 10 years or 50 or 70.  The time line starts at 100 years.  But there will be ongoing and probably rapidly escalating melt (particularly if temperatures continue to rise on a business as usual basis) and in conjunction with other ice melting sea level rises for this century will most likely be on the high side of a metre
> 
> But in the long term it seems to be "gone" with all the implications of a sea level rise of at least 4 metres (this doesn't include any further contribution from the Greenland ice cap)
> 
> *Implications*
> 1)  Completely destroys climate skeptics  assertions about relatively small effects of climate change.
> 2)  Puts the world on notice that for all intents and purposes major population centres on coastal fringes will be unlivable in a century or so.
> 3) Creates fundamental uncertainty about the future extent of sea level rises.  So exactly how far up the hill do we build ?
> 4) Raises the issues of  how do we deal with this seemingly certain but long time line catastrophe. ? For example how much more infrastructure development do we put into current cities versus  planning and building the cities for tomorrow ?
> 
> I would be interested Wayne in hearing the skeptics view of the strength of the Antarctic ice shelf research.  In fact I would be even more interested to hear how all other relevant scientists assess the work.




Read a bit more into it, basilio. The 'expert' alarmists on this one aren't saying anything noticeable is going to be happening for hundreds of years, and it could be over a thousand years before the sea levels rise dramatically. They say it will be at least 200 years, probably about 600 years. Apparently it will very slowly rise as the ice slowly melts, then suddenly (probably about 600 years from now) it will rise quickly. That's far enough into the future for no one to care about it today in terms of economics, and even if it was certain fact, anyone who wanted to could dismiss it as unimportant and we'd forget about it for generations.

Big predictions like this come from science all the time, and usually they turn out to be wrong. In this case it will be generations before we can be certain.

It's worth considering that over the next thousand years or so all sorts of other things could happen. Maybe somewhere else something will happen to counter this melting (if it is as certain and dramatic as they say). Either way, I'm guessing that in 500 years we'll have the means to reverse it artificially if need be.

I really don't think that saying "We convinced that we can extrapolate things and say that this is going to be a big problem hundreds of years from now" immediately destroys anyone's idea about anything.

Even if we absolutely knew this to be fact and we all agreed, it wouldn't change the value of waterfront properties for a few generations. Look at the slums in Detroit which were the wealthy areas just decades ago. Look at the wealthy areas today which were slums just decades ago. These things come and go within much smaller timeframes, we have hundreds of years to plan for it, if it is even going to happen. Look at the buildings we are putting up today. For the most part we really don't expect them to still be in use in 500 years. We don't generally put skyscrapers built to last right next to the ocean, and hey, even they are disposable in that sort of timeframe. How many massive buildings were there 500 years ago?

Even so, people acting like sea level changes are unnatural and catastrophic is a bit silly. Within recent history (tens of thousands of years) sea levels have risen and fallen hugely. Multiple times over recent history we have had land bridges form and vanish between places like Australia and PNG, and with those events came massive changes on what still is land in Australia (and of course all over the rest of the world). None of that had anything to do with human activity, and of course that sort of thing was going on hundreds of thousands of years too (before humans even existed) and millions of years before that. We even had continents drifting apart, smacking into each other, etc. It's not like any of that is going to stop regardless of what we do or don't pump into the atmosphere. Everyone seems to think that if we reduce our CO2 emissions or had never produced any, the climate never would have changed, but that's just a modern myth. If we want a constant climate and sea level we'll only achieve it through artificial manipulation, and it will very much be an unnatural thing - the climate has never before sat still. Among other myths is that despite the fact that the climate has been warmer and cooler than at present before, the rate of change has never been greater. Even that's not true, climate scientists aren't even sure that the current rate of change is the greatest in the last thousand years, and it's certainly not the greatest ever, it has been greater many times before.

Interestingly, since we know that the climate has been warmer than at present many times before, including not all that long ago, this ice melting must have occurred then too. Presumably the rate of warming isn't relevant to the ice - it isn't alive, it doesn't evolve, it'll melt whenever it's warm. So this is just a normal cycling thing too.

We'll probably develop the means to keep the climate constant within the next few hundred years, though we may or may not choose to do that.

As usual, the alarmists are making a big deal out of something which isn't unnatural (the timing may be, but it has happened before and would have happened again with or without us) and may not be happening at all, and even the scientists are predicting it to be in at least 200 years, probably three times that.


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as predicting the future, based on whatever information is available at the time, is concerned then it is usually not that difficult to get the overall direction right. It's timing that tends to go horribly wrong.

I can say with confidence that the stock markets will crash and I can say with confidence that there will be major bushfires in Victoria and Tasmania. There will also be a large aircraft crash somewhere and the price of petrol will go up. And all of us will die.

Forecasting the "what" is the easy bit. It's the "when" that is difficult.

So I can accept that sea levels might rise 4 metres but I don't place any credibility on the timing. All sorts of things will happen over the next 100, 200, 500 or however many years that will wreck any attempt to forecast the timing. If they did get it right then that would largely come down to luck since you can't, for example, make any reasonable forecast of CO2 emissions, natural cycles and so on beyond the short term.

So, sea levels will change = almost certainly yes. But I won't be taking any notice of timing predictions unless they are over the short term (20 years at the most) and based on specific, well understood causes. Beyond that, things change.


----------



## basilio

Smurf I disagree with the logic and implications of your comments on the research around the West Antarctic ice shelf.

As I see it the work is largely an engineering analysis of what is happening to the ice. The researchers have discovered that the ice shelf seems to  be breaking away from the bedrock below as a result of warm water undercutting the shelf. because there is nothing to stop the shelf they think it will (almost) inevitably slip off the land and end up melting in the sea with consequent raising of sea levels by around 4 metres.

The suggested time span is obviously a guesstimate 200-1000 years. But if temperatures continue to increase as rapidly as they have then you wouldn't want to bet on the long time scale.

*There is no suggestion that  future changes in CO2 levels are necessary to continue this result.* The shelf  seems to have broken. ( Mind you I'd want to have a lot more evidence than just a couple of research efforts. I wonder how willing governments will be to focus on this work ?)

The final result also won't just happen at the end of the time scale. We would expect to seeing significant increases along the way.

Unlike  stock market crashes, fires or plane crashes the world won't go back to "normal" .  We will have to decide when our current coastal cities have to be abandoned and where we move hundreds of millions of people - if in fact we can at all. The required time span and resources necessary for such a move  are beyond anything current societies have had to face. Theres no point in comparin this change with rises and falls in sea levels when the earths population was in the millions and cities didn't exist in any substantial form.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The suggested time span is obviously a guesstimate 200-1000 years. But if temperatures continue to increase as rapidly as they have then you wouldn't want to bet on the long time scale.




That is precisely my point. There are all sorts of things that could happen over the next 200 - 1000 years which cause the prediction to become inaccurate. It could easily turn out to be 100 years or it could turn out to be 2000 years.

If you are projecting something hundreds of years into the future then you only need a tiny error in measurement, calculation or assumptions, compounded over a few centuries, to be way off the mark.


----------



## wayneL

Some interesting stuff on Cook's thoroughly discredited 97% consensus paper and University of Queensland.

Astonishing stuff http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/...s-data-for-a-scientific-rebuttal/#more-109318


----------



## basilio

Smurf1976 said:


> That is precisely my point. There are all sorts of things that could happen over the next 200 - 1000 years which cause the prediction to become inaccurate. It could easily turn out to be 100 years or it could turn out to be 2000 years.
> 
> If you are projecting something hundreds of years into the future then you only need a tiny error in measurement, calculation or assumptions, compounded over a few centuries, to be way off the mark.




Just don't think your on the mark here Smurf. The analysis of the glaciers we are talking about indicates a break with the underlying land and a rapidly increasing movement to the sea. And there is nothing that can physically stop the flow. It's all down hill. Further increases in temperature will just accelerate the movement

In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.

As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probabaility of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.

http://www.latimes.com/science/environment/la-sci-0513-antarctic-ice-sheet-20140513-story.html


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> Just don't think your on the mark here Smurf. The analysis of the glaciers we are talking about indicates a break with the underlying land and a rapidly increasing movement to the sea. And there is nothing that can physically stop the flow. It's all down hill. Further increases in temperature will just accelerate the movement
> 
> In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.
> 
> As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probabaility of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/science/environment/la-sci-0513-antarctic-ice-sheet-20140513-story.html




Not in any way, shape or form has any part this post refuted any part of Smurf's!

Onya Smurf


----------



## trainspotter

And all we need is another Mount Pinatubo to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. Ipso facto ... global cooling


----------



## Ijustnewit

Fantastic graphic time line graph TS , guess it put things into perspective. Considering Hobart Tassie has just broken another 100 warm record yesterday. This was also on top of the hottest day on April records , the last couple of years Hobart has broken nearly all record heat maximums. 
Lets hope as the graphic shows , what goes up must come down. Just hope I'm still around to see it , Im running out of summer clothes . 

Cheers IJN

Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.
> 
> As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probability of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.




Predicting structural failure when it is imminent isn't that difficult since you know that it's about to happen. You have actual proof that the structure isn't sound since the effects of this are clearly visible.

But predicting something 200 to 1000 years into the future is way beyond the abilities of civil engineering. Sure, you can make a prediction based on what is known today but there is a huge risk that this will end up being inaccurate over that length of time. You only need a slight change in the rate of degradation, compounded over a very long time, to end up being wrong in your forecasts if they go that far into the future.

External factors are also a major influence. Eg the Tasman Bridge was opened in 1964. I'm not sure of the actual design life, but it would likely be a century or so for a bridge like that. Then a ship rammed into it in 1975 causing a partial collapse. Needless to say, whilst it was always possible for such an event to occur nobody could have accurately predicted the timing unless by chance.

Or take the coal mine at Yallourn (Vic). Circa 1920 they took samples and used these as the basis for designing the boilers at the first Yallourn power station (Yallourn A). The power station was built and the mine developed. Just one problem - the samples they took turned out to be different to the coal from the mine that was actually developed to the point that the coal wouldn't burn in the boilers. End result = various attempts to modify the boilers and the SECV had to operate a second mine close by, which had coal of the type in the samples, in order to make use of the power station they'd just built. A simple mistake but a real one that was actually made.

Now, can anyone tell me that we know exactly all relevant information relating to this ice? No, you can't say that because there are uncertainties. And with uncertainties comes the possibility of error. And there will be external influences too - whilst it might be given that the ice has become detached and will eventually melt, the rate of melting would almost certainly change if the temperature changed. And there is a definite possibility that the water temperature won't be constant for the next 200 - 1000 years. Even without the man-made climate issue, natural variation alone is almost certain to result in a change over that time either up or down.

I am not an engineer but I know a few and none of them would be willing to make any definitive statements that far into the future about something as uncertain as naturally occurring ice without stating that they are estimates only, are based on current knowledge which is likely to be imperfect and are subject to ongoing revision as more data becomes available.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?




Walking around in T-shirt in May in Hobart just doesn't sound right. It's unusually warm weather that's for sure.

As for the heating, well power demand is only just above normal Summer levels so it's safe to say that not a lot of heating is being used. Some yes, but nowhere near as much as would normally be the case this time of year.


----------



## basilio

Ijustnewit said:


> Fantastic graphic time line graph TS , guess it put things into perspective. Considering Hobart Tassie has just broken another 100 warm record yesterday. This was also on top of the hottest day on April records , the last couple of years Hobart has broken nearly all record heat maximums.
> Lets hope as the graphic shows , what goes up must come down. Just hope I'm still around to see it , Im running out of summer clothes .
> 
> Cheers IJN
> 
> Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?




I wouldn't be quite so enthusiastic about accepting the evidence of the graph that TS posted.

Few points

1) The meteorologists who posted the graph are quite upfront about recognising that human activity with producing CO2 as well as deforestation ect will significantly increase temperatures.  They do also point to volcanoes and solar activity as contributors to temperature changes.



> However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.




2) I chased the origins of the graph to see exactly what was being measured. Turns out it's totally misrepresents the last 150 years . How? It seems to be based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That in itself should send a message of concern. Using only one indicator for global temperatures is not a good look.

But there another quite fatal flaw. *The final reading on the  graph is in fact 1855  not 2000.*  I'll quote what he did.


> Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 ”” a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
> 
> *This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. *The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:
> 
> "The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland."
> 
> Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough ”” it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.




Check it out..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm


----------



## noco

What has the QU got to hide?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...climate-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226920713818


----------



## basilio

Still wondering if/when the penny will drop with regard to the collapse of the east Antarctic  Ice shelf and the implications of that.

Somehow people are trying to take comfort from the possibility it might be wrong, "that it is a long way off" or "that anything can happen in the future".  Frankly you are better off saying a few Hail Marys because at this stage it will require an absolute miracle to stop that has now been put into motion. 

The glaciologist who headed the research team has outlined the depth and breadth of research that was used to come to the view of his team. It is not a flimsy story.

I wonder what the response would be if other scientists announced they were 95% sure that an asteroid would hit the  earth sometime in the next 200 years unless we did something "magical " ?



> *Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?*
> Last week saw a 'holy ****' moment in climate change science. A landmark report revealed that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable
> 
> Eric Rignot
> The Observer, Sunday 18 May 2014 05.30 AEST
> 
> Last Monday, we hosted a Nasa conference on the state of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which, it could be said, provoked something of a reaction. "This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like," ran a headline in Mother Jones magazine.
> 
> *We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable, with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.*
> 
> Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to stop this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however – the Antarctic system will at least take longer to get to this point.
> 
> The Amundsen sea sector is almost as big as France. Six glaciers drain it. The two largest ones are Pine Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). They stretch over 500km.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> ... unless we did something "magical " ...




Asked a vineyard owner the other day, "How high are you above sea level?" 
"105 feet", was his very, very casual reply!!

If I live to see the ice melt, I will be moving to high ground.









How's that for something "magical"!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Still wondering if/when the penny will drop with regard to the collapse of the east Antarctic  Ice shelf and the implications of that.
> 
> Somehow people are trying to take comfort from the possibility it might be wrong, "that it is a long way off" or "that anything can happen in the future".  Frankly you are better off saying a few Hail Marys because at this stage it will require an absolute miracle to stop that has now been put into motion.
> 
> The glaciologist who headed the research team has outlined the depth and breadth of research that was used to come to the view of his team. It is not a flimsy story.
> 
> I wonder what the response would be if other scientists announced they were 95% sure that an asteroid would hit the  earth sometime in the next 200 years unless we did something "magical " ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa




My money is on an asteroid the size of a football field to hit Earth prior to the ice shelf collapsing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ast-Earth-tomorrow-YOU-watch-live-online.html


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> My money is on an asteroid the size of a football field to hit Earth prior to the ice shelf collapsing.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ast-Earth-tomorrow-YOU-watch-live-online.html




Well *THAT *is a gloomy view!! Perhaps it will come around the next time Tony Abbott is believed again..

But anyway just to add more light to the leaps and bounds science has made with regard to understanding what is happening in the Antarctic check out the following  read.


*Doubling of Antarctic ice loss revealed by European satellite*



> Continent shedding 160 billion tonnes a year, CryoSat-2 shows, just days after warning over western ice sheet's collapse
> 
> 
> Damian Carrington
> theguardian.com, Tuesday 20 May 2014 02.08 AEST
> Jump to comments (241)
> *
> 
> Antarctica is shedding 160 billion tonnes a year of ice into the ocean, twice the amount of a few years ago, according to new satellite observations. The ice loss is adding to the rising sea levels driven by climate change and even east Antarctica is now losing ice.
> 
> The satellite measures changes in the height of the ice and covers virtually the whole of the frozen continent, far more of than previous altimeter missions.
> 
> ......CryoSat-2 collected five times more data than before in the crucial coastal regions where ice losses are concentrated and found key glaciers were losing many metres in height every year. The Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers in west Antarctica were losing between 4m and 8m annually.
> 
> *




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite


----------



## trainspotter

Maybe because it was a record HIGH prior to the melt?



> *ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.
> 
> The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.*
> 
> _*“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.
> *_
> Increased ice cover in Antarctic continues to be at odds with falling Arctic ice levels, where the summer melt has again pushed levels well below the average extent for 1981-2010. The centre said while the rate of *Arctic-wide retreat was rapid through the first half of April, it had slowed.
> 
> The April Arctic minimum was 270,000sq km higher than the record April low, which occurred in 2007. The Antarctic sea ice extent anomalies were greatest in the eastern Weddell and along a long stretch of coastline south of Australia and the southeastern Indian Ocean. The centre said the increased ice extent in the Weddell Sea region appeared to be associated with a broad area of persistent easterly winds in March and April, and lower-than-average temperatures.
> 
> Changing wind patterns are increasingly cited to explain the expanding Antarctic sea ice.
> 
> Research suggests that the changes in Antarctic sea ice, both where it is increasing and where it is decreasing, are caused in part by the strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208#

But but but it is melting ... no wait ... this happens EVERY year 



> The Tasmania-based Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre has just released a new "position analysis" of the brain-achingly complex issue of southern hemisphere sea ice.
> 
> It's got a lot of science in it.
> 
> Antarctica's sea ice goes through dramatic swings from year to year.
> 
> _Between September and October, the amount of sea ice can reach as much as 19 million square kilometres – an area one and half times the size of the continent.  By the end of the summer melt season, there's only about three million square kilometres left._
> 
> The annual change, the ACE CRC reports, is "one of the biggest natural changes" observed anywhere on Earth.
> 
> *The ACE CRC's report says that since 1979, the amount of sea ice coverage around Antarctica has been rising by about 285,0000 square kilometres every decade.*




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...1/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition

"Collapse" is such a strong word:-



> So where's the 'collapse'?
> 
> The collapse refers to this glacial retreat, but that doesn't mean there'll be a catastrophic splash of ice sheets into the sea anytime soon. In fact, The New York Times' Andrew Revkin takes issue with the word "collapse" because it implies a sudden, catastrophic breakdown. Ice is being lost. *However, the computer models suggest that one of the ice sheet's key glaciers, Thwaites Glacier, won't disappear for another 200 to 1,000 years.*




http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...k-antarctic-meltdown-rising-sea-level-n104616

Computer modelling is wrong:-



> Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. *But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.*
> 
> Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz32J1lLqkj

Ho hum ... back to the coal face (pun intended)


----------



## wayneL

The only collapse currently in progress is the reputation and credibility of UQ, Nuccitelli and Cooke, regarding the data fiasco of their consensus project.

The plot continues to thicken.


----------



## basilio

TS how about trying to discuss the same question rather than  going in a totally different, irrelevant direction ?

The Antarctic research that has caused this major concern is about  the rapid melt and retreat of glaciers and Antarctic land ice. Global satellites can now very accurately determine the thickness of ice and the movement over time. 

*Sea ice changes have absolutely nothing to do with this  situation. *Zip . Zero. Anyone quoting such material is just trying to distract with irrelevant dribble.

However having said the above when one actually reads the story from The Guardian you realise their point is that the sea ice story in fact  is part of changes in the climate around Antarctica. Did you actually read the full story to find that out ?

And as far as climate modelling being wrong  regarding temperature rises.? Just BS  *and completely irrelevant to glaciologist measurement of rapid changes in the size of Antarctic  land ice*

But hey why start looking at reality now ? It's too late to change what has/is happening and you wouldn't believe it anyway would you ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS how about trying to discuss the same question rather than  going in a totally different, irrelevant direction ?
> 
> The Antarctic research that has caused this major concern is about  the rapid melt and retreat of glaciers and Antarctic land ice. Global satellites can now very accurately determine the thickness of ice and the movement over time.
> 
> *Sea ice changes have absolutely nothing to do with this  situation. *Zip . Zero. Anyone quoting such material is just trying to distract with irrelevant dribble.
> 
> However having said the above when one actually reads the story from The Guardian you realise their point is that the sea ice story in fact  is part of changes in the climate around Antarctica. Did you actually read the full story to find that out ?
> 
> And as far as climate modelling being wrong  regarding temperature rises.? Just BS  *and completely irrelevant to glaciologist measurement of rapid changes in the size of Antarctic  land ice*
> 
> But hey why start looking at reality now ? It's too late to change what has/is happening and you wouldn't believe it anyway would you ?




OOOOOeeeeeerrrrr maybe if you read my posts you would realise that I am talking about the same thing 

Your second post is to do with 160 billion tonnes of ice melting into the ocean. Happens every year as it is cyclical. I was pointing out the large thaw is due to the sea ice being at it's largest level in years. A record they claimed.

Your first post and subsequent post dribbles on about a "collapse" ... sells newspapers and nothing more and from the same newspaper you quoted I quoted the same thing that Smurf1976 pointed out ... a lot can happen in 200 - 1000 years. You are stating this as a fact rather then a computer model which is "predicting" this to happen.

But hey ... let's not be alarmist about this now shall we :frown:


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> OOOOOeeeeeerrrrr maybe if you read my posts you would realise that I am talking about the same thing
> 
> Your second post is to do with 160 billion tonnes of ice melting into the ocean. Happens every year as it is cyclical. I was pointing out the large thaw is due to the sea ice being at it's largest level in years. A record they claimed.
> 
> Your first post and subsequent post dribbles on about a "collapse" ... sells newspapers and nothing more and from the same newspaper you quoted I quoted the same thing that Smurf1976 pointed out ... a lot can happen in 200 - 1000 years. You are stating this as a fact rather then a computer model which is "predicting" this to happen.
> 
> But hey ... let's not be alarmist about this now shall we :frown:




TS get it right.

Sea ice freezes and melts every year in a cyclical fashion.  

160 billions tons of ice melting  from the glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica are NOT sea ice. 

By the way that research report was carried by hundreds of papers around the world. I chose to use the report posted in News Ltd  just to "show" it wasn't a beat up from the usual suspects.

But whats the point ?  If you can't/won't recognises the simple differences between cyclical sea ice and the rapid melt of long term glaciers theres little sense in discussion.


----------



## basilio

Are we experiencing more extreme weather events that are way outside long term records ? And what effect ares having on countries, economies and people ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/serbia-floods-threaten-biggest-power-plant
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/california-major-wildfire-mostly-contained-firefighters
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...change-global-warming-miami-floods-hurricanes


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS get it right.
> 
> Sea ice freezes and melts every year in a cyclical fashion.
> 
> 160 billions tons of ice melting  from the glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica are NOT sea ice.
> 
> By the way that research report was carried by hundreds of papers around the world. I chose to use the report posted in News Ltd  just to "show" it wasn't a beat up from the usual suspects.
> 
> But whats the point ?  If you can't/won't recognises the simple differences between cyclical sea ice and the rapid melt of long term glaciers theres little sense in discussion.




So the sheet ice is "collapsing" (read catastrophic event) or is it slowly melting (nature at it's best) and comparing it with such select time lines is a moot point:- 



> The data collected from 2010-2013 was compared to that from 2005-2010.




Whose to say from 2015 - 2019 it might start freezing over again ? 160 billion tonnes of water is raising the sea level 0.45mm per annum so ten years will make the sea rise 4.5mm ??? Hardly a devastating affect. Like I said previously, only need a Mt. Pinatubo effect on the global climate and hey presto ... global cooling.

You, yourself is the first person to say "You can't cherry pick the data/timeline as it is too small a quotient to sample to come up with a plausible thesis." I also referred to "computer models" as the NASA scientist analysed 90 papers and found them to be 95% INACCURATE and overstated the actual position of global warming. 



> However, the* computer models* suggest that one of the ice sheet's key glaciers, Thwaites Glacier, won't disappear for another 200 to 1,000 years.




So please desist in trying to paint me as a neophyte who has no grasp of the written word. Perhaps you should try comprehending what I am writing and you might, just might get a grip on what is really going on.

Stop being such an ALARMIST !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## basilio

Please yourself TS as to how accurately you read information.  The fact that you repeatedly confabulated the melting of glaciers and land ice with the ongoing melt and freezing of sea ice doesn't give me confidence in your judgement.

I also wonder just how much you accurately read all of the reports as distinct from picking the bits you feel are most useful for your argument.  For example you quoted figures from 2005 to 2013 as somehow the most relevant examples.  This came from information gleaned from the Cryo Sate 2 satellite which has only been up for a few years. What this report offered  was a remarkably accurate  analysis of  the amount and rate of ice melt in the past 8 years.



> The satellite measures changes in the height of the ice and covers virtually the whole of the frozen continent, far more of than previous altimeter missions.
> 
> CryoSat-2 collected five times more data than before in the crucial coastal regions where ice losses are concentrated and found key glaciers were losing many metres in height every year. The Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers in west Antarctica were losing between 4m and 8m annually.




The main papers however indicated that *the retreating glaciers had been monitored for 40 years*



> The two studies, by Nasa and the University of Washington, looked at the ice sheets of western Antarctica over different periods of time.
> 
> The Nasa researchers focused on melting over the last 20 years, while the scientists at the University of Washington used computer modelling to look into the future of the western Antarctic ice sheet.
> 
> But both studies came to broadly similar conclusions – that the thinning and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has begun and cannot be halted, even with drastic action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
> 
> ...One of those glaciers, Pine Island, retreated 31km at its centre from 1992-2011. Rignot said all six glaciers together contained enough ice to add an additional 1.2m (4ft) to sea levels around the world.






> The two teams of scientists used airborne radar and satellites to map the layers of ice down to the sea bed, and to study the rate of glacier movement. *The Nasa team also drew on observations stretching back 40 years.*
> 
> Even so, Rignot said he was taken aback at how fast change was occurring.
> 
> “This system, whether Greenland or Antarctica, is changing on a faster time scale than we anticipated. We are discovering that every day,” Rignot said.
> 
> Scientists are also finding that the causes of the ice loss are highly complex – and that it is not just due to warmer temperatures causing surface melting of the ice.
> 
> Both papers said the contact between the glaciers and the relatively warmer water at the ocean depths was the main driver of the slow-motion collapse.




Then you go on to suggest that somehow a Mt Pinaturbo eruption (or similar ) could reverse climbing temperatures.

Really ?  Really ? Ok lets accept that a major volcano eruption will lower (or stabilize) world temperatures for 1 -3 years because of the particulates in the atmosphere. In no way will that have any longer term effects on global warming.  When the dust settles  temperatures will resume their upward path. And there is no chance that somehow the extra 3-4 degrees of warmth in the southern oceans will disappear because of one eruption. (Unless it takes everything out...)

And finally you suggest that it is alarmist to be concerned about a long term threat to every coastal installation less that 3 meters above sea level.  How about posing that question to a Insurance actuary and see what they say ?



> *
> Lloyd's calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk*
> Extreme weather as global climate alters demands a longer view and more action to avoid financial losses, says insurance firm
> 
> Julia Kollewe
> The Guardian, Thursday 8 May 2014
> 
> Lloyd's of London, the world's oldest and biggest insurance market, has for the first time called on insurers to incorporate climate change into their models.
> 
> The call to action comes a day after a landmark US report, named the National Climate Assessment, which has warned that climate change is wreaking havoc across the US.
> 
> *Lloyd's says damage and weather-related losses around the world have increased from an annual average of $50bn in the 1980s to close to $200bn over the last 10 years.*
> 
> ...A new report by Lloyd's, which consulted the world's largest catastrophe modelling firms, says a 20cm rise in the sea level at the southern tip of Manhattan Island increased Superstorm Sandy's surge losses by 30% (up to $8bn) in New York alone.
> 
> ...Lloyd's made a £516m loss in 2011 after paying out the largest catastrophe claims on record – caused by earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand, storms in the US, and floods in Thailand and Australia. The area flooded in Thailand was the size of Birmingham and it remained under water for a couple of months.



http://www.theguardian.com/business...account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses

______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...et-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite


----------



## trainspotter

Just LOL Basilio ... you are once again going off half cocked old **** :

You have missed the point completely. Can you answer me this one simple question:-

Are glaciers/Antarctic land ice COLLAPSING or are they merely melting?

If they are merely "melting" at a rate that will increase the ocean level by .45mm per annum then this is hardly earth shattering news. Big woop. Like I said previously it would only take a very small shift in down degrees for things to start freezing again.

As for the sea ice / land ice the article is not very clear as to whether they are including the WHOLE of Antarctica ice melt or just being specific to the land ice /  glacier movements. SO I did some further research and lo and behold the diagrams posted up INCLUDED the *sea ice *hence my reference in the first place.

Once again I reiterate to you 8 years or 40 years is not long enough to come even close to developing a thesis. Yep .. it's melting right now ... come and tell me when it starts freezing again next winter. 

Lloyds is jumping on the bandwagon cause now they can INCREASE your premiums and blame it on global warming. Surely you are not that naive to not understand that this STARTLING bit of money grabbing sh1te is simply that ... bottom line improvement with bigger bonuses to the executives that thought this up?

The article you posted even stated* "But both studies came to broadly similar conclusions – that the thinning and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has begun and cannot be halted, even with drastic action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."*

So it cannot be halted huh? May as well go live on top of ULURU right now and avoid the rush.


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> ... The article you posted even stated* "But both studies came to broadly similar conclusions – that the thinning and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has begun and cannot be halted, even with drastic action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."*
> 
> So it cannot be halted huh? May as well go live on top of ULURU right now and avoid the rush.




+100


----------



## trainspotter

This should make you happy basilio:-



> *For China, the world's second-largest economy, the deal will help ease gas shortages and curb its reliance on coal.*
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted that Russia and China have been trying to work out an energy agreement for 10 years and said the deal “isn't a sudden response to what's been going on” in Ukraine.
> *“And if the world benefits as a result of that, that's fine,”* he said




http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...billion-gas-deal/story-fnda1bsz-1226926867904

ERGO less coal being burned and producing nasty Co2 gas is a good thing right?


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> ERGO less coal being burned and producing nasty Co2 gas is a good thing right?



Theoretically yes, although my expectation is that increasing China's use of gas will merely slow the rate of increase in coal rather than see a consumption drop as such.

There are exceptions, but in countries with growing economies any new energy source is usually in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, what they already have.


----------



## basilio

Ok let's find some common understandings.




> Are glaciers/Antarctic land ice COLLAPSING or are they merely melting?
> 
> If they are merely "melting" at a rate that will increase the ocean level by .45mm per annum then this is hardly earth shattering news. Big woop. Like I said previously it would only take a very small shift in down degrees for things to start freezing again.




I suggest that "COLLAPSING" is a word that can have legitimately different meanings depending on the context.
In geological terms the total melting of glaciers studied in a time span of 200-1000 years would certainly rate as a collapse.  200-1000 years is a very short geological time span for such volumes of ice to melt and sea levels to rise by 3-4 metres.

From a human perspective 200-1000 years looks like many generations away. So I can understand (a little) why "collapse" seems too dramatic a term to use for this change in sea levels.

But on a more realistic bigger picture I suggest the scenario posed by what seems to be irreversible melting of the East Antarctic ice shelf  is very sobering. I opened this discussion  a few days ago with those points

1) The extra melt is* in addition* to what scientists are are calculating as rises caused by sea water expansion, continuing loss of land glaciers and current melt rates in Greenland. So what looks like merely .45mm a year adds up to 45 mm, at least,  in addition to what is happening elsewhere. We are seeing the effects of sea levels rises now and these will be even more obvious in the next 20-40 years let along 200.

2) The prospect of an ultimate rise of 3-4 metres in sea levels (and possibly more) makes decisions about how up hill we rebuild cities very difficult.

3) If/when we come to the conclusion that this melt is on how do we make decisions on pouring more resources into effectively stranded assets versus  rebuilding for the longer term? And do we have the courage to ask the question, provide the research capacity to examine the problem and then accept the results ?

Also TS your throwaway line that there could be a temperature reversal in the next few years that refreezes the ice is  just magical thinking. Global warming has been particularly noticeable in the polar regions. That is where the biggest increases in temperature have occurred. That is why there has been this geologically rapid deterioration in  ice shelfs which scientists formerly thought were very secure. 

The only way (I can see) reversing temperatures rises is a collapse of the gulf stream which would immediately ( a few years at the most) plunge the Northern hemisphere into an ice age.  Interested in that scenario ? 

So yeah maybe Uluru is a good option.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
http://americablog.com/2014/03/climate-change-gulf-stream-could-cause-ice-age-europe.html


----------



## trainspotter

Finally a more sensible approach to this discussion.

col·lapse  [kuh-laps] 
verb (used without object), col·lapsed, col·laps·ing.
1. to fall or cave in; *crumble suddenly*:

melt1   [melt]  Show IPA
verb (used without object), melt·ed, melt·ed or mol·ten, melt·ing.
1. to become liquefied by warmth or heat, as ice, snow, butter, or metal.
2. to become liquid; dissolve: Let the cough drop melt in your mouth.
3. to pass, dwindle, or *fade gradually*

Ok I will go with the timeframe of 200 - 1000 years in a geological sense is a very short time - point conceded. But as this phenomenon has only been observed for 40 years who is to say in let's say ... 40 years time there is a Pinatubo effect (now don't get confused that I am relating this to a volcano erupting, a Pinatubo effect is a global cooling analogy) and like you say the gulf stream collapses (there is that word again) ahem ... fades gradually thusly cooling the atmosphere of Antarctica and things start freezing again.

As for the ocean rising 4 - 5 metres blah blah blah I would appreciate a link to the 45mm reference as most of the material I have read has said the COMBINED of all ice floes/glaciers/land ice/cyclical sea ice ad infinitum melting is less than 1mm per annum ?

If it is like Rignot claims that this trend is now "irreversible" then we should seriously look at his data to see if there is any level of "uncertainty" in his studies before we all become Chicken Little's screaming "the ocean is rising, the ocean is rising". But the unfortunate fact about "uncertainty" is that the error bars always go in both directions. 

John Connor: The whole thing goes: The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.


----------



## trainspotter

I am off to Indonesia for 2 weeks to check out the rising sea levels . The only melting ice I will be seeing is in my cocktails.  Full report on Rignt's discussion paper to be forthcoming on how the lower islands will fare if the ocean rises by 4-5 metres when the ice melts. Hopefully my villa will become an oceanside property and the value increases !!

Will be keeping an eye on the markets to close at 5461 so I can claim my Nexus tablet ... *wink*  (Tony Abbott style)

TS


----------



## basilio

> If it is like Rignot claims that this trend is now "irreversible" then we should seriously look at his data to see if there is any level of "uncertainty" in his studies before we all become Chicken Little's screaming "the ocean is rising, the ocean is rising




1000% agree. In fact I think all governments should look extremely closely at the two reports as well as all other glaciological studies in Arctic and Antarctic. And I think commission more work to see what is happening. 

Your quite right to say that if this is as serious as it looks we would want to have all the information available.

The understandings behind the behavior of the ice caps  as the world has warmed has been growing exponentially in the past 10-20-40 years. I can remember the initial views were that melting would be very slow if it happened from the top down  given that summers were short ect. 

Then the glaciologist discovered that the warm water was in fact coming underneath the ice shelf and eroding it away from the base at a far more rapid rate than they ever imagined.They also discovered that huge cracks were opening up in the Greenland ice cap and billions of tons of melt water was penetrating the cap, reaching the base of the glaciers and speeding up the movement.

With regard to Rignot's work I think it  has gone from theory and research to factual observation of the "collapse" of the ice shelf. He has noted possible time frames for this collapse and they are predicated on the amount of future warming. More warming - quicker collapse.

Wikipedia has a comprehensive look at current sea level rise. It's a bit out of date with the latest IPCC data but it is certainly thorough.

The reference to the .45mm a year increase in sea levels from the current rate of melting in the Antarctic comes from the Rignots recent work. Mind you the fact that the rate of melt has increase so markedly in the last 10 years suggests this could increase  quit quickly.

A 45mm increase in sea level would be the expected rise over a century at the current rate.

Have fun in Bali TS.  

Cheers

http://mashable.com/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse/ 
A more detailed description of the  report than I have seen previously
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20543483
Pulls together the contribution of Greenland and Antarctic ice melt from 1995 to 2011


----------



## basilio

Learning more about the threat of West Antartica ice melt.

An excellent article in Mother Jones. Just learnt a fascinating fact about ice, gravity and sea levels.



> If you want to truly grasp the scale of Earth's polar ice sheets, you need some help from Isaac Newton. Newton taught us the universal law of gravitation, which states that all objects are attracted to one another in relation to their masses (and the distance between them). The ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland are incredibly massive””Antarctica's ice is more than two miles thick in places and 5.4 million square miles in extent. *These ice sheets are so large, in fact, that gravitational attraction pulls the surrounding ocean toward them. The sea level therefore rises upward at an angle as you approach an ice sheet, and slopes downward and away as you leave its presence.
> *
> This is not good news for humanity. As the ice sheets melt due to global warming, not only do they raise the sea level directly; they also exert a weaker gravitational pull on the surrounding ocean. So water sloshes back toward the continents, where we all live. "If Antarctica shrinks and puts that water in the ocean, the ocean raises around the world, but then Antarctica is pulling the ocean towards it less strongly," explains the celebrated Penn State University glaciologist Richard Alley on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast. "And as that extra water around Antarctica spreads around the world, we will get a little more sea level rise in the US than the global average."




http://www.motherjones.com/environm...inds-richard-alley-antarctica-greenland-sandy


----------



## basilio

And for those who like a bit of fun mixed up with the environment check out this comedy clip from John Oliver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg


----------



## basilio

And finally...

How fast are glaciers melting. Check out this time lapse video to get an idea of what is happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM


----------



## cynic

It appears there may indeed be an anthropogenic cause behind the deterioration of glaciers:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/man-steals-glacier-for-designer-ice-cubes/


----------



## trainspotter

The ice melts very quickly in my 18 year old Chivas in the warmer climate of Bali. So quickly in fact that I don't have to add any water to it. You might be onto something here badilio, I am going to ask the government for a research grant to investigate this phenomenon on a much larger scale and increase my Chivas intake ..... full report to be forthcoming.


----------



## sydboy007

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...23/one-hurricane-is-enough-to-ruin-your-year/

_We are currently in the midst of an active few decades in Atlantic hurricane activity. Sea surface temperatures””the basic fuel of a tropical cyclone””have been above average since the 1990s. In fact, 2014 is the first year the Atlantic Ocean has boasted average sea surface temperatures in nearly two decades._


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks Sid, much appreciated.

So that explains the reduction of hurricanes in the late 90s and the subsequent increase since.

_With less fuel and, most likely, more resistance from the atmospheric circumstances created by an El Nino in the Pacific””stronger trade winds and also more winds high in the atmosphere to rip apart any tropical cyclone as it tries to form””the outlook is good for avoiding hurricanes this year, much as 2013 saw only two storms reach hurricane intensity despite a forecast for an active year from NOAA. Yes, if this year’s El Nino proves strong, then it may dampen hurricane activity to the lowest end of NOAA’s range but, if that climate pattern fizzles, then more hurricanes can be expected._


----------



## basilio

*Re Melting of Greenland/Antartica*

A couple of weeks ago the big news was the report on what seems to be the inevitable collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet. The new methodologies are also allowing more detailed  research   with regard to the Greenland ice cap which is also melting rapidly. 

The results are disturbing.



> *Global warming and the vulnerability of Greenland's ice sheet*
> 
> A new study sheds light on the stability and vulnerability of the world's large ice sheets.
> 
> ....When they compared their results with other studies, the authors found, “widespread presence of well-eroded, deep-bed troughs along the ice-sheet periphery, generally grounded below sea level, coincident in location and spatial extent with fast-flow features and extending over considerable distance inland.” These features were not previously known.
> 
> These findings allow a few conclusions. Aside from the importance of deep troughs to ice motion, the extension inland means that glaciers will have to retreat further than anticipated inland in order to reach a position above sea level. “Some of them will stay in contact with the ocean for centuries, when we thought that in a couple of decades they would stabilize.” said Mathieu Morlighem.
> 
> The ice sheet is therefore more vulnerable than predicted, and existing projections of sea level rise contribution from Greenland are too conservative and need to be revised. The research also shows that also means that these troughs are old – it takes 10,000 to 100,000 years for these troughs to be created through erosive action. Also startling is that while only 8% of these regions correspond to ice-grounding below sea level, they are responsible for 88% of the total ice discharge. These are the parts of Greenland that really matter.
> 
> As the authors state in the paper, “Our findings imply that the outlet glaciers of Greenland, and the ice sheet as a whole, are probably more vulnerable to ocean thermal forcing and peripheral thinning than inferred previously from existing numerical ice-sheet models.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...al-warming-vulnerability-greenlands-ice-sheet

Clearly the most concerning part is the discovery that there are very deep troughs under the glaciers which extend much further into Greenland than previously realized. 
*
This means that warm ocean water will be able to reach much further inland and accelerate glacier movement and break up of the ice caps*

The previous models for melting of the ice caps are being re-worked.  The melt will be much quicker than we thought.


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> *Re Melting of Greenland/Antartica*
> 
> Clearly the most concerning part is the discovery that there are very deep troughs under the glaciers which extend much further into Greenland than previously realized.
> *
> This means that warm ocean water will be able to reach much further inland and accelerate glacier movement and break up of the ice caps*
> 
> The previous models for melting of the ice caps are being re-worked.  The melt will be much quicker than we thought.




But I thought the science was settled years ago.

Are you telling us that the scientists were clearly extremely inaccurate and clearly wrong?


MW


----------



## explod

medicowallet said:


> But I thought the science was settled years ago.
> 
> Are you telling us that the scientists were clearly extremely inaccurate and clearly wrong?
> 
> 
> MW




On what points are you referring to medicowallet, ie. on what was settled?


----------



## medicowallet

explod said:


> On what points are you referring to medicowallet, ie. on what was settled?




Well the science of course!!

It's like the vibe of the science

And the vibe is awesome because the science was settled years ago. All this" new" science stuff is wrong cause like the science is settled and 97% of mothers prefer napisan. ....we..I mean..97% of scientists feel the vibe

Mw


----------



## bellenuit




----------



## burglar

medicowallet said:


> Well the science of course!!
> 
> It's like the vibe of the science
> 
> And the vibe is awesome because the science was settled years ago. All this" new" science stuff is wrong cause like the science is settled and 97% of mothers prefer napisan. ....we..I mean..97% of scientists feel the vibe
> 
> Mw




That's right! last week we wanted to spend quadzillions to make emissions go away.
Now CC is unstoppable and we are glad we didn't spend the quadzillions after all.



:::


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> on what was settled?




According to many at the time, "the science is settled" with regard to changing of the earth's climate.

That being so, there should be nothing new to discover and no point in further research into something we supposedly already know everything about.

That was the argument although personally I've never considered this one to be in any way "settled". I'd describe it as a plausible but contentious theory, backed by modest observations and complicated by knowledge gaps relating to the earth's climate in general (whether changing or not). I sure wouldn't say that anything is "settled" although many did claim just that.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... the earth's climate in general (whether changing or not) ...





Just Googled: Solar activity variations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_variations

I just don't understand enough of this science to be posting anything half clever on CC

:


----------



## medicowallet

bellenuit said:


>





Great vibe!!

Weather is day to day, month to month etc.  

Climate data points are 30 years, and we are using 4-5 data points to change the energy usage patterns of the entire world (well at least those stupid enough to not realise that China and India will burn all the coal they can get anyway)

Until then, let's pay increasing prices for electricity in this country when we should be paying next to nothing.

Still, the vibe of that erroneous, playing heart string tugging music mockumentary is AwEsOmE!!

MW

Attack the heart, and the mind doesn't matter.
P.S. With the settled science, it makes interesting reading when the measured data doesn't fit the predicted curve.... but then again, we can always adjust the curve to fit the data at the next review.... why do we need regular IPCC reviews if the science is settled?


----------



## sydboy007

medicowallet said:


> Great vibe!!
> 
> Weather is day to day, month to month etc.
> 
> Climate data points are 30 years, and we are using 4-5 data points to change the energy usage patterns of the entire world (well at least those stupid enough to not realise that China and India will burn all the coal they can get anyway)
> 
> Until then, let's pay increasing prices for electricity in this country when we should be paying next to nothing.
> 
> Still, the vibe of that erroneous, playing heart string tugging music mockumentary is AwEsOmE!!
> 
> MW
> 
> Attack the heart, and the mind doesn't matter.
> P.S. With the settled science, it makes interesting reading when the measured data doesn't fit the predicted curve.... but then again, we can always adjust the curve to fit the data at the next review.... why do we need regular IPCC reviews if the science is settled?




Why should we pay next to nothing for electricity?  The networks are massively expensive to run if you want them to be reliable, and they have to be reliable otherwise the other costs probably increase more than what you save.

Also, even those who question AGW generally don't dispute the negatives of coal production and electricity production.  There's very little to argue against empirically when you see the deaths caused via coal mining, the pollution and environmental destruction due to coal mining, the high levels of pollution that occur near by to coal power stations, the toxic fly ash that needs to be dealt with after the coal is burned.

Factor in that every 5 years the remaining levels of most fossil fuel resources seems to get lower and to me it seems we should at least be considering moving to alternative fuel sources because the infrastructure has such a long economic life and takes quite a long time to self liquidate.  Is it sensible to build a new coal power station if the chances are good an alternative power source will be cheaper in 20 years - remember solar PV is already below the cost that the Govt had forecast it would be out in 2020 and beyond.  New methods of making PV is also reducing the amounts of energy and resources needed to actually build them, also helping to keep the current cost declines to continue.

I tend to believe that AGW is occurring, simply because of the laws of thermodynamics and that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has to trap more heat.  But if you don't believe that, but do believe in free markets, then we should be trying to reduce the free lunch that fossil fuels get by making them reflect the true costs they impose on the community instead of letting them remain externalities which kill thousand of people a year and cost billions in increased healthcare.

Witht he new forms of software control and algorithms being written now, it is becoming increasingly easy to manage the variability of renewable energy on the grid.  For SA they're already over 30% wind power, and the AEMO has gotten very good at using forecast data for how much wind produced electricity will be available to the market.

Back during the March heat waves the below graphs shows what can happen in the reliable fossil fuel energy sector.  This is for the Millmerran coal-fired power station in QLD.  The red line is what happened to wholesale power costs.

Because wind power, and solar PV, are generally smaller installations and spread out geographically, they tend to have smaller impacts on 5 minute availability if any suffers failure or production declines.  The second chart shows how reliable wind power is in aggregate.  Pretty much +/-5% which is probably as reliable as one can get without exponentially increasing costs.

The last graph shows just how good at prediction wind produced electricity - between 2-4%.

Considering wind farms are now cheaper to build than most new power generators - except maybe for very inefficient peak capacity - to me it makes economic and social equity sense to transition away from fossil fuels as much as we can.  It's also provides economic insulation in that once a renewable energy plant is up and running the ongoing costs are minor compared to standard plants.  In California they now have robotic cleaners that don't use water that go around cleaning the panels on some of the large installations out in the desert.  We could be doing similar here.


----------



## medicowallet

sydboy007 said:


> Why should we pay next to nothing for electricity?  The networks are massively expensive to run if you want them to be reliable, and they have to be reliable otherwise the other costs probably increase more than what you save.




Because as a country, we own the coal.

Nice graphs etc by the way, however I am not debating that with you (although I wonder why in Australia wind power is heavily subsidised)..

What I am saying is that any new science must be wrong, because all of the accurate science has BEEN SETTLED.

and by settled I mean finalised, accurate, and law/fact/unchallengeable.

Don't try to defend this modernist stance, it is clearly wrong.

MW


----------



## sydboy007

medicowallet said:


> Because as a country, we own the coal.
> 
> Nice graphs etc by the way, however I am not debating that with you (although I wonder why in Australia wind power is heavily subsidised)..
> 
> What I am saying is that any new science must be wrong, because all of the accurate science has BEEN SETTLED.
> 
> and by settled I mean finalised, accurate, and law/fact/unchallengeable.
> 
> Don't try to defend this modernist stance, it is clearly wrong.
> 
> MW




Argue to those who said it was settle.  The theory of gravity isn't settled yet, so I've only ever accepted that, on the probabilities, the likeliest cause of the global warming we've seen is due to increased greenhouse gases.

I'd say those against this view are just as "settled" in their views.  They leave no doubt that the world could be warming.  It's those in the middle who provide a better response either way.  Extremism never gets us very far.

If you are arguing against subsidies to wind farms, are you also against the subsidies still received by the fossil fuel industries.

You could argue whether charging the resource companies fuel excise is or isn't a good thing (it is an efficient and low distorting tax), but the favours provided to the industry are high.

Until last year the NSW Govt had been trying to build the Cobbora coal mine at a cost of $1.5B and then sell the coal to power generators at just $30 / tonne.  Unfortunately Origin energy made like bandits, getting the Earing power station for just $50M and another $300M in "compensation" because they would not receive the heavily subsidised cheap coal.  Got to give NSW Labor the credit for such a stoopid idea for overt fossil fuel subsidies. 

Environment Victoria released earlier this year, which has looked at 2013 Treasury data and forecast it forward to 2016/2017.  The result? Subsidies continue to grow and if we compare 2016 to 2005 subsidies to the fossil fuel sector are expected to have grown by 71.4%.

The second chart seems to show we're an economy built on subsidies.

The AEMO has come out and confirmed that even though the RET has a direct cost to businesses, the suppression effect it has had on wholesale electricity prices over the remaining 70%+ of the market has meant the next cost is basically 0 - you do have to get your head around the merit order affect and how this impacts on wholesale electricity pricing.  So in my way of thinking the RET is a near $0 cost form of greatly reducing the carbon emission and associated health costs in the electricity sector, while also helping to make the electricity network more resilient.  How is it in any way a sane policy for the current Government to look at watering it down and replacing it with DA which is going to add billions in costs to tax payers?

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ret-repeal-would-be-win-for-incumbents-pain-for-everyone-else-32803

The report points to a recent study from the University of Melbourne which suggested rooftop PV could be responsible for a reduction of $2-4/MWh in average electricity prices per 1,000MW installed across the NEM.

Under this scenario, ROAM estimates Australian households would pay more than half a billion dollars a year extra for electricity in 2020, and up to $1.4 billion more each year beyond. That’s around $50 extra per year per household by 2020, and up to $140 per year more beyond then.

“In addition to the $20 billion of investment already generated, the Renewable Energy Target will drive a further $14.5 billion of investment in large-scale renewable energy out to 2020, as well as many billions more in household renewable energy such as (rooftop) solar power,” said the CEC in a media statement accompanying the report’s release on Wednesday. “If the policy is removed, most of this simply won’t happen.”


----------



## medicowallet

Good Effort Sydboy.  There are a lot of words there.

If whoever granted the mining licences actually made a percentage of coal a compulsory price for local consumption, then we could have much cheaper power at the expense of mining company profits, which would help drive production in the mining sector, and also help keep production costs here lower.

As for your data, it is often irrelevant to produce "subsidies" without also including how much revenue is generated by those industries, and I am not aware of what those figures are.

I will repeat my prior statement that I AM NOT INTERESTED in entering your debate with you, because I am truly not interested, however you may continue to have this debate with yourself if you so choose.

I am interested in the debate about the science, the settled science with the great vibe.  The settled science that infers that CO2 produced by man is driving catastrophic global warming (read climate change) that we can fix.

That is the real issue, because we will be dead before we can do anything else.

The seas will boil, acid will rain from the sky etc etc

I am truly scared for myself and future generations.

MW


----------



## basilio

Always interesting to observe how people think... particularly on this forum.

For example "the science is settled" statement regarding global warming. Yep no argument from me at this stage. On all overwhelming available theoretical evidence and physical observations the world is warming very rapidly and us banging a few trillions tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is the major reason for this current warming.

Now with regard *to just how fast the ice caps are going to melt with this warming *?  Well that piece of science hasn't been settled yet. And it just so happens that now because our scientists are so smart and our technology getting so much better we can now see through the bottom of the glaciers and discover the huge ravines that will enable our newly warmed oceans to get in under the glaciers and create a nice (geologically) quick melt. Isn't science grand ?

All clear now folks ?

________________________________________

By the way Medico Wallet that was an excellent video clip you offered regarding weather/climate. Great summary of the science.

Cheers


----------



## medicowallet

Yep and it is all settled in the direction that the iPcc. Feels the vibe of

All settled.  The vibe is clear and the science is like Don.  Is Don is good

Mw


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Because wind power, and solar PV, are generally smaller installations and spread out geographically, they tend to have smaller impacts on 5 minute availability if any suffers failure or production declines.  The second chart shows how reliable wind power is in aggregate.  Pretty much +/-5% which is probably as reliable as one can get without exponentially increasing costs.




The problem is the magnitude of change rather than the rate of it.

Forecasting production is certainly useful, AEMO does it as do most of the wind farm owners themselves. No argument there, we can do reasonably accurate forecasts.

But suppose that the forecast has wind operating at 20% of capacity at a time when we need it to be operating at a higher level. That's a very real problem if we actually transition to renewables, as distinct from simply using them to supplement a predominantly fossil fuel and hydro system.

How does one go about directing a market participant (eg wind farm) to increase the wind speed at their site? Who has the actual power to issue such a direction? AEMO can't do it, wind farm owners can't do it, the Prime Minister, the Queen or the US President can't do it. God would be the only chance, but last time I checked he wasn't known for spending much time in power control rooms, indeed they don't even have his phone number.

Therein lies the problem. Wind is an intermittent energy source. We can predict it but we can't control it. I suspect that society isn't going to work too well if we come to the point of AEMO predicting that offices can open between 4am and noon tomorrow and that dinner will be able to be cooked between 11pm and midnight.

Wind can certainly work as an energy source as can solar. But to do so requires storage. And at present, storage either costs a fortune to build on sufficient scale or necessitates what the Greens despise more than anything else - big dams. 

Until such time as we deal with the storage issue, plus load shifting to the extent that it's practical (and there are definite limits which get worse as the economy moves more toward a "service" economy since manufacturing is a lot easier to load shift in bulk than anything else) then we're stuck with wind, solar etc as supplements to a predominantly fossil fuel and hydro power system rather than being a replacement for it as such.

Electric cars are another one to throw into the mix. They're not really mainstream yet, but a few are on the roads and a few homes are having dedicated charging circuits installed. Trouble is, those charging circuits are pulling some pretty serious current and there's only so much time shifting that can be done. And needless to say, most of that charging is going to happen when the sun isn't shining. It works fine as a means of increasing overnight load on a system relying on conventional power sources (fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear) but if x kWh must be delivered between 7pm and 6am to charge an electric car well then it must be delivered between 7pm and 6am whether or not the wind is blowing (and the sun sure won't be shining). Now, to the extent that we have electric vehicles raising the overnight load in the suburbs, it reduces any network benefit from distributed generation such as solar. There's no gain in reducing daytime loads if the actual peak is at night.

As an educated guess as to what we'll actually end up with:

More wind and more solar definitely. Plus an assortment of other renewables where they're available. *Already happening*

Some efforts to develop a smart grid, though it will be of moderate effectiveness only (used to shift loads by minutes or hours, not days or weeks). *Already happening to a limited extent* 

Some reworking of existing hydro to direct production away from base and intermediate loads and more toward intermittent (not every day) very sharp peaks. That's more turbines, more penstocks, bigger head and tail races etc but not new dams as such in most cases apart from a re-regulating pond here and there. *Already happening to some extent, mostly through uprating of existing machines*

Significant new transmission investment to make all this work. More investment, more and bigger lines but not much of an increase in total volumes moved. The cost will ultimately be socialised - you'll pay for the grid running past your house whether you are connected or not. "Off grid" will still incur a grid access fee (unless there is no grid physically available) and it won't be cheap. *Precedent is set by the water industry*

Coal will still be around, but it will shift heavily to underground coal gasification and using the gas to generate electricity primarily due to the much greater flexibility in operation. Underground coal gasification will, in practice, compete with natural gas as a fuel source. *Establishment of the Qld LNG plants is opening the way for domestic (industrial and power) use of gasified coal via greatly increasing the price of natural gas*

Conventional coal and nuclear power = dead in the long term as they're simply too inflexible in operation and uneconomic with intermittent use, especially so for nuclear. But we'll keep most of the current coal-fired plants for quite a while yet since they've already been built. *Such plants are already struggling economically, and not just in Australia with a few closures already happening*


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> But suppose that the forecast has wind operating at 20% of capacity at a time when we need it to be operating at a higher level. That's a very real problem if we actually transition to renewables, as distinct from simply using them to supplement a predominantly fossil fuel and hydro system.




I'm a bit confused by this.  I can understand an issue where the forecast is say for 100 MWh of production and it turns out to be only 60, but if you have a forecast of a certain level then I'd assume you would look to other sources to make up for the forecast deficit.

I don't see us being able to remove fossil fuel from our electricity network in the medium term, baring some massively cheap breakthrough in battery technology relatively soon.  But I do believe that with the new software and systems coming out to manage the electricity networks that it will be viable to have much higher levels of variable renewable energy in the mix.  How high that is, I'm not sure, but I don't think we're anywhere near that level as yet.

There's already systems being used in the USA that look at cloud cover and can predict the impact on the large solar farms there.

I'm hoping someone finally builds one of the proposed solar uplift towers.  A small version worked for a number of years in Spain successfully, but no one has yet built one of the 1KM tall production units yet.  There had been a proposal to build one on the border of NSW and VIC, but I've not heard of any progress.  There's a small one in China producing around 200kW and an Aussie company is proposing to build a near 1KM high one in Arizona or Texas that will produce an estimated 200MWh (costing 700-800M USD).  They're looking to use one to power the observatory in the Atacama dessert in Chile as well, even looking at if it is impossible to build an inflatable tower.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I'm a bit confused by this.  I can understand an issue where the forecast is say for 100 MWh of production and it turns out to be only 60, but if you have a forecast of a certain level then I'd assume you would look to other sources to make up for the forecast deficit.




Therein lies the problem. So far as alternative sources are concerned:

Nuclear - doesn't really work in an intermittent application. Can be done technically but the economics are terrible.

Coal - works but only to a point and the economics suffer since most of the cost of power from coal is that of building and maintaining the plant and running at low loads (or worse still, intermittently) kills efficiency. How hard you run it doesn't make a huge difference to the total cost - even at the export price for coal (which is higher than the domestic price for lower grade coal) it's still only 2.5 cents / kWh variable cost. And for lower grade coal it's 0.3 - 1.5 cents. So that's the price you really need to use for the value of wind or solar - the variable cost of running a coal plant, not the cost of building it in the first place if it still has to be built anyway.

Oil - works but far too expensive.

Gas - works as long as we use open cycle gas turbines, which incur a 50% fuel penalty (and 50% more emissions) than an efficient gas-fired plant. So we can use gas to balance renewables certainly, but there's zero gain with a one third renewable / two thirds gas mix compared to simply using 100% gas in a more efficient plant.

Hydro - works almost perfectly in an intermittent application, hydro plants can be ramped from nothing to full load and back again incredibly fast (seconds in some cases). But hydro is a limited resource especially in the Australian context and not all plants we currently have are actually capable of intermittent operation in an efficient manner.

It's the duplication that adds to the cost of renewables. From a purely economic perspective, we're not saving the cost of power from coal per se, we're just saving the actual coal itself which is cheap. We still incur the big cost of having the power station there in the first place.

Part of the reason there are so many wind farms in SA is the wind resource itself but another big factor is the dominance of gas in SA. Without wind, SA would be roughly 70% reliant on gas for electricity and the capacity of existing transmission between SA and Vic doesn't change this hugely (noting that coal costs in SA are also relatively higher than Vic). 

Wholesale market prices (annual average) in SA and Vic as follows:

1998-99 = 156.02 (SA) / 36.33 (Vic)
1999-2000 = 59.27 / 26.35
2000-01 = 56.39 / 44.57
01 - 02 = 31.61 / 30.97
02 - 03 = 30.11 / 27.56
03 - 04 = 34.86 / 25.38
04 - 05 = 36.07 / 27.62
05 - 06 = 37.76 / 32.47
06 - 07 = 51.61 / 54.80
07 - 08 = 73.50 / 46.79
08 - 09 = 50.98 / 41.82
09 - 10 = 55.31 / 36.28
10 - 11 = 32.58 / 27.09
11 - 12 = 30.28 / 27.28
12 - 13 = 69.75 / 57.44
13 - 14 to date = 62.34 / 51.67

So prices in SA have been, with one exception, higher than in Vic for the 16 year existence of the National Electricity Market. And suffice to say that part of the reason for building the Vic - SA interconnect in the first place was for SA to access cheap off-peak electricity from coal-fired generation in Victoria.

Ultimately we have to go renewable, no doubt about that whatsoever in the long term. But the variable cost of coal (or an efficient gas plant until 2017) is way lower than the cost of building and operating wind or solar.

Of course, if you can build something renewable that actually contributes to firm, dispatchable capacity (Eg solar with storage) well then everything changes since now you have an actual alternative to coal or gas rather than simply a means of using less fuel in a plant you still need anyway. 

That changes the economics drastically - solar with storage, geothermal or hydro compete directly against the entire cost of building and operating a fossil fuel power station. In contrast, intermittent sources like wind are really only competing against the cost of fuel itself which is relatively cheap. Big difference there.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... Electric cars are another one to throw into the mix. They're not really mainstream yet, but a few are on the roads and a few homes are having dedicated charging circuits installed ...




If we look to America, the charge speed in "charge stations" is x3 normal.
I note that some of the latest "charge stations" are in McDonalds' in Florida.
Hava burger, while we charge the Tesla!


In the lab, nanotechnology in batteries will be improving that by several factors.

The pace of these changes is dictated by the volume of car sales.


tesla/roadster/charging


----------



## sydboy007

burglar said:


> If we look to America, the charge speed in "charge stations" is x3 normal.
> I note that some of the latest "charge stations" are in McDonalds' in Florida.
> Hava burger, while we charge the Tesla!
> 
> 
> In the lab, nanotechnology in batteries will be improving that by several factors.
> 
> The pace of these changes is dictated by the volume of car sales.
> 
> 
> tesla/roadster/charging




The issue wiith electric cars is the batteries.

Lithium is the lightest metal hence provides the highest capacity for a given weight.  Lithium is fairly rare, difficult to handle, hard to recycle.  Unless they come up with ways to drastically reduce the amount of lithium required I just don't see electric cars being anything more than a niche product.

Having said that, if they do improve the charging rates it might be Ok to have small batteries in electric cars.  Most worker commutes and day to day trips are something like 15-20KM, so instead of having a battery capable of a 80KM trip you could drop back to 40KM.

But then you get into issues of how do you build an electricity network that can handle such a massive power draw. Maybe increased solar PV will help with that, but it's another limiting factor.


----------



## basilio

Large  industrial batteries for cost effective storage of wind/PV ect exist and are being rapidly commercialized.

What is lacking is the recognition that NOT moving rapidly in the direction of renewables is just going to shorten whatever time we have to adapt to the global warming already in the pipeline.

MW. I don't know what stuff you read and somehow accept as real but if your argument against the reality of global warming is insufficient evidence of warming .... then clearly no logic or evidence will *ever* persuade you.

But what else is new in this discussion ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...nd-iron-chromium-megawatt-scale-flow-battery/
http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2014/05/23/enervault-unveils-large-scale-flow-batteries/
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-graphene-large-scale-electricity-storage.html
http://www.aquionenergy.com/grid-scale-batteries


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> MW. I don't know what stuff you read and somehow accept as real but if your argument against the reality of global warming is insufficient evidence of warming .... then clearly no logic or evidence will *ever* persuade you.




when reality matches the data predicted, I'm all on board.

But having been a scientist for a very long time, and having conducted research that has been presented internationally, I can assure you that a good theory is just that.  It is only validated by observation.

Do I think the world is warming, yes, are we contributing, yes.

Are we contributing to dangerous global warming? unsure
Is what we are doing the main driver? unsure
Can we stop it if we wanted to? unsure (but I think very unlikely)
Are the IPCC reports accurate? no
Are they chasing their tail to try to match the measured data? likely


If the IPCC was correct, why do they need to keep revising all the time?

If the doom and gloom predictions are to be validated, can what we actually reflect just at least match what they are predicting?

I follow and practice evidence based medicine. I have no problem with people who are smarter than me guiding what I do.   BUT if I notice that there are issues with how a study is conducted, or what I observe across a decent sample is not what is reported, sure a heck I will question it.

MW


----------



## sydboy007

medicowallet said:


> Do I think the world is warming, yes, are we contributing, yes.
> 
> Are we contributing to dangerous global warming? unsure
> Is what we are doing the main driver? unsure
> Can we stop it if we wanted to? unsure (but I think very unlikely)
> Are the IPCC reports accurate? no
> Are they chasing their tail to try to match the measured data? likely




Your views match mine reasonably well.  With a system as complex as global weather it's more about the probabilities than definitive answers.  I personally believe the horse is so far down the road that all we can do is hope to adapt to a hotter world.

For myself I tend to view the issues around fossil fuels as a financial one.  They're running out fairly quickly, new sources are increasingly expensive to bring online, new sources also seem to chew up more resources just to get the same level of production.  I hate that we're providing billions of dollars in revenue to Governments that treat their citizens poorly, and have medieval views on woman.  I'd love to close out borders to them and just ignore them for a few centuries until they've gone through their version of the dark ages.

The current fuel systems we have in placed received massive subsidies to get them to where they are, and still receive massive subsidies.  I certainly don't want us going the path of the UK and installing nuclear power with a base cost of $160kWh wholesale pricing which is what they have saddled their economy with to get 2 new reactors built by the private sector.  

I've yet to see anyone provide scientifically verifiable evidence that wind farms cause any health issues to those living near by so I say lets bring on as much capacity as we can, build the IT systems to cope with a far higher level of variable energy production, start examining the grid scale battery technologies out there, and if we can't bring ourselves to stop the fossil fuel subsidies, then at least start providing them on a similar scale to the renewables sector.

I'd also like to believe we might actually be able to create some IP in this space to help pay for the lifestyles we've become accustomed to, but the multi decade long neglect of the CSIRO makes me believe that's not too likely, especially since Science doesn't even rate a ministry position in the current Government.


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> If we look to America, the charge speed in "charge stations" is x3 normal.



Many will point to electric vehicles as being an ideal load to run at night. Most car use is in the day, the cars can't be charged while they're being driven, hence the logic of charging at night.

But right throughout the economy there are many examples of being able to purchase the exact same good or service at a markedly different price depending on how you buy it. 

Eg at one of the major supermarkets, you can buy a 2 Litre bottle of a certain brand of soft drink for one price, or you can buy the 1.25 Litre sitting right next to it at a higher price not per litre, but a higher price as such for the item. And you can pay an even higher price for a single bottle if you get the 600mL one instead.

That's a fairly extreme case, the nominal price of a small one being higher than a bigger version of the same product, but there are many more less extreme cases. Apart from fuel, practically anything sold at service stations costs considerably more than buying the same item elsewhere. Chips, chocolate, tissues, cigarettes, ice cream or whatever - servo prices are higher than other retailers for the exact same item. And yet people are clearly willing to pay the extra.

And so it will be with electric car charging. Pay $x to charge cheaply at home overnight or pay a higher price to charge during the day or in a public car park. There will be no shortage of people choosing the higher priced option, even though the car has sufficient charge to not actually need recharging until that night.

In all these energy discussions, something often missed is what I call rationality bias. Engineers, either on the energy supply side or on matters of efficiency, along with those inclined toward "green" matters, both make the same mistake. They tend to assume that if something is cheaper or otherwise better then consumers will adopt it - WRONG!

CFL lighting and heat pump water heaters have been around since the 1980's and solar water heating has been around a lot longer than that. But it took government regulation to make them "popular" - the market alone didn't achieve it. There may well have been a financial saving, but consumers tend to stick to what is familiar or convenient unless the cost of the less efficient option in absolute $ terms is so high as to be causing considerable pain. Hence things like solar hot water never achieved much without government regulation and things like LPG in vehicles has never got that far either - and it won't unless the price of petrol goes high enough to give consumers little choice other than to change.

It's the same elsewhere, consumers choose convenience over price or quality unless the price is seriously high or the quality bad enough to be a problem. Witness the boom in MP3 music (inferior quality but very convenient) over the higher quality sound of CD's as just one example - aiming for the best sound was fashionable for a while during the 1970's and 80's but it's given way to outright convenience since, in practice, the sound quality of MP3 is good enough for most.

If it costs $5 to charge an electric vehicle during the day and $2 to charge it overnight then a lot of that charging will in practice be done during the day. As such, electric vehicles won't contribute as much to load leveling on the grid as many assume - sure there will be some off-peak charging but there will be some additional peak load as well.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> For myself I tend to view the issues around fossil fuels as a financial one.  They're running out fairly quickly, new sources are increasingly expensive to bring online, new sources also seem to chew up more resources just to get the same level of production.




That is itself evidence of resource depletion. We've used up the best (most easily accessible and highest quality) sources and are now looking to what's left.

In the Australian context, ideas of exporting lower quality coal not even remotely close to a port or even the coast in Qld is one example. A proposal to export inferior grade (sub-bituminous) coal from Tasmania is another one. Nobody would be even slightly interested in these resources, apart from local use near the source due to the avoided cost of transport, if there was an abundance of higher grade resources still available for development.

The same can be said in a more extreme way with oil and gas (far less abundant than coal).

Oil - we're drilling in ultra deep water. We're spending a fortune trying to maintain some sort of order in various countries with large oil fields. We're mining sand and washing the tar out of it (then having to put all that sand somewhere - it's an almighty mess to be honest). We're emulsifying bitumen underground in Venezuela then once it's above ground processing it into something that resembles crude oil minus the water. And so on. Nobody would be interested in any of this beyond a research stage if we still had plenty of easily accessible, high quality oil available like we used to.

Gas - coal seam and shale gas says it all. More expensive and more environmentally risky than conventional gas. We're using it for one reason only - there isn't enough conventional gas available to meet demand like there once was. 

We're not about to run out of fuel tomorrow, no chance of that. But slowly but surely we're using up the best deposits and moving on to progressively worse options. Mine sand to get some low quality oil out of it via a hugely expensive process. Risk the ground water to get gas. Mine coal, put it on a train for a few hundred km just to get it to where it can be put on a ship and it's inferior quality coal anyway. We've already picked the low handing fruit, now we've got the ladder out and are starting to realise that pretty soon we'll need scaffolding to do the job. 

Where all this does clash with the CO2 issue however is low grade coal. From an energy security and resource use perspective, rationally we'd be doing everything we can to save oil and then gas, with brown coal being the preferred fossil fuel since there's plenty of it. But the CO2 issue has given rise to the silly idea of baseload gas-fired power stations to replace brown coal - irrational from a resource perspective (and not likely to really happen given the costs).


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> If it costs $5 to charge an electric vehicle during the day and $2 to charge it overnight then a lot of that charging will in practice be done during the day. As such, electric vehicles won't contribute as much to load leveling on the grid as many assume - sure there will be some off-peak charging but there will be some additional peak load as well.




I see ford has a proposal to get around this by proposing a new car with solar PV built in on top.  What's interesting is their use of fresnel lenses in a canopy that concentrates the sun onto the solar panels.  They believe they'll be able to use solar for roughly 75% of all travel, and the car has a small petrol engine for range extension which should discourage panic recharging. Seems the car automatically moves itself when under the canopy to ensure it's receiving the maximum level of light on the built in PV.

I'm wondering it it would be possible to use the same fresnel canopy to increase currently installed home solar PV??  Depending on the cost if it could increase production enough to provide a 3 year ROI it might be popular, especially since in theory it shouldn't run afoul of any of the current Govt programs.

* Fresnel lenses are like those used in light houses.


----------



## Smurf1976

A solar panel can certainly charge an electric car and the idea makes sense in many ways - practical, economic and environmental.

But a 300W solar panel (and that's about as large as would fit) built into a car's roof comes nowhere near a "fast" charge even with some fancy lenses. For a commuter who works 9 to 5 and parks in the sun it will reduce the need for charging overnight. But for someone wanting to charge in a hurry, and they are the people who would be charging at peak times, 300 or even 900W isn't much.

Take the Mitsubishi i-MiEV as an example. A 16kWh battery pack and it can travel a bit over 100km on a charge depending on whose figures you use (US government test puts it at 100, real world users will tell you that it's a bit more). 

Taking it as 130 km on a charge, that's 123 Wh (0.123 kWh) per km. A solar panel that fits on, or within, the roof isn't going to move it that far. Even on a sunny day with no shade and using some fancy lenses you're still only charging at a rate equivalent to about 7km of driving in an hour and it would take 3 days parked to fully charge the battery.

So I can see that solar has some benefit, but it's more likely to reduce the overnight charging load than to reduce the daytime load in my opinion. Eg someone commutes 30km each way to work, so using about 8kWh per day. The car sitting in sun with solar simply means less charging over night. But if they actually needed to charge during the day, because otherwise it's going to run out, well then the solar isn't that much of a benefit. Some perhaps, but it doesn't eliminate the need to charge quickly.

And, of course, if you look around a city well then a large portion of cars are parked somewhere that doesn't get direct sunlight. In a multi-level car park, underground, near buildings, under trees and so on. Some are in the sun certainly, but as a whole that's not the case for parked cars.

There's a solar powered bus running in Adelaide (called "Tindo"). It does run on solar power but there's just one catch. It's actually a battery powered bus, they just charge it with solar energy back at the depot. So it's really an electric bus being charged (in practice using grid power overnight, not solar) at a location which just happens to have a substantial grid-connect solar system installed. We could bring it down to Tasmania, leaving the solar panels back in Adelaide, charge it from the grid and then say that it's water powered. Or take it to France and then say that we've got a nuclear powered bus. It's not as though it's a fully self-contained system without the need for external charging.


----------



## Logique

Yep.

Real science is never 'settled'.  Unless you're a visiting US theoretical physicist on Q & A, playing to it's 'balanced' audience.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus/
> 
> “Consensus” is not science, and this science never was “settled”. So thank heavens for a scientific association that defends science against preachers of a religion:
> 
> AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.


----------



## wayneL

More bad news for the consensus fallacy:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...hange-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#



> EARTH SCIENTISTS SPLIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT
> 
> Date: 04/06/14 Graham Lloyd, The Australian
> Australia’s peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
> After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
> 
> Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”
> 
> The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.
> 
> It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.
> 
> GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations. [...]
> 
> In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter, Mr Hutton says: “After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’
> 
> “As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.
> 
> “The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.


----------



## wayneL

Of particular interest is the latter part of the excerpt,  which has been one of my main points



> WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY.
> MAY 29, 2014
> Dr. Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus, Department of  Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara (Full Bio here)
> Selected Excerpts: (Full Testimony here)
> Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate.
> …
> I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
> 
> 2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
> 3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
> …
> *The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.
> Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now
> 
> ]Energy
> Fresh water
> Phosphorus and other essential minerals
> Habitat destruction
> Invasive-species control
> Endangered species
> Pollution by directly toxic substances
> Fisheries
> Forests*


----------



## wayneL

Another vindicating article



> Climatologist Dr. David Legates tells the U.S. Senate of ‘the silencing of the dissenters’: ‘Young scientists quickly learn to ‘do what is expected of them’ or at least remain quiet, lest they lose their career before it begins’
> 
> 
> 'A healthy scientific debate is being compromised' - 'When scientific views come under political attack, so too does independent thinking and good policy-making because all require rational thought to be effective.'
> 'Post-Normal': 'Science emerges where ‘science by consensus’ reigns. It has been strongly argued that even in its early days, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change abandoned the scientific method in favor of this new paradigm (Saloranta 2001, Legates et al. 2013). This inherently morphs the role of the scientist from an impartial observer and seeker of the truth to one who dons the hat of  an advocate. This is where the so-called ‘consensus arguments’ arise where an appeal to some very large percentage of scientists appears to give credibility to a particular viewpoint. Most of these consensuses are contrived (see Legates et al. 2014) and serve to push an agenda that diverges widely from truth-seeking. The scientific method has been abandoned by many in the climate change discussion with an appeal to the masses through an imaginary consensus of scientists. This has greatly undermined both the quest for truth in this debate and the respect the general public has for scientists who advocate for anthropogenic global warming disaster scenarios.'


----------



## basilio

Fascinating Wayne how you can pull up quotes to justify that somehow global warming is not...really...that...serious.

Or perhaps that some scientists still arn't convinced that humans are the major current cause of the dramatic changes in our climate and the flow on consequences of these changes. (Professor Carter is a scientists. So are a score of others who will fly your flag.)

Trouble is Wayne there are still thousands of other very qualified scientists who will argue very forcefully that global warming is real and caused largely by human actions in the current situation.  That analysis has been dissected and is called the consensus paper.  

So is it 97% of all climate scientists who agree with the evidence so far seen. ? Is it 93% ?  Is it 1% or less ? (If your Monckton you can do all sorts of creative things with maths to show the true figure of scientists who explicitly support the AGW hypothesis is some miniscule figure.And we are supposed to believe that )

But put aside all discussions about who believes what.  One question

What is the view of skeptics on the  research undertaken in the Antarctic  by glaciologist's which says that to all intents and purposes  major sections of the  Antarctic ice shelf will collapse in the next 200-1000 years because of the effects of warm water eroding the glaciers ? The consequences will be a 3-4 metre rise on sea levels.

Anyone had anything to say about this work ?


----------



## wayneL

bas, It's not about cherry picking quotes, it's about demonstrating that: 

the science is not settled  
that rightly, there is no consensus
that climate science has been politicized
that there is an imbalance in funding towards establishing an apocalyptic, anthropomorphic hypothesis 
that there is a campaign to silence dissent from said narrow hypothesis

In reality there are aspects of climatology on which there is broad agreement and aspects where there is little agreement. I no longer think it is kosher to categorize scientists and lay science followers as believers, skeptics, deniers etc. This should not be a team sport or as tribal thing such as politics, but that is what it has become. This does not seem to exist in other scientific fields (except for perhaps evolution).

Rather, I think there should be demarcation based on the predominate hypothesis, similar to proponents of big bang, electric universe, string theory, quantum physics etc. Whilst debate is lively in those fields, it is based on science, rather than politics.

It doubt the politics will leave the field anytime soon, but it is my hope that continued sensible public discussion may moderate the excesses.

As far as the West Antarctic ice sheet, there is some analysis and contextualizing in progress on that, for which myself at least am still digesting. That this has been underway has been known since at least the seventies and may be unrelated to an anthropomorphic forcing. If you read outside of SkS and the Grauniad, there is discussion on this.

For instance, from http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/05/23/clock-is-ticking-in-west-antarctic/



> “I have a problem with the widespread implication (in the popular press) that the West Antarctic collapse can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change,” said Mike Wolovik, a graduate researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies ice sheet dynamics. “The marine ice sheet instability is an inherent part of ice sheet dynamics that doesn’t require any human forcing to operate. When the papers say that collapse is underway, and likely to last for several hundred years, that’s a reasonable and plausible conclusion.”
> 
> But, he said, the link between CO2 levels and the loss of ice in West Antarctica “is pretty tenuous.” The upwelling of warmer waters that melt the ice has been tied to stronger westerly winds around Antarctica, which have been linked to a stronger air pressure difference between the polar latitudes and the mid-latitudes, which have in turn been linked to global warming.
> 
> “I’m not an atmospheric scientist, so I can’t evaluate the strength of all of those linkages,” Wolovik said. “However, it’s a lot of linkages.” And that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty about what’s actually causing the collapse of the glaciers, he said.


----------



## explod

Wolovik concludes by saying "...that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty..."

If we are uncertain then to not act if the worst case may be correct is stupid in my view. Particularly when we have such exciting clean alternatives that could be rolled out so much faster and more efficiently if they had full Government and community support.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> Wolovik concludes by saying "...that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty..."
> 
> If we are uncertain then to not act if the worst case may be correct is stupid in my view. Particularly when we have such exciting clean alternatives that could be rolled out so much faster and more efficiently if they had full Government and community support.




You are of course entitled to your viewpoint, however, you might want to carefully consider the panorama of belief systems to which such mandates for action on uncertainty could equally apply.

I have not been witness to lengthy queues of greens at the confessional in recent times!


----------



## Logique

Geocentrism was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books, forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.

These historical geocentrists have contemporary soulmates in the modern day AGW cult, who would also have forced Galileo to recant, at the point of a sword.   

Ignore these latter day charlatans, they'll go away. They're not scientists. 

Who's Galileo they'd all think, they're all Arts faculty graduates.


----------



## noco

Global warming??????what global warming?????Climate change.....yes we have always had climate change .!!!!!

So when the dinosaurs become extinct it certainly was not man made?

One of the Yankie boys rejects the idea of man made climate change.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...saurs-go-extinct/story-fnihsmjt-1226950570596


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Global warming??????what global warming?????Climate change.....yes we have always had climate change .!!!!!
> 
> So when the dinosaurs become extinct it certainly was not man made?
> 
> One of the Yankie boys rejects the idea of man made climate change.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...saurs-go-extinct/story-fnihsmjt-1226950570596




Duh! The earth was hit by a giant rock from space that sent the world into darkness and wiped out many species, not just the dinosaurs. That guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, is he? 
Or maybe his link to global warming was Noah's ark. The dinosaurs died out because there wasn't room on board.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Duh! The earth was hit by a giant rock from space that sent the world into darkness and wiped out many species, not just the dinosaurs. That guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
> Or maybe his link to global warming was Noah's ark. The dinosaurs died out because there wasn't room on board.




And why can't this happen again? Global warming? Who cares when a meteorite the size of a bus has the ability to level a small city with the impact of a nuclear bomb roughly half the size of the one that hit Hiroshima in 1945.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-astronomers-discovered-it.html#ixzz34Nlm5rC3 

Here is a fun website that you can dial in the size of the asteroid and where you want it to hit earth:

http://www.killerasteroids.org/interactives/impact/impactCalc1024.html

Try medium size meteorite on CBD Sydney ... that will fix their property price problem right up in a blink :

The other theory as to why the dinosaurs became extinct is because the tectonic plates our continents float upon had a major collision causing volcanoes etc - climate change whatever catastrophic event. For example, the plate containing Australia and India is moving north at the rate of 7cm a year, causing an intracontinental collision with the Eurasian Plate in the Himalayas. That is why these mountains are so high. Because continents are part of these plates, they also move. An earthquake occurs when the rocks break and move as a result of stresses caused by plate movements.

http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/earthquakes/earthquake-basics/causes.html

Just think in 50,000 years or so Sydney will be on the Equator. That's if it doesn't get hit by a meteorite first !!!


----------



## noco

The Global Warming aka Climate Change Scam
Global Warming scam

Global Warming scam

Take the Global Warming scam for example. First they presented their pseudoscience backed up by “authoritative experts” like Al Gore. They trotted out various ‘scientists’ to back up their claims, and the people lapped it up because it all sounded so plausible and fuzzy feel-good. After all, the ‘experts’ couldn’t be wrong, could they?

But even a cursory glance at the credentials of these so-called ‘experts’ showed that they were not qualified weather experts. In fact, while some of them were indeed scientists, they were not qualified to comment on the weather…not even on the state of the weather outside their own windows.

Did you notice what happened soon after Al Gore went around the world crying out that the end of the world was neigh due to global warming?

Europe experienced its coldest winter in centuries, laying waste to the apocalyptic claims of Gore and his fellow scammers.

But they were undeterred. They just shrugged their collective shoulders and changed the name to “Climate Change” instead. Same silly claims, just a different name.

The Fabianists hijacked the environmental movement and used it for their own political purposes. The ultimate aim is to unite people behind “fixing” environmental issues to push people into demanding a “global government” that would have the authority to do the job; something that individual national governments would not, and could not do.

Another Fabian program is the UN’s Agenda 21 that is designed to set international standards to control what people learn at educational institutions, how they travel, what they eat, their communications, and so on. The sole purpose of Agenda 21 is to control the people, shackling them to standardized methods that the rulers…sorry, the UN…can easily control.
Hugo Chavez is one of the rare politicians who has worked for the good of the people

Hugo Chavez is one of the rare politicians who has worked for the good of the people

Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to improve the lives of the citizens.

Ever since Gough Whitlam took power, we have seen the Fabian fingerprint on everything successive Labor governments have done. It’s not just that they spend all the money so carefully built up by their opponents the LNP or its predecessors whenever they are in power. The Laborites have made sweeping changes to the social fabric of our country, whittled away little by little at our freedoms, and pushed us ever closer to the communist ideal of collectivism.

As well, we have been disarmed, a key element in the Fabian agenda. An unarmed citizenry is unable to face the overwhelming force at the disposal of a Fabian-led government. So far, they have not had to implement force against us. Over the decades they have perfected ways to strip our rights and subjugate us, until we have a population so used to being told how to behave and what to do that our citizens willingly accept the impositions a free people would never submit to.

http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/


----------



## Knobby22

Noco. I think that site has been hacked. Did you read paragraph 9?


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Noco. I think that site has been hacked. Did you read paragraph 9?




Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to* improve the lives of the citizens.
*
So why is there so much poverty in Cuba and South Korea......Why did so many leave Cuba to live in the USA?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to* improve the lives of the citizens.
> *
> So why is there so much poverty in Cuba and South Korea......Why did so many leave Cuba to live in the USA?




Did you actually *say *that Noco or is it just a quote from somewhere ?  I realise you are way out there but supporting Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

It just doesn't make sense anyway. 

*And what the hell is it doing in this thread ?*


----------



## Smurf1976

Chavez is actually doing quite a bit to reduce CO2 emissions.

By firing all the competent staff and replacing them with his mates, he substantially destroyed the technical capabilities of PDVSA (the Venezuelan national oil company). 

This resulted in a production decline for crude oil, thus cutting Venezuela's exports and also the government's income. Meanwhile he also effectively tore up the Orimulsion contracts with practically every buyer.

So by exporting less oil he's helping the climate you see. And by sending his own country broke he's doing is best to cut fuel use there too.


----------



## bellenuit

Smurf1976 said:


> Chavez is actually doing quite a bit to reduce CO2 emissions.
> 
> .....
> 
> So by exporting less oil he's helping the climate you see. And by sending his own country broke he's doing is best to cut fuel use there too.




Smurf, I don't think Hugo Chavez is doing very much right at this moment....

_Hugo Rafael ChÃ¡vez FrÃ­as; *28 July 1954 – 5 March 2013*) was a Venezuelan politician and the President of Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013._


----------



## Knobby22

LOL. This thread has got humorous.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Did you actually *say *that Noco or is it just a quote from somewhere ?  I realise you are way out there but supporting Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
> 
> It just doesn't make sense anyway.
> 
> *And what the hell is it doing in this thread ?*




It was a quote from the link below.....I thought you would have been astute enough to have read the full link instead of asking me.


http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> LOL. This thread has got humorous.




Yes, it is a breath of fresh air to get some comic relief on this thread after years of tediously boring proselytizing.


----------



## trainspotter

The Climate Change Authority attends their AGM .... 



> WASHINGTON (AP) In what many experts are calling one of the most serious cases of mass hysteria in modern times, the U.S. government today released its National Climate Assessment, a sobering 840 page summary of a wide variety of normal climate occurrences which are leading to physical symptoms such as adolescent psychiatric problems, great wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> The report is gripping the nation like a global warming polar vortex trapped in place by the swirling toxic vapors emitted by a swarm of possessed SUVs.
> 
> The report contains claims of U.S. floods, droughts, severe weather, and heat waves, all of which are not unprecedented compared to centuries past, but are nevertheless known to be the fault of humans.
> 
> Ronald Wobbles, the report’s lead author, was quoted as saying (I am not making this up), “We’re already seeing extreme weather and it’s happening now”. This finding stands in stark contrast to 100 years ago, when ‘we saw extreme weather that was happening then’.
> 
> Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry, were quick to pounce on the report’s findings, claiming that there is no evidence supporting either the view that U.S. climate has gotten worse, or that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth with a great new diet plan.
> 
> The report received a warm welcome from many politicians, lobbyists, government-funded scientists, insurance companies, media personalities, and Hollywood. “I can even see climate change in my back yard!” was a common refrain voiced by astute observers, presumably relying upon many decades of precise temperature measurements capturing the fraction of a degree temperature rise around their back patio on a NIST-calibrated Wal Mart thermometer.
> 
> Experts familiar with the mass hysteria outbreak have little hope that an antidote would be forthcoming any time soon. Said one psychologist who declined to be identified, “All we can hope is that the hysteria will run its course in the next several years as higher energy prices, brownouts, and blackouts set in.”




http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/climate-change-mass-hysteria-grips-the-u-s/

*giggle*


----------



## basilio

That is so, so,  *SO* droll TS !!!  Nothing like ridicule to dismiss an issue is there ?  

Great find.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> That is so, so,  *SO* droll TS !!!  Nothing like ridicule to dismiss an issue is there ?
> 
> Great find.







I was going with the direction of the thread ... could do with a laugh on such a sobering topic.


----------



## Wysiwyg

trainspotter said:


> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/climate-change-mass-hysteria-grips-the-u-s/
> 
> *giggle*



A little sarcasm makes light of a situation or brings home an obvious point but a whole article ridiculing the possibility of human caused climate anomalies is absurd. That dude should have a look in his rubbish bin before collection day and ponder where the human waste is going and growing!


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Nothing like ridicule to dismiss an issue is there ?




Yeah, there is nothing like ridicule to prick pompous egos.


----------



## trainspotter

Wysiwyg said:


> A little sarcasm makes light of a situation or brings home an obvious point but a whole article ridiculing the possibility of human caused climate anomalies is absurd. That dude should have a look in his rubbish bin before collection day and ponder where the human waste is going and growing!




You obviously missed this bit then?



> Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry, were quick to pounce on the report’s findings, claiming that there is no evidence supporting either the view that U.S. climate has gotten worse, or that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth with a great new diet plan.




Dismissing both sides ... no ?


----------



## basilio

Dismissing both sides ??  Not really TS..  Simply a clever little piece of fairy dust to sort of "surprise" a reader.

But no -- just a neat way to ridicule the whole issue.
__________________________________________________________________________


Anyway who cares about Climate Change and what effects it may or may not have on billions of people. Isn't the whole point of society/economy at the moment the next quarterly earnings figure ?

Or alternatively the cutest cat video one can pass around ?

Or the latest celebrity story?

Obvious isn't it ? The rest is just Booooorrrinng !! 

And the future can take care of itself  like it always has. 

_*Agenda 2014*_


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Dismissing both sides ??  Not really TS..  Simply a clever little piece of fairy dust to sort of "surprise" a reader.
> 
> But no -- just a neat way to ridicule the whole issue.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Anyway who cares about Climate Change and what effects it may or may not have on billions of people. Isn't the whole point of society/economy at the moment the next quarterly earnings figure ?
> 
> Or alternatively the cutest cat video one can pass around ?
> 
> Or the latest celebrity story?
> 
> Obvious isn't it ? The rest is just Booooorrrinng !!
> 
> And the future can take care of itself  like it always has.
> 
> _*Agenda 2014*_




Just goes to show how some people think or comprehend things differently now doesn't it !! 

Clearly a shot at both sides as Elvis is not on Mars ... he is in Mexico eating a burrito as we speak. Seeing how I am being grouped into the denier (paid shill) category I must go and pick up my cheque from the tobacco industry.

Does not anyone recognise "satire" when they read it?  




But what is this? Obama has decreed 30% reduction of Co2 emissions in the power sector? This can't be right? Now we only need China to match his Ace of Spades on the table and the world will be better off. 



> The United States has unveiled a new regulation requiring the power sector to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, one of the strongest actions ever taken by the US to combat global warming.
> 
> With hopes for major climate legislation long since vanished, it forms the centrepiece of the Obama administration's climate change strategy.
> 
> When finalised, what is being called the "super bowl of climate change" is expected to have an effect that extends far beyond the US.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-03/us-unveils-plan-to-cut-carbon-emissions/5495560


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Anyway who cares about Climate Change and what effects it may or may not have on billions of people. Isn't the whole point of society/economy at the moment the next quarterly earnings figure ?




After all it is a stock forum. I am sure there must be other forums where your dire predictions for the end of the world would be treated with respect and not with satire.


----------



## Smurf1976

bellenuit said:


> Smurf, I don't think Hugo Chavez is doing very much right at this moment....




My bad there. Yep, he's dead alright.

But the effects of his time as president of Venezuela will linger on for a long time to come. From the perspective of the oil industry, his agenda there is alive and well and would take years to reverse even if the government made an attempt to do so (which to my understanding isn't happening at this point in time or even on the agenda).

Venezuela extracts less oil, and with one exception no longer sells Orimulsion to anyone. So less fossil fuels being extracted could be counted as an effort at reducing CO2 to some extent.


----------



## Julia

trainspotter said:


> Does not anyone recognise "satire" when they read it?



Perhaps simply a preference not to recognise it as such and rather another 'reason' to be indignant?
I thought it was quite funny.



> But what is this? Obama has decreed 30% reduction of Co2 emissions in the power sector?



Yeah, right.   Purely aspirational as far as I can see.  Happy to be corrected.  When he gets legislation through then I'll take it seriously.

Meantime it's about as meaningful as the frothing at the mouth of Labor and the Greens about how much trouble Tony Abbott would be in when meeting Obama because of Australia's mandate to abolish the carbon tax.
Apparently all was entirely civil with Mr Obama agreeing Mr Abbott had a mandate to do so.

The disappointment for Labor and the Greens must be immense.


----------



## Macquack

Julia said:


> Apparently all was entirely civil with Mr Obama agreeing *Mr Abbott had a mandate to do so*.
> 
> *The disappointment for Labor and the Greens must be immense*.




Not really.

Saddam Hussein had a mandate to invade Kuwait.

Look what happened to Iraq, let alone what happened to Sadam himself.


----------



## explod

The useless point scoring is really progressive on here of late.

And do not be too concerned for the Greens, polling indicates 17 percent nationally and with the continued unseasonal weather, which few here would wish to change, we can expect the Green support to continue upwards.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The useless point scoring is really progressive on here of late.
> 
> And do not be too concerned for the Greens, polling indicates 17 percent nationally and with the continued unseasonal weather, which few here would wish to change, we can expect the Green support to continue upwards.




Green support is continuing upward because they have become more populist, temporarily setting aside their obnoxious totalitarian socialist agenda in favour of power.

While the two majors stubble over themselves to look like idiots, they pick up some of the protest vote.... or have you not noticed PUP also doing well?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Green support is continuing upward because they have become more populist, temporarily setting aside their obnoxious totalitarian socialist agenda in favour of power.
> 
> While the two majors stubble over themselves to look like idiots, they pick up some of the protest vote.... or have you not noticed PUP also doing well?




More practical is my view. Eighteen months back our party surveyed all members with a comprehensive queastionair which is reflective of our new approach.  It is a party from the bottom up and democratic.

To do something about climate we need first to walk with feet on the ground.

With the footings melting away under the permanent ice sheets my fear is that time is running out.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> To do something about climate we need first to walk with feet on the ground.




Or maybe on water like JC.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Or maybe on water like JC.




Sorry, JC cannot walk on water since they put holes in his feet.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> with the continued unseasonal weather, which few here would wish to change, we can expect the Green support to continue upwards.




The sad thing is, some people will indeed change their views on climate change based on short term weather.

At the risk of stating the obvious on a stock forum, climate, managing weather-related issues (eg water resources) and share trading all have a lot in common. 

If you have a share trading system then you ought to know, based on proper back testing and accumulated operating experience, what outcomes to expect. You know there will be good times and bad, but as long as the outcomes remain within the expected range then you carry on business as usual and apply the system.

Same with managing water resources. You know, based on proper meteorological records and simulations based on the actual dams etc you have, what to expect. You don't panic because it was blue sky and sunshine every day for a month, you have to view it in context of the range of possible outcomes based on past data and take action accordingly. It's only if the long term averages or the absolute extremes change significantly that you need to be worried, simply having blue sky for a few weeks isn't a problem in itself.

And it's the same with the weather itself. A 45 degree day in Adelaide or an overnight low below freezing in Canberra or Launceston is not in itself anything unusual. And we know that some years will be hotter, colder, wetter or drier than others. Unless something truly outside all reasonable expectations were to occur, for example it reaches 45 degrees in Melbourne in July or it snows in Darwin, well then short term weather within the expected range is not cause for concern in itself.

If simply having an El Nino causes anyone to change their vote then that's a very sad reflection on both those individuals and any politician intentionally seeking to gain support by that means. Voting based on a long term trend and proposed responses to it yes, but not short term weather that's just ridiculous.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> With the *footings melting away under the permanent ice sheets* my fear is that time is running out.




So how is a carbon tax going to stop geothermal activity?

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> So how is a carbon tax going to stop geothermal activity?
> 
> http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/




It won't, the inner heat has always been there. However since its hot formation the inner earth is cooling.

These findings of course are clearer as the permanent ice shrinks and new observations made.

The carbon tax was an important start down a long road to try and repair our damage.  It is the psychology on changing the direction of industry that is important.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> It won't, the inner heat has always been there. However since its hot formation the inner earth is cooling.
> 
> These findings of course are clearer as the permanent ice shrinks and new observations made.
> 
> The carbon tax was an important start down a long road to try and repair our damage.  It is the psychology on changing the direction of industry that is important.





What damage are you talking about?.......and so far the carbon tax has done nothing to repair nil damage.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> What damage are you talking about?.......and so far the carbon tax has done nothing to repair nil damage.




January 2008, from memory, the population of ringtailed possums along Balcombe Creek, Mount Martha, perished, having evolved and resided there for many millions of years. It hit 48 degrees that day.

The frogs on our farm at Hawkesdale stopped regenerating after the drought of 1968. And one could go on.

It's getting hot our there noco.  I think the scientists must work for your mob and have their reports vetted before release to the press.

On the carbon tax, it would force industry to persue envionmentally cleaner power and fuel alternatives.  Industry will not change its ways without financial pressure.  But of course under the Thatcher evolved liberal idea you think we can trust them to seek better and cleaner ways.  But where money is concerned, you can trust no one.


----------



## medicowallet

explod said:


> On the carbon tax, it would force industry to persue envionmentally cleaner power and fuel alternatives.  Industry will not change its ways without financial pressure.  But of course under the Thatcher evolved liberal idea you think we can trust them to seek better and cleaner ways.  But where money is concerned, you can trust no one.




Access to cheap energy affords to means to spend money on R&D to develop fuel alternatives.

But hey, lets do the futile thing and hinder our economy to do nothing, whilst other countries do nothing and have the option to divert money to profit producing ventures, rendering us obsolete.

If I ran my businesses like the government manages the economy, I would have been bankrupt.

MW


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> On the carbon tax, it would force industry to persue envionmentally cleaner power and fuel alternatives.



Agreed in theory that it could be applied that way.

But the carbon tax that Australia has actually had for almost 2 years isn't set up to work this way, thus making it pretty much just a tax as such. To work effectively, such a tax needs to not have escape clauses and needs to look at the full fuel cycle not just point of use.


----------



## trainspotter

Hysteria at it's finest:-



> A WARNING in the official NSW government handbook for learner drivers, stating that *climate change could cause dangerous road conditions due to heatwaves, storms, flooding and bushfires,* is set to be removed.
> 
> The NSW Road Users’ Handbook, produced by Roads and Maritime Services, tells motorists that changes to climate “due to greenhouse gas emissions” are expected to cause “unpredictable weather events” and driving should be avoided in extreme conditions.




http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...d-users-handbook/story-fnii5s3x-1226963140722


----------



## explod

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed in theory that it could be applied that way.
> 
> But the carbon tax that Australia has actually had for almost 2 years isn't set up to work this way, thus making it pretty much just a tax as such. To work effectively, such a tax needs to not have escape clauses and needs to look at the full fuel cycle not just point of use.




Absolutely agree Smurf, just a pity as it rolled out that the idea was not altered or adjusted to meet objectives aimed for.

The failure is a huge setback to a time (very much now IMV) when a constructive move from fossil fuels eventuates.


----------



## noco

GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT.

the Southern Australian Alps are having the SNOW STORM OF THE CENTURY.

They are getting more snow than they know what to do with. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/trave...the-megablizzard/story-fnihr4pm-1226963855196


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT.




The chief executive of *Exxon Mobil Corp*, for the first time called on Congress to enact a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions in order to fight global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123146091530566335

Former US President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary Hank Paulson calls for a carbon tax.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/hank-paulson-on-climate-change-2014-6


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> The chief executive of *Exxon Mobil Corp*, for the first time called on Congress to enact a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions in order to fight global warming.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123146091530566335
> 
> Former US President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary Hank Paulson calls for a carbon tax.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com.au/hank-paulson-on-climate-change-2014-6





SC to the rescue of the fake alarmist.

There ain't no Global Warming...FULL STOP.....It is all a farce.


----------



## Knobby22

Noco

Did you see that graph that you posted from the Courier Mail article showing a consistent drop in snow fall since measurements were taken? This supports the fact that the earth is warming.
Honestly, I don't think you read what you post.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel...-1226963855196 

(Anthony Sharwood in the Courier Mail will probably get punished for publishing that.)

You better write a letter to the Editor Noco and get him sacked.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Noco
> 
> Did you see that graph that you posted from the Courier Mail article showing a consistent drop in snow fall since measurements were taken? This supports the fact that the earth is warming.
> Honestly, I don't think you read what you post.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel...-1226963855196
> 
> (Anthony Sharwood in the Courier Mail will probably get punished for publishing that.)
> 
> You better write a letter to the Editor Noco and get him sacked.





Yes I noted the graph, but now from today it is starting to rise as we enter into a mini ice age.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Noco
> 
> Did you see that graph that you posted from the Courier Mail article showing a consistent drop in snow fall since measurements were taken? This supports the fact that the earth is warming.
> Honestly, I don't think you read what you post.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel...-1226963855196
> 
> (Anthony Sharwood in the Courier Mail will probably get punished for publishing that.)
> 
> You better write a letter to the Editor Noco and get him sacked.




A couple of points

*While the blizzard is eminently newsworthy, I find it curious that must necessarily turn into a mini treatise on climate change.  Why do you think that is?

 *Notwithstanding the current hiatus,  we all know there has been a major warming trend since the conclusion of the little ice age. However, reducing trends in snowfall (precipitation) may be unrelated to warming, indeed a cooling trend,  or land use changes , or some other factor, either natural or anthropogenic could have a similar result. In and of itself, all it supports is a trend in reduced precipitation.


----------



## wayneL

BTW did anyone see the paper on the correlation between atmospheric halogen levels and global temps?

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/qblu_website/Welcome.html


----------



## Knobby22

I'd love it to be true as the CFCs are slowing being removed by the atmosphere but I fear that the graph shows a correlation that just happened to match global temperatures. if you search for correlations like that then you could probably link global temperature rises to the position Collingwood ended up on the Ladder that year.

Climate isn't that simple. But maybe it is partially true, which would be good.


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> GLOBAL WARMING???????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> the Southern Australian Alps are having the SNOW STORM OF THE CENTURY.
> 
> They are getting more snow than they know what to do with.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/trave...the-megablizzard/story-fnihr4pm-1226963855196




Meanwhile , Hobart is still seeing near record temperatures . It has now been two and half years since Hobart has had an average month of maximum temps or below. I don't know what the cause is ?? But an amazing achievement for Australia's most  Southern Capital.
I'm looking into growing mangoes or pineapples  if this keeps up .


----------



## noco

Freezing cold....lots of rain ......lots of snow....the dams are filling up in Victoria.....

Where is Tim Flannery?......Will somebody tell him how wrong his predictions have been.

It has got to be GLOBAL WARMING causing it!!!!!!



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...er-hits-victoria/story-fni0fit3-1226964010343


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I'd love it to be true as the CFCs are slowing being removed by the atmosphere but I fear that the graph shows a correlation that just happened to match global temperatures. if you search for correlations like that then you could probably link global temperature rises to the position Collingwood ended up on the Ladder that year.
> 
> Climate isn't that simple. But maybe it is partially true, which would be good.




100% with you on the correlation<>causation argument and put forth as an interesting point only, however, the correlation is certainly interesting and a worthy hypothesis imo. Certainly more interesting than where Collingwood was on the ladder, in respect to climate.


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> Freezing cold....lots of rain ......lots of snow....the dams are filling up in Victoria.....
> 
> Where is Tim Flannery?......Will somebody tell him how wrong his predictions have been.
> 
> It has got to be GLOBAL WARMING causing it!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...er-hits-victoria/story-fni0fit3-1226964010343




Perhaps Tim has moved to Hobart , I've done some more research today and found it is actually 38 months in a row of above average temperatures. It's over 15 degrees here gain today and I just collected another 6 tomatoes from my vine. If anywhere is being affected by any type of constant warming , for whatever reason it's Tasmania.


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> *Perhaps Tim has moved to Hobart* , I've done some more research today and found it is actually 38 months in a row of above average temperatures. It's over 15 degrees here gain today and I just collected another 6 tomatoes from my vine. If anywhere is being affected by any type of constant warming , for whatever reason it's Tasmania.




It is a pity he didn't move to Siberia


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is a pity he didn't move to Siberia




All of this stutter/stammering and spitting noco is not going to change the changing situation.

The change to climate is accelerating and the Indians are starting to notice.

Any government that does not give the issue serious attention will in due course be swept from office.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> All of this stutter/stammering and spitting noco is not going to change the changing situation.
> 
> The change to climate is accelerating and the Indians are starting to notice.
> 
> Any government that does not give the issue serious attention will in due course be swept from office.



Plod you are delusional. Can you please provide evidence of this acceleration.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Plod you are delusional. Can you please provide evidence of this acceleration.




Explod is delusional  re the acceleration of global warming concern ? Give us a break Wayne. Did you remember the discussion concerning the  breakdown of the Antarctic ice shelf earlier this year ? Two separate studies coming to the same conclusion - we face an ongoing increase in sea levels as Antarctic glaciers collapse.

*The question that remains is how quickly this will occur and that is largely  up to how quickly we continue to warm the oceans.*

Or perhaps you might have noticed how ridiculously warm it has been in Australia this Autumn ?  In fact Wayne the whole world was ridiculously warm in May. This seems to be a precursor to an El Nino event which, according to the experts,  will be even more savage than the 1997 year.

No evidence  Wayne?  Just open your eyes..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-record-may-signal-warmest-year-in-pipeline/


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Can you please provide evidence of this acceleration.




http://www.ipcc.ch/

The very fact that we have had a UN agency dealing with this issue for 30 years is evidence enough, Wayne i would be interested if you could point me to any UN agency that deals with something that does not exist?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> All of this stutter/stammering and spitting noco is not going to change the changing situation.
> 
> The change to climate is accelerating and the Indians are starting to notice.
> 
> Any government that does not give the issue serious attention will in due course be swept from office.





What a load of codswaddle.


----------



## wayneL




----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod you are delusional. Can you please provide evidence of this acceleration.




This forum is one for ordinary people to state ideas, thoughts and feelings based on everyday experience and observations.  I have put forward many of these,  to the demise of frogs at Hawkesdale in the 60s, not long after, the clearing of vast tracts of Forrest for farming near the Otways, to the more recent extinction of possums at Mount Martha (it took many millions of years for them to evolve there). And recently roses that do not normally flower till cup day are out and three weeks ago the wattles began to bloom two months early.

Now this you may say is not proof and has all happened before.  On its own of course not, just as the burning of fuel is not the whole story. Population growth and the cutting down of trees are all a part of the story.

But to the farmers and gardeners who I have been close to for more than sixty years, something from that collective tells me that things with our climate are going very wrong.  From my Greatgranfather, a man of the land here from the 1860s, his and the stories of others of his vintage about the rains, seasons and crops tells me this part of the world has changed dramatically.

I wil concede that my observations up north in Queensland as a young shearer of the country going bad and the sheep having to be trucked out was certainly due to overgrazing.  But again it is still part of the overall problems facing us and contributing to global warming and destroying our fragile planet.

We have also discussed the reports of the IPPC and how before release their reports have been watered down to conform with the agenda's of governments.  In fact the 2007 IPPC report excluded facts presented to them of the vast amounts of methane hydrate from the arctic.  Methane is 22 times worse than carbon dioxide (as a warming agent) so it is suggested warming will be much faster from now on. Climate Wars, Dyer 2008.  Of course since then we have learned that methane is now escaping from under the ice sheets of Antartica.

And, whoa whoop, we see on tellie tonight Clive Palmers stating that global warming is an issue that we must do something about.  Of course he will be playing the political game for Clive and his large coal holdings of course.  However the interesting point is that he realises, as I averred to in my previous post, the ever increasing numbers of CLIMATE HYSTERICAL PEOPLE, need to be appeased if one is to hold his seat in future elections.

And without us ordinary people here on Aussie Stock Forums OLE PAL, where would you be.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> What a load of codswaddle.




Could you kindly clarify that noco.  Or has codswaddle encompassed a whole new set of dialogue.

Getting worried about Christopher Pyne's seat are we ole pal.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> This forum is one for ordinary people to state ideas, thoughts and feelings based on everyday experience and observations.  I have put forward many of these,  to the demise of frogs at Hawkesdale in the 60s, not long after, the clearing of vast tracts of Forrest for farming near the Otways, to the more recent extinction of possums at Mount Martha (it took many millions of years for them to evolve there). And recently roses that do not normally flower till cup day are out and three weeks ago the wattles began to bloom two months early.
> 
> Now this you may say is not proof and has all happened before.  On its own of course not, just as the burning of fuel is not the whole story. Population growth and the cutting down of trees are all a part of the story.
> 
> But to the farmers and gardeners who I have been close to for more than sixty years, something from that collective tells me that things with our climate are going very wrong.  From my Greatgranfather, a man of the land here from the 1860s, his and the stories of others of his vintage about the rains, seasons and crops tells me this part of the world has changed dramatically.
> 
> I wil concede that my observations up north in Queensland as a young shearer of the country going bad and the sheep having to be trucked out was certainly due to overgrazing.  But again it is still part of the overall problems facing us and contributing to global warming and destroying our fragile planet.
> 
> We have also discussed the reports of the IPPC and how before release their reports have been watered down to conform with the agenda's of governments.  In fact the 2007 IPPC report excluded facts presented to them of the vast amounts of methane hydrate from the arctic.  Methane is 22 times worse than carbon dioxide (as a warming agent) so it is suggested warming will be much faster from now on. Climate Wars, Dyer 2008.  Of course since then we have learned that methane is now escaping from under the ice sheets of Antartica.
> 
> And, whoa whoop, we see on tellie tonight Clive Palmers stating that global warming is an issue that we must do something about.  Of course he will be playing the political game for Clive and his large coal holdings of course.  However the interesting point is that he realises, as I averred to in my previous post, the ever increasing numbers of CLIMATE HYSTERICAL PEOPLE, need to be appeased if one is to hold his seat in future elections.
> 
> And without us ordinary people here on Aussie Stock Forums OLE PAL, where would you be.




I happen to be with you on many of these point Plod. As I have stated ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I am deeply concerned about environmental degradation, have been my entire life. Was a member of Greenpeace until I figured out their political agenda.

How many time do I have to farking say that so you clowns stop using that straw man argument.

*However, you stated that global warming is accelerating, yet the graph I just posted illustrates quite clearly the warming hiatus we are currently experiencing*. Scientific acknowledgment is everywhere on that point. It could eventually continue to warm again, or there could be a cooling phase, we don't know.

The Apocalypse idolaters will of course point to some such portenders of doom such as west Antarctica and without a skerrick of analysis and proper scientific scrutiny run around screaming in pecuniarily interested panic, but overall, there is work in other areas that need our attention rather than this particular bogeyman.


----------



## wayneL

BTW, You folks enduring the blizzard in the southern states.... it's the Gore Effect  HAHA hilarious. It never fails!



> THE 'AL GORE EFFECT' STRIKES CANBERRA
> With Al Gore visiting Canberra today, it's little surprise that the 'Al Gore Effect' has struck again.
> The 'Al Gore Effect' is defined by the Urban Dictionary as;
> "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming."
> There are countless examples of Al Gore visiting a city, only for freezing below normal temperatures to strike.
> Simply the phenomenon of the 'Al Gore Affect' is Mother Nature laughing at Al Gore, as he jet sets around the world preaching that we are all doing to fry, Mother Nature turns on an icy blast of freezing weather.
> In Canberra it was only last month that the Bureau of Meteorology foretold that Canberra was likely to experience "a dry and warmer-than-average winter".
> But as Al Gore rolled into Canberra - so to did blizzard conditions, icy temperatures and a big dump of snow in surrounding mountains. https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/posts/253204774874164


----------



## basilio

Great stuff Wayne.  You dismiss the West Antarctic research ( two separate studies done over many years) on the condition of the  ice shelf with a wave of your hand. Your not even capable of wanting to check it out properly in case, God forbid,  we actually do have to pack up all our seaside cities and move them uphill. (Piece of cake really ..)

You don't even bother to reflect on the fact that May this year was the warmest on record *around the world* and the implications of that. (Did you actually bother to check the article ? ) 

Instead you throw up a deliberately confusing mass of  temperature graphs *from 1996 to now * to somehow  throw fairy dust on what has been happening over the last 100 years. What could I compare that to ?  That's right - it would be like  looking at a cars temperature gauge that was sitting on the red line and being content that it hasn't gone over the edge in the last 10 minutes.

And if you wanted to see what was actually happening to the earths temperature since 1996 there is plenty of other evidence to show that we still warming up - despite the ups and downs of La Nina ect. But that would spoil your story wouldn't it ?

For someone who pretends to "look at all the evidence" your a complete joke.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> BTW, You folks enduring the blizzard in the southern states.... it's the Gore Effect  HAHA hilarious. It never fails!




Gore is a rain/winter god, that's why he is against global warming, it is weakening his power.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Great stuff Wayne.  You dismiss the West Antarctic research ( two separate studies done over many years) on the condition of the  ice shelf with a wave of your hand. Your not even capable of wanting to check it out properly in case, God forbid,  we actually do have to pack up all our seaside cities and move them uphill. (Piece of cake really ..)
> 
> You don't even bother to reflect on the fact that May this year was the warmest on record *around the world* and the implications of that. (Did you actually bother to check the article ? )
> 
> Instead you throw up a deliberately confusing mass of  temperature graphs *from 1996 to now * to somehow  throw fairy dust on what has been happening over the last 100 years. What could I compare that to ?  That's right - it would be like  looking at a cars temperature gauge that was sitting on the red line and being content that it hasn't gone over the edge in the last 10 minutes.
> 
> And if you wanted to see what was actually happening to the earths temperature since 1996 there is plenty of other evidence to show that we still warming up - despite the ups and downs of La Nina ect. But that would spoil your story wouldn't it ?
> 
> For someone who pretends to "look at all the evidence" your a complete joke.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm



I was going to go to the trouble to fisk this fallacious drivel. But I think intelligent folks can probably discern who is most open to the broad spectrum of science on the topic and who is only prepared to consider that which supports his or her opinion.

It is futile debating with a liar who continues to fallaciously misrepresent my position.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> I was going to go to the trouble to fisk this fallacious drivel. But I think intelligent folks can probably discern who is most open to the broad spectrum of science on the topic and who is only prepared to consider that which supports his or her opinion.
> 
> It is futile debating with a liar who continues to fallaciously misrepresent my position.




*Totally agree  here Wayne.*  That is *exactly* what I feel about your narrow, deceitful drivel. 

By the way did you ever bother to check out the Skeptical Science reference which outlined "the broad spectrum of science" and total picture regarding global warming ?  At least 9 different graphs there and a cogent discussion to go with them. But clearly No ?  

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm 



> To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
> 
> This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.




And it does continue in detail doesn't it ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> *Totally agree  here Wayne.*  That is *exactly* what I feel about your narrow, deceitful drivel.
> 
> By the way did you ever bother to check out the Skeptical Science reference which outlined "the broad spectrum of science" and total picture regarding global warming ?  At least 9 different graphs there and a cogent discussion to go with them. But clearly No ?
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
> 
> 
> 
> And it does continue in detail doesn't it ?




I must admit, that (un)SkepticalScience, being an advocacy site rather than a science site, is about the last place I would look for a balanced view. This, vindicated by the consensus project fiasco where Cook et al managed to irreversibly sublimate their credibility to the ether.... the gaseous state of their nuked integrity probably, like toxic halogens, adding to the greenhouse effect in quantum magnitude over even h20 vapors.

At your bidding however, I did take a cursory glance... curious how the ocean heat graph correlates to actual ARGO data (hint: it doesn't).

BTW, would it help if I sent you a miniature facsimile of myself to relieve your angst... you could stick pins in it and do a dance with chicken entrails or whatever rituals you religious apocalyptic warministas indulge in.... freight forward of course


----------



## medicowallet

It will be a year long remembered, it has seen the end of asylum seekers, it will soon see the end of the carbon tax.

MW


----------



## explod

medicowallet said:


> It will be a year long remembered, it has seen the end of asylum seekers, it will soon see the end of the carbon tax.
> 
> MW




Yes, but it will not end the suffering of the poor souls displaced with our involvement in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nor will it stop climate change.


----------



## basilio

> BTW, would it help if I sent you a miniature facsimile of myself to relieve your angst... you could stick pins in it and do a dance with chicken entrails or whatever rituals you religious apocalyptic warministas indulge in.... freight forward of course   Wayne l




Thanks..  but no thank you.  Be more of a waste of time than .. practically anything else I could possibly think of.


----------



## Calliope

I'm afraid basilio that your messiah, who wrote the Warmists bible, and has since become a laughing stock, decended to new lows when he took to the stage in support of one of Australia's greatest pollutor's weird propositions on climate change.


----------



## macca

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid basilio that your messiah, who wrote the Warmists bible, and has since become a laughing stock, decended to new lows when he took to the stage in support of one of Australia's greatest pollutor's weird propositions on climate change.
> 
> View attachment 58480




Hi Calliope,

where is this cartoon from please.


----------



## Calliope

macca said:


> Hi Calliope,
> 
> where is this cartoon from please.




Yesterday's The Australian macca


----------



## basilio

So what really annoys Climate Scientists about the state of the Climate Change debate  ?

To start with :

Professor Andrew Pitman, director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney



> Many people who would not dream to claim they understand how antibiotics, microprocessors or immunisations work seem happy to wax lyrical on their views on climate change.
> 
> A politician or media identity who would be laughed out of office if they said “vaccines don't work" or “I am certain the moon is made of cheese" happily speak equivalent rubbish on climate science, believing their views deserve credit.
> 
> I want engineers to build bridges; I want a trained surgeon to operate on hearts and I want some of our decision-makers and commentators to either shut up, or familiarise themselves with climate science well enough to talk sense.




And then perhaps

Professor Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney



> Where to start?
> 
> These are things I don’t see (or don’t see enough).
> 
> First is still that, even though it is clear greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature of the Earth, we’ve known this for 50+ years and no reputable atmospheric scientist in the world disputes this, most people think scientists disagree. They’ve been misled by the media, and I’ve been told repeatedly by reporters in the US and Australia that this is due to pressure from management.
> 
> Second is the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are effectively irreversible and will stay in the climate system for hundreds of generations is seldom noted. If we decide later that this was a huge mistake there is no going back (practically speaking).
> 
> On the political side, I wish the media would note the obvious parallels of the carbon debate with past ones over restricting pollutants (mercury, lead, asbestos, CFCs), where claims that restrictions would be economically catastrophic never came true.
> 
> These are things I do see that bug me.
> 
> One would be phrases like “action on climate change”. We should be talking about “action on carbon dioxide” — and climate is only one reason (albeit the biggest) that too much of it is dangerous. Nothing we do with respect to any other influence on climate will prevent global warming if CO2 keeps climbing.


----------



## explod

Good post basilio and the tenet is supported by Dyer in "Climate Wars"

The thought of having to cut back on making money or being relected is a huge stumbling block.

The methods, such as calling those of us wanting to see a proper approach as "hysterical" is one of the ploys.

If you cannot win the argument then ridicule the opponent.  The weight of the business, fuel and coal lobby is very much alive in this thread.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> The weight of the business, fuel and coal lobby is very much alive in this thread.




Of course. This is a stock forum,


----------



## basilio

Calliope *no-one* makes money on a dead planet. 

Climate change is real. Currently human activity is the prime cause. I can readily understand the concern of the coal, oil and business interests who believe their current interests are threatened by reducing CO2 emissions. But clear eyed businesses can also recognize serious risks and dangers

In the end we all live on one boat. If it sinks we all go under - rich and poor alike.  

Professor Michael Raupach, director of the Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra



> The greatest cause for sorrow is the widespread inability of the public discussion to recognise the whole picture.
> 
> Much of the political discourse reduces the complexities of climate change to political football (“axe the tax”); much media reporting sees only the hook to today’s passing story; many interest groups want to use climate change to proselytise for their particular get-out-of-jail free card (nuclear power, carbon farming).
> 
> All of this misses or trivialises the real, systemic significance of climate change: that humankind is encountering the finitude of our planet, confronting the need to share and protect our endowment from nature, and realising that much will have to change to make this possible.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> I can readily understand the concern of the coal, oil and business interests who believe their current interests are threatened by reducing CO2 emissions.




It goes far beyond coal, oil and gas. We're talking about _energy_ here, the one common element to _all_ businesses in either production or consumption.

You'd be hard pressed to find a single business that isn't impacted, either positively or negatively, by this one given that it impacts the very nature of human productivity and thus the conventional economy.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> It goes far beyond coal, oil and gas. We're talking about _energy_ here, the one common element to _all_ businesses in either production or consumption.
> 
> You'd be hard pressed to find a single business that isn't impacted, either positively or negatively, by this one given that it impacts the very nature of human productivity and thus the conventional economy.




I think the amount of "effort" contained in fossil fuels is lost on people.  When you consider a barrel of oil has the equivalent of nearly 1.5M kilocalories - think roughly 10, 000 hours of human labour.  Americans go through around 60 of those a year each.  In Australia we get through 5883 KG of oil equivalent energy each year which is roughly 45 barrels of oil.  That's like 450,000 of human labour equivalent each year.  Admittedly the individual level is probably a lot lower as this takes into account the resources industries which are massive users of energy, but it does start to give people an idea of just how dependent we are on cheap energy.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I think the amount of "effort" contained in fossil fuels is lost on people.




Loy Yang (largest power station in Vic) alone is equivalent to a human labour force of roughly 100 million workers.

Now add in every other power station, all the oil and all the gas and it's an incredibly large number.

What humans do is basically to leverage energy in order to do things. The actual human work input as such, is trivial compared to the effort put in by other means.

The inherent problem with most alternative energy sources is, as even their strongest supporters have often pointed out, they require a greater human input to use. That's like saying you're a forex etc trader and someone just cut your leverage limit to one third of what you were actually using previously. Your profits are sure to decline as a result and that's the problem here. We have to accept less leverage, less GDP, and the economic system doesn't really like that idea.


----------



## basilio

I completely agree with the observations made about the amount of energy in fossil fuels.  It is certainly the underpinning of our* current* way of life and the* current * size of our economic activity.

*But does anyone believe we can continue the current trajectory of energy use and economic activity ?*

One of the key reasons for moving to a renewable energy base is the realization that fossils fuels are very finite and will run out (certainly in cost effective terms) within a generation or so.  Same thing goes for the loss of many resources including land and fresh water. 

On a similar note the increase of CO2 levels is also acidifying the ocean to the point that it will be unable to sustain life as we know it.

There are many reasons to urgently  move to a renewable and more conservative society.  Even if someone chose not to accept the evidence regarding CO2 emissions and their affect on climate the other security and environment reasons are still compelling.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> *But does anyone believe we can continue the current trajectory of energy use and economic activity ?*




No way is it sustainable. Not a chance there since we're simply using too much of practically everything.

The only real unique thing about fossil fuels is that they'll likely run out (particularly oil and gas, perhaps not coal) before we hit some other limit. But changing the power source doesn't change the ultimate outcome, we still hit some other limit alarmingly soon with constant growth of a few % per year.

The whole mindset needs to change really. The "throwaway society" is a big part of it, we really need to go back to the notion of durability and repair rather than constantly extracting resources to make things that fall apart and need replacement (or worse still, replacement for the sake of fashion).

To pick one random example, I see that Telstra is now offering people the option to automatically get a new mobile phone every 12 months. I mean seriously, as long as society has that attitude it's pretty much irrelevant whether there's coal, nuclear, hydro or solar at the other end of the wire providing the power to run our society. 



> One of the key reasons for moving to a renewable energy base is the realization that fossils fuels are very finite and will run out (certainly in cost effective terms) within a generation or so.




Attempts to put a date on it are fraught with all sorts of things going wrong and have a tendency to make the forecaster look like a fool. Been there, tried that game.

But in broad terms we can say that:

Oil - is a problem now. It's more expensive than we'd like, to the point of being prohibitively so for some former uses. Meanwhile we're engaged in periodic wars, political disputes and technical / environmental mishaps in order to keep the stuff flowing. In one human lifetime we've gone from drilling onshore wells in a few places (notably the USA) and having it simply flow out under its' own pressure, to the point where we're mining tar sands, fracturing the underground rocks and depending on an assortment of unstable countries with dodgy governments to keep the stuff flowing. 

Gas - the entire natural gas industry has pretty much followed the oil industry with a 30 - 40 year time lag and not much has changed. Oil became more costly amidst political issues in the 1970's and a consequent move toward a global oil price. 40 years later we see the same story playing out with gas - witness the periodic Russia versus the EU disputes over gas, and that we're seeing prices go through the roof in Australia as we move to global pricing. Just as oil became uneconomic for baseload electricity generation in 1979, gas looks set to go the same way about 2017. So a 38 year time lag there, right in line with the 30 - 40 years that have always been present in this industry.

Coal - conventional wisdom says that we've got more than enough coal so don't worry about it. There is indeed plenty of coal in the ground, but that there are proposals to mine and export sub-bituminous coal from Tasmania ought to ring a few alarm bells there. Sub-bituminous is the second lowest rank, better than lignite (brown coal) but worse than bituminous (regular black coal) or anthracite (the real high grade stuff). 

And of course Tassie isn't exactly the first place that comes to mind if someone mentions coal mining. We're talking about small mines (eg 1 million tonnes a year, lifespan 8 years in one case) and the coal will have to be trucked out to get it to a port from which it can be exported. That rings a lot of alarm bells in terms of coal supply, simply that anyone is interested in small, lower grade deposits in a relatively high cost location. 

Whilst Tas does have a coal mining industry and has done so since the 1800's, it's a very small scale operation (in the order of 1000 tonnes a day) and it's just used locally in a few industries to run boilers etc. The Hydro looked at coal-fired power on numerous occasions from the 1960's to the 1990's in great detail (to the point of fairly detailed design work being done etc) but on each occasion it was found to be uneconomic. Oil was cheaper in the 1960's. Simply building more hydro-electric dams was cheaper too. Bringing gas from Victoria and using it to generate power was cheaper. Even bringing coal-fired power from Vic via underwater cables was cheaper. For that matter, physically shipping coal in from NSW (at export pricing) was no more expensive than simply digging up the stuff we've got locally and using it.

So if someone's interested in poor quality, small coal mines in a place that's nowhere near the major users of coal then that says rather a lot really. They wouldn't be even thinking about it if they had the option of developing higher quality sources of coal closer to markets.

So whilst conventional wisdom says that there's plenty of coal, actions point to there not being as much high quality coal as is generally assumed. Plenty of sub-bituminous and lignite yes, but we seem to be running a bit short on the higher grade stuff judging by what's actually happening in the industry. There are similar proposals in Qld to mine lower grade coal in the middle of nowhere, and it has the same economic disadvantage as doing it in Tas. No point unless you're already using the better stuff as fast as you can get it out of the ground. 

So overall it's wars for oil, fracking for gas and we're using inferior coal. That says all you need to know about the overall abundance of these resources. There may well be plenty of lower grade, high cost stuff but we're reaching the limits of the high quality, easily extracted fossil fuels.


----------



## wayneL

Interesting developments on data fudging -

http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/




> Watts - Besides moving toward a more accurate temperature record, the best thing about all this hoopla over the USHCN data set is the Polifact story where we have all these experts lined up (including me as the token skeptic) that stated without a doubt that Goddard was wrong and rated the claim “pants of fire”.
> 
> *They’ll all be eating some crow, as will I*, but now that I have Gavin for dinner company, I don’t really mind at all.
> 
> *When the scientific method is at work, eventually, everybody eats crow*. The trick is to be able to eat it and tell people that you are honestly enjoying it, because crow is so popular, it is on the science menu daily.


----------



## wayneL

and here =>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...the-future-july-1936-now-hottest-month-again/


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Interesting developments on data fudging -



No developments, no fudging, and no significance. 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html


----------



## Knobby22

ghotib said:


> No developments, no fudging, and no significance.
> 
> http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html




Pretty disgusting. I wonder who pays him to lie.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> No developments, no fudging, and no significance.
> 
> http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html



Red flag, everyone who dissents from the apocalyptic version of the AGW gospel is a denier according to that site. Very unscientific. Doesn't adequately address the points raised, just fallacious arguments.


While there is less to it than "right wing" sites are making of it, there is more to it than "left wingers" are prepared to admit.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Red flag, everyone who dissents from the apocalyptic version of the AGW gospel is a denier according to that site. Very unscientific. Doesn't adequately address the points raised, just fallacious arguments.
> 
> 
> While there is less to it than "right wing" sites are making of it, there is more to it than "left wingers" are prepared to admit.




What will be 'apocalyptic' for the say the large elements of the Barrier Reef and other coral ecosystems along with altitude sensitive species when they run out of hill to climb and the list goes on, say a vast inter-tidal zone, that the currrent inhabitants refer to as, London, New Orleans, Surfers Paradise, Sylvania Waters(see it's not all bad). Will be god send blue sky return of things like cockroaches able to fest on the detritus of the leavings. Good to see who's side your on wanyeL....(rhymes with......)

Though there are many the examples of  science as apolitical(insert >99.9999% here), the one I like best is  Wehmer Von Braum. Mind you how big a switch was it? ...God Bless Tom Lehrer


----------



## basilio

More reasons to drastically reduce fossil fuel use and take serious action on global warming



> *
> Dark snow: from the Arctic to the Himalayas, the phenomenon that is accelerating glacier melting
> Industrial dust and soil, blown thousands of miles, settle on ice sheets and add to rising sea level threat*
> 
> *Dark snow Greenland*
> Dark deposits on icefields in Greenland, which absorb more sunlight and lead to faster glacial melting. Photograph: Henrik Egede Lassen/Alpha Film
> 
> When American geologist Ulyana Horodyskyj set up a mini weather station at 5,800m on Mount Himlung, on the Nepal-Tibet border, she looked east towards Everest and was shocked. The world's highest glacier, Khumbu, was turning visibly darker as particles of fine dust, blown by fierce winds, settled on the bright, fresh snow. "One-week-old snow was turning black and brown before my eyes," she said.
> 
> The problem was even worse on the nearby Ngozumpa glacier, which snakes down from Cho Oyu – the world's sixth highest mountain. There, Horodyskyj found that so much dust had been blown on to the surface that the ability of the ice to reflect sunlight, a process known as albedo, dropped 20% in a single month. The dust that was darkening the brilliant whiteness of the snow was heating up in the strong sun and melting the snow and ice, she said.
> 
> *The phenomenon of "dark snow" is being recorded from the Himalayas to the Arctic as increasing amounts of dust from bare soil, soot from fires and ultra-fine particles of "black carbon" from industry and diesel engines are being whipped up and deposited sometimes thousands of miles away. The result, say scientists, is a significant dimming of the brightness of the world's snow and icefields, leading to a longer melt season, which in turn creates feedback where more solar heat is absorbed and the melting accelerates*.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ow-speeding-glacier-melting-rising-sea-levels


----------



## Calliope

Rising Sea Levels bas? But what about our grandchildren?

It is certainly good news for one of my grandchildren who runs a business making surfboards.


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> Rising Sea Levels bas? But what about our grandchildren?
> 
> It is certainly good news for one of my grandchildren who runs a business making surfboards.




Droll Callipope.. quite droll.

Sort of hope he is not actually living by the seaside though ?  Might get a bit damp. 
And I'm not sure how good the surfing will be picking your way through the ruins of sea side cities.
But hey it'll just make it more interesting won't it ?


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Droll Callipope.. quite droll.
> 
> Sort of hope he is not actually living by the seaside though ?  Might get a bit damp.
> And I'm not sure how good the surfing will be picking your way through the ruins of sea side cities.
> But hey it'll just make it more interesting won't it ?




I think it would be fun. It's a pity you and i won't be around to see it. Grandchildren have all the fun.


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily make you an idiot on Climate Change. 



> *Tony Abbott's government is 'recklessly endangering' the future on climate, says UK chief
> *
> Date
> July 8, 2014 - 12:51PM
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott’s plan to axe the carbon price this week has come in for some withering criticism from his own side of politics, with a former head of the UK’s Conservative Party declaring it to be an “appalling” move that “recklessly” endangers the future.
> 
> *Lord Deben, who served in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and is now chairman of the independent UK Committee on Climate Change, said the Abbott government “appears to be more concerned with advancing its own short-term political interests” than dealing with global warming.
> *
> “Australia’s actions are appalling,” Lord Deben said in a statement. “While the 66 countries that account for 88 per cent of global emissions have passed laws to address global warming, Australia is repealing them.”
> Coalition MPs celebrate carbon repeal bills passing through the House of Representatives.
> 
> Coalition MPs celebrate carbon repeal bills passing through the House of Representatives. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
> 
> “Australia’s carbon price was already working. It was reducing emissions without any of the economic damage that people feared.''
> 
> *"Australia is changing Britain's climate as we are changing yours. It is not just a national matter. We are all in this together and Mr Abbott is recklessly endangering our future, as he is Australia's.”*



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ys-uk-chief-20140708-zszx4.html#ixzz36sJb8pev


----------



## sptrawler

,







basilio said:


> Interesting to see that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily make you an idiot on Climate Change.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ys-uk-chief-20140708-zszx4.html#ixzz36sJb8pev





A quick google and you find Drax Power station in the U.K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

They are trying to make a token gesture to clean it up, by importing biomass from the U.S. lol

Fanatics are just as dangerous as deniers, IMO
The world economy is geared to present technologies, to enforce implimentation of new technologies at the cost of existing, will cause a disaster.

This is already being seen, with the reduction of system demand, in our electrical distribution system.
The distribution system is still required for industry, but the shared cost is becoming skewed, as domestic demand falls due to household solar instalations. 
However the households with solar, still require the network to supply their power, when their solar output is low, they just aren't paying for it.

The economical and social upheaval, that will occur when petrol engines become defunct, will be unprecedented.
Managing this shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy will be massive, if it isn't structured, it could well end up in a catastrophe.

Imagine the problems in the middle east, when there isn't a market for oil.

Imagine the local problems when an all electric car is viable, no gearbox, no cooling system, no engine. 
That is a lot of workshops, coolant suppliers, engine oil, air and fuel filter suppliers not to mention mechanical shops, transmission shops, petrol stations, fuel tankers and drivers, refineries all will lose their jobs.

Tires will last longer due to less weight, government speeding revenues will drop, because it will be easier to intergrate speed limiting to an electric propulsion sytem.

Brake companies will go broke because electrical dynamic braking will be used.

Radiator manufacturers, supliers and fitters will be out of busines.

Yep we really need to rush headlong with a kimikazy aproach, save the planet and cause anarchy.

That's a childlike aproach ,to what the climate change believers say is a serious issue.

Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.


----------



## Knobby22

I would have thought as a share investor you would not promote such a spurious argument.Disruptive technologies are always occurring. The advent of LED Has caused Australia's incandescent globe factory to close down. Computers have led to the end of typing pools. The problem with solar is the failure of government regulation. The world is moving into 21st Century power technologies and us resisting just means we will be paying the rest of the world to access their knowledge and skills like any 3rd world country.  The Usa, India, China and Europe haven't got this blind spot. We are pathetic here. 

All we seem to be good at is digging stuff out of the ground and making dodgy art. Other countries put their money into science as a driver of future prosperity while we reduce spending despite our previous success.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> ,
> Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.




+1.  Excellent post SP


----------



## orr

sptrawler said:


> ,
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately I believe there are better brains than ours working on this transition.





Good; name the ones in our current Government...? 
I'll give you some help, just start with the science minister.


----------



## overhang

Sptrawler that’s a strange argument from a supposed capitalist. 
Do you have these same concerns with BHP and the driverless trucks they’re producing that are putting people out of previously very high paying jobs?
Any jobs for that matter that have been automated?
Would have you had concerns when Henry Ford introduced the assembly line and vastly increased efficiency that now took less man-hours to produce the same car which subsequently would result in less jobs available for that workforce to produce the same amount of cars?

Some of your EV car points have merits but whole other industries will be created, cars will still be serviced at the same intervals, battery’s will need replacing and cars will require more electronic engineers to work on them.  The battery in the Telsa model S weighs about 550kg so they aren’t light cars by any means which will still put wear on the tyres.  But yes from a consumer standpoint an EV car is much more efficient and requires less maintenance.  Probably the biggest thing you missed imo is that without the fuel requirements where will the government make up the billions in shortfall from the fuel excise, one would suspect rego’s might be hit a lot harder to compensate this.

I don’t think anyone apart from the greens wants to see an instant transition to EV cars and renewable energy.  But some of us don’t want to see this government’s war against renewable energy that they seem to be waging either (this isn’t about the carbon tax).  All of what you mentioned is the way of the future, fossil fuels will run out eventually so the sooner we can wean ourselves off our dependency the better.


----------



## Smurf1976

A key point is that practically all previous transitions are to something inherently more efficient or otherwise better.

Steam locomotives to diesel = cheaper to operate and more efficient in every way.

Typewriters to computers = not cheaper but certainly more efficient and versatile and dramatically so.

Whale oil lamps to gas, then incandescent then discharge and low LED lighting = cheaper and better lighting with each step.

But in the case of EV's, with present technology it's actually a step backward in most regards. EV's are less practical than petrol in an operational sense. And compared to cheap oil at $20 per barrel as we used to have, EV's are not a cheaper option.

Much the same with power generation itself. Generating intermittent power from wind at $80 - $100 per MWh is not cheaper or inherently better than generating firm, dispatchable power from coal, gas or hydro at half that cost. 

There are exceptions of course, but as a whole intermittent power generation and EV's aren't better as such than firm, cheaper sources of power or vehicles running on high energy density and relatively easy to handle liquid fuels. They have an "advantage" only in the context of business as usual not being able to continue, or in terms of things like CO2 emissions. But then typewriters have a definite advantage over computers in terms of energy use too. And whilst gas lighting is inherently inefficient, a few dim gas lights here and there still used a lot less energy overall than having "night turned into day" by much higher output electric lights.

But we ultimately have to face reality whether we like it or not. 50 years from now Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations will exist only as images, a few pieces of machinery preserved in a museum somewhere and perhaps some kind of monument at the site noting the historical significance of these operations. They sure won't be generating electricity 50 years from now, not a chance of that, and it's unlikely that Loy Yang will be around then either. Meanwhile the Longford gas plant and Bass Strait oil and gas fields will also have been abandoned. So in roughly half a human lifetime, we're going to lose practically the entire present energy supply in Victoria.

Globally it's similar. How long Saudi Arabia can sustain present oil production is anyone's guess, but even their own figures (likely to be somewhat optimistic) give them no more than one human lifetime until it's Most likely, it'll happen a lot sooner than that.

With the exception of hydro, our present energy sources are all relatively short lived in terms of the infrastructure. A coal plant lasts 60 years tops, many closing at half that age. Same for any other fossil fuel power station or nuclear. Wind turbines have a projected lifespan of 25 years. Oil and gas fields deplete in a generation or two and are in due course abandoned. Apart from the largest mines it's the same with coal.

So ultimately, we have to rebuild practically the entire energy infrastructure in due course. The question is with what to replace it, and how to go about an orderly transition? Apart from some hydro schemes, all the present infrastructure has a remaining lifespan of less than one human lifetime.


----------



## Smurf1976

overhang said:


> Some of your EV car points have merits but whole other industries will be created, cars will still be serviced at the same intervals




Most current car servicing is related directly to the internal combustion engine itself with EV's requiring dramatically less maintenance.

Looking at the Mitsubishi i-MiEV as an example, after 50,000 km it does indeed require some maintenance. There's a filter in the air-conditioner that needs to be replaced. After 70,000 km it needs some more maintenance - change the brake fluid. Apart from that, it's inspection only unless something actually breaks.

EV's will see the end of most current motor vehicle servicing. At a guess, I'm thinking that selling tyres will be the main form of car servicing so far as EV's are concerned. Eg the car needs new tyres, so the owner takes it in for new tyres and gets them to inspect and service the car while they're at it. They won't be back until they need new tyres once again, since they just don't need a lot of maintenance.


----------



## sptrawler

Great posts Smurph, I don't think a lot of people understand the massive industrial and social disruption, this change is going to cause.

The jobs that will be displaced will be enormous, the cost of electricity/gas will mean living in a 'normal brick,wood,fibro house' will become expensive.

The amount of jobs that will be lost, when the internal combustion car is superceded, will be unprecedented.IMO

I don't know where the taxes will come from to support the displaced workers, Overhangs post shows people aren't really aware of the issues.

Combine this with the demise of power stations, that provide cheap electricity and require workers to run and maintain them, being replaced by high cost generation and minimal workforce.

I hope tourism picks up.


----------



## sptrawler

orr said:


> Good; name the ones in our current Government...?
> I'll give you some help, just start with the science minister.




Unlike you, I don't think just because someone is voted in to office makes them a genius. That goes for all sides of politics.

If you believe the answers are going to come from politicians, you must be from middle earth.lol


----------



## basilio

What a mixed bag of observations from Smurf and SP trawler !

Let's cut to chase of Smurfs main point - we have to rebuild our entire energy system in the next 30-50 years and it will have to be largely based on renewable energy sources. If we can't or don't our current industrial society will collapse. It just can't be sustained without the massive current energy input.

In that context arguing that renewable energy will cost more than current coal fired power stations is IMO a very moot point. We have to change - let's work out the most long term cost effective way to do it.

SP is concerned that when we go to EV transport the motor industry will practically collapse and all those jobs will go. My thought is "_And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? _"   I can understand why car makers want to *sell* us an endless stream of cars - clearly it's to provide millions of jobs for the proletariat 

IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.

Extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns_(network)
http://www.wri.org/publication/great-balancing-act


----------



## basilio

On a more positive note I just came across a discussion on what is happening with solar power in America. It's worth highlighting the main points

The video is excellent.  You get to hear the Tea party and The Greenies singing in unison off the same hymn sheet !!



> Coming from a range of highly respected energy analysts, the new Yale Climate Connections “This Is Not Cool” video is powerful, the words and “sound bites” striking:
> 
> Solar energy is “a truly disruptive technology.”
> …in the past 10 years, “the precipitous drop in the pricing for solar, especially utility grade solar.”
> “I’m extremely confident” that solar energy will produce a plurality of the energy, and most likely a majority,” used in the U.S. — more than any other single energy source — “in less than 20 years.”
> “That single relationship is going to change — the old model of a generator selling to a customer. The customer’s going to be able to produce their own energy.”
> For electric utilities, a future in which “the less electricity you sell, the more money you make.”
> “After all, people don’t really want to buy electricity; they want the services that electricity provides.”
> “For the first time, we’re going to buy solar for under five cents per kilowatt hour, and that puts solar competitive with wind, competitive with natural gas, competitive with coal, and competitive with nuclear. In fact, it beats them all, and that’s a revolution.”
> “…buildings getting their own power on site…meters running backward, generating more electricity than they’re using.”
> “…a giant distributed utility…instead of a utility monopoly.”
> “The old model’s going to not work anymore.”
> “This is what happened with file sharing of music, with Wikipedia, with YouTube, when millions of small players come together and they create the software and the connections, their power overwhelms…It isn’t even a competition .”




http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...lution-powerful-insights-from-energy-experts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnUNnW2DH_M


----------



## Smurf1976

The current situation at Queenstown (Tasmania) is a good if unfortunate illustration of the dilemma we all face.

It's one of the best known mines in Australia for a number of reasons and has been going since 1883. Mention "Queenstown" and most think of the mine and the town as effectively the same, indeed that's a pretty accurate reflection of reality.

But now it's closed. Shut. Gone. Kaput. The news came this week, and with the demise of the mine things are looking about as grim as one can imagine in Queenstown.

Whilst the trigger was a number of safety incidents, resulting in 3 deaths, followed by another more recent rock fall it was always going to close at some point. It's a finite resource and the mine in the "mountain" now extends 600 metres below sea level (1000m below the original surface level). Maybe they'll find more ore, enough to make fixing and re-opening the mine viable, but it can't possibly go on forever. Even if it does manage a revival, at some point the game really is over. 

Now leaving Queenstown and heading north you'll find the turn off to Lake Margaret power station. It's not much newer than the mine, the power station being literally 100 years old this year. It still runs the original machines but this "working museum" isn't closing anytime soon that's for sure. With a nice new wooden pipe (to keep it authentic....) built in 2010 it's going to be around for a very long time yet. 

Therein lies the difference between renewable and non-renewable resources. The mine can run only as long as there's ore left in the ground to extract. And the clock was ticking on its' eventual demise from the day it opened - even if they do get it going again, at some point it will close forever. 

But a hydro power station, on the other hand, has no such limitations. As long as it keeps raining on the notoriously wet West Coast then there's "fuel" to keep those turbines roaring away. If there's still a need for electricity a century from now, then there's no real reason why we can't keep using Lake Margaret as one source of it (albeit a relatively small one). The wood pipe will wear out again by then, but the resource itself isn't going to run out. And we can always cut a few trees (renewable) and do some more fancy woodwork when the need arises. 

So today we have a century old power station that's running incredibly well, indeed it's producing more electricity right now than it was originally intended to. 100 years later it still rains and the wheels are still turning. Meanwhile the mine isn't producing anything. One is renewable, the other is finite. 

Mt Lyell isn't a fossil fuel mine (primarily copper and gold) but the situation is ultimately where we're headed with coal, oil and gas. Pick an oil field, any oil field, and eventually it stops producing oil. Same with gas. Same with a coal mine. No matter how big it is, it's still a finite resource that eventually runs out.

The question is thus how to deal with a transition. That it must happen at some point is inevitable.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> SP is concerned that when we go to EV transport the motor industry will practically collapse and all those jobs will go. My thought is "_And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? _"   I can understand why car makers want to *sell* us an endless stream of cars - clearly it's to provide millions of jobs for the proletariat
> 
> 
> IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.
> 
> Extinction.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns_(network)
> http://www.wri.org/publication/great-balancing-act




Your point is? Smurph and I, were comenting on the need for a structured transition from established technologies, to make light of the social implications is ridiculous.

Your comment of " And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? 
Is easily answered, because we don't currently have the technology to replace them on mass, and it's too far to walk in Australia.


Yor other observation.
IMO opinion the inescapable conclusion of facing an energy poor /resource limited future is we have to downsize our society to live within the limits. If we don't we will go in the the same direction as a score of other civilizations that outgrew their resource base.

Extinction. 

Wow I would never have guessed, thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Craton

Disclaimer: I'm neither pro/con Climate Change and a <rant>

That's the real crux of the issue isn't it? 

The transition from the old way of doing things and at the same time, keeping the status quo, so to speak.

Govts'. and certainly the big end of town wouldn't want the change to happen to quickly and probably neither do we. Inter/multi-generational (whatever the word is) change is something that is hard to fathom, let alone stomach but this must be the way forward. Implementation of the change must start sometime and Howard's 20% renewables target by 2020 recognises the fact that change we must and is, inevitable.

I know it, you know it, we all know that change must come, whether we embrace it or not doesn't matter. It's how our govt's going about this transition and the spiralling energy costs that sticks in most people's craw. I'm certain, as most people would be, that if the implementation of renewables was cost neutral to business and consumer alike, there'd be a far more favourable acceptance and a stronger will to change and to change at a faster pace.

Carbon tax, mining and rent resource tax (or whatever it's called) and ETS are simply glossing over the issues and our eyes.

Big biz and The Street, want to cash in on it but we plebs are made to feel there's a more ulturistic reason for change. Playing the guilt card on earth's citizens is morally unjust when it's the bean counting money grabbing, unethical, money hungry power brokers that have created the issues in the first place. 

In simplistic terms, we, all of earth's citizens need to take a long hard look at what we are creating, we need to transition from our current culture of neglect. Govt's shoud be taken to task for allowing this current "way of life" to continue, govt's should legislating and taxing the hell out of the big end of town along with their financing partners for creating such degradation of our water ways, oceans, land and environment in the first place.

It's appalling the state of our oceans, the amount of plastic that is in it. The way we farm simply for quick bucks and the quality of the food that is grown and distributed is all geared in the same way, for quick easy profit. Yes, the earth's population is growing and all the associated issues that this issue alone has.

Yes, I do acknowledge we are far more aware of the issues both in macro, micro and individual terms but collectively I see a big disconnect between all tiers of our society. So much so that even here locally, the local council no longer has Green Bin days. It all goes into the same fill citing costs and the stumbling block. Another issue right there, the disparity between the have's on the coastal corridors and the have nots of remote/regional areas.

Surely if we are to address this so called Climate Change issue, we need to address it across all levels and make it equitable, cost neutral or positive and address all aspects in the way we "do" things. Simply putting a price on Carbon and/or having an ETS is simply poppycock and doesn't tackle the real underlining issues.

</rant>


----------



## Knobby22

Excellent points.


----------



## sptrawler

Craton said:


> Disclaimer: I'm neither pro/con Climate Change and a <rant>
> 
> That's the real crux of the issue isn't it?
> 
> The transition from the old way of doing things and at the same time, keeping the status quo, so to speak.>



Absolutely 



Craton said:


> Govts'. and certainly the big end of town wouldn't want the change to happen to quickly and probably neither do we. Inter/multi-generational (whatever the word is) change is something that is hard to fathom, let alone stomach but this must be the way forward. Implementation of the change must start sometime and Howard's 20% renewables target by 2020 recognises the fact that change we must and is, inevitable.>




Yes Howard was forward thinking and is probably the reason he is seen as our greatest Prime Minister.
No flipping PM's when he was in the big chair.



Craton said:


> I know it, you know it, we all know that change must come, whether we embrace it or not doesn't matter. It's how our govt's going about this transition and the spiralling energy costs that sticks in most people's craw. I'm certain, as most people would be, that if the implementation of renewables was cost neutral to business and consumer alike, there'd be a far more favourable acceptance and a stronger will to change and to change at a faster pace.
> 
> Carbon tax, mining and rent resource tax (or whatever it's called) and ETS are simply glossing over the issues and our eyes.>



Yes again you have nailed it, we all want renewables, but don't want to become a third world country to achieve it.




Craton said:


> Yes, I do acknowledge we are far more aware of the issues both in macro, micro and individual terms but collectively I see a big disconnect between all tiers of our society. So much so that even here locally, the local council no longer has Green Bin days. It all goes into the same fill citing costs and the stumbling block. Another issue right there, the disparity between the have's on the coastal corridors and the have nots of remote/regional areas.
> 
> Surely if we are to address this so called Climate Change issue, we need to address it across all levels and make it equitable, cost neutral or positive and address all aspects in the way we "do" things. Simply putting a price on Carbon and/or having an ETS is simply poppycock and doesn't tackle the real underlining issues.
> 
> </rant>




You really have nailed it.
I did use a bit of basilio's editing tehnique, but we get the point you were trying to get across. 
Thanks for the rant, it had some great points.


----------



## Craton

@Knobby22
@sptrawler

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## basilio

A big picture view of the argument regarding climate change and how it will turn out.



> *
> History will condemn climate change denialists*
> 
> Tony Abbott was elected by the right-wing of his party for a single purpose: to destroy any meaningful action in Australia against the threat of climate change
> 
> 
> Robert Manne
> 
> Climate change 'The future involves the rendering of large parts of the earth uninhabitable'. Photograph: Sigit Pamungkas/Reuters
> 
> The argument for radical action on climate change– which Australia will soon at least temporarily reject with the shameful decision to repeal the carbon tax – is embarrassingly simple.
> 
> For the past 200 years, western culture has granted science pre-eminent cultural authority. A quarter century ago, a consensus formed among contemporary scientists specialising in the study of the climate. The consensus comprised one principal idea: the primary source of energy on which industrial civilisation relied – the burning of fossil fuels – was dangerously increasing the temperature of the earth.
> 
> Thousands upon thousands of scientific studies have been conducted estimating the impact of this warming. Hundreds of outstanding books have been published making the conclusions of the scientists available to the general public. To anyone willing to listen, these scientists have explained that unless human beings derive their energy from sources other than fossil fuels, the future that we face over the next decades and centuries involves the rendering of large parts of the earth uninhabitable to humans and other species – through the melting of the ice caps and glaciers and thus steadily rising sea levels, the acidification of the oceans, the destruction of forests and coral reefs, and the increase in the prevalence and intensity of famines, insect-borne diseases, droughts, bush fires, floods, hurricanes and heat-waves.
> 
> Climate scientists also explained that radical action on climate change could not be delayed. The carbon dioxide being emitted by human activity would remain in the atmosphere for a century or longer. The damage our generation was inflicting on the earth and its inhabitants was irreversible and therefore terminal. In human history, the scientists warned, there had been so far been no catastrophe even remotely as serious or as grave as the one we were about to face if we failed to take timely action against impending climate change.
> 
> ......*As global emissions increased, something surpassingly strange occurred in the realm of politics in the US – something without parallel in the history of the post-Enlightenment west since the Darwinian controversy. The emergence of a broad-based movement of thought challenging the sovereignty of science in one specialised field.*
> 
> .,...As a consequence of the spread of climate change denialism, tens of millions of American citizens now base their opinions on the kind of pseudo-knowledge manufactured by the climate change denialist blogs and disseminated daily by the right-wing media. *They have come to treat the questions of whether the earth is warming, and if so why, as political matters concerning which those without any genuine scientific understanding or training are as qualified to form an opinion as professors who have devoted their lives to one of the disciplines of climate science.*




And it continues. 

For those of you can read and think check out the full article. 

If you sincerely believe your understanding and  knowledge of climate change excels the combined knowledge of the best scientific experts in the field  - your delusional.

And Wayne why not simply say that you dismiss out of hand the entire work of the climate scientists whose research underpins the exhaustive IPCC  reports in the last 25 years ?  

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists


___________________________________________________________________

Robert Manne presentation on how vested interests have convinced the public climate change is not happening.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/19/robert-manne-how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science


----------



## basilio

True Conservatives and Climate Change



> The right-wing denialists, now dominant within the Coalition, often call themselves conservatives. They are not.
> 
> At the heart of true conservatism is the belief that each new generation forms the vital bridge between past and future, and is charged with the responsibility of passing the earth and its cultural treasures to their children and grandchildren in sound order.
> 
> History will condemn the climate change denialists, here and elsewhere, for their contribution to the coming catastrophe that their cupidity, their arrogance, their myopia and their selfishness have bequeathed to the young and the generations still unborn.




http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists


----------



## wayneL

Fallacy of bifurcation basilio.

In your world, folks are either deniers or believers in the climate apocalypse. 

That's just farking asinine because their is a spectrum of views.. You stand condemned as an unintelligent fool by your continued usecofcthe term 'denier' and by your foolish ultimatum. 

When you would like to debate like an adult......


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...My thought is "_And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? _"...



The answer to this question may be readily found by contemplation of the Emerald Tablet coupled with consideration of secondary level chemistry, physics and biology.

Edit: Or are you an Emerald Tablet, physics,chemistry and biology denier?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Fallacy of bifurcation basilio.
> 
> In your world, folks are either deniers or believers in the climate apocalypse.
> 
> That's just farking asinine because their is a spectrum of views.. You stand condemned as an unintelligent fool by your continued usecofcthe term 'denier' and by your foolish ultimatum.
> 
> When you would like to debate like an adult......




I am with you 100% wayne.......The whole thing of Global Warming is a farce.

Robert Manne is a professor of politics and not a climate scientist and he is a great supporter of the Climate Change committee of the United Nations with the UN Secretary General a Greenie so what else would you expect?

Also the Guardian News paper was once run by the Communists.

Robert Manne (born 31 October 1947) is a professor of politics at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Born in Melbourne, Manne's earliest political consciousness was formed by the fact that his parents were Jewish refugees from Europe and his grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. He was educated at the University of Melbourne (BA) and the University of Oxford (BPhil) during the 1960s and 1970s. His university teaching focuses on twentieth-century European politics (including the Holocaust), Communism, and Australian politics, and he has undertaken research in areas such as censorship, anti-semitism, asylum seekers and mandatory detention, Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, the Stolen Generations, and the "history wars" of the 1990s.


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> If you sincerely believe your understanding and  knowledge of climate change excels the combined knowledge of the best scientific experts in the field  - your delusional.




Possibly, but at least I know how to use the correct your.

you looser 

MW


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists




Yep, I'll believe that the catastrophe is coming when they can string together a couple of decades of accurate predictions.

Until then, the issue of climate sensitivity is not settled.

Sure we are contributing to warming, but nobody in the world knows how much, and not even to so-called experts can produce an accurate guestimation of what is happening.

I will try track down a cool bob carter quote, I think it sums up the current modelling madness quite well.

MW


----------



## basilio

And Bob Carter knows what he is talking about  Medico Wallet?  

Really ? He believes that volcanoes are the source of our excess CO2.  A totally proven misconception -  but he still says that is the problem.  

And exactly how much certainty do you want  regarding the effects of continued CO2 emissions ?  Is it an experiment you are happy to continue until we are totally sure of how it will end ? Or is there enough information already available to make a reasonable judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

And  what is wrong with Robert Manne accepting the expertise of climate scientists around the world  on this issue? Isn't the whole point of his argument that our society has acknowledged the skills of scientific experts in many areas - except it seems for one of the most critical issues that collectively faces us.

In that particular case everyone is an expert and expects to be put on the same level of respect as people who have spent their lives studying the subject.


----------



## medicowallet

basilio said:


> And Bob Carter knows what he is talking about  Medico Wallet?
> 
> Really ? He believes that volcanoes are the source of our excess CO2.  A totally proven misconception -  but he still says that is the problem.
> 
> And exactly how much certainty do you want  regarding the effects of continued CO2 emissions ?  Is it an experiment you are happy to continue until we are totally sure of how it will end ? Or is there enough information already available to make a reasonable judgment.




Actually in what I have heard him say, CO2 comes originally from volcanoes and peaked approx 15 times what it is now, then trees evolved 250-300 million years ago and we were approx 280ppm before industrial times, now we are increasing it by liberating the coal from the plant life.

There is a NIPCC talk where he clearly shows this, and also shows a nice graph from the holocene until now with temp vs CO2.  But I guess you also know what happened during those times, because you are up with the science.

As for certainty, I don't know where it will end, what I do know, is that the IPCC predictions are incorrect, and their estimations of climate sensitivity are wrong, clearly and in writing it is wrong, and no amount of internet banter can disprove their error.

Do I think we are causing dangerous warming?  No.
Am I prepared to make sacrifices to stave off a possible threat? YES
Am I prepared to condemn those in less fortunate countries to an existence where economic growth slows and their standards of living are worsened by questionable science?  NOT A CHANCE

I will take the moral high ground of pro economic development to

1. Assist my fellow humans
2. Develop an economy that can afford to develop the technology of the future when it is appropriate
3.afford the efficient technology of the future

So in short, I will happily wait for the science to actually make sense in the real world, before committing to a path that definitely costs $$$, costs lives and costs quality of life in the chance that it will affect those things.

Then again, I wasn't born yesterday and have lived through some of the so-called scares of our times (as I type this on my 1998 computer)

MW


----------



## overhang

medicowallet said:


> Possibly, but at least I know how to use the correct your.
> 
> you looser
> 
> MW




If only you knew how to spell loser


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> If only you knew how to spell loser




I think that won flue rite over you're head.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> I think that won flue rite over you're head.




rite ova mine two!


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> rite ova mine two!




What is the ASX Code for the said "rite ova mine two"?


----------



## Craton

...and science has never been wrong before? Well call me condemned and delusional. 

Using CO2 as the scape goat is simply misleading and avoiding the other underlining issues that stems from humanity's hell bent and incessant destruction of our living sphere.

I do agree and support that we need to change the way we "do" things in our world, we do need to change the processes that are polluting our environment and we need to change our disconnect from Mother Nature. A holistic approach is what is called for not just targeting fossil fuels production of CO2 and labelling this "Climate Change".


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> What is the ASX Code for the said "rite ova mine two"?




Eye donut bee leaf their least it.
Wood ewe wont two by sum?


----------



## burglar

Craton said:


> ... I do agree and support that we need to change the way we "do" things in our world, we do need to change the processes that are polluting our environment and we need to change our disconnect from Mother Nature. ...




Admirable!



cynic said:


> Eye donut bee leaf their least it.
> Wood ewe wont two by sum?




Haha!


----------



## sydboy007

Super fern to the rescue 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ged-the-planet/?&WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20140717

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...et-do-it-again/?&WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20140717


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> Super fern to the rescue
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ged-the-planet/?&WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20140717
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...et-do-it-again/?&WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20140717




I would think that cooling and a precipitous drop in co2 would be counterproductive for humanity. Ban the fern!


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> I would think that cooling and a precipitous drop in co2 would be counterproductive for humanity. Ban the fern!




Forget the Zombie apocalypse.

Fernalypse 

Also sounds a better dietry supplement to soilent green


----------



## noco

Why can't Fairfax Newspapers report the truth for once instead of their lies which are repeatedly being brought to the fore....

Embarrassment does not appear to deter them from doing it again. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...fax_warming_scare_with_just_five_minutes_of_/


----------



## basilio

Noco the trouble with you is that you take Andrew Bolts lying, selective dribble as a basis for information regarding CC.

I read his blog. As usual a mixture of selected half truths. If you actually want something factual check out out the Bureau Of  Met report on Vanuatu.  Key points are
1) Increases in temp due to  global warming
2) Increases in extreme rainfall events (Overall rainfall seems to be roughly the same just bigger downpours.)
3) High confidence in future ocean rises
4) Very High confidence of coral reef destruction because of warming oceans
5) Very High confidence in increasing ocean acidification (again because of excess CO2)

Not surprisingly Mr Bolt didn't comment on these aspects of global warming. 

http://www.pacificclimatechangescie...CountryReports2014_Ch16Vanuatu_WEB_140710.pdf


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Noco the trouble with you is that you take Andrew Bolts lying, selective dribble as a basis for information regarding CC.
> 
> I read his blog. As usual a mixture of selected half truths. If you actually want something factual check out out the Bureau Of  Met report on Vanuatu.  Key points are
> 1) Increases in temp due to  global warming
> 2) Increases in extreme rainfall events (Overall rainfall seems to be roughly the same just bigger downpours.)
> 3) High confidence in future ocean rises
> 4) Very High confidence of coral reef destruction because of warming oceans
> 5) Very High confidence in increasing ocean acidification (again because of excess CO2)
> 
> Not surprisingly Mr Bolt didn't comment on these aspects of global warming.
> 
> http://www.pacificclimatechangescie...CountryReports2014_Ch16Vanuatu_WEB_140710.pdf





And the trouble with you is you believe in fictitious data and projections out to 2090 and no doubt 
"PEER REVIEWED"????....it is so very easy to come up with that sort of data and the naive believe it....The IPPC used to come up with similar data and then confessed they may have been wrong........That idiot Professor Tim Flannery told all the Labor Governments in 2007 that Brisbane , Sydney and Melbourne would run out of water by 2010 and they never see rains again to fill the dams......And those same stupid Labor Party Governments believed him so they all spent $billions on desalinization plants which are now in rusted moth balls.....that same idiot tried to get everyone to believe seas would rise to the height of 8 story buildings but the hypocrite bought a block of land on the Hawksbury  river just 2 metres above high water mark.

I traveled to Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, PNG and Fiji on business over an 18 year period......The water was encroaching on some of those island back in the 80's and 90's.......and it was a well known fact in those days, the ocean was not rising but the islands were in fact sinking.......many of those island are volcanic and many are coral cays that sink over a long period of time.   Ah yes they say, the seas are rising, it must be Global Warming.

When cyclone Yasi hit North Queensland 4 years ago that Greenie Bob Brown shouts from the highest roof , "you see what man made Global warning is doing and we will see more and more intense weather"....But then  comes the latest prediction the number of cyclones are decreasing....That other Greenie Christine Milne now states that is because of Global Warming......So it does not matter whether it is drought, floods, fire or sinking islands, we must blame it on man made Global Warming so we must close all the coal mines and coal fired power stations.  

What a heap of cods waddle.

Believe a quarter of what you hear and a half of what you see and you will be some where near the truth.

If you have lived as long as I have my friend you would understand that nothing has changed since the 1930's.

If you want some observed history over that time I can give you plenty.


----------



## Bintang

noco said:


> .....that same idiot tried to get everyone to believe seas would rise to the height of 8 story buildings but the *hypocrite* bought a block of land on the Hawksbury  river just 2 metres above high water mark.




Naaa... he's probably just dumb. If he was really smart he would have bought land in a place that is guaranteed to be future, prime sea-front.  Probably somewhere West of  Kurrajong Hills.


----------



## Logique

Thanks to The Age,
we know that the global warming halt doesn't disprove climate change, it's actually because of climate change!

It seems that global temps have remained constant for 17 years because.. the Atlantic Ocean has warmed. Who'd have thought!

The Age Headlines -  2 days ago
http://omnyapp.com/shows/the-age-headlines/warming-halt-due-to-climate-change
*Warming halt due to climate change*
A mysterious surge in the trade winds that blow across the Pacific Ocean – one of the causes of a recent slow down in global temperature rises – is actually the result of the warming of the Atlantic Ocean, Australian-led research has found.


----------



## Knobby22

Not the Age, Nature, the number one scientific journal.
I've been following this for awhile and its old news. Being published by Nature adds a lot of credence though.

To summarise:
Research published earlier this year suggested the intensified trade winds were trapping heat from the air in the ocean, slowing the warming of global surface temperature. 

This pressure difference between the two ocean basins isn't expected to last. And as previous research reported, when it does end, a sudden acceleration of average temperature around the globe would likely occur.

"It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end," says co-author Matthew England, also from the University of New South Wales. 

"However, a large El Niño event is one candidate that has the potential to drive the system back to a more synchronised Atlantic/Pacific warming situation."


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Not the Age, Nature, the number one scientific journal.
> I've been following this for awhile and its old news. Being published by Nature adds a lot of credence though.
> 
> To summarise:
> Research published earlier this year suggested the intensified trade winds were trapping heat from the air in the ocean, slowing the warming of global surface temperature.
> 
> This pressure difference between the two ocean basins isn't expected to last. And as previous research reported, when it does end, a sudden acceleration of average temperature around the globe would likely occur.
> 
> "It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end," says co-author Matthew England, also from the University of New South Wales.
> 
> "However, a large El Niño event is one candidate that has the potential to drive the system back to a more synchronised Atlantic/Pacific warming situation."




Interesting hypothesis, one of many I have read regarding the hiatus. It (or any of the other hypotheses) shouldn't be regarded as deterministic analysis however.

Time will tell


----------



## SirRumpole

Agricultural giant Olam International says climate change is 'absolutely a reality'
\


> The head of one the world's largest agricultural commodity trading companies is warning Australian primary producers to take climate change seriously.
> 
> Olam International chief executive Sunny Verghese has told Landline that agricultural producers and processors need to take action now.
> 
> "It is absolutely a reality that climate change is going to significantly impact agriculture," he said.
> 
> "It impacts it both from the nexus it has with water, and the nexus it has with micro-climate as well, so it is probably the most important driver to future agricultural production, productivity and therefore price."
> 
> Mr Vergese was on the Gold Coast this week to address the 2014 Australian Cotton Conference.
> 
> His Singapore-based company has operations in 65 countries, and is the world's biggest trader in cashews, and the second biggest trader in coffee and cotton.
> 
> Olam International has had a presence in Australian since 2007; it owns Queensland cotton, manages 12,000 hectares of almond orchards in Victoria and has investments in the grain, wool and pulse industries.
> 
> Mr Verghese said one of Olam's initiatives to tackle the impacts of climate change was to reduce water consumption.
> 
> "We have a target that in our tier one manufacturing and processing facilities we will reduce water usage per tonne of product that we supply by 10 per cent by 2015, and in our farms by 10 per cent by 2020," he said.
> 
> "Similarly we can track the carbon dioxide emission that we generate across all our commodities in each country.
> 
> "Again we have put some hard targets of how we are going to reduce that carbon emission footprint for every tonne that we supply by 2015 and 2020."
> 
> "My view is that there is no point if I say I've generated half-a-billion after tax earnings, but I've depleted $200 million of natural capital from the environment.
> 
> "Because then I've got to question myself, what is the point of all this overwhelming effort if at the end of the day you've really depleted the natural capital and left a huge bill to pay for future generations?"
> China at the cutting edge
> 
> Mr Verghese said China in particular faced huge environmental challenges, with 90 per cent if its water polluted. But he is encouraged by the Chinese government's response.
> 
> "I don't think there's any other government in any other part of the world that is investing as much money now in research to solve this problem – China is at the cutting edge now," he said.
> 
> The Olam CEO says both India and China have little chance of being able to feed their populations, and that opens new opportunities for Australia.
> 
> But Mr Verghese downplays talk of developing the food bowl of Asia.
> 
> "It would not be the right view to say Australia would be the food basket of the world," he said.
> 
> "But Australia will be the most competitive producer, Australia will set the standards on water usage efficiency, on agronomic practices, on breeding better varieties, and therefore Australia will always be very competitive.
> 
> "At the end of the day Australia will be part of the solution, but will not be the solution. It cannot be the solution because it also has constraints on how much it can produce and how much it can export."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-change-absolutely-real/5659058


----------



## explod

Thanks for posting SirRumpol.

You can have all the scientific cross argument you like, but it is "the vibe your Worship"

The farmers, the gardeners and men of the land will tell you.

90 percent of Australia continues to be in drought.


----------



## SirRumpole

explod said:


> Thanks for posting SirRumpol.
> 
> You can have all the scientific cross argument you like, but it is "the vibe your Worship"
> 
> The farmers, the gardeners and men of the land will tell you.
> 
> 90 percent of Australia continues to be in drought.




Are you arguing for or against the proposition that climate change is a problem ?


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> Interesting hypothesis, one of many I have read regarding the hiatus. It (or any of the other hypotheses) shouldn't be regarded as deterministic analysis however.
> 
> Time will tell



A risk is that, if the theory is found correct and we see a rapid resumption of warming, then we may end up having to take extremely rapid action. Rapid as in simply scale back coal, oil and gas production at a rapid pace and just accept whatever consequences that brings knowing full well that it's quite literally a "lights out" scenario.

It's like any disaster. The longer it's left, the more drastic the measures required to deal with it. And when it can no longer be postponed, the "unthinkable" does indeed happen and it happens extremely fast. 

So far as climate change is concerned, we're basically taking a gamble that avoiding a modest cost today won't result in a very much higher cost tomorrow. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but it's definitely a gamble.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oles-possibly-found/?&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20140806

has got me worried that we're close to the tipping point to a new equilibrium which wont be so hospitable for humans

_From the photo of the Yamal crater, "it's obvious that some material was ejected from the hole," Romanovsky said. His Russian colleagues who visited the site told him the dirt was piled more than 3 feet (1 m) high around the hole's edges.
_
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...berian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/

_There’s now a substantiated theory about what created the crater. And the news isn’t so good.

It may be methane gas, released by the thawing of frozen ground. According to a recent Nature article, “air near the bottom of the crater contained unusually high concentrations of methane ”” up to 9.6% ”” in tests conducted at the site on 16 July, says Andrei Plekhanov, an archaeologist at the Scientific Centre of Arctic Studies in Salekhard, Russia. Plekhanov, who led an expedition to the crater, says that air normally contains just 0.000179% methane.”

The scientist said the methane release may be related to Yamal’s unusually hot summers in 2012 and 2013, which were warmer by an average of 5 degrees Celsius. “As temperatures rose, the researchers suggest, permafrost thawed and collapsed, releasing methane that had been trapped in the icy ground,” the report stated.

“Gas pressure increased until it was high enough to push away the overlaying layers in a powerful injection, forming the crater,” explained geochemist Hans-Wolfgang Hubberten of Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute, adding that he’s never seen anything like the crater.

Researchers with Stockholm University’s Department of Applied Environmental Science recently witnessed methane releases in the East Siberian Arctic Ocean. They found that “elevated methane levels [were] about ten times higher than in background seawater,” wrote scientist Orjan Gustafsson on his blog last week. He added: “This was somewhat of a surprise … This is information that is crucial if we are to be able to provide scientific estimations of how these methane reeases may develop in the future.”_


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Are you arguing for or against the proposition that climate change is a problem ?




That the anecdotal evidence shows that warming is a growing problem to farming in particular.

And as just pointed out by Sydboy, we should be acting on the possibility or we may (I think we have) have passed the tipping point.

Some scientists have indicated that at a certain point the deterioration, or it you like, warming will accelerate exponentially.


----------



## SirRumpole

explod said:


> That the anecdotal evidence shows that warming is a growing problem to farming in particular.
> 
> And as just pointed out by Sydboy, we should be acting on the possibility or we may (I think we have) have passed the tipping point.
> 
> Some scientists have indicated that at a certain point the deterioration, or it you like, warming will accelerate exponentially.




It makes decisions like the below, even more inane



> Fury free-flowing at bore project’s closure
> 
> 
> 
> FARMERS are furious about the State and federal governments’ decision to discontinue funding for the Cap and Pipe Bore Program.
> 
> Funding for the 15-year-old project, hailed the most beneficial ever provided to Australian agriculture, dries up in June and farmers say the fact the future of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) rehabilitation work is not secure is “totally, completely insane”.
> 
> Across three phases of joint Australian and NSW government funding totalling close to $90 million, plus the equivalent contributed by farmers, 398 free-flowing bores have been controlled in NSW with more than 10,000 kilometres of bore drains removed and 18,000km of pipe installed.
> 
> That adds up to a saving of 78,500 megalitres of water every year, according to NSW Office of Water figures, and about 4.2m hectares of country supplied with permanent, reliable, efficient and strategically located watering points.
> 
> Before the capping and piping, up to 95 per cent of artesian water was being wasted through evaporation and seepage in free-flowing drains since commercial exploitation of the basin’s water and pressure resources began in 1878.
> 
> There are still as many as 240 free-flowing bores in NSW to be capped and piped, or about a third of the GAB in NSW.
> 
> Nationwide, there are still about 650 to be done.
> 
> The GAB is the largest underground freshwater resource in the world and lies below 12 per cent of NSW.
> 
> Agriculture groups want $100m invested immediately to see the GAB project to fruition, plus low interest rates to help farmers fund their side.
> 
> Many farmers would need to cough up several hundred thousand dollars for their share of reticulation systems (which has ranged from 20pc of the cost of capping and 30pc to 60pc of the cost of replacing drains with pipes).
> 
> Farming lobby groups say, given current drought conditions, that would be impossible.
> 
> President of the NSW Artesian Bore Users Association and GAB Protection Group Anne Kennedy, “Yuma”, Coonamble, said farmers were gobsmacked governments were sending money to overseas water projects while ignoring this single greatest resource Australia has.
> 
> “Science is telling us the GAB is recharging at 0.5 to 10 millimetres a year,”Ms Kennedy said.
> 
> “It’s a finite resource – the equivalent of Sydney Harbour every year is being wasted, going down uncapped free-flowing drains.
> 
> “Not only do we need to see this project through, we need to crank up the rate at which bores are capped and piped to stop this atrocious wastage.”
> 
> Farmers who have already capped and piped their artesian bores say they wouldn’t exist today without it.
> 
> Wool and lamb producer Ranald Warby, “Barrakee”, Mungindi, is now in the second year of drought with no effective rain since last January and has for some time been entirely dependant on piped groundwater.
> 
> He says he would be out of business were it not for the supply of reliable clean water to 36 tanks and troughs the project provided.
> 
> “We have the ability to spread stock out to all paddocks and use any available feed,” he said.
> 
> Mr Warby said there were bores that had not flowed for many years now flowing again and others that had been capped and piped no longer needed pumps due to the increase in pressure.
> 
> “But with the rise in the pressure of the basin, the remaining uncapped bores are flowing at a greater rate which is why the work has to continue and move at speed,” he said.
> 
> Farmers say enormous water usage by the mining and coal seam gas industries is putting increased stress on the basin.
> 
> The federal government says it is assessing the benefit of further investment in the rehabilitation of the GAB, with the outcome expected before June.
> 
> NSW Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson said her government considered the rehabilitation works to be a vital initiative for landholders in the basin and was continuing its negotiations with the Commonwealth to extend funding beyond June 30, 2014.
> 
> http://www.theland.com.au/news/agri...ore-projects-closure/2691292.aspx?storypage=1


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> It makes decisions like the below, even more inane




Halve federal elite sports funding for a year, and maybe kill off the ballerina funding of $1M in the budget too, and I'd say the NSW Govt and farmers should be able to make up the shortfall.


----------



## sydboy007

[video=youtube_share;l2myKgJFbuo]http://youtu.be/l2myKgJFbuo[/video]


----------



## Logique

That '97% of scientists' is looking shakier by the week.

The tide is running out for the new Aristotelians of AGW.



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e-iceman-cometh/story-e6frg6zo-1227023489894#
> ..What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man made CO2?..
> 
> ..They found that over the last 3,000 years the modern Grand maxima which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that *climate change is determined by the sun not humans*.


----------



## Knobby22

But solar activity has been dropping logique.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> But solar activity has been dropping logique.




I have been saying this for years now on how Earth traverses around the Sun, the activities of the Sun and the distance Earth is from the Sun at a given time.

So I would say that those 97% of scientist who still preach man made Global Warming are a selected few from 100 scientist.....there are perhaps another 10,000 scientist out there who have a different view but their opinions very often get suppressed.....Scientist like Peter Rid and Bob Carter from JCU Townsville, whom I have met in person on more than one occasions, have that far different view.

Having lived in North Queensland for some 43 years, I only remarked a day or two ago that we have just experienced the longest winter in that time period.....not extremely cold but a longer period.  

*Yet during the past 20 years the US alone has poured about $US80 billion into climate change research on the presumption that humans are the primary cause. The effect has been to largely preordain scientific conclusions. It set in train a virtuous cycle where the more scientists pointed to human causes, the more governments funded their research.

At the same time, like primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods, many governments, including Australia’s former Labor government, used the biased research to pursue “green” gesture politics. This has inflicted serious damage on economies and diminished the West’s standing and effectiveness in world *aff*air



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...he-iceman-cometh/story-e6frg6zo-1227023489894


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> But solar activity has been dropping logique.




It's cyclical 



> While you didn’t see it, feel it, or even read about it in the newspapers, Earth was almost knocked back to the Stone Age on July 23, 2012. It wasn’t some crazed dictator with his finger on the thermonuclear button or a giant asteroid that came close to wiping out civilization as we know it, though ”” no, what nearly ended us was a *massive solar storm*. Almost two years ago to the day, our most bounteous and fantastical celestial body ”” the Sun ”” kicked out *one of the largest solar flares and coronal mass ejections ever recorded*. And it missed Earth by a whisker. “If it had hit, we would still be picking up the pieces,” says Daniel Baker, who led the research into the massive solar storm.




http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-sent-us-back-to-a-post-apocalyptic-stone-age


----------



## SirRumpole

> he Sun ”” kicked out one of the largest solar flares and coronal mass ejections ever recorded.




I didn't see it...


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> I didn't see it...




You need glasses on the dark side of the moon Horace.

http://www.space.com/26669-huge-solar-storm-2012-destruction.html


----------



## Knobby22

Which is why you should always put a surge divertor on the front of your switchboard.

When we next get hit by one of those, it will be messy.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> I have been saying this for years now on how Earth traverses around the Sun, the activities of the Sun and the distance Earth is from the Sun at a given time.
> 
> So I would say that those 97% of scientist who still preach man made Global Warming are a selected few from 100 scientist.....there are perhaps another 10,000 scientist out there who have a different view but their opinions very often get suppressed.....Scientist like Peter Rid and Bob Carter from JCU Townsville, whom I have met in person on more than one occasions, have that far different view.
> 
> Having lived in North Queensland for some 43 years, I only remarked a day or two ago that we have just experienced the longest winter in that time period.....not extremely cold but a longer period.
> 
> *Yet during the past 20 years the US alone has poured about $US80 billion into climate change research on the presumption that humans are the primary cause. The effect has been to largely preordain scientific conclusions. It set in train a virtuous cycle where the more scientists pointed to human causes, the more governments funded their research.
> 
> At the same time, like primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods, many governments, including Australia’s former Labor government, used the biased research to pursue “green” gesture politics. This has inflicted serious damage on economies and diminished the West’s standing and effectiveness in world *aff*air
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...he-iceman-cometh/story-e6frg6zo-1227023489894





This is obviously what we have all been waiting for. The Damoclean prospects are waved away by as if by a Medieval Knight in shining armour. Keep us updated as this new era of scientific 'enlightenment' takes hold....      Hark... Are they reports  I hear; from the town cryer and words from the wondrous Gutenberg device and sounds from this strange mercurial magic box.
are they oh no no no ....There be hints of a false prophet ...a charlatan... it rankles .... my anger rises... to the pitchforks men... a bonfire A *bonfire* 

Wax forth noco, logique, spotter with your insights we await.


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Wax forth noco, logique, spotter with your insights we await.




Ermmmm I am merely trying to point out that global warming/Co2 man made gas blah blah de blah blah is the least of our worries. 

If an asteroid hit earth http://www.wimp.com/lifescare/ we are all turned to ash. Happens with quite a bit of regularity apparently. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4...ing-earth-by-a-hairs-breadth-on-wednesday.htm

Also solar flares are responsible for global warming as well as man made gases http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html

What's that? A village has lost their idiot? To the pitchforks men !


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Ermmmm I am merely trying to point out that global warming/Co2 man made gas blah blah de blah blah is the least of our worries.
> 
> If an asteroid hit earth http://www.wimp.com/lifescare/ we are all turned to ash. Happens with quite a bit of regularity apparently. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4...ing-earth-by-a-hairs-breadth-on-wednesday.htm
> 
> Also solar flares are responsible for global warming as well as man made gases http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
> 
> What's that? A village has lost their idiot? To the pitchforks men !




trainspotter, some mothers do have them.......sad as it may be.


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> trainspotter, some mothers do have them.......sad as it may be.




Are you quotng Frank Spencer ?


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Are you quotng Frank Spencer ?


----------



## Calliope

Oh Damn! Another broken promise! Basilio promised us global warming and I was looking forward to  it.



> Maurice Newman, former head of the Australian Stock Exchange and investment banking executive and the Prime Minister’s adviser on the needs of the business community, has written an opinion piece claiming that we are at serious risk of calamitous climate change.
> 
> Given Newman has described the widespread concern with human-induced climate change as a religious belief rather than based on sound science, this might come as a bit of a surprise.
> 
> However, Newman believes the risk is not climate change that leads to warming of the planet but rather abrupt cooling. According to Newman there is a scientific and media cover-up at work that is suppressing acknowledgement that work involving the world’s most powerful atomic particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, has validated the hypothesis that, “the sun alters the climate by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation” which overwhelms any influence from greenhouse gases.
> 
> Newman suggests that the warm temperatures the Earth has been experiencing in the last few decades are due to unusually active solar activity and this is likely to come to abrupt end, plunging the planet into dangerous cooling




http://www.businessspectator.com.au...e-environment/maurice-newman-nutter-or-genius


----------



## burglar

trainspotter said:


> Are you quotng Frank Spencer ?



Ohhhh!
Let me be Frank!


----------



## wayneL

For your interest:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...manipulating-temperature-records/#more-114854

Comments please.



> SNIP: The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming. Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science. Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming. In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years. –Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 23 August 2014


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> For your interest:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...manipulating-temperature-records/#more-114854
> 
> Comments please.




Would be interested if this is just eastern states or if any WA temperatures are involved.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Would be interested if this is just eastern states or if any WA temperatures are involved.




Dunno, but what matters is that it shows retrospective adjustments. Make of that what you will.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Dunno, but what matters is that it shows retrospective adjustments. Make of that what you will.




This is the longest winter I have ever known in Townsville during the past 43 years.......24th August and still cold at nights.........guess it must be climate change or what ever they call it now.


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> This is the longest winter I have ever known in Townsville during the past 43 years.......24th August and still cold at nights.........guess it must be climate change or what ever they call it now.



Well you have stolen our Winter in Hobart  We have a grand total of one weeks Winter from 3 months this year. We are currently going into our second week of 18 degree days in a row! (it should be 13 degrees this time of year ). And the forecast is for another 10 days of it as well. I have never seen anything like it and never has anyone else , really bad news for bushfire season . One dump of snow the whole Winter down here is just completely unheard of, until this Winter( continuation of Summer ) rolled around. If you want to see climate change in action come to Tassie , it's if full swing and it's not even Spring.


----------



## Craton

noco said:


> This is the longest winter I have ever known in Townsville during the past 43 years.......24th August and still cold at nights.........guess it must be climate change or what ever they call it now.




It's a conspiracy I tell ya, a conspiracy! 



Ijustnewit said:


> Well you have stolen our Winter in Hobart  We have a grand total of one weeks Winter from 3 months this year. We are currently going into our second week of 18 degree days in a row! (it should be 13 degrees this time of year ). And the forecast is for another 10 days of it as well. I have never seen anything like it and never has anyone else , really bad news for bushfire season . One dump of snow the whole Winter down here is just completely unheard of, until this Winter( continuation of Summer ) rolled around. If you want to see climate change in action come to Tassie , it's if full swing and it's not even Spring.




Didn't steal it, you just sent all the cold stuff north to the main isle. We have reciprocated in kind. 

Been bloody cold in my neck of the woods, far west NSW, from eldersweather.com.au. Data for August to date.

Min temps: -2.4 °C below avg.
Average this month 4.4 °C  
Long-term average 6.8 °C 

Max temps: -0.9 °C below avg.
Average this month 16.5 °C 
Long-term average 17.4 °C

My gas supplier would be loving this, lucky I've shares in the co.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Well you have stolen our Winter in Hobart  We have a grand total of one weeks Winter from 3 months this year.




Yep, can't argue with that. Day after day of blue sky and abnormally warm temperatures sure isn't normal for Hobart at this time of year. It's October weather in August. 

There has been quite a bit of rainfall if you look at the total amount. But it has all been in a small number of big dumps, the last one was at the end of July, with other days getting little or nothing. Even on the notoriously wet West Coast it's fine most days.

As for the impacts, well the grass has been growing well at a time when normally it wouldn't, that's one thing. Fires next summer are a real concern if it keeps up given the growth occurring at present that will in due course dry out. The warm weather might be good for tourists though.

Hydro storage levels today are at 32.7%, down from 44.6% this time last year. That doesn't pose any threat to power supply, we're a very long way away from reaching that point, but it would still be nice to have more water coming in. Cloud seeding has been fairly limited this year so far, you can't seed clouds if you don't have clouds in the first place, but there have been 8 flights with seeding conducted since the beginning of May.


----------



## Logique

orr said:


> ....are they oh no no no ....There be hints of a false prophet ...a charlatan... it rankles .... my anger rises... to the pitchforks men... a bonfire A *bonfire*
> Wax forth noco, logique, spotter with your insights we await.



Says the Inquisition. House arrest for us heretics.
Just a bit of levity Orr


----------



## Tisme

They reckon the Middle East will lose close to 200 000 sq kms of arable land by the end of the century. That's a lot of migrating tribes with primitive ambitions in the pipeline..... Antarctica penthouse anyone?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> They reckon the Middle East will lose close to 200 000 sq kms of arable land by the end of the century. That's a lot of migrating tribes with primitive ambitions in the pipeline..... Antarctica penthouse anyone?




Not much choice for the planet except population reduction. Either man does it or Nature will do it for us.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> They reckon the Middle East will lose close to 200 000 sq kms of arable land by the end of the century. That's a lot of migrating tribes with primitive ambitions in the pipeline..... Antarctica penthouse anyone?




It is because they cutting down the timber for cooking. LOL..


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> For your interest:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...manipulating-temperature-records/#more-114854
> 
> Comments please.



1.  Whack-a-mole. 

2.  If Dr Marohasy wants to attack the BOM datasets, at the very least she has to show that she understands them and how they are used. This stuff is like me claiming expertise in options trading because I was once given employee stock options in a company that never IPOed, and then accusing you of fraud because you talk about <sneer>CALLs</sneer> and even so-called <snark>options traders</snark> don't claim that their <rolleyes>derivatives</rolleyes> have ears. 

The BOM publishes its data and its analyses and subjects both to continuing review and refinement, by multiple methods. It also publishes lengthy discussions of problems with the data and how they are addressed, For example, the technical paper, "On the sensitivity of Australian temperature trends and variability to analysis methods and observation networks", is available from the BOM website at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Methods. From the abstract: 



> This report presents an exploration of Australian temperature trends and variability using the new Australian Climate Observations Reference Network (ACORN) Surface Air Temperature (SAT) dataset. We compare changes in nationally and annually averaged daily-maximum, daily- minimum and daily-mean temperature variability to a range of alternative Australian temperature analyses over the last 100 years (1911-2010).
> 
> "For this purpose, we use raw unhomogenised data, as well as a range of high-quality homogenised sub-network and whole-network analysis grids, to explore the sensitivity of the temperature changes over time to the choice of analysis method, selection of sites used in the observational network, and homogenisation techniques.




There many days more of reading, plus masses of data, up there for anyone who'll take the time and trouble to use them.  Sadly, most people don't have the knowledge or skill to use them well, same as most people don't have the knowledge or skill to trade options profitably. 

3. JoNova has published the BOM's response to the Oz article. I'm sure you can find that for yourself. Other responses are at:

thttp://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/ 
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/weather-in-rutherglen-with-wuwt.html

4. Whack-a-mole.


----------



## dutchie

Oops another prediction hits the dust.


Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres

MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

    Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
    An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3Bw8sRXNU


----------



## wayneL

Right, where did the mole whacker go?:


----------



## burglar

wayneL said:


> Right, where did the mole whacker go?:




How many moles did the mole whacker, whack?

Better question, what the h3ll is a mole whacker?


----------



## explod

> Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise in most countries.  Figures out this week show Australia's largest contributor  -  the power sector - had its fastest growth of emissions in the last two months since the end of the carbon price in almost eight years.
> 
> The researchers' model included other potential causes of unusual temperatures - solar radiation, volcanic activity, El Niño Southern Oscillation weather patterns in the Pacific - to test out human contribution.
> 
> The paper said periods of slowing growth or even drops in temperature had been taken up by climate sceptics to raise doubts about the link between rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and warming.
> 
> In fact, the model found "one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring.
> 
> "the question is not that we have 11 (such periods of cooling in the surveyed period) but why don't we have more of them," Dr Howden said.  "If it wasn't for human influence of greenhouse gas emissions, we'd actually have a lot more."




Page 3 of The Age, 5/09/2014


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Page 3 of The Age, 5/09/2014




So if that report were true then the Antarctic ice should be melting resulting in sea rises.

But according to the latest reports, it indicates the sea ice around Antarctica is expanding to record levels.

The Alarmist have all gone into hiding lately.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...imate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227058298989


----------



## Smurf1976

Regardless of whether or not CO2 is warming the planet, this just can't be good.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/world...should-worry-you/story-e6frfqc9-1227063846222

It's a somewhat sobering example of just how badly man is messing with the planet. Reminds me of those images of smokers and their blackened lungs - except this is on a far greater scale. It can't be good.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> So if that report were true then the Antarctic ice should be melting resulting in sea rises.
> 
> But according to the latest reports, it indicates the sea ice around Antarctica is expanding to record levels.
> 
> The Alarmist have all gone into hiding lately.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...imate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227058298989




The link would not allow me access noco so perhaps you can explain.

The increase in ice is about a metre thick and seasonally comes and goes.  What we are losing and of mounting concern is the permanent ice pack.  The other is its braking up underneath which in turn is allowing increased amounts of methane to escape.

Yes there is not much happening yet on sea rising but when one looks at what is happening collectively an acceleration and warming can be reasonably expected to occur soon.  But the bigger issue in my mind is that at that stage it will be far too late to correct.


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> So if that report were true then the Antarctic ice should be melting resulting in sea rises.
> 
> But according to the latest reports, it indicates the sea ice around Antarctica is expanding to record levels.
> 
> The Alarmist have all gone into hiding lately.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...imate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227058298989




The Alarmist won't be to far away. Perth has just smashed it's September record by nearly 3 degrees. Darwin is also breaking record territory for September , near 40 degrees up there. The South East is about to cop it big time next week , Adelaide , Melbourne and Hobart are set to cook . I know here in Hobart we are in for 4 days of 23c and 24c degree temps. Considering the January / Feb max is normally around 22c , I'd say that copping that sort of heat in September is a bit of a concern come bushfire season. Hobart is also currently on track to break it's hottest September max average since written records began. Apparently all this melting ice is drawing cooler waters north causing the currents to draw in the High pressure systems. Thus blocking our usual ( back in the old days) Cold Fronts , thus heating up the land mass . Seems logical to me ? What's causing the melting , who really can say ? Underwater Volcano ? Are we getting closer to the Sun ? Gremlims in the Atmosphere?  Anyway's hope wherever you are , your watering system is in place and have an air con in every room. It's going to be a long stinker of Summer heat.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The link would not allow me access noco so perhaps you can explain.
> 
> The increase in ice is about a metre thick and seasonally comes and goes.  What we are losing and of mounting concern is the permanent ice pack.  The other is its braking up underneath which in turn is allowing increased amounts of methane to escape.
> 
> Yes there is not much happening yet on sea rising but when one looks at what is happening collectively an acceleration and warming can be reasonably expected to occur soon.  But the bigger issue in my mind is that at that stage it will be far too late to correct.




Record expansion sees Antarctic sea ice confound climate scientists

    The Australian
    September 15, 2014 12:00AM

    Print
    Save for later

292
Rick Morton
Social Affairs Reporter
Sydney
https://plus.google.com/110856017971235962847
Floe growth.

Floe growth. Source: TheAustralian

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expan*ded to its greatest coverage since records began in 1978, continuing to confound climate scien*tists and proving even more hazardous than usual for shipping in the Southern Ocean.

The three-year, record-breaking run continued as the sea ice cover in the region hit 19.619 million square kilometres on Friday, more than two weeks ahead of last year’s October 1 record of 19.607 million. The coverage is roughly 2 ½ times the size of the Australian continent.

The data, which is kept by the US Nation**al Snow and Ice Data Centre and analysed by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-oper*ative Research Centre in Hobart, shows the ice has been growing at an average of 1.5 per cent each decade.

“It is telling us we need to know much more about sea ice than we think we know already,” Hobart research centre marine glaciologist Jan Lieser told The Australian.

“I suspect the record reached on Friday will not even be the record for 2014, it has some growing to do in the next couple of weeks.”

Dr Lieser said the “growth and decay” of the Antarctic was one of the biggest, potentially the biggest, naturally occurring events in the world. It has long been considered a climate paradox because, as it grows, sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking.

The prevailing hypothesis is that winds in the Antarctic have strengthened as a result of global temperature gradients changing. Winds play a major role in the formation of sea ice.

“Sea ice is very much a product of its local environment and is not just driven by temperature but (also) ocean currents and winds,” Dr Lieser said. “We know the wind speed and storminess of the Antarctic has increased as a result of a changing climate.

“Crucially, while sea ice is *expanding in the Southern Ocean we know the Antarctic continent itself is losing ice mass at a rapid pace. Whether that loss is contributing to the extra sea ice we do not know but it is something we must look at.”

Although submarines were able during the Cold War to collect useful surveys of the thickness of Arctic ice, no such record of volume exists for Antarctic sea ice. The coverage may have spread but it may also be thinning.

The Australian understands the growing ice mass will pose a significant challenge to shipping in the coming Antarctic summer, even to resupply missions conducted by the Aurora Australia.

Last year, scientists were trapped in sea ice for more than a week aboard Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy. They were finally helicoptered to safety aboard the Aurora Australis, which was unable to break through the ice to reach the boat.

The Aurora Australis is due to leave Hobart on October 22 to resupply scientists at the Davis research station. A spokeswoman for the Australian Antarctic Division said the season was yet to begin and she did not have any comment about “potential impacts on the Auroraresupply”.


----------



## explod

The situation in both arctic regions is very complex and requires a lot to get the head around.  This very problem is what is also exploited to continue confusion on this issue.

The increased temperature though minute is creating increased clod cover, among other things which in turn is causing more Ice to form.  Over the artic the air is so cold that there is very little moister in it.  A slight drop in temperature, moister increases then we see more snow and ice.  And it is spreading out.

And though it is a huge sheet, happening in the arctic too, it is gone by the end of summer. Like the increased storms it is all just becoming more volatile.

Now my sources, a lot of reading on the subject over a number of years.  You can find plenty to back it up or to ridicule it on google if you wish.

And anyway, the little bit we say is going to make zilch difference in my view, we have passed the point of no return and all will soon know it.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...at_record_world_on_pace_for_warmest_year.html



> New data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth’s oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records. Global ocean temperatures in August 2014 warmed to “the largest departure from average for any month on record” according to a NOAA statement. The previous record was set just two months ago, in June 2014.
> 
> Additionally, the combined temperature of June, July, and August was also unprecedented in historical records. According to the JMA, four of the last five months have now been record-breaking for that particular month. (July was No. 2, just a hair behind the super-charged El Niño year of 1998.) The eastern United States is among the only land areas on Earth still running below normal for 2014, a legacy of the polar vortex outbreaks of earlier this year.





http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...d_levels_what_does_that_say_about_global.html



> For four days in a row this week, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has broken all-time records. But””get this””the ice is expanding, not shrinking.
> 
> First, let’s distinguish between sea ice and land ice. Since sea ice floats in the ocean, its growth or melt doesn’t affect global sea levels. Antarctic land ice, on the other hand, does contribute to sea level rise, and it’s losing volume at a record pace. In fact, a frightening study earlier this year found that a key glacier in West Antarctica has entered an inevitable, slow-motion collapse phase, with dire consequences for the world’s coastal cities. A follow-up study last month for the first time put an upper bounds on the impacts of melting Antarctic glaciers in our children’s lifetimes.
> 
> Even though there's been more ice, the Southern Ocean is warming, not cooling.





http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-to-dramatically-reinvent-the-economy/380429/



> For more than a decade, Naomi Klein has been calling attention to the invisible, abstract concerns that hide in the shadows of global trade: the exploitation of far-off workers, the environmental destruction, the corruption that contorts political systems. In her latest book, This Changes Everything, Klein tackles the unintended but inevitable consequence of fueling GDP with oil and gas and coal: a destabilized climate.
> 
> These days, the prevailing mood in response to climate change seems to be one of despair. It's too late. The problem is too massive. But Klein sees something else. She sees a possibility: that a more humane economy can be shaped by aggressively combating climate change. I spoke with her about the opportunity to transform society at the precipice of calamity. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Anyway's hope wherever you are , your watering system is in place and have an air con in every room. It's going to be a long stinker of Summer heat.




Well I've got a garden hose and a portable fan. Does that count?

As for the rain, well that's just not happening really. Some rain yes, but not as much as would be considered normal and we're almost at the end of the season so far as runoff and ground moisture is concerned.

Assuming no major fires etc, the biggest weather-related problem we're facing in Tas going forward is financial. Not good.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...at_record_world_on_pace_for_warmest_year.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...d_levels_what_does_that_say_about_global.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-to-dramatically-reinvent-the-economy/380429/




Naomi Klein does not appear to have any credentials relating to Climate Change......she is the Grand Daughter of communists......she is anti Israel.......and anti Capitalism.

She is a devout writer for the socialist Guardian News Paper.

Is it any wonder she is an alarmist...her profile tells it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

And here is the profile of Eric Holthaus.


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/meet-eric-holthaus-the-rebel-nerd-of-meteorology-20140212

And herewith are the first two comments on Eric Holthaus.


windy2 • 7 months ago

Holthaus seems to be embracing a fanaticism for some sort of climate apocalypse. This 'cult' lifestyle that he is gravitating to is not being seen in any other scientists who know far more about paleoclimate and atmospheric science than the young and inexperienced Holthaus displays. The scientific evidence for any sort of climate apocalypse is eroding and such thinking also suffers from the same tunnel vision that led past apocalyptic messenger Paul Ehrlich and his 'Population Bomb' astray. I recall being concerned with Ehrlich's research as I was at university at the time and it was a hot topic in the science department. I've seen hundreds of Holthaus apocalyptic types and so I dismiss him as an anomaly like those young students at university who were susceptible to the cult apocalyptic message of Paul Ehrlich.

There are people who study why people are attracted to apocalyptic fanaticism and among them is one of the 21st centuries most brilliant philosophers Pascal Bruckner. I understand people like Holthaus much better after reading Bruckner's books and listening to a few of his lectures.

4
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
ClimateLearner • 7 months ago

The usual false dichotomy between those who do and those who don't believe in man-made climate change. This provides a convenient straw man for climate alarm campaigners to make smart-alec comments around. The reality is that there is no real dispute over whether or not humans have an impact on climate. Of course they do. The question worthy of attention is whether a given impact is appreciable or not. The impact of rising CO2 level, for example, so far has had no clear effect on climate, and as for it being alarming, I'd be more inclined to say the opposite is more plausible,I.e. that it is and will be beneficial.

So I really cannot place any credence on the opinion of these two people whatsoever.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Well I've got a garden hose and a portable fan. Does that count?
> 
> As for the rain, well that's just not happening really. Some rain yes, but not as much as would be considered normal and we're almost at the end of the season so far as runoff and ground moisture is concerned.
> 
> Assuming no major fires etc, the biggest weather-related problem we're facing in Tas going forward is financial. Not good.




Do you have a reverse cycle heat pump over there Smurf ? Originally coming from Qld the first thing I did to this house was install ceiling fans and air cons in every room. It's just not cool being not able to sleep through hot summer nights and getting up grumpy. I was down the Tas peninsular this afternoon and it's already bone dry over there and the paddocks are dead. Not good this early into Spring.  I'm not going to bother trying any tomatoes this year , last 2 years have been a disaster and this years looking worse. Some really hot days coming up now , they just keep increasing the forecast by 2 degrees . Chasing down the 1972 record average now for sure , good Pale Ale weather though.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Naomi Klein does not appear to have any credentials relating to Climate Change......she is the Grand Daughter of communists......she is anti Israel.......and anti Capitalism.
> 
> She is a devout writer for the socialist Guardian News Paper.
> 
> Is it any wonder she is an alarmist...her profile tells it all.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
> 
> And here is the profile of Eric Holthaus.




So when 3 different Government organisations, from 2 very different countries, all say that the records they have collected and reviewed are showing ocean temperature at their highest levels in recorded history, you outright reject this as some fabian socialist communist plot against humanity?  Next you'll be telling me some big man in the sky controls everything and it's all just intelligent design.

Then you latch onto an increase in sea ice as some proof against global warming, when the actual ice melt from antarctica has continued to increase and waters have continued to warm.  Are they making the figures up?  Are you just choosing to believe what The Australian tells you above all else?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/o...eap-and-free.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0



> On the other side, it turns out that putting a price on carbon would have large “co-benefits” — positive effects over and above the reduction in climate risks — and that these benefits would come fairly quickly. The most important of these co-benefits, according to the I.M.F. paper, would involve public health: burning coal causes many respiratory ailments, which drive up medical costs and reduce productivity.
> 
> And thanks to these co-benefits, the paper argues, one argument often made against carbon pricing — that it’s not worth doing unless we can get a global agreement — is wrong. Even without an international agreement, there are ample reasons to take action against the climate threat.
> 
> So here’s what you need to know: Climate despair is all wrong. The idea that economic growth and climate action are incompatible may sound hardheaded and realistic, but it’s actually a fuzzy-minded misconception. If we ever get past the special interests and ideology that have blocked action to save the planet, we’ll find that it’s cheaper and easier than almost anyone imagines.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So when 3 different Government organisations, from 2 very different countries, all say that the records they have collected and reviewed are showing ocean temperature at their highest levels in recorded history, you outright reject this as some fabian socialist communist plot against humanity?  Next you'll be telling me some big man in the sky controls everything and it's all just intelligent design.
> 
> Then you latch onto an increase in sea ice as some proof against global warming, when the actual ice melt from antarctica has continued to increase and waters have continued to warm.  Are they making the figures up?  Are you just choosing to believe what The Australian tells you above all else?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/o...eap-and-free.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0




Paul Krugman is a Professor of economics and has no climate change credentials.

He is a Social Democrat who believes in Keynesian economics.

One could not credence in what he states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Martin Wolf has written that Krugman is both the "most hated and most admired columnist in the US".[106] Economist J. Peter Neary has noted that Krugman "has written on a wide range of topics, always combining one of the best prose styles in the profession with an ability to construct elegant, insightful and useful models."[107] Neary added that "no discussion of his work could fail to mention his transition from Academic Superstar to Public Intellectual. Through his extensive writings, including a regular column for The New York Times, monographs and textbooks at every level, and books on economics and current affairs for the general public ... he has probably done more than any other writer to explain economic principles to a wide audience."[107] Krugman has been described as the most controversial economist in his generation[108][109] and according to Michael Tomasky since 1992 he has moved "from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist."[99]


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Paul Krugman is a Professor of economics and has no climate change credentials.
> 
> He is a Social Democrat who believes in Keynesian economics.
> 
> One could not credence in what he states.




So you reject these articles based on the lack of climate change credentials from the author, fair enough I say.  But at the same time you posted today a piece by Rick Morton from The Australian who is just a social affairs journalist and has no such climate change credentials.  You in this very thread have posted Andrew Bolt who is as extreme right as the crazy tea party from America, as though he is some Nobel prize winning climate scientist when he is just a racist media commentator. 

So while it's very noble of you to proclaim you only accept evidence from experts it would appear you need to have a complete revamp on where you choose your sources as evidence to continue your climate denial.


----------



## pixel

Martin Luther King jr was a pastor, not a sleep therapist.
So how did he dare "have a dream".

Methinks that the argument isn't really about truth, but about character assassination of anybody, whose opinions diverge from what their opponents consider "RIGHT". Regardless how ludicrous, any argument is better than the truth when it comes to rejecting an inconvenient realisation.

PS: I have only a degree in Mathematics, so I'm only allowed to comment on 2 times 2 = 4. Feel free to ignore everything else I write.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> So you reject these articles based on the lack of climate change credentials from the author, fair enough I say.  But at the same time you posted today a piece by Rick Morton from The Australian who is just a social affairs journalist and has no such climate change credentials.  You in this very thread have posted Andrew Bolt who is as extreme right as the crazy tea party from America, as though he is some Nobel prize winning climate scientist when he is just a racist media commentator.
> 
> So while it's very noble of you to proclaim you only accept evidence from experts it would appear you need to have a complete revamp on where you choose your sources as evidence to continue your climate denial.




Perhaps you should be a bit more astute and read the article in more depth.

You see Rick Morton was reporting on information he received from the US Nation**al Snow and Ice Data Centre and analysed by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-oper*ative Research Centre in Hobart,



The data, which is kept by the US Nation**al Snow and Ice Data Centre and analysed by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-oper*ative Research Centre in Hobart, shows the ice has been growing at an average of 1.5 per cent each decade.

“It is telling us we need to know much more about sea ice than we think we know already,” Hobart research centre marine glaciologist Jan Lieser told The Australian.

“I suspect the record reached on Friday will not even be the record for 2014, it has some growing to do in the next couple of weeks.”


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Do you have a reverse cycle heat pump over there Smurf ? Originally coming from Qld the first thing I did to this house was install ceiling fans and air cons in every room. It's just not cool being not able to sleep through hot summer nights and getting up grumpy. I was down the Tas peninsular this afternoon and it's already bone dry over there and the paddocks are dead. Not good this early into Spring.



No heat pump but I do have a wood fire and 13kW of electric heating.....  I don't mind the heat though, not even when sleeping. 

As for the rain, well 350 people turned up at Gordon power station yesterday for a trip underground and a look inside. That's a lot more than than expected and it ended up with a two hour long queue outside in order to get everyone in the vans, down the tunnel, give them a tour of the underground station then back up to the surface. But suffice to say that a two hour wait in the sun with not much to look at apart from Lake Gordon gave everyone plenty of time to observe that there's not a lot of water in there right now. It's 35.5m down from full (measured as a straight vertical drop). Quite a few people a bit shocked by that I think, plenty of comments to that effect.

Climate change? I won't make any claims about that. But the warmer than usual weather in Tas has been going on long enough now to at least be considered as a "significant" weather event I'd think. Looking at the past few years data for Hobart:

2014 - every month in 2014 thus far has been warmer than average. 

2013 - every month except November was warmer than average. 

2012 - every month was warmer than average. 

2011 - every month except February and March were warmer than average. 

2010 - every month except December (which was equal to the average) and September were warmer than average.  

So whilst it is NOT proof of any CO2-induced climate change, it's been warmer than average for long enough now to consider it a "significant" weather event I'd think. I haven't checked the data for anywhere else so I'm not sure if this is a local phenomenon or a more widespread one. This is based on official BOM data.


----------



## burglar

Scientists can now view the sun with infra red filters!


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> No heat pump but I do have a wood fire and 13kW of electric heating.....  I don't mind the heat though, not even when sleeping.
> 
> As for the rain, well 350 people turned up at Gordon power station yesterday for a trip underground and a look inside. That's a lot more than than expected and it ended up with a two hour long queue outside in order to get everyone in the vans, down the tunnel, give them a tour of the underground station then back up to the surface. But suffice to say that a two hour wait in the sun with not much to look at apart from Lake Gordon gave everyone plenty of time to observe that there's not a lot of water in there right now. It's 35.5m down from full (measured as a straight vertical drop). Quite a few people a bit shocked by that I think, plenty of comments to that effect.
> 
> Climate change? I won't make any claims about that. But the warmer than usual weather in Tas has been going on long enough now to at least be considered as a "significant" weather event I'd think. Looking at the past few years data for Hobart:
> 
> 2014 - every month in 2014 thus far has been warmer than average.
> 
> 2013 - every month except November was warmer than average.
> 
> 2012 - every month was warmer than average.
> 
> 2011 - every month except February and March were warmer than average.
> 
> 2010 - every month except December (which was equal to the average) and September were warmer than average.
> 
> So whilst it is NOT proof of any CO2-induced climate change, it's been warmer than average for long enough now to consider it a "significant" weather event I'd think. I haven't checked the data for anywhere else so I'm not sure if this is a local phenomenon or a more widespread one. This is based on official BOM data.





In North Queensland, we have experience the longest winter here in 43 years......We still need a blanket on at night although the days are warming up but still under 30 c.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Great information an such an informative post again Smurf.  
I'd read somewhere that the two places that are being affected by Climate Change the most are , Tasmania and Greenland. I also was told by a local tourist operator down on the Derwent , that most of the water in the Derwent now runs warmer than Sydney harbour. Again the evidence is there with many species of fish and shell fish from warmer climes showing up on our East Coast in recent years.  Lots of algae bloom outbreaks also affecting our oysters and other shellfish. Some of this was put down to illegal dumping of waste , but some of it is climate related. The warmer the water the more the algae will grow. I will firstly say I'm not a marine biologist's underpants however I can see the day that those warm waters will start affecting our salmon and ocean trout industries. Maybe they will have to send the pens further south in the ocean ? eventually. That certainly would affect probably one of our most successful industries.  I have personally seen the change in the ten years since moving from QLD. I love  the cold with a passion !! and when we start to get week after week of weather more like a Brisbane Spring , something is not well. I'm trying to research a booklet put out by the BOM , it's about Hobart's  snowfalls from the beginning of written records. The decline from 1950 onwards is apparently very dramatic. I follow the weather like mad and I drive my wife nuts : I'm constantly looking at our above monthly averages compared to the rest of the capitals. Yes overall they are mostly warmer , however Hobart is always nearly 2,3, 4 degrees above . The other capitals by the end of the month average out to about 0.8 degrees or so.
This month being a classic example , we are almost certain to break the 1972 average of 17.4 given the temps for the rest of the month. Thanks for the info on the Lake Gordon , I must get over there one day. Lets hope the rain situation changes rapidly , I took a drive on Sunday over through the Tas peninsular through the bush fire affected towns. The paddocks are already dead and it's awfully dry for this time of year. Not good news at all. I also do a fair bit of hiking up the fire trails over this side , even in mid Winter they were not boggy underfoot and pretty dry.
I'm like you and have an open mind on what's causing all this , perhaps it's fifty year cycle ? or such . Only the future will tell. Take care and looking forward to your Xmas lights again this year.


----------



## bellenuit

Smurf1976 said:


> Looking at the past few years data for Hobart:
> 
> 2014 - every month in 2014 thus far has been warmer than average.
> 
> 2013 - every month except November was warmer than average.
> 
> 2012 - every month was warmer than average.
> 
> 2011 - every month except February and March were warmer than average.
> 
> 2010 - every month except December (which was equal to the average) and September were warmer than average.
> 
> So whilst it is NOT proof of any CO2-induced climate change, it's been warmer than average for long enough now to consider it a "significant" weather event I'd think. I haven't checked the data for anywhere else so I'm not sure if this is a local phenomenon or a more widespread one. This is based on official BOM data.




Smurf, although I agree that the earth is probably warming in the long run and may end up being catastrophic for mankind, I don't think the "warmer than average" argument is in itself that significant. Just assume for a moment that the sceptics are correct and the earth has been cooling for the last 7 or so years (and may continue to do so). Then looking at the graphs of global temperatures, we seemed to have passed the peak in temperatures (at least those of the last two centuries) and are starting a slow descent. Because average temperatures are probably about halfway between the recent peak and the lowest trough of the last 200 years, then it goes without saying that current temperatures (as we are just down from the recent peak) are going to be above the average. This will continue to be the case (if the sceptics are correct) until we cross over the average on the way down and from then on temperatures will tend to be lower than average. Should they reach a bottom and then start to rise again, temperatures will tend to remain below average for an extended period, even though rising yearly, until the average is again exceeded. 

This is just a characteristic of any cyclical phenomenon and being above or below average on its own is not indicative of the direction of the current trend.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> No heat pump but I do have a wood fire and 13kW of electric heating.....  I don't mind the heat though, not even when sleeping.



Don't tell the Greens about the wood fire. 

http://archive-act.greens.org.au/category/free-tagging/wood-heaters


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> In North Queensland, we have experience the longest winter here in 43 years......We still need a blanket on at night although the days are warming up but still under 30 c.




you must be feeling the cold more because the BOM is showing average to above average over most of the state

The australian daily extreme chart shows just how exceptional this year has been so far.  Even the winter months seeing up over 20% of temperature readings in the top 3% of highs in over 100 years, but hey the climate isn't changing.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Don't tell the Greens about the wood fire.
> 
> http://archive-act.greens.org.au/category/free-tagging/wood-heaters




I'd argue wood heaters in winter in suburban areas are a health hazard.

In a more rural setting I doubt most would have issue using a resource that would otherwise go to waste.

I've been in places with a lot of wood heating and on a cool still morning it's rather unpleasant.

Thermal coal is cheap these days.  A ton would be cheaper than a ton of firewood.  maybe we should head back to using it for heating in our homes?


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> I also was told by a local tourist operator down on the Derwent , that most of the water in the Derwent now runs warmer than Sydney harbour.




The exact point varies depending on flow, but it's tidal below around New Norfolk and a fresh water river above that point. I'm not sure which you are referring to though? The sea or the river as such? There are different drivers for temperature change there. 

Snow - last major dump in Hobart itself was back in 1986 but it was a freak event by historical standards. Would be good to see that again though. 

Lake Gordon - it's a nice trip down to the SW from a purely scenic aspect with the mountains etc along the way. Lots of spots worth taking photos of the mountains etc (best to go on a clear day for that reason). Public access inside the power station was definitely a one-off not planned to be repeated however.

Tasmania and Greenland - that's an interesting comment. Any particular reasoning? Presumably it relates to land mass, geographic location etc?


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Climate change? I won't make any claims about that. But the warmer than usual weather in Tas has been going on long enough now to at least be considered as a "significant" weather event I'd think.



Meantime, in SE Qld it's like mid June rather than mid September.  Cold, overcast, showery, strong winds.  Usually it would be warm, sunny and entirely pleasant.


----------



## Knobby22

I know its just one story so doesn't mean much but a peaches farmer in Shepparton has decided to scrap his 50 year old farm with 10,000 peach trees and change crops. He said the reason was a change in weather over the last 10 years, namely increased evaporation and the worst drought he has seen followed with  increasing storms in Summer that destroy his crops.

He said the CSIRO were developing new varieties and they were using technologies developed in Australia to combat the increased problems but in his opinion the climate in that area was now no longer suitable for peach trees. He wants Australia to pump more money into research into fruit varieties but it seems to be going the other way.  

Refer today's Age for more.

Meanwhile in Melbourne we are having a beautiful sunny day and have been advised it will be 26 today. Very, very warm for mid September.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I've been in places with a lot of wood heating and on a cool still morning it's rather unpleasant.
> 
> Thermal coal is cheap these days. A ton would be cheaper than a ton of firewood. maybe we should head back to using it for heating in our homes?



How would it then be if they couldn't use wood or non-renewables in some form for heating ?

Somewhat worse I suspect.


----------



## Smurf1976

Wood heaters and Gordon power station are both very good examples of the dilemma we all face.

Wood - a renewable energy source that would otherwise be left to rot (producing methane) or burnt in the open to get rid of it. Using it for heating at home avoids the use of some other energy source (mostly fossil fuels) and thus has some positives to it. But then it also pollutes the air with particulates etc and that's not a good thing in itself. It gets even more complicated when the non-CO2 emissions of wood heaters versus natural decomposition or open burning are considered. Methane, soot and so on. It's not at all straightforward.

Gordon PS - still the single largest source of renewable energy in Australia and it's firm, dispatchable power at that not something intermittent like wind. But there's a very well known downside, it being the most controversial hydro scheme that was actually built. Attitudes have shifted somewhat over the years, many environmentalists (including some actual Green MP's by the way) have publicly acknowledged that there's a definite positive side, "clean green hydro" as they call it. Meanwhile there's a permanent sign at Lake Pedder acknowledging the past conflict and that it probably wouldn't be built today - and yes it was the Hydro itself which installed that sign. So a definite shift in attitudes toward the center and an acceptance of the alternative side of the debate by both sides, but it doesn't change the underlying reality. Lots of renewable energy, capable of reliably meeting peak or base load when required, at the expense of flooding the wilderness. 

There's a lot more issues like that which arise with efforts to cut CO2 emissions since, if you exclude the actual CO2, fossil fuels don't stack up too badly compared to many of the alternatives. Hence there's a flaw in the "cut emissions just in case" argument. Sure, we could do that, but at the expense of many other environmental impacts - not a good outcome if CO2 turned out to be a non-issue. Therein lies the problem - uncertainty.


----------



## So_Cynical

Leo DiCaprio addressing the UN.
~
[video=youtube_share;ka6_3TJcCkA]http://youtu.be/ka6_3TJcCkA[/video]


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> How would it then be if they couldn't use wood or non-renewables in some form for heating ?
> 
> Somewhat worse I suspect.




Obviously you missed the sarcasm of that comment

electric heat pumps are probably the most efficient ways to heat and cool housing.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Hobart is going to break a 132 year record for it's hottest September. Year after year month after month Hobart continues to outstrip and other place in the country for extraordinary warming. We are the canary in the mineshaft for sure. 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/hot-in-hobart/147834


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Leo DiCaprio addressing the UN.
> ~
> [video=youtube_share;ka6_3TJcCkA]http://youtu.be/ka6_3TJcCkA[/video]





Di Caprio is most likely up to his eye balls with investment in Al Gore's racket.

I have just posted these links on the Abbott Government thread but they are really more suited to this thread.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06...y-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> electric heat pumps are probably the most efficient ways to heat and cool housing.




Efficient certainly. Depending on where the electricity comes from, a modern system is 100% to 350% efficient at turning the primary resource into heat inside the building. Typically, it's around 130% in the Australian context.

But efficiency isn't necessarily the goal as such. 

Wood > wood heater > heat = roughly 60% efficient from the energy in wood to heat inside the house. 

Coal > boiler > steam turbine > alternator > transformers > transmission > transformers > distribution > compressor > heat moved from outside to inside = 130% efficient from coal to heat inside the house.

But so far as actual CO2 is concerned, if we're comparing waste wood that would otherwise be left to rot, or wood that is cut but replaced with new trees, then there's very little net CO2 emission beyond the minor amount used by the chainsaw and truck. So we end up with 0.06 kg CO2 / kWh for wood versus about 0.22 kg CO2 / kWh using coal-fired electricity and a heat pump. Wood still wins, despite the efficiency.

If you want a really inefficient means of generating electricity then solar wins hands down. It's by far the least efficient use of the resource. But the sun is free, we're not running out of it, it doesn't emit CO2 and so on such that efficiency is completely irrelevant in any situation where physical space isn't a limitation on the size of panels installed. That's most situations.


----------



## Smurf1976

A pro-renewable energy protest in Tas. Note that the state Liberal government supports the Renewable Energy Target, seemingly at odds with their federal counterparts. 

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...le-energy-target/story-fnj4f7k1-1227071802214


----------



## noco

This is not very good news for the Alarmists here and around the world but no doubt someone will try to poohoo their peer reviewed consensus.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-carbon-dioxide/story-e6frg6xf-1227072070917


----------



## explod

noco said:


> This is not very good news for the Alarmists here and around the world but no doubt someone will try to poohoo their peer reviewed consensus.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-carbon-dioxide/story-e6frg6xf-1227072070917




Anything from the Australian would raise my suspicions for a start.

Not able to get your link up noco  on my little device so womder if you could kindly put up a slice of thier angle.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Anything from the Australian would raise my suspicions for a start.
> 
> Not able to get your link up noco  on my little device so womder if you could kindly put up a slice of thier angle.




 NATIONAL AFFAIRS
The Australian


Climate not as sensitive to carbon dioxide

    The Australian
    September 27, 2014 12:00AM

    Print
    Save for later

Graham Lloyd
Environment Editor
Sydney

*A NEW peer-reviewed paper using observations rather than computer models has found the Earth’s climate was l ess sensitive to increasing levels of carbon *dioxide in the atmosphere than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
*
The findings have generated vigorous international debate about an issue that remains a key area of uncertainty in climate *science.

The paper, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, was prepared by US climate scientist Judith Curry and climate *researcher Nic Lewis.

Dr Curry said the sensitivity of climate to increasing concentrations of CO2 was at the heart of the scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change, and also the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing *carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

She said climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty were important to establishing the cost benefit of taking action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The Lewis and Curry paper does not claim to be the last word on the subject and said the major area of uncertainty was the role played by aerosols.

But the paper contains a much higher level of comfort than does the IPCC that the world will not exceed the two *degrees warming threshold set by the UN.

The Lewis and Curry paper said the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity — the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the *atmospheric CO2 concentration — was 1.64 degrees.

The temperature range given with a confidence level of 17 to 83 per cent was 1.25 to 2.45.

This range compares with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 given in the IPCC’s fifth assessment report for the same level of confidence.

Unlike the fourth assessment report, the IPCC’s most recent synthesis document did not give a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The Curry and Lewis paper’s best estimate for transient climate response — the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling — was 1.33C with a range of 1.05C to 1.8C.

The IPCC range was 1.0C to 2.5C with no best estimate given.

The IPCC report acknowledges the scientific debate that continues over the issue of climate sensitivity and the different *results between models and analysis based on observations.

To arrive at their lower climate sensitivity range than the IPCC, Lewis and Curry analysed the Earth’s observed temperature change, ocean heat uptake and the level of human greenhouse gas emissions and natural *variability.

By contrasting the period 1859-82 with the period 1995- 2011 they estimated how much the Earth had warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions. Neither the Australian *Science Media Centre nor the University of NSW Centre of *Excellence Climate System Science commented on the Curry and Lewis paper yesterday.

Dr Curry said the paper was not the last word of climate sensitivity because it related only to the uncertainty in external forcing, surface temperature and ocean heat uptake.

It did not take account of solar influence or *internal variability.

In an essay published this week, President Barack Obama’s former climate advisor Steven Koonin said today’s best estimate of the sensitivity was no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago despite billions of dollars having been spent.


----------



## explod

interesting and thanks for posting noco.

lt is very much a merrygoround article.

in fact 30 years ago there was so much concern that the IPCC was formed then driven by leaders such as Marggi Thatcher.  But as the oil and coal lobby began to bite the pollies the hosing down began.

To be alarmed is now more than ever well justified as the current melt of perma ice increases and accellerates the release of methane.

Deniers like Abbott will soon meet the wrath of the people.

The wind storm with huge gusts along the Geelong freeway were very difficult for traffic today. Never seen it in spring like this before.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> interesting and thanks for posting noco.
> 
> lt is very much a merrygoround article.
> 
> in fact 30 years ago there was so much concern that the IPCC was formed then driven by leaders such as Marggi Thatcher.  But as the oil and coal lobby began to bite the pollies the hosing down began.
> 
> To be alarmed is now more than ever well justified as the current melt of perma ice increases and accellerates the release of methane.
> 
> Deniers like Abbott will soon meet the wrath of the people.
> 
> *And how did you derive at that statement?....I am sure, in the past 10 years, there have been a lot more converted deniers from alarmist  than converted alarmists from deniers. BTW there were several world leaders together with Tony Abbott who did not attend the recent Climate Change conference, including Canada and New Zealand.*
> 
> The wind storm with huge gusts along the Geelong freeway were very difficult for traffic today. Never seen it in spring like this before.




Mate, it is called climate change.....I have seen plenty of abnormal weather in the past 80 years....nothing new to me....Pure observation.


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> interesting and thanks for posting noco.
> 
> lt is very much a merrygoround article.
> 
> in fact 30 years ago there was so much concern that the IPCC was formed then driven by leaders such as Marggi Thatcher.  But as the oil and coal lobby began to bite the pollies the hosing down began.
> 
> To be alarmed is now more than ever well justified as the current melt of perma ice increases and accellerates the release of methane.
> 
> Deniers like Abbott will soon meet the wrath of the people.
> 
> The wind storm with huge gusts along the Geelong freeway were very difficult for traffic today. Never seen it in spring like this before.



Hobart has had it's hottest day in 27 years , also has smashed the September max daily averages by about 2 degrees creating another new record. Also earliest fire total  ban ever in Southern Tasmania , now over a dozen fires burning.
As said never ever seen a Spring like this before.
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-28/tass...t-from-dover-fire/5774568?WT.ac=statenews_tas


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Mate, it is called climate change.....I have seen plenty of abnormal weather in the past 80 years....nothing new to me....Pure observation.





Agree, so have i, only 10 years less in fact, and my Dad of the land seeing the changes from the 60s was concerned that what was happening was far from normal.

The frogs at Hawkesdale West never returned after the drought of 68.  They evolved there over many millions of years and now gone.  It is different this time.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Hobart has had it's hottest day in 27 years , also has smashed the September max daily averages by about 2 degrees creating another new record. Also earliest fire total  ban ever in Southern Tasmania , now over a dozen fires burning.




A key issue in Tas at the moment is the SDI (soil dryness index).

In short, the ground is still just below saturation on the West Coast but it's a very long way short of that in the eastern half of the state. Most of the east coast would need close to 100mm to become saturated, and the chances of getting that much rain anytime soon are slim. It's starting to dry out in the central highlands too, though it's still possible (but by no means certain) that a sufficient fall could occur so as to bring the soil back to saturation.

Burnie - 36.3mm. Launceston 35.7mm. Hobart 83.7mm. Swansea 123.8mm. Poatina 32.1mm. Tarraleah village 9.5mm. Huonville 24.7mm. Strathgordon 3.3mm. Waratah 6.6mm. 

Those figures are the amount of rainfall required to saturate the ground, after which significant run-off occurs if there is further rain. In general, the whole state is drier than normal but the east coast and around Hobart are the worst affected.


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> Hobart has had it's hottest day in 27 years , also has smashed the September max daily averages by about 2 degrees creating another new record. Also earliest fire total  ban ever in Southern Tasmania , now over a dozen fires burning.
> As said never ever seen a Spring like this before.
> www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-28/tass...t-from-dover-fire/5774568?WT.ac=statenews_tas





So what are you trying to tell me?

This all points to man made Global warming (oops sorry....Climate change.)?


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> So what are you trying to tell me?
> 
> This all points to man made Global warming (oops sorry....Climate change.)?




I'm trying to tell you we are currently experiencing weather that is way above what is average for Southern Tasmania as per 132 years of records. 
I did not mention 1. man made or 2. global warming.
So don't jump to conclusions , actually I believe that climate and the earth are constantly evolving . Just like it has since it's inception. Who knows what's around the corner ?


----------



## medicowallet

Ijustnewit said:


> I'm trying to tell you we are currently experiencing weather that is way above what is average for Southern Tasmania as per 132 years of records.
> I did not mention 1. man made or 2. global warming.
> So don't jump to conclusions , actually I believe that climate and the earth are constantly evolving . Just like it has since it's inception. Who knows what's around the corner ?




Yep, and the media also holds onto very short timeframes as well.

Once we go back in time further, we realise that we are not so special.

MW


----------



## orr

the words of Muaurice Newman

“As a member of the World Meteorological Organisation, the Bom is inevitably caught up in global warming politics,” he wrote.

Thats the Australian Bureau of Meteorology he's referring to... and  ahh no, the Bom studies weather using scientific method and reports it's findings, 

But it representative that the current Government puts it faith in this _drongo_ as an adviser.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> the words of Muaurice Newman
> 
> “As a member of the World Meteorological Organisation, the Bom is inevitably caught up in global warming politics,” he wrote.
> 
> Thats the Australian Bureau of Meteorology he's referring to... and  ahh no, the Bom studies weather using scientific method and reports it's findings,
> 
> But it representative that the current Government puts it faith in this _drongo_ as an adviser.




Can you define the scientific method as practiced byABOM Orr?


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Can you define the scientific method as practiced byABOM Orr?




long term revised empirical study of meteorological data .......... that about somes it up.

can anybody explain Maurice Newman?


----------



## SirRumpole

Rockefeller heirs shift out of oil and coal to renewables




> The descendants of America’s Rockefeller family, whose name and vast wealth are both deeply rooted in Big Oil, have joined the global divestment crusade, after shifting their multi-million dollar fossil fuel investments into clean energy on the eve of the UN climate change summit in New York.
> 
> The heirs to the Rockefeller fortune withdrew their funds from oil, gas and coal investments on Monday, lending a high profile boost to the $56 billion global Divest-Invest campaign, which has drawn 650 individuals and 180 institutions to switch to renewables over five years using a variety of approaches.
> rockefeller
> 
> John D. Rockefeller, who founded Standard Oil along with brother William
> 
> The Rockefeller Brothers Fund – headed up Stephen Heintz, the great grandson of Standard Oil tycoon John D Rockefeller – controls about $860 million in assets, about 7 per cent of which is invested in fossil fuels.
> 
> As the Guardian has noted, the decision by the fund to cut its ties with oil has huge symbolic importance because of the Rockefeller’s oil-drenched family history, while also lending serious business credibility to a campaign launched by activists on US college campuses.
> 
> “John D Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved America out of whale oil and into petroleum,” Heintz said in a statement. “We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy.”
> 
> Alongside the Rockefellers, the World Council of Churches – which represents some 590 million people in 150 countries – also pulled its investments from fossil fuels on Monday. About 30 US cities have also chosen to divest, including Santa Monica and Seattle.
> 
> A number of universities – the original targets of the divestment campaign –  have also started to cut ties with fossil fuels, including, most recently, Stanford University, which dropped all of its coal holdings from its $18 billion endowment.
> 
> But even beyond the divestment campaign, the financial world is shifting its focus to the low-carbon future.
> 
> *Last week, more than 350 global institutional investors representing around $24 trillion in assets called on world government leaders to put a price on carbon, to help redirect investment on the scale required to combat climate change.*
> 
> In a statement published last Thursday in New York, a message drafted through a collaboration of six investor groups warned that while the global finance sector is starting to take action on climate change, stronger government action is needed to accelerate the low carbon transition.
> 
> The statement – which will be presented, along with a report, to the UN climate summit in New York next week – also calls on world leaders to forge an ambitious global climate deal, as well as develop plans to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.
> 
> A further investor statement, this time committing to the development of a global market of Green Bonds and Climate Bonds to finance climate change solutions, is also expected to be presented at the New York Climate Summit.
> 
> http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/roc...into-renewables-call-it-astute-business-89053


----------



## explod

orr said:


> long term revised empirical study of meteorological data .......... that about somes it up.
> 
> can anybody explain Maurice Newman?




Aha, astrology.

Since the world was formed from a fireball 4.5 trillion years ago it has been cooling down as it races around a cooling sun.  So why is the earth getting hotter you ask?

Nar, don't ask silly questions or you'll get a crack around the ears for being cheeky.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Aha, astrology.
> 
> Since the world was formed from a fireball 4.5 trillion years ago it has been cooling down as it races around a cooling sun.  So why is the earth getting hotter you ask?
> 
> Nar, don't ask silly questions or you'll get a crack around the ears for being cheeky.





*How science works

I REFER to “Scientists scotch ‘tenuous’ 2C climate goal” (2/10) in which scientists claim that global temperature rises are not what should be watched, but, rather, ocean heat content, high latitude temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration.

They want to do this because global temperature has not behaved the way they thought it should ”” and they can’t get governments to do what the scientists believe they should. Fair enough, but we should all note that in this they are not acting as scientists.

Science is about postulating a hypothesis, testing it with new data, and modifying the hypothesis. It is not about advocating a particular course of action. Nor is it about measuring things to promote a particular course of action. Both of these are political activities. The change in carbon dioxide concentration is not correlated with the lack of change in temperature in the past 16 years and is therefore not implicated as a climate driver.

Colin Davidson, Fadden, ACT*


----------



## explod

We are being fed a great deal of rubbish in order to confuse and maintain the,status Quo for the big end of town.

On the oceans, they are absorbing more heat from the now warming earth than was anticipated.  this can only go for so long and down the track the warming will then accellerate.

These matters are general knowledge now, it is just a matter of what side.YOU WANT TO BE ON and how much personal research you are doing for yourself.

Our current government is becoming very much alone on this issue.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> We are being fed a great deal of rubbish in order to confuse and maintain the,status Quo for the big end of town.
> 
> On the oceans, they are absorbing more heat from the now warming earth than was anticipated.  this can only go for so long and down the track the warming will then accellerate.
> 
> These matters are general knowledge now, it is just a matter of what side.YOU WANT TO BE ON and how much personal research you are doing for yourself.
> 
> Our current government is becoming very much alone on this issue.




Yes I must agree with you, there has been an enormous amount of rubbish put out by the likes of Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Ban-Ki-moon and Di Caprio.

Is our Government is becoming very much alone on what issue.......Global Warming......"Climate Change" or an emissions trading scheme?

The Alarmist will just not accept the facts that they have been proven wrong......They still carry on with their stupid propaganda.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Yes I must agree with you, there has been an enormous amount of rubbish put out by the likes of Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Ban-Ki-moon and Di Caprio.
> 
> Is our Government is becoming very much alone on what issue.......Global Warming......"Climate Change" or an emissions trading scheme?
> 
> The Alarmist will just not accept the facts that they have been proven wrong......They still carry on with their stupid propaganda.




Another link which contradicts what the the alarmists are saying. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1412638031416


----------



## noco

GLOBAL WARMING??????? WHAT GLOBAL WARMING??????

Where are the ALARMISTS lately...have they all gone into hiding.

They must be so embarrassed as to what is happening with CLIMATE CHANGE. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mments/where_are_the_warmists_one_year_later/


----------



## noco

Now isn't this such great news.

No need for a DIRECT ACTION PLAN.....no need to plant more trees.....no more need for Bill Shortens Carbon tax again.

Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE.

Why didn't someone work this out earlier which could have saved us $billions.

Best breaking news I have heard for a long time.

I wonder if there is an undiscovered plants that could absorb the radical Muslims.?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...plankton_and_plants_soaking_up_our_emissions/


----------



## Tisme

Good to see NSW has inherited Queensland's storms and floods since the north pole decided it wanted a Indian summer, although things are tad dry up here.


----------



## basilio

> *Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again*
> *Australia’s warmest September on record*
> 
> Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since August 2012.
> 
> *September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. *The national average temperature for September was +2.75  °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66  °C was set in April 2005.
> 
> The mean temperature for Australia, averaged over the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, was 1.25  °C above the long-term average. This was also 0.17  °C warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013.
> 
> The previous record, set over September 2012 to August 2013, was +1.11  °C above the long-term average, and the record preceding the current warm spell was +1.08  °C, set between February 2005 and January 2006.
> 
> Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to September) have also been the warmest on record, at 1.31  °C above the long-term average, well above the figure set for January to September 2005 (+1.07  °C). 2005 currently holds the record for Australia’s warmest calendar year.
> 
> *The past 18 months have been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The mean temperature has been above average over the entire continent. *




Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml




It is snowing down south this morning.....it is still cool in Townsville this morning.

Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning  outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.

There has been no increase in temperatures for 18 years....the IPCC state they made an incorrect prediction....NASA has backed it up also.

What happened to Tim Flannery's predictions in 2007 ....there will be no rains sufficient to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne.......sea levels will rise to the height of 8 story buildings.......Islands are disappearing in the Pacific ocean due to sea level rises.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Just can't understand why Andrew Bolt didn't make a comment on this release from the BOM.




Because Andrew is blessed with Cracker Jack mind like no other. He's like that 6th sense kid who could "see dead people", except Andrew can see everything that ever was, is and will ever be. He's a machine!! 

I'm pretty sure Andrew has had a run in with the Oracular Runes, but unlike Odin he managed to keep vision in both eyes, which just indicates his magnificence.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning  outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.
> .




That statement is totally untrue NOCO.  You may as well say the moon is made from blue, green or yellow cheese. The BOM readings that indicated Australia had the warmest September on record come from 112 sites across the country that are carefully monitored to ensure they reflect the local conditions. 

NOCO everyone is entitled to their opinions - but not to their own facts.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN‐SAT


----------



## orr

Tisme said:


> Because Andrew is blessed with Cracker Jack mind like no other. He's like that 6th sense kid who could "see dead people", *except Andrew can see everything that ever was, is and will ever be. *
> 
> I'm pretty sure Andrew has had a run in with the Oracular Runes, but unlike Odin he managed to keep vision in both eyes, which just indicates his magnificence.




Or possibly;

First Lieutenant Milo Minerbinder...'had eyes that each looked in slightly different directions, which meant that he could see more than everybody else, but nothing to clearly............'

Or Maybe Appleby? who had flies in his eye's, but couldn't see them because of the flies in his eye's ......

.From Joseph Heller's _'guide to modern living'_


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> That statement is totally untrue NOCO.  You may as well say the moon is made from blue, green or yellow cheese. The BOM readings that indicated Australia had the warmest September on record come from 112 sites across the country that are carefully monitored to ensure they reflect the local conditions.
> 
> NOCO everyone is entitled to their opinions - but not to their own facts.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN‐SAT




I refer you to post #5602 # 5682 and # 5696.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> Now isn't this such great news.
> 
> No need for a DIRECT ACTION PLAN.....no need to plant more trees.....no more need for Bill Shortens Carbon tax again.
> 
> Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE.
> 
> Why didn't someone work this out earlier which could have saved us $billions.
> 
> Best breaking news I have heard for a long time.
> 
> I wonder if there is an undiscovered plants that could absorb the radical Muslims.?
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...plankton_and_plants_soaking_up_our_emissions/




That doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Without even digging into the actual paper (and it's important to remember that novel findings in science are usually overturned), the link you gave says that plankton might eat up "four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels" in the next hundred years.

So even if the thing you quoted turns out to be exactly correct, using an obviously biased source and a paper you and I haven't even read, we're talking about a 4% reduction in emissions. Which is great, but it's not going make a huge difference. Hopefully it's right, and if so it'll get rolled into projections.

At the same time, we found that we underestimated how much energy the southern oceans have absorbed. But you didn't quote that one?



noco said:


> Those temperature readings you talk about are from thermometers placed near air conditioning  outlets to give fictitious readings to substantiate the alarmist claims for higher temperatures....it has been a proven fact.




You know you can actually go and look at the weather stations, right? You can walk up to them and take a photo, if you like.


And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.

And second, the direct quote (which is easy to get) shows he's talking about the current conditions in *some* parts of Austrlia, and later if these trends continue. It was poorly phrased, but FFS, jumping on one badly worded phrase seems like you're just trying to find a reason to be offended.



> We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> That doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
> 
> Without even digging into the actual paper (and it's important to remember that novel findings in science are usually overturned), the link you gave says that plankton might eat up "four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels" in the next hundred years.
> 
> So even if the thing you quoted turns out to be exactly correct, using an obviously biased source and a paper you and I haven't even read, we're talking about a 4% reduction in emissions. Which is great, but it's not going make a huge difference. Hopefully it's right, and if so it'll get rolled into projections.
> 
> At the same time, we found that we underestimated how much energy the southern oceans have absorbed. But you didn't quote that one?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you can actually go and look at the weather stations, right? You can walk up to them and take a photo, if you like.
> 
> 
> And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.
> 
> And second, the direct quote (which is easy to get) shows he's talking about the current conditions in *some* parts of Austrlia, and later if these trends continue. It was poorly phrased, but FFS, jumping on one badly worded phrase seems like you're just trying to find a reason to be offended.




W]ith some people suggesting the “hiatus” in global warming has now hit 18 years, and with fresh uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2, ... new findings provide further pause for thought. One paper — published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science — *says plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than current models suggest. This amount is equal to about four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels… *

It states "plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more", not the plankton.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> W]ith some people suggesting the “hiatus” in global warming has now hit 18 years, and with fresh uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2, ... new findings provide further pause for thought. One paper ”” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science ”” *says plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than current models suggest. This amount is equal to about four years worth of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels… *
> 
> It states "plants will absorb 130 billion tonnes more", not the plankton.




Ah yes, true. So the plankton increase will do what for carbon, exactly?

Again, how does this make any difference? What difference does it make, and why? How does more plankton translate into climate change is over / a lie / not real?


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> Ah yes, true. So the plankton increase will do what for carbon, exactly?
> 
> Again, how does this make any difference? What difference does it make, and why? How does more plankton translate into climate change is over / a lie / not real?




Perhaps this link might help to give you an understanding how important plankton is in the southern ocean.

Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming. 

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> Perhaps this link might help to give you an understanding how important plankton is in the southern ocean.
> 
> Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming.
> 
> http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html




I didn't ask you to do my research. You claimed that plankton would prevent global warming, and linked to an article with absolutely no details about how much CO2 this increase could possibly absorb. SURELY you had more to go on than that? SURELY you didn't just claim that plankton would prevent global warming based off a vague third hand reference without any numbers at all.

From your own link:



> *Computer models also indicate that an increase in plankton off Antarctica may not actually lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels significantly over the next 100 years*. But the real danger, of course, is that manipulating biological systems that are not thoroughly understood could have negative consequences just as easily as positive ones.




SO we've got an increase in some plankton populations who will absorb an unknown amount of CO2 that might not even kick in for 100 years, among a species notoriously hard to quantify anyway (they may well be decreasing elsewhere), and you post: "Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE."
*
You don't think that maybe you're kidding yourself, just a bit?* Almost like you're so invested in believing something that you'll read just about anything as vindication?

Well done. Your wild extrapolation of a third-hand comment about a paper you haven't read means you know more than thousands of qualified scientists who spent decades studying the climate.

Here's your Nobel Prize...


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> I didn't ask you to do my research. You claimed that plankton would prevent global warming, and linked to an article with absolutely no details about how much CO2 this increase could possibly absorb. SURELY you had more to go on than that? SURELY you didn't just claim that plankton would prevent global warming based off a vague third hand reference without any numbers at all.
> 
> From your own link:
> 
> 
> 
> SO we've got an increase in some plankton populations who will absorb an unknown amount of CO2 that might not even kick in for 100 years, among a species notoriously hard to quantify anyway (they may well be decreasing elsewhere), and you post: "Plankton has saved the world from all that nasty CARBON DIOXIDE."
> *
> You don't think that maybe you're kidding yourself, just a bit?* Almost like you're so invested in believing something that you'll read just about anything as vindication?
> 
> Well done. Your wild extrapolation of a third-hand comment about a paper you haven't read means you know more than thousands of qualified scientists who spent decades studying the climate.
> 
> Here's your Nobel Prize...




I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.




So:



> Maybe you might be good enough to do your own research in the future...it can be a bit time consuming.




...doesn't count as a smartarse comment?

I genuinely think you're kidding yourself. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm trying to be clear. I even explained why I think that. I'm trying to make the point that for you to think you know more than scientists with decades of training and experience, you really do need more than the hint of a smell of a possibility that one thing might not be as bad as people think. Maybe.

Scientists don't think they know everything about what's happening. That's how they have work! What do you think they're doing all day?

Plenty of findings will improve our view. Some will make predictions worse, some will make predictions better. So far, nothing we've found has challenged the basic premise - human CO2 production is (as it MUST) increasing the total energy in earth's systems, and this is going to have pretty bad effects on a lot of stuff.

*Having ignored the points I guess you didn't think you could defend*, and having had it explained to you just how meaningless this evidence you presented was, and how unjustified your conclusion, instead of looking at your own conclusion and whether it was justified, _you instead choose to address my *tone*._

Does the possibility of self-delusion not enter your mind? We all do it! But do you actually think at all about the things that don't agree with you? Or do you just skip to the next thing?


----------



## SirRumpole

> I see you have not taken any notice of Joe......Smart **** remarks are not acceptable on this forum and I suggest you adhere to Joe's request or you may find yourself in the sin bin for a month.




If someone points out flaws in your argument, try and counter with some research instead of insults.

If you don't understand things that you link to, at least confess your ignorance beforehand.

You have been called out a number of times for posting links to extreme material which have proven to be hoaxes (the Bill Cosby one comes to mind). People are getting the idea that a lot of what you post is not worth a response. For your own credibility's sake, please take a bit more care.


----------



## noco

*And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.*

Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...




One of the worst droughts in history could have been another reason. At what point do you decide you have to do something about a current situation ? 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. You would no doubt be complaining whatever happened.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> *And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.*
> 
> Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.




Weirdly, as dopey as their positions on a range of issues are, the Greens are actually one of the best for sticking with the science. They strongly opposed the desal plants, for example. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply they supported them...

On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.
/shrug


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> Weirdly, as dopey as their positions on a range of issues are, the Greens are actually one of the best for sticking with the science. They strongly opposed the desal plants, for example. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply they supported them...
> 
> On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.
> /shrug




Actually now I come to think of it, there were no Greens in the State Governments OF QLD, NSW AND VIC at the time....I stand correction if I am wrong.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> Actually now I come to think of it, there were no Greens in the State Governments OF QLD, NSW AND VIC at the time.




Nah, they were protesting the desal plants. Can't do that if you're in government, since we and the media expect all members of government to stick to the same lies.


They're also *not* against burn-offs.

Local green groups who don't know their arses from their elbows give the Greens party a bad name, which isn't fair. Or necessary. They're perfectly capable of giving themselves a bad name.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If someone points out flaws in your argument, try and counter with some research instead of insults.
> 
> If you don't understand things that you link to, at least confess your ignorance beforehand.
> 
> You have been called out a number of times for posting links to extreme material which have proven to be hoaxes (the Bill Cosby one comes to mind). People are getting the idea that a lot of what you post is not worth a response. For your own credibility's sake, please take a bit more care.




Rumpy, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else on what I post, what I agree or disagree upon.

You made a statement with reference to insults...I have been back through my posts on this thread and I do not see where I have insulted you or anyone else.....I do make every effort to back up my beliefs and statements with links which is not always to the liking of the poster. 

It is always the case with some members on this forum if they don't like what one purports on a thread, they set out to humiliate, belittle and discredit ones character and you my friend are not very far behind.....These are typical tactics used by the ABC and the Labor Party.

I am sure if I have stepped out of line, Joe would be the first to let me know.


----------



## Smurf1976

Weatsop said:


> On the other hand they oppose nuclear power, despite Australia being about the safest place on earth to use the stuff.




"Safest" doesn't mean "safe" and it certainly doesn't mean "economic".

If you look at the situation with nuclear power generally, well it's just not a cheap means of generating electricity. It's big $ even without considering the security etc issues associated with it.

The UK is doing some new nuclear power, but it's known right from the start that it will never be profitable.

Meanwhile the French have realised that a move away from nuclear in favour of renewables makes sense. A lot of their nuclear plants are getting old, and the cost of replacement is just too high it seems.


----------



## Weatsop

Smurf1976 said:


> "Safest" doesn't mean "safe" and it certainly doesn't mean "economic".
> 
> If you look at the situation with nuclear power generally, well it's just not a cheap means of generating electricity. It's big $ even without considering the security etc issues associated with it.
> 
> The UK is doing some new nuclear power, but it's known right from the start that it will never be profitable.
> 
> Meanwhile the French have realised that a move away from nuclear in favour of renewables makes sense. A lot of their nuclear plants are getting old, and the cost of replacement is just too high it seems.




Yeah, fair enough. I mean, politically it's not really worth talking about, because no-one would let them leave the waste anywhere near them. 

Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.

...and seems like a decent way for a government to subsidise effective action to reduce carbon emissions, seeing as we're too gutless to have an ETS and let the free-market and capitalism handle it.

Always hilarious to see the Libs promoting command economy 5-year-plan stuff, while the Labs and Greens are the free-marketeers. The Labs nicked the Libs' policy, the Libs' picked a new one, and none of their supporters seemed to mind. The Libs supporters HAAAAAATE the ETS - but you can guarantee that most would have loved it if their party had kept it, and called their CURRENT policy a bunch of lefty commie bull**** if the Labs had proposed it.

Humans suck.


----------



## SirRumpole

Weatsop said:


> Yeah, fair enough. I mean, politically it's not really worth talking about, because no-one would let them leave the waste anywhere near them.
> 
> Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.
> 
> ...and seems like a decent way for a government to subsidise effective action to reduce carbon emissions, seeing as we're too gutless to have an ETS and let the free-market and capitalism handle it.
> 
> Always hilarious to see the Libs promoting command economy 5-year-plan stuff, while the Labs and Greens are the free-marketeers. The Labs nicked the Libs' policy, the Libs' picked a new one, and none of their supporters seemed to mind. The Libs supporters HAAAAAATE the ETS - but you can guarantee that most would have loved it if their party had kept it, and called their CURRENT policy a bunch of lefty commie bull**** if the Labs had proposed it.
> 
> Humans suck.




We could store the stuff here safely, but it has to be transported here first, from the other side of the world in ships that be hijacked or wrecked on reefs. All that highly radioactive waste on the high seas is not a pleasant prospect when you think about what can go wrong.


----------



## Weatsop

SirRumpole said:


> We could store the stuff here safely, but it has to be transported here first, from the other side of the world in ships that be hijacked or wrecked on reefs. All that highly radioactive waste on the high seas is not a pleasant prospect when you think about what can go wrong.




Why? We're perfectly capable of processing it here. I mean, we *don't*, but we certainly could.

---
Hey, whatever happened to Silex? 

*checks chart*

....oh. Ouch.

Hahaha, and: 



> The share slump came just days after “stock pickers” in Fairfax and News Ltd business pages rated Silex as the “best speculative stock” on the ASX.




Yeah, that sounds about right.

Still though, that sounds just the sort of thing the Libs should, uh, "nationalise". Hahahaha.

---
Yeah ok. Fine. You talked me out of nukes. The more I read, the more bleh they are.

Hell, it's not like we're short on sun and wind. How are those energy storage efforts going? Heard some cool trickiness with semi-permeable membrane-based batteries. Who's developing those? MUST BUY WILDLY SPECULATIVE STOCK! (Then base all my political beliefs on whichever policies will best impact my portfolio).


----------



## Smurf1976

Weatsop said:


> Just we could dig it up here, process it here, and store the waste here. We're the perfect spot for every stage - we're about the least geologically active slab of crust there is. If any country could just put down some nice deep shafts to store the gunk, we could.



No problem with that, indeed the primary advantage of nuclear power over other sources is that transport distance from mine to power station is virtually irrelevant and a very minor cost.

It's the small physical volume that makes it so. You have a great big tanker load of oil or LNG, or a huge ship carrying coal, or a van carrying some uranium. They all do the same job, but uranium is a lot easier to transport.

Hence the best place for nuclear power, is places that don't have local production of coal or gas. It would be outright crazy to, for example, ship coal from Australia to wherever and then use nuclear power here. Doing the opposite is the rational approach - to the extent we're going to use coal, burn it near where it's mined. Much the same with gas. Let the fuel-poor countries go nuclear.

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of mining uranium, enriching it and storing the waste in Australia. It's the concept of having reactors here that I'm not keen on. Firstly because they're uneconomic in the Australian context. Secondly because we're not even slightly close to being able to properly manage such an industry in a crisis situation. Leave the reactors to the big boys, we'll just sell them the fuel and, if they pay enough, take back the waste.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> No problem with that, indeed the primary advantage of nuclear power over other sources is that transport distance from mine to power station is virtually irrelevant and a very minor cost.
> 
> It's the small physical volume that makes it so. You have a great big tanker load of oil or LNG, or a huge ship carrying coal, or a van carrying some uranium. They all do the same job, but uranium is a lot easier to transport.
> 
> Hence the best place for nuclear power, is places that don't have local production of coal or gas. It would be outright crazy to, for example, ship coal from Australia to wherever and then use nuclear power here. Doing the opposite is the rational approach - to the extent we're going to use coal, burn it near where it's mined. Much the same with gas. Let the fuel-poor countries go nuclear.
> 
> Personally, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of mining uranium, enriching it and storing the waste in Australia. It's the concept of having reactors here that I'm not keen on. Firstly because they're uneconomic in the Australian context. Secondly because we're not even slightly close to being able to properly manage such an industry in a crisis situation. Leave the reactors to the big boys, we'll just sell them the fuel and, if they pay enough, take back the waste.




Maybe this will make all that unnecessary

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015


----------



## Smurf1976

Fusion - certainly an interesting concept and a real "game changer" certainly.

But fusion has been "just around the corner" for decades now so I'll believe it when I see it actually working in a real world application in a manner that is reliable and economical. I'm not convinced I'll live long enough to see that.....


----------



## noco

noco said:


> *And regarding Flannery's dam thing: first, one person saying something dopey or poorly phrased in an interview does not mean that the scientists of the world believe that thing - science is not done by media talking points. If Flannery walks out of his house tomorrow and say it's going to rain marshmallows, that doesn't mean a damn thing about the science.*
> 
> Flannery said something dopey alright and the three dopey Labor Party states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria at the time took notice of him and spent $billions of tax payer's money on desalinization plants which are now in moth balls...It is a pity the Green/Labor party had not taken some notice of the real scientists......But of course the majority of us know there are not too many smart ones in the Green/Labor alliance.....that is one thing they do know is how to waste tax payers money.




*Global warming alarmists panicked gullible Labor governments into building desalination plants with scares like Tim Flannery’s:


    So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…

    I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis…

    Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply…

    I’m personally more worried about Sydney than Perth… Where does Sydney go for more water?  

No one in the ABC or Fairfax newspapers questioned Flannery’s alarmism, and no political leader dared to:

    In 2008, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” ...

    In 2007, Flannery predicted ... “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

    One premier, Queensland’s Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on a desalination plant, saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”. 

Here is a bit more to digest about Tim Flannery and his so called predictions.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1413593839571*


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> <quotes Bolt, because... he's an expert or something>




Was feeling so neglected to opted to quote YOURSELF? 

...ok...

First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science. *If Flannery says a million things, and you find a hundred that are stupid, this proves absolutely nothing about anything*. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove by doing a thing that we already said is meaningless. Are you saying it's not? Care to present an argument? Or are you just ignoring us and talking to yourself?

I'm not really defending Flannery - he says dopey stuff. But seriously, look hard at whether a list of "damning" quotes really is damning:



> So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…




Isn't CURRENTLY filling the dams, and won't IF tends continue. "Currently" ended some years ago, and "if trends continue" is yet to be seen. He was right for "currently" - that's exactly what was happening. And we don't know what's going to happen "if trends continue" - but the science does, in fact, tend to back him up on that one. 

Keep up!



> I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis…




It's the most isolated, and one of the driest cities of its size, on the planet of earth. I'd say that's not an unreasonable prediction. 

In any case, we have another 80+ years to find out, so I'm not sure if your quote is self-evidently kickass and I'm just too dumb to understand...?

...you know the 21st century is the one we just started, right?



> Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply…




It is. Climate works on (at least) 30 year timeframes. Predictions go out to about 100. Yes, Perth is in some trouble.

We had several cities on extreme water-saving measures (because of course all the quotes you were using came from the drought). What happens if we get a drought much longer? What if it rains even less? These are LIKELY outcomes for SOME areas in Australia.

It doesn't help you that it's raining MORE somewhere else in Australia, if the location of your farm or your city's dams are in one of the parts where it rains LESS.

*See how this isn't really a lefty pinko issue? See how we're considering costs to businesses?*



> I’m personally more worried about Sydney than Perth… Where does Sydney go for more water?




Uh, where DOES it go? It's collecting a massive proportion of the entire runoff for the basin. Where does it go for more water if we don't get enough rain - if the rain moves north, or south, for example? Hint: we let the country town and farms go dry. And if that's not enough, we put in a ton of desalination plants and pay the cost.




> No one in the ABC or Fairfax newspapers questioned Flannery’s alarmism, and no political leader dared to:




...does it ever occur to you guys that maybe you're wrong?

You know what people say: if you think everyone ELSE is crazy...



> The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009




Quote, from Bolt: "Flannery made this comment in a very brief interview in the March 2008 of Jetstar magazine."

A very brief interview, hmmm? I wonder if it was taken out of context. I mean Jetstar magazine IS very prestigious, and a brief interview IS the best kind, so I guess there's nothing more to know about it. God knows, *I* wouldn't actually doubt Bolt's insinuations and go and READ the article.

Would you?



> In 2007, Flannery predicted ... “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”




POSSIBLY in  AS LITTLE as 18 months. SO DEFINITELY not now, at the very earliest in 18 months.

The drought broke in 2007. "Possibly as little as" is the absolute shortest amount of time it might have been needed. Since the drought broke, obviously we're not looking at the shortest possible amount of time, are we? So can you tell me that, had the drought continued for another 18 months, that some cities didn't need desalination plants to be online within 18 months?

Please show your figures.



> ...saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”.




Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".


---
You don't need to believe me, but I know a guy who has been on Bolt's show several times. Bolt thinks it's all a big game. He doesn't believe what he's saying - he only knows what gets his audience in a lather. He has no morals, he has no guilt for the negative impact he's had. He just loves the attention, and is paid well for fooling the gullible. He's winning the game, knows it, and loves it.

He is playing you like a fish. He is, most of the time, NOT EVEN SAYING ANYTHING. He just links to an article, give a single line of bait, and watches the feeding frenzy. 

And laughs his **** off.

Bolt quoted:

"So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…"

And the VERY NEXT line in Flannery's interview was:
*
"If that trend continues..."*

You can't tell me he didn't know! Hell! At the end of that sentence, after "bush" *it was supposed to be a full stop*. He put is those coy little dot-dot-dots, because I reckon he loves watching his audience switch their brains off and just woof at his command...


----------



## Smurf1976

Weatsop said:


> First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science.




There's a difference between some random person making a comment versus someone who is in the public spotlight making a comment.

If you or I make a comment to the effect that the ASX is going to crash within the next 12 months then that's one thing. But if someone from the RBA or even one of the major banks were to make the same comment, well that's _very_ different. A reasonable person would take my comment as just the opinion of an individual, but if it came from the RBA or someone like Westpac then the average person with limited knowledge of the subject will expect that the RBA or a major bank will know what they're on about when it comes to financial matters, have a sound basis for making the statement, and thus take it far more seriously. 

Same concept with anything really. Tim Flannery was in a position of public trust and influence on the issue, his comments were thus taken fare more seriously than if some random person had said it.



> Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".




Agreed although desal certainly isn't the only way of doing that. There's huge amounts of water flowing out to sea in northern Australia and also Tasmania so a long distance pipeline is one possibility.

Looking ahead, and I'm not claiming this to be based on science, but it does seem as though we're heading toward another drought in parts of the country. We've got that "rain is forecast a week ahead but disappears but the time it's supposed to fall" pattern back again in some areas. That plus higher than average temperatures mean that the soil is nowhere near saturated - so if it does rain then it doesn't run off to any real extent.


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> Was feeling so neglected to opted to quote YOURSELF?
> 
> ...ok...
> 
> First, IN THIS THREAD, and you replied so I know you read it, we discussed how one person on a planet of several BILLION saying dopey things is not meaningful in terms of the science. *If Flannery says a million things, and you find a hundred that are stupid, this proves absolutely nothing about anything*. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove by doing a thing that we already said is meaningless. Are you saying it's not? Care to present an argument? Or are you just ignoring us and talking to yourself?
> 
> I'm not really defending Flannery - he says dopey stuff. But seriously, look hard at whether a list of "damning" quotes really is damning:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't CURRENTLY filling the dams, and won't IF tends continue. "Currently" ended some years ago, and "if trends continue" is yet to be seen. He was right for "currently" - that's exactly what was happening. And we don't know what's going to happen "if trends continue" - but the science does, in fact, tend to back him up on that one.
> 
> Keep up!
> 
> 
> 
> It's the most isolated, and one of the driest cities of its size, on the planet of earth. I'd say that's not an unreasonable prediction.
> 
> In any case, we have another 80+ years to find out, so I'm not sure if your quote is self-evidently kickass and I'm just too dumb to understand...?
> 
> ...you know the 21st century is the one we just started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Climate works on (at least) 30 year timeframes. Predictions go out to about 100. Yes, Perth is in some trouble.
> 
> We had several cities on extreme water-saving measures (because of course all the quotes you were using came from the drought). What happens if we get a drought much longer? What if it rains even less? These are LIKELY outcomes for SOME areas in Australia.
> 
> It doesn't help you that it's raining MORE somewhere else in Australia, if the location of your farm or your city's dams are in one of the parts where it rains LESS.
> 
> *See how this isn't really a lefty pinko issue? See how we're considering costs to businesses?*
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, where DOES it go? It's collecting a massive proportion of the entire runoff for the basin. Where does it go for more water if we don't get enough rain - if the rain moves north, or south, for example? Hint: we let the country town and farms go dry. And if that's not enough, we put in a ton of desalination plants and pay the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...does it ever occur to you guys that maybe you're wrong?
> 
> You know what people say: if you think everyone ELSE is crazy...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote, from Bolt: "Flannery made this comment in a very brief interview in the March 2008 of Jetstar magazine."
> 
> A very brief interview, hmmm? I wonder if it was taken out of context. I mean Jetstar magazine IS very prestigious, and a brief interview IS the best kind, so I guess there's nothing more to know about it. God knows, *I* wouldn't actually doubt Bolt's insinuations and go and READ the article.
> 
> Would you?
> 
> 
> 
> POSSIBLY in  AS LITTLE as 18 months. SO DEFINITELY not now, at the very earliest in 18 months.
> 
> The drought broke in 2007. "Possibly as little as" is the absolute shortest amount of time it might have been needed. Since the drought broke, obviously we're not looking at the shortest possible amount of time, are we? So can you tell me that, had the drought continued for another 18 months, that some cities didn't need desalination plants to be online within 18 months?
> 
> Please show your figures.
> 
> 
> 
> Lower than average rainfalls COULD eventuate. In fact, statistically, lower than average rainfalls ****MUST*** eventuate. For a government, state, and city with an ever increasing population, having an option to cover future shortfalls of rainfall - ***even ignoring climate change altogether**** - seems a pretty prudent alternative to "everyone just stops bathing".
> 
> 
> ---
> You don't need to believe me, but I know a guy who has been on Bolt's show several times. Bolt thinks it's all a big game. He doesn't believe what he's saying - he only knows what gets his audience in a lather. He has no morals, he has no guilt for the negative impact he's had. He just loves the attention, and is paid well for fooling the gullible. He's winning the game, knows it, and loves it.
> 
> He is playing you like a fish. He is, most of the time, NOT EVEN SAYING ANYTHING. He just links to an article, give a single line of bait, and watches the feeding frenzy.
> 
> And laughs his **** off.
> 
> Bolt quoted:
> 
> "So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…"
> 
> And the VERY NEXT line in Flannery's interview was:
> *
> "If that trend continues..."*
> 
> You can't tell me he didn't know! Hell! At the end of that sentence, after "bush" *it was supposed to be a full stop*. He put is those coy little dot-dot-dots, because I reckon he loves watching his audience switch their brains off and just woof at his command...




My dear friend, I have read through your post three times to try to get the gist of your argument, but it is appears to be a meaningless lot of rhetoric without substance, links or references and you are entitled to your opinion.

My theme is Flannery made a lot of incorrect predictions which lead to the three Labor Eastern states at the time being gullible enough to believe this clown without deeper investigations as to whether desalinization plants were necessary.....It would have been far better to have built 3 dams instead of wasting billions of dollars on equipment which are now in moth balls.......But of course we all know once we start talking about dams the Greens step in and do all in their power to prevent them being constructed........they would invariably find some reason to prevent it happening.......you can't build a dam there because it will extinguish the hairy red nosed wombat, or those special green frogs or the lung fish in the Mary river. 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ho-gets-it-wrong/story-fni0ffxg-1226838538089

Whist I don't profess to be an expert on Earth science, I nevertheless took science and physics as a subject in my high days during WW11.......We were taught the basics of how the Earth traversed around the Sun and at certain times the Earth is further from the Sun than other times.......we were taught the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun varies from time to time .......the Suns massive explosions that take place equivalent to thousands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs ...they are called Sun spots which have a strong radiation effect on Earth......We all know the influence of the moon on Earth and how it affects our tides.......so it has always been called climate change which is a natural phenomenon that takes place over thousands of years.......it is only in recent times that certain alarmists lead by Al Gore have tried to imply Global Warming is man made with carbon dioxide emissions.......Al Gore set up a massive corporation throughout the world to trade carbon emissions and planned to make a mint out of it and yes he had a lot of followers including the UN Secretary General, Bank-ki-moon who is devoted Greenie.

In my life time I have witnessed lots of climate change......In my working days in South Western Queensland I experienced , drought, fires and floods and nothing has changed today....there are so called scientist out there trying to make us believe and there are scientist who whole hardheartedly disagree.......We also learned  a poem by Dorothy MacKellar.

“I Love A Sunburnt Country”

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains,
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me.

So there you have it ....you can take it or leave...we can agree to disagree.


----------



## explod

Noco, I give you credit for your efforts in trying to come to terms with climate change in the way that you wish.

However in spite of that, the normal that you describe is changing.  The general science community who do understand are warning us.  The apparent errors (more perceptions of convienient understanding) come a great deal from the earths absorption, such as ocean heat sink which is giving a faulse sence of lead time.

A frightening turning point for me wss when the perma ice from the polar regions began to thaw below and allow the escape of methane gas.  This is many times worse than even the coal burning.  In the"Fifth Extinction  " a book I read some years back, there is an outline of deep core sampling done which proved that the perma frost under Antartca had been intact for millions if years.  So these sudden changes are just not normal cycles, we have a problem.

So the desal plants unfortunately, with many other aids will be needed in due course.  A lot of California is turning into desert as we speak and the frequency and severity of storms across the planet increases as warmer air stirs the cold air, more cloud in some places against the,clear dry areas causes greater up drafts and wind to fill the vacuum's caused.

And one can go on.


----------



## Logique

Forum Administrator

Joe,

isn't it time to mothball this thread?  After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming?  And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings. 

It's all over for the warmists. 

Perth isn't a ghost city.  Sydney dams are 88% full.  Billion dollar desalination plants have been mothballed in several states. Tim Flannery lives waterside on the Hawkesbury.

Polar bears are reclining on banana lounges, scoffing seal meat sandwiches, they mustn't have got the memo.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Forum Administrator
> 
> Joe,
> 
> isn't it time to mothball this thread?  After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming?  And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.
> 
> It's all over for the warmists.
> 
> Perth isn't a ghost city.  Sydney dams are 88% full.  Billion dollar desalination plants have been mothballed in several states. Tim Flannery lives waterside on the Hawkesbury.
> 
> Polar bears are reclining on banana lounges, scoffing seal meat sandwiches, they mustn't have got the memo.




Logique, I like the way you think......Yes, this whole Global Warming thing is a farce......these alarmist keep getting caught out time and time again and yet they still persist with this crap.


----------



## Joe Blow

Logique said:


> Joe,
> 
> isn't it time to mothball this thread?  After 287 pages, still no consensus.




I'm always reluctant to close a thread unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and generally prefer that threads die a natural death if at all possible.

Although there is still no consensus, and I presume that there won't be any for the foreseeable future, I think that the best option is to leave the thread open just in case there is any news, updates, or continued debate.


----------



## bellenuit

Joe Blow said:


> I'm always reluctant to close a thread unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and generally prefer that threads die a natural death if at all possible.
> 
> Although there is still no consensus, and I presume that there won't be any for the foreseeable future, I think that the best option is to leave the thread open just in case there is any news, updates, or continued debate.




If you were to close this thread because no consensus has been reached, then all the religious and political threads would have to go too.  I agree, let topics die a natural death.


----------



## Craton

FWIW, closing this thread won't stop another being created with a similar title. 



> Originally Posted by Logique
> 
> Joe,
> 
> isn't it time to mothball this thread? After 287 pages, still no consensus.


----------



## So_Cynical

Logique said:


> isn't it time to mothball this thread?  After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming?  And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.
> 
> It's all over for the warmists.




No warming? really! polar ice caps not in historic retreat? Atmospheric C02 levels not at an all time 'modern' high and trending upwards for the last half century...global carbon and H20 cycles not functioning?

The denial of reality demonstrated by some people is amazing...must drive the Noalition CC deniers crazy that 1 vote Tony is spending 2.5 billion on a reduction target.
~
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
`


----------



## Smurf1976

I find that chart interesting in that it's almost linear. A bit of a curve, but not much. It's almost a straight line.

In contrast there's been a huge surge in coal use since 2000 whilst gas and oil consumption has gone up too. So CO2 emissions have soared, whilst atmospheric concentration seems to be increasing at roughly the same rate as before.

That being so, if we were to cut emissions by, say, 30 or even 50% then it seems plausible that for reasons I won't claim to understand, this may have no effect at all on atmospheric concentration compared to continuing with the current level of emissions. That's essentially what the chart says.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> No warming? really! polar ice caps not in historic retreat? Atmospheric C02 levels not at an all time 'modern' high and trending upwards for the last half century...global carbon and H20 cycles not functioning?
> 
> The denial of reality demonstrated by some people is amazing...must drive the Noalition CC deniers crazy that 1 vote Tony is spending 2.5 billion on a reduction target.
> ~
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
> `





That chart sure looks ugly and to the naive it probably is.....The Earth is quite safe at even 550 ppm CO2 and 800,000 years ago it was 7000 ppm...Perhaps that is when we had massive forests in Australia and when the CO2 dropped to below 180 ppm or less, the forests began to die creating massive coal deposits....that is my theory although I will probably be proved wrong.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I find that chart interesting in that it's almost linear. A bit of a curve, but not much. It's almost a straight line.
> 
> In contrast there's been a huge surge in coal use since 2000 whilst gas and oil consumption has gone up too. So CO2 emissions have soared, whilst atmospheric concentration seems to be increasing at roughly the same rate as before.
> 
> That being so, if we were to cut emissions by, say, 30 or even 50% then it seems plausible that for reasons I won't claim to understand, this may have no effect at all on atmospheric concentration compared to continuing with the current level of emissions. That's essentially what the chart says.




The problem is Smurph, you aren't brazen enough to make outlandish statements.
You would have no chance of pushing yourself to the fore in a green/labor forum, you are too honest and don't like fabricating or manipulating data, for your own ends.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> I find that chart interesting in that it's almost linear. A bit of a curve, but not much. It's almost a straight line.
> 
> In contrast there's been a huge surge in coal use since 2000 whilst gas and oil consumption has gone up too. So CO2 emissions have soared, whilst atmospheric concentration seems to be increasing at roughly the same rate as before.
> 
> That being so, if we were to cut emissions by, say, 30 or even 50% then it seems plausible that for reasons I won't claim to understand, this may have no effect at all on atmospheric concentration compared to continuing with the current level of emissions. That's essentially what the chart says.




As we all should know by now, Australia cutting emissions by XYZ will have almost no effect on global emissions and thus PPM measurements in Hawaii, all we can do is our bit, play our part and live up to our responsibility to cut emissions by XYZ, thus having an impact on global emissions.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> As we all should know by now, Australia cutting emissions by XYZ will have almost no effect on global emissions and thus PPM measurements in Hawaii, all we can do is our bit, play our part and live up to our responsibility to cut emissions by XYZ, thus having an impact on global emissions.




Absolutely, if we can all get rid of the second car, beer fridge, second third and fourth computer, remove the airconditioner and use blankets instead of gas heating, we will indeed play our part.

But then, you are going to have everyone screaming that it is inhumane and no one should have to live like that.lol
Hard to reconcile what's good for the world, with what people are prepared to forego.


----------



## So_Cynical

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, if we can all get rid of the second car, beer fridge, second third and fourth computer, remove the airconditioner and use blankets instead of gas heating, we will indeed play our part.
> 
> But then, you are going to have everyone screaming that it is inhumane and no one should have to live like that.lol
> Hard to reconcile what's good for the world, with what people are prepared to forego.




The carbon tax was working, significant reductions were being funded, industry got on with business while people got on with their lives.

Now reductions are NOT being funded, reductions are being made at about half the old scale, people are getting on with theirs lives and business continues.

Difference is that now we have a Govt back flipping and winding back as opposed to a Govt being forced into deals to get anything positive done at all...one Govt does to much while the next struggles to do anything meaningful while trying to keep up political appearances to both sides.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> The carbon tax was working, significant reductions were being funded, industry got on with business while people got on with their lives.
> 
> Now reductions are NOT being funded, reductions are being made at about half the old scale, people are getting on with theirs lives and business continues.
> 
> Difference is that now we have a Govt back flipping and winding back as opposed to a Govt being forced into deals to get anything positive done at all...one Govt does to much while the next struggles to do anything meaningful while trying to keep up political appearances to both sides.




It will be as it will be, globally the problem will be addressed, it won't be solved by Australia. 
Unless we all move to the Phillippines then we can live the high life, but who will keep the money coming in?


----------



## Trevor_S

Reading some of the stuff posted here is insightful in terms of the Dunning Kurger effect.  Speaking of which I thought this a fascinating article by Professor Dunning about Confident Idiots.  Seems apt enough in describing the general populous and the belief their knowledge is superior to the climate scientists.

As to being wrong, one can only assume a lack of understanding of what Science is... A quite famous Professor of Biochemistry had this to say on the matter of The Relativity of Wrong

Perhaps that's why the level of certainty over global warming among the experts has gone from 60% in the 80's to 99.99% now...


----------



## sptrawler

Trevor_S said:


> Reading some of the stuff posted here is insightful in terms of the Dunning Kurger effect.  Speaking of which I thought this a fascinating article by Professor Dunning about Confident Idiots.  Seems apt enough in describing the general populous and the belief their knowledge is superior to the climate scientists.
> 
> As to being wrong, one can only assume a lack of understanding of what Science is... A quite famous Professor of Biochemistry had this to say on the matter of The Relativity of Wrong
> 
> Perhaps that's why the level of certainty over global warming among the experts has gone from 60% in the 80's to 99.99% now...




Trevor, can you tell us what you are doing to reduce global warming? I think all of us can help and any ideas will enlighten us further.

If we all were self sufficient on electricity and rode bicycles instead of driving cars. The carbon footprint would be much smaller.


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> Trevor, can you tell us what you are doing to reduce global warming? I think all of us can help and any ideas will enlighten us further.
> 
> If we all were self sufficient on electricity and rode bicycles instead of driving cars. The carbon footprint would be much smaller.




And exactly how relevant is Trevors personal commitment to reducing global warming to his observations on how confidently stupid and utterly inane most posters here are with their rejection of the 97% of climate scientists who know we are in deep trouble on global warming?

By the way great article on Confident Idiots Trevor. Well worth the post.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> That chart sure looks ugly and to the naive it probably is.....The Earth is quite safe at even 550 ppm CO2 and *800,000 years ago it was 7000 ppm*....




What the hell?

Look, even if you were right, hundreds of thousands of years of climate change in less that 100 years is NOT GOOD. Even if you were right, think about what you're saying.

I keep hearing these things from people arguing against climate change happening, and the figures are BOTH wrong AND don't seem to consider the context. Like people who (wrongly) think that it was warmer than today globally a thousand years ago - again, *even if that was true* to have gained 1000 years of climatic change in 50 years is the sort of trend that leaves us in some pretty serious trouble.



...and you are NOT right:





Where on earth did you get that figure?


----------



## Weatsop

sptrawler said:


> Trevor, can you tell us what you are doing to reduce global warming? I think all of us can help and any ideas will enlighten us further.
> 
> If we all were self sufficient on electricity and rode bicycles instead of driving cars. The carbon footprint would be much smaller.




Well you can do it with the free market, by putting a price on carbon and leaving it to the vast energy and ingenuity of the entrepreneurs of the planet of earth...

...or we can do some weird early-20th-century soviet-style command economy thing where the government tells business how to do things.

Which is more efficient?

Instead of paying for the police and army and hostpitals out of compulsory taxation, do you think we'd do better if people were just left to their own devices, if we just let people pay for those things directly if they want them?

Governments EXIST to enact policies that effect everyone, to embark on projects that are in the common interest.

And yeah, what Balilio said. IF Trevor turns out to be a sentient mung-bean with a negative carbon footprint, that would make no difference to the science.


----------



## Tisme

Because Newscorp is in lockstep with the LNP (it actually is the parent company of the LNP I think) it shouldn't be used as any kind of authority on anything really, except as a journal for rat cunning and deception.

What we need to do is look at climate change dispassionately and factually. So to corroborate one team:

in my previous life at Julius Caesar things were much more environmentally pleasant. Sure I was a short legged hairy SOB, but the weather was much cooler and much cooler again when I was Napoleon Bonaparte. I don't like to talk about the time I was the local brothel madam back when the pyramids were being built as markers for the randy spacemen.


----------



## Smurf1976

Weatsop said:


> Well you can do it with the free market, by putting a price on carbon and leaving it to the vast energy and ingenuity of the entrepreneurs of the planet of earth...
> 
> ...or we can do some weird early-20th-century soviet-style command economy thing where the government tells business how to do things.




Climate change aside, I never thought I'd see the Coalition promoting the idea of a command economy whilst Labor and the Greens advocate markets. Never, ever thought I'd see that.


----------



## Weatsop

Smurf1976 said:


> Climate change aside, I never thought I'd see the Coalition promoting the idea of a command economy whilst Labor and the Greens advocate markets. Never, ever thought I'd see that.




Exactly! One more example of why humans make me so angry - people don't have an ideology, they just have teams. The two sides swapped policies, and none of the rabid supporters on either side seem to have even noticed.

Same-same: the so-called "Right" against removing fuel subsidies for miners. Anyone else, you'd say "they're getting welfare that they don't need any more", and they'd say "cut if off". But somehow plenty of people in the right think conservatism means "pro-business", because the details are just too hard.

Or environmentalism, even. It's mostly an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. Climate change especially. We're talking about a long-term investment - some expense now to prevent a great expense later. But noooo, environmentalism got the "lefty" tag, and now all lefties support it and all righties are agin' it. And no-one thinks.


----------



## Calliope

Abbott's direct action climate plan is one of his supreme stupidities.  If anyone has any doubts about the effectiveness this inane, unnecessary and expensive plan consider this;

*It is supported by PUP.*


----------



## explod

Weatsop said:


> Or environmentalism, even. It's mostly an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. Climate change especially. We're talking about a long-term investment - some expense now to prevent a great expense later. But noooo, environmentalism got the "lefty" tag, and now all lefties support it and all righties are agin' it. And no-one thinks.


----------



## Logique

Looks like we're all gonners, soon after the Melbourne Cup.  Thanks for the warning Chief Scientist Penny Sackett




> Tim Blair
> Monday, November 03, 2014
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...hp/dailytelegraph/comments/one_month_remains/
> 
> I don’t mean to frighten anybody, but we’re all about to be destroyed. Our time is almost up.
> 
> Back on December 3, 2009, the Rudd government’s *chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett claimed that the planet had just five years to dodge disastrous global warming*. “The leading climate scientists from the world over warn that we have about five years to avoid the dangerous climate change that would be generated if average global temperatures increase by more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,” Sackett said.
> 
> Check the date, people. Former chief scientist Sackett’s five-year doomsday prediction is now upon us. *We have but a single month remaining to get our affairs in order* prior to the Deadly Warmening. Tomorrow’s Melbourne Cup will be our last. May as well put everything on Signoff and hope for a cashed-up final 30 days.
> 
> Or maybe not. After all, a number of previous cutoff dates for global warming doom have already come and gone. Call me a crazy climate-denying optimist, but I’m prepared to bet that the majority of us will survive December 3 and possibly even a few weeks beyond............


----------



## Weatsop

Logique said:


> Looks like we're all gonners, soon after the Melbourne Cup.  Thanks for the warning Chief Scientist Penny Sackett



*
Uh, you understand that we ARE locked into 2 degrees now, right?* The time frame all the projections run on is "by the end of the century". When they give projections for temperatures, they're talking about what we expect it to be in 2100.

*It will now be at least 2 degrees hotter by 2100.* We can't stop that.

If we'd acted fast, we could have avoided 2 degrees, but now a bunch of feedbacks are kicking in, and there's pretty much nothing we can do to avoid it, and the significant costs that will go with it. 

We CAN still avoid some of the top-end projections, like 5 degrees, but the boat has sailed for avoiding 2.

Do you think Tim Blair honestly doesn't understand what he's talking about, or does he just like to watch his readers rage? 

*Is he grossly incompetent, or a liar?*

I don't blame the people at home for not understanding this stuff - it's not their jobs to understand it. But it IS the job of Bolt and Blair to understand it. Their readers have a reasonable expectation that Blair read the reports well enough to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and then WON'T LIE about it.

Either he has failed to understand something that I could explain in a forum post in about 5 minutes, or he knows, and is intentionally misleading his readers.


----------



## basilio

> I don't blame the people at home for not understanding this stuff - it's not their jobs to understand it. But it IS the job of Bolt and Blair to understand it. Their readers have a reasonable expectation that Blair read the reports well enough to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and then WON'T LIE about it.
> 
> Either he has failed to understand something that I could explain in a forum post in about 5 minutes, or he knows, and is intentionally misleading his readers.




And exactly which world are you living in Weatsop?  Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have absolutely no interest in understanding what scientists are saying. Never have. Never will.

They are willfully ignorant deniers. The  bigger issue is that the papers that employ them allow such lying distorted rubbish to be printed.


----------



## Weatsop

basilio said:


> And exactly which world are you living in Weatsop?  Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have absolutely no interest in understanding what scientists are saying. Never have. Never will.
> 
> They are willfully ignorant deniers. The  bigger issue is that the papers that employ them allow such lying distorted rubbish to be printed.




Apparently you can tack the word "opinion" to something, and suddenly journalistic standards - and basic integrity - no longer apply.

That linked article from Blair sneered at someone's sign that said "millions will die". Fact is, millions WILL die from climate change. Some almost certainly already have. 

Not that it's going to be Armageddon - a few million in a population of billions isn't the end of the world, and Australia's cost will be mostly monetary - but with all the people who will die, and the suffering of their loved ones, Blair's little sneer - from a feller I'm pretty sure actually knows better - has to earn him a nice warm spot in hell.


----------



## Tisme

Weatsop said:


> - - has to earn him a nice warm spot in hell.




Now he's a catholic, that option available to him.


----------



## So_Cynical

Weatsop said:


> *
> Uh, you understand that we ARE locked into 2 degrees now, right?* The time frame all the projections run on is "by the end of the century". When they give projections for temperatures, they're talking about what we expect it to be in 2100.
> 
> *It will now be at least 2 degrees hotter by 2100.* We can't stop that.




No i dont think Logique understands at all, I dont think that denial and understanding are on the same page...the fact that anyone could quote that blog post clearly demonstrates that understanding plays no part in their thinking.


----------



## explod

So the interpretation is (IPCC) that we need to get out of fossil fuels by the end of the century.  What  a load of crap. Every human will be burnt by then.

And Hunt talks about coal cleaning up
Its act, it cannot be done, again crap.

We have to go to windmills, solar panels, wave power and tap volcanoes.

My worm farm cannot survive more than 30c.

NSW springtime bushfires on us again. When are we going to get real.

The earth began as a fireball 5 billion years back.  Its supposed to be cooling.

But I'm sure the Rabbit will have an answer tomorrow.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> So the interpretation is (IPCC) that we need to get out of fossil fuels by the end of the century.  What  a load of crap. Every human will be burnt by then.
> 
> And Hunt talks about coal cleaning up
> Its act, it cannot be done, again crap.
> 
> We have to go to windmills, solar panels, wave power and tap volcanoes.
> 
> My worm farm cannot survive more than 30c.
> 
> NSW springtime  bush fires on us again. When are we going to get real.
> 
> The earth began as a fireball 5 billion years back.  Its supposed to be cooling.
> 
> But I'm sure the Rabbit will have an answer tomorrow.




This Global warming crap is the biggest con job I ever seen in my whole life.

The IPPC puts out a tailor made report as requested by the UN....Bank-ki-Moon is a devout Greenie and walks hand in hand with Al Gore who  has invested millions of dollars in some 40 companies around the world to cash in on ETS....I wonder how much money the UN Secretary General has invested in Gore's con job?

They are still pushing their barrow on the bad burning of coal and every time you see their propaganda they use old photos of stations pumping out hugh billows of nasty black smoke when in actual fact modern power station have anti pollution units capturing the gases and all you see is an emission of steam....so it can be done and is being done....so why do they tell porkies?

Renewable energy is OK to a point but it is only 15% efficient, it is costly, it cannot stand on its own two feet without Government subsidies where as coal fired power is 35% efficient and much cheaper.....How can you have base load power with the unreliable wind or solar power?

Bush fires have been going on for centuries but you hear more about it today due to media beat up and the stupid people who build their houses in high density bush....they take the risk and get caught.

It has been proven, there has been no global warming for 17 years so what are these alarmist still persisting with such rubbish...there are hundreds of scientist who are skeptics but they are not allowed to voice their opinion.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...hance-of-success/story-e6frg6n6-1227110187635


----------



## explod

Rubbish noco. Just a few years back along Belcolm creek at Mount Martha, near where I live, a heat wave hitting 48 degrees took out all the ring tailed possums, never to return after having evolving there over many millions of years.

Recent enquiries, particularly La trobe valley show that coal is exceedingly toxic and health benefits of not using coal is not being factored in.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Rubbish noco. Just a few years back along Belcolm creek at Mount Martha, near where I live, a heat wave hitting 48 degrees took out all the ring tailed possums, never to return after having evolving there over many millions of years.
> 
> Recent enquiries, particularly La trobe valley show that coal is exceedingly toxic and health benefits of not using coal is not being factored in.




I believe La Trobe Valley uses brown coal which has always been recognized as dirty coal but the other power stations are now clean and efficient....so please do not use La Trobe Valley as an example for the rest of coal fired power stations....that is being totally deceptive on your part

Mate, I don't what era you have lived in but I can recall horrific heat waves over 70 years ago in south west Queensland and even worse in Western Australia where Marble bar was over 50 c....I am old enough to have been through many extreme heat waves.....horrific storms in Brisbane...drought... floods...you name it.

Bush fires every year emit more CO2 from fossil fuel plus volcanoes than coal fired power stations but nobody wants to talk about it.

But we all have our own opinions and if you like mine.....too bad.


----------



## explod

I worked throughout south west Qld in the 60's as a shearer. The difference between there and western victoria where I grew up on a farm, is chalk and cheese. I saw qld go down the tubes when they trucked the sheep out in 68/69. 

From 5 generations back when my.GG/Grand Father for survival moved his family from the Irish potatoe plague, my family have been enviorentmental hysterics "if u like".

I do agree it is not just coal.  It is expansionism and money making.  AND I AM AFRAID NOCO, as u have been around for awhile too, surely you must see, that IT HAS TO bloody STOP.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> I worked throughout south west Qld in the 60's as a shearer. The difference between there and western victoria where I grew up on a farm, is chalk and cheese. I saw qld go down the tubes when they trucked the sheep out in 68/69.
> 
> From 5 generations back when my.GG/Grand Father for survival moved his family from the Irish potatoe plague, my family have been enviorentmental hysterics "if u like".
> 
> I do agree it is not just coal.  It is expansionism and money making.  AND I AM AFRAID NOCO, as u have been around for awhile too, surely you must see, that IT HAS TO bloody STOP.




I think most agree with you, the issue a lot have, is Australia taking the lead at a huge cost to our economy.

When we represent such a miniscule part of the World stage, we have to be sensible, in our aspirations.

We could have just as much effect on the CO2 emmissions by banning the purchase of any Chinese product.

We could have more effect by just shutting down all our coal mines, but then we wouldn't have enough electricity.

Realistically a global plan has to be enacted, blowing both our feet off and cutting our throats in front of the world, will only make them look at us with a degree of wonderment.IMO

Still it would open up markets for novelty souvenirs "the lost continent" where they sacrificed themselves to turn left, when everyone else turned right.

It may be noble, but it may smack of a degree of arrogance, or stupidity.


----------



## explod

Good post Sprawler.

Have we built ourselves into the corner.

Have you read "Back From The Brink " by Peter Andrews, trainer of Melbourne Cup Winner "Rain Lover"

The change we have to make for any sort of real quality of life for our people is great, but so is living basic, off the land. Back to bush parties my friend. Cummoorrn let go.


----------



## herzy

noco said:


> But we all have our own opinions and if you like mine.....too bad.




One of the things about science is that opinion doesn't really play a part. You can have a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right. 

What's too bad is people who confuse science and opinion, and still get to vote.


----------



## Weatsop

sptrawler said:


> When we represent such a miniscule part of the World stage, we have to be sensible, in our aspirations.




We pollute more, per person, than any country on earth. We are also one of the richest countries in the world, per capita, AND we will be least affected by climate change.

Why should we be asking much poorer people to contribute, when we won't do it ourselves? Why should be so greedy that we'll let poorer countries suffer the effects?

*When did we get to be so bloody gutless?*

As the biggest polluters, surely any other country who wants to do nothing needs only point to us, just like we point to china. Instead of leading, we're dragging.

And we *don't* need to cut all emissions - coal power can still have a role. The changes we need to make aren't drastic. Look at the actual effect the carbon price had on electricity: it was bugger-all, especially compared with the rapid increases that occurred *before* the price came in. Now sure, that was a half-arsed measure, but all the economic models of a decent effort show it won't cost much at all.

There's a good discussion here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy-advanced.htm

And I especially like this bit (my bold):



> For example, a new paper by Johnson and Hope 2012 evaluates the overall cost of carbon emissions via climate change damages, and finds that when these costs are taken into consideration:
> 
> 
> current estimates of the overall costs of carbon emissions (via damage from climate change) are generally too low
> *when those costs are taken into account, solar energy is already cheaper than coal, and wind is probably cheaper than natural gas*
> by failing to put a price on and reduce carbon emissions, and by continuing to rely on fossil fuels, we are damaging the economy




Once again, this is a weird disconnect from people of the right. Here we have a large portion of the risks and cost of carbon being nationalised, while the profits remain private. Renewables can't compete *because the true cost of carbon is being subsidised heavily by the massive costs to governments and taxpayers down the line*.

Price carbon correctly, level the playing field, and let the free market work out what to do next.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> I believe La Trobe Valley uses brown coal which has always been recognized as dirty coal but the other power stations are now clean and efficient...




That one's largely an environmentalist and media beat up.

From a chemistry perspective, Latrobe Valley coal is actually pretty good in terms of toxic nasties. It's a lot cleaner than some of the other coal we're using in Australia, and very much cleaner than some of that used overseas.

Where the problem lies is water content, LV coal being two thirds water "as mined". In short, this cuts the efficiency of use, the major power stations in the LV have efficiencies between 27% and 30% roughly, versus mid to high 30's for plant in other states with better coal.

That isn't a design flaw in the Victorian power stations, it's just the reality of having to use a fuel that's two thirds water to start with. If there was a useful amount of better coal in Vic then they'd never have bothered mining all that water. But brown coal's what they've got so there hasn't been any real choice historically. 

Vic only developed brown coal in the first place because supply of black coal from NSW was far too unreliable. Same reason why SA developed Leigh Creek mine and the Port Augusta power stations - supply from NSW just wasn't reliable.

Where it gets complex is that brown coal is actually pretty good in some regards. With a bit of processing it's clean enough to cook directly over it - no chance of doing that with most of the coal mined in other states. And it's also low in methane emissions during mining, meaning that its' overall climate impact isn't as bad as looking only at CO2 would suggest - methane emissions adding quite a bit to the impact of black coal and natural gas.

Somewhere I've got an old photo, a photo as in film not digital, taken on a blue sky day in the LV back in 1995. There are 8 stacks visible in that photo, 4 of which are in operation and 4 of which are not. Now, I've shown that photo to a lot of people over the years and I've never had anyone correctly state which stacks are active and which aren't. I'll see if I can find it and scan it. LV power stations are cleaner than is commonly believed.


----------



## Smurf1976

Weatsop said:


> The changes we need to make aren't drastic. Look at the actual effect the carbon price had on electricity: it was bugger-all




It was in the order of a 100% increase at the wholesale level.

So it's a real problem for manufacturing industry, where a power price rise of that magnitude is very much "game over" economically, but agreed it's not a massive issue at the household level.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> That one's largely an environmentalist and media beat up.
> 
> From a chemistry perspective, Latrobe Valley coal is actually pretty good in terms of toxic nasties. It's a lot cleaner than some of the other coal we're using in Australia, and very much cleaner than some of that used overseas.




Hazelwood Power Station



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> H*azelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions* and 0.057% of world emissions. *The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD* in a 2005 report by WWF Australia




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station

That's not a beat up.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> It was in the order of a 100% increase at the wholesale level.
> 
> So it's a real problem for manufacturing industry, where a power price rise of that magnitude is very much "game over" economically, but agreed it's not a massive issue at the household level.




It is a shame people can't understand that concept smurph, most want Australia to be a first world country, with a first world standard of living.

Well they had better get over that concept.lol


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> That's not a beat up.



I was responding to a comment relating to toxic pollutants. CO2 is arguably a pollutant, but it's not normally considered to be a toxic one as such.

A "perfectly clean" coal as such, would ideally emit nothing but CO2 when burned. The greater the quantity of other things, such as metals or sulphur, the "dirtier" the coal would normally be considered to be.

Latrobe Valley coal has a lot of water, leading to a substantial gap between HHV (higher heating value) and LHV (lower heating value) and hence higher CO2 emissions than a drier fuel would have. But it's not particularly "dirty" in a chemical sense - it doesn't have anywhere near the levels of toxic nasties that some other coal contains.

That isn't to say that burning brown coal is good for the planet or human health. It's not good. But Latrobe Valley coal is no worse, in terms of its' chemical composition, than a lot of other coal that's used both domestically and overseas. 

There's at least one operating power station in Australia with SOx emissions around 10 times that of Hazelwood per unit of output. And that's a completely different plant to the two in the next paragraph. Toxics and CO2 are not directly, or even loosely, correlated in the context of different coal sources being used in different plants.

As for CO2 emissions from Hazelwood, well I think that just about everyone in the power industry knows full well that at the time those "dirtiest plant" claims were made, there were at least two other operating coal-fired plants with lower thermal efficiency (and higher emissions per unit of output) than Hazelwood. So on a per MWh generated basis, Hazelwood doesn't really top the list. It's the scale, it can hit 1700MW if pushed hard, that makes it a standout whereas the others are smaller.

There are also some gas-fired plants with lower thermal efficiency, although actual CO2 from those is lower due to the nature of the fuel itself. But then we've got the issues with coal seam gas and so on with which these plants are of course associated whereas the likes of Hazelwood aren't.

So far as the Latrobe Valley is concerned, Victoria's long term energy future is a big question really. Hazelwood and Yallourn both have a remaining life that's short enough to warrant some high level thought about replacements now given the very long lead time for such projects. But Victorian gas is running out and TasWind has just been scrapped so that narrows the options down a bit.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Hazelwood Power Station
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station
> 
> That's not a beat up.




Smurphs answered your point regards Hazelwood.

What i would like to put to you is, what natural device do we have to absorb the sulpher trioxide, nitrous oxides and photo chemical smog that gas generation produces?

You keep freaking out about CO2 but that is one of the only pollutants that promote growth in vegitation.
I'm fully aware that too much isn't good, but at least we know what can absorb it and change it to oxygen.

As some keep saying, a structured reduction, is better than a knee jerk reaction.

Explod has had the only sensible idea, where we all go back to nature.
But not many want to give up the nice things in life, or the morning latte.


----------



## Smurf1976

King Island is running 100% on wind energy right now. 

That's literally 100%, the diesel engines are completely shut down and all load is being supplied from wind. Some surplus wind generation is being dumped into the battery, some is going into the flywheel and what's left is being "burnt off" via the resistor bank (basically a giant electric element, the sole purpose of which is to get rid of surplus power in the system).

Now, we can't run like that all the time, but still it's working out at two thirds wind and solar over 12 months on the island so that's not too bad. It beats being 100% on diesel as used to be the case that's for sure. Cheaper as well as cleaner.

In a technical sense, it's possible to run on 100% wind because if the wind speed drops (which does happen) then:

1. First the flow of power into the resistor is reduced or eliminated.
2. If that's not enough then the flywheel and battery can go from being a load to being a source of generation into the grid very quickly.
3. Smart grid enables direct control of some customer loads to enable a supply and demand match.

And in there's always the diesels when needed, though they don't start instantly hence the importance of the other things.

Whilst this is only a very small "grid" on an island, it nonetheless serves to prove the viability of technology etc. Two thirds wind and solar is possible if you're in a place with a decent wind resource. The problem, of course, is economic - it stacks up versus diesel and allowing for the research benefits but it's an order of magnitude more expensive than electricity from a large coal (or hydro or gas) plant.


----------



## So_Cynical

sptrawler said:


> Smurphs answered your point regards Hazelwood.
> 
> What i would like to put to you is, what natural device do we have to absorb the sulpher trioxide, nitrous oxides and photo chemical smog that gas generation produces?
> 
> You keep freaking out about CO2 but that is one of the only pollutants that promote growth in vegetation.
> I'm fully aware that too much isn't good, but at least we know what can absorb it and change it to oxygen.




Smurf as usual provided a well thought out and detailed answer, however the Gippsland brown coal "dirty" claims were all about CO2 and not so much other pollutants, the thinking at the time was if you shut down all 3 of the LV plants Australia's GHG emissions (Under Kyoto) would fall by around 10% thus achieving the target at the time.

Sulphur trioxide, nitrous oxides  seriously, there are 6 GHG's recognized under Kyoto/IPCC and for 20 years almost nothing of any note has been done re reductions of any of those gases, Methane has been pretty much completely dropped as just to hard to do anything about it, Rudd's soft ETS and Julias CT only focused on CO2, and even that was to much to stomach politically.

I'm not freaking about CO2, never have done...I'm freaking about Noalition denial of the inevitable and the damage that causes.


----------



## Weatsop

...improvements in battery power seem a lot more likely than some ability to capture all the carbon coming out of exhaust. 

100 years from now, we'll be gobsmacked we let people profit by pumping carbon into the atmosphere at levels that would* change the climate.* Costing us far more in costs associated with climate change than we ever saved in electricity.

Oh, I've got a business idea! I'll look for poor people, and harvest their organs for transplants!!! This will have a tremendously positive impact on the economy. Poor people who pay no tax will die, and cease asking for welfare payments. Rich taxpayers will live longer. It's a win-win!

Even ignoring the simple fact that long-term climate change will do FAR more damage to our economy than the costs of avoiding it, look at the moral cost. Imagine my system of organ harvesting was established, and some "bleeding hearts" wanted to stop it.

Much of the current opposition to carbon reduction is very close to equivalent. People are, with a straight face, saying we "can't afford it", even being among of the richest people on earth, even knowing that the cost of action is "just" money, and the cost of inaction is, quite literally, lives. 

We know climate change will kill poor people, and failing to act will benefit rich people...

...*where is your shame?*


----------



## Logique

A little sanctimonious there Weatsop. 

'We know climate change will kill poor people..'  Unlike prohibitively expensive electricity I suppose.


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> A little .'  Unlike prohibitively expensive electricity I suppose.




Cannot see the angle.

Current power companies and coal producers growing under foreign ownership, paying little tax to benefit Australia is becoming costly and a burden to the ordinary community.

Stacked up, alternative power structured properly would be cheaper, and of course clean.

Brother-in -law just back from China noticed that the street lights have their own individual solar panels and a small wind prop. On the way into Geelong last night I marvelled at the large bright lights on the bypass freeway where there was little traffic and a wide large road.  What a waste, off the topic, but the powers that be appear to want to waste power to feed the lobbyists behind the power cartels.

But good change is just a mindset factor now.


----------



## noco

This large solar plant is frying rare birds which may become extinct, just like those wind farms in Australia.

Where are the Greenies including Ban-ki-Moon...why aren't they screaming from the roof tops.....get rid of those solar plant....we must save the rare birds.





http://news.discovery.com/tech/alte...-solar-power-plant-scorching-birds-140219.htm

*Bye-bye birdies. The world’s largest solar power plant that recently opened in the Mojave Desert has a gruesome effect: birds are getting fried to death when they fly near its towers*


----------



## Calliope

The American mid-term election result is a blow to the global warming hysterics;



> Obama has suffered from looking disengaged and at times almost feckless. For Australia, one of the most important consequences of the election is that it cements an implacable congressional majority against any US carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
> 
> The US joins Canada, Japan and Australia ”” and of course the entire developing world ”” in rejecting a carbon tax or ETS as the primary national response to climate change.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ck-obamas-finale/story-e6frg76f-1227114055647


----------



## luutzu

Calliope said:


> The American mid-term election result is a blow to the global warming hysterics;
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ck-obamas-finale/story-e6frg76f-1227114055647




Nice to see that with scientists all (almost all) warning of global catastrophe, irreversible environmental damage, leading to death and destruction... there are some people who say "stuff that, there's money to be made." But the flood is coming, so will the drought, so will the melting icecaps... We know! That's why we need the money to build a bigger boat! Just like Noah.

Humanity, what good is it if it's in the way of making a few bucks.


----------



## luutzu

Chomsky on stupid people: The problem is they are also people with power. hahha

There won't be global warming because God promised Noah there won't be another flood;
And followers of efficient market hypothesis...


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Nice to see that with scientists all (almost all) warning of global catastrophe, irreversible environmental damage, leading to death and destruction... .




yeah, but they are probably all Fabians and believe in the ABC (ergo BBC, Al Jazeera) anti LNP news bias which means they are idiots who need a dollar to buy a clue.


----------



## Calliope

Another good-news item to wind the GW hystericals up.



> The Senate’s top environmental job is set to fall to Jim Inhofe, one of the biggest names in US climate denial, but campaigners say Barack Obama will fight to protect his global warming agenda.
> 
> Oklahoma Republican Inhofe has been denying the science behind climate change for 20 years – long before it became a cause for the conservative tea party wing. Following midterm elections which saw the Republicans take control of the senate, he is now expected to become the chairman of the senate environment and public works committee.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ofe-in-line-for-senates-top-environmental-job


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope

My attitude is lets hope the Republican's win the next election and do everything they want. 

There is no point trying to make such large changes with their opposition. 

From what I have read, most educated Republican's understand climate change is real so it would be good for them to work from within the party and effect change rather than this stupid loyalty thing with the tea party.
They will never resolve it while in opposition.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Calliope
> 
> My attitude is lets hope the Republican's win the next election and do everything they want.
> 
> There is no point trying to make such large changes with their opposition.
> 
> From what I have read, most educated Republican's understand climate change is real so it would be good for them to work from within the party and effect change rather than this stupid loyalty thing with the tea party.
> They will never resolve it while in opposition.




I don't think anyone doubts that climate change is real. It the hysterical nonsense like luutzu's







> "Nice to see that with scientists all (almost all) warning of global catastrophe, irreversible environmental damage, leading to death and destruction."



 that educated Republicans (and everyone with common-sense) disagree with. 

The doom-sayers never offer any proof. They just quote "THE SCIENCE" in the same way as their co-religionists quote The Koran or The Bible.  The people they call the "deniers" are their equivalent of Islam's infidels.


----------



## Calliope

Even ABC Radio Poll voters get it right.



> Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use 'projectories', we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century's end?
> No	91%
> Yes	9%


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> Even ABC Radio Poll voters get it right.




I think a lot of wishful thinking.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> I think a lot of wishful thinking.




Yes. It's a pleasant change from Doomsday thinking.


Hard to imagine how to up the doom! Bill McKibben, The Guardian, Sunday:



> AT this point, the scientists who run the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change must feel like it’s time to trade their satellites ... for a thesaurus ... This week, with the release of their new synthesis report, they are trying the words “severe, widespread and irreversible” to describe the effects of climate change ”” which for scientists ... falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola. It’s hard to imagine how they will up the language in time for the next big global confab in Paris.


----------



## ghotib

Calliope said:


> Even ABC Radio Poll voters get it right.



Well... not quite. 


> The poll received about 2,500 more votes than ABC Radio’s other polls. This is why. He got the help of trolls on the climate denier network.



http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/climate-deniers-troll-maurice-newman-87771

Interesting that fewer than 3000 people responded to the call to stack the poll.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> This large solar plant is frying rare birds which may become extinct, just like those wind farms in Australia.
> 
> Where are the Greenies including Ban-ki-Moon...why aren't they screaming from the roof tops.....get rid of those solar plant....we must save the rare birds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/alte...-solar-power-plant-scorching-birds-140219.htm
> 
> *Bye-bye birdies. The world’s largest solar power plant that recently opened in the Mojave Desert has a gruesome effect: birds are getting fried to death when they fly near its towers*




I am so disappointed in you Greenies on this Forum......not one protest about the loss of bird life from renewable energy from solar power and wind farms.

If a dam had been planned you lot would be chaining yourselves to the trees protesting to save the red nosed hairy wombat or the lung fish or some other forgotten species.

Come on, lets hear some protests about the 39,000,000 birds that have been killed.


----------



## Logique

explod said:


> Cannot see the angle...



Explod the angle is this, the ideological push for currently more expensive, (claimed) greener, forms of electricity should not be dressed up as concern for the poor. 

If genuinely concerned for third world nations, advocates should be trumpeting the cause of coal, and backing the domestic industry to the hilt.  Prosperity pays for research into future development of more efficient, safer, and cheaper nuclear and solar generation. In my view, that's where the green lobbyists should be focusing their efforts.

On another subject, well done by Japan to start re-commissioning it's nuclear power stations, with enhanced safety measures.



> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/earth-hour-a-dissent/
> 
> ..Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.
> 
> Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.
> 
> Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.
> 
> Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases...


----------



## noco

I know this will bring some flack from the lefties being a Bolt report but what he says is correct.

I recommend those critics read the comments at the end.





http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...their_warming_stupidity_less_money_for_super/

I particularly like this comment :-


*Tasco replied to Keith
Fri 07 Nov 14 (01:03pm)

Socialist strategy is always to bankrupt the economy and to over-promise to the sheeple. That way they get a guaranteed share of votes to get re-elected. The problem comes as we see in Europe and USA that when the debt becomes unsustainable they have to rob from the savers until the whole system collapses. The left has a lot to answer for!*


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> Explod the angle is this, the ideological push for currently more expensive, (claimed) greener, forms of electricity should not be dressed up as concern for the poor.




Looking at the Australian context, carbon-related issues are one of the factors that have pushed up electricity prices but they certainly aren't the only, or even the dominant, factor.

The crux of the problem, and one that economic rationalist types seem incapable of grasping, is that the transmission, distribution and retail industries are pretty much out of control in terms of cost due to flawed ideological and regulatory models. The problem has little if anything to do with generation.

So we've got household bills going through the roof, meanwhile bulk power at the wholesale level is worth less today than it was a third of a century ago in nominal terms (so that's an outright price collapse in "real" terms adjusting for inflation).

Slowly but surely, the generation industry is pretty much going broke with another power station (Redbank (NSW)) effectively shut down recently and joining a growing list of plants shut down due to being unprofitable. 

It's becoming a guessing game in the industry really. Who shuts down next? There's basically no form of generation that is actually profitable as a new build under current market conditions. 

Inevitably, prices at the wholesale level will rise at some point. We won't have any power stations left in business if they don't. That's when consumers are in for a big surprise, that point when they realise that things other than the actual generation of electricity are gobbling up 80 - 90% of the bill these days. Things could get interesting when this day comes.....


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Slowly but surely, the generation industry is pretty much going broke with another power station (Redbank (NSW)) effectively shut down recently and joining a growing list of plants shut down due to being unprofitable.
> 
> It's becoming a guessing game in the industry really. Who shuts down next? There's basically no form of generation that is actually profitable as a new build under current market conditions.
> 
> Inevitably, prices at the wholesale level will rise at some point. We won't have any power stations left in business if they don't. That's when consumers are in for a big surprise, that point when they realise that things other than the actual generation of electricity are gobbling up 80 - 90% of the bill these days. Things could get interesting when this day comes.....




Redbank was interesrting because it was one of the newest plants in the country (relatively speaking).  It was also relatively small.  I thought the bankers would keep it running but it turned out not to be the case.  It spent most of this year running at near capacity.

part of the issue with Redbank was the fact it ran off coal mining rejects was a great asset in terms of fuel costs, but it meant some equipment was highly unusual. If something went wrong it could be very expensive to fix.  It was said to have the lowest operating costs of all the fossil fuel power stations in NSW, according to ACIL-Tasman data.

The value of the power station's own power supply contracts with customers and coal fuel supply contracts were sold for a value that allowed lenders to recover almost all of what they were owed.

The below chart shows why you want to be in the electricity distribution business with guaranteed monopoly like rents rather than being a producer.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Redbank was interesrting because it was one of the newest plants in the country (relatively speaking).  It was also relatively small.  I thought the bankers would keep it running but it turned out not to be the case.  It spent most of this year running at near capacity.




It actually spent most of its (relatively short) life running at full capacity. A true baseload operation, offline only for maintenance really.

There's a big problem brewing in the generation industry in the longer term. Under current circumstances there are few opportunities to build anything new unless you're planning to give money away. Even with currently operating plants, there are quite a few which are viable only until something breaks in a big way. That is, they are profitable on a pure short term cash cost basis, but it wouldn't make sense to invest anything beyond basic maintenance. Once a major overhaul is required, that's it, game over unless the owner isn't seeking much of a return on their investment.

So we've basically got a situation where we're running down capital in the industry. We're heavily reliant on plants that were designed and built by people who have long since retired, and those power stations themselves are in some cases now well past their original design life. 

We'll end up with an energy crisis in Australia at some point. The only questions relate to the details of exactly what and when. But we're clearly heading towards it at some point. No amount of investment into transmission and distribution, be it gold plated or not, is of use if you don't have power to transmit and distribute in the first place.

Anyway, we've got another public power station tour running tomorrow, this time at Tarraleah. 76 years (and still very much an ongoing operation) of baseload renewable power generation from that place. But as with most of the industry, I very much doubt it would be financially viable to build it from scratch today.


----------



## SmellyTerror

Logique said:


> A little sanctimonious there Weatsop.
> 
> 'We know climate change will kill poor people..'  Unlike prohibitively expensive electricity I suppose.




Uh, well, it's true that climate change will kill poor people. Is it sanctimonious to point that out? Are YOU being sanctimonious to say that expensive electricity will kill poor people? Are we having a sanctimonious-off?

No-one (apart from some crackpot fringe) is suggesting that we end electricity production. Economically, solar is already cheaper than carbon if we factor in the costs of the damage from carbon. "Cheap" electricity is a lie - we're shunting the costs to 50-100 years down the line. We are borrowing, with heavy interest.

You could say that living off your credit card is the only rational way to do it, since everything is free - but eventually it will bite you on the ****.

Not sure why this obvious cost-benefit analysis defies all the people who supposedly hate the "lefties" love of socialism.

*You don't get to profit by socialising your debt*. Should be obvious, no? Yet that's exactly what "cheap" electricity means.

...not that the economic costs of avoiding the wost of climate change is all that much anyway, as I mentioned earlier.


----------



## SmellyTerror

noco said:


> This large solar plant is frying rare birds which may become extinct, just like those wind farms in Australia.
> 
> Where are the Greenies including Ban-ki-Moon...why aren't they screaming from the roof tops.....get rid of those solar plant....we must save the rare birds.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/alte...-solar-power-plant-scorching-birds-140219.htm
> 
> *Bye-bye birdies. The world’s largest solar power plant that recently opened in the Mojave Desert has a gruesome effect: birds are getting fried to death when they fly near its towers*




1. Climate change is largely about *economic* costs. People who want to avoid it are not necessarily tree-hugging greenies. I don't really give a crap about dead birds.

2. Almost anything humans build kills birds. *My kitchen window kills birds*. This report talks about "dozens". Wow. Dozens. That's world-ending, right there.

Many millions of birds die every year to powerlines, windows, cars, all sorts of stuff.

You've linked to an article that basically says: "Really hot thing can kill critters stupid enough to fly into it: report just in from the Ministry of No-Kidding, Sherlock".


----------



## noco

SmellyTerror said:


> 1. Climate change is largely about *economic* costs. People who want to avoid it are not necessarily tree-hugging greenies. I don't really give a crap about dead birds.
> 
> 2. Almost anything humans build kills birds. *My kitchen window kills birds*. This report talks about "dozens". Wow. Dozens. That's world-ending, right there.
> 
> Many millions of birds die every year to powerlines, windows, cars, all sorts of stuff.
> 
> You've linked to an article that basically says: "Really hot thing can kill critters stupid enough to fly into it: report just in from the Ministry of No-Kidding, Sherlock".




Up in North Queensland a few farmers erected electric barricades to stop the flying foxes from eating the fruits like leeches and Mangoes, the Greenies protested because it was killing the flying foxes and the Government made the farmers dismantle them to appease the bloody Greenies.......OMG you can't kill the flying foxes say the Greenies, which in mind are a menace.....So the flying foxes are all so stupid.

Different story or are they being hypocritical?....they can't  have it both ways.


----------



## SmellyTerror

noco said:


> I know this will bring some flack from the lefties being a Bolt report but what he says is correct.
> 
> I recommend those critics read the comments at the end.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...their_warming_stupidity_less_money_for_super/
> 
> I particularly like this comment :-
> 
> 
> *Tasco replied to Keith
> Fri 07 Nov 14 (01:03pm)
> 
> Socialist strategy is always to bankrupt the economy and to over-promise to the sheeple. That way they get a guaranteed share of votes to get re-elected. The problem comes as we see in Europe and USA that when the debt becomes unsustainable they have to rob from the savers until the whole system collapses. The left has a lot to answer for!*




Do you not doubt, even for a moment, your own bias, when you link to such god-awful screeds?

*ONLY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS EVER LOST INVESTMENT MONEY*.

Oh wait...

We get it. The desal plant was a bad idea. GOTCHYA. We know. It was a bad idea. Bolt, you totally picked that one. Desal plants are really expensive, and preparing for lengthy droughts with a facility that costs lots to maintain is ... um.... going to cost lots to maintain.

Mark one up for Bolt!

Now, for the love of god, can we please stop talking about the bloody desal plant?

*Do you see what Bolt does?*

He rarely even mentions the science. He instead finds his half-dozen pressure points, and hits them over and over and over. He ignores the vast bulk of the science, and keeps on digging at the couple of things that might hint that he's right.

I mean, the article here doesn't even say anything about the science. Flannery said some dumb things, and yes, some cities probably jumped the gun by a decade or two on desal plants. GREAT. So what? 

Climate change is still happening.

----
Oh, and that comment has so much wrong with it, I half-suspect it's a parody of a right-wing nutjob.


----------



## SmellyTerror

noco said:


> Up in North Queensland a few farmers erected electric barricades to stop the flying foxes from eating the fruits like leeches and Mangoes, the Greenies protested because it was killing the flying foxes and the Government made the farmers dismantle them to appease the bloody Greenies.......OMG you can't kill the flying foxes say the Greenies, which in mind are a menace.....So the flying foxes are all so stupid.
> 
> Different story or are they being hypocritical?....they can't  have it both ways.




THE GREENIES are not a hive mind. Some "greenies" are idiots. Some aren't. Some people working on the science of climate change - *shock* - haven't even heard of the mango-farmers of north Queensland, or their flying-foxes.

I could point out that electric fences that kill flying foxes sound bloody uneconomical, compared with nets. Were they doing it to save money, or just because they like killing bats?

I should also point out that bats carry a lot of diseases, some of which can kill you very dead. *Healthy bats don't tend to scratch people, but injured ones lying on the side of the road might.* 

Without any information other than your own, probably third hand, account, can we be sure it was greenies being idiots, or just someone being cranky about their pet project getting knocked on the head?

Either way, how is this relevant to anything?


----------



## noco

SmellyTerror said:


> THE GREENIES are not a hive mind. Some "greenies" are idiots. Some aren't. Some people working on the science of climate change - *shock* - haven't even heard of the mango-farmers of north Queensland, or their flying-foxes.
> 
> I could point out that electric fences that kill flying foxes sound bloody uneconomical, compared with nets. Were they doing it to save money, or just because they like killing bats?
> 
> I should also point out that bats carry a lot of diseases, some of which can kill you very dead. *Healthy bats don't tend to scratch people, but injured ones lying on the side of the road might.*
> 
> Without any information other than your own, probably third hand, account, can we be sure it was greenies being idiots, or just someone being cranky about their pet project getting knocked on the head?
> 
> Either way, how is this relevant to anything?




You obviously have a one sided view.......I am giving some comparisons of how the Greenies love renewable energy irrespective of the fact that wind farms and solar are expensive and only 15% efficient and also the fact that it is killing millions of birds of which they will turn a blind eye to but when  it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.

Healthy flying foxes eat plenty of fruit which in turn gives less profit to the farmer. 

Your argument in this case does not hold water......dams do!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SmellyTerror

noco said:


> You obviously have a one sided view.......I am giving some comparisons of how the Greenies love renewable energy irrespective of the fact that wind farms and solar are expensive and only 15% efficient and also the fact that it is killing millions of birds of which they will turn a blind eye to but when  it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.
> 
> Healthy flying foxes eat plenty of fruit which in turn gives less profit to the farmer.
> 
> Your argument in this case does not hold water......dams do!!!!!!!!!!!




*Once again*, not all greenies are the same person, so they can hold different views. And *once again*, climate change isn't necessarily about being a greenie - most discussions ignore species loss, and focus on economics and physics. Neither of which are especially left wing.

*As I've explained*, and you haven't bothered to try refuting, the economics of climate change mean that solar is actually cheaper, even with today's technology, because carbon isn't costing in the damage. Coal power is, in effect, heavily subsidised by future taxpayers - something I would have thought economic rationalists would be against.

And, *once again*, basically all human activity kills birds. Powerlines kill them right now. Buildings do. We don't get to NOT kill birds. Everything we do will kill birds. But what activity will kill FEWER birds?

If we fail to avoid climate change, that will kill a lot more birds, and make more species extinct, than all the solar power stations in the world. What is more rational (yes, some greenies ARE rational): ignore climate change and see multiple species go extinct, or fight it and - yes - see some birds die as part of our activity to avoid the worst effect (in comparable numbers to pretty much anything we do, anyway), to end up with fewer deaths overall?

Regarding the economics of flying foxes: most people use nets on a small scale, or just grow enough to muscle through the loss. Nets are made from simple materials and don't require power, and I'm not aware of any large-scale use of electric fences to stop bats, even in countries that don't have "political correctness gone mad". 

I'm not a mango farmer, but it seems to me the bat-killing electric fence idea has two problems: 1. it seems less cost-effective than nets, being (surely?) vastly more expensive to install, maintain, and run than nets (I'm happy to hear reasons for why it's not, though); and 2. wounded bats represent an actual threat to the health and safety of humans, something that I would have thought your humanist anti-greenie impulses would be against.

Without knowing what actually happened and why decisions were made as they were, you have simply assumed the worst regarding the dreaded greenies.

...and ONCE AGAIN, what some local people who call themselves greenies say or do isn't necessarily representative of the entire green movement. Searching the country for a few examples of greenies being idiots isn't exactly proving anything. There are idiots in any group.

*And this is also my problem with Bolt's writings. *He puts up poorly sourced third hand accounts with no actual details, waggles his textual eyebrows, and lets the biases of his audience do the rest. Here, you've heard a vague story that basically goes "hur hur, greenies are dumb", and you not only buy into it without hesitation, without needing to know anything much about it at all, you actually seem to think it's convincing enough to use in an argument.


----------



## Smurf1976

The situation in Brazil right now says it all really. They're in drought, serious drought, and the water supply is now failing in some parts of major cities. That's about as bad as things can get really (well, it is until the power runs out too). 

Meanwhile, incredible as it sounds, they still keep cutting down trees in the Amazon.

So long as we keep thinking like that as a species, we're doomed really. And no, the solution isn't nuclear power and desalination plants. The solution is to stop wrecking nature in the first place then trying to find workarounds for the mess we've made.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> but when  it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.




From a purely rational perspective, if someone believes that climate change is happening then logically they'd be strongly in favour of increased water storage and, where necessary, tapping of additional catchment areas since that is a very logical response to a changing climate.

Ideologically however, Greens supporting dams is comparable to Liberals supporting unions. It's not impossible, it may well happen someday, bit it's a difficult bridge to cross no matter what the arguments for or against. Hence the desal plants built as a politically acceptable workaround, albeit one that's inferior both economically and environmentally.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> It actually spent most of its (relatively short) life running at full capacity. A true baseload operation, offline only for maintenance really ...




Cannot convince the landlord that switching lights off won't save the planet.
I tell him that the power station has to shed the power we don't use.
He chooses to "not understand".

I pay his power bill !!! He gives half back to me. 







Just weird!


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> The situation in Brazil right now says it all really. They're in drought, serious drought, and the water supply is now failing in some parts of major cities. That's about as bad as things can get really (well, it is until the power runs out too).
> 
> Meanwhile, incredible as it sounds, they still keep cutting down trees in the Amazon.
> 
> So long as we keep thinking like that as a species, we're doomed really. And no, the solution isn't nuclear power and desalination plants. The solution is to stop wrecking nature in the first place then trying to find workarounds for the mess we've made.




And that is what the LNP Government is all about  with their direct action plan.....grow more trees and assist industry with ways to cut down pollution.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> From a purely rational perspective, if someone believes that climate change is happening then logically they'd be strongly in favour of increased water storage and, where necessary, tapping of additional catchment areas since that is a very logical response to a changing climate.
> 
> Ideologically however, Greens supporting dams is comparable to Liberals supporting unions. It's not impossible, it may well happen someday, bit it's a difficult bridge to cross no matter what the arguments for or against. Hence the desal plants built as a politically acceptable workaround, albeit one that's inferior both economically and environmentally.




Climate change has been going on for thousands of years and trust me in my long life I have seen it many times.

If those three major Labor states had carried out some more research instead of listening to that "NUT" Flannery, there could have been three more dams constructed by now instead of those moth balled desalinization plants costing billions of dollars....typical Green/Labor waste.....and typically Flannery is still pedaling his propaganda. 

There are lots of skeptic climate change scientist who are not in agreement with the alarmists...unfortunately they are rarely allowed to voice their opinion and they are more than not drowned out by the media particularly the ABC....The ABC will always entertain alarmists.

Liberals supporting unions?????????????????who in their right mind would support unions today with all the corruption that has been exposed........Unions 100 years ago were essential and did a lot of good until the 50"s and the 60's when communism became rife taking over the unions and the ALP...Unions are now past their use by date and down to something like 15% and yet they have a 50% say in how the Labor Party is run.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> And that is what the LNP Government is all about  with their direct action plan.....grow more trees and assist industry with ways to cut down pollution.




How is paying industry with OUR money to reduce pollution better than taxing their pollution and using the money for clean energy ?

All "Direct Action" does is entrench the coal industry in power generation.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> How is paying industry with OUR money to reduce pollution better than taxing their pollution and using the money for clean energy ?
> 
> All "Direct Action" does is entrench the coal industry in power generation.




And the highest Carbon dioxide tax in the world did nothing for the environment but did cost the average working families an extra $550 per year....that was OUR money also.

The Carbon dioxide tax??????????There will be no carbon dioxide tax under the Government I lead....remember?
17 days later Gillard stitched up a deal with Greens just to stay in power.  

So what do you say the direct action plan will cost the average family?...any idea?


----------



## SmellyTerror

noco said:


> And the highest Carbon dioxide tax in the world did nothing for the environment but did cost the average working families an extra $550 per year....that was OUR money also.
> 
> The Carbon dioxide tax??????????There will be no carbon dioxide tax under the Government I lead....remember?
> 17 days later Gillard stitched up a deal with Greens just to stay in power.
> 
> So what do you say the direct action plan will cost the average family?...any idea?




1. It did reduce our carbon emissions, and families were *compensated the entirety of the cost*. So in effect it cost THEM nothing. Polluters payed a fee, and that money went to families.

2. What will it cost the average family? Where do you think this government's billions of dollars for direct action come from? The fairies? And who do you think foots the bill 50-100 years from now when coastal infrastructure is going underwater and farming areas have the rain move two districts over?

3. 







> *Julia Gillard's carbon price promise *
> 
> In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.




From the Australian. The day before the election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...907522983?nk=4277fb2f5500c22ed7ca5785f4bb000c

Then people said a price *was* a tax, so she lied. In other words, if she *hadn't* put in a price, she would have lied, since she promised she would. And when she *did* put in a price, she also lied, since she promised no tax. EITHER WAY she "lied".

At the point that whatever you do is going to be a broken promise, because people choose not to understand what language means - well, that's the worst kind of semantic bull****.

...I also fail to see even remotely the same hammering at Abbott over a multitude of broken promises in his first year.

I don't have a horse in the race - I've voted for Donkey for many years now, and I don't think we've had a decent government or opposition yet this century - but this whole "Juliar" crap really gets my goat.


----------



## explod

SmellyTerror, that last is a truly an excellent post.

Unfortunately most see only what they want to and are not open to change.


----------



## overhang

SmellyTerror said:


> From the Australian. The day before the election.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...907522983?nk=4277fb2f5500c22ed7ca5785f4bb000c
> 
> Then people said a price *was* a tax, so she lied. In other words, if she *hadn't* put in a price, she would have lied, since she promised she would. And when she *did* put in a price, she also lied, since she promised no tax. EITHER WAY she "lied".
> 
> At the point that whatever you do is going to be a broken promise, because people choose not to understand what language means - well, that's the worst kind of semantic bull****.
> 
> ...I also fail to see even remotely the same hammering at Abbott over a multitude of broken promises in his first year.
> 
> I don't have a horse in the race - I've voted for Donkey for many years now, and I don't think we've had a decent government or opposition yet this century - but this whole "Juliar" crap really gets my goat.




SmellyTerror I agree on all your first 2 points there but not point 3.  To continuously state she won't introduce a carbon tax during the election campaign and then 24 hours before the election she back flips is quite misleading.  How many people actually saw this information before they voted?  What about all the people that had postal voted including myself, we were lied to as far as I'm concerned.  A carbon tax should have been taken to the electorate, we should have seen the arguments for and against it and been able to vote accordingly in the same way Howard did with the GST.  I don't know why Gillard changed her mind but I suspect she knew from all the polling that it wouldn't be possible to win without a minority government and could foresee that the Greens would demand a carbon tax.  Hindsight but she would have been so much better off losing that election and then having a crack at Tony in 2013, I don't believe Tony will ever be a popular PM with the public and a strong opposition leader (which Shorten doesn't seem to be) would win comfortably in an election.


----------



## SmellyTerror

overhang said:


> SmellyTerror I agree on all your first 2 points there but not point 3.  To continuously state she won't introduce a carbon tax during the election campaign and then 24 hours before the election she back flips is quite misleading.  How many people actually saw this information before they voted?  What about all the people that had postal voted including myself, we were lied to as far as I'm concerned.  A carbon tax should have been taken to the electorate, we should have seen the arguments for and against it and been able to vote accordingly in the same way Howard did with the GST.




People forget - it had been discussed at length. I only used that one because it's as clear and unambiguous as it gets. A carbon price was part of Labor's platform for a long time before the election - remember when Turnbull got dumped for trying to side with Labor?

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme

Gillard's post-Rudd period definitely did talk about an altered form of that scheme. In fact, from the same article: *This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing*.

Strongest. Not first, not "OMG she's sprung it on us". The newspaper isn't explaining what it means, as they would if we'd only just heard about it. The "news" is that she's saying tomorrow's election will give her a mandate for the scheme in the next term.

(And I'd suggest the result, a Labor victory only with the support of the Greens, was about as obvious a mandate as you will EVER get for something like that. LABOR wasn't in government. Labor / Greens were).

The fact that everyone ended up thinking she DID spring it on us is the most blatant example of "spin" as you can find on this planet of earth.


----------



## overhang

SmellyTerror said:


> People forget - it had been discussed at length. I only used that one because it's as clear and unambiguous as it gets. A carbon price was part of Labor's platform for a long time before the election - remember when Turnbull got dumped for trying to side with Labor?
> 
> See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme
> 
> Gillard's post-Rudd period definitely did talk about an altered form of that scheme. In fact, from the same article: *This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing*.
> 
> Strongest. Not first, not "OMG she's sprung it on us". The newspaper isn't explaining what it means, as they would if we'd only just heard about it. The "news" is that she's saying tomorrow's election will give her a mandate for the scheme in the next term.
> 
> (And I'd suggest the result, a Labor victory only with the support of the Greens, was about as obvious a mandate as you will EVER get for something like that. LABOR wasn't in government. Labor / Greens were).
> 
> The fact that everyone ended up thinking she DID spring it on us is the most blatant example of "spin" as you can find on this planet of earth.




Why do you think the media asked her several times if she would introduce a carbon tax because as you correctly said Labor had talked about introducing one for some times  That was her chance to confirm her agenda but she chose to lie about this and mislead the public.  The media had no reason to discuss the merits of a carbon tax because both potential PM's stated they wouldn't introduce one.  
So you're saying that the voting public should have been aware that by voting Labor they were also voting for the Greens and there for a carbon tax would be introduced?  I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, I don't believe Labor and the Greens were called a coalition and the Greens actually were able to take 4% from Labor and many suspect that was due to Gillard vowing not to introduce a carbon tax.


----------



## SmellyTerror

overhang said:


> Why do you think the media asked her several times if she would introduce a carbon tax because as you correctly said Labor had talked about introducing one for some times  That was her chance to confirm her agenda but she chose to lie about this and mislead the public.  The media had no reason to discuss the merits of a carbon tax because both potential PM's stated they wouldn't introduce one.
> So you're saying that the voting public should have been aware that by voting Labor they were also voting for the Greens and there for a carbon tax would be introduced?  I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, I don't believe Labor and the Greens were called a coalition and the Greens actually were able to take 4% from Labor and many suspect that was due to Gillard vowing not to introduce a carbon tax.




Well no, the people voting for the Greens voted for the Greens (consistently flattening the Nationals in numbers, but only this one time carrying the balance of power, because we have a stupid electoral system). Whoever was in power after that election had to do that by being in a coalition with the Greens or independents. Do you think the Greens, as it happened a necessary part of the ruling faction, *should have no say whatsoever?*

It wasn't a Labor government. It was a Greens / Labor government, a coalition, as our constitution allows for when there's no clear majority.

The way our democracy works, if one party does not have a majority, a ruling coalition must be made by grouping multiple parties together, or another election has to be held. Abbott famously said he'd do just about anything to get a coalition (his **** was on the table), but didn't manage it. Labor and the Greens did. 

If Abbott and the Greens had come to an accord, or Abbott and the independents, *they* would have had power, and yes, Abbott would have had to give something to the Greens or independents in a deal to allow for that.

*There was literally NO way anyone would come to power in a coalition that had been declared before the election.* Gillard and Abbott both tried to form a new one, but only Gillard succeeded.

*In any case,* as I said, the idea that Labor was considering a carbon price was not news.

Gillard - read the article I linked - clearly thought there was a difference between a price on carbon, and a tax. That very article reiterates her promise not have a tax, in the same breath she promises to try to introduce a price.

Now sure, lots of people said that a price is a tax, and maybe that's the case, but it's pretty clear that - yes - she intends to implement a price on carbon. And - again, read the article - this is obviously not the first time she's talked about it. The "news" as presented is that she'll definitely try to implement it in the next term, not that she's just thought up this "price" idea.

Hell, even if this was the first time she HAD thought of it,* a headline in the national newspaper on the eve of an election is hardly skulduggery.*


----------



## Weatsop

What the hell? I have two accounts.... 

That's me, up above, in case the wordy gabble gabble wasn't obvious.

SmellyTerror is usually my gaming tag. No idea why I signed up here with it. I'll blame vodka!


----------



## Joe Blow

Weatsop said:


> What the hell? I have two accounts....
> 
> That's me, up above, in case the wordy gabble gabble wasn't obvious.
> 
> SmellyTerror is usually my gaming tag. No idea why I signed up here with it. I'll blame vodka!




Vodka is dangerous stuff! 

I have now suspended the "SmellyTerror" account. Please continue posting as "Weatsop".


----------



## Weatsop

Joe Blow said:


> Vodka is dangerous stuff!
> 
> I have now suspended the "SmellyTerror" account. Please continue posting as "Weatsop".




Golden, thanks!


----------



## overhang

SmellyTerror said:


> Well no, the people voting for the Greens voted for the Greens (consistently flattening the Nationals in numbers, but only this one time carrying the balance of power, because we have a stupid electoral system). Whoever was in power after that election had to do that by being in a coalition with the Greens or independents. Do you think the Greens, as it happened a necessary part of the ruling faction, *should have no say whatsoever?*
> 
> It wasn't a Labor government. It was a Greens / Labor government, a coalition, as our constitution allows for when there's no clear majority.
> 
> The way our democracy works, if one party does not have a majority, a ruling coalition must be made by grouping multiple parties together, or another election has to be held. Abbott famously said he'd do just about anything to get a coalition (his **** was on the table), but didn't manage it. Labor and the Greens did.
> 
> If Abbott and the Greens had come to an accord, or Abbott and the independents, *they* would have had power, and yes, Abbott would have had to give something to the Greens or independents in a deal to allow for that.
> 
> *There was literally NO way anyone would come to power in a coalition that had been declared before the election.* Gillard and Abbott both tried to form a new one, but only Gillard succeeded.
> 
> *In any case,* as I said, the idea that Labor was considering a carbon price was not news.
> 
> Gillard - read the article I linked - clearly thought there was a difference between a price on carbon, and a tax. That very article reiterates her promise not have a tax, in the same breath she promises to try to introduce a price.
> 
> Now sure, lots of people said that a price is a tax, and maybe that's the case, but it's pretty clear that - yes - she intends to implement a price on carbon. And - again, read the article - this is obviously not the first time she's talked about it. The "news" as presented is that she'll definitely try to implement it in the next term, not that she's just thought up this "price" idea.
> 
> Hell, even if this was the first time she HAD thought of it,* a headline in the national newspaper on the eve of an election is hardly skulduggery.*




That's kind of a separate question, of course the Greens holding the balance of power had the right to barter for a carbon tax but that doesn't mean that Labor had to give in to this demand.  They just as easily could have refused and if the Greens weren't willing to renege then another election would have been held.

Abbott rightly wasn't willing to agree to a carbon tax that he knew he had no mandate for, Gillard should have done the same.

I think you missed this one 


I've explained to you that her announcement the night before the election to The Australian that she would consider it a mandate to price carbon as very misleading as up to that point she had denied she would price carbon.  It's one thing to hold the personal belief that we should price carbon and its another to legislate for that belief which you seem to be implying that we should have known because of this belief she had.  If Abbott legislated for every personal belief then abortion would be banned, ABC would be privatised and the GST would be raised.  It also could be argued that Gillard was very selective about her choice of tabloid to publish this last minute change as it could be argued that the majority that read The Australian wouldn't vote Labor regardless.  


Like I said before, many of us made a postal vote/ early vote and this was a huge back flip that many missed the opportunity to vote on.   From the public reaction and the subsequent backlash I think many don't see it your way even if you did somehow read her mind that she was going to introduce a carbon tax even though she stated she wouldn't.


----------



## basilio

Amongst all the rubbish that has been sprouted regarding "no increase in temperatures over 18 years" and the BOM fudging the temperatures in Australia has anyone actually noticed the physical effects of rapidly increasing temperatures on our agriculture?

For one highly practical example look at how increasing summer temperatures are causing  grapes to burn and the picking season to shorten by almost a month.

And in case you think this report is an outlier check out the other papers..



> *What do you do when grapes can’t take the heat? A south Australian farmer develops a bold plan to keep his vineyard chilled.
> *
> 
> Photo: David Bruer
> 
> A recent report found that up to 73% of Australia’s wine growing regions with a Mediterranean climate could be lost to grape growing by 2050 because of climate change (full report here). Another study found that, on average, grapes were maturing 1.7 days a year earlier on some Australian vineyards – with a warming climate blamed for a third of this shift (report here).
> 
> *David Bruer has certainly noticed changes at his winery in Strathalbyn 70 km south of Adelaide. In January he had Verdelho grapes destroyed by sunburn for the first time in nearly 40 years of farming*. David, who is part of the national Climate Champion program, is now considering a bold plan to protect his 21 hectare farm.
> 
> The temperature reached 46C on January 7, 2013 hitting my Chenin Blanc and Viognier grapes hard. Twenty-five percent of the fruit just cooked on that day. Even sun hardy varieties didn’t escape. I have never seen sun burn on Verdelho before.
> 
> All up about $25,000 in fruit was destroyed in just one day.
> 
> Now we’re looking at netting the entire place with shade cloth that we can adjust and put misters inside to cool the fruit. The climate change predictions are that heat waves will become more extreme and more frequent. I’ve already noticed changes. Two years ago we picked our Verdelho on the 28th of January. That’s a serious worry.
> *
> Twenty years ago we were picking it at the end of February. Our data suggests the vintage is advancing on average by .8 of a day per year. It’s a bloody disaster. It’s moving the vintage into a hotter and hotter part of the year. *The warmer weather means grape varieties that used to remain at optimum flavour for three days now sometimes peak in a day. We’ve pulled out our Riesling. It was getting too peaky.




http://earthhour.org.au/sour-grapes/
http://www.cropcare.com.au/Assets/41/
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/countryman/a/20968918/heatwave-burning-issue-for-vineyards/
http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wine-grapes-fruit-burnt-by-sun/1424866.aspx


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Amongst all the rubbish that has been sprouted regarding "no increase in temperatures over 18 years" and the BOM fudging the temperatures in Australia has anyone actually noticed the physical effects of rapidly increasing temperatures on our agriculture?
> 
> For one highly practical example look at how increasing summer temperatures are causing  grapes to burn and the picking season to shorten by almost a month.
> 
> And in case you think this report is an outlier check out the other papers..
> 
> 
> 
> http://earthhour.org.au/sour-grapes/
> http://www.cropcare.com.au/Assets/41/
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/countryman/a/20968918/heatwave-burning-issue-for-vineyards/
> http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wine-grapes-fruit-burnt-by-sun/1424866.aspx




It does seem to matter whether it is extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme drought extreme wet weather, the alarmist will always blame it on Global warming....it is the biggest con job I have ever seen in my life time.

Dead grapes.....dead sheep.....dead cattle....dead fish....millions of dead birds, you name it?.......$hit happens.


----------



## Weatsop

overhang said:


> Abbott rightly wasn't willing to agree to a carbon tax that he knew he had no mandate for, Gillard should have done the same.




Well we don't know what he would have agreed to. The independents were saying he was willing to sell his ****. If the Greens had been willing to back him for a carbon price, you really think he would have said no?

Since he promised no new taxes during the last election, over and over, and here we have new taxes, I'm not sure why he gets a free pass. In fact, he promised no new taxes, more spending, and a higher deficit, all at the same time. Seems to me he was willing to promise just about anything.



> I think you missed this one





Once again, the reason this thing gets my goat is that Labor DID talk about putting a price on carbon, even as Gillard promised not to bring in a tax. It was a stupid way to talk about it, but that's what they did. I'll say it again: Gillard was talking about a price as a DIFFERENT thing to a tax. The article I linked to said the same thing again. Look:



> "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."




See how she says it in the same breath, right there?

Feel free to find her ruling out a *price* before the election. You won't find it. "Up to that point" she had NOT said she wouldn't bring in a price. In her mind, going on whatever Labor focus-group idiocracy that came up with it all, a price wasn't a tax.

Which is a dopey way of discussing things, since plenty of people will argue that a price is a tax, and that's fair enough. She was guilty of (pretty standard) polly double-speak where they try to get an each way bet, and ended up in a position where she was doing something that could reasonably be considered to be the opposite of what she said. That she'd lied.

But it took on SUCH a massive life, that half-a-lie, built on top of changed circumstances (not a Labor government, but a coalition). That's what doesn't make sense. We seem to accept all sorts of "changed circumstances" decisions from PMs, but THIS one is apparently the worst of all time.

Again, Tony Abbott has clearly and blatantly lied repeatedly, and no-one seems to give much of a damn. He has done the exact opposite of what he said, on multiple occasions. Where's the angst?


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> It does seem to matter whether it is extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme drought extreme wet weather, the alarmist will always blame it on Global warming....it is the biggest con job I have ever seen in my life time.
> 
> Dead grapes.....dead sheep.....dead cattle....dead fish....millions of dead birds, you name it?.......$hit happens.




Some people who *don't* smoke, die of lung cancer.

Some of the smokers who die of lung cancer didn't get it from smoking.

But smokers are much more likely to get lung cancer. When a smoker dies from lung cancer, the chances are they got it from smoking...

...we will never know which extreme weather events come from global warming. But we do know that weather is doing a lot more damage than ever before, and that this was predicted a long time ago based on global warming modelling.

If global warming isn't causing the increase, WHAT IS?


----------



## overhang

Weatsop said:


> Once again, the reason this thing gets my goat is that Labor DID talk about putting a price on carbon, even as Gillard promised not to bring in a tax. It was a stupid way to talk about it, but that's what they did. I'll say it again: Gillard was talking about a price as a DIFFERENT thing to a tax. The article I linked to said the same thing again. Look:
> 
> 
> 
> See how she says it in the same breath, right there?
> 
> Feel free to find her ruling out a *price* before the election. You won't find it. "Up to that point" she had NOT said she wouldn't bring in a price. In her mind, going on whatever Labor focus-group idiocracy that came up with it all, a price wasn't a tax.




If you read my posts you will notice I never accused her of lying but have stated she mislead the electorate.
From this link  







> According to Professor David Stern, an energy and environmental economist at the Australian National University, "a fixed emissions price is effectively a tax when the government sells permits to firms."






> Dr Ben McNeil from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales agrees the fixed price stage of the ETS is effectively a tax.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/julia-gillard-carbon-price-tax/4961132

You can be clever with words all you want, just like Tony is trying now with the fuel excise but at the end of the day most the electorate considered it a tax. As far as Abbotts lies go I don't know why it hasn't had the same attention with the media as the 'carbon tax lie', personally I'm quite furious with his lies and even reading today where the ABC & SBS are expected to receive a further 200-300 million in cuts when we were promised they would receive no cuts, you won't read about that in the Murdoch press though.


----------



## Weatsop

overhang said:


> If you read my posts you will notice I never accused her of lying but have stated she mislead the electorate.
> From this link
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/julia-gillard-carbon-price-tax/4961132
> 
> You can be clever with words all you want, just like Tony is trying now with the fuel excise but at the end of the day most the electorate considered it a tax. As far as Abbotts lies go I don't know why it hasn't had the same attention with the media as the 'carbon tax lie', personally I'm quite furious with his lies and even reading today where the ABC & SBS are expected to receive a further 200-300 million in cuts when we were promised they would receive no cuts, you won't read about that in the Murdoch press though.




I'm not being clever with words! Labor was DUMB with words. They promised not to do a thing, while also saying they'd do that thing.

I'm not disagreeing with the substance. What I'm saying is that she said she WOULD bring in a price, and NOT a tax. Whatever you and I and everyone else thinks, clearly she thought there was a distinction. She thought that people didn't mind a price, and did mind a tax.

So now we say "a price is a tax". Fine. Good.

*So she effectively promised a tax, while promising no tax.* It's semantically impossible.

It's like, I say "I'm not going to hit you, but I am going to slap you". Can you really be that surprised when I slap you? Even if the slap was a bit hard, and hey, a slap really is hitting.

...is it really a surprise? If I slap you are you all shocked - hey! You said you wouldn't hit me!

Somehow we all edited our memories of those "price" discussions afterwards. We all got this collective idea that price was never mentioned. 

But look, *Rudd went to his 2007 election with a carbon tax/price as a central part of his platform.* 

Turnbull lost his job when, bless 'is innocent lil' socks, he was stupid enough to "respect the mandate" that Labor had to bring in that carbon price, that Labor had promised, and been elected to implement. He got rolled by our current PM, who *now* of course bleating about how the opposition has a sacred duty to "respect the mandate" - about, of all things, the bloody carbon price.

All of that narrative somehow got written out.

Gillard SHOULD have implemented it before the 2010 election - she should have help Rudd, or done it herself. THAT'S what she did wrong. Her party got elected with it as a central part of the platform. And then she gets re-elected with the Greens as coalition partners - damn, surely it would have taken massive gall to fail to bring in a price after all that? Surely!?

But no. We hate her because she finally did the right thing.


----------



## explod

But of course going along with a price on carbon is agreeing we have pollution induced climate change.

Jeez, we wont have that, so we will vote it away.


----------



## burglar

noco said:


> ......$hit happens.




It doesn't just happen. It is created by A/Holes.


----------



## overhang

Weatsop said:


> I'm not being clever with words! Labor was DUMB with words. They promised not to do a thing, while also saying they'd do that thing.



That was more directed at Gillard who has been clever with words.


> I'm not disagreeing with the substance. What I'm saying is that she said she WOULD bring in a price, and NOT a tax. Whatever you and I and everyone else thinks, clearly she thought there was a distinction. She thought that people didn't mind a price, and did mind a tax.
> 
> So now we say "a price is a tax". Fine. Good.
> 
> So she effectively promised a tax, while promising no tax. It's semantically impossible.



Have you got any link apart from that article which we have all seen from election day that she would put a price on carbon?  The longer version of the video I linked before is here, you'll notice that the question gives Gillard the perfect opportunity to say that she won't introduce a carbon tax but will put a price on carbon but she doesn't do that at all and just says a bunch of jargon that there will be no new coal power stations and that they want to help renewables.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyW7oFk6n8&t=2m12s


> It's like, I say "I'm not going to hit you, but I am going to slap you". Can you really be that surprised when I slap you? Even if the slap was a bit hard, and hey, a slap really is hitting.



No It's like a power company coming out and saying they won't put up the price of electricity but then put up the price of the service charges, it has the same effect to all of us but they didn't lie as they didn't increase the cost of the actual power component.



> Gillard SHOULD have implemented it before the 2010 election - she should have help Rudd, or done it herself. THAT'S what she did wrong. Her party got elected with it as a central part of the platform. And then she gets re-elected with the Greens as coalition partners - damn, surely it would have taken massive gall to fail to bring in a price after all that? Surely!?
> 
> But no. We hate her because she finally did the right thing.




Gillard should have taken it to the election and been very clear about it, she should have said continually when asked that she wont be implementing a carbon tax but will put a price on carbon that will then after a few years become an ETS and that she would also use it as a wealth redistribution tool to compensate low income earners for their increased costs by a welfare package.  She failed to do any of this and instead we were left to rub our heads about her last minute "I will put a price on carbon"


----------



## basilio

> Quote  Originally Posted by noco View Post
> ......$hit happens.






burglar said:


> It doesn't just happen. It is created by A/Holes.




That has to be the most deliciously appropriate response I have seen for YEARS... And there are so many A/holes these days..


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> Well we don't know what he would have agreed to. The independents were saying he was willing to sell his ****. If the Greens had been willing to back him for a carbon price, you really think he would have said no?
> 
> Since he promised no new taxes during the last election, over and over, and here we have new taxes, I'm not sure why he gets a free pass. In fact, he promised no new taxes, more spending, and a higher deficit, all at the same time. Seems to me he was willing to promise just about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the reason this thing gets my goat is that Labor DID talk about putting a price on carbon, even as Gillard promised not to bring in a tax. It was a stupid way to talk about it, but that's what they did. I'll say it again: Gillard was talking about a price as a DIFFERENT thing to a tax. The article I linked to said the same thing again. Look:
> 
> 
> 
> See how she says it in the same breath, right there?
> 
> Feel free to find her ruling out a *price* before the election. You won't find it. "Up to that point" she had NOT said she wouldn't bring in a price. In her mind, going on whatever Labor focus-group idiocracy that came up with it all, a price wasn't a tax.
> 
> Which is a dopey way of discussing things, since plenty of people will argue that a price is a tax, and that's fair enough. She was guilty of (pretty standard) polly double-speak where they try to get an each way bet, and ended up in a position where she was doing something that could reasonably be considered to be the opposite of what she said. That she'd lied.
> 
> But it took on SUCH a massive life, that half-a-lie, built on top of changed circumstances (not a Labor government, but a coalition). That's what doesn't make sense. We seem to accept all sorts of "changed circumstances" decisions from PMs, but THIS one is apparently the worst of all time.
> 
> Again, Tony Abbott has clearly and blatantly lied repeatedly, and no-one seems to give much of a damn. He has done the exact opposite of what he said, on multiple occasions. Where's the angst?




Whether it is price, a tax or a levy, it makes no difference.

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

Giilard said and she meant, "*THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD" FULL STOP....She relented to the Greens just to stay in power.*


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> Whether it is price, a tax or a levy, it makes no difference.
> 
> If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
> 
> Giilard said and she meant, "*THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD" FULL STOP....She relented to the Greens just to stay in power.*




Ugh.

Do you understand what a semantic bull**** argument is? It's where you ignore what a person was trying to say, and instead try to shift the meaning of their words to get something new.

Labor had been talking about a scheme that would lead into a free-market price on carbon. This would not be set by the government, but by the market. That's what they meant by "price" as opposed to "tax".

Do you REALLY not understand the distinction? How many taxes are determined by the free market? Name some.

She said she WOULD introduce a price. AFTERWARDS everyone said a price is a tax, and yes, their scheme, instead of dropping us straight into a market-based price (which would have been quite high back then) instead introduced a fixed-price for the first few years, to give industry time to transition over.

She did what she promised. In the event, she actually made it ***easier*** for industry by bringing in a watered-down version - the very same fixed-price mechanism that people could call a tax. And there. Gotchya. Instead of a much harsher price, which she had promised, she brought in a transitional fixed price, that people could call a tax (even though it was scheduled to turn into a price at a fixed time).

Can you HONESTLY not see how you really need to ignore what they were trying to say, and instead do a bunch of semantic rules-lawyering, to get the idea they lied about this?


----------



## Weatsop

overhang said:


> That was more directed at Gillard who has been clever with words.
> 
> Have you got any link apart from that article which we have all seen from election day that she would put a price on carbon?  The longer version of the video I linked before is here, you'll notice that the question gives Gillard the perfect opportunity to say that she won't introduce a carbon tax but will put a price on carbon but she doesn't do that at all and just says a bunch of jargon that there will be no new coal power stations and that they want to help renewables.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyW7oFk6n8&t=2m12s




Overhang, I do respect you, but here's what I think: most people in Australia got sucked into the "spin" of some talented liars, and like ALL people presented with contrary evidence, you are simply down-valuing the evidence, rather that reassess your view.

Look at the first link you presented, to Fact Checker.



> *The verdict*
> 
> Ms Gillard had strong grounds to argue the carbon price was not legally a tax, but she would have faced credible counter-arguments to the contrary.
> 
> It remains debatable that she made the wrong choice.




You OWN link tells you that she could reasonably be right in saying a price is not a tax.

But most of all, your second video - above. At the end, what does she say? She's going to work towards "putting a cap on carbon pollution".

*What do you think a cap on carbon MEANS?*

Given that we'd discussed a cap and trade system of carbon pricing, given that a cap and trade system of carbon pricing was exactly what the Labor policy was meant to transition to, what do you, personally, think "putting a cap on carbon" means? Knit it a beanie? Perhaps a jaunty beret?

Did the journos gasp at "cap on carbon"? Did they ask what it was? Or did they seem to know what she was talking about? Almost as if it had been discussed before?

*You posted a video that shows Gillard promising to price carbon*. You thought it did the opposite.

When the truth is so twisted that the opposite of reality becomes part of the national memory of an event, that is pretty much the definition of spin.

It's galling to think we got played so well. Some very talented liars got their shot thanks to some very pissweak language from Labor. But there can be no doubt that Labor DID talk about a price on carbon before the election. Stop posting things you THINK reinforces what you think happened, and actually look at the evidence.


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> Ugh.
> 
> Do you understand what a semantic bull**** argument is? It's where you ignore what a person was trying to say, and instead try to shift the meaning of their words to get something new.
> 
> Labor had been talking about a scheme that would lead into a free-market price on carbon. This would not be set by the government, but by the market. That's what they meant by "price" as opposed to "tax".
> 
> Do you REALLY not understand the distinction? How many taxes are determined by the free market? Name some.
> 
> She said she WOULD introduce a price. AFTERWARDS everyone said a price is a tax, and yes, their scheme, instead of dropping us straight into a market-based price (which would have been quite high back then) instead introduced a fixed-price for the first few years, to give industry time to transition over.
> 
> She did what she promised. In the event, she actually made it ***easier*** for industry by bringing in a watered-down version - the very same fixed-price mechanism that people could call a tax. And there. Gotchya. Instead of a much harsher price, which she had promised, she brought in a transitional fixed price, that people could call a tax (even though it was scheduled to turn into a price at a fixed time).
> 
> Can you HONESTLY not see how you really need to ignore what they were trying to say, and instead do a bunch of semantic rules-lawyering, to get the idea they lied about this?




Weatsop, no matter how hard you try to wall paper over it or paint it like a pretty picture Gillard still said,...........
*"THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"*

It could not have been any plainer.

You are the one that does not seem to understand what she said.


----------



## Weatsop

noco said:


> Weatsop, no matter how hard you try to wall paper over it or paint it like a pretty picture Gillard still said,...........
> *"THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"*
> 
> It could not have been any plainer.
> 
> You are the one that does not seem to understand what she said.




You really don't understand, do you? Are you even trying?

She said she WOULD bring in a carbon price, and WOULDN'T bring in a carbon tax.

YOU say a price is a tax. Tell me then, what could she do and NOT lie?


----------



## noco

Weatsop said:


> You really don't understand, do you? Are you even trying?
> 
> She said she WOULD bring in a carbon price, and WOULDN'T bring in a carbon tax.
> 
> YOU say a price is a tax. Tell me then, what could she do and NOT lie?




My friend you are the one who does not understand or does want to understand.

Rudd wanted the carbon dioxide tax and Gillard prevented him from going a head with it.......Gillard make it clear before the 2010 election, there would be no carbon tax/price or what ever you want to call it.

I can't see the difference between a tax and a price...it still cost working families an extra $550 per year in living costs......do you really think those who were imposed upon with the carbon dioxide tax would would wear it or pass it on to the consumer?......the consumer has to pay in the end.....it is a bit like when the lefties changed from quoting Global Warming to Climate Change after they realized there had been no warming for 17 years.

Your argument just does not hold water no matter how hard you try to cover it up.


----------



## Logique

Weatsop said:


> You really don't understand, do you? Are you even trying?
> She said she WOULD bring in a carbon price, and WOULDN'T bring in a carbon tax.
> YOU say a price is a tax. Tell me then, what could she do and NOT lie?



Historical revisionism surrounds Gillard, the usual suspects are behind it. 

I watched the TV interview live to air. "There'll be no carbon tax under the government I lead", said Gillard in a contrived sing-song voice. That's as unequivocal as it gets.  I remember thinking..as if!  But it was towards the end of the campaign, and Labor were starting to panic.  

She's no Matthias Cormann.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> I can't see the difference between a tax and a price...




In terms of money:

Price is what you pay for something. In Australia, this is normally inclusive of all taxes and other costs as well as that of providing the goods or services in the first place.

Tax is money taken by, or on behalf of, government and not necessarily in conjunction with anything being bought, sold or otherwise physically done. In the Australian context, a collection of a tax is usually not directly linked to how the money will be used - it all just goes into one big pot.

It's a technicality from the perspective of the average person certainly. But I'd argue that we had a carbon tax, rather than a carbon price, since it (1) was imposed by government with all funds raised going to government (2) was not directly associated with anything being bought or sold as such (3) was levied as a rate per unit of quantity and (4) was not negotiable in terms of rate, being a rate decreed by government. 

To me, that has the usual characteristics of a tax rather than a price.


----------



## sptrawler

SMH trying to give credibility to Labor waffle.lol

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-up-attack-on-coalition-20141112-11l6e1.html

Now the two worst polluters are making headway on a remedy, we can start and formulate a response, comensurate with our capacity and contribution.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> SMH trying to give credibility to Labor waffle.lol
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-up-attack-on-coalition-20141112-11l6e1.html
> 
> Now the two worst polluters are making headway on a remedy, we can start and formulate a response, comensurate with our capacity and contribution.




I'm just picturing Tony and Greg spruiking Direct Action to China and the USA, explaining how it works, really getting into the policy detail.

I'm pretty confident Xi and Obama will be left with as much understand as the Australian public had from Tony and Brandis' attempts on explaining metadata and the proposed data retention laws.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I'm just picturing Tony and Greg spruiking Direct Action to China and the USA, explaining how it works, really getting into the policy detail.
> 
> I'm pretty confident Xi and Obama will be left with as much understand as the Australian public had from Tony and Brandis' attempts on explaining metadata and the proposed data retention laws.




Actually they will probably be still seeing us, as the pizz ant country on the bottom of the world, with an identity crisis.
That keeps trying to big note itself, in the Big Legue, while destroying its economy.

No doubt they have a real laugh. IMO


----------



## So_Cynical

Logique said:


> Forum Administrator
> 
> Joe,
> 
> isn't it time to mothball this thread?  After 287 pages, still no consensus. What is it, 19 years with no warming?  And the National Party calling for an inquiry into bureau temperature recordings.
> 
> *It's all over for the warmists*.




You must feel like a bit of a dill now with the US and China agreeing to do a deal in Paris at COP21

A right dill.  you and all the other deniers.
~
[video=youtube_share;16UJOyB3yHc]http://youtu.be/16UJOyB3yHc[/video]


----------



## overhang

Weatsop said:


> Look at the first link you presented, to Fact Checker.
> 
> 
> 
> You OWN link tells you that she could reasonably be right in saying a price is not a tax.



Yes but it also says that she would face counter arguments like from the experts in the very same link I sent.



> But most of all, your second video - above. At the end, what does she say? She's going to work towards "putting a cap on carbon pollution".
> 
> *What do you think a cap on carbon MEANS?*



I think it means what we had been told to that point which was that Gillard promised a citizens assembly on climate change to gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon.  *If she intended on pricing carbon then why would she promise a citizens assembly to look into this very issue?* 




> Did the journos gasp at "cap on carbon"? Did they ask what it was? Or did they seem to know what she was talking about? Almost as if it had been discussed before?
> 
> *You posted a video that shows Gillard promising to price carbon*. You thought it did the opposite.



I think you're seeing what you want to see here, again wouldn't the citizens assembly be considered working towards implementing a price on carbon? I would have thought she wouldn't say working towards but rather that she would put a price on carbon if she intended at that stage to introduce a price on carbon.

Like I said she has done herself no favors here, in that very question why would she not say that she will put a price on carbon instead of working towards a cap on carbon? 

Lets say you're right though and this was her intention, Gillard did a terrible job at conveying her intentions to implement a price on carbon and you cannot do that when you have an ideological position the opposite of the Murdoch press as they will eat you alive which they did.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> Actually they will probably be still seeing us, as the pizz ant country on the bottom of the world, with an identity crisis.
> That keeps trying to big note itself, in the Big Legue, while destroying its economy.
> 
> No doubt they have a real laugh. IMO





Ya gotta laugh or go mad but just promted the shirt front approach to Putin when it looks like the Tory instilled Ukrain guv shot down that plane.

And Climate, coming on board when too late in my view.

Who' hysterical


----------



## Julia

Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
1.  This is a goal
2.  It is aspirational, non-binding
3.  It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
4.  Most important of all:  anything Obama agrees to,  however notionally, is virtually irrelevant, given he is now a lame duck president.  The Republicans are less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change, so I wouldn't be holding my breath about any heroic achievements as a result of today's announcement.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
> 1.  This is a goal
> 2.  It is aspirational, non-binding
> 3.  It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
> 4.  Most important of all:  anything Obama agrees to,  however notionally, is virtually irrelevant, given he is now a lame duck president.  The Republicans are less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change, so I wouldn't be holding my breath about any heroic achievements as a result of today's announcement.




Very good points Julia.


----------



## explod

Lots of news on acceptance of the issue,

but deadly quiet on this thread.  

Mr Rabbit's ears flopped as Mr Hunt misses the mark, hey.

Grape growers urging action as crops being destroyed by unusually hot weather the last couple of years.


----------



## noco

I have mentioned it before and I will say it again......the alarmists issue on Global Warming is a con job.......The IPPC tailor make reports to suit the UN Climate Change committee so as they they can  push their barrow for an emissions trading scheme.

Their reports are 2 years old and have not been reviewed since 2012.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/g20-can-coldfront-climate-lobby/story-e6frg6zo-1227121009652

G20 can cold-front climate lobby

    MICHAEL ASTEN
    The Australian
    November 13, 2014 12:00AM



*THE climate lobby will be working the corridors of the G20 *meeting in Brisbane this weekend, using the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report and Climate Council *commentary.

Curiously, neither has updated the underlying observational *science relating to climate change; the figures are subsets from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, where data and literature review stops at 2012. Observational data and climate model predictions are presented separately, concealing the uncomfortable truth of the global temperature *hiatus, which challenges the fundamental *assumptions of the models. It is a challenge that gets stronger every year as increasing atmospheric CO2 content is unmatched by predicted temperature increase.

How would Joe Hockey fare if he went to the G20 with economic data that was two years out of date?

While scientists published in top journals treat the temperature hiatus as fact, activists still deny its existence. Thus the Climate Council (once a proud group of government-*funded scientists in the Climate Commission, now a privately funded lobby group) claims, “Myth: The Earth has stopped warming since 1998”. Use of the word warming is imprecise, being interpreted as “temperature” or “heat content” dep*ending on the argument of the moment.

The “heat content” approach hypothesised that warming of the deep oceans was compensating for lack of global surface warming. This has been studied in a series of important papers, most recently by William Llovel and co-workers at the California Institute of Technology who used quantitative observations of global ocean mass and temperature profiles to show that the deep ocean has in fact cooled slightly in the past decade.

Failure to include this in updated assessments by the IPCC and Climate Council is inexcusable.*


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
> 1.  This is a goal
> 2.  It is aspirational, non-binding
> 3.  It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
> 4.  Most important of all:  anything Obama agrees to,  however notionally, is virtually irrelevant, given he is now a lame duck president.  The Republicans are less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change, so I wouldn't be holding my breath about any heroic achievements as a result of today's announcement.




I agree, and certainly not feeling smug.

In my humble view it will all be coming together far too late according to the melt and release of methane (20 times worse than coal burning) from Greenland and Antartica.

And why would not one be hysterical on the destruction of this beautiful but very fragile planet.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, let's hope the "great pause" continues.

From NASA.

_As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago. _

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.




In relation to the recent announcement between China and the US, note the following in a ABC news article from June last year,



> China has no targets to reduce absolute carbon emissions and *government officials have said they will continue to rise until around 2030.*




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-18/china-launches-its-first-carbon-trading-scheme/4763770

My bolds


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
> 1.  This is a goal
> 2.  It is aspirational, non-binding
> 3.  It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
> 4.  Most important of all:




Most important of all is that for the very first time the Chinese (the new Chinese govt) has made a commitment to "push forward" the Paris COP21 talks, the Chinese were the hold outs last time..so now everyone is on board, the chances of a BINDING agreement coming out of the COP21 talks is now very high.

A new Climate change TREATY and commitment period (Kyoto 2) coming out of Paris is now almost a certainty.

That's the most important thing of all.


----------



## Ijustnewit

basilio said:


> Amongst all the rubbish that has been sprouted regarding "no increase in temperatures over 18 years" and the BOM fudging the temperatures in Australia has anyone actually noticed the physical effects of rapidly increasing temperatures on our agriculture?
> 
> For one highly practical example look at how increasing summer temperatures are causing  grapes to burn and the picking season to shorten by almost a month.
> 
> And in case you think this report is an outlier check out the other papers..
> 
> 
> 
> http://earthhour.org.au/sour-grapes/
> http://www.cropcare.com.au/Assets/41/
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/countryman/a/20968918/heatwave-burning-issue-for-vineyards/
> http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wine-grapes-fruit-burnt-by-sun/1424866.aspx




Maybe South Australia's loss is Tasmania's gain ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-growing-hotspots/5889828?WT.ac=statenews_tas


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Most important of all is that for the very first time the Chinese (the new Chinese govt) has made a commitment to "push forward" the Paris COP21 talks, the Chinese were the hold outs last time..so now everyone is on board, the chances of a BINDING agreement coming out of the COP21 talks is now very high.
> 
> A new Climate change TREATY and commitment period (Kyoto 2) coming out of Paris is now almost a certainty.
> 
> That's the most important thing of all.




Absolutely, now the Big Boys are in the game, rather than the little boys, trying to form their own legue.lol


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
> 1.  This is a goal
> 2.  It is aspirational, non-binding
> 3.  It has a very long time frame:  China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
> 4.  Most important of all:  anything Obama agrees to,  however notionally, is virtually irrelevant, given he is now a lame duck president.  The Republicans are less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change, so I wouldn't be holding my breath about any heroic achievements as a result of today's announcement.




Julia, I think there is a bit of window dressing going on ATM......I am not sure what has brought on this sudden inspiration between the USA and China and as you say there is nothing binding so remains to be seen what comes out of it.

Maybe it is the G20 meeting.

Nevertheless, the Greens took of like a rocket with the news and are now passing over the moon....lets hope their rocket keeps heading towards the Sun.......so long as they get at night fall it won't be so hot.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I'm just picturing Tony and Greg spruiking Direct Action to China and the USA, explaining how it works, really getting into the policy detail.
> 
> I'm pretty confident Xi and Obama will be left with as much understand as the Australian public had from Tony and Brandis' attempts on explaining metadata and the proposed data retention laws.




This is how the Direct Action plan works if you care to read it.

Perhaps we should all wait until 2020 to see if it works......give it a fair go and if it does not work I will be the first to criticize it....that is if I am still around at the time.

http://www.energetics.com.au/getmed...t-Action-Handout_An-overview_-part-1.pdf.aspx


----------



## drsmith

The Australian on the recent China/US climate deal,



> THE glow is fading from the US-China climate deal only a day after it was sealed, with Tony Abbott saying Australia’s actions on carbon emissions are more practical and China’s pledge being criticised as a “non-binding charade”.
> 
> The Prime Minister dismissed calls to strengthen his Direct Action policy in the wake of the deal, declaring his plan would cut emissions now rather than “something that might happen in 16 years’ time’’.
> 
> The deal will step up diplomatic momentum before the Paris climate change talks next year but, although the Chinese commitment to cap its emissions is significant, they will grow dramatically before they peak by 2030. China also agreed to grow the share of renewable energy to 20 per cent of total energy production by the same date.
> 
> The US commitment to cut emissions to 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 targets by 2025 is less than its 2011pledge to a pathway for a 30 per cent reduction in 2025 and a 42 per cent reduction in 2030.
> 
> Labor and the Greens said the deal meant Australia was being left behind on climate change and Mr Abbott had “egg on his face’’.
> 
> But Frontier Economics founder Danny Price said on a like-for-like basis Australia’s exist*ing target of a 5 per cent cut by 2020 “looks comparable to the US effort’’. He said US President Barack Obama had announced a slight reduction in emissions cuts compared with earlier commitments.
> 
> With the Republicans in control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Mr Obama is seen as having little chance of passing legislation to enact his commitments, forcing him to move by regulation.
> 
> The next presidential election, in 2016, becomes critical to the future of any commitments as a Republican president could unwind Obama regulations.
> 
> Senator Jim Inhofe, the likely new Republican chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, described China’s pledge as “hollow and not believable’’ and a “non-binding charade’’.
> 
> Research in 2012 by the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change found that, on a like-for-like basis, Australia’s 5 per cent pledge was comparable with those of other leading economies. Its 2020 target is -15 per cent, compared with the US’s -17 per cent, when expressed as a reduction on 2005 levels.
> 
> Given Australia’s faster-growing population and when factors such as the US shift away from coal to gas are taken into account, the Australian reduction is greater when compared with a business-as-usual scenario, at 26 per cent against the US’s 18 per cent.
> 
> Australia with an estimated GDP growth of 50 per cent between 2005 and 2020 will cut emissions by 15 per cent, compared with a 17 per cent cut by the US with 40 per cent GDP growth over the same period.
> 
> Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the “historic’’ US-China deal highlighted why Australia’s emissions reduction policy needed to go back to a polluter-pays policy.
> 
> He said the US-China deal was “reshaping international and economic alignments’’ and “spotlights the ludicrous inadequacy of the emissions reduction fund as a primary pollution policy’’.
> 
> “If the ERF is the primary tool to match even US efforts, the government’s proposed ‘safeguard measures’ imposing limits on polluters are going to need to be super strong and renewable energy targets strengthened, otherwise the budget could face a $9 (billion) to $30bn a year slug,” he said.
> 
> The Prime Minister said Australia was focused on the “here and now’’ rather than “hypotheticals’’ and he was confident it would reach its 5 per cent target by 2020.
> 
> “I’m focusing not on what might happen in 16 years’ time, I’m focusing on what we’re doing now and we’re not talking we’re acting,’’ Mr Abbott said.
> 
> Bill Shorten said the government had “egg on their face because the rest of the world is dealing with an issue that Tony Abbott doesn’t want to talk about’’.
> 
> Australian Conservation Foundation president Geoff Cousins said the US-China announcement brought the inadequacies of Direct Action into stark relief.
> 
> He said Australia needed an emissions reduction target of 30 per cent not 5 per cent.
> 
> Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Brendan Pearson said that the International Energy Agency predicted that the world coal trade would grow by 40 per cent by 2040. Chinese coal-fired power production is still predicted to grow to 2040.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...says-tony-abbott/story-fnpebfcn-1227122428011


----------



## Julia

> Chinese coal-fired power production is still predicted to grow to 2040.



From all the rejoicing one might imagine none of the celebrants had actually taken the above bit in, any more than they have the notional nature of the whole announcement.

What really is good about it is that the US and China are actually talking to each other.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> This is how the Direct Action plan works if you care to read it.
> 
> Perhaps we should all wait until 2020 to see if it works......give it a fair go and if it does not work I will be the first to criticize it....that is if I am still around at the time.
> 
> http://www.energetics.com.au/getmed...t-Action-Handout_An-overview_-part-1.pdf.aspx




Have any other direct action type plans in other country's worked? can a non market, government funded reduction plan actually work? is that funding sustainable? how do Noalition voters and supporters feel about the 2 billion?

Direct action is a 2 billion dollar plan to achieve nothing, a delaying tactic just like the Aust green house office was for the Howard Govt, they spent 1 Billion dollars on studys, consultation, negotiations and achieved nothing, no GHG reduction at all was realised.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Have any other direct action type plans in other country's worked? can a non market, government funded reduction plan actually work? is that funding sustainable? how do Noalition voters and supporters feel about the 2 billion?
> 
> Direct action is a 2 billion dollar plan to achieve nothing, a delaying tactic just like the Aust green house office was for the Howard Govt, they spent 1 Billion dollars on studys, consultation, negotiations and achieved nothing, no GHG reduction at all was realised.




As I have said , you will just have to wait and see.

You have to agree, Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.....The biggest tax in the world......All it did was to increase the cost of living by $550 to the working families of Australia.

So instead of trying to bring down the *COALITION...why can't you give it a fair go?*

Please note the COALITION is spelt with a "C" and not an "N".....That spelling of yours is becoming monotonous to say the least.


----------



## So_Cynical

Last Hours narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The deniers/liars wont like this one...11 minutes of fact, science, history and expert opinion.
~
[video=youtube_share;2bRrg96UtMc]http://youtu.be/2bRrg96UtMc[/video]


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Last Hours narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.
> 
> The deniers/liars wont like this one...11 minutes of fact, science, history and expert opinion.
> ~
> [video=youtube_share;2bRrg96UtMc]http://youtu.be/2bRrg96UtMc[/video]




Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.

Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.

If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.

Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.
> 
> Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.
> 
> If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.




Of course Bill Shorten had his negative reply.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...1?sv=baf6bd4de48fff263483272550c8d5a4&login=1

And here is the last comment....Please do read the rest as to what the average person thinks.

*Christine 1 hour ago

The UN's own polling which asked 5million people around the globe to rate 17 things in order of importance to them -  Climate Change rated at #17!  People rated jobs, the economy, infrastructure, health, education, etc....as far more important to them. The climate alarmists and carpetbaggers are beating a dead horse, and they know it. *


----------



## noco

Bjorn Lomberg, a former Greenpeace activist, also claims Climate Cahnge is a con job.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...imate_deal_a_weaker_us_at_no_cost_to_beijing/

*The global warming deal is a con. Bjorn Lomborg says Barack Obama has promised to hurt America in exchange for China promising to do nothing extra at all:

    The US-China statement hedges itself, making no new obligations: “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below its 2005 level in 2025… China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030...”

    China essentially promised what it was already going to do. In the International Energy Agency’s baseline scenario, China’s CO2 emissions peak in 2030 at about 10 gigatonnes, or 25 per cent higher than today. And China already emits more than a quarter of the world’s CO2 emissions. *


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.
> 
> Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.
> 
> If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.




And there you have it - denial.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> And there you have it - denial.




OH yes and there are millions around the world who think the same as I do.....it is still one big con job.

That USA / China rhetoric is all window dressing and did not last 24 hours, and in the meantime Christine Milne is still orbiting the moon.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> And there you have it - denial.




Actually noco does have a point, what qualifications does Di Caprio have, other than being able to fake emotions in front of a camera?

Reminds me of that other fiasco, the "Think Tank" starring Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman.

What a hoot, how has that roadmap turned out, as GG would say another Labor brain fart.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-have-short-life/story-e6frezz0-1225697083389


----------



## herzy

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but purely from a political perspective, I find it very odd that our supposedly righter wing party is proposing government intervention, whereas our supposed left is propounding a market-based solution. 

And yet, the right wingers on here support direct action, and the left wingers support a market based strategy? What's going on

Surely, assuming we want to do something about carbon dioxide, we would all agree that along the market to determine the best way to do so is better? Apparently not...


----------



## sptrawler

herzy said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but purely from a political perspective, I find it very odd that our supposedly righter wing party is proposing government intervention, whereas our supposed left is propounding a market-based solution.
> 
> And yet, the right wingers on here support direct action, and the left wingers support a market based strategy? What's going on
> 
> Surely, assuming we want to do something about carbon dioxide, we would all agree that along the market to determine the best way to do so is better? Apparently not...




From my personal position, I don't want anything done, untill it actually coincides with and alignes with a global plan that the major emmiters agree to.

To run off down the back yard and commit Hara-Kiri, seems sensless to me.

It might look good in the Fairfax newspapers, but doesn't push my buttons.


----------



## herzy

sptrawler said:


> From my personal position, I don't want anything done, untill it actually coincides with and alignes with a global plan that the major emmiters agree to.




The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled. 

Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be. 

Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world. 

What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?


----------



## noco

We live in a democracy and the Coalition went to the 2013 election with a mandate on direct action....it has been passed through the lower house and now the senate......it is a done deal so I think it is about time the alarmist, the Greens and the Labor Party got over it.
Personally, I was not in agreement with a direct action plan or a Carbon dioxide tax but I have accepted the democratic process of it happening.

We represent 1% of the world emissions of carbon dioxide.

So now that it is law , shouldn't we wait and see the results or failure of the scheme rather than carry on like a pork chop at a Jewish picnic for ever and a day.

Move on...FCS.


----------



## sptrawler

herzy said:


> The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled.
> 
> Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be.
> 
> Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world.
> 
> What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?




Ok stop driving a car, because it will reduce pollution, but will mean fff all. jeez

I'm up to my armpitts, with people telling me what should be done, and doing ff all themselves.

Park up the car, no sell it, buy a ffing bike, put solar panels on the roof, if you have plenty of money put solar on your kids houses, throw out your gas hot water and put on solar. If you have plenty of money put it on your kids houses.

Then tell me me what I should be doing, then I will give you another list of crap you can remove,replace or improve to lower your carbon footprint. 

I've done the above, i'm just sick of hearing the crap.

And yes, I've had a bad day.


----------



## Julia

herzy said:


> The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled.
> 
> Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be.
> 
> Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world.
> 
> What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?



herzy, how was it reasonable for Australia to significantly disadvantage our business community with a carbon tax at such a high price, when most of our trading partners were not doing anything remotely similar?

In taking what perhaps is a moral stand (if you accept K. Rudd's assertion that 'climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time' yada yada, it's not realistic to dismiss the economic factors.

As sptrawler suggests, if the whole world were to come to an agreement on an international trading scheme or whatever, then Australia could participate without specifically penalising our industry.  Goodness knows, our economy doesn't need any impediments.

I've largely tuned out of the whole discussion but have been struck by the frenzy of excitement engendered by the joint announcement by USA and China, none of which is anything more than aspiration at this stage.
Isn't the claim of Australia being the biggest per capita polluter (jeez, I'm sick of that expression especially after it's repeatedly uttered along with photos of just steam rising ) including all our exports of coal, iron ore etc rather than the implied suggestion that we Australians are personally out-polluting other countries.  Just a look at the skies over China makes this a bit hard to believe.


----------



## herzy

I didn't intend to tell anyone that they should do anything. Sorry if you took it that way sptrawler. 

I'm not perfect, and of course am a consumer - but I don't drive, minimise my meat intake, and don't see how much more I can feasibly do to reduce my carbon footprint at this time. 



Julia said:


> herzy, how was it reasonable for Australia to significantly disadvantage our business community with a carbon tax at such a high price, when most of our trading partners were not doing anything remotely similar?
> 
> In taking what perhaps is a moral stand (if you accept K. Rudd's assertion that 'climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time' yada yada, it's not realistic to dismiss the economic factors.
> 
> As sptrawler suggests, if the whole world were to come to an agreement on an international trading scheme or whatever, then Australia could participate without specifically penalising our industry.  Goodness knows, our economy doesn't need any impediments.
> 
> I've largely tuned out of the whole discussion but have been struck by the frenzy of excitement engendered by the joint announcement by USA and China, none of which is anything more than aspiration at this stage.
> Isn't the claim of Australia being the biggest per capita polluter (jeez, I'm sick of that expression especially after it's repeatedly uttered along with photos of just steam rising ) including all our exports of coal, iron ore etc rather than the implied suggestion that we Australians are personally out-polluting other countries.  Just a look at the skies over China makes this a bit hard to believe.




I'm not defending the carbon tax, or really taking a stance on climate action. I was more just commenting that the approaches of our two parties somehow seem to be contrary to their respective political ideologies. 

I agree the US/China deal is overblown, as you rightly pointed out much earlier. 

I also agree that economic concerns are relevant, and have never dismissed them. Actually all of my posts have been decidedly neutral on the issue. 

That said: 

- it's not true that 'all of our trading partners weren't doing anything remotely similar'
- I think it's dangerous to wait for world-wide consensus before acting (because world-wide consensus almost never occurs in the UN)
- Our economy is absolutely fine. I'm not saying we should unduly punish it (I'm not even suggesting we do anything), but I do think Australian concerns about our economy and national debt are a bit overblown. We are the only developed country not to have gone into recession. We're still going strong. Aussie dollar has fallen. Unemployment very low. I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a country doing better than us... If anyone can afford to take action, we can.  
- I didn't think the statistic included our imports (that would be hugely misleading). The smog over China doesn't mean that they're producing more per capita than we are. In total volume, of course, but not per capita. I think the statistic comes from the fact that we drive a lot, have resource-intense Western lifestyle, have huge meat consumption, etc - and there aren't many countries that have almost their whole population living in this way


----------



## sptrawler

herzy said:


> I didn't intend to tell anyone that they should do anything. Sorry if you took it that way sptrawler.
> 
> I'm not perfect, and of course am a consumer - but I don't drive, minimise my meat intake, and don't see how much more I can feasibly do to reduce my carbon footprint at this time.




Yes, sorry mate. 
But whatever we do, no matter if it was with the best intent, it has an adverse effect on someone.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> As I have said , you will just have to wait and see.
> 
> You have to agree, Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.....The biggest tax in the world......All it did was to increase the cost of living by $550 to the working families of Australia.
> 
> So instead of trying to bring down the *COALITION...why can't you give it a fair go?*
> 
> Please note the COALITION is spelt with a "C" and not an "N".....That spelling of yours is becoming monotonous to say the least.




Back in Feb 2014 - Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.

Not bad for _Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2._


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Yes, sorry mate.
> But whatever we do, no matter if it was with the best intent, it has an adverse effect on someone.




The argument a lot of people stated re voting for Abbott was he was the least bad option.

Possibly taking action to minimise our resource use and reduce our carbon footprint is also the least bad option.  Certainly we should at least stop our spoiling of other countries trying to come up with global agreement.  To say that climate change is not an economic issue when even the US military is starting to view it as a major cause of conflict in the future, seems very far from the centre of current high level opinion.

Certainly I see a much better employment path via moving away from coal and fostering green tech companies in Australia.  Considering the massive oversupply in thermal coal more stoppages like what has been done by Glencore are going to have to occur to stop the free fall in price.  Why fight a losing battle to support an industry that is likely to be on the decline?

We prob don't have the market size to produce a lot of green tech, but royalties from IP are a good substitute, and distributed energy helps to remove the need for massive infrastructure investments like the east cost has been through.  $45B in 5 years or so in the distribution network.  I bet if some of that money had been invested in distributed power generation, along with energy improved efficiency and demand shifting from the peak, we would be in a much better situation as energy consumers, with the flow on benefit of improving our international competitiveness.

The health benefits of not mining and burning coal also need to be accounted for.  Anything that helps slow the rise in healthcare costs has to be good for us.


----------



## Smurf1976

Yep, China's going to increase the amount of non-fossil energy they use. No doubt about that.

Just wait until environmentalists realise that they're running around celebrating plan to build dams, dams and more dams plus a few reactors here and there too. Plus some wind farms and solar to keep everyone happy, but hydro and nuclear is the key to what they're doing overall.


----------



## herzy

Smurf1976 said:


> Yep, China's going to increase the amount of non-fossil energy they use. No doubt about that.
> 
> Just wait until environmentalists realise that they're running around celebrating plan to build dams, dams and more dams plus a few reactors here and there too. Plus some wind farms and solar to keep everyone happy, but hydro and nuclear is the key to what they're doing overall.




Not all environmentalists are created equal. I much prefer nuclear to coal. Bring it on. Dams on the other hand... not so great. 

That was Merkel's worst decision in an otherwise fairly stellar career in my opinion.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> but royalties from IP are a good substitute




The trouble with "IP royalties" is that it employs virtually nobody and provides benefits to very, very few.

Someone mines or manufactures something then that employs a lot of people on an ongoing basis.

Someone designs something, once, then collects the royalties for the next 20 years - that benefits basically nobody on an ongoing basis.

So there's a broader social issue there. Nobody who sold their IP then needs to employ process workers, truck drivers, tradesmen or even a manager in order to collect the royalties.


----------



## Smurf1976

herzy said:


> Not all environmentalists are created equal. I much prefer nuclear to coal. Bring it on. Dams on the other hand... not so great.




Agreed that opinions differ. Personally, I consider nuclear power based on uranium as too dangerous to contemplate since we have no plan to deal with it properly when the inevitable happens and it goes wrong. We still haven't cleaned up the last two yet and the whole industry just doesn't stack up economically.

That said, a thorium reactor appears to be, in theory at least, a sensible and reasonably safe option and I see no real reason to be concerned about that idea. It's a much better option than uranium that seems reasonably clear and it gets around the CO2 problem too. 

Dams I'm quite comfortable with, largely because (1) I've seen an awful lot of them first hand and know pretty well what's involved and (2) the environmental effects are largely reversible within one human lifetime. I consider them as a "less bad" option than fossil fuels or uranium for that reason. 

Suppose that in 2020 someone decided to simply abandon all current power sources. How quickly can we deal with the ongoing consequences of past use?

Wind, solar etc - however long it takes to physically dismantle and remove the turbines and panels, noting that apart from aesthetics there would be no necessary reason to remove most of it anyway.

Hydro - come back in 80 years, roughly one human lifetime, and only those who have studied history will know it was ever there since minimal physical evidence would remain after that time unless someone consciously chose to preserve some items for historical reasons.

Coal - a change to the composition of the atmosphere that seems likely to last centuries at least. On a positive note, at least we do know how to remove the actual power stations, decommission the mines and so on.

Uranium - effectively permanent, at least on any "human" timescale. We don't even have a real plan to decommission the power stations themselves as they wear out and we certainly haven't come up with anything decent in terms of dealing with the waste or cleaning up contamination.


----------



## Julia

herzy said:


> - it's not true that 'all of our trading partners weren't doing anything remotely similar'



Right.  I should have said 'most', rather than 'all'.



> - Our economy is absolutely fine. I'm not saying we should unduly punish it (I'm not even suggesting we do anything), but I do think Australian concerns about our economy and national debt are a bit overblown.



It's the forward trajectory that's the concern.  I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.


> We are the only developed country not to have gone into recession.



Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money.  We are now needing to deal with that splurge.


> We're still going strong. Aussie dollar has fallen. Unemployment very low. I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a country doing better than us... If anyone can afford to take action, we can.



Assuming you believe the threats of catastrophic warming.
-







> I didn't think the statistic included our imports (that would be hugely misleading).



I was talking about our exports, not imports.
I'm also not sure whether our bushfires are included in our 'emissions'.   Someone who is more interested in the topic of climate change than I am will know.



sydboy007 said:


> The argument a lot of people stated re voting for Abbott was he was the least bad option.



Yep, or simply that people would vote for anyone who wasn't Labor after six years of their bungling.
Mr Abbott is not a charismatic or inspiring person.  The very fact that people did vote for him nonetheless is an indication of having had quite enough of Labor.

If it had still been a government something like the Hawke Keating years Mr Abbott would not have stood a chance imo.


----------



## herzy

Julia said:


> It's the forward trajectory that's the concern.  I can't be bothered looking for charts etc but if costs continue at present level (interest bill on borrowings etc etc) we will be in considerable trouble down the track if some pulling in of heads doesn't occur.
> 
> Because the economy was artificially propped up with borrowed money.  We are now needing to deal with that splurge.
> 
> I was talking about our exports, not imports.
> I'm also not sure whether our bushfires are included in our 'emissions'.   Someone who is more interested in the topic of climate change than I am will know.




Sorry, yes, I meant exports - I don't think they (or bushfires) are included, but am not certain. 

The borrowed money argument doesn't really hold, considering we STILL have one of the lowest national debt levels. We're really one of the richest companies in the world - which is why I say that, from a financial perspective, we're the best placed to take a drastic measure. 

Not saying we should, but I'm saying we're the country that could most afford it.


----------



## Smurf1976

herzy said:


> we're the country that could most afford it.




Trouble is, a good deal of Australia's prosperity is itself derived from fossil fuels.

Coal exports. LNG exports. Iron ore (needs someone else using coal to be processed). Aluminium and other metals smelting (energy-intensive) or the export of those ores. Etc.

Australia has a vested interest in fossil fuels, both in terms of the actual production of coal and gas (we're a net importer of oil) and in terms of continuing the demand for energy-intensive metals production either domestically or using Australian ore.

Take that away and, with manufacturing largely gone, it's debatable as to whether or not Australia would even be seen as a "wealthy" country at all or whether we'd be classified as a "developing" nation. 

Even if we stop using so much coal etc locally, we desperately need others to keep using it. Just like the Saudi's need someone else to keep buying their oil (noting that they do have some programs in place aiming to cut domestic consumption, albeit not with a lot of success thus far but they're working on it).


----------



## herzy

Thanks for the interesting points on nuclear and resources in Aus, Smurf. 

It reminds me of what a friend dryly noted when our PM cut funding to science, education, etc: We're essentially left with mining and tourism, which is basically the definition of a third world country. 

It seems you agree. 

I personally would like to see a shift away from a resource-dependent economy, partly by encouraging our already successful industries such as biotech research and education. Perhaps climate policy would assist this change?


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> The trouble with "IP royalties" is that it employs virtually nobody and provides benefits to very, very few.
> 
> Someone mines or manufactures something then that employs a lot of people on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Someone designs something, once, then collects the royalties for the next 20 years - that benefits basically nobody on an ongoing basis.
> 
> So there's a broader social issue there. Nobody who sold their IP then needs to employ process workers, truck drivers, tradesmen or even a manager in order to collect the royalties.




Silicon valley seems to be able to perpetually generate new IP and new wealth.

In Australia we're up there in a lot of Medical research, as well as comms systems and other high tech fiields.

Yes it would be good if we could turn some of the IP generated here into physical products, but so far we've not shown we have the capability to do it, and unless we're willing to take on larger amounts of risk, quite often selling the IP via royalties is the better way forward.


----------



## Julia

herzy said:


> Thanks for the interesting points on nuclear and resources in Aus, Smurf.
> 
> It reminds me of what a friend dryly noted when our PM cut funding to science, education, etc: We're essentially left with mining and tourism, which is basically the definition of a third world country.
> 
> It seems you agree.
> 
> I personally would like to see a shift away from a resource-dependent economy, partly by encouraging our already successful industries such as biotech research and education. Perhaps climate policy would assist this change?



Your friend sounds like a realist.
I don't know what the actual figures would be but it would take an awful lot of successful, marketable outcomes from biotech research (the research in itself being hugely expensive and time consuming) to equate what resources have brought to Australia.

Smurf has summed it up well.  Nuclear in Australia doesn't stand much chance for the foreseeable future imo:  huge resistance to it, much for good reason including Smurf's point about capacity to manage problems.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Smurf1976 said:


> Australia has a vested interest in fossil fuels, both in terms of the actual production of coal and gas (we're a net importer of oil) and in terms of continuing the demand for energy-intensive metals production either domestically or using Australian ore.
> 
> *Take that away and, with manufacturing largely gone, it's debatable as to whether or not Australia would even be seen as a "wealthy" country at all or whether we'd be classified as a "developing" nation.*
> 
> Even if we stop using so much coal etc locally, we desperately need others to keep using it. Just like the Saudi's need someone else to keep buying their oil (noting that they do have some programs in place aiming to cut domestic consumption, albeit not with a lot of success thus far but they're working on it).



Yes it would be extremely difficult to achieve "growth & jobs" without a resource driven industry. Returning to life like the era prior to the Industrial Revolution when most things were made by hand would be challenging for the "developed" countries.

Electricity production could be solar on mass scale. Production costs lower, maintenance costs lower, damage to environment lower, growth & jobs lower. 
Mineral consumption could be halved. Technological advancements not consumer driven. Less steels, bricks, plasters, paints, plastics, ceramics, glass. Less growth & jobs. 

The ultimatum has been delivered.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Back in Feb 2014 - Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes.
> 
> Not bad for _Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2._




Where did you derive those stats?

Have you got a link?


----------



## Wysiwyg

The U.S. President said "worldwide this last summer was the hottest on record". The recorded data goes back 134 years. In regards to the planet's existence of several billion years, this data base is extremely lacking in evidence toward human causation. The temperature was much hotter and much colder at different stages of this planet's evolution. A factual observation of human causation to this planet getting hotter would be better from a truth perspective. I think it is a good wake up call to everyone that air, sea and land quality is affected by humans being so do something about it on an individual, community and government level. We can slow it but unless we as a species become non-existent or return to the bush & caves, there will always be an unnatural affect on the environment.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Where did you derive those stats?
> 
> Have you got a link?




https://crawford.anu.edu.au/news/4406/carbon-price-cut-emissions



> Over the first two years of operation of the carbon price (July 2012 to July 2014), carbon emissions are down by 29 million tonnes or 8.2 per cent across the National Electricity Market compared to the two years prior.




http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm



> Abstract: Australia's carbon price has been in operation for two years. The electricity sector accounts for the majority of emissions covered under the scheme. This paper examines the impact of the carbon price on the electricity sector between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014, focusing on the National Electricity Market (NEM). Over this period, electricity demand in the NEM declined by 3.8 per cent, the emissions intensity of electricity supply by 4.6 per cent, and overall emissions by 8.2 per cent, compared to the two-year period before the carbon price. We detail observable changes in power demand and supply mix, and estimate the quantitative effect of the effect of the carbon price. We estimate that the carbon price led to an average 10 per cent increase in nominal retail household electricity prices, an average 15 per cent increase in industrial electricity prices and a 59 per cent increase in wholesale (spot) electricity prices. It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use. We estimate the demand reduction attributable to the carbon price at 2.5 to 4.2 TWh per year, about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of total electricity demand in the NEM. *The carbon price markedly changed relative costs between different types of power plants. Emissions-intensive brown coal and black coal generators reduced output and 4GW of emissions-intensive generation capacity was taken offline. We estimate that these shifts in the supply mix resulted in a 16 to 28kg CO2/MWh reduction in the emissions intensity of power supply in the NEM, a reduction between 1.8 and 3.3 per cent.* The combined impact attributable to the carbon price is estimated as a reduction of between 5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (3.2 to 5 per cent) in 2012/13 and between 6 and 9 million tonnes (3.5 to 5.6 per cent) in 2013/14, and between 11 and 17 million tonnes cumulatively. There are fundamental difficulties in attributing observed changes in demand and supply to specific causes, especially over the short term, and in this light we use conservative parameters in the estimation of the effect of the carbon price. We conclude that the carbon price has worked as expected in terms of its short-term impacts. However, its effect on investment in power generation assets has probably been limited, because of policy uncertainty about the continuation of the carbon pricing mechanism. For emissions pricing to have its full effect, a stable, long-term policy framework is needed.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> https://crawford.anu.edu.au/news/4406/carbon-price-cut-emissions
> 
> 
> 
> http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm





You have indicated a substantial drop in emissions mainly from coal fired power stations.....these stations have been installing antipollution stacks for  some time before the the carbon dioxide tax came into being...they take time to design and construct and most likely came into operation after the carbon dioxide tax was introduced but of course the Labor Party would take credit for it and the naive will believe them..

What about all the other industries...we don't have many left now of course as most of them have gone overseas.....If you like to whistle, I will point to the reason why industry has left Australia.


----------



## herzy

noco said:


> You have indicated a substantial drop in emissions mainly from coal fired power stations.....these stations have been installing antipollution stacks for  some time before the the carbon dioxide tax came into being...they take time to design and construct and most likely came into operation after the carbon dioxide tax was introduced but of course the Labor Party would take credit for it and the naive will believe them..
> 
> What about all the other industries...we don't have many left now of course as most of them have gone overseas.....If you like to whistle, I will point to the reason why industry has left Australia.




My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?


----------



## noco

herzy said:


> My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?





Th attached link is all about the trappings of carbon dioxide.....sulfur dioxide was only mentioned once with the steam vapor and appeared to be insignificant in comparison to carbon dioxide..

You read the sub links also.  


http://www.scantech.com.au/solutions/powerplant?gclid=CMqdn-_F_MECFYuSvQodIbEAUg


----------



## Smurf1976

herzy said:


> My understanding was that filters etc reduce other pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide) but not carbon dioxide?




A modern coal-fired plant in Australia (or any other developed country) will generally have electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or fabric filter bags. 

ESP / fabric filters trap particulates - that's fine particles of ash and the visible "smoke" that you'd otherwise have coming out the stacks if they weren't there. They're highly efficient, efficiency in the high 90's % generally, hence there's not much to be seen coming out the stacks these days (belching white clouds are just water vapour if the fuel used is high moisture - generally that's brown coal or natural gas).

So far as what constitutes "modern", well basically every coal-fired power station in Australia (there's one possible exception that I'm not certain about) has ESP and/or fabric filters. They've been around for a very long time, the SECV was fitting them to new plant at Yallourn (long since decomissioned and physically demolished)  back in the 1950's so they're not a new idea. That said, they have certainly improved over the years and in a lot of cases the original equipment has been replaced in line with community expectations for improving air quality etc - those first attempts in the 50's were pretty crude compared to what's done now.

Trapping the ash means that there's also a reduction of various toxic emissions, that would otherwise be emitted as fine particles, as well as actual visible smoke.

As for sulphur, in Australia we basically don't do anything about that. Most of our coal is fairly low in sulphur although there's some that's a bit higher and one notable plant that burns high sulphur (around 3.5%) coal. Generally speaking though, it's 1% or less and we don't worry about it. In other countries it varies - generally there's a lot more attention paid to it in the EU and US. Technically, it can be removed with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) or alternative means injecting chemicals (limestone usually) into the fire itself.

So far as other fuels are concerned, Japan is notable as having FGD on oil-fired plants but basically nobody else in the world does that. Elsewhere, it's controlled by limiting the sulphur content of the oil used in the first place. Standards there vary - EU I think it's 1% these days. Here in Tasmania we used to have a legislated 3% limit at Bell Bay power station but in practice generally used lower sulphur oil except on occasions when that wasn't available. A notable point in Japan is that they burn actual crude oil in some of the boilers whereas in most places it's residual fuel oil from the refining process that is used. 

There's a certain mining company in another part of Australia that I won't name which for many years switched between high and low sulphur fuels literally depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time. And it's no secret that FGD plants in some countries are switched off late at night when nobody can see what's coming out the stacks....

For natural gas, generally nothing is done to treat the emissions beyond the use of low NOx burners in the boiler itself in some situations. But if you look at a gas-fired steam plant, eg Torrens Island (Adelaide) or Newport (Melbourne) then the white plume is basically just water vapour (visible) and CO2 plus a few oxides of nitrogen. There's not much else coming out there, at least not in any significant quantity.

As for CO2, there's the oxy-fuel project involving one unit (30MW) at Callide A power station in Qld and a few such projects overseas but that's about it. Apart from situations (particularly in the US) where there's a nearby use for CO2 to inject into oil fields (to help get more oil out), in most places CO2 just goes straight up the stack and that's it. Filters of any kind do nothing to trap CO2, indeed they tend to increase it due to increasing energy use within the plant and in some cases reducing boiler efficiency too.


----------



## burglar

noco said:


> ... I am not sure what has brought on this sudden inspiration between the USA and China ...




Choking!


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as the "did the carbon tax work" argument is concerned, here's some data for total fossil fuel consumption (for all uses, not just electricity generation). Source is Australian Government Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.

Note that all figures are in energy units (petajoules - PJ) and are thus directly comparable between fuels in terms of how much energy was supplied.

Coal.
2008-09 = 2349 PJ (all time peak consumption year)
2009-10 = 2215 PJ (-5.7%)
2010-11 = 2127 PJ (-4.0%)
2011-12 = 2069 PJ (-2.7%)
2012-13 = 1946 PJ (-5.9%)

Oil.
2008-09 = 1981 PJ (no change from previous year)
2009-10 = 2038 PJ (+2.9%)
2010-11 = 2179 PJ (+6.9%)
2011-12 = 2193 PJ (+0.6%)
2012-13 = 2221 PJ (+1.3%)

Gas.
2008-09 = 1274 PJ (up 8.8% on previous year)
2009-10 = 1287 PJ (+1.0%)
2010-11 = 1305 PJ (+1.4%)
2011-12 = 1357 PJ (+4.0%)
2012-13 = 1386 PJ (+2.1%)

Note that 2012-13 was the first year of the carbon tax, figures aren't currently available for 2013-14.

The recent decline in coal is significant, since if you look back to 1960 then the story is basically one of constant growth, coal consumption declining only during times of broader economic difficulty (recession) and during the transition from town gas to natural gas for city gas supplies. Apart from that, coal use increased each and every year until quite recently.

I'll leave others to decide how much of an effect the carbon tax had.

What I will say however is that our growing reliance on oil concerns me - it's rising both in absolute terms and as a % of total energy, up from 34% last decade to 38% today.


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as the "did the carbon tax work" argument is concerned, here's some data for total fossil fuel consumption (for all uses, not just electricity generation). Source is Australian Government Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Oil.
> 2008-09 = 1981 PJ (no change from previous year)
> 2009-10 = 2038 PJ (+2.9%)
> 2010-11 = 2179 PJ (+6.9%)
> 2011-12 = 2193 PJ (+0.6%)
> 2012-13 = 2221 PJ (+1.3%)
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> What I will say however is that our growing reliance on oil concerns me - it's rising both in absolute terms and as a % of total energy, up from 34% last decade to 38% today.




Looks like an excellent time for Australia to start a strong push for electric vehicles. 

(I sat in a Tesla last weekend. VERY impressive...  and not just for the price)


----------



## noco

What a charade by the USA and China......China will continue to increase its C02 until 2030...there is no binding signed deal and China will be able to do what ever it wants......Labor and the Greens are ecstatic that the whole world is doing something about climate change and leaving Tony Abbott behind doing nothing.....Obama has lost control of congress and the senate and has no hope of executing what he says he will do.

The Greens try to claim that China is reducing fossils fuel and going for renewable energy when in actual fact China has now 17 Nuclear power stations with another 37 on the way as well as building more dams  for hydro power....So the Greens jump on the band wagon trying to falsely establish that China has gone all out for solar and wind power.  

It is all false as has been revealed in the link below......just another con job.  

Listen to no real deal video.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt


----------



## explod

It is certainly not all false noco and the Herald.Sun notoriously selects only that which supports the big business agenda.

The US and.CHINA .are merely getting in some step to appease public concern.

But interestingly your presence on this thread certainly comfirms your inner concern that climate change is now clearly on our agenda.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> It is certainly not all false noco and the Herald.Sun notoriously selects only that which supports the big business agenda.




Resources likely also have a bit to do with it.

Getting decent data for China isn't that easy. Well, there's data but the accuracy is questionable. Most figures suggest however that China can't keep taking 4 billion tonnes of coal out of the ground, that's half the world's total production, for too much longer before the inevitable happens and production peaks then starts to decline due to resource constraints. At best, they might keep the game going with increased reliance in lower grades of coal, that being sub-bituminous and lignite (brown coal) but the bituminous (black) coal resources do seem somewhat limited relative to current production.

So long as they can mine it cheaply in their own backyard, coal represents a key economic advantage for China. But if they're going to have to import increasing amounts of the stuff, well then they may as well import gas instead and build more hydro and nuclear - and that's exactly the direction they're heading in. Coal use is still rising, but there's a big push for gas, hydro and nuclear as well versus the historic very heavy reliance on coal.

If the generally accepted coal reserve estimates are anywhere near accurate, China is running out of reasons to prefer coal over other energy sources. Indeed they've got a competitive edge in solar and wind, due to their low manufacturing costs, that nobody else can match anyway. That said, the same competitive advantage applies to nuclear and especially hydro too and they'll be ramping up both for sure.

For the record, there's about to be a proper announcement about a new wind project in Tasmania using Chinese technology later this week. It's public knowledge now in a low key manner.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> It is certainly not all false noco and the Herald.Sun notoriously selects only that which supports the big business agenda.
> 
> The US and.CHINA .are merely getting in some step to appease public concern.
> 
> But interestingly your presence on this thread certainly comfirms your inner concern that climate change is now clearly on our agenda.




Firstly,what do you consider to be false and correct?

Secondly, how do you make out my presence on this thread confirms my inner concern that climate change is on our agenda?...whose agenda?...Certainly not mine.

Climate change is happening all the time...a natural phenomenon...... Global Warming is crap and that is why the alarmist went from Global Warming to Climate Change.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> What a charade by the USA and China......



China 80% coal in 2030. 

That speaks for itself.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> China 80% coal in 2030.
> 
> That speaks for itself.




Try convincing the Green/Labor Party on that one.

Not sure if Christine is still orbiting the moon...she might just come back down to Earth when she realizes what a goat she has made of herself.


----------



## banco

Always amusing to hear from people who probably struggled with high school science that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong.


----------



## drsmith

One doesn't have to be a so-called climate change denier to recognise that non-renewables will play the primary role in worldwide energy generation for a long time to come.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> One doesn't have to be a so-called climate change denier to recognise that non-renewables will play the primary role in worldwide energy generation for a long time to come.




No doubt but there are still a lot of climate change deniers out there.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> No doubt but there are still a lot of climate change deniers out there.




The UN recently did a survey of 5 million people through out the world and they were asked 17 questions and the public were asked to place in order the importance from 1 to 17.

Climate change was one of the items which came in at 17...the least important.


----------



## noco

Obama's con job with China.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-load-of-hot-air/story-fni0ffxg-1227124880184


----------



## noco

noco said:


> The UN recently did a survey of 5 million people through out the world and they were asked 17 questions and the public were asked to place in order the importance from 1 to 17.
> 
> Climate change was one of the items which came in at 17...the least important.







A Million Voices: The World We WAnT - World We Want 2015
http://www.worldwewant2015.org/bitcache/9158d79561a9de6b34f95568ce8b389989412f16?vid=42...
21 Aug 2013 ... a un-led global survey of people's priorities for a better world. The results of the survey will be shared with international leaders in setting.


----------



## Logique

banco said:


> Always amusing to hear from people who probably struggled with high school science that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong.



Political science is more the forte of the warmists.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> The UN recently did a survey of 5 million people through out the world and they were asked 17 questions and the public were asked to place in order the importance from 1 to 17.
> 
> Climate change was one of the items which came in at 17...the least important.




Whether the public thinks it is important is a completely different question to whether the scientific consensus is correct.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The UN recently did a survey of 5 million people through out the world and they were asked 17 questions and the public were asked to place in order the importance from 1 to 17.
> 
> Climate change was one of the items which came in at 17...the least important.




Depends where the people interviewed lived, what their income levels and financial situation was like.

A working poor person probably has far more pressing economic concerns than the long term effects of global warming.  Linda Tirado sums it up very nicely

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda...d-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html



> Rest is a luxury for the rich. I get up at 6AM, go to school (I have a full course load, but I only have to go to two in-person classes) then work, then I get the kids, then I pick up my husband, then I have half an hour to change and go to Job 2. I get home from that at around 12:30AM, then I have the rest of my classes and work to tend to. I'm in bed by 3. This isn't every day, I have two days off a week from each of my obligations. I use that time to clean the house and soothe Mr. Martini and see the kids for longer than an hour and catch up on schoolwork. Those nights I'm in bed by midnight, but if I go to bed too early I won't be able to stay up the other nights because I'll **** my pattern up, and I drive an hour home from Job 2 so I can't afford to be sleepy. I never get a day off from work unless I am fairly sick. It doesn't leave you much room to think about what you are doing, only to attend to the next thing and the next. Planning isn't in the mix.
> 
> When I got pregnant the first time, I was living in a weekly motel. I had a minifridge with no freezer and a microwave. I was on WIC. I ate peanut butter from the jar and frozen burritos because they were 12/$2. Had I had a stove, I couldn't have made beef burritos that cheaply. And I needed the meat, I was pregnant. I might not have had any prenatal care, but I am intelligent enough to eat protein and iron whilst knocked up.
> 
> Convenience food is just that. And we are not allowed many conveniences. Especially since the Patriot Act passed, it's hard to get a bank account. But without one, you spend a lot of time figuring out where to cash a check and get money orders to pay bills. Most motels now have a no-credit-card-no-room policy. I wandered around SF for five hours in the rain once with nearly a thousand dollars on me and could not rent a room even if I gave them a $500 cash deposit and surrendered my cell phone to the desk to hold as surety.




That's in one of the richest countries in the world.  I'd dare say youth in Greece or Spain where unemployment rates are near 50% probably have far more pressing issues on their minds too with the daily effort to just survive.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Depends where the people interviewed lived, what their income levels and financial situation was like.
> 
> A working poor person probably has far more pressing economic concerns than the long term effects of global warming.  Linda Tirado sums it up very nicely
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda...d-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html
> 
> 
> 
> That's in one of the richest countries in the world.  I'd dare say youth in Greece or Spain where unemployment rates are near 50% probably have far more pressing issues on their minds too with the daily effort to just survive.




I cannot believe there are people still talking up Global warming when there has been no global warming for 17 years.....what is it with them?.....Can't they or don't they want to accept the statistics.....they are hell bent on this stupid modelling stuff.

I mean, how many years will have to pass without increase in Global warming will they start to realize that Global warming is a hoax?.....27 years....37 years.....47 years.


----------



## Knobby22

Come on noco.
Even the biggest skeptic knows that global warming is real, they are just hoping it has slowed down due to natural feedback mechanisms.

From NASA

As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Come on noco.
> Even the biggest skeptic knows that global warming is real, they are just hoping it has slowed down due to natural feedback mechanisms.
> 
> From NASA
> 
> As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/






Did you check the graph in the link below?.....I posted it yesterday....here it is again.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Come on noco.
> Even the biggest skeptic knows that global warming is real, they are just hoping it has slowed down due to natural feedback mechanisms.
> 
> From NASA
> 
> As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/




I posted this link before which shows the graph indicates  no increase in Global warming...follow the U-Tube.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt


----------



## Knobby22

I'll just copy one of the Herald Sun readers posts to this article which says it all.


_Ian 
2 hours ago

The reason many people regard Andrew Bolt's columns with a grain of salt is because often, if you do a little extra research you find out how much cherry-picking he does. Sure enough, if you read the NASA news release from which he quotes, it also says, 'during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.' Furthermore, it says ' The sea level is rising because of ... the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.' _


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> I'll just copy one of the Herald Sun readers posts to this article which says it all.
> 
> 
> _Ian
> 2 hours ago
> 
> The reason many people regard Andrew Bolt's columns with a grain of salt is because often, if you do a little extra research you find out how much cherry-picking he does. Sure enough, if you read the NASA news release from which he quotes, it also says, 'during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.' Furthermore, it says ' The sea level is rising because of ... the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.' _





I would say you cherry picked that comment because it falls in line with your thinking.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/C883

*Professor Michael Asten is astonished that global warming activists are using dated data to hide the recent decline in temperatures:*


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> I would say you cherry picked that comment because it falls in line with your thinking.




I would argue you ignored the evidence/reality because it doesn't fall in line with your thinking.
How can you say Bolt didn't cherry pick the paper from NASA? He states there is no evidence of deep sea warming ...fair enough but then when he reads the evidence of shallower sea warming  he completely ignores it! And they are in the same paper. I think he knows the truth but is paid to obscurate.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I posted this link before which shows the graph indicates  no increase in Global warming...follow the U-Tube.
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt




http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

I know you might find using data not massaged by newscorp a bit daunting, but unless you're proposing the BOM is full of people massaging the measurements from thousands of sites it pretty much shows the clear trend of warming in Australia.



> How is our climate tracking in 2014?
> The national mean temperature in September 2014 was more than 1  °C above average, while October saw temperatures of 1.91  °C above average. The year-to-date and the 12-month running mean temperature ending in October 2014 are the 5th- and 6th-highest on record (+0.82  °C and +0.77  °C, respectively).


----------



## orr

Being on the wrong side of history can be sustained for a long time, Few have done so as 'successfully' as North Korea, with there wonderful alignment with a Stalinist modern day monologue, as all there dancing partners have all moved on into the _'real world'_ ..... But Tony's making an all out bid to truck Australia on to a dead end branch of sociopolitical/industrial evolution, as we bath, deep in coal dust and bugger all else...........

Xmas's coming up; what more could any Aussie or Nth Korean kid dream of than a lump of coal.

Maybe a new Tesla S .......... 

Tesla Motors on the nasdaq TSLA....52 week low $116. current price $258 (sentiment 'Bullish') company value $33billion.


----------



## macca

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
> 
> I know you might find using data not massaged by newscorp a bit daunting, but unless you're proposing the BOM is full of people massaging the measurements from thousands of sites it pretty much shows the clear trend of warming in Australia.




Unfortunately, they and other countries BOM most certainly do 

This has been linked before but here it is again http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/20...ature-record-revisited-a-question-of-balance/

In NZ they were taken to court and had to admit in court that the official temperature record of NZ should not be used as an official record as it has been altered. This has also been linked on here before

Why do you think they refuse to supply raw data, no more money if they stop the BS flow.

I agree that climate is changing, it has always changed, not that long ago just 12,000 years, the weather patterns now running along the Australian Bight used to run along the Tropic of Capricorn, Yes the one in QLD !

Lake Mungo near the Murray River was a permanent water source for hundreds of aboriginal people, dry and dusty now though.

All this Co2 stuff is simply a distraction to stop people aiming up at the real problem, pollution from factories in the Northern Hemisphere that is clearly visible and just about chewable, it is disgusting.

The thing that Chinese tourists love the most about Australia is not the Opera House, not the Bridge, not the Barrier Reef, it is our Blue Sky !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg

macca said:


> All this Co2 stuff is simply a distraction to stop people aiming up at the real problem, pollution from factories in the Northern Hemisphere that is clearly visible and just about chewable, it is disgusting.



That is the real issue. Pollutants of all types. I'm in my forties and I remember in the 1970's my grandfather laying on a bed with a fan on him and perspiring while he slept. It was that hot. At school we had an evaporative air conditioner I remember filling with water when it was extra hot and we had to use it. No one can tell me that it is any hotter now. I wonder if the warmists in Australia know that *Australia is an arid country*. Maybe the students of today are told it was never like this before. Fairly easy to scare people that don't know.


----------



## noco

Wysiwyg said:


> That is the real issue. Pollutants of all types. I'm in my forties and I remember in the 1970's my grandfather laying on a bed with a fan on him and perspiring while he slept. It was that hot. At school we had an evaporative air conditioner I remember filling with water when it was extra hot and we had to use it. No one can tell me that it is any hotter now. I wonder if the warmists in Australia know that *Australia is an arid country*. Maybe the students of today are told it was never like this before. Fairly easy to scare people that don't know.




Thanks for your support Macca and Wyswyg......I get a bit tired of hearing about this Global Warming crap and yes it is a fact temperature charts are very easily fabricated to suit the alarmists whether it is NASA ,BOM or the IPPC.

I started school in Brisbane 79 years ago.....no evaporative coolers...no air conditioning.......not even fans....we had plenty of hot and humid days....plenty of extreme hot days like last weekend in Brisbane....plenty of horrific hail storms.....we just accepted it in those days....... bloody hot weather here again.

I have already spoken of my experience working in south west Queensland on sheep stations as a plumber.....drought...fire....floods...cold as hell...hot as hell......been through it all.


----------



## basilio

It's a bit crazy isn't it? Noco and Co insistently blather on that BOM is falsifying  temperature data to create a global warming hoax.

The work of thousands of scientists across a score of disciplines demonstrates the  accuracy of global warming and the overwhelming contribution of human activity. So the question remains

"Why do people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones and Fox News repeatedly cherry pick material, distort scientific papers or just make up lies?  I came across a thoughtprovoking analysis of this phenomenon recently which is worth a think.



> *Up is Down: How Stating the False Hides the True*
> 
> One of the more interesting Republican strategies is saying things whose opposite is true. They say that the Democratic nominee is bought off by special interests, the Democrats are outspending them, the Democrats are playing dirty, the Democrats don’t care about homeland security, the Democrats hate America, all when this is far more true of the Republicans. They say Joseph McCarthy was a noble man, the media has a liberal bias, affirmative action is bad for equality, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and Ronald Reagan was our greatest President, all when the opposite is far more true.
> 
> At first glance this seems bizarre ”” why draw attention to your weaknesses? But it’s actually a very clever use of the media. The media tries hard to be “fair and balanced”, and it generally believes the best way to do this is to present the opinions from both sides and make as few judgement calls as possible (to avoid introducing their own bias). And if there’s a debate on some issue, taking a side is seen as a judgement call.
> 
> On an issue for which there’s little or no disagreement (say, the color of the sky) reporters see no problem with treating this as fact. They’ll happily slip it into the relevant articles: “President Bush, standing against a backdrop of the blue-colored sky, announced his new plan for the environment.” But if Republicans begin insisting that the sky is purple, the issue becomes less clear. At first, of course, the idea will seem ludicrous. But the Republicans will find experts to swear up and down that the sky is purple, and funny anecdotes about purple-colored skies, and have the Weekly Standard and Fox News repeatedly note that the sky is purple until it becomes an issue of debate. And soon enough the journalists begin writing “President Bush announced his new plan for the environment. ‘The sky was blue,’ claimed DNC chairman Terry McAulife, but prominent scientists repeatedly insisted that the sky was, in fact, purple.”
> 
> *Now this seems a bit silly in the case of the color of the sky, but take something like “global warming”. Most journalists don’t know enough to evaluate whether global warming exists or not, and I haven’t spent the time to do so either. But I’ve heard that among the serious scientific community, global warming’s existence is simply a fact. Yet Republicans have spent a lot of money and time bringing this fact into question, so that no reporter can safely state that global warming exists, without covering the other side.
> 
> And once the reporters begin showing both sides, the populace begins getting confused too. “Who knows,” they think, “the sky may really be purple.” And so they begin believing the line of their affiliated party. Democrats start insisting that the sky is blue, and Republicans strongly believe that it is purple. And those in the middle just assume that the truth is “somewhere in the middle”, even when it most assuredly is not.*
> 
> So this is the Republican strategy: to neutralize their weaknesses by making them seem like matters of public debate. You can’t come out and say the Republicans are bought and paid for by the special interests, because the Republicans swear up and down that the Democrats are! Just imagine if Ed Gillespie, the RNC Chairman who’s often saying these absurd things, was around in the days of the Civil War:
> 
> *   Abraham Lincoln wants to throw the American people into slavery. By taking away our hard-earned property, he takes away our basic human rights. Why does Abraham Lincoln hate America? Why does he want to destroy our great nation by taking away our right to own slaves ”” a right enshrined in that most American of documents, the Constitution?
> 
> The Constitution says we are all made equal. That we should all be given an equal chance to make the best of our lives. But Abraham Lincoln wants to raise some Americans ”” those stupid, illiterate, negroes ”” above everyone else, by handing out their freedom to them. Since the founding of our country, slaves could buy their freedom, earning it through hard work, but now Lincoln wants to bypass all that and give it to slaves for nothing!*​
> You get the idea. Now few would readily claim that ending slavery took away human rights and equality, but through this bizarro-world reasoning ”” the same reasoning that makes affirmative action bad for equality, and liberals hate America ”” it’s easy to make it seem like these are still issues of debate. And as long as a thinking press believes that fairness means repeating everyones lies equally, this nonsense will continue to be spread.
> 
> So here’s my question: how do you stop this stuff?




http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001173


----------



## Smurf1976

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record, there's about to be a proper announcement about a new wind project in Tasmania using Chinese technology later this week.




Announced today. Joint venture between Shenhua Group and Hydro Tas will build a small wind farm, 10 - 30 MW, at the site of the existing Woolnorth wind farm (140MW) in NW Tas using Chinese technology.

Being at the site of an existing wind farm enables direct comparison of performance etc with the existing turbines. 

http://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/news/2014-11/agreement-announced-shenhua-group


----------



## Knobby22

And aren't they also investing heavily into the dairy industry Smurf?

Tassy could be getting somewhere at last, thanks to the Chinese. (I hope we know what we are doing).

On the climate side, according to an article in the Age today, the Chinese will no longer be requiring additional coal for power generation and in fact will be aiming for a reduction in coal use of 0.7% a year from next year. 

Two coal mines have recently closed in Australia planning to reopen in two months once surplus coal stocks are run down. I think that at least one of the mines may need to be shut permanently.

I am now coming to understand the desperation of the coal lobby.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ch...-belittle-its-commitment-20141117-11nxlj.html


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> And aren't they also investing heavily into the dairy industry Smurf?
> 
> Tassy could be getting somewhere at last, thanks to the Chinese. (I hope we know what we are doing).
> 
> On the climate side, according to an article in the Age today, the Chinese will no longer be requiring additional coal for power generation and in fact will be aiming for a reduction in coal use of 0.7% a year from next year.
> 
> Two coal mines have recently closed in Australia planning to reopen in two months once surplus coal stocks are run down. I think that at least one of the mines may need to be shut permanently.
> 
> I am now coming to understand the desperation of the coal lobby.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ch...-belittle-its-commitment-20141117-11nxlj.html




Yet the QLD Govt is doubling down on coal with Adani to open up the Galilee basin at a breakeven cost of $100.  Seriously, you can't make this kind of crazy up.


----------



## Wysiwyg

sydboy007 said:


> Yet the QLD Govt is doubling down on coal with Adani to open up the Galilee basin at a breakeven cost of $100.  Seriously, you can't make this kind of crazy up.



Two massive expansions costing billions of dollars have been going on over the last few years to export coal. It isn't going to end tomorrow. When Christine Milne designs and produces a low cost, environment neutral and efficient base load power supply system for the world then it will be all over. The bandwagon goes around again.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ew-climate-deal-let-china-do-nothing-16-years



> “As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.” – US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, November 12, 2014.
> 
> Far from “doing nothing”, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible, if arduous.
> 
> As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.
> 
> This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.
> 
> In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.
> 
> Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.
> 
> By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.
> 
> The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment:
> 
> …it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.
> 
> These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1247 gigawatts. Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see below and here).
> 
> China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550 gigawatts by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.
> 
> This goal would call for an additional 1000 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 gigawatts (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.
> 
> The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies. As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
> 
> There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.
> 
> So far from “doing nothing” over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.
> 
> Verdict
> 
> False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.
> 
> Review (by Frank Jotzo)
> 
> The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth. China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.
> 
> It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest. The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth. In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply. The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power. – Frank Jotzo


----------



## sydboy007

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742



> “How could it be getting hotter … if it was really hotter 118 years ago? It’s relatively simple: the early years are simply wiped from the official record.” – Nationals MP George Christensen, House of Representatives, October 29.





> Most people are familiar with the white Stevenson Screens you can see at any weather-observing site around the country. But there is a great deal of documentary evidence indicating that, for much of the country, such screens were not widely used in Australia during the 19th century.






> So did the different ways of exposing the thermometers seriously bias the 19th-century observations, relative to modern readings? The answer is yes, and we have Charles Todd (of overland telegraph fame) to thank for answering this question.
> 
> In 1887, Todd set up what must be one of the longest-running scientific experiments ever, when he installed thermometers in a Stevenson Screen and on a Glaisher Stand at Adelaide Observatory (as seen in the illustration here). Observations were taken in both exposures until 1948.
> 
> The results of this 61-year experiment show that summer daytime temperatures measured using the Glaisher Stand are, on average, 1C warmer than in the Stevenson Screen. And this was at a well-maintained station – if a Glaisher Stand is not used properly, direct sunshine can fall on the thermometers, dramatically increasing the warm bias (and this was probably what happened at some stations, given that we know equipment was not always well maintained).






> That’s why the Bureau’s official temperature records start in 1910 – before that date we have good grounds for believing that the data are poor and biased (and would be difficult to adjust for the many problems). But earlier data are available on the Bureau’s website. For instance, data for Bourke, NSW, are available all the way back to 1871.






> According to Berkeley Earth, the Australian average daily maximum temperature in January 1896 was about 1C hotter than the 1951-80 January average. But January 2013 was a full 1.5C hotter again – really, the late 19th century temperatures don’t come close to modern extremes.





> Only by ignoring the many factors that we know affect temperature observations, and the fact that the way temperatures were observed in the 19th century was very different to how we do it nowadays, could one confidently conclude that the late 19th century in Australia was as warm as the past few years.


----------



## Wysiwyg

basilio said:


> It's a bit crazy isn't it? Noco and Co insistently blather on that BOM is falsifying  temperature data to create a global warming hoax.



The temperature isn't any different from at least 40 years ago plus from our personal experience. Do you have any experience in Australia?


----------



## sydboy007

Wysiwyg said:


> Two massive expansions costing billions of dollars have been going on over the last few years to export coal. It isn't going to end tomorrow. When Christine Milne designs and produces a low cost, environment neutral and efficient base load power supply system for the world then it will be all over. The bandwagon goes around again.




So you support a Government operating in a supposedly free market economy to "invest" tax payer funds to help a foreign company develop a coal resource that is estimated to need a thermal coal price of $100-110 US to break even.

Note that the increased production equates to 10% of the current seaborne market.  It will ensure depressed prices for a very long time, which will increase the ToT income shock we're experiencing.

It's not even about climate.  It's the fact we have a Government wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, unless of course you believe coal is somehow going to near double in price over the next few years?


----------



## banco

Wysiwyg said:


> The temperature isn't any different from at least 40 years ago plus from our personal experience. Do you have any experience in Australia?




Well that settles it then.


----------



## Wysiwyg

sydboy007 said:


> So you support a Government operating in a supposedly free market economy to "invest" tax payer funds to help a foreign company develop a coal resource that is estimated to need a thermal coal price of $100-110 US to break even.



Yes I support the governments ROI. People employed, taxes and royalties paid. While working toward coal fired power stations being phased out, eventually.


> Note that the increased production equates to 10% of the current seaborne market.  It will ensure depressed prices for a very long time, which will increase the ToT income shock we're experiencing.



  Supply and demand is constantly in flux. No future demand? Why construct?



> It's not even about climate.  It's the fact we have a Government wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, unless of course you believe coal is somehow going to near double in price over the next few years?



It isn't wasted when people are employed, taxes and royalties are paid. The end game is supply/demand and this proposal is counter present trend. Like demand for iron ore was sky high so -> massive mining infrastructure investment to meet demand -> now less demand and depressed prices.


----------



## Wysiwyg

sydboy007 said:


> It's not even about climate.  It's the fact we have a Government wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, unless of course you believe coal is somehow going to near double in price over the next few years?



Who knows what will happen? Certainly not you or I! Here is a slice of Australian history regarding black coal, the Americans, Israel, OPEC and the AUD/USD. Shows some of the many market forces in play. Coal at $12.50 per tonne.  



> 2.2.12 Export Prices for Australian Black Coal
> Between 1960 and 1973, the average A$ FOB price per tonne that Australian coal producers
> received for their black coal exports varied between $8.00 and $12.50 per tonne. This period is
> now viewed with a fair degree of nostalgia by coal buyers as a time when energy prices in
> general and Australian black coal price in particular were stable and at very low levels. The
> low energy price environment was supported by a stable US$:A$ exchange rate, which was the
> result of the Bretton Woods Accord that the United States and other major Western economies
> signed in 1944.
> 
> The stable and low energy price environment started to unravel during October 1971, when the
> United States unilaterally terminated its participation in the Bretton Woods Accord. As a result
> of its unilateral action, the US$ depreciated significantly against the A$ between 1972 and
> 1974. Since Australia‘s black coal exports were priced in US$, this market reaction would
> normally have resulted in Australia‘s black coal producers reducing their output and/or
> exerting pressure on miners to accept very small adjustments in their annual wages.
> 
> However, in October 1973, Australia‘s coal producers were rescued from that possible
> predicament by OPEC, which imposed an embargo on oil exports to the United States and a
> number of other Western countries as punishment for their bias toward Israel during the 1973
> Yom Kippur War. Along with the oil embargo, Saudi Arabia and other Arab state members
> increased OPEC‘s posted oil price in October 1973 from $3.00 per barrel to 5.11 per barrel.
> By 1975, the price of oil rose as high as $12 per barrel after which it traded between $12 and
> $15 per barrel from 1975 through 1978. Then, in 1979, the shah of Iran fell, leading to the
> Iranian Oil Crisis, which resulted in the price of oil increasing from $15.85 per barrel (April 5,
> 1979) to $39.50 per barrel in early 1980. From that point on, an oil glut emerged causing
> nominal oil prices to slide to around $10 per barrel by 1986.
> 
> The impact of the oil price increases and decreases during the 1970s and 1980s was a
> significant factor in driving the expansion of Australia‘s black coal exports. The increase in the
> FOB A$ price for Australian black coal provided Australian coal producers with substantial
> windfall profits through 1980. Between 1980 and 1986, the nominal US$ price for Australian
> black coal decreased from $54.85 to $36.65 per tonne, a 33 percent decline. However, the
> impact on the A$ price of this large drop in the US$ price was more than offset by the 40
> percent depreciation in the A$ against the US$ over the same time period.


----------



## basilio

Wysiwyg said:


> The temperature isn't any different from at least 40 years ago plus from our personal experience. Do you have any experience in Australia?




What ?? For real ?? The reason we have a national BOM is to record daily temperatures from hundreds of weather stations around Australia so that we have accurate, detailed weather records. 

And you are trying to say that from your personal experience and weather records you can improve on that process ?


----------



## sydboy007

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes I support the governments ROI. People employed, taxes and royalties paid. While working toward coal fired power stations being phased out, eventually.
> Supply and demand is constantly in flux. No future demand? Why construct?
> 
> It isn't wasted when people are employed, taxes and royalties are paid. The end game is supply/demand and this proposal is counter present trend. Like demand for iron ore was sky high so -> massive mining infrastructure investment to meet demand -> now less demand and depressed prices.




Wow.  So you think the QLD Govt is making the right decision to subsidise a massive new coal development, while other mines in AUstralia are likely to be forced to close due to this subsidy?  I thought green power was supposed to stand on it's own feet.  Shouldn't the fossil fuel industry do the same?

Note, India has said they want to stop importing coal within the next few years.  How achievable that is I'm not sure, but the fact the Indian Govt will be looking to reduce their imports doesn't bode well for the sea borne coal trade.  Certainly doesn't suggest the $100-110 break even cost will be met.  China is starting to limit it's coal imports.  The turning on of massive amounts of nuclear power over the next decade, along with a 2 pipe lines for gas imports from Russia doesn't seem to indicate further increases in demand from China will occur either.  So where do you see the demand coming from to prop up a market already in oversupply, with Adani adding around an extra 10% to the market?

As for taxes and royalties paid, if the price of coal is further depressed, then all this development will do is to see tonnes shipped increased(?) at lower prices.  How is that good for Australia?  How is that good for taxation revenues?  How is that good for productivity?  It would be cheaper to buy some of the coal mines now operating at a loss than develop the Galilee basin.


----------



## sydboy007

Wysiwyg said:


> Who knows what will happen? Certainly not you or I! Here is a slice of Australian history regarding black coal, the Americans, Israel, OPEC and the AUD/USD. Shows some of the many market forces in play. Coal at $12.50 per tonne.




So you quote coal prices from decades past, that are far below the break even cost for Adani of $100-100 US?  Doesn't seem to make the economics stack up any better.  Vale the QLD tax payers.  Already in massive debt and their Govt is going to throw money at a project that wont make a return on their investment.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So you quote coal prices from decades past, that are far below the break even cost for Adani of $100-100 US?  Doesn't seem to make the economics stack up any better.  Vale the QLD tax payers.  Already in massive debt and their Govt is going to throw money at a project that wont make a return on their investment.




Whilst your rhetoric is a bit off thread, I thought it necessary to reply......you see, unlike the Labor Party, we have adult Governments who has the expertise to do some market research and is preparing  for the future....The QLD and WA governments do there home work and obviously know that a year from now the price of coal and iron ore will rise and they will be well prepared to meet the market demand....If it had been the Labor Party, they would have sat on there hands and done nothing.

The Labor Party believed in a fellow named Tim Flannery, who told the three Eastern Labor states at the time a furphy in 2007 that there would not be enough rain to fill the dams, so the Labor Party, instead of doing some more research, believed this brain storm and spent billions of dollars on desal plants now in moth balls....now that was not very good thinking.

I was in sales and marketing for 28 years and we had to predict by various methods how our sales would be 12 months down the track...we would take appropriate action to insure we were on target and this is what the QLD and WA governments have done....Smart people!!!!!


----------



## basilio

The Adani coal mine in Queensland will be an environmental disaster.  I'm not sure however if it will be a financial disaster for Adani.

Adani is India's premier power company. The coal it is mining will supply its own power stations. If the choice is between owning your own coal mine (with a ton of local infrastructure support) or having to pay another coal miner maybe this situation will be the most profitable. One could certainly see some interesting cost shifting in the process.

http://www.adanipower.com/


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> The Adani coal mine in Queensland will be an environmental disaster.  I'm not sure however if it will be a financial disaster for Adani.
> 
> Adani is India's premier power company. The coal it is mining will supply its own power stations. If the choice is between owning your own coal mine (with a ton of local infrastructure support) or having to pay another coal miner maybe this situation will be the most profitable. One could certainly see some interesting cost shifting in the process.
> 
> http://www.adanipower.com/




The return to the Queensland state government is in the vicinity of $20 billion in royalties irrespective  of what the price may be at the time.

http://www.adanimining.com/pdfs/MLA 70441/MLA_70441 Part_5.pdf

*9
|
P a g e
d)
Total return to the State and Australia
Total return to the State and Australia resulting from
the
Carmichael Coal
Project
is significant.
The estimated benefits to
the State Government of Queensland:
1.
Royalty payments in excess of
$20 Billion
generated
2.
Rail payments
3.
Port payments
The estimated benefits to the Commonwealth Government of Australia:
1.
Income tax
2.
Any additional taxes such as Mineral Resources Rent Tax
and
amounts under the Clean Energy Act and associated legislation*


----------



## basilio

Wow Noco.  You should be in sales..

You pulled out the Adani story of how much they think the Queensland government will get if 

1) They get the appropriate licenses and permission to mine
2) The government tips in some umpteen billion to help with Rail, Port and other infrastructure.

*It is a sell job pure and simple. * There are a number of substantial risks in this project which  a prudent government should consider

1)* What will be the other effects of the development *? For example how will the barrier Reef cope with the sludge, the ships  etc. ? What would be the effects on the tourist industry if there was substantial damage to the reef and associated environment?

2) *What will be the effect on local agriculture ?* They will be drawing a huge amount of underground water for the project. What effect will this have on the local farms ? How will they respond when the project is up and running if in fact there are significant problems. (That is why you do extensive environmental impact plans.)

3) *Will the project be viable in the longer term?*  There will be  international pressure to reduce the use of  coal. See what is happening with USA and China  This will have an impact on Australia and India. Pretending it won't is crackers.

*4) Will the Indian coal fired power station be viable in medium future  and therefore the industry?* Make no mistake there are  a range of technologies  being developed that will compete with coal fired power stations purely on an economic basis. That doesn't even include pollution issues and CO2 emissions. What happens to the investment if/when these technologies come on stream?

I'll offer one example of such a technology.  DYESOL Aust and Tata Steel (from India) are developing  building materials that incorporate  high efficiency solar cells (not stuck on; they are in the  steel) . They expect to be producing  fully commercial product within 3-4 years

5)* Whether you like it or not coal fired power stations are an unacceptable risk in terms of  global warming*. The race is to develop alternatives as quickly and economically as possible and retire old power stations as quickly as possible.

http://www.dyesol.com/posts/Dyesol-signs-letter-of-intent-tata-steel/


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Whilst your rhetoric is a bit off thread, I thought it necessary to reply......you see, unlike the Labor Party, we have adult Governments who has the expertise to do some market research and is preparing  for the future....The QLD and WA governments do there home work and obviously know that a year from now the price of coal and iron ore will rise and they will be well prepared to meet the market demand....If it had been the Labor Party, they would have sat on there hands and done nothing.
> 
> The Labor Party believed in a fellow named Tim Flannery, who told the three Eastern Labor states at the time a furphy in 2007 that there would not be enough rain to fill the dams, so the Labor Party, instead of doing some more research, believed this brain storm and spent billions of dollars on desal plants now in moth balls....now that was not very good thinking.
> 
> I was in sales and marketing for 28 years and we had to predict by various methods how our sales would be 12 months down the track...we would take appropriate action to insure we were on target and this is what the QLD and WA governments have done....Smart people!!!!!




If coal or iron ore are up 10% by this time next year I'll practically fall off my perch.  I wont be surprised if prices are down up to another 20% this time next year.

The sea borne iron ore market is in surplus to the tune of FMGs production and then some.

You could shut down 60M tonnes of coal production in Australia and the seaborne thermal coal market would still have excess supply.

Care to say who's going to shut down production and / or where is the extra demand going to come from?

I'd have thought a free marketer like yourself would be against Governments picking winners and providing subsidies to a specific sector of the economy.


----------



## drsmith

China CO2 emissions to rise by one third before 2030 peak - study,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/china-carbon-idUSL3N0T41EY20141114


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> China CO2 emissions to rise by one third before 2030 peak - study,
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/china-carbon-idUSL3N0T41EY20141114




News flash: CO2 emissions to rise before they fall....amazing.

Up then down...who would of thought.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The return to the Queensland state government is in the vicinity of $20 billion in royalties irrespective  of what the price may be at the time.
> 
> http://www.adanimining.com/pdfs/MLA 70441/MLA_70441 Part_5.pdf
> 
> [/B]




Don't you know that there's an open-ended royalty holiday already on offer to the first mover in the Galilee Basin.

Even the QLD Treasury has come out and stated "The cost to the Government of supporting the development of the mining industry are apparent and significant"

The WA Treasury said "Many state expenditures that support resource development [incur} a significant subsidy cost.."

Gina and Clive have both politely told Newman they're currently not interested in devloping their coal assets in the Galilee basin, even with the lure of subsidised rail.

Gina's off to invest in Dairy now, and as for Clive, I sometimes wonder even if he knows what he's going to do next.

So do you believe fossil fuels should receive such large licks of subsidies as opposed to renewable energy?


Adani is in a weak financial position to execute such an ambitious project: with external equity market capitalization at only US$5.17bn against estimated net debt of $12bn, development costs for the Carmichael and Abbot Point T0 coal terminal projects are estimated at US$10bn.
Adani has over-estimated coal quality while under-estimating costs and project complexities.
At peak production of 60 million tonnes per annum, Adani’s Carmichael mine would be by far the largest coal mine in Australia in a remote inland region with no power, rail, water or workforce infrastructure. Prior to 2013, Adani’s only other experience in coal mining is a 2–4mtpa coal mine in Indonesia that has consistently performed below expectations.
The project is plagued by delays that continue to squeeze the Adani Group’s cash flow, with the company conceding the 2014 timetable for commencement of production has been pushed out to 2016, but more likely 2017 with full production beyond 2022.

Then we also have the other helping hands of


$1 billion loan from Bank of India
personal dispensation for Adani from India’s drive toward coal self-sufficiency - change in Govt could see that rescinded
favourable coal price terms from Indian power plants


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> So do you believe fossil fuels should receive such large licks of subsidies as opposed to renewable energy?




Renewable energy? Do you mean like Germany?



> WILSTER, Germany””In a sandy marsh on the outskirts of this medieval hamlet, Germany's next autobahn will soon take shape.
> 
> The Stromautobahn, as locals call it, won't carry Audis and BMW's BMW.XE +0.89%  , but high-voltage electricity over hundreds of miles of aluminum and steel cables stretching from the North Sea to Germany's industrial corridor in the south.
> 
> The project is the linchpin of Germany's Energiewende, or energy revolution, a mammoth, trillion-euro plan to wean the country off nuclear and fossil fuels by midcentury and the top domestic priority of Chancellor Angela Merkel.
> 
> *But many companies, economists and even Germany's neighbors worry that the enormous cost to replace a currently working system will undermine the country's industrial base and weigh on the entire European economy. Germany's second-quarter GDP decline of 0.6%, reported earlier this month, put a damper on overall euro-zone growth, leaving it flat for the quarter.
> 
> Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S.
> 
> "German industry is going to gradually lose its competitiveness if this course isn't reversed soon," said Kurt Bock, chief executive of BASF SE, BAS.XE +2.14%  the world's largest chemical maker*.



http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> China is starting to limit it's coal imports.  The turning on of massive amounts of nuclear power over the next decade, along with a 2 pipe lines for gas imports from Russia doesn't seem to indicate further increases in demand from China will occur either.




China supposedly has about 115 billion tonnes of coal reserves, half of which is sub-bituminous and lignite. The split between sub-bituminous (lowest grade of black coal) and lignite (brown coal) seems hard to find, but I'll assume here it's 50/50.

Anyway, let's assume the figures are right. So they've got roughly 85 billion tonnes of black coal all up, and 25 billion tonnes of brown.

Now, production is predominantly black coal with not a lot of brown coal (in relative terms) being used. That's not surprising given the very poor economics of transporting brown coal due to its' lower energy density, and that a lot of China's coal is mined quite some distance from where it is used.

So, 85 billion tonnes of black coal in the ground, and roughly 3.8 billion tonnes of that being used each year.

No rocket science here. Environmental issues aside, it's just not sustainable in terms of resources and it's inevitable that China will see a peak and decline in coal production before too much longer. Exactly when is had to pinpoint down to the year, but if you've got 85 billion tonnes of black coal reserves, and have used 4.5% if that in the past 12 months alone, then pretty obviously there's a limit to how long that can continue.

And so here comes the gas. And nuclear. And hydro. But, at best, those might limit the future growth of coal consumption rather than outright reducing it. 

If the numbers are anywhere near to being right then it seems certain that China is going to be importing rather a lot of coal in the years ahead, having already built coal-fired power stations and other facilities which, over their lifetime, will use far more coal than China has in the ground.

As for India, that's a very different situation. Reserves somewhere around 300 billion tonnes, production around 0.65 billion tonnes a year. That's not going to run out anytime soon, and there seems no physical reason why India couldn't massively expand coal extraction if they wanted to - and I dare say they could do it a lot cheaper than it would be to mine the stuff in outback Qld, rail it to port, ship it to India then unload it. I can't see how that makes sense when they've got huge reserves in India itself.


----------



## noco

As previously stated, the pledge between Obama and china was just window dressing.....it will never happen. 

Both the USA and China talk about a direct action plan.

The Green/Labor left wing socialist must surely have egg all over their little faces......Most of them with only a half a brain between the lot them



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...126264792?sv=dcde29b30b9081409e7dcdb9291c56ad

AT a historic joint press conference with Barack Obama in Beijing last week Chinese President Xi Jinping signalled that China would continue to increase CO2 emissions until 2030.

*China is currently increasing emissions every year by the equivalent of Australia’s total emissions, and Xi’s statement means this will continue to be the case. The announcement was warmly welcomed by the world media.

Xi said that by 2030 fossil fuels would still represent 80 per cent of China’s energy usage. Renewables such as wind and power would produce just 3 per cent of output. Xi implied that it was important that Europe continue to take the lead in renewables as they seemed to be able to tolerate low levels of growth and high levels of unemployment.

Lame duck US President Obama signalled the US would not take any leadership role on climate change action.*

*Both Obama and Xi implied that any reduction in emissions beyond business as usual would be brought about by direct action measures. There was no mention of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme at the press conference. They implied this was a European disease.*


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> As previously stated, the pledge between Obama and china was just window dressing.....it will never happen.
> 
> Both the USA and China talk about a direct action plan.
> 
> The Green/Labor left wing socialist must surely have egg all over their little faces......Most of them with only a half a brain between the lot them




Obviously they didn't hear about China's cap and trade pilot

http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/03...ngs-chinas-pilot-emissions-cap-trade-systems/



> In both California and China, the cap and trade program is just one element of a much more comprehensive effort to reduce pollution. For example, like California, China requires its utilities to help customers use energy more efficiently. Both also have ambitious targets to increase generation from renewable resources. And China has pledged to adopt more stringent fuel standards to slash air pollutants and is piloting efforts to reduce reliance on coal-fired electricity.






> Seven different cities and regions across China including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Chongqing, Guangdong and Hubei have pilot cap-and-trade programs in development. These cities and provinces represent a range of different industries, so each program will be tailored to local characteristics with different reduction targets. Today, the city of Shenzhen’s launch will limit carbon emissions from more than 630 industrial companies, with a target to reduce the city’s overall carbon consumption by 21 percent by 2015. *Shenzhen will be joined over the next year by the six remaining programs and if all goes well, China aims to have a nationwide system in place by 2016.*


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Renewable energy? Do you mean like Germany?
> 
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602




They stuffed up a bit like in Australia where they offered too generous incentives a the beginning.  Over time the costs will reduce.  No one mentions the massive export machine Germany has been able to create due to their large home market and first mover advantage.

Having said that, every report has shown the RET has helped to suppress power prices in Australia, so we're moving away from using non renewable energy sources at a new 0 cost to consumers.  I'd call that a pretty successful policy outcome.

The call for increasing the use of nuclear power doesn't seem to care about the costs.  The capital cost for two planned large reactors (totalling 3.2 gigawatts) at Hinkley Point in Somerset: a staggering $29 billion. Utilities can't find the capital, so the UK government is offering loan guarantees of $18 billion. The UK government has provided a 35-year guarantee for the plant to receive £92.50 per megawatt-hour, or about $165, adjusted upward annually with inflation - that's around 3-4 times the current average wholesale price in Australia.

The problem to date with nuclear power has been that it’s been nearly impossible to nail down just how much they actually cost. In western countries that have liberalised electricity markets, where prices and government subsidies tend to be reasonably transparent, there hasn’t been a nuclear plant built in decades. The one recent build in Finland, Olkiluoto, is hardly a glowing advertisement, with the budget blowing out to €8.5 billion ($12.31 billion), or almost three times the delivery price of €3 billion. The estimated cost for the EPR in France has ballooned from $5 billion to $12.8 billion. Thus we have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the true capital costs of nuclear power: double the initial estimate and add a few billion for good measure.

Seems these days it's only renewable energy that has to stand on it's own two feet.  Fossil fuels and nuclear seem to be entitled to near limitless levels of Govt subsidy.


----------



## macca

I am guessing it will take a few years to plan and then 3 weeks  to build a dozen nuclear power stations in China. Do they have uranium ? Not sure I would like China to be a nuclear expert, never know what they might make !

If it is OK with the Greens for China to switch from coal to nuclear, how come we are not allowed to build another couple of Snowy Mountains Hydros around the place. I would be quite happy to live next to a lake created by a dam used for Hydro but I don't want to live near a nuclear power station.

The South Island of NZ has lakes all over the place, tourists rave over them, every large lake is part of a Hydro scheme and it is all so sensible, practical and efficient.


----------



## sydboy007

macca said:


> I am guessing it will take a few years to plan and then 3 weeks  to build a dozen nuclear power stations in China. Do they have uranium ? Not sure I would like China to be a nuclear expert, never know what they might make !
> 
> If it is OK with the Greens for China to switch from coal to nuclear, how come we are not allowed to build another couple of Snowy Mountains Hydros around the place. I would be quite happy to live next to a lake created by a dam used for Hydro but I don't want to live near a nuclear power station.
> 
> The South Island of NZ has lakes all over the place, tourists rave over them, every large lake is part of a Hydro scheme and it is all so sensible, practical and efficient.




After Fukushima the Chinese Govt slowed down construction of their reactors to ensure they were being built safely.  While it's not improbably corners have been cut, the same could be said for a lot of the reactors in rich countries.  Lets just hope they decide to deal with their nuclear waste a bit better than the current solution of leaving in in ponds of water for decades.  Dealing with nuclear waste never seems to be factored into the cost of nuclear power.

In a country like Australia with near limitless potential for solar and wind power, do we really want to be spending $10B+ per nuclear reactor?  That's a while lot of renewable energy production, along with the benefits of distributed power generation.  The fact we don't have the skill sets to build or run the power plants would also be an added factor in the risks of nuclear here.

I'm not sure if there's many rivers suitable to be dammed left in Australia.  Certainly none particularly close to where lots of energy is consumed.  You might be able to provide some info on that?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Obviously they didn't hear about China's cap and trade pilot
> 
> http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/03...ngs-chinas-pilot-emissions-cap-trade-systems/



I did not read anything about China's cap and trade pilot in that link.

A pilot scheme  maybe and that is infinitesimal really...just a trial and nothing more.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I did not read anything about China's cap and trade pilot in that link.
> 
> A pilot scheme  maybe and that is infinitesimal really...just a trial and nothing more.




So you missed the nation wide rollout in 2016

http://www.planetexperts.com/china-plans-nationwide-cap-trade-program-2016/



> Sun Cuihua, a climate change official with China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s main economic planning body, has confirmed that Beijing plans to enforce cap-and-trade in 2016.




http://www.theclimategroup.org/what...-launch-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-in-2016/



> China is already experimenting with seven regional carbon market pilots, which were announced in 2011 and operative over the last two years. Each pilot covers a large city - Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Shenzhen - or a province - Chongqing, Guangdong, and Hubei.
> 
> Together the projects have accounted for almost 4 million tons of carbon emission quotas so far, according to the National Development and Reform Commission, making China the world's second largest carbon trading market following the European Union's EU-ETS.


----------



## orr

sydboy007 said:


> So you missed the nation wide rollout in 2016
> 
> http://www.planetexperts.com/china-plans-nationwide-cap-trade-program-2016/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theclimategroup.org/what...-launch-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-in-2016/




Damn good information in those links syd............But I must ask can a commo socialist fabian marxist collective that only gets up from eating there own young to join in the chorus of the _'international'_ really teach us anything.


----------



## drsmith

Lets not forget that aside from CO2, China has significant internal pollution problems. 

With CO2 itself, the image in the following article puts China's contribution into perspective and it's expected to continue to go up for another 16 years and then there's India. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?_r=0

The demand for fossil fuel I'd suggest is quiet secure for some time.


----------



## explod

orr said:


> Damn good information in those links syd............But I must ask can a commo socialist fabian marxist collective that only gets up from eating there own young to join in the chorus of the _'international'_ really teach us anything.




What a nasty little rationalisation.

If we take away Government subsidies in tax (offshore take too) and excise considerations, alternative wind and solar is cheaper.

But the money lobby power has the upper hand here with twisted rationalisation and a gullible press spoon fed public.


----------



## Calliope

orr said:


> But I must ask can a commo socialist fabian marxist collective that only gets up from eating there own young to join in the chorus of the _'international'_ really teach us anything.




The Chinese can teach us a lot. 

"Confucious Say one who misleads the ignorant is no more than a pile of dog doo, or a socialist democrat."

He was obviously referring to Obama and other GW hysterics.


drsmith said;  



> The demand for fossil fuel I'd suggest is quiet secure for some time.




You are right. The only power source that can displace it is nuclear and that not going to happen.
The world will be reliant on coal until nuclear fusion kicks in, and that's still a way down the track.


----------



## explod

If the money spent on nuclear went to large scale deep thermal we could in my view get the power grunt needed.

But with expasionism hitting a brick wall soon, will we really need it?

The poor will be only able to use discarded blankets anyway.


----------



## sydboy007

It's reported in the Australian, so it must be true...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...climate-and-coal/story-fnpebfcn-1227127600810



> THE Queensland government, as host of last weekend’s G20 *summit, is incensed over what it sees as an ill-informed, insulting speech from Barack Obama about climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and coal.
> 
> Federal Coalition members are also angry at the US President’s public intervention in the Australian climate change debate at the G20 last Saturday…
> 
> Senior Queensland government MPs are so angry at Mr Obama’s remarks about the Great Barrier Reef and his attack on coal production in a resources state that they are considering a formal complaint.
> 
> …What most angered Newman government MPs was that the state had “bent over backwards” to find a venue and audience in keeping with Mr Obama’s late request to speak to a large number of young people.


----------



## macca

sydboy007 said:


> After Fukushima the Chinese Govt slowed down construction of their reactors to ensure they were being built safely.  While it's not improbably corners have been cut, the same could be said for a lot of the reactors in rich countries.  Lets just hope they decide to deal with their nuclear waste a bit better than the current solution of leaving in in ponds of water for decades.  Dealing with nuclear waste never seems to be factored into the cost of nuclear power.
> 
> In a country like Australia with near limitless potential for solar and wind power, do we really want to be spending $10B+ per nuclear reactor?  That's a while lot of renewable energy production, along with the benefits of distributed power generation.  The fact we don't have the skill sets to build or run the power plants would also be an added factor in the risks of nuclear here.
> 
> I'm not sure if there's many rivers suitable to be dammed left in Australia.  Certainly none particularly close to where lots of energy is consumed.  You might be able to provide some info on that?




Hi SB,

I did find this on Brisbane power supply, says that mostly coal fired power stations with some gas as well. 
http://www.energyskillsqld.com.au/industry-sectors/electricity-generation-industry/

I agree with Smurf that burning gas to make electricity is a complete waste of a transportable fuel and future generations will not thanks us for it.

Every night on the weather it seems to be raining around the border of NSW and QLD then we have the very wet area of Proserpine and Tully etc where it buckets down, surely they can find somewhere suitable for dams and hydro plants. As Smurf has shown the incredibly long life of these units with minimal maintenance and no nuclear waste is surely a win win for us all.


----------



## Julia

macca said:


> The South Island of NZ has lakes all over the place, tourists rave over them, every large lake is part of a Hydro scheme and it is all so sensible, practical and efficient.



I agree, macca.  But NZ does have such a huge natural geographical advantage in this respect, with snow melt coming off the mountains into those huge high country lakes, so beautiful in themselves.


----------



## sydboy007

macca said:


> Hi SB,
> 
> I did find this on Brisbane power supply, says that mostly coal fired power stations with some gas as well.
> http://www.energyskillsqld.com.au/industry-sectors/electricity-generation-industry/
> 
> I agree with Smurf that burning gas to make electricity is a complete waste of a transportable fuel and future generations will not thanks us for it.
> 
> Every night on the weather it seems to be raining around the border of NSW and QLD then we have the very wet area of Proserpine and Tully etc where it buckets down, surely they can find somewhere suitable for dams and hydro plants. As Smurf has shown the incredibly long life of these units with minimal maintenance and no nuclear waste is surely a win win for us all.






Julia said:


> I agree, macca.  But NZ does have such a huge natural geographical advantage in this respect, with snow melt coming off the mountains into those huge high country lakes, so beautiful in themselves.




very much worth a read on the limited prospects for new dams in Australia.  We've pretty much used up the best resources already.

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/10/dam-hard-water-storage-historic-headache-australia



> The Ord River Scheme in Western Australia provides a good (if somewhat extreme) example. According to an official analysis, between 1958 and 1991 the government invested A$613 million in the scheme, but the benefits were just A$102 million. Yet the expansion of the project has continued (and is mentioned in the new green paper), with mounting net losses.






> In terms of economics, it is unlikely that future schemes will do any better than the poor return on investment garnered from Australia’s existing dams. A century of development has exhausted most of the best dam sites, and new projects will face constraints that were less acute (or disregarded) during the expansionary period of the 20th century.
> 
> Moreover, while the real price of agricultural commodities has fluctuated about a stable or declining trend, the cost of large-scale construction of all kinds has increased – one of the few certainties in this entire issue.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> If the money spent on nuclear went to large scale deep thermal we could in my view get the power grunt needed.
> .




From what I've read, large scale deep thermal, other than geothermal, is pie in the sky stuff.

If we are going to to use mass geothermal, no ones knows the ramifications.


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> I agree with Smurf that burning gas to make electricity is a complete waste of a transportable fuel and future generations will not thanks us for it.
> 
> Every night on the weather it seems to be raining around the border of NSW and QLD then we have the very wet area of Proserpine and Tully etc where it buckets down, surely they can find somewhere suitable for dams and hydro plants. As Smurf has shown the incredibly long life of these units with minimal maintenance and no nuclear waste is surely a win win for us all.




Lifespan of hydro - well the oldest operating station in Australia (Lake Margaret Upper Power Station, Tas) is now 100 years old and it's still in full use. Much the same at Tarraleah. It's been running since 1938 and it's still a baseload station today and will be for quite some time to come. Neither are designed the way it would be done today, but they're still fully functional and still do what they were built to do.

If you take one where major equipment (the turbine itself) is being replaced right now, that being Meadowbank, it's not being done due to problems as such. The old kaplan turbine has an oil-filled hub and, bearing in mind that this is directly upstream of Hobart's main water supply intake, that poses a risk in the event that it did fail and let all that oil out. So there's a new turbine going in that isn't filled with oil now that improved technology makes this possible. So it's not worn out, just being improved. Meadowbank was originally commissioned in 1967.

So far as undeveloped hydro potential in Australia is concerned, there's no chance we could run the whole country on it but there's more than most seem to think. We could certainly build "another Snowy" if we wanted to, the obstacles being political (dams.....) and economic (current economics having a relatively short term "this years' results" focus which doesn't sit well with something that takes 5 - 10 years to build, producing zero income in the meantime, and runs for a century or more).


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> In a country like Australia with near limitless potential for solar and wind power, do we really want to be spending $10B+ per nuclear reactor?  That's a while lot of renewable energy production, along with the benefits of distributed power generation.  The fact we don't have the skill sets to build or run the power plants would also be an added factor in the risks of nuclear here.
> ?




At this stage of our energy evolution, renewables are limited by both the cost and our storage limitations, I'm sure you're aware of that.

Base load for the foreseeable future, will be supplied by our dirty fuels, nuclear being the only viable alternative.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> From what I've read, large scale deep thermal, other than geothermal, is pie in the sky stuff.
> 
> If we are going to to use mass geothermal, no ones knows the ramifications.




The Labor Party gave Tim Flannery's company $60,000,000 for the development of a geothermal project in South Australia and it went belly up.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> very much worth a read on the limited prospects for new dams in Australia.  We've pretty much used up the best resources already.




The "economics of dams" argument isn't a new one, indeed it was one of the two key pillars (the other being environmental) of the "No Dams" campaign of the 1970's and especially into the early 1980's.

There's only one problem I see with that. If you strictly apply the economic criteria then we end up with coal....

Looking ahead, nobody is really pushing large scale hydro development these days. AGL built a significant new hydro station in Victoria not too long ago and in Tas we've done a lot of tinkering to try and squeeze more production out of the existing system without building any new major dams or power stations as such. That's about it apart from some very small scale schemes in various places.

But if we did want to build more, well then there's some potentially worthwhile projects in Qld, NSW and Tas. That plus the large scale option of developing hydro (baseload) in PNG and transmitting the electricity into the grid in Qld. 

There are some undeveloped resources elsewhere, including the NT and WA, but they're pretty unlikely to be developed in practice due to location and scale factors (which would make the economics pretty terrible).


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> I did find this on Brisbane power supply, says that mostly coal fired power stations with some gas as well.




Historically for Qld it was 98% coal and a bit from two small hydro stations. Plus some oil-fired gas turbines for peaking that weren't really used often in practice.

Today it's largely still coal but with significant use of gas, still a little bit of hydro and a little bit from oil and various renewables.

Looking ahead, the basic trend in Qld seems to be toward less use of current gas-fired generation and bringing some coal units back into service.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> The "economics of dams" argument isn't a new one, indeed it was one of the two key pillars (the other being environmental) of the "No Dams" campaign of the 1970's and especially into the early 1980's.
> 
> There's only one problem I see with that. If you strictly apply the economic criteria then we end up with coal....
> 
> Looking ahead, nobody is really pushing large scale hydro development these days. AGL built a significant new hydro station in Victoria not too long ago and in Tas we've done a lot of tinkering to try and squeeze more production out of the existing system without building any new major dams or power stations as such. That's about it apart from some very small scale schemes in various places.
> 
> But if we did want to build more, well then there's some potentially worthwhile projects in Qld, NSW and Tas. That plus the large scale option of developing hydro (baseload) in PNG and transmitting the electricity into the grid in Qld.
> 
> There are some undeveloped resources elsewhere, including the NT and WA, but they're pretty unlikely to be developed in practice due to location and scale factors (which would make the economics pretty terrible).




That's the envornment we seemed to have created where debt is bad.  Historically the Government would build the infrastructure using debt, and then tax payers would pay it off over many years, but still much faster than it's economi life psan.  Now it's all about user pays which seems to end up costing the economy far more for the infrastructure.

I've tried doing some research to see what potential there is for new hydro schemes in Australia and can't really find anything of significance.  Not sure if you are aware of any potential sites.  It would be interesting to compare the costs of hydro to say wind farms and solar.  The cost to build dams only seems to go up each year, while the cost deflation for wind turbines and solar seems to make it a far better bet.

Hydro might win out if you factor in using it as peaking energy and using excess renewable energy to pump water back into the reservoir - the Danes make a lot of money doing this as part of the Euro energy system.

From what I've read we've pretty much used up all the A and B grade dam sites.  What's left is relativity small sites.  Not sure how economic they would be.  Happy to be proved wrong though.


----------



## overhang

> Victorian State Election: *Greens to shut down dirty coal plants if it wins balance of power*
> 
> Coal-fired power stations at Hazelwood and Anglesea would be phased out from as soon as next year under a Greens plan the party is vowing to pursue if it wins the balance of power in Victoria.
> 
> Under the scheme, decommissioned power plants and mines would be replaced by solar farms and other renewable energy projects, which would create hundreds of jobs.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/v...e-of-power-20141119-11px1r.html#ixzz3JZX0Ac1C




I'd hate to imagine the cost of doing this.


----------



## macca

overhang said:


> I'd hate to imagine the cost of doing this.




Wow, that is a big call ! Imagine creating hundreds of jobs doing that, maybe they could employ some of the thousands who will be put out of work as power prices go through the roof.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> I'd hate to imagine the cost of doing this.



Cost wouldn't even come into the Greens' thinking.  Irrelevant as far as they're concerned.


----------



## orr

sptrawler said:


> Base load for the foreseeable future, will be supplied by our dirty fuels, nuclear being the only viable alternative.





We aimed at 20% of electricity generation by 2020 and now circumstances have the coal fired generators scared $hitless of the likely hood of 27-28% by that date, along with the 30,000 people employed in that sector by 2020. Who no doubt would like to keep working* (see note)after that date and vote. How long will it take to get to 50% and beyond ??

It's not me you have to argue with, it's the math............. good luck.

*thats working people, poeple with jobs and families and businesses, employed people, productive poeple, skilled poeple. In an industry that makes you the home owner a producer a capitalist 'the owner of the means of production' i.e a threat to the status quo.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> We aimed at 20% of electricity generation by 2020 and now circumstances have the coal fired generators scared $hitless of the likely hood of 27-28% by that date, along with the 30,000 people employed in that sector by 2020. Who no doubt would like to keep working* (see note)after that date and vote. How long will it take to get to 50% and beyond ??
> 
> It's not me you have to argue with, it's the math............. good luck.
> 
> *thats working people, poeple with jobs and families and businesses, employed people, productive poeple, skilled poeple. In an industry that makes you the home owner a producer a capitalist 'the owner of the means of production' i.e a threat to the status quo.




If they ever get the storage issue and batteries sorted then sky's the limit.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Hydro might win out if you factor in using it as peaking energy and using excess renewable energy to pump water back into the reservoir - the Danes make a lot of money doing this as part of the Euro energy system.




There's 3 pumped storage schemes in Australia at present. Wivenhoe (Qld), Shoalhaven (NSW) and Tumut 3 (part of the Snowy scheme).

But there's no need to actually do any pumping in order to take advantage of price swings. If you look at the situation right now, Hydro Tas is basically giving away as much of its' baseload market as transmission constraints allow (though there's still some baseload production certainly, but nowhere near as much as there was in the past two years when prices were much higher) but I can assure you that it's still very actively pursuing generation into the peaks. 

There's also a long term trading strategy involved too. Without naming specifics, we could completely shut down one particular power station (and it's a decent sized one) for the next 4 years and hold every drop of water in storage. There's another one (with an even bigger peak capacity) where it could be done for 2 years and both of those are assuming average rainfall. 

They're not shut down completely in practice, but there's no point generating at 2 cents / kWh when you've got the alternative option of storing the water for use at some future time. With the prospect of a future carbon price (in whatever form) being introduced plus the rise in gas prices that's certainly coming, there's just no point giving power away right now.

In the Australian context, the Snowy scheme was primarily built for peaking power generation right from the start whereas the Tasmanian system was built for baseload - there isn't a single generating unit in the Tas system that was designed for peak operation, not one. So Snowy has a larger peak capacity but generates only half the actual energy that Tas does.



> From what I've read we've pretty much used up all the A and B grade dam sites.  What's left is relativity small sites.  Not sure how economic they would be.  Happy to be proved wrong though.




There's still quite a few "big" schemes that could be built, indeed the single largest one remains undeveloped and there's quite a few other decent ones too.

But from the industry's perspective (note that this is purely my own view), I'll put it this way. Hydro Tas has, as part of the centenary celebrations, just run a touring exhibition with lots of photos etc from the past century and suffice to say that the "No Dams" case is featured prominently in that complete with constantly rolling footage from the blockade and protests of the early 1980's. 

And if you were to go to the most controversial hydro scheme that was actually built, Gordon, well there's a sign at one of the lookout points over Lake Pedder which tells the story of the controversy surrounding it. To paraphrase, construction of that scheme changed the way Australians think about the natural environment (from memory those are pretty much the exact words) and it wouldn't be built today. And yes, it was the Hydro itself which produced and installed that sign.

On the other hand, if you talk to the harder line environmentalists then they too have come to see the other side over the years. Not every single one of them, but certainly there's plenty who now see it as a very "grey" debate versus the "black versus white" arguments of the 70's and 80's. You put a river under water, that's the downside, but you get reliable renewable energy as a result and that's the upside. 

There's no realistic chance that a major new scheme will be built anytime soon and I think that everyone knows that regardless of their view as to whether that should or shouldn't be the case. But in the long term, say the next few decades, well I think that most expect we'll see a re-run of the great dams debate at some point. 

Nobody's going to push to build a dam that loses money, and losing money is exactly what it would do in an environment of baseload electricity being worth 2 cents / kWh and low inflation. But those things are cyclical and at some point someone will probably want to dam something.

My personal expectation is that we'll carry on "business as usual" with fossil fuels until such time as either technology makes them obsolete or we reach a crisis point where BAU simply cannot sensibly continue. If the latter occurs, well that's when "anything that works" comes into play, big dams in the wilderness included.

Personally, I'll say this. It would be an outright tragedy to flood pristine wilderness simply in order to generate electricity that is wasted running computers all night that nobody is using and the like. We need to get our act together with efficiency first, then decide the best means of producing sensible amounts of power that are actually needed.


----------



## explod

overhang said:


> I'd hate to imagine the cost of doing this.




The Greens most certainly think about costs.   If solar and wind were given the same incentives, grants,  tax concessions,  fuel rebates and suport it would be cheaper than oil,  gas and coal.  But few will accept change or thinking outside the square. And wave power is another. 

Lets just think of the amount that goes into producing oil today.   In Alaska it takes a barrell of oil to produce two.  Are we hitting a wall perhaps. 

Now lets think real big,  like when Kennedy said they would land a man on the moon.  The engines (rocket power) had a special gas stream to cushion the heat of the fuel burn and metal casing.   Sure in learning to do that some exploded and lives were lost,  but they did it. 

Now to thermal,  I mentioned the other day.  With big casings and weighted slide valves,  and we have the materials now to develop massive generators for real grunt power.   But the establishment do not want or are led by the established modes of power production, oil lobby and big investors tied to something they understand. 

I remember my Dad in the 60s telling us about a bloke who developed an engine in the 40s that ran on water,  and this was combustion,  not steam.   It was bought out and buried by the oil industry.   Another was able to fire up a light globe forty miles away.   Again bought out and buried. 

Some of my thoughts are fed by an engineer freind who works for Rollsroyce in the UK and of course my Dad who worked on planes in the Airforce during world war 2.

There are many within the Greens that I discuss such issues with.   Do not be led by political propaganda and a Press very much driven by the oil lobby and big money.   Why do they continue to build big freeways,  so that fhey can build new housing estates,  thwn block them up with traffic,  use more fuel and the cycle keeps winding up.   Well the news of expansion peoblems coming out of China the last few days and the shocking gridlock we have here in Melbourne tells me we are going to hit a wall soon and unless more people start thinking as greens then we will haave no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## drsmith

The following article from Martin Ferguson is well worth a read, 



> THE hypocrisy and bald zealotry that often masquerade as energy policy “debate” in Canberra have been of an unusually high quality of late.
> 
> The “Climate Pact” signed by the USA and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appears to be the root cause.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...gy-policy-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1227130067405


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> If they ever get the storage issue and batteries sorted then sky's the limit.




At last, something I agree 100% with you on.

If we can get similar energy density from batteries, as we do from fossil fuels, the sky is the limit.

Solar, wind and even tidal power will become viable.


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> The following article from Martin Ferguson is well worth a read,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...gy-policy-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1227130067405




YOU'VE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ARTICLE.
Would you like to become a subscriber for 50% less for the first 12 weeks†? Sign up now and access the full breadth of The Australian's content in minutes.

And you do persist with posting opinion pieces as fact.

theaustralian.com.au/*opinion*/greens-hypocrisy-evident-in-energy-policy-debate

-------------

Found something not hidden behind a pay wall, news not opinion.



			
				thenewdaily.com.au/news said:
			
		

> *Tony Abbott’s climate change stance* has been labelled *“eccentric”*, *“baffling”* and that of a *“flat-earther”* by senior British conservative politicians.




http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/11/21/uk-politicians-slam-abbotts-eccentric-climate-stance/


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> YOU'VE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ARTICLE.
> Would you like to become a subscriber for 50% less for the first 12 weeks†? Sign up now and access the full breadth of The Australian's content in minutes.
> 
> And you do persist with posting opinion pieces as fact.



I'm just posted it as a matter of interest.

Have you read it ?

Don't forget that Martin Ferguson was Labor's Minister for Resources when they were in government.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> I'm just posted it as a matter of interest.
> 
> Have you read it ?
> 
> .




We can't read it because you are linking to a pay per view site. Not all of us want to pay for flawed and biased news when we already have someone else throw into our yard/street in the morning, where we can't find it under bushes or under water puddles.

It's bad enough we suffer ourselves by reading rubbish that is filtered by the likes of Chris Dores of the Courier Mail, but to compound it by reading the Australian, which also cherry picks ALP hate articles to satisfy it's largely pigheaded reader demographic is a bit much to warrant the extra dollars paid.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> We can't read it because you are linking to a pay per view site.



You don't have to be as pure as that but you've clearly drawn your own conclusion in any case.


----------



## drsmith

Andrew Bolt has published a segment of Martin Ferguson's article above,

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...armist_frauds_wishing_the_ends_not_the_means/


----------



## SirRumpole

Martin Ferguson is advocating that NSW and Qld sell off their remaining electricity grids.

That's worked really well in NSW where the price of power has shot through the roof since the distribution network has been privatised.

I don't know who has got to Martin Ferguson, he's obviously acting in the interests of private concerns not consumers.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Martin Ferguson is advocating that NSW and Qld sell off their remaining electricity grids.
> 
> That's worked really well in NSW where the price of power has shot through the roof since the distribution network has been privatised.
> 
> I don't know who has got to Martin Ferguson, he's obviously acting in the interests of private concerns not consumers.




Martin Ferguson should be leading the Labor Party........He is the only Labor Party member with any brains.......the socialist left drove him out........A great loss to the Labor Party


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> That's worked really well in NSW where the price of power has shot through the roof since the distribution network has been privatised.




There's probably an exception somewhere, but in general terms the introduction of retail competion and/or privatisation (the two being linked ideologically and often also in practice) sends prices up rather than down.

In SA they jacked up gas prices simply to make competition work. Put them up x%, then have this "competition" to bring them half way back down. Ordinary households and small business would have been far better off by retaining a single monopoly supplier.

In Tas they tried to privatise and introduce competition at the retail level. It failed for reasons best explained by saying that nowhere else can an ordinary household get peak power for roughly half their load for under 15 cents / kWh and the rest for 24 cents. In the most directly comparable state in terms of population but with private operation of the industry, SA, even paying 30 cents for the whole lot would be an outright bargain.

Australia used to have the most efficient thermal power stations in the world and we were outright leaders with hydro engineering as well. That gave us the third cheapest electricity in the OECD, beaten only by Canada and NZ with their much higher proportion of hydro. But after all these "reforms", we're running old power stations that would otherwise have been closed years ago, we've even bought second hand plant from overseas, and we're a long way down the list in terms of efficiency both technical and economic. 

The reformists have had over 20 years of messing about with electricity and gas now. Their ideas sounded nice on paper but have failed in practice.


----------



## sydboy007

the compromises China is already making.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-china-need-to-do-to-meet-its-carbon-pledge



> Tony Abbott’s climate sceptic government may pause to consider that China will add enough zero-emissions capacity every year to power the whole of Australia.




Where there's a will there's usually a way.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...t-year-ever-three-more-records-broken-n252776



> Even if it's freezing in your personal universe, Earth as a whole just broke three "warmest" records and is likely to see 2014 go down as the warmest since record keeping began in 1880, scientists reported Thursday.
> 
> Driven by record warm oceans, combined sea and land temperatures in October were the warmest on record, according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. On top of that, January-October was the warmest first 10 calendar months, while November 2013 to October 2014 was the warmest 12-month block.


----------



## Smurf1976

Came across some figures which put this whole debate about energy (as distinct from climate per se) into some perspective. 

World energy consumption 2009 = 16 TWh

Forecast world energy consumption 2050 = 28 TWh

Reasonably available resources:

Solar = 23,000 TWh / year
Wind = 70 TWh / year
Ocean Thermal = 11 TWh / year
Biomass = 6 TWh / year
Hydro = 4 TWh / year
Conventional (wet) geothermal = 2 TWh / year
Tides = 0.7 TWh / year

Coal = 900 TWh / once only
Uranium = 300 TWh / once only
Oil = 240 TWh / once only
Gas = 215 TWh / once only

Looking at those numbers, many points are apparent.

1. The oil resource is relatively limited especially given the critical nature of it for transport fuel.

2. Gas is also quite limited and would be wisely reserved for high value use in process heating, petrochemicals, fertilizer manufacture, transport etc.

3. Uranium is not a long term solution since it is just another non-renewable resource, and a relatively limited one at that. That said, the current rate of resource extraction is, relative to the resource base, far lower than that of oil or gas thus giving it a longer remaining lifetime.

4. Coal is the only non-renewable resource that could be considered as plentiful relative to world energy consumption. 

5. The long established renewable technologies, that is biomass and hydro, cannot of themselves supply all energy but they can and do make a significant contribution. They are of future importance particularly in the context that they are easily able to be stored for use when required.

6. The long term supply of energy must involve a significant contribution from wind, solar or some other technology not listed above. That is not to say there is no future role for other sources, but if we're going to maintain the current and forecast energy usage indefinitely then we're going to have to rely significantly on wind and/or solar to do it.

Not considered above are issues with efficiency of conversion. Eg a coal power station only turns 40% of the energy in coal into electricity whereas for hydro it's at least double that. So developing 1 TWh of hydro, saves 2+ TWh of coal. Etc. There are issues like that with all fuels - eg it takes a lot of energy to turn gas into LNG whereas shipping oil is far more efficient. 

I haven't verified those figures, they're just something I came across, but they look to be right at least in a broad "order of magnitude" sense at least for "conventional" energy sources (coal, oil, gas, uranium, biomass and hydro). It's harder to assess accuracy with things like geothermal or tides since basically no country has evaluated its' own resources fully and certainly not globally - any estimate being an educated guess at best.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> The long term supply of energy must involve a significant contribution from wind, solar or *some other technology not listed above.*




Molten salt reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Pebble-bed reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Traveling-wave reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

The New wave of Nuclear power.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> The New wave of Nuclear power.




Those alternative approaches do have their advantages certainly, largely in that they extract more energy from what is still ultimately a finite resource. In that sense, they "buy time", and quite a lot of time at that, to switch to something more permanent.

The downside however is cost. Looking at those links, the eventual decommissioning cost alone blows the economics to pieces. If we're going to spend that sort of money, then wind + solar + pumped hydro is a cheaper way to do it.

If we ever do build a nuclear plant, of whatever technology, in Australia then my bet is that it will be built in NSW and will essentially be a government project. Built by private firms yes, but government will be very heavily involved financially with the only question being in the details. 

Such an approach of subsidising a specific low-CO2 energy source could be described as "direct action" on the CO2 issue (and I suspect that nuclear power is exactly what the Coalition has in mind at some point).


----------



## Wysiwyg

The end of the Industrial Revolution?

The world in unison has to stop burning hydrocarbons. Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted. It might take longer to get around without the various fuels but I'm sure the planet could slow down and be a much happier place.


----------



## sydboy007

Wysiwyg said:


> The end of the Industrial Revolution?
> 
> The world in unison has to stop burning hydrocarbons. Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted. It might take longer to get around without the various fuels but I'm sure the planet could slow down and be a much happier place.




To achieve that goal population growth would need to stop and start a fairly steep decline.  Fromw hat I've read roghly 3B is the sustainable maximum population.

Food transport and production consumes a lot of oil these days.  Possibly we need to encourage people to start having a veggie patch again as well.  Actually get fresh food and eating what's in season rather than shipped 2000KM or more.


----------



## So_Cynical

A couple of interesting TED talks.

Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial

Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates


----------



## noco

An interesting article by Patrick Moore disclaiming the alarmists science on climate change.

But will anyone take any notice of him due to the fact that he is a skeptic like millions of others around the world?

The alarmist say the discussion is over....they must have their own way and the opinion of anyone else does not count.  



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...dioxide-not-less/story-e6frg6zo-1227132351356

*By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the precise workings of the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. But if the IPCC did not find that *humans were the cause of warming, or if it found that warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. *Either the IPCC should be reconstituted with a larger membership of UN bodies (it is now a partnership between the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program), and its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.*


----------



## Smurf1976

Wysiwyg said:


> Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted.




Drugs, plastics, chemicals....

Agreed with your basic point, but the uses of oil and gas extend far beyond that of fuel and lubricants. 

Just about everything you own, involved oil in its' production in some way. In some cases a lot, in some cases a trivial amount, but oil was involved nonetheless. There's the equivalent of about 8 litres of petrol in an average sofa for example.

Modern society is completely and absolutely stuffed without oil. Gas is also used for more than is commonly realised too - its' use extends beyond that of just being a fuel and is used to make, amongst other things, fertilizer.

Burning these resources, especially for electricity where we have workable alternatives, is just silly.


----------



## sydboy007

Gail Tvberg sums things up nicely witht he challenges we face

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/18/eight-pitfalls-in-evaluating-green-energy-solutions/



> The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:
> 
> 
> Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
> Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
> Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
> Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
> Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
> Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
> Arable land per person, as population continues to rise


----------



## basilio

That was a very sad little story from Gail Tyberg...

I have a lot of respect for her work. She thinks clearly and researches well. I just havn't visited such challenging scenarios for a little time now and I was feeling better... 

Oh well back to reality.


----------



## Wysiwyg

sydboy007 said:


> Gail Tvberg sums things up nicely witht he challenges we face



Can someone tell Gail to stop contributing to the problems she identified.



> Smurf1976
> Drugs, plastics, chemicals....



Yes those things too. The technology changes are so rapid present time that people are throwing away old technology, i.e. computers, printers, televisions, machines and mobile phones on a massive scale. It gathers momentum. The Chinese leader speaks in Parliament about growing China to prosperity and that will include a lot of technological pleasures and comforts so we can expect a massive consumption of new technologies that create new technologies.


----------



## Calliope

Wysiwyg said:


> Can someone tell Gail to stop contributing to the problems she identified




There are so many hypocrites around.The greatest of all is Barack Obama. The mind boggles at the massive waste of natural resources involved in bringing Obama and his huge entourage out here for no other perceived reason than to lecture us on the dangers of pollution and to bolster climate hysteria in gullible UQ students.

Typical of their insolence;

.







> THE US Secret Service wanted to bulldoze a major Brisbane roundabout ahead of Barack Obama’s University of Queensland speech on Saturday so his motorcade and armoured Cadillac would not be forced to slow down.
> 
> Police sources have told The Australian that Queensland authorities rejected the American request to fund the destruction and rebuilding of the troublesome traffic feature outside UQ’s St Lucia campus to smooth the path for the President’s car, known as “The Beast”.


----------



## Tisme

> The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:
> 
> 1.Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
> 2.Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
> 3.Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
> 4.Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
> 5.Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
> 6.Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
> 7.Arable land per person, as population continues to rise




How would Sonny Hammond have handled this if it was happening in Waratah National Park?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> That was a very sad little story from Gail Tyberg...




Changing the energy source only shifts the problem to something else. Instead of running out of oil and gas and suffering the effects of CO2 emissions, we end up running out of phosphate rock and suffering the effects of groundwater pollution instead. Or pick any of the other problems.

As for solutions, well I'll put it this way.

A desk, to pick a random item, ought to last a lifetime. What can possibly go wrong with basic office furniture? Same concept applies to all sorts of things that last many years with little if any technological improvement. And yet us silly humans still keep throwing perfectly good things away in order to replace them with new items which are no better than the ones we threw away.

Now go to a certain big name hardware store and note that they're selling lawnmowers for as little as $130 at times and certainly under $200. That's for a petrol powered mower, not a manual push one. The petrol isn't the issue, someone mowing an average suburban yard isn't going to use that much fuel anyway, but building something as basic (no real room for technological improvement) as a petrol powered mower that falls apart after a couple of years and can't be repaired (because they don't sell spare parts) is just madness. From an environmental and resource perspective, buying a $500+ mower and keeping it for a couple of decades is far more rational (ignoring arguments as to whether or not to have a lawn in the first place).

Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Tisme said:


> How would Sonny Hammond have handled this if it was happening in Waratah National Park?


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.



I so agree.  Might cheer you a little, Smurf, to know that I have a refrigerator which I kept when my grandmother died about 33 years ago.  She had used it for about five years prior to her death.   It has never needed any repair. It's a little inconvenient because it has to be manually defrosted, but that's all.

Some people also just like acquiring stuff so buy new things when they don't need them.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Some people also just like acquiring stuff so buy new things when they don't need them.




I've often thought that the practice of measuring human progress largely by the use of a single metric, GDP, is both silly and the cause of a lot of problems.

Building things which break, or replacing perfectly good items, does lead to an increase in GDP and makes "the numbers look good" but brings no real gain to society beyond economics. I could run around smashing windows tonight and that will boost GDP to produce replacements but that's clearly not actually creating any wealth as such. We had a good window, broke it, and now have to make another one - that's a loss not a gain.

GDP has become an end in itself, rather than a useful measure of actual economic progress and activity. Not that I have an alternative measure to propose, but ultimately if someone fixes a chair and doubles its' lifespan well that's the same utility benefit, without the pollution of disposal and manufacture, as buying a new one.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... as buying a new one.




We have become accustomed to buying a replacement in favour of repair.
This is due to the high cost of labour.

When a wooly jumper costs less than wool, knitting is no longer an economical option.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Changing the energy source only shifts the problem to something else. Instead of running out of oil and gas and suffering the effects of CO2 emissions, we end up running out of phosphate rock and suffering the effects of groundwater pollution instead. Or pick any of the other problems.
> 
> As for solutions, well I'll put it this way.
> 
> A desk, to pick a random item, ought to last a lifetime. What can possibly go wrong with basic office furniture? Same concept applies to all sorts of things that last many years with little if any technological improvement. And yet us silly humans still keep throwing perfectly good things away in order to replace them with new items which are no better than the ones we threw away.
> 
> Now go to a certain big name hardware store and note that they're selling lawnmowers for as little as $130 at times and certainly under $200. That's for a petrol powered mower, not a manual push one. The petrol isn't the issue, someone mowing an average suburban yard isn't going to use that much fuel anyway, but building something as basic (no real room for technological improvement) as a petrol powered mower that falls apart after a couple of years and can't be repaired (because they don't sell spare parts) is just madness. From an environmental and resource perspective, buying a $500+ mower and keeping it for a couple of decades is far more rational (ignoring arguments as to whether or not to have a lawn in the first place).
> 
> Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.




I keep going crazy when I see toasters, kettle, irons on sale for $7.
It just takes the mickey out of global warming, save the planet etc.

How can those products be made and sold for that price? 
The raw materials, the energy required, the labour component, the shipping, the fork lifts, the delivery truck, the shelf stacker, the profit margin.
Is there any wonder we have global warming, when so little value is put on something. 
In days gone, these articles were repaired, now it's to the tip and down the shop for a new one. 
Waste, obsolescence and affluence, is the new name of the game.


----------



## sydboy007

Globalisation is much to blame for it all.

Supply chains shipping semi finished good thousands of kilometres for a little more processing at each step of the value add chain.

We need to move towards producing and consuming much closer to home.

We also need to take a whole of life cycle cost into account and maybe use more expensive materials that are easier to recycle.

We either start to make the changes willingly, or they'll be forced on us in the not so distant future.


----------



## Wysiwyg

sptrawler said:


> I keep going crazy when I see toasters, kettle, irons on sale for $7.
> It just takes the mickey out of global warming, save the planet etc.



Ask Christine Milne how her bling is made or where her clothes come from or what powers the plane she flies in or what energy source her office uses. I sincerely hope she is doing something practical besides rustling up the bandwagon.


----------



## basilio

It looks like we are all in furious agreement on the amount of  STUFF we/everyone consumes as a prime cause of global warming/loss of resources/endless pollution/universal sickness.

If anyone is interested in a deeper read of the topic check out the reference. One of the saddest observations is



> Guess what percentage of total material flow through this system is still in product or use 6 months after their sale in North America. Fifty percent? Twenty? NO. One percent. One! In other words, 99 percent of the stuff we harvest, mine, process, transport””99 percent of the stuff we run through this system is trashed within 6 months



.

http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Globalisation is much to blame for it all.
> 
> Supply chains shipping semi finished good thousands of kilometres for a little more processing at each step of the value add chain.
> 
> We need to move towards producing and consuming much closer to home.
> 
> We also need to take a whole of life cycle cost into account and maybe use more expensive materials that are easier to recycle.
> 
> We either start to make the changes willingly, or they'll be forced on us in the not so distant future.




The elephant in the room is, the more we become sustainable, the more we populate.

It won't end well.


----------



## burglar

sptrawler said:


> The elephant in the room is, the more we become sustainable, the more we populate.
> 
> It won't end well.




It will end well.
Mass extinction, followed by striking change!


Mother Nature has an awesome agenda!!


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The elephant in the room is, the more we become sustainable, the more we populate.
> 
> It won't end well.




Not really.  Once you get a decent level of education and access to health, population growth slows and eventually falls below replacement levels.

Australia hasn't been able to sustain it's population for decades witht eh local birth rate.  Pretty much all the OECD countries are in the same boat.

Japan is on the right track already.  The focus on GDP makes them appear stagnant, yet the share of wealth has remained relatively stead on a per capita basis as their population has been decreasing.  Their population peaked 7 years ago.  It will be interesting to see how they adapt to it.


----------



## ghotib

Questions for Smurf and other engineering types:

The following excerpt is from a review of a book called _Energy in Australia_, by Graham Palmer. It's part of a discussion about the engineering problems with making effective use of renewable generatlon, especially solar, for the grid. I think.

It also seems to say that 96% of the world's electricity comes from turbines whose shafts are all spinning at the same speed, regardless of the size of the turbines themselves.



> A startling figure from this discussion is the world’s electricity generation mix expressed, not as contributions from coal, gas, hydro, wind etc. as we usually see, but as the fraction from “synchronous rotary machines” – that is, mechanical generators with rotating shafts which are synchronized to the electrical frequency of the grid.* 96% of global electricity is provided by such machines.* In a sense, we have almost no diversity in electrical generation.
> 
> These machines are ubiquitous because they offer a solution to the historically difficult problem of grid control – making sure that electricity generation exactly meets demand at any instant.* This is done by frequency stabilization – the rotation of all the generators on the grid is synchronized, and as loads are connected to the grid, the rotational frequency drops, which is the signal used to bring on board new generation.



http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/02/09/book-review-energy-in-australia/

My questions are:

1. Have I understood the term "synchronous rotary machines" or am I on the wrong track altogether?

2. Does this excerpt describe the way the Australian grid (excluding WA and NT?) works?

3. Is the absence of turbines a genuine problem in integrating small-scale solar generation into the Australian grid? If so, do you know of proven and available techniques that might work?

The excerpt comes from a website that promotes nuclear generation as the way to replace fossil fuels. I've only been able to find the book as a Kindle edition for $50, and I'm reluctant to fork out that much without a bit more confidence that I might understand the book and that it's worth the effort.

Thanks.


----------



## IFocus

ghotib said:


> Questions for Smurf and other engineering types:
> 
> The following excerpt is from a review of a book called _Energy in Australia_, by Graham Palmer. It's part of a discussion about the engineering problems with making effective use of renewable generatlon, especially solar, for the grid. I think.
> 
> It also seems to say that 96% of the world's electricity comes from turbines whose shafts are all spinning at the same speed, regardless of the size of the turbines themselves.
> 
> 
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/02/09/book-review-energy-in-australia/
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1. Have I understood the term "synchronous rotary machines" or am I on the wrong track altogether?
> 
> 2. Does this excerpt describe the way the Australian grid (excluding WA and NT?) works?
> 
> 3. Is the absence of turbines a genuine problem in integrating small-scale solar generation into the Australian grid? If so, do you know of proven and available techniques that might work?
> 
> The excerpt comes from a website that promotes nuclear generation as the way to replace fossil fuels. I've only been able to find the book as a Kindle edition for $50, and I'm reluctant to fork out that much without a bit more confidence that I might understand the book and that it's worth the effort.
> 
> Thanks.




With out writing a book and I am sure Smurf can explain it better but try this

Most electric grids are either 60 hz USA etc or 50 hz Australia,  UK, Europe.

To connect to one of these grids your supply must be running at "synchronous" speed in Australia's case 50hz and your phase rotation must be the same.

So your solar supply will have an output of 50hz  and can connect to any supply generated by any device mechanical turbine, diesel genset or electronic device what ever as long as the phase rotation is the same (red to red white to white etc) and the frequency is 50 hz

There is a whole lot of other stuff that comes into play such as lead machines / stations, power factor etc.

Big turbine stations can create a stable frequency on which other supply's can connect to and not bounce the grid around to much from memory all grids wander a bit.

in my day supply authorities didnt like private connections to the grid as it could be a pain to control but these days I would expect the systems would be better but Smurf will know the answer to that.


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Questions for Smurf and other engineering types:
> 
> 1. Have I understood the term "synchronous rotary machines" or am I on the wrong track altogether?
> 
> 2. Does this excerpt describe the way the Australian grid (excluding WA and NT?) works?
> 
> 3. Is the absence of turbines a genuine problem in integrating small-scale solar generation into the Australian grid? If so, do you know of proven and available techniques that might work?




That's basically how it works and it's the same whether it's the Australian "national" grid (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic and SA with Tasmania being linked by DC therefore not synchronised to the other states, but all machines within Tas are still synchronised to each other) and it's the same in WA and NT too within their grids (noting that WA and NT don't have a state-wide grid as such, but rather a number of separate grids. Mt Isa region is also separate from the rest of Qld with its' own power station and grid).

So using Tas as an example, the machines we have here don't all run at the same speed, indeed they run at a lot of different speeds. But they all produce electricity at the exact same frequency (50 Hertz, same everywhere in Australia) when running at their correct speed. For example, the 6 machines at Tarraleah PS run at 428 RPM whereas just across the road at Tungatinah PS the 5 machines there run at 600 RPM and not far away at Liapootah PS they run at 300 RPM. Or at Paloona PS the single machine there runs at just 106 RPM. 

But they all produce electricity at 50 Hz when running at their correct speed, the actual speed of the machine being a function of how many poles the alternator has (and they were built differently to maximise efficiency with the available head - a situation that's unique to hydro and doesn't apply to steam turbines (coal, nuclear, some gas stations) which typically run at 3000 RPM with two poles).

And since all machines are synchronised, they all speed up or slow down together. If the grid frequency drops 1% (and that's a larger than normal variation, it's much more tightly controlled than that under normal circumstances) then everything slows down exactly 1%. Likewise if frequency rises.

To put frequency control into practice, again using the Tas system but it's the same principle everywhere, typically we'll have most machines running at a set load (their most efficient loading point where possible) and use a couple to control frequency. Those controlling frequency, will constantly vary their output in response to changing load (it's never quite constant). Load drops a bit = frequency of all machines starts to rise, machines on frequency control produce less = everything slows down. Reverse that when load rises a bit. Then, in order to accommodate larger changes over longer periods (the daily cycle), its' a matter of adjusting the number of machines running and their loading points.

One problem with unconventional (anything other than a rotating synchronous machine), is lack of inertia.

Suppose that everything is operating normally and then there's a fault which suddenly trips a machine, or even an entire power station, offline. Such things do happen from time to time. Frequency starts to fall but there's a lot of energy (inertia) in all those big rotating machines. They keep spinning, slowly getting slower, so long as energy out of the grid (to consumers) exceeds energy going in (from generation) but they keep spinning nonetheless. So the lights stay on in the time it takes for other machines to ramp their output up and stabilise the situation.

An analogy is a 800 tonne train rolling along the track pulled by 3 locos - turn one of the engines off and the train takes a long time to slow down. There's a lot of momentum there.

Things like solar PV don't have that attribute. The moment there's a wobble in grid frequency, that's it, game over. At best they keep producing the same output, they have no rotating mass of energy to contribute, and at worst they trip offline there and then. Not a problem if they're 1% of the grid, a bigger problem if they're a large share of total generation.

How to make it work? We have a somewhat unique situation in Tas in that we've got a large (478MW) inverter as a source of grid supply, that being the Vic - Tas link (Basslink) and we've also got some seriously big rectifiers (AC to DC conversion) as loads too (running the aluminium and zinc smelters plus up to 628MW into Basslink when transmitting Tas to Vic). 

Now, in the middle of the night if we're going to feed 478MW in from that big inverter then there's a major problem if a (hydro) machine were to fail, losing not just its' own output but tripping that inverter off as well due to a frequency wobble. Or even if that inverter just tripped by itself (and that's happened plenty of times, inverters being far less stable than rotating machines). 

We could easily end up with the whole grid collapsing under that circumstance since a drop (or rise) in frequency will of itself cause more machines to trip beyond a certain point. Inverter trips, frequency falls, something else trips, further frequency fall, a lot more machines trip, grid goes dead....

The solution, in short, is a very elaborate control system - there's basically automated control of certain big loads (primarily in the smelters) - they lose power in an instant if there's a problem, thus stabilising the situation. That goes way beyond normal under frequency load shedding (that every grid has), they're linked into the operation of transmission assets far more directly than that given the potential magnitude of potential supply loss at certain times. 

Something like that is easy to do in Tas where the 3 smelters use around 60% of all electricity in the grid at off-peak times (middle of the night in Summer). It's not so easy anywhere else, where you don't have a small number of great big loads able to be easily controlled. Tripping half of Sydney off causes a lot more chaos than does a trip to the cell room at the zinc works.

Another aspect of all of this is that of distributed generation itself, regardless of the technology or source. In short, we can control the output of major power stations certainly but there is at present no means of controlling the output of a million small inverters in Australian households. If there's a need to cut generation, to keep frequency from rising, then that's a problem which in a worst case scenario would collapse the entire grid (though we'd need a fair bit more solar than we've got now to actually bring that scenario about). Also notable in that context is that the loss of major industrial loads, eg the smelters that have closed in NSW and Vic, makes that problem worse since they formerly played a significant role in stabilising the grid.

As for how solar inverters perform in practice, well I can assure you that certain grid operations will trip small solar inverters. Been there, seen that happen. They're decent quality inverters too, but nowhere near as stable as a steam or hydro turbine that didn't even notice the blip.

I've simplified all this and used layman's terms but that's basically how it works. In summary:

All turbine driven alternators synchronised within an AC grid. Eg Gladstone PS (Qld) and Torrens Island PS (SA) are both at the exact same frequency since they're both in the same AC grid.

Inertia with rotating machines versus lack of inertia with solar etc is an issue leading to reduced stability.

Loss of major industrial loads also leads to issues both technical and financial.

Grid frequency is very tightly controlled under normal circumstances. A 1% variation is outside normal, a 5% variation would be regarded as a major incident.

That small distributed generators aren't centrally controlled makes things difficult. We're losing controllable loads (heavy industry etc) and now we're losing control of some generation as well. That leaves the remaining centralised generation (power stations) with the task of balancing everything. A bit like trying to control a crowd of people, when increasing numbers have decided to cease following the directions and just do their own thing. A point comes where that ceases to work but we're not there yet.

All that said, using a high % of renewables in the grid isn't impossible. Eg King Island has run on 100% wind + solar at times. But then on KI we've got central control of the wind and solar generation rather than being distributed, we've got central control of some load too (smart grid), there's a big battery and a flywheel, and if all that fails there's still a nice big resistor to "burn off" any surplus power and the diesels are still there too. It works, it can be done, but it's costing an awful lot more than coal / gas / hydro does in a large grid. It's economic on King Island however because generation would otherwise be 100% diesel which costs a fortune.


----------



## IFocus

ghotib


> It also seems to say that 96% of the world's electricity comes from turbines whose shafts are all spinning at the same speed, regardless of the size of the turbines themselves.




The shaft speed doesn't have to be the same.

Shaft speed is determined by the physical factors around the design for maximising HP and then combined by the number of poles wound onto the alternator  to equal the supply frequency.

Its the shaft speed times the number of poles on the generator / alternator that determines the frequency / synchronous speed of the supply.


----------



## Smurf1976

Yep, speed and poles = frequency.

Eg Tarraleah PS with 14 poles at 428.6 RPM, Tungatinah 10 poles at 600 RPM. Etc.

Small generators driven by petrol engines = almost always 2 pole, 3000 RPM since this is a good speed for the small petrol engine to run at (lawnmowers etc with similar engines also run at a similar speed)

Diesels = varies typically 4+ poles at 1500 RPM or slower. Generally speaking, bigger engine = more poles and runs slower. 

Steam turbines = depends on the fuel source and temperatures but commonly 2 pole, 3000 RPM or sometimes 4 pole 1500 RPM. 

Hydro = generally a lot slower than others. Eg Gordon PS with 22 poles running at 273 RPM (well, 272.73 RPM if you want to be precise).

The basic choice of speed is governed by the source of mechanical power. Eg petrol engine runs well at 3000 RPM but a hydro turbine runs best at a much slower speed. So the choice of speed is determined by the source of motion, it's not an electrical consideration as such since it's still producing 50Hz whether there's 2 poles or 40. 

Another thing I haven't mentioned is voltage. Voltage as generated varies but typically it's high voltage (HV) as generated, that's stepped up to extra high voltage (EHV) for transmission (that's what the big transformers at power stations are for). Then that EHV is stepped back down to HV for the feeders around towns and cities, from which it's stepped down to LV (415 / 240V) for homes and small businesses. Very large users, eg smelters, are generally supplied at EHV and other large users (factories, office blocks etc) often at HV depending on their actual power requirements.

Note that commonly used HV and EHV voltages vary between states. Eg in Tas we use mostly 11, 22 and 33 KV for feeders (and one 44 KV line) but in other states there are some other voltages in use. Some states have 275 KV transmission lines, others have 220 KV. The highest voltage used in Australia is 500 KV.

As an example, at Gordon Power Station (Tas) generation is at 18KV then stepped up to 220KV for transmission. At Lake Echo it's 11KV generated then stepped up to 110KV for transmission. The 100 year old machines at Lake Margaret output 6.6KV, stepped up to 11KV for transmission a short distance to the rest of the grid. At Poatina generation is at 16KV and stepped up to 110KV (2 machines) and 220KV (4 machines) for transmission.

Key point about voltage is that it doesn't matter that much since it's very easy to change one voltage to another. Eg you end up with 240V at home no matter what voltage came out of the power station. Frequency is the real key in the grid, along with having enough energy input in the first place.


----------



## noco

I Focus In reply to your post #124 Victorian election..transferred to the correct thread.

Don't believe a word of it.....that is great a exaggeration....it perhaps happened to one reef in the far south but not the whole of the reef.....

My mother was born and bred in Port Douglas in the late 1800......she often talked about dead coral washed up on the beaches....I have also  observed the same thing in the 40's and 50's and again later in life.....The whole  length of some beaches covered in dead coral....so what caused that common occurrence? 

Do you know Moreton Bay near Brisbane had a massive amount of coral reefs hundreds of years ago...

Now can you tell me what caused the coral bleaching there  long before white man existed in Australia...was it massive bush fires emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide.....Bush fires and volcanoes are never mentioned by these so called experts....All they ever mention is the burning of coal and that coal should go....Australia emits just 1% of the worlds CO2. 

Darra Cement Company dredged Moreton Bay for years and shipped the dead coral up the Brisbane River to Darra to make cement......you may have been too young to remember, that is if you were even born then.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> I Focus In reply to your post #124 Victorian election..transferred to the correct thread.
> 
> Don't believe a word of it.....that is great a exaggeration....it perhaps happened to one reef in the far south but not the whole of the reef.....
> 
> My mother was born and bred in Port Douglas in the late 1800......she often talked about dead coral washed up on the beaches....I have also  observed the same thing in the 40's and 50's and again later in life.....The whole  length of some beaches covered in dead coral....so what caused that common occurrence?
> 
> Do you know Moreton Bay near Brisbane had a massive amount of coral reefs hundreds of years ago...
> 
> Now can you tell me what caused the coral bleaching there  long before white man existed in Australia...was it massive bush fires emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide.....Bush fires and volcanoes are never mentioned by these so called experts....All they ever mention is the burning of coal and that coal should go....Australia emits just 1% of the worlds CO2.
> 
> Darra Cement Company dredged Moreton Bay for years and shipped the dead coral up the Brisbane River to Darra to make cement......you may have been too young to remember, that is if you were even born then.




I am so disappointed there has been no comments to my post from the Global Warming alarmist...Come on comrades post your comments......I want you tell me what happened to those coral reefs in Moreton Bay......It may have also been a possibility that the Great Barrier Reef may at one time had extended to Moreton Bay....No man made CO2 in those days.

*The silence is deafening.*


----------



## noco

In reply to IFocus post # 143 2014 Victorian election.

The great Global Warming scam followed by Julia Gillrad and Professor Tim Flannery

http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/

The Global Warming aka Climate Change Scam
Global Warming scam

*Global Warming scam

Take the Global Warming scam for example. First they presented their pseudoscience backed up by “authoritative experts” like Al Gore. They trotted out various ‘scientists’ to back up their claims, and the people lapped it up because it all sounded so plausible and fuzzy feel-good. After all, the ‘experts’ couldn’t be wrong, could they?

But even a cursory glance at the credentials of these so-called ‘experts’ showed that they were not qualified weather experts. In fact, while some of them were indeed scientists, they were not qualified to comment on the weather…not even on the state of the weather outside their own windows.

Did you notice what happened soon after Al Gore went around the world crying out that the end of the world was neigh due to global warming?

Europe experienced its coldest winter in centuries, laying waste to the apocalyptic claims of Gore and his fellow scammers.

But they were undeterred. They just shrugged their collective shoulders and changed the name to “Climate Change” instead. Same silly claims, just a different name.*


----------



## noco

*Can someone from the Green/Labor left wing socialists Global Warming alarmist please give me an opinion or reply to my posts # 6028   6029   6030.......your silence is deafening!!!!*


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> *Can someone from the Green/Labor left wing socialists Global Warming alarmist please give me an opinion or reply to my posts # 6028   6029   6030.......your silence is deafening!!!!*




What is the point ? You are not going to listen are you ?


----------



## basilio

And Noco it is totally pointless arguing with a person who simply rejects any evidence he/she doesn't agree with. 

Or a person who either makes up totally wrong statements or repeats them when these statements have been clearly shown to be false.

Just no point mate..


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What is the point ? You are not going to listen are you ?




I cannot believe I have you stumped....you do not have the answers so you revert to *"WHAT IS THE POINT".

If you had any answers or opinions I am sure you would have had something to say.

Be honest and admit this GLOBAL WARMING caper is a scam.*


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And Noco it is totally pointless arguing with a person who simply rejects any evidence he/she doesn't agree with.
> 
> Or a person who either makes up totally wrong statements or repeats them when these statements have been clearly shown to be false.
> 
> Just no point mate..




basilio, you posses to be an authority on this Global Warming con job, so why can't you or Rumpole explain to me what happened to the massive coral reefs that once existed in Moreton Bay? Are you saying my statement is incorrect?.....What statements are you saying I have made up?

Darra Cement dredged that dead coral for 40 odd years.

There is tonnes of dead coral scattered along beaches in North Queensland as has been the case during the last century.

All I want is your opinion as to why the coral died long before white man entered Australia.

Was it Global Warming?
Was it to do bush fires creating too much CO2 and the Oceans could not handle it?
Did it have anything to do with Sun spots and radiation?
Was it the crown of thorn star fish?
Did the Oceans become acidic for some reason?
Was it a mini ice age when the waters became too cold for coral?.....As we all know Coral prefers warm waters.
It certainly was not man made CO2.

So please, give me your opinion.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> One problem with unconventional (anything other than a rotating synchronous machine), is lack of inertia.




Taking this into account and combine it with the circumstance last year where their was an oversupply of electricity in Queensland from renewable sources to the point that it had no saleable value, At what point , if at all, does it start to make at a grid engineering/cost level, to have available capacity to use excess supply to pump water or push rolling stock  up hill, anything so as to have  a rotational inertia component to the extent necessary to maintain the security deemed appropriate to alleviate frequency induce failure. 
    There would have to be a very big reduction in steam generation before this would become important, would be my guess.
    At an individual level the UPS was once the exotic domain of 'can't afford to fail' computer systems, soon it will be a standard component with your home/domestic run of the mill solar PV integrated battery system. Hat's off to gold platers of the transmission network that have made this an economic option.

Oh, and still on the theme of static mass; noco, get back to us as quick as you can on BHP's, The US Military, The Koch's Brothers and other 'associated Commo's' views on the AGW scam.


----------



## macca

noco said:


> basilio, you posses to be an authority on this Global Warming con job, so why can't you or Rumpole explain to me what happened to the massive coral reefs that once existed in Moreton Bay? Are you saying my statement is incorrect?.....What statements are you saying I have made up?
> 
> Darra Cement dredged that dead coral for 40 odd years.
> 
> There is tonnes of dead coral scattered along beaches in North Queensland as has been the case during the last century.
> 
> All I want is your opinion as to why the coral died long before white man entered Australia.
> 
> Was it Global Warming?
> Was it to do bush fires creating too much CO2 and the Oceans could not handle it?
> Did it have anything to do with Sun spots and radiation?
> Was it the crown of thorn star fish?
> Did the Oceans become acidic for some reason?
> Was it a mini ice age when the waters became too cold for coral?.....As we all know Coral prefers warm waters.
> It certainly was not man made CO2.
> 
> So please, give me your opinion.




This site /blog discusses Australian weather over the eons, talks of the lakes throughout Australia 40,000 years ago coming from the glaciers around Kosciusko

http://austhrutime.com/climate_cycles.htm


----------



## noco

macca said:


> This site /blog discusses Australian weather over the eons, talks of the lakes throughout Australia 40,000 years ago coming from the glaciers around Kosciusko
> 
> http://austhrutime.com/climate_cycles.htm




Thanks for that article macca....most interesting of Global Warming and freezing over the years and the evidence of ice core samples revealing what has taken place.

Perhaps that may have been the result of dead corals in Moreton Bay.

I found the attached link most interesting....because there has been no increase in temperatures for the past 17 years, perhaps we may be entering into a mini ice age which may extend over the next century or two.

http://austhrutime.com/global_warming_freezing.htm


----------



## explod

I was just having a glance at the Lithium thread and on the tone of some realised that whenever global warming is touched on it raises considerable anger and strong words from those who oppose even the idea. 

This to me is not just denial.   It is as if one can make it go away out of a fear that it is correct and by apposing it one can stop its existence.


----------



## burglar

Preaching it from the pulpit will not bring it into existence.


Oh woops, wrong thread!


----------



## orr

explod said:


> whenever global warming is touched on
> 
> It is as if one can make it go away out of a fear that it is correct and by apposing it one can stop its existence.




Today's New York times, a lot more nefarious activity exposed by oil and coal buying Republicans. It's a fairly lengthy read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## So_Cynical

Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.

This was an interesting talk, a highlight for me was his idea that a carbon tax could be de politicised by simply passing on all/most of the money raised directly to the tax payers, suggesting that a carbon tax distribution could be added to the household power bill.

Then simply let the generation and polluting industry's adjust slowly as the tax is increases by small amounts every year...starting small and ending big over a 25 or 30 year period...this would result in a slow switch to less carbon intense operations and generation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/


----------



## basilio

So_Cynical said:


> Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.
> 
> This was an interesting talk, a highlight for me was his idea that a carbon tax could be de politicised by simply passing on all/most of the money raised directly to the tax payers, suggesting that a carbon tax distribution could be added to the household power bill.
> 
> Then simply let the generation and polluting industry's adjust slowly as the tax is increases by small amounts every year...starting small and ending big over a 25 or 30 year period...this would result in a slow switch to less carbon intense operations and generation.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/




That idea has much merit.   It just sends a price signal to the marketplace that carbon based energy will be progressively dearer and then redistributes all raised funds to citizens on a prorata basis

If you are a careful energy user you can easily come out ahead. If you are not so careful -- you won't .

Ironically the idea has been proposed by many people including  Climate  Scientist James Hansen
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...es-hansen-climate-change-carbon-tax/17317173/

Well worth listening to his story


----------



## Smurf1976

Seems like a reasonable idea as such. 

Just as long as there's no loopholes in the name of "globalisation" and therein lies the problem. It won't work if the tax doesn't apply equally to Australia, US, Russia, Iran and so on. Easy in one country, probably doable in the context of the OECD, a bit harder in the context of the likes of Russia and China. Leave a loophole, and emissions simply migrate from a taxing country to an untaxed one.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Seems like a reasonable idea as such.
> 
> Just as long as there's no loopholes in the name of "globalisation" and therein lies the problem. It won't work if the tax doesn't apply equally to Australia, US, Russia, Iran and so on. Easy in one country, probably doable in the context of the OECD, a bit harder in the context of the likes of Russia and China. Leave a loophole, and emissions simply migrate from a taxing country to an untaxed one.




One can use border tax adjustments on import from countries that don't apply a carbon tax.

Get the USA China EU to agree on the rate of tax, and agree on border adjustment tax rates and pretty much there's not much of the global markets left in which to get a free kick from not applying a carbon tax.  You'd be losing out on revenue.

Border adjustment taxes are also WTO compliant.

All it takes is enough countries agreeing to a particular framework and the rest basically have to fall in line or face market access restrictions.


----------



## orr

So_Cynical said:


> Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on energy policy.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/




The take home from Prof Chu was new build power supply contracts for wind and Gas power in the US today with their gas price at $4/ mill BTU are level pegging. If only they could of cut to McFarlane's face at that point. And Every Fossil Energy Major is factoring in a future pollution cost of CO2, re his High Court comments. I'll go back and listen again, did I hear $60/tonne by 2035 ?

And in the Q and A, SKY news always there for comic relief... on this occasion with the dunce cap.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> One can use border tax adjustments on import from countries that don't apply a carbon tax.




I wonder how that applies in practice?

Eg a manufacturer uses components from a global supplier, actual country of origin unknown or variable. And the raw materials going into those components are also from various sources and variable or uncertain.

How do you work out what rate of tax to apply? And who gets the money, noting that nobody is sure who incurred the costs in the first place?

I'm trying to get my mind around how this would be implemented in practice given that nobody really knows what is going where these days?


----------



## Tisme

Queensland is a safe haven from climate change, where sea levels will not rise it seems:

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/seeney-writes-off-tide-rises/2481884/?ref=hs


----------



## Smurf1976

And another one goes....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...orrens-island-power-plant-jobs-threat/5958604

Swanbank E (Qld) 385MW mothballed, Bell Bay (Tas) 240 MW permanently closed, now it's Torrens Island A (SA) 480 MW to be mothballed in 2017.

There's no future in gas-fired generation it seems, which leaves coal and renewables as the means of powering Australia (a point Smurf has been making for years.... ).

What next? Well I suspect that there's going to be a decent gas-fired plant for sale fairly soon for relocation. That is, physically pull it down and relocate somewhere else (likely outside Australia). The idea is certainly being evaluated. No comment as to which plant, but it's not one of the above.

Meanwhile Pelican Point (SA) generally only operates at half capacity these days and Newport D (Vic) is idle most of the time as are many others. Both are gas-fired stations.

The amazing thing is that until very recently, government was still pinning its' hopes on a gas-fired future for Australian energy. The Qld LNG plants ensured that didn't happen. Better hope that Hazelwood, Yallourn and other coal burners keep going or we'll literally be sitting in the dark.


----------



## macca

Smurf1976 said:


> And another one goes....
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...orrens-island-power-plant-jobs-threat/5958604
> 
> Swanbank E (Qld) 385MW mothballed, Bell Bay (Tas) 240 MW permanently closed, now it's Torrens Island A (SA) 480 MW to be mothballed in 2017.
> 
> There's no future in gas-fired generation it seems, which leaves coal and renewables as the means of powering Australia (a point Smurf has been making for years.... ).
> 
> What next? Well I suspect that there's going to be a decent gas-fired plant for sale fairly soon for relocation. That is, physically pull it down and relocate somewhere else (likely outside Australia). The idea is certainly being evaluated. No comment as to which plant, but it's not one of the above.
> 
> Meanwhile Pelican Point (SA) generally only operates at half capacity these days and Newport D (Vic) is idle most of the time as are many others. Both are gas-fired stations.
> 
> The amazing thing is that until very recently, government was still pinning its' hopes on a gas-fired future for Australian energy. The Qld LNG plants ensured that didn't happen. Better hope that Hazelwood, Yallourn and other coal burners keep going or we'll literally be sitting in the dark.




If the coal plants fail, do they then recommission the gas burners, are they then economically viable ?


----------



## So_Cynical

A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.




If the SE Asian countries, jump on board with Fiji, you will have more to worry about than global warming.lol


----------



## trainspotter

So_Cynical said:


> A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.










> With his estimated wealth exceeding $200 million, Albert Arnold Gore has come a long way from the time he began a career in government politics. But it hasn’t all been a green path. He can thank some earlier events for paving over muddy ground, a time when his father, Al Gore Sr. met Occidental Petroleum’s CEO Armand Hammer at a cattle auction in the 1940s.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/21/the-greening-of-gores-bank-account/

Yep, 200 million reasons all right.


----------



## Calliope

So_Cynical said:


> A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.




Who are these rednecks you keep banging on about?

This is a redneck;


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> If the coal plants fail, do they then recommission the gas burners, are they then economically viable ?




Potentially yes, but it's not straightforward due to a number of issues.

It's very doable to maintain a non-operating power station either "mothballed" or "ready to go" if you're willing to spend the money to do so and it has been done in the past. 

But if you've got a non-operating plant, then for how long are you willing to keep enough staff available, keep maintaining the plant, keep the transmission lines in good order and so on? You're spending money "just in case" you want to run it at a future time. It's a bit like having a car in the garage that you don't drive - do you keep paying rego and insurance, servicing the car changing fluids etc, replacing the battery when it wears out and so on even though you have no plans to drive the car? 

If left long enough, then inevitably problems arise. Eg is the gas industry going to maintain sufficient capacity to supply power stations which may never run again? Yes in the short term, the pipelines etc are already there, but what happens when something "big" needs doing? Is anyone going to build a new pipeline into Adelaide "just in case" Torrens Island returns to full capacity? Possible but most likely they won't. A point comes where, if you aren't using something, the capability to use it goes away by natural attrition unless a conscious decision is made to keep it all operational.

It's the same with any power station. Eg Morwell (Vic, coal) is idle at the moment and they've stopped employing sufficient staff to do anything more than basic care and maintenance. Even if there's a desperate need for electricity, it would take some time to employ and train staff, do a thorough maintenance on the plant and so on.

So the gas-fired stations could return to operation if we're talking about a few years time. But a point comes where it becomes incredibly unlikely that it would actually happen. How long do you keep spending $ to have something available which you aren't using? 5 years OK,but you're not likely to do it for 50 years. Somewhere along that way, it changes from "mothballed" to "permanently decommissioned" after which physical dismantling is the usual outcome.

At a guess, Torrens Island A will be maintained "able to run at a few months notice" or similar until there's more certainty either way. That is, they'll keep it until such time as it's either reasonably apparent that it won't run again or it is actually returned to service. But there's a limit to how long a for-profit company (AGL in this case) is likely to wait.

Another issue is maintenance. They've announced mothballing TI A station in 2017 now. Almost certainly, they'll do only the absolute minimum of maintenance to keep it running through to 2017 and by that time it will quite likely be in a fairly poor state. That's speculation on my part, but it's what usually happens to any factory, power station etc once a future closure is announced - it all starts to run down. A return to service would thus require $$$ being spent on a major overhaul - doable but only if they're sure they'll make that back in profit.

If there's a long term change in economics then yes, the gas plants can be brought back as long as they haven't been decommissioned as such.

If there's a sudden breakdown at a couple of major coal plants then we'd just fix the coal plants instead of recommissioning something else.


----------



## Wysiwyg

I don't think anyone is in denial there is atmospheric, land and water pollution caused by the intelligent human that  takes exceptionally long times to be naturally processed. The hysteria may be tact to get the ball rolling quicker toward a cleaner human existence. There are still no changes to the normalcy of 'climate' in our region but turning the ship away from burning fossil fuels inefficiently has to begin now. It is the abundance of such fuels which makes the change difficult to accept.


----------



## macca

Hi Smurf,

So in the cold hard light of day, we will be burning coal to make electricity for a very long time to come.

I suspect that the current burst of oil price wars will be shown to be a politically driven war, reading on it today and it seems that Iran and Russia are suffering because of their oil based economies. When prices go back up the power stations using gas and oil will have much higher costs than present.

Our media may be keen to highlight the climate but overseas they seem to be merely paying lip service and a case of do as I say, not do as I do.

I still believe that pollution will prove to be the real problem not CO2, the multi nationals are quite happy to pay lip service to Co2 and keep on pumping out the smog.


----------



## Smurf1976

Wysiwyg said:


> It is the abundance of such fuels which makes the change difficult to accept.




+1

Humans are slow to adapt to change, even when (in hindsight) the previous widely accepted practice seems absurd.

Tell a 10 year old that not too long ago, smoking was considered perfectly acceptable inside shopping centers, restaurants and even hospitals and they'll look at you in disbelief. But that was indeed reality, and it really was as dumb as it sounds but it took a long time to bring about change amidst all sorts of "sky will fall" type objections.

The time it took to stop using asbestos and stop putting lead in petrol are similar historical examples of stupidity. I mean seriously, we knew that asbestos was a killer long before most of it was mined and used and it's pure commonsense that spewing lead fumes into the atmosphere at ground level in cities isn't a wise idea. But we still did it until the damage was sufficient as to be beyond denial for all but those with a vested interest.

Tell someone in 100 years time that we used to drive around in 2 tonne vehicles with huge petrol engines just to get a single person from A to B and that we put water into plastic bottles, trucked it around the country and stored it in open front refrigerators in supermarkets then threw the bottle away after drinking it and both ideas will seem beyond belief. 

Reality however is that we won't stop doing it until the damage is visible enough that it's beyond any reasonable argument. Just like we kept putting lead in petrol long after lead started turning up at the North Pole and other remote places and we kept using asbestos until entire streets in certain towns were home to the widows of victims. Humans aren't good at heeding the warning signs, it seems that we need a crisis before we take action.

If we only had hydro, solar, wind etc then we wouldn't be sitting around lamenting the lack of oil and gas. Just like we're not sitting around now wishing we had some mineral that doesn't exist. We just get on and use what we have, that we have so much fossil fuel being both a blessing and a curse.


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> So in the cold hard light of day, we will be burning coal to make electricity for a very long time to come.




In short, yes. In the context of Australia we'll continue to rely heavily on coal except:

Renewables to the extent we build them.

Gas for peak loads Qld, NSW, Vic.

Tasmania has always (since 1895) been and will likely always be predominantly hydro both base and peak loads. The coal-fired electricity phase out in Tas was completed in the 1930's apart from a couple of co-generation plants in heavy industry. As has long been the case, what happens with electricity in Tas is also about demand - if any of the "big 4" energy users, which use about half of all electricity in the state, were to cease operation then that changes everything.

NT will continue to rely primarily on gas, since it's not a good place to use coal and gas is likely to remain cheaper than oil.

WA and SA will continue to rely more heavily on gas than the eastern states as they've done for decades (using oil before gas), noting that coal costs in those states are higher than in the eastern states. The mix of coal versus gas comes down to local economics, since WA and SA both have relatively higher costs of using coal (and SA is one third renewable now). Realistically, SA will likely end up with a lot of back and forth transfer to Vic, most SA power stations running only for peak load in both states, whilst WA will be the biggest gas-fired power user.



> I suspect that the current burst of oil price wars will be shown to be a politically driven war, reading on it today and it seems that Iran and Russia are suffering because of their oil based economies. When prices go back up the power stations using gas and oil will have much higher costs than present.




Agreed there. Oil is only a very minor fuel for electricity generation in Australia (and most countries with a few notable exceptions) these days but I can't see oil prices staying down permanently. And even if they did drop to $30 per barrel, that's still double the cost of coal.


----------



## basilio

You hit the nail on the head Smurf...

The key point in that summary was "vested interest" .  There was overwhelming evidence that smoking caused cancer, asbestos kills,  leaded petol (and paint.. etc) kills.  But while there are powerful interests making money from the products it took incredible social effort to make necessary changes.

Objectively we have made them too late and the effects will continue to haunt us (effects of plastic)

Global warming caused by human produced excessive CO2 and other gases is just the final nail in the  coffin.. We see the same tired old lies trotted out , the same  BS freedom/free enterprise arguments. But the stakes are far higher.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> A whole week without a red neck denial comment...200 million must have scared them away.




I am still waiting for an answer from those looney alarmist like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Ban-Ki-moon and Tim Flannery as to why the coral reefs in Moreton Bay died before white man entered the country some 300 years ago.

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?

CLIMATE CHANGE??????????Nothing new......been going on for millions of years.

That Al Gore was hoping to make billions out of ETS....Nothing more a farce and a con job....The alarmist are losing ground fast.

Wrong bait So_Cynical


----------



## trainspotter

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't think anyone is in denial there is atmospheric, land and water pollution caused by the intelligent human that  takes exceptionally long times to be naturally processed. The hysteria may be tact to get the ball rolling quicker toward a cleaner human existence. There are still no changes to the normalcy of 'climate' in our region but turning the ship away from burning fossil fuels inefficiently has to begin now. It is the abundance of such fuels which makes the change difficult to accept.




Post of the week right here, I concur with this sensible statement. Pollution of our oceans, ineffectual sewerage programs, water supply filtration to exterminate water borne disease, solar tracking devices to use clean energy are to name but a few ways to reduce our carbon footprint. These are the areas that the $$$$ should be pumped into. Fix the planet with it's river systems which provide nutrients and H2o (deliberate mistake) so that the trees can get back to doing what they do best by providing oxygen by taking out Co2 from the atmosphere.

And yes reduce the amount of elecktrickery we use so the power station is not burning coal


----------



## banco

noco said:


> I am still waiting for an answer from those looney alarmist like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Ban-Ki-moon and Tim Flannery as to why the coral reefs in Moreton Bay died before white man entered the country some 300 years ago.
> 
> GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
> 
> CLIMATE CHANGE??????????Nothing new......been going on for millions of years.
> 
> That Al Gore was hoping to make billions out of ETS....Nothing more a farce and a con job....The alarmist are losing ground fast.
> 
> Wrong bait So_Cynical




I often can't tell if "noco" is a Stephen Colbert style character or not.


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> I often can't tell if "noco" is a Stephen Colbert style character or not.




U2?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The key point in that summary was "vested interest" .  There was overwhelming evidence that smoking caused cancer, asbestos kills,  leaded petol (and paint.. etc) kills.  But while there are powerful interests making money from the products it took incredible social effort to make necessary changes.




There's also public resistance. 

Taking renewable energy as an example, there's overwhelming public support for it in Tas and quite a lot of support (though it's not unanimous) in SA too. But in Victoria, where the industry is far less significant in broader economic terms, there have actually been protests about wind farms.

So there's a definite degree of wanting to stick to what we've got. In Queensland, coal is the "safe, cheap, reliable" option but mention renewables and you get arguments about dams bursting, turbine blades coming off, being too expensive and only working when it's windy, sunny or raining.

In contrast, big dams and wind turbines are the "safe, cheap, reliable" option in the minds of the public in Tasmania. Mention coal and you'll get a very quick response saying something about coal being unsafe due to mining accidents, too expensive since you have to keep paying for fuel and unreliable since boilers can break and miners can go on strike etc. And that's without mentioning thoughts of belching smokestacks, holes in the ground and piles of ash.

Likewise there was public opposition to a gas-fired plant being built in Melbourne 40 years ago. Never mind that Adelaide already had one that was causing no real problems and that Melbourne itself had two oil and one coal plant operating in the metropolitan area at the time. Coal was familiar, gas was unknown and seemed risky and the plant was only ever half built as a result.

And then I could mention people arguing that cars wouldn't work without lead and that even fuel injection was a bad idea doomed to fail. In reality, it works just fine.

Humans just aren't good at change.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
> 
> CLIMATE CHANGE??????????Nothing new......been going on for millions of years.




Michael Specter: The danger of science denial.
~
[video=youtube_share;7OMLSs8t1ng]http://youtu.be/7OMLSs8t1ng[/video]


----------



## noco

banco said:


> I often can't tell if "noco" is a Stephen Colbert style character or not.




ROTFL


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Michael Specter: The danger of science denial.
> ~
> [video=youtube_share;7OMLSs8t1ng]http://youtu.be/7OMLSs8t1ng[/video]




Michael Specter is an excellent orator, a superb salesman, a manipulator of rhetoric and has a book to sell.

His main theme revolved around genetically modified food and finding more oil.

I listened through to the end but I could not recall him mention anything about climate change or global warming....I did not hear him mention about droughts or the necessity to build more dams to store water for food crops.


Denialism by Michael Specter
Denialism
Michael Specter
RRP $29.99 Save 28%! ($8.42)
Price $21.57 with FREE shipping! Delivery by Christmas not guaranteed
Buy this and get 22 Nile Miles
Ships from United Kingdom Expected delivery Dec 22 – Dec 28
?
User Rating
Details

    ISBN
    9780715639436 / 0715639439
    Title Denialism
    Author Michael Specter
    Category Popular Science
    Impact Of Science & Technology On Society
    Format
    Paperback
    Year 2010
    Pages 304
    Publisher
    Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd
    Imprint Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd
    Language English
    Dimensions 232mm x 157mm

*Annotation
Presents an examination of the irrationality at the heart of the scare mongering and pseudo-science that stand in the way of progress and argues against modern scepticism of science and for a return to rationality.

Publisher Description
science and for a return to rationality.*

Review
'Michael Specter has written a lucid and insightful book about a very frightening and irrational phenomenon-the fear and superstition that threaten human science and progress. A superb and convincing work' Malcolm Gladwell, author of “Outliers”, “Blink”, and “The Tipping Point”.

Author Biography
Michael Specter writes about science, technology and global public health for the “New Yorker”. He has twice received the Global Health Council's Excellence in Media Award, as well as the Science Journalism Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


----------



## burglar

Who believes they are saving the planet when they turn off a light?

I used to!

I see the black balloons going up (on Televish).
I realise that CO2 is heavier than air.
I sense the balloons should be falling into valleys!

So they are lying to me!
What else are they lying about?


If I don't put the electricity through a metered device,
someone else must, else it isn't paid for.
Excess production is put through a resistor by the Power Co.

When we turn off our lights that means we reduce our usage.
Popular misconception is that reduces the the power bill.

Truth is, the cost to the Power Co goes up and 
comes back to the consumer as increased rates!

Some people believe that there a are fewer black balloons if they do the right thing.


----------



## Smurf1976

Braking resistors do exist, but I can assure you that power stations do increase / reduce output as demand rises / falls during the daily cycle.

For example, the following plants significantly changed output between 6pm last night and 3am this morning.

Note that all data is expressed as a % of available capacity (not total plant capacity). Eg if the plant has 4 machines but only 3 running (maintenance etc) then 100% means 100% of the available 3 machines and ignoring the 4th one.

Osborne (SA, gas) 100% down to 82%
Loy Yang A (Vic, coal) 100% down to 81%
Gladstone (Qld, Coal) 96% down to 80%. Plus a machine taken completely offline.
Loy Yang B (Vic, coal) 100% down to 80%
Northern (SA, coal) 92% down to 75% of available capacity with half the plant taken offline completely.
Poatina (Tas, hydro) 92% down to 74%
Braemar (Qld, gas) 87% down to 71%
Liddell (NSW, coal) 96% down to 71%
Pelican Point (SA, gas) 100% down to 70%
Tarong North (Qld, coal) 83% down to 69%
Bayswater (NSW, coal) 95% down to 66%
Stanwell (Qld, coal) 75% down to 58%
Tallawarra (NSW, gas) 95% down to 43%
Tarong (Qld, coal) 56% down to 43%
Vales Point (NSW, coal) 80% down to 42%
Mount Piper (NSW, coal) 64% down to 40%
Eraring (NSW, coal) 71% down to 38%
Torrens Island B (SA, gas) 80% down to 20%
Kareeya (Qld, hydro) 82% down to 8%
Bairnsdale (Vic, gas) 100% shut down completely.
Barron Gorge (Qld, hydro) 76% shut down completely.
Dartmouth (Vic, hydro) 89% shut down completely.
Eildon (Vic, hydro) 94% shut down completely.
Guthega (NSW, hydro) 82% shut down completely.
Hallet (SA, gas) 5% shut down completely.
Mortlake (Vic, gas) 100% shut down completely.
Murray (Vic electrically (NSW physically)), 12% shut down completely.
Torrens Island A (SA, gas) 83% shut down completely.
West Kiewa (Vic, hydro) 46% shut down completely.

Note that the above is not a full list of operating power stations. It is just those where output decreased by 10% or more of available capacity between 18:00 yesterday and 03:00 today. Note that times are standard time (not daylight savings).

For the record, generation that was running at 100% of available capacity at 3am this morning:

Anglesea (Vic, coal)
Blowering (NSW, hydro)
Callide B (Qld, coal)
Condamine (Qld, gas)
Darling Downs (Qld, gas)
Hazelwood (Vic, coal)
Hume (NSW, hydro)
Kogan Creek (Qld, coal)
Millmerran (Qld, coal)
Quarantine (SA, gas)
Roma (Qld, gas)
Sithe (NSW, gas)
Tarraleah (Tas, hydro)
Yallourn (Vic, coal)

Everything else was either running at partial capacity or was offline altogether.

Note that intermittent generation, primarily wind, is excluded from the above since in practice it always runs at 100% of whatever capacity it has available at the time (use it or lose it).


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> Braking resistors do exist, but I can assure you that power stations do increase / reduce output as demand rises / falls during the daily cycle ...




I stand corrected! 

But I do not understand the how of it.
After all the turbines need to spin at the correct rotational speed to produce the right CPS .
I had assumed that would create a certain amount of push or EMF.

Maybe I should google!


----------



## Smurf1976

burglar said:


> I stand corrected!
> 
> But I do not understand the how of it.




In "layman's terms" it comes down to energy / power as distinct from speed.

For example, ramp a turbine up to speed and apply no load. With no load on it, it will keep spinning for quite a long time as it very gradually slows down due to friction etc. But put a load on it and it will stop rather quickly.

So you need energy input to match (slightly exceed after friction etc) energy output from the turbine + alternator at any given time. You put more energy in, that effectively "pushes" it along and results in energy going into the grid. Take that energy input away but leave it connected electrically and it keeps spinning, it's just that it is no longer adding power to the grid as such.

If you've got a bench grinder at home then turn it on until it reaches full speed then turn it off. It takes a long time to stop spinning. Now repeat that but start grinding something as soon as you turn the power off. Now it stops quickly since you're taking energy out of what is effectively a flywheel (ie the grinding wheels) but putting nothing back in.

Or like how a car will roll quite some distance on a flat road if you simply turn the engine off and put it in neutral. Apply the brakes (taking energy out in the form of heat) or if the road is going up hill then it will stop a lot quicker.

So you have x number of turbines spinning at 50Hz in the grid at any one time. The total energy input to those turbines needs to match that being drawn from the grid as electricity. If too much energy input then speed of ALL the turbines will increase, likewise they'll ALL slow down if energy input is insufficient.

Energy input - that's water through a hydro turbine, steam into a steam turbine, gas or oil as fuel into a gas turbine, etc. Related to that is of course the operation of the water infrastructure (some of which is a lot more complex than most would realise) or the boiler in a steam plant but it's what actually goes into the turbine that counts in this context. 

It's all automated now, but back in ye olde days it was done manually. Operator sits there watching speed (frequency) and accumulated time error and manually adjusts the energy input to one or more turbines in order to keep the entire grid where it ought to be. Automated now, but it's been done manually in the past.

A point to note is that all machines will be at the same frequency in an AC grid. Not necessarily the same turbine speed, hydro turbines run at a lower speed than steam turbines for example, but they'll be at the same electrical frequency whether it's in Adelaide or somewhere in North Qld since it's all the same AC grid. That being so, it's entirely possible that a change in load in Sydney is met entirely by changing the output of power stations in another state. The link to Tas is DC such that Tas is not synchronised to the mainland as such, but the inverter at the receiving end is certainly synchronised to the mainland or Tas grid as appropriate.

Something I should add, is that the efficiency of converting primary energy (coal, water, gas etc) into electricity is not constant for any given generating unit (turbine + alternator and associated equipment) but varies considerably. 

Eg the machines at Reece power station run optimally at about 85% of capacity. Above that there's a greater increase in water discharge than there is in power output, and below that efficiency also falls. Note that the optimum figure varies from plant to plant according to various factors (steam pressure and temperature in the case of thermal, head and turbine type in the case of hydro). Broadly speaking, thermal plants achieve optimum efficiency at high loads whereas for hydro it's typically at partial load but it does vary. Gas turbines in particular, suffer a massive efficiency loss below a certain point. They're quick to start and stop, but best run hard once they're going.

Further complicating all that, is "no go" areas at which wear on the machinery is disproportionately high. Eg the turbine can operate above or below that area nicely, but will suffer excessive wear in a certain output range. Generally speaking, you want to through that range as quickly as possible and not spend too much time there.

Then there's the absolute limits on minimum loads. Hydro plant can run down to incredibly low output, it can basically go down to almost zero and still remain operating, but there's lots of issues doing that with gas and especially coal in a boiler. In short, if you try and run a coal-fired boiler at 10% of capacity then that's not going to work since combustion becomes unstable. Minimum loading varies between plants, but it's around 20% for a gas steam plant and for coal it tends to be 30% or higher for good quality coal. If you've got coal that's full of water then it can be even higher - 50% of capacity or more as the lower limit to keep running. And you generally want to keep running since, apart from hydro, stopping and starting costs big $ for start-up fuel (oil, gas), lost efficiency and wear on equipment. 

As for which plants run and when, apart from issues with transmission constraints that's basically a commercial decision for the owners. When demand is highest, everyone needs to be running, but when demand is low it comes down to price as to who runs and who doesn't.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> In "layman's terms" it comes down to energy / power as distinct from speed ...




Thanks Smurf!

Ok. I'll leave it to the guys who know.

Meanwhile, I will leave some lights on and pay a few cents extra.
At my age, I don't bounce if I trip over furniture!!


----------



## Smurf1976

Smurf1976 said:


> One problem with unconventional (anything other than a rotating synchronous machine), is lack of inertia.
> 
> We could easily end up with the whole grid collapsing under that circumstance since a drop (or rise) in frequency will of itself cause more machines to trip beyond a certain point. Inverter trips, frequency falls, something else trips, further frequency fall, a lot more machines trip, grid goes dead....
> 
> The solution, in short, is a very elaborate control system




7:46AM today in Tasmania.

All was going fine then *FLASH* - a lightning strike tripped both transmission circuits from Gordon power station. 

The line auto-reclosed (put itself back into service) straight away but the overall "wobble" to the grid tripped the Basslink inverter off completely.

Basslink was supplying (from Vic) 39% of the entire load in Tas at the time (wind 12%, hydro 49%).

The result was the automatic (instant) dumping of major industrial load (smelters) equivalent to 33% of total system (Tas) load at the time. That's an automated system (only one of its' type in the world so far as we know) not your regular under frequency load shedding that every grid has. So, lightning strikes, Gordon off, Basslink dead and industrial load instantly dumped, Gordon straight back on again. Someone sitting at home might have noticed the lights get dimmer for half a second but that's it, all regular consumers retained full supply.

Key point there is that Gordon, a conventional hydro station and the immediate "victim" of the lightning strike which briefly isolated it from the rest of the grid, was straight back up and running without incident. Likewise every other hydro unit online at the time worked flawlessly and stabilised the system amidst the chaos. It was the inverter at the other end of the state which shut down.

What next? It takes a bit of time for the smelters to ramp up again after a major trip, but an hour later they were back to full power. And it was good old hydro power that got everything running again, wind output dropped 22% amidst all this (due to natural wind variation) and Basslink was still down. That said, at least the wind farms do keep operating as such.

Rotating machines, particularly those driven by stable means such as hydro or steam, work in a crisis during which inverters give up. Quite a lot of household solar inverters would also have tripped at the time, they're also no help in a crisis, although due to the weather and time they wouldn't have been generating that much power anyway.

If we're going to have inverters, particularly small decentralised ones, supplying a large portion of total generation at some future time then there's a lot of system stability issues associated with that. It's difficult enough having one large inverter, it's an order of magnitude more difficult trying to control a million of them.

For the record, at one point today we had literally every transmission line in the state subject to lightning nearby although nothing drastic actually happened apart from a major hail storm around Hobart (definitely the largest hail I've ever seen in Tas, would be roughly 15mm diameter so almost big enough to start causing damage).


----------



## sptrawler

Smurph, you need to get into the training field, your wasted in power system control, or generation.


----------



## basilio

Smurf I really appreciate your detailed explanations of how our power systems operate. It adds so much practicality to what are often simplistic and inevitably incomplete discussions. 

Cheers


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> 7:46AM today in Tasmania ... the automatic (instant) dumping of major industrial load (smelters) equivalent to 33% of total system (Tas) load at the time. That's an automated system (only one of its' type in the world so far as we know) not your regular under frequency load shedding that every grid has. So, lightning strikes, Gordon off, Basslink dead and industrial load instantly dumped, Gordon straight back on again. Someone sitting at home might have noticed the lights get dimmer for half a second but that's it, all regular consumers retained full supply.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> If we're going to have inverters, particularly small decentralised ones, supplying a large portion of total generation at some future time then there's a lot of system stability issues associated with that. It's difficult enough having one large inverter, it's an order of magnitude more difficult trying to control a million of them.
> <SNIP>



Gee whiz Smurf, now you're answering my questions before I even ask them. How engineers think about distributed generation (i.e. micro-grids down to domestic) in relation to the big grid was going to be my next request, after I finished responding to Smurf, IFocus, and orr, who answered my questions of last month. I've written at least five versions of that response as I kept exploring the issues you all raised. They all started with thanks to the three of you for your disconcertingly quick replies to my questions about synchronous rotary machines, so please consider yourselves thanked five times.

I think I should explain why I'm tackling this crash course in grid management. I run the website for a regional climate action group which currently has one group working actively to implement solar generation (probably in a micro-grid for an industrial area) and another group studying nuclear generation. I’m trying to understand the issues at least well enough to be sure that the website gives them a fair, full, and accurate discussion at a popular level. Not easy. 

Nuclear generation is a very tough issue for many people, myself included. I can see its attraction as a substitute for fossil fuel generators that can more or less be dropped into place and hooked up to the existing distribution system. On the other hand, distributed generation, like distributed computing, seems inherently more robust than big generation, however it's powered. At least it does to an old software bunny who has trouble remembering that power networks are subject to physical forces.

I've got many more problems with nuclear power but for the moment I'd love to understand inverters and why they are so sensitive to wobbles in the grid. 

This seems to me to be one aspect of the general subject of how to handle the interface between power generation and distribution. I wonder how much of the present system is historical accident and how much is physical necessity. Following from that, how hard is it to get from where we are to, say, a different kind of grid that doesn't rely on the inertia of synchronous rotary machines to recover from the wobbles. 

Can't you tell I have no engineering background? Thanks very much to those who do and who are so quick to share it.


----------



## burglar

basilio said:


> Smurf I really appreciate your detailed explanations of how our power systems operate. It adds so much practicality to what are often simplistic and inevitably incomplete discussions.
> 
> Cheers





Simplistic and inevitably incomplete discussions are my way of asking Smurf to elaborate.

And yes, he does it extremely well!!


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Gee whiz Smurf, now you're answering my questions before I even ask them.




I always try to put things in "layman's terms". 

Same thing happens at a public open day at a power station (at least it does in Tas) by the way. Put things in terms that are understandable and most people can grasp the concepts quite well especially when they're standing inside a real power station looking at the equipment right in front of them. Once you relate it to things like driving a car or emptying a bath then it all makes sense. 



> Nuclear generation is a very tough issue for many people, myself included. I can see its attraction as a substitute for fossil fuel generators that can more or less be dropped into place and hooked up to the existing distribution system. On the other hand, distributed generation, like distributed computing, seems inherently more robust than big generation, however it's powered.




Nuclear - essentially a "drop in" replacement that from a grid perspective is no different to any other large generating unit regardless of how it's powered. It's controllable and predictable within reason. Same as coal, gas, hydro etc.

Distributed - in principle, 100,000 x 3kW inverters are far less likely to all break down at once than a single 300MW machine. Same with anything really, if you've got a fleet of 100 cars then the won't all break at once unless some common element (eg fuel) causes them to all fail. Much the same with having lots of inverters. It's highly unlikely that my inverter at home would break as such at the same time as thousands of others but they can certainly fail all at once if a common element (the grid) causes them to trip offline.

Controlling it is where things get difficult. A few big power stations are a lot easier to control in terms of output than trying to do the same with a million or more inverters and especially when those inverters have a variable input (solar) versus the far more reliable energy input to a large power station. 

Distributed generation at present (without any form of central control) basically leads to a situation where the load on the grid seems smaller than it is. Eg if the "real" load is 1000 MW but half that is distributed, then the centralised power stations only "see" a 500MW load and they only produce to meet that 500MW. If something goes wrong and all those inverters suddenly trip offline, well now you've suddenly got the full 1000MW load being placed on the remaining centralised generation. End result = widespread blackouts at best, system black (complete grid collapse) at worst if the load isn't dumped quickly enough to avoid overload and frequency collapse. 

Theoretically it would be blackouts not an actual collapse, but things don't always work as you'd expect them to in an extreme situation. There was one such "not as expected" situation a few years ago in NSW with a transmission fault north of Sydney. That ended up dumping load as far away as Hobart. There's also been plenty of incidents in all states where something tripped due to a problem and then something unrelated suffered as a result - that's in the "law of unintended consequences" category really.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...&utm_content=1053453&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=



> US solar PV manufacturer SunEdison has been awarded two 15-year contracts to supply 190 gigawatt-hours to Chile’s central SIC grid by 2016 at $US89 per megawatt-hour and another for 350GWh by 2017 at $US85/MWh.
> 
> The prices for the two projects are free from any additional subsidies. Such prices suggest that given high solar radiation (such as in Australia), the technology is now competitive with wind and gas power at utility scale.






> Under the Indian auction, another experienced utility-scale solar farm developer and module manufacturer, First Solar, committed to build a 40 megawatt project at $US86/MWh and another at $US87/MWh. In Brazil their auction cleared at $US87/MWh for 1048 MW from several solar projects.






> The costs solar PV are now achieving, in addition to its rapidly falling trajectory, will have them now feeling decidedly uncomfortable. *It also puts the latest UK government contract with EDF for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant into stark relief – it involves a strike price of $US144/MWh (£92.50).*


----------



## sydboy007

human ingenuity at its nest

http://www.livescience.com/49133-super-efficient-solar-energy-system.html



> A new world record is making the future of solar energy look pretty bright. Researchers in Australia recently developed a solar energy system that can convert more than 40 percent of the sunlight that hits it into electricity — the highest efficiency ever reported for a commercially available photovoltaic system.




http://phys.org/news/2014-12-aims-r...e=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu



> The researchers are the first to show that a flexible paper composed entirely of graphene oxide sheets can charge and discharge with sodium-ions for more than 1,000 cycles.




http://phys.org/news/2014-12-thermoelectric-power-economically-competitive-renewable.html#nRlv



> A new study predicts that large-scale power plants based on thermoelectric effects, such as small temperature differences in ocean water, could generate electricity at a lower cost than photovoltaic power plants.


----------



## Smurf1976

Smurf1976 said:


> 7:46AM today in Tasmania.
> 
> All was going fine...




Note that what follows is a fairly technical post about an actual power system incident today. Point in posting is to highlight why the prospect of not having effective control over generation, as would arise from any major shift to distributed generation, scares the **** out of engineers and others who aim to keep the system up. All works fine until, a fraction of a second later, something breaks. That moment is when the ability to control things becomes critical, do nothing and we'll all be in the dark in no time.

It happened again at 3:28pm today. Sudden and complete loss of Vic - Tas transmission whilst fully loaded Vic to Tas. 

Industrial load was automatically shed in Tas, subsequently restored with power from far more reliable rotating machines (hydro).

Generation was shed in various places, primarily (in decreasing order of significance):

Loy Yang (Vic), Torrens Island (SA), Eraring (NSW), Yallourn (Vic), Bayswater (NSW), Gladstone (Qld), Vales Point (NSW), Braemar (Qld), Hazelwood (Vic), Mt Piper (NSW), Tarong (Qld), Stanwell (Qld), Callide (Qld), Dartmouth (Vic). 

All of those are conventional coal-fired stations with the exceptions of Torrens Island (gas-fired steam turbines), Braemar (gas-fired gas turbines), and Dartmouth (hydro). 

Note that none of those power stations tripped offline or suffered other problems due to the transmission failure They remained under normal control and were simply required to generate less electricity, which is exactly what they did.

As you can see, it's all one big interconnected system and quite complex in operation. Vic - Tas transmission fails, and that affects generation as far away as Queensland and SA.

In Tasmania, industrial load was restored by (in decreasing order of significance):

John Butters (increased output), Reece (brought online from zero), Gordon (increased output), Mackintosh (brought online), Bastyan (brought online), Tribute (brought online), Cethana (increased output). All of those are conventional hydro stations.

For the record, wind generation in Tas was at a moderate level at the time, about 8% of system load, and declined slightly (by about 4% of the initial output) due to wind speed variation whilst all this was going on.

So overall:

1 transmission link (DC) failed.
Industrial load shed in Tas at several sites (mostly smelters).
14 power stations cut output in Qld, NSW, Vic and SA.
3 stations increased output and another 4 brought online from scratch in Tas to restore industrial load.

Vic - Tas transmission was restored about 7:45pm and is now operating normally, the quantity and direction of electricity transmission being in response to normal requirements.

As I said before, the point here is about control over generation and the inherent fragility of the grid as such. Having incidents like today's is one thing if you've got control over what's going in (generation) and can disconnect loads if need be. It's an entirely different problem if you don't have control over generation and disconnecting load also disconnects generation (as is the case with household solar etc).

I'm not saying that 100% renewable can't be done, I'm sure that it can be done, but it's nowhere near as simple as just putting panels on roofs. That only works as long as it's a relatively small share of total generation which, at present, is the case.


----------



## macca

Hi Smurf,

In the past I can recall local power stations (coal) in Newcastle and other places. Gradually over time larger stations were built in the area,  Eraring, Lake Munmorah and Liddell.

I think this was in the 1960/70 era, it was around that time the SM scheme started to produce as well.
Is this around about when the national grid came into existence ?

I imagine that the older plants were for local use only as I can't recall any pylons linking them to a grid, the huge pylons that stretch across the country now are a more recent addition, say last 40 years or so.

When did all the states link to the national grid ?


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> I imagine that the older plants were for local use only as I can't recall any pylons linking them to a grid, the huge pylons that stretch across the country now are a more recent addition, say last 40 years or so.
> 
> When did all the states link to the national grid ?




A bit of the climate topic, but to answer the question..... 

Tasmania (1916) and Victoria (1924) were the first in Australia with high voltage transmission over long distances and a plan for a state-wide grid and they're still the only states with a true state-wide grid as such. The other states generally became keen on big transmission lines much later - 1950's to the 1970's depending on location.

Historically, NSW, Vic and Tas were the major producers and users of electricity and lead much of the industry's development. Load growth in the other states is somewhat more recent, becoming significant from the mid-1960's onward in Qld, SA and WA (those states had electricity way before that, but didn't use much of it).

That said, to this day most of WA isn't part of a main grid, there's really only the south-west system (including Perth) and another one in the north-west. Neither are connected to each other or to another state. For the rest of WA, and that's most of the physical land area, it's a local diesel or gas engine supplying a town or two each.

NT is similar to WA but a lot smaller. There's a very limited "grid" around Darwin (very heavily dependent on one major power station plus a couple of small ones) and a small but locally significant power station at Alice Springs. Everything else is a diesel / gas engine powering a town or two as a standalone system (apart from the bauxite mine and former alumina refinery at Gove with an oil-fired steam turbine plant). 

Interconnection between states as follows:

NSW - Vic. AC link (so the two state grids became one as such) about 1961 (I think, could have been as early as 1955 when the first parts of the Snowy scheme started operating). The Snowy scheme was always intended to supply power to both states, interconnection of NSW and Vic was just part of what needed to happen in order to make it work. Whilst the entire Snowy scheme is physically in NSW, electrically two of the power stations are in Victoria (Murray 1 & 2).

Vic - SA. AC link in 1990 followed by a smaller DC link in 2003. The rationale was initially based on SA obtaining surplus off-peak electricity from Vic (produced from coal) at very low cost thus reducing the use of much more expensive gas in SA's power stations. The other initial benefit was being able to obtain some peak power from Vic, thus enabling closure of two old (worn out) power stations in SA without having to replace them. Overall, it was simply the cheapest option at the time in the context of supplying SA (flow from SA to Vic being vary rare until quite recently). In more recent times, development of multiple large wind farms in SA has seen an increasing tendency toward flow from SA to Vic at certain times. 

Qld and NSW were linked in 2000 via a small capacity DC link, then with a larger AC one in 2001. The rationale was based partly on technical aspects and sharing of generating capacity, since Qld's peak demand isn't generally coincident with the other states, and partly on the ideological basis of competition. 

Tas and Vic were linked in 2006 via a single DC link, among the longest high capacity undersea cables in the world. The rationale was always based on the notion that Tasmania's generation is energy constrained whereas a predominantly thermal system (in the other states) is constrained by peak capacity. Adding in the major difference in timing of peak demand (Winter morning in Tas versus Summer afternoon elsewhere), there was an obvious opportunity to share resources. Send off-peak electricity to Tas as a bulk energy source (avoiding the need to build more _energy_ capability into the system) and use Tasmania's surplus (during Summer) peak capacity to meet peak demands in Victoria. A very rational concept, and one that was investigated on numerous occasions back as far as the 1930's, always failing on the basis of cost. But with the end of large dam construction in Tas (1994) and the end of brown coal construction in Vic (1996) combined with improvements in technology it finally stacked up financially (but only just) and was built.

The idea of a NSW - SA connection has been investigated on several occasions, the basic rationale being cheap coal in NSW displacing expensive gas in SA. Or more recently as a means of getting a potential future intermittent surplus of generation (from wind) out of SA whilst providing a backup when the wind isn't blowing. The fundamental problem has always come down to economics, not helped by the relatively high losses along the various proposed routes (largely due to pushing existing infrastructure to its' limit in order to limit capital costs).

The idea of a Qld - Mt Isa (currently a separate system) - Darwin link has also been proposed. It's more a political idea than an economic or engineering one however.

There's also been some thought of a PNG - Qld link. The basic concept is to develop baseload hydro generation in PNG and send that into Qld. So the link is effectively part of a generation proposal rather than being purely an interconnection as such.

Also around is the idea of upgrading or duplicating the current interconnectors, indeed some work to this end has been done on various occasions (most notably NSW - Vic and to a far lesser extent Vic - SA). It really comes down to economics as to whether it's worthwhile or not.

So far as day to day operation is concerned, electricity can flow in either direction between states and the determinant is market price but typically the outcome is:

Qld - NSW = flow is mostly from Qld to NSW. Cheaper generation costs in Qld are the reason.

NSW - Vic = flow is generally Vic to NSW (counting the Murray power stations as being in Vic) most of the time except during demand peaks in Vic and SA.

Vic - SA = flow historically almost all from Vic to SA and that is still largely the case. Exceptions are high demand periods in Vic especially when SA demand is moderate (eg last day of a heatwave, cool change has arrived in Adelaide but not yet in Melbourne). Also flow SA to Vic when wind speed in SA is high and demand is low.

Vic - Tas = varies, net flow over 12 months can be in either direction. Broadly speaking, the basic concept is flow Vic to Tas when price in Vic is low (off-peak) and Tas to Vic when price in Vic is high. Complicating this is that Hydro Tas has a huge water storage capacity, such that it's possible to take a long term approach. Eg it's possible to buy or sell heavily for a period of _years_ if the situation warrants it, the definition of "peak" and "off-peak" doesn't need to follow a daily cycle. That said, if there's a heatwave in Vic and SA then you can be pretty sure that flow will be from Tas to Vic, likewise that's generally the case during the Winter evening peak. Any other time, it depends on the market. In recent times, price in Vic has been low most of the time so flow has mostly been Vic to Tas, reversing when the price spikes. The resultant under-production of hydro resources doesn't mean water is being wasted, it just goes into long term storage and will be used at some future time when prices are higher. And suffice to say that right now there's plenty of space in which to store water, no chance of running out of room anytime soon.


----------



## macca

Thanks Smurf,

Now to bring it back on topic 

Reading through your detailed post (twice) it seems to me that by connecting to a (almost) national grid we are making far better use of resources. The ability to share surplus power means that less fuel is used to generate power when the problem can be solved by using another states surplus.

Taking the grid as a whole, we are using quite a lot less fuel right across Australia, got to be a good thing, both financially and for the climate 

I realise this thread is supposed to be about the "hysteria" surrounding climate change but I think that something that explains how we can use less fuel to make the required power is climate related.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> ... followed by a smaller DC link in 2003 ...




It was always my understanding that Telsa outgunned Edison,
because DC was difficult to transport over long distances!


----------



## Craton

burglar said:


> It was always my understanding that Telsa outgunned Edison,
> because DC was difficult to transport over long distances!




In the War of Currents era (sometimes, War of the Currents or Battle of Currents) in the late 1880s, George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison became adversaries due to Edison's promotion of direct current (DC) for electric power distribution against alternating current (AC) advocated by several European companies[1] and Westinghouse Electric based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which had acquired many of the patents by Nikola Tesla.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents


----------



## Smurf1976

macca said:


> Reading through your detailed post (twice) it seems to me that by connecting to a (almost) national grid we are making far better use of resources. The ability to share surplus power means that less fuel is used to generate power when the problem can be solved by using another states surplus.




The theoretical effect is to maximise efficiency at the generation level. Where it gets complex is how you define "efficiency" since it's based either on actual cost (old days) or price offered to the market (modern approach) noting that the price offered does not necessarily reflect the underlying cost of production in the short term (as with any market).

But the overall effect is that, mostly, we end up heavily loading the cheaper to operate generation facilities then using progressively more expensive ones as demand rises on the daily / seasonal cycle and vice versa as it falls. Complicating that is maintenance outages, some plants with very variable actual costs, and those with intermittent fuel supplies (most notably wind).

But in broad terms, the outcome is use of the cheapest to operate plant regardless of which state it's in. Right now Qld and Vic are supplying 19% of the load in NSW for example.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And Noco it is totally pointless arguing with a person who simply rejects any evidence he/she doesn't agree with.
> 
> Or a person who either makes up totally wrong statements or repeats them when these statements have been clearly shown to be false.
> 
> Just no point mate..




Well, here's the point mate if you care to read the attached link by Bob Carter JCU Townsville on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef contrary to the propaganda spread by the Looney Left and the Greens.

One of your alarmist stated half the Great Barrier Reef is already dead.....What a lot of nonsense.

So here is all the evidence you are screaming for and it is also backed up by Professor Peter Ridd, a marine biologist form JCU Townsville who had studied the reef for over 30 years.

I have rejected propaganda from the alarmist who have one thing on their agenda and that is to interrupt progress in the expansion of the coal industry in Queensland.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-misconceptions/story-e6frg6zo-1227168703706

*Bob Carter is a marine geologist and an Institute of Public Affairs fellow researching the GBR.*


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Well,
> 
> I have rejected propaganda from the alarmist who have one thing on their agenda and that is to interrupt progress in the expansion of the coal industry in Queensland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-misconceptions/story-e6frg6zo-1227168703706
> 
> *Bob Carter is a marine geologist and an Institute of Public Affairs fellow researching the GBR.*




So all is revealed noco,  you are a coal man,  self interest pure and simple. 

My concerns are for the future generations of people. 

When I first dived the reef off Airlie Beach in 1966 the reef was in clear colours,  since then it has gradually faded and today in those spots is an off white colour and looks dead.   You can quote all the oil/coal lobby on the payroll scientist's you like noco,  but from my view they are wrong and Flannery is right.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> So all is revealed noco,  you are a coal man,  self interest pure and simple.
> 
> My concerns are for the future generations of people.
> 
> When I first dived the reef off Airlie Beach in 1966 the reef was in clear colours,  since then it has gradually faded and today in those spots is an off white colour and looks dead.   You can quote all the oil/coal lobby on the payroll scientist's you like noco,  but from my view they are wrong and Flannery is right.





OMG, you really are in denial...Where is your scientific evidence.

Flannery is right?????????????you have to be joking.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> OMG, you really are in denial...Where is your scientific evidence.
> 
> Flannery is right?????????????you have to be joking.




The scientific knowledge is distorted by the oil/coal lobby,  (your mob noco)  who out of many thousands of pieces of information sift through it all and highlight a few bits to suit thier agenda. 

I have been a nature watcher from childhood and know from what I have seen and experienced that climate change is very real,  not overstated and it is now clear that it is your mob noco are the ones being hysterical. 

Anyhow,  specifically state some of the points of Flannery that you think are wrong.  And not what someone else says,  something that you think and believe.


----------



## Smurf1976

Further to previous posts about how the electricity grid works:

Power is worthless in SA at the moment, literally it's worthless. Indeed the price is slightly negative (ie below zero).

There's not much demand in SA due to the time of year and the weather, meanwhile the wind is blowing such that wind generation alone exceeds total demand in SA. Add in 3 thermal (fuel) generating units that are trying to remain online so as to avoid shut down and start up costs, and the end result is that electricity is less than worthless at the spot price.

The lines are fully loaded sending electricity from SA into Vic but that's not enough. 

It's also very cheap in Vic at the moment, about 1.2 cents / kWh, with moderate load and the supply coming from SA being the cause. The lines are fully loaded sending electricity from Vic into NSW, whilst the Vic - Tas link is operating at reduced capacity (Vic to Tas) on account of widespread lightning in Tas and the risk of transmission failures as a result.

SA - 28% of total production is being sent into Vic, that being the limit of what the lines can handle. Most thermal units offline with the rest minimising output. 

Vic - some very low cost generation (coal) forced to cut output since there's nowhere for it to go. Some hydro generation still running in order to release water for irrigation etc. Gas generation completely shut down. A lot of wind in Vic at the moment too.

NSW - 14.5% of supply is coming from Vic (limit of what the lines can handle) and a further 6.5% from Qld (normal market operations on account of price). Price in NSW is 3.1 cents / kWh and in Qld it's 3.0

Tas - 16% of supply coming from Vic, limited due to the lightning issues. We'd be taking fully 44% from Vic, the limit of the link's capacity, if not for the lightning given the very low price at the moment. 1.2 cents / kWh = outright bargain.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The scientific knowledge is distorted by the oil/coal lobby,  (your mob noco)  who out of many thousands of pieces of information sift through it all and highlight a few bits to suit thier agenda.
> 
> I have been a nature watcher from childhood and know from what I have seen and experienced that climate change is very real,  not overstated and it is now clear that it is your mob noco are the ones being hysterical.
> 
> Anyhow,  specifically state some of the points of Flannery that you think are wrong.  And not what someone else says,  something that you think and believe.




Firstly, I believe I have lived a lot longer than you and have seen more of nature than you would have had hot dinners.

If you still believe in Flannery, then I am sure you still believe in Santa Clause.

Flannery said in 2007, there would never ever be enough rains in the future to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne and what did those looney left do?.......They convinced the Labor Governments in those three Eastern states to spend $billions on moth balled desalination plants...and then it rained and all the dams were filled to overflowing...Now how is that for starters?

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of ten story buildings by the end of the century and then goes and buys a block of land on the Hawksbury River just 2 meters above high water mark......Now how is that for seconds?

You have probably seen the alarmists showing videos of big chunks of ice falling into the sea stating the glaciers are melting causing the seas to rise....They even lied by telling people it was in the Arctic or the Antarctic..I advise you do the cruise up to Alaska, the ship will take you into Glacier Bay and you will see the exact same shots taken by the alarmists...Big chunks of ice falling into the sea the size of a bus....I took some excellent photos to prove it....I have traveled to many other parts of the world as well and observed lots of nature including 12 months around Australia.

Ah yes, the deceptive propaganda......you can't beat it but still and all the naive believe it.


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> You can quote all the oil/coal lobby on the payroll scientist's you like noco,  but from my view they are wrong and Flannery is right.



You don't think it's possible the 'side' opposing eg Carter might also be following the grant money?

I'm not sure what particularly qualifies either Carter or Flannery to be considered experts on climate.

From Wikipedia on Flannery:  







> He completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English at La Trobe University[4] in 1977, and then took a change of direction to complete a Master of Science degree in Earth Science at Monash University in 1981.[citation needed] He then left Melbourne for Sydney, enjoying its subtropical climate and species diversity.[5] In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods (kangaroos)




A little hard to perceive the connection between kangaroos and climate, but there you go.
Mr Carter's Wiki info is


> Carter began his career as an assistant lecturer in geology at the University of Otago in 1963 and advanced to senior lecturer after obtaining his Ph.D. in 1968. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005.[1][4][5]
> 
> He has published over 100 research papers on taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.[5][6] Carter has published primary research in the field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[7][8]






explod said:


> The scientific knowledge is distorted by the oil/coal lobby,  (your mob noco)  who out of many thousands of pieces of information sift through it all and highlight a few bits to suit thier agenda.



And possibly, to use your term (your mob, explod) might similarly sift according to their own agenda.

I have minimal interest here but just wanted to point out that neither of the two individuals apparently under discussion seem to be absolutely specifically qualified on climate.

The hysteria, from whatever side, is usually counter-productive.


----------



## SirRumpole

I just can't see what's in it for governments to propagate a myth about climate change ?

Surely it would be a lot easier for governments to soothe the voters feelings by saying there is nothing to worry about instead of threatening to hit voters in the pocket with CC preventions like direct action or carbon taxes and thereby losing votes ?

Most governments including ours accept that climate change is real, even if they don't want to do anything about it. When so many governments acknowledge a hard reality it's pretty difficult for the deniers to say it's all cr@p.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I just can't see what's in it for governments to propagate a myth about climate change ?
> 
> Surely it would be a lot easier for governments to soothe the voters feelings by saying there is nothing to worry about instead of threatening to hit voters in the pocket with CC preventions like direct action or carbon taxes and thereby losing votes ?
> 
> Most governments including ours accept that climate change is real, even if they don't want to do anything about it. When so many governments acknowledge a hard reality it's pretty difficult for the deniers to say it's all cr@p.




Of course climate change is real.......the climate has been changing for thousands of years .......even in my life time I have seen decades of climate change.

GLOBAL WARMING .........NO WAY.

This is why the alarmist changed from Global warming to climate change because science has proven them wrong that the globe is not warming and has not warmed in the past 17 years.......It is a proven fact but I sure one of the alarmist on this forum will come back with some fictitious " peer reviewed facts".


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Of course climate change is real.......the climate has been changing for thousands of years .......even in my life time I have seen decades of climate change.
> 
> GLOBAL WARMING .........NO WAY.
> 
> This is why the alarmist changed from Global warming to climate change because science has proven them wrong that the globe is not warming and has not warmed in the past 17 years.......It is a proven fact but I sure one of the alarmist on this forum will come back with some fictitious " peer reviewed facts".




Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

American television comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word in this meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> I just can't see what's in it for governments to propagate a myth about climate change ?



If you are a country without economically extractable fossil fuels then so long as the world relies on coal, oil and gas for energy you are at a competitive disadvantage.

Likewise any country with large non-fossil energy sources capable of being developed at below average cost stands to gain should there be a global shift to non-fossil energy.

Reverse that if you have a lot of fossil fuel in the ground and/or don't have a good position in non-fossil energy resources.

If you take a look at the position which countries, or even regions within a country, have on the CO2 issue then there's a definite correlation between that and their natural resource situation. 

At one extreme, the EU has no reason to want anyone using fossil fuels given that it's a huge problem for them. Little oil, not much gas and an uneconomical coal mining industry puts the EU as a whole, and most of the countries within it, at an economic disadvantage so long as other countries have access to cheap fossil fuels.

On the other hand, you won't hear Saudi Arabia arguing against oil anytime soon. Their entire economy is heavily tied to it, and to the extent that they've got anything else it's petrochemicals and natural gas.

Even within Australia, political views on the subject are different in Qld and WA compared to Tas and SA and again resources explain the difference. The former have lots of coal (Qld) and gas (both) with an economy heavily tied to the mining industry in general. In contrast, the latter have an advantage in hydro (Tas), wind (both) and are likely places for building any future large scale solar (SA) or geothermal (both) operation. State politics in general tends to reflect this reality.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]
> 
> American television comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word in this meaning.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness




I guess you must be one of those naive people who has full confidence in Tim Flannery and Al Gore.

Intelligent examination???...more like an intelligent CON job....The evidence and logic is rhetorical propaganda starting from the UN Secretary General down the line through to the Fabians, Tim Flannery and Al Gore and backed up by the ABC, Fairfax, the Guardian and GETUP....It is a pity those cronies didn't tell the truth......They could not lie start in bed.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I guess you must be one of those naive people who has full confidence in Tim Flannery and Al Gore.
> 
> Intelligent examination???...more like an intelligent CON job....The evidence and logic is rhetorical propaganda starting from the UN Secretary General down the line through to the Fabians, Tim Flannery and Al Gore and backed up by the ABC, Fairfax, the Guardian and GETUP....It is a pity those cronies didn't tell the truth......They could not lie start in bed.




Good old noco, information minimum, insults maximum.

I doubt if the new year will bring any improvement.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Good old noco, information minimum, insults maximum.
> 
> I doubt if the new year will bring any improvement.




OMG is that the best you can do?...you must be desperate.


----------



## bellenuit

*Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher*

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0


----------



## noco

bellenuit said:


> *Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0




I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.

If you are an alarmist you will believe one thing...If you are a skeptic, you will believe in something else.

One is right and one is wrong.

Some believe in God because others have convinced them into believing there is a God whether you have proved it or not and there others who don't believe in God because there is no proof that God exists

There will always be those who are convinced they are right and will always try to persuade others to think like them and it is the same as alarmists and skeptics....It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...


----------



## basilio

> .It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...




Well put Noco.  As you would have noticed from reading the article that is an excellent summary of Dr Soons work on climate change.  He was paid  by the fossil fuel industry to produce scientific papers that would dispute the causes of global warming.

He was paid around $1.2m for these papers. Even when they were *completely debunked* on the basis of  flawed data and interpretation climate deniers still routinely quoted Willie Soon.



> The Hockey Stick
> 
> In 2003, Dr. Soon and his colleague at the SAO, Sallie Baliunas, published a *now thoroughly debunked study* in Climate Research’ "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years," in the first of a number of denier challenges to Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ study. This study was republished [pdf] by the (then ExxonMobil funded) George Marshall Institute in 2003





For complete details of Mr Soons career check out the following URL



> *CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
> 
> Of all the climate deniers, one scientist has been particularly closely involved in the campaign against the climate science consensus for the majority of his career: Dr. Willie Soon.*
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STU




______________________________________________________

Additional background on Dr Willie Soons  science activities

http://www.polluterwatch.com/willie-soon


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.




Says it all really for the common man....every untrained person in science from the Prime Minister down meets that description. As Dr Spock from Star Trek said, humans don't act logically.


----------



## wayneL

Never mind the science, this is what I find disturbing and what every one should be resisting. IMO



> At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
> "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
> Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."





Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3WmDbWilu 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


----------



## Knobby22

Good to see you back Wayne. Thought you had turned into a hippy reading that other thread.

Anyway, real article follows.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-b...he-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Note she never said her aim was to destroy capitalism, but I knew this as soon as I saw the denier term "warmist" in the original article. (sigh) 

Transforming the economic model does not equate with destroying Capitalism.

Hottest year ever last year!


----------



## wayneL

There seems to be conflicting results from different datasets, the interpretation depending whetehr one sides with libertarians or Orwellians.

One simply cannot seriously ignore the political influence upon that.

See woodfortrees.org


----------



## Knobby22

Very nice site. Love to see a bit of Fourier analysis. If only we had a longer data set.


----------



## pixel

I can't get my head around this:

For close to a Billion years, increasingly complex life forms have captured the sun's energy and converted part of it into carbon compounds *against* the trend of entropy. Some of these compounds were then buried under sands and water, accumulating a store of Gazillions of Megawatts.

And then humans discovered the secret of liberating the stored energy, using processes that create a small percentage of power and a large amount of heat: a direct consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. 
Doubters, see http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/ 

Since the onset of the Industrial Age, humans have been converting the stored sunshine of fossil fuels into heat at an ever increasing rate, using air and water as agents to transport excesses away from the point of heat generation into the Earth's Biosphere *where it accumulated and continues to heat the environment.*

What I fail to understand: *How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle?* A process that took hundreds of Millions of years to absorb heat is now reversed within a couple of human generations, releasing the stored heat into the environment. How can the result not be called man-made? 

Forget farting cows, belching volcanoes, and fluctuations in sun cycles. Those are natural phenomena that have been happening since the dawn of life, and the mass of oceans and atmosphere has buffered the impact in cycles of Thousands and Millions of years. Human industry is the one factor that's now different, polluting the Earth's Biosphere at a rate that exceeds Earth's capacity of absorption. Whether industrial pollution adds two degrees or ten to the general warming is a moot point. Fact is, it does add at an increasing rate. If that rate is not reversed and the effects neutralised, Earth won't have a Biosphere much longer.


----------



## basilio

Excellent post Pixel. A very critical summary of how we are liberating gigatons of stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 where it is capturing more and more heat from the sun. 

You pose the rhetorical question of  *How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle? * Hell Pixel many intelligent people still insist that the earth is not significantly warming and that tens of thousands of climate records are misleading or wrong or altered.

Many intelligent people also insist that the tens of thousands of earth scientists, climate scientists, natural scientists, geologists, who  explain what is happening to the cliamte and the effects on our planet are completely mistaken if not deliberate liars. 

And finally many very intelligent people can make bucket loads of money selling stories, in many cases creative to ficticious,  to the masses, politicians, investors whoever. I appreciate that is a very broad statement which can be interpreted in many ways. *But the key point is when one can make far more money selling stories rather than acknowledging more objective truths our society will go for the money.*


----------



## basilio

Very interesting website woodfortrees.org. Good value.


----------



## wayneL

Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue. 

The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment.  In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.

The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are  infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science. This is the crux of the sceptics case, not denial as is attempting to be portrayed by some.

Then there are the obvious political agendas polluting proper discourse.....


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.




Is that perhaps because we are not at 2100 yet ? In any case "the worst case scenario" is catastrophe.  An earth that is an average of 6C hotter than currently and incapable of supporting 99% of the current ecosystems and certainly not humans.

There are lesser scenarios. 4C warming. Perhaps 2C warming. These are are barely acceptable scenarios spelt out IF. IF we somehow manage to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate future.

This isn't an academic exercise where being a little off track just means we have to wipe down the whiteboard and recast some figures. 

The sad part about the situation is that putting climate change aside we should be moving to a renewable energy based economy and sustainable resource use simply because we will run out of material resources at the rate we are going. 

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-worstcase-warming-scenario.html#.VSdXSfDKr1E

______________________________________________

There is  a paper that examines and analyses the impacts of projected global warming scenarios  and the likelihood of averting these outcomes. 


> *
> Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission
> scenarios for a new world*



http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html


----------



## Knobby22

Bas

We can also stop thermal runaway.
A few strategically placed nukes, a bit of nuclear winter (not too much) and she'll be right. 
I believe there are powerful people in the USA also looking at other less drastic methods.


----------



## pixel

wayneL said:


> Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.



Wayne, I wasn't talking CO2, I was talking anthropogenic waste heat that is directly increasing the temperature of air and water *in addition to all the heat that Nature keeps producing.*


> The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment.  In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.
> 
> So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.



Lucky for us that it hasn't. But the folks on Vanuatu may have different thoughts about that.
My question in that context is: Can we afford to risk the worst-case scenario when there are clear and feasible alternative options.


> The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are  infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science.



On this, I have to disagree: Thermodynamics is not a faith. It's Science. Yes, there are many possible outcomes. All are bad within one or two human lifetimes, some are catastrophic much sooner. 
But irrespective of the magnitude of potential consequences, I condemn the attitude displayed by politicians and representatives of Industry, who are continuing to pollute the environment to the detriment of current and future generations.


----------



## basilio

The question that Pixel raises on why intelligent people can't/won't accept clear evidence on a particular issue gets a going over in the current issue of New Scientist.


> STATE OF DENIAL
> 
> From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them?  In this special feature we look at the phenomenon in depth. What is denial? What attracts people to it? How does it start, and how does it spread? And finally, how should we respond to it?




http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

Cheers


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.
> 
> The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment.  In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.




The issue isn't how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix, the issue is that what pixel described is an absolute fact, a simple historical and scientific fact, and many usually smart people seem to want (looking at you) to dance around this. 

Also please lets not forget Methane, its not all about co2.


----------



## wayneL

Nice ad homs there fellows, dressed up a bit, but just ad hom.

Pixel,

I don't think the laws of thermodynamics apply as you think they do. Can you elaborate on this.

Anyhooz from woodfortrees.org




In addition there is the problem of extreme weather events... or lack thereof.

This all points to a scenario playing out, other than the alarmist worst case scenario.

By the way, every time anyone invokes the "D" word - you lose.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Nice ad homs there fellows, dressed up a bit, but just ad hom.
> 
> Pixel,
> 
> I don't think the laws of thermodynamics apply as you think they do. Can you elaborate on this.
> 
> Anyhooz from woodfortrees.org
> 
> 
> In addition there is the problem of extreme weather events... or lack thereof.
> 
> This all points to a scenario playing out, other than the alarmist worst case scenario.
> 
> By the way, every time anyone invokes the "D" word - you lose.




Good to see you back wayne, no ad hom intended.

May I elaborate? You've presented a graph that indicates stability to slight incremental warming over the last ten years or so. 
A ten year period of persistent La Nina(do we still need to detail the historical global cooling effect? of such an event. ). 
I hope for your's and my sake that it persists for a long time yet. 

But I suspect it will not. And when an El nino returns the (excised) fifty to hundred years previous to your graph may be a little more telling. I've been wrong about plenty of things, so hopefully that too.

And to date Capitalisms greatest peril has come from it own invented underclass, not the environment.  I suspect things to remain the same. But there's always hope.

Apologies to Milan Kundera, but I feel an 'Incredible heaviness of being' about 36 giga tonnes a year, but it weights as not a feather.


----------



## wayneL

I'm glad you've highlighted selected use of data... guilty as charged. But it is 200 months ~17 years. 

Still a short time. (But others are also guilty of slecting convenient starting points also). Nevertheless contrary to predictions and that is the point.

Totally agree an el nino is going to pump temps up and have the alarmists.... uhhhh... celebrating? 

As I've tried to impress on you guys, personally I'm a lukewarmist, and I think the anthropogenic factors are far more varied than green house gases... land use changes and UHI effect for eg.

However I doubt the worst case scenario, based on my (admittedly laymans) interpretation of the data and consideration of what I think are untainted (and detainted, tainted) hypotheses.

I am especially skeptical of the leftist political agenda, which disingenuously cherry picks hypotheses for its own ends. Obama currently is the most repulsive and alarming example of such. (eg _inter alia_ - CC made my daughter have asthma)


----------



## pixel

wayneL said:


> Nice ad homs there fellows, dressed up a bit, but just ad hom.
> 
> Pixel,
> 
> I don't think the laws of thermodynamics apply as you think they do. Can you elaborate on this.




Quite simple, Wayne:
Industrial activity (by humans) has been using an ever-increasing amount of energy over the last centuries of the Industrial Age. Thermodynamics deals with those processes where potential (stored) energy is converted to drive machinery or change the structure of iron ore to steel. The part of the TD Laws that deals with entropy, translated into plain English, says at every step excess heat is created. In most cases - combustion engines, metal forges, jetliners - the bulk of such heat is a waste product that is released into atmosphere or ocean. 

It does not matter one bit what amount of heat Nature injects as per normal, and in age-old cycles of, e.g., El Nino and La Nina. The critical issue is the additional amount of Giga-Petajoules that has been released from anthropogenic sources over several centuries. 
Do the sums: Find out how many barrels of oil have been pumped up during the last 100 years; calculate the heat content. Do the same for coal and gas. Inject the Total into the surface water, and translate the result into *extra degrees Celsius* of average sea temperature.

If the increase of atmospheric CO2 doesn't scare you, I'm sure the *average ocean temperature* will.

PS: As regards cherry-picking and political agendas, that will always be the case. It would be remarkable if Anarchists and Fluffheads of either persuasion would fail to exploit partial issues for their own fringe purposes. I didn't quite follow Obama's argument, so cannot comment. But I'm afraid the Social Media are full of misinformation, seeded by groups with specific political and commercial interests, and then taken up by gullible illiterati. 
That abuse doesn't change the fact that human activity is polluting the Biosphere at a rapidly increasing rate, and every day our politicians dicker about whether and how much to clean up is a step closer to the point of no return.


----------



## wayneL

Ocean datasets from woodfortrees last 20 years just a fair bit of noise there. Long term trend is up from little ice age as per previous discussions, independent of anthropogenic factors.








Lots of hypothesizing but..........


----------



## explod

pixel said:


> PS: As regards cherry-picking and political agendas, that will always be the case. It would be remarkable if Anarchists and Fluffheads of either persuasion would fail to exploit partial issues for their own fringe purposes. I didn't quite follow Obama's argument, so cannot comment. But I'm afraid the Social Media are full of misinformation, seeded by groups with specific political and commercial interests, and then taken up by gullible illiterati.
> That abuse doesn't change the fact that human activity is polluting the Biosphere at a rapidly increasing rate, and every day our politicians dicker about whether and how much to clean up is a step closer to the point of no return.




Well put and on the nail.


----------



## moXJO

Does anyone know if emissions have been dropping or going up over 2013-2015 period?


----------



## wayneL

If there is to he any progress on pollution of the biosphere front and I also agree with Pixel here, it's up to we the people.

In fact Im quite sick of being lectured on this point by those with highly consumptive, resource hungry and therefore polluting lifestyles. 

These people consol their conscience by driving a Toyota Pious and voting for The Greens (meaning the rest of us have to endure the appallingly specious Ms Milne).

Regulation helps and general pollution has improve in some respects. But ultimately it is our individual actions which will make a difference. 

So step right up, consider your personal impact and lead the way instead of being Pharisaical.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> These people consol their conscience by driving a Toyota Pious and voting for The Greens (meaning the rest of us have to endure the appallingly specious Ms Milne




Some elaboration ole Pal? 

And these are part of the sneaky and nasty little references referred to by Pixel. 

And Milne would not be my choice either, but she does not run the Greens,  all of the membership do,  something no other party can claim


----------



## pixel

wayneL said:


> These people consol their conscience by driving a Toyota Pious and voting for The Greens (meaning the rest of us have to endure the appallingly specious Ms Milne).




LOL Wayne, now we're talking.
But you forgot the even fluffheadier Ms Hanson-Young. 

PS: I do however include waste heat and industrial effluents, as well as over-fertilising, when I lament pollution of the Biosphere. Much of that is outside "we, the people's" area of adaptability, unless you count Federal Elections as a means of cleaning up the messy intermingling of Industry and Politics..


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> If there is to he any progress on pollution of the biosphere front and I also agree with Pixel here, it's up to we the people.
> 
> In fact Im quite sick of being lectured on this point by those with highly consumptive, resource hungry and therefore polluting lifestyles.
> 
> These people consol their conscience by driving a Toyota Pious and voting for The Greens (meaning the rest of us have to endure the appallingly specious Ms Milne).
> 
> Regulation helps and general pollution has improve in some respects. But ultimately it is our individual actions which will make a difference.
> 
> So step right up, consider your personal impact and lead the way instead of being Pharisaical.




For real Wayne ? Really?  
97% plus of the scientific community are xxxxscared of the impact of global warming. We have evidence across the Arctic, the oceans,  temperatures around the world that show a significantly warming of the environment. The final consequences have yet to be played out but just the effect of melting Arctic /Antarctic ice on sea levels will be catastrophic for our current civilizations within  the next Century

*And yet you suggest that the solution is individual action rather than any systematic  national/international policy?*

Just for a number of comparisons would we ever consider individual actions to be the way of tackling the effects of smoking?  What about mercury pollution? The use of fluorocarbons that destroyed the ozone layer? Perhaps we didn't need pollution laws to reduce industrial smoke that caused thousands to die in London's infamous smogs?

How effectively would our community have tackled asbestos poisoning if we all just did our little bit ? 

It is a nonsensical argument. If the issue of human caused global warming  has  even a small likelihood of creating the range of projected outcomes then relying on random individual action is crackers.

We have national governments and international agreements to give us the tools to tackle the big problems that ultimately affect us all and are beyond our individual capacity to change.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> Does anyone know if emissions have been dropping or going up over 2013-2015 period?




Not sure about in total (assuming you are referring to Australia only rather than global) but I can comment so far as electricity generation emissions (the largest single source) are concerned.

During that period we had the carbon tax in then out, weather has been variable, there has been a continuation of the trend of falling demand on the grid and also huge swings in fossil fuel prices.

The current broad trends in power generation (large scale) are:

Coal - there's an established downtrend in use although it's flattened out and come back up a bit recently. Quite a lot of capacity has been either mothballed or outright closed, such that what remains is running harder than it otherwise would. 

Gas - looks to have peaked and is now starting to decline a little with huge falls expected over the next 3 years as gas becomes more expensive. Some capacity has been removed or is simply not being run in several states with more closures announced recently. 

Hydro - different companies are doing different things. It's public knowledge that the largest operator, Hydro Tas, has substantially walked away from the baseload market, handing that market share to rivals (using whatever means of production) as the price has collapsed. In the meantime there's a lot of maintenance work being done - Cethana, Fisher, Rowallan and Meadowbank power stations are completely shut for major works at the moment and there's reduced capacity at Tungatinah. There's more planned major works elsewhere in the next couple of years at Repulse, Cluny, Tarraleah, Tungatinah and Devils Gate. If you're going to take plant offline for an extended outage, then you may as well do it when bulk power is selling for 3 cents / kWh. 

Other companies, eg Snowy, are taking a less aggressive approach but they weren't generally in the baseload market to start with so it's less of an issue for them.  

Oil - still a very minor source in the main grid but we're using a bit more than was previously the case. It's still minor though.

Wind, solar etc - rate of new installation is slowing down with all the uncertainty but the % of total generation from these sources is still rising as such.

So in terms of emissions, they've gone up with the shift back to higher reliance on coal.

From a financial perspective, well there's not a lot of money around in the generation industry at the moment. There's a few who are doing OK and a few who are struggling to break even at the corporate level but there's no boom that's for sure. At the individual plant level, it's no secret that quite a few gas-fired plants are becoming unviable and at least one is being evaluated for physical demolition in order to salvage the scrap value of the equipment. Quite a few coal plants have been mothballed or scrapped in recent times too with closures in WA, SA, Vic, Qld and especially in NSW. The lack of hot weather this Summer hasn't done much good for the finances of a few generation companies.

In short, emissions are currently going up per unit of production although the volume of production is still declining.

Market share (instantaneous) as of 9:50pm (eastern states time) 15 April 2015 (combined market all states except WA and NT):

Coal = 79%, Gas = 10%, Hydro = 7%, Wind = 4%

For south-west WA it's Coal = 50%, Gas = 36%, Wind = 14%

For NT I don't have the figures as such, but it would be 100% or very close to it gas in the major population areas. Likewise all gas in the northern industrial area of WA (that part which has a power grid) and at Mt Isa in Qld.

On a very much smaller scale, currently running 53% wind on King Island. That's a very small "grid" however.


----------



## wayneL

Bas....

Surely! Surely you can not possibly be invoking Cooks 97% travesty upon scientific process basilio?

Please!

That has been shown to be a total biased and propagandic() Furphy.

It has also been shown that... for instance measured mooted here in Oz (in combination with elsewhere)... that the nett effect on total Co2 and therefore speculated on temps is negligible and not statistically relevant.... and that is using failed IPCC models.

Pragmatically, regulation can only transfer emissions and probably increase them due to transport of production from the first and new world to the third world. That is counterproductive to both total emissions and hands away our? Such seems to be only for the plebeians and not for hypocritical ideological totalitarian alarmists

Enter the Orwellian dystopia predicated upon a false pretense. Like hell.

"We shall fight on the beaches" etc. basilio. Especially when the crappiest, most appalling and demonstrably mendacious junk science is cited as you have done.


----------



## basilio

Wayne I havn't a clue what you are talking about...

..........and I suspect you don't have much idea either.

About the only thing that comes through the fog is a steely certainty that ,somehow.  nothing significant is happening with regard to our climate; that human activity is only vaguely related and that whatever we do it won't work so why bother/waste money trying to tackle some vague problem that won't amount to a hill of beans anyway ?

Back to square one  with you arn't we mate ?


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> About the only thing that comes through the fog is a steely certainty that ,somehow.  nothing significant is happening with regard to our climate; that human activity is only vaguely related and that whatever we do it won't work so why bother/waste money trying to tackle some vague problem that won't amount to a hill of beans anyway ?
> ...




Hooray!!!

The message is finally starting to get through!


----------



## basilio

And dismissing the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists, Earth scientists, Geographers ect research as 



> the crappiest, most appalling and demonstrably mendacious junk science




Just priceless Wayne.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> ...Especially when the crappiest, most appalling and demonstrably mendacious junk science is cited...



I'm sorry Wayne, but it appears that you've made a grievous error in your post.

The word "science" quite simply does not belong in the aforequoted phrase and should ideally be omitted!


----------



## wayneL

We have been through this point before bas

For your perusal here is one examination of Cook's paper that contains a number of links to other discussions in the comments.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but.html

...and from WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136



> In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
> 
> Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers””0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent””had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso,Nicola Scafetta,Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.




Surely you are not in denial that this paper has been soundley and deservedly trashed?


----------



## Logique

Sometimes when you turn on the light, the cockroaches scuttle into the corners.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/profits-doom/

Seems the Climate Council is rather a shadowy organization.


----------



## basilio

Well Wayne your links just demonstrate how dishonest Spencer and Co and the rest of the denialists are in their treatment of this issue.

Bu lets ignore the fabrications that Professor Spencer conjures up to undermine the overwhelming scientific weight of evidence around the causes and the effects of AGW.  Maybe we just want to focus on particular research which notes

1) The reality of increased warming 
2) The consequences of this increase on ocean levels.




> Antarctic ice shelves rapidly melting
> Once-expanding East Antarctica now seeing losses
> By
> Thomas Sumner
> 2:00pm, March 26, 2015
> 
> 
> *MELTDOWN   Antarctica’s Venable Ice Shelf, shown, is on track to disappear within a century, new research shows.*
> 
> Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking at an accelerating rate, one of the longest satellite records of ice thickness reveals. Researchers report online March 26 in Science that several West Antarctic ice shelves are now on pace to disappear completely within 100 years.
> 
> Floating ice shelves mark the outermost edges of an ice sheet and line nearly half the Antarctic coastline. Using ice thickness measurements collected by satellites from 1994 to 2012, glaciologist Fernando Paolo of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues analyzed how recent warming has impacted Antarctica’s ice. The researchers discovered that Antarctic ice shelves shrank on average 25 cubic kilometers per year from 1994 to 2003. The melting then accelerated to 310 cubic kilometers ”” roughly twice the volume of Lake Tahoe ”” on average per year from 2003 to 2012.
> 
> While scientists have known that the West Antarctic ice shelves are thinning, the research also shows that the East Antarctic ice shelves, which expanded between 1994 and 2003, are thinning now as well.
> 
> The shelves serve as doorstops for glaciers. As the bottom of an ice shelf grinds over the seabed, it stems the flow of the land-based ice queued up behind it. Because ice shelves float, their melt water does not directly contribute to sea level rise. Their disappearance, however, speeds the loss of glacial ice, which does raise sea levels.




https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antarctic-ice-shelves-rapidly-melting


----------



## wayneL

Ahh the D word again. You lose basilio.

However,  to repeat *yet again*, nobody is denying the warming and sea level trend since the end of the little ice age, otherwise we'd still be in the little ice age wouldn't we?

But wasn't the immediate point the lack of integrity and debunking of the Cook paper? What has that got to do with a paper on Antarctica?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Ahh the D word again. You lose basilio.
> 
> However,  to repeat *yet again*, nobody is denying the warming and sea level trend since the end of the little ice age, otherwise we'd still be in the little ice age wouldn't we?
> 
> But wasn't the immediate point the lack of integrity and debunking of the Cook paper? What has that got to do with a paper on Antarctica?




The paper on Antartica?  Just the science that outlines the reality of big changes in the earths warmth, in this case shown through warmer ocean waters, and the dramatic effect this is having on the Antarctic ice shelf.

If you choose to ignore this evidence- and the thousands of other papers that document how our world is being affected by warming - thats your business. 

With regard to the the warming since the Little Ice age. At what stage does coming out of the Little Ice age turn into serious warming? I suggest about 1 degree C ago. - before we saw the melting of the Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice cap, glaciers around the world and the  Antarctic ice shelf.


----------



## basilio

Where do we get our evidence re Global Warming? It's causes, current effects, possible long term consequences.?

Why not consider the work of NASA in pulling together this information.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What does NASA have to do with climate change


> When people think of NASA, they think of rovers on Mars, astronauts floating aboard the International Space Station, or probes veering out to the edge of the solar system. They don’t necessarily link NASA with climate research and observations. But Earth is a planet too, and NASA is one of the biggest players in the Earth science arena, with broad expertise on observing our climate, especially from the vantage point of space. Today it spends over a billion dollars a year doing Earth science and has more than a dozen satellites in orbit around the planet watching the oceans, land, ice, atmosphere and biosphere.
> 
> In the 1970s, NASA’s planetary exploration budget fell dramatically. It was then that the agency really got into the business of studying our home planet from orbit. It was also a time when people were beginning to realize that our climate could change relatively fast, on the scale of the human lifespan. Today, we know that our climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are a key part of that change. NASA continues to launch new satellite missions, and is also relying on aircraft (manned and unmanned), as well as scientists on the ground, to take vital measurements of things like snowpack and hurricanes, augmenting the big-picture view we get from space.
> 
> NASA’s role is to make observations of our climate that can be used by the public, policymakers and to support strategic decisions. Its job is to do rigorous science. However, the agency does not promote particular climate policies.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> If you choose to ignore this evidence- and the thousands of other papers that document how our world is being affected by warming - thats your business.




This is where you seem to be having problems bas. Indeed this is where Cook seems to be having problems.

You see it as a binary deal:
a/ outright denial, or
b/ a worst case scenario

Most "sceptics" are somewhere in the middle, accepting the real world data and relating to modelling and forecasts....with an eye on political manipulations.

IOW there is a spectrum of views bas and only the realization of events as they unfold will validate those views.


----------



## orr

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-set-up-australian-centre#comment-50567296

Abbott gives $4million to Bjorn Lomborg to sprook drivel; See what happens when you don't have a Science Minister.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk

Funding better spent on women sheltering from domestic Violence maybe. Not to Captian Climate Change Is Crap Clown Shoes. If that ain't *Denialist* I don't know What is


----------



## basilio

> You see it as a binary deal:
> a/ outright denial, or
> b/ a worst case scenario   Wayne




I suggest Wayne this is where you have the problem.  
It is totally fallacious to say that Cook et al see only a worst case scenario re climate change.

Everyone from the IPCC down discuss a range of scenarios that might unfold.  These are based on how many greenhouse gases  will end up in the atmosphere, the range of possible climate sensitivities to these gases and then the current unknowns - melting of the permafrost, loss of forest and therefore carbon sinks  and so on.

The most cursory reading of any CCanalysis will discuss the range of scenarios. Check out this URL for that type of summary

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...cc’s-predictions-for-future-temperature-rise/

And then we have people who essentially reject even the possibility that increasing greenhouse gases will have  more than a modicum of effect on the climate. I have yet to see a skeptic acknowledge even the lowest level scenarios outlined by the remainder of the scientific community

Indeed many of these people think that there is nothing of note currently occurring when we have had roughly 1 degree of warming. For example I have yet to hear any Climate Contrarians  address the research I raised on the irreversible melting of part of the Antarctic ice  shelf and the consequences that will have on coastal cities.


----------



## wayneL

One degree of warming since when?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> One degree of warming since when?








The above graph takes us to 2009.  In 2014 we have reached the previous maximums of 1997. The difference between 1950 and 2014 is the One degree C. In fact the majority of the increase occurred from the late 70's

From a geographical perspective many of the large scale changes in glacier loss, melting of Polar ice caps, melting of permafrost have occurred in this time span.


----------



## wayneL

How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?




No one can because the variables are massaged by which ever side of the result wanted. 

However,  I have observed enormouse change in my lifetime. 

The tadpoles on our farm till the drought of 1968 were prolific and have never returned,  and they evolved there over many millions of years.   The rains used to start,  about now and there was mud to the tops of our gumboots till late October.   No mud of any consequence since the early 70s.

The possums on Belcolm Creek Mount Marta were all taken out in a heatwave about 5 years ago never to be seen again.   It took millions of years for them to evolve also. 

If one has read the Sixth Extinction you will know that the mealt and change this time has been so fast it is frieghtening.  Apart from a fast reaction from a volcanoe and a metiour the change now is beyond a natural cause.   Of course the damage by coal burning and vehicle engines started the melt but now we have 20 times more pollution occurring due to methane escaping from under the permafrost areas as triggerred by coal/oil.  

People of the bush know it by observations and that is why even farmers are turning away from the CP and towards the Greens .   Of couse the numbers are slow because the farms are being sold off to overseas interests.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?




Because, Wayne,  your data only covered the period from 1996-2014 while the graph I posted was from 1950 to 2009. The longer term does tell the full picture.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Because, Wayne,  your data only covered the period from 1996-2014 while the graph I posted was from 1950 to 2009. The longer term does tell the full picture.




I'm comparing the relevant (same) period, i.e 20 years


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> I'm comparing the relevant (same) period, i.e 20 years




Isn't that a bit off the topic Wayne? I thought we were trying to establish evidence of the recent increase in earths average temperature (roughly 1C) and the  consequent effect on melting of ice caps and ice shelfs.

The point there is that these increases *alone* are causing changes in our geography that will have a very big impact - let alone any further temperature increases that are likely to directly caused by ice melt.


> Decreasing Arctic albedo boosts global warming
> 
> A new paper in PNAS, called Observational determination of albedo caused by vanishing sea ice, reminds me of scientific work Peter Wadhams published a year and a half ago wherein he showed Arctic ice melt is 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'. He based this assertion on calculations, as can be read in this BBC article from around that time.
> 
> This new paper by Pistone et al., however, is based on observations (as it says in the title) and similarly concludes that the "decrease in albedo is equivalent to roughly 25 percent of the average global warming currently occurring due to increased carbon dioxide levels"



http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/decreasing-arctic-albedo-boosts-global-warming.html


----------



## wayneL

Seeing as you are avoiding the Cook take down, the current topic seems to be 1 degree of warming.

My question is according to what data and since when. These queries are entirely relevent and on topic.


----------



## moXJO

Smurf1976 said:


> Not sure about in total (assuming you are referring to Australia only rather than global) but I can comment so far as electricity generation emissions (the largest single source) are concerned.



Thanks smurf for the detailed post.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> Thanks smurf for the detailed post.




No worries. 

I'll add that where electricity comes from on a day to day basis is driven by the commercial and other (eg technical) considerations of generation businesses. The market as a whole must be supplied in full, that is a "hard" engineering limit that is _very_ precisely complied with at all times (lights go out otherwise) but whether power station A, B or C generates a specific amount at any given time (or at all) is driven by price offers, themselves driven by what the owner wants to do.

That said, costs have certainly tilted the balance in favour of coal in recent times. That's a purely economic outcome - brown coal is almost free as it always was, black coal prices have dropped, gas prices are going up. That shifts the economic balance toward coal and away from gas. 

Meanwhile hydro operators with storage capacity are holding back in the expectation that market prices will be higher post-2017 than they are now due to expiry of their rivals' cheap gas contracts and possibly the re-introduction of some form of carbon tax. There's just no point selling cheaply now, if you can store it and sell at a higher price in 2 - 3 years' time. Not all hydro schemes can store water for that long, the dams just aren't large enough, but some can and they've got quite a bit of space to store more at the moment.


----------



## Knobby22

Good points. The advantages of hydro are manifold but there aren't any hydro companies on the share market are there?

The so called shortage of gas that was going to up the price 4-8 times really should not occur now that it will not be generally used to produce electricity. it is going to be a bit embarrassing however at the next international climate meeting when our emissions continue to rise however.

On another point,  the sacking of the climate commission saving $1.6 million dollars long term could probably be justified to save tax payers money but why then give $4 million to the Danish climate change minimiser Bjorn Lomborg to set up a "climate consensus centre" in WA? Why come here? 

Goodbye taxpayers money, enjoy the holiday Bjorn.


----------



## Logique

orr said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-set-up-australian-centre#comment-50567296
> Abbott gives $4million to Bjorn Lomborg to sprook drivel; See what happens when you don't have a Science Minister.
> http://www.lomborg-errors.dk
> Funding better spent on women sheltering from domestic Violence maybe. Not to Captian Climate Change Is Crap Clown Shoes. If that ain't *Denialist* I don't know What is



Where were you when Flim-Flam was raking in $180k of taxpayers money each year, plus public speaking fees, to tell us that Perth was going to be a ghost metropolis?  And that the dams would empty?  Or now suddenly becoming a paid advisor (salary undisclosed) to the Climate Council.

Submit to my alarmist religion or the wives get it - is that what you're saying.


----------



## noco

How can flim flam Fannery live with himself after making all the wrong predictions and accepting climate change scientist of the year. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...l_warns_sceptics_that_it_knows_where_we_live/


----------



## wayneL

About on par with Obamas peace (cough) prize


----------



## noco

noco said:


> How can flim flam Fannery live with himself after making all the wrong predictions and accepting climate change scientist of the year.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...l_warns_sceptics_that_it_knows_where_we_live/




And to think this Flannery idiot convinced the three Labor states of Victoria, NSW and Queensland to spend billions on desalinization plants, which are now in mothballs, with his dud predictions. 

I don't think he will be saying "SORRY".

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...un/comments/when_will_tim_flannery_say_sorry/


----------



## orr

Logique said:


> Where were you when Flim-Flam was raking in $180k of taxpayers money each year, plus public speaking fees, to tell us that Perth was going to be a ghost metropolis?  And that the dams would empty?  Or now suddenly becoming a paid advisor (salary undisclosed) to the Climate Council.
> 
> Submit to my alarmist religion or the wives get it - is that what you're saying.




If you want to look into it, you'd find out that Perth's water security rests on desalination. You may need to read a little more widely to make a reasonable assessment of Flannery's prognosis than just 'Murdoch's' toadies.
There's no religion involved in the drying trend of S/Western WA, It's predicted accurately by scientific climate modelling.

If 50 Company executives were murdered each year I'm sure there'd be money found, very quickly, for shelters for them. 
As uncomfortable as Abbott's hypocrisy with regard what he says and what he does concerning the murders of scores of women each year is for those supporters who bathe in the constructed patriarchal, greed, fear and  business at all costs that aids the dysfunction of and in, already stressed domestic situations. Tragically the cultural shift to lessen this pressure is beyond your imagination.
How many Businesses work on 'your' discontents(quite often manufactured) and sell their product to ease them. 
Now ask yourself ? The more contented you are, are you more or less likely to murder someone.

Keep me posted on Lomborg's $4 million worth of usefulness. Glad you're happy to be paying for him.


----------



## explod

orr said:


> How many Businesses work on 'your' discontents(quite often manufactured) and sell their product to ease them.
> Now ask yourself ? The more contented you are, are you more or less likely to murder someone..


----------



## noco

orr said:


> If you want to look into it, you'd find out that Perth's water security rests on desalination. You may need to read a little more widely to make a reasonable assessment of Flannery's prognosis than just 'Murdoch's' toadies.
> There's no religion involved in the drying trend of S/Western WA, It's predicted accurately by scientific climate modelling.
> 
> If 50 Company executives were murdered each year I'm sure there'd be money found, very quickly, for shelters for them.
> As uncomfortable as Abbott's hypocrisy with regard what he says and what he does concerning the murders of scores of women each year is for those supporters who bathe in the constructed patriarchal, greed, fear and  business at all costs that aids the dysfunction of and in, already stressed domestic situations. Tragically the cultural shift to lessen this pressure is beyond your imagination.
> How many Businesses work on 'your' discontents(quite often manufactured) and sell their product to ease them.
> Now ask yourself ? The more contented you are, are you more or less likely to murder someone.
> 
> Keep me posted on Lomborg's $4 million worth of usefulness. Glad you're happy to be paying for him.




But you don't mention Flannery's dumb predictions for Vic,. NSW and Qld.


----------



## noco

It never ceases to amaze me why these alarmist still continue with their stupid propaganda with chimneys pouring out thick black smoke...It looks so convincing, my word it does.

The "Independent Climate Change Committee", hand picked by the Green/Labor coalition.....Read their back grounds.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...st_a_word_of_fairfaxs_latest_warming_warning/


----------



## wayneL

While rain pattern is noted it not established what factors are involved.

In addition, Perth has nearly tripled in population during the period in question (circa 1972) without any substantive increase in water storage, so extraneous water sources were always going to be necessary. 

The aquifers are not a bottomless pit so desalination became another option. 

As noco has noted, you cannot just cherrypick a portion of a portion of a prediction and claim accuracy.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> As noco has noted, you cannot just cherrypick a portion of a portion of a prediction and claim accuracy.




I'm not here to defend Flannery, Who's book 'The Weather Makers' by the way, outlined worst case scenarios that are cherry picked at random, with no context.... In this case to distract from the  $4million appointment Bjorn Lomborg, for what good reason? by Captain Clown Shoes, Climate AGW *Denier*.

We all know the reason, don't we... in not much more than a generation Australia's coal is not going to be worth very much at all. Hearing much about sequestration? good reason. Do you need the link to the 25 year Electricity  supply contract  that went to the cheapest cost provider over there in the UAE(Dubai) late last year?  DYOR...

or revisit Steven Chu's(Former US Energy Zsar) address to the Press Club 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/...al-press-club/


----------



## wayneL

The message is the image is of course politically motivated, but does highlight a point about the climate klaxons such as Gore, the monumentally, gargantuanly hypocritical DiCaprio... et al.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> As noco has noted, you cannot just cherrypick a portion of a portion of a prediction and claim accuracy.




Gaawwwd,  pot calling the kettle black here Champ.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Gaawwwd,  pot calling the kettle black here Champ.




Care to elaborate Plod? I do not recall making any climate predictions.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> People of the bush know it by observations and that is why even farmers are turning away from the CP and towards the Greens .   Of couse the numbers are slow because the farms are being sold off to overseas interests.




Plod being a farrier, as you can imagine I have a lot of farmers as clients, also a lot of farmer friends. 

My experience is precisely the opposite. They are almost without excpetion, doubters of *C*AGW. They note and recognise change, but see it more as a cycle. FWIW


----------



## wayneL

... and geez Plod. Mate you are one of the few sincere Greens that walks the walk. I do respect you for that. Ergo, you should be shouting the loudest about the Climate Pharisees, Pious Prius driving pontificators and hypocrits


----------



## Knobby22

Prius is old hat.
The new car of choice is the Tesla.
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU

My friend wants to buy one as he test drove it and preferred it to his V8.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Care to elaborate Plod? I do not recall making any climate predictions.




Sifting the findings or so called science to fit a DESIRED outcome or argument.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod being a farrier, as you can imagine I have a lot of farmers as clients, also a lot of farmer friends.
> 
> My experience is precisely the opposite. They are almost without excpetion, doubters of *C*AGW. They note and recognise change, but see it more as a cycle. FWIW




Yes,  get up the bush often,  friends and family,  Lismore to Ararat in Victoria.   Many still burn the stubble each year prior to next turnover,  stripping soil of fertility in the process.   Follow every word of thier local agents for super and other farm supplies.   Feed off all they are told at Liberal political meetings and gatherings after church service.  Nothing changes up the bush,  except the droughts bad this year. 

However as a visitor,  sometimes with 5 year gaps I observe enourmouse change. Fresh water lakes and dams I fished as a 17 year old shearer in 1965 are now dried up sault beds.   The local farmers do not acknowlege or see this change.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Anyone want to take a guess at how much Carbon will be put into the atmosphere from the Chile volcano ?
The ABC reports that the volcano is sending ash and smoke into the sky. How much of that is Carbon ?
No one has yet made the claim the volcano was caused by Global Warming / Climate Change. 
Maybe it will be enough to block out the sun for a few months and cool the Planet down ?


----------



## Knobby22

Ijustnewit said:


> Anyone want to take a guess at how much Carbon will be put into the atmosphere from the Chile volcano ?
> The ABC reports that the volcano is sending ash and smoke into the sky. How much of that is Carbon ?
> No one has yet made the claim the volcano was caused by Global Warming / Climate Change.
> Maybe it will be enough to block out the sun for a few months and cool the Planet down ?




If the volcano is producing sulphur dioxide then that would definitely have an effect on cooling the planet. Sending ash 1000kms up into the atmosphere should also have some effect. It would have to last a while though because it doesn't look that big by the picture.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yes,  get up the bush often,  friends and family,  Lismore to Ararat in Victoria.   Many still burn the stubble each year prior to next turnover,  stripping soil of fertility in the process.   Follow every word of thier local agents for super and other farm supplies.   Feed off all they are told at Liberal political meetings and gatherings after church service.  Nothing changes up the bush,  except the droughts bad this year.
> 
> However as a visitor,  sometimes with 5 year gaps I observe enourmouse change. Fresh water lakes and dams I fished as a 17 year old shearer in 1965 are now dried up sault beds.   The local farmers do not acknowlege or see this change.




Much change in the environment is due to land use changes, clearing, fertilisers etc and nothing at all to do with climate change, either natural or anthropogenic. 

This is where we need to focus rather than co2


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Much change in the environment is due to land use changes, clearing, fertilisers etc and nothing at all to do with climate change, either natural or anthropogenic.
> 
> This is where we need to focus rather than co2




Agree.   However the 85 odd % loss of our forests has made the ability for sufficient natural absorption of co2 impossible.   The need to drastically reduce coal and fuel burning much more critical.   The days of expansionism in all fields of endeavour have to end. 

How we can do this when most people,  like the everyday farmer we spoke of earlier today,  have heads in the sand,  I do not know. 

But our efforts in the direction of solutions instead of argument would be a good start.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Agree.   However the 85 odd % loss of our forests has made the ability for sufficient natural absorption of co2 impossible.   The need to drastically reduce coal and fuel burning much more critical.   The days of expansionism in all fields of endeavour have to end.
> 
> How we can do this when most people,  like the everyday farmer we spoke of earlier today,  have heads in the sand,  I do not know.
> 
> But our efforts in the direction of solutions instead of argument would be a good start.




plod, I don't know where you plucked that figure of 85% from but you are way out.

Some simple research indicates a figure of around 40% and it slowing due to lots of reafforestation. 

http://www.peopleandtheplanet.com/index.html@lid=27109&section=32&topic=44.html

*According to the FAO Global Forest Resources Assesment 2005, the net loss in forest area at the global level during the 1990s was an estimated 94 million ha - an area larger than Venezuela and equivalent to 2.4 per cent of the world's total forests. This was a combination of an annual loss of 12.5 million ha of natural forests and an annual gain of 3.1 million ha in the form of forest plantations (see map below for details).

The 2005 FAO Assessment said that between 2000-2005, the world suffered a net loss of a further 37 million hectares (91 million acres) of forest.

Nearly 4 billion hectares of forest cover the earth's surface, roughly 30 per cent of its total land area. Though extensive, the world's forests have shrunk by some 40 per cent since agriculture began 11,000 years ago. Three-quarters of this loss occurred in the last two centuries as land was cleared to make way for farms and to meet demand for wood.*


----------



## Smurf1976

wayneL said:


> While rain pattern is noted it not established what factors are involved.




Runoff (as distinct from rainfall although the two are related) in to Perth's water catchments underwent a very sudden and seemingly permanent step change downward. I won't claim to know the reasons, but it wasn't a gradual change, it was a very sudden "someone flicked a switch" type of change.

With less severity a similar pattern exists in Tasmania and the dates roughly align with those in WA. A change down about 1976 and another one in 1997. It still rains, we still get above average years at times, but the basic pattern is that high runoff years have become far less common. So whereas it used to be some years were dry, some close to average and some wet, now it's mostly either dry or close to the average, wet years (significantly above average runoff) have almost disappeared. 

It's publicly disclosed that Hydro Tas has been working on an assumption of future system inflows 15% below the long term 20th Century average for planning purposes, this being the second time the system has been de-rated in response to changing rainfall patterns. Also $$$ has been spend on all sorts of measures, each of them individually small, aiming to ultimately claw back about two thirds of what has been lost. Cloud seeding, ultra slippery linings on canals to increase ability to transfer flood waters when it does rain hard, new turbine runners, diverting various small creeks into existing storages and so on. All quite small individually but collectively aiming to get inflows back up to 95% of what was previously expected (getting back to 100% isn't feasible under the current financial and political climate).

Another issue is the pattern of runoff as distinct from the total. In short, most of that 15% reduction in Tas has occurred during the Summer and Autumn period with either a small increase or no change (depending on catchment) in Winter and Spring. That's not a problem at, for example, Great Lake or Lake Gordon since storage capacity holds several years' worth of inflows. It is however a problem where the storage capacity is much smaller, the height of dams being limited by topography, and also it's a problem for others such as farmers and town water supply where storage dams are much smaller than those associated with power generation. In that case, even if the overall 15% loss can be dealt with, there's another problem of running out of water in Autumn then having too much by Spring which goes down the spillway. There are workarounds but things like raising the height of dams doesn't come cheaply (though the idea is under consideration in one particular case).

Perth's water and Tasmania's electricity are both examples of real impacts of a changing climate which first resulted in either actual supply shortfalls (Perth) or a number of serious near-miss incidents (Tas) and ultimately the spending of big $ to maintain supply of water and electricity. Whether or not that has anything to do with CO2 I won't claim to know, but there has been a definite shift in runoff that is beyond doubt.


----------



## wayneL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Article on the discrepancies in temp records FYI


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
> 
> Article on the discrepancies in temp records FYI




Read through it and not convinced.   It is just so complex (not the article but the whole picture),   but what does come through is the efforts to tone down what is really happening and keep the people believing all is ok. 

All is not ok.,  everyone is saying they have not felt it so cold,  so early in the season.   It did this in the northern hemesphere in their winter just gone.  And the very pronounced unseasonal conditions of late around Sydney.   It is obviously due to displacement in my view,  the warmth eating into the two poles is pushing the cold outwards towards the equators. 

And even if one doubts that,  the risk that it may be correct is just too great to take.   Fortunately larger numbers of people are taking personal action in seeking alternatives themselves to reduce the footprint.   The last to follow of course are as we have come to expect,  the business controlled governments


----------



## wayneL

We all have to guard against confirmation bias plod, becoming too invested in a particular view.

As I've consistently noted, while Nero fiddles Rome burns. That is to say that while the world is focused on the largely politicised issue of co2 emissions, all sorts of other issues are ignored.  

A pox on the Goreists house for that (IMNTBCHO)


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> We all have to guard against confirmation bias plod, becoming too invested in a particular view.
> 
> As I've consistently noted, while Nero fiddles Rome burns. That is to say that while the world is focused on the largely politicised issue of co2 emissions, all sorts of other issues are ignored.
> 
> A pox on the Goreists house for that (IMNTBCHO)




Agreed,  population growth,   business expansionism and reduction of rainforests.   However the pollution of the air we breath leads the pack in my view.   A reversal of Thatcherism would help but those things effecting the climate (and even possibility of CO2 reduction can be changed without too much economic pain,  particularly with the same sort of subsidisation that has supported coal and oil production.


----------



## trainspotter

And the problem with this notion is exactly what again?



> Dr Lomborg has been accused of cherrypicking data to understate the threat of climate change, and has *questioned whether the benefits of efforts to curb climate change justify the costs*. He believes funding would be better spent on adapting to changing conditions, investing in renewable technology and tackling poverty.




http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...consensus-centre/story-fn84fgcm-1227319401918


----------



## basilio

And the problem with this notion is exactly what again?


> Dr Lomborg has been accused of cherrypicking data to understate the threat of climate change, and has questioned whether the benefits of efforts to curb climate change justify the costs. He believes funding would be better spent on adapting to changing conditions, investing in renewable technology and tackling poverty.
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/econo...-1227319401918




Because in the real world we deal with risk management not certainty.  Dr Lomborg is taking the view that CC will only pose small to moderate problems. Currently almost everyone else in the field  looks at the evidence and believe the risks of severe to catastrophic outcomes are very real.

When does it make sense to ignore the overwhelming  views of experts in the field in such a critical issue in favour of  one of very small group of outliers who hold a different opinion?

It doesn't help when the outliers chose to cheery pick their data and ignore the wider picture of what is happening.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And the problem with this notion is exactly what again?
> 
> 
> Because in the real world we deal with risk management not certainty.  Dr Lomborg is taking the view that CC will only pose small to moderate problems. Currently almost everyone else in the field  looks at the evidence and believe the risks of severe to catastrophic outcomes are very real.
> 
> When does it make sense to ignore the overwhelming  views of experts in the field in such a critical issue in favour of  one of very small group of outliers who hold a different opinion?
> 
> It doesn't help when the outliers chose to cheery pick their data and ignore the wider picture of what is happening.




Catastrophic outcomes?????

Experts like Tim Flannery who said there never be enough rains to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne.

The Labor states took his "EXPERT" advice and spent billions of dollars on desalinization  plants that are now in mothballs....He should have advised them to build more dams.

Flannery's advice  certainly did not make any sense.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Catastrophic outcomes?????
> 
> Experts like Tim Flannery who said there never be enough rains to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne.
> 
> The Labor states took his "EXPERT" advice and spent billions of dollars on desalinization  plants that are now in mothballs....He should have advised them to build more dams.
> 
> Flannery's advice  certainly did not make any sense.




The same old same old noco,  critise the past (like you do about Gvt.  debt)  and ignore the real issues for solutions for the future. 

The scientists did not factor in the earths ability to take in heat causing the current displacement and therefore increased cloud,  rain and more intense storms.   As said in a post a couple of days back,  the scale and complexity of climate change is a very difficult one even for the best of science.   But we can from our own skins see and feel the changes now occurring.   Days for denial are gone,  we have to do something.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The same old same old noco,  critise the past (like you do about Gvt.  debt)  and ignore the real issues for solutions for the future.
> 
> The scientists did not factor in the earths ability to take in heat causing the current displacement and therefore increased cloud,  rain and more intense storms.   As said in a post a couple of days back,  the scale and complexity of climate change is a very difficult one even for the best of science.   But we can from our own skins see and feel the changes now occurring.   Days for denial are gone,  we have to do something.




Oh dear, I have hit another nerve in the Fabian back bone.

Townsville has had the driest 4 month in 2015 ( less than 300 mm) since 1914 when records first started......Global Warming....sorry Climate Change or something like that...What do you think?????????????...Too much man made CO2...No it could not have been  in 1914 we did not have as much CO2 polluting the air then. 

On the 10th January 1998 we had 600 mm of rain in 12 hours.

More floods in Brisbane and Sydney...All the dams are full to overflowing.


----------



## basilio

NOCO you are cherry picking again and frankly not even understanding how dangerous even your cherry picked "facts" are.

No our dams havn't gone dry.  Great. Perhaps you might care  look  further afield at California or Brazil.  Does that information cause you to rethink ?

And yes we  do have fantastic floods these days. In fact we have had some of the most damaging floods in Australia in recorded history. CC is about weather extremes as well as a general increase in temperature. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/23/brazil-worst-drought-history
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> NOCO you are cherry picking again and frankly not even understanding how dangerous even your cherry picked "facts" are.
> 
> No our dams havn't gone dry.  Great. Perhaps you might care  look  further afield at California or Brazil.  Does that information cause you to rethink ?
> 
> And yes we  do have fantastic floods these days. In fact we have had some of the most damaging floods in Australia in recorded history. CC is about weather extremes as well as a general increase in temperature.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/23/brazil-worst-drought-history
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/




Oh my gawd you don't read that communist paper the Guardian do you....I would not take too much notice of the Guardian ole chap....They are anti Liberal and very much pro Fabian

Where do you get this cherry picking from?...What I have stated is factual and you Fabians just don't like being reminded about how stupid the three Green/Labor left wing states were in accepting Flannery's prediction without some further studies.

Yes and we had fantastic floods 25, 50 and 75 years ago and I remember most of them so well....I was marooned on a sheep station for 2 weeks south of Dalby in 1951 surrounded by water...The 1974 flood in Brisbane has never been matched since....Flood water was over the roofs of so many houses in Chelmar. 

Townsville is having the worst drought in 101 years....It is called climate change...You know it happens every 100, 1000 or 10,000 years...Suck it up sunshine...we will always experience climate change.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And the problem with this notion is exactly what again?
> 
> 
> Because in the real world we deal with risk management not certainty.  Dr Lomborg is taking the view that CC will only pose small to moderate problems. Currently almost everyone else in the field  looks at the evidence and believe the risks of severe to catastrophic outcomes are very real.
> 
> When does it make sense to ignore the overwhelming  views of experts in the field in such a critical issue in favour of  one of very small group of outliers who hold a different opinion?
> 
> It doesn't help when the outliers chose to cheery pick their data and ignore the wider picture of what is happening.




I think you should re-examine your assumptions there bas. Commenters on Cook's sight maybe, but not in the general scientific community as was shown in the expose' of the Cook et al survey.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> NOCO you are cherry picking again and frankly not even understanding how dangerous even your cherry picked "facts" are.
> 
> No our dams havn't gone dry.  Great. Perhaps you might care  look  further afield at California or Brazil.  Does that information cause you to rethink ?
> 
> And yes we  do have fantastic floods these days. In fact we have had some of the most damaging floods in Australia in recorded history. CC is about weather extremes as well as a general increase in temperature.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/23/brazil-worst-drought-history
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/




Here with some interesting information from the University of Alabama Huntsville.....I would much prefer to accept their version than that reported by the Guardian Newspaper.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1430373167104

I just love this comment by one poster.

*To sum things up..

It may rain or it may not.

It may be warmer or it may be colder.

It may be sunny or it may be cloudy.

It may be still or it may be windy.

But whatever happens it AGW!

Now get with the religion.
curious (Reply)
Thu 30 Apr 15 (02:32pm) *


----------



## orr

noco said:


> Here with some interesting information.....very 'Interesting'
> 
> 
> I just love this comment by one poster.
> 
> ]




Luv your posts to noco, you bring all the intellectual rigger of a Building site lunch room. What is  it about your fixation with Flannery? There's a couple vastly more Highly educated influential people you could pit your 'wits' against... or is it there's just 'something about Tim' ...

How are you on the laws of Thermodynamics? I think there's one that describes heat and capacity for work. To understand this law may help you with ferocity/or lack of, regarding weather. Come back when you've done your homework.
Thermal expansion is another interesting scientific law, that it seems your yet to associate yourself with. Luckily though the good many of the, schooled in engineering, ruling class of the socialist(though fabian?) Chinese Government are fully aware of this concrete reality and the vulnerability of 100's of millions of the their citizenship and all of their low level infrastructure.
Feel free to send them your 'thoughts'


----------



## explod

orr said:


> Luv your posts to noco, you bring all the intellectual rigger of a Building site lunch room. What is  it about your fixation with Flannery? There's a couple vastly more Highly educated influential people you could pit your 'wits' against... or is it there's just 'something about Tim' ...
> 
> How are you on the laws of Thermodynamics? I think there's one that describes heat and capacity for work. To understand this law may help you with ferocity/or lack of, regarding weather. Come back when you've done your homework.
> Thermal expansion is another interesting scientific law, that it seems your yet to associate yourself with. Luckily though the good many of the, schooled in engineering, ruling class of the socialist(though fabian?) Chinese Government are fully aware of this concrete reality and the vulnerability of 100's of millions of the their citizenship and all of their low level infrastructure.
> Feel free to send them your 'thoughts'




Timely.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Luv your posts to noco, you bring all the intellectual rigger of a Building site lunch room. What is  it about your fixation with Flannery? There's a couple vastly more Highly educated influential people you could pit your 'wits' against... or is it there's just 'something about Tim' ...
> 
> How are you on the laws of Thermodynamics? I think there's one that describes heat and capacity for work. To understand this law may help you with ferocity/or lack of, regarding weather. Come back when you've done your homework.
> Thermal expansion is another interesting scientific law, that it seems your yet to associate yourself with. Luckily though the good many of the, schooled in engineering, ruling class of the socialist(though fabian?) Chinese Government are fully aware of this concrete reality and the vulnerability of 100's of millions of the their citizenship and all of their low level infrastructure.
> Feel free to send them your 'thoughts'




It is a shame you lefties can't face reality to the fact that 3 stupid Labor states Qld, NSW and Victoria all took Flannery seriously.

It must really hit a  NERVE  every time I mention his name and how he cost the tax payers in those states billions of wasted money.

But enough said...we all know the Green/Labor left wing socialists just do not know how to handle the economy whether it is state or Federal.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is a shame you lefties can't face reality to the fact that 3 stupid Labor states Qld, NSW and Victoria all took Flannery seriously.
> 
> It must really hit a  NERVE  every time I mention his name and how he cost the tax payers in those states billions of wasted money.
> 
> But enough said...we all know the Green/Labor left wing socialists just do not know how to handle the economy whether it is state or Federal.




A stupid post which does nothing to address the situation now or contribute to the future. 

Mistakes were sure made in the past but drowning and trying to hang your hat on it all is dumb. 

Lefties,  greenies,  so what,  we are all,  left right and centre part of the overall democratic community.   An open exchange between us all and some acceptance that all are only trying to make our world a better place is the path dear noco. 

So stop living in the past and try to be constructive ole Pal.


----------



## luutzu

global warming, melting polar icecap, extreme whether due to it or not, a heck of a lot of people will definitely die from the current energy mix we're using.

Go to any major cities, LA or Beijing or Bangkok, in the developed or the poorer countries and you can't drive around with your windows down.

People commit suicide with one car running in their garage. While the world is a much bigger garage, it also have a lot more than one car, and a lot of factories and power stations to boot.

Pretty amazing how we know that a fume will kill us in closed quarters but somehow believe it have no effect whatsoever simply because it's dispersed further and wider


----------



## noco

explod said:


> A stupid post which does nothing to address the situation now or contribute to the future.
> 
> Mistakes were sure made in the past but drowning and trying to hang your hat on it all is dumb.
> 
> Lefties,  greenies,  so what,  we are all,  left right and centre part of the overall democratic community.   An open exchange between us all and some acceptance that all are only trying to make our world a better place is the path dear noco.
> 
> So stop living in the past and try to be constructive ole Pal.




Perhaps you should read my post# 6193 again if you are looking for something constructive or perhaps you are so involved with your own rhetoric that you did not bother to read it.

Your organization has not made Australia a better place....It has created a hell of a lot of heartache for those who now have the problem of cleaning up the mess Labor left us with their hare brain schemes. 

I make no apology if I am irritating you on the stupidity of the Green/Labor socialists decisions of which you cannot deny.....The problem is you just cannot accept it.


----------



## Tisme

Partisan politics aside (and dogged baited arguing for the sake of it), has anyone here had a passing thought that the weather and natural calamities of recent years might just be atmospheric change/dirt warming/water warming symptoms?

I have to admit I am guilty of having aberrant thoughts that the USA and UK might not be able to come up with a vaccine for the weather and air quality issues that seem to be besetting us. 

Noco even your beloved Liberal politicians know there are circumstances where the human stain must be set aside in favour of human  welfare - e.g. a premier like Richard Court who instigated Fabian style WA Fuelwatch and outlawed sulphur and benzene in petrol (his pedigree is big L and unquestionably one himself).

Of course I could just hold out that old age will take me before we have the inevitable wars/crime that will arise when the food and water run out from crop failures, disease, poisons etc. that are predicted to occur if we are on the path to self annihilation.


----------



## basilio

Noco, Wayne  and any others interested in this topic.  There is a very promising online course you enjoy 

It is called "Making sense of Climate Change denial" and is run by Queensland University.  So far 12,000 plus people have joined *including a significant number of climate skeptics*.  There is room for people who have the willingness and capacity to engage in debate on the topic.

Check it out. Only an hour a week and perhaps the opportunity to test your mettle against some of the most prominent climate  scientists around. 




> *Making Sense of Climate Science Denial*
> 
> Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
> University of Queensland Logo
> 
> Starts April 28th, 2015
> 
> Level: Introductory
> Length: 7 weeks
> Effort: 1-2 hours per week
> Subject: Communication
> Institution: UQx
> Languages: English
> Video Transcripts: English
> Price: Free
> Add a Verified Certificate for $100
> 
> Basic high school science recommended.
> About this course
> 
> In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
> 
> Why the gap between the public and scientists?
> What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
> How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
> 
> This course examines the science of climate science denial.
> 
> We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”
> 
> We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
> 
> With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
> 
> This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
> 
> See more about Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
> What you'll learn
> 
> How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
> How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
> How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
> How to effectively debunk climate misinformation




https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#!


----------



## basilio

Bit more about the Climate Change denial course

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...g-climate-change-deniers-20150430-1mwt52.html


----------



## noco

These climate change alarmist just cannot make up their minds whether Global Warming sorry, Climate Change, causes drought or heavy rains.

Flannery says the dams will never be full again and then we have this latest statement that Climate Change has caused the excessive amount of rain in Queensland and NSW filling the dams to overflowing..

I mean, they cannot have it both ways or do they want to have their cake and eat too?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/full_dams_but_still_no_sorry_from_flannery/

*Those storms are not what warmists told the credulous Sydney Morning Herald to expect after a huge downpour last year:

    Still getting over this week’s monster storm that struck Sydney? If so, you may be comforted to know that climate scientists predict a lot fewer such events for eastern Australia as the century unfolds.

    As a result of changes to atmospheric conditions, though, the frequency of such lows may drop by 40 per cent by 2100 if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise on their current high trajectory, according to Andrew Dowdy, a research scientist at the bureau.

Mind you, when Sydney does indeed get more storms, the warmist Sydney Morning Herald turns on a dime. On Wednesday it predicted global warming will actually give us more of these storms, not fewer: *


----------



## explod

noco said:


> These climate change alarmist just cannot make up their minds whether Global Warming sorry, Climate Change, causes drought...    [/B]




97% of climate scientist's say co2 induced global warming is real and we have a problem. 

You know better noco?


----------



## basilio

Well Noco if you insist on using Andrew Bolt as your source of information you will also spout BS.  The guy has no integrity and just picks and distorts information to suit his case.  That little piece of dribble Andrew ran by people is an excellent example.

CC isn't simple. The models predict that for Australia we will have less lows coming across the country that will reduce the overall rainfall.  At the same time it will considerably warmer so the earth will dry up quicker, evaporation will increase and run off for  dams will decrease.

At the same time however the extra extra heat in the atmosphere will result in more moisture being retained and therefore in storm conditions we will see heavier rains than normal. 

In a nutshell. Less overall rain but some very heavy floods when it does rain. Good fun

PS Check out the Climate deniers course if you would like more detailed information thsi topic. Very enlightening


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well Noco if you insist on using Andrew Bolt as your source of information you will also spout BS.  The guy has no integrity and just picks and distorts information to suit his case.  That little piece of dribble Andrew ran by people is an excellent example.
> 
> CC isn't simple. The models predict that for Australia we will have less lows coming across the country that will reduce the overall rainfall.  At the same time it will considerably warmer so the earth will dry up quicker, evaporation will increase and run off for  dams will decrease.
> 
> At the same time however the extra extra heat in the atmosphere will result in more moisture being retained and therefore in storm conditions we will see heavier rains than normal.
> 
> In a nutshell. Less overall rain but some very heavy floods when it does rain. Good fun
> 
> PS Check out the Climate deniers course if you would like more detailed information thsi topic. Very enlightening




It is pretty obvious that you and explod just can't accept that perhaps you and your 97% could all be wrong.

I read some time ago that the 97% was rigged...Like there were some 30,000 scientist around the world giving certain peered reviewed essays.....Someone in their wisdom decided to select a certain percentage of say that 30,000, deleting most of the deniers and making the figures look good of 97% alarmist and 3% deniers...That figure is way out.

Don't ask me to back it up at this stage but I will endeavor to track it down.

There was a crackpot many moons ago who said the Earth was flat and everyone believed him.

There are lots of people believe there is a GOD because Jesus  said there is a God and many still believe it.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> ...
> 
> There was a crackpot many moons ago who said the Earth was flat and everyone believed him.
> 
> There are lots of people believe there is a GOD because Jesus  said there is a God and many still believe it.




And then there are those who believe farmland and cow manure and the occasional volcanic eruption also emit CO2, so what's another 1 billion cars and 2300 coal fired power plant anyway.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is pretty obvious that you and explod just can't accept that perhaps you and your 97% could all be wrong.




And noco you cannot accept that you might be wrong either.     Don't you think we should err on the side of caution and cut our co2 emmissions.   

Strong indications that the innovative ideas being put into action in many places could be re-stimulating business and technology too. 

And on your round flat world,  those who stated it was round were ridiculed,  you analogies can be read both ways,  just how one wants to twist things. The real facts came out on top in the end.  The warmth getting under the two ploles at the current rate is unprecedented in total history (mentioned to you a few years back to read "the Sixth Extinction")  and the cold being displaced by that warmth is becoming very evident on the weather everywhere. 

As in the northern hemesphere our winter in Australia is looking that it may be very cold and wild.   We had snow in Victoria just last week,  normally not till July,  June at the earliest.   Just had wettest period ever recorded in the  Sydney area.   It is displacement noco,  and was not anticipated by the scientists.   We just have to accept the reality of events opening up now.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> And noco you cannot accept that you might be wrong either.     Don't you think we should err on the side of caution and cut our co2 emmissions.
> 
> Strong indications that the innovative ideas being put into action in many places could be re-stimulating business and technology too.
> 
> And on your round flat world,  those who stated it was round were ridiculed,  you analogies can be read both ways,  just how one wants to twist things. The real facts came out on top in the end.  The warmth getting under the two ploles at the current rate is unprecedented in total history (mentioned to you a few years back to read "the Sixth Extinction")  and the cold being displaced by that warmth is becoming very evident on the weather everywhere.
> 
> As in the northern hemesphere our winter in Australia is looking that it may be very cold and wild.   We had snow in Victoria just last week,  normally not till July,  June at the earliest.   Just had wettest period ever recorded in the  Sydney area.   It is displacement noco,  and was not anticipated by the scientists.   We just have to accept the reality of events opening up now.




True.

Any way you look at it, it just make a lot of sense to cut back our reliance on fossil fuel and seriously explore and innovate for alternative, cleaner and safer sources.

Heard that if the climate change enough, the gulfstream will shift and most of Europe will be living in the new ice age. Cool.

Rising sea water will also flood most deltas, salting a swath of agricultural land... and if the temperature are not right, those tiny planktons might not grow and we can kiss the oceanic food chain goodbye.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And noco you cannot accept that you might be wrong either.     Don't you think we should err on the side of caution and cut our co2 emmissions.
> 
> Strong indications that the innovative ideas being put into action in many places could be re-stimulating business and technology too.
> 
> And on your round flat world,  those who stated it was round were ridiculed,  you analogies can be read both ways,  just how one wants to twist things. The real facts came out on top in the end.  The warmth getting under the two ploles at the current rate is unprecedented in total history (mentioned to you a few years back to read "the Sixth Extinction")  and the cold being displaced by that warmth is becoming very evident on the weather everywhere.
> 
> As in the northern hemesphere our winter in Australia is looking that it may be very cold and wild.   We had snow in Victoria just last week,  normally not till July,  June at the earliest.   Just had wettest period ever recorded in the  Sydney area.   It is displacement noco,  and was not anticipated by the scientists.   We just have to accept the reality of events opening up now.




I think the reality is we will have to agree to disagree...You have no hope of converting me based on the true or false information.....It is all a gigantic scam as far as I am concerned.

It is a known fact Al Gore has set up some 40 companies around the world to trade ETS credits all in an endeavor to make money and don't forget he is a great mate of Tim Flannery so no doubt Flannery is in on the deal as well.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I think the reality is we will have to agree to disagree...You have no hope of converting me based on the true or false information.....It is all a gigantic scam as far as I am concerned.
> 
> It is a known fact Al Gore has set up some 40 companies around the world to trade ETS credits all in an endeavor to make money and don't forget he is a great mate of Tim Flannery so no doubt Flannery is in on the deal as well.




Did you read the Sixth Extinction as I suggested to you in the past.   This book sets out what actually happened in the past and gives a solid understanding of the stark problems arising this time.  A proper study of the a subject provides yardstick to understand and decide from your own posisition.   The reason  why a complete education,  free of religion,  should be a right of all young people so they may make thier own informed decisions and not what some politician tells them. 

There is no scam,  I have no personal gain in any of this and wish the problem was not so. 

Your refusal to accept any of the possibilites tells me you have something to gain by being a denier.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Did you read the Sixth Extinction as I suggested to you in the past.   This book sets out what actually happened in the past and gives a solid understanding of the stark problems arising this time.  A proper study of the a subject provides yardstick to understand and decide from your own posisition.   The reason  why a complete education,  free of religion,  should be a right of all young people so they may make thier own informed decisions and not what some politician tells them.
> 
> There is no scam,  I have no personal gain in any of this and wish the problem was not so.
> 
> Your refusal to accept any of the possibilites tells me you have something to gain by being a denier.




Here a link which will blow your mind apart...I do hope you read it all the way through.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

*t is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than today, for example, in the time of the dinosaurs (the mid-cretaceous period) when the CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More recently, in the prior period between ice ages, just 125,000 years ago, the Earth also was much warmer than today and the sea level much higher - by about 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) (IPCC). The primary driver of the past climate shifts is believed to be orbital mechanics and solar variability, with some contribution from Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions. It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent (3%) of the total amount and that the total is very small - there is 23.6 times more argon (0.009) in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.00038). The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years" (a seminal study). Lastly, we know that the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable. In a first attempt (Hadley-chart) to use a CO2 - based model to predict temperatures, the results are not impressive at all and are exactly opposite observations. *


----------



## explod

Of course noco,  it started as just a fireball 5 billion years ago.   By normal evolutionary process it is suplosed to be continually cooling down.   But it is not,  if anything it is warming up,  get it noco,  it is going the wrong way. 

You just do not want to get it,  it must be bad for your business or your brand of politics.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Of course noco,  it started as just a fireball 5 billion years ago.   By normal evolutionary process it is suplosed to be continually cooling down.   But it is not,  if anything it is warming up,  get it noco,  it is going the wrong way.
> 
> You just do not want to get it,  it must be bad for your business or your brand of politics.




Firstly, I am no longer in business and secondly it has nothing to do with my politics.

I would say I have lived a lot longer than you and most likely the oldest member of ASF,I have experienced many extreme weathers in my time so in my mind it is purely common sense.

I gave you a link on the variations of alarmist and skeptics...Did read it or did you decide that your strong head is so biased that you can't accept other opinions....I think it is more *your *politics that is influencing *your* brain.


----------



## noco

I could not believe what I just read about ALARMISTS wanting legislation to ban and fine skeptics.

My gawd they are becoming desperate...What about free speech?...Have they overlooked the right for other people to express an opinion....How dare they.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...academics_want_laws_to_fine_and_ban_sceptics/

*I have just part-transcribed a Melbourne University seminar where Peter Christoff [from 20 mins in video above] calls for legal bans and punitive fines on broadcasters and individuals for ‘climate denial’. This would be “based on the fact that unchecked climate denialism over time would cause loss of freedom and rights, the death of thousands of humans, the loss of entire cultures, effectively genocide , extinctions… *

*Since that video, shot in 2012, 
there have been three more years of no warming. That’s now 18 years of no warming so far, a fact for which I presume I’d face jail for pointing out.

Note that Christoff is followed as speaker by a long-time communist union official. It says so much. *


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> 97% of climate scientist's say co2 induced global warming is real and we have a problem.
> 
> You know better noco?




No they don't.  That has been discredited and continually using that bogus stat ( plus usage of the offensive "denier" undermines sensible debate.

When I see these two things I know I am having to then argue on religio-political, rather than scientific/logical grounds.

In fact you lose the argument without contest.


----------



## wayneL

...and they are in deeper loss if they want to silence debate via statute.

Truly Orwellian.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> ...and they are in deeper loss if they want to silence debate via statute.
> 
> Truly Orwellian.




The alarmists can't win on fair terms so they have to resort to foul means.....This is a typical communist approach if ever there was......Control the media and you control the people....Shut down debate.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> The alarmists can't win on fair terms so they have to resort to foul means.....This is a typical communist approach if ever there was......Control the media and you control the people....Shut down debate.




Though the chance is bleak, there is hope yet that noco will see the light 

At least you don't believe in God noco... there's some politicians who literally believe the world cannot go extinct because God promised Noah he'll stop flooding it after that (second?) time. So all these scientific mumbo jumbo are useless when the Bible said God said no more flooding and extinction.


----------



## wayneL

What is "the light" luutzu?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> What is "the light" luutzu?




"the light" is stuff I believe 


Just my pedestrians and simple news headlines and everyday observations: Just two years back, I've read quite a few "....of the century" weather events. 

There's the few abnormal hurricanes/typhoon in the Philippines and Vanuatu; the few snow storms and arctic whatever of the century in the US east coasts just last winter; the flooding of New York a couple years ago; the hurricane that clear off a fair junk of New Jersey; the greatest drought in California in a century right now...

and in Australia... flash floodings in NSW, QLD; hottest day in April recently, then a freak hail storms in Sydney, and now QLD flooding, again in only a couple months.

I doubt these "once in a decade" and once in a century events won't happen again within next couple years.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> What is "the light" luutzu?




It is the light at the end of the tunnel when the alarmist fall off the cliff with all their propaganda about Global Warming...oops...sorry.... it is now climate change....I forgot there has been no Global Warming for 18 years.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> It is the light at the end of the tunnel when the alarmist fall off the cliff with all their propaganda about Global Warming...oops...sorry.... it is now climate change....I forgot there has been no Global Warming for 18 years.




Pretty sure global warming doesn't mean just hot weather. But California is pretty hot and dry right now. So is Brazil.

Heard the last time Cali was this dry, it was 1,200 years ago.

Saw a doco a while back and it said that by 2050 or so, the entire middle of continental USA will be out of water. Reason is not global warming but that the entire plain cannot support agriculture - there is no water source except for those deep underground. Those reservoir has been built up over millions of years and modern technology some 50 years ago suck it up and turn it plush for farming.

Heard the same sort of water is being used in most of California...

Now, if Cali dries up because there is not enough snow on whatever mountains that supplies most of its water; if in 2050 the entire middle of US is dry... 

add to that possible  rise in sea level, extreme weather patterns killing off crops and livestocks...

add to that changes in sea temperature, killing certain species and coral somewhere down the food chain...

Basically, less fish from the seas, less crops from the USA, less crops in most places due to rising sea level salting arable land...

add to that the pollution, the smog that causes cancer and premature deaths....


In short, global warming isn't just about the weather getting a bit hotter. It's extremes... extremely wet, extremely dry, extremely hot, extremely cold.

Think the effect that will have on livestocks and crops; on infrastructure and re-engineering to withstand extremes.


The best case scenario is food and tax will be much much higher. The other is there will be wars and revolutions all over the place.


Global Warming is one of those cases where you don't need data and scientific precision to know that maybe we ought to be cleaner... just in case the way we're doing things will end up killing most of our species. But there are plenty of data and science aren't there?

Here's another fact. In most of China the bees are dying off. Too much air pollution and pesticide etc., so crops and plants can't pollinate. They then resort to getting people climbing trees and whatnot to pollinate the flowers.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Pretty sure global warming doesn't mean just hot weather. But California is pretty hot and dry right now. So is Brazil.
> 
> Heard the last time Cali was this dry, it was 1,200 years ago.
> 
> Saw a doco a while back and it said that by 2050 or so, the entire middle of continental USA will be out of water. Reason is not global warming but that the entire plain cannot support agriculture - there is no water source except for those deep underground. Those reservoir has been built up over millions of years and modern technology some 50 years ago suck it up and turn it plush for farming.
> 
> Heard the same sort of water is being used in most of California...
> 
> Now, if Cali dries up because there is not enough snow on whatever mountains that supplies most of its water; if in 2050 the entire middle of US is dry...
> 
> add to that possible  rise in sea level, extreme weather patterns killing off crops and livestocks...
> 
> add to that changes in sea temperature, killing certain species and coral somewhere down the food chain...
> 
> Basically, less fish from the seas, less crops from the USA, less crops in most places due to rising sea level salting arable land...
> 
> add to that the pollution, the smog that causes cancer and premature deaths....
> 
> 
> In short, global warming isn't just about the weather getting a bit hotter. It's extremes... extremely wet, extremely dry, extremely hot, extremely cold.
> 
> Think the effect that will have on livestocks and crops; on infrastructure and re-engineering to withstand extremes.
> 
> 
> The best case scenario is food and tax will be much much higher. The other is there will be wars and revolutions all over the place.
> 
> 
> Global Warming is one of those cases where you don't need data and scientific precision to know that maybe we ought to be cleaner... just in case the way we're doing things will end up killing most of our species. But there are plenty of data and science aren't there?
> 
> Here's another fact. In most of China the bees are dying off. Too much air pollution and pesticide etc., so crops and plants can't pollinate. They then resort to getting people climbing trees and whatnot to pollinate the flowers.




 I hope that doco didn't come from our very own Tim Flannery


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I hope that doco didn't come from our very own Tim Flannery




Don't know who Tim Flannery is.

That doco wasn't about climate change, just some stuff I click on to know about things.


Have you seen Promised Land? Starring Matt Damon... anyway, there's this greenie, tree hugger type guy who turns up wanting to help organise the town against big oil wanting to frack etc. He made all cases against fracking, how it kills the animals and pollute the water etc. Then  it turns out the guy is a fraud.... then later it turns out that he was sent from "the corporation" to do what he does as an example of the frauds those greenies are - so the town won't believe any lefty commies "scientists" anymore... and it worked.

But it's only the movies right? In real life they won't do that.

Here's a short doco on our planet at 2 degree warmer [doomsday at 6 degrees]:


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Don't know who Tim Flannery is.
> 
> That doco wasn't about climate change, just some stuff I click on to know about things.
> 
> 
> Have you seen Promised Land? Starring Matt Damon... anyway, there's this greenie, tree hugger type guy who turns up wanting to help organise the town against big oil wanting to frack etc. He made all cases against fracking, how it kills the animals and pollute the water etc. Then  it turns out the guy is a fraud.... then later it turns out that he was sent from "the corporation" to do what he does as an example of the frauds those greenies are - so the town won't believe any lefty commies "scientists" anymore... and it worked.
> 
> But it's only the movies right? In real life they won't do that.
> 
> Here's a short doco on our planet at 2 degree warmer [doomsday at 6 degrees]:





More propaganda based on a big *IF*...There has been no Global warming for the past 18 years.

The great Barrier Reef has never been in better shape says Professor Peter Ridd from JCU Townsville.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Here a link which will blow your mind apart...I do hope you read it all the way through.
> 
> 
> ]t is *generally accepted* that the Earth has been much warmer than today, for example, in the time of the dinosaurs (the mid-cretaceous period) when the CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More recently, in the prior period between ice ages, just 125,000 years ago, the Earth also was much warmer than today and the sea level much higher - by about 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) (IPCC).




I thought you were not going to be swayed by true or false, but then you throw up generalisations as proof of your intransigence.

I fail to see the correlation between 125k years ago and now? Are you saying that we should be a meagre berry eating population of lower intelligence instead of the triple latte society we are today?  Hmmm.... hard choice ASF discussion board or dead by 23  from starvation, disease and lion feeding.


----------



## wayneL

So you accept your viewas are an article of faith luutzu?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I thought you were not going to be swayed by true or false, but then you throw up generalisations as proof of your intransigence.
> 
> I fail to see the correlation between 125k years ago and now? Are you saying that we should be a meagre berry eating population of lower intelligence instead of the triple latte society we are today?  Hmmm.... hard choice ASF discussion board or dead by 23  from starvation, disease and lion feeding.




I am a skeptic through and through but if you read the link in its entirety you should have noted it was not only about skeptics but alarmist as well and it has nothing to do with me being swayed one way or the other...It was a point of view which most of it debunks the Global warming myth....I have used my life experience and common sense to know right from wrong about climate change.

Much of that link backs up what I believe in.

It is up to you to believe in what you want...You can believe in God......you can believe in what some crack pot tells you about Global Warming or climate change or you can believe in what you think yourself whether it is political or religious....You are mainly basing your beliefs on what someone has said of what  might happen if the Earth warms by 2% or 6% .There is no gospel truth that it will actually happen.

Man made CO2  only represents 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere.....So how is that going to affect Global warming in light of the fact that our reduction in CO2 will be 5% by 2020.


----------



## orr

Ahh...'The light'

Reminds me of that old fable with four blind men and an elephant and each one is told to identify what it is. None of them correctly identify the whole animal because they only go with the bit they directly access...

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/elephant.html

The light is what takes you out of the dark, stops you groping around bumping into things, misidentifying them, lets all those people, who don't read brail, read...

A few people would much prefer to misidentify the elephant in the room. Wilful blindness, happy to be in the dark, tragic cognitive dissonance, in the end all amounts to the same thing.

It would be attractive to think that human beings would lose faith in self delusion, lot easier in the dark I suppose.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Man made CO2  only represents 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere




I think you'll find that man contributes about 3% of annual emissions but, due to this having gone on for rather a long time, accounts for around 30% of CO2 actually in the atmosphere today.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Don't know who Tim Flannery is.
> 
> If you don't know who Tim Flannert is, you must live outside of Australia.





Everybody in Australia knows that crack pot alarmist  Flannery who said in 2007 there would be insufficient rains to fill the dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne and that they would all run out of water........Those dams are now full to overflowing.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...tim_flannery_is_having_fun_its_raining_money/


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> So you accept your viewas are an article of faith luutzu?




Don't think I've admitted or accept my view as such.

I certainly haven't gone into depth or analyse the raw data, and I've admitted that my understanding are just pedestrian and observational - that is, a few doco, a few interviews here and there. 

So while I'm no expert, I know enough... Kinda like knowing not to smoke. I'm told there are hundreds of chemicals in a cigarette - so inhaling it in a pack a day isn't good; Then there are sick and coughing smokers I see around me; there's those graphic warnings. Did I go and detail all the chemicals? No; Did I research to find out the probability of premature death from smoking, the genetics and other pre-existing conditions that will likely or less likely to affect smokers in general and me in particular? No...

My grandfather smokes since he was a teen and die of old age at 93; my wife's great-grandfather smokes since he was 11, he still smokes right now at 95 and he's as fit as you can be at that age.

Should I look at those few rare cases and conclude that smoking won't kill you?

So I just know enough to never light up a cigarette and inhale it. Same with global warming.

---
Al Gore made a convincing case when I watched and listen; I understand how the greenhouse effect works; I've seen enough news and read about once in a century weather events happening way too many time in my young life so far... and last but not least, I just changed my car's air filter and it's all black.

Like I said, the evidence are there... and I've heard them from experts.

But let say CO2 and our fossil fuel and global warming got nothing to do with each other... It is not clean energy yes? it's toxic to human and other lifeform yes?

Shouldn't that one fact alone be convincing enough to get ourselves going another direction? Do we really need to wait for the flood to reach our angle then we start to be convinced?


I rode around a few Asian cities on a scooter. On a less populated road, ones near the ocean it's all good. But taking an open-air tuk tuk around Bangkok, or riding around Hanoi or HCM City and you'd have a pretty clear idea how poisonous fossil fuel is, how many life years it will rob those people of.

Look at the rate of cancer death of those living near coal-fired power plants in the US, or near oil refineries or industrial plastics etc. It's not a coincidence... the lawyers will say otherwise but we know right?

----

An interesting story.

You know what also contributed to the famine that kill 20 million people in China during Mao's good idea at the time moment? The killing of sparrows and other birds across the countryside.

He figured, or someone told him, that sparrows and birds eat the rice crop. So what better sense then get rid of them. So the farmers were ordered to bang their pots all across the country, scaring the daylights out of those birds that they fly and too afraid to land. So they ends up falling and most were dead.

Without those birds, the insects have no predators... and they eat most of the crop.

Add to this the fact that he ordered a move away from argiculture towards industrialisation and steel production from such wasteful steel instruments as farm equipment... When a bad harvest come because of drought or something, 20 million Chinese died over a few years period.


Put that on a global scale, and not just from a couple of bad and unfortunate events, but many times that - from the extreme weather to drought from low mountain icecaps, to rising sea level that will flood cities and salt arable land, to potentially unknown impact on marine life and disruption of that food chain... you might want to err on the side of caution here.

When you ignore the stop smoking warnings - thinking it's all hysteria with hidden agendas - and so just smoke anyway... that's fine because it will only kill you and hurt your loved ones; With global warming, you're not talking about just you or your family, it's literally the survival of our species and those million others.

If you want to be lazy like me, then err on the side of caution... If you want to deny and prove them scientists wrong, the only responsible thing to do is to then devote your career towards testing and researching the subject matter.

If anything's too important to take lightly, it's global warming.
You know, you can't say stuff like "coal is good for humanity", full stop. Or shrug it off by pointing to the Bible and God's promise to Noah.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Everybody in Australia knows that crack pot alarmist  Flannery who said in 2007 there would be insufficient rains to fill the dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne and that they would all run out of water........Those dams are now full to overflowing.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...tim_flannery_is_having_fun_its_raining_money/




California. 
Just heard it hasn't been this dry since 1200 years ago.





Brazil epic drought. Still going right now.



Queensland drought - that's a lot of red.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> California.
> Just heard it hasn't been this dry since 1200 years ago.
> View attachment 62463
> 
> 
> 
> Brazil epic drought. Still going right now.
> View attachment 62464
> 
> 
> Queensland drought - that's a lot of red.
> View attachment 62465




So what is the problem?...it has all happened before.

Matee, I worked in the south west of Queensland for some years as a plumber....I worked on many sheep stations when wool was a pound sterling for a pound weight.

The smart cockies went through these droughts on many occasions but they were prepared for such events well in advance....They were never short of fodder for their stock as they would, in good times, grow silage on 400 to 500 acres, harvest it and bury it in under ground silos...So long as it had 2 feet of earth over the top, the silage was good for 11 years......In conditions like they are currently experiencing, the silage would dug and fed to their stock....Unfortunately, the modern farmer today is too lazy, relies upon the heavens and is quite happy to put his hand out for government assistance....there were no handouts in the 1950's.
There was always plenty of water from underground bores.

So my point is, don't blame Global warming, climate change or man made CO2...It has all happened before and not so far back.


----------



## basilio

Another  perspectives from The Guardian.



> * The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine
> *
> There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded
> 
> Unless you’re knee deep in the mud of the climate debate, as I am, you might not know that so-called “climate denial” is actually not that common in the UK. Not that I call people deniers anyway: it antagonises, partly because it is thrown around indiscriminately. There are still people who are unconvinced that carbon dioxide has any greenhouse warming effect, particularly in the US and Australia. But by far the most common kind of non-mainstream, contrarian view I see in the UK – particularly in politicians, journalists and bloggers – is the self-described “lukewarmer”.
> 
> .....But whether we are in denial, lukewarm or concerned about global warming, the question really boils down to how we view uncertainty. If you agree with mainstream scientists, what would you be willing to do to reduce the predicted risks of substantial warming? And if you’re a lukewarmer, confident the Earth is not very sensitive, what would be at risk if you were wrong?




http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Another  perspectives from The Guardian.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers




Next headline in the Guardian.

*ALL DENIERS ARE TO BE ROUNDED UP AND SHOT.*

LOL.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Next headline in the Guardian.
> 
> *ALL DENIERS ARE TO BE ROUNDED UP AND SHOT.*
> 
> LOL.




Actually Noco no.. In fact after special consideration of your particular needs (and thousands like you) The Guardian commissioned a very special piece.

Enjoy it in full. It's not even April 1st !



> *Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?*
> 
> Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent
> 
> Dean Burnett
> 
> *Climate change is a myth. We all know this, deep down. Some of you reading this may have been taken in by the fear-mongering governments or corrupt scientists so have been brainwashed into thinking climate change is a real thing that “threatens all of humanity” or some other nonsense, but it’s just that: nonsense.* When you look closely at it, the so-called evidence for climate change, or “global warming” or “warmageddon” or “planetary death spiral” or whatever they’re calling it these days, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Take changes in sea level. They keep banging on about how the warming of the atmosphere causes rising sea levels, but if that was happening we’d have seen it by now! It’s been countless decades since they first started predicting this, but here we still are! But they persist in trying to convince us it’s a real threat, citing places that were supposedly “lost to the waves” and we’re supposed to believe that places like Atlantis, Miami or Skegness actually existed? You believe that rubbish and you probably believe we landed on Ganymede! And you’re an idiot, so there’s no hope for you.




http://www.theguardian.com/science/...vious-myth-how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> So what is the problem?...it has all happened before.
> 
> Matee, I worked in the south west of Queensland for some years as a plumber....I worked on many sheep stations when wool was a pound sterling for a pound weight.
> 
> The smart cockies went through these droughts on many occasions but they were prepared for such events well in advance....They were never short of fodder for their stock as they would, in good times, grow silage on 400 to 500 acres, harvest it and bury it in under ground silos...So long as it had 2 feet of earth over the top, the silage was good for 11 years......In conditions like they are currently experiencing, the silage would dug and fed to their stock....Unfortunately, the modern farmer today is too lazy, relies upon the heavens and is quite happy to put his hand out for government assistance....there were no handouts in the 1950's.
> There was always plenty of water from underground bores.
> 
> So my point is, don't blame Global warming, climate change or man made CO2...It has all happened before and not so far back.




It's frequency and magnitude that's more important.

For example. Current California drought - not the first time they have it, but it's the worst in 1,200 years. Brazil I don't think expect to ever have a drought problem since they have the Amazon etc., now trucks in water to cities and planning to import them.

I just googled and found this: 
*Climate change set to triple drought, bushfires and floods in Australia*
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/06/12/4023302.htm

---

When you have extreme and frequent "bad" weather - it damages your current infrastructure. Namely rail, roads and bridges... and skyscrapers and houses and drainage capacity.

I saw headlines of a few oil freight train derailed in the US last winter. They're suspected to be due to track issues from extreme snows and arctic storm etc.; there are damages to their roads and bridges, oil pipelines and water pipelines and sewage systems etc.

You're a plumber so you know if this is true or made up - I just read before that Brazil can't really turn on and off the water supply to control water restrictions because it will damage water pipes if one section is empty while the other is pressurised etc. So i guess they have to just lower it all or turn it all off and truck water around and control it that way.

Extreme weather will increase the costs of infrastructure upgrades, just so it'd cope. 
It disrupts business, transportation, travels, increase costs of production, insurance premium and also taxes... and that's the inconvenience in rich countries.

In poor countries, say the Philippines... yea they've had typhoons before, but not as strong as they've seen it recently. 

Anyway, to your point about all these weather happening before... Acid rain? How about smog in major cities? The wind will just take it elsewhere? The rain will just wash it down the ocean soon enough?

----
anywho, when there's enough death and destructions costing insurance companies and gov't too much ... maybe there'd be a will and some money left from reconstruction, rehabilitation to seriously fund R&D into alternatives.

Gotta see the tallies for costs-benefits analysis. Can't really plan without data can we?


----------



## Knobby22

Good read Basilio.


----------



## basilio

Lets get positive..

I just saw the presentation by Elon Musk on the Tesla powerwall.  A simple clean, cheap battery bank that can store solar power and be the missing link to having a totally renewable energy run world.

Only goes for 18 mins and well worth the time.

Towards the end Elon speculates on how many power walls would be required to enable the whole world to run on renewable energy (including transport and heating)  He reckons 2 billion units.

Sounds like an insane figure doesn't it ? Inconceivable perhaps?

Well apparently the world currently has 2 billion cars and we add 100 million  a year.  No problem with that is there ? On that basis one could produce 2 billion powerwalls in say 20 years. In  fact these are just cookie stamped generic units in a variety of colours. Simple eh ?

And his Tesla technology is open source.  Anyone else can do it if they want to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k#t=243


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Lets get positive..
> 
> I just saw the presentation by Elon Musk on the Tesla powerwall.  A simple clean, cheap battery bank that can store solar power and be the missing link to having a totally renewable energy run world.
> 
> Only goes for 18 mins and well worth the time.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k#t=243




Good post and link.


----------



## noco

Poor old Timmy, he has no answers as why his prediction failed so miserably costing tax payers billions of dollars.

What a farce..What a scam.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../tim_flannery_should_explain_these_full_dams/


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Poor old Timmy, he has no answers as why his prediction failed so miserably costing tax payers billions of dollars.
> 
> What a farce..What a scam.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../tim_flannery_should_explain_these_full_dams/




What a one trick pony.  Global Warming is happen around the world "duh" .  One can find a hundred thousand pieces of evidence, analysis, climatic changes, environment changes to prove the obvious - that the world's climatic conditions are changing markedly.

And yet all Andrew Bolt and Noco can do is grasp one comment by one person made seven years and  attempt to turn it into a total refutation of the bleeding obvious.

Indeed it is. A  bleeding, ridiculous farce.  Nothing Andrew Bolt says on Global Warming should ever be taken seriously.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> What a one trick pony.  Global Warming is happen around the world "duh" .  One can find a hundred thousand pieces of evidence, analysis, climatic changes, environment changes to prove the obvious - that the world's climatic conditions are changing markedly.
> 
> And yet all Andrew Bolt and Noco can do is grasp one comment by one person made seven years and  attempt to turn it into a total refutation of the bleeding obvious.
> 
> Indeed it is. A  bleeding, ridiculous farce.  Nothing Andrew Bolt says on Global Warming should ever be taken seriously.




If you want to believe those wankers who are paid to write scripts to suit their masters, you go right ahead.

They will not fool me buddy...This whole Global warming affair or if you now want to call it by its new name,climate change, is nothing more than a scam that is why these people want legislation to ban deniers, fine them or even lock them up.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> If you want to believe those wankers who are paid to write scripts to suit their masters, you go right ahead.
> .




lol


----------



## explod

noco said:


> If you want to believe those wankers who are paid to write scripts to suit their masters, you go right ahead.
> 
> They will not fool me buddy...This whole Global warming affair or if you now want to call it by its new name,climate change, is nothing more than a scam that is why these people want legislation to ban deniers, fine them or even lock them up.




The real money is on the coal and oil producers.   Large ice shelves currently breaking away in both poles at an alarming rate.   These have built up over many millions of years during a time when the earth,  once just a fireball, should be cooling. 

And on age noco,  I am only 69, however my Great Grandfarther,  a farmer,  left Ireland due to the potatoe famine.   He was a weather watcher and my Grandfather told me the stories if the land.   He was a wheat farmer near Pryamid Hill before the irragation.  (what a stuff up there too) So Dad started out lumping wheat,  fought in WW2 then we too were farmers.   But very much noco ole Pal,  weather watchers.   And the climate and moisture in our farmland has dried out beyond belief. 

Forget the arguments of science,  just look about.   I spent a lot if time in Queensland too noco,  Sir William Gunn was my direct boss for awhile and we saw the farming land of central Queensland go downhill from 1968 to the stage where we had to move all the sheep out.   These things hurt and the lessons stuck.   Certainly overfeeding was a part,  but the rainfall was the big one. 

And on rainfall,  we still have drought never before seen as bad over most of our lands in Australia,  and we are seeing floods in some parts never before seen.  Bet insurance companies from here will be pulling out or tightening up. 

And I have many times mentioned the never to return tadpoles on our farm or the sudden death and extinction of the possums at Mount Martha.   Noco,   these beings established themselves in these habitats over millions of years of evolution only to be wiped out in (time)  a heart beat.


----------



## noco

Some interesting facts from Judith Curry, climate scientist, referring to the billions of dollars wasted to make almost zero difference to warming.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...rs_to_make_almost_zero_difference_to_warming/

*If you believe the climate models, then President Obama’s INDC commitment (total of 80% emissions reduction by 2015), then warming would be reduced by 0.011 degrees Centigrade, a number that was provided to me by Chip Knappenberger of CATO using the MAGICC model with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.0oC.  If the climate models are indeed running too hot, then the warming would be reduced by an even smaller number…

    Eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would reduce the warming by 0.014oC (as per the EPA MAGICC model).  This is an amount of warming that is much smaller than the uncertainty in even measuring the global average temperature. 

In Australia, it’s the same story - we’d spend billions to make no noticeable difference, even if you assumed a very strong causation between emissions and temperature: *


----------



## wayneL

To what specious lengths will plod and bas go to in their advocacy?

C'mon ladies let's stick to empirical data shall we?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> To what specious lengths will plod and bas go to in their advocacy?
> 
> C'mon ladies let's stick to empirical data shall we?




Really ??!! And exactly what specious lengths have we gone to Wayne?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Really ??!! And exactly what specious lengths have we gone to Wayne?




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## basilio

Left dumbfounded Wayne ? Why am I not surprised..


----------



## wayneL

Au contraire.

I was pointing to the ample evidence above as being self evident


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Au contraire.
> 
> I was pointing to the ample evidence above as being self evident




Ample evidence ? Where ? What ?  Be specific Wayne.  Really interested to see these "specious lengths" Explod and I use.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> To what specious lengths will plod and bas go to in their advocacy?
> 
> C'mon ladies let's stick to empirical data shall we?




What is wrong with normal observation based on a long interest and following of the subject. 

Surely we are not bound by the myriad of so called science experts and thier charter to keep the sheeple confused. 

At least pull some of the assertions (from your view) apart or at least where each point is wrong. 

But then that could be serious engagement and may not look good before the (den...s) cheer squad.


----------



## wayneL

Id love to have nothing better to do than spend several hours collating examples and citations to demonstrate your speciousness bas, but more mercantile and productive endeavours beckon.

I accept that you don't actually realise that the rubbish you regurgitate here is specious however.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Id love to have nothing better to do than spend several hours collating examples and citations to demonstrate your speciousness bas, but more mercantile and productive endeavours beckon.
> 
> I accept that you don't actually realise that the rubbish you regurgitate here is specious however.




You don't have to spend and hours collecting examples and citations of of what you see as "specious" Wayne. I think it would be rather hard to do.

I must say in my defence however whenever Noco or perhaps yourself actually decide to make a specific verifiable statement (as distinct for general abuse)  regarding CC I check  it out and identify chapter and verse where it is demonstrably false. For example when the false argument that CC and CO2 have been driven by volcanic emissions in the past 200 years was raised it  is quite straightforward to identify that as a false claim.

One thing I have noticed however Wayne is that you avoid addressing particular pieces of research that demonstrate 

1)  We have substantial changes in the environment caused by global warming
2)  That these changes are/will have very serious consequences.

Do you remember this post a few weeks back ?  Post 6139
___________________________________________________
_
Maybe we just want to focus on particular research which notes

1) The reality of increased warming
2) The consequences of this increase on ocean le_vels.




> *Antarctic ice shelves rapidly melting
> Once-expanding East Antarctica now seeing losses
> By*
> Thomas Sumner
> 2:00pm, March 26, 2015
> 
> 
> MELTDOWN Antarctica’s Venable Ice Shelf, shown, is on track to disappear within a century, new research shows.
> 
> Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking at an accelerating rate, one of the longest satellite records of ice thickness reveals. Researchers report online March 26 in Science that several West Antarctic ice shelves are now on pace to disappear completely within 100 years.
> 
> Floating ice shelves mark the outermost edges of an ice sheet and line nearly half the Antarctic coastline. Using ice thickness measurements collected by satellites from 1994 to 2012, glaciologist Fernando Paolo of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues analyzed how recent warming has impacted Antarctica’s ice. The researchers discovered that Antarctic ice shelves shrank on average 25 cubic kilometers per year from 1994 to 2003. The melting then accelerated to 310 cubic kilometers ”” roughly twice the volume of Lake Tahoe ”” on average per year from 2003 to 2012.
> 
> While scientists have known that the West Antarctic ice shelves are thinning, the research also shows that the East Antarctic ice shelves, which expanded between 1994 and 2003, are thinning now as well.
> 
> The shelves serve as doorstops for glaciers. As the bottom of an ice shelf grinds over the seabed, it stems the flow of the land-based ice queued up behind it. Because ice shelves float, their melt water does not directly contribute to sea level rise. Their disappearance, however, speeds the loss of glacial ice, which does raise sea levels



.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...apidly-melting


----------



## noco

Bas and plod, go back and have a look and read of my posts and links....But I guess you have made up your minds, so I guess there is no point in you reading them again if you ever did in the first place.

6203
6212
6215
6235
6243
6248

The alarmist are losing momentum fast.


----------



## Knobby22

In a major address at Georgetown University Tuesday, *President Barack Obama referred derogatorily to deniers of climate change as members of the “Flat Earth Society*” ”” a reference to a group that believes the Earth is flat.

*The Flat Earth Society got a bit upset*.
Their reply:-

I checked President Obama’s quote from today.  It’s disappointing but not surprising ”” I do occasionally see references to the Society in that context.  Gordon Brown made a similar remark back in 2009 when referring to climate-change deniers.  I generally try not to take it personally, though.  I understand that most people see the Flat Earth Society’s views as extremely unorthodox and perhaps a bit kooky.  I’d like the public to know, though, that our views are based on extensive research and we highly value the pursuit of truth.  In fact, the Society’s motto is (and has been since the 1800’s) “In Veritate Victoria” ”” Victory in Truth.

For what it’s worth, the Flat Earth Society doesn’t have an ‘official’ position on climate change.  That falls a bit outside our remit.  Personally, though, I believe the evidence available does support the position that climate change is at least partially influenced by human industrialisation.  So if President Obama wants to reference people that actively deny anthropogenic climate change, he’d probably be better served by citing groups like the American Enterprise Institute rather than the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/f...obama-climate-change-speech-georgetown-2013-6


----------



## basilio

Thank you for sharing that article Knobby.  Just fascinating to realise that the head of the Flat Earth Society acknowledges that industrialization and associated human activity has had an effect on the climate.
*
I suppose that has to be the end of the road for climate scientists*.  Clearly when believers in CC encapsulate the Uni Bomber, the Flat Earth society and various other mad miscreants no sane person could possibly hold the same view could they ?

(I wonder if these people also think the Earth revolves around the Sun ?)


----------



## basilio

I had some time to waste.... so I decided to check out the rationale of The Flat Earth  Society and and why it believes we have got it all wrong (ie the Earth is round) .

Very compelling indeed. You just have to take it on faith and accept the complex, intricate maths as accurate.

Oh and you have to believe that the entire scientific community as well as world governments are in on a giant conspiracy theory.  

By they way is anyone else aware *that there is absolutely no support for a round earth amongst the scientific community *.  True ! Just check out all and any research paper abstract on earth sciences.  NONE will come out and state that the earth is round. NONE!! 



"







> Deprogramming the masses since 1547"
> Mission Statement
> 
> _For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled 'round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .
> 
> Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"
> 
> Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . ._
> 
> Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet's true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.
> 
> But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise?Because we know the truth.



.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


_________________________________________________________

For more information check out the following very active Forum and Wiki site
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=7.0
http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ


----------



## spooly74

basilio said:


> I had some time to waste.... so I decided to check out the rationale of The Flat Earth  Society and and why it believes we have got it all wrong (ie the Earth is round) .
> 
> Very compelling indeed. You just have to take it on faith and accept the complex, intricate maths as accurate.
> 
> Oh and you have to believe that the entire scientific community as well as world governments are in on a giant conspiracy theory.
> 
> By they way is anyone else aware *that there is absolutely no support for a round earth amongst the scientific community *.  True ! Just check out all and any research paper abstract on earth sciences.  NONE will come out and state that the earth is round. NONE!!
> 
> 
> 
> ".
> http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> For more information check out the following very active Forum and Wiki site
> http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=7.0
> http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ




It's not round.
It's an oblate spheroid.


----------



## wayneL

How many argumentative fallacies are you trying to add to your speciousness bas?

Knobby, purveyors of obnoxious and misrepresentative pejorative associative terms, vis a vis "denier", don't really deserve a place in intellectual debate.


----------



## luutzu

Just read the El Nino is expected this spring in Australia. Potentially kicking off another decade of drought in Australia.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> Just read the El Nino is expected this spring in Australia. Potentially kicking off another decade of drought in Australia.




...El Nino have always occurred.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> ...El Nino have always occurred.




I know. They say it's "big" this time though - on scale of the one in 1990s that causes the drought all along the east coast for quite a while there.


----------



## sydboy007

Maurice Newman has warned WA that the east coast states are planning Operation jade helm with the intent of overthrowing the Wes Staryan Government.  Proposes senate enact laws limiting the federal Government ability to purchase ammunition.

Other Newmanisms to note is the world Govt cabal keeping tens of thousands of scientists continually in line and on topic for a couple of decades.  The only thing harder would have been to herd shrodinger cats for that long, on which the scientific community which is still yet to unanimously agree are alive or dead.

Next, tin foil in short supply due to World Govt cabal edict....


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> How many argumentative fallacies are you trying to add to your speciousness bas?
> 
> Knobby, purveyors of obnoxious and misrepresentative pejorative associative terms, vis a vis "denier", don't really deserve a place in intellectual debate.




Hey chill.
Just having a laugh, those flat earthers don't take themselves seriously imo also.
And the word denier was used by the Prez, not me.

I prefer the words "climate change minimalists" to represent the forces now. Most have gone beyond the "denier" stage. 

1. Denial
2. Anger
3, Bargaining
4. Depression 
5. Acceptance


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> Maurice Newman has warned WA that the east coast states are planning Operation jade helm with the intent of overthrowing the Wes Staryan Government.  Proposes senate enact laws limiting the federal Government ability to purchase ammunition.
> 
> Other Newmanisms to note is the world Govt cabal keeping tens of thousands of scientists continually in line and on topic for a couple of decades.  The only thing harder would have been to herd shrodinger cats for that long, on which the scientific community which is still yet to unanimously agree are alive or dead.
> 
> Next, tin foil in short supply due to World Govt cabal edict....




If there's a conspiracy, I'd thought it would be that "there is no climate change".

I think big business didn't realise the implications of these research way back then so the cat was out of the bag and now they're trying to flood alternative opinions and "research", trying to neutralise the cat that's out of the bag.

I mean, who would benefit from clean and renewal energy? A few Chinese solar panel manufacturers, a couple of wind turbine guys in Europe, and a couple guys like Elon Musk. That and future generations and other species and a few Pacific islands but yea, that's all.

Who benefits from doing things the way it's being done?

Oil and coal miners and all the industries downstream from that; the insurance industry doesn't really mind as long as catastrophe doesn't occur too frequently - they can just jack up premiums between relatively minor disasters; the gasoline-based auto industry... then there's the large economies consuming massive amount of fossil fuel, whose utilities are based on fossil fuel, or who export these stuff and think it's good for humanity.


----------



## Logique

Maurice Newman provides a potted summary in the SMH, which presumably wants us to sneer and mock:  

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html

But Newman is a lot closer to the truth than Flim Flam.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> How many argumentative fallacies are you trying to add to your speciousness bas?
> 
> Knobby, purveyors of obnoxious and misrepresentative pejorative associative terms, vis a vis "denier", don't really deserve a place in intellectual debate.




Lots and LOT'S of big words there Wayne.  Do you you really understand what your saying or just like the sound of them ?

I was just having fun with the Flat Earth Society.  I suppose the interesting part is that there are a number of people who take this seriously and they can conjure up all sorts of arguments to back  up their beliefs.

If I chose to of course I could wander amongst those who believe the moon landings were faked, that President Obama  was born in Kenya, that the Holocaust was way overrated, that The Illuminati are everywhere.  And of course those that believe that the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists are fundamentally wrong or deliberately deceitful in their understanding of the way our climate works.

By the way have you anything to say about the research paper on the Antarctic ice shelf melting ?


----------



## Ferret

it annoys me that certain words in the English language are now deemed to be off-limits. 

If "deny" or "denier" are appropriate, why can't they be used?

I think that often people who claim they are being associated with holocaust denial are just playing the pc card.


----------



## wayneL

Bas the link wont load on my phone. 

But you, as one of he chief whiners about the tone of discussion, are playing the man.

Hypocritical.


----------



## wayneL

Ferret said:


> it annoys me that certain words in the English language are now deemed to be off-limits.
> 
> If "deny" or "denier" are appropriate, why can't they be used?
> 
> I think that often people who claim they are being associated with holocaust denial are just playing the pc card.




Mate, when the likes of Pielke Jnr and Curry are referred to as deniers, it stinks.

Unintellectual politicking at best.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> By the way have you anything to say about the research paper on the Antarctic ice shelf melting ?




Land ice or sea ice?



> Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.
> 
> There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses.  There are of course *uncertainties in the estimation methods* but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 ¿


----------



## basilio

> Land ice or sea ice?
> 
> Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.
> 
> There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses. There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.




The issue I was referring to wasn't simply the rate at which Antarctic ice might be melting.  It appears that the melting of the sea ice around  glaciers in West Antarctica will allow the whole of the inland glacier to slid into the ocean  and trigger a rise of many meters.

The scientists believe that there is almost no chance of the glaciers not disintegrating without the protection of the sea ice. Time span is uncertain but between 100-300 years.

The sea ice is melting because of substantially warmer water cause by global warming.



> *West Antarctic glacial collapse: What you need to know*
> By Terrence McCoy May 13, 2014
> 
> *Years from now, when scientists look for a precise moment when the Earth’s climate began to inexorably change, they may mark this week. Two separate studies Monday appeared to confirm a fear scientists have harbored for decades: major glaciers in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are irrevocably destabilized, and their slide into the ocean will swell the world’s oceans by four feet.*
> 
> Glaciers in West Antarctica “have passed the point of no return,” said Eric Rignot, the author of a study from the University of California at Irvine and NASA published in Geophysical Research Letters. It “will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come.”
> 
> Thomas P. Wagner, another NASA researcher who studies polar ice, was equally grave in an interview with the New York Times. “This is really happening,” he said. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”
> 
> What does this mean for the planet and the human species? Likely a lot.
> 
> Here are some critical questions and answers.
> 
> Q: Why is the collapse of an ice sheet so important?
> 
> A: The science of global warming comes down to ice. Though Earth’s warming, the planet is currently in an ice age, and great sheets of ice at the poles ”” think Greenland and Antarctica ”” have not always existed. In the past, sea levels were actually significantly higher than they are in this era’s environment, which allowed contemporary civilization to thrive.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rctic-glacial-collapse-what-you-need-to-know/


----------



## Ferret

wayneL said:


> Mate, when the likes of Pielke Jnr and Curry are referred to as deniers, it stinks.
> 
> Unintellectual politicking at best.




This isn't something I follow closely, so I had to google both those names.  It appears they both have opinions on climate science and have previously been called "deniers".  I have no idea whether that description is accurate for these two.

Nevertheless, the word is appropriate for the stance of some people. 

I object to the ridiculous situation where appropriate use of the language is howled down in the name of political correctness.


----------



## Tisme

Ferret said:


> I object to the ridiculous situation where appropriate use of the language is howled down in the name of political correctness.




In my recollection, it was only a short period starting in the seventies and ending in the eighties where people spoke reasonably freely without the expected rebuke or smack in the mouth. Thank goodness the internet came into its own very early 90's where we could discuss things with even more gusto and get over ourselves being insulted.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> I had some time to waste.... so I decided to check out the rationale of The Flat Earth  Society and and why it believes we have got it all wrong (ie the Earth is round) .




The world might appear round to humans, but how does it appear (for instance) to a fish? Similarly do those of us with stereo vision see things in a completely different way to those who are one eyed? 

Of course the earth is flat, you only need to use a spirit level to know that is true. How could a plumb bob be perpendicular to the ground if the earth wasn't flat? It's so simple.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> The issue I was referring to wasn't simply the rate at which Antarctic ice might be melting.  It appears that the melting of the sea ice around  glaciers in West Antarctica will allow the whole of the inland glacier to slid into the ocean  and trigger a rise of many meters.
> 
> The scientists believe that there is almost no chance of the glaciers not disintegrating without the protection of the sea ice. Time span is uncertain but between 100-300 years.
> 
> *The sea ice is melting because of substantially warmer water cause by global warming. *





Errrrmmmmmmmmm not quite old chum ......



> One must also be careful how you interpret trends in *Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years* but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. *Antarctic sea ice is gaining* because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:
> 
> i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).
> 
> and
> 
> ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well as an increase in meltwater coming from the edges of Antarctica's land ice (Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013). Together, these change the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

But but but NASA can't be wrong ?



> *Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year*, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.




http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum



> _“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”_




Alarming eh? Yes yes yes the ANTARCTIC LAND ICE is melting ... at the rate of 0.19mm ocean rise per year and expected to take several 1000's of years before complete meltdown at the current rate.

The ARCTIC is where the BIG defrosting is happening. Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).

Penguins in Antarctica, Polar bears in Arctic. Crazy world huh?


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Errrrmmmmmmmmm not quite old chum ......
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
> 
> But but but NASA can't be wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
> 
> 
> 
> Alarming eh? Yes yes yes the ANTARCTIC LAND ICE is melting ... at the rate of 0.19mm ocean rise per year and expected to take several 1000's of years before complete meltdown at the ate.
> 
> The ARCTIC is where the BIG defrosting is happening. Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).
> 
> Penguins in Antarctica, Polar bears in Arctic. Crazy world huh?




These accounts have been around for some time and in fact distort what is a very complex situation.   The amount of melt is increasing in the antarctic region and the amount of new ice and snow is increasing.   From the satellites the mass of ice/snow growth in the winter is huge but in summer it dissapears even more. 

Because of the small amount of warming we have an increase in volotility.   As we know,  warm air rises and the warmth creates increased cloud cover which in turn expands the blanket or if you like cover and therefore more rain,  snow and ice.   That is also the reason for the increased intensity of storms etc.,  nearer to the equator from both poles. 

The northern hemisphere experienced a very cold and intense winter just gone.   With the extreme cold across Victoria, where live,  and reports of this around the country we appear to be heading into a very cold and bleak winter. 

Antartica of course gets down to 60 below,  so a shift up the scale of a degree or two is not going to make a big difference there in appearance,  but this small amount of increased warmth looks like it is going to have a huge effect due this displacement effect. 

Meanwhile we still have record droughts in the inland and only this morning we have Tony Abbott discussing what relief can be provided for the record dry at Longreach in central Qld. 

The whole issue is so complex that few scietists can encompass it all, which of course opens the way for the finger-pointing and ridicule.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> The whole issue is so complex that few scietists can encompass it all, which of course opens the way for the finger-pointing and ridicule.




Which is why I quoted this:



> “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “*Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect.* One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”




basilio stated thusly:



> The issue I was referring to wasn't simply the rate at which Antarctic ice might be melting. It appears that the* melting of the sea ice* around glaciers in West Antarctica will allow the whole of the inland glacier to slid into the ocean and trigger a rise of many meters.
> 
> The scientists believe that there is almost no chance of the glaciers not disintegrating without the protection of the sea ice. Time span is uncertain but between 100-300 years.
> 
> *The sea ice is melting because of substantially warmer water cause by global warming. *




I was merely pointing out that his statement made the computer say ..... ERROR ! The land ice is melting, the sea ice is gaining. Not my words ... NASA evidence. Click on the link.

There is no doubt that some areas are getting colder and some areas are receiving less rainfall and some areas are getting hotter and some areas are getting wetter and some areas are getting windier and ... need I go on?

Is it because of Co2 ? I posted a picture of the Murray River drought in 1915 some time back. Maybe worth reminding a few that this has been going on for 1000's of years.







> Water was never more than two feet deep while we carted timber, and for a long time in autumn 1915 was perfectly dry, the river having stopped running in February or March.” Russell McDonald, Riversdale, Central Murray Valley




http://www.mythandthemurray.org/myths-about-the-murray/

An isolated example I know but taken in the broader sense of the topic we are discussing .... well let's not get carried away with oneself now shall we. In other words ... "Resisting climate hysteria" 

But what is this? 7000 years ago the sea level was 2 metres higher than today?



> It is often claimed in the popular press that Lake Alexandrina has been a freshwater lake for 7,000 years.[5]
> 
> In fact, the Lower Lakes formed when the Southern Ocean burst through a coastal dune formation flooding an areas of natural subsidence. This occurred between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago when sea levels were 1-2 metres higher than they are today.




http://www.mythandthemurray.org/myths-about-the-murray/

Did global warming cause that or did the tectonic plates shift and raise the countryside the 2 metres or so? If it is the latter, then what is to stop it happening again sometime in the future and all this worrisome talk about the sea level rising would be a pithy conversation to have.

Yes the "world" has gotten 1 degree hotter in 100 years of record keeping. Who cares? 7000 years ago we were 2 metres under water!!  Is it man made Co2 doing this? Probably adding to the effects we are experiencing in the weather pattern. Is it going to change if we suddenly stop producing Co2 ... probably not. Go and plant a tree and use photosynthesis to get rid of the stuff


----------



## trainspotter

Mathew 12.30: If you are not with me you are against me ...

*Govt seeks legal advice on Lomborg centre
*


> THE university ditched a $4 million contract for sceptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg's Australian Consensus Centre, amid strong backlash from staff, students and the public.
> Education Minister Christopher Pyne is disappointed and remains committed to opening the centre.
> 
> *"It is surprising that individuals at an institution of higher learning claiming to embrace the notion of academic and intellectual freedom would display intolerance and shout down a voice in the debate they simply don't agree with," *a spokesman told AAP on Saturday.




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...n-lomborg-centre/story-e6frfku9-1227348136562

All this because he dared to suggest the billions of dollars being spent on stopping Co2 would be better used to figure out how to manage living with Co2. Or is he more a voice of reason that the "Alarmists" do not approve of?



> In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better. That doesn’t mean global warming is not a reality or not a problem. It definitely is. But the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism, *which prevents us from focusing on smart solutions.*




http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

Maybe because he speaks with a modicum of truth in his words?



> Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the IEA expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040.
> 
> In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact.* Instead, we should focus on investing in research and development of green energy,* including new battery technology to better store and discharge solar and wind energy and lower its costs. We also need to invest in and promote growth in the world’s poorest nations, which suffer the most from natural disasters.




OOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR he does make sense afterall.



> *Climate-change doomsayers notwithstanding, we urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices and pick the right climate policy that can help humanity slow, and inevitably adapt to, climate change*.


----------



## trainspotter

Richard Branson is in retreat over comments he made in relation to the GBR .......



> “The massive industrialisation of the adjacent coastline for coal and gas ports is adding even more development pressures, including plans for dumping millions of tonnes of dredge waste into Reef waters.”
> 
> After being blasted by ministers and tourism operators and being contacted by The Courier-Mail, Sir Richard was in retreat last night, with a spokeswoman saying he had not been aware of the work being done on the Reef when he made the comments. She said Sir Richard was not aware at the time of posting of Australia’s $2 billion investment and was “greatly heartened’’ by this news.
> 
> “He is looking forward to speaking with (Federal Environment) Minister Greg Hunt in coming days to discuss the situation and the Government’s plans to protect the Reef,’’ she said.
> 
> Mr Hunt said the comments **surprised him given Sir Richard’s airline business was a major consumer of fuel, a contributor to climate change gases.* He said he had spoken to Virgin Australia boss John Borghetti and would speak to Sir Richard this week.
> 
> “John Borghetti was extremely apologetic,’’ Mr Hunt said. “Advice from Virgin Australia suggests that he may not have been given the full picture and it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t even know what was being posted.’’
> 
> Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators’ Col McKenzie said the outer reefs were in good shape. *“The Reef is not endangered but it is in danger from some activists who use it as a handle to fight against coal,” *he said. Attempts were made to contact the 1 Million Women group last night.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rier-reef-fracas/story-fnn8dlfs-1227349642075

Hysteria ?? You betcha it is ! Who is this group providing misinformation to Sir Richard?



> Our goal is to inspire 1 million women to take practical action on climate change by cutting a minimum of 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse pollutant causing global warming. Every woman who joins has a personal goal to cut a min 1 tonne of CO2 from their daily lives within a year of joining the campaign.




http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/our-movement/about-1-million-women/

How many of them are paid up actual members? 164,759 since 2009 = 27,460 members joining per annum. So therefore to obtain a million members will be 36 years and 3 months in the making OR the year 2042 to reach this magical goal. Virgin Airlines would have dumped over a million tonnes of Co2 in a day flying domestically at a suggested rate of carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per passenger kilometre for large jet airliners. 

Whoomp There It Is .... Hysteria at it's finest.



> EVERY ONE OF US WHO SWITCHES SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE *DIRTY ELECTRICITY COMPANIES* THAT WE WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT THEIR INVESTMENTS IN FOSSIL FUELS.
> 
> NOT investing in fossil fuels was enough for us but here are a whole lot of other reasons to support POWERSHOP -
> 
> They are the first and only carbon neutral electricity retailer and they offset 100% of the carbon associated with your electricity use at no extra cost to you.
> In 2014, Powershop was named Australia's greenest electricity retailer by Greenpeace.
> And Powershop:
> 
> Will cover your exit fees with your existing retailer (up to $75 per meter)
> Have no fixed contracts
> Have a mobile app to pay your bill on the go
> Make switching over quick and simple
> Are consistently ranked amongst the cheapest electricity providers
> *And if you switch, Powershop will make a small payment towards our campaigns to cut carbon pollution*




http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/campaigns/take-control-say-no-dirty-energy-companies-today/

Oh looky it is a business making money after all ...

http://www.climatefriendly.com/Personal/Calculators/AirTravel/

Calculate and PAY your way to being green and clean.


----------



## basilio

Global warming is increasing the temperatures of our oceans.  This is particularly significant around the Artic and Antarctic regions. What will be the consequences ?



> West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) - a slow motion collapse
> 
> The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula) has thinned significantly as a result of warmer temperatures in the surrounding Antarctic Ocean. The upper ocean in this region has increased in temperature by more than 1 °C since 1955. The greatest degree of thinning has happened in an area called the Amundsen Sea Embayment.
> 
> Many glaciers have retreated and 10 ice shelves have been seen to retreat in recent years. 87% of glaciers along the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have retreated in the last 50 years with most of these showing accelerated retreat in the last 12 years.
> 
> Recently (May 2014) it has been revealed that the WAIS is collapsing, an event that seems to be unstoppable. It will still take a very long time to happen however, several centuries or perhaps up to 1,000 years.
> 
> The key area is the 182,000 square km (70,000 sq miles) Thwaites Glacier which is being undercut by warmer water from the Amundsen Sea resulting in its retreat. The water is being driven by changes in wind patterns in this part of Antarctica. The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier alone could lead to a 1.2m (4ft) rise in global se levels, though the biggest effect is likely to come from it acting as an "ice dam" a sort of cork in a bottle of the rest of the WAIS behind it. This could lead to another 3-4m (10-13ft) rise in sea level.
> 
> The collapse of the glacier and rise in sea levels is thought to progress slowly for about two hundred years, but then it probably will speed up considerably. *It is thought that there may be two stable states for the WAIS, as it is at the moment (or rather as it was about 50 years ago) and then for it not to be there at all, currently it is undergoing a change between the two states. From 1992 to 2011, the Thwaites Glacier retreated around 14 km, faster than anywhere else in Antarctica.
> 
> The end result of this is the possibility that we have already been committed to a rise in global sea levels by 3m or more over the coming centuries*.




http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/global_warming.php

How are the warmer oceans causing this break up of the glaciers?
Check out this URL

http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PIG.ai_.jpg
http://www.livescience.com/39606-me..._medium=most-popular&li_campaign=related_test



> Warm Water Under Antarctic Glacier Spurs Rapid Melting




I opened the discussion on what is happening with Antarctic Glaciers because it is one of the clearest indicators that the current effects of increases in global temperatures already threaten to raise our sea levels  by 1-3 metres in the next 200 plus years.  That may seem like a long way away - but  as a simultaneous threat to most of the biggest cities in the world  can we afford to simply ignore it ?

By the way Train Spotter the section you quoted from Sckeptical Science website regarding increases in ocean levels from melting Antarctic ice did not take into account the above research.


----------



## basilio

I just found an excellent video which explains why scientists now believe the some of the Antarctic glaciers are in irreversible collapse. 
Check it out



> *ScienceCasts: No Turning Back - West Antarctic Glaciers in Irreversible Decline *



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2pYHMx5bN8#t=122


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> By the way Train Spotter the section you quoted from Sckeptical Science website regarding increases in ocean levels from melting Antarctic ice did not take into account the above research.




Ermmmmmm not quite bas ....



> *Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming. *
> 
> The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.




You would never guess from where?  http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

I was pointing out that you claimed the SEA ICE was melting. It is in FACT gaining or is NASA wrong?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

But what about this bas?



> The ocean doesn’t rise steadily like water poured into a bathtub — instead there are splashes and jiggles in its rise. Weather patterns like El Niño can shove tens of centimeters of water up onto shores for months at a time, as they did in California in 1998.* Floods in Australia in late 2010 strangely resulted in water piling up on that continent, robbing the oceans of enough water to lower global sea level by 7 millimeters for more than a year*. While the ocean grows, the land also shifts: The ground rises where it was once pressed down by glaciers, and river deltas sink as loose sediments compact. What looks like sea level rise in one place might really be the result of the land falling




http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/

Or this?



> One problem has been attributing what, exactly, has caused the rise seen so far. Since the 1970s, for example, it is thought that about 40 to 50 percent of sea level rise was caused by 'thermal expansion' — the fact that water simply takes up more room as it gets warmer; *35 percent by melting glaciers*; 5 percent because people have been extracting groundwater, using it, and pouring it into the ocean; *and the remaining amount probably from melting ice at the poles.* The primary reason this accounting is tricky is spotty data: Satellite measures of ocean height only go back to 1993, for example, and of the world’s more than 100,000 glaciers, there are only 17 with melt records going back 30 years or more. *"We have to make huge assumptions," *says Chambers.




No one is suggesting it be ignored basilio. More along the lines of careful consideration.



> These so-called 'semi-empirical' models tend to top out twice as high as the 'process-based' models, making 2 meters of sea level rise feasible for 2100 — enough to flood the homes of 187 million people. *But the IPCC says it doesn’t have much confidence in these results.* "They’re interesting," says Chambers, "but I don’t think they should be given as much weight as the process-based models."




Sums it up nicely ...



> No matter which way you look at it, the result is cause for concern. "I always tell people if they live under 3 feet above sea level, they should be worried about the next 100 years," says Chambers. "We probably can adapt to a certain extent. The problem is that we’re not planning for it."




So in closing I am suggesting we behave more like squirrels and start planning for the winter 

I said this 







> Alarming eh? Yes yes yes the ANTARCTIC LAND ICE is melting ... at the rate of 0.19mm ocean rise per year and expected to take several 1000's of years before complete meltdown at the current rate.




Meaning that the ANTARCTIC LAND ICE is contributing the sea level to rise .19mm per year. The REST is from water expansion from the oceans being heated, groundwater being extracted, land slippage, weather effects etc ad infinitum.


----------



## basilio

We are clearly talking at cross purposes Trainspotter.

*I brought up one particular study (which encompasses many years research work) What is happening to the glaciers in Antarctica.
*
As I pointed out scientists can demonstrate they are melting at an accelerating rate. They can show that this is caused by warner ocean waters undercutting the  sea ice which merges into the  glaciers.

They can also "look through" the ice and see that there is no geographical way to stop the glaciers accelerating into the sea in the next 200/300 plus years.  They seem to be gone (short of a  sudden massive ice age I suppose)

And when they go the sea levels rise between 1.5 to 4 metres depending on how much of the glaciers collapse.

Did you check out the research in any way or just recopy your last notes

_______________________________________________________________________________

The other points you raise are distractions TS.  If you can find some Luke Warmer who can  demonstrate that this research is fundamentally wrong go for it.


PS

By the way that was an excellent article from Yale university. When one reads it in full it offers (in my view) a good overall picture. 

I noticed that one of the big questions marks in the article was the behavior of Antarctic glaciers.  They just wern't prepared to commit to a final outcome. And if you noticed that towards the end of the discussion scientists who worked with the ice fields believed sea level rises would be significantly higher than other scientists. Clearly that represents their understanding of what  may be happening.


> When two dozen ice experts were surveyed in 2012, their best guesses for polar ice loss were all over the map — but their average was higher than the IPCC’s estimates, and their range easily put sea level rise over a meter by 2100. For a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, for example, this group guessed at a sea level rise of 33 to 132 centimeters; the upper bound of that is roughly in line with semi-empiricalmodels, but nearly double the IPCC’s most recent estimate (which allows, to be fair, tens of centimeters of wiggle room for possible dramatic ice sheet flow from the Antarctic). "The [IPCC’s latest] AR5 process-based projections appear optimistic and over-confident when compared with views of ice sheet experts," writes glaciologist Aslak Grinsted of the University of Copenhagen on his website. There is "no good reason" for this, he adds.




And some of the final thoughts of that article?



> This debate about whether there will be 1 or 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, however, pales in comparison to the numbers for the long-term outlook. The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today. It’s likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions. "The bigger concern is the longer term," agrees Scambos. "By the end of this century the rate of change in Greenland will be so high that the next hundred years will be dialed in for significant sea level rise."


----------



## basilio

TS on rechecking the Sceptical Science website  article I realised that their discussion on sea level rises was essentially *looking at what has occurred in the past 150 odd years*. It was written in response to people who have denied that there has been any increases at all.



It isn't useful in terms of discussing what would be the effects of a collapse in the Antarctic glaciers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> We are clearly talking at cross purposes Trainspotter.
> 
> *I brought up one particular study (which encompasses many years research work) What is happening to the glaciers in Antarctica.
> *
> 
> And when they go the sea levels rise between 1.5 to 4 metres depending on how much of the glaciers collapse.
> 
> Did you check out the research in any way or just recopy your last notes
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> The other points you raise are distractions TS.  If you can find some Luke Warmer who can  demonstrate that this research is fundamentally wrong go for it.




Sorry to be so duplicitous basilio that was not my intention. Of course I have looked at your "one particular study" and have not denigrated it in any way. Just like all the other fanciful claims by these scientists it is to be taken with a pinch of salt and a wary eye cast over these claims.



> Multiple studies of Antarctica indicate growing ice sheet instability, especially in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, where the Thwaites, Pine Island, Smith, Kohler, Pope, and Haynes Glaciers drain the central West Antarctic Ice Sheet. A study using Earth Remote Sensing satellite radar interferometry (EERS-1 and -2) observations from 1992 through 2011 finds "a continuous and rapid retreat of the grounding lines of Pine Island, Thwaites, Haynes, Smith, and Kohler" Glaciers, and the authors conclude that *"this sector of West Antarctica is undergoing a marine ice sheet instability that will significantly contribute to sea level rise in decades to centuries to come"* (Rignot et al. 2014). Bedrock mapping combined with a numerical model shows that early-stage ice sheet collapse is potentially underway in the Thwaites Glacier Basin, largely driven by subshelf melt. *The model forecasts that rapid collapse could occur within 200 to 900 years* (Joughin et al. 2014).




https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html

I was merely pointing out that your grab bag of statements were not in all cases factual. Nothing more and nothing less. If anything I am agreeing with you but on a more moderate level. There are too many "factors" to be taken into consideration (as I have pointed out by many scientists)

Which is why I quoted this:-



> “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said.* “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. *One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”




Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (or is she wrong as well?)

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/07oct_antarcticseaice/

Your scientist claims 100-200 years and mine claim between 200-900 years. So which one is it?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS on rechecking the Sceptical Science website  article I realised that their discussion on sea level rises was essentially *looking at what has occurred in the past 150 odd years*. It was written in response to people who have denied that there has been any increases at all.
> View attachment 62544
> 
> 
> It isn't useful in terms of discussing what would be the effects of a collapse in the Antarctic glaciers.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm




Clearly you do not understand the written word. I have been agreeing with you all along but on a moderate scale. If you look at the graph it shows that the sea has risen by 19cm since 1870. Note that this is PRE industrialisation period and lasts until 1930. The upward trend continues to present day. FACT. 

The ANTARCTIC LAND ICE is contributing about .19mm per annum in sea level rises due to it MELTING. FACT. The rest is from other sources equating to about 3.1mm per year 

If you are going to tell a story at least get the FACTS right !!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> PS
> 
> By the way that was an excellent article from Yale university. When one reads it in full it offers (in my view) a good overall picture.
> 
> I noticed that one of the big questions marks in the article was the behavior of Antarctic glaciers. * They just wern't prepared to commit to a final outcome.* And if you noticed that towards the end of the discussion scientists who worked with the ice fields believed sea level rises would be significantly higher than other scientists. Clearly that represents their understanding of what  may be happening.




Yeah the Yale article is probably about the most fair minded and FACTUAL missive out there at the moment.

But no one has more info then the Australian government about Antarctica right? Afterall we have been going there for over 50 years performing research:-



> The West Antarctic Ice Sheet forms what is called a marine ice sheet – the ice is resting on bedrock, but that bedrock is below sea level. (Parts of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are also below sea level).
> 
> Where the bedrock under a marine ice sheet slopes down towards the interior of the continent, such as under parts of West Antarctica, the ice sheet may be unstable. If the coastal part of the ice sheet flows more rapidly and thins (e.g. in response to ice shelf changes), it will start to float. This reduces the forces restraining the ice sheet, which is then able to flow even more rapidly. This will drain more ice from further inland, thinning the ice sheet upstream, which may also start to float. With bedrock that slopes backwards, becoming deeper towards the interior, continued retreat of the boundary of the grounded ice sheet may proceed very rapidly. In this way, a small initial retreat could in theory destabilize large sections of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, leading to rapid ice loss.* However, uncertainty remains around how likely this process is and how much it might affect sea level rise by 2100.*




http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-.../climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

Or this is the statement that kills it for me:-



> The IPCC AR5 states that, based on a wide range of emission scenarios, sea level rise from thermal expansion of the ocean, melt of glaciers and small ice caps, and from Greenland and Antarctica, would be in the range 0.26 to 0.82 m by 2081–2100.
> 
> Estimating extra sea level rise from a further acceleration of outlet glaciers is not straightforward. Processes such as those controlling basal sliding of glaciers (where water at the bed of the glacier lubricates it and allows it to move more rapidly) are not well understood.
> 
> *IPCC AR5 concluded that only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st Century, and that this additional contribution would not exceed several tenths of a metre of sea level rise during the 21st Century*.


----------



## basilio

It is interesting to see the IPCC's view on the risks and consequences of a collapse of the Antarctic ice  sheet.

As I understand it  is largely a consensus document that requires many governments to agree on the final report. Frankly I think  that quote is ridiculous 



> Estimating extra sea level rise from a further acceleration of outlet glaciers is not straightforward. Processes such as those controlling basal sliding of glaciers (where water at the bed of the glacier lubricates it and allows it to move more rapidly) are not well understood.
> 
> IPCC AR5 concluded that only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st Century, and that this additional contribution would not exceed several tenths of a metre of sea level rise during the 21st Century.




It just doesn't  measure up to the understanding that glaciologists now have. You have to wonder who nobbled them and at what stage the IPCC  fully acknowledges what the experts in the field are saying...
that the glaciers are collapsing  and that the final result ( 200-plus years on) will be sea level rises that make many of our biggest cities uninhabitable. This is a tipping  point

The attached analysis explores this in more detail as well as examining a number of other tipping points that if they occur will cause rapid  runaway global warming.


> * Scientists Fear Irreversible Changes from West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse*
> 
> Most projections of climate change presume that impacts will happen incrementally as greenhouse gas pollution increases and temperatures warm. However, scientists are increasingly studying the presence of “tipping points” in the climate. Pushing global temperatures past these thresholds can trigger irreversible changes even if we do not add any further CO2 to the atmosphere. These changes may be abrupt or may take hundreds of years, but once the threshold is passed they cannot be reversed.
> 
> The longer we continue with business-as-usual emissions of greenhouse gas pollution, the greater the risk that we will push parts of our climate system past these tipping points. Now, two new studies (Cole et al. and Joughin et al.) of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) show that we may have already passed a tipping point of crucial importance to the stability of this massive ice sheet.




http://climatenexus.org/learn/planetary-systems/ice-sheet-tipping-points


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> It is interesting to see the IPCC's view on the risks and consequences of a collapse of the Antarctic ice  sheet.
> 
> As I understand it  is largely a consensus document that requires many governments to agree on the final report. Frankly I think  that quote is ridiculous




I dare say after the IPPC made some pretty ridiculous claims in the past about global warming they are offering a more "moderate" approach.



> The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, *which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.*
> 
> According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.
> 
> Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg6n6-1226719672318


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> I dare say after the IPPC made some pretty ridiculous claims in the past about global warming they are offering a more "moderate" approach.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg6n6-1226719672318





More evidence is coming out about a conspiracy by the UN climate Change committee......Ban-ki-Moon and Al Gore are good Greenie mates.....The IPPC have certainly been caught out just like Tim Flannery here in Australia 


http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/global-warming-is-a-hoax-conspiracy-theories.html


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> More evidence is coming out about a conspiracy by the UN climate Change committee......Ban-ki-Moon and Al Gore are good Greenie mates.....The IPPC have certainly been caught out just like Tim Flannery here in Australia
> 
> http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/global-warming-is-a-hoax-conspiracy-theories.html









> The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era ”” and of human civilization. Most of these *climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit* that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
> 
> The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is *very likely h*uman-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.




http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## basilio

Well TS it looks as if we are in (relatively) furious agreement..!!

I'm delighted to see you using NASA documents in your discussion. Obviously it's important to look at everything that is said rather than just selectively choosing a particular sentence or paragraph.

In that context I thought your last post was particularly even handed.

On the one hand NASA identified  some (not all) climate changes in the past as occurring as a result of changes in the earths orbit. Spot on and  now universally accepted

But for the crunch for the current situation is the final comment which says 







> *what we are experiencing now is most likely to be human caused and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1300 years.*




So we go back to the the core questions I raised with particular regard to the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelfs

1) Is it reasonable to say that global warming is NOT creating very serious problems? 
2) Why would we risk even further damage to our ecosystems by not reducing greenhouse gases which are most likely to be the cause of this warming ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Well TS it looks as if we are in (relatively) furious agreement..!!
> 
> I'm delighted to see you using NASA documents in your discussion. Obviously it's important to look at everything that is said rather than just selectively choosing a particular sentence or paragraph.
> 
> In that context I thought your last post was particularly even handed.
> 
> On the one hand NASA identified  some (not all) climate changes in the past as occurring as a result of changes in the earths orbit. Spot on and  now universally accepted
> 
> But for the crunch for the current situation is the final comment which says
> 
> So we go back to the the core questions I raised with particular regard to the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelfs
> 
> 1) Is it reasonable to say that global warming is NOT creating very serious problems?
> 2) Why would we risk even further damage to our ecosystems by not reducing greenhouse gases which are most likely to be the cause of this warming ?




I have been quoting NASA since August 2013? 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

And CSIRO since 2012?

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

I think it was around post #4806 on the 8th-November-2013 09:20 AM that I posted up the countries that have signed up for the Kyoto protocol. I also elucidated to you that it is fine to be concerned about global warming BUT it don't mean a thing if China, India, USA do not adhere to the targets. 



> China is poised to overtake the United States as the main cause of man-made global warming since 1990, the benchmark year for U.N.-led action, in a historic shift that may raise pressure on Beijing to act.




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/us-climatechange-china-idUSKBN0N411H20150413



> The lead players are China and India. China is the world’s largest emitter, contributing nearly a quarter of current global emissions. With India it accounted for 83% of the worldwide increase in carbon emissions in 2000-11. Th




http://www.economist.com/news/books...-problem-they-are-essential-any-solution-take

There has never been a dispute that global warming is NOT creating very serious problems? The serious problem is to get the big 3 to stop polluting !!! And all the alarming and wailing and glaciers melting won't mean jack **** until this happens. 

The problem that I have is the WASTE of money (billions spent on quangos) think Bernie Fraser sooking it up cause he had 6.2 million dollars taken away form his little fiefdom on Climate Change rort. Think 23.5 million dollars just to RENT a building to house all these minions to tell us that we are destroying the planet .......  REALLY ??? Like we didn't know already. Like Al Gore making millions out of carbon credit trading but pretending to be clean and green. PFFFFFFFFFFFTtttttttttttttttttt now that is what I am talking about.



> Surprise! Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both principals  at Generation Investment Management (GIM), warn in their October 30 Wall Street Journal op/ed feature of peril to fossil fuel investments due to “The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble”. They argue that such “unwise and increasingly wreck less” investment strategies  pose three broad risks which will cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose economic value: through direct government carbon regulation; as a result of market-share losses to “already competitive” renewable technologies; and due to “sociopolitical pressures” causing carbon-intensive businesses to lose their “license to operate"




http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> I have been quoting NASA since August 2013?
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
> 
> And CSIRO since 2012?
> 
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
> 
> I think it was around post #4806 on the 8th-November-2013 09:20 AM that I posted up the countries that have signed up for the Kyoto protocol. I also elucidated to you that it is fine to be concerned about global warming BUT it don't mean a thing if China, India, USA do not adhere to the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/us-climatechange-china-idUSKBN0N411H20150413
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/books...-problem-they-are-essential-any-solution-take
> 
> There has never been a dispute that global warming is NOT creating very serious problems? The serious problem is to get the big 3 to stop polluting !!! And all the alarming and wailing and glaciers melting won't mean jack **** until this happens.
> 
> The problem that I have is the WASTE of money (billions spent on quangos) think Bernie Fraser sooking it up cause he had 6.2 million dollars taken away form his little fiefdom on Climate Change rort. Think 23.5 million dollars just to RENT a building to house all these minions to tell us that we are destroying the planet .......  REALLY ??? Like we didn't know already. Like Al Gore making millions out of carbon credit trading but pretending to be clean and green. PFFFFFFFFFFFTtttttttttttttttttt now that is what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/
> 
> View attachment 62557




TP, the alarmist won't give up no matter what you throw up at them.

If there is drought, it is AGW.
If it is flood it is is AGW
If there is a cyclone, it is AGW.
It it is hot, it is AGW.
If it is extreme cold, it is AGW.
If the ice around Antarctica is getting thicker, it AGW. 

The only thing they have not blamed AGW on is Earth Quakes and Volcanoes but it is wonder they haven't.

If their predictions made 10 years ago are wrong, they will still persist on the AGW or I should say Climate Change....I really believe people are becoming so tired of all this garbage.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> If their predictions made 10 years ago are wrong, they will still persist on the AGW or I should say Climate Change....I really believe people are becoming so tired of all this garbage.




A load of generalisations.   The displacement from the poles due to increasing temperature have not been rebutted and certainly confirmed by the huge changes in weather. 

For the fourth time noco,  have you read the "Sixth Extinction"  yet.  It gives clear scientific references to what is natural change over most of the earth's history.


----------



## trainspotter

Climate Change and the 2015 Budget:-



> $100 million extra over four years for the government's Reef Trust for water quality projects on the Great Barrier Reef
> Climate Change Authority's funding extended for two years by $6.1 million while it reviews Australia's climate polices
> Direct Action funding continues as forecast last year with $1.5 billion for the next four years.
> 
> The reef receives extra money as the government tries to avoid an in-danger listing by UNESCO. But it will accommodate this through savings elsewhere – including $73 million from the Green Army. Funding continues for Direct Action, and the Climate Change Authority – slated for abolition – has new funds. Less fortunate was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which is still set for abolition.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...iveminute-budget-summary-20150512-1mzhu0.html

Oh looky we have our own environment website telling us we are achieving our targets of 5% 



> The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centrepiece of the Government’s climate action policy. It will work with other incentives under the Direct Action Plan to help meet Australia’s target of reducing emissions by five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020




http://www.environment.gov.au/clean-air

Adapt or Die (or is it called evolution?):-



> The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) works to support decision makers throughout Australia as they prepare for and manage the risks of climate change and sea-level rise. NCCARF is hosted by Griffith University, Queensland.
> 
> The Australian Government has committed $9 million over three years (2014-17) to NCCARFto continue its important work.
> 
> Local governments seek guidance on how to deal with long-term planning issues. NCCARF has commenced a three-year project to address the needs of adaptation decision makers and practitioners, especially in the coastal zone, as they deal with projected impacts such as more frequent and more intense heatwaves, increasing risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, and increasing coastal erosion.




http://www.environment.gov.au/clima...e-change-adaptation-program/research-facility

The polar ice caps are melting ... MEH. The world is about to explode:-

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html

But that is a good thing for Climate Change:-



> Observational and modelling studies (e.g. Kelly & Sear, 1984; Sear et al., 1987) of the likely effect of recent volcanic eruptions suggest that an individual eruption may cause a global cooling of up to 0.3 °C, with the effects lasting 1 to 2 years. Such a cooling event has been observed in the global temperature record in the aftermath of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991.
> 
> Major eruptions have been relatively infrequent this century, so the long-term influence has been slight. The possibility that large eruptions might, during historical and prehistorical times, have occurred with greater frequency, generating long-term cooling, cannot, however, be dismissed. In order to investigate this possibility, long, complete and well-dated records of past volcanic activity are needed. One of the earliest and most comprehensive series is the Dust Veil Index (DVI) of Lamb (1970), which includes eruptions from 1500 to 1900. When combined with series of acidity measurements in ice cores (due to the presence of sulphuric acid aerosols), they can provide valuable indicators of past eruptions. Using these indicators, a statistical association between volcanic activity and global temperatures *during the past millennia* has been found (Hammer et al., 1980). *Episodes of relatively high volcanic activity (1250 to 1500 and 1550 to 1700) occur within the period known as the Little Ice Age,* whilst the Medieval Warm Period (1100 to 1250) can be linked with a period of lower activity.




http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/2-6-3.php

*Climate Change Funding slashed by half in Hockey 2015 Budget !!*



> Climate spending will drop dramatically from $1.35 billion in 2014-15, to less than half this amount, with just $550 million expected to be spent in 2018-19 on reducing Australia’s carbon emissions.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bu...uts-and-spending/story-fni0cms3-1227352366043


----------



## Logique

Lattes are being spilled everywhere, Carbon Cate has decided to go and be frightfully artistic in a country which uses (yes) nuclear power!   

And those are bang-up kiddie names, they won't get beaten up in the school yard at all. 



> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/lif...relationships-with-women-20150513-gh0bc8.html
> ..When asked to confirm whether she had had past relationships with women, she said: "Yes. Many times."......Blanchett and Upton have three boys - Dashiell, 13, Roman, 10 and Ignatius, 6...


----------



## ghotib

A Libertarian case for action on climate. 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8603543/conservatives-climate-change] is a summary of a two part interview with Jerry Taylor, head of a new US Libertarian organisation called the Niskanen Center.  

Part 1: http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/858827...nced-this-libertarian-to-support-a-carbon-tax

Part 2: http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8594727/conservative-carbon-tax 

Two key points from the summary article:


> 1) Financial markets deal with risks like climate change all the time.
> 
> We know there’s a risk ”” we don’t know how big the risk is, we’re not entirely sure about all of the parameters, but we know it’s there. And we know it’s a low-probability, high-impact risk. So what do we do about that in our financial markets? Well, if it’s a nondiversifiable risk, we know that people pay plenty of money to avoid it.
> 
> 2) The right's thought leaders are beginning to shift away from the GOP's denialism.
> 
> _f you put together a roster of the smartest right-of-center or libertarian thought leaders ... you see far more support for doing something in a market-oriented direction to address climate change than you see denial. In fact, you see very little denial.
> _


----------



## noco

These pathetic climate change alarmists will stop at nothing to deny other opinions opposed to Global warming or climate change..
The Alarmists are losing traction of their garbage and are now becoming desperate.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1431724083723

*Bjorn Lomborg on the despicable campaign by group-thinking academics to shut down his proposed centre at the University of Western Australia:

    Opponents of free debate are celebrating. Last week, under pressure from climate-change activists, the University of Western Australia cancelled its contract to host a planned research centre, Australia Consensus, intended to apply economic cost-benefit analysis to development projects — giving policymakers a tool to ensure their aid budgets are spent wisely. *


----------



## explod

noco said:


> These pathetic climate change alarmists will stop at nothing to deny other opinions opposed to Global warming or climate change..
> The Alarmists are losing traction of their garbage and are now becoming desperate..




How can you oppose something that is a fact? 

Have you read the "Sixth Extinction"  yet noco?  Prompt 5


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> How can you oppose something that is a fact?
> 
> Have you read the "Sixth Extinction"  yet noco?  Prompt 5




Fact?

 The only "facts" are observed phenomena Plod. All else is prediction, opinion and speculation..... and politics. 

The facts as they stand support a middle level of concern; a mix of positives and negatives, adaptation over mitigation. 

The only thing in threat of extinction from climate change (or alarmism thereof) is personal liberty in favour of Orwellian collectivism.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Fact?
> 
> The only "facts" are observed phenomena Plod. All else is prediction, opinion and speculation..... and politics.
> 
> The facts as they stand support a middle level of concern; a mix of positives and negatives, adaptation over mitigation.
> 
> The only thing in threat of extinction from climate change (or alarmism thereof) is personal liberty in favour of Orwellian collectivism.




I fully agree waynel and I place emphasis on the United Nations politics.

It is a hoax and a scam and more people are waking up to their scheme.

The Alarmist have made so many incorrect predictions and it is all starting to back fire on them.


----------



## noco

Global warming????????????????????..what Global warming are we talking about......Climate change....sure we have climate change every year and the year after that...Sure climate change is real...we all know that including the alarmists.

But alas the charts on the link reveals the truth and the Alarmist must surely be ashamed of the propaganda they spew out every day.

Why don't they just give up this scam...It is absolute rubbish.

Chris Bowen is going to bring back the Carbon dioxide tax......Good news...


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/chris_bowen_announces_dont_vote_for_labor/


----------



## Tisme

I wonder if there is any detail about the mass of ice in the Artic, rather than merely the area? Surely two NASA satellites working in tandem could map a three dimensional trend... rather than the one that is being used by protagonists to claim victory over antagonists.

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


----------



## trainspotter

Are you talking the land ice or the sea ice? Are you asking for the actual land mass or the total region?

What is the Arctic?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html

*The Arctic* consists of the Arctic Ocean and parts of Alaska (United States), Canada, Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. The Arctic region consists of a vast ocean with a seasonally varying ice cover, surrounded by treeless permafrost

Or are you talking about the actual "thickness" ?



> The data indicate that Arctic sea ice thickness in the spring of 2015 is about 25 centimeters (10 inches) thicker than in 2013. Ice more than 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) thick is found off the coast of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago, and scattered regions of 3-meter (10 feet) thick ice extend across the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Elsewhere, most of the ice is 1.5 to 2.0 meters (4.9 to 6.6 feet) thick, typical for first-year ice at the end of winter.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This is the trouble with being non specific when it comes to "climate change" (or "climate observance")  Parts of Antarctica and the Arctic region are building ice whilst parts are losing ice. Go figure. Something to do with wind and sea currents and ozone layers and volcanoes and which political party you belong to and how you can make money out of it with carbon credits and  lotsa other tricky stuff if you have only one point of view.


----------



## Tisme

Thanks for that. Yeah I just wanted to know if the gross ice mass in the artic is less or more.


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> Thanks for that. Yeah I just wanted to know if the gross ice mass in the artic is less or more.




Good question and there is direct research on the topic. Check out teh following URls.
One point worth highlighting however from the research.



> *]Perspective: Ice Loss and Energy*
> 
> It takes energy to melt sea ice. How much energy? The energy required to melt the 16,400 Km3 of ice that are lost every year (1979-2010 average) from April to September as part of the natural annual cycle is about 5 x 1021 Joules. For comparison, the U.S. Energy consumption for 2009 (www.eia.gov/totalenergy) was about 1 x 1020 J. So it takes about the 50 times the annual U.S. energy consumption to melt this much ice every year. This energy comes from the change in the distribution of solar radiation as the earth rotates around the sun.
> 
> To melt the additional 280 km3 of sea ice, the amount we have have been losing on an annual basis based on PIOMAS calculations, it takes roughly 8.6 x 1019 J or 86% of U.S. energy consumption.



http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/



> *
> Third dimension: new tools for sea ice thickness*
> May 6, 2015
> 
> As winter turns to spring, the seasonal decline in Arctic sea ice kicks into gear. April was marked by rapid ice loss at the beginning and end of the month. Air temperatures were higher than average over much of the Arctic Ocean. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent was the highest seen in April in the satellite record. This month we introduce data sets and online tools from new sensors that””combined with older sources””provide a more complete picture of ice thickness changes across the Arctic.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## basilio

There is another research paper out on another glacier site in Antarctica that is looking dodgy 


> 'Stable' Antarctic ice sheet may have started collapsing, scientists say
> *
> Southern Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet losing ice 8,500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza every year, satellite data shows*
> Antarctica’s ice loss
> 
> Karl Mathiesen
> 
> Friday 22 May 2015 04.00 AEST
> 
> 
> A vast slab of Antarctic ice that was previously stable may have started to collapse, according to new analysis of satellite data.
> 
> Research published in the journal Science on Thursday found the Southern Antarctic Peninsula (SAP) ice sheet is losing ice into the ocean at a rate of 56 gigatons each year – about 8,500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza. This adds around 0.16mm per year to the global sea level.
> 
> The sheet’s thickness has remained stable since satellite observations began in 1992. But Professor Jonathan Bamber of Bristol university, who co-authored the study, said that around 2009 it very suddenly began to thin by an average of 42cm each year. Some areas had fallen by up to 4m.
> 
> *“It hasn’t been going up, it hasn’t been going down – until 2009. Then it just seemed to pass some kind of critical threshold and went over a cliff and it’s been losing mass at a pretty much constant, rather large, rate,” said Bamber.
> *



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...et-may-have-started-collapsing-scientists-say


----------



## Tisme

The other question I have is does anyone know what the ice temperature is and if it's currently heat soaking until it eventually melts? I'm guessing Nasa would have some kind of imagery.

I remember pre frost free fridges when the whole freezer would have gobs of ice around the walls, but the only place that dense ice resided was on the actual coil, the rest was just fluff and bubble which melted really quickly with the door left open. I'm wondering how much of that is what is being counted as seasonal loss and gain


----------



## basilio

Tisme if you check out the second last post you will find the information regarding how much energy it takes to melt the ice.  It is considerable.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Global Warming , sorry Climate Change finally explained.


----------



## basilio

Ijustnewit said:


> Global Warming , sorry Climate Change finally explained.
> 
> View attachment 62674




You are clearly  wasting TOO MUCH TIME on ASF!!

Go and defrost that poor fridge.


----------



## trainspotter

> *1) Be very, very wary of China's energy statistics*
> 
> This caveat deserves to go up high. Glen Peters, a researcher at the University of Oslo, pointed out that China's coal consumption numbers are notoriously unreliable, and often get revised significantly years later.
> 
> Case in point: back in the late 1990s, China announced it was shuttering a bunch of smaller, illegal coal mines, and early estimates suggested that nationwide coal use dropped 20 percent in 1998. But it turned out that those coal mines didn't actually close, they just stopped reporting their numbers to the government. When BP reviewed the data years later, it turned out that China's coal use hadn't dropped at all in 1998:




http://www.vox.com/2015/5/22/8645455/china-emissions-coal-drop



> Ever since 2000, China's CO2 emissions have been rising at a relentless pace, as the country rocketed itself out of poverty by burning billions of tons of coal for electricity, heat, and industry. China is now the world's biggest CO2 emitter, getting two-thirds of its energy from coal, and officials have long assumed emissions would keep rising until 2030 or so. It's a big reason global warming forecasts look so dire.




So until China gets on the Green wagon there aint much gonna happen on the ole temperature rising issue.


----------



## basilio

That was a very informative story regarding China's CO2 emissions TS.

On full reading it seems that China is making  a big effort to reduce its coal emissions. These are as much to reduce the air pollution which is now catastrophic in many cities. In the end the need to reduce CO2  emissions to stabilize global warming and make air breathable in many cities will be the drivers.


> But that's slowly changing. China is setting aggressive targets for clean energy, and the government has been cracking down on smog and other more conventional air pollutants, which entails steps like closing all the coal plants around Beijing by 2017. That suggests cleaner energy could start to cut into coal's growth in the years ahead.
> 
> Depending on how these various factors shake out, Houser says, most analysts expect that China's overall coal use will peak somewhere between 2018 and 2025. So even if this year's drop does prove something of a blip, coal consumption isn't expected to keep rising forever.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> That was a very informative story regarding China's CO2 emissions TS.
> 
> On full reading it seems that China is making  a big effort to reduce its coal emissions. These are as much to reduce the air pollution which is now catastrophic in many cities. In the end the need to reduce CO2  emissions to stabilize global warming and make air breathable in many cities will be the drivers.




Scary to think that a wet 2014 caused China to burn less coal as the hydro facilities were running full steam (pun intended) enough to reduce the Co2 emissions to the similar value of the whole of the UK's output in one year which was less than a 5% reduction in total of China's emissions !!


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Scary to think that a wet 2014 caused China to burn less coal as the hydro facilities were running full steam




That would be full gate, not full steam.... 

The thing about hydro is that if you've got decent storage then you can certainly overproduce in any given year or even for a few years if there's enough stored water. But you can't do it forever, at some point outflows and inflows must balance otherwise the lake dries up.

Hydro - except in a flood big enough to actually fill and spill the dams, output is _energy_ constrained. That is, it's limited by long term average inflows. 

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear - under normal circumstances generation is, in the medium term at least, limited by capacity of the power stations. That is, under normal circumstances you can get hold of as much fuel as you want, so that's not a limit but rather, the limit is the capacity of power stations to turn that fuel into electricity.

The Tassie hydro system is humming along nicely at about 185% of its long term capacity right now. No way can we keep that up indefinitely, but local (Tas) demand is above average right now and the spot price in Victoria isn't too bad either at around 4 cents / kWh, so it makes sense to run the system hard and make some $. Whilst the system could certainly maintain that output for quite some time, ultimately over the long term it can't run at more than 100% of long term capacity otherwise the result is empty lakes. Whatever is borrowed today via high rates of production, must at some point be paid back by lower rates of production. Same concept everywhere and that includes China. 

I saw some survey results today regarding Australian public support for various means of generating electricity. 

Solar (small eg rooftops) = 87% of people support it.

Solar (large scale) = 78%

Wind = 72%

Hydro = 72%

Tidal = 52%

Geothermal = 45%

Nuclear = 26%

Coal = 23%

Don't bother mentioning oil or gas as most seem to have worked out that they're duds in anything other than the short term. 

As for coal in China, I wonder how much of their actions are based on concern about the climate and how much is based on the pragmatic reality of conventional air pollution and that China's coal reserves are, by most accounts at least, rapidly diminishing. You can't keep mining 3 billion tonnes of coal for too long when you've only got 60 billion tonnes of high grade coal, and another 50 billion tonnes of sub-bituminous and brown coal. Sooner or later, production peaks whether you want it to or not.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> As for coal in China, I wonder how much of their actions are based on concern about the climate and how much is based on the pragmatic reality of conventional air pollution and that China's coal reserves are, by most accounts at least, rapidly diminishing. You can't keep mining 3 billion tonnes of coal for too long when you've only got 60 billion tonnes of high grade coal, and another 50 billion tonnes of sub-bituminous and brown coal. Sooner or later, production peaks whether you want it to or not.




As with everything else, China just has to crash the price of coal, then buy up someone else's reserves.


----------



## basilio

There is a really critical story in The Guardian which examines how the big oil companies are approaching new investments in oil and gas exploration.

The short story is simple. The big 5 oil companies are going to spend $1,000 BILLION ($1 Trillion )on huge  ultra expensive exploration and production projects over the next 9 years.  At the same time the executives of these companies will receive bonuses of hundreds of millions tied to achieving these targets. 

So a few questions .

1) Questions are asked about how much it would cost to develop renewable energy technologies to replace our reliance on oil/coal ect. * How far would $1trillion go to finance such research ? Perhaps the money is always there it is just a question of directing it.*

2) Let's imagine  (for the purpose of discussion) that these huge projects are successful in exploiting a host of new resources for the next 30-40 years.  *Where does that place our  world in 2050 when they have to somehow find another few trillion dollars and create oil/gas from God knows what ? Isn't that the basic problem with non renewable energy sources ?*

These questions stand completely aside from the  global warming effects of all the extra CO2 produced. But on these points alone  it is sheer selfish madness.



> * Oil company bosses' bonuses linked to $1tn spending on extracting fossil fuels*
> 
> ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and BP pour funding into projects to unlock oil reserves – despite scientists warning they will lead to climate change disaster
> 
> Simon Bowers and Harry Davies
> 
> Tuesday 26 May 2015 07.00 AEST
> Last modified on Tuesday 26 May 2015 09.55 AEST
> 
> Bosses at the world’s big five oil companies have been showered with bonus payouts linked to a $1tn (£650bn) crescendo of spending on fossil fuel exploration and extraction over nine years, according to Guardian analysis of company reports.
> 
> The unprecedented push to bring untapped reserves into production, and to exploit new and undiscovered fields, involves some of the most complex feats of engineering ever attempted. It also reflects how confident Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and BP are that demand will remain high for decades to come.
> 
> The big oil groups are pressing ahead with investments despite the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimating that two-thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground to prevent the earth from warming 2C above pre-industrial levels – a proposed temperature limit beyond which scientists warn of spiralling and irreversible climate change.
> 
> Multi-billion-dollar capital projects amount to huge, long-term bets by the big five that exorbitant costs associated with unlocking hydrocarbon reserves in some of the most inaccessible locations on the planet can eventually be recouped and converted into profits.
> 
> Bonuses for chief executives at all five firms are tied to the achievement of delivery milestones in the construction and deployment of such projects




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...pany-bosses-bonuses-1tr-spending-fossil-fuels


----------



## wayneL

Rare common ground here.  Bit I would check the veracity of anything printed byvthe Grsuniad



basilio said:


> There is a really critical story in The Guardian which examines how the big oil companies are approaching new investments in oil and gas exploration.
> 
> The short story is simple. The big 5 oil companies are going to spend $1,000 BILLION ($1 Trillion )on huge  ultra expensive exploration and production projects over the next 9 years.  At the same time the executives of these companies will receive bonuses of hundreds of millions tied to achieving these targets.
> 
> So a few questions .
> 
> 1) Questions are asked about how much it would cost to develop renewable energy technologies to replace our reliance on oil/coal ect. * How far would $1trillion go to finance such research ? Perhaps the money is always there it is just a question of directing it.*
> 
> 2) Let's imagine  (for the purpose of discussion) that these huge projects are successful in exploiting a host of new resources for the next 30-40 years.  *Where does that place our  world in 2050 when they have to somehow find another few trillion dollars and create oil/gas from God knows what ? Isn't that the basic problem with non renewable energy sources ?*
> 
> These questions stand completely aside from the  global warming effects of all the extra CO2 produced. But on these points alone  it is sheer selfish madness.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...pany-bosses-bonuses-1tr-spending-fossil-fuels


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Rare common ground here.  Bit I would check the veracity of anything printed byvthe Grsuniad




If there was a significant error in this story the companies involved would have been onto it in a flash.

Besides which the source of the story are the various companies  public reports. Hard to fudge those.

The essence is there.  The executives of the big oil companies will gain multi million dollar bonuses on top of their already huge salaries to  ensure successful completion of some of the most complex, environmentally damaging and short term oil and gas projects yet attempted. Think  Arctic oil and gas fields, Canadian tar sands and so on.

And this is a "good thing" ?


----------



## Smurf1976

Nobody in their right mind would bother with these difficult, risky and expensive oil and gas projects if there were easier, safer and cheaper sources of oil and gas still available.

Face reality. There's plenty of oil and gas left in the ground no doubt, but we've already put into production virtually all of the cheap and easy oil, there's not much of that left at all.

Solutions = either stop using so much oil and gas or pay the price, both economic and environmental, of continuing down this path.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> Nobody in their right mind...
> 
> Solutions = either stop using so much oil and gas or pay the price, both economic and environmental, of continuing down this path.




If only it were only the difficult ones. Permit me the licence to expand 'oil & gas' to fossil.
So,  'where are you supposed stand' as an observer.... When no commercial bank ( read capitalist ) will back Adarni's plans in Queensland and yet Abbott's Government is prepared to weld this commercial failure to the public balance sheet, as all the worlds best bean counters see it, to Australia's future.  
QLd is in recession, so as a short term fix we sell our national future for a short 'sugar hit' to a long term white elephant. Abbott will be long gone by then, probably with a seat on a dying coal company board.   

Abbotts recession that Australia didn't had to have?


----------



## basilio

Thinking about which direction we should be putting or research and development dollars towards.

Has anyone seen the ongoing story of the around the world flight of an electric aeroplane ? Thats right a plane powered by solar panels with sufficient back up batteries to keep it going all night. Why ? Because the current leg of the trip is crossing the pacific Ocean non stop.

Going to take 6 plus days and nights.

Would this idea have been even imaginable 10- 20 years ago  let alone actioned ?



> *Round-the-world Solar Impulse starts six-day flight from China to Hawaii
> *
> The latest leg in the round-the-world attempt by solar-powered Solar Impulse 2 from China to Hawaii will take six days. It could set the record for the longest flight for a single pilot airplane.




http://www.dw.de/round-the-world-solar-impulse-starts-six-day-flight-from-china-to-hawaii/a-18488062

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse  Info on the Solar Impulse


----------



## basilio

Another one bites the dust...

The big ceaseless talking point of climate changes skeptics in the past 10 years has been the climate hiatus argument. Basically if you could draw a line between the last high point of 1998 and today global temperatures haven't actually increased.

Well it seems that little duck has rolled over and died.



> *CLIMATE CHANGE
> Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus*
> 
> Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1
> 
> +
> Author Affiliations
> 
> 1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
> 2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.
> 
> ↵*Corresponding author. E-mail: thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.




http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632

For the simpler version check out The Age



> US meteorological body finds global warming 'slow down' did not happen
> 
> Date
> June 5, 2015 - 12:21PM
> 
> 
> Tom Arup
> 
> 
> A new analysis by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration suggests a recent hiatus in global warming has not occurred.
> 
> A much discussed "slow down" in global warming did not actually happen and the heating up of the planet has continued apace since the turn of the century, a new assessment by the lead United States meteorological body has found.
> 
> Scientists from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have instead pointed to biases in thousands of global temperature observations as a reason why the rise in global temperatures was thought to have slowed over the past 15 years.
> 
> They say once more complete data was included a new assessment of global temperatures found warming since 2000 was matching the pace of the later half of the 20th century, a period widely regarded as seeing significant human-caused global warming.




http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ming-slow-down-did-not-happen-20150605-ghgvhn


----------



## sydboy007

i thought it was these companies supposedly deferring investment and basically beign suffocated by the carbon tax

http://www.afr.com/business/mining/...ush-for-carbon-pricing-system-20150605-ghhe6v



> In an exclusive interview with AFR Weekend, BHP chief executive Andrew Mackenzie confirmed that he “was in conversation” with the group of six petroleum industry chief executives who are reported to have approached the UN and national governments with expressions of interest in manufacturing a workable global emissions marketplace.
> 
> …BHP was in a good position to flex its portfolio as the world continued its quest to contain emissions, Mr Mackenzie said. He said material emissions reductions could be achieved through “a lot of little things” including continued advancement in solar technologies, proving more rapidly the long-term efficacy of carbon capture and storage, an expansion of nuclear power production and further profound improvement in the way energy is used.


----------



## noco

Ah yes, that Global Warming scare....that farce and scam set up by Al Gore and his scientific cronies.

They even said residents of Tuvalu had already evacuated the islands and moved to Nrw Zealand....In actual fact these islands have grown and the population has doubled in the past 3 decades.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|section|homepage|homepage&itmt=1433619547870

 E*ven the warmist New Scientist now concedes:

    Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

    But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.

    As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.*


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> Ah yes, that Global Warming scare....that farce and scam set up by Al Gore and his scientific cronies.
> 
> They even said residents of Tuvalu had already evacuated the islands and moved to Nrw Zealand....In actual fact these islands have grown and the population has doubled in the past 3 decades.
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|section|homepage|homepage&itmt=1433619547870
> 
> E*ven the warmist New Scientist now concedes:
> 
> Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.
> 
> But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.
> 
> As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.*




Typical piece of biased fluff from Bolt that confuses the issue.

Coastal erosion and deposition is a different issue to Climate change.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Typical piece of biased fluff from Bolt that confuses the issue.
> 
> Coastal erosion and deposition is a different issue to Climate change.





Might be   best if I highlight some sayings from well known people....NB. Andrew Bolt is only the messenger...these are not his words.



Remember all those scares that Tuvalu would be the first Pacific islands to be drowned by global warming?

*  In fact, warned Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth, so dire was this danger that “the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”....
*
*Take Prof Mohammed Dore, an environmental economist from Canada’s Brock University, who three years ago declared Tuvalu uninhabited already.
*
*“In fact, there is an island called Tuvalu which was completely evacuated and New Zealand accepted all the residents because of sea level rising,” he wrote, much to the surprise of the island’s 12,000 residents, who have actually doubled their number in the past three decades, there being little else to do in the middle of the ocean....
*
    Tuvalu’s prime minister in 2003 went to the United Nations to present a bill to the guilty Westerners he insisted were causing the seas to drown his home.

    He really laid it on thick: “The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.” ...

*Rob Gell, the TV weatherman, ...  in 2008 launched an exhibition at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum dedicated to convincing the gullible that we should take in all these soggy Tuvaluans before the waves lapped over their heads.*

*It was virtually a “foregone conclusion” that Tuvalu would be uninhabitable “within the next 50 years”, he claimed.
*
    Naturally, Labor signed up to the scare… It even produced a “Pacific climate change plan” which promised help to global warming “refugees” as they fled low-lying island states such as Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu.

*Said Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese: “The alternative to that is to say, and I don’t think any Australian would accept this, that were going to sit by while people literally drown.”
*
    All of which culminated in the tearful plea from Tuvalu’s delegate, Ian Fry, at the UN’s great warmist gathering at Copenhagen last year… “I woke up this morning crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit ... The fate of my country rests in your hands.” 

Even the warmist New Scientist now concedes:

    Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

* But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.*

*As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.
*


----------



## basilio

Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which  showed that there hasn't been  any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global  temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.

I suggest that is the critical point of the topic -  how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.

The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998.  Therefore everything is ok.

Now that this statement has been disproved will  you reconsider your view ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which  showed that there hasn't been  any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global  temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.
> 
> I suggest that is the critical point of the topic -  how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.
> 
> The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998.  Therefore everything is ok.
> 
> Now that this statement has been disproved will  you reconsider your view ?
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
> http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn



I think there is still a bit of debate left on this one basilio. Let's see how this plays out and not accept it uncritically. It does rely on retrospective adjustments after all.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which  showed that there hasn't been  any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global  temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.
> 
> I suggest that is the critical point of the topic -  how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.
> 
> The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998.  Therefore everything is ok.
> 
> Now that this statement has been disproved will  you reconsider your view ?
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
> http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn




It states page not found on both links.

Sounds like a lot of *HOT AIR* and unreliable information.

Some fictitious scientist predicted all that 10 years ago and it has not happened and probably won't in the foreseeable future ....A bit like that Flannery nutter.

The info about a pause in *Global warming came from the IPCC...That is why they changed the terminology to CLIMATE CHANGE.*


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> I think there is still a bit of debate left on this one basilio. Let's see how this plays out and not accept it uncritically. It does rely on retrospective adjustments after all.




It does require more analysis. Thats why I would be interested to see any reasoned critique of the paper which identifies flaws in the processes of updating climate records.

And of course that critique needs to pass examination as well -  not just be an off the cuff line that all retrospective adjustments are suss.

If it does hold up to scrutiny then the conclusion is that global warming has not slowed down in the past 20 years at all and  continues inside the parameters broadly outlined by the IPCC reports.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> It states page not found on both links.
> CLIMATE CHANGE.[/B]




I'm not sure what happened with the links. They were the ones I used in my earlier post and they still work fine  when I click on them.

It seems that when i copied and pasted the links they gave up the ghost.

If you want to read the articles go back to post 6329 and try the links thete

Cheers


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I'm not sure what happened with the links. They were the ones I used in my earlier post and they still work fine  when I click on them.
> 
> It seems that when i copied and pasted the links they gave up the ghost.
> 
> If you want to read the articles go back to post 6329 and try the links thete
> 
> Cheers




There certainly appears to be a lot of conflicting evidence around the world as to whether Global Warming is real and we now have many IPCC scientists doubting that man made C02 has anything to do with Climate Change.

I become annoyed when I observe documentaries showing billowing black smoke being emitted from power stations 50 or more years ago....Modern coal fired power station now only emit a steam vapor...

We used to see documentaries of big chunks of ice falling into the sea with the alarmist promoting the melting of the Arctic.

Having traveled many parts of the world, my wife and I toured Canada, Alaska and America in 2012......On our cruise up the Alaskan coast on the Zuderdam (88,000 tonnes)  we called into Glacier Bay where there are some 4 or 5 glaciers meeting the sea......When I saw big chunks of ice the size of a bus falling into the sea, my wife remarked to me, OMG that looks like the photos those alarmists use for their Global Warming propaganda...and yes it was real...I took several photos and it was fascinating to observe Glacier Bay full of large chunks of ice.

But the true fact is those Glaciers creep all the time, all year round and more so in the summer months...Consequently, large chunks of ice fall into the sea...

It is such a shame that those alarmists use fake material to promote their propaganda.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ph/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/asc/P80

*2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: “There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: “There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: “The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun.”

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: “It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
*
Please read the whole article....It is most interesting.


----------



## noco

And Tim Flannery has finished up with more egg on HIS face after predicting in 2008 that The Arctic would be ice free by 2013....But of course the link below proves otherwise.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...rctic_decline_pauses_antarctic_sea_ice_grows/



*Tim Flannery in 2008 warned we could have an ice-free polar cap by 2013:


    Just imagine yourself in a world five years from now, when there is no more ice over the Arctic, when we stand under threat of a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, when we’re starting to see the first destabilisation of the Greenland ice cap, and all of those things happening because we don’t have a solution, because if things advance that rapidly we simply will not have a solution, in terms of reducing emissions. Then you’ve got to start pulling in your last-ditch efforts.


But, once again, the climate simply refuses to do what Flannery keeps predicting:


    Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)…

    NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period from 1981 to 2010…

    Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was 12.65 million sq. km, some 5 per cent below the long-term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 13.38 million sq. km. but broadly in line with the sea ice extent reported a decade ago and just 2 per cent below the average over the period from 2005 to 2015.

(Thanks to reader Anthony.) *


----------



## explod

Annual seasonal  snow ice is totally unrelated to the original perma ice,  which is currently dissappearing off the arctic,  Greenland and Antarctica. 

What is really (actually) happening is continually twisted by the scepticle oil coal brigade.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Annual seasonal  snow ice is totally unrelated to the original perma ice,  which is currently dissappearing off the arctic,  Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> What is really (actually) happening is continually twisted by the scepticle oil coal brigade.




Oh dear, oh dear me......you just cannot accept reality no matter how much contradiction is thrown up to you.

What is now real is the untruths told by Al Gore, Tim Flannery and the Green  UN...These people have been proven wrong over and over again......More and more people are now being converted....Perhaps you should join them.

This farce and scam will soon stop.


----------



## noco

Here is more information to digest about the myth of Global Warming or Climate Change.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...onal-sovereignty/story-e6frg6zx-1227387305726

*The one thing that is settled in climate science is that if you deviate from the officially sanctioned scripture, you will be severely dealt with.

Take the University of Western Australia’s withdrawal of its offer to establish the Australian Consensus Centre because it failed to conform to global-warming orthodoxy. The founder, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the basic tenet of man’s role in global warming but differs on how to respond. In the totalitarian world of eco-catastrophism, competing views must be silenced.

Surely this bullying is wearing thin. For nearly 50 years we have been assailed with dud predictions of man-made climate disasters — first cooling, then warming.

It was always problematic that a trace gas which represents 39/1000ths of one per cent of the atmosphere could be the dominant driver of climate, and no surprise, after 18 ½ years of stasis, that more than 95 per cent of the IPCC’s climate models we have long been assured prove global warming’s link to CO2 emissions are in error.*

Now please read the rest of the link.


----------



## noco

Here is more fallacies, myths and mistakes made by the IPCC and their so called scientist.

When are the alarmist going to cease with their stupidity on Global Warming?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ifa-is-to-soccer/story-e6frg6n6-1227388635773

*Given our deference to experts in these technocratic times, it’s troubling how often they get it wrong. Take Matthew England, an expert on global warming, who on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 warned that the Antarctic was “losing ice at an alarmingly fast rate.”

“There’s a net mass loss of such a scale that Antarctica’s actually contributing as much today to sea-level rise as the Greenland ice sheet,” he told the ABC’s Lateline.

Five-and-a-half years later the continent remains stubbornly frozen. The sea-ice record has been broken for the third year running and fuel is being flown to Mawson base by helicopter because the icebreakers can’t get through.

England and his colleagues believe they have an explanation. Greenhouse gas has changed the wind pattern and Antarctica is stealing Australia’s rain, claims Robert Mulvaney, a co-author with England of a report on the subject last year. “As greenhouse gases continue to rise we’ll get fewer storms chased up into Australia,” Mulvaney claimed.

Yet when storms hit NSW in April, England saw a sign of things to come. “All around the world we’re seeing the return period of storms, heatwaves ... the return periods are shortening,” he said.

“It’s consistent with what we’re seeing with global warming.”

It’s on the strength of this unsettled science that Australia and other nations are being asked to channel a trillion dollars a decade to the developing world and cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 per cent. By agreeing to these measures at a conference in Paris later this year, the theory goes, we can limit this century’s rise in global temperature to 2C.

As we know, however, the guesstimate is a fickle friend. For two-and-a-half decades, the planet has been defying the experts’ expectations. At the 1988 Toronto conference experts warned temperatures would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2050. With 27 years gone and 35 to go the rise is barely a quarter of a degree. The world had better roll its sleeves up.

The global warming thesis is resistant to discordant evidence. The hockey-stick graph adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a totem in 2001 has been abandoned; the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 has been declared a mistake; global temperatures have levelled over the past 15 years, a hiatus the IPCC did not predict and cannot explain. Yet the catastrophism will not abate.

No one expects experts to be perfect, but as Robert Watson — a former IPCC *


----------



## basilio

Paying for the Climate denial (mis)information. 



> * Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years*
> 
> *Funds allocated to organisations lobbying against Obama’s climate bill and working to undermine rules to reduce carbon pollution, tax records show
> *
> 
> Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson
> 
> Tuesday 9 June 2015 21.26 AEST
> Last modified on Tuesday 9 June 2015 22.21 AEST
> 
> The secretive funders behind America’s conservative movement directed around $125m (£82m) over three years to groups spreading disinformation about climate science and committed to wrecking Barack Obama’s climate change plan, according to an analysis of tax records.
> 
> The amount is close to half of the anonymous funding disbursed to rightwing groups, underlining the importance of the climate issue to US conservatives.
> 
> The anonymous cash flow came from two secretive organisations – the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund – that have been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement.
> 
> The funds, which when channelled through the two organisations cannot be traced to individual donors, helped build a network of thinktanks and activist groups. These worked to defeat climate bills in Congress and are mobilising against Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants which are due to be finalised this summer. In many cases, the anonymous cash makes up the vast majority of funding received by beneficiaries – more than comes openly from the fossil fuel industry.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Paying for the Climate denial (mis)information.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years




Heard they're also channeling money into schools in the US - to provide "fair" and balance teaching about global warming. Kinda like Creationism can be scientific.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Heard they're also channeling money into schools in the US - to provide "fair" and balance teaching about global warming. Kinda like Creationism can be scientific.




The good old Guardian commo paper, one sided as always.

Read the comments.

*Paul Moulton
1h ago
3 4

A few obvious points:

1) one sides information is the others disinformation
2) activists whining about activism is hypocritical
3) skeptic funding is peanuts to warmist funding
Reply
Report

    palindrom Paul Moulton
    1h ago

6 7

1) False symmetry.
2) Huh?
3) Bull****. Real research costs real money. Wingnut welfare is derp-cheap.
Reply
Report
John Samuel Paul Moulton
1h ago
5 6

Science funding is science funding.

Denialist PR funding is many times larger than realists PR funding.

FIFY.
Reply
Report
james rust
2h ago
3 4

The money funneled to groups promoting abandoning fossil fuel use is in the tens of billions per year--some funded by Putin. Why not do an article looking at these expenditures.

James H. Rust , Professor
Reply
Report

    palindrom james rust
    1h ago

4 5

Why would Putin fund groups devoted to abandoning fossil fuel use, when Russia depends on fossil fuel exports for a very large portion of its revenue?
Reply
Report
Paul Moulton palindrom
1h ago
1 2

Because fracking competes with Russian gas perhaps.
Reply
Report


*


leftAlready
2h ago
1 2

*And by contrast, in 2011, the US spent $4 billion on climate research. For those of you not very good at maths, that's 96 times the spend on 'contra' research.
CERN, the European theoretical physics research centre, spends 50% of it's budget on 'contra' research. Why? Because when it publishes papers, it wants to ensure that the findings are sound.
As it is clear to see from the catalogue of errors coming out of the IPCC and others (temperature hiatus, lack of deep ocean warming, increase in antarctic ice), they are not being held accountable for their poor performance . The IPCC 'scientists' have been clamouring over the last few years to refute or 'explain' these deviations from their models and yet still expect the population to believe the future predictions of the same models!
It should be fairly clear to all that the 'contra' scientists should have their funding increased to help promote 'good' science. Currently, climate 'sceptics' are like Galileo and the Renaissance church and the science being produced by the IPCC virtually unchallenged by the 97% of scientists that want part of that $4 billion pot of gold.
It is also clear, from recent apathy and voting trends, that the voting public are not convinced either. If something is really to be done about climate change, get the science right and, for the love of good science, bring back a balance; 97% of scientists believing in a climate model smacks, to me at least, of the voting patterns in a banana republic.*


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> The good old Guardian commo paper, one sided as always.
> 
> Read the comments.
> 
> *Paul Moulton
> 1h ago
> 3 4
> 
> A few obvious points:
> 
> 1) one sides information is the others disinformation
> 2) activists whining about activism is hypocritical
> 3) skeptic funding is peanuts to warmist funding
> Reply
> Report
> 
> palindrom Paul Moulton
> 1h ago
> 
> 6 7
> 
> 1) False symmetry.
> 2) Huh?
> 3) Bull****. Real research costs real money. Wingnut welfare is derp-cheap.
> Reply
> Report
> John Samuel Paul Moulton
> 1h ago
> 5 6
> 
> Science funding is science funding.
> 
> Denialist PR funding is many times larger than realists PR funding.
> 
> FIFY.
> Reply
> Report
> james rust
> 2h ago
> 3 4
> 
> The money funneled to groups promoting abandoning fossil fuel use is in the tens of billions per year--some funded by Putin. Why not do an article looking at these expenditures.
> 
> James H. Rust , Professor
> Reply
> Report
> 
> palindrom james rust
> 1h ago
> 
> 4 5
> 
> Why would Putin fund groups devoted to abandoning fossil fuel use, when Russia depends on fossil fuel exports for a very large portion of its revenue?
> Reply
> Report
> Paul Moulton palindrom
> 1h ago
> 1 2
> 
> Because fracking competes with Russian gas perhaps.
> Reply
> Report
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> leftAlready
> 2h ago
> 1 2
> 
> *And by contrast, in 2011, the US spent $4 billion on climate research. For those of you not very good at maths, that's 96 times the spend on 'contra' research.
> CERN, the European theoretical physics research centre, spends 50% of it's budget on 'contra' research. Why? Because when it publishes papers, it wants to ensure that the findings are sound.
> As it is clear to see from the catalogue of errors coming out of the IPCC and others (temperature hiatus, lack of deep ocean warming, increase in antarctic ice), they are not being held accountable for their poor performance . The IPCC 'scientists' have been clamouring over the last few years to refute or 'explain' these deviations from their models and yet still expect the population to believe the future predictions of the same models!
> It should be fairly clear to all that the 'contra' scientists should have their funding increased to help promote 'good' science. Currently, climate 'sceptics' are like Galileo and the Renaissance church and the science being produced by the IPCC virtually unchallenged by the 97% of scientists that want part of that $4 billion pot of gold.
> It is also clear, from recent apathy and voting trends, that the voting public are not convinced either. If something is really to be done about climate change, get the science right and, for the love of good science, bring back a balance; 97% of scientists believing in a climate model smacks, to me at least, of the voting patterns in a banana republic.*




Would you take prescriptions from a Witch Doctor? Or take herbal medicine if you're seriously ill?

So what's the other side of the Global Warming debate? That it's the weather and weather changes? That they say it's getting hot but it's only hot over there while over here it's really cold? That there's historic droughts in places they haven't seen for literally 1200 years, but there's plenty of rain and flooding at other places?

And let say it's just the Mother Nature being moody... wouldn't alternative, clean, energy be good for the world?

Cleaner air, less illness and lung cancer; in some places people could actually start to see blue skies again.

Then there's the wildlife, less pollution, more innovative research into alternative sources - ensuring greater energy security and diversification... who knows, might lead to discovery of alternative energy sources that could lead to future discoveries to cost effectively power the human race to other planets.

But keep things are they are, what's the worst that could happen right?

Heard a recent heatwave in India killed some 1700 people. But if we're rich enough we'll just stay indoor, turn on the aircon - problem is, billions of people in the world couldn't do that, and could just truck in water or order in their groceries.

anyway... with the billions that's been thrown around to dilute the debate, I'm not surprise it will get to some people.


----------



## basilio

If you want to trade comments from The Guardian article try this one for size Noco. Sums you up to a T.

 JJRichardson JohnJohnJohnJohn
3h ago
5 6
*
You are wilfully uninformed.*
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
And, https://www.climatecommunication.or...es-and-climate-change/heat-waves-the-details/

 WiningPom JohnJohnJohnJohn
3h ago
5 6

'EVERYBODY should be questioning global warming alarmism.'
Thousands of scientists do question it and keep coming up with the same answer.
You should go and sit in a greenhouse and think.


----------



## wayneL

They all keep coming up with the same answer basilio?

And you accuse others of being wilfully misinformed?

Mon Dieu!!!


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> They all keep coming up with the same answer basilio?
> 
> And you accuse others of being wilfully misinformed?
> 
> Mon Dieu!!!




Exactly what sort of BS are you sprouting now Wayne ? The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists research shows we have a very significant change already happening to our climate and ecosystems ? It's a funny thing but whenever mathematicians add up the same  series of numbers the answer is always the same. Doesn't make it dodgy - just right. And besides which the physical evidence of changes in ecosystems as the climate warms is quite clear.

You have to be very, very deliberate to ignore the wealth of evidence that shows what is happening in the real world.

And you have to be particularly picky with half truths, outright lies and misinformation to manufacture a case that there is nothing seriously wrong.

__________________________________________________

Still like to see any significant analysis of the recent study which demonstrates there has been no hiatus in global warming in the past 17 years. I would have thought "the usual suspects" would have something to say bynow?


----------



## trainspotter

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm



> The "hockey stick" graph was prominently featured in a report the IPCC issued in 2001. The image immediately became a powerful tool for people who were trying to raise public awareness of global warming ”” to the regret of some seasoned climate experts who recognized that, like all science at the point of publication, the graph was preliminary and uncertain.




Warmer ... getting warmer.


----------



## wayneL

J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.

There are points of broad agreement and points of disagreement amongst scientists. Surely you cannot deny that...... unless you only inhabit SkS, Romm et al sites?


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Warmer ... getting warmer.




That was a very interesting site TS.  Did you notice the paragraph  a bit further on discussing the Mann Hockey stick graph ?



> Any lingering doubts were quashed in 2012-2013 with the publication of two definitive studies. One study, signed by 78 authors in a massive collaboration, used tree rings and other proxies in seven continental areas to check the findings of Mann's team. They found that the world at the opening of the 21st century was unquestionably warmer than at any time in the past two millennia. The other study used a variety of climate proxies from sea-floor sediments, plus some terrestrial ones, to get highly accurate data far into the past. Their graph showed a rise at the end of the last glacial period, fairly steady temperatures to around 4000BCE, and then a gradual decline ”” until the abrupt rise in the 20th century, shooting back to the level of the warm period around 9000-4000 BCE and on track to climb beyond.(48b)




http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.
> 
> There are points of broad agreement and points of disagreement amongst scientists. Surely you cannot deny that...... unless you only inhabit SkS, Romm et al sites?




The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Is that broad enough for you Wayne?

My point and that of the vast majority of scientists in the field is that the evidence is in that we have significant human caused global warming and that on all understandings to date this will continue and in fact could very well accelerate as a number of climate tipping points come into play.

If this overall picture is understood  and accepted as one of broad agreement amongst scientists well and good.

On the disagreements?  Well Climate models are not perfect by any means. Thats why they have bands around future temperature projections. They reflect upper and lower levels of climate sensitivity and are also there to reflect possible changes in how we behave as community.

Simply put : If we can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and even pull some CO2 from the air via carbon capture or sequestration we *might *stabilise temperatures at 2-3 C above historical levels.

If on the other hand we allow GG to rip then all current understandings of climate scientists is that global temperatures will increase by  5-6C plus with all the consequences that will follow.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> That was a very interesting site TS.  Did you notice the paragraph  a bit further on discussing the Mann Hockey stick graph ?
> 
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm




Yeah it was one of the more "balanced" missives I have read in a long time explaining that the scientists jumped the gun a bit on their modelling as they really had no clue as to what they were actually observing. This is why they are having a tough time now pushing their barrow as the information they let loose to the public was full of factual errors. Now that they have more of a grasp of what they are studying they are finding that nature is a very tricky BIATCH indeed !


----------



## wayneL

There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community. 

Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.




No need to be nasty ole pal,  but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> No need to be nasty ole pal,  but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality




MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY:-

*shrill*
      verb \ˈshril, especially Southern ˈsril\
: to make a very loud, high-pitched sound

: to say (something) in a very loud, high-pitched voice



> The principle of Net Neutrality calls for equal treatment to be accorded to all Internet traffic, without discrimination or priority for any person, entity or company.
> 
> “There has to be democratic debate. It’s a debate that is waiting to happen. Shrill voices do not win debate. *Cool-headed reasoned arguments on both sides are need of the hour,” *Mr. Khullar said.




http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-win-net-neutrality-debate/article7118961.ece

I am not sure if you have been paying attention but wayneL is NOT in the "deniest camp". He has repeatedly suggested that the science is not settled and that cherry picking data and laying claim to the high moral ground under the disguise of "science" may not necessarily lead us to the path of enlightenment when it comes to observing "weather" (spelling and pun intended)  or not man made greenhouse emissions are contributing to this "phenomenon" we as a human race are experiencing on this planet at the present time. 

Just went out onto my balcony ... 30 degrees right now at 5.22pm and not a breath of wind. Must be Global Warming as this is the 10th day of winter and it should be 18 degrees and a hooking Southerly blowing dogs off chains


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community.
> 
> Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.




Wayne, unfortunately some people can see through a key hole with both eyes.

You will be wasting your time if you think you could  have even the remote chance of converting any rusted on alarmist....The clear  thinkers have woken up to the misinformation banded around these so called Climate Change scientists and have now realized that climate change is a natural phenomena allied with the Sun and the removal of man made  CO2 will have little or no affect on the Earth's temperature.

It is all political with the UN right behind in their endeavors for World Government.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> *There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community.  !!!*
> 
> Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.




You can make that statement until the cows come home but it is simply untrue Wayne.  

How can we tell ?  Would you like me to post the full range of scientific organizations and their stated view on climate change ? It's very, very easy to do.  It reflects practically the entire range of scientists in the direct climate science field as well as ecologists, physical science groups, and so on.

And perhaps then you can point out other scientific groups that offer another view that doesn't see global warming along those broad lines.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Yeah it was one of the more "balanced" missives I have read in a long time explaining that the scientists jumped the gun a bit on their modelling as they really had no clue as to what they were actually observing. This is why they are having a tough time now pushing their barrow as the information they let loose to the public was full of factual errors. Now that they have more of a grasp of what they are studying they are finding that nature is a very tricky BIATCH indeed !




Hmm.. I don't agree that Michael Manns work or indeed many other Climate scientists papers are "full of factual errors " I except Professor Carter of course but he has *never*been a climate scientist

TS did you realise the excerpt I copied  offered total and complete support for Michaels Manns analysis? It was as comprehensive an endorsement as you could ever get. 78 authors , multiple lines of evidence, the whole box and dice to reinforce the original finding *that our current climate is the warmest it has been for 7000 plus years.*

I make this point because one of the continual talking points of climate deniers has been attacks on the hockey stick and Michael Mann.

The evidence is in. The reality is the world is now warmer than its been for many thousands of years. Saying otherwise is a lie or wilful ignorance.

____________________________________________________________________________

The question of whether Wayne is a "denier"... Your suggesting and of course Wayne will also say that "_the science is not settled".  "That there are still questions about exactly how hot things will become- How exactly accurate are our models_" and so on.

In the real world there is rarely complete certainty. All of us work with imperfect and incomplete knowledge. If we wait for certainty we will always be too late. 

On Global Warming we have indisputable evidence of significant warming around the world.  The very large majority of scientists believe the overwhelming factor causing this warming is increase in human produced green house gases - predominately CO2. (Yes there are other factors and these are acknowledged )

Why would we bypass this knowledge and risk  extreme consequences for the world and us on the hope that these scientists are all wrong and that continuing to pump out GG will not  cause continuing and exponential temperature rises? 

In what world does that make sense ?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> ......climate change is a natural phenomena allied with the Sun and the removal of man made  CO2 will have little or no affect on the Earth's temperature.
> 
> .




You really have absolutely no idea about science do you Noco ? Zero, zilch, nothing. 

It takes only a millisecond to find out the scientific evidence of how our world is habitable only through the presence of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas. And yet you still continue to make assertions that are just factually wrong.

Not great mate

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

ad infinitum...


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> You really have absolutely no idea about science do you Noco ? Zero, zilch, nothing.
> 
> It takes only a millisecond to find out the scientific evidence of how our world is habitable only through the presence of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas. And yet you still continue to make assertions that are just factually wrong.
> 
> Not great mate
> 
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
> 
> ad infinitum...




Mate, I do not need misinformed science to twist my mind......I have seen more climate changes over the past 80 years than you would  have had hot dinners. you name it...extreme heat.....extreme drought....extreme cold winters....bush fires....massive floods in Brisibane and Townsville  and all through the south west of Queensland....I have been through it all.

We studied at High School the effects of the Sun on the Earth, how the Earth travels in an elliptical path around the Sun and not a circle as many people believe...So at times the Earth is further from the Sun......How the explosions on the Sun are equivalent to 60,000 Hiroshima atom bombs.....How the Sun's rays are stronger at certain times which affect the Earths atmosphere....How the axis of the Earth is at different angles to the Sun...All this phenomenon add up to variations to climate on Earth.

Incidentally, I have personally met Professor Bob Carter and Professor Peter Ridd who has studied the Great Barrier reef for the past 30 years and they tell me the reef has never been in better shape so why do the Greenies continue with their propaganda that half the reef has been already destroyed by man? ...Because it is just one big scam.

As the old saying goes, many have been baffled with science.

Hope I have made some sense about climate change.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> No need to be nasty ole pal,  but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality




TS said everything that need to be said, but in addition, the goal was not to be nasty at all. Sheeeit Plod I'm a real sweetheart. The goal wad to point out basilio debating style. ... viz, shouting down any debate by repeating the extremist view, again. I was doing him a favour so he might become more credible. 

But.... do you think it might be a bit. ... just a tiny tad.... hypocritical, to call me a denier after Ive made my views so clear on so many occasions?


----------



## basilio

Noco I totally agree with you regarding the effects of the Sun on the Earth, the elliptical orbit and the rest. They do have a significant effect on our climate. All true. And in fact there are also other factors that affect the climate.

But perhaps what you learnt at school isn't the sum total of the science on how Earths climate is created ? And perhaps the science community itself has increased it's understanding in the past 20-30-40 years ?  (I remember for example that Tectonic Plate theory which showed that the continents moved around the earth was only just being understood when I was a school. )

The simple point I'm making is that greenhouse gases are a critical factor in the creation of our climate. They trap heat from the sun and have warmed the earth to it's current  "just right for us " temperature.

By the same token however increasing GG gases by the very substantial amount we have been doing is and will trap more heat in the atmosphere. Currently this is the biggest influence on our climate.  

With regard to the range of climate changes you have seen in your life. I accept your experience as valid. Unfortunately it doesn't help us to anticipate the changes that are happening and will accelerate  as temperatures increase. It's also worth  realizing that vast areas of the globe have had far larger increases in temperature than we have yet seen.  The Arctic areas for example are now much warmer with the consequence of widespread melting of the permafrost and loss of ice cover. This is all on record.

With regard to the health of the  Great Barrier Reef.  In my view there are more expert scientists than Professor Carter who are not as confident about it's condition. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_the_Arctic

http://theconversation.com/the-state-of-the-great-barrier-reef-experts-respond-30450


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Noco I totally agree with you regarding the effects of the Sun on the Earth, the elliptical orbit and the rest. They do have a significant effect on our climate. All true. And in fact there are also other factors that affect the climate.
> 
> But perhaps what you learnt at school isn't the sum total of the science on how Earths climate is created ? And perhaps the science community itself has increased it's understanding in the past 20-30-40 years ?  (I remember for example that Tectonic Plate theory which showed that the continents moved around the earth was only just being understood when I was a school. )
> 
> The simple point I'm making is that greenhouse gases are a critical factor in the creation of our climate. They trap heat from the sun and have warmed the earth to it's current  "just right for us " temperature.
> 
> By the same token however increasing GG gases by the very substantial amount we have been doing is and will trap more heat in the atmosphere. Currently this is the biggest influence on our climate.
> 
> With regard to the range of climate changes you have seen in your life. I accept your experience as valid. Unfortunately it doesn't help us to anticipate the changes that are happening and will accelerate  as temperatures increase. It's also worth  realizing that vast areas of the globe have had far larger increases in temperature than we have yet seen.  The Arctic areas for example are now much warmer with the consequence of widespread melting of the permafrost and loss of ice cover. This is all on record.
> 
> With regard to the health of the  Great Barrier Reef.  In my view there are more expert scientists than Professor Carter who are not as confident about it's condition.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_the_Arctic
> 
> http://theconversation.com/the-state-of-the-great-barrier-reef-experts-respond-30450




Basilio why  are you still persisting with this old adage that the ice is melting in the Arctic and Antarctic when in actual fact it is increasing.....You are still persisting with the Global Warming farce when in fact Global warming has plateaued over the past 18 years while you are saying the emissions of CO2 have increased.

Please go back to my posts # 6344 and # 6347 and the corresponding links.


----------



## basilio

Trainspotter used a reference from Spencer Wearts website "The Discovery of Global Warming" in an earlier exchange.

I had seen Spencer's work previously but on reviewing it again I realised just how thorough he has been in pulling together all the threads of this debate. It is a great piece of work. I thought his Personal Note at the end was an excellent summary.



> A Personal Note
> 
> What can we do about global warming, and what should we do?
> 
> Faced with scientists who publish warnings, the public's natural response is to ask them for definitive guidance. When the scientists fail to say for certain what will happen, politicians habitually tell them to go back and do more research. *In the case of climate, waiting for absolute certainty would mean waiting forever. When we are faced with a new disease or an armed invasion, we do not put off decisions until more research is done. We act using the best guidelines available.*
> 
> My training as a physicist and historian of science has given me some feeling for where scientific claims are reliable and where they are shaky. Of course climate science is full of uncertainties, and nobody claims to know exactly what the climate will do. That very uncertainty is part of what, I am confident, is known beyond doubt ”” our planet's climate can change, tremendously and unpredictably. Beyond that we can conclude (with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 report) that it is very likely that significant global warming is coming in our lifetimes. This surely brings a likelihood of harm, widespread and grave (see this summary of expected impacts). The few who contest these facts are either ignorant, or so committed to their viewpoint that they will seize on any excuse to deny the danger.
> 
> Thanks to the strenuous labors by thousands of people described in these essays, we have had a warning in time ”” although just barely in time. *If there is even a small risk that your house will burn down, you will take care to install smoke alarms and buy insurance. We can scarcely do less for the well-being of our society and the planet's ecosystems. Thus the only useful discussion is over what measures are worth their cost.
> *




http://www.aip.org/history/climate/SWnote.htm

I thought the graph below was neat way of bringing together the major effects on our climate into one graph.  It is almost 6 years old and in fact current temperatures have now reached 1998 levels.

Recent research has also indicated that global temperatures in the last 20 years were in fact higher than believed.


----------



## trainspotter

trainspotter said:


> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
> 
> _The "hockey stick" graph was prominently featured in a report the IPCC issued in 2001. The image immediately became a powerful tool for people who were trying to raise public awareness of global warming ”” to the regret of some seasoned climate experts who recognized that, like all science at the point of publication, *the graph was preliminary and uncertain.*_
> 
> Warmer ... getting warmer.




Did you even read my post or the link I put up for you to devour?



> Acknowledging that the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should give a tendency for warming, Mitchell tentatively suggested that smoke from recent volcanic eruptions and perhaps cyclical changes in the Sun might partly account for the reversal. *(Later studies confirmed that volcanoes and solar changes probably did have some cooling effect around that time, along with a natural long-term cycle of Pacific Ocean weather.) *But he rightly held that "such theories appear to be insufficient to account for the recent cooling," and he could only conclude that the downturn was "a curious enigma." He suspected the cooling might be part of a natural "rhythm," a cycle lasting 80 years or so. The veteran science correspondent Walter Sullivan was at the meeting, and he reported in the New York Times (January 25 and 30, 1961) that after days of discussion the meteorologists generally agreed on the existence of the cooling trend, but could not agree on a cause for this or any other climate change. "Many schools of thought were represented... and, while the debate remained good-humored, there was energetic dueling with scientific facts." *The confused state of climate science was a public embarrassment.*




In 1961 they had no clue ... whatsoever. Warming or cooling ... no idea 

So I wrote this which you completely ignored and went on in your shrill little catastrophic voice yet again:-



> Yeah it was one of the more "balanced" missives I have read in a long time explaining that the *scientists jumped the gun a bit on their modelling as they really had no clue as to what they were actually observing.* This is why they are having a tough time now pushing their barrow as the information they let loose to the public was full of factual errors. Now that they have more of a grasp of what they are studying they are finding that nature is a very tricky BIATCH indeed !




Which you somehow painted me out to be some big river in Egypt ... De Nial. 

You then went on to ram down my throat that their thesis was NOT full of factual errors:-



> In an attempt to force scientists to agree on a useful answer, in 1977 the U.S. Department of Defense persuaded two dozen of the world's top climate experts to respond to a complicated survey. Their main conclusion was that *scientific knowledge was meager and all predictions were unreliable. *The panel was nearly equally divided among three opinions: some thought further cooling was likely, others suspected that moderate greenhouse warming would begin fairly soon, and most of the rest expected the climate would stay about the same at least for the next couple of decades.




And this little gem must have passed your myopic gaze:-



> *Most experts saw no solid proof that continued warming lay in the future.* After all, reliable records covered barely a century and showed large fluctuations (especially the 1940-1970 dip). Couldn't the current trend be just another temporary wobble? Stephen Schneider, one of the scientists least shy about warning of climate dangers, acknowledged that *"a greenhouse signal cannot yet be said to be unambiguously detected in the record."*




Yep the Earth has got warmer ... no doubt about it. Now because 78 scientists have agreed on one subject matter in the past 8 years that the Earth has gotten warmer does seem a little hard to swallow due to the fact they were squabbling over if it was cooling or heating less than 40 years ago.

Yep it's getting warmer so instead of throwing billions of dollars to fund BS science and quangos why don't they throw the money at developing BETTER solutions or REFINING the nasty polluting industries or better yet ... put the money towards helping man mitigate the risk of the inevitable "global warming" catastrophe. 

You figure it out


----------



## trainspotter

trainspotter said:


> Yep it's getting warmer so instead of throwing billions of dollars to fund BS science and quangos why don't they *throw the money at developing BETTER solutions *or REFINING the nasty polluting industries or better yet ... put the money towards helping man mitigate the risk of the inevitable "global warming" catastrophe.




And Barack agrees ....



> *The Obama administration laid out a major step Friday in its fight against climate change with a plan it said would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses by 1 billion metric tons.*
> 
> The matching regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Transportation Department would improve fuel efficiency standards by an average of 24 percent for medium-sized and heavy trucks, buses and big trailers through model year 2027, which would cut the output of Earth-warming carbon dioxide while saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil.




http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...9_bo_epa-standards_trucks_3&utm_medium=socnet


----------



## noco

I think we have just broken the Guinness Book of records....Can anyone believe it is now 11 days since there has been any propaganda from the "ALARMISTS".....I do hope they have given up and rolled over to the skeptics..


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> I think we have just broken the Guinness Book of records....Can anyone believe it is now 11 days since there has been any propaganda from the "ALARMISTS".....I do hope they have given up and rolled over to the skeptics..



The ABC has been running a story all day about the Frilly Neck Lizards in the outback that are changing their sex because of climate change and increased temperatures. Also London has just recorded their hottest day in July ever on written records. Perth in WA has just had it's hottest June on record and we also have the first ever recorded Tropical Cyclone in the Coral Sea occurring in Winter.  So just wait Noco it won't be to far away 
Also may I mention that the current El Nino is looking like being a rather strong event on the Nino index , there will plenty of news and disasters caused by the weather come Spring and Summer. :1zhelp:


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> The ABC has been running a story all day about the Frilly Neck Lizards in the outback that are changing their sex because of climate change and increased temperatures. Also London has just recorded their hottest day in July ever on written records. Perth in WA has just had it's hottest June on record and we also have the first ever recorded Tropical Cyclone in the Coral Sea occurring in Winter.  So just wait Noco it won't be to far away
> Also may I mention that the current El Nino is looking like being a rather strong event on the Nino index , there will plenty of news and disasters caused by the weather come Spring and Summer. :1zhelp:




There has been no Global Warming for 18 years....It is called Climate Change......it's been going on for thousands of years.......Just settle down, enjoy what we have at the present......next year will be different to last year and in the year 3015...They had extreme weather in 1911.....That is when my old lady lost her house with a category 5 cyclone in Port Douglas, the same year the Yongala went down to Davey Jones locker.

The Sun will rise tomorrow morning just as it has done so for the last 1 million years.

So Ijustnewt, the Globe has been through it all before....You worry too much !!!!!!


----------



## Logique

We're having the coldest winter in a long time here in southern NSW, with some decadal low temps being recorded.  

The Winnebagos are idling in the driveways, just itching to get away north and grace Garpal and fellow QLD'ers with their presence.


----------



## Logique

Damn you global warming! Which need we ask, is undoubtedly causing this.



> *Biggest cold outbreak since 2000 to send temperatures plunging* - 9 July 2015
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...-in-temperatures-snow-to-alps-20150709-gi88ak
> 
> A strong cold front will sweep over much of Australia over the weekend, potentially causing the largest outbreak of frigid conditions in 15 years, the Bureau of Meteorology says.
> 
> The *likelihood of snow falling over the ranges all the way up into Queensland* also has emergency services warning motorists and those planning outdoor activities such as skiing or camping to "plan carefully for the cold conditions".
> 
> Blair Trewin, senior climatologist with the bureau, said the last time Australia had such a large northward spread of snowfall was in May 2000.....
> 
> ....."We're expecting temperatures will plummet, winds will be fresh to strong, and snow will fall down to low elevations," Barry Hanstrum, NSW regional director at the bureau, said.
> 
> Areas likely to receive snow include Orange and Bathhurst in NSW and the tops of mountains in south-eastern Queensland. (The bureau's chart below shows where snow is likely by 10am AEST on Sunday.).....


----------



## Knobby22

Is the old point of differentiation - climate vs weather. I don't recall anyone saying there would be no more cold snaps, just rarer, and its been 15 years since the last one. They were far more common previously.
As a kid we used to have regular frosts.

BTW There's been awful snow this year. 
We need some cold weather with precipitation.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming! Which need we ask, is undoubtedly causing this.




I believe they are expecting snow in some of Melbourne suburbs........I think it is called Climate Change or is it the beginning of a Minnie ice age.......who knows it might even snow in Sydney next year.


----------



## explod

Its the rising of extremes,  a slight warming of the poles is causing increased cloud from the poles which in turn is creating colder spots at times and hotter areas. 

Humankind have survived millions of years in relative comfort,  but now increasing numbers are perishing from more frequent and warmer heat waves. 

Hiding in the sand will not protect anyone from the increasing and observable changes we are witnessing now.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Its the rising of extremes,  a slight warming of the poles is causing increased cloud from the poles which in turn is creating colder spots at times and hotter areas.
> 
> Humankind have survived millions of years in relative comfort,  but now increasing numbers are perishing from more frequent and warmer heat waves.
> 
> Hiding in the sand will not protect anyone from the increasing and observable changes we are witnessing now.




But it does not seem to matter with you Alarmists whether it is extreme cold, extreme heat, floods, drought, cyclones, good weather, bad weather, it IS in your mind set, man made Global warming........I have witnessed it all over the past 80 years...nothing has changed except the attitude, so called fictitious modelling and the big push by the United Nations to put fear into peoples minds.

Slight warming of the poles?????The last report I read indicated a build up of ice.

I am surprised the alarmist are not blaming man made Global warming or climate change on the extreme earth  quakes and extreme volcanoes.


----------



## noco

It is going to snow west of Brisbane on Sunday......A rare occasion indeed......It must be Global Warming, I mean Climate Change.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/28747204/snow-forecast-for-qld-as-cold-snap-hits/

*An icy blast from the Antarctic is about to sweep southern Queensland, bringing chilly temperatures, frosty winds and even snow.*


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Its the rising of extremes,  a slight warming of the poles is causing increased cloud from the poles which in turn is creating colder spots at times and hotter areas.
> 
> Humankind have survived millions of years in relative comfort,  but now increasing numbers are perishing from more frequent and warmer heat waves.
> 
> Hiding in the sand will not protect anyone from the increasing and observable changes we are witnessing now.




The problem with your speculation here is the the incidence of extreme weather is reducing.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/0...-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> The problem with your speculation here is the the incidence of extreme weather is reducing.
> 
> http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/0...-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/




No risk whatsoever.... yet New York City is spending some $170Billion over next few years to shore up its levies and various other projects to ease flooding and storm surges - the last couple of which floods their rails and clean the shorelines a bit.

There's a headline on Newsweek right now quoting some US coast guard official saying his department now have to deal with more open water the size of continental US due to Arctic melting. 

It also has some report about the new Cold War and the race for Arctic oil, gas and shipping. Where Shell is about to drill... and ey, if there's a spill like BP's in the Gulf of Mexico, it'll only cost them 3 months' profit spread over a couple decades...

I like how costs/benefit analysis works when profit is all mine but the destruction of the environment is everybody else's problem and my slap on the wrist.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The problem with your speculation here is the the incidence of extreme weather is reducing.
> 
> http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/0...-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/




Yes,  had a good read over the link.  Very vague as with the notation links and typical of that presented to support the oil and coal lobbies. 

In the first chart he uses GDP which we know in substance has dropped in that period. 

In the second,  Insurance Companies have backed away and reduced thier exposure to storm risk,  so this chart is useless. 

In the next,  he may be right about frequency but certanly not in the intensisty. 

In the next,  again the erosion of insurance exposur/cover would expain this one. 

And on floods,  the damage of late as reported on the media,  is much more intense and frequent.   Of late,  two big onesacross the Phillipines,  a number across Pakistan,  India and Bangladesh. 

And on droughts,  world production has dropped below need and demand.   The price of beef has just gone through the roof and as reported on tonights news will be scant on our own supermarket shelves in Australia from now on. 

Unlike noco I only have 70 years but as my family background was the land,  and as such the weather and seasons effecting crops and livestock production I was exposed to the views and experiences of my Great Grandfather (potatoes)  my Grandfather (wheat)  and my Dad,  (livestock)


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yes,  had a good read over the link.  Very vague as with the notation links and typical of that presented to support the oil and coal lobbies.
> 
> In the first chart he uses GDP which we know in substance has dropped in that period.
> 
> In the second,  Insurance Companies have backed away and reduced thier exposure to storm risk,  so this chart is useless.
> 
> In the next,  he may be right about frequency but certanly not in the intensisty.
> 
> In the next,  again the erosion of insurance exposur/cover would expain this one.
> 
> And on floods,  the damage of late as reported on the media,  is much more intense and frequent.   Of late,  two big onesacross the Phillipines,  a number across Pakistan,  India and Bangladesh.
> 
> And on droughts,  world production has dropped below need and demand.   The price of beef has just gone through the roof and as reported on tonights news will be scant on our own supermarket shelves in Australia from now on.
> 
> Unlike noco I only have 70 years but as my family background was the land,  and as such the weather and seasons effecting crops and livestock production I was exposed to the views and experiences of my Great Grandfather (potatoes)  my Grandfather (wheat)  and my Dad,  (livestock)




Luutzu, Plod,

Science, data, not heresay please.

and plod, cash cattle price chart for your interest. (Yes US price, but we cannot assign global implications from local conditions)


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Luutzu, Plod,
> 
> Science, data, not heresay please.




I agree and from scientific sources instead off biased Senate committees funded to obscure facts and finally figures that are up to date not ending 10 years ago. The truth despite the graph below is that the effect at present is less than 2% which is really quite small when compared to the rarity and other influences of storms. The other problem is data collection, we didn't have satellites 100 years ago. Still it appears visible. 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Luutzu, Plod,
> 
> Science, data, not heresay please.




May not be scientific but my personal views and observations are not heresay. 

If I quote I append the appropriate acknowledgement;  and in a discussion one is entitled to a point of view.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> And on droughts,  world production has dropped below need and demand.




That's at least partly due to population increase rather than drought per se. Keep using more and more of something each year and in due course it gets difficult to maintain adequate supply.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Luutzu, Plod,
> 
> Science, data, not heresay please.
> 
> and plod, cash cattle price chart for your interest. (Yes US price, but we cannot assign global implications from local conditions)
> 
> View attachment 63360




What's hearsay to you?

So I must witness it firsthand? I can't listen to Scientists and experts and repeat their findings, especially when it makes a lot of sense? I must do my own research, collect my own data and all that?

I'm a simple man... say i'm at the beach, in the rock pool. A few swimmers and myself could take a leak in the water and it won't make much of a difference... but if everyone else on the beach stop by and relieve themselves in the pool, maybe the safest and smartest thing to do is to get out of the water - and get out long long before you see the line forming.

We know CO2 from fossil fuel is no good - not good for us to breathe in, not good for global temperature. Most of our power comes from fossil, we're using more and more of it each day... and some of us are seriously debating whether that's a smart thing to do or not, whether that would have an impact on life or not.

Heard a few weeks ago some research found that about half of all Indian children in Delhi suffered from lung/breathing disease. The city's air quality is off the scale bad - worst than China's major cities... But ey, it could be their diet or something; maybe it's genetic.


So yea, stand by the pool and keep answering nature's call if you want. Only a couple thousands dead from heat stroke now and then; only a couple million kids suffering from lung disease in India; and extinction rate of wildlife is estimated to be only 100 times more than naturally occurring extinction over a century.


----------



## wayneL

Astonishing


----------



## Logique

Predictions of another Maunder Minimum like Mini-Ice Age during 2030-2045. From the Royal Astronomical Society, respect the science.  

But the climate alarmists won't miss a beat. So long as the political response involves wind farms and more expensive electricity generally, more taxes, wealth redistribution and a little bit of social engineering thrown in for good measure.   



> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
> 
> Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
> 
> Date:  July 9, 2015
> 
> ...Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645....we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Astonishing




What's astonishing is that you could lightly deny or be "skeptical" about a subject that could literally end our species on Earth. And will literally kill thousands each year and millions more from famine and disease before homosapiens and its support system are gone too.

Like I've said before, lazy people like me, with hearsay and what not, we believe the scientists, we support green initiatives, we think that global warming is happening and would support curbing of CO2, support alternative energy... and even if it turns out that this global warming was all a big hoax, at least there's cleaner air to breathe and clean water to drink.

Ever thought what would happen if you're wrong? That Global Warming is real?

But it can't be? And you know that from reading a few report funded by "think tanks"? 

Man, if a person close their garrage and leave the engine running - they'll literally die from toxic fume. But, somehow, if millions of those cars and hundreds of thousands of engines and power plants with similar or worst toxin do the same into the atmosphere - there's no consequences, at all!

Does that sound scientific or rational to you?

There's a few report I saw where pretty much all of the residents living near coal power plants, or oil refinery in Texas, or the Koch's chemical plant and the now polluted creeks the Kock use as open sewer... most people living around those die from lung and other cancer. Guess that's just one big coincidence.

Science is more than just plotting charts. And there is no such thing as "scientific certainty" - the best you could hope for is a 95% or a 99% probability of the conclusion being non-random. 

To most that's fair enough, to others well that's just "not in" and not good enough.

anyway...


----------



## luutzu

Logique said:


> Predictions of another Maunder Minimum like Mini-Ice Age during 2030-2045. From the Royal Astronomical Society, respect the science.
> 
> But the climate alarmists won't miss a beat. So long as the political response involves wind farms and more expensive electricity generally, more taxes, wealth redistribution and a little bit of social engineering thrown in for good measure.




What is the purpose of gov't if it doesn't engineer society?

There's been wealth redistribution alright, just it goes the other way and not the way you and popular right winger believe.

When a public asset is privatised, who do you think benefit the most? The public and the consumer or the new owners?

When those "fat and inefficient" public assets are sold, the new owners will first take an axe to the workforce, renegotiate pay and pensions... Guess who pay the bills for workers who got laid off? Their family and CentreLink.

When the asset becomes more efficient and profitable... where does the profit comes from? Higher prices from consumers (the public) and profit goes to private hands - the mom and pop aussie shareholders right?


Even if an informed person is a multi-billionaire, i still don't they'd see these policies as good for society. Yet somehow some of the people who's likely to be most disadvantaged by the policies, supports it.

I guess money will always make more money; and it's not always through compounding interests.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Man, if a person close their garrage and leave the engine running - they'll literally die from toxic fume. But, somehow, if millions of those cars and hundreds of thousands of engines and power plants with similar or worst toxin do the same into the atmosphere - there's no consequences, at all!
> 
> Does that sound scientific or rational to you?
> 
> 
> 
> anyway...




Isn't the exhaust from vehicles carbon monoxide?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Isn't the exhaust from vehicles carbon monoxide?




Analogy... for illustrative purposes.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Predictions of another Maunder Minimum like Mini-Ice Age during 2030-2045. From the Royal Astronomical Society, respect the science.
> 
> But the climate alarmists won't miss a beat. So long as the political response involves wind farms and more expensive electricity generally, more taxes, wealth redistribution and a little bit of social engineering thrown in for good measure.





And here is some more modelling on the expected mini ice age.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n_the_warming_now_warnings_of_a_mini_ice_age/

*Global warming hysteria is so yesterday:

    The earth is 15 years from a “mini ice-age” that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.

    Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun’s activity which they claim produces ”unprecedentedly accurate predictions”.

    They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s. 

Don’t question this science! Or was it the last science we weren’t supposed to question? It’s so confusing.

(Thanks to reader Shane and dozens of others.) *


----------



## noco

noco said:


> And here is some more modelling on the expected mini ice age.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n_the_warming_now_warnings_of_a_mini_ice_age/
> 
> *Global warming hysteria is so yesterday:
> 
> The earth is 15 years from a “mini ice-age” that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.
> 
> Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun’s activity which they claim produces ”unprecedentedly accurate predictions”.
> 
> They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s.
> 
> Don’t question this science! Or was it the last science we weren’t supposed to question? It’s so confusing.
> 
> (Thanks to reader Shane and dozens of others.) *




More on the mini ice age repeating history which was not man made.......How will the alarmist counter this one?


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-within-15-years/story-fnihsmjt-1227439367667

*BREKKIE WRAP: Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years

    Rosemarie Lentini and Network Writers
    News Corp Australia
    July 13, 2015 3:33AM

Share

Near future ... scientists predict earth will face another “mini ice age” in the next 15

Near future ... scientists predict earth will face another “mini ice age” in the next 15 years. Picture: Supplied

EARTH faces a new “mini ice age” in the next 15 years, bringing year-round snowfields and turning normally ice-free waterways to sleet, scientists predict.

As the Antarctic Vortex grips Australia, solar researchers from the University of Northumbria in the UK say solar activity is set to plummet by 60 per cent in the 2030s.

Research lead Professor Valentina Zharkova said fluid movements within the Sun, believed to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will cancel each other out, triggering a dramatic temperature drop.

This will lead to a weather phenomenon known as a “mini ice age” which previously hit between 1645 and 1715.

The findings are based on a new model which scientists claim produces “unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities” within the Sun’s “heartbeat”.

“[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other — peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun,” Prof Zharkova said.

“Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder Minimum’.”

Maunder Minimum was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715 when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.*


----------



## Tisme

What was the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics?

Of course there is now a fourth law ... because there's an aberrant, cool in an isolated pocket of the planet, there is no application of the first three laws. No matter that places like QLD are gripped in a drought that threatens the livestock industry is pushing up meat prices astronomically.


----------



## explod

And meanwhile the permafrost ice is dissapating under the ice caps letting out the methane. 

Yes some extra surface ice is forming during the respective winter months only to dissapear more each summer.   And it is simple realy.    Warmer at the poles,  more cloud spreading from north and south towards the equator giving the appearance that all is ok.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> What was the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics?
> 
> Of course there is now a fourth law ... because there's an aberrant, cool in an isolated pocket of the planet, there is no application of the first three laws. No matter that places like QLD are gripped in a drought that threatens the livestock industry is pushing up meat prices astronomically.




Meat prices are rising due to the high export demand and not the drought.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Meat prices are rising due to the high export demand and not the drought.




Not true. Ask you friends who own cattle....... shame on the Nats for not providing relief. Supply and demand Noco, if they all don't die of starvation, which is a real possibility, the selling of the herds that is happening now will cause long term scarcity and sustained higher prices.


----------



## dutchie

It's a strange world.

Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...-within-15-years/story-e6frflp0-1227439329592


Start redrawing the predicted temperature charts.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Research lead Professor Valentina Zharkova said fluid movements within the Sun, believed to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will cancel each other out, triggering a dramatic temperature drop.
> 
> This will lead to a weather phenomenon known as a “mini ice age” which previously hit between 1645 and 1715.
> 
> The findings are based on a new model which scientists claim produces “unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities” within the Sun’s “heartbeat”.
> 
> “[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other — peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun,” Prof Zharkova said.
> 
> “Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder Minimum’.”
> 
> Maunder Minimum was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715 when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.[/B]




Wow! Found the article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

This would be amazing luck for humanity. I hope she is correct. Got to wait till 2030 though.


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> Isn't the exhaust from vehicles carbon monoxide?




Not anymore. Used to be from old leaded petrol engines but now we have catalytic converters to turn it into carbon dioxide.

The largest part of most combustion gas is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (except for fuels without carbon); these are not toxic or noxious (although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). A relatively small part of combustion gas is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion, hydrocarbons (properly indicated as CxHy, but typically shown simply as "HC" on emissions-test slips) from unburnt fuel, nitrogen oxides (NOx) from excessive combustion temperatures, and particulate matter (mostly soot).

So you would get a headache and pretty sick but I don't think it would kill you other than to starve you from oxygen.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Not anymore. Used to be from old leaded petrol engines but now we have catalytic converters to turn it into carbon dioxide.




We have that pinko, commo, fabian, Ralph Nader to thank for that and a progressive govt in California who decided to listen to what they had been looking at through their windows.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Heard a few weeks ago some research found that about half of all Indian children in Delhi suffered from lung/breathing disease. The city's air quality is off the scale bad - worst than China's major cities... But ey, it could be their diet or something; maybe it's genetic.




Nothing to do with the fact they have open fires to cook on inside their homes. Nor that they are one of the highest polluting countries in the world because they are using old technology.


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Nothing to do with the fact they have open fires to cook on inside their homes. Nor that they are one of the highest polluting countries in the world because they are using old technology.
> 
> View attachment 63370
> 
> 
> View attachment 63371




300,000,000 are without electricity in India hence they have no alternative but to cook over open fires.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Nothing to do with the fact they have open fires to cook on inside their homes. Nor that they are one of the highest polluting countries in the world because they are using old technology.
> 
> View attachment 63370
> 
> 
> View attachment 63371




True that the, mostly, women who cook with poorly designed pots does suffer from lung and eye diseases too, with a large number of older women losing their sight from long exposure to the smoke etc. over many decades.

But that's mainly in the rural areas; and the cooking are done not in the main house but in an outside/separate kitchen/cooking area - not many kids were doing to actual cooking.

The report I saw was in Delhi, the capital city.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> But that's mainly in the rural areas; and the cooking are done not in the main house but in an outside/separate kitchen/cooking area - not many kids were doing to actual cooking.




If you look at the picture it clearly shows a little kid shielding his eyes from the smoke of the fire. Many people do not have a separate cooking area and the whole family lives in one room. When they are babies they generally are slung in a papoose on the woman's back while she does the cooking. You figure it out.

Yep the pollution is bad in India ... up to catastrophic proportions. 

http://aqicn.org/map/india/ 

Current Population of India in 2015	1,289,531,964 (1.28 billion) As of July 12, 2015
0 to 25 years = 50% of India's current population (which means they are breeding at a phenomenal rate)

A child is born every 1.1764 seconds.

Which means the need for cheap energy/heating/cooking as well as transportation is contributing a vastly skewiff rate of pollution compared to the rest of the world. Modernising this many people will not happen in my lifetime.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> If you look at the picture it clearly shows a little kid shielding his eyes from the smoke of the fire. Many people do not have a separate cooking area and the whole family lives in one room. When they are babies they generally are slung in a papoose on the woman's back while she does the cooking. You figure it out.
> 
> Yep the pollution is bad in India ... up to catastrophic proportions.
> 
> http://aqicn.org/map/india/
> 
> Current Population of India in 2015	1,289,531,964 (1.28 billion) As of July 12, 2015
> 0 to 25 years = 50% of India's current population (which means they are breeding at a phenomenal rate)
> 
> A child is born every 1.1764 seconds.
> 
> Which means the need for cheap energy/heating/cooking as well as transportation is contributing a vastly skewiff rate of pollution compared to the rest of the world. Modernising this many people will not happen in my lifetime.




From that picture you conclude most rural households cook inside their one room?

I've seen video newsreel (on SBS recently i think) where the poor rural Indian villagers cook in a separate hut outside their small house. It's nothing modern or fancy, but it's a separate roof.

In that same news clip, there are some enterprising Indian companies that's making cheaper cooktops, ones that reduces smog and have a chimney that take the smog out through the roof.

Anyway, if you're saying that smog from the kitchen causes irreversible lung disease in 50% of Delhi's children, you're way off the reservation.

That's like saying rice farming and animal manure also causes global warming. Sure it does... but how significant is it? Very negligible.


As that researcher in the news clip above said... there are many factors that contributes to the kids lung diseases  and Delhi's air pollution in general. Among the causes are power station, construction, open burning of rubbish... but the overwhelming cause of air pollution and deadly air particulates comes from the burning of fossil fuel - from coal, from gas and oil, from the traffic.

Further, I think he said the majority of severe cases are those living near the major traffic corridors.

Are we seriously even debating whether the burning of fossil fuel is damaging to health?

----

Birth rate:

From wikipedia... fertility rate per woman averages 1.79 in Delhi; or 2.39 across India in 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate

So it's not excessive. 

Maybe so many Indians are young could be because life expectancy is very low. Not necessarily because they breed like Catholics or live to a ripe old age like most Westerners.


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Not anymore. Used to be from old leaded petrol engines but now we have catalytic converters to turn it into carbon dioxide.




I recall reading somewhere that suicide by means of vehicle exhaust has become less common in developed countries, largely because it's now much harder to actually do it with the lower CO concentration in modern vehicle exhaust gases.

Not sure if that's true, but I do recall reading it somewhere.



> particulate matter (mostly soot)




In the context of vehicle engines, agreed that particles will be mostly soot. But in other applications the particles may also be inorganic ash. Eg heavy fuel oil (#6 fuel oil) produces visible smoke when burned and whilst some of that may be carbon from incomplete combustion, the ash present in the fuel also goes straight up the stack unless the facility (eg power station or factory) using it has equipment to trap those particulates. In practice, most oil-fired plant is either 35+ years old (most developed countries) or is somewhere (Third World) where they don't have the $ to be worried about particulates anyway. End result = majority of such facilities have no emission controls whatsoever so the ash goes straight up the stack.

Ash in oil? Yes there is, it's present in #6 fuel oil especially but there's some in #5 and some blends of #4 as well since they are residual oils not fully distilled.


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> the overwhelming cause of air pollution and deadly air particulates comes from the burning of fossil fuel - from coal, from gas and oil




Coal certainly and depending on the actual product and its usage also oil. But particulate emissions from gas are trivial under normal circumstances involving gas used in a burner for heating, cooking etc with a blue flame.

It's possible to get soot from gas, it's done commercially as a source of carbon black, but for normal use the technology to avoid it is incredibly simple - ordinary gas burner with a blue flame gets rid of the vast majority.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> I recall reading somewhere that suicide by means of vehicle exhaust has become less common in developed countries, largely because it's now much harder to actually do it with the lower CO concentration in modern vehicle exhaust gases.
> 
> Not sure if that's true, but I do recall reading it somewhere.




You used to be able to do yourself in by sticking your head in a gas oven, but you can't even do that anymore.

Pretty soon car exhaust will be so clean we'll be able to breath it.


Of course if we had hydrogen fuel cell cars, we could drink the exhaust as well. Will people try to commit:drink: suicide by drowning in their hydrogen car exhaust ?


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> I recall reading somewhere that suicide by means of vehicle exhaust has become less common in developed countries, largely because it's now much harder to actually do it with the lower CO concentration in modern vehicle exhaust gases.
> 
> Not sure if that's true, but I do recall reading it somewhere.
> ...




Didn't Robin William died a couple years ago from suicide by vehicle exhaust?

I went around Asia a few years ago... and whatever chemical is in the fumes, it'll kill you. If not right away, it will eventually if you live in the area long enough.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> From that picture you conclude most rural households cook inside their one room?
> 
> I've seen video newsreel (on SBS recently i think) where the poor rural Indian villagers cook in a separate hut outside their small house. It's nothing modern or fancy, but it's a separate roof.
> 
> In that same news clip, there are some enterprising Indian companies that's making cheaper cooktops, ones that reduces smog and have a chimney that take the smog out through the roof.
> 
> Anyway, if you're saying that smog from the kitchen causes irreversible lung disease in 50% of Delhi's children, you're way off the reservation.
> 
> That's like saying rice farming and animal manure also causes global warming. Sure it does... but how significant is it? Very negligible.
> 
> 
> As that researcher in the news clip above said... there are many factors that contributes to the kids lung diseases  and Delhi's air pollution in general. Among the causes are power station, construction, open burning of rubbish... but the overwhelming cause of air pollution and deadly air particulates comes from the burning of fossil fuel - from coal, from gas and oil, from the traffic.
> 
> Further, I think he said the majority of severe cases are those living near the major traffic corridors.
> 
> Are we seriously even debating whether the burning of fossil fuel is damaging to health?
> 
> ----
> 
> Birth rate:
> 
> From wikipedia... fertility rate per woman averages 1.79 in Delhi; or 2.39 across India in 2013
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate
> 
> So it's not excessive.
> 
> Maybe so many Indians are young could be because life expectancy is very low. Not necessarily because they breed like Catholics or live to a ripe old age like most Westerners.




Haha not because of one picture stolen off the interweb. Seen this first hand in several countries. Children are reared around an open fire that burns the natural habitat because they cannot afford anything else.

Yes there are micro loans happening to give them a light in their humpy. Dirt poor is the word I would use in this instance. 

http://www.kiva.org/india 

As for being off the reservation it is ingrained in the children form an early age to get all that smoke into your lungs. NO EDUCATION you see. If you tell them it is bad for them to inhale this stuff then they have no way else of cooking as they are dirt poor. 1.3 billion of them man.

Insignificant collectively adds up to something at the end of the day. It is a volume business.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Didn't Robin William died a couple years ago from suicide by vehicle exhaust?
> 
> I went around Asia a few years ago... and whatever chemical is in the fumes, it'll kill you. If not right away, it will eventually if you live in the area long enough.




No .. he hung himself.

Cigarettes are just as bad. :kiffer:


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Haha not because of one picture stolen off the interweb. Seen this first hand in several countries. Children are reared around an open fire that burns the natural habitat because they cannot afford anything else.
> 
> Yes there are micro loans happening to give them a light in their humpy. Dirt poor is the word I would use in this instance.
> 
> http://www.kiva.org/india
> 
> As for being off the reservation it is ingrained in the children form an early age to get all that smoke into your lungs. NO EDUCATION you see. If you tell them it is bad for them to inhale this stuff then they have no way else of cooking as they are dirt poor. 1.3 billion of them man.
> 
> Insignificant collectively adds up to something at the end of the day. It is a volume business.




Not all of them are dirt poor, maybe a couple hundred millions. But all breathe the same air though.

Well, except for the very rich being driven around in limo and rolls royce with properly maintained air-filters, who live and work in houses and buildings with the world's best air filters.

Not all 1.3 billion of them cook with coal or sticks of timber, or hang around the kitchen. But most of them do use power and fuel and scooters and buses.


Anyway, early death and illness to the poor aside, climate hoax and leftist red alarmist propaganda aside... wouldn't it be a good thing to just develop alternative sources of energy, one that is a bit cleaner and more efficient... If for not other reason than because technological ingenuity and progress is also one of the things humans are good at as well?

The steam ships and steam engine trains are nice and all, but they're noisy and dirty as heck arent they? Would you rather an old 19th century coal-power train or the newer generation of electric ones on our network?


----------



## noco

I watched Tim Flannery on Shy news 601 today and he raved on about renewable energy but did not mention Global Warming or Climate Change once.

Looks like he has joined the skeptics.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> You used to be able to do yourself in by sticking your head in a gas oven, but you can't even do that anymore.




Prior to the widespread use of natural gas, we used to have what was known as Town Gas. 

Historically town gas was produced from high grade black coal but by the 1950's other methods were also in use involving brown coal (Victoria was one of the few places globally to do that on a large scale), lower grade black coal and various petroleum products including fuel oil, naptha and LPG. 

By the time natural gas came along, only about 10% of town gas in Melbourne was still from black coal - 30% brown coal, 30% fuel oil etc, 30% oil refinery gases (LPG). Hobart switched to 100% production from naptha (a liquid very similar to petrol) in 1964 and Launceston went to 100% butane in 1978. Not sure about elsewhere although I know that Brisbane was using butane (I think) as feedstock at one time. 

That's all gone now however, basically nowhere on earth (with very few exceptions) still uses town gas today. It's highly toxic stuff in its unburnt form and contains a lot of carbon monoxide. Hence inhaling even modest amounts of the stuff is one way to end your life rather quickly.

It was impressive in some ways, 1800's technology that turned coal into gas, but it's nasty stuff in many ways. Apart from being toxic, it outright stinks too. Hard to describe if you've never smelled it, other than to say that you don't want to.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Not all of them are dirt poor, maybe a couple hundred millions. But all breathe the same air though.
> 
> Well, except for the very rich being driven around in limo and rolls royce with properly maintained air-filters, who live and work in houses and buildings with the world's best air filters.
> 
> The steam ships and steam engine trains are nice and all, but they're noisy and dirty as heck arent they? Would you rather an old 19th century coal-power train or the newer generation of electric ones on our network?






> _In 2012, India's per-capita income stood at $1,550, and world per-capita income around $10,235, suggesting that the ratio of Indian per-capita income to the world average is a measly 0.15. Meanwhile, the multimillionaire ratio (India's share relative to its population) is 3/17 = 0.17. These two ratios are close, which suggests that neither self-congratulation nor admonition is quite called for at this stage._




http://articles.economictimes.india...d-average-multimillionaires-per-capita-income

They can't afford them. It's a numbers game. $4.28 a day to live on per-capita compared to global $28.04 / day economy does not compute. Computer says no.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> http://articles.economictimes.india...d-average-multimillionaires-per-capita-income
> 
> They can't afford them. It's a numbers game. $4.28 a day to live on per-capita compared to global $28.04 / day economy does not compute. Computer says no.




Are you going to trust a computer or my wisdom?


----------



## basilio

There is an intriguing story in Esquire Magazine on how the consequences of climate change is affecting the climate scientists who essentially know the story backwards (and sideways and inside out).

Worth a read and think.
*



			When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
		
Click to expand...


*


> Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it
> 
> The incident was small, but Jason Box doesn't want to talk about it. He's been skittish about the media since it happened. This was last summer, as he was reading the cheery blog posts transmitted by the chief scientist on the Swedish icebreaker Oden, which was exploring the Arctic for an international expedition led by Stockholm University. "Our first observations of elevated methane levels, about ten times higher than in background seawater, were documented . . . we discovered over 100 new methane seep sites.... The weather Gods are still on our side as we steam through a now ice-free Laptev Sea...."
> 
> As a leading climatologist who spent many years studying the Arctic at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at Ohio State, Box knew that this breezy scientific detachment described one of the nightmare long-shot climate scenarios: a feedback loop where warming seas release methane that causes warming that releases more methane that causes more warming, on and on until the planet is incompatible with human life. And he knew there were similar methane releases occurring in the area. On impulse, he sent out a tweet.
> 
> "If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd."




http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/


----------



## basilio

A little more from the Esquire magazine story.


> *Scientists are problem solvers by nature,* trained to cherish detachment as a moral ideal. Jeffrey Kiehl was a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research when he became so concerned about the way the brain resists climate science, he took a break and got a psychology degree.
> 
> *Ten years of research later, he's concluded that consumption and growth have become so central to our sense of personal identity and the fear of economic loss creates such numbing anxiety, we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes. Worse, accepting the facts threatens us with a loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe*. Climate scientists are different only because they have a professional excuse for detachment, and usually it's not until they get older that they admit how much it's affecting them””which is also when they tend to get more outspoken, Kiehl says. "You reach a point where you feel””and that's the word, not think, feel””'I have to do something.' "




http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/


----------



## Logique

Damn you global warming!



> 17 July 2015, *Hume Highway at Berrima, NSW *.  *Traffic brought to a halt* [by snowfall].
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/act-news/h...rought-to-a-halt-by-snow-20150716-giea98.html
> 
> Shane McCue @McCueShane, Hume highway at Berrima @GrillTeam








http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/water/dam-levels
*Warragamba Dam* (Sydney catchment) latest July 2015: *92.8%* capacity


----------



## luutzu

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming!
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 63474
> 
> 
> http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/water/dam-levels
> *Warragamba Dam* (Sydney catchment) latest July 2015: *92.8%* capacity





I thought it's "global". 

75% of QLD and a fair bit of NSW has been in a drought past 5 years now? 

There's a recent typhoon in China you could point to too.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> I thought it's "global".
> 
> 75% of QLD and a fair bit of NSW has been in a drought past 5 years now?
> 
> There's a recent typhoon in China you could point to too.




Wooohooo 5 years 

Bitterly cold in America http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/america-coldest-outbreaks



> Winter 2013-2014
> - December 2013 - February 2014 was among the top 10 coldest such periods on record in seven Midwest states.
> 
> - An early January 2014 outbreak brought the coldest temperatures of the 21st century, to date, for some cities.
> 
> - The winter was among the top five snowiest on record in at least 10 major cities.




Take note of the 1899 freeze as well 

More in America ...



> Connecticut is experiencing its coldest February in recorded history. So is Michigan. So is Toronto. Cleveland and Chicago are experiencing their second coldest February in recorded history. Frigid and record cold temperatures are being set from Key West to International Falls. At the same time, blizzard after blizzard is burying much of the nation with record winter snow totals, with winter snowfall records beings set from Boston to Denver.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/

Yep it is hotter in some areas of the globe and it is colder as well


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Wooohooo 5 years
> 
> Bitterly cold in America http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/america-coldest-outbreaks
> 
> 
> 
> Take note of the 1899 freeze as well
> 
> More in America ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/
> 
> Yep it is hotter in some areas of the globe and it is colder as well




You do realise that it's summer in North America right now right?

Yea, their last winter saw big snow storms and arctic votex and other normal weather pattern. So what warming right? Also heard that global warming will likely shift the gulf stream or something and will turn Europe into another ice age. So it'll be cool alright.


Just saw headline that Australian farmers are starting to call on Abbott about taking Climate Change more seriously. Maybe the abnormal weather pattern and drought lately can't just be explained by seasonal changes.
Prrfff... people of the land, what do they know about the land and the weather - serves them right for farming where the rain don't pour.


NASA released a report couple weeks ago showing how the world's aquifers - underground water - are being exhausted at an alarming rate. All due to lack of snow and rain in most areas and people have to dig deeper and use more underground water instead of from rivers and established dams and reserves.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> You do realise that it's summer in North America right now right?
> 
> Yea, their last winter saw big snow storms and arctic votex and other normal weather pattern. So what warming right? Also heard that global warming will likely shift the gulf stream or something and will turn Europe into another ice age. So it'll be cool alright.
> 
> 
> Just saw headline that Australian farmers are starting to call on Abbott about taking Climate Change more seriously. Maybe the abnormal weather pattern and drought lately can't just be explained by seasonal changes.
> Prrfff... people of the land, what do they know about the land and the weather - serves them right for farming where the rain don't pour.
> 
> 
> NASA released a report couple weeks ago showing how the world's aquifers - underground water - are being exhausted at an alarming rate. All due to lack of snow and rain in most areas and people have to dig deeper and use more underground water instead of from rivers and established dams and reserves.




More like they are pumping MORE water out then EVER before 

I have posted about the MURRAY RIVER running completely dry in 1914 ....

*The Facts:*
The Murray river no longer runs dry.
Rainfall is not declining.
Salt levels are not rising.
The Lower Lakes have a marine origin and estuarine history.
The Murray’s mouth closed many times before European settlement.
The barrages have reduced the natural tidal prism by 90 percent which has reduced flushing of the system.
During the recent drought acid sulfate soils formed because the barrages acted as dykes preventing inflows from the Southern Ocean.
Current management of the Lower Lakes is not sustainable

http://www.mythandthemurray.org/myths-about-the-murray/

But hey what would the scientists know right?


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> The Murray river no longer runs dry.




The combined effects of the Snowy, Hume and Dartmouth hydro schemes with their associated dams and diversions rather than anything that has or hasn't changed with the climate. 

Due to the presence of those dams and diversions, water flow into the Murray during a dry period is now higher than the "natural" (pre-dam) level whilst in a flood it will normally be lower than the natural level.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> More like they are pumping MORE water out then EVER before
> 
> I have posted about the MURRAY RIVER running completely dry in 1914 ....
> 
> *The Facts:*
> The Murray river no longer runs dry.
> Rainfall is not declining.
> Salt levels are not rising.
> The Lower Lakes have a marine origin and estuarine history.
> The Murray’s mouth closed many times before European settlement.
> The barrages have reduced the natural tidal prism by 90 percent which has reduced flushing of the system.
> During the recent drought acid sulfate soils formed because the barrages acted as dykes preventing inflows from the Southern Ocean.
> Current management of the Lower Lakes is not sustainable
> 
> http://www.mythandthemurray.org/myths-about-the-murray/
> 
> But hey what would the scientists know right?





From the map that NASA report showed, Australia's aquifer looks very healthy. So Australia will only need to deal with terrorists and drought to most of its farmland - there'll be enough drinking water no sweat.

But we're talking about global climate change and it's not working out so well for, from memory, the Middle East, India and China. Some old doco I saw said the US's plains will run dry by 2050 or so. 

At least the world might go to war over water instead of oil ey?


----------



## SirRumpole

Scientists answer some of the climate change myths

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...change-sceptics-versus-the-scientists/6711084


----------



## Ijustnewit

SirRumpole said:


> Scientists answer some of the climate change myths
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...change-sceptics-versus-the-scientists/6711084




And some other climate change myths or facts.

1. The story is on the ABC which pushes a Climate Change agenda.
2. The Weather Scientists can't get the forecast correct for a 24hr period and they want us to believe they can do it for 10 / 20 / 50 and 100 years ahead. :


----------



## SirRumpole

Ijustnewit said:


> And some other climate change myths or facts.
> 
> 1. The story is on the ABC which pushes a Climate Change agenda.




Ho ho, kill the messenger



> 2. The Weather Scientists can't get the forecast correct for a 24hr period and they want us to believe they can do it for 10 / 20 / 50 and 100 years ahead. :




You do know the difference between forecasting over a short period and over a long period based on long term data ?

Would you prefer to buy shares in a company based on yesterdays price or it's long term history ?


----------



## Wysiwyg

Images of steam from stacks, foggy mornings in Indian city denoting pollution, storm damage and extreme weather events is propaganda material. It is the best the Warmists can do to present their case by visual evidence.


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> Images of steam from stacks, foggy mornings in Indian city denoting pollution, storm damage and extreme weather events is propaganda material. It is the best the Warmists can do to present their case by visual evidence.




Some forget or do not wish to acknowledge the rising toll from heatwaves above 47 celsius,  the planet used to be a fireball and should be cooling. 

Or the complete extntion of a race of possums in one day at Mount Martha,  Victoria in 2007 when it hit 49 deg.  Those possums evolved there over millions of years,  to be gone in a day. 

Forget the scientists,  they need to keep thier Government subsidised jobs.  Personal observations tell me "we have a problem Ralf". 

We need 100% renewables now and stuff the cost.   This is about survival.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Scientists answer some of the climate change myths
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...change-sceptics-versus-the-scientists/6711084




Opinion piece.... worthless as a discussion on science.


----------



## Wysiwyg

explod said:


> We need 100% renewables now and stuff the cost.   This is about survival.





> Rio De Janeiro (Xinhua): The deforestation in the Amazon rainforest region has led to the extinction of 26 animal and plant species, a UN report said.
> 
> Another 644 species of animals and plants, including the red-faced spider monkey, the spectacled bear and the otter, were in danger of extinction, it said.




I think the desire to consume everything is a big one to crack. The American, Chinese and Indian swarms are not going to reduce in numbers and that is more to feed, clothe and shelter. Evolution of the human brain is interesting in that it turns nature into stuff for humans to use. That change from natural thing to man made stuff is counter survival, it is self destructive. Making space for more and more humans is a wheel in spin.


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> Opinion piece.... worthless as a discussion on science.



Clever propaganda from vested interest.  Doesn't look like any scientific paper I've ever seen. Where's the balance, where's the review of opposing viewpoints, and the reference list.   

Show up their distorted propositions, they just come back with this sort of stuff.    

It shows what the real scientists are up against.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Clever propaganda from vested interest.  Doesn't look like any scientific paper I've ever seen. Where's the balance, where's the review of opposing viewpoints, and the reference list.
> 
> Show up their distorted propositions, they just come back with this sort of stuff.
> 
> It shows what the real scientists are up against.




Where is your reference list ?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Opinion piece.... worthless as a discussion on science.




The Secretary General 0f the united Nations Ban-Ki-Moon has been pushing this crap for years in an endeavor to form a World Government.

Ban-Ki-Moon is an out and out Greenie.


----------



## trainspotter

Perth ... 1905 no less 







> The coldest day was June 20, 1905, when the maximum temperature was 49.4deg.



http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48984026

But but but in America it's HOT 







> The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7 C (134 F), which was measured on *10 July 1913 *at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.




http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/

Yep must be global warming


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The Secretary General 0f the united Nations Ban-Ki-Moon has been pushing this crap for years in an endeavor to form a World Government.
> 
> Ban-Ki-Moon is an out and out Greenie.




Years ago the temperature was messured out in the sun.  But due to wind and humidity factors the weathermen  created more consistent readings by placing the thermometer in the shade.  Namely a uniform white box covered in a cloth material. 

On a 47 degree day the thermometer can in fact hit 60c outside in the sun.  An example of this is where children or animals perish very quickly in a car on hot days.  That is why the cloth material is used as it does not trap the air and allows it to breathe. 

 You cannot compare historical readings with the type of readings today.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Years ago the temperature was messured out in the sun.  But due to wind and humidity factors the weathermen  created more consistent readings by placing the thermometer in the shade.  Namely a uniform white box covered in a cloth material.
> 
> On a 47 degree day the thermometer can in fact hit 60c outside in the sun.  An example of this is where children or animals perish very quickly in a car on hot days.  That is why the cloth material is used as it does not trap the air and allows it to breathe.
> 
> You cannot compare historical readings with the type of readings today.




If that is true the whole temp record is not worth a cracker and alarmist are massaging data artifact into what they want to see.

Hoist by your petard there Plod.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> If that is true the whole temp record is not worth a cracker and alarmist are massaging data artifact into what they want to see.
> 
> Hoist by your petard there Plod.




Agree,  personal observations and knowledge that methane is escaping at unprecedented levels indicates that we need to go to 100%renewables as fast as we can. 

Bring on more of those dirty and ugly wind farms. 

Sorry about that clean coal,   ole Pal


----------



## basilio

July was the warmest month on record across the globe.  Ever.

And not by a small amount.

Ocean Temperatures are also at their highest.



> Global Summary Information - July 2015
> See Full Report
> 
> Note: With this report and data release, the National Centers for Environmental Information is transitioning to improved versions of its global land (GHCN-M version 3.3.0) and ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) datasets. Please note that anomalies and ranks reflect the historical record according to these updated versions. Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports. For more, please visit the associated FAQ and supplemental information.
> 
> July 2015 was warmest month ever recorded for the globe.
> Global oceans record warm for July; January-July 2015 also record warm




http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> July was the warmest month on record across the globe.  Ever.
> 
> And not by a small amount.
> 
> Ocean Temperatures are also at their highest.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/




Ahh but Bas, focus on the positives... there I was toying with the unfavorable odds of truffles in the southern alpine region, whereas now, it's a no brainer to go with macadamia's in the Gippsland. While the irukandji's continue their southern infestation to the Sunshine coast then Cape Byron and beyond. 
It's the physics... *If more heat goes into the thing, than goes out of the thing, then the thing gets warmer.*... What's left to say???    _they just don't get it_

The Gonski reforms would have, over time, reconciled the bulk of these type of educational deficiencies, so it's obvious why 'the coals good for inhumanity dolts' put the kybosh on that and broader progress toward critical thought. Of course you'd still be left with a rump...but of diminishing consequence.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> July was the warmest month on record across the globe.  Ever.
> 
> And not by a small amount.
> 
> Ocean Temperatures are also at their highest.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/




http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/ho...test-july-since-2014-according-to-satellites/



> Hottest July in 4000 years? Not even the hottest July since *2014* according to satellites
> 
> NOAA has a press release out being picked up around the world. For example, the DailyMail, UK, is saying July was the hottest month since records began in 1880 as heatwaves swept the Earth’s countries and oceans. Other silly tabloids have headlines about this being the hottest July in 4,000 years, as if we have even the remotest idea what the average July global temperature was in the days of Plato.
> 
> Better data shows July this year is the hottest since way back in…  2014. It’s not 4,000 years, not 135 years, it’s the hottest July since the last one.


----------



## Knobby22

The graphs are measuring different things.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are measuring global surface temperature (oceans and land) while JoNova is showing lower troposphere averages. We aren't comparing apples with apples.

For clarity both graphs shown following.








I will let everyone come to their own conclusions but scientifically I think JoNova is being a  little dishonest by pulling out one piece of data and not addressing the rest of it. Hey, but she is probably paid to do that.


----------



## macca

This will upset the greens ......................

Indigenous fire methods could slash global emissions: UN report 

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3...could-slash-global-emissions-un-report/?cs=12

After all the years of having lovely green bush to drive past, (pity about the the fauna, the people or their houses when summer comes along) the UN have decided that the aborigines, the old bushies and farmers have been right all along.

The younger generation of my family will be miffed, we have had this discussion a number of times


----------



## wayneL

Knobby

Ocean temps have human artifact... Vis a vis recalibrations AKA adjustments. We shall have to wait and whether purported ocean temps manifest in the atmosphere  like the last el Nino did. That will be telling....


...or not as the case may be.


----------



## explod

macca said:


> This will upset the greens ......................
> 
> Indigenous fire methods could slash global emissions: UN report
> 
> http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3...could-slash-global-emissions-un-report/?cs=12
> 
> After all the years of having lovely green bush to drive past, (pity about the the fauna, the people or their houses when summer comes along) the UN have decided that the aborigines, the old bushies and farmers have been right all along.
> 
> The younger generation of my family will be miffed, we have had this discussion a number of times




What a load of rubbish.   It is well documented and proven that before the indigenous arrived in Australia abouf 45,000 years ago that Australia was an oasis of forrests and heavy pasture.   The burning off since turned most of it into desert.  Newzealand were heading the same way as did Christmas Island totally. 

The BS served up to try and justify our current direction and lifestyle never ceases to amaze.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> What a load of rubbish.   It is well documented and proven that before the indigenous arrived in Australia abouf 45,000 years ago that Australia was an oasis of forrests and heavy pasture.   The burning off since turned most of it into desert.  Newzealand were heading the same way as did Christmas Island totally.
> 
> The BS served up to try and justify our current direction and lifestyle never ceases to amaze.




Cites please Plod


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Years ago the temperature was messured out in the sun.  But due to wind and humidity factors the weathermen  created more consistent readings by placing the thermometer in the shade.  Namely a uniform white box covered in a cloth material.
> 
> On a 47 degree day the thermometer can in fact hit 60c outside in the sun.  An example of this is where children or animals perish very quickly in a car on hot days.  That is why the cloth material is used as it does not trap the air and allows it to breathe.
> 
> You cannot compare historical readings with the type of readings today.




I tend to think, there will be more to worry about, over the next few years.

World climate, might take a second seat, to welfare sustainability.IMO


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Cites please Plod




It is common knowlege. 

Did you go to school? 

We learnt all that at Hawkesdale Primary No.  766


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> It is common knowlege.
> 
> Did you go to school?
> 
> We learnt all that at Hawkesdale Primary No.  766




We were all taught lots of crap in school.

Cites please


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> We were all taught lots of crap in school.
> 
> Cites please




Tim Flannery's digging in the dirt. 

Not going to bother getting his books out now but covered in his first one.  In fact a lot of his excavations were around our area.


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> What a load of rubbish.   It is well documented and proven that before the indigenous arrived in Australia abouf 45,000 years ago that Australia was an oasis of forrests and heavy pasture.   The burning off since turned most of it into desert.  Newzealand were heading the same way as did Christmas Island totally.
> 
> The BS served up to try and justify our current direction and lifestyle never ceases to amaze.




I'm guessing Bill Gammage would disagree.  But Bill has written a book and that makes it true.


----------



## trainspotter

Did someone say Sydney is in a drought? 

45,000 years ago ...Pfftttttttttt puleeeeeeeeeze  this has been going on for millions of years !




http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/



> It is obvious from the graph that we are now living in the coldest period of Earth’s history for the last 65 million years. Despite recent rumors of global warming, we are actually in a deep freeze.


----------



## macca

explod said:


> What a load of rubbish.   It is well documented and proven that before the indigenous arrived in Australia abouf 45,000 years ago that Australia was an oasis of forrests and heavy pasture.   The burning off since turned most of it into desert.  Newzealand were heading the same way as did Christmas Island totally.
> 
> The BS served up to try and justify our current direction and lifestyle never ceases to amaze.




Yes, 45000 years ago the climate was very different. For example, the weather patterns that currently travel along the Great Australian Bight used to travel about where the Tropic of Capricorn is. Mungo National Park was a then a string of lakes with that much food it was a paradise, now it is a desert.

The reasons are mainly twofold, after eating all the slow animals the aboriginals found it hard to hunt the fast ones through the bush so they burnt it. This was the start of the outback as we know it now but at the same time the Earth has been through many climate cycles, when it is in an ice age the weather patterns move closer to the Equator and when it warms they expand back towards the poles.

We are left with what we have got, so how do we keep it as is or improve it ? The main thing that will make a global difference is to get every country involved to reduce pollution, that is what is damaging the World, all this frantic waffle about Co2 is a mere smoke screen so that the real, tangible, visible, breathable pollution is off the radar.

I would not be at all surprised if the Co2 bandwaggon is encouraged by the Polluters so that the world does not suddenly start looking at them. 

The world needs Co2, it does not need air that burns our throats, poisoned rivers or lakes !


----------



## basilio

It is always interesting delving into the Mad Hatters world of CC on ASF.

*The world has had its warmest July on record.* Thats it. End of story. The temperature readings across the world on land and sea are the evidence of this simple *matter of fact.*

And the response from the usual suspects ? Oh we can find some average figures from satellites in the lower troposphere. Lets dish these up to offer an alternative reality to the thousands of on the ground measurements from meteorlogists around the world.

It leaves genuine scepticism at home and takes denial to a new art form. 

And you want us to take you seriously ? Totally deluded or completly deceptive. Your choice.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> It is always interesting delving into the Mad Hatters world of CC on ASF.
> 
> *The world has had its warmest July on record.* Thats it. End of story. The temperature readings across the world on land and sea are the evidence of this simple *matter of fact.*
> 
> And the response from the usual suspects ? Oh we can find some average figures from satellites in the lower troposphere. Lets dish these up to offer an alternative reality to the thousands of on the ground measurements from meteorlogists around the world.
> 
> It leaves genuine scepticism at home and takes denial to a new art form.
> 
> And you want us to take you seriously ? Totally deluded or completly deceptive. Your choice.




Was this an email direct from Ban-Ki-Moon, Al Gore or Tim Flannery.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> It is always interesting delving into the Mad Hatters world of CC on ASF.
> 
> *The world has had its warmest July on record.* Thats it. End of story. The temperature readings across the world on land and sea are the evidence of this simple *matter of fact.*
> 
> And the response from the usual suspects ? Oh we can find some average figures from satellites in the lower troposphere. Lets dish these up to offer an alternative reality to the thousands of on the ground measurements from meteorlogists around the world.
> 
> It leaves genuine scepticism at home and takes denial to a new art form.
> 
> And you want us to take you seriously ? Totally deluded or completly deceptive. Your choice.




*The Mad Hatter: *There is a place. Like no place on Earth. A land full of wonder, mystery, and danger! Some say to survive it: You need to be as mad as a hatter. 

*The Mad Hatter:* Which luckily I am. 



> "Unprecedented" global warming during late 20th and early 21st centuries? Actually, the real unprecedented warming (and extreme climate change) happened well before the industrial age, as the below paleo & ancient temperature proxy reconstruction charts reveal (for the most part, in paleo-age descending order). Review the charts below and decide for yourself. (Collection of of modern global temp and regional temp charts.)




http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

1880 - 2015 is not a long time in a "global climate change" history.



> Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change, with the base period 1951-1980, derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Plate 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).] *Uncertainty bars *(95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for *incomplete spatial sampling* of data.




http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Yep it's getting hotter ... no wait ... it's getting colder?



> In the Midwest and Northeast, February 2015 ranked as one of the coldest Februaries on record for many major cities. The slideshow above shows how the month finished for 10 locations from Chicago and Cincinnati to New York City and Boston.
> 
> For some major cities, it ranked as the coldest or second coldest February on record. In Syracuse, New York and Bangor, Maine, *it was not only the coldest February on record*, but also the coldest of any month since records began.




http://www.weather.com/news/news/top-five-coldest-february-midwest-northeast

Climate Change eh? So winters are getting colder and summers are getting hotter because of Co2 right?

What macca said is BANG ON !


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> It is always interesting delving into the Mad Hatters world of CC on ASF.
> 
> *The world has had its warmest July on record.* Thats it. End of story. The temperature readings across the world on land and sea are the evidence of this simple *matter of fact.*
> 
> And the response from the usual suspects ? Oh we can find some average figures from satellites in the lower troposphere. Lets dish these up to offer an alternative reality to the thousands of on the ground measurements from meteorlogists around the world.
> 
> It leaves genuine scepticism at home and takes denial to a new art form.
> 
> And you want us to take you seriously ? Totally deluded or completly deceptive. Your choice.




In yet another display of astonishing and egregious hypocrisy, basilio, the lady who constantly pleads for us all to hold hands and chant Om, the first to go crying to anyone who will listen about how nasty we are, indulges in ad hominem most vile.

It is not the first time the shrieking adherents of the latest iteration of impending Apocalypse have heralded some tenuous shrillery that upon further analysis turns out to be a rerun of Chicken Little.

I will be waiting further analysis before I slit my wrists if you don't mind


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I will be waiting further analysis before I slit my wrists if you don't mind




That's it ole Pal,  you must own one of those clean and graceful coal generators


----------



## Knobby22

basilio said:


> *The world has had its warmest July on record.* Thats it. End of story. The temperature readings across the world on land and sea are the evidence of this simple *matter of fact.*
> 
> .




Basilio - The link you gave has been changed and the graph deleted completely from the site. Lucky I copied it.
Interesting, political pressure??


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> That's it ole Pal,  you must own one of those clean and graceful coal generators




I don't own any energy stock Plod. Soros, the greenie/leftist hero, owns plenty of coal stocks however.

You sir however,are being a jerk. I thought better of you.


----------



## basilio

Just realised, of course, that I did overstate my claim about July 2015 being the hottest month on record.

I was making reference to the hottest month on record with regard to temperature figures taken from 1880. Absolutely no doubt that when dinasours roamed the earth it was warmer. 

I note that Wayne, Noco et al want to wait for futher analysis before self immolation. Well clearly if you don't want to accept the daily temperature readings of the thousands of weather stations around the world you have absolutely nothing to worry about.  As long as you can find some creative graph from Monckton or Jo Nova or some other denialist you will have a fig leag of cover for ignoring what is happening.

I'm sure as the summer rolls on we will see more references to temperatures in the Lower Troposhere to show it isn't as hot as the weather bureau is making out.

The details of where the world is cooking (and also quite chilly) makes for interesting reading.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/20150
_PS And of course if the Lower Troposphere graphs look too dangerous we can always use cliamte data from Mars can't we? _


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You sir however,are being a jerk. I thought better of you.




Do not mind being a jerk but I refuse to attack. 

Keep to the SUBJECT ole Pal.  

As with overpopulation and many other things.  Global warming from coal etc.,  is a problem.  Not hysteria,  SO GET OVER IT.


----------



## wayneL

Astonishing, just astonishing.

I'd love to meet you two clowns face to face one day to see if you have the balls to say what you say here.

I suspect not.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Astonishing, just astonishing.
> 
> I'd love to meet you two clowns face to face one day to see if you have the balls to say what you say here.
> 
> I suspect not.




Bring it on ole Pal.  Excuse for being off topic but you may find it good.  Have met others through ASF face to face and though our views differ in a lot of ways we have remained good firends.   One goes back eight years. 

Who is the other person you infer?

And again "clown"  attacking the person.  Thought of you better than that.


----------



## wayneL

More analysis http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

I'll  look you up when I'm down in enemy territory plod. I'll cross swords with you anytime, anywhere.

Respect for that. The other girl would never have the guts.


----------



## orr

In the immortal words of 'HG Nelson and Rampaging Roy Salven', referencing Australia (strylya); 'If you carn't be smart , be punchy'{ circa 1994}
Little wonder your sexist refrains waynle, considering your arguments can be slapped out of the way with an empty cheap hand bag.


----------



## explod

orr said:


> In the immortal words of 'HG Nelson and Rampaging Roy Salven', referencing Australia (strylya); 'If you carn't be smart , be punchy'{ circa 1994}
> Little wonder your sexist refrains waynle, considering your arguments can be slapped out of the way with an empty cheap hand bag.



Its off topic but each person has a view that should be considered. 

For climate we need to encompass consenses.  It IS THAT IMPORTANT. 

My grandfather died when I was young from the gases endured on the French lines of WW1.  He hardly spoke of the war experiencd but one thing he repeated to my Brothers and I was "when the sun set and the guns stopped they would talk with the enemy across the lines and the main theme was 'why are we fighting each other ' ".   

It has served me well and particularly when as a plod.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Just realised, of course, that I did overstate my claim about July 2015 being the hottest month on record.
> 
> I was making reference to the hottest month on record with regard to temperature figures taken from 1880. Absolutely no doubt that when dinasours roamed the earth it was warmer.
> 
> I note that Wayne, Noco et al want to wait for futher analysis before self immolation. Well clearly if you don't want to accept the daily temperature readings of the thousands of weather stations around the world you have absolutely nothing to worry about. * As long as you can find some creative graph from Monckton or Jo Nova or some other denialist you will have a fig leag of cover for ignoring what is happening.*
> 
> I'm sure as the summer rolls on we will see more references to temperatures in the Lower Troposhere to show it isn't as hot as the weather bureau is making out.
> 
> The details of where the world is cooking (and also quite chilly) makes for interesting reading.
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/20150
> _PS And of course if the Lower Troposphere graphs look too dangerous we can always use cliamte data from Mars can't we? _




Mine was from NASA no doubt admitting uncertainty and incomplete spatial sampling with the base period 1951-1980,  

Ladies ladies ladies ... some decorum PULEEEEZE !!

My Grandad asked me to balance an egg on one end ... I tried an tried and tried but I could not. He picked up the egg and smashed it down onto the table top. The egg shattered at the base but stayed upright. "You see ... it's easy when someone shows you how" he said.


----------



## Tisme

I see Kevin Rudd is still active :

https://twitter.com/hashtag/climatechange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I see Kevin Rudd is still active :
> 
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/climatechange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw




Fortunately, a long way away.


----------



## Logique

Damn you Global Warming! 

The National Highway closed by floods.. how could this be, when Tim Flannery told us, "..even the rain that falls won't fill the dams.."!

How could this happen, it's impossible that Tim Flannery could be wrong, the science being in and all..







> 5 August 2015 - Princes Highway [NSW] floods, road closed at Bewong, Berry | Photos, video Aug. 25, 2015
> 
> http://www.southcoastregister.com.a...d-closed-at-bewong-berry-photos-video/?cs=203


----------



## explod

Simple.  The temperature at this stage has only gone up one or two degrees.   That my friends has caused more cloud cover and a displacement of perma ice to float itself north and south from the poles. 

A bit like the volatilty of the markets in fact.   Global warming is upsetting things and scientists have not been here before either.   Just use your nut and think about the whole picture.   

It is the upset climate that is HYSTERICAL.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> More analysis http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/




Love this quote from the article.

"Global warming does not matter."


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> More analysis http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/
> .




Summarising
- The error margin is greater than the temperature record amount that was broken so it should be ignored completely.
(yea, like the unemployment figures, its the trend goons).

- There aren't enough measurements and there is no way scientists can make sense of them. (that argument can last forever) Any scientist knows you don't have to measure every point on the earth to infer a trend.

-Global warming does not matter - (actual quote)   The argument?? There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature.  Good argument! (not)

-It's all a conspiracy. (Hey, like the moon landing)

Pretty much sums up all the arguments in my view. 

I visited the website of the International Climate Science Coalition which this guy runs and it is full of pictures of windmills. I now know where our Science minister, Tony Abbot gets his information.

I don't think we should shut down our coal power stations, I think coal subsidies however should be stopped, sensible treaties signed to do something about global warming and market forces be unleashed so sensible solutions occur. Look at Texas as the example. The nutty Greens are just as bad in the other direction (maybe worse) as this fellow and I suppose we just have to hope we go the happy medium.

I was at a economics/business conference yesterday and global warming was mentioned matter of factly (not like the Greens) a few times. No one said it wasn't true. People were just working out what they need to do to reduce risk. From what I could see, no one in upper levels of business has any doubt it is real. Even Rupert knows this (refer quote below).


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> In the immortal words of 'HG Nelson and Rampaging Roy Salven', referencing Australia (strylya); 'If you carn't be smart , be punchy'{ circa 1994}
> Little wonder your sexist refrains waynle, considering your arguments can be slapped out of the way with an empty cheap hand bag.




Yep you can add sexist to the rest of the ad hominem jibes fro leftists.

For the record, I don't  think the word should be diminished through such trite overuse, it is too important a topic.
Certainly nothing has been slapped away in spite of torturing logic, but still think there is more to come in this.


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> Damn you Global Warming!
> 
> The National Highway closed by floods.. how could this be, when Tim Flannery told us, "..even the rain that falls won't fill the dams.."!
> 
> How could this happen, it's impossible that Tim Flannery could be wrong, the science being in and all..
> 
> View attachment 64035




Here is Flannery's dire prediction:


----------



## SirRumpole

What Flannery actually said

https://indifferencegivesyouafright...t-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/


----------



## Ijustnewit

SirRumpole said:


> What Flannery actually said
> 
> https://indifferencegivesyouafright...t-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/




Just more spin doctoring , the fact is he said " even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems " . Fact is he was wrong , what about those dams and rivers in QLD that flooded ? See the latest news from NSW , wrong again . 
You see the problem I have with all this is that anyone that offers a different opinion to the climate change brigade is they are immediately called a denialist  or sceptic. I personally think that something is happening , the reasons may be varied from mainly natural occurring change with a little bit of added pressure due to mankind. 
However the Climate change extremist do themselves no favours by pushing extremist views upon the population of this planet. Tim Flannery is one of these extremist , and by the way isn't he a Geologist last time I looked and not a Meteorologist ? 
Again we today we see the ABC climate change pushes airing another article from NASA about sea levels rising to at least one meter in the next 100 to 200 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/sea-levels-set-to-rise-nasa-says/6728008
I wonder how Tim will fair in his waterside home on the Hawksbury ?
This fear based marketing is for one reason and one reason only.  To make some individuals and the UN very rich from Carbon based trading schemes or similar  projects.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Just more spin doctoring ,




EVERYTHING about this subject in this forum is spin doctoring from people who are not experts in the field. It's too complicated a topic to be left to the likes of Andrew Bolt and his devotees or Tim Flannery and his devotees. I just hope we have politicians who listen and take note of the experts rather than the amateurs.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> EVERYTHING about this subject in this forum is spin doctoring from people who are not experts in the field. It's too complicated a topic to be left to the likes of Andrew Bolt and his devotees or Tim Flannery and his devotees. I just hope we have politicians who listen and take note of the experts rather than the amateurs.




Fat chance.

As Figueres of the UN stated: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3jzbBJB8d 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


----------



## Knobby22

Ijustnewit said:


> However the Climate change extremist do themselves no favours by pushing extremist views upon the population of this planet. Tim Flannery is one of these extremist , and by the way isn't he a Geologist last time I looked and not a Meteorologist ?
> Again we today we see the ABC climate change pushes airing another article from NASA about sea levels rising to at least one meter in the next 100 to 200 years.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/sea-levels-set-to-rise-nasa-says/6728008
> I wonder how Tim will fair in his waterside home on the Hawksbury ?
> This fear based marketing is for one reason and one reason only.  To make some individuals and the UN very rich from Carbon based trading schemes or similar  projects.




I agree with attacking those Climate extremists but linking that to a scientific body - NASA -is wrong.
They are just calling it as the figures come in.

I think the Carbon based training schemes are not the right way to go and I suppose that is what Wayne is referring to when he quotes the changing Capitalism article. They should do it by regulation.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby

I don't think our current economic model IS sustainable. It does need to, somehow, change from the current  paradigm.

I strongly object to using an elaborate ruse to achieve that.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I strongly object to using an elaborate ruse to achieve that.




I do not disagree with your statement but would you clarify the meaning of your statement as quoted.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> You see the problem I have with all this is that anyone that offers a different opinion to the climate change brigade is they are immediately called a denialist  or sceptic.




Something I learned from experience many years ago is that when someone silences opposing views it is because they have an agenda to push that does not stand up to scrutiny.

The specifics in my case had nothing to do with the climate, a completely unrelated issue, but the principle applies to everything. If your case is valid then you have nothing to fear from opposing views and thorough examination of your own case. But if your case is based on falsified "facts" then you have a lot to fear and will do whatever it takes to avoid scrutiny, silencing opponents being just one tactic that is used.

Personally I do think the climate is changing and that CO2 probably is having an effect. But it did rain and some dams did fill to capacity and beyond, that's a fact.


----------



## nioka

SirRumpole said:


> I just hope we have politicians who listen and take note of the experts rather than the amateurs.




Therein lies the problem. They choose the "experts" that agree with their own "inexpert" opinion or one that is politically aligned to assist with their efforts to stay elected.

Remember too: Definition of an expert.... Ex is something from the past. Spurt is a drip out of control. Then again a lot of politicians are drips out of control.


----------



## basilio

The current record temperatures around the world are having the (in)evitable effect on ocean temperatures and the subsequent creation of hurricanes. 

And the hurricanes themeselves will drive global temperatures even higher.


> *
> Flurry of tropical cyclones give super El Nino another boost
> *
> Date
> s
> 
> The trio of category-4 hurricanes spinning near the Hawaiian Islands.
> 
> The hyperactive hurricane season in the Pacific has jumped up another gear, spawning a record trio of category 4 strength tropical storms that will give the powerful El Nino event yet another boost.
> 
> Hurricanes Kilo and Ignacio were to the west and east of the Hawaii Islands on Monday, while Jimena spun further to the east. (See image below taken over the weekend by NASA/NOAA.)
> 
> Hurricane Jimena is moving over warm waters in the eastern Pacific and gathering strength.
> 
> Jimena is hovering over waters of about 28 degrees warmth, more than the 26.6 degrees needed to maintain intensity.
> 
> The storm's maximum sustained winds were about 240 km/h, and it attracted the interest of astronauts orbiting Earth in the International Space Station, who posted images to social media site Twitter:
> 
> Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ther-boost-20150830-gjbb82.html#ixzz3kRzx9cXi


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks Basilio

I also noticed from the same paper that Australia broke its record for early cyclones by getting one in July near the Solomons! The water temperature rise is quite large. A little scary. I wouldn't want to live in FNQ this summer.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> The current record temperatures around the world are having the (in)evitable effect on ocean temperatures and the subsequent creation of hurricanes.
> 
> And the hurricanes themeselves will drive global temperatures even higher.




Bahahahahahaaaaaaaa how does a hurricane drive global temperatures higher?



> In addition, the National Hurricane Center has stated,* “storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. … Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.” *Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advocates turn to for support, concluded in its last report that “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”




http://www.economics21.org/commentary/hurricanes-katrina-facts

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...-10-myths-about-global-warming-and-co2-damage

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm



> Professor William Gray, one of foremost experts on hurricanes, has demonstrated through his work that *surface temperature is a factor but not the controlling factor*. He demonstrated this conclusion by analyzing two fifty-year periods when average surface temperatures rose 0.4 degrees C. He found that fewer named hurricanes made landfall during the 1956-2005 period that during the 1900-1949 period. Research on hurricanes also indicates that there is a 60-year cycle in hurricane frequency—30 years above average frequency and 30 years below.




And now for the truth http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/summaries/

But but but they even admit to errors !! http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/

WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!! 

This can't be right now can it?? Mellow 2014 Hurricane season??



> The mellow 2014 Atlantic hurricane season ends Sunday (Nov. 30), marking another year without major hurricanes hitting the Eastern United States.
> 
> *It has been a record-breaking nine years since a Category 3 hurricane* (or stronger) made landfall along U.S. coastlines. The last was Hurricane Wilma in 2005 (Sandy was not a hurricane when it hit the northeast in 2012). The United States has never recorded a nine-year period without a hurricane touching its shores. The prior record for the longest stretch, from 1861 to 1868, was set during the Civil War, according to Colorado State University climatologists.
> 
> At the same time, the Atlantic produced only eight named tropical storms this year, *the fewest since 1997*, according to the National Hurricane Center. Six of those storms strengthened into hurricanes, and two became major hurricanes. The overall storm activity was 75 percent of the seasonal average between 1981 and 2010, according to Colorado State.




http://www.livescience.com/48943-quiet-2014-hurricane-season-ends.html

But wait for it NASA has the answer ...



> Oct. 6, 2014: *The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.*
> 
> In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, *but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.*




http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

And now for the sledgehammer ... http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/three-category-4-hurricanes-pacific-kilo-ignacio-jimena



> The Pacific tropical activity can be attributed, in part, to impressively warm ocean water.
> 
> *El Nino is an anomalous, yet periodic, warming of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. For reasons still not well understood, every 2 to 7 years, this patch of ocean warms for a period of 6 to 18 months.*
> 
> The eastern Pacific basin also typically sees an increase in named storms during a moderate to strong El Nino thanks to diminished vertical wind shear.


----------



## basilio

It's interesting what you can find on the net TS  I decided to check out the economics21 reference and discovered it was another mouthpiece for the Marshall Institute - a run of the mill climate denier group. In that same article I noted the following comment



> Although advocates assert that the evidence is compelling, science and empirical evidence do not provide strong support. There has been no real warming since 1998, and more scientists are beginning to express concern that there could be an extended period of global cooling. The facts about CO2 show that it is a nutrient and that its warming potential is non-linear, which means that its warming effect is diminishing.



http://www.economics21.org/commentary/hurricanes-katrina-facts


How do the hurricanes actually create a feed back loop? The comment from the article I originally sited said



> El Nino builds
> 
> The unusual flurry of tropical storms in Pacific is adding to the potency of the El Nino event. The hurricanes tend to disrupt or counter the easterly trade winds that typically blow along the equator, allowing yet more heat to build up in the eastern parts of the ocean.
> 
> The elevated sea-surface temperatures in turn provide more energy for hurricanes (or cyclones or typhoons - as the storms are known in different regions) to develop.
> 
> On Monday, the Bureau of Meteorology's weekly temperature reading showed anomalous warmth has exceeded 2 degrees in the key Nino 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific.
> 
> That level had not been reached since the 1997-98 El Nino event in 1997-98, considered to be the most powerful recorded.
> 
> Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ther-boost-20150830-gjbb82.html#ixzz3kUAnEFU6
> Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook


----------



## basilio

What is happening with Climate Change NOW? Rolling Stone magazine has a story that brings together the current effects of global warming around the world.  



> *The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here*
> The worst predicted impacts of climate change are starting to happen ”” and much faster than climate scientists expected
> By Eric Holthaus August 5, 2015
> 
> Walruses
> Walruses, like these in Alaska, are being forced ashore in record numbers. Corey Accardo/NOAA/AP
> 
> Historians may look to 2015 as the year when **** really started hitting the fan. Some snapshots:
> 
> In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people.
> 
> In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory.
> 
> London reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest July day ever recorded in the U.K.;
> 
> The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated.
> 
> In California, suffering from its worst drought in a millennium, a 50-acre brush fire swelled seventyfold in a matter of hours, jumping across the I-15 freeway during rush-hour traffic. Then, a few days later, the region was pounded by intense, virtually unheard-of summer rains. Puerto Rico is under its strictest water rationing in history as a monster El Niño forms in the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifting weather patterns worldwide.
> 
> Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...mares-are-already-here-20150805#ixzz3kUCGvjJl
> Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook




The rest of the story gets even hairier.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> It's interesting what you can find on the net TS  I decided to check out the economics21 reference and discovered it was another mouthpiece for the Marshall Institute - a run of the mill climate denier group. In that same article I noted the following comment
> 
> http://www.economics21.org/commentary/hurricanes-katrina-facts
> 
> How do the hurricanes actually create a feed back loop? The comment from the article I originally sited said




So the  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/envi ...#ixzz3kUAnEFU6 is better than ... 

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/summaries/

NASA vs Journo scribe ... REALLY ??



> On average, between four and five tropical cyclones are observed in the Central Pacific every year. This has ranged *from zero*, most recently as 1979 to 11 in 1992 and 1994. The tropical cyclone summaries for the years from 1980 to the present are taken from the annual Tropical Cyclones Report for the Central Pacific. These are published as NOAA Technical Memorandums, numbered NWSTM PR-22 (for the year 1980) through NWSTM PR-46 (1999).




Get me some links to whatever you are having please


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> What is happening with Climate Change NOW? Rolling Stone magazine has a story that brings together the current effects of global warming around the world.
> 
> The rest of the story gets even hairier.




Said I ... "I had my first meal of Wookie tonight"

Said She ... "How was it?"

Said Me ... "A little Chewy!"


----------



## ghotib

trainspotter said:


> So the  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/envi ...#ixzz3kUAnEFU6 is better than ...
> 
> http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/summaries/
> 
> NASA vs Journo scribe ... REALLY ??
> 
> Get me some links to whatever you are having please



The unusual flurry discussed in the Canberra Times is three Cat 4 hurricanes in the North Pacific at the same time. 



> It’s not every day you see three well-formed Category 4 hurricanes in a row. That’s been the case for the last 24 hours over the North Pacific, where Hurricane Jimena, Hurricane Ignacio, and Hurricane Kilo have made a most impressive trio. All three reached Category 4 strength on Saturday and remained there on Sunday morning, a rare feat.



http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3096 (Scroll past discussion of Atlantic hurricanes)

The NOAA summaries are of named storms per season. Nothing to say whether any of them were simultaneous.


----------



## wayneL

What irritates me is the the inability of the climate establishment to out things into proper context rather than rushing to breathless sensationalism designed to alarm the uninformed.

For instance, the Rolling Stones article which the the baslios of this world are only to happy to promulgate contain a reference to the "Hottest July day ever", which on further analysis seems to contain a few holes.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/reviewing-the-hottest-day/

...and it's London to a brick that the Grauniad's servers due to the hot air from from their team of alarmists mouths, rather than any weather event.


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> Something I learned from experience many years ago is that when someone silences opposing views it is because they have an agenda to push that does not stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> The specifics in my case had nothing to do with the climate, a completely unrelated issue, but the principle applies to everything. If your case is valid then you have nothing to fear from opposing views and thorough examination of your own case. But if your case is based on falsified "facts" then you have a lot to fear and will do whatever it takes to avoid scrutiny, silencing opponents being just one tactic that is used.
> 
> Personally I do think the climate is changing and that CO2 probably is having an effect. But it did rain and some dams did fill to capacity and beyond, that's a fact.




When I was in my twenties and knew even more than I do now (in one's teens and twenties a man absorbs knowledge through his skin), I met up with my venerable counterpart from Victoria. I liked this guy, because he was like really freeking old, say 60, but he was cool driving around in his flashy coupe in the streets of Melbourne. He was one of those guys who had an allegoric yarn for life and beyond.

One that stuck with me was along these lines:

"life is like a dung beetle. You wander around picking up little pieces of dung from here, from there, you have to navigate hazards and get your feet muddied, all in an effort to get the best of the best. You spend ages adding the dung to the ball and watch it grow and grow until it's big enough and from rolling it relentlessly into a sphere of awe and beauty. You stand back and marvel at your creation, a thing of beauty, you are a God, someone who possess' the knowledge of the universe, seriously there is no other who has such immense prowess, a skilled artisan.... then some spolier comes along and flattens it with one step of his size 9 boot ...."


----------



## macca

Seems to me that if we have a record walrus haul out then we must have a record number of walrus swimming around..................... 

This sort of thing happens often, David Attenborough showed it years ago on one of his series.

If he was to show it today he would have to toe the BBC greenie line and say shock, horror, gasp but it is in fact part of their life cycle.

More info for those who care to read http://polarbearscience.com/2014/10...-deaths-are-not-new-not-due-to-low-ice-cover/


----------



## basilio

It is always interesting/predictable to read Wayne et al responses to articles that explore the immediate and continuing impact of climate change. Pick out one point, find some denialist who can challenge the absolute edges of  the statement and then dismiss the remainder of the story.

The article I quoted is long, detailed and complex. It highlights serious problems caused by climate change in the here and now.  But if one is steadfast in their determination not to see what is happening - just change the conversation.

 The main points of the  "Point of No Return " Rolling Stone story.

- Thousands of people killed in record breaking heat waves in the Indian sub continent

- Brushfires turning into firestorms in a matter of hours in drought stricken California

- A new paper co-written by 16 climate scientists that identifies a new feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica  which suggests sea levels *could rise 10 times faster than currently predicted*

- Some  parts of the ocean near areas of exceptional ice melt are actually cooling. This is changing ocean currents and creating new weather patterns around Greenland

- Salmon on the West Coast of The Pacific Northwest are in danger of extinction. The rivers are running extremely low. the waters are too warm.

- There is a very large drop in the amount of plankton being produced in the oceans as a result of acidification. There goes the food chain.

The journalist interviewed around 25 scientists in putting together this story. As he put it



> Of the two dozen or so scientists I interviewed for this piece, virtually all drifted into apocalyptic language at some point.




Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...mares-are-already-here-20150805#ixzz3kYYORhsn
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


- There is a very large drop in the amount of plankton being produced in the oceans as a result of acidification. There goes the food chain.


----------



## basilio

And while we are on the topic of the effects of Climate Change check out another Rolling Stone story.

*The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk*
The leaders of our armed forces know what's coming next – but deniers in Congress are ignoring the warnings



> Naval Station at Norfolk
> 
> ...But within the lifetime of a child growing up here, all this could vanish into the Atlantic Ocean. The land that the base is built upon is literally sinking, meaning sea levels are rising in Norfolk roughly twice as fast as the global average. There is no high ground, nowhere to retreat. It feels like a swamp that has been dredged and paved over ”” and that's pretty much what it is. All it takes is a rainstorm and a big tide and the Atlantic invades the base ”” roads are submerged, entry gates impassable. A nor'easter had moved through the area the day before my visit. On Craney Island, the base's main refueling depot, military vehicles were up to their axles in seawater. Water pooled in a long, flat grassy area near Admiral's Row, where naval commanders live in magnificent houses built for the 1907 Jamestown Exposition. "It's the biggest Navy base in the world, and it's going to have to be relocated," says former Vice President Al Gore. "It's just a question of when."
> 
> There are 29 other military bases, shipyards and installations in the area, and many of them are in just as much trouble. At nearby Langley Air Force base, home to two fighter wings and headquarters for the Air Combat Command, base commanders keep 30,000 sandbags ready to stack around buildings when a big storm comes in. At Dam Neck, another Navy base, they pile old Christmas trees on the beach to keep it from eroding. At NASA Wallops Flight Facility, NASA armored the shoreline with 3 million cubic yards of sand to protect its launchpads from sea surges. "Military readiness is already being impacted by sea-level rise," says Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who mentions that with all the flooding, it's becoming difficult to sell a house in some parts of Norfolk. If the melting of Greenland and West Antarctica continues to accelerate at current rates, scientists say Norfolk could see more than seven feet of sea-level rise by 2100. In 25 years, operations at most of these bases are likely to be severely compromised. Within 50 years, most of them could be goners. If the region gets slammed by a big hurricane, the reckoning could come even sooner. "You could move some of the ships to other bases or build new, smaller bases in more protected places," says retired Navy Capt. Joe Bouchard, a former commander of Naval Station Norfolk. "But the costs would be enormous. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars."




Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ional-security-at-risk-20150212#ixzz3kYae9c7d
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


----------



## wayneL

Dude, you seem to take the ad hom route anytime your religion is subject to analysis.... despite your whining about the tone of debate.

Mate I haven't got time to counter every point due to a acute shortage of skilled professionals in my field, I'm busy as a one armed taxi driver with crabs, so you'll have to cope with ad hoc (and easily found) examples of advocacy over science.


----------



## basilio

*The President Addresses the GLACIER Conference *

I just watched President Obama address the Glacier Conference in Alaska. Totally laid it on the line about the dangers of Climate Change  and his committment to make the changes required.

I reckon we will see some big announcements in the next few days.


----------



## wayneL

Obama  is still quoting the thoroughly and embarrassingly discredited Cooke survey, such is his lack of grasp of the science.

Admittedly he has a firm grasp of the politics, but Americans are growing restless over the BS.... Watch this space.


----------



## trainspotter

trainspotter said:


> And now for the truth http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/summaries/
> 
> But but but they even admit to errors !! http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/
> 
> WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> This can't be right now can it?? *Mellow 2014 Hurricane season??*
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/48943-quiet-2014-hurricane-season-ends.html
> 
> But wait for it NASA has the answer ...
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
> 
> And now for the sledgehammer ... http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/three-category-4-hurricanes-pacific-kilo-ignacio-jimena




So NASA and NOAA have got it wrong? 2014 unusually QUIET hurricane season?? HUH ??

As for the Indian heatwave please read this ...



> "These deaths are easily avoidable," M. Sudhir Kumar, a civil assistant surgeon at Dakkili Primary Healthcare Center, told Reuters.
> 
> "All they need to do is follow basic precautions like avoiding working in the sun. Not many listen. What can we do? *It's a problem of poverty*."




Oh yeah they had a worse one in 1998 by the way. Just some facts please.

http://www.weather.com/news/news/india-heat-wave-photos-news

And you might want to read that it is NOT the hottest it has ever been recorded it was the MOST amount of deaths in India. It was the high HUMIDITY and not a record heat wave http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/photos-indias-heat-wave/

Click here for some more FACTS http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3000

RESIST THE HYSTERIA !!!



> NOAA's 2015 Central Pacific hurricane season outlook cited El Nino's tendency for reduced wind shear and more storm tracks coming from the eastern Pacific as reasons to expect an active season in the central Pacific Basin.
> 
> The Pacific tropical activity can be attributed, in part, to impressively warm ocean water.
> 
> El Nino is an anomalous, yet periodic, warming of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. *For reasons still not well understood, every 2 to 7 years, this patch of ocean warms for a period of 6 to 18 months.*




http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/three-category-4-hurricanes-pacific-kilo-ignacio-jimena

Norfolk Virginia is subsiding ...



> Spatial Comparisons – RSLR rates at all ten bay stations for the 1976-2007 period underscore variability in subsidence rates assuming that the present ASL rise is uniform throughout the Chesapeake Bay area. Given the most likely ASLR rate of 1.8 mm/yr for what may be termed late 20th/early 21st century, inferred subsidence rates vary from -4.00 mm/yr at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, VA, to -1.29 mm/yr at Baltimore, MD (omitting Washington, DC, because of significant serial correlation over 1976-2007). *In between these extremes, subsidence rates account for 50-60% of the measured RSLR at water level stations.* These findings are in agreement with those of coastal geologists who report evidence of structural faults not only within the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater in the lower bay but in areas further north in the midsection of the bay (R. Berquist, pers. comm.). *High RSLR at Lewisetta, VA, is likely due to additional subsidence induced through local faulting.*
> 
> Future Outlook – *Subsidence will clearly remain a problem* as it will continue to add to high RSLR rates locally and heighten the risk of flooding from storm tides in the lower Chesapeake Bay as time goes on. Low-lying areas in communities such as Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Hampton and Poquoson are comprised of a patchwork of local areas that are not only vulnerable to storm tides but are experiencing varying rates of *subsidence,* meaning that some areas within these communities may be facing greater risk than others from global sea level rise going forward. In addition to CORS, other technologies such as airborne LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) will be needed to perform repeated mapping of ground topography to track changes in flood elevation contours with time.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...k-virginia-60-of-the-rise-is-from-subsidence/

And finally this ...

Like many other cities, Norfolk was built on filled-in marsh. Now that fill is settling and compacting. In addition, the city is in an area where significant natural sinking of land is occurring.

Salmon is another matter ... overfishing they call it.



> With this funding and these jobs, states and tribes have undertaken over 11,000 projects, resulting in significant changes in salmon habitat conditions and availability. *Since 2000, access to over 1 million acres of spawning and rearing habitat has been restored and protected for salmon,* and access to 8,000 miles of previously inaccessible streams has been re-established.




http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa...ion/pacific_coastal_salmon_recovery_fund.html

Also Salmon are prone to diseases ..



> Jul 27, 2015: Half of the sockeye salmon in the Columbia River are dying… Biologists are calling this die-off unprecedented… (Nick Blevins, fisherman “The fish are not looking in good condition… Some of them will have lesions… *The sockeye already have gill diseases*“… It could be the end for these endangered species. (Blevins




http://enenews.com/usa-today-millio...tastrophic-worse-anything-theyve-video-photos

Pilchards get it too in the ocean ... back in 1995 no doubt !!



> Herpesvirus that caused epizootic mortality in 1995 and 1998 in pilchard, Sardinops sagax neopilchardus (Steindachner), in Australia is now endemic.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234017

Been happening for thousands of years don't ya know


----------



## So_Cynical

Obama GLACIER speech said:
			
		

> *We know that human activity is changing the climate.  That is beyond dispute*.  Everything else is politics if people are denying the facts of climate change.  We can have a legitimate debate about how we are going to address this problem; we cannot deny the science.  We also know the devastating consequences if the current trend lines continue.  That is not deniable.






			
				Obama GLACIER speech said:
			
		

> So the time to heed the critics and the cynics and the deniers is past.  *The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone*




And yet some deniers simply will not stop.

https://www.adn.com/article/20150831/full-transcript-obama-speaks-glacier-alaska


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> And yet some deniers simply will not stop.
> 
> https://www.adn.com/article/20150831/full-transcript-obama-speaks-glacier-alaska




I think it is the other way around...The alarmists just do not want to give up even though there is plenty of evidence stacked against them.....They will use every trick in the book to prove their argument....It is a plot by the UN to set up World goverment

I, was personally in Alaska in September 2012 and spent some time in Glacier Bay where several Glaciers come down to meet the sea....It is a common occurrence every year for these glaciers to creep with added snow which fell during the winter...The weight at the top pushes down the mountain and chunks of ice as large as buses fall into Glacier Bay....Nothing new here.

The Southern part of Australia had there coldest and longest winter in years



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ather_get_logged_as_some_of_the_hottest_ever/

*There is something very odd about the NOAA claim of a very hot July, thanks to global warming:

    July was the hottest month on Earth since records began...

Take the NOAA map above. Check Australia, said to have had average or above-average temperatures over much of the continent, apart from the much-warmer-than-average bits around Sydney and parts of Western Australia.

Liberal MP Craig Kelly is curious:


    HOW DOES THE COLDEST MONTH IN 20 YEARS BECOME THE HOTTEST MONTH “EVER’’ ?

    July in Melbourne was widely reported as the ”Coldest July in 20 years”

    It also was reported at the start of August that Sydney had just “notched its longest cold spell in 26 years” and it was also “the coolest July for the city since 2002”

    Even our Bureau of Meteorology reported; ”Temperatures were below average across Sydney during July”

    However, have close look at the below map produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) an Obama Government agency (the same people that assert that July 2015 was the hottest month ever).

    NOAA assert that temperatures in Melbourne for July 2015 were “Warmer than Average” and for Sydney they were “Much warmer than average”.

    Can anyone explain this ?

Or take Adelaide, which the NOAA map claims had average temperatures.

In fact:

    Bureau of Meteorology Senior Forecaster Mark Anolack said ... “July certainly was cooler than average… Generally around Adelaide we have about 15.3 degrees (Celsius) as an average maximum temperature.

    “This year, it was a little bit cooler with 14.6 degrees, and that was actually our coldest July since July 1997.”

Brisbane was said by NOAA to be about average. In fact:

    Brisbane‘s average monthly maximum in July was 18.1, considerably cooler than the usual 18.9.

NOAA says Perth had a well-above-average temperatures for July. In fact, our Bureau of Meteorology says it was not quite that warm:

    Perth was slightly above average with an average maximum of 18.7 as against the usual 18.4

Why is the NOAA map for Australia running so very warm?

UPDATE

Reader Ian notes that NOAA’s map of temperatures for July is very different to the cool one from our own Bureau of Meterology, particularly for south east Australia,Tasmania and the area around Perth: *


----------



## trainspotter

> Most consecutive days above 37.8  °C (100  °F): 160 days; Marble Bar, Western Australia from* 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.*[93]




Now that is a heatwave ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

Obama ? Obama the dirty sell out you mean??



> President Barack Obama this week is in Alaska rallying support for measures to combat climate change, such as limits on carbon emissions.
> 
> *While environmentalists praise the president for curbing greenhouse gases, they pillory him for granting Shell permission to drill in the Chukchi Sea for the first time in 24 years.*
> The US Geological Survey estimates the Chukchi and Beaufort seas hold 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
> 
> Oil will continue to be needed as the United States transitions to more renewable energy, Odum said.




http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...rctic-going-well/story-e6frfkur-1227509743275


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Now that is a heatwave ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
> 
> Obama ? Obama the dirty sell out you mean??
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...rctic-going-well/story-e6frfkur-1227509743275




Obama also lectured some uni students in Australia a couple of months ago an told them how Australia was destroying the Great Barrier Reef....What a load of bull$hit.


----------



## basilio

OK TS  you can throw some dust on the extremities of some of issues covered in the Rolling Stone article.  I was particularly interested in the creative way Anthony Watts tried to deflect the flooding at Norfolk Bay.

Yes it is true Norfolk Bay does experience subsidence. That was acknowledged in the article and simply exacerbates the effects of rising ocean levels. The rest of Watts "analysis" is just a rehash of his insistence that there won't be any rises in sea levels --- just because there won't be. 

The  heat related deaths in India?  Yep there have been worst.  
1) Europe, 2003: 71,310
2) Russia, 2010: 55,736
3) Europe, 2006: 3,418
4) India, 1998: 2,541

Did you notice they were all in the past 10  years ?  Should that tell us something about the direction of the worlds climate ?

So what is your position on Global Warming TS? You seem determined to dismiss all the information offered. What do you think (if anything ) is happening ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> OK TS  you can throw some dust on the extremities of some of issues covered in the Rolling Stone article.  I was particularly interested in the creative way Anthony Watts tried to deflect the flooding at Norfolk Bay.
> 
> Yes it is true Norfolk Bay does experience subsidence. That was acknowledged in the article and simply exacerbates the effects of rising ocean levels. The rest of Watts "analysis" is just a rehash of his insistence that there won't be any rises in sea levels --- just because there won't be.
> 
> The  heat related deaths in India?  Yep there have been worst.
> 1) Europe, 2003: 71,310
> 2) Russia, 2010: 55,736
> 3) Europe, 2006: 3,418
> 4) India, 1998: 2,541
> 
> Did you notice they were all in the past 10  years ?  Should that tell us something about the direction of the worlds climate ?
> 
> So what is your position on Global Warming TS? You seem determined to dismiss all the information offered. What do you think (if anything ) is happening ?




Anthony Watts article also agreed that sea levels were rising in stating thus "In between these extremes, subsidence rates account for 50-60% of the measured RSLR at water level station" Ipso Facto there must be the other 40 - 50% is sea level rising DEEERRRRRRRRRRRR

The reason for all the deaths in the last 10 years is due to either poverty (India) education (Europe) stable energy supply (Russia) because they don't learn (Europe) poverty again (India) in that order. Do you not think population expansion has something to do with this? More people either in poverty or uneducated who either have to work in the humidity or the fact that they were living in a hot box. Yep it was hot ... I have always said that records are there to be broken. 70,000 dead because it got hot. Boxing Day Tsunami killing 230,000 people in 14 countries. 

Obama has signed the deal with Shell Oil allowing gigalitres of crooood to be pumped out of Alaska so that Murica' can get their **** together to go clean and green ... it buys votes man !!

I have agreed with you thrice before, Global Warming is real. Sea levels are rising, subsidence of cities, volcanic ash the whole nine yards, fish and photoplankton are dying and pretty much we are screwed as we spin around this Earth at 460 metres per second. It has happened before. Think of Mount Vesuvius Ad 79 cataclysmic for the residents of Pompeii, Heracleion one of the most important port cities of the Mediterranean 664 to 332 BC sank due to earthquake, Turkey 1999 August 17th 17,127 killed earthquake and mud hut walls collapsing on them whilst they slept, Typhoon Soudelor hits China with deaths, floods and mudslides 10th August 2015 (only 14 dead) !! The death toll rises as wind and rain wreak havoc across the Chinese provinces of Fujian and Zhejiang, with damage bills exceeding *$1billion*, Haiti earthquake estimated 316,000 killed in 2010 so severe that even Government buildings collapsed, it has been going on for millenia.

Is it because of man produced Co2 ? Yep it certainly is part of the problem. We as a race are polluting this Earth not only by emissions but also with refuse and over population to boot. Feeding the masses will require more than a fishing pole and a bit of bread I can assure you as crops fail due to late or early rain ! Chemicals from overspraying are leeching into our waterways and birds are dying from ingesting plastic microbeads which is a sand-like substance that serves as an abrasive to exfoliate the teeth of food and other particles.

Let's not mix words here ... there is more to bleating like a sheep on one screwy subject because of political and financial will of the oligopolies who control what you read and think Fairfax and Murdoch. A Rolling Stone snippet is the hailer of doom and gloom for our world. Give me a break.

That's my


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Anthony Watts article also agreed that sea levels were rising in stating thus "In between these extremes, subsidence rates account for 50-60% of the measured RSLR at water level station" Ipso Facto there must be the other 40 - 50% is sea level rising DEEERRRRRRRRRRRR
> 
> The reason for all the deaths in the last 10 years is due to either poverty (India) education (Europe) stable energy supply (Russia) because they don't learn (Europe) poverty again (India) in that order. Do you not think population expansion has something to do with this? More people either in poverty or uneducated who either have to work in the humidity or the fact that they were living in a hot box. Yep it was hot ... I have always said that records are there to be broken. 70,000 dead because it got hot. Boxing Day Tsunami killing 230,000 people in 14 countries.
> 
> Obama has signed the deal with Shell Oil allowing gigalitres of crooood to be pumped out of Alaska so that Murica' can get their **** together to go clean and green ... it buys votes man !!
> 
> I have agreed with you thrice before, Global Warming is real. Sea levels are rising, subsidence of cities, volcanic ash the whole nine yards, fish and photoplankton are dying and pretty much we are screwed as we spin around this Earth at 460 metres per second. It has happened before. Think of Mount Vesuvius Ad 79 cataclysmic for the residents of Pompeii, Heracleion one of the most important port cities of the Mediterranean 664 to 332 BC sank due to earthquake, Turkey 1999 August 17th 17,127 killed earthquake and mud hut walls collapsing on them whilst they slept, Typhoon Soudelor hits China with deaths, floods and mudslides 10th August 2015 (only 14 dead) !! The death toll rises as wind and rain wreak havoc across the Chinese provinces of Fujian and Zhejiang, with damage bills exceeding *$1billion*, Haiti earthquake estimated 316,000 killed in 2010 so severe that even Government buildings collapsed, it has been going on for millenia.
> 
> Is it because of man produced Co2 ? Yep it certainly is part of the problem. We as a race are polluting this Earth not only by emissions but also with refuse and over population to boot. Feeding the masses will require more than a fishing pole and a bit of bread I can assure you as crops fail due to late or early rain ! Chemicals from overspraying are leeching into our waterways and birds are dying from ingesting plastic microbeads which is a sand-like substance that serves as an abrasive to exfoliate the teeth of food and other particles.
> 
> Let's not mix words here ... there is more to bleating like a sheep on one screwy subject because of political and financial will of the oligopolies who control what you read and think Fairfax and Murdoch. A Rolling Stone snippet is the hailer of doom and gloom for our world. Give me a break.
> 
> That's my




*fish and photoplankton are dying ??????????????*

How does Anthony Watts account for such a large increase in the whale population off the Eastern Australian coast?


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> *fish and photoplankton are dying ??????????????*
> 
> How does Anthony Watts account for such a large increase in the whale population off the Eastern Australian coast?




Yeah noco ... photoplankton biomass down 40% since 1950 me old mate. Old news that one.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.379.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/

Interminable Wars vs. The Utopia Options (a good read)

Whale population is due to they are not hunted for blubber to make candles anymore.

The amount of photoplankton is imperative to the food chain and the sneaky little buggers also soak up Co2 and create oxygen by photosynthesis. Sneaky buggers. Cause they have been plentiful and it has not yet created an effect further down the food chain, commonly referred to a tipping point.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...cean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/

Sorry that should be phYtoplankton ... apologies



> In the oceans, ubiquitous microscopic *photo*trophs (phyto*plankton*) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Here is what actually occurred this Winter in Australia.
Sydney coldest Winter since 2010
Canberra coldest Winter in 15 years
Victoria coldest Winter in 26 years
Brisbane close to normal , however in the South West Qld the heaviest snow ever recorded
Perth warmest in 20 years
Adelaide coldest Winter in 5 years
Tasmania the coldest Winter in 8 years and Hobart the coldest in 50 years.

Now what gets on my goat is that the ABC news 24 spent all of 20 seconds mentioning these above facts.
However they have spent hours and hours of shoving the impending El Nino down our necks at every possible opportunity. The El Nino is yet to impact us but that hasn't stopped the climate alarmist groups coming up with such terms as the "Godzilla" El Nino and the worst El Nino ever in "recorded history". If the ABC run one story today they run five and of course with the usual interview from some Climate Expert Greenie from a University . Telling everyone one we are going to be in extreme drought and the temperatures will be boiling hot. 
Look, no doubt we are in for what could be a hellish Summer. But this impending El Nino will be just the opportunity that these Global Warming extremist will use to tell everyone we are going to hell in a hand basket .
It's just a shame they forgot to mention the Winter we just had.


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> Is it because of man produced Co2 ? Yep it certainly is part of the problem. We as a race are polluting this Earth not only by emissions but also with refuse and over population to boot. Feeding the masses will require more than a fishing pole and a bit of bread I can assure you as crops fail due to late or early rain ! Chemicals from overspraying are leeching into our waterways and birds are dying from ingesting plastic microbeads which is a sand-like substance that serves as an abrasive to exfoliate the teeth of food and other particles.
> 
> Let's not mix words here ... there is more to bleating like a sheep on one screwy subject because of political and financial will of the oligopolies who control what you read and think Fairfax and Murdoch. A Rolling Stone snippet is the hailer of doom and gloom for our world. Give me a break.
> 
> That's my




Yep. While Nero fiddles, Rome burns. The co2 story is a massive distraction from the other issues you've noted. Many of the environmental effects attributed to climate change by the alarmists are in fact due to other pollution.

Now *that* I am alarmed about.


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Yeah noco ... photoplankton biomass down 40% since 1950 me old mate. Old news that one.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.379.html
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
> 
> Interminable Wars vs. The Utopia Options (a good read)
> 
> Whale population is due to they are not hunted for blubber to make candles anymore.
> 
> The amount of photoplankton is imperative to the food chain and the sneaky little buggers also soak up Co2 and create oxygen by photosynthesis. Sneaky buggers. Cause they have been plentiful and it has not yet created an effect further down the food chain, commonly referred to a tipping point.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...cean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/
> 
> Sorry that should be phYtoplankton ... apologies




Mate, they stopped whaling at Tangalooma in 1962.

I happened to work on the construction of the whaling station 1950 and the allowed  quota for 11 weeks killing was 660 per year...In the last year they were down to 300 and it became unviable......It lasted 11 years and then they sent the KOS 1 and KOS 11 down to Albany in WA where one is still there on display.


----------



## Tisme

The winters here in Brisbane seem to have cheated us winter sun lovers over the last few years. It used to be the rains stopped on Anzac Day and resumed on Ekka Day with the westerlies. These days it's like a southern winter with pesky rain, wind and and more cold days.

Luckily the average across the state is still a marginally higher climatic enthalpy because of the persistent drought and high temps in the western districts. There are less people out there and they religiously vote National Party anyway so they don't count for much.

Looking forward to the earlier summer, shorter winter, the humidity and destructive storms ... yeah


----------



## basilio

Thanks for that response TS.  It certainly broadens the conversation.



> Is it because of man produced Co2 ? Yep it certainly is part of the problem. We as a race are polluting this Earth not only by emissions but also with refuse and over population to boot. Feeding the masses will require more than a fishing pole and a bit of bread I can assure you as crops fail due to late or early rain ! Chemicals from overspraying are leeching into our waterways and birds are dying from ingesting plastic microbeads which is a sand-like substance that serves as an abrasive to exfoliate the teeth of food and other particles.




I have no problem accepting the broader range of issues you bring up. This forum however is allegedly on Climate Change so I wasn't going to divert to those questions.

In my view if  I had to look for an overall balanced view of the direction  the world is going, the problems it faces and what we have to do to address them then Pope Francis encyclical is the most holistic approach.

He discusses Climate Change as a huge problem but includes the trashing of our planet and the conditions of poverty around the world as inseparable items. They have to be tackled together. 

My frustration with this forum is that it seems many other members just deny the evidence around the climate  changes that are happening to our world  while others suggest they are nothing significant to be worried about. In that vein for example  the acidification of the oceans is ignored, the collapse of plankton is questioned and so on. In fact these are just knock on effects of the rapidly increasing CO2 levels and the warming of the seas.

I'm also wary of conflating natural disasters with what are essentially human caused events. Earthquakes, volcanoes  are outside our control. We just have to deal with them.

Gross pollution effects as you mentioned and the effects of a rapidly changing climate can be at least partially addressed by changing what we do. For example in the mid eighties we discovered that fluorocarbons were destroying the ozone layer and we put into effect the Montreal protocol to ban fluorocarbons. Thirty years later there is an improvement.

In the 50's and 60's gross air pollution was  causing huge smogs in the big Western Cities. Anti pollution laws were brought in (and they wern't supported by business..) and yes the air became cleaner.  We can change.

_____________

With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea  levels. My reading of his work was that he just wasn't accepting that there would be any significant increase in sea levels that would represent a danger to low lying areas around the world.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Thanks for that response TS.  It certainly broadens the conversation.
> 
> I'm also wary of conflating natural disasters with what are essentially human caused events. Earthquakes, volcanoes  are outside our control. We just have to deal with them.
> 
> Gross pollution effects as you mentioned and the effects of a rapidly changing climate can be at least partially addressed by changing what we do. For example in the mid eighties we discovered that fluorocarbons were destroying the ozone layer and we put into effect the Montreal protocol to ban fluorocarbons. Thirty years later there is an improvement.
> 
> In the 50's and 60's gross air pollution was  causing huge smogs in the big Western Cities. Anti pollution laws were brought in (and they wern't supported by business..) and yes the air became cleaner.  We can change.
> 
> _____________
> 
> With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea  levels. My reading of his work was that he just wasn't accepting that there would be any significant increase in sea levels that would represent a danger to low lying areas around the world.




Earthquakes and volcanoes and sea levels rising is part of what the world has been doing for millions of years. 60,000 years ago there was a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Where is it now? Underwater. Why? Because sea levels rose. Was that man made? Nope. 



> Sea level varied by over 100 metres during glacial-interglacial cycles as the major ice sheets waxed and waned as a result of changes in summer solar radiation in high northern hemisphere latitudes. Paleo data from corals indicate that sea level was 4 to 6 m (or more) above present day sea levels during the last interglacial period, about 125 000 years ago




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

Did man and Co2 cause this over the last 125,000 years? HUH ?? Well did it??? 

Ya just gotta love science and FACTS !!



> regions which were under the ice sheets (e.g. much of northern Eurasia and North America) are rising - in some cases by up to 7mm/year.
> regions which were on the forebulge (e.g. the east coast of the U.S.)* are sinking, typically at rates of 1mm/year or slightly more.*
> regions further away are moving vertically at smaller rates as part of the overall adjustment that this causes. For example, Australia is rising at ~0.3-0.4 mm/year.




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



> *Short-term geological effects*
> 
> A number of geological processes contribute to short-term *changes in measured sea level*. A few examples are:
> 
> *earthquakes* and other small-scale geological events
> sinking of land *through compaction* of sediments and/or withdrawal of ground water
> sinking of land through *withdrawal of oil*




So therefore earthquakes, compaction and sinking of land is contributing to the rise in sea levels. 

Been happening for millennia basilio. Just because some shrill named Al Gore makes a movie and self promotes awareness (but conveniently forgets to tell the public his company makes millions from this)



> Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had *raised profits of nearly $218 million *from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 *Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds* and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Then Obama comes out with this tripe ...



> THE UNITED STATES IS LEADING GLOBAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TAKING THE BIGGEST STEP YET TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BY FINALIZING AMERICA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN, WHICH SETS THE FIRST-EVER CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS.




https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

Then authorises Shell to pump croood out of Alaska on the same day ..



> In a visit to the small north-west Alaskan village of Kotzebue, Obama was set to announce a federal coordinator for response efforts in the region, myriad grants to increase community resources and systems to address the regional impact of climate change.
> 
> A fact sheet outlining the plans *did not address the role or impact of oil drilling or shipping in the Arctic*. This is particularly important for villages like Kotzebue, which is proximate to the Bering Strait, where melting ice has increased shipping and resulting jobs for Arctic residents.




http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/barack-obama-climate-change-strategy-arctic-alaska

Oh oh ... we need oil says Shell & Obama approves it ...



> Fox Business reports that Marvin Odum – the president of Shell Oil – says exploratory drilling off the northwest coast of Alaska is ‘going well.’
> The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 'the Chukchi and Beaufort seas hold 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil.'
> 
> Odum said, '*Oil will continue to be needed as the United States *transitions to more renewable energy.'




http://www.shell.us/about-us/projec...ses/shell-oil-president-reports-progress.html

Abbott not wanting to be left out ...



> The Government has announced that *Australia will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent* by 2030, ahead of the Paris climate change conference in December.
> 
> Claim one: Tony Abbott says Australia's per capita emissions targets for 2030 are "the best in the developed world".
> Verdict one: Australia's per capita emissions targets are behind the developed nations of Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Mr Abbott is incorrect.
> Claim two: Mr Abbott says that Australia's absolute emissions targets for 2030 are neither "leading" nor "lagging" the field.
> Verdict two: Australia is behind a number of western nations, but sits in front of both Japan and South Korea, and is comparable to New Zealand and Canada. Mr Abbott's claim is justified.
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott told ABC Radio's AM program that Australia's goal was environmentally and economically responsible and said he was confident Australia could achieve it "without clobbering jobs and growth".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/tony-abbott-emissions-reduction-targets-paris-2015/6711330

Politics at it's finest. So there you have it basilio *SOMETHING IS BEING DONE !!* Stating that the ocean is going to rise 10 metres and there will be no rain in the dams and the Himalayas will not have snow on them is ALARMING. Not useful in any sense of the form. We are changing ever so slowly away from fossil and coal but like all fledgling business's it takes time to get into full swing.

With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea levels my understanding of the article was that he was providing a balanced view ??

ALARMIST - The Norfolk Naval Base is going underwater due to global warming and the sea level is rising because of Co2 !!!!!!!!!!! EXTREME 

DENIER - The Norfolk Naval base is going underwater due to the land compacting approx 50% of the RSLR as the city was built on a reclaimed swamp 300 years ago!!!!!!!!!!! MODERATE

No amount of ridiculous claims about typhoons of the century and 7 metre sea water rising and hottest EVER on record BS is going to make it happen any faster to change to renewables.


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Earthquakes and volcanoes and sea levels rising is part of what the world has been doing for millions of years. 60,000 years ago there was a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Where is it now? Underwater. Why? Because sea levels rose. Was that man made? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
> 
> Did man and Co2 cause this over the last 125,000 years? HUH ?? Well did it???
> 
> Ya just gotta love science and FACTS !!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_geol.html
> 
> 
> 
> So therefore earthquakes, compaction and sinking of land is contributing to the rise in sea levels.
> 
> Been happening for millennia basilio. Just because some shrill named Al Gore makes a movie and self promotes awareness (but conveniently forgets to tell the public his company makes millions from this)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/
> 
> Then Obama comes out with this tripe ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change
> 
> Then authorises Shell to pump croood out of Alaska on the same day ..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/barack-obama-climate-change-strategy-arctic-alaska
> 
> Oh oh ... we need oil says Shell & Obama approves it ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.shell.us/about-us/projec...ses/shell-oil-president-reports-progress.html
> 
> Abbott not wanting to be left out ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/tony-abbott-emissions-reduction-targets-paris-2015/6711330
> 
> Politics at it's finest. So there you have it basilio *SOMETHING IS BEING DONE !!* Stating that the ocean is going to rise 10 metres and there will be no rain in the dams and the Himalayas will not have snow on them is ALARMING. Not useful in any sense of the form. We are changing ever so slowly away from fossil and coal but like all fledgling business's it takes time to get into full swing.
> 
> With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea levels my understanding of the article was that he was providing a balanced view ??
> 
> ALARMIST - The Norfolk Naval Base is going underwater due to global warming and the sea level is rising because of Co2 !!!!!!!!!!! EXTREME
> 
> DENIER - The Norfolk Naval base is going underwater due to the land compacting approx 50% of the RSLR as the city was built on a reclaimed swamp 300 years ago!!!!!!!!!!! MODERATE
> 
> No amount of ridiculous claims about typhoons of the century and 7 metre sea water rising and hottest EVER on record BS is going to make it happen any faster to change to renewables.




Coral used to thrive in Morten Bay....Where is it now?....It died because the waters in Morten bay became cooler..Coral only survives in warmer waters..Darra Cement works dredged it for 60 years to produce cement.


----------



## basilio

TS who said anything about the last 125,000 years (and beyond) of changing cliamte being the result of human intervention ? Yeah it's  the rotation of the earth, long cycles yada yada.

And interestingly enough, as you pointed out, the earth is still responding to these events. IE land masses rising as the loss of miles of ice cover releases pressure.

This conversation is about the impact of the last 200 of hundred  years of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , methane) on our climate. It should be about 

1) How much has our world changed already.
2) What is the best current information on how continued greenhouse gas emissions will affect our climate
3) What are the risks to our civilisation if these predictions eventuate.

The fact that the oceans rose and fell hundreds of metres in the past is interesting. The possibility that we could see rises of feet or metres in the next century as a result of increasing temperatures and melting of ice packs spells Trouble. 

So what do we gain  by ignoring the vast majority of  scientific information and evidence in favour of a sliver of carefully selected interpretations and deliberate misinformation ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS who said anything about the last 125,000 years (and beyond) of changing cliamte being the result of human intervention ? Yeah it's  the rotation of the earth, long cycles yada yada.
> 
> And interestingly enough, as you pointed out, the earth is still responding to these events. IE land masses rising as the loss of miles of ice cover releases pressure.
> 
> This conversation is about the impact of the last 200 of hundred  years of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , methane) on our climate. It should be about
> 
> 1) How much has our world changed already.
> 2) What is the best current information on how continued greenhouse gas emissions will affect our climate
> 3) What are the risks to our civilisation if these predictions eventuate.
> 
> The fact that the oceans rose and fell hundreds of metres in the past is interesting. The possibility that we could see rises of feet or metres in the next century as a result of increasing temperatures and melting of ice packs spells Trouble.
> 
> So what do we gain  by ignoring the vast majority of  scientific information and evidence in favour of a sliver of carefully selected interpretations and deliberate misinformation ?




I refuse to debate with someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what I am typing 

You asked my opinion .. I gave it. You asked for a solution ... I evidenced it. You asked for FACTS ... I posted them. You asked to be educated .. I did it. You wanted me to agree with you  ... I concurred.

No one is ignoring the "information" provided by self serving scientists and politicians. The world is doing something to reduce carbon emissions. See the links I posted there ... WHITEHOUSE press release, CSIRO, NASA, NOAA or are they wrong as well?

The world has been heating and cooling for millions of years. The world has been shaken by earthquakes, volcanoes have erupted, land has subsided, erosion has cause the Grand Canyon. But you know all this and dismiss it as a "sliver of information" and "deliberate misinformation". Are you for real? You do realise that the tectonic plates sinking actually release more Co2 gas into the atmosphere then what man is producing right now? How are you going to stop that?



> And the deeper the imaging equipment goes, the farther back in time scientists can see — as far back as 250 million years, said van der Meer. "Essentially, we can see the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea, and the opening and closing of oceans," he said.
> 
> In other words, the scans depicted the interior of the Earth, enabling the researchers to "see" the tectonic plates that have sunk into the planet over the past 250 million years.
> 
> The researchers then quantified the plates that have sunk into the deep Earth, and their calculations showed that the Earth produced twice as much CO2 as there is today.




http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

But this is mere misinformation again now isn't it?

So you want to focus on the last 200 years and blame it on man has caused this problem? Be my guest .. I for one believe that MODERATION is called for instead of some obtuse rant about civilisation is going to end because of Co2.

My prediction is this ... WE WILL ADAPT ! Evolution baby.

P.S. the thread is about RESISTING CLIMATE HYSTERIA


----------



## wayneL

Basilio your problem is that you see any person who does not uncritically accept every pro agw news release as a denier. That just stupid and unscientific.

In many ways climate science mirrors my own field that is concerned with biomechanics, physiology, morphology and pathology of the equine digit. Much so called research is conduct by those with a mercantile and/or philosophical agenda, resulting in laughable conclusions which are easily debunked.

This doesn't stop a legion of evangelical acolytes denigrating the tried, tested and successful orthodoxy or derivatives thereof. Yep, we get called similar names from the zealots, just like from the alarmists.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.


----------



## basilio

> *NASA says sea levels will rise by a metre over the next century
> *
> 9 hours ago September 07, 2015 7:08AM
> 
> Image
> Video
> 
> NASA’s OMG mission will examine how warm ocean water is speeding the loss of Greenland’s
> 
> 
> EXPERTS fear an ice sheet the size of Queensland is melting so quickly it will cause massive storm surges capable of decimating Australia’s coastal cities within the next century.
> 
> Satellite images recently captured by NASA show large sections of Greenland and Antarctica are vanishing at a much faster rate than previously thought.
> 
> Because of this scientists now believe sea levels will rise by a metre over the next 100 to 200 years. And this is not good.
> 
> Dr Steve Rintoul from the CSIRO told news.com.au if the NASA predictions prove true Australia could expect more devastating flash floods similar to the one suffered by Brisbane four years ago.
> 
> He said as the average sea level rose, so did the risk of destructive storm surges.
> 
> “What that means is that the frequency and severity of coastal flooding increases and those floods are more serious as the average sea level rises,” he said. “Most Australians live along the coast, and this is where we are going to feel the impact of sea levels rises.
> 
> “There is also about 150 million people that live within one metre of present day sea level, and so if sea levels rise by one metre, those people will be displaced. Many of our major cities around the world are close to sea level and also much of our industry and infrastructure is also close to the coast. The implications of rising sea levels are quite serious because a one metre rise would cause serious disruption not just to people on low level islands but to infrastructure and the economy in countries that have a coastline.”




http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...t that stirred a lynch mob&itmt=1441605289857


----------



## sydboy007

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...s-hottest-on-record-nasa-data-show/?tid=sm_tw





*The global temperature has been above the 20th century average now for 366 consecutive months – dating back to February, 1985.*


----------



## sydboy007

http://inhabitat.com/vast-ocean-discovered-under-chinese-desert-may-be-worlds-largest-carbon-sink/



> Li may have been searching for carbon, but it seems that the water holds the answer to the mystery. The alkaline soil on the surface of the desert helps to dissolve carbon which is carried underground by rainwater, meltwater from the surrounding mountains, and irrigation from farming. Cavernous chambers store the carbon-filled water in an immense underground ‘ocean’ from which it cannot escape, acting as a giant ‘carbon sink’. The combination of the alkaline sands on the surface and saline water deep beneath create the perfect conditions for carbon capture.
> 
> Forests and oceans have been traditionally considered the world’s largest carbon processors, but Li’s research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, appears to show that, paradoxically, the driest places on earth may be hiding massive water reserves which serve as enormous liquid carbon sinks. Li explained that “It’s like a can of coke. If it is opened all the greenhouse gas will escape into the atmosphere”. These desert waters may contain more carbon than all the plants on the planet combined.
> 
> Fascinatingly, when Li’s team took samples of the water from a variety of locations and used a process of carbon dating they “recorded a jump of ‘carbon sinking’ after the opening of the ancient Silk Road more than two thousand years ago.” Meaning that the natural world began dealing with human excess long before we ever imagined. “CCS [carbon capture and storage] is a 21st century idea, but our ancestors may have been doing it unconsciously for thousands of years,” he said.
> 
> The big question now is whether other deserts in the world harbor watery secrets on a similar scale. There is some scientific excitement about the likelihood of a “trillion tons” of carbon contained in subterranean desert aquifers worldwide, a figure that matches the “missing carbon” on the planet, according to scientific calculations.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...s-hottest-on-record-nasa-data-show/?tid=sm_tw
> 
> View attachment 64364
> 
> 
> *The global temperature has been above the 20th century average now for 366 consecutive months – dating back to February, 1985.*




It's freezing cold at my place now, so that data must be rubbish ! (noconomics)

Seriously, a very disturbing trend


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> It's freezing cold at my place now, so that data must be rubbish ! (noconomics)
> 
> Seriously, a very disturbing trend




Yes.  We had  29C last Wed and I was wondering if this feels like an impending ice age then why did hte mamoths wear great coast 

I think if the el nino that's forming sends things along the lines of the 98 one then attitudes will quickly change back to worry.  I fear much of Australia may end up like California before too long.


----------



## explod

The warmer poles are causing the cold to be displaced north and south respectively.  This in turn is increasing volatility.  Colder and hotter bursts and more intense air movements (ie gale force winds becoming common) 

I have described this a number of times on this thread but few bother to think it through. 

We have a problem that I realise is not being solved and the changes taking place will destroy mankind first.


----------



## sydboy007

explod said:


> The warmer poles are causing the cold to be displaced north and south respectively.  This in turn is increasing volatility.  Colder and hotter bursts and more intense air movements (ie gale force winds becoming common)
> 
> I have described this a number of times on this thread but few bother to think it through.
> 
> We have a problem that I realise is not being solved and the changes taking place will destroy mankind first.




It's Darwinism at work.  We have the knowledge, just not the will.

It's just a shame we'll force many specifies into extinction, though I think some humans will survive, just we'll be forced back to a pre industrial life style.

The old adage of things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.


----------



## Tisme

Good thing climate change isn't happening...take the cool nights in Townsville for instance  .... practical yin and yang


clicky on blue:

Queensland is suffering through the worst drought in its history with 80 percent of the state drought declared and no end to the big dry in sight. Shane Webcke reports.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Good thing climate change isn't happening...take the cool nights in Townsville for instance  .... practical yin and yang
> 
> 
> clicky on blue:
> 
> Queensland is suffering through the worst drought in its history with 80 percent of the state drought declared and no end to the big dry in sight. Shane Webcke reports.




Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.

They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.
> 
> They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.




I must admit the only thing I know about El Nino is that it started to get the blame in WA years ago when the weather started going bonkers. As kids we were taught the Humboldt Current was the predictor of drought and that current was predicated on Antarctica's temperature and the ozone layer above it.

I notice there is a lot of talk about southern oscillation indices too, these days.

Of course the three main weather events which mattered in the past were:

rain on Melbourne cup day;
how fricken hot xmas day was;
clear skys for easter;

and the hope the temp would stay over 105 °F (40  °C) long enough for the school to end early.


----------



## noco

The statistics presented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  are a farce and have been fiddled with to back up this Global Warming and to make out it is worse than the Alarmists state.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s_that_really_warming_or_did_you_just_adjust/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-climate-change/story-e6frg6zo-1227547888822

*For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not true.

In fact, under prime minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September last year.

The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the bureau homogenised the temperature data: that it adjusted figures. The same report also concluded it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend.

No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenisation, not even for Rutherglen. Rutherglen, in north*eastern Victoria, is an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site moves but where the bureau nevertheless adjusted the temperatures.

This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend into global warming of almost 2C a century.

According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount — that it was important the public had trust in the bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public knew to heed warnings of bushfires and *cyclones.

Hunt defends the bureau because it has a critical role to play in providing the community with reliable weather forecasts.

This is indeed one of its core responsibilities. It would be better able to perform this function, however, if it used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall.

There has been no improvement in its seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because it uses general circulation models. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any, skill at actually forecasting weather or climate.

Consider, for example, the millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010.

Back in 2007 and 2008, David Jones, then and still the manager of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it”, and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced.

Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains.

But the bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the bureau perceived our climate future.

So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011.

The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognised as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class-action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

Indeed, despite an increasing investment in supercomputers, there is ample evidence ideology is trumping rational decision-making at the bureau on key issues that really matter, such as the prediction of drought and flood cycles. Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts.

News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.

Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.

I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion” and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.

Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenisation, and the scientists’ motivations. For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-44. Specifically, Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15C. These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves and equipment changes.

Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (ie, areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.”

In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, daytime temperatures. Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia not because of site moves but because the record at places such as Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas such as Melbourne, which clearly are affected by the urban heat island.

I know this sounds absurd. It is absurd, and it is also true. Indeed, a core problem with the methodology the bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166.

It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea.

Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider such an important Australian *institution could now be ruled by ideology.

Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

*


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> The statistics presented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  are a farce and have been fiddled with to back up this Global Warming and to make out it is worse than the Alarmists state.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s_that_really_warming_or_did_you_just_adjust/
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-climate-change/story-e6frg6zo-1227547888822
> 
> *For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not true.
> 
> In fact, under prime minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September last year.
> 
> The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the bureau homogenised the temperature data: that it adjusted figures. The same report also concluded it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend.
> 
> No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenisation, not even for Rutherglen. Rutherglen, in north*eastern Victoria, is an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site moves but where the bureau nevertheless adjusted the temperatures.
> 
> This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend into global warming of almost 2C a century.
> 
> According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount ”” that it was important the public had trust in the bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public knew to heed warnings of bushfires and *cyclones.
> 
> Hunt defends the bureau because it has a critical role to play in providing the community with reliable weather forecasts.
> 
> This is indeed one of its core responsibilities. It would be better able to perform this function, however, if it used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall.
> 
> There has been no improvement in its seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because it uses general circulation models. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any, skill at actually forecasting weather or climate.
> 
> Consider, for example, the millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010.
> 
> Back in 2007 and 2008, David Jones, then and still the manager of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it”, and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced.
> 
> Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains.
> 
> But the bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the bureau perceived our climate future.
> 
> So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011.
> 
> The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognised as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class-action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.
> 
> Indeed, despite an increasing investment in supercomputers, there is ample evidence ideology is trumping rational decision-making at the bureau on key issues that really matter, such as the prediction of drought and flood cycles. Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts.
> 
> News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.
> 
> Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.
> 
> I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion” and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.
> 
> Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenisation, and the scientists’ motivations. For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-44. Specifically, Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15C. These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves and equipment changes.
> 
> Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (ie, areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.”
> 
> In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, daytime temperatures. Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia not because of site moves but because the record at places such as Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas such as Melbourne, which clearly are affected by the urban heat island.
> 
> I know this sounds absurd. It is absurd, and it is also true. Indeed, a core problem with the methodology the bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166.
> 
> It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea.
> 
> Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider such an important Australian *institution could now be ruled by ideology.
> 
> Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
> 
> *




I'll bet the alarmist Left will be out in force this weekend and early next week. With Adelaide , Melbourne and Hobart set to melt in the earliest heatwave in October in written records ? Adelaide going for temps around 35 degrees , Melbourne around the same and Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years)  is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees. Luckily I will have my air conditioner set to 15 cool degrees and the beer fridge stocked.


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> I'll bet the alarmist Left will be out in force this weekend and early next week. With Adelaide , Melbourne and Hobart set to melt in the earliest heatwave in October in written records ? Adelaide going for temps around 35 degrees , Melbourne around the same and Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years)  is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees. Luckily I will have my air conditioner set to 15 cool degrees and the beer fridge stocked.




And in Townsville we still need a blanket on at night.....Soooooo cool.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years)  is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees.




Let's hope it's not a repeat of what happened last time. 1966, that was the last winter comparable to this one and what followed was a major disaster with fires in 1967. The wet and cold winter saturated the ground, the warm spring weather lead to lots of undergrowth and that combined with very low rainfall from late Spring onwards dried it all out and ended with the fire disaster in February 1967. 

End result of that was 62 deaths in a matter of hours, 900 injuries and 7000 people homeless. That's the worst fire disaster in Tas history and 4th worst in Australian history in terms of lives lost.

Let's hope it doesn't happen again, but I know that quite a few old timers have noted the similarities between weather patterns over the past few months and what's predicted for this spring and summer (a strong El Nino which typically leads to drought).


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Let's hope it's not a repeat of what happened last time. 1966, that was the last winter comparable to this one and what followed was a major disaster with fires in 1967. The wet and cold winter saturated the ground, the warm spring weather lead to lots of undergrowth and that combined with very low rainfall from late Spring onwards dried it all out and ended with the fire disaster in February 1967.
> 
> End result of that was 62 deaths in a matter of hours, 900 injuries and 7000 people homeless. That's the worst fire disaster in Tas history and 4th worst in Australian history in terms of lives lost.
> 
> Let's hope it doesn't happen again, but I know that quite a few old timers have noted the similarities between weather patterns over the past few months and what's predicted for this spring and summer (a strong El Nino which typically leads to drought).




I must admit the fire bit does scare me a bit , we back onto bushland here. There has been a lot of effort in the past month with back burning in the Lenah Valley area of Mt Wellington . So the authorities seem to be preparing for the worst , lets prey it never happens. Saturday is looking pretty bad at the latest forecast here in Hobart winds up to 50kmr and 26 degrees. If something does start it's going to be hard to control and then with Monday and Tuesday around 28 degrees it will a dangerous situation.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.
> 
> They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.




Tisme can be very cruel.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Tisme can be very cruel.


----------



## SirRumpole

When these sort of people join the climate change club, what deniers are left ?

Shell CEO says carbon price needed to tackle climate change



> Shell's global chief executive says an effective carbon price is needed to tackle climate change, whether through a trading or tax system.
> 
> Speaking exclusively to ABC TV's The Business program, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said a price on carbon was necessary to discourage pollution.
> 
> "Putting, in one form or another, a real, clear price on carbon that compels people to act with rational economic actions, I think is something that we need," he told presenter Ticky Fullerton.
> 
> When pressed over the Australian Government's current direct action plan, which provides funding for programs to cut emissions rather than charging heavy emitters, Mr van Beurden said the design of the system was a matter for politicians in each country.
> 
> "Ultimately it doesn't matter too much if you have a trading system, a tax system or another system, as long as it is effective at what it does," he responded.
> 
> With the Paris climate change conference now just a couple of months away, Shell has joined forces with a number of other energy producers and industrial firms to form a Commission of Energy Transition.
> 
> Members include Australian mining giant BHP Billiton - with its interests in coal, gas and oil - as well as Dow Chemical and General Electric, two major industrial firms which are major energy consumers.
> 
> The aim of the commission is to provide advice to governments about how to combat climate change with the least disruption to their economies.
> 
> Many environmental groups are deeply sceptical of the commission, with Carbon Tracker saying the group's first report, which it says looks at how to lower the use of fossil fuels to 50 per cent of energy production by 2050, leaves the world open to warming twice as much as the current international target.
> 
> "We question the credibility and independence of an Energy Transitions Commission funded by fossil fuel incumbents," said Carbon Tracker's chief executive Anthony Hobley in a press release earlier this week.
> 
> "Shell's track record on climate change does not inspire us with confidence and plans that would see half our power generated by fossil fuels in 2050 risk seeing us go way over the UN's 2 °C climate change target."
> 
> However, Mr van Beurden said it is vital that companies with actual knowledge of energy production and usage are involved in the designing the solutions.
> 
> "The debate has gone to a place where some of the realism that we can bring to it has gone missing," he responded.
> Exports needed to make Arrow's Queensland gas viable
> 
> Another, local, challenge that Shell faces is a battle to win approval for its takeover of BG Group and its LNG project in central Queensland.
> 
> The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has raised concerns that the project could lower competition and raise domestic gas prices on the east coast.
> 
> That has led to some speculation that the ACCC might require much of Shell's gas reserves to be set aside for domestic use.
> 
> While Mr van Beurden declined to suggest solutions to the ACCC's concerns, he noted that gas exports were essential to the project's viability.
> 
> "It's going to be obvious in order to drive real scale in that project we will need to have access to export markets," he said in the extended interview, which can be watched on The Business's website.
> 
> "The original plan was to build our own LNG plant. It may well be that we end up selling gas to other neighbouring LNG facilities so ultimately, and this is also what the ACCC has recognised, Arrow to be developed as a resource base does need the underpinning of an export project, whether its our own, whether it is somebody else's, whether it is somebody else's in which we have a share, is to some extent immaterial."
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...price-needed-to-tackle-climate-change/6824510


----------



## basilio

This paper is a very sober risk management analysis of where we currently are with global warming.

Cheers



> It's time to 'Do the math' again
> 
> DOWNLOAD
> Have we gone mad? A new report released today explains why contemporary climate change policy-making should be characterised as increasingly delusional.
> 
> As the deadline approaches for submissions to the Australian government's climate targets process, there is a flurry of submissions and reports from advocacy groups and the Climate Change Authority.
> 
> Most of these reports are based on the twin propositions that two degrees Celsius (2 °C) of global warming is an appropriate policy target, and that there is a significant carbon budget and an amount of "burnable carbon" for this target, and hence a scientifically-based escalating ladder of emission-reduction targets stretching to mid-century and beyond.
> 
> *A survey of the relevant scientific literature by David Spratt, "Recount: It's time to 'Do the math' again", published today by Breakthrough concludes that the evidence does not support either of these propositions.
> The catastrophic and irreversible consequences of 2 °C of warming demand a strong risk-management approach, with a low rate of failure. We should not take risks with the climate that we would not take with civil infrastructure.*
> 
> There is no carbon budget available if 2 °C is considered a cap or upper boundary as per the Copenhagen Accord, rather than a hit-or-miss target which can be significantly exceeded; or if a low risk of exceeding 2 °C is required; or if positive feedbacks such as permafrost and other carbon store losses are taken into account.
> 
> Effective policy making can only be based on recognising that climate change is already dangerous, and we have no carbon budget left to divide up. Big tipping-point events irreversible on human time scales such as in West Antarctica and large-scale positive feedbacks are already occurring at less than 1 °C of warming. It is clear that 2 °C of climate warming is not a safe cap.
> 
> In reality, 2 °C is the boundary between dangerous and very dangerous climate change and 1 °C warmer than human civilisation has ever experienced.




http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/04/its-time-to-do-math-again.html


----------



## basilio

*Did you know?*

That in the 1970's- 80's Exxon scientists were  doing some of the best  research into  Climate Change and the role of CO2 in increasing temperatures. 

This might come as a surprise given that in the 1990's Exxon was also at the forefront manufacturing doubt around the reality and extent of climate change caused by CO2. 

In fact it is exactly the same as the tobacco industry which knew way ahead of the curve how addictive and lethal cigarettes were.

Check it out



> About This Series
> 
> After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.
> *
> It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.
> *
> Find the entire project here.




http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...o-climate-research-would-protect-its-business


----------



## basilio

It might seem a bit quaint for Exxon to fund leading research into Climate Change, be clearly briefed about the consequences... and then simply deny, deny deny deny. After all we live in a corporate world where lying taken for granted and called spin.

But there are ramifications for companies that deliberately deceive the public as to the safety of their product. For example the Tobacco industry was finally nailed when it was revealed that they knew all along about the addictive nature of their product and the health risks. 

Anyway  Exxon now faces a risk of climate litigation as evidence of their cover up come out. (have you sold your Exxon shares yet ?)


> *
> ExxonMobil Faces Heightened Risk of Climate Litigation, Its Critics Say*
> Advocates explore holding the company accountable after new evidence shows it's long understood that global warming threatened its business and the planet.
> By Bob Simison, InsideClimate News
> Sep 30, 2015
> 
> 
> *ExxonMobil may face renewed legal challenges from plaintiffs claiming that it should have acted to address the risks of climate change, based on new evidence that its own researchers warned management about the emerging threat decades ago.*
> 
> In an online petition drive, in public statements and behind the scenes, environmental advocates and their political allies are pressing federal and state authorities to launch investigations, subpoenas or prosecutions to pin down what Exxon knew and when. The oil giant's critics say Exxon might be held liable either for failing to disclose the risks to shareholders and financial regulators, or for manufacturing doubt to deceive people about the science of climate change.
> 
> "I think the case is already there to be made," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. He has raised the possibility of a Justice Department investigation under federal racketeering law. A former prosecutor, he is one of the Senate's leading voices for action to address the climate crisis.
> 
> The interest in pursuing legal action against Exxon has been sharpened by new disclosures from an eight-month InsideClimate News investigation documenting extensive concern within the company about the risks of global warming dating back nearly 40 years, according to environmental advocates, litigators and legal experts.
> *
> The evidence, much of it drawn from internal Exxon documents, shows Exxon understood that climate change posed catastrophic risks to people if nothing was done to control pollution from fossil fuels. It was also aware of material risks to the company if the use of fossil fuels had to be limited.*
> 
> The new documentation of Exxon's internal study of climate science would influence the tactics in future litigation, said several people active in the long-running strategizing among the company's most determined antagonists.
> 
> Pressure could come from the U.S. Justice Department, state attorneys general, private plaintiffs in the U.S. or abroad, or shareholders, legal authorities said. While no legal pathway is assured, and Exxon would surely mount a powerful defense, at the very least the litigation might lead the company to reveal new details of Exxon’s actions, or force it to be more forthcoming in its public statements.




http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...Heightened-Climate-Litigation-Its-Critics-Say


----------



## basilio

The question of Corporate responsibility for destroying the liveability of our planet is being stepped up and extends beyond Exxon.


> _ Editor’s Note: *This is the first of several articles on American oil companies and whether their track records on shareholder resolutions on climate change expose them to legal liabilities.*
> 
> These stories also launch ICN’s Climate Accountability Project, which investigates the role that people, companies and other groups have played in opposing or delaying action on climate change.
> 
> Refusing to act on climate resolutions could become a costly mistake, and invite the kind of legal onslaught that cost tobacco companies billions of dollars._
> 
> By Elizabeth Douglass, InsideClimate News
> 
> *At ExxonMobil, the answer is still no. *
> *
> For a quarter-century, stockholders have asked Exxon to confront the threat of climate change in all sorts of ways: by investing in renewable energy, cutting harmful emissions, providing carbon risk assessments and adding a board member with climate expertise. Year after year, the oil giant has said no, rejecting shareholders’ requests and downplaying their concerns long after scientists concluded that unfettered burning of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic climate change. At Chevron and ConocoPhillips, executives have also routinely opposed climate-related shareholder resolutions. *
> 
> But Exxon, the biggest and richest of the oil giants, is also the most dug-in. Late last month, it fought off another shareholder request to adopt one of the most basic and widely endorsed climate policies in corporate America””to set company-wide goals to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a proposal Exxon investors have introduced at annual meetings on and off since 1990, and it continues to hit the same wall.
> 
> “We have been ringing alarm bells for years saying to the oil companies that the status quo is unsustainable, is dangerous for investors, and in the long term isn’t in the companies’ best interests,” said Timothy Smith, shareholder engagement director at Boston-based Walden Asset Management, a 40-year-old investment firm managing $3 billion in assets. “They’re aware of the trends, but that doesn’t mean they’re changing their business plans. They’re not convinced they should move away from [the oil] business, or even curtail it.”



http://books.insideclimatenews.org/exxonsclimategamble


----------



## SirRumpole

The chances of any oil company being successfully sued over climate change is miniscule imo.

It was hard enough proving a causal link between smoking and lung cancer, and there are so many other variables in CO2 emissions, bushfires, volcanoes wood burning stoves, coal fired power  stations etc that it would be impossible to assess the damage caused by one oil company.

They will get away with whatever damage they do because as it stands oil is an essential part of daily life, unlike smoking so whereas tobacco companies are an easy target, oil companies can just say that they will put up the price of oil to cover any legal obligations and that will be the end of any lawsuits.


----------



## basilio

Actually Sir Rumpole I think suing Exxon et al for negligence/deception/whatever is pretty pointless. Bit like winning the jackpot on the gambling tables of the Titantic.

The real question is whether the body of evidence that Exxon scientists developed around global warming makes a difference to what we do today.  Are we up for tackling the problem or do we pretend nothing bad is going to happen....


----------



## basilio

But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert  scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit. 

IMO they should go to jail.


.....(In another universe.)


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert  scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit.
> 
> IMO they should go to jail.
> 
> 
> .....(In another universe.)




I agree. Pity Freedom of Information doesn't extend to corporations.


----------



## basilio

SirRumpole said:


> I agree. Pity Freedom of Information doesn't extend to corporations.




Well in fact the scientific information  that Exxon had regarding global warming is now public knowledge. That was the point of the story. It's not conjecture or theory. The documents are out.  Certainly there may be much more documentation in the Exxon files. But it would be interesting to see what lawyers make of the story that has been broken by Inside Climate news.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert  scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit.
> 
> IMO they should go to jail.
> 
> 
> .....(In another universe.)



Oh puleeeeze.

You want outrage? How about this, a client of mine's daughter has been suffering depression foe some time and three days ago topped herself.

Featuring prominently in her suicide note was the fear of global warming.

Congratulations a55holes, because of the like of you and your politicking on this matter a beatiful, gorgeous, sensitive young lady is dead.

No prizes for who I think should be locked up


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Oh puleeeeze.
> 
> You want outrage? How about this, a client of mine's daughter has been suffering depression foe some time and three days ago topped herself.
> 
> Featuring prominently in her suicide note was the fear of global warming.
> 
> Congratulations a55holes, because of the like of you and your politicking on this matter a beatiful, gorgeous, sensitive young lady is dead.
> 
> No prizes for who I think should be locked up




That's very sad Wayne, my condolences.

The fact is though that more people including world leaders are realising that climate change is real and will be a problem and we can't shield everyone from that fact. The best we can hope for is that world leaders DO something about the problem so people don't have to be scared of it.

 Lack of action is what's causing the fear, not telling people about the problem.


----------



## wayneL

I vehemently disagree. The conversation around climate change is highly politicized and bastids like Obama misrepresenting the science is messing with these kids .

Eg quoting the thoroughly discredited Cooke survey.


----------



## basilio

Wayne It is very sad to hear of your friends daughters suicide. And  the concern about global warming as a factor. Yep I can hear that.

Are you aware of the scores of climate scientists who  study this subject inside out and are only too aware of how dangerous the situation is ? They are pretty bloody depressed as well. They aren't worried about scare stories - they just know the facts. They also feel deeply concerned that their knowledge individually and collectively is being systematically denied by axxholes like Exxon and co who were/are fully aware of what is happening but are capable of denying it to keep making millions of dollars flogging fossil fuels - even as they realise they destroying our future.

Have you bothered to check out the story on the Exxon scientists and their research into global warming ? The reports they made to Exxon boards? The contributions they made to understanding  this field ? 

I understand Wayne. I truly do.


----------



## basilio

And on a more constructive note consider this. Check out a 60 sec vid. 

If we  seriously went in this direction maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much mental and emotional energy energy denying the obvious and actually improving our lives. 

Doesn't it make simple sense to move to clean renewable energy ASAP ?



> Every hour, enough sunlight blasts the earth to power humanity for a year. By 2050, across the entire world, solar energy could power our computers, phones, lights, hot water – anything we use electricity for today. There would be no need to pollute the planet with oil, coal or gas. Plus, solar panels are cheap at the moment. What better way to save a heating planet?




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/jul/22/sun-cool-down-earth-video


_________________________________________________________________

And while your at it have a look at The Guardians campaign to create hope and serious solutions.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ches-phase-two-of-its-climate-change-campaign


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And on a more constructive note consider this. Check out a 60 sec vid.
> 
> If we  seriously went in this direction maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much mental and emotional energy energy denying the obvious and actually improving our lives.
> 
> Doesn't it make simple sense to move to clean renewable energy ASAP ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/jul/22/sun-cool-down-earth-video
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> And while your at it have a look at The Guardians campaign to create hope and serious solutions.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ches-phase-two-of-its-climate-change-campaign




Of course it does. I'm on record in this thread for agreeing on energy security and general pollution grounds. 

It does not make sense to politicize and over-dramatize a biased, cherry picked and apocalyptic view of the science when their are a range of views and possibilities.... except for a political agenda of course.

As far as I am concerned, you (collectively) have blood on your hands, a pox on your house.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Of course it does. I'm on record in this thread for agreeing on energy security and general pollution grounds.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, you (collectively) have blood on your hands, a pox on your house.




A bit rough there ole Pal. 

There could,  and I suspect be a myriad of reasons for the unfortunate death of your friends daughter.   In my experience faults or reasons are sought to appease conscience of other traits,  often closer to home. 

You cannot just box these things up and then put blame on those who do not agree with you. 

On global warming my views are clear.   Concede there are many reasons but to cut out the use of coal and oil to the proven clean alternatives is at least a start.


----------



## Knobby22

Pull your head in, Wayne. 
Blood on our hands, indeed! Overdramatise, indeed! 

It's the feeling of helplessness and inability to affect change that has made it an issue.
And we know who is causing that and where the guilt belongs!

In any case, it would have been only one of a number of factors.


----------



## wayneL

So the climate Jihadists are quite ok with the concept of physical violence or gaoling of those they consider "denialists" (who are really just critical thinkers mostly)? Films of children being blown up for doubting, plus innumerable examples of climate totalitarian fantasies?

Yet feign outrage when their Jihad results in a real world depression and suicide.

What a revolting double standard. You guys make me feel physically ill!


----------



## Gringotts Bank

35 deg in Melb today.  Just saying.  Early October.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> So the climate Jihadists are quite ok with the concept of physical violence or gaoling of those they consider "denialists" (who are really just critical thinkers mostly)? Films of children being blown up for doubting, plus innumerable examples of climate totalitarian fantasies?
> 
> Yet feign outrage when their Jihad results in a real world depression and suicide.
> 
> What a revolting double standard. You guys make me feel physically ill!




The problems you cite put simply is supply and demand with so called productivity stimulated by massive bouts of QE. It does not work anymore and is a different topic to climate change. 

Hold tight in your tree ole Pal.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> So the climate Jihadists are quite ok with the concept of physical violence or gaoling of those they consider "denialists" (who are really just critical thinkers mostly)? Films of children being blown up for doubting, plus innumerable examples of climate totalitarian fantasies?




I thought the kids blowing up ad was stupid, so trying to paint all those who just look at the evidence as "climate jihadists" is an overreaction.

There has to be a rational debate on the issue on the basis of evidence.

That's what people have tried to produce here.

A child suiciding is a dreadful thing. Maybe that indicates a lack of parental counselling, or any number of other factors, you only mentioned one.


----------



## Knobby22

Bit of a red herring by the ole Wayne but so what. Would like to change subject.

This is the woman (Eugenie) who made the film, along with some of her history.

She looks a bit nasty to me. I don't know how she managed to get it posted, even for a few hours. Nasty group.





http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/31/eugenie-harvey-10-10


----------



## basilio

Where is this hysteria coming from Wayne ?  I restarted this discussion with a long post about the Exxon climate scientists who made huge contributions to the understanding of global warming in the early 80's.  In fact a number of people at Exxon saw the opportunity for their company to become a world leader in the changes necessary to reduce CO2 emissions which they they could forsee creating big problems.

*This was research and science by Big Oil Wayne*. Not your leftie/commo/fabian rest of world scientists rolleyes The really interesting part of course was that the Exxon Board finally decided in the 1990's that their business model was based on oil not renewables

*  So they made the decision to deny the research they had at their fingertips and embark on an extensive campaign to create doubt about  everything to do with global warming.*

Yes I think they should go to jail for their actions.  In my view it is similar to the Tobacco executives saying tobacco didn't cause cancer or was addictive when their own research explicitly said it did.

Obviously of course in the word of real  American politics rich white company men don't go to jail simply for lying about the safety of their products. 
*
But you havn't made a single observation about the global warming research undertaken by the Exxon scientists Wayne.* 
Not a peep.  The fact is you simply arn't interested in anything that challenges your totally focused view 







> *that there is nothing serious to worry about with global warming and anyone who says otherwise is some unspeakable hysteric who is worrying our children into an early grave.*


----------



## Smurf1976

Gringotts Bank said:


> 35 deg in Melb today.  Just saying.  Early October.




All time record for October in Tas today. 33.6 was the top for the state whilst Hobart reached 32.7

A strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) has effectively brought an early start to Summer for much of SE Australia. Looking ahead, the most likely outcome is below average rainfall.

Also notable today was the incredibly low humidity. Was down as low as 8% in the Hobart city area and 6% at the airport for a while today. Figures like that aren't normal when you're on an island surrounded by water. Much the same in Victoria too. There's basically no moisture, and a lot of heat, over much of inland Australia recently and with a northerly wind that has ended up in most of Vic and Tas.

From a political perspective a warm day in October in Tas won't really change anything. But if we were to break the all time Summer record for Melbourne or Adelaide, which would require temperatures in the high 40's, then that would influence public debate on the climate issue I'd expect. Once you get to that sort of extreme then bad things start to happen - people die, infrastructure doesn't work, fires are uncontrollable, etc.


----------



## SirRumpole

It got to 40 in Western Sydney today according to a contact.


----------



## wayneL

You may have noticed basilio there is more research about than Exxon's.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You may have noticed basilio there is more research about than Exxon's.




Forget the research,  just look out your window.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Forget the research,  just look out your window.




That's just stupid.

The view from my window is absolutely splendid, still doesn't mean anything.

The Mayans view from their window changed 700 years ago.

Yep, climate change ol' mate.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> It got to 40 in Western Sydney today according to a contact.




I think they are now classifying El Nino with descriptives, such as "mega", "supa dupa", etc to give the impression of aberrant cycles.

This years is the "Godzilla" El Nino and expected to wipe out farmers and turn the grassland into deserts...... I understand it was caused by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Unions and would have been worse if we hadn't turned back the boats


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> All time record for October in Tas today. 33.6 was the top for the state whilst Hobart reached 32.7
> 
> A strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) has effectively brought an early start to Summer for much of SE Australia. Looking ahead, the most likely outcome is below average rainfall.
> 
> Also notable today was the incredibly low humidity. Was down as low as 8% in the Hobart city area and 6% at the airport for a while today. Figures like that aren't normal when you're on an island surrounded by water. Much the same in Victoria too. There's basically no moisture, and a lot of heat, over much of inland Australia recently and with a northerly wind that has ended up in most of Vic and Tas.
> 
> From a political perspective a warm day in October in Tas won't really change anything. But if we were to break the all time Summer record for Melbourne or Adelaide, which would require temperatures in the high 40's, then that would influence public debate on the climate issue I'd expect. Once you get to that sort of extreme then bad things start to happen - people die, infrastructure doesn't work, fires are uncontrollable, etc.




There certainly has been some heat in Hobart , here are some amazing figures so far for October.
The daytime average temp is now sitting at 26.3 degrees ( the October long term is 17 degrees).
The night time average is temp is now sitting at 12 degrees ( the October long tern is 7.8 degrees) 
The hottest record  October average was set in 1963 at 19.7 degrees ( we are a whopping 6.6 degrees over that record so far).
The news is not good however as another heatwave is set to appear from about the 13th according to the long term forecast models. The El Nino ( or Godzilla if you're and ABC fan) is starting to ramp up for sure .
I also see that all wild shellfish on the Tassie East Coast are being affected by the dreaded Blue Green Algae breakout. Most likely caused by the warming waters of late ? Authorities are warning the public not to shellfish taken from the East Coast after a couple of poisonings. The article says seafood from shops has been tested and is safe to consume however.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...ellfish-poisoning/6832220?WT.ac=statenews_tas


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I think they are now classifying El Nino with descriptives, such as "mega", "supa dupa", etc to give the impression of aberrant cycles.
> 
> This years is the "Godzilla" El Nino and expected to wipe out farmers and turn the grassland into deserts...... I understand it was caused by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Unions and would have been worse if we hadn't turned back the boats




Those Arab refugees must have brought the weather with them. So that's how they'll take over!

It's still spring right?


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Where is this hysteria coming from Wayne ?  I restarted this discussion with a long post about the Exxon climate scientists who made huge contributions to the understanding of global warming in the early 80's.  In fact a number of people at Exxon saw the opportunity for their company to become a world leader in the changes necessary to reduce CO2 emissions which they they could forsee creating big problems.
> 
> *This was research and science by Big Oil Wayne*. Not your leftie/commo/fabian rest of world scientists rolleyes The really interesting part of course was that the Exxon Board finally decided in the 1990's that their business model was based on oil not renewables
> 
> *  So they made the decision to deny the research they had at their fingertips and embark on an extensive campaign to create doubt about  everything to do with global warming.*
> 
> Yes I think they should go to jail for their actions.  In my view it is similar to the Tobacco executives saying tobacco didn't cause cancer or was addictive when their own research explicitly said it did.
> 
> Obviously of course in the word of real  American politics rich white company men don't go to jail simply for lying about the safety of their products.
> *
> But you havn't made a single observation about the global warming research undertaken by the Exxon scientists Wayne.*
> Not a peep.  The fact is you simply arn't interested in anything that challenges your totally focused view




Age of reason at work.

Somewhat make sense, somewhat, when you define the costs to the environment and other people as "externalities" and your job is to make the most profit for your own and maybe your shareholders. 

The world can go to heck, but if you have a few billion dollars you will be able to afford a room on some Ark somewhere (a movie plot, but not that fictional).


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Age of reason at work.




Very entertaining talker, if not fed up with ordered society as most of us are.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Bit of a red herring by the ole Wayne but so what. Would like to change subject.
> 
> This is the woman (Eugenie) who made the film, along with some of her history.
> 
> She looks a bit nasty to me. I don't know how she managed to get it posted, even for a few hours. Nasty group.
> 
> View attachment 64593
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/31/eugenie-harvey-10-10




There are the likes of basilio who are sociopathic fanatics, and plod who who are apocalypse fantasists. I have accepted that is is unlikely these types will ever be able to be reasoned with due to. Their respective psychological pathologies.

I thought better of you however Knobby. I don't care how attractive, middle class and benign this monster appears, the fact remains, she was responsible for a film depicting the summary execution of children for being critical thinkers and indulging in the heinous crime of having a brain.

Just despicable, as is your defense of such disgraceful fantasizing.

Signing off for a while, I'm just too heartbroken to fight reprehensible zealots and will direct my energies to supporting the victims of vile propaganda.


----------



## Knobby22

You misjudge me Wayne.
I wasn't being sarcastic in my comments.

What she did was reprehensible. She is obviously a white upper middle class power woman who, when you read the report, wasn't even that concerned about global warming. I can't believe she got the video made and posted.

I also hate the fact that though there are many professional people working to stop action on climate change, there are other people like her with no soul that just make money out of it in the other direction.

I am not even sure of her motives and I don't like the look of her, probably a psychopath.
How come she still has her job?


----------



## ghotib

Today I learnt that a bright, kind, lively young woman of 23, who worked at the high care nursing home where my mother lives, killed herself last Friday. There isn't a soul at the home who didn't like her; I'm only one of the relatives who respected her thoughtfulness and enjoyed her conversation. The staff are devastated, at least partly because, in spite of the training many of them have done, nobody picked up on how she must have been feeling. 

I don't know what her reasons were or if global warming was any part of them. I find it hard to even try to think about reasons for the deaths of people so young and with so much potential. It's terrible that these are only two of hundreds of young people, each with reasons that must have seemed strong to them. 

Wayne, you didn't say how long or how well you've known your client's daughter. Given your profession, I can imagine that she was a horse-loving kid and you watched her through pony club. As a former live-in nanny and now a "BackUp Grandparent" I know very well you don't have to be family to find that a child has a hold on your heart. I'm deeply sad for you and the pain you're feeling.

You'll know there's a "but", and here it is. Global warming is a real problem that threatens the future of the children we love. The principal cause of 20th and 21st century global warming is humans releasing fossil carbon from under the ground into the air and oceans. The way to help kids deal with the problem is to work with them on fixing it: end the burning of fossil fuels, re-invent agriculture, re-imagine cities... give them confidence to face grim realities and change  them.

Again Wayne, I'm deeply sorry for that poor little girl, her family, and you.

Best wishes,

Ghoti


----------



## basilio

ghotib said:


> Today I learnt that a bright, kind, lively young woman of 23, who worked at the high care nursing home where my mother lives, killed herself last Friday. There isn't a soul at the home who didn't like her; I'm only one of the relatives who respected her thoughtfulness and enjoyed her conversation. The staff are devastated, at least partly because, in spite of the training many of them have done, nobody picked up on how she must have been feeling.
> 
> I don't know what her reasons were or if global warming was any part of them. I find it hard to even try to think about reasons for the deaths of people so young and with so much potential. It's terrible that these are only two of hundreds of young people, each with reasons that must have seemed strong to them.
> 
> Wayne, you didn't say how long or how well you've known your client's daughter. Given your profession, I can imagine that she was a horse-loving kid and you watched her through pony club. As a former live-in nanny and now a "BackUp Grandparent" I know very well you don't have to be family to find that a child has a hold on your heart. I'm deeply sad for you and the pain you're feeling.
> 
> You'll know there's a "but", and here it is. Global warming is a real problem that threatens the future of the children we love. The principal cause of 20th and 21st century global warming is humans releasing fossil carbon from under the ground into the air and oceans. The way to help kids deal with the problem is to work with them on fixing it: end the burning of fossil fuels, re-invent agriculture, re-imagine cities... give them confidence to face grim realities and change  them.
> 
> Again Wayne, I'm deeply sorry for that poor little girl, her family, and you.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ghoti




plus 1.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Very entertaining talker, if not fed up with ordered society as most of us are.




Only those with everything want an ordered society. If by "ordered" we mean society and its structure to remain as they are. There's the obvious war and revolution causing disorder, but other less violent revolutions happen all the time and comes about from hungry upstart shaking things up so they can have some. 

Reminds me of this scene from Romance of the Three Kingdom where TsaoTsao was having a heart to heart with his future nemesis Liu Pei. He said, wars and chaos are terrible terrible things... but for men of ambition like us, it's the opportunity of a lifetime. Without chaos, I would still be some lowly captain of the guards guarding the imperial library; you would still be selling straw hats to the end of your days. With this failed state and civil wars, I am now the Prime Minister and you and your two blood brothers will one day challenge me for all under heaven.

Haven't read Saul's book there but from the interview he seem to separate Reason/rationality from emotion and other faculties like empathy etc. All of those, I think, add to Reason... just the person have to have a great deal of vision and foresight to do what will turn out very rational but seemingly irrational at the moment.

Take climate change... very rational to do what the captains are doing; to put a cost on polluting the environment, to invest in alternatives when the current supply is in abundance, used everywhere and have a century of investment and know-how to extract and distribute... It's very rational to stay the course; and if the world floods and crops failed - well just move to higher grounds and theres plenty of money from the work you've done so no worries.

Anyway...


----------



## basilio

If we decide to stay on our present emissions path perhaps we should hurry up the process of moving to (much) higher ground.

The latest analysis of ice melt in the Antarctic suggest that the  whole continent is at risk of losing its ice cover by 2100.  



> * Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100
> *
> New research predicts a doubling of surface melting of the ice shelves by 2050, risking their collapse by the end of the century, say scientists
> 
> Widespread collapse of Antarctic ice shelves – floating extensions of land ice projecting into the sea – could pave the way for dramatic rises in sea level.
> 
> The new research predicts a doubling of surface melting of the ice shelves by 2050. By the end of the century, the melting rate could surpass the point associated with ice shelf collapse, it is claimed.
> Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn
> 
> *If that happened a natural barrier to the flow of ice from glaciers and land-covering ice sheets into the oceans would be removed.*
> 
> Lead scientist, Dr Luke Trusel, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, US, said: “Our results illustrate just how rapidly melting in Antarctica can intensify in a warming climate.
> 
> “This has already occurred in places like the Antarctic Peninsula where we’ve observed warming and abrupt ice shelf collapses in the last few decades.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...o-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> If we decide to stay on our present emissions path perhaps we should hurry up the process of moving to (much) higher ground.
> 
> The latest analysis of ice melt in the Antarctic suggest that the  whole continent is at risk of losing its ice cover by 2100.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...o-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100




This is the sort of extremist crap that gullible kids, if they believe it, give cause to go and top themselves.

Congratulations basilio.

Would it be to much to respectfully ask that you lot disseminate reasonable science somewhere in the middle of the bell curve of probabilities? With a doff of the cap to *either* extreme?

I like Freeman Dyson's thoughts on this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/?page=1



> An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
> 
> We invited Dyson to talk about climate change and other matters, including a question from your correspondent's kids – how will we do interstellar travel?
> 
> You were being invited to help solve problems in an era when things looked pretty grim, and those problems looked insoluble, during the Cold War, and before Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution. Now we've conquered a lot of these, but there seems to be an unquenchable thirst for apocalypse.
> 
> [Laughs] Yes. I don't know why, it's a mood of the times. I don't understand that better than anyone else. It is true that there's a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don't think that's the full explanation.
> 
> It's like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we'd gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it's in the air today.
> 
> The years before 1914 were a tremendously promising time. Russia was getting richer, [but then] the whole thing fell apart. It's comparable today – we've done a much better job with feeding the world and if you look at the number of desperately poor people, it has been decreasing quite steadily.
> 
> The most important thing at the moment is China getting richer. What the rest of the world is doing doesn't really matter.
> 
> If you could give your own scientific recommendations for carbon dioxide policy at COP21 in Paris, what would they be?
> 
> Certainly land management would be one. Particularly building up topsoil, which you can do in lots of ways. Not just growing trees, there are many things you can do which are just as good. Inducing snowfall is something you can do which hasn't been discussed very much, to keep the oceans from rising. The rise of the oceans is a real problem and while they're not rising as fast as people say, they're still rising. That could be stopped if you could arrange that it snows a bit more in Antarctica. That's something that could be quite feasible, but it's not been looked at very much.
> 
> Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.
> 
> I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.
> 
> It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it.
> 
> That's all true.
> 
> It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.
> 
> That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints.
> 
> It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.
> 
> Because the big growing countries need fossil fuels, the political goal of mitigation, by reducing or redirecting industrial activity and consumer behaviour, now seems quite futile in the West.
> 
> China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they'll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
> 
> At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that's the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.
> 
> Have you heard of the phrase "virtue signalling"? The UK bureaucracy made climate change its foreign policy priority, and we heard a lot of the phrase "leading the world in the fight ..." and by doing so, it seemed to be making a public declaration of its goodness and virtue ...
> 
> No [laughs]. Well, India and China aren't buying that. When you go beyond 50 years, everything will change. As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they've going up in Europe, and that's because of shale gas. It's only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.



.... etc etc


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Today I learnt that a bright, kind, lively young woman of 23, who worked at the high care nursing home where my mother lives, killed herself last Friday. There isn't a soul at the home who didn't like her; I'm only one of the relatives who respected her thoughtfulness and enjoyed her conversation. The staff are devastated, at least partly because, in spite of the training many of them have done, nobody picked up on how she must have been feeling.
> 
> I don't know what her reasons were or if global warming was any part of them. I find it hard to even try to think about reasons for the deaths of people so young and with so much potential. It's terrible that these are only two of hundreds of young people, each with reasons that must have seemed strong to them.
> 
> Wayne, you didn't say how long or how well you've known your client's daughter. Given your profession, I can imagine that she was a horse-loving kid and you watched her through pony club. As a former live-in nanny and now a "BackUp Grandparent" I know very well you don't have to be family to find that a child has a hold on your heart. I'm deeply sad for you and the pain you're feeling.
> 
> You'll know there's a "but", and here it is. Global warming is a real problem that threatens the future of the children we love. The principal cause of 20th and 21st century global warming is humans releasing fossil carbon from under the ground into the air and oceans. The way to help kids deal with the problem is to work with them on fixing it: end the burning of fossil fuels, re-invent agriculture, re-imagine cities... give them confidence to face grim realities and change  them.
> 
> Again Wayne, I'm deeply sorry for that poor little girl, her family, and you.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ghoti




Thank you for this post. We have our differences on this topic, but clearly what binds us is our humanity, friendships and the like. So sorry to hear of this. 

In my case, the parents paid the bills, but it was the daughter who I interacted with... and imagined I (and my wife) might be mentors to. 

I remember as a young person the alarmism over the nuclear threat and the ozone layer. I wish I had discussions on this topic.

Just gutted


----------



## basilio

> * Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming*
> 
> A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback
> 
> John Abraham
> 
> Tuesday 13 October 2015 21.00 AEDT
> Comments
> 139
> Save for later
> 
> While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isn’t the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.
> 
> While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.
> 
> But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.
> 
> *As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.*
> 
> Recently, a policy briefing from the world-leading Woods Hole Research Center has moved our understanding of this risk further through a clearly-written summary. The briefing cites two recent papers (here and here) that study the so-called permafrost carbon feedback.
> 
> *One of these studies makes use of projections from the most recent IPCC report to estimate that up to 205 gigatons equivalent of carbon dioxide could be released due to melting permafrost. This would cause up to 0.5 °C (up to 0.9 °F) extra warming. Just as bad, the permafrost melting would continue after 2100 which would lock us into even more warming. Under this scenario, meeting a 2 °C limit would be harder than anticipated. The current IPCC targets do not adequately account for this feedback.*
> 
> To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.
> 
> I communicated with Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes, who told me,
> 
> It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2 °C threshold in our rear-view mirror.
> 
> So, this means that reducing carbon dioxide pollution is even more important. If we are to stop the warming–thawing–more warming cycle, it is critical to reduce emissions now. According to these experts, this is a serious issue, and we should listen to them.




The problem Wayne is that wherever you look the reality of what is happening to our world is undeniable - unless of course you choose to deny it.


----------



## wayneL

The clue is in the weasel words basilio


----------



## basilio

And the facts on the ground  Wayne are that methane emissions in the Arctic are exploding at an exponential rate as the permafrost melts because of the average 4 degrees C rise in temperature. 
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

The paper below explains what impact the rapidly increasing temperatures are having on Methane and Co2 emissions.


> New research shows the Arctic is warming faster than previously believed
> September 11, 2015 Yana Pchelintseva, special to RBTH
> 
> Russian scientists have found about 700 “methane holes” in the Arctic shelf. The scale of emissions shows that the permafrost has degraded severely, and researchers think the thawing is irreversible.
> 
> A team of Russian scientists spent over 20 years examining thermokarst lakes – bodies of water formed by permafrost thawing. These lakes are sources of carbon dioxide, and recently they’ve begun to grow rapidly in size. Some are difficult to recognize on satellite imagery compared to a few years ago, and in certain areas the coastline has shifted by 70 meters in just two or three years. The question of carbon emissions in the Arctic continental shelf, however, is an even more serious issue than the thaw lakes.
> 
> - http://rbth.co.uk/science_and_tech/...tic_is_warming_faster_than_previou_49157.html)


----------



## Tisme

Another BBC doco:


----------



## basilio

The rate of change in the Arctic is only being really appreciated by the relatively small number of scientists who investigate, monitor and measure the changes.  They are xxxx scared.


> * Interview: Polar ice expert, Professor Peter Wadhams,
> *
> Written by Nick Breeze
> Category: Nick Beeze Articles
> Published: 22 September 2015
> 
> *discusses the increased dangers of climate change in the Arctic, the potential for runaway impacts and what politicians should decide when they meet in Paris *
> http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/nick-breeze-blogs/149-peter-wadhams2015


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Thank you for this post. We have our differences on this topic, but clearly what binds us is our humanity, friendships and the like. So sorry to hear of this.
> 
> In my case, the parents paid the bills, but it was the daughter who I interacted with... and imagined I (and my wife) might be mentors to.
> 
> I remember as a young person the alarmism over the nuclear threat and the ozone layer. I wish I had discussions on this topic.
> 
> Just gutted




The nuclear threat at the time was not alarmist,  it was very real and the cold war affirmed it.  In fact it is close to that again with the US Russia and now China. 

This is a discussion forum where views and observations should be freely part of the rationale in this debate. 

I am sorry for your personal experiences Ole Pal but they should have little to do with our basic discussion/debate. 

Your hostilty at some of,  what I would regard as reasonable views,  indicates hysteria from your pocket. 

One gets the feeling that you are a part of the oil/coal cartel lobby.   It is that strong and vehement. 

I started as just a boy from a farm,  where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria.  In the 1960's that changed dramatically,  tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped.  Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned.   The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker. 

Have stated on this thread  many times the wipout of ringed tailed possums at Belcolm Creek,  mount Martha,  Victoria from just one hot day (over 49c).  They had occupied that territory for millions of years.  So one can put up all the figures you like,  but what we see happening is real. 

Not saying all this is from coal and oil burning but I have seen enough to believe it is a major contributer. 

This is not hysterior but concern at the possibilties.  I believe it therefore reasonable to seek change towards cleaner methods and particularly as these innovations to wind and solar,  if subsidised as well as the oil/coal industry was would in fact be cheaper and certainly more efficient once running nationally and possibly linked internationally.


----------



## Smurf1976

Seems that we're setting new temperature records down here in Tas:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...ory-fnj4f7k1-1227568654501?from=trendinglinks

As for rain, well that basically just stopped a month ago with very little since mid-September. It's as though someone just flicked a switch and turned the rain off. Add in the warm weather and runoff has dropped rapidly to very low levels for this time of year.

Climate change? No proof, just another data point. 

The conventional explanation is a strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole). Both tend to result in lower rainfall in SE Australia, put them together and the effect is pretty strong.


----------



## Tom32

explod said:


> I started as just a boy from a farm,  where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria.  In the 1960's that changed dramatically,  tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped.  Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned.   The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.




My old man has always told me the same about growing up in northern nsw. Similar timetable as well, 1950s lots of frogs then in his case he also noticed green tree snakes along with the frogs  as well dissapearing. This is long before cane toads made it this far south.

I have always liked frogs and as a kid in Western Sydney used to raise a few tadpoles we would collect as eggs and raise, yeh cruel in retrospect but educational I guess.

My understanding of the issue is they are threatened by: chemicals that run off crops, a fungal infection that has affected them nearly worldwide, cane toads and habitat destruction. They have even died back in pristine national parks on the east coast which indicates how sensitive to chemicals that they are. 

One reason for hope is that for some reason the South western wa frog population  doesn't seem to be affected by any of these issues to the same extent. when I took the kids to fontys pool; a man made limestone pool surrounded by cropping / fruit farms I saw more frogs in one night there than I have in the rest of my life. While I like frogs this was nearly plague of Egypt style and all tree frogs. It was amazing, worth the visit for this experience alone.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The nuclear threat at the time was not alarmist,  it was very real and the cold war affirmed it.  In fact it is close to that again with the US Russia and now China.
> 
> This is a discussion forum where views and observations should be freely part of the rationale in this debate.
> 
> I am sorry for your personal experiences Ole Pal but they should have little to do with our basic discussion/debate.
> 
> Your hostilty at some of,  what I would regard as reasonable views,  indicates hysteria from your pocket.
> 
> One gets the feeling that you are a part of the oil/coal cartel lobby.   It is that strong and vehement.
> 
> I started as just a boy from a farm,  where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria.  In the 1960's that changed dramatically,  tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped.  Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned.   The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.
> 
> Have stated on this thread  many times the wipout of ringed tailed possums at Belcolm Creek,  mount Martha,  Victoria from just one hot day (over 49c).  They had occupied that territory for millions of years.  So one can put up all the figures you like,  but what we see happening is real.
> 
> Not saying all this is from coal and oil burning but I have seen enough to believe it is a major contributer.
> 
> This is not hysterior but concern at the possibilties.  I believe it therefore reasonable to seek change towards cleaner methods and particularly as these innovations to wind and solar,  if subsidised as well as the oil/coal industry was would in fact be cheaper and certainly more efficient once running nationally and possibly linked internationally.




Oh so you resort to the standard straw man argument, Wayne must have a sh!tload of oil shares.

That's disgraceful Plod.

a/ My views are somewhere around the median as I have detailed ad infinitum on here. Aligning somwhere in the region of Pielke Snr & Jnr, both ho have ceased writing on the subject due to the hatefest from the likes of you and basilio; and Dysons's view is also eminently reasonable.

b/ I do not own any energy shares at all. not one, zip, nada.

So you can shove that up your khyber mate.

As far as disappearing frogs etc. Mate, as I have also detailed here ad nauseum, climate change is only one issue and pathologically focussed on to the exclusion of anything else. There are a plethora of other anthropogenic factors responsible for the degradation of our soils, water, flora and fauna. Yet your Apocalyptic sect of kiddy killers wants to assign everything to exaggerated climate change.

That is both unbelievably stupid and incredibly irresponsible as these other issues are completely ignored. 

In fact I strongly support the majority replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy forms. Mining/drilling is incredibly destructive and though we've cleaned up substantively, it is still a polluting and dirty technology. I am also uncomfortable with the power and behaviour of oil companies.

For the meantime we have to live with them however.

So plod, we've discussed this all before. I had commended you on your sincerity on this issue but I now recind that based on your inability to grasp the full range of issues and continuous retreat to unfounded and unreasonable alarmism.

As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. :frown:


----------



## Tisme

I see Perth has come off it's hottest  something or other.

Brisbane weather is changing too


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> I started as just a boy from a farm,  where from 1952 I observed annual heavy rainfalls and tadpoles in every puddle around Hawkesdale in Victoria.  In the 1960's that changed dramatically,  tadpoles disappeared and rainfall dropped.  Those annual falls of 30 to 40 inches per year have never returned.   The frog tadpole population formed there over many millions if years to be gone forever in a whisker.
> 
> .




In the 1950s, DDT use was rampant as was deforestation. I think the worst state in the 50's, for wrecking habitat was WA land clearing to make way for the wheat belts. Micro climates must have suffered.

You can't wipe out 40% of the remnant forests, leaving land islands, in the last 60 years and expect native flora and fauna to continue living. 

Really though, who gives a fig ... we have our childhood memories and the current kids only care about their smart phones and game PCs.


----------



## Tisme

Check out WA dam inflow page 10:


http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/37d4a0d2a372656332d75d0163d9e8b8.pdf


----------



## basilio

> As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. Wayne L




I'm not sure what's sadder Wayne. This particularly nasty little jibe or the fact that you choose to overlook  both my personal regret at the death of friends daughter and the deliberate plus 1 I made on Ghotlibs post on the topic.

Cut the nastiness please.  It does not improve the quality of this thread or the ASF forum. Maybe you might like to look at the scientific sources of the papers I quote and discuss ay issues you see with their methodology


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> As I stared before, basilio is a hopeless case and looks to be at ease with kid topping themselves. :frown:




You know one of the many kids who would sleep at my place in lieu of questionable parenting from their own, decided to leave my house at midnight and jump off a major shopping centre carpark to his death, in his teens. I didn't go hunting for heartless b4stards to blame, instead I went around to his house and told his dad that his boy loved him.

Basilio doesn't deserve you viciousness. If he advocated inappropriate ideas for children and youth I would be deeply concerned for those he might infect, but your invective does appear displaced.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Seems that we're setting new temperature records down here in Tas:
> 
> http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...ory-fnj4f7k1-1227568654501?from=trendinglinks
> 
> As for rain, well that basically just stopped a month ago with very little since mid-September. It's as though someone just flicked a switch and turned the rain off. Add in the warm weather and runoff has dropped rapidly to very low levels for this time of year.
> 
> Climate change? No proof, just another data point.
> 
> The conventional explanation is a strong El Nino combined with a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole). Both tend to result in lower rainfall in SE Australia, put them together and the effect is pretty strong.




Hobart has some other interesting but worrying facts and that is the number of new Monthly average records set in the 2000's . We have had new records for the hottest months now set in , 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014 and with this month certain to join that's 2015. This is based on 122 years of records. Only 2 records remain in the 1800's and the other records were set in 1990's. 
Maybe we are at the peak and then it will shift back the other way ?  One things for certain , washing out our jam jars and installing millions of solar panels and charging climate taxes won't reverse what mother nature has install for us.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I'm not sure what's sadder Wayne. This particularly nasty little jibe or the fact that you choose to overlook  both my personal regret at the death of friends daughter and the deliberate plus 1 I made on Ghotlibs post on the topic.
> 
> Cut the nastiness please.  It does not improve the quality of this thread or the ASF forum. Maybe you might like to look at the scientific sources of the papers I quote and discuss ay issues you see with their methodology




I 100% stand by my comments.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> Check out WA dam inflow page 10:




The same pattern applies in Tasmania although not as severe.

Same as in the high runoff years basically just stopped, not a gradual decline but a sudden end to them, and occurring at the same time as in WA.

It is publicly disclosed that for planning purposes Hydro Tas is working on the assumption that future inflows will be approximately 85% of the previously accepted long term average. 

An interesting point is that, thus far at least, inflows to the total system (Hydro Tas) haven't gone outside their historic bounds of 64% - 137% of the long term average in any individual year. What has changed however is that the frequency of high inflow years has dramatically reduced, such that the average has reduced even though the extremes haven't changed.

That said, if we look at it on the basis of individual catchments then the extremes have been broken certainly, with inflows to Great Lake being well outside of historic bounds during one year last decade. Well outside as in practically nothing for a whole year. 

Something I've noticed is that when any of these records are broken it is generally by a significant amount. We don't go from a maximum recorded temperature of 40.8 up to 40.9, instead we go all the way to 42.2 just like that. Same with the inflow to Great Lake, the record wasn't breached slightly, the new all time low inflow is radically different to the past (although inflows have been within the normal range in subsequent years, actually quite high at times).


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I 100% stand by my comments.




You need to be more tolerant and understanding. 

Loosen up Champ. 

By overpopulation,  deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels "we have a problem Ralf" and to not see or acknowlege that is unbelievable to this kid.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You need to be more tolerant and understanding.
> 
> Loosen up Champ.




Tell that to the girl's parents.

Yes we have a problem. One of my clients today is a consultant environmentalist.

Her words - purported climate change is a distraction, many more issues we need to, and have the ability to deal with today.

This has been my consistent point and it was gratifying to hear the same thing from a professional in the field.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Tell that to the girl's parents.
> 
> Yes we have a problem. One of my clients today is a consultant environmentalist.
> 
> Her words - purported climate change is a distraction, many more issues we need to, and have the ability to deal with today.
> 
> This has been my consistent point and it was gratifying to hear the same thing from a professional in the field.




Yes,  an inconvenient distraction,  but we have to face the issue and err on the side of caution. 

It appears (is,  in my take),  a problem,  so putting the head in the sand is not going to help the distressed younger generation. 

They need us to care and bloody well see us do something about it.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yes,  an inconvenient distraction,  but we have to face the issue and err on the side of caution.
> 
> It appears (is,  in my take),  a problem,  so putting the head in the sand is not going to help the distressed younger generation.
> 
> They need us to care and bloody well see us do something about it.




Plod I believe you are one of the few who does.

The worst form of.... err.... denial, is to crow about climate change yet live your life as if you don't believe it.

eg Al Gore
David Suzuki
The thousands of delegates meeting at exotic locations every year, living high on the hog.
The stupid bitch that lectures me for buying a bottle of water, from her Range Rover and trolley full of overpackaged junk food, about to go home to an energy hungry house


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Plod I believe you are one of the few who does.
> 
> The worst form of.... err.... denial, is to crow about climate change yet live your life as if you don't believe it.
> 
> eg Al Gore
> David Suzuki
> The thousands of delegates meeting at exotic locations every year, living high on the hog.
> The stupid bitch that lectures me for buying a bottle of water, from her Range Rover and trolley full of overpackaged junk food, about to go home to an energy hungry house




Ey Wayne, sorry for the lost.

But Tisme and others are right though, you can't take that tragedy out on those who are trying to save lives too - not theirs because these are old farts who'll be long gone before the real bad stuff (might) happen.

And while those "leaders" are hypocrites, can't say the same for the good folks here and the others out there.

And why do you buy bottled water? We all know that if you're to spend money on any drink, something have to be added to the water to make it worthwhile. Why pay $2 for a bottle when you can spend $2 and have a tub of it at home?


----------



## SirRumpole

Sorry Wayne, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't work

Antarctic ice shelf collapse and unstoppable sea level rise 'very likely' without tough climate action, say scientists



> Warming of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above current levels could lead to "unstoppable" sea level rise that would last for thousands of years, according to a new model of Antarctic ice sheets.
> 
> The new model, published today in Nature, shows that such temperatures would result in 80 to 85 per cent loss of major Antarctic ice shelves, something that is possible by the end of the century under existing IPCC scenarios.
> 
> Collapse of the ice shelves would trigger a rapid melt of the Antarctic ice sheets, releasing vast amounts of Earth's freshwater stores into the ocean, said the researchers.
> 
> The IPCC reports have said the collapse of the ice shelves was unlikely whereas we're showing it's actually a very likely scenario.
> Dr Chris Fogwill, University of New South Wales
> 
> By 2100 this would add up to 40 centimetres to sea levels, melt rate would continue to accelerate until 2300, and sea levels would continue to rise after that for thousands of years.
> 
> The good news, said the scientists, is that their research suggests it's not too late to stop this, if we're prepared to take tough action to reduce greenhouse emissions.
> 
> "A lot of people are out there saying there's no point -- we're in that world now where it's all going to happen," said researcher Dr Chris Fogwill of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.
> 
> "But actually, what this modelling shows is there is still an opportunity, even now, to keep below these thresholds, where we avoid that long-term commitment."
> What do you think of the findings? Have your say in the comments below.
> 
> Antarctic contribution to sea level rise underestimated
> 
> The Earth is currently experiencing one of the highest rates of sea level rise for thousands of years, linked to global warming.
> 
> According to the IPCC global sea levels could rise over current levels by about 30 to 100 centimetres by 2100, depending on emission scenarios, with the main contributors being expansion of the warming oceans and melting of the Greenland icesheet and other land glaciers.
> YouTube: Animation of Antarctic melt model with a high emission scenario (Courtesy Golledge et al.)
> 
> IPCC emission scenarios
> The IPCC gives four scenarios, called RCPs, of how the planet will heat by 2100, according to the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
> 
> RCP 2.6 - Low emissions
> Emissions peak at 2020; are halved by 2050 and are zero by 2100. Temperatures do not exceed 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
> 
> RCP 4.5 - Intermediate emissions
> Emissions peak 2040. Temperatures reach 2.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
> 
> RCP 6 - Intermediate emissions
> Emissions peak in 2060. Temperatures reach 3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
> 
> RCP 8.5 - High emissions
> Business as usual - emissions continue to increase. Temperatures reach 4.3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
> 
> To date it has been thought that melting of Antarctic ice sheet would contribute very little to future sea-level rise -- just 4 to 5 centimetres at most.
> 
> But, said Dr Fogwill, these conclusions were reached using models that were not sophisticated enough to show major ice shelf collapse.
> 
> Dr Fogwill and a team led, by Dr Nicholas Golledge, from Victoria University in New Zealand, have developed the best model yet of the response of Antarctica to different scenarios of global warming. They have found the IPCC has been underestimating the contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise.
> 
> "The IPCC reports have said the collapse of the ice shelves was unlikely whereas we're showing it's actually a very likely scenario."
> 
> Unlike most climate models, which are run over centuries at most, the new model was run over 5,000 years to estimate the full impact of global warming on ice sheets.
> 
> The model showed that Antarctic ice would remain "incredibly stable" over 5,000 years at the lowest IPCC emission scenario, but ice shelves would collapse under all the other scenarios.
> 
> "In those higher concentration pathways we destabilise those ice shelves," said Dr Fogwill.
> 
> Collapse of the ice shelves under such scenarios would lead to Antarctic ice sheets contributing around 40 centimetres rather than 4 centimetres to sea level by 2100, said Dr Fogwill.
> 
> But, he said, it would not be until 2300 that the Antarctic ice melt rate would peak. By that stage the not-so-frozen continent would be contributing as much as 3 metres to sea level rise.
> Unstoppable sea-level rise under high emission scenarios
> 
> Due to the very slow response of the massive Antarctic ice sheets to global warming, Antarctic contribution to sea level rise would be "unstoppable" for thousands of years, and could be as much as 10 metres by 5000, according to the model.
> 
> These estimates are most conservative, said Dr Fogwill, not taking into account "polar amplification", which is the extra warming occurring at the poles.
> 
> The last time Earth experienced CO2 levels similar to today's was 3 million years ago and at that time sea levels at that time were a staggering 20 metres higher, said the researchers.
> 
> The emission controls required to prevent Antarctic ice shelf collapse are tougher than most are willing to consider, said Dr Fogwill.
> 
> But he and colleagues point to socioeconomic and ethical implications for future generations given the number of people who live within metres of sea level.
> 
> The findings will inform discussions at the upcoming Paris climate negotiations.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/antarctic-ice-shelf-sea-level-rise-warning/6853780


----------



## basilio

> Yes we have a problem. One of my clients today is a consultant environmentalist.
> 
> Her words - purported climate change is a distraction, many more issues we need to, and have the ability to deal with today.  Wayne





My observations. If a counsellor is helping a person with depression and a range of anxieties then its absolutely true that one needs to put aside the climate change issues as things they cannot deal with personally. The other issues are the ones to tackle as far as one can.

The use of the words "purported climate change" interest me.  I can imagine that the word "purported" was inserted to soften the impact of CC. Just makes it easier to put it aside in terms of tackling other issues.

________________________________________________________________________

But outside this situation reality still bites.


----------



## Logique

Many are too hasty to portray AGW as a political and moral issue. Too many opportunists. When a moderate like Bjorn Lomborg is hounded out of the country, that tells you all you need to know.  



> Blind to obvious facts - Catallaxy Files - October 17, 2015 by Steve Kates
> http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/10/17/blind-to-obvious-facts/
> 
> Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”..






> Carbon Dioxide: The Good News - Indur M. Goklany, with a foreword by Freeman Dyson
> Copyright 2015 The Global Warming Policy Foundation
> http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf
> 
> 8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors..


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> .Carbon Dioxide: The Good News - Indur M. Goklany, with a foreword by Freeman Dyson
> Copyright 2015 The Global Warming Policy Foundation
> http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa.../benefits1.pdf





Instead of saying its not happening, this sponsored paper now says what is happening is good.

 We get the advantages of plants growing better due to higher CO2 levels (for some reason Cotton is 50% more productive under the present levels while all the other plants are between 5-15%). They do admit that adding nitrogen to the soil might have something to do with this also, which is good to see as they are being honest here.
 They do say climate change has effected the weather.

 The argument is not without merit.
 I also believe mankind can and will adapt.
 An increase in CO2 levels is good for plants and oceans which helps us. 

 Somehow though I feel a bit cynical. As temperature records are going to be broken the next few years, I can't but help think this is just a new form of resistance in the face of undeniable evidence.We don't know the effects of a 4 degree increase in global temperature.

It is good to see a change in emphasis. When we started this thread it was quite different.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Instead of saying its not happening, this sponsored paper now says what is happening is good.
> 
> We get the advantages of plants growing better due to higher CO2 levels (for some reason Cotton is 50% more productive under the present levels while all the other plants are between 5-15%). They do admit that adding nitrogen to the soil might have something to do with this also, which is good to see as they are being honest here.
> They do say climate change has effected the weather.
> 
> The argument is not without merit.
> I also believe mankind can and will adapt.
> An increase in CO2 levels is good for plants and oceans which helps us.
> 
> Somehow though I feel a bit cynical. As temperature records are going to be broken the next few years, I can't but help think this is just a new form of resistance in the face of undeniable evidence.We don't know the effects of a 4 degree increase in global temperature.
> 
> It is good to see a change in emphasis. When we started this thread it was quite different.




Global Warming?????......What Global Warming?

"Tis the 18th October and still need a blanket on at night in Townsville.....Never known it in 44 years living here.....By this time of the year we needed our aircons on.

I say jail those bloody deniers.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Global Warming?????......What Global Warming?
> 
> "Tis the 18th October and still need a blanket on at night in Townsville.....Never known it in 44 years living here.....By this time of the year we needed our aircons on.
> 
> I say jail those bloody deniers.




OK, so ignore all the record breaking high temperatures around the world. It's the trend that matters, not what happens to you on a few days of the year.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so ignore all the record breaking high temperatures around the world. It's the trend that matters, not what happens to you on a few days of the year.




If 175 of the ASX200 stocks fall over the next year, 5 close at an unchanged price and 20 go up then it's fair to say that the market trend is down. That all my holdings happened to be in the 20 stocks which went up doesn't change the overall trend of the market.

All these weather events, record temperatures and so on, are just individual data points just like individual stock prices. Put them all together and you get the overall picture which, in the climate change context, shows that the climate does appear to be changing relative to what was accepted as "normal" during the 20th Century. 

Key point there being that most current infrastructure, agriculture and the like was developed based on the 20th Century understanding of what is normal weather. If that changes in a manner which renders the current infrastructure insufficient then there's a very real problem, potentially quite a major one.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so ignore all the record breaking high temperatures around the world. It's the trend that matters, not what happens to you on a few days of the year.




OK, so we ignore the record breaking low temperatures around the world whilst we are at it. 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/photos-fnlmwzlq-1227439575204

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbe...eaking-buffalo-storm-still-melting/ar-AAdCQYx

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...uch-of-australia/story-e6frflp0-1227434649892



> El Niño conditions were present across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during August 2015. According to analysis by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, sea surface temperatures during August were near or greater than 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1981–2010 average in the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. There is a greater than 90 percent chance that El Niño will continue through Northern Hemisphere winter 2015/16.




https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508 

El Nino I think they call it ??

In 1660 it was the middle of the little ice age only 350 years ago. Interesting to note that the "previous" records for high temperatures were around the early 1900's ... was it man made then?



> Temperatures in Death Valley (at Greenland Ranch, which is now known as Furnace Creek Ranch) soared to 134 F on July 10, 1913, the highest temperature ever recorded in the world. That date was actually one of five consecutive days when Death Valley recorded a high of 129 degrees or higher




http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/death-valley-marks-anniversary/50027254


But bit bit we are talking about global warming and not "isolated" anomalies now aren't we? What a joke peeps.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> My observations. If a counsellor is helping a person with depression and a range of anxieties then its absolutely true that one needs to put aside the climate change issues as things they cannot deal with personally. The other issues are the ones to tackle as far as one can.
> 
> The use of the words "purported climate change" interest me.  I can imagine that the word "purported" was inserted to soften the impact of CC. Just makes it easier to put it aside in terms of tackling other issues.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> But outside this situation reality still bites.




My observation ... you must be speaking from your own personal experiences and not projecting yourself onto others basilio. It is absolutely true that one needs to put aside their own agendas (think Al Gore) to fully comprehend as to how you are being manipulated by the media and vested interest governments.

_"We can in the foreseeable future, develop macroscopic assessments of our social order, predict our future and put social processes under control. I am reasonably convinced that social technology can be developed so that it would be possible to gain considerable control over many societal processes. American social science has been, in large measure, geared to the needs of the ruling elites of our social institutions. The literature of social accounting can be thus viewed as an ideology which justifies the emergence of a new ruling class that will provide "objective", "scientific" and non-ideological advice to the "rulers" of society."_ - Michael Springer 1970,Social Indicators, Social Reports and Social Accounts: Toward the Management of Society

_____________________________________________________________________

But outside this situation the truth is out there if you are objective and not a follower.

P.S. Try and understand what Michael Springer has written


----------



## Tisme

I had an interesting conversation down the pub last night with a 76 year old cow cocky who still runs about 1000 head in around the Bay area.

 I put it to him that the weather is very different to when I first came here in the 80's and he jumped down my throat declaring that the climate in Brisbane has always been unpredictable ... then went on to suggest things are really weird what with the two years of drenching a few years back, the mild summers, the intensity of the droughts out west, etc ...kinda debated himself out of his own trench with me just looking on.

It's old farts like him that got us into the mess we are supposedly him .... asset vandals who weren't content trying to turn the world into a wasteland in the 1940's, they spent the next two decades poisoning it with chemicals, clearing  forest so returned servicemen with NFI how to farm could refocus shellshock, raising the water tables so salination killed of whatever trees escaped the dozers.   No wonder the baby boomers rose up and demanded a voice independent of the brainswashed previous generation.

Silent gens should STFU and let Sarah Hansen Young fix the Liberal Party's 50's/60's mess.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> It's old farts like him that got us into the mess we are supposedly him .... asset vandals who weren't content trying to turn the world into a wasteland in the 1940's, they spent the next two decades poisoning it with chemicals, clearing  forest so returned servicemen with NFI how to farm could refocus shellshock, raising the water tables so salination killed of whatever trees escaped the dozers.   No wonder the baby boomers rose up and demanded a voice independent of the brainswashed previous generation.
> 
> Silent gens should STFU and let Sarah Hansen Young fix the Liberal Party's 50's/60's mess.




Yeah, I really shudder when I hear phrases like "Australia could become the food bowl of the world". Where ?

With decreasing rainfall, increasing urbanisation of our best farmland, more land clearing, erosion and salinity, the environmental lessons are being ignored when these National Party twits get $$$ signs in their eyes.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, I really shudder when I hear phrases like "Australia could become the food bowl of the world". Where ?
> 
> With decreasing rainfall, increasing urbanisation of our best farmland, more land clearing, erosion and salinity, the environmental lessons are being ignored when these National Party twits get $$$ signs in their eyes.





You know when you're National Party territory in QLD...it's the place were the vast majority of  locals live near or one the poverty line year round, the paddocks can't even support healthy growth of weeds due to depletion of soil stock, the trees and scrub look like they belong in the Mulga and the stands of gums left look like they have wilt ...... should sell it all off to the Chinese so they can invest money into sustainable agriculture.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, I really shudder when I hear phrases like "Australia could become the food bowl of the world". Where ?
> 
> With decreasing rainfall, increasing urbanisation of our best farmland, more land clearing, erosion and salinity, the environmental lessons are being ignored when these National Party twits get $$$ signs in their eyes.




If those Labor Party twits had built dams instead of wasting billions of dollars on desal plants in Vic...NSW and Qld.we would be better off today...Those desal plants are rusting away in moth balls.

But no, they took the advice of another idiot called Tim Flannery.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> If those Labor Party twits had built dams instead of wasting billions of dollars on desal plants in Vic...NSW and Qld.we would be better off today...Those desal plants are rusting away in moth balls.
> 
> But no, they took the advice of another idiot called Tim Flannery.




In fairness the Tugan desal plant is currently providing water to Burleigh and around  Mudgeeraba while the clapped out water treatment plant is getting repaired. 

It's going to be cheaper for the desal plant to provide water to the extra 400k people on the Goldie in twenty years than run pipes from the dams to the new estates. 125 megalitres of water a day is a fair amount of water coming through rusty pipes.


----------



## explod

Perma culture is an answer.  Farms developed in Victoria and South Australia have turned into productive oasis on the fundamental basis of Peter Andrews "Back From the Brink"  you let the weeds grow,  which also provides near ground cover which encourages trees and all manner of scrubs and fruit trees.   All organic refuse is allowed to block the waterways and hold moister around which further growth comes. 

One of the enimies is large scale cropping where,  in north central Victoria the dams have turned into salt pans.   Could not believe the change over 50 years at Willaura where I used to shear as a youngster. 

The lawn clippings off suburban homes are put into the rubbish.    Many friends and I use them as heavy multch which encourages worm activity and thereby wonderful growth of vegitables and some of which are not normally grown this far south. 

And one can go on about the burning of stubble etc.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> in north central Victoria the dams have turned into salt pans.




With the extreme low rainfall at the moment we're converting the dams into a storage of air rather than water. No salt thankfully.

Good point - if there's ever a shortage of air then don't worry, we've got plenty of that in Lake Gordon right now and it's nice clean air down there too. 81.1% full of air at the moment and increasing. Might be easier to catch a fish too - same number of fish in less water, so more fish per area of water = easier to find one (though friends who go fishing tell me that it doesn't work this way in practice for some reason).

Bad points - it's only 18.9% full of water. And it's only October. And we can't run air through the turbines. Bugger. 



> The lawn clippings off suburban homes are put into the rubbish.




Around here we've got 3 wheelie bins. Small one for garbage (red lid or dark green for the older ones), medium size one for recycling (yellow lid) and big one for "green waste" (bright green lid). Council empties the green waste bin in the same manner as other wheelie bins and it ends up as mulch and compost which is sold commercially.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> In fairness the Tugan desal plant is currently providing water to Burleigh and around  Mudgeeraba while the clapped out water treatment plant is getting repaired.
> 
> It's going to be cheaper for the desal plant to provide water to the extra 400k people on the Goldie in twenty years than run pipes from the dams to the new estates. 125 megalitres of water a day is a fair amount of water coming through rusty pipes.




Not only is the cost of construction of reverse osmosis plant expensive, they are also extremely expensive to run.

I did have some dealing with reverse osmosis and  deionized water some years ago in the industry I was associated with.

The membrane in those units are as thin as a human hair and it takes something like 6000 psi water pressure to force the saline water through......And as you will read in the link, the saline % of ocean water can vary greatly from one place to another...the higher the % the higher the cost to produce....So on the basis of this exercise, it is far more efficient and cheaper to build dams....The membranes also have to be replaced on a regular basis.

http://geography.about.com/od/water...4ec453ac-6241-451e-b7f7-46b0d3b9a0b8-0-ab_gsb


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> .So on the basis of this exercise, it is far more efficient and cheaper to build dams....The membranes also have to be replaced on a regular basis.




Apart from the fact tht there is a lot more sea water to desalinate than there is rainwater to catch in dams.

Dams are no use if it doesn't rain.


----------



## macca

SirRumpole said:


> Apart from the fact tht there is a lot more sea water to desalinate than there is rainwater to catch in dams.
> 
> Dams are no use if it doesn't rain.




Very true! But for years cities that are on the coast have been building better drains so that rain can flow into the ocean as quickly as possible, preferably cleaning the streets and gutters at the same time.

All of the rubbish then floated around in the ocean along with the sewerage coming from the other outlets.

My family were threatened with court action if we did not remove the water tank from the house and use town water in its place.

Finally !!! someone got the bright idea that if we all have a water tank plumbed into the toilet flush we can save billions of litres of water per year.

In cities that get good rainfall, like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane there is absolutely no need for desal plants, use the funds spent on that to pay half the cost of fitting water tanks to buildings and we save the desal running costs forever.

Another ridiculous point is that water usage was free, by putting meters on each supply point and charging for the water people suddenly people were rewarded for treating water like the precious resource that it is.

As our population grows we need to do something, places like the Gold Coast used to have 100k people now they have over 1mill yet no new dams have been built afaik, so no surprise they run out of water.

No big picture planning of infrastructure any more, no Snowy Mountain schemes, no bridges with spare capacity, no roads with spare lanes, etc etc media driven government simply does not work.

If a CEO was to run a Co with no 3, 5 and 10 year plan they would never get a gig yet the country is run by the 24 hour news cycle


----------



## SirRumpole

> In cities that get good rainfall, like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane there is absolutely no need for desal plants, use the funds spent on that to pay half the cost of fitting water tanks to buildings and we save the desal running costs forever.




Agree completely. When you consider how much water is used in watering gardens and washing cars, not to mention flushing loos, tank water is suitable for all those tasks.

My brother recently built a house in Melbourne, and the installation of an in house water tank was required by the council.


----------



## Tisme

macca said:


> Very true! But for years cities that are on the coast have been building better drains so that rain can flow into the ocean as quickly as possible, preferably cleaning the streets and gutters at the same time.
> 
> All of the rubbish then floated around in the ocean along with the sewerage coming from the other outlets.
> 
> My family were threatened with court action if we did not remove the water tank from the house and use town water in its place.
> 
> Finally !!! someone got the bright idea that if we all have a water tank plumbed into the toilet flush we can save billions of litres of water per year.
> 
> In cities that get good rainfall, like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane there is absolutely no need for desal plants, use the funds spent on that to pay half the cost of fitting water tanks to buildings and we save the desal running costs forever.
> 
> Another ridiculous point is that water usage was free, by putting meters on each supply point and charging for the water people suddenly people were rewarded for treating water like the precious resource that it is.
> 
> As our population grows we need to do something, places like the Gold Coast used to have 100k people now they have over 1mill yet no new dams have been built afaik, so no surprise they run out of water.
> 
> No big picture planning of infrastructure any more, no Snowy Mountain schemes, no bridges with spare capacity, no roads with spare lanes, etc etc media driven government simply does not work.
> 
> If a CEO was to run a Co with no 3, 5 and 10 year plan they would never get a gig yet the country is run by the 24 hour news cycle




Remember the Wolfdene Dam? The 1st of March 1990 and the Goss Govt scotched the construction, stating there shouldn't be a need for "extra source of supply until 2010 ....... they seem to have been correct.


I see 80% of QLD is now officially in drought ..... just seasonal I'm told by the armchair experts Good thing about deserts = warm days & chilly nights


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Apart from the fact tht there is a lot more sea water to desalinate than there is rainwater to catch in dams.
> 
> Dams are no use if it doesn't rain.




basilios conundrum solved ! Global warming melts icecaps, sea level rises, man uses sea water in desal powered by solar, sea water falls through consumption, drought and climate change crisis diverted. Polar bears and penguin population limited to zoos only.

SirRumpole for President !!  


No wait .... they are doing it already ...



> If Saudi Arabia and solar power don’t look quite right together, it’s time to shake off that 1970s oil crisis dust and take a look at the country’s recent forays into renewable energy. The latest move is a solar powered desalination plant aimed at treating 60,000 square meters of seawater daily for the northeastern city of Al Khafji. According to the developer, this will be the world’s first utility scale, solar powered desalination plant.




http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/22/worlds-largest-solar-powered-desalination-plant-under-way/


----------



## basilio

> basilios conundrum solved ! Global warming melts icecaps, sea level rises, man uses sea water in desal powered by solar, sea water falls through consumption, drought and climate change crisis diverted. Polar bears and penguin population limited to zoos only   _TS_



.

*Done it in one TS!!! A truly ingenious solution To All Our Problems no less.*

Just quietly could you let us know how much sea water coming from the melting ice caps do we have to desalinate to keep the oceans at their current level?

Just a rough guess perhaps ??


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> .
> 
> *Done it in one TS!!! A truly ingenious solution To All Our Problems no less.*
> 
> Just quietly could you let us know how much sea water coming from the melting ice caps do we have to desalinate to keep the oceans at their current level?
> 
> Just a rough guess perhaps ??




Not enough parameters to give you a quantitative answer there basilio. Are you suggesting that ALL the icecaps melt away to NOTHING or are you using a hockey stick graph methodology or have you factored in the oceans warming thusly expanding thereby increasing the rate of melt? Am I factoring in the El Nino effect for the 2016/17 winter around the Equator or am I projecting a flat curve ratio based on the existing emissions assuming man does not reduce Co2 gas released into the atmosphere under the Kyoto Protocol?

The easiest answer would be whatever amount of ice melt was entering the ocean would be the amount of desalination would be required ... just think about it .. deserts into oasis supporting agriculture, no more farmers waiting on Mother Nature to do her rain dance, abundance of water for lawns and parks and gardens. Utopia man. And how much is it rising EXACTLY ??? Oh just 1.7mm to 1.8mm per annum they think give or take + or - 0.5mm for the 20th century.

Are we using IPCC prediction models or Elsevier’s ??? According to the IPCC it is 



> Considering the above results, and allowing for the ongoing higher trend in recent years shown by altimetry (see Section 5.5.2.2), we assess the rate for 1961 to 2003 as 1.8  ± 0.5 mm yr–1 and for the 20th century as 1.7  ± 0.5 mm yr–1.




https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html

So let's say the glass is half full and the rate is 1.2mm (give or take 0.5mm) per annum as a prediction from the IPCC.

But bit bit it is the 21st Century now ... oh but wait a minute we have an answer for this one ....



> *There are large uncertainties on sea level projections beyond the 21st century.* Thermal expansion under the RCP6 scenario contributes from 0.4 m (Vizcaino et al., 2008) to 0.7 m (Solomon et al., 2009) by AD2200. By then about 1.1–1.3 m of sea level rise would have to come from ice melting, including about 40 cm from small mountain glaciers, 60% of which would have disappeared (Raper and Braithwaite, 2006). By AD2300 thermal expansion would reach 0.5– 0.75 m (Vizcaino et al., 2008; Solomon et al., 2009) with up to 1.2 m sea level rise coming from melting of ice sheets alone, since mountain glaciers and ice caps disappear almost completely by the end of the 23rd century (Raper and Braithwaite, 2006). T




http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/jev_moore_grin_Glob_Ch_2012.pdf

A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS HERE basilio


----------



## basilio

Very good TS !.  Love the range of parameters you have thrown into the pot.  All quite legit.

My thoughts are that the oceans will rise significantly if only as a result of thermal warming and the current rate of ice loss from the Arctic and Antarctic.  Check out the figures calculated from the Cryo Sat 2 satellite.

The reality ? It will be incredibly unlikely that the deserts can somehow "absorb" the water that will be release from the ice caps. The only way I could see that happening would be the creation of vast new forest around the world via this massive irrigation project.

Alternatively    of course we could develop a way to freeze all this desalinated water (super cold freezer...) and create a huge new on shore ice mountain....

Cubic miles of water are really, really BIG volumes. Think about it.



> *'Incredible' rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists*
> A European satellite has shown ice sheets shrinking at 120 cubic miles a year in Antarctica and Greenland
> 
> 
> Sunday 24 August 2014 09.05 AEST
> 
> 
> The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.
> *
> Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.*
> 
> The researchers, based at Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research – used 200m data points across Antarctica and 14.3m across Greenland, all collected by CryoSat, to study how the ice sheets there had changed over the past three years. The satellite carries a high-precision altimeter, which sends out short radar pulses that bounce off the ice surface and then back to the satellite. By measuring the time this takes, the height of the ice beneath the spacecraft can be calculated.
> 
> It was found from the average drops in elevation that were detected by CryoSat that Greenland alone is losing about 90 cubic miles a year, while in Antarctica the annual volume loss is about 30 cubic miles. These rates of loss – described as "incredible" by one researcher – are the highest observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago, and they mean that the ice sheets' annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009, say the researchers whose work was published in the journal Cryosphere last week.
> 
> "We have found that, since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by a factor of three," said glaciologist Angelika Humbert, one of the study's authors. "Both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic peninsula, in the far west, are rapidly losing volume. By contrast, East Antarctica is gaining volume, though at a moderate rate that doesn't compensate for the losses on the other side of the continent."




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Dams are no use if it doesn't rain.




They work fine if it rains sometimes however.

The basics are (1) yield and (2) storage capacity.

Eg you build a dam somewhere that has net (after evaporation losses) annual inflows of 100 GL +/- 35% and a storage capacity of 500 GL. In practice you can then draw pretty close to 100 GL out of it each year and do so reliably.

Then there's smaller dams in an interconnected system. Eg you capture an additional 10 GL but can only store 1 GL at that site due to topography. Not a problem as long as you can either physically move that water to another (larger) storage or alternatively can use it as the major source when inflows are high thus allowing the entire inflow to larger storages, which would otherwise be used to supply water, to be kept in storage.

It's worth noting that we use an intermittent renewable resource, sunlight and water, to produce the vast majority of food eaten by humans. If we take it that food is more important than watering gardens or generating electricity, then we're already making intermittent renewables work so far as our most critical energy supply (food) is concerned. 

Key point there is that it works because we can (1) store food and (2) move it around. A poor wheat crop in Australia doesn't really matter as long as someone else has a good crop. Same principle can be applied to energy - if we could move electricity around like we move food around then there's no reason at all why we couldn't easily use solar, wind and hydro to generate 100%. That we can't move it around or store it easily (apart from hydro) is the crux of the difficulty there.


----------



## Smurf1976

As an illustration of the impact of the current El Nino and positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) event on runoff, here's a 12 month chart of water levels in Laughing Jack Lagoon (Tas).

http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/water-storage/Web_Lakes_LAUGHINGJACK.pdf

As you can see, significant inflow stopped in mid-September and has been zero in the past few weeks. The outlet valve has been shut since early May (normal operation is release during Summer and Autumn).

In contrast, whilst levels at this storage were a bit lower last year inflows continued into early December until release commenced (outlet valve opened) in January.

So in practice the dry season has started about 2 months earlier in 2015 than it did in 2014. That's the impact of the El Nino and positive IOD. As water cannot enter this storage by any means other than natural inflows, there is no ability to divert or pump from anywhere else, the change in water levels since May (outlet closed) is a direct function of runoff during that time - and in short it has come to a halt early this year. 

Note - chart is not scaled to empty. NMOL (Normal Minimum Operating Level) is 8.99 metres below full. Figures in the chart are in minus metres (that is, the vertical distance from full supply level to the current water level, so full would be 0 and empty would be 8.99).


----------



## Tom32

Smurf1976 said:


> They work fine if it rains sometimes however.
> 
> The basics are (1) yield and (2) storage capacity.
> 
> Eg you build a dam somewhere that has net (after evaporation losses) annual inflows of 100 GL +/- 35% and a storage capacity of 500 GL. In practice you can then draw pretty close to 100 GL out of it each year and do so reliably.




Sounds like you have studied or worked in hydrology?

Only thing I could add is that often for Australian capitals the catchments yield curve, used to estimate required dam volume, has to be done over decades rather than yearly yield*, ie for some cities you may have to rely on 1:5 or 1:10 year flood events to top them up. 

Another important point about the benefit of dams is that they can be equally beneficial as flood mitigation measures which can save society significantly more than the cost to construct them. 

Something Brisbane forgot when they turned to the flawed logic that dams don't make rain in 2004-7, making water infrastructure investment decisions while living on what is quite clearly, even to a layman; a flood plain....

If I could also add though desals can and do have a place though in places like perth where the geography / geology is not as rich with catchments ripe for creating dams. Our desal is going strong and has shored up our water supply for a few years.

*Edit: just realised you did say plus minus 35pc. Still In the land of droughts and flooding rains the European textbook approach doesn't work where in our case we can get an average over 5years of -35pc compared to long term average and then a year (or month...) of +300pc on average rainfall. Ie we don't get anything like consistent rain and never have.


----------



## SirRumpole

I suppose you could have the best of both worlds and have desal plants discharging into dams to top up the storages. 

Or is that how it works now ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you could have the best of both worlds and have desal plants discharging into dams to top up the storages.
> 
> Or is that how it works now ?




There is no doubt in my mind that when desal plants come into discussion, the high cost of power to run pumps at very high pressures is completely overlooked apart from the high cost of maintenance whereas more dams = more storage and flood mitigation. 

Eventually the rains will come....The .Ross river dam in Townsville is now at 33% and has been as low as 10%....top up is obtained from the giant Burdekin dam....Discussion have taken place over some years now to raise the height of the Burdekin Dam wall by some 2 meters which could increase the capacity 8 fold.

Had authorities proceeded with the Bradford scheme 50 or 60 years ago, the whole of the central and southern part of Queensland would now be drought free....This scheme was also designed to fill Lake Eyre and had Lake Eyre been kept full it could have created rain for NSW.

But when politicians become involved wrong decisions are often made and that includes the construction of desal plants on the advice of that nutter Tim Flannery....The "Climate Change" expert...nuff said about politicians.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> But when politicians become involved wrong decisions are often made and that includes the construction of desal plants on the advice of that nutter Tim Flannery....The "Climate Change" expert...nuff said about politicians.




Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. If major cities were running short of water it's hard for a politician to say to people "if we wait long enough all our problems will be solved". At least with desal plants there is another option for water supply, sea water will never run out.

That's why I say don't rely on one source of water, have some options.

The stupidity of politicians is in letting the population expand to such an extent that the demand water water is outstripping the supply. Something had to break.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Very good TS !.  Love the range of parameters you have thrown into the pot.  All quite legit.
> 
> My thoughts are that the oceans will rise significantly if only as a result of thermal warming and the current rate of ice loss from the Arctic and Antarctic.  Check out the figures calculated from the Cryo Sat 2 satellite.
> 
> The reality ? It will be incredibly unlikely that the deserts can somehow "absorb" the water that will be release from the ice caps. The only way I could see that happening would be the creation of vast new forest around the world via this massive irrigation project.
> 
> Alternatively    of course we could develop a way to freeze all this desalinated water (super cold freezer...) and create a huge new on shore ice mountain....
> 
> Cubic miles of water are really, really BIG volumes. Think about it.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland




Ermmmmm please don't patronise me with a pat on the head basilio ... it is beneath you. If the ice caps have doubled their melting rate why hasn't the ocean risen at twice the rate as per the "scientists" predictions?

*ie * Current rate from IPCC as per link I posted was 1.7mm + or - 0.5mm per annum. Surely now it would be spiking out to 3.4mm give or take as well as the increase in ocean levels from El Nino equating to about a further 0.7mm adjustment? Give or take a pooftenth of a millimetre or so. Afterall the editorial you posted from the Guardian is over a year old now. Surely we should be up to our ankles in icy sea water by now  

Oh yeah .. you missed the whole thrust of my post ... DESERT + WATER = FOREST. You do realise that this has been done before right?



> Top 10 ways Israel fights desertification. Israel has gained a worldwide reputation for its ability to turn barren desert into useful and arable land. ISRAEL21c takes a look at the country’s top 10 eco-strategies. By Karin Kloosterman
> 
> This past year’s erratic and violent weather is only a small taste of what’s to come, climate scientists predict, as the impact of global warming starts to hit. Weather will become more unpredictable, flooding will become even fiercer, and droughts and famine more widespread as land increasingly gives over to desert.
> With desert covering a large part of its surface, Israel has had to quickly develop solutions for its lack of arable land and potable water. Israeli research, innovation, achievements and education on this topic now span the globe in tackling problems common to all desert dwellers.
> “We’ve done a lot of research on ecosystem response to drought because we have this problem on our doorstep,” says Prof. Pedro Berliner, director of Israel’s foremost research center for desert research, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev Desert.




http://israelseen.com/2012/07/19/israel-turns-barren-desert-into-useful-and-arable-land/

Or is it that the ice melting from the polar caps is merely evaporating due to the increased global temperatures thusly negating the rising effect?


----------



## basilio

Your logic is way out TS. The rapid increase in ice melt from the Arctic/Antarctic is not going to show up immediately. In terms of increasing ocean levels it is still small potatoes.  The current major contributions to sea level rise are thermal expansion as the oceans warm up and melting of land based glaciers. 

The concern with the Arctic (Greenland) /Antarctic  ice caps is that if they start to collapse then the oceans will rise by many metres. The time span for a theoretical collapse is almost literally anything. We might like to believe  it is thousand of years - if at all.

Unfortunately historical evidence says otherwise.



> The big question is how fast can the ice sheets collapse? We know the melting of ice sheets is a non-linear process. NASA climatologist James Hansen explained on ABC Television program, The 7.30 Report in 2007 to 7.30 Report anchorman Kerry O'Brien that:
> 
> "the problem is that the climate system in general has a lot of inertia and that means that it takes time for the changes to begin to occur but then, once they do get under way, it becomes very difficult to stop them and that is true in spades for the ice sheets. If we once begin to disintegrate it will become very difficult, if not impossible, to stop them and we are beginning to see now on both Greenland and west Antarctica disintegration of those ice sheets. They're both losing ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year and that's still not a huge sea level rise."
> 
> "Sea level rise is now going up about 3.5 centimetres per decade. So that's more than double what it was 50 years ago. But it's still not disastrous; it's a problem, but it's not disastrous. But the potential is for a much larger sea level rise.*If we get warming of two or three degrees Celsius, then I would expect that both West Antarctica and parts of Greenland would end up in the ocean, and the last time we had an ice sheet disintegrate, sea level went up at a rate of 5 metres in a century, or one metre every 20 years. That is a real disaster, and that's what we have to avoid."
> 
> So, with rapid ice sheet disintegration we get strong pulses of sea level rise of several metres per century. This has happened in the geological past, even with a much slower rate of atmospheric climate change. We don't know when we might trigger the first of these pulses. But we are changing the climate much much more rapidly than has ever happened on the geological time scale. What may have happened naturally over several thousands years in geological time, we are doing in a brief 150 years*.
> 
> So Greenland Ice sheet is melting in 2011 with near record mass loss. There have been warnings about Greenland ice caps to raise sea levels going back to at least 2004 and earlier.
> 
> In Antarctica the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers are accelerating with the West Antarctic Ice sheet losing mass.




http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/global-warming-means-20-metre-sea-level.html
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

______________________________________

PS And by the way the Israelis use irrigation for cropping. The amount of water that stays on land is raised but not that significantly.

A truly big forest on the other hand is effectively metres of water held in the trees and leaves.


----------



## basilio

The National Ice and Snow Data Centre have any excellent website which draws together all the research on snow and ice. Well worth a read.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmmm you did not read the link from the IPCC?? They are claiming that ocean warming is only accounting for 0.7mm + or - a poofteenth inclusive of the 2 degree rise from El Nino and CC etc ad infinitum or are they wrong as well?

Once again I refuse to debate with someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what I am typing. The Israeli's pioneered the water irrigation for deserts to turn it into arable land for cropping. I am talking about massive solar desal into the desert to create an oasis. but MEH ... you keep on misunderstanding OK !



> But we are changing the climate much much more rapidly than has ever happened on the geological time scale. What may have happened naturally over several thousands years in geological time, we are doing in a brief 150 years.




Well well well ... I would have thought when that massive rock ploughed into Earth a few million years ago that would have taken less than 150 years to change the atmosphere 

But hey it is all about the hysteria and not about being objective 

Earth has been cooling and warming for a looooooooong time now. Irrefutable data.





And finally some sense http://cliffmass.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html


----------



## trainspotter

> *COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING*
> 
> MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
> FACT:  The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
> There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
> 
> 
> MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
> FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
> The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
> 
> MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
> FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
> 
> MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
> FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
> Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
> 
> MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
> FACT:  The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
> 
> MYTH 6:  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
> FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
> 1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
> 2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
> To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
> 
> MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.
> FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
> 
> MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
> FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
> 
> MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
> FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
> 
> MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
> FACT:  The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.
> Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.




http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf 

Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf
> 
> Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!




Geez TS be careful what you post.......The Alarmists will try to jail you if you don't step into line with what they preach..


----------



## Smurf1976

Tom32 said:


> *Edit: just realised you did say plus minus 35pc. Still In the land of droughts and flooding rains the European textbook approach doesn't work where in our case we can get an average over 5years of -35pc compared to long term average and then a year (or month...) of +300pc on average rainfall. Ie we don't get anything like consistent rain and never have.




It really depends on the storage size relative to inflows. Two examples:

Great Lake (Tas) - storage volume of 3063.3 GL versus annual inflows of 698 GL (122 GL of which is itself pumped from another storage with 448.79 GL capacity). So if it were empty, and we get average inflows, then it would take 5 years to reach full supply level (FSL).

Great Lake was first dammed in 1916, that dam replaced with a much larger one immediately downstream in 1922 and replaced with a bigger one again in 1967, that dam itself being raised in 1982. In short, the Lake has never reached the current FSL (though it did reach the previous, lower, maximum levels on various occasions) and almost certainly never will.

For the other extreme, Lake Gairdner (Tas). Storage capacity of 6 GL versus annual inflows of 228 GL useful (that is, excluding flood flows which in practice go straight down the spillway given the small size of this storage).

Looking at those two examples, Lake Gairdner, the purpose of which is to supply water to Wilmot power station (with re-use of that water at Cethana, Devils Gate and Paloona power stations) is certainly useful in that it adds energy (main purpose) and a bit of peak capacity (secondary benefit) to the system. 

The basic operating principle is use the small dams first, then release from the major storages when there's insufficient water in the smaller ones. In the Tasmanian context, that's done by adjusting the operation of power stations rather than actually moving the water as such - the system is interconnected electrically but not hydraulically between catchments (with some very minor exceptions).

Whilst that example applies to the generation of electricity, the exact same principles apply no matter what the water is used for. If you can capture it when it rains and store it then dams can certainly provide a reliable supply of water / electricity.

Getting a bit of the topic of climate change as such, but my point is that intermittent water or energy inflows aren't a problem if you've got enough storage so as to be able to disassociate inflows with production over the medium term. Works with water and could also work with things like solar and wind power if we can store enough of it, that being primarily an economic problem rather than an engineering one as such.

All that said, right now there's stuff all so far as inflows are concerned. Incredibly dry.


----------



## Tom32

Smurf1976 said:


> Whilst that example applies to the generation of electricity, the exact same principles apply no matter what the water is used for. If you can capture it when it rains and store it then dams can certainly provide a reliable supply of water / electricity.




Thanks for the explanation.

This has me thinking about your other post now:



Smurf1976 said:


> Key point there is that it works because we can (1) store food and (2) move it around. A poor wheat crop in Australia doesn't really matter as long as someone else has a good crop. Same principle can be applied to energy - if we could move electricity around like we move food around then there's no reason at all why we couldn't easily use solar, wind and hydro to generate 100%. That we can't move it around or store it easily (apart from hydro) is the crux of the difficulty there.




Apart from hydro.

After reading your posts it has only just dawned on me now that hydro schemes are just like a big battery.

Are there any of these schemes where wind power is used to run pumps that pump water back above the hydro turbines during high wind and allows water through to generate power the rest of the time? With a big enough wind scheme and pump and storage you would have power all the time even if you had only enough water inflow for losses. You could potentially run the pumps directly from wind rather than an electric pump. Say a direct wind over hydraulic pump. 

Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tom32 said:


> Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.




You might want to check out "The future of energy generation and storage" thread also.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf
> 
> Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!




It certainly did Ollie!!  I believe that that  "Lords Creed" managed to encapsulate every piece of doggeral in the deniers handbook.

And in so few words! Very elegant indeed.

If you or anyone else takes that stuff on face value then you have to also believe that the entire science community are mistaken or deliberate liars. The oceanographers, the glaciologists, the meteorologists, the earth scientists, the lot.  

One can go through that litany line by line and provide reams of physical evidence that refutes it. It has been done a hundred times. I also know that the people who produce this misinformation and the people who choose to accept it have made their minds up.


----------



## basilio

Another question TS. 

Do you actually accept the graphs of Harris and Mann in their depiction of temperature changes in the past 5000 years ? Are you offering that as proof that Global Warming is just BS ?

_______________________________________________________________




> Well, I can't pretend to know the answer to that question but after I "stumbled" across the following chart, I realized that conservatives may be deluding themselves with false data. Reproduced below, this chart suggests that there has not been an increase in global temperature changes over the last 4500 or so years. The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.
> 
> If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).




http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?92074-Why-Do-Conservatives-Deny-Global-Warming 


_______________________________________________________________________________


> Climatologist Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approach on how the WEATHER played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.
> 
> Some topics include:
> - How God is using the weather to get our attention.
> - When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
> - What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
> - How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
> - How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
> - What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?




http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Bible-Prophecy-Cliff-Harris-ebook/dp/B00VGS3LN8


----------



## Smurf1976

Tom32 said:


> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> This has me thinking about your other post now:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from hydro.
> 
> After reading your posts it has only just dawned on me now that hydro schemes are just like a big battery.
> 
> Are there any of these schemes where wind power is used to run pumps that pump water back above the hydro turbines during high wind and allows water through to generate power the rest of the time?




In short, yes there are.

I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Another question TS.
> 
> Do you actually accept the graphs of Harris and Mann in their depiction of temperature changes in the past 5000 years ? Are you offering that as proof that Global Warming is just BS ?
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?92074-Why-Do-Conservatives-Deny-Global-Warming
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Bible-Prophecy-Cliff-Harris-ebook/dp/B00VGS3LN8





Are you trying to discredit Harris by insinuating he is a religious fruitcake? You own a computer right as you keep on banging on in here how the world is at a tipping point and we are all going to perish due to CC. Try GOOGLE and DYOR for a change.



> The last five million years of climate change is shown in the next graph based on work by  Lisiecki and Raymo  in 2005 [2] . It shows our planet has a dynamic temperature history, and over the last three million years, we have had a continuous series of ice ages (now about 90,000 years each) and interglacial warm periods (about 10,000 years each). There are 13 (count ‘em) ice ages on a 100,000 year cycle (from 1.25 million years ago to the present, and 33 ice ages on a 41,000 year cycle (between 2.6 million and 1.25 million years ago). Since Earth is on a multi-million-year cooling trend, we are currently lucky to be living during an interglacial warm period, but we are at the end of our normal 10,000 year warm interglacial period.




http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/




And where have I ever written that Global Warming / Climate Change is pure BS ?? I have agreed with you on multitudinous occasions over the years that the Earth temperature is getting warmer and cataclysmic events (weather) seems to be getting more frequent (more than usual) as well as citing many links and paragraphs where MAN is trying to do something to reduce C02 output.

I have elucidated to you that no matter how shrill your argument is that if you step back and take a closer look at what is really going on it would be better to mitigate the risk then to run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling (read Greenland & Antactica & Arctic are going to completely melt and ice flow is going to raise the oceans by 10 metres) and we are all going to drown unless we immediately go back to the dark ages.


----------



## Tisme

I wonder how our species will change in response to higher temps and higher carbon dioxide/GHG levels?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I wonder how our species will change in response to higher temps and higher carbon dioxide/GHG levels?




We may grow more hair to the consistency of Pink Batts.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> We may grow more hair to the consistency of Pink Batts.




You might be right. In my early schooling we were taught that sapiens survived and evolved because of the drier hotter climates, but also highly adaptable to different climates ... the two legged cockroach.


Looking at the following pic I reckon I've met everyone of them in my world wide travels. I hope they survive the next 100 years, before the heat, thirst, hunger, pestilence, war and Koran gets them:


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> In short, yes there are.
> 
> I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.




You know a lot of these Smurf.

What are your thoughts on refilling the aquifers? with those reverse dams Andrew Forrest was talking about?


----------



## noco

Some interesting facts on wind and solar power........it is not all it is cracked up to be.....costly and inefficient. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...578977109?sv=be083cec1d923804ad747317119bf2ff

*When considering climate change, most people think wind turbines and solar panels are a big part of the solution. But, during the next 25 years, the contribution of solar and wind power to resolving the problem will be trivial — and the cost will be enormous.

The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4 per cent of global energy now comes from solar and wind.

Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2 per cent of global energy.

This is partly because wind and solar help to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions only from electricity generation, which accounts for 42 per cent of the total, but not from the energy used in industry, transport, buildings and agriculture.

But the main reason wind and solar power cannot be a major solution to climate change stems from an almost insurmountable obstacle: we need power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

This has major implications for claims about costs.

For example, wind power, we are told repeatedly, will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels — or even, as a recent global news story claims, it is already cheaper than fossil fuels in Germany and Britain.

This is mostly a mirage; large-scale wind power will not work any time soon without subsidies.*


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> You might be right. In my early schooling we were taught that sapiens survived and evolved because of the drier hotter climates, but also highly adaptable to different climates ... the two legged cockroach.
> 
> Looking at the following pic I reckon I've met everyone of them in my world wide travels. I hope they survive the next 100 years, before the heat, thirst, hunger, pestilence, war and Koran gets them:
> 
> View attachment 64723




Tisme you have startled me with your eloquence. Adaptable, survived and evolved all in the one sentence pretty much sums up what man is all about. We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels (1.8mm per annum according to the IPCC).

The Netherlands with 16.5 million people and 1/8th of their country 1 metre below seal level must be sh1tting bricks right about now. But they have a fantastic attitude to living with water ...



> That is why a new paradigm ”” Living with Water -- infuses our policy and our public investments today. Of course: we must always be on guard against floods. That cannot and will not change.  The new paradigm means, however, that we can’t always fight the water.  Instead, we need to accommodate water, and give it room.  And in the world’s 3rd most-densely populated country, giving room to water means taking space from something else.  It is a zero sum game.  Or is it? Climate change, oddly enough, is reminding us of both the beauty and resiliency of nature, and the benefits of sustainable design.  The sober optimist is again making lemonade…




http://www.the-netherlands.org/key-...ion/water-management-apa-conference-2012.html

The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar




Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Tisme you have startled me with your eloquence. Adaptable, survived and evolved all in the one sentence pretty much sums up what man is all about. We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels (1.8mm per annum according to the IPCC).
> 
> The Netherlands with 16.5 million people and 1/8th of their country 1 metre below seal level must be sh1tting bricks right about now. But they have a fantastic attitude to living with water ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.the-netherlands.org/key-...ion/water-management-apa-conference-2012.html
> 
> The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar




Too much wine with that nice sunset again? 

Evolution takes millions of years. The pace of sea level rise scientists are predicting is within a century or two at best... you can't adapt to that kind of changes naturally in time to survive... the few that do will be the rich people in rich countries, of which there might be 1 out of 7 or 9 billion at best.

Not many countries could afford to build dikes and live below sea level like the Netherlands. They'd build high walls and watchtowers loaded with bullets and rifles though.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Too much wine with that nice sunset again?
> 
> Evolution takes millions of years. The pace of sea level rise scientists are predicting is within a century or two at best... you can't adapt to that kind of changes naturally in time to survive... the few that do will be the rich people in rich countries, of which there might be 1 out of 7 or 9 billion at best.
> 
> Not many countries could afford to build dikes and live below sea level like the Netherlands. They'd build high walls and watchtowers loaded with bullets and rifles though.




Once again failure to comprehend the written word luutzu. I wrote ...



> We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and *evolve our strategies* to combat rising sea levels




Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.

There are a lot of low lying areas around the world that the salt water could be funnelled into rather than just let the tide keep rising old chum 

Like the Netherlands they look at this as an opportunity for business and for civil works, construction, jobs and also for the greater good of the country. What are we doing?? Wringing our hands is all.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?




We must be brothers in law as I am pretty sure I married your wife's sister after taking a closer look at that photo.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.




Well yeah, I suppose we can keep smoking and then spend a lot of money on lung cancer operations too.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Once again failure to comprehend the written word luutzu. I wrote ...
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.
> 
> There are a lot of low lying areas around the world that the salt water could be funnelled into rather than just let the tide keep rising old chum
> 
> Like the Netherlands they look at this as an opportunity for business and for civil works, construction, jobs and also for the greater good of the country. What are we doing?? Wringing our hands is all.




You smoke with your wine too? haaha

sorry, on a roll.

Yea... take rising tides as opportunities to hold back the water... OR.... or maybe put those ingenuity towards alternative sources of energy and not risk kill a few species and hundred millions to then test our engineering skills.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Some interesting facts on wind and solar power........it is not all it is cracked up to be.....costly and inefficient.




The first question about efficiency is "does it matter?"

Oil is very efficient to extract as such, it doesn't take much energy to get it out of the ground. That's the good bit.

But then factor in all that drilling and exploration to find it in the first place, noting that drilling rigs use a lot of power (from diesel generators usually) and a lot of dry holes end up being drilled. Not so efficient now though still pretty good.

Then we've got to transport the oil once it's out of the ground to a pipeline or direct to a refinery. Pipelines themselves are efficient in operation, but that's without counting all the steel and construction activity required to build them. Ships use quite a bit of fuel too.

Then we lose a few more % in the refining process.

Then we lose some more transporting the petrol, diesel etc to your local service station.

The service station itself uses electricity to pump the fuel into your car, and most servos seem to have rather a lot of lighting running at night (and sometimes 24/7) too. OK, they need that lighting to help with safety etc, but it's still energy being used.

And finally there's the car itself. Your average petrol engine isn't much more than 20% efficient, the rest goes out the exhaust or via the cooling system as heat. The car itself is also very inefficient - moving 1+ tonne of metal around in order to carry a human that weighs 80kg is one problem. Aerodynamic drag and braking losses are also pretty significant.

Then there's all the energy required to build vehicles in the first place and the not insignificant amount used servicing, making spare parts, crash repairs and so on.

End result is that cars are 1 - 2% efficient at best at their task of transporting people form A to B but we still use them and do so on a very large scale.

What about electricity?

A modern coal-fired plant can achieve around 44% at the power station for gross generation. But then you need 6% of that electricity to run systems within the power station. Then there's the energy to mine and transport the coal. Then there's the 4 - 10% loss in transmission and distribution to end users. And of course most power stations in use aren't brand new and state of the art - more commonly they're somewhere in the mid-30's for efficiency and that's before all those other losses are considered.

Nuclear? That's no better than coal for efficiency with many plants being around the 33% mark. Even new ones aren't great (coal and gas having seen far bigger improvements than nuclear in recent decades).

Gas? That can be done more efficiently, a modern plant can get over 50%, but in practice the _least_ efficient power stations in Australia also just happen to be gas-fired with some barely 20% efficient (and that's without mentioning losses in gas production or transmission of the electricity produced).

Hydro? That's efficient certainly and always has been, even ye olde working museum near Queenstown Tas (Lake Margaret power station, built 1914) is 80% efficient and for a modern station it's about 90%. But we can't run the whole world with hydro - no chance of doing that. 

And even after you've got electricity to your home with 30% efficiency from coal in the ground to power at your house, then there's more losses in use. An electric kettle is highly efficient yes, but a vacuum cleaner certainly isn't.

There's also a fundamental point about resources in all of this. It makes sense to optimise the efficiency of using coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro because ultimately they are all limited resources. Estimates vary as to how much there is, but nobody would sensibly deny that ultimately coal is a finite resource. Keep using it and eventually we run out at least of coal which is easy (cheap) to access. Rain keeps falling from the sky yes, but there's still only a limited potential to develop hydro power - so efficiency does matter there too.

In contrast there is zero practical limit to sunshine and we're a very long way from running into any limits with wind resources. The solar panels on my roof might only be producing AC power at 13% efficiency, a figure that compares poorly with hydro or even coal, but the sunlight itself is an otherwise wasted resource. We won't burn the sun out any quicker just because we use it to generate electricity, and there's no shortage of sunlight. As such, inefficiency in use isn't a problem, the only reason to be more efficient is if doing so makes it more practical (eg panels get smaller) or cheaper. 

From the raw resource (fuel in the ground, sunlight, water in a dam etc) to your home, typical efficiency after all losses (assumption - 10% loss in electricity and transmission for small residential consumers, a typical figure but it varies considerably with location)

Hydro (electricity) = 81% (international data for modern plants, marginally lower for typical 1950's - 70's plants in operation)

Wind (electricity) = 40% (typical modern wind farm)

Coal (high grade, used as electricity) = 32% (typical NSW or Qld plants, best is about 37%)

Gas (used as electricity) = 29% (range 16% - 40% for Australian plants in operation) 

Nuclear (electricity) = 27% (based on US data)

Coal (low grade, used as electricity) = 25% (most modern units operating in Vic)

Oil (as electricity) = 21% (range 16% - 27%) (US data - we don't use much oil for power in Australia but ours are 
in the same range)

Solar (electricity) = around 14% (typical household installation including inverter losses)

Gas (used as gas) = 91%, less at least 20% lost in your appliances = 70%

Oil (as petrol) = Around 87%, less engine losses = 20%

Domestic wood heater = typically about 55% once you consider fuel to cut and transport the wood 

So most energy supply and use is quite inefficient, the only real exceptions being the direct use of of fuel for heating (space heating or hot water) is an exception as is hydro-electricity. Also heat pumps - even though electricity itself is inefficient, the end use efficiency is typically in the 90 - 120% range due to the principles of operation. But those are the exceptions to the rule, for everything else it's 40% efficient at best, more commonly in the 20 - 35% range.

Against that backdrop, a solar panel that just sits on the roof and works with 15% efficiency isn't really a problem. We're not going to use up the sun.


----------



## basilio

Great piece of work Smurf.. Excellent big picture analysis of energy efficiency.
Thanx.


----------



## explod

We are very privileged to have you on ASF Smurf. 

As with Bas,  excellent post r


----------



## wayneL

Battery storage is the next technological frontier. If we can crack that one the way we have cracked the technologies that actually consume power, we will be home and hosed, fossil fuels eventually relegated to minor use.

Bas and plod would have to find another apocalypse scenario to fret about.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> Ey Wayne, sorry for the lost.
> 
> But Tisme and others are right though, you can't take that tragedy out on those who are trying to save lives too - not theirs because these are old farts who'll be long gone before the real bad stuff (might) happen.
> 
> And while those "leaders" are hypocrites, can't say the same for the good folks here and the others out there.
> 
> And why do you buy bottled water? We all know that if you're to spend money on any drink, something have to be added to the water to make it worthwhile. Why pay $2 for a bottle when you can spend $2 and have a tub of it at home?




I occasionally buy bottled water when out on the road... but yeah curious that many of those critics are buying glass bottles of beverages... You might be shocked at the carbon footprint of the alcohol industry.

You might be surprised that I live intentionally frugally, typically we have a couple of square feet of rubbish/recycle per week... often don't bother putting the rubbish our for two or three weeks.

But... point of order. Those people have no intention of saving anyone's life; the goal was expressed by the UN's Christine Figueres, to wit:



> At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
> "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
> 
> 
> Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3pZ4AemHK
> Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook




I do have some sympathy with the sentiment, our monetary system is no sustainable, however I don't accept their favoured outcome.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Bas and plod would have to find another apocalypse scenario to fret about.




Don't have to,  you make the perfect storm Wayne.  As if there are not enough. 

And near the end of my time there is no real fret,  but what we are leaving behind to future generations is something to ponder.   My efforts to relieve that relieves my conscience to some degree,  I tried.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry Wayne, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't work
> 
> Antarctic ice shelf collapse and unstoppable sea level rise 'very likely' without tough climate action, say scientists




Lets just put that prediction in with all the other alarmist crap that never came to pass.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Lets just put that prediction in with all the other alarmist crap that never came to pass.




Just what is your time frame for "never" ?


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Don't have to,  you make the perfect storm Wayne.




I'm flattered, but as with every other APocalypse, it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> The first question about efficiency is "does it matter?"
> 
> Oil is very efficient to extract as such, it doesn't take much energy to get it out of the ground. That's the good bit.
> 
> But then factor in all that drilling and exploration to find it in the first place, noting that drilling rigs use a lot of power (from diesel generators usually) and a lot of dry holes end up being drilled. Not so efficient now though still pretty good.
> 
> Then we've got to transport the oil once it's out of the ground to a pipeline or direct to a refinery. Pipelines themselves are efficient in operation, but that's without counting all the steel and construction activity required to build them. Ships use quite a bit of fuel too.
> 
> Then we lose a few more % in the refining process.
> 
> Then we lose some more transporting the petrol, diesel etc to your local service station.
> 
> The service station itself uses electricity to pump the fuel into your car, and most servos seem to have rather a lot of lighting running at night (and sometimes 24/7) too. OK, they need that lighting to help with safety etc, but it's still energy being used.
> 
> And finally there's the car itself. Your average petrol engine isn't much more than 20% efficient, the rest goes out the exhaust or via the cooling system as heat. The car itself is also very inefficient - moving 1+ tonne of metal around in order to carry a human that weighs 80kg is one problem. Aerodynamic drag and braking losses are also pretty significant.
> 
> Then there's all the energy required to build vehicles in the first place and the not insignificant amount used servicing, making spare parts, crash repairs and so on.
> 
> End result is that cars are 1 - 2% efficient at best at their task of transporting people form A to B but we still use them and do so on a very large scale.
> 
> What about electricity?
> 
> A modern coal-fired plant can achieve around 44% at the power station for gross generation. But then you need 6% of that electricity to run systems within the power station. Then there's the energy to mine and transport the coal. Then there's the 4 - 10% loss in transmission and distribution to end users. And of course most power stations in use aren't brand new and state of the art - more commonly they're somewhere in the mid-30's for efficiency and that's before all those other losses are considered.
> 
> Nuclear? That's no better than coal for efficiency with many plants being around the 33% mark. Even new ones aren't great (coal and gas having seen far bigger improvements than nuclear in recent decades).
> 
> Gas? That can be done more efficiently, a modern plant can get over 50%, but in practice the _least_ efficient power stations in Australia also just happen to be gas-fired with some barely 20% efficient (and that's without mentioning losses in gas production or transmission of the electricity produced).
> 
> Hydro? That's efficient certainly and always has been, even ye olde working museum near Queenstown Tas (Lake Margaret power station, built 1914) is 80% efficient and for a modern station it's about 90%. But we can't run the whole world with hydro - no chance of doing that.
> 
> And even after you've got electricity to your home with 30% efficiency from coal in the ground to power at your house, then there's more losses in use. An electric kettle is highly efficient yes, but a vacuum cleaner certainly isn't.
> 
> There's also a fundamental point about resources in all of this. It makes sense to optimise the efficiency of using coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro because ultimately they are all limited resources. Estimates vary as to how much there is, but nobody would sensibly deny that ultimately coal is a finite resource. Keep using it and eventually we run out at least of coal which is easy (cheap) to access. Rain keeps falling from the sky yes, but there's still only a limited potential to develop hydro power - so efficiency does matter there too.
> 
> In contrast there is zero practical limit to sunshine and we're a very long way from running into any limits with wind resources. The solar panels on my roof might only be producing AC power at 13% efficiency, a figure that compares poorly with hydro or even coal, but the sunlight itself is an otherwise wasted resource. We won't burn the sun out any quicker just because we use it to generate electricity, and there's no shortage of sunlight. As such, inefficiency in use isn't a problem, the only reason to be more efficient is if doing so makes it more practical (eg panels get smaller) or cheaper.
> 
> From the raw resource (fuel in the ground, sunlight, water in a dam etc) to your home, typical efficiency after all losses (assumption - 10% loss in electricity and transmission for small residential consumers, a typical figure but it varies considerably with location)
> 
> Hydro (electricity) = 81% (international data for modern plants, marginally lower for typical 1950's - 70's plants in operation)
> 
> Wind (electricity) = 40% (typical modern wind farm)
> 
> Coal (high grade, used as electricity) = 32% (typical NSW or Qld plants, best is about 37%)
> 
> Gas (used as electricity) = 29% (range 16% - 40% for Australian plants in operation)
> 
> Nuclear (electricity) = 27% (based on US data)
> 
> Coal (low grade, used as electricity) = 25% (most modern units operating in Vic)
> 
> Oil (as electricity) = 21% (range 16% - 27%) (US data - we don't use much oil for power in Australia but ours are
> in the same range)
> 
> Solar (electricity) = around 14% (typical household installation including inverter losses)
> 
> Gas (used as gas) = 91%, less at least 20% lost in your appliances = 70%
> 
> Oil (as petrol) = Around 87%, less engine losses = 20%
> 
> Domestic wood heater = typically about 55% once you consider fuel to cut and transport the wood
> 
> So most energy supply and use is quite inefficient, the only real exceptions being the direct use of of fuel for heating (space heating or hot water) is an exception as is hydro-electricity. Also heat pumps - even though electricity itself is inefficient, the end use efficiency is typically in the 90 - 120% range due to the principles of operation. But those are the exceptions to the rule, for everything else it's 40% efficient at best, more commonly in the 20 - 35% range.
> 
> Against that backdrop, a solar panel that just sits on the roof and works with 15% efficiency isn't really a problem. We're not going to use up the sun.




Thanks Smurf for all that data.

Do you have a link I can follow through on?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Just what is your time frame for "never" ?




The same time frame as:

Sydney Dams will never be full again

England will never again see snow in winter

The Arctic will be ice free in 5 years (2007)

Et Etc Etc Ad nauseum


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I'm flattered, but as with every other APocalypse, it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup



You do not realy know that. 

The future cannot be predicted but we act on a ballance of probabilities. 

I have observed permafrost nearly halved in Greenland and New Zealand and I have read the reports of similar in many other places. 

This is not long term seasonal,  the planet from a fireball 5 billions years ago is supposed to be cooling. 

Houston "we have a problem"


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You do not realy know that.
> 
> The future cannot be predicted but we act on a ballance of probabilities.
> 
> I have observed permafrost nearly halved in Greenland and New Zealand and I have read the reports of similar in many other places.
> 
> This is not long term seasonal,  the planet from a fireball 5 billions years ago is supposed to be cooling.
> 
> Houston "we have a problem"




Shoulda gone to Specsavers Plod, the trend is not linear.... and thank Christ, snowball Earth doesn't sound appealing to me.


----------



## basilio

Well Wayne delighted to hear of your conversion to a renewable energy led  society if/when the battery storage technology falls into place.  (And that is seriously in sight )

Any thoughts on how the current fossil fuel industry will stand aside and encourage this new process ? Particularly in the economic system as it currently stands ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well Wayne delighted to hear of your conversion to a renewable energy led  society if/when the battery storage technology falls into place.  (And that is seriously in sight )
> 
> Any thoughts on how the current fossil fuel industry will stand aside and encourage this new process ? Particularly in the economic system as it currently stands ?




Whadayamean "conversion"?

Ten thousand million billion trillion times on here I've outlined my overall position.

If the fossil fuel companies are smart they will embrace the change. Like all businesses, adapt or die. I think they'll be around a while yet though.

Economics 101


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Well Wayne delighted to hear of your conversion to a renewable energy led  society if/when the battery storage technology falls into place.  (And that is seriously in sight )
> 
> Any thoughts on how the current fossil fuel industry will stand aside and encourage this new process ? Particularly in the economic system as it currently stands ?




The fossil fuel companies will do what they always have done, buy the people in government.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Whadayamean "conversion"?
> 
> Ten thousand million billion trillion times on here I've outlined my overall position.
> 
> If the fossil fuel companies are smart they will embrace the change. Like all businesses, adapt or die. I think they'll be around a while yet though.
> 
> Economics 101




I'm glad you don't exaggerate Wayne. It's one of your more becoming qualities.

Let's get xxxxing real Wayne. If the fossil fuel industry was smart they would ruthlessly suppress and deny any environmental concerns about the use of fossil fuel ie global warming, air pollution, mercury poisoning, nitrous oxide scams.

They would then spend a truckful of money trying to demonise renewable energy like wind (erratic, kills birds, causes mysterious illnesses). They would also try and make sure current power systems that use coal fired power stations crowd out renewable energy sources for as long as possible by screaming that "these are too expensive" (when the truth is completely opposite)

Finally of course they would ride the white charger of coal fired power stations as  saviour of the poverty stricken Third World.

Wayne this is the real economic system we currently have.  

*Big Business exists to make as much money as it can get away with.* 

It does whatever it has to to protect it's products regardless of the deleterious effects it might have on people or the planet. Where it's Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Gambling, Big Banks, Big Development  the mantra is the same.  
*
"The bucks stay with us."*


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I'm glad you don't exaggerate Wayne. It's one of your more becoming qualities.
> 
> Let's get xxxxing real Wayne. If the fossil fuel industry was smart they would ruthlessly suppress and deny any environmental concerns about the use of fossil fuel ie global warming, air pollution, mercury poisoning, nitrous oxide scams.
> 
> They would then spend a truckful of money trying to demonise renewable energy like wind (erratic, kills birds, causes mysterious illnesses). They would also try and make sure current power systems that use coal fired power stations crowd out renewable energy sources for as long as possible by screaming that "these are too expensive" (when the truth is completely opposite)
> 
> Finally of course they would ride the white charger of coal fired power stations as  saviour of the poverty stricken Third World.
> 
> Wayne this is the real economic system we currently have.
> 
> *Big Business exists to make as much money as it can get away with.*
> 
> It does whatever it has to to protect it's products regardless of the deleterious effects it might have on people or the planet. Where it's Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Gambling, Big Banks, Big Development  the mantra is the same.
> *
> "The bucks stay with us."*




I don't disagree with much of that bas, but Big Government isn't the answer.


----------



## wayneL

.... and whadayamean exaggerate? That's just where I stopped counting. The actual number is substantially higher.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You do not realy know that.
> 
> The future cannot be predicted but we act on a ballance of probabilities.
> 
> I have observed permafrost nearly halved in Greenland and New Zealand and I have read the reports of similar in many other places.
> 
> This is not long term seasonal,  the planet from a fireball 5 billions years ago is supposed to be cooling.
> 
> Houston "we have a problem"




It has all happened before in Greenland.......It is called climate change



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

*Norse settlement
Kingittorsuaq Runestone from Kingittorsuaq Island (Middle ages).

From 986, Greenland's west coast was settled by Icelanders and Norwegians, through a contingent of 14 boats led by Erik the Red. These settlers formed three settlements—known as the Eastern Settlement, the Western Settlement and Ivittuut the "Middle Settlement"—on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[9][29] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and western parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. Norse Greenlanders submitted to Norwegian rule in the 13th century, and the Kingdom of Norway entered into a personal union with Denmark in 1380, and from 1397 was a part of the Kalmar Union.[30]

The settlements, such as BrattahlÃ­Ã°, thrived for centuries but disappeared sometime in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[31] Apart from some runic inscriptions, no contemporary records or historiography survives from the Norse settlements. Icelandic saga accounts of life in Greenland were composed in the 13th century and later, and do not constitute primary sources for the history of early Greenland.[17] Modern understanding therefore depends on the physical data. Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300, the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic,[32] with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th parallel.[33] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[34] Similarly the Icelandic Book of Settlements records famines during the winters in which "the old and helpless were killed and thrown over cliffs".[32]
The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are of a marriage in 1408 in the church of Hvalsey—today the best-preserved Nordic ruins in Greenland.

These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and early 15th centuries.[35] The demise of the Western Settlement coincides with a decrease in summer and winter temperatures. A study of North Atlantic seasonal temperature variability showed a significant decrease in maximum summer temperatures beginning in the late 13th century to early 14th century—as much as 6–8  °C lower than modern summer temperatures.[36] The study also found that the lowest winter temperatures of the last 2000 years occurred in the late 14th century and early 15th century. The Eastern Settlement was likely abandoned in the early to mid-15th century, during this cold period. The condition of human bones from this period indicates that the Norse population was malnourished, probably due to soil erosion resulting from the Norsemen's destruction of natural vegetation in the course of farming, turf-cutting, and wood-cutting; pandemic plague; the decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age; and armed conflicts with the Inuit.[31]
The Thule Culture (1300 – present)*


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Thanks Smurf for all that data.
> 
> Do you have a link I can follow through on?




It's an original write up by Smurf in response to issues raised on this thread. So no link as such but some pointers:

Heat rates of US power generation is here: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html

Those figures are for the input heat rate, but there's 3412.142 BTU's (British Thermal Units) in a kWh (kilowatt hour) so it's just a matter of doing the maths to convert those figures to an efficiency rating.

Complicating that is consumption within the plant itself. That's around 5 - 6% for a coal-fired plant typically (less for others, especially those which don't involve steam turbines).

To that I've added energy required to extract the fuel based on typical figures from various sources.

Then I've added transmission and distribution losses of 10% based on the end user being residential and in a suburban or large town area. Much of that loss occurs in distribution (poles and wires in the streets) since transmission (big lines usually on steel towers) are quite efficient.

For solar I assumed that the inverter has an efficiency in the low 90's % in practice. Many will claim higher but they can't always achieve it in practice. No distribution losses due to distributed generation.

For wind I took 45% as the efficiency of the turbine, the total efficiency being less due to losses in transmission and distribution. Here's a link about the efficiency of wind turbines - www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/.../WindEnergyfactsheet.pdf

For hydro I took it as 90% efficiency for a modern plant, 80% for an antique. Those figures are pretty well accepted in the industry and a Google search will find plenty of links.

Complicating the figures is that plant efficiency is not constant. For example, gas turbines lose efficiency under certain weather conditions. Gas turbines also lose efficiency in a big way when operated at reduced loading. Steam turbines lose efficiency at low loads too. And for hydro, turbine efficiency typically peaks at 50 - 80% of the unit's capacity depending on the turbine design, which is itself a function of the available head (pressure) and in some cases that (head) is also a variable in operation.

As an example of varying efficiency, here's some data for an actual hydro power station in Tas.

Efficiency at peak output = 86%

Peak efficiency = 90% efficiency at 77% of peak output capacity. 

Efficiency at 28% of capacity = 75%

Efficiency at 14% of capacity = 62%

Efficiency at 7% of capacity = 50%

Further complicating all this is that these figures are efficiency of the power station. Transmission efficiency is also not constant and varies.

Something I'll add is that operating at peak efficiency is not always the rational thing to do from a business perspective. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. What is now a financial market (electricity) does not always reward the achievement of efficiency, indeed on occasion the reverse is most certainly true.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> It's an original write up by Smurf in response to issues raised on this thread. So no link as such but some pointers:
> 
> Heat rates of US power generation is here: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html
> 
> Those figures are for the input heat rate, but there's 3412.142 BTU's (British Thermal Units) in a kWh (kilowatt hour) so it's just a matter of doing the maths to convert those figures to an efficiency rating.
> 
> Complicating that is consumption within the plant itself. That's around 5 - 6% for a coal-fired plant typically (less for others, especially those which don't involve steam turbines).
> 
> To that I've added energy required to extract the fuel based on typical figures from various sources.
> 
> Then I've added transmission and distribution losses of 10% based on the end user being residential and in a suburban or large town area. Much of that loss occurs in distribution (poles and wires in the streets) since transmission (big lines usually on steel towers) are quite efficient.
> 
> For solar I assumed that the inverter has an efficiency in the low 90's % in practice. Many will claim higher but they can't always achieve it in practice. No distribution losses due to distributed generation.
> 
> For wind I took 45% as the efficiency of the turbine, the total efficiency being less due to losses in transmission and distribution. Here's a link about the efficiency of wind turbines - www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/.../WindEnergyfactsheet.pdf
> 
> For hydro I took it as 90% efficiency for a modern plant, 80% for an antique. Those figures are pretty well accepted in the industry and a Google search will find plenty of links.
> 
> Complicating the figures is that plant efficiency is not constant. For example, gas turbines lose efficiency under certain weather conditions. Gas turbines also lose efficiency in a big way when operated at reduced loading. Steam turbines lose efficiency at low loads too. And for hydro, turbine efficiency typically peaks at 50 - 80% of the unit's capacity depending on the turbine design, which is itself a function of the available head (pressure) and in some cases that (head) is also a variable in operation.
> 
> As an example of varying efficiency, here's some data for an actual hydro power station in Tas.
> 
> Efficiency at peak output = 86%
> 
> Peak efficiency = 90% efficiency at 77% of peak output capacity.
> 
> Efficiency at 28% of capacity = 75%
> 
> Efficiency at 14% of capacity = 62%
> 
> Efficiency at 7% of capacity = 50%
> 
> Further complicating all this is that these figures are efficiency of the power station. Transmission efficiency is also not constant and varies.
> 
> Something I'll add is that operating at peak efficiency is not always the rational thing to do from a business perspective. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. What is now a financial market (electricity) does not always reward the achievement of efficiency, indeed on occasion the reverse is most certainly true.




Thanks Smurf you have gone to a lot of trouble to make it appear convincing but I also detect a lot hypothetical hyperbole mixed up with baffling science.

When you mention efficiency the figures in the back of mind for various element are :-

Solar and wind ....10% to 15 %    

Coal fired .............35%

Ceramic fuel cells.......60%

Unfortunately ceramic fuel cells which were an Australian innovation, were too costly to produce and to the best of my knowledge have ceased production Germany.

I don't understand how you relate your efficiency factors.


----------



## SirRumpole

I wonder if it's possible to come up with a formula relating to the _effectiveness_ of an energy source ? Maybe it's already been done, I'm not an engineer.

eg.

_effectiveness = 1/emmissions x efficiency / capital costs / running costs x reliability x sustainability x baseload capacity _etc.


And whichever energy source has the highest rating is the one that gets used in a particular location.


----------



## basilio

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if it's possible to come up with a formula relating to the _effectiveness_ of an energy source ? Maybe it's already been done, I'm not an engineer.
> 
> eg.
> 
> _effectiveness = 1/emmissions x efficiency / capital costs / running costs x reliability x sustainability x baseload capacity _etc.
> 
> 
> And whichever energy source has the highest rating is the one that gets used in a particular location.




I think that is what Smurf was doing.

I don't think  it is a simple process. There will be many factors that come into play only a few of which will be direct energy efficiency. Convenience, historical  situation, access to particular resources for example.

Just  one example. Victorias brown coal in the Latrobe Valley is very poor quality. But once it was mined , the power plants built and the coal drying facilities  constructed no one wanted to close it down. Without any accounting for externalities it is a cheap source of electricity.


----------



## Tisme

Odd how the total deniers from a few years back are now broadcasting climate change as cyclical.....as if to say everything's ok because it was stinking hot and arid back then too ... no thought to what that will do to the future generations that survive religious nuts.

I would suspect we have evolved past the point of going back and surviving.


----------



## wayneL

Tisme said:


> Odd how the total deniers from a few years back are now broadcasting climate change as cyclical.....as if to say everything's ok because it was stinking hot and arid back then too ... no thought to what that will do to the future generations that survive religious nuts.
> 
> I would suspect we have evolved past the point of going back and surviving.




That's bullshyte Tisyou.

No serious sceptical analyst has ever been as accused. There was simply the ad hominem name calling vis a vis the ignominious and puerile "denier" slur.

Cmon dude you're smarter than that.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> That's bullshyte Tisyou.
> 
> No serious sceptical analyst has ever been as accused. There was simply the ad hominem name calling vis a vis the ignominious and puerile "denier" slur.
> 
> Cmon dude you're smarter than that.




C'mon Wayne, you know better why I posted that ....and I didn't even leave a burley slick


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Thanks Smurf you have gone to a lot of trouble to make it appear convincing but I also detect a lot hypothetical hyperbole mixed up with baffling science
> 
> ....
> 
> I don't understand how you relate your efficiency factors.




The basis of the efficiency figures I've stated is how much of the energy content of the primary energy source (fuel in the ground, water in a dam, sunlight etc) is converted into useful electricity delivered to your home.

First you start with the fuel, and that itself has 100% efficiency whilst it's sitting in the ground.

Then you need energy to extract the fuel. It's not a huge amount but it's not zero (with a few notable exceptions mostly related to oil).

Then you have to process (if necessary) and transport that fuel to the power station. Losses can be virtually zero (power station next to a coal mine) through to quite high (LNG shipped internationally).

Then you have losses in turning that fuel into steam. 

Then you have losses turning steam into mechanical power (that's by far the biggest loss in the whole chain).

Then you lose a bit more turning that mechanical power into electricity.

Then you need to use some of that electricity, around 5 - 6% in a typical coal-fired plant, to power systems within the power station itself. This is the difference between "gross" generation and "sent out" generation (the latter being what actually goes into the grid).

At this point around two thirds of the energy in the coal has been lost. You had 10 MJ (megajoules) of energy in the coal, but only 3.x MJ ends up as electricity coming out of the power station. All the rest was either lost in the various conversion steps (fuel > steam > mechanical power > electrical power) or was used as electricity to power the mine or systems (eg pumps, conveyors, fans etc) within the power station.

If we use Loy Yang (Vic) as an example, it's public knowledge that the plant is roughly 30% efficient from fuel in the ground to electricity "sent out". The big losses are (1) turning heat into mechanical power and (2) heat lost up the chimney as water vapour due to the 62% moisture content in the coal used. The other losses are less but still collectively quite significant. Efficiency of a black coal plant is a bit higher, since the lower moisture content of the coal greatly reduces losses from that source (but all the other losses are still there).

So, we had 10 kilowatt hours of heat energy in a given quantity (approximately 1kg in this case) of the coal at Loy Yang mine. Only 3 kilowatt hours of that heat actually come out the power station and go into the grid, the other 7 are lost in all the steps to extract, crush and burn the coal, converting heat > mechanical > electrical power and then using some of that electricity to run the plant itself.

Another 4% of what's left (the 30%) is then lost in the bulk transmission system (that's big power lines on steel towers) and around another 6% in the distributions system (wires on poles that run down your street, or their underground equivalent). Those figures are representative and will vary depending on location - higher if you're in the middle of nowhere, very low if you happen to live right next door to a power station (eliminating transmission losses) or terminal sub-station (largely eliminating distribution losses).  

End result of all that is that of the energy we started out with as coal in the mine, only 27% of that actually gets to your home as electricity. All the rest is either consumed or lost along the way, most of that occurring at the power station itself.

Same concept with all energy sources. Eg water in a dam is 100% efficient as a source of potential energy. Run it through John Butters power station (Tas) and we can convert 90% of that into electricity, the rest being lost mostly at the turbine and to a lesser within the alternator (generator in layman's terms) or used to run systems within the plant (but that's not much in a hydro station). Then add to that the losses in transmission and distribution and it's about 81% efficient from water in the dam to electricity in your home.

With some sources it's a bit less certain. Eg the data for both Loy Yang and John Butters has been publicly disclosed in various forms by the respective plant owners (Loy Yang Power and Hydro Tasmania) but not all plant owners choose to make such data public (though there are various third party estimates around for the major power stations). 

But if you take, say, the Port Lincoln or Angaston (both in SA and both oil-fired) then whilst it's not overly difficult to work out losses in the conversion of oil into electricity, the unknown is where that oil came from in the first place and what was involved with producing it. All the plant owner knows is that they buy fuel from a major supplier (eg Shell, BP etc to pick random names in the oil business) and it turns up. Where Shell or BP got it from they generally wouldn't know, and quite likely if you asked the supplier then they won't be too certain either. Came out of our terminal in SA, and that was filled by a ship that turned up. But we use different ships, and they source fuel from different refineries, who themselves source crude oil from all sorts of different places. End result of that is that the best that can be done is to estimate the energy used to extract the oil, ship and refine it. It's not like at Loy Yang where hard data is known or hydro where it just falls from the sky mostly of its own accord. 

All that said, even with an oil-fired plant the big losses are still within the power station, not on oil tankers etc, such that a bit of uncertainty as to the upstream fuel supply chain doesn't greatly change the end result. Most of the oil in the ground gets to the power station, and most of that comes out as heat (waste) with only somewhere around a quarter to a third coming out as electricity which goes into the grid.

Something to note here is that efficiency in a technical sense has very little linkage to economics and only a moderate link to practicality. Yallourn (Vic, coal) at 30% efficiency is cheaper financially (ignoring the CO2 issue) than Tribute (hydro, Tas) at 90% efficiency. An old open cycle gas turbine burning diesel is still a reliable source of power when needed, despite being less efficient and far more expensive than a wind farm at 45% efficiency that only works a third of the time.

Efficiency is also not always optimised in operation and that comes down to market conditions. Eg 3 (of 8) units at Torrens Island (gas, SA) are online at the moment but only operating at 25 - 40% of capacity each. It's up to the owners of the plant (AGL in this case) to decide what price to offer supply to the market at, and they've chosen to not offer much at the current price. They could get better technical efficiency out of the plant by operating it differently, but in practice they'll do whatever makes the most money. Come back on a hot day with little wind and they'll have all 8 units running flat out and be charging several times the current price.


----------



## trainspotter

Makes sense to me but I have been saying this for a while now.


----------



## SirRumpole

Government lies again about the cost of Direct Action.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/fact-check-direct-action-vs-carbon-tax/6847234


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Government lies again about the cost of Direct Action.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/fact-check-direct-action-vs-carbon-tax/6847234




Only lies to the Bruno Bertoluccis and honest truths to the Edward Melba "Ted" Bullpitts.

I'm guessing we could have used the $13 billion + 2014 $+ 2015 $= ~$30bn revenues to pay down debt and balance the budget?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Only lies to the Bruno Bertoluccis and honest truths to the Edward Melba "Ted" Bullpitts.
> 
> I'm guessing we could have used the $13 billion + 2014 $+ 2015 $= ~$30bn revenues to pay down debt and balance the budget?




Indeed. Just regulate carbon emissions. 

Of course there will be a cost in any solution, but regulation spreads it around.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed. Just regulate carbon emissions.
> 
> Of course there will be a cost in any solution, but regulation spreads it around.




The thing is that we are now the profit generation, so the trick is to pay people to make net oxygen output from carbon dioxide. Big business would probably have a machine in operation within the week with that carrot.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> The thing is that we are now the profit generation, so the trick is to pay people to make net oxygen output from carbon dioxide. Big business would probably have a machine in operation within the week with that carrot.




Those machines are called "trees" I believe.


----------



## trainspotter

Oh dear ...



> Antarctica is growing not shrinking, according to the latest study from NASA. Furthermore, instead of contributing to rising sea levels, the still-very-much-frozen southern continent is actually reducing them by 0.23 mm per year




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/



> Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.
> 
> Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.


----------



## noco

Yipee....the climate change skeptics are now in the majority.


----------



## basilio

Regarding the paper you quoted  TS.

Did you reach the end of the article ?





> *If the Antarctic’s ice sheets are growing, what would that mean for global sea levels in the long-term?*
> 
> “I don't think Zwally's estimates really matter so much in the grand scheme because adding a little snow to Antarctica in no way offsets the complete disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet in the near future,” says Pettit, who is also a National Geographic explorer who works on the continent. “It’s completely different timescale behavior.”
> 
> *If all the ice in West Antarctica melts and slides into the sea, it is likely to contribute several meters to sea level rise. That process is already underway, says Scambos, and may happen over the next few centuries, regardless of what is going on in the eastern highlands.*
> 
> There are too many different lines of evidence and active inquiry “to let one paper hold sway,” says Scambos. The consensus view seems to be that Antarctica is experiencing melting in important ways and will likely contribute more to sea level rise in the coming centuries.
> 
> *So global warming still exists?*
> 
> Yes. The new paper never says the planet isn’t warming. The best science available on the long-term trends still makes a strong case for that, with significant implications for the planet. Exactly how global warming will play out on every corner of the globe is largely unknown.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Regarding the paper you quoted  TS.
> 
> Did you reach the end of the article ?
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/




ERMMMMMMMMMMMMM yeah I did actually ??



> “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. *“Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect.* One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”




https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


----------



## ghotib

trainspotter said:


> ERMMMMMMMMMMMMM yeah I did actually ??
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum



The second article is about Antarctic sea ice; it doesn't say anything about the first one, which is about the Antarctic ice sheets. 

Here's the NASA press release on which the National Geographic article is based: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses 

And here is a direct quote from the lead author on the study's implications for future sea levels: 







> If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.




There's a discussion of how this study's results relate to other recent studies of Antarctic ice sheets here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice

and here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/antarctic-ice-growing-or-shrinking-nasa.html. 

As always when reading about very active areas of research, it's interesting to get a glimpse of scientists formulating the questions that might suggest how these different results can be reconciled or corrected.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Yipee....the climate change skeptics are now in the majority.




This isn't a game of football, it's a serious issue that could result in wars, famine, dislocation and ultimately the end of civilisation. Barracking for the end of days is weird to me.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Oh dear ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/




If only the fresh water is freezing and the saltwater isn't, doesn't that suggest the temps have risen?


----------



## trainspotter

@Ghotib ... I repeat for comedy purposes only.



> “*There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus*, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “*Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect.* One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”




Meh


----------



## basilio

Yep TS we don't know *exactly *how quickly the increase in temperatures will melt the ice caps and how far that will go.

On the other hand scientists do know that the last time global temperatures had increased by 2 degrees C (and we have already done .8C )  sea levels were 25 meters higher than today. Or if you accept  another piece of research the levels were only 9-13 metres higher.

So do we have a problem with even accepting a theoretical 2 Degree increase in global temperatures or do we wait until all the evidence is in and our experiment has run it's course ?



> A two degrees Celsius of warming would warm the Earth above Eemian levels, move conditions closer to the Pliocene climate, a time when sea level was in the range of 25 meters higher than today.[25] However, one study argues that sea level during the Pliocene might have only risen by 9 to 13.5 meters, due to more resilient ice sheets.[26]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

NASA (8 December 2011). "Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes".  25

"Ice sheets may be more resilient than thought, say Stanford scientists". Stanford University. 2015.  26


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Yep TS we don't know *exactly *how quickly the increase in temperatures will melt the ice caps and how far that will go.




Did you even read the links? Try Google "Antarctica growing not shrinking nasa" and see how ya go 



> Antarctica is gaining more ice than it is losing and is helping to slow the rise in global sea levels, a NASA study suggests. The findings contradict claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice for the past two decades




So what was the cause of the 2 degree increase in the past basilio? Man made was it?


----------



## trainspotter

If we did more of this ...





and less of this ...



> Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”




Ermmm nope it is more like 52% of scientists agree to disagree and they want more funding to study this "phenomenon" 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

and IPCC as well can stop making ridiculous predictions ...




We might actually get somewhere


----------



## basilio

James Taylor is the mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.  This is the organisation that sees it's life work (as well as the fossil fuel industry that funds it) to lie about any Climate Change research that doesn't take a completely benign view on the matter.

Of course there's precious little research like that because ... well ... it's not true and when anyone has attempted to place such research in scientific journals it has been cut to pieces.  

But what really fascinates me TS is how your lying shrills will trumpet a *small part* of the work of one climate scientist to show "there is nothing to worry about" but declare the work of the remaining glaciologists as alarmist rubbish. Clearly the only science that is acceptable are the very small parts they can agree with .

There was one critical point I made.  When the earth was a couple of degrees warmer  many years ago the sea levels were much higher. That is just the way it goes. 

Whether this year or next year there is more snow on the Antarctic won't change the facts of physics.

And by the way where did you did up that phony graph? If in fact it was supposed to represent what was actually happening with temperatures it would look like this.




Were you aware that 2014 was the hottest year on record world wide ? And that 2015 is going to be a a big step up on* That *record ?

That would be a bit inconvenient however for the people who construct the graph you used.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records


----------



## trainspotter

Basilio basilio basilio ... you have not answered my question. What caused the 2 degree increase in temperature during the Pliocene climate ? Remember it was between these dates  (5.3 Ma to 2.6 Ma) 

NASA is a lying shrill?? Afterall it was their thesis that I quoted. But but but in 2011 they were saying something completely opposite 

Which brings me to my conclusion that they really don't have one iota of a clue as to WHY this is happening. 

So ergo if it happened to be 2,602,015 years ago that Earth was 2 degrees hotter therefore the same rules must apply? Errmmmmmmmm what about land subsidence taking up volumes of ocean? Remember Fraser Island not that long ago with the sinkhole? DERP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-27/major-sinkhole-swallows-vehicles-on-qld-coast/6807536

Pretty picture for dramatic effect ....




Britney Spears .... "Oops I did it again"

Google this little gem 







> As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.


----------



## basilio

What caused the 2 degree rise in the Piloclene era ?  Well probably part of the rich tapestry of how our climate has been changing for millions of years. 

Changes in the earths orbit, massive volcanic eruptions lots of other influences.

*But that has little relevance to the particular impact humans are causing with the mass release of greenhouse gases.* 

And taking a comment from NASA as evidence of a lying shrill ? Sorry mate that is just the careful editing of the deniers who construct misleading maps like the one you posted earlier. 

Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.




Well said Bas. 

The hysterical are those trying with every fibre to deny that there is any change.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> James Taylor is the mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute.  This is the organisation that sees it's life work (as well as the fossil fuel industry that funds it) to lie about any Climate Change research that doesn't take a completely benign view on the matter.
> 
> Of course there's precious little research like that because ... well ... it's not true and when anyone has attempted to place such research in scientific journals it has been cut to pieces.
> 
> But what really fascinates me TS is how your lying shrills will trumpet a *small part* of the work of one climate scientist to show "there is nothing to worry about" but declare the work of the remaining glaciologists as alarmist rubbish. Clearly the only science that is acceptable are the very small parts they can agree with .
> 
> There was one critical point I made.  When the earth was a couple of degrees warmer  many years ago the sea levels were much higher. That is just the way it goes.
> 
> Whether this year or next year there is more snow on the Antarctic won't change the facts of physics.
> 
> And by the way where did you did up that phony graph? If in fact it was supposed to represent what was actually happening with temperatures it would look like this.
> 
> View attachment 64937
> 
> 
> Were you aware that 2014 was the hottest year on record world wide ? And that 2015 is going to be a a big step up on* That *record ?
> 
> That would be a bit inconvenient however for the people who construct the graph you used.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records





Gawd basilio....A report from the good old commo paper the Guardian...you don't surely believe that exaggerated data, do you?

It has been proven fictitious...ramped up cods waddle and the UN just love it...The UN thrive on it to build up there case for World Government....Ban-Ki-moon is an out and out Greenie...The whole of the United Nations is so corrupt especially since Ban-K-moon took office some 9 years ago.

The alarmist are now in the minority as more and more people wake up to the lies and the rubbish that is being published.

I just wish the hell these stupid people would give up dishing out this propaganda.


----------



## ghotib

trainspotter said:


> @Ghotib ... I repeat for comedy purposes only.




Trainspotter, I point out that jokes work better if the punchline hits a mark. Ummm... what mark were you aiming at?


----------



## ghotib

trainspotter said:


> If we did more of this ...
> 
> View attachment 64928




Yep, for sure. There are plenty of good reasons to move to renewable energy, and a heck of a lot to learn about it. 

That's why these days I don't spend much time talking about climate science with people who rely on sources that I've found to be dishonest, distorting, or otherwise unreliable. Better to act on the things we agree need doing. 

But it was rainy today, and it's been a while since I looked around the climate contrarian island, so I followed up some of your references. It's too late to write about them now, but I'll try and get some responses posted tomorrow. It's nice to see someone putting in some thought and effort, even if I disagree with the results.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Well said Bas.
> 
> The hysterical are those trying with every fibre to deny that there is any change.




That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?
> 
> The argument here is:
> 
> a/Causation
> 
> b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.




The increased complexity of the arguments are stimulated and if necessary created in order to confuse the rank and file. 

The changes are observable and as I have pointed out many times are simple.  What you see and feel over a lifetime is reality.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The increased complexity of the arguments are stimulated and if necessary created in order to confuse the rank and file.
> 
> The changes are observable and as I have pointed out many times are simple.  What you see and feel over a lifetime is reality.




So you are arguing for anecdote over empiricism?

I don't think anyone fails to notice the degradation of the environment. As I've pointed out with nauseatingly frequent refrains, this is *my* major concern.

However you seem incapable of discerning the quite separate arguments of anthropogenic environmental degradation and the leftist political imperative of climate change alarmism, hence your willingness to misrepresent the link between these two.


----------



## trainspotter

ghotib said:


> Trainspotter, I point out that jokes work better if the punchline hits a mark. Ummm... what mark were you aiming at?




The reference that the science is not indisputable nor is it logical to expound one causation to the nett effect


----------



## trainspotter

ghotib said:


> Yep, for sure. There are plenty of good reasons to move to renewable energy, and a heck of a lot to learn about it.
> 
> That's why these days I don't spend much time talking about climate science with people who rely on sources that I've found to be dishonest, distorting, or otherwise unreliable. Better to act on the things we agree need doing.
> 
> But it was rainy today, and it's been a while since I looked around the climate contrarian island, so I followed up some of your references. It's too late to write about them now, but I'll try and get some responses posted tomorrow. It's nice to see someone putting in some thought and effort, even if I disagree with the results.




Climate science is a sham. It is called weather. Even then they cannot predict the weekend is going to be sunny but by God they can predict what is going to happen in 200 years ... no wait ... they cannot do that either. IPCC has been known to extend the truth of the matter at hand. So has many others of the same ilk. Not to say my brigade is much better but I am more of the WayenL philosophy. Let's do something about what we can control NOW and slow consumerism and pollutants and we will slowly turn the tide.

No point running around saying the ice sheets are going to melt and we are all going to drown because of man made Co2 ... mitigate the possibilities of what "might" occur. Nek Menit it is called "rationalism" but apparently this does not fit into the debate at the moment. Either you are a lying shrill (thanks NASA) or a Lord Monkgton to boot.

Evidence my dear adversary is what I am looking for. So much BS is being released and we as a population are shovelling it down our throats without question. It has been going on for millions of years. I learned it in year 9 Science about tectonic plates and subsidence and also igneous rocks, volcanoes, ice ages, hot periods, Greenland  blah blah FERKIN blah ... shall I go on? To pin point this change we are experiencing on ONE thing and ONE thing only is farsical at best. Scientist are being proved wrong on both sides of the fence. MODERATE is the best answer and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

NASA comes out and says Antarctica is growing and not shrinking. Ice is thickening. 2011 they were the harbringers of doom and the world is stuffed. C'mon man get a grip ... bananas are radioactive but but but you have to eat a Kajillion of them to gain one isotope. Look at the press and how they manipulate what they want you to know. Look at the money thrown at IPCC and climatology and what do you reckon they will come out with in their studies??? OOOpppps sorry we were wrong and we don't want the millions in funding any more plus the quangos and the multi million dollar research grants and the ivory towers we work out of.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> What caused the 2 degree rise in the Piloclene era ?  Well probably part of the rich tapestry of how our climate has been changing for millions of years.
> 
> Changes in the earths orbit, massive volcanic eruptions lots of other influences.
> 
> *But that has little relevance to the particular impact humans are causing with the mass release of greenhouse gases.*
> 
> And taking a comment from NASA as evidence of a lying shrill ? Sorry mate that is just the careful editing of the deniers who construct misleading maps like the one you posted earlier.
> 
> Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.




Got some links to prove your thesis? So when it happens that Earth's orbit and the rich tapestry is causing 2 degrees in climate change this is OK but when Co2 is mentioned it must be man? Or does the argument agree with the amount of funding and propaganda that you so vehemently believe in ?

You called NASA a lying shrill ... not me. Your call and it was your fingers hitting the keyboard ... not mine.

Soooooooooo a Mount Pinatubo moment could do what exactly?



> The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, *it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact*.






IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect. 

The ball is over the net and I await your next intrepid display of Chicken Little


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> So you are arguing for anecdote over empiricism?
> 
> I don't think anyone fails to notice the degradation of the environment. As I've pointed out with nauseatingly frequent refrains, this is *my* major concern.
> 
> However you seem incapable of discerning the quite separate arguments of anthropogenic environmental degradation and the leftist political imperative of climate change alarmism, hence your willingness to misrepresent the link between these two.




Try not to bolt things down.   I understand this part of ASF is intended to be for discussion.  I also understand that to mean the free expression of our own views and ideas without the tie of references etc.  A chat between us so to speak. 

I am cognisant of your overall concerns of the full human footprint.  And with you on that,  particularly population growth. 

However my FEELING is that the  effects of coal and oil use is the bigger issue and that view should not be regarded as hysterical in the current climate.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Climate science is a sham. It is called weather. Even then they cannot predict the weekend is going to be sunny but by God they can predict what is going to happen in 200 years ... no wait ... they cannot do that either. IPCC has been known to extend the truth of the matter at hand. So has many others of the same ilk. Not to say my brigade is much better but I am more of the WayenL philosophy. Let's do something about what we can control NOW and slow consumerism and pollutants and we will slowly turn the tide.
> 
> No point running around saying the ice sheets are going to melt and we are all going to drown because of man made Co2 ... mitigate the possibilities of what "might" occur. Nek Menit it is called "rationalism" but apparently this does not fit into the debate at the moment. Either you are a lying shrill (thanks NASA) or a Lord Monkgton to boot.
> 
> Evidence my dear adversary is what I am looking for. So much BS is being released and we as a population are shovelling it down our throats without question. It has been going on for millions of years. I learned it in year 9 Science about tectonic plates and subsidence and also igneous rocks, volcanoes, ice ages, hot periods, Greenland  blah blah FERKIN blah ... shall I go on? To pin point this change we are experiencing on ONE thing and ONE thing only is farsical at best. Scientist are being proved wrong on both sides of the fence. MODERATE is the best answer and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
> 
> NASA comes out and says Antarctica is growing and not shrinking. Ice is thickening. 2011 they were the harbringers of doom and the world is stuffed. C'mon man get a grip ... bananas are radioactive but but but you have to eat a Kajillion of them to gain one isotope. Look at the press and how they manipulate what they want you to know. Look at the money thrown at IPCC and climatology and what do you reckon they will come out with in their studies??? OOOpppps sorry we were wrong and we don't want the millions in funding any more plus the quangos and the multi million dollar research grants and the ivory towers we work out of.




Banana is radioactive? dam.

Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?

So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.




I don't know which IPCC model is being quoted, it keeps being improved however the model is obviously wrong because el nino has such an influence on its result which means that one measure of global warming -probably ocean temperatures, is not accurate or not weighted correctly. 

Now we have an El Nino I expect the next few years will show a large jump in global temperatures which will be above the IPCC model.

We are talking short term (weather) as against long term (climate).

BTW, plenty of money for scientists who will argue against global warming. Let's face it, that's where all the money is going, including to news outlets and expensive think tanks.


----------



## Knobby22

PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN


A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder 
 By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate | December 23, 2013  

 A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups. 

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Banana is radioactive? dam.
> 
> Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?
> 
> So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?




Merely micro climates on an international scale luutzu.

I see the Gold Coast is marketing to the Chinese tourists to take a break to a clean air environment, away from the smog, acid rain, etc.


----------



## basilio

*How to bodgy up data to create false impressions*

A few posts ago TS offered a simple graph purporting to show how out of line the IPPC predictions of global warming were. It looked like this 





So what wrong with it and how was it crafted to deliberately mislead people?

The problem with the picture is that they have used a baseline of  1990 (*which  happened to be a peak in the observations)*, rather than the proper procedure of a 30 year baseline.  The trick is if you pick a particular  single year baseline you can make it give any result you want, you can make it look like the models over-predict temperatures by baselining to a warm year, or you can make them look as if they are running cooler by baselining to a cold year. 

*Of course the other trick was to leave out the last 2-3 years climate figures which tell another story.*

So how can this sleight-of-hand be seen across the full data set ?

This is another graph with the HADCRUT4 Date base figures 



The graph shows  two lines representing completely accurate representations of the rate of warming, but  starting from different points in the vertical axis depending on your choice of baselines. 

So the  top green line represents a "skeptics" presentation, where the observations and projection were baselined to the* peak* in the observations so that the observations are then generally below the projection.  This is how you can create the headlines "IPCC models over predict warming" .

The blue line at the bottom is an "alarmist" presentation, where the observations and projections were baselined to a trough in the observations, so that the observations are generally higher than the projection.  That way you get headlines of  "IPCC models underpredict warming" 

The magenta line  in the middle however *represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.*

Cheers


----------



## basilio

You know what is really  interesting with regard to the effects of CO2 on Climate Change ? 

Fifty years ago ( in 1965..) President Johnson science advisory committee sent him a report which noted the problems with  increases in CO2 and lead concentrations in the environment.



> Fifty years ago today, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science highlighted, US president Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee sent him a report entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. The introduction to the report noted:
> 
> *    Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air and the lead concentrations in ocean waters and human populations.*
> 
> The report included a section on atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change, written by prominent climate scientists Roger Revelle, Wallace Broecker, Charles Keeling, Harmon Craig, and J Smagorisnky. Reviewing the document today, one can’t help but be struck by how well these scientists understood the mechanisms of Earth’s climate change 50 years ago.
> 
> The report noted that within a few years, climate models would be able to reasonably project future global surface temperature changes. In 1974, one of its authors, Wallace Broecker did just that in a paper titled Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?.
> 
> You can read the details about this paper and Broecker’s modeling here and in my book Climatology versus Pseudoscience. His model only included the effects of carbon dioxide and his best estimates of natural climate cycles. It didn’t include the warming effects of other greenhouse gases, or the cooling effects of human aerosol pollution, but fortunately for Broecker those two effects have roughly canceled each other out over the past 40 years.
> 
> Broecker’s model predicted the global warming anticipated by 2015 both from carbon pollution alone, and when including his best estimate of natural climate cycles. In the figure below, the carbon-caused warming is shown in blue, and in combination with natural cycles (which Broecker turns out not to have represented very accurately) in green, as compared to the observed global surface temperatures from NOAA in red. As you can see, the climate model predictions from over 40 years ago turned out to be remarkably accurate.
> Broecker prediction
> 
> 
> 
> Wallace Broecker’s 1974 climate model global warming predictions vs NOAA observations. Created by Dana Nuccitelli.
> 
> The 1965 report also debunked a number of myths that climate contrarians continue to repeat to this day. For example, the first section of the climate chapter is titled Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels – the Invisible Pollutant. Although the US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in alandmark 2007 case, many contrarians object to this description. Nevertheless, climate scientists realized a half century ago that human carbon emissions qualify as pollution due to the dangers they pose via climate change.
> 
> The report noted that although carbon dioxide is an invisible “trace gas” – meaning it comprises a small percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere as a whole – it can nevertheless have significant impacts on the climate at these seemingly low levels. As the scientists wrote:
> 
> *   Only about one two-thousandth of the atmosphere and one ten-thousandth of the ocean are carbon dioxide. Yet to living creatures, these small fractions are of vital importance … Within a few short centuries, we are returning to the air a significant part of the carbon that was slowly extracted by plants and buried in the sediments during half a billion years.*
> 
> Contrarians today often repeat the myths that because carbon dioxide is invisibleand only a trace gas, it can’t possibly cause significant climate change. This report demonstrates that scientists understood the greenhouse effect better 50 years ago than these contrarians do today.
> 
> The report documented the several different lines of evidence that prove the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is entirely human-caused, concluding:
> 
> *    We can conclude with fair assurance that at the present time, fossil fuels are the only source of CO2 being added to the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system.*
> 
> This is yet another fact understood by climate scientists 50 years ago that some contrarians, including a few favorite contrarian climate scientists like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry, continue to cast doubt upon to this day.
> 
> The report also projected how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide level would increase in the following decades.
> *
> Based on projected world energy requirements, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (1956) has estimated an amount of fossil fuel combustion by the year 2000 that with our assumed partitions would give about a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, compared to the amount present during the 19th Century.
> *
> A 25% increase from pre-industrial levels would result in about 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The United Nations underestimated the growth in fossil fuel combustion, because the actual carbon dioxide level in 2000 was 370 ppm.
> 
> In addition to rising temperatures, the report discussed a variety of “other possible effects of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide”, including melting of the Antarctic ice cap, rise of sea level, warming of sea water, increased acidity of fresh waters (which also applies to the danger of ocean acidification, global warming’s evil twin), and an increase in plant photosynthesis.
> 
> These climate scientists warned President Johnson in 1965 not just of the dangers associated with human-caused global warming, but also that we might eventually have to consider geoengineering the climate to offset that warming and the risks that we’re causing by inadvertently running a dangerous experiment with the Earth’s climate.]




http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientists-warned-president-global-warming-50-years-ago-today.html


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> *How to bodgy up data to create false impressions*
> 
> A few posts ago TS offered a simple graph purporting to show how out of line the IPPC predictions of global warming were. It looked like this
> 
> 
> 
> So what wrong with it and how was it crafted to deliberately mislead people?
> 
> The problem with the picture is that they have used a baseline of  1990 (*which  happened to be a peak in the observations)*, rather than the proper procedure of a 30 year baseline.  The trick is if you pick a particular  single year baseline you can make it give any result you want, you can make it look like the models over-predict temperatures by baselining to a warm year, or you can make them look as if they are running cooler by baselining to a cold year.
> 
> *Of course the other trick was to leave out the last 2-3 years climate figures which tell another story.*
> 
> So how can this sleight-of-hand be seen across the full data set ?
> 
> This is another graph with the HADCRUT4 Date base figures
> [
> 
> The graph shows  two lines representing completely accurate representations of the rate of warming, but  starting from different points in the vertical axis depending on your choice of baselines.
> 
> So the  top green line represents a "skeptics" presentation, where the observations and projection were baselined to the* peak* in the observations so that the observations are then generally below the projection.  This is how you can create the headlines "IPCC models over predict warming" .
> 
> The blue line at the bottom is an "alarmist" presentation, where the observations and projections were baselined to a trough in the observations, so that the observations are generally higher than the projection.  That way you get headlines of  "IPCC models underpredict warming"
> 
> The magenta line  in the middle however *represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.*
> 
> Cheers





I remember seeing a graph somewhere that shows the CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide gases steady state from AD1000 then the industrial revolution 1850's mark a kick up in and then an increased rate in the 1950's. I'm not sure if it was Charles Keeling's work that it is based on?  

The CO2 levels since the late 1950's are something like 315PPM and now it's 375PPM and the point of no return is apparently 450PPM.

There's a worry the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic and other oceans will cease and that can't be good.


----------



## basilio

Do you  remember the story I ran a few weeks ago which highlighted the scope of knowledge that Exxon scientists had regarding Global Warming ? The short story is that in the late 70's/early 80's scientists employed by Exxon were amongst the leaders in climate science research and made explicitly clear to the Board the consequences of continued CO2 production through burning fossil fuels.

*Basically we were going to cook the planet.
*
Faced with these reports Exxon did what one would expect of them. They closed down the research, buried and ignored the reports and then started and funded a systematic program of misinformation around climate change and its cause. 

Anyway the chickens might be coming home to roost.


> *Is Big Oil about to have its Big Tobacco moment?*
> By Jesse Bragg on 7 Nov 2015 1 comment
> 
> On Thursday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if there is evidence that the corporation lied to the public or investors about the risks of climate change. *The investigation was spurred by an exposÃ© by InsideClimate News that revealed that the corporation had intimate knowledge of climate change and its role in driving it for decades but chose to bury the truth.
> *
> The inquiry comes on the heels of calls from members of Congress, presidential candidates, former vice president and environmentalist Al Gore, and a coalition of environmental groups for the federal government to launch an investigation. If it’s anything like what happened to the tobacco industry, it is possible that more states will join New York in the investigation and more fossil fuel corporations could be pulled in. If that happens, Big Oil could find itself exactly where Big Tobacco’s lies and deception landed it almost two decades ago ”” at the losing end of dozens of state and federal lawsuits.
> 
> *In the late 1990s, after numerous calls for federal inquiry, a series of lawsuits against the United States’ largest tobacco corporations forced the release of millions of internal documents that confirmed that Big Tobacco knew ”” and obscured ”” the true health effects of its products. These documents also definitively proved for the first time that the industry had actively sought to cast doubt and deliberately mislead the public about the harms of its products since the 1950s. The revelations changed the way people and policymakers alike viewed the industry. Big Tobacco would forever be known as an obstacle ”” not a partner ”” to meaningful public health policymaking. *




http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-big-oil-about-to-have-its-big-tobacco-moment/


----------



## wayneL

How curious basilio.

Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.

Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.

How predictable.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> How curious basilio.
> 
> Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.
> 
> Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.
> 
> How predictable.




"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" 

Waiting for the Mount Pinatubo jibe to sink in before responding in kind.

Ohhh F@CK it .. if he can use the Guardian so can I ....



> The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.
> 
> The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake


----------



## basilio

*Congratulations TS !!! You have won First, Second AND Third Prize !!!
*
In fact you swept the pool mate. Can't believe how you managed to find that absolutely critical piece of  IPCC flim flam that totally discredited the entire body of work around climate change.

Just xxxxxxxxx unbelievable mate.  Take a bow.

You can now officially join Wayne and Noco as equal supreme masters of the universe and in particular the dismantlement of Climate Change research.

Cheers.

__________________________________________________

By the Wayne I'm not sure if Exxon did fund other research to "prove" that global warming/climate change was all it was cracked up to be.

They just channelled all their money through the tried and tested tobacco lobby players who  had 50 years of success in denying the effects of smoking on health.

You can't beat results like that can you ? Certainly wouldn't to waste it on research anyway.. (unless you make absolutely sure the results fall your way..)

_____________________________________

pps. do you have even the teesiest, weeniset comment to make on the credibility of theat bodgy graph you threw up ?  probably not ....


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Banana is radioactive? dam.
> 
> Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?
> 
> So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?




Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...



> Einstein wanted to believe that “matter” could be converted into energy (photons) at a time when he didn’t even know about antimatter. This cannot happen. In the case where an electron and positron annihilate completely into photons, it is not only matter but also antimatter that is being converted to photons. To make a photon requires an equal quantity of positive matter (positron) and negative matter (electron). There is no way to convert ordinary matter into photons except in the extremely small quantities produced by atomic radiation.




http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...



> The North Pacific sub-tropical gyre covers a large area of the Pacific, in which the water circulates clockwise in a slow spiral. Winds are light and the currents tend to push any floating material into the low energy centre of the gyre. There are few islands on which some of the floating material beaches. So most of it stays there in the gyre, in astounding quantities - estimated at six kilos of plastic for every kilo of plankton. The “Trash Vortex”, also known as the “Eastern Garbage Patch”, is an area equivalent in size to Texas, or Turkey, or Afghanistan, that slowly rotates our rubbish in a never-ending rotation..




http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ns/fit-for-the-future/pollution/trash-vortex/




Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere

Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...



> Haze from Indonesian forest fires has spread to the Philippines, disrupting air traffic and prompting warnings for residents to wear face masks, authorities say.
> 
> The southern Philippine island of Mindanao is more than 1,200 kilometres from the nearest fires but the haze has become a worsening problem across the island over the past week, aviation authorities said.
> 
> It spread to the country's central islands of Cebu and Negros on Friday, disrupting air traffic, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines spokesman Eric Apolonio said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564

And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:

You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...

http://aqicn.org/map/india/#@g/24.0238/78.7424/4z



> Of the world’s top 20 polluted cities, 13 are in India compared to just three in China. Air pollution slashes life expectancy by 3.2 years for the 660 million Indians who live in cities, including Delhi. In China, the corresponding dip is marginally lower at three years.
> The Ganga and Yamuna are ranked among the world’s 10 most polluted rivers. China has just one. An evaluation in February ranked Vapi in Gujarat and Sukinda in Odisha among the 10 most environmentally-degraded zones in the world. China had no entries on the list.




http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ee-in-china/story-myTrPZM8DHmQOhxB9cc5hI.html

So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> *Congratulations TS !!! You have won First, Second AND Third Prize !!!
> *
> In fact you swept the pool mate. Can't believe how you managed to find that absolutely critical piece of  IPCC flim flam that totally discredited the entire body of work around climate change.
> 
> Just xxxxxxxxx unbelievable mate.  Take a bow.
> 
> You can now officially join Wayne and Noco as equal supreme masters of the universe and in particular the dismantlement of Climate Change research.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 
> By the Wayne I'm not sure if Exxon did fund other research to "prove" that global warming/climate change was all it was cracked up to be.
> 
> They just channelled all their money through the tried and tested tobacco lobby players who  had 50 years of success in denying the effects of smoking on health.
> 
> You can't beat results like that can you ? Certainly wouldn't to waste it on research anyway.. (unless you make absolutely sure the results fall your way..)
> 
> _____________________________________
> 
> pps. do you have even the teesiest, weeniset comment to make on the credibility of theat bodgy graph you threw up ?  probably not ....




DERP !!  I actually wrote this but you ignored it ...



> IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. *Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.*




Crack on then basilio ... it appears you have something to prove old chum?


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> I don't know which IPCC model is being quoted, it keeps being improved however the model is obviously wrong because el nino has such an influence on its result which means that one measure of global warming -probably ocean temperatures, is not accurate or not weighted correctly.
> 
> Now we have an El Nino I expect the next few years will show a large jump in global temperatures which will be above the IPCC model.
> 
> We are talking short term (weather) as against long term (climate).
> 
> BTW, plenty of money for scientists who will argue against global warming. Let's face it, that's where all the money is going, including to news outlets and expensive think tanks.




Yes for sure K22 the science is improving and slowly we are understanding as to what is happening to Earth. We spin on this blue planet at the equator at 1675 km/h in a solar system the size of less than a grain of rice from what we know in the universe thus far. Getting deep huh?

The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ... glaciers will melt by 2035 (IPCC predictions) Global Warming will raise sea levels by 8 to 25 metres cause it happened over 2 and a half million years ago cause the temperature was 2 degrees hotter then ... REALLY ??? Crops will fail and typhoons, floods, disasters, cyclones  will become stronger and more prevalent and salmon will die has been thrown up on these boards so far.  What a lot of HYSTERIA.

Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)


----------



## trainspotter

https://video.fper2-1.fna.fbcdn.net...=a6818413e9b9b272ad35feb68dfa8f36&oe=5640A353

What I have been saying ....


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ...




If anyone wants Hysteria then fear not, Def Leppard are touring in Australia next week. Pretty sure they'll be playing a few songs from that album and probably the title track itself. 

Back on topic, 2 months without any significant rain in Tas and already the media is starting to fill with people saying that we'll die of thirst, burn to the ground or at least be left in the dark. 

Whilst the weather has certainly been incredibly dry, there's no doubt about that, we're a very long way from a crisis at this point. Impacts on farmers yes and bushfires possibly, but the rest is just unnecessary alarmist nonsense really and there's no need to be stocking up on bottled water and candles anytime soon. 

Unfortunately this is what happens once the public notices that the weather's a bit unusual. Queue the "will never rain again" sort of predictions...


----------



## Ijustnewit

The ABC and it's climate hysteria and scaremongering at it finest. What a load of codswollop this article is.
Nothing but crap , I love how they have photo shopped the picture of the Sydney Opera House Forecourt. Clearly if the water/tide was up that high against that break wall any passing ferry would have caused enough wash to send water flowing over the top into those eateries. So the ABC have clearly photo shopped the water level !
And the article itself is just rubbish , showing before and after photos of major cities around the world under water because of a  2 degree temperature change. Anyone out there noticed any change out there in their sea side city ?
Hobart water and tide levels certainly the same as they have always been here , no new tide marks ect showing rising levels . The climate change brigade has really started to ramp up the we all going to drown argument of late . Why ? because fear is money .


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...ct-megacities-with-surging-sea-levels/6924328


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> What a lot of HYSTERIA.
> 
> Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)




Yeh,  the earth was a gas fired ball of fire 5 billion years back. 

It should be getting cooler,  BUT IT IS NOT.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Also to add to the above research ( google ) shows that the East Coast Of Tasmania is a sea temperature hotspot.
This article states " that since the 1960's that Tasmania's East Coast sea temperature has risen 0.8 c" .
Certainly there is plenty of evidence to support this like fish from warmer climes moving in and some native species in the area unable to cope. 
But the article puts into focus the bogus claims about sea levels rising , if a 2c rise causes 8 to 25 meters in sea levels a 0.8 c rise would surely show some rise in relative meters wouldn't it ? So why isn't that Hobart and the East Coast towns in Tasmania are not being washed away ? Food for thought 

http://www.redmap.org.au/article/sea-temperatures-and-climate-change-in-tasmania/


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.




Phew... can't afford to eat 10 a day anyway, something to do with the drought in QLD driving up banana prices; can't have mangoes either - they goes for $50 a box couple weeks ago. 

Saw headline today saying climate change, or changes in the weather pattern , will dislocate 100 million people within next decade or two... they can't farm or live where they used to due to rising salt water and unpredictable weather patterns.





> E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...
> 
> http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html
> 
> Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...
> 
> Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere




Don't know about anti-matter, or matter for that matter; but yes, agree with you that Man is polluting the planet and we should try to solve it beyond the fortnightly cycling... But as they have it at the local AA, the first step is to admit you got a problem right?

When we pump all the inorganic pollution into the air or into the ocean, it will affect and kill something or someone who's not used to having pollution ingested with each breathe or each sip; When you frack for gas then due to the drought find it cheaper to refill the cracks with barely cooked sewage (they're actually doing this in some states in the US), it cant be good to some unknown water sources that might be connected to somewhere by one of those cracks.. 




> Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564
> 
> And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:
> 
> You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...
> 
> So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.




I'm sure the air is fresh where you live, not so fresh for the other Aussies whose house line the freeways and main streets man. And forget about the India or China of the world.

Air pollution from burning of fossil fuel alone ought to make us think that maybe, in the best case scenario where the climate change freight train won't be coming straight at our grandkids and no sea level will rise more than normal... that maybe we ought to seriously incentivise and encourage alternatives so that the couple of million families along major roads won't breathe smog everyday, and billions around the world can see blue skies once a while... and along that road we'd make a few bucks from the innovations... and if that also help the environment and abate the non-existent potential of CC, then that's a bonus.

Who knows, maybe with the cash and clearer lungs and savings from medical conditions from smog... we could then also afford to clean up the ocean and provide enough margin in case Indonesia burns again.


----------



## basilio

> IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect. TS




TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing  ?


----------



## basilio

> * Nothing can compete with renewable energy, says top climate scientist*
> 
> Prof John Schellnhuber says that if countries implement their pledges made for Paris climate summit it will give huge boost to wind, tidal and solar power
> 
> 
> Tuesday 10 November 2015 00.06 AEDT
> Last modified on Tuesday 10 November 2015 02.26 AEDT
> 
> Catastrophic global warming can be avoided with a deal at a crunch UN climate change summit in Paris this December because “ultimately nothing can compete with renewables”, according to one of the world’s most influential climate scientists.
> 
> Most countries have already made voluntary pledges to roll out clean energy and cut carbon emissions, and Prof John Schellnhuber said the best hope of making nations keep their promises was moral pressure.
> 
> Schellnhuber is a key member of the German delegation attending the Paris summit and has advised Angela Merkel and Pope Francis on climate change.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sful-climate-deal-in-paris-says-top-scientist

Strip away the arguments about climate change and it just makes complete sense to go 100% renewable ASAP.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...




Can you expand on this?


----------



## basilio

> Quote Originally Posted by trainspotter View Post
> E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...






Tisme said:


> Can you expand on this?




You really need to go to the url TS offered. This  is indeed another quite different view of the world of quantum physics.  I'm not going there...


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS did you mean that the IPCC had made a fraudulent claim regrading projections or that another party was making a fraudulent claim against the IPCC. ie accusing them of something they wern't actually doing  ?




The party of the third part is what I was meaning. Both sides make ridiculous claims basilio. IPCC glacier melt by 2035 and sea levels rising 25 metres is another. On the flip side are morons claiming Co2 is better for the climate as the plants will have more to photosynthesise and storm severity has become infrequent. 

A few coal fired power stations and millions of cars running around is not my concern. Try these on for size ...



> The forest fires blanketing Malaysia, Singapore and large parts of Indonesia in choking haze are on track to become among the worst on record, NASA warns.
> 
> Scientists predict the current outbreak could surpass 1997 levels when out-of-control forest* fires sent pollution soaring to record highs* in an environmental disaster that cost an estimated $US9 billion




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...uld-become-worst-on-record-nasa-warns/6824460

See what the media has done here? Out of control forest fire is a _"pollutant"_ and no mention of Co2 



> India is not proposing to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, but instead to reduce the intensity of its carbon dioxide emissions by 33 percent to 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. India also says that it will produce 40 percent of its electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources (nuclear, hydropower, wind, and solar power) by 2030[2] if it receives assistance from Western countries.[3] *This reduction means that its carbon dioxide emissions would still triple by 2030*. According to the BP Statistical Review, India emits the third most carbon dioxide emissions in the world—after China and the United States.




See what the media has done here? How is it a reduction if the Co2 emissions are going to triple 



> We’ve got to preserve this beautiful planet of ours for our kids and grandkids. And that means taking serious steps to address climate change once and for all. *Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home*, and we're leading the world to take action as well. But we’ve got to do more. In a few weeks, I’m heading to Paris to meet with world leaders about a global agreement to meet this challenge.




https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

What Barack Obama says and what the USA does are poles apart ...



> EIA estimates that emissions of CO2 grew by 1.0% in 2014. *Emissions are projected to fall by 0.7% in 2015 and then increase by 0.2% in 2016.* These forecasts are sensitive to assumptions about weather and economic growth.




http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm

Meanwhile back in the real world ...



> *Nuclear provides nearly 20 percent of the electricity in the U.S.*, but the average plant is about 34 years old, and prospects for the future of many of these plants are murky, at best. While five new reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., the World Nuclear Association estimates that more than 10 older ones are currently at risk of closure.




http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...utting-emissions-will-become-more-costly.html

So they are shutting down ageing nuclear power plants that provide 20% of the USA electricity right? Where do you think they will get the electricity to make up for the demand in the grid lost by the closure of the nuclear plants? Burn more guzzaline and fire up the coal stations 

A reduction my eye !! It will be a 7 - 10 % increase at least


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> I'm sure the air is fresh where you live, not so fresh for the other Aussies whose house line the freeways and main streets man. *And forget about the India or China of the world.*
> 
> Who knows, maybe with the cash and clearer lungs and savings from medical conditions from smog... we could then also afford to clean up the ocean and provide enough margin in case Indonesia burns again.




You do realise that India, China and the USA are the 3 largest polluters globally right? And you want me to forget about them because a family lives near a freeway?

Errrmmmm the smog from the Indonesian fires has shut down parts of Singapore !!!



> Singapore has slammed statements from Indonesian officials who made light of the South-East Asian haze crisis as "shocking" as the air pollution index soared to hazardous levels.
> 
> The city state closed all schools and distributed protective face masks in emergency measures on Friday.
> 
> Singapore, as well as neighbouring Malaysia, has been cloaked in smoke blown-in from tinder-dry Sumatra island for about three weeks ”” the worst such episode since mid-2013 in a crisis that grips the region annually during the burning-off season.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nesia-as-hazardous-haze-shuts-schools/6805322

Health risks?? Ya gotta be kidding me right??


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> You do realise that India, China and the USA are the 3 largest polluters globally right? And you want me to forget about them because a family lives near a freeway?
> 
> Errrmmmm the smog from the Indonesian fires has shut down parts of Singapore !!!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nesia-as-hazardous-haze-shuts-schools/6805322
> 
> Health risks?? Ya gotta be kidding me right??


----------



## basilio

I don't get it TS. Ok so you say you were not suggesting the IPCC was the bodgy party in the climate projections but rather the groups that created the  misleading graphs. 

I'm still surprised that you even reference these sources because the they are almost always misleading at the best or just dishonest otherwise.

With regard to the other huge problems we face - smog, smoke from Indonesian forest fires (deliberately lit)

Totally agree and in fact they are another key element of the reasons we need to move to a renewable energy economy ASAP. The smog in India and China is largely coal driven. They know it . They recognise the issue. Both countries are moving quickly to renewable energy.
*
But the way to make this happen with serious intent is to put a tax on carbon and switch any energy subsidies to renewable.*

Having countries like Australia attempting to sell more coal under the guise of humanity is just rubbish. There is an excellent article that outlines just how disingenuous this line is.

*With regard to outlandlish claims re CC.*

Do not attempt to compare the mistaken claim that the glaciers will melt in the Himalayas in 35 years with projections of serious sea level rises as the world warms. The first comment was an acknowledged mistake. When you produce thousands of pages of report as the IPCC does there will be mistakes.  End of story.

The projections of large sea level rises caused by melting icecaps if global temperatures continue to rise is at the very high levels of confidence in scientific research. How high and how quickly is still to be decided.  The scary part about the research is that there  is evidence of some very swift sea level rises in the past as ice sheets became rapidly unstable. 

The science is evolving. 10-15 years glaciologists thought that the icecaps would melt from the top down. No probs there they said. This would take thousands of years.

Then they discovered that melt water  was running through cracks in the glaciers , pooling at the bottom and lubricating the movement of glaciers to the sea at an ever increasing rate.

*And then* they discovered that warm sea water was undercutting the glaciers and further increasing the instability of what were previously believed to be very solid ice features!

These are the recent research studies that underpin the concern glaciologists have about the stability of  West Antarctica.  http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing/ 

There is a precedent for this sudden collapse of ice sheets and rapid sea level rises. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


----------



## trainspotter

The graphs were not bodgy. IPCC make predictions and they rarely are accurate. Get over it. 

Can you comprehend what has been written or are you always this bent out of shape? I am eluding to the FACT that both sides make redonkolous claims about warming/weather/ice melts/cooling/sea rising/whatever but you seem to be able to misconstrue this to your slant or opines.

I am over it basilio ... you live in a Utopian world that is totally UNREALISTIC as to what is actually occurring in the real world. You dismiss rational debate as it was a furphy like how I EVIDENCED how the media manipulates the truth. India for example ..



> *This reduction means that its carbon dioxide emissions would still triple by 2030.*




Yep they are moving to renewables but will treble the amount of Co2 output 

As to what is actually misleading and dishonest you might want to have a look in your own back yard before sprouting HYSTERIA !!

End of story 

Yep let's tax the **** out of Carbon and see where we end up eh?



> This tax, if applied only in Australia or in conjunction with other OECD countries, would mean the end of the steel and aluminium smelting industries in Australia by 2005, they said. Even a global tax of this order would see the end of the aluminium industry in Australia by 2005 and the steel industry some years later, unless every country applied the same level of tax ('Reducing carbon dioxide: All options would have profound effects' 1992).
> 
> A carbon or fuel tax would eventually cost householders more in direct costs of fuels such as petrol, and indirectly in the prices they pay for goods which require the use of fuel in their production and transport. The impact of these rising prices would vary regionally and within any one city. For example, states that use hydro-electric power to generate electricity (for example, Tasmania) rather than coal would be less affected by carbon taxes. Low-income families tend to spend a higher proportion of their total incomes on petrol. Consequently, those who need to use a motor vehicle to get to work, to take children to school and to go shopping will be worse off than more affluent families or those who live in areas that are well serviced by public transport.
> 
> People in rural areas and on the outskirts of cities will be worse off because of the longer distances they have to travel. And rural industries will also be badly hit because of the longer distances and the heavy fuel requirements of agricultural machinery. Similarly, increased energy costs aimed at encouraging people to use less energy by buying more energy-efficient appliances such as fridges, cars and light-globes may impact hardest on those who can least afford to replace such goods.




http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/equity/greenhouse/carbontax.html

Still waiting for your Mount Pinatubo response.



> In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth’s surface for a period of almost two years.  Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).




http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510


----------



## basilio

kkkk


----------



## basilio

TS.  A few observations

1)  *Your statement about the IPCCs  predictions re climate temperatures is a distinction without a difference*. The science and the evidence is telling us we are cooking our planet and us with it.  The rate at which we are doing it  is "not quite exactly predictable".. But it's bloody frightening and deadly serious.  

Meanwhile your trying to trash them for not being exactly right according to the dodged up figures of a bunch of lying charlatans.  Would you like to see just how accurate the predictions of the various contrarian  scientists has been with regard to their predictions of the future temperatures ? It's so far off it doesn't matter.

2) *India and it's efforts to  go renewable - but still increasing it's Co2 emissions.* India is still a *HUGELY * underpowered society. It doesn't have a fraction of the energy infrastructure we take for granted  as our sovereign right. 
*India and the rest of the developing world  is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy * When the world is talking about reductions in CO2 emissions part of the equation in negotiations is acknowledging that developing countries need to increase their energy supply just to meet the realistic needs of their people. On that basis cuts in energy use will fall more heavily on developed countries that have a capacity to be more efficient and a further capacity to retire fossil fuel energy sources and replace them with renewables.

The conversation with India is trying to support as much new renewable energy as possible and discourage as much fossil fuel energy as possible.

3) *The effects of a carbon tax*  Wow !! you take a 20 year old reference and excise a a few paragraphs  from it (most from Industry sources) and want to use that to damn a Carbon Tax as an economic tool? 

That is so thin if you turned the argument sideways you couldn't see it TS.

Some  form of price on carbon is the simplest, most effective  *free market way *to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage the production of clean energy. It is the language of the market. This now costs more. Use less. This is now more competitive. Let's go to it.

Clearly if a carbon tax is bought in governments need to try and have protections of some sort for people for poorer people who may be hurt. That was the point of the Labour Governments actions. 

But the result on carbon use is immediate and effective. It works.

4) *The Mt Pinatarbo volcano and it's effect on the world's temperature. *
Yep.  A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year. 
And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world  that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere. 
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newsletter/htm_format_articles/climate_corner/yearwithoutsummer_lf.htm

And your point is exactly... what ? 

Volcanoes are a source of dust and sulphates which in extreme circumstances will have a significant effect on the climate.* for a short time.* So obviously when the dust settles and the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere the climate returns to normal.  

In our current case "normal" is humanity pumping an extra 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere which largely accumulates and holds more and more energy increasing the world heat load to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years. 

You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate  in both heating and cooling effects  but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> TS.  A few observations
> 
> 1)  *Your statement about the IPCCs  predictions re climate temperatures is a distinction without a difference*. The science and the evidence is telling us we are cooking our planet and us with it.  The rate at which we are doing it  is "not quite exactly predictable".. But it's bloody frightening and deadly serious.
> 
> Meanwhile your trying to trash them for not being exactly right according to the dodged up figures of a bunch of lying charlatans.  Would you like to see just how accurate the predictions of the various contrarian  scientists has been with regard to their predictions of the future temperatures ? It's so far off it doesn't matter.
> 
> 2) *India and it's efforts to  go renewable - but still increasing it's Co2 emissions.* India is still a *HUGELY * underpowered society. It doesn't have a fraction of the energy infrastructure we take for granted  as our sovereign right.
> *India and the rest of the developing world  is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy * When the world is talking about reductions in CO2 emissions part of the equation in negotiations is acknowledging that developing countries need to increase their energy supply just to meet the realistic needs of their people. On that basis cuts in energy use will fall more heavily on developed countries that have a capacity to be more efficient and a further capacity to retire fossil fuel energy sources and replace them with renewables.
> 
> The conversation with India is trying to support as much new renewable energy as possible and discourage as much fossil fuel energy as possible.
> 
> 3) *The effects of a carbon tax*  Wow !! you take a 20 year old reference and excise a a few paragraphs  from it (most from Industry sources) and want to use that to damn a Carbon Tax as an economic tool?
> 
> That is so thin if you turned the argument sideways you couldn't see it TS.
> 
> Some  form of price on carbon is the simplest, most effective  *free market way *to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage the production of clean energy. It is the language of the market. This now costs more. Use less. This is now more competitive. Let's go to it.
> 
> Clearly if a carbon tax is bought in governments need to try and have protections of some sort for people for poorer people who may be hurt. That was the point of the Labour Governments actions.
> 
> But the result on carbon use is immediate and effective. It works.
> 
> 4) *The Mt Pinatarbo volcano and it's effect on the world's temperature. *
> Yep.  A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
> And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world  that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
> http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newsletter/htm_format_articles/climate_corner/yearwithoutsummer_lf.htm
> 
> And your point is exactly... what ?
> 
> Volcanoes are a source of dust and sulphates which in extreme circumstances will have a significant effect on the climate.* for a short time.* So obviously when the dust settles and the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere the climate returns to normal.
> 
> In our current case "normal" is humanity pumping an extra 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere which largely accumulates and holds more and more energy increasing the world heat load to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate  in both heating and cooling effects  but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)




Jeez I'm over this thread basilio, our economy and lifestyle is going down the drain and you are still harping on.

In W.A we have shut down the second biggest coal fired power station, electricity costs have doubled.

I'm sure the remaining coal fired stations will close in the foreseeable future, then electricity cost will double again.

The problem is, it will not change the global temperature one iota, but it will make some happy, lots more unhappy.

Hopefully it will just bring foreward the adoption of nuclear energy in Australia.

There is no other viable reasonably priced energy source, other than gas, which will run out pretty quickly.

We are pushing Australia into a nuclear future, which will probably include waste storage. Just my opinion, for what it is worth.lol (it's free)


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> kkkk




LLLL ... any good? 

Taking this is a faux pas of fat fingers?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio 







> Yep. A direct world wide effect on climate and causing temperatures to drop by .6C for a year.
> And guess what TS. There was even bigger drop in temperature when Mt Tambora blew up in Indonesia in 1815 and sent a dust cloud around the world that depressed temperatures for 3 years. 1816 was called the year without a summer as crops failed everywhere.
> http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newslett...tsummer_lf.htm




And your point is exactly... what ? 

https://youtu.be/VGD2w33PWV0

About 3.10 it gets interesting .. Hey lady get back here  ... where is my money ? .. where is the RED?

Yet you produce the Co2 man made diatribe over and over again. One decent volcanic eruption and game over? Your thoughts? The globe is evolving ... subsidence, weather, sink holes, erosion and you want to call it one specific thing?? Really??


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> You can point to a volcano as short term contributor to the climate  in both heating and cooling effects  but in the current situation it is only a bit player . (Of course that hasn't always been the case.)




Your observations "rich tapestry ring a bell?" Takes one volcanic reaction and your whole thesis is stuffed. Now you are clutching at models pre industrial revolution, hard work ...... no?



> India and the rest of the developing world is owed the opportunity of having access to clean energy




And yet they pollute the most and you are fine with that? For the greater good and all that !!


----------



## basilio

Your right TS. One super volcanic eruption and we are toast. And in fact there is one brewing at Yellowstone Park if you want to be specific.

But we can't do anything about that can we ? It is out of our hands.

Allowing the continual production of GG is in our control.


----------



## basilio

The research from glaciologists on the condition of Greenlands glaciers  continues to evolve. This report is particularly troubling when you read it to the end.



> *Greenland glacier sliding rapidly into ocean, raising sea levels: scientists
> *
> Date
> November 13, 2015 - 1:20PM
> 
> 
> As the world prepares for the most important global climate summit yet - in Paris this month - news from Greenland could add urgency to the negotiations.
> 
> A glacier in north-east Greenland with enough ice to raise world ocean levels by half a metre has begun to slide more quickly towards the sea, extending ice losses to all corners of the vast remote island, a US study shows.
> Landsat-8 image of Greenland's Zachariae Isstrom and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glaciers, acquired on August 30, 2014.
> 
> Because of warmer water temperatures, the end of the Zachariae Isstrom glacier floated free from a ridge of bedrock below sea level on which it had rested until 2012, the study, which was reported in the journal Science on Thursday, said.
> 
> Without that natural brake, the glacier in the cold north was now sliding more quickly and more icebergs were snapping off, adding a net five billion tonnes of ice a year to the oceans, according to the study based on satellite and aerial surveys.
> 
> "Similar changes - even larger - are under way in the south," Jeremie Mouginot of the University of California-Irvine and his colleagues said.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ng-sea-levels-scientists-20151112-gkxy8c.html


----------



## basilio

The world wide temperature figures are also showing just how much hotter 2015 is than any previous year. 



> *
> The graphic that shows why 2015 global temperatures are off the charts*
> 
> Date
> October 22, 2015
> 
> 
> NASA has released animation based on satellite data showing this year's El Nino is likely to be just as devastating as the strongest on record.
> 
> If there is one chart that might finally put to rest debate of a pause or "hiatus" in global warming, this chart created by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just supplied it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years, climate change sceptics relied on a spike in global temperatures that occurred during the monster 1997-98 El Nino to say the world had stopped warming because later years struggled to set a higher mark even as greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise.
> 
> The intensifying El Nino has helped drive global temperatures to yet another record monthly high.
> 
> Never mind that US government scientists found the hiatus was an illusion because the oceans had absorbed most of the extra heat that satellites could tell the Earth was trapping.
> 
> Nor that 2005, 2010 and 2014 all set subsequent records for annual heat.Those record years were too incrementally warmer compared with the 1997 mark to satisfy those who wanted to believe climate change was a hoax.
> 
> But it is 2015, which is packing an El Nino that is on track to match the record 1997-98, that looks set to blow away previous years of abnormal warmth.
> 
> "This one could end the hiatus," said Wenju Cai, a principal research scientist specialising in El Nino modelling at the CSIRO.
> 
> "Whether it beats [the 1997-98 El Nino] will be academic - it's already very big."
> 
> NOAA data released overnight backs up how exceptional this year is in terms of warming, with September alone a full quarter of a degree above the corresponding month in 1997.
> 
> As the chart above shows, for the first nine months, 2015 has easily been the hottest year on record, with sunlight second.
> 
> *Monster El Nino*
> 
> Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was now on course to challenge the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.
> 
> This would suggest that, short of a major disruptive event such as a huge volcanic eruption, 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.
> 
> The projection looks likely to be affirmed further before the global climate talks in Paris, which are scheduled to begin on November 30.
> 
> Almost 200 nations will be negotiating on a new treaty to stem the emissions of greenhouse gases that are driving temperatures higher and disrupting climate patterns around which humans have built their civilisation.
> 
> *Mostly anomalous in past 1629 months
> *
> September was not only the seventh month so far this year to set a new record for heat, it was also the most anomalously hot month in 135 years of data, NOAA said.
> 
> "This marks the fifth consecutive month a monthly high temperature record has been set and is the highest departure from average for any month among all 1629 months in the record that began in January 1880," NOAA said in a statement.
> 
> Average sea- and land-surface temperatures last month were 0.9 degrees above the 20th-century average, pipping the previous hottest September - set only a year ago - by 0.12 degrees.
> 
> The abnormal warmth was particularly notable in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, where the El Nino weather event continues to intensify.
> 
> For the first nine months of 2015, average surface temperatures are running at 0.85 degrees above the 20th-century average, exceeding the previous equal warm stints in 2010 and 2014 by 0.12 degrees, NOAA said.
> 
> During El Nino years, the Pacific Ocean tends to absorb less heat or release some back to the atmosphere as a result of changing easterly wind patterns. One consequence of those reversed or stalled winds is that the western Pacific tends to be drier and hotter, while nations on the eastern Pacific fringe usually receive above-average rain.
> 
> Australia was not exceptionally warm last month, with mean temperatures 0.2 degrees above the 1961-90 average. However, it was the third driest September in records going back to 1910 with little more than one-third of the average rainfall nationwide, the bureau said in its monthly report.
> 
> October got off to a record hot start for southern Australia, with many records falling for early-season heat, lifting concerns about an active fire season ahead.
> 
> *Temperatures topped up*
> 
> El Ninos typically add 0.1-0.2 degrees to the background global warming. US climate expert John Abraham has estimated how year-to-date temperatures are adding another step-up to temperatures, as seen in this chart published by Think Progress.
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change sceptics will probably not concede in their battle to avoid action to curb emissions.
> 
> Satellite or meteorological data must have been manipulated, the oceans might be producing chemical compounds never detected before that counter carbon dioxide, or perhaps the sun is about to burn a lot less brightly.
> 
> Still, they now have one more inconvenient chart they have to find a reason to ignore.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...tures-are-off-the-charts-20151021-gkf8b0.html


----------



## wayneL

....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.


----------



## basilio

> and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.
> 
> It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.   Wayne




Would you care to make a comment on the research Wayne? I can't see how a flippant nothing comment as per above adds anything to a discussion.


----------



## wayneL

Your cites were not research, they were newspaper articles.

I'm too busy burning fossil fuels and bending perfectly good bits of steel bar to chase down the actual research. 

But let's say things are as bad as the Canberra Times represents.... Whatcha gonna do about it Bas?


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> ....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.
> 
> It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.



What is this based on? Content?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Your cites were not research, they were newspaper articles.
> 
> I'm too busy burning fossil fuels and bending perfectly good bits of steel bar to chase down the actual research.
> 
> But let's say things are as bad as the Canberra Times represents.... Whatcha gonna do about it Bas?




You clearly can't/won't read Wayne. They were based on research papers published in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111



> After 8 years of decay of its ice shelf, ZachariÃ¦ IsstrÃ¸m, a major glacier of northeast Greenland that holds a 0.5-meter sea-level rise equivalent, entered a phase of accelerated retreat in fall 2012. The acceleration rate of its ice velocity tripled, melting of its residual ice shelf and thinning of its grounded portion doubled, and calving is now occurring at its grounding line. Warmer air and ocean temperatures have caused the glacier to detach from a stabilizing sill and retreat rapidly along a downward-sloping, marine-based bed. Its equal-ice-volume neighbor, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, is also melting rapidly but retreating slowly along an upward-sloping bed. The destabilization of this marine-based sector will increase sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet for decades to come.




And otherwise? Whatever has to be done.


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> What is this based on? Content?




Observation of alarmists. Let's examine the "carbon footprints" of the chief protagonists shall we?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> You clearly can't/won't read Wayne. They were based on research papers published in Science.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111



Like I said don't really have time to analyse the papers right now so will take on face value until further notice. 




> And otherwise? Whatever has to be done.




Bullsh!t. Alarmists do not live low carbon lifestyles as a rule, actually the worst form of denial.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> Observation of alarmists. Let's examine the "carbon footprints" of the chief protagonists shall we?



I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.  Are you asking my permission to start examining them? 

So far you've given us nothing to "examine."


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.  Are you asking my permission to start examining them?
> 
> So far you've given us nothing to "examine."




Oh Lord! Another asinine squabbler of insignificancies.

Look, it's pretty simple. Your lot wants to promulgate doom and gloom, the latest iteration of the Apocalypse.

To what end?

What are the doomists proposing to personally do about it?

Buy a Toyota Pious?

Sell the mansion and live in a cave?

Cease procreating?

Sit around freezing, huddled around a single candle holding hands?

What?

Because as I've detailed already, constant doomsaying costs lives.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> Oh Lord! Another asinine squabbler of insignificancies.



You made a statement:

*"....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed."
*

... and after three posts you have given absolutely zilch to back it up.

Now you are making assumptions about _me_ and asking _me_ to give _you_ answers because you cannot come up with any for yourself.

Are you done avoiding the question yet?


----------



## trainspotter

I though this thread was about RESISTING climate hysteria. So far we are 25 metres under water after the ice melts and being fried like an egg because the globe is warming at an "ALARMING" rate.

I especially liked this bit ...



> Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was _now on course to *challenge* _the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.
> 
> This would *suggest* that, short of a major disruptive event *such as a huge volcanic eruption*, 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.




It doesn't say it HAS .. it said it is on course to challenge. SCAREMONGERING at it's finest 

It is being "suggested" that it might eclipse the 97/98 years.

Nothing to see here ... more ALARMIST clap trap 

Quite a few posts ago I wrote how the media is manipulating what you think. India trebling it's Co2 output was written up as a reduction? REALLY ??? I especially liked this quote from Obama ...



> And that means taking serious steps to address climate change once and for all. *Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home*, and we're leading the world to take action as well.




DERP !! ... not quite Barack !



> Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 7% between 1990 and 2013.




http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html


----------



## basilio

So what are we to personally do to reduce the effects of CC?

For a start make it clear to our governments that the science is well and truly in on this topic and that we must move ASAP to clean renewable energy sources.

For a second bite at the cherry assist India and other developing countries countries to develop through clean renewable energy resources rather than fossil fuels.

Finally make it simple for businesses to make the move to renewables by putting a price on carbon and switching  state subsidies to renewable energy sources.

Of course we could ignore all the evidence of CC so that people don't become worried about it.

But how does that help us as the consequences of CC make themselves felt across the world? Taking the accelerated collapse of the Greenland glacier as a first example.

How long should we studiously ignore what scientists are discovering and wait for sea level rises to drive us out of our coastal cities before making alternative plans ?


----------



## trainspotter

Well bugger me .... 



> In a Silicon Valley research lab, scientists are working on what might be considered the option of last resort for global warming.
> 
> “It’s an insurance policy,” said researcher Sudhanshu Jain.
> 
> It’s called the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, and it’s designed to fight global warming by making clouds over the ocean thicker and brighter so they reflect more sunlight and cool the planet.
> 
> The Sunnyvale team has reached a milestone with this high-pressure nozzle that uses salt water and looks like a normal water spray. But it took scientists a year to come up with the exact rate, flow and pressure so that the water droplets come out to the perfect size.




http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-brightening-clouds-to-combat-climate-change/

And bugger me again ...



> By modifying the reflectivity of clouds, the albedo of Earth would be altered. The intention is that this technique, in combination with greenhouse gas emissions reduction (and possibly other climate engineering techniques) will be sufficient to control global warming. The effect is expected to be fully reversible, as the cloud condensation nuclei particles precipitate naturally. However, like any planetary-scale project dealing with the complex climate system, there is a non-trivial risk of unintended consequences.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification

Well now I am buggered as this has been on youtube since 7th April 2007 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see the direction of Indias energy future. 

Looks very renewably based.
*
India’s fast-moving energy transition*
By Tim Buckley on 13 November 2015
Print Friendly

IEEFA


> *
> Investments worth more than $100 billion over the past eight months are driving an unprecedented shift to renewable energy in India.*
> 
> The trend is detailed in a report we just posted””India’s Electricity Sector Transformation””that charts the accelerating influx of global capital into India as the country moves toward its goal of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022.
> 
> Just a few months ago, global financial markets reflected investor skepticism around whether good intentions and big promises could be turned into concrete actions. The figures we see today speak for themselves, and the $100 billion in firm commitments signed and sealed include deals with state-owned enterprises, leading Indian power companies, a number of Indian billionaires new to the power sector and major global renewable-energy firms and utilities.




http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/indias-fast-moving-energy-transition-90757


----------



## trainspotter

What a crock basilio ... I thought I would leave this alone but my conscience has got the better of me. 

THE MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED YOU AGAIN !!



> India’s population and economy are growing rapidly, yet hundreds of millions still live in poverty without access to electricity. So India has been fiercely protective of its right to prioritise economic development.
> 
> As a result, its INDC in framed in terms of emissions intensity — the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP. While India’s pledge promises to cut its emissions intensity in 2030 to a third below 2005 levels, its growing economy means *actual emissions will still increase.*




What's that? COAL is still the dominate future generation source !!!!!!



> On the other hand, India’s INDC notes that coal “*will continue to dominate power generation in future*”. Indeed, it has ambitious plans to expand domestic coal mining, implying *rapid growth in CO2 *emissions.




Spin and more spin basilio ... try objectivity 

Now this is FRIGHTENING ...



> Assuming it meets its INDC, the EU’s per capita emissions would have fallen from 8.8tCO2e today to 6.2tCO2e by 2030. The US and China would nearly converge, with per capita emissions of *12.4 and 11.1tCO2e* in 2030, respectively.
> 
> *By way of context, it’s worth noting that per capita emissions globally need to converge towards around 2GtCO2e in 2050, in order to retain a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change*.




What does this all mean, when we take away the smoke and the mirrors. The following points stand out:



> No actual CO2 target has been set.
> 
> Although the talk is of “increase the share of clean energy in its total energy mix by as much as 40%”, when you get down to the small print, as we will shortly, the commitment is only to 40% of capacity, and not generation. As we know, renewables give very poor utilisation, so the amount generated will be much, much less than 40%.
> 
> Also, this 40% is not of its total energy mix, as reported, but only of electricity mix.
> 
> Commitment is given about reducing carbon intensity of GDP, but nearly half of this has already been achieved since 2005. As we have seen with China, maturing economies tend to grow away from energy intensive industries.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...1-climate-plan-will-triple-emissions-by-2030/

Go read a book basilio ...



> In November 2009 it emerged that thousands of documents and emails had been stolen from one of the top climate science centres in the world. The emails appeared to reveal that scientists had twisted research in order to strengthen the case for global warming. With the UN's climate summit in Copenhagen just days away, the hack could not have happened at a worse time for climate researchers or at a better time for climate sceptics.
> 
> Yet although the scandal caused a media frenzy, the fact is that just about everything you may have heard and read about the University of East Anglia emails is wrong. They are not, as some have claimed, the smoking gun for some great global warming hoax. They do not reveal a sinister conspiracy by scientists to fabricate global warming data. *They do, however, raise deeply disturbing questions about the way climate science is conducted, about researchers' preparedness to block access to climate data and downplay flaws in their data, about the siege mentality and scientific tribalism at the heart of the most important international issue of our age*.




http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files...F8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1287078203&sr=1-1


----------



## trainspotter

Here is the link http://www.carbonbrief.org/indias-indc ... go check it out for some FACTS !


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Here is the link http://www.carbonbrief.org/indias-indc ... go check it out for some FACTS !




Great article TS.  Excellent summary of where India is and where it wants to go.

It's quite true that India will be rapidly increasing it's energy use in the next decades. It's almost certainly inevitable that a fair bit will be fossil fuel based.

That doesn't mean however that it cannot make renewable energy sources a rapidly increasing part of their mix.  In fact it will be essential if we are to somehow keep inside a world wide carbon budget that doesn't cook us.  My point has been that it is in our interest to help India develop it's essential energy infrastructure through renewable energy rather than fossil fuel sources. 

India's energy use per head in 2012 is 624kg of oil equivalent. By way of comparison Australia's usage in 2012 was 5644 and the US 6815. China was 2143.  Big difference isn't it ? 

Can India go renewable directly and skip most of the fossil fuel steps? The facts are that in 2015 the options to realistically develop renewable technology are becoming more and more competitive. For example the Australian company Dyesol  has now developed a third generation of solar cells that are cost competitive with coal power and can be directly incorporated into building envelopes like glass and steel. Tata Steel (India)  is one of Dyesols partners.

At the same time battery technology to store solar power is also rapidly becoming cost effective. 

Full commercial production of this technology is targeted for 2017-8.

http://www.dyesol.com/media/wysiwyg...lopment_Bank_of_Turkey_-_Letter_of_Intent.pdf

http://www.dyesol.com/media/wysiwyg...udy_Generates_LCOEs_of_A_0.096_A_0.12_KWh.pdf


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> India's energy use per head in 2012 is 624kg of oil equivalent. By way of comparison Australia's usage in 2012 was 5644 and the US 6815. China was 2143.  Big difference isn't it ?




You read the article right? 

You cannot compare oil equivalent to Co2 biomass as an example?? Have a look at the demographics for a start ...

Population of India ... 1,288,948,781 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ or 17.5% of the worlds population. India ranks number 2 in the list of countries by population. The population density in India is 386 people per Km². 32% of the population is urban (410,404,773 people in 2014). The median age in India is 26.6 years.

Population of Australia ... 23,630,169 or 0.33% of the worlds population. The population density of Australia is 3 people per Km².

C'mon basilio


----------



## orr

trainspotter said:


> THE MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED YOU AGAIN !!
> 
> 
> 
> What's that? COAL is still the dominate future generation source !!!!!!




Where do you place Xexon's use of the scientific research of their own in house studies and the forward projections of the consequences of those studies... Or have you choosen to ignore the Medias reportage on this story? in the fear of being manipulated.

Coal is dominent, whether it's future resembles Peabody's Share price as future generation is....?; well, I've read my fair share of anylists future projections. 

But a couple of facts;
Chinese Coal Company Fires 100,000... Shenhua Group last september. Total direct employees in the US coal industry as a comparison, as at the same date is circa 76,000 a 7% drop over the preceeding 12 months.
Lithium demand on the other hand..........
SolarCity in the US and their zero up front installs ..... I suppose we just see different futures.


----------



## trainspotter

Can I have what you are having please orr 

Coal is still to be the dominant electricity generator in India as per article I referenced. The media claimed that India's Co2 output will reduce with the introduction of solar blah blah blah but when you look closely at the ACTUAL figures their Co2 output will TREBLE by 2030 and not reduce.


----------



## basilio

*Regarding the sharing of cuts in CO2 emissions*

Ever since the conversation about cutting CO2 use started it was always accepted that developing countries which have a very low  energy use and desperately needed to actually have an energy system to develop *would be allowed to increase their use of fossil fuels*.  But it was also understood that these countries would  run parallel paths of renewable energy development and over time (hopefully quickly)  retire their fossil fuel use to  go to total renewables.

Western countries on the other hand have already fully developed energy systems which are largely fossil fuel based. There target was two fold
1) Become far more efficient in energy use and reduce the impact of fossil fuels. ie  better fuel consumption, more efficient industry and homes

2) Move as rapidly as possible to replacing the fossil fuel systems with clean, renewable energy sources. If they have been successful at introducing good efficiency measures then they might get away with having less energy supplies.

Overriding this picture is the consideration of the total carbon budget for the planet. At this stage climate scientists believe that unless we limit the total CO2 from fossil fuels to around 1000 billion tonnes we will march past 2 degree C warming - and keep going.

By 2011 we had emitted roughly 515 billion tonnes. At our present rate of fossil fuel use we would reach the 1000 Billion tonnes mark in 30 years.



> When Will Our Carbon Budget Run Out?
> 
> The international community has adopted a goal for global warming not to rise above 2 °C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Scientists have devoted considerable effort to understanding what magnitude of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming to this level, as the world faces increasingly dangerous climate change impacts with every degree of warming (see Box 1).
> 
> IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C. This is “our carbon budget” – the same concept as a checking account. When we’ve spent it all, there’s no more money (and the planet’s overdraft fees will be much more significant than a bank’s small charges for bounced checks).1
> The report also states that as of 2011, we have emitted roughly 515 PgC since the industrial revolution, meaning we have already burned through about 52 percent of that carbon budget.
> 
> Do the math, and the world only has 485 PgC left in the budget. This balance puts us on track to exhaust our remaining carbon budget before the end of 2045 under a carbon intensive trajectory.2
> 
> *For context, consider Earth’s increasing pace of emissions: While the first half of the entire global carbon budget was used up over 250 years, the second half of the budget would be used up in only about three decades if emissions continue unabated.*




http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/09/world’s-carbon-budget-be-spent-three-decades


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> *Ever since the conversation about cutting CO2 use started it was always accepted that developing countries which have a very low  energy use and desperately needed to actually have an energy system to develop would be allowed to increase their use of fossil fuels.  But it was also understood that these countries would  run parallel paths of renewable energy development and over time (hopefully quickly)  retire their fossil fuel use to  go to total renewables.
> 
> Western countries on the other hand have already fully developed energy systems which are largely fossil fuel based. There target was two fold
> 1) Become far more efficient in energy use and reduce the impact of fossil fuels. ie  better fuel consumption, more efficient industry and homes
> 
> 2) Move as rapidly as possible to replacing the fossil fuel systems with clean, renewable energy sources. If they have been successful at introducing good efficiency measures then they might get away with having less energy supplies.
> *



*

That sounds awfully like a plan to simply relocate energy-intensive industry from developed countries to "developing" ones so that they avoid, or at least delay by a few decades, the cost and environmental gains.

Which brings us back to the point that so-called "free" trade is the primary barrier to shifting to clean energy. 

If Australian industry had no need to be competitive against developing countries and only had to compete against other developed countries with comparable standards to our own then this whole debate would largely cease to exist. 

If a developing country wants to use coal and produce goods for their own use then I'm fine with that. But if they want to export to any developed country then the same environmental and other standards applying in developed countries should be applied to the production of those goods. To do otherwise just harms our own economy and defeats the purpose environmentally. *


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> If a developing country wants to use coal and produce goods for their own use then I'm fine with that. But if they want to export to any developed country then the same environmental and other standards applying in developed countries should be applied to the production of those goods. To do otherwise just harms our own economy and defeats the purpose environmentally.




Nothing to do with emissions but I would go further an say that a tariff should be applied on imported goods equal to the difference in the salaries between us and the importing country in the same industry (relative to the cost of living in the other country).

While some may say this would reduce our need to be competitive, it would also discourage the use of slave labor
and help to raise the standard of living in places like India where the workforce is exploited.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> basilio




Your blank post prompted a look at basilio's last few posts.   They had substance and reasoning that adds up. 

Your effort is no more than empty crapola.  Why even bother Champ


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Your blank post prompted a look at basilio's last few posts.   They had substance and reasoning that adds up.
> 
> Your effort is no more than empty crapola.  Why even bother Champ




Your failure to understand the written word astounds me Chump 

If you have nothing to add then why bother criticizing my posts 

India = TREBLING Co2 output by 2030 and the media cites this as a REDUCTION 

basilio says this is wonderful cause they spending truckloads of $$$ cause they going solar/wind/blah blah blah.

Ice caps melting because of global warming ring a bell?? (That Co2 is nasty stuff remember??)


----------



## Tisme

My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon..... 

.....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon.....
> 
> .....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.




I like Waterworld. Don't know why people pan it.


----------



## basilio

TS you just don't understand the thinking behind how the world is going to come to grips with decarbonising all economies in some sort of fair way. Recognising that Third world countries did have a right to some extra  CO2 production is just part of the equation. 

It is an extremely complex problem. There are no easy or simple answers. It would have been hard enough to do 25 years ago when the problem was first properly recognised and we had some time to spin out a more gradual approach to such a huge change.

Attempting to go full bore to total de carbonisation by 2050* AND *pulling greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere as well. A lot of eggs will be broken.


----------



## poverty

luutzu said:


> I like Waterworld. Don't know why people pan it.




I only pan it because it's a freakin scene for scene copy of Mad Max 2.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon.....
> 
> .....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.




My house is 30 metres above sea level so when the polar caps melt I will have a house on the waters edge !!

So can the homo sapiens as a species evolve into this?


----------



## SirRumpole

I'm 900 metres above sea level so stuff the rest of you


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> My house is 30 metres above sea level so when the polar caps melt I will have a house on the waters edge !!
> 
> So can the homo sapiens as a species evolve into this?
> 
> View attachment 65097




I knew it!

Those roofs we see are blocking your view aren't they?


----------



## luutzu

poverty said:


> I only pan it because it's a freakin scene for scene copy of Mad Max 2.




Is it? Haven't seen Mad Max 2. Will check it out.


----------



## Knobby22

Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors. 

He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors.
> 
> He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.




So there is no opportunity in waterproof poles and wires? 

Wave powered dehumidifiers and desalinators should be big business in the future.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> I knew it!
> 
> Those roofs we see are blocking your view aren't they?




No ... I see them as reef structure for the fish to live in when I cast the rod off the balcony PfffffffffffffTTTT


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> No ... I see them as reef structure for the fish to live in when I cast the rod off the balcony PfffffffffffffTTTT




Sounds like a good plan. How will the oysters do with the ocean ticking up a few Celsius? More time for fishing I guess.

All jokes aside, nice pearls you got there. Are they natural or cultured? Will give you a call when there's cash to plash around.


----------



## trainspotter

Oysters will be just fine as a few more degrees celsius water temperature will actually help them grow pearls quicker 

They are ALL natural colours made by Mother Nature and Pinctada margaritifera. The oyster undergoes an operation to insert a nucleus into the gonad which then secretes nacre around the irritant. So to answer your question they are cultured. Natural pearls happen when an irritant gets inside the gonad and usually they are munted or misshapen. They are called Keshi pearls.


----------



## trainspotter

Read this and thought of you basilio ...



> Building a 2-megawatt solar system is a little more ambitious than planting potatoes. It required an investment of $4.8 million dollars. But after careful analysis the numbers seemed to add up nicely and the banks agreed.
> 
> “We did it for economic reasons,” says Dan Hofer. “They didn’t have an issue at all. After seeing some of the numbers, how the economics would work out, they were fully supportive.”
> 
> As for the environment, Dan Hofer says the clean nature of solar energy is gravy:* “We’re all polluters of the land, so it’s good to give something back.”*
> 
> For project developer SkyFire Energy, the project was a first in terms of scale.
> 
> “The solar resource here is some of the best in Canada,” says Vonesch. “A system installed right here will produce about 50 or 60 per cent more than if the same system were installed in Germany, where there’s more solar than anywhere in the world.”
> 
> The wind resource in Southern Alberta is also among the best in Canada. So why did the colony choose solar and not wind? “Maintenance was one of the big issues,” chuckles Jake Hofer. “And I’m terribly scared of heights.”




http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Read this and thought of you basilio ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/




Thanks for posting.  However the combination of solar,  wind,  coastal wave and thermal,  properly combined and fully supported by Governments will be the answer. 

Is it HYSYERICAL to hope for this (complete in my view) solution?


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors.
> 
> He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like *the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.*




Bang on Knobby22 ...



> A former investment banker turned climate change adviser says the world risks building trillions of dollars worth of uneconomic fossil fuel projects over the next 10 years *because of measures to limit global warming.
> *
> Research analyst Mark Fulton is the lead author of a report by London based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker, which has warned there are $US2.2 trillion in *potentially unviable* coal, gas and oil projects around the globe.
> 
> The report said the US had the greatest exposure to the fossil fuels industry with $US412 billion in unnecessary future projects while Australia's *potentially uneconomic* developments were worth $US103 billion.
> 
> Mr Fulton came up with the $2.2 trillion figure by conducting stress tests on planned fossil fuel projects with a scenario where global warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold above which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) *estimated* that global warming becomes serious and extreme.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/viability-of-future-fossil-fuel-projects/6974538



> *Mr Fulton said it was time for investors to reduce their exposure to fossil fuel projects.*


----------



## wayneL

Soros seems to be taking the contrarian view


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Soros seems to be taking the contrarian view




At 2% of the price they were a couple of years ago. Smart man.
Maybe he thinks the price has overshot.


----------



## AntN

Mickel said:


> Resisting climate hysteria
> by Richard S. Lindzen
> 
> July 26, 2009
> 
> A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
> 
> 
> 
> Link-  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria





Looks like another 'fallacy pusher' has jumped on the 'anti AGW' book bandwagon. 
Can't hold it against him too much, as everyone has to try make a living somehow. 
"It's immoral to allow suckers to keep their money"


----------



## basilio

That was a very interesting story on the  2mw solar farm in Calgary TS.  I think they were a bit skinned on the solar technology.  It looks as if they are using first generation solar panels for a start.  Nonetheless  they  and the bank thought the figures added up so it was obviously economically viable.

In fact this group is a Hutterite religious community.  Very much into self sufficiency and conservation. 

http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/
http://www.hutterites.org/news/who-recycle-bag/


----------



## basilio

And while we are looking at how cost effective solar power is and singing Kumbya perhaps a look at one of first places about to be overrun by the rising seas and other effects of Climate Change.


> *
> Shrinking Alaskan village of Kivalina leaves locals fearing destiny as America's first climate change refugees
> *
> As world leaders gather in Paris for the UN Climate Change Conference, Janet Mitchell in the United States will be worrying about how to feed her family during the winter.
> 
> The Inupiat Eskimo community where she lives in western Alaska relies on hunting seals in the warmer months and drying their meat for the winter.
> 
> "My own family, we need about 14 bearded seals," she said.
> 
> But this past summer hunting became impossible.
> 
> "Our hunters couldn't leave the island as it was jam packed with broken ice," she said.
> 
> Waves sweep across the island at times. For many of those Alaskans, it's no longer a question of if they're going to relocate, but when.
> US president Barack Obama
> 
> The tiny barrier island where Ms Mitchell lives is called Kivalina. About 120 kilometres from the Arctic Circle, it is one of the most remote places in America.
> 
> Destined to become the country's first climate change refugees, Kivalina's residents have watched their island shrink before their eyes in recent decades.
> 
> Sea ice that would usually protect the island from storm surges has been disappearing, causing waves to gradually eat away chunks of the coastline.
> 
> "This year we lost, I believe, about 12 feet by the runway," Ms Mitchell, who is also the city administrator, said.
> 
> Temperatures in the Arctic are, on average, rising faster than anywhere else in the world, and there is widespread agreement among scientists that places like Kivalina will soon cease to exist.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...change-locals-say/6975994?section=environment


----------



## wayneL

Is Kivalina propaganda. Decide for yourself http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/breaking-news-seventh-first-climate-refugees-discovered/


----------



## trainspotter

It's called erosion 



> A section of beach that fell into the sea on North Stradbroke Island is starting to reappear.
> 
> Sand is already returning with the tide to the site next to Jumpinpin channel, according to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
> 
> However, swimmers are still being advised to keep away from the area, which was initially described as a sinkhole the size of a football field.




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-north-stradbroke-island-20151126-gl8jhd.html

Must be climate change eh?


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Oysters will be just fine as a few more degrees celsius water temperature will actually help them grow pearls quicker
> 
> They are ALL natural colours made by Mother Nature and Pinctada margaritifera. The oyster undergoes an operation to insert a nucleus into the gonad which then secretes nacre around the irritant. So to answer your question they are cultured. Natural pearls happen when an irritant gets inside the gonad and usually they are munted or misshapen. They are called Keshi pearls.
> 
> View attachment 65104




So come Hell or high water, it's win-win then? haha... Better stop, I might be really paying for it later ey?

You insert what into the oyster's where? Gonad is its ball sack right? 

So natural pearls are usually misshapenned? The round ones must cost a few tears yea? So when you culture the pearl, how big is that nucleus usually? I heard somewhere from someone that those tend to be pretty big marble-sized insert where the oyster then only need to secrete a thin layer. Is that how it's done or the nucleus are gain size?

But yea, thanks. Give me a year or two. Might be sooner if she decide she might leave me.


----------



## trainspotter

Sometimes I think pearl farming is Hell 

Go here to learn more http://www.zeewykpearl.com.au/pearl history.htm

If she leaves ... who do you give a pearl necklace to? 

Sort of :topic but a few degrees warmer would be better


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Sometimes I think pearl farming is Hell
> 
> Go here to learn more http://www.zeewykpearl.com.au/pearl history.htm
> 
> If she leaves ... who do you give a pearl necklace to?
> 
> Sort of :topic but a few degrees warmer would be better




Yea, off topic my gonad. 

Give the necklace to her of course... to win her back   So them pearls better be, you know... 


I didn't know Australia was such a large exporter of Pearl. Always thought it's the Middle East or Japan.


----------



## trainspotter

Try Googling ...  "pearl necklace slang" or better yet click on this link to see where I was cumming from 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality)


----------



## noco

Bill Shorten's overambitious omissions reduction scheme will cost us plenty.......He must have rocks in his head if he thinks voters will fall for his stupidity.....This whole Global Warming talk is a scam and the alarmists are now in the minority.
I am prediction the Paris Climate Change conference will be a flop as all of the previous talks.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...626267843?sv=cb36cffad49bf8bc06cfd9a32e256d2b

*Bill Shorten has sparked a polit*ical fight over the cost of living after setting a climate change target that could impose a cost burden 10 times greater than Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

The new Labor target was branded “way out of range” of other countries as world leaders prepare to meet in Paris on Monday to try to agree on a united plan to address global warming.

Labor is defending its goal of a 45 per cent cut in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by insisting* it will not need an expensiv*e price on carbon that drives up household energy bills.

In a break from bipartisanship on previous targets, Labor’s ambition is almost twice the size of the government’s offic*ial goal of cutting carbon pollution by 26-28 per cent, which Malcolm Turnbull will reiterate when he attends the Paris talks.*

Some comments by readers.....

Lester
1 hour ago

*When will our politicians come to their senses and realise that Climate Change is a bigger scam than the Nigerian ones, and a far larger conn than the Y2K ever was. The majority of ordinary people world wide now see it for what it is, just a blatant grab for more of the tax payers money, because in the end it is us that have to pay for it. 
FlagShare
9MikeDavidDrAKSteveLikeReply
Ross
Ross
1 hour ago

Quote : Mr Shorten countered the idea that his target would hurt the economy, saying “this modelling took no account of the *economic consequences of not adopting this sort of target”. 

But isn't that what Labor has always done? - taking no account of the econom*ic consequences.


----------



## Ijustnewit

The ABC and the rent a crowd folks at it's finest again yesterday in Melbourne. The question I always ask while I'm at work trying to make a living and pay my taxes is why , these kid's were not in school and why the rest of them were not at work ? All these climate love in's want us to pay for a greener world but I bet they are not contributing one cent to  the economy themselves. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/people-rally-in-melbourne-for-climate-change/6981136


----------



## Ijustnewit

noco said:


> Bill Shorten's overambitious omissions reduction scheme will cost us plenty.......He must have rocks in his head if he thinks voters will fall for his stupidity.....This whole Global Warming talk is a scam and the alarmists are now in the minority.
> I am prediction the Paris Climate Change conference will be a flop as all of the previous talks.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...626267843?sv=cb36cffad49bf8bc06cfd9a32e256d2b
> 
> *Bill Shorten has sparked a polit*ical fight over the cost of living after setting a climate change target that could impose a cost burden 10 times greater than Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.
> 
> The new Labor target was branded “way out of range” of other countries as world leaders prepare to meet in Paris on Monday to try to agree on a united plan to address global warming.
> 
> Labor is defending its goal of a 45 per cent cut in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by insisting* it will not need an expensiv*e price on carbon that drives up household energy bills.
> 
> In a break from bipartisanship on previous targets, Labor’s ambition is almost twice the size of the government’s offic*ial goal of cutting carbon pollution by 26-28 per cent, which Malcolm Turnbull will reiterate when he attends the Paris talks.*
> 
> Some comments by readers.....
> 
> Lester
> 1 hour ago
> 
> *When will our politicians come to their senses and realise that Climate Change is a bigger scam than the Nigerian ones, and a far larger conn than the Y2K ever was. The majority of ordinary people world wide now see it for what it is, just a blatant grab for more of the tax payers money, because in the end it is us that have to pay for it.
> FlagShare
> 9MikeDavidDrAKSteveLikeReply
> Ross
> Ross
> 1 hour ago
> 
> Quote : Mr Shorten countered the idea that his target would hurt the economy, saying “this modelling took no account of the *economic consequences of not adopting this sort of target”.
> 
> But isn't that what Labor has always done? - taking no account of the econom*ic consequences.




It's the biggest scam and fear based marketing you will ever see. The ABC continues to run story after story on how we are all going to burn in  hell. How the Barrier Reef will  vanish overnight and how we will all be living six feet under water. The Green left bash us around the scone at every given opportunity , to drive home their end of the world scenarios. And yet , it's  November here in Hobart and yesterday it snowed at 500 meters and Mt Wellington had snow on it all day yesterday. Was there even a sniff of this event on the ABC news , No of course not. They were to busy telling us about melting glaciers and how 2015 is going to be the hottest ever year on the planet .


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> It's the biggest scam and fear based marketing you will ever see. The ABC continues to run story after story on how we are all going to burn in  hell. How the Barrier Reef will  vanish overnight and how we will all be living six feet under water. The Green left bash us around the scone at every given opportunity , to drive home their end of the world scenarios. And yet , it's  November here in Hobart and yesterday it snowed at 500 meters and Mt Wellington had snow on it all day yesterday. Was there even a sniff of this event on the ABC news , No of course not. They were to busy telling us about melting glaciers and how 2015 is going to be the hottest ever year on the planet .




And the naive believe it.


----------



## Smurf1976

I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.

Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.

On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it. 

I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.

Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.
> 
> Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just *commonsense,* and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.
> 
> On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.
> 
> I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.
> 
> Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2








Finally this thread is back on track


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 65147
> 
> 
> Finally this thread is back on track




Got a slogan for ya: Trainspotter's Pearls. She'll wear ours before she'll wear yours. 

You welcome. Just don't put your mug next to the slogan.. that'd be wrong.


OK, back on track the way world leaders will be this December in Paris discussing how CO2 is bad, fossil fuel is a likely major cause of it but let's ruin Russia's economy by pumping more of it out and getting them into another proxy war in Syria. 

With all the APEC, G20s, G8, G3, Gn, Davos, ASEAN etc.... maybe teleconferencing might cut back a bit CO2 from the jets ya? Can't do much about the hot air they create when they talk a good game, but put those internet to some good use beside spying.


----------



## basilio

Still can't  understand "science stuff " can we folks ?

Still totally and absolutely certain that because it was cold yesterday the other 3000 million papers on climate change are gigantic hoaxes written up one world government quasi scientists ?

What's truly fascinating about such total wrong-headedness is how out of step it is with the mainstream business community in 2015.

1) The broad majority of the business community including the Mining Council is now strongly in support of a constructive approach in Paris to keep the worlds temperature below 2C.  Somehow all the big boys have decided that it's time to stop  denying and ignoring the obvious and move quickly to Plan B - somehow

2) Bill Gates is about to announce a multi -billion dollar Renewable Energy Research fund to  give an almighty kick to rapid de-carbonisation of the planet.  On all the current models we , somehow have to have a zero carbon emission world by 2050 and then draw down CO2 if we are to have a chance of not  going over 2C warming. (And that figure will still increase global sea levels by many metres..)

And by the way Noco et al those figures on the projected cost of Labours commitment to a 45% renewable target are just fictitious. It will be one of the things that Malcolm Turnball will have to quietly throw out with the garbage when he reviews CC policies post France.


> *
> Groundswell of business support for Paris climate action*
> 
> Date
> November 28, 2015 - 1:24AM
> 
> Angela Macdonald-Smith
> 
> 
> 
> ....As the 40,000-plus attendees to the Paris climate summit congregate on Monday at a former aircraft hangar in north-east Paris, a surprisingly large chunk of Australian big business will be cheering them on.
> 
> In the 12 months leading up to the 21st Conference of the Parties – more snappily known as COP21 – a groundswell of change has built across the business community and encroached on even the sector that has most to lose, energy and resources.
> 
> _We fully acknowledge there is a climate change issue and we believe we need to be part of the solution.
> Rio Tinto head of coal and copper Jean-Sebastien Jacques
> _
> One by one, miners and energy companies have been ditching any lingering reluctance to become engaged on climate commitments and started to urge world leaders to use the United Nations-backed talkfest to set long-term goals for emissions reductions. They want to know where they stand.
> 
> "You're getting a sense of inevitability that this is the path, and now the question is how are we going to get on with it," says AGL Energy chief executive Andy Vesey, who will join business leaders flocking to Paris-Le Bourget.
> 
> It is certainly not a Damascus conversion: the statements many chief executives have put their names to are meticulously worded and come with plenty of caveats from companies on the side on the realities of the energy mix, and of continuing reliance on fossil fuels.
> 
> Green groups say they do not go nearly far enough and question whether some of the commitments constitute much more than "greenwashing".
> 
> But an open acceptance of the necessity to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and of action to support that has been signed by Vesey, as well as his peers at fossil fuel producers BHP Billiton, Santos and others. Such a public recognition would have been inconceivable for some of those involved several years ago.
> 
> "Early global agreement on the steps to achieve this goal will allow for a responsible transition to decarbonised and sustainable economic development," the CEOs say in the September declaration.
> 
> An open letter published last week by the CEOs of 78 companies with operations in 150 countries gave an idea of the breadth and depth of the business push on climate.



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...for-paris-climate-action-20151123-gl5fuv.html



> *Microsoft's Bill Gates to start multi-billion-dollar fund for clean energy*
> 
> Date
> November 28, 2015 - 12:13PM
> 
> 
> Bill Gates will announce the creation of a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund on Monday at the opening of the Paris summit meeting intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions, according to people with knowledge of the plans.
> 
> The fund, which one of the people described as the largest such effort in history, is meant to pay for research and development of new clean-energy technologies. It will include contributions from other billionaires and philanthropies, as well as a commitment by the United States to double its budget for clean energy research and development, according to the people with knowledge of the plans. French government sources also confirmed the launch plans.
> 
> The announcement of the Clean Tech Initiative fund, which has the joint backing of the governments of the United States, China, India and other countries, the people said, is intended to give momentum to the two-week Paris climate talks.
> 
> *....Fundamental shift*
> 
> If successful, the Paris meeting could spur a fundamental shift away from the use of oil, coal and gas to the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But that transition would require major breakthroughs in technology and huge infrastructure investments by governments and industry.
> 
> ...This summer, Mr Gates pledged to spend $US1 billion of his personal fortune on researching and deploying clean energy technology, but the people with knowledge of his plans said the new fund would include larger commitments.
> *
> In a blog post in July, Mr Gates wrote: "If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free. We can avoid the worst climate-change scenarios while also lifting people out of poverty, growing food more efficiently and saving lives by reducing pollution."*




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...ar-fund-for-clean-energy-20151128-glacw0.html

And as for believing the rubbish peddled up by the Liberals and parroted by it's pets in the Press.


> * Coalition's weird climate rhetoric says one thing, its modelling says another*
> 
> Post-Abbott, the Coalition is still claiming its own policies can cut emissions with almost no cost while wildly exaggerating the cost of alternatives
> 
> Lenore Taylor Political editor
> 
> 
> Friday 27 November 2015 14.48 AEDT
> 
> Remember how Malcolm Turnbull promised to respect the intelligence of the Australian people if he became prime minister?
> 
> Some of his ministers seem to have missed that memo, because they are now recycling the same discredited Abbott-era claims about the cost of more ambitious climate change action, *while ignoring their own up-to-date economic modelling that says deeper emission cuts would come at far lower additional costs*.
> 
> After Bill Shorten announced that Labor was likely to adopt a much tougher greenhouse target than that promised by the Coalition – a 45% cut in emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels – treasurer Scott Morrison immediately dusted off the Coalition’s claim that the independent climate change authority had found such a cut would “cost” the economy $600bn. Education minister Christopher Pyne said it was a “mad” policy that would “smash” the economy.
> 
> Environment minister Greg Hunt tweeted his old “$600bn carbon Bill” press release.
> 
> .*....However the government has its own, much more recent, modelling from leading economist Warwick McKibbin, which found that the difference in economic growth between the government’s target and Labor’s target would be far, far lower.
> *
> 
> ...It showed the government’s 26% target would shave between 0.2% and 0.4% from continued growth in Australian GDP in 2030, and based on similar assumptions, a 45% target would cut between 0.5% and 0.7% from continued economic growth. That means the difference in the economic cost of the Coalition’s 26% cut and Labor’s 45% cut is about 0.3% of GDP in 2030. The Coalition’s $600bn figure, comparing 45% with doing nothing and then adding up the cumulative costs, finds an extra GDP cost in 2030 of more than 2%.
> 
> In a way the “weird and misleading” modelling is a perfect microcosm of the weirdness of the Coalition’s climate rhetoric – pretending its own policies can do the job with almost no cost while wildly exaggerating the cost of alternatives.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ric-says-one-thing-its-modelling-says-another


----------



## basilio

And for another simple and very practical reason why countries like China will be moving ASAP out of coal and  



> *Beijing residents told to stay inside as smog levels soar*
> 
> Air pollution in the Chinese capital has reached more than 15 times the safe level as smog engulfs large parts of the country
> 
> 
> Saturday 28 November 2015 17.21 AEDT
> 
> 
> Beijing’s residents have been advised to stay indoors after air pollution in the Chinese capital reached hazardous levels.
> 
> The warning comes as the governments of more than 190 nations gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change.
> 
> China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, is suffering from serious air pollution, largely attributed to smog from coal-fired power plants.
> 
> The onset of winter and the need for more heating of homes means the problem has intensified in the capital, which has an estimated population of 20 million.
> *
> At noon on Saturday, the US embassy in Beijing reported the level of the poisonous, tiny articles of PM2.5 at 391 micrograms per cubic metre.
> 
> The World Health Organisation considers the safe level to be 25 micrograms per cubic metre of the particulates.
> *
> Since Friday, the city had been shroud in grey smog, reducing visibilities to a few hundred metres.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...dents-told-to-stay-inside-as-smog-levels-soar


----------



## trainspotter

basilio .. go and read post #6817 by Smurf1976. He sums it up the best 



> I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.


----------



## basilio

Thirty years ago I would have totally agreed that we needed "an orderly  gradual transition to renewable energy". It would have resulted in a relative minimum of stranded assets and not overstressed engineering capacities and so on.

But that boat has sailed. If we are talking about a crash program of  moving to renewable energy it is because the evidence of CO2 caused CC is now raising concern that we have left our run too late to prevent catastrophic results. And in that context the unintended side effects will have to be swallowed.


----------



## Logique

trainspotter said:


> basilio .. go and read post #6817 by Smurf1976. He sums it up the best



And Bjorn Lomborg agrees. 

Although a believer in AGW, he was still run out of the country by the academic establishment. Most of whom persist in their ridiculous, research grant-inducing scare campaigns.  There's an old fable about the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Lomborg's crime? To recommend a sensible and measured approach.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.
> 
> Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.
> 
> On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.
> 
> I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.
> 
> Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2




We are told we have potentially thousands of years of base load non polluting geothermal energy (http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/geothermal-energy-resources), and yet there seems to  be very little effort on the part of governments to determine whether this can be extracted in an economic manner, with the little efforts that are being conducted being left to private enterprise.

Surely this is one of those projects that should be driven by governments in the long term 'national interest' , and not just left to private enterprise who are traditionally scared by the risk/reward  equation and seem to demand billions in government guarantees before they commit any serious money.

Slavish submission to the free enterprise ideology is robbing this country of advancement, we wouldn't have had the Snowy Mountains scheme or Telstra if everything was left to the private sector.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Slavish submission to the free enterprise ideology is robbing this country of advancement, we wouldn't have had the Snowy Mountains scheme or Telstra if everything was left to the private sector.




No argument from me there, we've gone from world leaders in this stuff to "cut and paste" after someone else has done it. 

There's a long history in the energy industry of too much conservatism standing in the way of progress or at least trying to.

1914 - Australian government gave the Tasmanian state government a pretty stern warning that investing in power generation was unwise, since there was only one significant use of electricity (the zinc works) and if that went belly up then the state would be broke (noting that private enterprise had already run out of money trying to build the Waddamana hydro scheme). The state persisted and the rest is history - Waddamana was up and running in 1916, coal-fired power generation came to an end and hydro-electricity ended up being the single greatest driver of economic development in Tas during the 20th Century and still of relevance today. A century later and both the Hydro and the zinc works are still in business.

1918 - Victoria set up the SECV because imports of black coal had become unreliable and were crippling the Victorian economy. The SECV was given responsibility for extending electricity supply state wide and "applying the resources of the state" in doing so in order to end reliance on imported fuel. In short, the SEC promptly turned its attention to means of generating power, there being no point extending the network if they couldn't feed anything into it, and came up with brown coal and hydro. Within a decade later they had brown coal and hydro stations supplying two thirds of the load, had greatly extended the distribution system, and were also manufacturing briquettes as a partial replacement for black coal in industry and the other third of electricity supply. In due course the SEC ended up as the world leader in the use of brown coal, pioneering various things along the way.

1946 - Noting the success in other states and that South Australia was also being crippled by problems obtaining fuel imports which private enterprise refused to address, to the point if refusing to use local coal mined by the SA government despite the shortages, SA followed and set up ETSA. Some use of local resources commenced almost immediately, and in 1954 a major (at the time) power station based entirely on local resources commenced operation. By 1969, the use of black coal for SA's electricity and gas supplies had ceased entirely.  

1968 - the lights very nearly did go out in Tasmania that year, the system was under a huge degree of stress and rationing was enforced. But amid all that the Hydro got 3 new hydro stations, two gas turbine plants (oil-fired) and a generator ship up and running that year. Plus river diversions into an existing scheme. Plus the temporary pumps. Plus another two hydro stations in 1969 although by that point the rationing was over. It's amazing what you can get done, and how quickly you can do it, if there's a perception of urgency and everyone's on the same side. 

1970's - SECWA received international attention for the speed at which they shifted Western Australia's electricity production from oil to other fuels (mostly coal) amidst the 1970's oil crises. They'd done it before most others had even come up with a plan that still needed to be implemented. A key point is that they used the "anything that works" approach - they cut a few corners given the urgency and limited funds available, aimed for whatever could be done rather than insisting on 100%, and ended up with a much faster transition than just about anyone, anywhere.

So we've been down this track before. We've had crises in the supply of energy and we've dealt with them by applying engineering, project management and physical construction to the task and getting on with it.

What's holding us back now is that we've become obsessed with finance, risk aversion and a short term focus to the point of crippling any real progress. Nobody wants to do anything if it's not going to make a profit whilst they're still CEO or which carries even the slightest risk of going wrong and not being able to blame someone else.


----------



## trainspotter

The stooopid part about this is we are actually transitioning to eco friendly, tree hugging, planet saving, not Co2 polluting, solar passive generation of energy 



> In recent years, Esbjerg has adopted a new role and has developed into Europe’s leading port for shipping offshore wind turbines. The port has accounted for two thirds of the 3 GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind power so far installed in Europe. 65 percent of all Danish wind turbines have been shipped from Esbjerg, which has also been used to ship components to a number of offshore wind farms including the UK’s Lincs, Gunfleet Sands and London Array.




http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/wind-energy/an-ocean-of-wind-turbines/



> There are currently more than 2,262 solar companies at work throughout the value chain in California, employing 54,700 people.
> In 2014, California installed 4,316 MW of solar electric capacity, ranking it 1st nationally.
> The 11,535 MW of solar energy currently installed in California ranks the state first in the country in installed solar capacity.  There is enough solar energy installed in the state to power 2,891,000 homes.
> In 2014, $11.773 billion was invested on solar installations in California.  This represents a 66% increase over the previous year, and is expected to grow again this year.
> Average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system prices in California have fallen by 5% in the last year.  National Prices have also dropped steadily- by 6% from last year and 53% from 2010.




http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california



> The CEO of Chinese solar giant Yingli Green Energy has told analysts that China’s solar target of 100GW installed by 2020 could be viewed as a minimum, due to the number of factors currently driving demand in the developing country.
> 
> The comments were made in a conference call with analysts, after Yingli – now ranked as the world’s second-largest solar panel producer, behind compatriot Trina Solar – reported its 14th consecutive quarterly loss.
> 
> In response to a question from Roth Capital’s Philip Shen, Yingli chairman and CEO Liansheng Miao said that China’s continued demand for new energy capacity, its ongoing battle against air pollution and energy poverty, and its focus on economic development, meant the 100GW solar target set in Beijing’s last Five-Year Plan “could be treated as the bottom.”




http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/yingli-says-100gw-by-2020-china-solar-target-could-be-minimum-60522

So RESIST the urge to club a baby seal and be a prophet of doom that we are all going to fry by next Wednesday lunch time because the polar ice caps are going to melt and we are all going to drown. 

Call me pessimistic but this seems a bit over the top don't ya think? I mean let's give a country 16 billion $$$ to a country that has no way of paying it back legitimately so a few million people won't starve by 2050? Really ??



> The World Bank has devised a $16bn (£10.6bn) strategy designed to help Africa adapt to climate change and prevent millions of people from sliding into poverty.
> 
> By fast-tracking clean energy, efficient farming and urban protection, the measures promise to greatly increase renewable energy across the continent, bolster food production and lead to the planting of billions of trees. It is also hoped that the scheme will improve life in cities and reduce poverty, migration and conflict.
> 
> The continent of nearly 1 billion people, which emits just 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, will be affected more than anywhere else by even the smallest rise in global temperatures, said Jim Yong Kim, the bank’s president, who will launch the Africa climate business plan at the UN climate talks in Paris next week.




http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-bank-africa-climate-business-plan-16-billion

And that is where big business comes in and runs the show


----------



## basilio

> The stooopid part about this is we are actually transitioning to eco friendly, tree hugging, planet saving, not Co2 polluting, solar passive generation of energy    TS




Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")

My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.

I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society. 

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/ 

Maybe something like this ?


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")
> 
> My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.
> 
> I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.
> 
> http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/
> 
> Maybe something like this ?




Strange how they define "expensive". Oil took millions of years to form, and only form under the right circumstances. It could be use for a lot of things, it is use in just about everything in modern society - who know what else advances in science and technology in the future could make of it... yet most of what oil is use for right now is fuel, the other stuff are mainly secondary by products.

That kind of extravagance might be understandable when there are no other alternative and none are in any distant future. But given all the alternatives that are cleaner, are renewable... it's insane to keep doing what we've been doing because switching would cost too much.

Even that argument isn't accurate if we get down to the logic of it. New investments mean new jobs, new industries might be created out of that incentive and drive to alternative sources; not having people die early death due to smog and pollution might be priceless to some people... then the thought of saving a precious, finite resource millions of years in the making, saving that for later generations to see what they can do with it rather than just burn the thing.

But anyway... when the ocean warms a bit more the ice sheets in the Artic will thin up... freeing up all those hard to get to oil they've been dreaming about all these decades. So full steam ahead she'll go.


----------



## orr

Logique said:


> And Bjorn Lomborg agrees.




And so did a bloke called Stern of the much fabled Stern report into the economics of/and implications of AGW (that's human induced global warming)* released in 2006*....god  this has been a long row to hoe. 
 Peabody Energy Shares any one??? $1000.00 bucks in circa 2010 and about ten bucks now. Thats Hysterical!!! no wonder there's been a few contributors to this thread that have gone quite if they've  backed their _beliefs/faith_ with their money.
Well, ...Caltex at $35 i hear you say; and i say mmmm i do. good luck to holders.


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> Even that argument isn't accurate if we get down to the logic of it. New investments mean new jobs, new industries might be created out of that incentive and drive to alternative sources; not having people die early death due to smog and pollution might be priceless to some people... then the thought of saving a precious, finite resource millions of years in the making, saving that for later generations to see what they can do with it rather than just burn the thing.




This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.

Hydro, brown coal, wind, solar and geothermal all have something in common. They require lower human inputs overall than oil, most black coal, most natural gas and most biomass (there are exceptions but in the main it is true). So with the exception of brown coal, fossil fuels are most certainly more expensive than renewables.

It is modern accounting, which has only really been applied in this context for 20 - 25 years, that makes renewables (and low grade coal) more expensive than high grade fossil fuels. From a pure engineering perspective they're cheaper for sure. 

Which as with all these energy debates then leads back to an argument about capitalism versus socialism since it is the "return on investment" concept which separates what is cheap from what is expensive. Drop the rate of return and it swings the balance in favour of renewables and brown coal. Raise the rate of return and it swings first to black coal and then to gas and oil as the rate is increased.

If you want renewables to be cheaper then all you need to do is use pre-1990's accounting and industry structures to do the sums. As I said, that argument won't likely find too much support on a stock market forum though (and fair enough all things considered).


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.
> 
> Hydro, brown coal, wind, solar and geothermal all have something in common. They require lower human inputs overall than oil, most black coal, most natural gas and most biomass (there are exceptions but in the main it is true). So with the exception of brown coal, fossil fuels are most certainly more expensive than renewables.
> 
> It is modern accounting, which has only really been applied in this context for 20 - 25 years, that makes renewables (and low grade coal) more expensive than high grade fossil fuels. From a pure engineering perspective they're cheaper for sure.
> 
> Which as with all these energy debates then leads back to an argument about capitalism versus socialism since it is the "return on investment" concept which separates what is cheap from what is expensive. Drop the rate of return and it swings the balance in favour of renewables and brown coal. Raise the rate of return and it swings first to black coal and then to gas and oil as the rate is increased.
> 
> If you want renewables to be cheaper then all you need to do is use pre-1990's accounting and industry structures to do the sums. As I said, that argument won't likely find too much support on a stock market forum though (and fair enough all things considered).




Dam accountants! 

Could their argument also be that there's been too much sunk cost into the fossil business it's expensive to get out of it? Things like all the engines in all the planes, trains and automobiles; infrastructures to recharge and service etc.? 

But yea, can't argue with the accounting gimmicks. That and if we have a costs on the damages fossil fuel and its pollutants caused - clean air, water, farmland, healthcare costs etc. It's somewhat irrational to keep going down the road we're on.

I mean, pollution, loss of lives, loss of opportunities to challenge the world to seek alternatives that might end up with better byproducts than smogs... and we might avoid a catastrophe that awaits the grandkids.. and oh, if there are alternative and they are renewables, maybe less chance of war and the Muslims might turn out to not be so evil, haha... So that and the real costs of fossil if it's accounted for properly vs renewables. 

I guess if the roads and bridges are already built, might as well ride it til kingdom come.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.




Why so ?

Surely investors are after good deals, so why wouldn't people invest in inexhaustable clean energy rather that limited and polluting fossil fuels all things considered ?

Several large investors overseas are pulling out of fossil fuel investments and going to clean energy because they know where the future lies.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")
> 
> My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.
> 
> I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.
> 
> http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/
> 
> Maybe something like this ?




You Sir are a zealot of the highest order. There are many more programs in place such as the ones I have mentioned and how much difference has it made? Not a damn thing. Why do you think the World Bank wants to give 16 billion to Africa? Big business.

To say that 45% is heroically expensive is actually an understatement



> AUSTRALIA'S GDP is forecast to double to almost $3.5 trillion in the next 15 years, according to a league table of global economies.
> 
> The latest World Economic League Table, released by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, showed the nation's 2013 GDP of $1.66 trillion would jump to $3.48 trillion by 2028.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...trillion-in-2028/story-fni0dcne-1226790748711

3.48 trillion x 0.3% = (insert BIG number here)


----------



## Wysiwyg

Smurf1976 said:


> This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.




The infrastructure required for solar, wind and water energy production and energy storage to power up the whole country would be massive?


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> The infrastructure required for solar, wind and water energy production and energy storage to power up the whole country would be massive?




Yep,  create a lot of jobs. 

My Brother recently disconnected from the grid using solar,  wind and recycling water with a windmill which also drives a generator.   He can also recharge a battery on a bycycle frame in half an hour and excercise at the same time.   He does have a petrol driven generator but has only used it a couple of times during early teathing problems.

Very many others are doing it also.   Power companies took a couple from near Geelong to court a couple of years back for tge same thing.   The companies lost and again this couple no longer need to use the backup generator 

So you are talking rubbish.   We could change over in a flash with Government backing and force the industry players to assist or perish. 

But the indusries,  petrol etc hate the simplicity of our understanding and the taking away thier control of us.


----------



## chops_a_must

SirRumpole said:


> Why so ?
> 
> Surely investors are after good deals, so why wouldn't people invest in inexhaustable clean energy rather that limited and polluting fossil fuels all things considered ?
> 
> Several large investors overseas are pulling out of fossil fuel investments and going to clean energy because they know where the future lies.




Because the benefits don't necessarily accrue to the investors.

In other parts of the world they do, and there is a higher value placed on particulates and respiratory disorders and so on. In Australia, it barely gets a mention.

Ye olde socialism v capitalism debate...


----------



## pixel

explod said:


> Yep,  create a lot of jobs.
> 
> My Brother recently disconnected from the grid using solar,  wind and recycling water with a windmill which also drives a generator.   He can also recharge a battery on a bycycle frame in half an hour and excercise at the same time.   He does have a petrol driven generator but has only used it a couple of times during early teathing problems.



I intend to do the same, as soon as batteries become cost-competitive so I don't have to rely on Government subsidies. 


> But the indusries,  petrol etc hate the simplicity of our understanding and the taking away thier control of us.




Even more so, the Government hates people who get something useful tax-free. If the barstuds could find a way to tax citizens for sunshine and the air we breathe, they'd implement it on some twisted logic "for the greater good".


----------



## explod

pixel said:


> Even more so, the Government hates people who get something useful tax-free. If the barstuds could find a way to tax citizens for sunshine and the air we breathe, they'd implement it on some twisted logic "for the greater good".






And they will.  Taxation" on savers off the grid" is a fair cert IMV


----------



## Wysiwyg

explod said:


> So you are talking rubbish.   We could change over in a flash with Government backing and force the industry players to assist or perish.



Domestic power consumption is being transformed as you noted but the greater power consumption for medium to large industry and night time is something you have a solution for? No wind periods, no sun periods and night time is when energy storage becomes critical. Might need a few of your bro's mates to crank up their dynamo's for the neighborhood.


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> Domestic power consumption is being transformed as you noted but the greater power consumption for medium to large industry and night time is something you have a solution for? No wind periods, no sun periods and night time is when energy storage becomes critical. Might need a few of your bro's mates to crank up their dynamo's for the neighborhood.




Not at all.  Along the higways,  byways we see lights burn through the night.  The city buildings at all levels we see the lights burning for no one.  We do not need them.   In the night I use a torch sometimes but often not at all.  It lasts many months. 

Lights only help the night stalkers and crooks. In fact they use torches too.,  LOL.   SO  Get over it,  we can move on enormously with very very much less power.


----------



## explod

Just go to channel 24 now on the rising waters in Florida. 

It is wrong,  after starting out as a fireball 5 billion years ago the earth is supposed to be cooling. 

Time to start walking to work!!!!!


----------



## chops_a_must

Wysiwyg said:


> Domestic power consumption is being transformed as you noted but the greater power consumption for medium to large industry and night time is something you have a solution for? No wind periods, no sun periods and night time is when energy storage becomes critical. Might need a few of your bro's mates to crank up their dynamo's for the neighborhood.




Which is the attraction with tidal/ wave power. And it can be used for other things as well.


----------



## explod

chops_a_must said:


> Which is the attraction with tidal/ wave power. And it can be used for other things as well.





Yep,  but few tick good solutions and ideas.


----------



## Wysiwyg

It seems there would have to be a combination of energy production sources for continuity reasons. Tide intensity varies and at top/bottom is inactive for about half an hour. Wave motion is variable and long lulls occur. Sunlight varies intensity and duration. Of course wind is not gonna blow where and when it is needed. 
The ning nongs going crazy about global warming are still using all the stuff mankind creates with the manufacturing industries. I am sure the majority don't understand how much energy is consumed daily by non domestic demand


----------



## Tisme

Peace brother 



> Together, we made the People's Climate Marches extraordinary.
> 
> This weekend, over 130,000 of us took part in the biggest climate marches Australia has ever seen. We were loud. We were diverse. We were incredible. From powerful gatherings in regional towns to teaming crowds in our cities, we made our message unmissable. The Melbourne rally was the single biggest march in the entire world.
> 
> Thank you and congratulations to every person and organisation who participated or helped make them happen.
> 
> Check out our photo gallery of the best moments from the weekend, then share to get our message in front of as many people as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Together, we told our leaders that we're not asking for climate action any more, we're taking it. That no matter what agreements they reach at the Paris climate talks, with or without them, we're going to stand up for our planet.
> 
> As Malcolm Turnbull was touching down in Paris, there were literally tens of thousands of Australians marching through the streets. There is no clearer mandate you could have given.
> 
> And in case, somehow, our leaders missed the 2000 events that happened across the world, let's share our incredible images with them just to make sure.
> 
> Let's use this momentum to make 2016 the year we change everything. Can't wait to get started.
> 
> Sam R, Sam LR and Kajute, for the GetUp team.
> 
> PS - These marches only happened because we were part of a diverse, beautiful movement of over 330 organisations. Thank you to every single one of you, though you are too many to name individually.
> GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.
> 
> Our team acknowledges that we meet and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We wish to pay respect to their Elders - past, present and future - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.
> 
> Authorised by Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
> 
> https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/people-s-climate-march-2015/the-people-s-climate-march-2015?t=OO5pefZAw&utm_content=11079&utm_campaign=We%27re%20not%20asking%20for%20action%2C%20we%27re%20taking%20it.&utm_source=blast&utm_medium=email


----------



## Smurf1976

Wysiwyg said:


> It seems there would have to be a combination of energy production sources for continuity reasons. Tide intensity varies and at top/bottom is inactive for about half an hour. Wave motion is variable and long lulls occur. Sunlight varies intensity and duration. Of course wind is not gonna blow where and when it is needed.




Wind, rain, sun, waves are all intermittent. But then so is coal in the case of power stations that aren't right next door to a continuously operating coal mine. Train turns up with a load of coal and unloads. That's it, there's your intermittent coal delivery. You don't get another one for a while.

Coal can be easily stored and as such the intermittent deliveries aren't a problem. Same with hydro, oil and biomass. They're all stored quite easily. Gas is also able to be stored, though less common in practice, and gas-fired generation tends to be more prone to sudden shortfalls for that reason. WA, SA, NSW, ACT and Vic have all had major shortfalls in gas supply at some point over the past 20 years and it will almost certainly happen again at some point.

If we're going to use renewables as the major, or only, source of electricity then ultimately it comes down to having (1) diversity of production both in terms of the resource used and geographic dispersion and (2) storage that is capable of being dispatched when needed.

An intermittent supply source + geographic diversity + storage = a reliable supply source that's no less reliable than what we've got now. The constraints are economic and political more than technical. We have the technology now to go predominantly renewable, it's just that economics and politics stands in the way of building it.

Something to remember in all of this is that despite households being primarily powered by electricity, they directly use little oil and virtually no coal, they are in most areas still a minority of electricity consumption and an even smaller minority of total energy consumption. Households are not the issue, they are a sideline to the big loads in business. Households may well go off-grid but the _transmission _grid is here to stay. We might not need a distribution network in the suburbs at some point, although that assumes we segregate land along strict residential and commercial boundaries with minimal mixed uses, but we're still going to need the other 50 - 80% (depending on location) of the electricity supply that isn't used by households.

In the Australian context the extremes are SA with relatively little heavy industry (only about 20% of total load and far less at the peak) and very high use of cooling devices such that household consumption is a major driver of total electricity load in the state. At the other extreme, in Tasmania households are only about 20% of the average system load. That said, Tas households are still a major driver of system coincident maximum demand and of costs - that's a key point there, 20% of the load drives a very much bigger share of the total cost. Likewise it's fair to say that electricity is expensive in SA and always has been - the relative lack of industrial load and the dominance of residential load being a big factor in that.

If we want renewable energy then we could get most of the way there with wind, solar, hydro, pumped storage (as distinct from hydro as an energy source), biomass and interconnection with PNG. Any geothermal or tidal / wave would be a bonus but isn't essential. All of that technology is available right now, indeed in some cases the preliminary design work for actual projects is already done.


----------



## chops_a_must

Wysiwyg said:


> It seems there would have to be a combination of energy production sources for continuity reasons. Tide intensity varies and at top/bottom is inactive for about half an hour. Wave motion is variable and long lulls occur. Sunlight varies intensity and duration. Of course wind is not gonna blow where and when it is needed.
> The ning nongs going crazy about global warming are still using all the stuff mankind creates with the manufacturing industries. I am sure the majority don't understand how much energy is consumed daily by non domestic demand




And diesel power generation is reliable?

Maybe you should get out and about and live in a remote area and experience how variable "traditional" power generation technologies are.


----------



## Wysiwyg

chops_a_must said:


> And diesel power generation is reliable?
> 
> Maybe you should get out and about and live in a remote area and experience how variable "traditional" power generation technologies are.



WTF has diesel generators got to do with reliable renewable energy? If you are gonna reply to my posts stick to the subject and be considerate or don't reply at all.


----------



## chops_a_must

Wysiwyg said:


> WTF has diesel generators got to do with reliable renewable energy? If you are gonna reply to my posts stick to the subject and be considerate or don't reply at all.




Because that's an obvious example of where renewables will work. And will be more reliable than the existing fossil fuel power generation.

Some of the "ning nongs" don't know where a lot of these technologies are best deployed, first and foremost.


----------



## Wysiwyg

chops_a_must said:


> Because that's an obvious example of where renewables will work. And will be more reliable than the existing fossil fuel power generation.



That's good. Thank you.

With regard to living remote I lived in and helped maintain a remote tourist resort environment with diesel engine generated power, reverse osmosis desalination and anaerobic sewage treatment for four years. The gen. sets ran 24/7 with parallel and backup available. So I have been "out and about".


----------



## basilio

Well the (American) cavalary has come over the hill at Paris.

Led by Bill Gates,(Microsoft)  Richard Branson, (Virgin)  Mark Zuckerberg, (Facebook)  Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Co the Breakthrough Energy Coalition has hit teh ground running.



> The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, made up of more than 25 investors from 10 countries, launched in Paris on Monday as part of the UN talks where nations are thrashing out an agreement to finally confront the issue of runaway climate change.
> 
> The group will mainly invest in early-stage clean energy companies across a range of sectors, such as electricity generation and storage, transportation and agriculture. The initiative has been announced in conjunction with Mission Innovation – an effort from 21 governments, including the US, Britain, Australia, Germany, China and Brazil, to double the amount of public money going into clean energy innovation.
> 
> It’s expected this will bolster governmental assistance in renewables such as solar to wind energy to $20bn.




It *will* be interesting to see how this rescue effort pans out..

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ion-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-microsoft-amazon.


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Well the (American) cavalary has come over the hill at Paris.
> 
> Led by Bill Gates,(Microsoft)  Richard Branson, (Virgin)  Mark Zuckerberg, (Facebook)  Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Co the Breakthrough Energy Coalition has hit teh ground running.
> 
> 
> 
> It *will* be interesting to see how this rescue effort pans out..
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ion-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-microsoft-amazon.




Interesting indeed. I know a company that would benefit from these investments, own a bit of it too


----------



## wayneL

Runaway Global Warming? Where's it running?


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> Runaway Global Warming? Where's it running?




to this site:?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


----------



## dutchie

Wonder how many corrupt millionaires will be created by the billion(s) dollar climate change slush fund.

We will help create $1 billion worth of them.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> Wonder how many corrupt millionaires will be created by the billion(s) dollar climate change slush fund.
> 
> We will help create $1 billion worth of them.




I suspect it will be one of those cashless programs where the money actually goes into the pay pool of the permanent public servants and nothing gets out into the wider community = net effect of saving $800M of expenditure on overseas aid with climate as the excuse.

On thinking a little more and being as we have an LNP govt; Telstra will probably get some of the pie too. Very strange how Telstra have most favoured status with the Libs...I wonder why that is


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> to this site:?
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/




That tells the real story and it doesn't look good.

I wonder where the deniers get their info from ?

I heard the lovely Vanessa say this morning that Sydney just had its second warmest Spring in 150 years.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> That tells the real story and it doesn't look good.
> 
> I wonder where the deniers get their info from ?
> 
> I heard the lovely Vanessa say this morning that Sydney just had its second warmest Spring in 150 years.




This Spring didn't feel like Spring. I don't go out much but remember there's only a few nice spring days and the rest were either autumn cold or hot summer.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> That tells the real story and it doesn't look good.
> 
> I wonder where the deniers get their info from ?




Everybody gets their info from the same place(s). How the data is tortured depends on bias. 

For instance you are showing a strong bias in your post by uncritical acceptance of a graph, that the data is negative and by regurgitating the malodourous ad hominem taunt of "denier" for anyone that doesn't share your bias.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Everybody gets their info from the same place(s). How the data is tortured depends on bias.
> 
> For instance you are showing a strong bias in your post by uncritical acceptance of a graph, that the data is negative and by regurgitating the malodourous ad hominem taunt of "denier" for anyone that doesn't share your bias.




If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.




I'd trust an organisation that can put a vehicle on a shiny dot in the night sky over a bunch of recalcitrants who have done nothing except argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.




Try Google ... 



> Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science
> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-...
> The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to ..... They don't want to believe the models have been wrong.
> How Forbes got it wrong: real climate change data from NASA
> www.themanufacturer.com/.../how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-...
> Jun 2, 2015 - The article in Forbes titled 'Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat' based its entire argument around a single ...
> New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming ...
> www.forbes.com/.../new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming...
> Jul 27, 2011 - Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far ...
> Is NASA Wrong About Global Warming? Ex-Employees ...
> www.natureworldnews.com/.../nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-...
> Apr 16, 2013 - Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data  ...
> NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates ...
> wattsupwiththat.com/.../nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violat...
> Sep 26, 2012 - In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, ..... Every one knows the real data is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the models  ...
> Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but ...
> www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-...
> Jan 17, 2015 - Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. ... Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies,  ...
> Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global ...
> www.politifact.com/.../foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-...
> Jun 25, 2014 - Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming .... saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.
> NASA's Own Data Discredits Its Predictions of Antarctic Doom
> www.thenewamerican.com/.../20915-nasa-s-own-data-discredits-its-predi...
> May 20, 2015 - However, other NASA data released in May dispels this gloomy ... Fortunately, Gore has been wrong before and was wrong about this claim.
> This is climate skeptics' latest argument about melting polar ...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-w...
> May 27, 2015 - Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at ... is climate skeptics' top argument about Antarctica ”” and why it's wrong].


----------



## wayneL

Tisme said:


> I'd trust an organisation that can put a vehicle on a shiny dot in the night sky over a bunch of recalcitrants who have done nothing except argue for the sake of arguing.




So you are uncritically accepting of anything NASA says?


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> So you are uncritically accepting of anything NASA says?




In the absence of anything tangible to the contrary ...yes. 

I'd put my life in their hands to send me into orbit over some inbred English Lord with a rec'd accent. And I'm fairly sure environmental calcs are a big factor in determining rocket payloads, fuel, thrust, re entry,  etc whereas such things may not matter too much for a leather couch and smoking jacket.

And whether I like it or not the weather is changing, regardless of which one of you b45tards have been burning too much fuel and polluting the air.

Reminds me of a song from Gladys Night :




> Hey, you know, everybody's talkin' about the good old days, right
> Everybody, the good old days, the good old days
> Well, let's talk about the good old days
> Come to think of it as, as bad as we think they are
> these will become the good old days for our children, hum
> Why don't we, ah
> 
> Try to remember that kind of September, when
> When life was slow and oh, so mellow, hum
> Try to remember, and if you remember then follow
> 
> Oh, why does it seem the past is always better
> We look back and think
> The winters were warmer
> The grass was greener
> The skies were bluer
> And smiles were bright
> 
> Can it be that it was all so simple then
> Or has time rewritten every line
> And if we had the chance to do it all again
> Tell me
> Would we
> Could we
> 
> ....... etc


----------



## wayneL

I thought you smarter than to personify the moderate case with our favourite Lord.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> I thought you smarter than to personify the moderate case with our favourite Lord.




C'mon the loonytunes out there actually believe his tripe. 

I have to fall back to the real indicators that I have to deal with as part of my many disciplines and the truth is the weatherbin data I use for cooling calcs is higher in energy and the number of cooling degree days is increasing as has been for the last 4 decades I've been doin' it.

The sensible temperature that the pundits use is not a true picture, but enthalpy is and enthalpy is on the rise. And as with most heatsoak scenarios there are cliffs that occur as wetbulbs approach dry bulbs and a heat source is available. Once the temp ratchets up it will need an iceage to get enough hysteresis to ratchet it down again ... it's very easy to observe this via micro environments like office towers with building automation systems.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> So you are uncritically accepting of anything NASA says?




Ahh, with regard the findings that NASA puts out all are under peer scrutiny; Alas the internal machinations of Multi national oil companies studies  that have come to the same conclusions, precipitate disinformation campaigns that have deeply vexed the feeble scientific limitations of the hoi polloi... funnily enough their market. 

The peronal validation of Hansen must be particularly galling... but suffer in ways  we all must.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> The peronal validation of Hansen must be particularly galling... but suffer in ways  we all must.




Scratching my head at this one orr?

I still don't see any concrete evidence of the worst case scenario that activists like Hansen promote. The moderate case is still the strongest going on current real world data.


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Ahh, with regard the findings that NASA puts out all are under peer scrutiny; Alas the internal machinations of Multi national oil companies studies  that have come to the same conclusions, precipitate disinformation campaigns that have deeply vexed the feeble scientific limitations of the hoi polloi... funnily enough their market.
> 
> The peronal validation of Hansen must be particularly galling... but suffer in ways  we all must.




Just click on the link and it will be alright ...

http://sebpearce.com/bull****/ Bahahhahaaa the swearing filter has ruined my gag !!


----------



## basilio

Always something  new to learn about ow a country can move quickly and cheaply to renewable energy - if they want to.


> * Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy*
> 
> In less than 10 years the country has slashed its carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs, without government subsidies. Delegates at the Paris summit can learn much from its success
> 
> Renewables now provide 94.5% of Uruguay’s electricity. Photograph: Mariana Greif Etchebehere/Bloomberg/Getty Images
> 
> 
> As the world gathers in Paris for the daunting task of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, one small country on the other side of the Atlantic is making that transition look childishly simple and affordable.
> 
> In less than 10 years, Uruguay has slashed its carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs, according to the national director of energy, RamÃ³n MÃ©ndez .
> 
> In fact, he says that now that renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts.
> 
> It was a very different story just 15 years ago. Back at the turn of the century oil accounted for 27% of Uruguay’s imports and a new pipeline was just about to begin supplying gas from Argentina.
> 
> .....There are no technological miracles involved, nuclear power is entirely absent from the mix, and no new hydroelectric power has been added for more than two decades. *Instead, he says, the key to success is rather dull but encouragingly replicable: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector.*
> 
> As a result, energy investment – mostly for renewables, but also liquid gas – in Uruguay over the past five years has surged to $7bn, or 15% of the country’s annual GDP. That is five times the average in Latin America and three times the global share recommended by climate economist Nicholas Stern.
> 
> “What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business,” MÃ©ndez says. “The construction and maintenance costs are low, so as long as you give investors a secure environment, it is a very attractive.”
> 
> ...MÃ©ndez attributed Uruguay’s success to three key factors: credibility (a stable democracy that has never defaulted on its debts so it is attractive for long-term investments); helpful natural conditions (good wind, decent solar radiation and lots of biomass from agriculture); and strong public companies (which are a reliable partner for private firms and can work with the state to create an attractive operating environment).
> 
> ....But, perhaps, the biggest lesson that Uruguay can provide to the delegates in Paris is the importance of strong decision-making. As has been the case at countless UN climate conferences, Uruguay was once paralysed by a seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.
> 
> *All that changed when the government finally agreed on a long-term plan that drew cross-party support.*
> 
> “We had to go through a crisis to reach this point. We spent 15 years in a bad place,” MÃ©ndez said. “*But in 2008, we launched a long-term energy policy that covered everything … Finally we had clarity.”*
> 
> That new direction made possible the rapid transition that is now reaping rewards.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...akes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy


----------



## Smurf1976

If you look at places with a substantial grid (excluding remote towns, islands etc) and which have achieved a high % of renewable energy in the grid then they are pretty much all the same.

They started out with a core of large scale hydro, usually mostly quite old, and some smallish fossil fuel plants. Then they add wind and whatever they can get from thermal sources such as biomass or geothermal. That then leaves a relatively small reliance on fossil fuels. Sometimes, not always, they are interconnected to somewhere else with whatever power sources they have.

New Zealand, Tasmania, Uraguay, Iceland and others are all quite similar there and a key point is that it's the firm, dispatchable hydro that allows the overall renewable share to reach very high levels.

It would be very much harder without the core hydro production since without that you need some other means of storage if you want a high % of renewables in the grid (well, unless you can get most of that renewable energy from biomass or geothermal, but that's not the reality in most places).

From an engineering perspective, a system based heavily on hydro is typically energy constrained rater than capacity constrained. As such, adding energy from any source adds to system capability. That is, of course, the opposite of a fossil or nuclear system which is normally capacity constrained but not energy constrained. Add intermittent renewables and, unless you can be sure that they will work when demand peaks, that does not add to system capability although it does save on fuel up to a limit.


----------



## trainspotter

https://youtu.be/1Tko1G6XRiQ

ATOMIC ....



> As delegates at a Paris summit haggle over how to curb global warming, the role of nuclear energy in limiting climate-changing emissions is the subject of fierce debate between champions and critics of atomic power.
> Energy production accounts for 35 percent of the greenhouse-gas emissions that fuel global warming, with 25 percent coming from electricity generation alone.
> Unlike polluting coal, oil and gas-fired power plants, *nuclear facilities do not generate emissions by producing electricity.*


----------



## basilio

I can see your point Smurf regarding the use of hyro power as a firm base for moving to renewables. It does make it easier.

However the main point of the story was showing that in fact moving quickly to a renewable energy based economy can be done far more quickly  and more economically than the current alarmists suggest.  The process of a united political approach, a competent public/private partnership and the best mix of  technologies (suited to the local situation) seems to be the key.

It is doable. 

___________________________________________

With regard to nuclear energy as a key part of a carbon  free economy.

There are a number of environmentalists/climate scientists who also propose this route. George Monbiot and James Hansen are two notable figures.

I have seen ongoing hype about the role that Thorium reactors can play in such a future. Appears to be simple, safe and cost effective. I just wonder what it takes to prove it's effectiveness and safety ?



> * Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
> *
> To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
> Radioactive material at the Opal nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.
> 
> 
> James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley
> 
> Friday 4 December 2015 00.00 AEDT
> Last modified on Friday 4 December 2015 03.59 AEDT
> Comments
> 414
> Save for later
> 
> 
> All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.
> 
> We have become so concerned about humanity’s slow response to this challenge that we have decided we must clearly set out what we see as the only viable path forward. As scientists we do not take advocacy positions lightly, but we believe the magnitude of climate change now presents an unprecedented moral challenge that compels us to speak out.
> 
> To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.
> 
> Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...he-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> However the main point of the story was showing that in fact moving quickly to a renewable energy based economy can be done far more quickly  and more economically than the current alarmists suggest.  The process of a *united political approach*, a competent public/private partnership and the best mix of  technologies (suited to the local situation) seems to be the key.








And you seriously think that is going to happen in Australia??

I can't stop laughing at the *COMPETENT* public/private partnership gag


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 65214
> 
> 
> And you seriously think that is going to happen in Australia??
> 
> I can't stop laughing at the *COMPETENT* public/private partnership gag




Somewhere over the rainbow I thought I heard someone calling for optimism regard effective action on environment/CC issues.  That couldn't have been you could it TS ??

Do I think we could have a united cross party approach to a moving to a renewable energy base for Australia? Well so far we have the Greens 100%, Labour maybe 75%, Malcom Turnball around 75% and the rest of the Liberal party at 35%.  

My thoughts are that if I was Malcolm Turnball , the Greens and the Labour party at Paris I would be taking a long hard look at the Uruguay story and thinking about taking a cross party statesman like approach to the situation. Particularly when the financial figures look good and there is a working model that can be reviewed and plagiarised.

*And as an Australian citizen I would be demanding that my party stepped up to the plate on this issue. 
*
And what sort of joke is it to disparage the private sector as being incapable of not coming to the party of generating large scale replicated projects that make a dollar without being total gougers of the public purse ? (that will be a challenge but perhaps we need to set up competitive  public utilities to make sure private operators do the right thing...)

Obviously we already have the Clean Energy Bank with the experience in helping set up renewable energy projects don't we ? And they have made a profit into the bargain.  No problem there TS..


----------



## wayneL

Point of order basilio. The moonbat is a writer with a degree in zoology, not a climate scientist... And I'm still gobsmacked at how Hansen has avoided being committed.

Carry on.


----------



## SirRumpole

> (that will be a challenge but perhaps we need to set up competitive public utilities to make sure private operators do the right thing...)




Oh yes, like Medibank Private was suppose to moderate the demands of the private health funds, and where is it now ?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Oh yes, like Medibank Private was suppose to moderate the demands of the private health funds, and where is it now ?




Horace gets it 

basilio ... look there goes a painted unicorn ..... I am just impressed as to how moderate you have become. Logical almost in this symposium to the point of being succinct. Crack on then shall we !

Still laughing at the COMPETENT public/private partnership jibe. Te he !!

Bottom line is let's see who comes out on top of the brinkmanship in gay Paris before we get carried away with ourselves in Australia. 25 million people in a whole country called Australia is a close comparison to one city in China called Shanghai (give or take a few million people +) Calcutta and Bombay combined have more people living in them then Australia and you want to beat your chest about DEMANDING that your party steps up to the plate on this issue? Bahahahhahhaaaaaaaaa 

This is like going to a global gunfight with a didgeridoo.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Point of order basilio. The moonbat is a writer with a degree in zoology, not a climate scientist... And I'm still gobsmacked at how Hansen has avoided being committed.
> 
> Carry on.




And in reply I seriously wonder how a person who has described one of the leading climate scientists as a deranged sociopath is still walking the streets. And keep the gratuitous insults to   George Monbiot to yourself or expect an appropriate response

Carry on ....:bad:


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And in reply I seriously wonder how a person who has described one of the leading climate scientists as a deranged sociopath is still walking the streets. And keep the gratuitous insults to   George Monbiot to yourself or expect an appropriate response
> 
> Carry on ....:bad:




Re Hansen https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

Re Moonbat. I realize I have insulted your poster boy, your butthurt is palpable, but really all he does is regurgitate the most extreme of alarmist propaganda.

I also realize your lot fantasizes about the arrest and execution of critical thinkers who have arrived at the moderate case, but that ain't happening without a fight.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Re Moonbat.




Luv ya name call'n.... is there a latin phrase for that? 

How does the school yard jibe go?
'Sticks'n stones may break my bones But whips and chains excite me'????

Gobsmacking is we only have to go back a couple of weeks in this thread to a post by  a 'waynel' that still questions CO2 as a causation of Global Warming; from #6715 

_That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments._

Just quietly between you and me before you cause yourself any further embarrassment, there is no argument about causation. Except  of corse in 'certain circles'.


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmmmm yeah ... "luna bat"

Read ,,, understand ,,, digest ,,, comprehend ,,, process ,,, cognitive ,,, response ... in that order


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile back in the real world  ...


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Luv ya name call'n.... is there a latin phrase for that?
> 
> How does the school yard jibe go?
> 'Sticks'n stones may break my bones But whips and chains excite me'????
> 
> Gobsmacking is we only have to go back a couple of weeks in this thread to a post by  a 'waynel' that still questions CO2 as a causation of Global Warming; from #6715
> 
> _That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?
> 
> The argument here is:
> 
> a/Causation
> 
> b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments._
> 
> Just quietly between you and me before you cause yourself any further embarrassment, there is no argument about causation. Except  of corse in 'certain circles'.




Does bug eyed inbred Lord ring any bells for you, orr has your bias blinded you to the monumental hypocrisy of the alarmist group?

I see no reason to be embarrassed about being open to causation. For the record (and I am on the record) I do believe anthropogenic emissions are responsible for some degree of change, I also believe there are other anthropogenic factors, land use etc. There are also, unquestionably, natural factors.

So yes orr, there is still discussion on causation "except" in certain circles.


----------



## AntN

Climate change denier looking for conspiracies.
lol


----------



## trainspotter

AntN said:


> Climate change denier looking for conspiracies.
> lol




Moderate Jean Luc Picard meme for the sleepy koalas dipped in molasses


----------



## trainspotter

Julie bishop taking it seriously ...



> Today I will travel to Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
> 
> I will lead Australia’s delegation and will work with my ministerial counterparts to deliver a strong and effective global climate change agreement.
> 
> Our priority is to deliver an agreement where all countries set and regularly review emission reduction targets. The agreement should also ensure countries accurately report on their emissions and progress towards targets.
> 
> At the conference I will outline Australia’s commitment to climate action at home and in our region, including our responsible and achievable target to reduce emissions by 26–28 per cent by 2030.
> 
> I will also highlight measures Australia is taking to support the uptake of new technologies and to improve energy efficiency, and our support for developing countries, particularly in the Pacific, to build resilience to climate-related events.
> 
> I will address the opening of the COP21 High-Level Segment, the High-Level Assembly of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and a Carbon Market Institute event.
> 
> These events will highlight the world-leading efforts of the Australian Government and businesses to reduce emissions and deliver new and improved technologies.




http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2015/jb_mr_151205.aspx

The rest of the country ... NOT !


----------



## basilio

How does one respond to the total self delusion of climate change deniers when they rabbit on about "Models not being data".  I suppose the the figure people with their heads up their xrses is the most eloquent.

Lets look at the reality of CC in the UK. There are currently ginormous floods up and down the country. Thousands of homes flooded, roads and bridges swept away etc, etc.

And is this "unusual" ?  A "Once in a  Century"  event as the deniers would have us believe ? 

Rubbish. Try every second year in the UK since 2005.

The Guardian is pulling the pieces together and the big picture is exactly what climate scientists told us 30 years ago. More intense weather events, rising sea levels, and the evolving picture of a world that is radically different from our recent experience.



> * The Guardian view on Britain’s floods: the reality of climate change*
> Editorial
> If the government is serious about infrastructure, then flood defences should be a greater priority than HS2 or another airport runway
> 
> 
> Tuesday 8 December 2015 06.56 AEDT
> Last modified on Tuesday 8 December 2015 07.12 AEDT
> 
> 
> Winter freeze-ups and phew-what-a-scorcher summers may traditionally have made more dramatic headlines for newspapers, but in Britain the real threat from climate change today comes from flooding. The rains that hit north-west England and southern Scotland over the weekend were certainly exceptional. A record 341.4mm of rain fell at Honister in the Lake District. And the storms had devastating consequences. One man has died, 3,500 homes have been flooded, more than 2,000 of them in Carlisle, while road, rail and power links have all been cut. Yet this year’s floods were hardly unusual.
> 
> *The floods of December 2015 follow, among many others, floods in 2014 in Somerset and the Thames valley, floods in north Yorkshire and Tyneside in 2012, floods in West Cumberland in 2009, floods in the Severn Valley in 2007 and floods in Carlisle in 2005. This is getting to be almost an annual event. *Those who are at the sharp end are entitled to be angry. It is high time we learned the lessons better and got the measure of the problems more thoroughly.
> 
> *The first thing we need to learn is to stop talking about once-in-a-century risks. Many of the worst affected areas in the current floods are places that have already been through bad floods in the past few years. *Several had been equipped with sturdier and more comprehensive flood defences, which have held up against recent but lesser flood threats, as David Cameron was right to point out when he visited Carlisle on Monday.
> 
> *Yet when the rains came this time those defences were overwhelmed. Cockermouth, on the edge of the Lake District, was inundated in 2009 when eight-foot-deep floods coursed through the town centre. Since then, a £4.4m system of flood barriers has been installed to protect the town from its two rivers. But still the floods came back to Cockermouth at the weekend. For some people in the town, this was the fourth flood in a decade. Things can’t go on like this.*
> 
> When a house is flooded, the consequences are awful: physical dangers, damaged homes, written-off possessions and insurance claims are just the start of it. That these things should happen at a celebratory time of year – as is the case with many recent floods – is particularly miserable. But the effects endure beyond midwinter, sometimes for years, in the shape of the long clean-up, living in temporary accommodation, delayed insurance claims, increased premiums for householders and businesses, and in the exhaustion and trauma. Those who have experienced one flood will often live in fear of another whenever the heavy rains come. They should not have to do so.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...britains-floods-the-reality-of-climate-change


----------



## wayneL

Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

Let's just say that UKPravda is being very selective.

And by the way, your continued use if the word "denier" to tag moderates and observers of data, tells me everything I need to know about you:

Advocacy>science
Obfuscation>enlightenment
Belief >fact


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> How does one respond to the total self delusion of climate change deniers when they rabbit on about "Models not being data".  I suppose the the figure people with their heads up their xrses is the most eloquent.
> 
> Lets look at the reality of CC in the UK. There are currently ginormous floods up and down the country. Thousands of homes flooded, roads and bridges swept away etc, etc.
> 
> And is this "unusual" ?  A "Once in a  Century"  event as the deniers would have us believe ?
> 
> Rubbish. Try every second year in the UK since 2005.
> 
> The Guardian is pulling the pieces together and the big picture is exactly what climate scientists told us 30 years ago. More intense weather events, rising sea levels, and the evolving picture of a world that is radically different from our recent experience.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...britains-floods-the-reality-of-climate-change




Don't be worrying about Ol' Mother England matey boy. Have a look in your own backyard ... Like Brisbane for example.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/qld-floods/

Models are not data basilio ... comprende amigo?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.
> 
> t




A good run down on those figures would not raise your fading horn of the wilderness much but may help. 

Have been following the banter here with interest. Scientist on all sides are inconsistent and often wrong in world change that we have NOT seen on such a scale before. 

The reasons for effects that would appear to nullify the rapid changes are either being ignored or overlooked. 

The slight warming at the poles is shifting cooler conditions outwards.   As well it is causing more cloud and thereby further increasing cooler conditions away from the poles. The sceptics jump on this.   In the winters therefore we have increased snow and ice falls which of course shows up on the satellite photos to indicate all is well.  "gee look how big the ice sheet in Antarctica is this year!!!"  But as summer comes it dissipates faster each season and in fact new shipping lanes are opening up across the arctic as never before. 

I could go on much further in regard to the loss of permafrost ice,  escaping methane and very visible receeding glaciers but the sides to the debate have shifted to the global warming reality and problems. 

The hysteria so called is the fading horn. 

I note Ikea and Aldi are preparing to have solar panels installed atop all of thier buildings.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.
> 
> Let's just say that UKPravda is being very selective.
> 
> And by the way, your continued use if the word "denier" to tag moderates and observers of data, tells me everything I need to know about you:
> 
> Advocacy>science
> Obfuscation>enlightenment
> Belief >fact





Really Wayne ? You have some fantastic data which somehow moderates/explains/ justifies away the last 10 years of extreme weather events in UK ? Makes all them all seem like part of a normal process that shouldn't be considered a cause for concern perhaps evidence of significant changes in climactic conditions? Completely destroys any suggestion that serious CC events are unfolding ?

Really interesting...Just confirms to me that your "observation of data" is so ridiculous it has no credibility. It can't be believed. It's just BS.

In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth. 

They are up the Nile.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth.




And so sayath the Lord ... Amen ! There's that HYSTERIA rising again


----------



## basilio

TS what an interesting way to present the figures for the changes in temperature over the past 120 years. 

Yep when you make the Y axis nice and big you can minimise the apparent changes in temperatures. In fact the really special people in this field ( the really crazy deniers)  start at 100 below and finish at 100 above.  At that scale, man, you can't see any change at all !!

The trouble is that in the real world, that 1 degree of increase in temperature is very significant.  It is outside the range of most of the last 10,000 years and has resulted in marked changes to habitats, local geography and local climates.

And it is still  increasing at a rate unprecedented for thousands of years.





Now the problem is that data like this that shows what has happened to the worlds temperature and is  accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tells the wrong story for those who want another version of reality.

So we then get creations along the lines of the following graphs



and




Interesting isn't it ?  Just how did the 98% of the world's climate scientists make such obvious mistakes ?
Or perhaps the people producing these graphs wern't quite telling the truth.

If anyone is interesting in discovering how the second graph was constructed and why it is so wrong check out the following url



> https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
> Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
> Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)


----------



## trainspotter

basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA 



> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities.






> A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of *carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.*
> The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to *justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.*
> The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.
> Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of *natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.*
> The governments which fund the IPCC have tabled 1,800 questions in relation to the report.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

My favourite part ....



> However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.
> “It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who *credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel.*"




There I feel better now


----------



## basilio

Hmmnn TS .  A two year article from The Telegraph as a contribution to partially questioning the accuracy of the IPCC reports.  Truth be told their overall history on reportage of this topic is somewhere between The Herald Sun and The Australian ie complete BS and plausible rubbish.

But to be fair I wouldn't put that story into that category. 

What still surprises me about your contributions is the way you somehow throw up graphs and information that are either misleading or completely wrong. Why use that such clearly deceptive information unless you are trying to minimise what is happening as a result of CC ?


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
> 
> My favourite part ....
> 
> 
> 
> There I feel better now




Don't put too much faith in the IPCC,  figures often averaged down to comply with thier political support/survival.  

As well the figures are based on those up to and prior to thier reporting period.   So most often the are six years old.   A lot may have (and has dramatically from myview) changed in tgat time. 

Have quoted this with references over the years here.   Main one from the book "climate wars"  forgot the auther and have loaned the text


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Hmmnn TS .  A two year article from The Telegraph as a contribution to partially questioning the accuracy of the IPCC reports.  Truth be told their overall history on reportage of this topic is somewhere between The Herald Sun and The Australian ie complete BS and plausible rubbish.
> 
> But to be fair I wouldn't put that story into that category.
> 
> What still surprises me about your contributions is the way you somehow throw up graphs and information that are either misleading or completely wrong. Why use that such clearly deceptive information unless you are trying to minimise what is happening as a result of CC ?




But but but you can quote the Guardian as gospel because it fits your agenda 

So the IPCC was NOT wrong and they DID NOT claim in the IPCC AR4 predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 ? 

Oppenheimer, Hansen, Holdren, Gore, Maslowski, Viner all making predictions about CC and ALL of them WRONG 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Page 4 says it all for mine ....



> Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, *regardless of its cause*.
> 
> That’s right. *Regardless of its cause.* Working Group 2 isn’t claiming that these observed impacts are necessarily a result of human activities. They could equally well be the result of natural climate change – *the IPCC makes no distinction.*




As has been pointed out repeatedly there is no doubt that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend ...



> There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.




https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.


----------



## basilio

> What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.



  TS

Is that the core of your argument TS. ? As I understand it you are saying that this changing of climate has been going on for millions of years. You are also saying that humanity has had an effect on the change in climate . ( I presume by that you mean increasing the CO2levels, widespread removal of tree cover perhaps other influences.

And finally you are saying that attributing it* all *to man and CO2 alone is just not true.

I can agree with all those statements. The climate has been changing for millions of years. Obviously humanity had no part of those changes for almost all of that period. Intense research by climate scientists has identified the different climates we have experienced and started to understand the many different elements that have affected our earth's environment.

The argument by climate scientists is that humanity's effort at rapidly increasing Greenhouse Gases is having a large and rapidly increasing effect on our climate. The evidence for that statement is the sharp increase in global temperatures in the past 130 years (and particularly the last 45 years) as well as the understandings of how much extra energy GG gases will trap in the atmosphere. In fact scientists are saying that our impact on climate has become the dominant driver. (But not the only factor.)

As for the future ? All depends doesn't it .


----------



## dutchie

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty of climate change

UN Climate Conference 2015: Climate change funding stalls talks


http://www.afr.com/news/policy/clim...e-change-funding-stalls-talks-20151208-glitwz 



SHOW ME THE MONEY!


----------



## SirRumpole

Excellent presentation by Waleed Aly on The Project

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...in-the-bud-20151210-gljuj1.html#ixzz3trIHqqfZ


----------



## basilio

Thanks for the heads up Sir Rumpole. Excellent analysis by Waleed Ali.

Thought he properly skewered Andrew Bolt and every other denier who cherry picks data and ignores all other  evidence they don't want to see.


> A clip from Bolt's program showed the News Corp columnist flashing a graphic he uses frequently on screen to demonstrate there had been "no warming of the earth's atmosphere for around 18 years now".
> 
> "Let me nip this in the bud, Andrew Bolt, before you launch into your whole 'but it has stopped warming' line that you've been running for the last few years," Aly said.
> 
> "This is Carl Mears, the guy whose graph you keep using. We tracked him down, he has a message for you."
> A clip from Bolt's program showed the News Corp columnist flashing a graphic he uses frequently on screen to demonstrate there had been "no warming of the earth's atmosphere for around 18 years now".
> 
> The show then played a clip of Mears, a climate scientist and the vice president for research at Remote Sensing Systems, who contradicted Bolt's position and said the globe had indeed warmed in the preceding decades.
> 
> *"It's pretty clear that the globe has warmed over the last 18 years," said Mears. "When you do real science you can't just use the data sets that fit your pre-drawn conclusions, but you really need to look at all the data together."*


----------



## basilio

Anyone interested in a short (7 min) video that does an excellent job of analysing the ways in which future global warming can be ratcheted down with changes post Paris?

Very good graphics . Quite clear


----------



## basilio

For a more complex analysis of just how we might limit global warming to 2C check the following article



> *The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget
> Posted on 9 December 2015 by Andy Skuce*
> 
> In the first part of this series, I examined the implications of relying on CCS and BECCS to get us to the two degree target. In the second part, I took a detailed look at Kevin Anderson's arguments that IPCC mitigation scenarios aimed at two degrees are biased towards unproven negative-emissions technologies and that they consequently downplay the revolutionary changes to our energy systems and economy that we must make very soon. In this last part, I'm going to look at the challenges that the world faces in fairly allocating future emissions from our remaining carbon budget and raising the money needed for climate adaptation funds, taking account of the very unequal past and present.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/TRTTDEquity.html

Should be a breeze....


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Excellent presentation by Waleed Aly on The Project
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...in-the-bud-20151210-gljuj1.html#ixzz3trIHqqfZ



Waleed is fighting out of his division. _The Project_ might as well be on the ABC for all the balance it provides. It's relentlessly_ luvvie_.



> *Waleed Aly should apologise for his warmist rant* - 11 Dec 2015
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...for_misleading_viewers_with_his_warming_rant/
> 
> Waleed Aly and co-writer Tom Whitty have misled or deceived viewers about global warming and should apologise.
> 
> On Thursday Aly read out on The Project another sermon of the kind that has got him so many clicks on YouTube - strong on passion and weak on facts. It says something about the appalling state of modern journalism that many reporters of the Left applauded his rant and not one, as far as I can tell, called him out for misleading his viewers. Nor will The Project present the other side of the argument.....


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Waleed is fighting out of his division. _The Project_ might as well be on the ABC for all the balance it provides. It's relentlessly_ luvvie_.




I'd believe Waleed over Bolt (who wrote that article) anyday.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> Waleed is fighting out of his division. _The Project_ might as well be on the ABC for all the balance it provides. It's relentlessly_ luvvie_.




Bolt: "the appalling state of modern journalism "

Perhaps Andrew could reveal to us all how his supposed journalism is less appalling than appaling compared to his predecessors and peers?


----------



## basilio

Well what a surprise!!   Andrew Bolt being outraged at Waleed calling him out over the lying poisonous dribble he calls journalism.

The fact is that Andrew has built a career on distortion, selective reporting and ignoring any evidence that doesn't suit his final answer. There is no way he going to acknowledge that just because he only uses one atmospheric temperature graph from a score of other land, sea based studies means he is cherry picking data.  You see the* only *data he ever uses is  very carefully  picked.  Otherwise he can't provide the fig leaf of credibility he claims for his rubbish.

Carl Mears like every other real scientist in the field made it clear. 

*



			When you do real science you can't just use the data sets that fit your pre-drawn conclusions, but you really need to look at all the data together."
		
Click to expand...


*
It is totally identical to a person with all the symptoms of cancer going from doctor to doctor and taking more and more tests to find a result that doesn't show he is very ill and trumpeting that as the answer. Just delusional.


And you wonder why is called a denier. Any other  observation would be pure charity


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I'd believe Waleed over Bolt (who wrote that article) anyday.




That's because both you and Aly are leftists, confirmation bias. The fact is that Aly and Bolt are you're sides of the same coin.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, Mears of course is absolutely correct. More's the pity that so many scientists don't do as he suggests. ;(


----------



## noco

11c in Hobart today at 3 pm for the cricket test........Must be Global Warming taking affect.....The silence from the Alarmists is deafening.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> 11c in Hobart today at 3 pm for the cricket test........Must be Global Warming taking affect.....The silence from the Alarmists is deafening.




Snow on the mountain this morning but has melted now and the weather is going to warm up somewhat tomorrow with 21 degrees forecast.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> confirmation bias





And of course that never applies to your side of the debate ?

What do you think Bolt has being doing looking at one graph only ?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> 11c in Hobart today at 3 pm for the cricket test........Must be Global Warming taking affect.....The silence from the Alarmists is deafening.




Confirmation of global warming.  Heat at the poles pushing increased cloud and cold air towards the equator.


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> Confirmation of global warming.  Heat at the poles pushing increased cloud and cold air towards the equator.




Oh dear , now I have heard it all 

Anyways enjoyed my day of snow today , just like a Winter Wonderland.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> And of course that never applies to your side of the debate ?
> 
> What do you think Bolt has being doing looking at one graph only ?




Why do you think I equated Aly to Bolt, Horace?

You may have noticed I don't quote, or explicitly, or implicitly support Bolt.

Ummm, so what was that about bias?


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Why do you think I equated Aly to Bolt, Horace?




And you did so wrongly. Aly rightly pointed out Bolt's errors and there is definitely no likeness between them in terms of bias in this debate.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Confirmation of global warming.  Heat at the poles pushing increased cloud and cold air towards the equator.





OMG......when did you have that dream...was it a wet or a dry dream?

You have a wonderful imagination explod.......Time to join the majority of skeptics.


----------



## Knobby22

Paris climate deal: Historic climate change agreement reached at COP21

Excellent result.

Abbotts plan to scuttle this with the Canadian Prime minister failed with both of them being removed by the public.
Yesterdays men.

Also, we are allowed to build windmills again.


----------



## dutchie

The trillion pound bill: That's what this respected expert says the climate summit may cost the world each year. And yet, he argues, it will hardly change a thing  

By Bjorn Lomborg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...argues-hardly-change-thing.html#ixzz3uAOJ0Hth
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Article by Lomborg so no doubt will be ridiculed but *food* for thought...


----------



## Knobby22

Yep, the guy Tony Abbott wanted!
And respected??? by Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mail???

His argument is spurious. We should have given the money to the poor. As Paul Keating said, "I always back the horse called self interest". it is in the interests of the major world economies that we don't get 4 degree global warming, hence the action.

But even Bjorn states that this will spur green energy technology research that will lead to improvements in these technologies.

And as per usual, he is paid by oil companies etc. to be a contrarian.
the old story -*follow the money*.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center

And he is so wrong with what he says and uses *dog whistle language* like Climate Hysteria. I hope he can still sleep at night after betraying his scientific principles for cold hard cash.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/


----------



## explod

noco said:


> OMG......when did you have that dream...was it a wet or a dry dream?
> 
> You have a wonderful imagination explod.......Time to join the majority of skeptics.




You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves.   Read what I said over carefully again,  nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. . 

When the kettle is on the steam (moisture)  rises.  Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps. 

Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco. 

Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity.   Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> Y
> 
> *dog whistle language* like Climate Hysteria.
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/





Language is every thing;  it's no small coincidence that of the half a dozen or so threads related to this topic(AGW) in this forum that the polemist trope titling this thread is the one that attracted the most attention of , to use Stalins affirmation, 'the useful idiots'  ....
But of corse I may be wrong and those that give credence to the goggle eyed inbred hereditary peer  conspiracist ..."the UN  turfed out Abbott" 
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/u...hristopher-monckton-says-20151207-glhtco.html

maybe right...


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves.   Read what I said over carefully again,  nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. .
> 
> When the kettle is on the steam (moisture)  rises.  Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps.
> 
> Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco.
> 
> Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity.   Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.




So now we have steam coming from the polar ice caps as well , gee what a mess the planet is in. I think others would call it evaporation and it doesn't only happen at the Polar ice caps but in the rest of the planet as well. I think this steam or evaporation has something to with clouds and causes rain sometimes . Of course non of these climate / weather events  caused by steam or clouds ever occurred before man made climate change did they.
Interesting I stood on a pristine piece of beach here in Tasmania today with huge sandstone cliffs. You could clearly see the layers of geological history from many thousands of years of the changing planet and environment.
And that's exactly the point the Planet is constantly evolving and changing , it's only in the last 15 years that some pretty sharp people have come up with a new idea to blame mankind  for it and charge everyone a fee because of it. The Planet will do what it does and throwing trillions of dollars down the gurgler won't change a thing. 
And just another point , if the cold air is pushing from the Polar caps towards the Equator then how come it's still stinking hot in Cairns . Should the people of PNG be stocking up on Winter coats ? Just a thought


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves.   Read what I said over carefully again,  nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. .
> 
> When the kettle is on the steam (moisture)  rises.  Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps.
> 
> Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco.
> 
> Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity.   Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.




There is nothing about climate science that is basic Plod. That's why climate models suck, because the system is so complex with so many unknown inputs and variables.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Yep, the guy Tony Abbott wanted!
> And respected??? by Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mail???
> 
> His argument is spurious. We should have given the money to the poor. As Paul Keating said, "I always back the horse called self interest". it is in the interests of the major world economies that we don't get 4 degree global warming, hence the action.
> 
> But even Bjorn states that this will spur green energy technology research that will lead to improvements in these technologies.
> 
> And as per usual, he is paid by oil companies etc. to be a contrarian.
> the old story -*follow the money*.
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center
> 
> And he is so wrong with what he says and uses *dog whistle language* like Climate Hysteria. I hope he can still sleep at night after betraying his scientific principles for cold hard cash.
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/




Intellectual dishonesty exposed by intellectual dishonesty. Oh pulleeez Knobby. >>>IF<<< Lomborgs article is advocacy over science, then these articles are stunning in their hypocrisy, utilizing the self same advocacy and disinformation.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Intellectual dishonesty exposed by intellectual dishonesty. Oh pulleeez Knobby. >>>IF<<< Lomborgs article is advocacy over science, then these articles are stunning in their hypocrisy, utilizing the self same advocacy and disinformation.




Pot kettle black argument.
A bit simplistic.

Saw this morning that some of the dumb right of the Libs are upset because Wind power is allowed again. I am sure Julie Bishop didn't want to be the laughing stock of the world, hence the change.


----------



## wayneL

Pot, kettle, black argument? My point exactly.

All funding has an underlying agenda. That is how it is today.

If you don't think the funding of pro anthropogenic warming research doesn't have an agenda you are a fool.

Damn I wish this whole debate would be de-politicized. In my opinion the side benefit would be a faster move to sustainable energy, rather than the resistance caused by scientifically untenable alarmism.

Attitude polarization on a grand scale will never produce optimum results.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> If you don't think the funding of pro anthropogenic warming research doesn't have an agenda you are a fool.




Of course it does but the case still has to be proved.

IMO governments would have little to gain by pursuing a pro AGW agenda if there was no basis to the argument.

Scaring people is not good politics, better to keep them warm and fuzzy in the belief that everything is fine and that their governments are doing a good job supplying them with cheap electricity and fuel.

But, somewhere along the line governments have to look at the evidence, and 190 nations around the world did that and decided that the evidence checked out and something had to be done.



> Damn I wish this whole debate would be de-politicized.




A unanimous vote of 190 countries means that it has been de politicised.


----------



## trainspotter

> *Nuclear industry stands ready to help tackle climate change*
> 
> _9 December 2015_
> 
> Agneta Rising, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, speaking at the International New York Times Energy for Tomorrow conference in Paris on December 9, said;
> "*The nuclear industry stands ready to deliver more to help tackle climate change.* Nuclear generation could provide 25% of the world's electricity with low carbon generation by having 1000 gigawatts of new build by 2050."
> 
> Speaking at the same event Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency, said that if governments are serious about nuclear they should find the right frameworks for investors, because of the challenges of large investments in liberalised markets.
> 
> The IEA's Two Degree Scenario requires a major shift to low carbon generation by the middle of this century to prevent dangerous climate change. This scenario includes 18% of global electricity being supplied by nuclear energy by 2050, *the largest contribution from any low carbon option.* To reach this target global nuclear capacity would need to more than double..




http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/

But but but the climate scientists agree?



> At COP 21 four leading climatologists discuss the role of nuclear energy as part of a low carbon mix for electricity generation.
> 
> Dr. James Hansen is a professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
> 
> Dr. Kerry Emanuel is a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
> 
> Dr. Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide.
> 
> Dr. Ken Caldeira is a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and at the Stanford University Department of Earth System .




Well four of them anyways ..... Start buying Paladin and Wild Horse


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/
> 
> But but but the climate scientists agree?
> 
> 
> 
> Well four of them anyways ..... Start buying Paladin and Wild Horse




It would be great for Australia should the nuclear industry get a second wind.

Its the capital cost issue stopping it I believe. I think if the world is really serious then the advantages of nuclear are obvious. Politically with the strange left we have, it won't happen in Australia.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> A unanimous vote of 190 countries means that it has been de politicised.





It's helped. But a bit wishful.

Think of the USA Republicans. Read a great article on the weekend where the Republicans worked out why they lost the last two elections and the policies they needed to get voted in again. Marco Rubio wrote some of it. Yet he has had to ignore his own advice to try and get nominated. Sorry for thread drift.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Attitude polarization on a grand scale will never produce optimum results.




True.  What annoys me is that the big players (corporations, politicians, media etc.) have worked out how to emote all the issues bypassing the reasoning faculties people should use. We are a bit of a herd animal.

Sorry, third reply in a row, not my style.


----------



## SirRumpole

No need to apologise Knobby, your responses are valued.


With the departure of people like Harper and Abbott and the ascendency of softer Conservatives like Cameron and Turnbull I think the Right are changing their tune on AGW in line with "community expectations", which is why if the Republicans win the next election I don't think it will be with Trump.

Trump may be of temporary amusement but I think the voters have fathomed his line which is more for the rich and powerful and less for the average worker.


----------



## dutchie

... and the winner is ..........

*Switzerland  !!*


$100 billion new private bank accounts every year !!!


----------



## Tisme

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/12/australia-not-yet-welcome-climate-alliance


----------



## noco

Arctic Ice Report
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.


Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. 


Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. 
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.


********************
I must apologize.  I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported  by the AP and published in The Washington Post -- 93 years ago.   Alarmist global warning even back then.  No doubt caused by Model T Ford emissions.


----------



## noco

As Tony Abbott once said......"GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY CO2 IS CRAP".......How so correct he is!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t/news-story/37981928db2b302e01f0ca7a5f32e684

*Every time there is a big cyclone a finger is soon pointed to the modern witch of carbon dioxide emissions. This continues despite there being no evidence that extreme weather events have increased because of global warming. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that “evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific”.

A significant issue with climate change science is that often only one side of the debate is heard, so clear exaggerations and untruths can remain unchallenged.

The US military pioneered the use of so-called red teams whose job was to argue against prevailing wisdom, making its strategies more robust. Climate change science would benefit from more red team analysis.

For example, if you listen to the mainstream media, you would not realise that since the last major attempt to forge a climate change agreement in Copenhagen six years ago, the science has become less certain and gives us less reason to worry. This is primarily because the globe’s climate seems less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide than previously thought.

In just the past 18 years we have experienced one-third of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution, but temperatures have not increased as expected.

Satellite data shows no or only minimal warming, and surface-based measures show a warming rate far below projected climate models. At a US Senate hearing this week, John Christy, a lead author on previous IPCC reports, presented evidence that, on average, climate models over-estimated the rate of warming by three times compared with what actually has occurred.

If these models cannot replicate the past, how can we rely on them to predict the future?*

Read the whole article.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As Tony Abbott once said......"GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY CO2 IS CRAP".......How so correct he is!!!!!!!!!!




Tell that to the leaders of 190 countries who have agreed that climate is change is real and something has to be done about it.

Cease flogging a dead horse noco old chum, your cause is lost. Have a good Christmas.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Tell that to the leaders of 190 countries who have agreed that climate is change is real and something has to be done about it.
> 
> Cease flogging a dead horse noco old chum, your cause is lost. Have a good Christmas.




I don't think so Rumpy......Whether those 190 countries ever implement what they say they will do will be another thing....Paris was not the success as mad out to be.

The Alarmist are now in the minority and the fake Global Warming evidence is now starting to be shown for what really is.......A load of crap.

I don't believe in Christmas ....it is far too commercialized as far as I am concerned. just like all religions.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I don't think so Rumpy......Whether those 190 countries ever implement what they say they will do will be another thing....Paris was not the success as mad out to be.
> 
> The Alarmist are now in the minority and the fake Global Warming evidence is now starting to be shown for what really is.......A load of crap.
> 
> I don't believe in Christmas ....it is far too commercialized as far as I am concerned. just like all religions.




I think Climate Change is a science. So whether we believe it or not, it's still there.

Heard from interviews that scientists are actually self-censoring their findings... that their results show things are actually going to get a lot worst. But they tame it a bit and word it carefully so as not to sound alarmist - more respectable that way.

But them not being alarmist is still pointing to a lot of things to be alarmed about.

But yea, maybe there's some magic invention in the future that'll solve the problem - so grandkids, better hit those science and technology books hard. It's all on you guys and gals.


----------



## basilio

If one reads The Australian and follows the most read blogger in the country (Andrew Bolt) then it's London to brick  you won't accept that CC is significant or has any meaningful human input. These are very strong voices repeating over and over and over again the same mantra - "nothing to worry about here, move on."

The unnerving strange  thing is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific world says there is much to be concerned about and has produced overwhelming evidence to back up their research. 

So who do you believe ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> If one reads The Australian and follows the most read blogger in the country (Andrew Bolt) then it's London to brick  you won't accept that CC is significant or has any meaningful human input. These are very strong voices repeating over and over and over again the same mantra - "nothing to worry about here, move on."
> 
> The unnerving strange  thing is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific world says there is much to be concerned about and has produced overwhelming evidence to back up their research.
> 
> So who do you believe ?




Well not you or Cook, or the purported scientists who promulgate the most extreme scenario as a matter of advocaay over science, least of all politicians and their cronies.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> If one reads The Australian and follows the most read blogger in the country (Andrew Bolt) then it's London to brick  you won't accept that CC is significant or has any meaningful human input. These are very strong voices repeating over and over and over again the same mantra - "nothing to worry about here, move on."
> 
> The unnerving strange  thing is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific world says there is much to be concerned about and has produced overwhelming evidence to back up their research.
> 
> So who do you believe ?




basilio old son it is all about the Sun that causes Global Warming.... ooops, sorry I mean Climate Change....There ain't no more Global Warming...

This basic science I learned at school in the 1930's...Nah...they don't that stuff any more at school.

How much do you really know about C02?

Perhaps you might take the time to read the link below.


http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/two-lie-carbon-tax-and-carbon-pollution.html

*Do you know that the government intends to tax CO2 emissions with the falsely named "carbon" tax?

Anyhow, below is an edited version of Gregg's Questionaire:

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? 

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? 

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? 

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?*" 

Now read more for the answers.


----------



## Logique

Fusion. 

Soon my friends, soon. The breakthrough will come. Hopefully before the imminent Mini Ice Age sets in. 

Fusion is where the research dollar should be going.



> *German Continuous Nuclear Fusion Reactor Milestone*
> By: Eric Worrall - December 17, 2015
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/german-continuous-nuclear-fusion-reactor-milestone/
> 
> Germany has activated its new Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator reactor for the first time, briefly testing its ability to heat and contain a Helium plasma. The German Stellarator is the first nuclear fusion reactor ever built which has a chance of hitting break even – or at the very least, of maintaining a sustained nuclear fusion reaction for up to half an hour at a time.
> 
> On 10 December, the operating team in the control room started up the magnetic field and initiated the computer-operated experiment control system...The first plasma could be observed by the installed cameras and measuring devices...
> 
> ..Obviously these are early days, but if the German fusion reactor fulfils the research team’s expectations, *within the next year or two the German team may demonstrate the first ever completely stable artificial nuclear fusion reaction*.


----------



## orr

Logique said:


> Fusion.
> 
> Soon my friends, soon.




Yeah we all know how fusion is just over the horizon ..... and will stay there.

but in 2020, that's 4 years away thirteen models from FoMoCo will be all electric;
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/10/ford-electric-vehicle-investment/

so with oil at $35/barrel, the F150 range the biggest profit highest sellers on the market  and resale value of the electric/ hybrid models currently available _tanking_, Ford puts up $4.5 billion and points the direction with an impossible build out time line on an electric automobile future. I'm open to comments on their thinking. I'd hazard a guess on Govt and fleet purchases positioning, post Paris.

If it was my bet on nuclear, I'd go fast reactors; Why? 400 years worth of existing run time on a technology going back to the 50's, builds happening in dozen or so places world wide, notably India, whose reserves of Thorium could supply their energy demands CO2 free for 60,000years, about the time fusion will be ready for market.
Fast reactors?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Fast-Neutron-Reactors/


----------



## Smurf1976

orr said:


> so with oil at $35/barrel, the F150 range the biggest profit highest sellers on the market  and resale value of the electric/ hybrid models currently available _tanking_, Ford puts up $4.5 billion and points the direction with an impossible build out time line on an electric automobile future. I'm open to comments on their thinking. I'd hazard a guess on Govt and fleet purchases positioning, post Paris




I don't have all the details but in short, there are new EU regulations coming into effect in 2021 that make it pretty hard to continue with conventional petrol or even diesel vehicles.

There's a cap on fuel consumption of 4.1 litres / 100 km (petrol) and 3.6 litres / 100 km (diesel). These figures are based on the fleet average, not individual vehicles per se, but still makes it pretty much essential that manufacturers go down the hybrid or electric route if they are to remain major vehicle sellers in the EU.

I'd assume that Ford would be taking this into account in their decision making.


----------



## explod

The floods in the north of England described by thier Prime minister as "unprecedented" 

South America towards the bottom of the globe,  record floods, 

ln the US huge tornadoes ripping down homes,  unprecedented this time of the year. 

130 homes destroyed by fire on Victorias south west coast.  Very early this year,  usually not till late jan/feb. 

ALL OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS

As detailed the rise in temperature at the poles are and will increasingly have devastating effects. 

 "the sixth extinction"  a must read

No longer "Hysteria" but facts emerging before our eyes.


----------



## basilio

Has anyone else been following the record floods in the UK? For those who can put 2 and 2 together the question is "How  in heavens name will the UK cope as global warming marches on ?"  We are seeing just the first impacts of a long term change in climate and sea levels.

How many times can cities and homes  be flooded before it all becomes too hard ?



> *Failed flood defences cast doubt on UK readiness for new weather era*
> 
> Army called in and thousands evacuated after homes and businesses are hit by ‘unprecedented’ water levels in northern England
> 
> Matthew Taylor, Ben Quinn and John Vidal
> 
> Britain’s ability to cope with the “unprecedented” flood crises that hit several urban centres simultaneously over the weekend has been called into question after the failure of key flood defences in the north led to thousands of homes being put at risk.
> 
> Three cities were hit by the severe weather, alongside scores of towns and villages, forcing the evacuation of thousands in what David Cameron described as an unprecedented situation. Three hundred troops were in the worst-hit areas on Sunday, with a further 200 soldiers on the way.
> 
> *Amid warnings that climate change would lead to more frequent and severe flooding, the state of the large-scale defences was brought into sharp relief after pumping equipment in York was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of water.*
> 
> In a move that apparently sacrificed some areas in order to prevent greater devastation elsewhere, officials decided at the weekend to raise the river Foss flood barrier in order to prevent it from becoming stuck. Hundreds of homes were evacuated and entire streets were submerged. York’s barrier, completed in 1987 following serious flooding in 1982, also experienced problems in 2012 when four of its eight pumps failed due to overheating, resulting in flood warnings for hundreds of householders.
> 
> Floods continued to bring chaos to thousands of homes and businesses elsewhere across the north of England. In Leeds, main roads in the city centre remained under water. In Greater Manchester, 7,000 homes were still without power after rivers topped their banks.
> 
> *While experts have cautioned that it is too early to give precise figures for the losses caused by Storm Desmond and Storm Eva, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said that an initial analysis showed that they could run as high as £1.3bn.*



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...my-called-continue-devastate-northern-england


----------



## Wysiwyg

basilio said:


> Has anyone else been following the record floods in the UK?



Yeah (LOL) for over 700 years since the first signs of global warming appeared. 



> *South England flood of February 1287*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In February 1287 a storm hit the southern coast of England with such ferocity that whole areas of coastline were redrawn. Silting up and cliff collapses led to towns that had stood by the sea finding themselves landlocked, while others that had been inland found themselves with access to the sea.
> 
> The city of Winchelsea on Romney Marsh was destroyed (later rebuilt on the cliff top behind).[1] Nearby Broomhill was also destroyed. The course of the nearby river Rother was diverted away from New Romney, which was almost destroyed and left a mile from the coast, ending its role as a port. The Rother ran instead to sea at Rye, prompting its rise as a port. The storm contributed to the collapse of a cliff at Hastings, taking part of Hastings Castle with it, blocking the harbour and ending its role as a trade centre, though it continued as a centre for fishing. Whitstable in Kent is also reported to have been hit by the surge.
> 
> In all, the storm can be seen to have had a powerful effect on the Cinque Ports, two of which were hit (Hastings and New Romney), along with the supporting "Antient Town" of Winchelsea. Meanwhile, the other Ancient Town of Rye was advantaged.
> 
> The storm is one of two huge ones in England in 1287. The other was the one known in the Netherlands as St. Lucia's flood in December, the following winter. Together with a surge in January 1286,[2] they seem to have prompted the decline of one of England's then leading ports, Dunwich in Suffolk.


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> Yeah (LOL) for over 700 years since the first signs of global warming appeared.




I happen to have a friend in northern UK who's family go back to 1100AD.  Spoke to him overnight and stated that they have never in that time experienced floods as bad as this. 

Anyhow,  from a flaming ball 5 billion years ago the planet is supposed to be cooling.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> I happen to have a friend in northern UK who's family go back to 1100AD.  Spoke to him overnight and stated that they have never in that time experienced floods as bad as this.
> 
> Anyhow,  from a flaming ball 5 billion years ago the planet is supposed to be cooling.




As I said before,I have flood maps going back centuries. Your friend is talking out of his a55.


----------



## wayneL

Just one example from farkin hundreds.... From 1953

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Just one example from farkin hundreds.... From 1953
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953




And they discussed the resulting surg dams on media this morning. 

But this latest has even overwhelmed these levels and of course they were washed out in the same area a mere two years ago. 

Knock knock,  increasing frequency and volatility.


----------



## basilio

Yeah there was a huge flood in 1953 in England. And there were many individual events overt the years.  

The current situation is just replicating these floods every couple of years and increasing the severity despite better and better flood defences.  No difference at all is it ?


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> The floods in the north of England described by thier Prime minister as "unprecedented"
> 
> South America towards the bottom of the globe,  record floods,
> 
> ln the US huge tornadoes ripping down homes,  unprecedented this time of the year.
> 
> 130 homes destroyed by fire on Victorias south west coast.  Very early this year,  usually not till late jan/feb.
> 
> ALL OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS
> 
> As detailed the rise in temperature at the poles are and will increasingly have devastating effects.
> 
> "the sixth extinction"  a must read
> 
> No longer "Hysteria" but facts emerging before our eyes.




Facts are that in fact it  is the current El Nino' that is causing the floods in South America , and the drought here in Australia. These La Nina's and El Nino's have been happening well before the industrialisation of the Planet.
As have the Tornadoes in the U.S.A , just like our Cyclones have ruined many a settlement or ship each season.
Maybe the weather patterns are changing as they have since the start of the Planet , however I ask one question.
How long after we stop using fossil fuels and replace them with renewables and pay lots of monies to the U.N will the Weather / Climate take to return back to what our Climate Saviours think is normal ?


----------



## basilio

> *Unprecedented flooding in Britain prompts renewed discussion about climate change*
> 
> Date
> December 29, 2015 - 5:50AM
> 
> Britain's flood defences get a rethink
> 
> A review of the UK's flood defences is promised after Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron meets soldiers and volunteers in the deluged city of York.
> 
> London: Climate change is forcing England to re-assess its flood defences in the face of unprecedented river level surges, one of the United Kingdom government's most senior environment officials says.
> 
> "We are moving from a period of known extremes into a period of unknown extremes," said David Rooke, deputy chief executive of the UK government's Environment Agency, which manages the country's rivers.
> 
> "We will need to re-assess all the defences right across the country."
> *
> He linked the devastating Boxing Day floods, still engulfing swathes of the country, to climate change.
> 
> "What we are seeing are record river levels," he told BBC Radio. "We saw in the Calder Valley in West Yorkshire levels that were a foot to two feet higher that we'd seen previously. We've seen similar again in Cumbria and elsewhere right across the north.
> *
> "So we're seeing a picture and what we need to do is to look at the historic records that we use to predict what defences we should provide to protect people and their property and their businesses, and to re-assess whether that's still valid in the face of a changing climate."




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/wor...ion-about-climate-change-20151228-glw0lw.html

__________________________________________________________


> How long after we stop using fossil fuels and replace them with renewables and pay lots of monies to the U.N will the Weather / Climate take to return back to what our Climate Saviours think is normal ?  Ijustnewit




Two possibilities.

1) Crash program in reducing GG  emissions over 20 years. Temperature still keep rising to around 2C.  Widespread floods, big changes shorelines as sea rises, unknown changes in climate. Millions of people displaced .  Final (maybe ) stabilisation of climate in 100 years at unknown temperature

2) Ignore everything. Business as usual. Temperatures just keep climbing and climbing . Feedback loops kick into effect as perma frost melts, forests die and so on.  By 2100 almost everyone has nothing to worry about. 

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm


----------



## explod

The weather in the US has broken 68 records over the last few weeks against all previous information. 

And cyclones,  never seen in winter before. 

The displacement effect from the warmer polar regions is starting to kick in in earnest. 

And yes,  not just coal and oil burning,  we are soon to pay for the loss of forrests done for industrialisation and progress so described. 

Trees planted now will only burn down in summer. 

Remember visiting Victorias south western coast as a child,  even through summer the bush used to remain cool and damp.   Start of summer now an explosive tinder box as our Prime Minister looks over the ashes this morning.


----------



## explod

Ijustnewit said:


> Facts are that in fact it  is the current El Nino' that is causing the floods in South America , and the drought here in Australia. These La Nina's and El Nino's have been happening well before the industrialisation of the Planet.
> As have the Tornadoes in the U.S.A , just like our Cyclones have ruined many a settlement or ship each season.
> Maybe the weather patterns are changing as they have since the start of the Planet , however I ask one question.
> How long after we stop using fossil fuels and replace them with renewables and pay lots of monies to the U.N will the Weather / Climate take to return back to what our Climate Saviours think is normal ?




Ei nino etc,  just a name (highlighted in the Howard era to divert media attention from the term climate change)  for  weather patterns.  Warmth of oceans under El Nino increased substantialy since the term came to prominence,  why?   Global  warming.


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> Ei nino etc,  just a name (highlighted in the Howard era to divert media attention from the term climate change)  for  weather patterns.  Warmth of oceans under El Nino increased substantialy since the term came to prominence,  why?   Global  warming.




I tend to disagree that John Howard invented the term El Nino , it has been known of for the last 10,000 years. Thus the EL and La .

Cultural history and prehistoric information  ( from Wikipedia)
 Average equatorial Pacific temperatures
ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[86]

El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas [87] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[88] A recent study suggests a strong El-NiÃ±o effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[89] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[90] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[91]

However I will agree that as above we will probably see destruction of cities and people due to it's effects in this modern era as well.


----------



## Ijustnewit

basilio said:


> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/wor...ion-about-climate-change-20151228-glw0lw.html
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Two possibilities.
> 
> 1) Crash program in reducing GG  emissions over 20 years. Temperature still keep rising to around 2C.  Widespread floods, big changes shorelines as sea rises, unknown changes in climate. Millions of people displaced .  Final (maybe ) stabilisation of climate in 100 years at unknown temperature
> 
> 2) Ignore everything. Business as usual. Temperatures just keep climbing and climbing . Feedback loops kick into effect as perma frost melts, forests die and so on.  By 2100 almost everyone has nothing to worry about.
> 
> http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm




Thanks also Bas ,
So I might live enough to see to the emissions reducing targets met. But I will missing seeing the climate stabilize ,
It will be killing me while I'm dead to see if you guys are correct . 
Hottest Xmas on record 36 degrees in Hobart the other day and now 7 days in a row of Tornadoes in the U.S also a new record . Thank goodness that something is being done to reverse it.


----------



## explod

Ijustnewit said:


> I tend to disagree that John Howard invented the term El Nino , it has been known of for the last 10,000 years. Thus the EL and La .
> 
> Cultural history and prehistoric information  ( from Wikipedia)
> Average equatorial Pacific temperatures
> ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[86]
> 
> El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas [87] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[88] A recent study suggests a strong El-NiÃ±o effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[89] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[90] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[91]
> 
> However I will agree that as above we will probably see destruction of cities and people due to it's effects in this modern era as well.



I did not assert that John Howard created the description,  it was highlighted under his watch. 

I still maintain that it is the description of a weather system


----------



## Ijustnewit

explod said:


> I did not assert that John Howard created the description,  it was highlighted under his watch.
> 
> I still maintain that it is the description of a weather system




Okay no worries .


----------



## explod

Reports out today that temperatures in the Arctic hitting 40 degrees above normal.  It is winter up there and should be 40+ below but recordings slightly above zero are being picked up.  

A number of new weather patterns are apparently forming with the possibility of storm disturbances towards the  US and Europe in the next week or so that could be even further off the scale. 

The Age today- Peter Hannam p.  6


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Reports out today that temperatures in the Arctic hitting 40 degrees above normal.  It is winter up there and should be 40+ below but recordings slightly above zero are being picked up.
> 
> A number of new weather patterns are apparently forming with the possibility of storm disturbances towards the  US and Europe in the next week or so that could be even further off the scale.
> 
> The Age today- Peter Hannam p.  6




Peter Hannam is a Global Warming alarmist and has been caught out misreporting on more than one occasion.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...un/comments/the_misreporting_of_peter_hannam/

*Then Hannam adds this:

    As UK prime minister, Mrs Thatcher was one of the first global leaders to identify climate change as a threat.

    She told a 1988 meeting of the Royal Society the increase of greenhouse gases had led some “to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1 degree per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope”.

What Hannam fails to add is that Thatcher later saw the light:


    It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

    She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

    In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology.

Hannam’s omissions make his article deceptive. This is not reporting but propagandising*


----------



## explod

Noco,  the money lobby tapped her on the shoulder. 

Stick to what is happenning. 

Surely you are not suggesting that in climate instability as we are seeing it play out now that we don't have a problem.

A search just indicated a number of other independent sources to this report. 

But as usual if all else fails attack the person.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> I tend to disagree that John Howard invented the term El Nino , it has been known of for the last 10,000 years.




Known about in scientific circles for a long time certainly but the general public seems to have only recently become aware of it.

I mentioned it at a public meeting about 20 years ago in the context of drought in Australia. Would have been a few hundred people in that room and every single one of them had a blank look on their faces. In contrast, these days I think most would at least recognise the terms and know that El Nino is associated with drought in parts of Australia.

Today, we're in that same place with the Indian Ocean Dipole. Another cycle that has an impact in Australia, in some areas it's actually more significant than El Nino / La Nina, but there's relatively little public knowledge about the IOD thus far.



> ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak.




Another factor with the impact is the intensity of resource use.

If you go back to pre-1950 then to a very large extent we made no effort to utilise an entire natural resource. We built a dam on a river to supply a town with water, but the town only used a few % of the available water and the rest went down the spillway. The impact of drought was less water going down the river but it had no impact on the town's water supply unless it came to the point of the river literally drying up.

Much the same with agriculture in Australia. We had more than enough land and most of it unused so it wasn't overly difficult to just scale up farming as needed.

Same with hydro power. We've been generating power from the South Esk River (Tas) since 1895, so that's 120 years, but it wasn't until 1955 that sufficient capacity was installed to use the full non-flood flow of the river. So pre-1955, any variation in water flow affected how much water _didn't_ go through Duck Reach power station but had no effect on the power station itself (well, OK, the 1929 flood disaster wrecked the plant and a lot of other things, including many lives lost, but that's another story).

Past - we went to whatever land or river and used a bit of what was available to supply the needs of the time.

Today - we use the whole lot apart from any land or water set aside for reasons of maintaining the natural environment.

So modern society, whilst in some ways seemingly insulated from weather (big cities, global distribution of food etc), is actually more sensitive to weather variation than in the past to the extent that that variation leads to reductions in water availability (for whatever purpose) or food production.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> As UK prime minister, Mrs Thatcher was one of the first global leaders to identify climate change as a threat.
> 
> She told a *1988 *meeting




Emphasis mine.

So, the UK PM identifies CO2 as a problem in the midst of massive unrest about coal mine closures driven by her government.

Whether or not she ever believed in there being a problem, it would certainly have been convenient politically at the time to find a problem with coal.


----------



## wayneL

Now that the all the Apocalyptic claptrap has died down somewhat, some science from UofGlasgow.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_437014_en.html



> 'Unprecedented’ storms and floods are more common than we think
> 
> Related links
> Dr Larissa Naylor
> School of Geographical and Earth Sciences
> 
> 
> Issued: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:50:00 GMT
> 
> The recent ‘unprecedented’ flooding in north-west England might be more common than currently believed, a group of scientists has warned. Flooding
> 
> A team of experts from the Universities of Aberystwyth, Cambridge and Glasgow have drawn on *historic records to build a clearer picture of the flooding. *
> 
> *They conclude that 21st-century flood events such as Storm Desmond are not exceptional or unprecedented in terms of their frequency or magnitude, and that flood frequency and flood risk forecasts would be improved by including data from flood deposits dating back hundreds of years.
> *
> Dr Tom Spencer from the University of Cambridge said: “In the House of Commons on Monday (December 7), the Environment Secretary called the flooding in north-west England ‘*unprecedented’ and ‘consistent with climate change trends’. But is this actually true?*
> 
> “Conventional methods of analysing river flow gauge records cannot answer these questions because upland catchments usually have no or very short records of water levels of around 30 or 40 years. In fact, recent careful scientific analysis of palaeoflood deposits (flood deposits dating back hundreds of years) in the UK uplands shows that *21st-century floods are not unprecedented in terms of both their frequency (they were more frequent before 1960) and magnitude (the biggest events occurred during the 17th–19th centuries).”*
> 
> Professor Mark Macklin, an expert in river flooding and climate change impacts at Aberystwyth University, said: “UK documentary records and old flood deposits dating back hundreds of years indicate that these floods are not unprecedented, which means we are grossly underestimating flood risk and endangering peoples’ lives.
> 
> “In some areas, recent floods have either equalled or exceeded the largest recorded events and these incidences can be ascribed to climate variability in Atlantic margin weather systems.
> 
> “It is of concern that *historical data suggests there is far more capacity in the North Atlantic climate system to produce wetter and more prolonged flood-rich periods than hitherto experienced in the 21st century.* Looking forward, an increased likelihood of weather extremes due to climate change means that extending our flood record using geomorphology science must be placed at the centre of flood risk assessment in the UK.”
> 
> Professor Macklin suggests that new approaches to flood risk analysis be adopted to include instrumental, documentary and most importantly palaeoflood records.
> 
> He added: “Current approaches using flood frequency analysis and flood risk assessment based on 40–50 year long flow records are far shorter than the design life of most engineering structures and strategic flood risk planning approaches. They are not fit for purpose now, let alone in a changing climate.”
> 
> Professor John Lewin from the University of Aberystwyth said: “What is needed, is far more resilience for already-developed floodplains, and much more serious insistence that future floodplain development should be virtually curtailed. Somewhere along the line floodplain development has been allowed by local authorities and the UK government to continue regardless.”
> 
> Dr Larissa Naylor from the University of Glasgow said: “These floods and the 2013/14 storms have shown us that our landscape is dynamic rather than static – where rivers reshape floodplains and erosion remodels our coastline – with large economic and social costs. We need to urgently consider how we plan our cities and towns, and rebuild in the wake of large flood and storm events, to live safely in our changing landscape.”
> 
> Spencer, Lewin, Macklin and Naylor are members of the British Society for Geomorphology’s Working Group on Stormy Geomorphology, who are currently finalising a global state-of-the-art analysis of the role geomorphology science can play in an age of extremes in the Wiley journal Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.


----------



## basilio

So Wayne.  

Exactly what is the problem with recognising that there may in fact have been some serious flooding in UK in the past and also acknowledging that the current changes in climate brought about by global warming are adding  their own impact ?


----------



## basilio

There is also another view on why the current heavy rains in the UK are causing such widespread flooding.

George Monbiot has penned a piece which demonstrates that a very big factor in the floods has been drainage and flood works designed to protect farmland from flood at the direct expense of towns downstream.



> * This flood was not only foretold – it was publicly subsidised*
> George Monbiot
> 
> The government pays grouse moor owners to drain their glorified outdoor chicken runs. Meanwhile it’s the proles downstream who get a soaking
> 
> _A drain cut into blanket bog on the Walshaw Moor estate in the Pennines above Hebden Bridge.
> ‘Eighteen months ago I visited Hebden Bridge, where activists told me that, thanks to the damage inflicted on the bogs of the moors, it was only a matter of time before the town was wrecked again by flash floods.’_
> 
> Wednesday 30 December 2015 03.52 AEDT
> 
> These floods were not just predictable; they were predicted. There were clear and specific warnings that the management of land upstream of the towns now featuring in the news would lead to disaster. On 9 December one of my readers told me this. “I live in the middle of Foss drainage board land above York, where flooding would not harm a single property but water is sent down as fast as possible to York.” A few days later another reader wrote to me, warning that “upstream flood banks now protect crops, not the city of York”. On 26 December the Foss exploded into York.
> 
> It is a complaint I’ve heard repeatedly: internal drainage boards – which are public bodies but tend to be mostly controlled by landowners – often prioritise the protection of farmland above the safety of towns and cities downstream. By straightening, embanking and dredging rivers where they cut through fields, the boards accelerate the flow of water, making flooding downstream more likely. When heavy rain falls, some land must flood. We have a choice: fields or cities. And all over Britain, we have chosen badly.
> 
> For several years campaigners in Hebden Bridge have been begging the government to stop the drainage and burning of the grouse moors upstream. Eighteen months ago I visited the town, where activists told me that thanks to the damage inflicted on the bogs and deep vegetation of the moors, which reduces their capacity to hold water, it was only a matter of time before Hebden Bridge was wrecked again by flash floods. Their warnings were not just ignored, but – if such a thing is possible – actively disregarded.




http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/29/deluge-farmers-flood-grouse-moor-drain-land


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> So Wayne.
> 
> Exactly what is the problem with recognising that there may in fact have been some serious flooding in UK in the past and also acknowledging that the current changes in climate brought about by global warming are adding  their own impact ?




What Global Warming??????....there has been no global warming and that is why the ALARMISTS decided to call it climate change....Yes, we have had climate change for thousands of years and it is all to do with SUN....But the naive still continue to believe the propaganda on Man Made Global Warming these crooks put out on a daily basis.......There was Al Gore at the last Paris conference clapping away as if there had been consensus on man made Global Warming when in actual fact it achieved very little in terms of all countries agreeing to the one thing....They may have been singing from the same song book but they were all out of tune.  

It is a farce and a rort started by Al Gore, Tim Flannery and Bank-ki Moon to make money out of emissions trading schemes that Al Gore set up all around the world.

Psst!


----------



## explod

noco said:


> What Global Warming??????....there has been no global warming and that is why the ALARMISTS decided to call it climate change....Yes, we have had climate change for thousands of years and it is all to do with SUN....But the naive still continue to believe the propaganda on Man Made Global Warming these crooks put out on a daily basis.......There was Al Gore at the last Paris conference clapping away as if there had been consensus on man made Global Warming when in actual fact it achieved very little in terms of all countries agreeing to the one thing....They may have been singing from the same song book but they were all out of tune.
> 
> It is a farce and a rort started by Al Gore, Tim Flannery and Bank-ki Moon to make money out of emissions trading schemes that Al Gore set up all around the world.
> 
> Psst!




So what do you say is causing the extreme warmer conditions in the arctic circle.   No sunshine at all in thier winter either.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> So what do you say is causing the extreme warmer conditions in the arctic circle.   No sunshine at all in thier winter either.




Sonny, I don't know what they taught you at school but in my high school days we were taught the basics of  how the Earth travels in an elliptical movement around the Sun and not a circular track as so many believe....Sometimes the Earth is further from the Sun than at other times...The Earth axis also change its angle to the Sun which creates variations on temperature.......The Sun also has massive explosions equivalent to 60,000 Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs which which radiates to Earth causing variations to Climate Change.

The North Pole can have higher temperatures while the South Pole has much lower than normal temperatures.

I have lived in North Queensland for 44 years and experienced the longest winter in 2015 and so far the summer here has been a mild one with lower than normal temperatures....It has been a very pleasant year although very dry until Xmas when we received 107mm of very acceptable rain.

Perhaps if you do some research on the subject instead of believing these so called GW Science experts who have their so called  papers "PEER REVIEWED", you might just get a better grip on the handle of climate change 

Ah yes, climate change is all about the weather.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> There is also another view on why the current heavy rains in the UK are causing such widespread flooding.




It's a very well understood, if apparently ignored, concept that altering the catchment upstream results in a change in runoff downstream.

The idea was actually around in Australia 50 years ago that if we ran short of water at some future time then one way to get more would be to "modify" the catchments in terms of vegetation (primarily) and land form so as to increase run-off from the same amount of rainfall. It wasn't done to any real extent, at least not for the specific purpose of increasing runoff, but the concept is certainly well understood.

Part of the trouble is that in general, the public has a very poor understanding of this sort of stuff such that all manner of silly ideas go ahead and hardly a word is said until disaster strikes.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Sonny, I don't know what they taught you at school but in my high school days we were taught the basics of  how the Earth travels in an elliptical movement around the Sun and not a circular track as so many believe....Sometimes the Earth is further from the Sun than at other times...The Earth axis also change its angle to the Sun which creates variations on temperature.......The Sun also has massive explosions equivalent to 60,000 Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs which which radiates to Earth causing variations to Climate Change.
> 
> The North Pole can have higher temperatures while the South Pole has much lower than normal temperatures.
> 
> I have lived in North Queensland for 44 years and experienced the longest winter in 2015 and so far the summer here has been a mild one with lower than normal temperatures....It has been a very pleasant year although very dry until Xmas when we received 107mm of very acceptable rain.
> 
> Perhaps if you do some research on the subject instead of believing these so called GW Science experts who have their so called  papers "PEER REVIEWED", you might just get a better grip on the handle of climate change
> 
> Ah yes, climate change is all about the weather.



Champ,  .  I have been a very close weather watcher from the bush from childhood.  I have quoted books of substance on this forum to which you have never commented. 

Yes unusually cold up your way which adds further to the displacement of cold from the poles due to Co2 global warming.  As stated "40+ degrees warmer on some recent measurements in the arctic". 

The sun does play a minute part but never on the scales we see now. I have studied the science and knew all the planets orbits etc at school too. 

I am only 70 but do not think your attack of the person "sonny" adds to your credibilty very much. 

Again you attack the person for credibilty but it really does the opposite.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Whilst not entirely agreeing with Noco .                                                                                                             I think that there are certainly other natural climate changes and the tilt of the Earth and the Sun at play here.
The trouble is the Climate Change / Global Warming pushes rarely speak of such non man made influences on our climate . They see it as a religion that man is responsible and any one who dares disagree is a denier , sceptic and the like. I feel though that the masses have been led astray and brainwashed by a scam / scheme as Noco has stated to make money from Carbon Credit and Trading. It reminds me of when you book and airline ticket and they ask " do you want to offset your carbon footprint for this trip. Honestly , what the ?? get real ! Where do you think the monies raised actually go and what portion gets siphoned off for profits ? 
I see S.A and particular Adelaide will have it's hottest December on written records following it's hottest ever November on written records. How much of this can be contributed to man made pollution ? How much of this will be because of naturally changing Climate patterns , and how much is because as predicted we are in claws of one of the worst El Nino's to date. 
Was there ever any debate and two vast differences of opinion when the Hydrocarbon , Ozone depleting gas issues was found to be impacting on the Atmosphere and UV levels. I think most people took the evidence as gospel and the World made changes to arrest the situation and stop using Hydrocarbons. Why is then that this time that people are wary of the science and others are full on believers ? Is it because the evidence is so hard to prove this time ?


----------



## explod

Ijustnewit said:


> Whilst not entirely agreeing with Noco .                                                                                                             I think that there are certainly other natural climate changes and the tilt of the Earth and the Sun at play here.
> The trouble is the Climate Change / Global Warming pushes rarely speak of such non man made influences on our climate . They see it as a religion that man is responsible and any one who dares disagree is a denier , sceptic and the like. I feel though that the masses have been led astray and brainwashed by a scam / scheme as Noco has stated to make money from Carbon Credit and Trading. It reminds me of when you book and airline ticket and they ask " do you want to offset your carbon footprint for this trip. Honestly , what the ?? get real ! Where do you think the monies raised actually go and what portion gets siphoned off for profits ?
> I see S.A and particular Adelaide will have it's hottest December on written records following it's hottest ever November on written records. How much of this can be contributed to man made pollution ? How much of this will be because of naturally changing Climate patterns , and how much is because as predicted we are in claws of one of the worst El Nino's to date.
> Was there ever any debate and two vast differences of opinion when the Hydrocarbon , Ozone depleting gas issues was found to be impacting on the Atmosphere and UV levels. I think most people took the evidence as gospel and the World made changes to arrest the situation and stop using Hydrocarbons. Why is then that this time that people are wary of the science and others are full on believers ? Is it because the evidence is so hard to prove this time ?




Do not disagree here.   We all realise it is a combination.   As well we can throw in deforestation,  farming methods and overpopulation. 

However evidence suggests that our coal and oil burning is the straw that is tipping the ballance.   The sun,  its orbit and effects have always been here,  oil and coal burning have only gained huge traction in the last fifty or sixty years.

And why are we having such a hot El nino?   Climate change in my view.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Champ,  .  I have been a very close weather watcher from the bush from childhood.  I have quoted books of substance on this forum to which you have never commented.
> 
> Yes unusually cold up your way which adds further to the displacement of cold from the poles due to Co2 global warming.  As stated "40+ degrees warmer on some recent measurements in the arctic".
> 
> The sun does play a minute part but never on the scales we see now. I have studied the science and knew all the planets orbits etc at school too.
> 
> I am only 70 but do not think your attack of the person "sonny" adds to your credibilty very much.
> 
> Again you attack the person for credibilty but it really does the opposite.




Son..You are still only a boy...I am old enough to be your father and have definitely seen more weather changes in my time than most people.

The Sun has far more than a minute part in the weather...It has a major part and far more than this CO2 man made Global Warming scam that you and the lefties purport to be.

And now don't forget, the ALARMISTS are now in the minority..

Happy New Climate Change New Year and don't let the skeptics boil your blood , it is no good for your health.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> Was there ever any debate and two vast differences of opinion when the Hydrocarbon , Ozone depleting gas issues was found to be impacting on the Atmosphere and UV levels. I think most people took the evidence as gospel and the World made changes to arrest the situation and stop using Hydrocarbons.




I don't want to sound like shooting you down over a technicality  , but the issue there was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a range of man-made chemicals the commercial production of which commenced at scale circa 1930.

We're still using lots of hydrocarbons today, commonly known as oil and gas, and indeed in some cases we're using hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.

A quick Google search finds that the composition of CFC use was approximately:

Aerosol cans as propellant = 26%
Refrigeration = 26%
Foam = 25%
Solvents = 16%
Others = 7%

So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.

Aerosols = very easy to simply use butane or propane instead. Apart from being flammable (but then the other contents of the can are often flammable anyway so that's not generally a major issue), there's no real downside in the vast majority of applications. Propane and butane? That's the stuff commonly known in Australia as LPG - plenty of it and it's cheap.

Foam = various hydrocarbon based alternatives were suitable so again, it wasn't hugely difficult to just use a different gas to do the same job.

Those two "easy" replacements alone accounted for half the total CFC use. So a 50% cut was pretty straightforward.

Refrigeration and solvents were harder, but in due course various alternatives were developed first with less effect on ozone and later with none (so far as we know at present).

The hard bit was the last 7% and that includes things like fire extinguishers, some medical applications and so on. But we worked around it by just using different, albeit less effective in some situations, fire extinguishers and for a while there were exemptions for the medical applications. But still, getting rid of the vast majority of CFC use wasn't beyond our collective abilities.




> Why is then that this time that people are wary of the science and others are full on believers ? Is it because the evidence is so hard to prove this time ?




In contrast, with CO2 it's very different since just about everything we do requires energy, and most energy in most places is from sources that emit CO2. There is several orders of magnitude greater impact economically when compared to the CFC issue.

When the issue first came to widespread public attention in 1988, solar and wind were both out of the question economically and it was just two years after the Chernobyl disaster which left nuclear power unpalatable to most. Here in Australia, it was also just 5 years after we effectively decided to wind up hydro development amidst huge controversy at the time, thus leaving us with "coal or nothing" for power generation and an already established national economic strategy of exporting increasing volumes of coal in order to offset the cost of importing expensive oil (an idea that came out of the 1970's oil crises).

Energy is intertwined with everything. Bottom line of a very complex subject is that if you raise the economic cost of energy then that's essentially a tax on the entire economy. The problem with CO2 is not a technical one, we already have the technology to cut emissions by about two thirds without major technical disruption to how we live, but rather it is a financial problem.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Son..You are still only a boy...I am old enough to be your father and have definitely seen more weather changes in my time than most people.
> 
> The Sun has far more than a minute part in the weather...It has a major part and far more than this CO2 man made Global Warming scam that you and the lefties purport to be.
> 
> And now don't forget, the ALARMISTS are now in the minority..
> 
> Happy New Climate Change New Year and don't let the skeptics boil your blood , it is no good for your health.



Your bollicks so strenuously put forward tells me that you would be little more than 40.


----------



## explod

Smurf1976, 

Your knowledge base and posts are excellent


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Your bollicks so strenuously put forward tells me that you would be little more than 40.



How I wish I were 40 again...I do think and feel like a 40 year old....3 kids...5 Grand kids and 5 Great Grand kids...Does that tell you something?.....My eldest granddaughter is 30 and my eldest great grand daughter is 11......Can you match it?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> How I wish I were 40 again...I do think and feel like a 40 year old....3 kids...5 Grand kids and 5 Great Grand kids...Does that tell you something?.....My eldest granddaughter is 30 and my eldest great grand daughter is 11......Can you match it?



Eldest Grandchild at Uni this year,  19, her Sister 17 and have 6 other Grandchildren. 

So what,  have a good 2016 and start to evaluate information,  read some books and move away from the oil lobby. 

Many of the big companies who paid no tax in 2014 made donations to the liberal party.   A mate of mine obtained the lists (thanks to the Greens in Senate).  Going to be interesting to highlight when I have my hard copies. 

Actually,  in climate,  finance and corrupt money controlled government I see us as pretty well stuffed.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So Wayne.
> 
> Exactly what is the problem with recognising that there may in fact have been some serious flooding in UK in the past and also acknowledging that the current changes in climate brought about by global warming are adding  their own impact ?




The buzzword in every utterance has been "unprecedented". UofG et al showed it isn't.

In addition the change of river and drainage management practices (EU mandate) as copied by Moonbat from every modearate and the "it's climate change" hystrionics starts to look a little shakey.

Plod.

DYOR on current arctic temps. There is more to it that you think.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Eldest Grandchild at Uni this year,  19, her Sister 17 and have 6 other Grandchildren.
> 
> So what,  have a good 2016 and start to evaluate information,  read some books and move away from the oil lobby.
> 
> Many of the big companies who paid no tax in 2014 made donations to the liberal party.   A mate of mine obtained the lists (thanks to the Greens in Senate).  Going to be interesting to highlight when I have my hard copies.
> 
> Actually,  in climate,  finance and corrupt money controlled government I see us as pretty well stuffed.




Perhaps we should get back onto the the Resisting Climate HYsteria thread..:topic


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't want to sound like shooting you down over a technicality  , but the issue there was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a range of man-made chemicals the commercial production of which commenced at scale circa 1930.
> 
> We're still using lots of hydrocarbons today, commonly known as oil and gas, and indeed in some cases we're using hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.
> 
> A quick Google search finds that the composition of CFC use was approximately:
> 
> Aerosol cans as propellant = 26%
> Refrigeration = 26%
> Foam = 25%
> Solvents = 16%
> Others = 7%
> 
> So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.
> 
> Aerosols = very easy to simply use butane or propane instead. Apart from being flammable (but then the other contents of the can are often flammable anyway so that's not generally a major issue), there's no real downside in the vast majority of applications. Propane and butane? That's the stuff commonly known in Australia as LPG - plenty of it and it's cheap.
> 
> Foam = various hydrocarbon based alternatives were suitable so again, it wasn't hugely difficult to just use a different gas to do the same job.
> 
> Those two "easy" replacements alone accounted for half the total CFC use. So a 50% cut was pretty straightforward.
> 
> Refrigeration and solvents were harder, but in due course various alternatives were developed first with less effect on ozone and later with none (so far as we know at present).
> 
> The hard bit was the last 7% and that includes things like fire extinguishers, some medical applications and so on. But we worked around it by just using different, albeit less effective in some situations, fire extinguishers and for a while there were exemptions for the medical applications. But still, getting rid of the vast majority of CFC use wasn't beyond our collective abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, with CO2 it's very different since just about everything we do requires energy, and most energy in most places is from sources that emit CO2. There is several orders of magnitude greater impact economically when compared to the CFC issue.
> 
> When the issue first came to widespread public attention in 1988, solar and wind were both out of the question economically and it was just two years after the Chernobyl disaster which left nuclear power unpalatable to most. Here in Australia, it was also just 5 years after we effectively decided to wind up hydro development amidst huge controversy at the time, thus leaving us with "coal or nothing" for power generation and an already established national economic strategy of exporting increasing volumes of coal in order to offset the cost of importing expensive oil (an idea that came out of the 1970's oil crises).
> 
> Energy is intertwined with everything. Bottom line of a very complex subject is that if you raise the economic cost of energy then that's essentially a tax on the entire economy. The problem with CO2 is not a technical one, we already have the technology to cut emissions by about two thirds without major technical disruption to how we live, but rather it is a financial problem.




Thanks Smurf , My bad   I do the same when I go to the Chemist looking for lip balm , I get all mixed up and walk out with a tube of Anusol.


----------



## Ijustnewit

I did manage to see a Meteorologist on the ABC news 24 tonight saying that El Nino is also related to and causing the havoc weather in the Northern Hemisphere . Including the floods in England , I didn't catch his name but I hope they replay the interview.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> The buzzword in every utterance has been "unprecedented". UofG et al showed it isn't.
> 
> In addition the change of river and drainage management practices (EU mandate) as copied by Moonbat from every modearate and the "it's climate change" hystrionics starts to look a little shakey.
> 
> .




So lets get this right Wayne.. Your prepared to accept an analysis by one group of scientists that suggests there were some very serious floods in the UK in the past but reject the work of thousands of other current scientists on the extent and effect of current climate change largely caused by human produced GG  ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So lets get this right Wayne.. Your prepared to accept an analysis by one group of scientists that suggests there were some very serious floods in the UK in the past but reject the work of thousands of other current scientists on the extent and effect of current climate change largely caused by human produced GG  ?




I love how you put words in my mouth basilio.

I'm saying alarmists are using the current floods, miscategorizing them as 'unprecedented' as evidence of climate change.

I'm saying when analyzing the extent of any climate change. we dhould be a bid more sober about current events, analyzing them _in toto_ and with reference to the past.

Pielke Jnr had some great science on this approach until he was hounded out of the debate by the Climate McCartyists.


----------



## basilio

Nah mate your just a total BS artist. Your definition of looking at the whole picture_ in toto_ is picking out the crumbs of historical data that might conceivably support your case.

Anything and everything else that doesn't support your non case is just classified as alarmist.  And you call that looking at the whole picture?

What a sick sad joke..


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Nah mate your just a total BS artist. Your definition of looking at the whole picture_ in toto_ is picking out the crumbs of historical data that might conceivably support your case.
> 
> Anything and everything else that doesn't support your non case is just classified as alarmist.  And you call that looking at the whole picture?
> 
> What a sick sad joke..




Thank you for adding that ad hominem basilio. 

Can you explain, please, how viewing the current floods in the UK, directly to it's own history of floods, can be categorized as 'crumbs'?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Thank you for adding that ad hominem basilio.
> 
> Can you explain, please, how viewing the current floods in the UK, directly to it's own history of floods, can be categorized as 'crumbs'?




Simple... The floods are unprecedented in terms of the past 150 years. The rainfall that has caused these floods is also at record levels. Around the world we have weather events in US, Australia, Europe the North Pole that challenge and overrun our current concepts of "normal" weather. They are off the scale in in fact depict changes in climate.

These events have been accurately forecast  by climate scientists as  logical consequences of the increase in global temperature cause largely by human generated Greenhouse Gases. 

Yet you ignore all this research , all these events, all these consequences as immaterial in the discussion.  In that picture  I suggest those records are crumbs. The whole loaf is cooked and turning to toast.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Simple... The floods are unprecedented in terms of the past 150 years. The rainfall that has caused these floods is also at record levels. Around the world we have weather events in US, Australia, Europe the North Pole that challenge and overrun our current concepts of "normal" weather. They are off the scale in in fact depict changes in climate.
> 
> These events have been accurately forecast  by climate scientists as  logical consequences of the increase in global temperature cause largely by human generated Greenhouse Gases.
> 
> Yet you ignore all this research , all these events, all these consequences as immaterial in the discussion.  In that picture  I suggest those records are crumbs. The whole loaf is cooked and turning to toast.




Floods have many vectors basilio. And mate, repeating the mantra does not make anything so.

We all know the weather has warmed, we all know co2 has played a role. What we don't know yet is definitively how much of a role, in relation to natural variability.

Interesting blog from The UK met http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/12/31/whats-been-happening-to-our-weather/ best summed up by the concluding sentence



> So from basic physical understanding of weather systems it is entirely plausible that climate change has exacerbated what has been a period of very wet and stormy weather *arising from natural variability*.




Notice Slingo said 'plausible' rather than definite?

Sober analysis is what is needed, not breathless alarmism and weather event opportunism


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> We all know the weather has warmed, we all know co2 has played a role. What we don't know yet is definitively how much of a role, in relation to natural variability.




Arr huh,  finally Wayne ole Pal

And we need to eliminate all contributing facits and causes that we can.  And we can almost eliminate coal,  will take a bit more time oil too. 

Welcome aboard.  Is it time to blank out hysteria and work towards rebuilding a liveable environment.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Arr huh,  finally Wayne ole Pal
> 
> And we need to eliminate all contributing facits and causes that we can.  And we can almost eliminate coal,  will take a bit more time oil too.
> 
> Welcome aboard.  Is it time to blank out hysteria and work towards rebuilding a liveable environment.




This is evidence you don't listen Plod. This has been my position, stated explicitly on this thread several times, for years.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> This is evidence you don't listen Plod. This has been my position, stated explicitly on this thread several times, for years.




No champ,  I have noticed a gradual shift and statements made to insulate in case so to speak,  but your earlier vehemence against us so called hysterics was oposite to the extreme and venomous. 

No more to be said,  you have my respect,  let's move on constructively and encourage moves to help our planet.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> No champ,  I have noticed a gradual shift and statements made to insulate in case so to speak,  but your earlier vehemence against us so called hysterics was oposite to the extreme and venomous.
> 
> No more to be said,  you have my respect,  let's move on constructively and encourage moves to help our planet.




I am still against unwarranted hysteria Plod, That is the topic of this thread. I will speak out against propagandists such as Cook, Gore, Hansen, basilio et al till the cows come home.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> I am still against unwarranted hysteria Plod, That is the topic of this thread. I will speak out against propagandists such as Cook, Gore, Hansen, basilio et al till the cows come home.




+1 Wayne......I cannot believe these idiots are still pushing there barrow full of Man made Global Warming tripe when there is so evidence to prove otherwise.

The sooner the Alarmist wake up to the fact that they now in the minority the better.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> +1 Wayne......I
> 
> The sooner the Alarmist wake up to the fact that they now in the minority the better.




Could b a bit of wishful thinking in this ole Pal when the dust (if it can,  washed or blown away)  settles


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> .... CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.
> ...
> 
> So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.





I would have thought CFC was replaced quicksmart when it was clear that Ozone depletion will mean higher UV radiation and that affect more White folks than the tanner ones 

Climate Change and fossil fuel on the other hand... well it kill poor White folks living in low lying areas or way out in the bush, and also poor people in poor countries... so let's drag our feet and build ourselves better mansions on higher grounds.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> I would have thought CFC was replaced quicksmart when it was clear that Ozone depletion will mean higher UV radiation and that affect more White folks than the tanner ones
> 
> Climate Change and fossil fuel on the other hand... well it kill poor White folks living in low lying areas or way out in the bush, and also poor people in poor countries... so let's drag our feet and build ourselves better mansions on higher grounds.




That's offensive grasshopper. 

But out of interest, research the housing accommodations of the chief alarmists and report back... for your own edification of course.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> That's offensive grasshopper.
> 
> But out of interest, research the housing accommodations of the chief alarmists and report back... for your own edification of course.




Truth often are Sifu.

If the oil magnate and politicians live near major roads and bridges, if their house are not air-conditioned and their livelihood depends on good weather for crops; and if their office and transports are not air-filtered... they'd "see" the urgency a bit quicker. 

'Til then, coal is a beautiful thing, good for humanity; and what's that joke our current immigration minister was caught about pacific islanders with water lapping at their doors? ha ha ha... I guess if his house were around the area he wouldn't find it so funny.


----------



## wayneL

Disappointed you have forsaken Tao to indulge in gross generalizations to support an ideological position.

Bad Grasshopper


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Disappointed you have forsaken Tao to indulge in gross generalizations to support an ideological position.
> 
> Bad Grasshopper




When science and reason point to a likely catastrophic future, one where all government seem to agree is a possible reality yet all seem to not do much beside making promises, fine speeches and accelerate fossil consumption and dependency... there are no alternative thy grasshopper can take but to conclude that some invisible hand with deep pockets are leading our leaders astray and giving the poor and our grandchildren the finger.

That and to imply that if the leaders were to not live in a bubble they would, as reasonable and sympathetic human beings, do something to alleviate the sufferings of millions. Such is being too generous for thy disciple fear that these leaders are aware of the danger, have been briefed on the potential crap storm (and some real normal stormy weather) that will flood cities and towns, washing away lives and livelihood... and yet chose to do jack about it because their true masters and their own self interests told them it's their job to lead and real leaders do not care for the little things like life and death (suffered by other people).

But a million apologies to have disappoint you Sifu. I will fetch water as punishment - was that Mount Franklin or just plain old Woolies Home Brand?


----------



## wayneL

Fire water will suffice 

Science?

Reason?

Catastrophic future?

Well, yes, when the sun transmogrifies into a red giant we are pretty well stuffed. That's when we may see some runaway global warming. We have some time before then however.

As to the the nearer term future, it is best summed up by Ms Curry "We don't farkin' know" (paraphrased), exemplified be the failure of the models to predict the trajectory of change, inter alia.

In fact my prediction, consistent with my long term view, is that we will get ourselves into trouble from other anthropomorphic factors exclusive of warming.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Fire water will suffice
> 
> Science?
> 
> Reason?
> 
> Catastrophic future?
> 
> Well, yes, when the sun transmogrifies into a red giant we are pretty well stuffed. That's when we may see some runaway global warming. We have some time before then however.
> 
> As to the the nearer term future, it is best summed up by Ms Curry "We don't farkin' know" (paraphrased), exemplified be the failure of the models to predict the trajectory of change, inter alia.
> 
> In fact my prediction, consistent with my long term view, is that we will get ourselves into trouble from other anthropomorphic factors exclusive of warming.




Many things cannot be predicted with precision, doesn't mean it's not happening or not going to happen.

Nobody can predict how a war will pan out, but it doesn't take much to know that any war will kill a lot of people, destroy countless cities and towns, make a few people very rich and with luck it end with enough humanity still left to start another one soon.

But true, at our current leadership mindset, other events will probably mean climate change is like a walk in the park (with canoes and face mask on a good day)


----------



## trainspotter

It would appear that we are doing nothing to save our planet?


----------



## trainspotter

Queensland drought?

http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/rainfall/observations/#map

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...ensland-graziers-welcome-weekend-rain/7065816


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Queensland drought?




Send half of that down south then we'll all be happy. 

It's seriously dry in Tas at the moment. Dry in Vic too to my understanding.


----------



## SirRumpole

Weather extremes were forecast as a consequence of global warming.

The evidence is now bearing out the predictions.


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Send half of that down south then we'll all be happy.
> 
> It's seriously dry in Tas at the moment. Dry in Vic too to my understanding.




Your wish is my command Oh Exhalted one .. it is on it's way !!


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Weather extremes were forecast as a consequence of global warming.
> 
> The evidence is now bearing out the predictions.




What weather extremes? This has been going on for centuries??

*I love a sunburnt country*,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
*Of droughts and flooding rains.*
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

Dorothea Mackellar wrote this in 1907 and was first published in 1908 !!


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Weather extremes were forecast as a consequence of global warming.
> 
> The evidence is now bearing out the predictions.




Yeah, with extreme ar$oholes predicting it.

Ahla Tim Flannery  2007...there will never be enough rains to fill the dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne..

GLOBAL WARMING.........What GLOBAL WARMING?......It is now CLIMATE CHANGE.

THE only way to fix it is to send Pat and Murphy up to the Sun with bucket of ice  to cool it down......They said they can do it by going up at night time. 

Rumpy, you have to have a sense of humor.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Weather extremes were forecast as a consequence of global warming.
> 
> The evidence is now bearing out the predictions.




If you look at the actual risk adjusted stats, rather than the Guardian, you will see that extreme weather events are not increasing


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> If you look at the actual risk adjusted stats, rather than the Guardian, you will see that extreme weather events are not increasing




Do you have a link ?

The Guardian article quote informed sources, I'd like to see yours

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds


----------



## wayneL

Graphs  -> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Send half of that down south then we'll all be happy.
> 
> It's seriously dry in Tas at the moment. Dry in Vic too to my understanding.




More to come over the next few days ...




Meanwhile in Canberra ...




Hopefully that will flush the sewers (read Parliament House) out of a few rats


----------



## trainspotter

> *UK wind power shatters energy records*
> 
> Wind power provided enough electricity to meet the annual needs of more than 8.25 million UK homes last year, figures show.
> Onshore and offshore wind generated a record 11 per cent of the UK's electricity in 2015, up from 9.5 per cent the year before, as the clean technology also set new weekly, monthly and quarterly generation records, industry body RenewableUK said.
> The renewable energy source provided the equivalent of meeting the power needs of more than 8.25 million households, around 30 per cent of all UK homes, up from 6.7 million the previous year.
> A new monthly record was set in December 2015, when 17 per cent of demand was met by wind, while a weekly record 20 per cent of the nation's needs was supplied in the last week of the year, over Christmas, according to the figures from National Grid.
> 
> RenewableUK's directory of policy Dr Gordon Edge said: "This is a great way to start the new year - the wind industry can be proud that it has shattered weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual generation records in 2015.
> "We've had a bumper harvest thanks to increased deployment and *superb wind speeds.*"




http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...s/news-story/8ada9dde3742cc233bfbac28d2bdcc38

Must be global warming or climate change or extreme weather events causing it to be so windy


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Do you have a link ?
> 
> The Guardian article quote informed sources, I'd like to see yours
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds





EXTREME...EXTREME...EXTREME....Sounds seriously if it was not laughable from the good old Fabian Guardian News Paper.....What else would expect from them.......The LUG party sympathizers. ...

Give up Rumpy......it is the weather and the Sun.


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> More to come over the next few days ...




Any chance of sending it a bit further south? Somewhere around Great Lake would be useful right now.... 

Or maybe around Campbell Town as the farms are pretty much stuffed and there's a bit of concern about the town's water supply.

Failing that, we'll happily have it pretty much anywhere down here. 

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...test&step=1&map=percent&period=3month&area=ta


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Graphs  -> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/




Umm Wayne, 

I count places for 41 graphs (they didn't all display on my system, but I have a poor Internet connection) on that page. Precisely TWO (2) are global data. One is a drought index, and the other is precipitation. None of the others include the southern hemisphere, and a large proportion are only for the US (many only the contiguous states).

That in no way answers the Guardian article, which refers to several types of extreme weather event and points out that "extreme" depends on the region as well as the event - an extreme heat wave in the UK would likely not be extreme in Marble Bar. 

I don't see the connection between "risk adjusted stats" and Watts' extreme weather page. Is there one? For that matter, what's the relevance of risk adjustment to the global frequency and intensity of extreme weather events? Humans don't live on most of the globe. 

Cheers,
Ghoti


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Umm Wayne,
> 
> I count places for 41 graphs (they didn't all display on my system, but I have a poor Internet connection) on that page. Precisely TWO (2) are global data. One is a drought index, and the other is precipitation. None of the others include the southern hemisphere, and a large proportion are only for the US (many only the contiguous states).
> 
> That in no way answers the Guardian article, which refers to several types of extreme weather event and points out that "extreme" depends on the region as well as the event - an extreme heat wave in the UK would likely not be extreme in Marble Bar.
> 
> I don't see the connection between "risk adjusted stats" and Watts' extreme weather page. Is there one? For that matter, what's the relevance of risk adjustment to the global frequency and intensity of extreme weather events? Humans don't live on most of the globe.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghoti




See Pielke Jnr's work for the risk adjusted stuff. Risk adjustment is to counter the artifact of increased monetary damage because of greater population etc.

The IPCC themselves see no trend apart from increased heatwaves.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> See Pielke Jnr's work for the risk adjusted stuff. Risk adjustment is to counter the artifact of increased monetary damage because of greater population etc.
> 
> The IPCC themselves see no trend apart from increased heatwaves.




I'll remember that when I pay my house insurance premium which has about doubled in the last few years.


----------



## basilio

For those people interested in looking at all the evidence around climate change this article from Climate Central offers some sober news.  It seems that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is flipping from a cool cycle to a warm rinse (sic) which will amplify the ongoing effects of global warming.



> *Earth is Experiencing a Global Warming Spurt*
> 
> Published: January 5th, 2016
> 
> John Upton
> 
> Cyclical changes in the Pacific Ocean have thrown earth’s surface into what may be an unprecedented warming spurt, following a global warming slowdown that lasted about 15 years.
> 
> While El Niño is being blamed for an outbreak of floods, storms and unseasonable temperatures across the planet, a much slower-moving cycle of the Pacific Ocean has also been playing a role in record-breaking warmth. The recent effects of both ocean cycles are being amplified by climate change.
> 
> A 2014 flip was detected in the sluggish and elusive ocean cycle known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, which also goes by other names, including the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. Despite uncertainty about the fundamental nature of the PDO, leading scientists link its 2014 phase change to a rapid rise in global surface temperatures.




http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877

The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> For those people interested in looking at all the evidence around climate change this article from Climate Central offers some sober news.  It seems that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is flipping from a cool cycle to a warm rinse (sic) which will amplify the ongoing effects of global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877
> 
> The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.





Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.

Read the link below and the many comments that follow.

It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/

*If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?

Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.

The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.

Wait — why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?

New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.

Are the drafts kept secret?

They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] — over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.*

*Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?

Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.

Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”*

 zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago

"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> For those people interested in looking at all the evidence around climate change this article from Climate Central offers some sober news.  It seems that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is flipping from a cool cycle to a warm rinse (sic) which will amplify the ongoing effects of global warming.
> 
> http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877
> 
> The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.




Are my eyes deceiving me or did I just read the following correctly???



> Cyclical changes in the Pacific Ocean have thrown earth’s surface into what may be an unprecedented warming spurt, *following a global warming slowdown that lasted about 15 years.*




Fwwoooaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr now we are getting somewhere basilio 

But but but there has been no slowdown we are all going to fry and drown and extreme weather event *insert hysterical maniacal laugh here*


----------



## noco

Townsville.
Tuesday 34c
Wednesday 35c
Today 36c.

This the hottest summer we have had for 12 months.

It's gotta be Global Warming.

Help we are all going to fry up here.


----------



## wayneL

I often wonder what basilio's agenda is, breathlessly regurgitating every Apocalyptic propaganda piece from The Guardian.

More kids to top themselves?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> More kids to top themselves?




Could you elaborate on that? 

When not sure how to hold an argument together it seems to bring out a nasty little streak. 

And of course the Oil lobbies Murdoch press is much more innocent,,  really


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Could you elaborate on that?
> 
> When not sure how to hold an argument together it seems to bring out a nasty little streak.
> 
> And of course the Oil lobbies Murdoch press is much more innocent,,  really



It is interesting that you consider my concern for the mental health of young people affected by unwarranted alarmism as "nasty", particularly as someone close to me has already suicided, citing AGW fears.

Let's examine the record of your Warmunist compadres.... Calling for the imprisonment or execution of sceptics, depicting the blow up of children who are doubtful of the warmist religious sect (the 350.org misanthropic scum) etc

Need I list every example of totalitarian nastiness from your tenuous group of malcontented propagandists?

Puleeeeze!!!!


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> I often wonder what basilio's agenda is, breathlessly regurgitating every Apocalyptic propaganda piece from The Guardian.
> 
> More kids to top themselves?



That's uncalled for Wayne. 

You might disagree with Basilio, or me, or the >90% of practising climate experts who acknowledge the threat that global warming poses to this and future generations of children. But that, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean you can deny their good will. 

I think you owe Basilio an apology.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> That's uncalled for Wayne.
> 
> You might disagree with Basilio, or me, or the >90% of practising climate experts who acknowledge the threat that global warming poses to this and future generations of children. But that, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean you can deny their good will.
> 
> I think you owe Basilio an apology.




Ah so your a card carrying member of the "let's take offense at trifles and demand an apology party".

Yep, when basilio apologizes for his recent ad hom.... But I won't hold my breath. 

Double standards methinks.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> See Pielke Jnr's work for the risk adjusted stuff. Risk adjustment is to counter the artifact of increased monetary damage because of greater population etc.



The Guardian article that Sir Rumpole referred to is about extreme weather. The Pielke Jr work you're alluding to is about disaster. Not all disasters are the result of extreme weather; one obvious cause unrelated to weather is earthquake. Not all extreme weather leads to disaster. One current example is the above zero temperatures at the North Pole. 

Disaster statistics are obviously very important, but they aren't evidence for or against changes in weather events. The 2012 IPCC report "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)" http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/ deals with the prospects for both in great detail. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Ah so your a card carrying member of the "let's take offense at trifles and demand an apology party".
> 
> Yep, when basilio apologizes for his recent ad hom.... But I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Double standards methinks.




Then thouthinks confusedly. Thine accusation of an agenda to make more kids top themselves, even with a question mark at the end, was no trifle.

I know you're very sore about that poor little girl. Her death is a horrible thing and the grief and anger must sometimes be overwhelming. But you're not alone in that. 

Take care.


----------



## basilio

The article I quoted from Climate Central discussed the flipping of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is another part of the picture on how our climate is affected by a number of factors. In this particular case this factor has been operating to cool the climate (in a significant but limited way) for around 15 years and now seems to be reversing its effect. As noted in the story this could amplify global warming  even further in the immediate future

Wayne discussion on this topic begins by saying we should look at the whole picture and then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any research that doesn't downplay the reality of global warming. The trouble is that almost all the research in the area says the world is becoming hotter, the effects are very dangerous and left unchecked the results will be catastrophic.  

The example of producing a narrow off topic set of graphs on disaster effects in response to the article on extreme weather is an example of the this approach. It makes it very hard to give him any credence on this subject.


----------



## basilio

Isn't Noco interesting? The article he quotes from Grist on the IPCC report is an interesting and very useful read on the processes of bringing together all the research on Climate Change and attempting to create a coherent picture at one point in time. Well worth a read - *in total*.  Cherry picking sections is just dishonest.

Yep research does bring up new information Noco. That's why its done.  

That's why we know so much more about our climate now than 30 years ago. 

That's why climate scientists are even more concerned about our future than ever before.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/


----------



## Tisme

Too much talk and not enough inaction. 

I think we all know things aren't the same as what they have been in our memories. 

The most important thing to know is how it's going to impact us positively and negatively. I see the major downside being mass migration as the savages are forced to leave their already desolate cultural homelands and head for fresh turf they can degrade into familiar poverty polis'. A big upside could be a increased vegetation in the arid belts because of higher rainfall?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Isn't Noco interesting? The article he quotes from Grist on the IPCC report is an interesting and very useful read on the processes of bringing together all the research on Climate Change and attempting to create a coherent picture at one point in time. Well worth a read - *in total*.  Cherry picking sections is just dishonest.
> 
> Yep research does bring up new information Noco. That's why its done.
> 
> That's why we know so much more about our climate now than 30 years ago.
> 
> That's why climate scientists are even more concerned about our future than ever before.
> 
> http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/




Yes and the IPCC and the UN Climate Change committee are very selective in what they use....They will always favor the peer reviewed Alarmists version......Anything which controversial to their thinking is thrown in the trash can...They are not interested in views which do not suit their agenda.

The article I posted indicates just how confused the IPCC are on Global Warming as a lot of their predictions have fallen flat and that is why they have to review their reports downward every 6 or 7 years.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne discussion on this topic begins by saying we should look at the whole picture and then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any research that doesn't downplay the reality of global warming. The trouble is that almost all the research in the area says the world is becoming hotter, the effects are very dangerous and left unchecked the results will be catastrophic.
> 
> The example of producing a narrow off topic set of graphs on disaster effects in response to the article on extreme weather is an example of the this approach. It makes it very hard to give him any credence on this subject.




Nice triple backflip with a half twist on the logic there bas.

In your world the Guardian seems to have supplanted data. Data regarding extreme weather events is not off topic on a discussion on extreme weather events now is it.

Speaking of credence, I don't think a left wrong propaganda rag has any.

Data is king.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Nice triple backflip with a half twist on the logic there bas.
> 
> In your world the Guardian seems to have supplanted data. Data regarding extreme weather events is not off topic on a discussion on extreme weather events now is it.
> 
> Speaking of credence, I don't think a left wrong propaganda rag has any.
> 
> Data is king.




Data is King Wayne? Is that like Black is White. Lies are Truth, Deniers are truthists, Climate is always Changing, Bolt is Right. Monckton is God, Watt is his right hand man?

Give us break. Your are transparently BS. The only data you accept is waffle that is has been lovingly massaged or totally miscreated by the narrow band of people who will not accept the climate is changing radically and will continue to do so unless quite drastic measures are taken.


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile back in Los Angeles ....



> The governor of California has declared a state of emergency in a suburb of Los Angeles over the leaking of methane gas from an underground storage field.
> Jerry Brown ordered "all necessary and viable actions" be taken to stop it.
> More than 2,000 families have been moved from their homes and many people have reported feeling ill because of the leakage, which began in October.
> It stems from a vast underground storage field in Porter Ranch, on the outskirts of Los Angeles.
> Gas is spewing into the atmosphere at a rate so fast that the well now accounts for about a quarter of the state's total emissions of methane - an extremely potent greenhouse gas.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35244634

Which equates to 4,500,000 vehicles emission per day !! Oh and it has been leaking at this rate since October 2015


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Data is King Wayne? Is that like Black is White. Lies are Truth, Deniers are truthists, Climate is always Changing, Bolt is Right. Monckton is God, Watt is his right hand man?
> 
> Give us break. Your are transparently BS. The only data you accept is waffle that is has been lovingly massaged or totally miscreated by the narrow band of people who will not accept the climate is changing radically and will continue to do so unless quite drastic measures are taken.




The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> The lady doth protest too much, methinks.




Nah just long observation of your behaviour Wayne.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Nah just long observation of your behaviour Wayne.




Is this how it goes now in this thread? Basilio gets called out for posting propaganda, gets angry and then plays the the man?

Well, I guess that's how your poster boys do it.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Is this how it goes now in this thread? Basilio gets called out for posting propaganda, gets angry and then plays the the man?
> 
> Well, I guess that's how your poster boys do it.




No mate.  I'm not playing the man. I'm sure your a fine specimen of human being, a great father, kind to dumb animals etc.

It's just you have NFI of what constitutes all the information in the discussions on climate change. On top of that you repeatedly refuse to accept any data that doesn't follow your line that there is nothing significant to worry about with global warming. 

But I'm sure your a great guy...

____________________________________________________

But this is just a boring waste of time.  I'm over you Wayne.


----------



## trainspotter

More propaganda for the grist ....



> The IPCC claims that global warming will result in more severe weather. This doesn't make any sense, as most storms are caused by a difference in temperatures of colliding air masses. If CO2 warms the Polar Regions there will be smaller temperature differences, and less severe storms. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, severe storms.
> 
> Unlike most storms, hurricanes are caused by difference in temperatures between the sea surface and the storm top.
> 
> Researchers Knutson and Tuleya examined a suite of climate models and found that they virtually unanimously projected that in a CO2-enhanced world, the middle and upper troposphere will warm at a faster rate than the surface, especially over the tropical oceans. More warming aloft than at the surface makes the atmosphere more stable and less conducive to storm formation. Thus, Knutson and Tuleya reported that the model-projected vertical stability increases in the future would temper (but not totally cancel out) the increase in storm intensity by rising sea surface temperature.
> 
> However, researchers Vecchi and Soden found that the climate models almost unanimously project that there will be an increase in the vertical wind shear during the hurricane season which also acts to inhibit tropical cyclone formation. The combined result is that any increase in hurricane intensity will be so small as to be undetectable. Incidentally, the actual vertical wind shear of Atlantic hurricanes have been declining since 1973, the opposite of the trend predicted by the climate models. See here.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of increasing severe storm events in the real world data.
> For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the World Meteorological Organization, "Reliable data ... since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."
> 
> Gulev, et al (2000) employed NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data since 1958 to study the occurrence of winter storms over the northern hemisphere. They found a statistically significant (at the 95% level) decline of 1.2 cyclones per year for the period, during which temperatures reportedly rose in much of the hemisphere.
> 
> *"Global warming causes increased storminess" makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history*.




http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=712#Severe_Weather


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> No mate.  I'm not playing the man. I'm sure your a fine specimen of human being, a great father, kind to dumb animals etc.
> 
> It's just you have NFI of what constitutes all the information in the discussions on climate change. On top of that you repeatedly refuse to accept any data that doesn't follow your line that there is nothing significant to worry about with global warming.
> 
> But I'm sure your a great guy...
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> But this is just a boring waste of time.  I'm over you Wayne.



So let me get this straight. I have NFI, but you are the suppository (sic) ofclimate knowlege?

Interesting delusion.

But I'll never tire of highlighting unwarranted hysteria and propaganda. There's a young lady I owe that to.


----------



## basilio

It's all about Data..

In 2008 a peer reviewed paper was published in the science journal Nature. The lead author  Leibniz Institute's Noel Keenlyside, forecast that global temperatures would stabilise between 2005 - 2015. 

The paper created a bit of a ruckus at the time with climate contrarians using it to cast doubt on the veracity of the overwhelming majority of climate  scientists.

On the other side of the ledger climate scientists offered  to bet 5000 Euros against the forecast.

It's 2016 Wayne. Could you inform this thread how this prediction turned out and the response of Curry, Watts and Co to the outcome ?

Cheers


> Commodities | Fri May 9, 2008 6:44pm BST
> Related: Environment
> *Global cooling theories put scientists on guard*
> LONDON | By Gerard Wynn
> 
> A new study suggesting a possible lull in manmade global warming has raised fears of a reduced urgency to battle climate change.
> 
> ...the Nature paper has sparked worries that briefly cooler temperatures may take the heat out of action to fight the threat of more droughts and floods, while a debate about the article's findings has also underlined uncertainty about such forecasting.
> 
> Most scientists oppose the minority that has used the present lull in warming to cast doubt on the size of threat from manmade global temperature rises.
> 
> "Let's say there wasn't much of a warming for the next 10 years, how will the public and politicians play this out?" said Bob Watson, former IPCC head and current chief scientific adviser to Britain's environment ministry.
> 
> DOUBT
> 
> The reaction to the Nature paper has underlined uncertainty about climate forecasting, as well as the fact that a minority of global warming doubters has not gone away.
> .
> 
> ..*.Meanwhile six climate scientists offered on Thursday to bet 5,000 euros ($7,730) that the Nature article's forecast of cooling or no warming globally from 2000-2015 was wrong.
> 
> "We think not -- and we are prepared to bet serious money on this," say the scientists, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a comment posted at realclimate.org/*
> 
> The original Nature article's lead author, Leibniz Institute's Noel Keenlyside, acknowledged on Friday that recent data showed much more warming that he had forecast through 2007, but stood by a "stabilization" of temperatures from 2005-2015.
> 
> He blamed shifts in ocean currents and temperatures, thought also to be the cause of the plateau in temperatures since 1998.
> 
> Gary Yohe, climate scientist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said that opponents of tougher action on global warming in the United States had seized on the Nature report as a sign that climate change was slowing down.
> 
> Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", said a slowdown in warming might help governments focus on smarter, long-term solutions rather than being panicked into action.




http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climate-science-idUKL0982254220080509

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
_
By the way.  Full points to the climate scientist who had the courage put his argument that global warming might flatten out for 10 years. Hypothesis , prediction etc._


----------



## wayneL

Can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make.




A climate scientist made a prediction about projected temperatures in 2007 in a peer reviewed paper.  He said temperatures would hold or possibly reduce by 2015.

Who (would have) won the 5000 Euro bet on the result ? What do the figures say ? What did Watts, Curry and co say (if anything ) ?


----------



## basilio

xxxxx


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> A climate scientist made a prediction about projected temperatures in 2007 in a peer reviewed paper.  He said temperatures would hold or possibly reduce by 2015.
> 
> Who (would have) won the 5000 Euro bet on the result ? What do the figures say ? What did Watts, Curry and co say (if anything ) ?




Him being correct would be contingent on the warm trend continuing. We'll need a few years to see if that plays out. But so far he's looking good.

But I don't know what that proves???


----------



## wayneL

....and just by way of a point of order, both basilio and ghotib blithely quote the "> 90% of scientists agree" mantra, presumably from Cook's discredited survey. In fact there is no such consensus as detailed in a later more honestly constructed survey.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

Read it and weep.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> ....and just by way of a point of order, both basilio and ghotib blithely quote the "> 90% of scientists agree" mantra, presumably from Cook's discredited survey. In fact there is no such consensus as detailed in a later more honestly constructed survey.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
> 
> Read it and weep.




Maybe someone can explain to me how you can have more than 100% of global warming attributed to human induced ghg emissions ?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> ....and just by way of a point of order, both basilio and ghotib blithely quote the "> 90% of scientists agree" mantra, presumably from Cook's discredited survey. In fact there is no such consensus as detailed in a later more honestly constructed survey.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
> 
> Read it and weep.




Yes Wayne, this has been my point for years......This whole Global Warming business is nothing more than a con and a scam and should be exposed for what it is.......As I posted before, the IPCC and the UN Climate Change Committee only select information that suits their agenda and any opposition is cast aside.

I hope basilio and ghotib did read the link and all the attachments but I am sure they will still want to hit back....One would have to be a Greenie or a leftist to continue in their bigoted way on this man made Global Warming.

I sure would  like to be around in 2100 or even another 30 years.

The Alarmist are now in the minority.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> *Him being correct would be contingent on the warm trend continuing. ? *We'll need a few years to see if that plays out. But so far he's looking good.
> 
> But I don't know what that proves???




Is this another Black is White statement Wayne ? The climate scientist said global temperatures *would hold or fall between 2007 and 2015. 
* Well they havn't of course so the bet was well and truly lost. 

Just more (inconvenient)  data Wayne.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Is this another Black is White statement Wayne ? The climate scientist said global temperatures *would hold or fall between 2007 and 2015.
> * Well they havn't of course so the bet was well and truly lost.
> 
> Just more (inconvenient)  data Wayne.




Just like the 97%?


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Just like the 97%?




Is that a reference to the con censor us?


----------



## basilio

Well Wayne why am I not surprised when you quote a JoNova report which somehow trumpets no consensus on climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity.

Just to change the picture a bit (for other readers not you naturally..) there are other excellent surveys of climate scientists on this topic.


> *Survey confirms scientific consensus on human-caused global warming*
> by Bart Verheggen
> *
> A survey among more than 1800 climate scientists confirms that there is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases.
> 
> This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature.
> 
> The main attribution statement in IPCC AR4 may lead to an underestimate of the greenhouse gas contribution to warming, because it implicitly includes the lesser known masking effect of cooling aerosols.
> 
> Self-reported media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate*.
> 
> In 2012, while temporarily based at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), my colleagues and I conducted a detailed survey about climate science. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire. The main results of the survey have now been published in Environmental Science and Technology (doi: 10.1021/es501998e).
> 
> Level of consensus regarding attribution
> 
> The answers to the survey showed a wide variety of opinions,* but it was clear that a large majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming. Consistent with other research, we found that the consensus is s90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming.* This is based on two different questions, of which one was phrased in similar terms as the quintessential attribution statement in IPCC AR4 (stating that more than half of the observed warming since the 1950s is very likely caused by GHG).




https://ourchangingclimate.wordpres...fic-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

_______________________________________________

To go back to the question I posed earlier about what had happened to global warming between 2005 -2015.  
You were quite right to studiously avoid actually researching the question and coming back with the answer. As we all know 2015 was in fact the warmest year on current records (but not of course to you and your elite band of merry monks) 

For other people who are interested the real scientists at Real Climate did an analysis on the figures. Alas the 5000Euro would have been whisked away.


> *
> And the winner is…*
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate modelling Climate Science Instrumental Record IPCC
> 
> — group @ 17 November 2015
> 
> *Remember the forecast of a temporary global cooling which made headlines around the world in 2008? We didn’t think it was reliable and offered a bet. The forecast period is now over: we were right, the forecast was not skillful.*
> 
> Back around 2007/8, two high-profile papers claimed to produce, for the first time, skilful predictions of decadal climate change, based on new techniques of ocean state initialization in climate models. Both papers made forecasts of the future evolution of global mean and regional temperatures. The first paper, Smith et al. (2007), predicted “that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” The second, Keenlyside et al., (2008), forecast in contrast that “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
> 
> This month marks the end of the forecast period for Keenlyside et al and so their forecasts can now be cleanly compared to what actually happened. This is particularly interesting to RealClimate, since we offered a bet to the authors on whether the results would be accurate based on our assessment of their methodology. They ignored our offer but now the time period of the bet has passed, it’s worth checking how it would have gone.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/

Yep its all about data.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well Wayne why am I not surprised when you quote a JoNova report which somehow trumpets no consensus on climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity.
> 
> Just to change the picture a bit (for other readers not you naturally..) there are other excellent surveys of climate scientists on this topic.
> 
> 
> https://ourchangingclimate.wordpres...fic-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> To go back to the question I posed earlier about what had happened to global warming between 2005 -2015.
> You were quite right to studiously avoid actually researching the question and coming back with the answer. As we all know 2015 was in fact the warmest year on current records (but not of course to you and your elite band of merry monks)
> 
> For other people who are interested the real scientists at Real Climate did an analysis on the figures. Alas the 5000Euro would have been whisked away.
> 
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/
> 
> Yep its all about data.




Very selective again basilio.

There are another 28,200 climate change scientist who may differ......Once again their opinion is discounted....

SCAM.....SCAM....SCAM.

Only the naive will swallow this report.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Very selective again basilio.
> 
> There are another 28,200 climate change scientist who may differ......Once again their opinion is discounted....
> 
> SCAM.....SCAM....SCAM.
> 
> Only the naive will swallow this report.




I believe you are confusing a 1990's survey with everyone from  Charles Darwin to retired engineers making a comment versus a current survey of active climate scientists.  

Absolutely no comparison Noco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Only the naive will swallow this report.




Only the very naive will continue the denial.   The hysteria has shifted camps.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I believe you are confusing a 1990's survey with everyone from  Charles Darwin to retired engineers making a comment versus a current survey of active climate scientists.
> 
> Absolutely no comparison Noco
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition




Absolutely no confusion on my part.....You lefties can believe what ever you want....Only time will prove you wrong.....The IPCC *IS* selective and the this whole man made Global Warming is a SCAM.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...mage-gallery/d733c9612e97123c11d89a370c083e11 

Here are some nice pictures of Lake Eyre to give you a pleasant Sunday morning.....Good rains in Queensland came to fill the lake....Was it due to Global Warming, Climate Change or the Sun?

BTW, the bush fires in the southern part of Australia combined with the cold winds flowing South East from the Himalayas helps to produce the northern monsoon rains......


----------



## wayneL

Well surveys such as quoted by Nova reflect my anecdotal experience. I actually have several scientists in my client list, at least 20 of various disciplines who have taken an interest in the science or are in allied fields... Geology, environmental sciences etc.

Actually none hold the catastrophic view. Similarly, none refute human influence. But there is a diversity of views along the spectrum in between. All are cognizant of a pro warming agenda in the funding.

Anecdotal to be sure, but reflects the real world ime.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Well surveys such as quoted by Nova reflect my anecdotal experience. I actually have several scientists in my client list, at least 20 of various disciplines who have taken an interest in the science or are in allied fields... Geology, environmental sciences etc.
> 
> Actually none hold the catastrophic view. Similarly, none refute human influence. But there is a diversity of views along the spectrum in between. All are cognizant of a pro warming agenda in the funding.
> 
> Anecdotal to be sure, but reflects the real world ime.




I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.

As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.

So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.
> 
> As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.
> 
> So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.




Rumpy bravo, but did you ever think of checking that agreement of those 190 countries before you  said *HIP HIP HOORAY*, the skeptics have been beaten.

If you dare to read the agreement, which I don't think you have, you will note that it is full of loop holes.


http://www.natlawreview.com/article/more-190-countries-agree-climate-change-pact

The Agreement “aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.” Its objective is to hold the average global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also sets a more ambitious target of limiting temperature increases to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Advocates for climate change regulation have expressed disappointment over the magnitude of the GHG reduction targets in the Pact. *However, many acknowledged that the Agreement is merely a starting point and forms the framework from which to advocate for more aggressive reductions in the future. *

Each signatory country agrees to prepare and maintain successive nationally determined GHG reduction contributions that it intends to achieve under the Pact. These countries must also pursue domestic mitigation measures to achieve these contributions. Successive iterations of these commitments are anticipated every five years and must reflect the “highest possible ambition.” Developed countries, such as the United States, also commit to undertake “economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.”* Importantly, the Agreement does not make any nation’s GHG reduction targets a binding, international commitment. This was done, in large measure, at the insistence of the United States negotiation team which took great pains to avoid making commitments that might require Congressional approval.*
- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article...gree-climate-change-pact#sthash.krRXhpZn.dpuf

So do you really think those 190 countries will be singing from the same boo? 

So Rumpy, don't count your chickens before they are hatched...It is not over until the fat lady sings.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.
> 
> As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.
> 
> So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.




You are confusing science with politics. However, I will inform these scientists that Horace thinks they're wrong.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> You are confusing science with politics. However, I will inform these scientists that Horace thinks they're wrong.




Wayne, that Paris agreement has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.....It will never get off the ground just like all the other conferences........The agreement is only a starting point..

As you say it is all political and less science.

It is a scam and most countries know it scam but they, like the USA, make it look like they are doing something about it.....The Chinese OTS is something like $1.50 per tonne.......mere peanuts.


----------



## ghotib

Came across this today. It's a series of beautifully clear graphs showing how much various natural and human factors have contributed to the current global warming. Info about source data at the end.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


----------



## noco

I repeat my post #6945.

*ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%!

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. 

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. 
The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer.

Terry  McCrann writes:

    Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:
    Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide? 

UPDATE:
Gavin Atkins from Hybrid News Ltd writes:
Gillard’s brand new carbon tax lie

    On ABC’s 7.30 program last night, Julia Gillard was asked why Australia should put a price on carbon dioxide when the United States does not and she responded with this:

        JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.

Atkins then, using IPCC figures, shows Australia uses less! He also reminds us of Kevin Rudd's oft-told lie that Australia is the hottest and driest continent on Earth and concludes:

    So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information? 




 UPDATE:
Bob Carter has a new opinion piece in Quadrant-on-line.
Global warming: 10 little facts
by Bob Carter   March 14, 2011
He starts off with 10 lies, including the above.

UPDATE: More Gillard lies.....

*


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> I repeat my post #6945.




Why?


----------



## basilio

Lovely piece of work Ghotlib.  I had seen a similar graph before but I love the way each contributing factor is identified and the impact noted.

One big interesting factor was the way aerosals  are actually reducing global temperature. The problem with that is that if/when we reduce the amount of pollution from coal fired power stations and other similar factors *temperatures will rise* and quite significantly.


----------



## Smurf1976

ghotib said:


> Came across this today. It's a series of beautifully clear graphs showing how much various natural and human factors have contributed to the current global warming.




The concerning bit is that with the huge rise in coal consumption in China this century, the contribution of aerosols to reducing temperature would have increased substantially since the end of that chart. As such, we ought to have seen a significant cooling of the planet....


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?




Whether or not something is a pollutant depends on context and is in many cases a matter of opinion.

Lead is most certainly a pollutant if in food. It is not a pollutant in the feedstock going into a metal smelter.

Classical music could be considered noise pollution if someone starts playing it at a heavy metal concert. The same music would obviously not be considered noise pollution under different circumstances.

Ozone is well known as a desirable thing to have in the stratosphere. In cities ozone is most commonly known as "smog" and is considered undesirable in that location.

And so on. Pollution is very much a case of context.


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> The concerning bit is that with the huge rise in coal consumption in China this century, the contribution of aerosols to reducing temperature would have increased substantially since the end of that chart. As such, we ought to have seen a significant cooling of the planet....



Good comment - It's kept me up way beyond my bedtime. Here's what I've found so far:

1. Some aerosols have a warming effect, notably Black Carbon, aka soot. So the effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions depends on their composition.

2. Aerosols stay in the atmosphere for up to about 2 weeks, which means they aren't evenly distributed around the earth as CO2, for example, is. Their effects therefore tend to be regional rather than global, and difficult to incorporate into global climate models. 

3. From the Executive summary to the relevant chapter of the IPCC 5th report: 







> Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget.





This is an older but I think still useful article from NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php. The next page talks about the role of aerosols in cloud formation. 

Gotta get some sleeeeeeep.

Ghoti


----------



## noco

Perhaps nature is taking care of Climate change according to scientists...The Southern Oceans can absorb C02...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n/news-story/3e7caf7cb54e8012e7461680ffe4be2e

*Scientists have discovered an unexpected upside to global warming: giant icebergs that act as floating fertiliser factories, stimulating marine life and filtering carbon from the atmosphere.

British geographers have found that iron seeping from icebergs in the Southern Ocean cultivates massive plankton blooms that can extend for 1000km and last for months.

The discovery, revealed this morning in the journal Nature Geoscience, suggests ice chunks breaking away from Antarctica are triggering renewals of marine life in open stretches of one of the world’s most hostile environments. It also suggests that *climate scientists have under-estimated the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Southern Ocean’s microscopic plants.

This ocean is credited with about one 10th of the marine world’s carbon sequestration, with biological processes contributing about 20 per cent of this. But the newly discovered phenomenon means the ocean *recycles up to one fifth more carbon than previously thought.

Co-author Grant Bigg, of the University of Sheffield, said this could slow the overall impact of global climate change by up to 5 per cent. He said similar processes could also be occurring in other oceans.

Professor Bigg said the ecological impacts of the blooms would be mostly positive. “More phytoplankton would exist within a few hundred kilometres of an iceberg, giving an increased food source for species higher up the (food chain).” Scientists have long recognised that icebergs support plankton blooms, but the new paper suggests their scale has not been recognised.*


----------



## basilio

Well there's a surprise. Noco quoting and agreeing with a science report that matter of factly recognises the reality of global warming.

By the way did The Australian also quote the full context of the Press Release or did you just snip the bits you wanted  Noco ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-are-slowing-climate-change-research-reveals


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile in California,



> On October 23, Southern California Gas Company discovered a leak at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. It is still leaking, spewing methane into the atmosphere, sickening nearby residents, and prompting Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency. It is widely being hailed as the worst environmental disaster since the BP oil spill. And SoCal Gas says the leak likely won't be contained until March at the earliest.




http://www.vox.com/2016/1/11/10749602/california-gas-leak-explained

https://www.edf.org/climate/aliso-canyon-leak-sheds-light-national-problem



> At two and a half months, the leak has spewed the equivalent of almost 7 million metric tons of CO2. Let's say the leak is shut down in two months and there's 5 million more. That's 12 million tons, in a state that emits around 459 million tons a year ”” about 2.5 percent of the total. But it is California's single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and will, remarkably, add another third again to the state's total methane emissions.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Well there's a surprise. Noco quoting and agreeing with a science report that matter of factly recognises the reality of global warming.
> 
> By the way did The Australian also quote the full context of the Press Release or did you just snip the bits you wanted  Noco ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-are-slowing-climate-change-research-reveals




This is a very divisive comment. We are all in agreeance that there is such a thing as global warming or climate change is it's new user friendly handle. The disagreeance is on the HYSTERIA that is generated by such statements as the ones below:-



> “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.






> Gore made claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.”






> March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”






> The controversy began in 2000, when then director of Australia’s National Tidal Centre (NTC), Wolfgang Scherer, announced that after seven years of measurements around the Pacific “there is no acceleration in sea level rise””none that we can discern at all.” Tuvalu, in particular, got a pie in the face: the NTC announced that sea level at Funafuti had actually fallen by 3.42 inches since 1993.




http://www.smithsonianmag.com/trave...eneath-the-sea-180940704/#uD5e7g7BJEvMy8Fe.99

And now for some level headedness to prevail ...



> Few people would make an important decision based on next week’s weather forecast. When it comes to “climate,” though, the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom based on failed models purporting to make predictions decades and even centuries in advance. Flawed predictions aside, a great deal of evidence suggests accuracy or truth was never the intent ””* generating fear to seize more money and power was *(and is). Many top alarmists have admitted as much, with some responding to the implosion of their theories with calls for censorship or, more extreme still, the imprisonment, re-education, and even execution of “climate deniers.”
> 
> _*The Earth’s climate has always changed, and very likely will continue to change, regardless of what humans do.*_* What is now clear, though, is that the establishment has no idea what those changes will be ”” much less what drives the changes or how to control them.*




Resist the HYSTERIA !!


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well there's a surprise. Noco quoting and agreeing with a science report that matter of factly recognises the reality of global warming.
> 
> By the way did The Australian also quote the full context of the Press Release or did you just snip the bits you wanted  Noco ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-are-slowing-climate-change-research-reveals




This is the rest of the article.

*Professor Bigg said the ecological impacts of the blooms would be mostly positive. “More phytoplankton would exist within a few hundred kilometres of an iceberg, giving an increased food source for species higher up the (food chain).” Scientists have long recognised that icebergs support plankton blooms, but the new paper suggests their scale has not been recognised.

Previous estimates were based on smaller icebergs restrained by sea ice off the Antarctic Peninsula, and measurements near icebergs in the ocean open.

The new study found the plankton blooms were more intense around larger icebergs, with the impacts peaking between 50km and 200km away. The plume is mostly nourished by meltwaters from the base of the icebergs which “takes a little time to rise to the surface”, the paper says.

The study was based on 175 satellite images of the open ocean around 17 giant icebergs ”” those at least 18km long ”” between 2003 and 2013. It judged plankton concentrations by tracking changes in the ocean’s colour as each iceberg passed. Chlorophyll in plankton’s cells can make the ocean appear greener.

*


----------



## basilio

Thanks Noco. I was just wondering what the whole Australian story said.

The Guardian also carried the story.  Again they quoted much/most of the article as The Australian. What was interesting was how they finished off the story putting in the context of the other research on why there are now huge icebergs coming off the Antarctic.



> ....The discovery was a surprise as previous studies of small icebergs, or using ship-based measurements, has suggested a much smaller fertilisation effect. The largest iceberg analysed in the new study was more than 50km long.
> 
> The impact of global warming on melting ice in Antarctica, much of which is far below 0C, has been widely studied. Biggs and his colleagues note that satellite gravity data show a 5% increase in ice discharge from the continent over the past two decades.
> 
> In 2014, two separate teams of scientists found that the collapse of the Western Antarctic ice sheet is already under way and is unstoppable. The loss of this entire ice sheet would cause up to 4m of sea-level rise in coming centuries. In 2015, researchers found the melting of floating ice shelves around Antarctica was faster than thought, potentially unlocking extra sea level rise from larger ice sheets jammed behind them.
> 
> Professor Andrew Shepherd, director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds, said in 2015 that the rates of ice shelf loss were unsustainable and could cause a major collapse. This is already occurring at the massive Pine Island glacier, where ice loss has doubled in speed over the last 20 years as its blocking ice shelf has melted.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-are-slowing-climate-change-research-reveals

It's interesting how The Australian chose not to contextualise the research paper in terms of the wider analysis of what is happening in the Antarctic. I wonder how it goes to quote and agree with one scientists work but then rubbish other scientists who explain why we have so many huge icebergs calving and where that will take us..


----------



## SirRumpole

At the risk of frightening young children ...

*Global temperatures in 2015 by far hottest in modern times, science agencies say*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> At the risk of frightening young children ...
> 
> *Global temperatures in 2015 by far hottest in modern times, science agencies say*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164




Thank God for pause busting revisions


----------



## basilio

Really Rumpy ?  2015 was the hottest year world wide  since detailed records have been kept ? 
And it totally trashed 2014 as well which was pretty well the hottest year on record.?

Should we  start to take notice of what climate scientists have been saying for 30 years plus ? 



> *NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015 *
> 
> *Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
> *
> Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.
> 
> The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index. Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty.
> 
> “Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice - now is the time to act on climate.”
> 
> The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.
> 
> *Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.*
> 
> Phenomena such as El Niño or La NiÃ±a, which warm or cool the tropical Pacific Ocean, can contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño was in effect for most of 2015.
> 
> “2015 was remarkable even in the context of the ongoing El Niño,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Last year’s temperatures had an assist from El Niño, but it is the cumulative effect of the long-term trend that has resulted in the record warming that we are seeing.




http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Really Rumpy ?  2015 was the hottest year world wide  since detailed records have been kept ?




You don't believe it or are you just being sarcastic ?


----------



## wayneL

With the el Nino it was always going to be a hot year. The hottest? I want to see some sober analysis first.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> With the el Nino it was always going to be a hot year. The hottest? I want to see some sober analysis first.




By Andrew Bolt you mean ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> By Andrew Bolt you mean ?




Dude, you know I'm not a Bolt watcher.

Lindzen has already had a few words to say.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> I want to see some sober analysis first.





You want to see sober analysis???  that's taking the pi$$...........


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> With the el Nino it was always going to be a hot year. The hottest? I want to see some sober analysis first.




The "el Nino"  is the pattern with the warmer waters,  but is not the cause of the warmer waters and there by the higher temperatures.  

No one wants to address why the earth is not continuing to cool as it is supposed to.   And for you noco the sun is continuing to cool down and the odd firestorms have never had much impact over the last half billion years or so.    And I learnt that at school.


----------



## trainspotter

What really happened at The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference:-


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> You want to see sober analysis???  that's taking the pi$$...........




Not uncritically accepting US gu'mint press releases is taking the pi$$?


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> At the risk of frightening young children ...
> 
> *Global temperatures in 2015 by far hottest in modern times, science agencies say*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164




If Clive Palmer hadn't been soaking up all the sunshine in Townsville, it too would have been a stinker for the locals.


----------



## Logique

Vale Prof Bob Carter, a true scientist.  A Royal Commission would be a good idea.



> Lysenkoism and Climate Science
> Jan 21, 2016
> 
> The Quadrant, http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/01/hansenist-climate-alarmism/
> 
> ...It is crystal clear that there is only one way to restore public confidence in climate policy and research in Australia, and that is for an independent and authoritative investigation to be carried out into the matter before an experienced judge assisted by scientifically expert counsellors...
> 
> ...Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate. We add ….. that the scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent *scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under strict rules of evidence*”.
> 
> Bob Carter was a geologist and environmental scientist who studied ancient climate change. It was his curse to be a man of integrity in a field colonised by careerists and charlatans.


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> Vale Prof Bob Carter, a true scientist.  A Royal Commission would be a good idea.




Indeed.

And for an epitome of the poisonous alarmist mentality: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/01/19/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time/



> Today brings us news of another such advancement in science, with the reported death of Robert Carter.
> 
> As far as I can recall, he was a minor figure in the Great Climate Wars; at least, I don’t seem to have been very interested in him. He gets those usual suspects Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen wrote in 2007; a throwaway line ($1,667 per month) from Heartland in 2012. That seems to be it. It’s a bit of a sad end when even I couldn’t be bothered to attack him.




Nice guy


----------



## basilio

Very sad that someone, anyone indeed should speak ill of the dead even the venerable Professor Rob Carter.

However it is worth pointing out just how mendacious Professor Carter was in his various (paid) presentations attempting to undermine the reality of global warming. It's worth exploring to the end to see just how badly Bob could torture graphs to come up with the "right" result.


> *
> Bob Carter Does his Business*
> Posted on July 13, 2011 | 120 Comments
> 
> A certain blogger decided to inform us all that Bob Carter does the Business, referring to the this presentation to the Sydney Mining Club. Others have praised Carter’s presentation at the Heartland conference. There’s a lot of similarity between two presentations. And what, you wonder, does Bob Carter have to say about global warming?
> 
> For one thing, Carter goes to some length to claim that the surface temperature record (according to institutions like NASA GISS) is unreliable. In fact he implies that it’s downright useless. Yet he also states that the satellite record is reliable (and he uses the version from UAH). Which makes me wonder ”” if the satellite record is so reliable but the surface record is so useless, why do they agree so closely?







And on it goes.  There is some fancy footwork in the later graphs. Worth a look.

....Of course four and half  years later with successive  record breaking world temperature records almost everyone has seen the light ?

(NFW...)

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/


----------



## wayneL

Torturing graphs? paid? LMAO I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Funny guy.


----------



## basilio

Fair enough Wayne.  Clearly you didn't quite pick up  exactly how Bob Carter tortured graphs in his presentations to dispute the realities of global warming.

Lets have a look.



> In his heartland presentation he used three dots, and claimed that there’s been no global warming for 52 years, since 1958.
> 
> I can play with dots too. I can also go get the actual data:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can even play with smoothing functions and show how fake Carter’s claim of “no global warming for 52 years” is:
> 
> 
> 
> The most surprising thing about Bob Carter’s presentations, both at the Sydney Mining Club and at the Heartland conference, is that his chicanery is so amateurish. He’s so transparent that you really have to bury your head in the sand (or perhaps somewhere else) not to see right through it.




There are a number of other examples in Tamino post which demonstrate just how dishonest Professor Carter was in his presentations.  But if you want to believe something badly enough you can always squint.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/


----------



## wayneL

basilio, Jesus! Every graph, every data series has been tortured into submission by vested interests.

Did you not realize that was the game? Remember the embarrassing 97% consensus which, like, wasn't?

Though slightly more subtle, you've done the exact same thing as the blog writer.

Poisonous.


----------



## basilio

While we are on the topic of lies and dribble in relation to climate change figures lets look at some of the rubbish that Tony Abbot sprouted during his term of office.

A research scientist did a paper dissecting the great climate change liar to empirically prove what most people already knew.  Even the short story in The Guardian manages to explain just why Tony Abbott was so comprehensively wrong in his statement.



> *
> Tony Abbott's climate claims debunked: researcher dissects 2013 statement*
> 
> Sophie Lewis was so annoyed about the way science was ignored in the political debate about climate change she went to work to disprove the myths
> 
> 
> Saturday 23 January 2016 08.25 AEDT
> 
> 
> Climate scientists are regularly infuriated by the things politicians say. But it’s not often they publish a scientific paper tearing a politician’s comments to shreds.
> 
> Sophie Lewis, from the Australian Research Council’s centre for excellence in climate science, has done exactly that, dissecting statements about climate records made by the former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2013.
> 
> Last week, temperature figures showed 2015 was officially the hottest year on record. Before that, 2014 was the hottest year on record. And scientists are expecting 2016 to once again win the dubious honour.
> 
> Heat records are being broken with wild abandon. Last year, 10 months broke temperature records.
> 
> Climate scientists say a rise in the average temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions makes extreme heat records more likely.
> 
> In 2013, the UN’s top climate official, Christiana Figueres, linked bushfires in Australia to climate change. Abbott called such claims “complete hogwash” and said drawing links between broken records and climate change was a sign of desperation.
> 
> *He went on: “The thing is that at some point in the future, every record will be broken, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate change. It just proves that the longer the period of time, the more possibility of extreme events.”*
> 
> Superficially it seems to make sense: if you wait long enough, you’re bound to see records fall. Lewis suspected many people shared Abbott’s interpretation, and set out to show it was wrong.
> 
> Lewis says she was frustrated by the gap she saw between what the science showed and what some politicians said was happening.




http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-researcher-dissects-2013-statement-australia

It's all data folks.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> basilio, Jesus! Every graph, every data series has been tortured into submission by vested interests.
> 
> Did you not realize that was the game? Remember the embarrassing 97% consensus which, like, wasn't?
> 
> Though slightly more subtle, you've done the exact same thing as the blog writer.
> 
> Poisonous.




No Wayne.  It's not a game.  When almost every scientist studying climate science uses similar figures to show we are in deep trouble we need to listen.

When rogues and charlatans cherry pick information to misled they are dishonest. The reason for what is called "peer reviewed" science is for fellow scientists to closely scrutinise each other and attempt to keep the scientific process  honest and accountable.  When people attempt to pass off doctored or dishonest data as representations of reality its just wrong. 

You know; like doctored accounts, fake witness statements, dishonest CV's.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> No Wayne.  It's not a game.  When almost every scientist studying climate science uses similar figures to show we are in deep trouble we need to listen.
> 
> When rogues and charlatans cherry pick information to misled they are dishonest. The reason for what is called "peer reviewed" science is for fellow scientists to closely scrutinise each other and attempt to keep the scientific process  honest and accountable.  When people attempt to pass off doctored or dishonest data as representations of reality its just wrong.
> 
> You know; like doctored accounts, fake witness statements, dishonest CV's.




Oh dear>

I invite you to read beyond Cook's Crapola


----------



## wayneL

intersesting post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/another-impartial-look-at-global-warming/


----------



## Logique

Attacking Prof Bob Carter, now that he's gone and can't defend himself, Basilio quotes the blog _Open Mind_. 

It's anything but, I'd say. Here is one of the many gems on this "Open Mind" blog - by an unknown author, I might add:



> https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/aligning-station-records/
> *Aligning Station Records* - July 6, 2011 - author unknown
> 
> As some of you know, I devised a method for aligning temperature data records which I believe is better than the “reference station method” used by NASA GISS.
> 
> However, the difference is small and it doesn’t change the overall global result when small regions are averaged, then those regional results are area-weight-averaged to produce a global estimate. It’s an interesting, and possibly useful, refinement which doesn’t change the overall final answer...
> 
> ...The temperature estimate for a specific location is the weighted average of nearby stations, with closer stations given greater weight by the weighting function. I ignored the weighting function altogether so that all stations in a given region can be equally weighted to compute a regional average.
> 
> My modification is therefore specifically tailored to produce a local estimate, whereas the Berkeley method is designed to include everything in one fell swoop and produce a global estimate...


----------



## trainspotter

Global warming? What global warming?



> New York: A winter storm has dumped nearly 58cm of snow on Washington, DC, before moving on to Philadelphia and New York, paralysing road, rail and airline travel along the US east coast.
> At least 10 states declared weather emergencies on Saturday, aiming to get a handle on highways made impassable by the drifting snow and to shore up coastal areas where the blizzard conditions raised the danger of flooding.
> 
> The worst appeared to be over for Washington, although moderate snow was expected to keep falling until late Saturday, with the deepest accumulation of 58 centimetres recorded in Poolesville, Maryland, north of the nation's capital.
> "Records are getting close - we're getting into the top five storms," Gallina said.




http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-snow...g-blizzard-20160123-gmcpsj.html#ixzz3y80uFotg 

Now before we burn up the keyboard in a retaliation of HYSTERIA that this is what global warming is all about that there will be record events of weather_* ie *_snow, heat, cyclones etc. you might want to check on some facts first:-

New York - The record high of 71cm of snow in the nation's capital was set in *1922*

California - The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7 C (134 F), which was measured on 10 July *1913 *at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.

Antarctica - The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2  °C (−128.6  °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, *1983*

But nothing to fear .. NOAA is here ...



> The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81 °C (1.46 °F) above the 20th century average of 15.8 °C (60.4 °F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08 °C (0.14 °F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61 °C (61.86 °F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. *The July temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) per century*.




https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

Is that right ? Per century eh? 0.65 degrees celcius ... no wait ... we might not be sure about that as we have to read the fine print ...



> Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns *with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.
> *
> For these reasons, l*arge-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself*. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.




Soooooooooooo they are making it up to fit their budgets now?


----------



## basilio

With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.



> Scientific Method / Science & Exploration
> 
> *Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
> How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.*
> 
> by Scott K. Johnson - Jan 22, 2016 2:30am AEDT
> 706
> Scott K. Johnson/Suzanna Soileau-USGS/Hanna-Barbera
> 
> “In June, NOAA employees altered temperature data to get politically correct results.”
> 
> At least, that's what Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) alleged in a Washington Post letter to the editor last November. The op-ed was part of Smith's months-long campaign against NOAA climate scientists. Specifically, Smith was unhappy after an update to NOAA’s global surface temperature dataset slightly increased the short-term warming trend since 1998. And being a man of action, Smith proceeded to give an anti-climate change stump speech at the Heartland Institute conference, request access to NOAA's data (which was already publicly available), and subpoena NOAA scientists for their e-mails.
> 
> Smith isn't the only politician who questions NOAA's results and integrity. During a recent hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) leveled similar accusations against the entire scientific endeavor of tracking Earth’s temperature.
> 
> “I would note if you systematically add, adjust the numbers upwards for more recent temperatures, wouldn’t that, by definition, produce a dataset that proves your global warming theory is correct? And the more you add, the more warming you can find, and you don’t have to actually bother looking at what the thermometer says, you just add whatever number you want.”
> 
> *There are entire blogs dedicated to uncovering the conspiracy to alter the globe's temperature. The premise is as follows—through supposed “adjustments,” nefarious scientists manipulate raw temperature measurements to create (or at least inflate) the warming trend. People who subscribe to such theories argue that the raw data is the true measurement; they treat the term “adjusted” like a synonym for “fudged.”*
> 
> Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. “Find me a scientist who’s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn’t exist,” he told Ars. “It’s beyond a doubt that we have to—have to—do some analysis. We can’t just take the data as a given.”
> 
> *Speaking of data, the latest datasets are in and 2015 is (as expected) officially the hottest year on record. It's the first year to hit 1 °C above levels of the late 1800s. And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.*



http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.
> 
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/






> Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. “Find me a scientist who’s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn’t exist,” he told Ars. “It’s beyond a doubt that we have to—have to—do some analysis. *We can’t just take the data as a given*.”




Are you for real basilio??

So the raw data is open to analysis or as NOAA puts it ...



> *Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do*, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.




So we cannot use the raw data it must be analysed first and anomalies assumed to create a trend pattern rather than declaring the actual temperature or are my eyes painted on and my brain has shrunk to a size of a pea and just as mushy?

That would have to be the most creative BS I have ever read in my life !! 



> And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.




Got any evidence on this or are the scientist now modelling down ? Surely it would serve them better to evidence raw data therefore creating more hysteria for the media and the masses to chow down on ?

"More warming" from raw data ....... what next? Polar bears in Antarctica face extinction ??

Taken from the link you supplied basilio ..



> This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets—particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. *And just last year, another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data.*
> 
> With that said, both satellite records do show slightly smaller warming trends for the troposphere than our surface records show, which is unexpected. “If you include the uncertainty analysis,” Mears explained,* “I think that the data aren’t really good enough to say that it either is or isn’t following what you expect.”*






> “Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something like that, *we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets.* I suspect that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets, but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite datasets,” Mears said.




So in other words they really don't know and need to analyse further and change their data sets and time of day correlation points and and and and and need I go on?


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.
> 
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/




The delineation of the quoted politicians as (R-Tex) Republican Texas, would be equally descriptive as (T-Rex) dinosaurs.

And for the Fossil fool lobby;   
Any legitimate evidence out there of cooling temperature? Early onset winters? Increased global glaciation? Migration toward the tropics of plant or animal species? Positive effects of increased oceanic acidification? A change in the decreasing trend of Arctic Ice cover? Permafrost areas increasing re-solidifying to trap its embedded methane?... There must be at least 2% of the scientific community that will concoct evidence to this end. Feel free to put it up. But before you do please make sure that you take off at least the red nose and the big shoes, clowns can have the effect of scaring the children.


----------



## basilio

Well TS I'm surprised you didn't see the graph highlighting how the raw data of weather around the world in fact indicates a higher level of warming.





Interesting isn't it ?  For all the huffing and puffing and outrage at adjusted global temperatures it turns out the adjustments seem to reduce the amount of warming. 

And as for the rest of the paper? You overlooked all the interesting ways that scientists had to account for the different ways water temperature were recorded - canvas buckets versus metal buckets, the use of water in engine room intakes which in itself was responsible for raising the indicated temperature by .6C.

You missed the differences in equipment, in the times that temperatures were taken, in the efforts to recognise the effects of creeping urban heat islands.  These are all factors understood by scientists as affecting their apparent temperatures and requiring attention if they actually want the most accurate representation. In many cases the subsequent figures produced a cooling bias.

And the you remember the Berkley Earth team which was financed by the Koch brothers and decided  to reconstruct all the temperatures again from their own calculations. Do you recall what the article said about that experience ?



> NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency all produce surface temperature datasets using independent methods, but there is also some overlap in data sources or techniques. So motivated by skepticism of human-caused global warming, University of California, Berkeley physicist Richard Muller organized a well-publicized project to create his own dataset, built from the ground up. This “Berkeley Earth” team chose to handle homogenization a little differently.
> 
> Rather than make adjustments, they simply split records containing sudden jumps into multiple records. Records that gradually drifted away from neighbors were just given low weights in the final averaging. But despite a number of methodological differences and a larger database of stations, their results looked just like everybody else’s.







Did you appreciate the discussion on just how hard it was to accurately calibrate the figures arrived at by satellite measures of temperature? I won't try to paraphrase it . Let's just quote verbatum. I noticed you managed to just pick out one sentence.



> As with the surface temperature datasets, there’s more to revealing the climate trend than just printing out the satellite measurements. There are two key corrections that have to be applied.
> 
> The first involves calibrating the instrument to keep the measurements from drifting over time. The satellite frequently takes a peek at deep space, getting a reading of the (well-known) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang””an almost absolutely frigid temperature of 2.7 kelvins. Then the instrument takes a microwave reading of a special block on the satellite itself that has a bunch of actual thermometers tracking its temperature, which varies as the satellite passes into and out of sunlight.
> 
> If the instrument had a simple linear sensitivity to temperature, you could just draw a straight line through those two known points and precisely work out the temperature of any other object. Unfortunately, there’s a slight curve to the sensitivity, and there are a number of slightly curved lines that can pass through two points. Use the wrong curved line, and the changing temperature of the calibration target on the satellite will influence your measurements. To figure out which curved line to use for each satellite, you have to carefully compare its measurements with those made by other satellites operating at the same time.
> 
> The second correction is the most important, and it has also caused significant confusion over the years. The satellites orbit the Earth from pole to pole, passing over each location at the same time of day each time. But many of the satellites don’t quite nail this rhythm and are progressively falling a little more behind schedule each day. Since temperature changes over the course of the day, your measurements for that location would slowly change over time even if every day were the same temperature. It’s as if you started checking the temperature at your house at 5:00pm each day but after a few years ended up checking at 7:00pm instead.
> 
> 
> *This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets””particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. And just last year, another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data.*
> 
> With that said, both satellite records do show slightly smaller warming trends for the troposphere than our surface records show, which is unexpected. “If you include the uncertainty analysis,” Mears explained, “I think that the data aren’t really good enough to say that it either is or isn’t following what you expect.”




So where did we end up ? It looks like all the global temperature records agree the increase in temperatures over the past 130/150 years.  The upper atmosphere records  have been repeatedly adjusted as scientists work with the inherent problems of  exceptionally complex technology (unlike the simpler thermometers ) . In that context scientists have the placed the highest degree of uncertainty on these figures.

And yet... *Because these UAH figures have indicated the least amount of global warming *some people insist it is the source of all knowledge - that the 4,5,6 plus other world wide temperature records are faked, dodgy, unreliable, irrelevant.

Finally TS did you see the comment from Berkeley Earth's Zeke Hausfather? It's worth quoting in full because it goes to the heart of all the bluster by sceptics about dodgy figures.



> "Back in 2010 or so, I put together some software that would download all the global temperature data, turn it into a global temperature estimate, and would let people play around with that," he continued. "A number of the skeptical folks created their own temperature reconstruction.
> 
> * And low and behold, it turned out to pretty much be the same as [the Met Office Hadley Centre’s dataset]. In fact, actually slightly warmer than Hadley. I think when people who are acknowledged as skeptical of these things do the work themselves and see that, lo and behold, the results aren’t different, that ends up being a very powerful thing.*”




And as Orr pointed out so eloquently you have to studiously ignore a million and one other facts on the ground to pretend that we are not seeing a major climatic change.

And the last two years have destroyed all climate records to date.


----------



## wayneL

Watching Neanderthal Apocalypse and the roll of climate change in their extinction. 

Bastids should have stopped driving SUVs eh?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Watching Neanderthal Apocalypse and the roll of climate change in their extinction.
> 
> Bastids should have stopped driving SUVs eh?




Watched it also and conclusion was a volcanic eruption.  

Try the other foot.


----------



## Logique

So volcanos can be significantly affect climate! No matter how much the Neanderthals limited their carbon-based fuel consumption.  Or imposed a firewood tax on themselves.

Meanwhile, if Basilio can reproduce un-attributed work, so can I.  

Cyclical, post-ice age warming should not be conflated with the theory of AGW caused by man-made CO2.  It is interesting that the alarmists "global warming", quickly morphed into "climate change".




Publisher: C3headlines@gmail.com ..On the above graph, from *1880 to current*, check temp change in blue against CO2 levels in black (left and right axes).

Global Warming Science Facts: *Climate Reality Intrudes, CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Global Temperatures*

Climate reality is confirmed by the actual global warming science facts - an analysis of HadCRUT global temperatures reveals that human CO2 has had little long-term impact

Prior to discussing the above chart, it is now irrefutable that modern global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years. This has been fully recognized by all climate alarmist scientists as they very publicly debate the reasons as to why their AGW models and predictions failed.

The plot above (Fig. A) represents the long-term temperature changes, with the monthly levels of atmospheric CO2 for context. Specifically, the temperature plot is the 30-year change in temperatures for each month since 1880. For example, the leftmost datapoint is the temperature change from January 1850 to January 1880 (360 months). For each month after January 1880, the 30-year change is plotted.

As the 30-year change plot indicates, *there have been extended periods of both warming and cooling, regardless of the CO2 (ppm) levels*. There are *two distinct warming periods*: the first starting March 1908 and ending December 1939; the second starting January 1974 and ending February 1998. Note the flattening and then downturn of 30-year temperature change after 1998, some 15 years ago.

The red curve represents the 5-year average of the long-term changes, leaving no doubt that the prior warming increase was just as "unprecedented" as the claimed modern warming after the mid-1970's.

What's the true climate reality? As is clearly depicted, the 5-year average shows no impact from the continuous, monotonous rise of CO2 levels after 1950. And modern global warming is not accelerating, nor unequivocal - in fact, *the modern warming is pretty much like past warming periods*.

In more detail (click to enlarge) the two similar warming periods are plotted in the above two charts. Figure B on the left is for the period stretching a total of 382 months, with a long-term temperature linear trend of 2.4 °C per century. Over this extended time period, CO2 levels only increased by 12 ppm from a very low point, reflecting relatively small human CO2 emissions prior to the modern consumer/industrial society.

Figure C represents the modern "unprecedented" and "catastrophic" long-term global warming as claimed by the climate alarmists. In reality, this modern warming lasted only 290 months and produced a global warming trend some 0.6 degrees less than the earlier period before collapsing after 1998. This "dangerous" warming occurred during a period of much higher atmospheric CO2 levels that quickly increased by 36 ppm (3 times more growth than early 20th century warming period).

Conclusions:* The global warming science facts are unequivocal that long-term temperature change is not being significantly driven by higher human CO2 emissions*, but ore likely a result of natural internal/external factors (ENSO, cosmic/solar, etc.). Climate reality is that the *earlier 20th century warming (1908-1939) was more intense*, producing a higher linear trend for long-term temperature change, and lasting considerably longer than the modern warming period (1974-1998). *The stronger warming during the earlier 20th century took place despite CO2 levels being significantly below the alarmist's supposed "safe" CO2 levels of 350 ppm*; and, the CO2 level increases during that period were one-third those of the modern warming.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Well TS I'm surprised you didn't see the graph highlighting how the raw data of weather around the world in fact indicates a higher level of warming.
> 
> Interesting isn't it ?  For all the huffing and puffing and outrage at adjusted global temperatures it turns out the adjustments seem to reduce the amount of warming.




You must have missed it when I posted this tidbit ...



> Surely it would serve them better to evidence *raw data* therefore creating more hysteria for the media and the masses to chow down on ?




Or this smattering of letters ...



> So we cannot use the* raw data* it must be analysed first and anomalies assumed to create a trend pattern rather than declaring *the actual temperature* or are my eyes painted on and my brain has shrunk to a size of a pea and just as mushy?




Did you not read that as me asking the question as to WHY it would not be better for them (read scientists) to use the raw data evidencing the actual temperatures? HUH ?? Well did you or are you too blinded by the HYSTERIA around the business of climate change?

But this little gem did not get past me .. No Sir !!



> This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and* updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets*—particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. And just last year, *another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data*.




So maybe you can see the scepticism ... "We will keep changing the model and updating techniques until it suits our mandate" is what I am reading.

* After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence,*

If the Earth is getting hotter and the satellites are getting closer SURELY the temperature would go UP and not DOWN ?? Pretty simple I would of thought or does it get hotter the further out to space you go and cooler the closer to Earth you get? Just simple logic really. 



> And as for the rest of the paper? You overlooked all the interesting ways that scientists had to account for the different ways water temperature were recorded - canvas buckets versus metal buckets, the use of water in engine room intakes which in itself was responsible for raising the indicated temperature by .6C.




They also took water temps at midnight so to give the battleship they were steaming around in the Pacific in a chance to cool down. Does that not tell you something basilio? FALSE DATA that the scientists are trying to correct to fit the model or wheelbarrow they are pushing.

In 1880 (when records started apparently) they also used MERCURY thermometers which give higher or lower readings then the digital and tympanic thermometers we have available today that are currently being used in conjunction with satellite readings. 

ALSO different brands of mercury thermometers also gave out different readings. SO basilio are you suggesting that the scientists have found out what BRAND of thermometer was used on the ships during the collection of data so they can effectively place this "data" in the model? REALLY?

ALSO different size ships and the material they were made from also caused variances in temperature readings. Did the scientists enter all this data in the model? How did they know to adjust the temperature by 0.6 degrees on the water intake for the engines in ALL of these ships? Surely the placement of the intake and the depth it drew the water from would have a significant effect on the readings? You know the deeper you go in the ocean the cooler it gets! Or it must be like space where it gets hotter the further you go out apparently 



> During World War II, a huge change-over took place as naval vessels swarmed the seas. Water temperature measurements were now made by thermometers in the engine cooling water intake pipe. That intake obviously led to a hot engine, raising the measured temperatures a bit. *What’s more, ships of different sizes drew water from slightly different depths beneath the surface*.




Also the different type of engine and how far the water intake is to the engine would also have an effect on the reading. Kero burning engines run cooler then diesel turbine engines and are you saying the scientists deduced that information to one figure of 0.6 degrees?? Also the The USS Missouri was built with four steam turbines and eight Babcock and Wilcox boilers on board, which means it was a steam turbine driven ship. I wonder what reading it gave cruising at 12 knots compared to WOT at 35 knots? Was this information of speed verses depth verses material verses time of day inputted into the model of EVERY ship or did they just take an ANOMALY like NOAA?



> Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.




Hmmmmm ... YEAH my bad ... you are right basilio .. silly me for thinking I should question the "data".


----------



## Ijustnewit

Logique said:


> So volcanos can be significantly affect climate! No matter how much the Neanderthals limited their carbon-based fuel consumption.  Or imposed a firewood tax on themselves.
> 
> Meanwhile, if Basilio can reproduce un-attributed work, so can I.
> 
> Cyclical, post-ice age warming should not be conflated with the theory of AGW caused by man-made CO2.  It is interesting that the alarmists "global warming", quickly morphed into "climate change".
> 
> View attachment 65634
> 
> 
> Publisher: C3headlines@gmail.com ..On the above graph, from *1880 to current*, check temp change in blue against CO2 levels in black (left and right axes).
> 
> Global Warming Science Facts: *Climate Reality Intrudes, CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Global Temperatures*




At last a common sense approach to what is actually happening to our climate . It stands to reason that the climate does indeed have cycles , some warm , some cold. As we have seen we are currently in the grip of a 3 year grip of El Nino like conditions  here in Southern Australia . So it would make sense that we have also seen 3 years of well above average temperatures. But when jobs, research grants and gathering taxes are at risk it is important to keep pushing the wagon to keep the C02 myth alive.


----------



## Logique

Thank you Ijustnewit,

but the the alarmists will be back. This is how they work.


----------



## orr

trainspotter said:


> ..*.silly *me for thinking I should question the "data".




Unless you're able to give some sort of reference with regard your capacity to question the "data"; One might ask, legitimately, what if anything your assessment of that "data" would be worth. Your critique of those that do have a recognised ability in that regard may have some weight.... Care to give us all here a percentage of the global scientific community that that might entail? And then,  if you care to name them and cite their published work in support of their theories ... People here will be able to make a better case for recognising you as silly or something else.


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Unless you're able to give some sort of reference with regard your capacity to question the "data"; One might ask, legitimately, what if anything your assessment of that "data" would be worth. Your critique of those that do have a recognised ability in that regard may have some weight.... Care to give us all here a percentage of the global scientific community that that might entail? And then,  if you care to name them and cite their published work in support of their *theories* ... People here will be able to make a better case for recognising you as silly or something else.




Glad you wrote *theories *and not factual, proven, unequivocal scientific thesis.  

OK I will bite ... All the info I cited was taken from this website http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...perature-data/ if you care to read it in full. You know the one basilio posted and you requoted for him. My capacity to question the "data" is based on logic.

The website below said 







> After a 1998 paper found that the* gradual lowering* of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a *false cooling *influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling.




Logically you can deduce that the Earth is hotter than space so ERGO you must get hotter readings the closer to the Earth you get ipso facto the further out to space you travel the colder it will get (unless you are travelling towards the sun) LOGIC ! I understand the time of day correction facility in the model so PULEEEZE do not refer back to that chestnut. 

I am sure I do not have to provide a link for that one eh?

Then for good measure the website throws up this bit of rough ...



> During World War II, a huge change-over took place as naval vessels swarmed the seas. Water temperature measurements were now made by thermometers in the engine cooling water intake pipe. That intake obviously led to a hot engine, raising the measured temperatures a bit.* What’s more, ships of different sizes drew water from slightly different depths beneath the surface.*




It gets colder the deeper you go ?? Noooooooooo it cannot be true. Logic says so.



> Cold water has a higher density than warm water. Water gets colder with depth because cold, salty ocean water sinks to the bottom of the ocean basins below the less dense warmer water near the surface. The sinking and transport of cold, salty water at depth combined with the wind-driven flow of warm water at the surface creates a complex pattern of ocean circulation called the 'global conveyor belt.'




http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coldocean.html

Mercury thermometers and their false readings ... AHEM ... accuracy ...



> We should also consider the accuracy of the typical mercury and alcohol thermometers that have been in use for the last 120 years.  Glass thermometers are calibrated by immersing them in ice/water at 0c and a steam bath at 100c. The scale is then divided equally into 100 divisions between zero and 100. However, a glass thermometer at 100c is longer than a thermometer at 0c. This means that the scale on the thermometer gives a *false high* reading at low temperatures (between 0 and 25c) and a *false low* reading at high temperatures (between 70 and 100c) This process is also followed with weather thermometers with a range of -20 to +50c




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

My reference for ability to question the "data" is summed up best below ...




and finally ..



> In general, bucket temperatures have been
> found to average a few tenths of a ◦C cooler than simultaneous
> engine intake temperatures. Field and lab experiments
> demonstrate that cooling of bucket samples prior to
> measurement provides a plausible explanation for negative
> average bucket-intake differences. *These can also be credibly
> attributed to systematic errors in intake temperatures,
> which have been found to average overly-warm by >0.5 ◦C
> on some vessels. *However, the precise origin of non-zero average
> bucket-intake differences reported in field studies is often
> unclear, given that additional temperatures to those from
> the buckets and intakes have rarely been obtained. Supplementary
> accurate in situ temperatures are required to reveal
> individual errors in bucket and intake temperatures, and the
> role of near-surface temperature gradients. There is a need
> for further field experiments of the type reported in Part 2 to
> address this and other limitations of previous studies.




http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf



> Brooks conducted an additional shipboard comparison
> aboard the ocean liner SS Finland on a cruise between
> San Francisco and New York in May 1928 (B28). *Temperatures
> from the main engine intake were found to average
> 0.8 ◦C warmer than those obtained by fast measurement
> with a rubber-covered tin bucket of small volume
> (1.7 L).* Those from the refigerator intake in the refigerator
> room averaged 0.2 ◦C warmer. Respectively, the engine intake
> and refigerator intake readings were found to average 0.7
> and 0.3 ◦C warmer than those from a specially-fitted intake
> thermograph. While details of the engine intake thermometer
> were not reported, the refigeration intake thermometer
> was graduated in intervals of 2◦ F (∼ 1.1 ◦C). Temperature
> change of the tin bucket sample pre-measurement was assumed
> small, although cooling of 0.1 ◦C was noted in one
> minute following collection under a wind speed of 9 m s−1
> and SST-wet bulb temperature contrast of 6 ◦C.




Yep .. colour me silly alright.


----------



## trainspotter

Must be global warming / climate change ...



> The storm ”” dubbed Winter Storm Jonas and "Snowzilla" ”” walloped a dozen states from Friday into early Sunday, affecting an estimated 85 million residents who were told to stay indoors and off the roads for their own safety.
> 
> The 68 centimetres of snow that fell in New York's Central Park was the second-highest accumulation since records began in 1869, and more than 56 centimetres paralysed the capital Washington.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/us-blizzard-billion-dollar-losses-washington-struggles/7114210

No wait .. the record was set in 1922 ...



> The greatest snowfall for a single-day in Baltimore was 23.3 inches on Jan. 28, 1922.
> Snowfall records date back to 1884 at Washington, D.C., and 1892 at Baltimore.
> Record-breaking or not, the weekend blizzard will prove to be very disruptive over a broad area of the mid-Atlantic and perhaps part of southern New England as well.




http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...lizzard-eclipse-historic-snow-storms/54910562


----------



## Smurf1976

Records get broken from time to time, that's inevitable given that we've really only got a century or so of accurate data for most places.

That said, there's rather a lot of extreme events recently. Snow in the USA, floods in the UK, an extreme lack of rain here in Tas whilst other parts of the country have had too much. Whether or not that is just a natural occurrence I won't claim to know, but it's causing some problems in those areas that's for sure.

We could sure use some rain down here though, no question about that. Record temperatures (mean average) too.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...atest&step=1&map=decile&period=3month&area=ta

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp...t&step=0&map=meandecile&period=3month&area=ta


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Records get broken from time to time, that's inevitable given that we've really only got a century or so of accurate data for most places.
> 
> That said, there's rather a lot of extreme events recently. Snow in the USA, floods in the UK, an extreme lack of rain here in Tas whilst other parts of the country have had too much. Whether or not that is just a natural occurrence I won't claim to know, but it's causing some problems in those areas that's for sure.
> 
> We could sure use some rain down here though, no question about that. Record temperatures (mean average) too.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...atest&step=1&map=decile&period=3month&area=ta
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp...t&step=0&map=meandecile&period=3month&area=ta




You are certainly correct there Smurf , conditions have been nothing short of extreme this season in Tasmania.
I think what seems to happening is that Tasmania is gradually turning into more of a S.A ( Adelaide ) climate , not great if you dislike hot and dry warmer months like me. I prefer snow and ice 
Another interesting thing is about to happen to the Tasmanian Climate on  Thursday , a 999 hpa low and 998 hpa low are going to slam into us. That is basically 2 low pressure systems  that if in Tropical waters would probably be a Cat 2 Cyclone. Amazing stuff for sure and I have never really seen this occurrence in my living memory in the middle of Summer , these things should be off Cooktown in Qld !
Lets hope it brings rain and doesn't stir up any fires and take roofs off and bring trees down.
Are you guys  at Hydro familiar with this sort of Low Pressure set up this far South in Summer ?

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDG00074.gif?2016-Jan-26-02:57:22


----------



## Smurf1976

I don't know if it is unprecedented or not. Someone would know but not me. 

What I do know however is that the soil is incredibly dry at the moment so the forecast rains won't produce a massive amount of run-off. They'll produce some, the soil doesn't just soak up 100% of what falls from the sky, but we'd need a lot of rain just to get the soil up to saturation point. Once that is reached, then whatever rain occurs does translate pretty directly to run-off into creeks, rivers and into water storages.

So the main benefits will be to farmers and helping with the fire situation. 

Have a look here (Tas Fire Service website) and you'll see just how much we'd need to get the ground saturated. For most of the state it's 100mm to 150mm and there's very few places where it's less than 50mm. Even at Strathgordon (South-West, rainfall normally about 2500mm a year) it'll need 55mm to saturate the ground.

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/Show?pageId=colWeatherfwxsdi

So far as climate change is concerned, there's a definite down trend in run-off in Tas. Hydro uses 85% of the previous long term average for future planning purposes (this is publicly stated info). If you dig a bit deeper then what you find is that increasing temperature is at least as big a factor, perhaps larger, than any decline in actual rainfall. In short, the rising temperature has increased evaporation rates, such that the soil spends more time below saturation with the result that minor rainfalls no longer run-off and now simply soak in, only to evaporate shortly afterward.

That's part of the issue, the other part being a major decline in high rainfall events (which produce very high run-off rates). The lows haven't really changed, that record dates back almost 50 years and hasn't been broken yet, but there's been a definite decline in the number and frequency of truly wet years.

So there has definitely been a change in the climate in the context of how it affects run-off into water storages but that relates to both temperature and rainfall, not just to rainfall only as many would likely assume. Whether or not that relates to CO2 or is just a natural phenomena I won't claim to know but it's a definite trend that's for sure.

See these links. They show pretty clearly that (1) temperature has increased and (2) high rainfall years have been, with the sole exception of 1996, completely absent since the mid-1970's. Put the two together and that's where the reduction in run-off comes from. 

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/594/index.php

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/593/index.php

The problem is most acute in Autumn for two reasons. First because in most years the ground is dry and second because there's a very significant downtrend in rainfall (the "rain hole" as I call it - because if you plot a monthly chart comparing now to the past that's pretty much what it looks like - a great big gap has opened up in Autumn).

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/581/index.php


----------



## wayneL

Climate will change, both globally and regionally... Fact.

As climate has changed in the past, both globally and regionally, sans anthropogenic influences, we can safely deduce that natural factors were/are paramount.

What we don't know, is the the extent, if any, of anthropogenic factors.

I remain of the opinion there is *at least* a minor role, especially regionally an d not necessarily due to ghg.

Tassie and WA situation in not so sure.


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Records get broken from time to time, that's inevitable given that we've really only got a century or so of accurate data for most places.
> 
> That said, there's rather a lot of extreme events recently. Snow in the USA, floods in the UK, an extreme lack of rain here in Tas whilst other parts of the country have had too much. Whether or not that is just a natural occurrence I won't claim to know, but it's causing some problems in those areas that's for sure.
> 
> We could sure use some rain down here though, no question about that. Record temperatures (mean average) too.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...atest&step=1&map=decile&period=3month&area=ta
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp...t&step=0&map=meandecile&period=3month&area=ta




Getting any rain down your way Smurf?







> RESIDENTS on the East Coast have battened down as they prepare for more storms, which have closed the highway between Hobart and Orford.
> Glamorgan Spring Bay Mayor Michael Kent, who has taken refuge at the Gateway Cafe with other Orford locals and tourists, said Tasmania Police had just closed the Tasman Highway at Orford because of a rockfall.
> Businesses such as the Orford pub and golf club and the Triabunna IGA have closed due to flooding damage and the road to Spring Beach is also closed.
> The East Coast will continue to be hammered with torrential rain, winds and thunder and lightning over the next two days.
> Gray resident Michelle Kaal said she and daughter Brittany were woken up at 3.30am this morning when their house was shaking.
> “The thunder and lightning was really right on top of the house – it was literally shaking with it and there were a couple of lots of lightning that lit up the whole house,” she said.
> Gray, located just south of St Marys, had around *362mm of rain in just over 48 hours to 9am today* and is one of many East Coast towns suffering through record rainfalls.
> “We might have to blow up the dinghy in the shed and get some oars to go into town today,” Mrs Kaal said.




http://www.news.com.au/national/tas...e/news-story/ba061a10d4e7a912a2d8027ce1ee69cf


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Send half of that down south then we'll all be happy.
> 
> It's seriously dry in Tas at the moment. Dry in Vic too to my understanding.






> Your wish is my command Oh Exhalted one .. it is on it's way !!



 TS on January 5th 

Not any more it aint !


----------



## basilio

Came across an analysis of the types of major consequences our current rate of global warming is taking us.

There is nothing magical or made up about these scenarios; they have all occurred in the earth's history with plenty of evidence.



> *Climate Monsters We Want to Keep in the Closet: Heinrich Events, Superstorms, and Warming the Deep Ocean*
> 
> “Think of the climate change issue as a closet, and behind the door are lurking all kinds of monsters ”” and there’s a long list of them,” ”” Steve Pascala.
> 
> ***
> 
> It has been said that Nature is a serial killer. Within her vast menagerie of life, climate, and the physical world, there are many, many terrible processes that could mortally impact individuals, larger groups, entire species and even families of species. And if you were to look for the means by which Nature performs her worst violence, the mass extinction events, your eyes would almost immediately settle upon the uncomfortable issue of climate change, an issue all too relevant today.
> *
> Of twelve major mass extinction events identified in past geological epochs, ten were likely caused by climate change.* Marked by layers of rocks almost entirely devoid of complex life, these periods in which Earth became little more than a tomb should serve as a stark warning against our own rapidly increasing insults to Earth’s climate. The very worst of these ‘tomb epochs,’ the Permain or ‘Great Dying’ in which 90 percent of all species went extinct was clearly caused by a series of worsening insults brought on by a terrible switch in climate brought on by a raging global warming nightmare. And *though the Permian Extinction raged about 200 million years ago, it has some rather disturbing similarities to today. For one, it was an era in which a cold glacial period emerged into a far warmer period. And secondly, a large greenhouse gas emission source forced warming to drastically accelerate resulting in not one but three major extinction crises over the course of about 165,000 years. It was the worst of the worst of all tomb epochs and it was most likely set off by a massive chain of events brought on by very rapid warming.*




http://robertscribbler.com/2013/08/...vents-superstorms-and-warming-the-deep-ocean/


----------



## basilio

Apropos to my last post the latest analysis on the Scribbler site highlights the recent increase in ocean sea levels. 

It points to the rapidly increasing destabilisation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs



> *Rapid Acceleration in Sea Level Rise ”” From 2009 Through October 2015, Global Oceans Have Risen by 5 Millimeters Per Year*
> 
> The evidence that a human-forced warming of the globe is hitting a much higher gear in terms of both added heat and ramping impacts just keeps streaming on in. Today, an update in the satellite monitor tracking global sea level rise provides yet one more ominous marker. The world’s oceans are rising at an unprecedented rate not seen since the end of the last Ice Age. A rate that appears to be rapidly accelerating.




http://robertscribbler.com/


----------



## Ijustnewit

Interesting read and info Bas, perhaps this is the only way to truly save the Planet. If it comes at the cost of life forms and species including us well that's what mother nature truly intended. Regeneration and starting all over again is probably not a bad thing in the scheme of things .


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Getting any rain down your way Smurf?




On sunny days there's a drought then TS?


----------



## basilio

I'm sure it hasn't escaped peoples notice that the CSIRO CEO has decided to slash  Australian Climate Science research.  He seems have decided that Climate Change is "proven" so we don't need to learn anything more. 

I thought the best comment about that particular piece of dribble was noting that* "It was like saying we can stop  doing astonomy after Kepler discovered the Earth moved around the sun."*

In my view unless  Malcolm Turnball swiftly moves to protect our scientific capacity to understand the changes occurring to our  Australian climate his credibility is toast. 


> *
> Misleading, inaccurate and in breach of Paris': CSIRO scientist criticises cuts*
> 
> Date
> February 5, 2016 - 8:16PM
> 
> Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO swings jobs axe
> 
> Australia will break a commitment made at the Paris climate summit less than two months ago if CSIRO goes ahead with its plan to axe its research programs, one of the agency's leading scientists has warned.
> One of the world's three major atmospheric greenhouse gas recording stations at Cape Grim.
> 
> John Church, a globally recognised expert on sea level rise and one of CSIRO's most decorated researchers, said organisation chief Larry Marshall had misled the public by claiming there was now less need for climate research because the problem had been "proven".
> 
> ...Dr Marshall announced via email on Thursday that 350 jobs would go over two years as the organisation moved away from observing and modelling climate change to working on solutions to the problem.
> 
> *Details of the cuts have not been finalised, but it is understood one of the world's three major atmospheric greenhouse gas recording stations at Cape Grim, in Tasmania's north-west, is under threat. It is the only station of its type in the southern hemisphere.
> 
> The future of programs run by the $120 million RV Investigator research ship, launched amid fanfare in late 2014, are among those that are unclear.*
> 
> CSIRO staff were forthright in their unhappiness at the cuts at briefings at midday on Friday, describing it as a flawed strategy.
> 
> About 100 jobs are planned to go from units dedicated to research in areas including greenhouse gas levels, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and assessing what is required to keep global warming to two degrees. The jobs would be replaced by new positions in other areas.
> 
> Dr Church, who has worked at CSIRO since 1978 and expects to lose his job, said the cuts would make it difficult for Australia to uphold its part of the Paris deal, which agreed there should be greater investment in climate research, including improved observations and early warning systems.
> 
> *He said the work of CSIRO was considered particularly important because of Australia's role as the major developed country in the southern hemisphere, with a focus on Antarctica and the Pacific.*
> 
> "There is need for climate science – there are clauses in the Paris agreement that say that. There is a clear need for ongoing sustained and enhanced observations. The science community is actually struggling to address these issues already and so further cuts mean it will be very difficult."




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/m...ch-criticises-csiro-cuts-20160205-gmmopl.html


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> I'm sure it hasn't escaped peoples notice that the CSIRO CEO has decided to slash  Australian Climate Science research.  He seems have decided that Climate Change is "proven" so we don't need to learn anything more.
> 
> I thought the best comment about that particular piece of dribble was noting that* "It was like saying we can stop  doing astonomy after Kepler discovered the Earth moved around the sun."*
> 
> In my view unless  Malcolm Turnball swiftly moves to protect our scientific capacity to understand the changes occurring to our  Australian climate his credibility is toast.
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/m...ch-criticises-csiro-cuts-20160205-gmmopl.html




I can see the money saved going to "Direct Action", the most inefficient way of reducing emissions that I can think of and is just a  present for business donators.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Apropos to my last post the latest analysis on the Scribbler site highlights the recent increase in ocean sea levels.
> 
> It points to the rapidly increasing destabilisation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs
> 
> http://robertscribbler.com/




BAH HUMBUG MORE HYSTERIA !!



> An *important uncertainty* relates to whether discharge of ice from
> the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated
> ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would
> add to the amount of sea level rise, *but quantitative projections of
> how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing
> to limited understanding of the relevant processe*s




http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf

Something very smelly about this statement ...



> "*Sea level along the west coast of the United States has actually fallen over the past 20 years* because long-term natural cycles there are hiding the impact of global warming," said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "However, there are signs this pattern is changing. We can expect accelerated rates of sea level rise along this coast over the next decade as the region recovers from its temporary sea level deficit.'"




http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4700

Temporary sea level deficit? WTF does that mean?? 

So this is what actually happens when sea level rise eh?



> Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.
> 
> But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, *they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown*.




https://www.newscientist.com/articl...islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

Please note that in the THREE links I have quoted NOT ONE OF THEM is agreeing with the other on the amount of sea level rising. One says 3 inches another says 30 centimetres and the other one is pure guessing what MIGHT happen in 100 years (but they are not sure if they are right?)

Also note the TUVALU erosion FACTS ... no wait .. the islands have grown 18 hectares as a whole.




Has it stopped raining in Tasmania yet?


----------



## basilio

You are so clever at cherry picking TS.. Just A1 stuff mate. 

You quote one paragraph from an entire analysis on the increase in sea level as a result of global warming. If anyone else is interested in the whole picture and not a cherry picked paragraph please read the story . It is sobering.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4700

Then you quote the "uncertainty" passage in the ocean service PDF.  

This was written around 2005/6.  The whole text outlines the increasing rate of runoff from the melting of Greenland with the cautionary note that one cannot be certain of the amount of future melting 

*The uncomfortable fact however is that 9 years later in 2015 the evidence  is in that melting of Greenland has accelerated. That is the current information in a rapidly deteriorating situation *


----------



## wayneL

I'm going to do you a favour bas and print that off so I can distribute it to the kiddies around Moggill for you tomorrow....


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Has it stopped raining in Tasmania yet?




Some rain fell and was enough to cause localised flooding in a few areas where falls were heaviest but it just soaked into the ground across most of the state.

We've now gone back to dry conditions it seems, with every day warmer than the long term average and with practically no rain forecast. The rains did some good in many areas, certainly a help to farmers, but overall much of the state is still pretty dry.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 65797
> 
> 
> Has it stopped raining in Tasmania yet?




Is it me or the tide is much closer to the tree in the "after" image? Seems a bit of ponding around its roots and its leaves aren't doing too well either.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Is it me or the tide is much closer to the tree in the "after" image? Seems a bit of ponding around its roots and its leaves aren't doing too well either.




I think the pics are 180 degrees out of kilter? The story sounds like a yarn to me.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> You are so clever at cherry picking TS.. Just A1 stuff mate.
> 
> You quote one paragraph from an entire analysis on the increase in sea level as a result of global warming. If anyone else is interested in the whole picture and not a cherry picked paragraph please read the story . It is sobering.
> 
> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4700
> 
> Then you quote the "uncertainty" passage in the ocean service PDF.
> 
> This was written around 2005/6.  The whole text outlines the increasing rate of runoff from the melting of Greenland with the cautionary note that one cannot be certain of the amount of future melting
> 
> *The uncomfortable fact however is that 9 years later in 2015 the evidence  is in that melting of Greenland has accelerated. That is the current information in a rapidly deteriorating situation *




You seem to have missed what I was getting at by "cherry picking" the data. The three "examples" that were evidenced all had a degree of ???????????? about them as in they all contradicted each other with different figures and timeframes as well as covering their @rses by placing in disclaimers about how they really don't know where, how much and what timeframe all of this is going to occur. 

This is like the post you put up claiming all the salmon are dying due to global warming when in fact it was a disease that constricted their gills to stop them from breathing. PURE HYSTERIA.

Yes sea levels are rising of that there is no doubt but it would seem that it is not rising uniformally and in some areas is actually receding 







> Sea level along the west coast of the United States has actually fallen over the past 20 years




I have been fishing the Abrolhos Islands for over 30 years and I have NEVER seen the water levels at their record lows. Surely they should be flooded by now? Or is it a temporary sea level deficit ?


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Some rain fell and was enough to cause localised flooding in a few areas where falls were heaviest but *it just soaked into the ground across most of the state*_._
> 
> *We've now gone back to dry conditions* it seems, with every day warmer than the long term average and with practically no rain forecast. The rains did some good in many areas, certainly a help to farmers, but overall *much of the state is still pretty dry*.




Ummm I am confused ... Isn't it supposed to be hot in Summer ?? As in NOT raining with flooding?

Yep it gets hot everywhere ...

Geraldton the hottest place on earth after scorching 45-degree day. (29th December 2015)

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/w...y-20151229-glwa5i.html#comments#ixzz3zRVFRpUK 

The BOM temperature gauge is out at the airport. The airport is located in a flat valley with no trees or shade ANYWHERE. The temperature at my house was 36 degrees. I live next to the ocean. Quite often it is stinking hot once you get behind the hill and variances of 10 degrees is not uncommon. Sea breeze at my place and head out to the airport and still raging Easterly wind cooking the joint. Go figure. 

No wait .. it has been like that for the 32 years I have lived here. It was 47.3 degrees on the 20th Feb 1985 as well. 

Next 3 days will be 40+ degrees. I love summer.


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Ummm I am confused ... Isn't it supposed to be hot in Summer ?? As in NOT raining with flooding?
> 
> Yep it gets hot everywhere ...




Where the issue arises is when you have a long term trend, which now goes back 40 years, of an area gradually becoming drier (noting that dryness is a product of both rainfall and temperature with wind also a factor).

Same in the south-west of WA and same in Tas. Both have dried considerably over the past 40 years and whilst there will still be high rainfall events from time to time, the basic trend is toward drier conditions.

Is the climate changing? Absolutely, I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I only need to go for a walk in the bush, or alternatively look at the data, to know that. Whether or not that is a natural phenomenon or is man-made is something I don't know but there is definitely a change comparing now with the 20th Century.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> Some rain fell and was enough to cause localised flooding in a few areas where falls were heaviest but it just soaked into the ground across most of the state.
> 
> We've now gone back to dry conditions it seems, with every day warmer than the long term average and with practically no rain forecast. The rains did some good in many areas, certainly a help to farmers, but overall much of the state is still pretty dry.



Hobart is running hot and ready to break yet another monthly maximum daily average record. It is currently averaging around 26 degrees this month during the day , the record is 25.1 degrees. With more scorching days ahead near close to 30 degrees that will only add to the anomaly. The night time temperatures are also around 4 degrees over average and show no sign of backing off either. I have never used the air con so much in Tasmania .
Having lived in Brisbane for some time , I would say that the last 3 Summers down here have been on par with a Brisbane Summer , the only difference no storms and no rain. The constant drive of heat in those 3 Summers have been incredible with each one breaking records and then only to be outdone by the next one. Also March which is not officially Summer has also become one of our hottest months in those 3 years , so we have a long extended Summer ahead. I have noticed this year people are very grumpy and not themselves myself included due to the constant sun , heat and dryness. Yes Taswegians are going a little TROPPO  .
As said before the climate is changing dramatically down here , much of this attributed to the 3 El Ninos' in row .
This one being the mother of them all , but certainly the long term trend is we are turning into a more Adelaide like climate.  
Actually if I win the lottery I have a grand plan to live in Canada in their Winter and come back here from April to September , never see another Summer ever again


----------



## Smurf1976

I think perhaps the most interesting aspect of the changes in SW WA and Tasmania is that in both cases it has occurred as a number of abrupt and seemingly permanent "step changes" since the mid-1970's and was not a gradual decline. 

That being so, we can't be sure when or if another step will occur, but that change occurs as a sudden step and is not gradual has thus far definitely been the pattern (and that point is recognised by various organisations - Bureau of Met, CSIRO, WA water authorities, Hydro Tas, others).

The other interesting aspect, in both states, is that the almost complete absence of high runoff years. The dry years haven't gotten any drier, in Tas 1967 still holds the record for that, but what has happened is that the wet years have become far less frequent.

In Tas, there has been only 1 year in the past 40, and that was 1996, when runoff (measured as inflows to water storages) was more than 110% of the long term average. Prior to that, approximately every third year was "wet" in that sense. The situation is much the same in WA too - it's the absence of wet years which has pushed down the averages.


----------



## SirRumpole

Did you cop the rain in Townsville noco ?


----------



## Ijustnewit

Interesting move by Greenpeace to use the Tasmanian bushfires as Climate Change evidence . It may damage Tasmanian Tourism and some down here are saying it's Hysteria. 

*"It's damn ordinary that you've got environmental activists almost gleefully capitalising on images, naturally caused, which could inflict significant damage on our brand, our reputation," he said.

"What we're now seeing is a hysterical response by environmental activists to use this for their own means, and that includes across the globe.*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...sion-in-campaigns/7160482?WT.ac=statenews_tas


----------



## SirRumpole

Renowned CSIRO scientist Dr John Church speaks out against decision to dump climate modelling


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/award-winning-scientist-condemns-csiro-job-cuts/7184410


----------



## Tisme

I have been doing some history searching at the State Library regarding the town I now live in. I'm doing it because the locals have differing yarns about its roots and pedigree.

An interesting thesis written for a lecture in 1935 is about the pioneer days as seen through a fella who migrated 1863 as a toddler from England and settled around the Gold Coast. He makes an interesting observation that the weather in that time period had changed, with storms encroaching into the cooler months.

He is also rather negative about the loss of flora, fauna, fish stock and beach front compared to when it was only him and his dad who visited completely undeveloped Nerang Heads (Southport) for recreation .... all at the hands of environmental vandalism, intended or otherwise.


----------



## basilio

Hold your hats, sit down quietly, take a deep,deep breath.

*There is such a thing as a constructive , evidenced based debate on climate change on the net .*.
Isn't that unxxxxingbelievable !!! 

Just came across the exchange while following up a post from Logicque on another thread. Couldn't believe my eyes.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Hold your hats, sit down quietly, take a deep,deep breath.
> 
> *There is such a thing as a constructive , evidenced based debate on climate change on the net .*.
> Isn't that unxxxxingbelievable !!!
> 
> Just came across the exchange while following up a post from Logicque on another thread. Couldn't believe my eyes.
> 
> http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/






> if I continued this debate and got people on my side, I could not forgive my self for 'uneducating' people . it would be a disgrace to my growth in science and what I stand for.




http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/

SOCK PUPPET !!


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/
> 
> SOCK PUPPET !!




That is so brilliant TS.  So absolutely you.

You manage to completely ignore the detailed, complex argument for the affirmative, miss the first response from the negative and manage to only quote the final capitulation line.

Excellent work. Underscores this thread perfectly.

PS

_ And  don't worry. There were plenty of your mates represented in the comments. I don't know how the other debates go on that forum. I was just curious about that topic. 
_


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> Hold your hats, sit down quietly, take a deep,deep breath.
> 
> *There is such a thing as a constructive , evidenced based debate on climate change on the net .*.
> Isn't that unxxxxingbelievable !!!
> 
> Just came across the exchange while following up a post from Logicque on another thread. Couldn't believe my eyes.
> 
> http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/





Thanks Bas...
It is good... I hope to see the long term obscurantists putting up their (dim) wits (or is it that they do they have capacity to make a real case?...My guess 'ahh no')  up against this well seasoned,  astutely backed up and utterly dumbing analysis.
I for one will be following the linked debate. 

As the scales fall from their eyes you can see the frantic scrabbling search on the floor in the vain attempt to dab these now long since proven 'teflon' shingles  back on . 
Orr will there be at last a much belated 'light bulb moment' of contrition ... or a scuttling to the shadows.

And I'll say this; that the confected ignorance by people with obviously the capacity to see sense in aiding and abetting the near to criminal(history will prove to be truely criminal) conspiracy of deluding those of little capacity, is and has been at the very least shameful, and the consequences far more odious than have needed to be. If that was the aim; be proud you've done 'well', billions unborn salute your vastly diminished legacy.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Hold your hats, sit down quietly, take a deep,deep breath.
> 
> *There is such a thing as a constructive , evidenced based debate on climate change on the net .*.
> Isn't that unxxxxingbelievable !!!
> 
> Just came across the exchange while following up a post from Logicque on another thread. Couldn't believe my eyes.
> 
> http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/




The con case was taken up by an apparent believer in AGW if I'm not mistaken, judging by the concluding comments, stating his heart wasn't really in the debate or his case. 

This is a constructive and evidenced based "debate"? Holy Mother of Mary bas!! 

That is like putting two socialists together and asking them to debate if socialism is good.

Unxxxxingbelievable indeed.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> The con case was taken up by an apparent believer in AGW if I'm not mistaken, judging by the concluding comments, stating his heart wasn't really in the debate or his case.
> 
> This is a constructive and evidenced based "debate"? Holy Mother of Mary bas!!
> 
> That is like putting two socialists together and asking them to debate if socialism is good.
> 
> Unxxxxingbelievable indeed.




Nah Wayne.  It was pretty simple. The topic was agreed before as were the parameters. There was no trolling or using semantics "to make a point" .  The arguments and evidence  for the arguments had to be clearly established. 

Made it tough for your average denier to come up with both effective rebuttal of clear, evidenced arguments and providing some evidenced alternative explanation.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> That is so brilliant TS.  So absolutely you.
> 
> You manage to completely ignore the detailed, complex argument for the affirmative, miss the first response from the negative and manage to only quote the final capitulation line.
> 
> Excellent work. Underscores this thread perfectly.
> 
> PS
> 
> _ And  don't worry. There were plenty of your mates represented in the comments. I don't know how the other debates go on that forum. I was just curious about that topic.
> _




AHEM .....



> *Rules*
> 
> 1. The first round is for acceptance.
> *2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.*
> 3. No semantics or trolling.
> 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.
> 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.




Response



> To be honest, I thought it would be *a fun thing to debate* someone on something controversial and funny. but I just can't bring my self to debate something that is intellectually dishonest and simply false.* I withdraw my argument and forfeit.*




http://www.debate.org/debates/Mankind-Is-the-Main-Cause-of-Global-Warming/10/

I standby my claim ... SOCK PUPPET !!

P.S. Are either of these 2 mass debaters involved with any scientific base organisation or are they just 2 keyboard warriors having a bash at each other like what goes on in here??


----------



## wayneL

Bas, just listen to yourself. Ludicrous.


----------



## basilio

Really don't know what you clowns are on about.  I came across that "debate" by accident and I was/am impressed by the depth and accessibility of the argument run by the affirmative.

I was surprised that the opposition just folded.. Seemed a bit funny and as TS pointed out you're not supposed to forfeit.

It was no (big) deal as far as internet debates on CC go. It was just interesting to see some sense of formal debate format  and evidence based argument as distinct form the rubbish that flies around most of the net forums.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> *Really don't know what you clowns are on about. * I came across that "debate" by accident and I was/am impressed by the depth and accessibility of the argument run by the affirmative.
> 
> I was surprised that the opposition just folded.. Seemed a bit funny and as TS pointed out you're not supposed to forfeit.
> 
> It was no (big) deal as far as internet debates on CC go. It was just interesting to see some sense of formal debate format  and evidence based argument as distinct form the rubbish that flies around most of the net forums.








That's me in the front middle if you want to know ... you can call me BUBBY !


----------



## basilio

Great one TS !! Delighted you have a sense of humour 

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Great one TS !! Delighted you have a sense of humour
> 
> Cheers




OhH but of course !! It is all not about being a harbringer of doom and that nasty Co2 stuff rammed down our throats in the name of political correctness (read SHEEP) and the megaopolies who control what you read, think and comprehend.

Yes basilio you have some very valid points to bring to light and all of them should be considered within the context of realism. I myself am more of the "middle of the road" thinking man and prefer to judge facts rather than hysteria.

Carry on ....


----------



## Ijustnewit

I think downtime in Heatwaves is a great idea , this article mentions that the US shuts down in days of blizzards.
Why not ease off in Australia in days of very extreme heat ? I don't know how the logistics would work but the idea has some merit. Also in the article " the number of heatwave days in Australia has doubled in the last 50 years ".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/

Also in Summer heat news " Tasmania has the hottest Summer on Record" . This is no surprise to those of us down here , it's been a Summer from hell. The heat is also marching on into March , the first half of the month looks like seeing everyday about 6 to 8 degrees over average. Also never heard of before , the El Nino of El Nino's is slowly breaking down but remains very strong. 

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/tasmania-sweltered-through-warmest-summer-on-record/463457


----------



## basilio

Yep. Certainly been hot in the last couple of months - all around the world




> * 'True shocker': February spike in global temperatures stuns scientists*
> Peter Hannam March 14 2016 - 12:30PM
> 
> Peter Hannam
> Follow
> 
> March records smashed in Australia
> 
> Global temperatures leapt in February, lifting warming from pre-industrial levels to beyond 1.5 degrees, and stoking concerns about a "climate emergency".
> 
> According to NASA analysis, average temperatures last month were 1.35 degrees above the norm for the 1951-1980 period.
> 
> They smashed the previous biggest departure from the average - set only in the previous month - by 0.21 degrees.
> 
> "This is really quite stunning ... it's completely unprecedented," said Stefan Rahmstorf, from Germany's Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research and a visiting professorial fellow at the University of NSW, noting the NASA data as reported by the Wunderground blog.
> 
> The blog's authors, Jeff Masters and Bob Henson, described February's spike as "a true shocker, and yet another reminder of the incessant long-term rise in global temperature resulting from human-produced greenhouse gases".
> 
> The monster El Nino event had contributed to the current record run of global temperatures by increasing the area of abnormally warm water in the central and eastern Pacific.
> 
> *Compared with the rival record giant El Nino of 1997-98, global temperatures are running about 0.5 degrees hotter.
> 
> "That shows how much much global warming we have had since then," Professor Rahmstorf said.*
> 
> The first half of March is at least as warm, he added, and it means temperatures "are clearly more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels".



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ratures-stuns-scientists-20160313-gni10t.html
What a jump in Jan-Feb 2016  !


----------



## wayneL

Yep, if you make the past colder, good chance its gonna be hotter now.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Yep, if you make the past colder, good chance its gonna be hotter now.




Who's made the past colder. 

The earth is supposed to be cooling.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Who's made the past colder.
> 
> The earth is supposed to be cooling.




1. BEST et al

2. Hiatus <> cooling. El Nino was alway going to be a warm year.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> 1. BEST et al
> 
> 2. Hiatus <> cooling. El Nino was alway going to be a warm year.




El Nino reaches all the way to Alaska Sifu?

Heard they have to train few a few carriage of ice for the annual dog sledge race; reroute a few tracks because of not enough ice to sledge on.


----------



## basilio

> 1. BEST et al
> 
> 2. Hiatus <> cooling. El Nino was always going to be a warm year.



  Wayne

Hmm.  So we were all expecting see global average temperatures to jump by .6 C in just 14 months ? 

Let's put a perspective on this Wayne. Since 1980 (when global warming really started rise)  to 2014 the global temperate increased from .1C to .75 C above "normal".

In the last 14 months global temperatures have jumped .6 C. And there is 10 months to go this year. 

Do we have a problem ?


----------



## basilio

The huge jump in global temperatures has been picked up and analysed by many media orgs.

There is a a longer story on this blog which picks up on how the extreme global temperatures have manifested around the world. 

Interestingly the data set is so overwhelming Roy Spencer has agreed with the the NASA scientists.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html


----------



## Knobby22

basilio said:


> The huge jump in global temperatures has been picked up and analysed by many media orgs.
> 
> There is a a longer story on this blog which picks up on how the extreme global temperatures have manifested around the world.
> 
> Interestingly the data set is so overwhelming Roy Spencer has agreed with the the NASA scientists.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html




Unfortunately a lot of the reef died this month near Cairns due to very high seawater temperatures. Mankind is still to o immature as a species.


----------



## Glen48

This can;t be good.... assuming a large Methane gas bubble/s were popping up a ship would go straight down or planes crash as there would be no air for the engines...



Has the secret of the Bermuda Triangle finally been discovered? Scientists find giant craters underwater which may explain how ships disappear without trace

    Underwater craters found in Barents Sea off the coast of Norway
    Caused by build-up of methane natural gas which then explodes
    Could explain disappearance of ships in notorious Bermuda Triangle 

By Sara Malm for MailOnline

Published: 00:05 +11:00, 14 March 2016 | Updated: 03:59 +11:00, 14 March 2016

4.2k
shares

482

View comments

A discovery of giant underwater craters at the bottom of Barents Sea could offer a viable explanation to the disappearance of ships in the Bermuda Triangle.

Scientists have found craters up to half a mile wide and 150ft deep, believed to have been caused by build-ups of methane off the coast of natural gas-rich Norway.

The methane would have leaked from deposits of natural gas further below the surface and created cavities which finally bursts, scientists say. 

Scroll down for video 

Big boom: Scientists have found craters up to half a mile wide and 150ft deep in Barents Sea, believed to have been caused by build-ups of methane off the coast of natural gas-rich Norway (stock image)
+3

Big boom: Scientists have found craters up to half a mile wide and 150ft deep in Barents Sea, believed to have been caused by build-ups of methane off the coast of natural gas-rich Norway (stock image)

'Multiple giant craters exist on the sea floor in an area in the west-central Barents Sea ... and are probably a cause of enormous blowouts of gas,' said researchers from the Arctic University of Norway told the Sunday Times.
RELATED ARTICLES

    Previous
    1
    2
    Next

    110846_web.jpg Zooming in on 'bulging' galaxies: Hubble reveals large...
    Has a mythological monster been found? 250 million year old...
    Holy smokes! CANNABIS has preserved ancient Indian artwork...

Share this article
Share

'The crater area is likely to represent one of the largest hotspots for shallow marine methane release in the Arctic.'

The explosions causing the craters to open up could potentially pose risks to vessels travelling on Barents Sea, scientists say.
Mystery: Scientists believe similar methane craters could explain loss of ships in the Bermuda Triangle
+3

Mystery: Scientists believe similar methane craters could explain loss of ships in the Bermuda Triangle
Discovery: Scientists found the giant craters on the sea floor in an area in the west-central Barents Sea
+3

Discovery: Scientists found the giant craters on the sea floor in an area in the west-central Barents Sea

It could also possibly explain the loss of ships and aircraft in the controversial area referred to as the Bermuda Triangle, according to the experts. 

The area stretches from the British Overseas Territory in the North Atlantic Ocean to the Florida coast, to Puerto Rico.

Russian scientist Igor Yeltsov, the deputy head of the Trofimuk Institute, said last year: 'There is a version that the Bermuda Triangle is a consequence of gas hydrates reactions.

'They start to actively decompose with methane ice turning into gas. It happens in an avalanche-like way, like a nuclear reaction, producing huge amounts of gas.

'That makes the ocean heat up and ships sink in its waters mixed with a huge proportion of gas.'
Ad
Recommendations powered by plista
Read more:

    Sea bed gas blasts could explain Bermuda Triangle | The Sunday Times


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ps-disappear-without-trace.html#ixzz42snQ8CdI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Logique

Extreme El Nino event, as the BoM website attests.

No that this stopped the alarmist opportunists.


----------



## orr

explod said:


> Who's made the past colder.





The tragedy to anyone with the capacity to think seriously about the consequences of unabated human exploitation of fossil fuel resources is that; this is the cold past...

As Australia, currently, points in the 'Direction of Inaction' and in the most outrageously expensively way  at that... If only there had of been another way??? that would have collected revenue lowered emissions, forged and developed the industries of the future.

Thank god the bean counters of every bank on the planet see the absurd folly of Mining the Galalie Basin. And you'd go along way into the back end of the 'bell curve' to find much support for the chanced  distruction of the Liverpool Plains and of accelerating pollution of the atmosphere... but here you'll find an ex-PM backbencher.


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Extreme El Nino event, as the BoM website attests.




Yep we do have an El Nino event. Yes climate scientists expected an increase in  global temperatures as a consequence.

Problem is the magnitude of the increase is way out of line with previous experience. It also comes on top of a steadily increasing rise in temperature associated with global warming unconnected with  El Nino.

The big concern is if we are reaching  the critical tipping points in a number of areas.  For example  the warming of the  Arctic oceans and the Tundra is releasing millions of tons of methane and methane hydrates.  There is a risk that this current burst of intense warming could create  an unstoppable flow of methane that  would  create runaway global warming and cook our planet within 20 years.


> *  Runaway*
> 
> Though not being communicated, the alarming data above for 30 May 2015, looks like the state of the climate is set up for feedback runaway global climate.
> 
> ​​From the very start the big concern about global warming has been the   possibility of a 'runaway' global warming and climate change.
> 
> 'Runaway' (self accelerating) global heating and climate change is the planetary tipping point of all the many tipping points combined and self reinforcing . ​​
> 
> This is the greatest single danger to the survival of humanity and also the survival of potentially almost all life on the planet. ​​A global heating runaway wiping almost most life we know is possible- because it happened 250 million years ago in the End Permian extinction event and 55 million years ago with the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Current research confirms both of these extinction events were driven by very large emissions of carbon to the atmosphere.
> 
> *​​The PETM is the closest distant past analog to our GHG emissions global warming situation today. Research published October 2013 by Morgan Schaller and James Wright leads to their definite finding that following a doubling in carbon dioxide levels, the surface of the ocean turned acidic over a period of weeks or months and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees centigrade – all in the space of about 13 years. Scientists had previously thought this process happened over 10,000 years.
> *
> *These mass extinction events involve the emission of an enormous emission of carbon as CO2 and methane. In the Arctic several times atmospheric methane is stored frozen in permafrost and subsea floor frozen solid methane gas hydrate.  The permafrost is thawing as the Arctic temperature rapidly increases (Arctic amplification). Arctic methane hydrate is destabilizing in at least three locations, mainly a process that has been going on for a long time, but that ocean warming will make worse*




http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/runaway.html


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Yep we do have an El Nino event. Yes climate scientists expected an increase in  global temperatures as a consequence.
> 
> Problem is the magnitude of the increase is way out of line with previous experience. It also comes on top of a steadily increasing rise in temperature associated with global warming unconnected with  El Nino.
> 
> The big concern is if we are reaching  the critical tipping points in a number of areas.  For example  the warming of the  Arctic oceans and the Tundra is releasing millions of tons of methane and methane hydrates.  There is a risk that this current burst of intense warming could create  an unstoppable flow of methane that  would  create runaway global warming and cook our planet within 20 years.




No good worrying about it.....someone else will fix it.


----------



## Ijustnewit

basilio said:


> Yep. Certainly been hot in the last couple of months - all around the world
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ratures-stuns-scientists-20160313-gni10t.html
> What a jump in Jan-Feb 2016  !




Well Bas the heat is still on and I think the news of the hottest February on record will be left high and dry by the numbers coming out of March. An interesting point by Australia's Chief  Climate Scientist  Alan Finkel last night on Q&A , he says basically whatever we are doing to reduce our emissions is making zero difference to holt the climbing World Temperatures.


----------



## SirRumpole

Ijustnewit said:


> Well Bas the heat is still on and I think the news of the hottest February on record will be left high and dry by the numbers coming out of March. An interesting point by Australia's Chief  Climate Scientist  Alan Finkel last night on Q&A , he says basically whatever we are doing to reduce our emissions is making zero difference to holt the climbing World Temperatures.




Would be interesting to know the areas of the increase in emissions. 

More coal fired power stations, bushfires or volcanos ?

Who has the answer ?


----------



## SirRumpole

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-emissions-jump-in-2015--20151225-glv017.html


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Would be interesting to know the areas of the increase in emissions.
> 
> More coal fired power stations, bushfires or volcanos ?
> 
> Who has the answer ?




Methane release from under melting permafrost. 

The horse has bolted I'm afraid.


----------



## basilio

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will do nothing to slow down increases in temperature in the near future. In fact (unfortunately) if by some miracle we closed down all coal fired power stations over a few years the global temperature would spike even higher.. (You can work that out for yourselves)

Our temperature is going up because of the GG gas emissions over the past 10-30 years.  There is a lag in the effect. Climate scientists agree that there is at least another 1C degree warming in the pipeline from the current CO2 levels.  All the efforts to reduce emissions are aimed at slowing and stopping additional warming from 2030 on and praying like hell that we don't go past tipping points which make the whole exercise futile.  When the temperature spikes like it has this year it suggests that

1) We have already passed  any remotely safe levels because if we are at 1.3C over normal  now we are tracking for an inevitable 2.3C plus figure

2) We might have hit a tipping point which is accelerating global warming and will not be reversed for hundreds of thousands of years. For example methane emissions might be  out of control in the Arctic or tundra regions


----------



## Knobby22

A couple of nukes will produce some global cooling. South Korea are keen to help.


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> A couple of nukes will produce some global cooling. South Korea are keen to help.




Yeah it could indeed.  Maybe.....  Not quite sure how the firestorms will help.  

Sounds a bit like multiple amputations with a chainsaw to stop a raging infection. You'd ceratinly get the end one way or another a lot quicker.


----------



## wayneL

Okay have we had our little panic attack now ladies?

"Interesting" extrapolation of data here, but could be a blow off top too.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Okay have we had our little panic attack now ladies?
> 
> "Interesting" extrapolation of data here, but could be a blow off top too.




If all else fails attack the opposers with dung "ladies", weak a..ho.e

And if it IS NOT a blow off top.? 

And recordings this northern winter of zero degrees in the arctic when it should be 40 to 50 below.  I know where the blow off is.


----------



## basilio

> "Interesting" extrapolation of data here, but could be a blow off top too.  Wayne




We are talking physics and the real world here Wayne. It's not a set of figures on a stock market. 

World wide temperatures are destroying all records. Ignoring the reality of climate tipping points and their consequences won't change their effect.

http://theconversation.com/what-cli...w-they-could-suddenly-change-our-planet-49405

http://theconversation.com/what-climate-tipping-points-should-we-be-looking-out-for-27108


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> If all else fails attack the opposers with dung "ladies", weak a..ho.e
> 
> And if it IS NOT a blow off top.?
> 
> And recordings this northern winter of zero degrees in the arctic when it should be 40 to 50 below.  I know where the blow off is.




You have missed your calling Plod. You could have been a politician and been offended by trifles and demanding apologies for a living, 

I'll bet the super would have been better too.


----------



## basilio

> You have missed your calling Plod. You could have been a politician and been offended by trifles and demanding apologies for a living,   Wayne




I think you make a far better pollie Wayne.  Lovely work just dismissing the whole issue and pretending any problem is the fantasy of some overwrought nanny who just isn't part of the real world...

Keep up the self delusion Wayne. Seriously; I don't think you could handle the reality.


----------



## Knobby22

It will be interesting in July if the El Nino continues.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I think you make a far better pollie Wayne.  Lovely work just dismissing the whole issue and pretending any problem is the fantasy of some overwrought nanny who just isn't part of the real world...
> 
> Keep up the self delusion Wayne. Seriously; I don't think you could handle the reality.




Oh the tedium of yet another straw man argument.

Come on ladies lets try a little sobriety, lets not scare the kiddies.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Oh the tedium of yet another straw man argument.
> 
> Come on ladies lets try a little sobriety, lets not scare the kiddies.




And you still won't even touch the extremity of the temperature jump or even considering the risks of climate change tipping points coming into effect. Can't understand why.  Your normally so keen to look at all the facts..


----------



## basilio

While we are on the topic of scaring the kiddies I uncovered a classic little comment from  James Lovelock back in 2008.  Didn't mince his words then and no doubt is saying "I told you so " at the moment.



> * James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'*
> The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead
> James Lovelock
> 
> Saturday 1 March 2008 21.35 AEDT
> 
> In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.
> 
> "And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened."
> 
> Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.




http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange


----------



## basilio

And right now of course  the climate scientists are just spelling out what has been said very clearly for the last 20 years.



> * Welcome to the climate emergency: you’re about 20 years late
> *
> February 2016 saw global warming records tumble with new data suggesting more Australians think humans are the cause
> 
> Graham Readfearn
> 
> Friday 18 March 2016 07.00 AEDT
> Last modified on Friday 18 March 2016 09.14 AEDT
> 
> Everywhere you look right now, the Earth’s climate system seems to be breaking records.
> 
> To choose the most inappropriate metaphor possible, February 2016 would have been enough to bring a lot of climate watchers out in a cold sweat.
> 
> Figures from Nasa using thermometers and ocean temperature readings showed February was the hottest month on record, by quite a margin.
> 
> According to satellite data, the amount of Arctic sea ice also hit an all-time low for this time of year since measurements began in 1979.
> *
> Scientists also use satellite data to calculate air temperatures. Climate science contrarians and denialists like these readings because they have not shown as much warming as the more reliable readings on the surface.
> 
> But February also set a new record for global temperatures from satellites. As Joe Romm at Climate Progress noted, “climate science deniers need a new meme”.*
> 
> These heat records have been variously described as “terrifying”, “jawdropping” and “shocking”.
> 
> One climate scientist in particular, Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, appeared to capture the mood with a quote repeated in stories around the world, including here on the Guardian.
> 
> “We are in a kind of climate emergency now,” said Rahmstorf, of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
> 
> But here’s the rub.
> 
> Global warming is proceeding pretty much exactly as predicted
> Professor Stefan Rahmstorf
> 
> To climate scientists like Rahmstorf, the temperature records being broken right now are not a surprise and, at least according to Rahmstorf, they shouldn’t be seen as an entry point to some terrifying new era (at least not as terrifying as things already are).
> _
> “The media’s view is too short-term,” he told me. “As scientists we want to keep an overview of all the data and the knowledge of how the whole system works.”
> 
> What we are seeing is a continuous process of global warming that is superimposed on to the natural variability.
> 
> Just like a few cooler years were no reason to talk about a ‘slowdown’ in global warming, it would be wrong to conclude now that a few very hot years are acceleration. Global warming is proceeding pretty much exactly as predicted.
> 
> The fact that temperatures have now shot up again shows that those people who said global warming had stopped were wrong – we said all along that was nonsense.
> 
> It is becoming more and more urgent. Time has almost run out to get emissions down. That’s the real emergency.
> _
> Rahmstorf does think there is a climate emergency, but he would have made the same assessment at any point in time stretching back many years. The record-breaking February doesn’t change that.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-climate-emergency-youre-about-20-years-late


----------



## orr

Ian McFarlane outgoing ex-Industry Minister of the Abbott debacle on the ABC's 7.30 Report of 17/03/2016, watch it while you can on Iview,(go straight to the 15min point) admits to his "lament" at not getting an Emissions Trading Scheme up and going when the Parliament had the Chance.  Gobsmacking ... An easily assessable moment to illustrate the strings being pulled by the factional funders of the LNP

Shows the true success of the evil campaign to so cloud reasonable thought in a scientifically illiterate and distracted  population for so long.  But very few strings left in their bow now. The numbers in that  deluded rump still subscribing  to the double-speak and confected gibberish because it can be bashed into the gaping errors of their blinkered world view are shrinking by the minute.


----------



## basilio

Frankly I just can't see how we avoid very extreme consequences of global warming. Droughts, extreme wildfires, loss of huge areas of productive land, sharp increases in storms and sea levels.  

In that context I wonder what the priorities of governments around the world will be.  For example when will areas be written off as uninhabitable  When will cities be abandoned ? When will new safer areas be  developed for populations? 

*Who is actually thinking about these questions ?  Are they even on an agenda ?*


----------



## poverty

basilio said:


> When will cities be abandoned ? When will new safer areas be  developed for populations?
> [/B]




Who cares?  F-em if they can't take a joke.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Frankly I just can't see how we avoid very extreme consequences of global warming. Droughts, extreme wildfires, loss of huge areas of productive land, sharp increases in storms and sea levels.
> 
> In that context I wonder what the priorities of governments around the world will be.  For example when will areas be written off as uninhabitable  When will cities be abandoned ? When will new safer areas be  developed for populations?
> 
> *Who is actually thinking about these questions ?  Are they even on an agenda ?*




Yet, you're still driving that Prado around.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Yet, you're still driving that Prado around.




Nope. Didn't quite do it for me.  Traded it in for a Chev Suburban.

___________________________________________

By the way do you ever actually discuss the topic on this thread ?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Yet, you're still driving that Prado around.




Onya bike as usual. 

Message getting through slightly


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Onya bike as usual.
> 
> Message getting through slightly



 what message would that be Mr Plod? If you check back... Years on this forum if you like, you will see I have always advocated living frugally. 

Mate, my "carbon footprint' has always been small, almost always smaller then those farkin hypocrites who see fit to lecture me from their range rovers and their reverse cycle air conditioned two story, larger than necessary. MvMansions.

So get stuffed plod, you are blinded by political ideology, which prevents you from balanced opinion, and allows you to offend those who might be largely in agreement.

It is people like you who hold back conservation in this world.

Think about it before the next time you decide to be an a55hole. (to use your term you called me a couple of days ago -


----------



## basilio

Who ever said anything about your particular lifestyle Wayne ?  Who ever doubted that you diligently cultivate the smallest practical carbon footprint you possibly can ? You have certainly let us know it.

It's just "Not The Point" isn't it ?  The conversation is about the big picture, the big problems and the variety of solutions or responses that will be required. 

To date you have simply denied any big problems in any big picture. Instead you decide that making up silly, imaginary comments about peoples personal lives is the way to go.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Who ever said anything about your particular lifestyle Wayne ?  Who ever doubted that you diligently cultivate the smallest practical carbon footprint you possibly can ? You have certainly let us know it.
> 
> It's just "Not The Point" isn't it ?  The conversation is about the big picture, the big problems and the variety of solutions or responses that will be required.
> 
> To date you have simply denied any big problems in any big picture. Instead you decide that making up silly, imaginary comments about peoples personal lives is the way to go.




It goes to integrity bas. The big picture, preached from SUVs, double story waterside mansions and overseas junkets, smacks of gross hypocrisy.

So from that view, exactly what is the point? What is the big picture? Purported Solutions must me lead from the front, not do as I say, not as I do.

If there is a God who will judge us, who do yo think he will look for kindly upon? The ultimate hypocrites such as Gore, Bernie, Obama. Schmidt et al? Or a moderate who lives the lifestyle?

Of I were God, or throw the hypocrits into the fire.

Actions count bas, and while my view hasn't changed, Id put myself up against any of you clowns.


----------



## basilio

Not sure about everything Wayne but if God is going to judge us I reckon he will take a very dim view of the people who wilfully disregarded all the evidence that we were trashing the planet in favour of business as usual.

Lets get real. It really doesn't matter what sort of lifestyle a researcher leads if the results of their work are sound. 
Your lot has spent 25 years trashing the reputations of almost all the scientific community to defend an indefensible position.

In 2016 with world temperatures soaring at unprecedented rates the rubbish that was peddled about "temperatures plateauing" "new ice ages" "dodgy figures" stinks to high heaven.

And it will be smelt.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Not sure about everything Wayne but if God is going to judge us I reckon he will take a very dim view of the people who wilfully disregarded all the evidence that we were trashing the planet in favour of business as usual.
> 
> Lets get real. It really doesn't matter what sort of lifestyle a researcher leads if the results of their work are sound.
> Your lot has spent 25 years trashing the reputations of almost all the scientific community to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> In 2016 with world temperatures soaring at unprecedented rates the rubbish that was peddled about "temperatures plateauing" "new ice ages" "dodgy figures" stinks to high heaven.
> 
> And it will be smelt.




Just to be clear, and to exhibit your strawmanology, who do you think is "my lot"?

Additionally, if there is a God, what you are saying is that He would more favourably on fornicators who preach abstinence, than those who simply practice abstinence.

WTF?

I think you might have that ar5e about luvvy.


----------



## basilio

Your lot Wayne ?  Clearly I don't know all the facts.  But for the record lining up behind the climate change denier industry on almost every occasion stands out pretty clearly. 

*And I will never ever forgive or forget your repeated slandering of James Hanson on this thread as a psychopath.* A very special touch I thought.

Your religious example is unique.  If I was looking for a more apposite point I'd consider the culpability (before the Lord ) of those who drove the Titanic at high speed through iceberg infested waters because

1) They wanted to break the speed  record for the fastest crossing
2) They sincerely believed the Titantic was unsinkable so really why worry ?

Risk Management Wayne.  Not certainty, not blind dumb denial. Just recognising there are significant risks in a course of action and asking yourself whether you can handle the consequences of being wrong.


----------



## wayneL

Hanson's record is clear - psycho.

And your pandering to his psychopathology is an alarming pathological marker, inter alia, for your own mental mental state. This is not a matter of science basilio. The man needs help, perhaps an intervention.


----------



## wayneL

In fact, I feel sorry fir him. I believe he may bw suffering from some preventable contagious viral encephalitis, unwittingly passed on to Mann, Romm, Cook, Nuttercelli, Moonbat, Schmidt et al... Although Gavin seems to be showing signs of recovery.

Let us pray for him.


----------



## wayneL

....again, apologies for small screen, fat finger typos


----------



## Ijustnewit

I know , none of my business but keep it nice guys . It's a great subject to debate and one of the few forums on Climate Change / Hysteria that hasn't  been shut down by the mods due to similar degradation.   
I'll but out now


----------



## wayneL

These are just words Ijust.

The real worry is action http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/14/t...wellian-policies-to-go-after-climate-deniers/


----------



## explod

In my view we are at a point where climate change is accellerating to the point where by there is little point in  this thread anymore.  We have passed the two degrees up that we should not have passed and really noone givs a rats.  As an old sociologist friend told me in 1995, 'just party,  you cannot change human nature,  they will only see what the can understand and want to. 

Wayne ole Pal,  as the eldest of eight grew up in very tough circumstances,  Dad a returned w2 victim/serviceman,  we lived outback,  no phone electricity,  miles from medical services.  Dad drunk most of the time so i tried to hold it together for Mother.  Left school barely literate to fend for them.  At 17 when younger siblings could handle it went shearing and learnt about unionism and looking out for your fellows.  Joined police force to give my wife a better life.  Did well because i understood and related to people.  Became a councillor and Mayor in one town I served.  On promotion took charge of large police stations with problems and fixed them.  At research and development was part of the team that developed neighbourhood watch and safety house,  later adopted world wide.  I alone developed the procedures protecting women with safe houses.  Went to university where i excelked and could go on.   And for the record,  greens are not commo or left wing we just seek a fair go for everyone. 

What about you Wayne ole Pal


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> what message would that be Mr Plod? If you check back... Years on this forum if you like, you will see I have always advocated living frugally.
> 
> Mate, my "carbon footprint' has always been small, almost always smaller then those farkin hypocrites who see fit to lecture me from their range rovers and their reverse cycle air conditioned two story, larger than necessary. MvMansions.
> 
> So get stuffed plod, you are blinded by political ideology, which prevents you from balanced opinion, and allows you to offend those who might be largely in agreement.
> 
> It is people like you who hold back conservation in this world.
> 
> Think about it before the next time you decide to be an a55hole. (to use your term you called me a couple of days ago -




Just checked back but cannot see the venom you have put forth that is anywhere near some present.???


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> In my view we are at a point where climate change is accellerating to the point where by there is little point in  this thread anymore.  We have passed the two degrees up that we should not have passed and really noone givs a rats.  As an old sociologist friend told me in 1995, 'just party,  you cannot change human nature,  they will only see what the can understand and want to.
> 
> Wayne ole Pal,  as the eldest of eight grew up in very tough circumstances,  Dad a returned w2 victim/serviceman,  we lived outback,  no phone electricity,  miles from medical services.  Dad drunk most of the time so i tried to hold it together for Mother.  Left school barely literate to fend for them.  At 17 when younger siblings could handle it went shearing and learnt about unionism and looking out for your fellows.  Joined police force to give my wife a better life.  Did well because i understood and related to people.  Became a councillor and Mayor in one town I served.  On promotion took charge of large police stations with problems and fixed them.  At research and development was part of the team that developed neighbourhood watch and safety house,  later adopted world wide.  I alone developed the procedures protecting women with safe houses.  Went to university where i excelked and could go on.   And for the record,  greens are not commo or left wing we just seek a fair go for everyone.
> 
> What about you Wayne ole Pal




That's quite a life there Explod.


----------



## basilio

Never apologise, never retreat Wayne.

Good motto isn't it ?  Show your balls of steel. Demonstrate your capacity to hold an indefensible position until your last breath.

There is clearly no point in having any type of rational discussion with you on this subject. Your beyond facts, beyond evidence. In our last interchanges you have never even touched the facts of the recent shattering temperature increases

You have your innate certainty that "everything is going to be alright" regardless of what anyone else says, or what happens outside, or what the temperature gauges say or anything that might challenge your determination to see a stable, benign future.

*It certainly makes sense to me. * You have plenty of company.  Our society as a whole is not interested in acknowledging what appears to be happening.  I posed some curly questions and asked where are they being examined? I suspect that are precious few places and in fact if they were placed on the public record we could expect panic. 

So lets leave it at that.  There will time enough for sorrow as our future unfolds.  

Que Sera Sera


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Never apologise, never retreat Wayne.
> 
> Good motto isn't it ?  Show your balls of steel. Demonstrate your capacity to hold an indefensible position until your last breath.
> 
> There is clearly no point in having any type of rational discussion with you on this subject. Your beyond facts, beyond evidence. In our last interchanges you have never even touched the facts of the recent shattering temperature increases
> 
> You have your innate certainty that "everything is going to be alright" regardless of what anyone else says, or what happens outside, or what the temperature gauges say or anything that might challenge your determination to see a stable, benign future.
> 
> *It certainly makes sense to me. * You have plenty of company.  Our society as a whole is not interested in acknowledging what appears to be happening.  I posed some curly questions and asked where are they being examined? I suspect that are precious few places and in fact if they were placed on the public record we could expect panic.
> 
> So lets leave it at that.  There will time enough for sorrow as our future unfolds.
> 
> Que Sera Sera




It would be a good post bas, if it were not predicated on BS. Do I have to detail my official position YET AGAIN?

Time will out. Post El Nino will we interesting.



			
				Gavin Schmidt said:
			
		

> NASA's chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt usually discounts the importance of individual record hot months, but said this month was different, calling it "obviously strange." This was due to the long-term warming from heat-trapping gases and the powerful El Nino, so these types of records will continue for a few more months, *but probably will not be a permanent situation*, Schmidt said in an email.


----------



## wayneL

Some light reading outside of the Grauniad and Cook's Contrivance:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end-of-the-satellite-data-pause/#more-21237


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Frankly I just can't see how we avoid very extreme consequences of global warming. Droughts, extreme wildfires, loss of huge areas of productive land, sharp increases in storms and sea levels.
> 
> In that context I wonder what the priorities of governments around the world will be.  For example when will areas be written off as uninhabitable  When will cities be abandoned ? When will new safer areas be  developed for populations?
> 
> *Who is actually thinking about these questions ?  Are they even on an agenda ?*




What about the extreme cyclones we have not had this year?......Does that mean the Pacific Ocean is cooler than normal.
You see Bas, the ocean has to be extremely warm to form a cyclone.....One in Fiji but none in North Queensland....Maybe that Global Warming thing oh is really a farce like the majority now think.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> What about the extreme cyclones we have not had this year?......Does that mean the Pacific Ocean is cooler than normal.
> You see Bas, the ocean has to be extremely warm to form a cyclone.....One in Fiji but none in North Queensland....Maybe that Global Warming thing oh is really a farce like the majority now think.




I think there's a soup req'd for the monsoons, like ice melt mixing with shallow saltwater, heat, pressure, etc. Not knowledgable at all about how shallow the water is currently, how less salty it is, how the pressures align, etc., but I don't feel too bad because apparently it takes super computers to predict.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I think there's a soup req'd for the monsoons, like ice melt mixing with shallow saltwater, heat, pressure, etc. Not knowledgable at all about how shallow the water is currently, how less salty it is, how the pressures align, etc., but I don't feel too bad because apparently it takes super computers to predict.




And super $rse holes on the key board.


----------



## basilio

Good paper came out in Nature last December which detailed how much human activity was contributing to climate change.  They figured about two thirds.



> *Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change*
> 
> Gerrit Hansen	& DÃ¡ithÃ­ Stone
> 
> 
> Nature Climate Change
> (2015)
> doi:10.1038/nclimate2896
> 
> 
> Published online
> 21 December 2015
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Abstract• References• Author information• Supplementary information
> 
> Impacts of recent regional changes in climate on natural and human systems are documented across the globe, yet studies explicitly linking these observations to anthropogenic forcing of the climate are scarce. Here we provide a systematic assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change for the range of impacts of regional climate trends reported in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. *We find that almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.* In contrast, evidence connecting changes in precipitation and their respective impacts to human influence is still weak. Moreover, anthropogenic climate change has been a major influence for approximately three-quarters of the impacts observed on continental scales. Hence the effects of anthropogenic emissions can now be discerned not only globally, but also at more regional and local scales for a variety of natural and human systems.




http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2896.html

(NB I came across this article via a link from Judith Currys site.  Many other useful papers cited.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/18/week-in-review-science-edition-35/#more-21316)


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> And super $rse holes on the key board.




Yes self deprecating ones at that.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> What about the extreme cyclones we have not had this year?......Does that mean the Pacific Ocean is cooler than normal.
> You see Bas, the ocean has to be extremely warm to form a cyclone.....One in Fiji but none in North Queensland....Maybe that Global Warming thing oh is really a farce like the majority now think.



There generally is less tropical cyclones in the El Nino affected years,  but more in the La Nina years (2016-17 summer).

Here's the 2015/16 tropical cyclone outlook published by the BOM before season started.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/tc.shtml


----------



## wayneL

Hanson further damages his credibility.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/

At each public utterance, I am more and more vindicated basilio. 

<ETA> Curry's assessment https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/


----------



## Knobby22

I like Curry's summary.
Hanson is challenging some of the present orthodoxies, like Curry does, except from the other end.
We need the Curry's and Hanson's in science as humans can easily go into groupthink due to our natural instincts.
You can be sure of one thing ~ the climate will not act completely as predicted. There will be surprises.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> In my view we are at a point where climate change is *accellerating* to the point where by there is little point in  this thread anymore.  We have passed the two degrees up that we should not have passed and really noone *givs *a rats.  As an old sociologist friend told me in 1995, 'just party,  you cannot change human nature,  they will only see what the can understand and want to.
> 
> Wayne ole Pal,  as the eldest of eight grew up in very tough circumstances,  Dad a returned w2 victim/serviceman,  we lived outback,  no phone electricity,  miles from medical services.  Dad drunk most of the time so i tried to hold it together for Mother.  Left school barely literate to fend for them.  At 17 when younger siblings could handle it went shearing and learnt about unionism and looking out for your fellows.  Joined police force to give my wife a better life.  Did well because i understood and related to people.  Became a councillor and Mayor in one town I served.  On promotion took charge of large police stations with problems and fixed them.  At research and development was part of the team that developed neighbourhood watch and safety house,  later adopted world wide.  *I alone developed the procedures protecting women with safe houses.*  Went to university where *i excelked* and could go on.   And for the record,  greens are not commo or left wing we just seek a fair go for everyone.
> 
> What about you Wayne ole Pal








Ohhhhhh plod I applaud you !! 




Sums it up for me in reality in one simple cartoon.


----------



## explod

Thanks trainspotter. 

Reminded me to check on what Waynes contribution to social welfare has been. 

Interesting your post just now as this afternoon have been thinking about human survival in a planet turning into a hot desert.   Exploring hot houses which are fairly self sustaining for water.   Just moved to Bendigo where I'm linking with some like minds working on just this.  Of course old mine shafts could be reinforced and adapted for habitation during the day etc.  

Think about a thread or perhaps my gobbledygook could suffice.  Clap hands here deniers


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Thanks trainspotter.
> 
> Reminded me to check on what Waynes contribution to social welfare has been.
> 
> Interesting your post just now as this afternoon have been thinking about human survival in a planet turning into a hot desert.   Exploring hot houses which are fairly self sustaining for water.   Just moved to Bendigo where I'm linking with some like minds working on just this.  Of course old mine shafts could be reinforced and adapted for habitation during the day etc.
> 
> Think about a thread or perhaps my gobbledygook could suffice.  Clap hands here deniers




Too late plod me old keeper of the realm ... too late ...



> Coober Pedy underground homes are not what you expect. The idea of living underground usually triggers thoughts of dark, damp and cramped spaces.
> 
> It doesn't help that those underground homes are called "dugouts" in Coober Pedy... Or that people are told that they are abandoned mine shafts...




http://www.outback-australia-travel-secrets.com/coober-pedy-underground-homes.html


----------



## poverty

So the next property bubble will be in Bendigo mineshafts for habitation during the day!  'Global Warming' oh sorry 'Climate Change', when is it actually happening?  ****ing cold all the time.  Another **** summer in Victoria, time to turn the heater on.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Thanks trainspotter.
> 
> Reminded me to check on what Waynes contribution to social welfare has been.
> 
> Interesting your post just now as this afternoon have been thinking about human survival in a planet turning into a hot desert.   Exploring hot houses which are fairly self sustaining for water.   Just moved to Bendigo where I'm linking with some like minds working on just this.  Of course old mine shafts could be reinforced and adapted for habitation during the day etc.
> 
> Think about a thread or perhaps my gobbledygook could suffice.  Clap hands here deniers




Not sure what social contribution has to do with climate change, but I don't  make such contributions for accolades. But if it is important for you to know, missus and I do a bit with troubled teenagers. Especially teaching them to think critically and not automatically swallow the official story on a range of topics.

That way,  they become productive, and stave off the hopelessness the likes of you and basilio implant in them with incessant negativity and Armagedonist alarmism.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> In my view we are at a point where climate change is accellerating to the point where by there is little point in  this thread anymore.  We have passed the two degrees up that we should not have passed and really noone givs a rats.  As an old sociologist friend told me in 1995, 'just party,  you cannot change human nature,  they will only see what the can understand and want to.
> 
> Wayne ole Pal,  as the eldest of eight grew up in very tough circumstances,  Dad a returned w2 victim/serviceman,  we lived outback,  no phone electricity,  miles from medical services.  Dad drunk most of the time so i tried to hold it together for Mother.  Left school barely literate to fend for them.  At 17 when younger siblings could handle it went shearing and learnt about unionism and looking out for your fellows.  Joined police force to give my wife a better life.  Did well because i understood and related to people.  Became a councillor and Mayor in one town I served.  On promotion took charge of large police stations with problems and fixed them.  At research and development was part of the team that developed neighbourhood watch and safety house,  later adopted world wide.  I alone developed the procedures protecting women with safe houses.  Went to university where i excelked and could go on.   And for the record,  greens are not commo or left wing we just seek a fair go for everyone.
> 
> What about you Wayne ole Pal




Plod, I think you are exaggerating things a bit with your  2 degrees up..I think you have left out a point in front of the 2...like .2c

Off topic I know, but I thought I would let you know Lee Rhinanon is still a communist as with most of the Greens and many of the Labor Party. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...un/comments/all_that_green_cant_hide_the_red/

*Gerard Henderson notes the infiltration of the Greens by the “watermelons” - green outside, red in. Take, for instance, the Greens’ lead Senate candidate in NSW, Lee Rhiannon:

    Sure Rhiannon’s resume contains scant material about her radical past. However, the details are set out in Mark Aarons’s The Family File, the author’s account of his family’s long-time membership of the Communist Party of Australia.

    Rhiannon is not responsible for the fact she is the daughter of long-time CPA operatives Bill and Freda Brown (no relation to Bob Brown). But she is responsible for continuing the family’s tradition as a young adult. In his book, Mark Aarons, the son of Laurie and Carol Aarons, says the Aarons and Brown families tolerated the excesses of communist totalitarianism up until the brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968. Then the communist movement split. The Aarons family stood up to Moscow but the Brown family adopted the position of continuing Stalinists and formed the Socialist Party of Australia.

    Mark Aarons fell out with Rhiannon in the 1970s when, he claims, she refused to condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia or the shooting of workers by the Polish communist dictatorship. He writes: “I could not conceive of someone of my age and experience supporting Moscow’s policies.”

    Already there is evident tension between the Greens leadership in Canberra and Rhiannon. This is likely to increase if she wins a Senate vacancy. *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tor-lee-rhiannon/story-e6frg6z6-1226255689458


----------



## explod

Noco,  what a load of wild speculative crap

The past is no measure of the future and it is well established that people who who can think for themselves and dare to question the status quo are branded commos and the like. Parliamentarians used to be able to speak their minds and be creative.   

And,  you think by planting a name it is felt that an argument is won,  rubbish ole Pal.  Substance with action is the only hope. Still have not told me where the jobs are coming from. 

Go back to your Masonic cave Champ and plan a root for survival.   Things are going to change in a big way soon and it will not be good for any of us,      unfortunately. 

And would like point form as to why I am a communist


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Noco,  what a load of wild speculative crap
> 
> The past is no measure of the future and it is well established that people who who can think for themselves and dare to question the status quo are branded commos and the like. Parliamentarians used to be able to speak their minds and be creative.
> 
> And,  you think by planting a name it is felt that an argument is won,  rubbish ole Pal.  Substance with action is the only hope. Still have not told me where the jobs are coming from.
> 
> Go back to your Masonic cave Champ and plan a root for survival.   Things are going to change in a big way soon and it will not be good for any of us,      unfortunately.
> 
> And would like point form as to why I am a communist




Bloody hell, you are clutching at straws now Plod....You stated the Greens were no commos and I gave you an example and you did not like it so you  revert to the old Fabian style for an answer.
Do some more research on the Greens before you open your mouth.....Don't forget Julia Gillard was a self confessed Communist.


----------



## noco

:topic:topic

There a separate thread for the Greens Party.....Perhaps we should have further discussions and links on the appropriate thread....Lets reveal with some research in a who is who in the Greens Party and what their hidden agenda really is....For a start they a "WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Bloody hell, you are clutching at straws now Plod....You stated the Greens were no commos and I gave you an example and you did not like it so you  revert to the old Fabian style for an answer.
> Do some more research on the Greens before you open your mouth.....Don't forget Julia Gillard was a self confessed Communist.




No you did not noco. 

Lets try another way.   

 What makes a communist? 

What is the meaning of a communist in Australia today?   

What is it that makes a communist bad in your view?  

If we are (the Greens) real communists why are we not in that party?   

Why are there only a handful of people in the communist party?   

Remember when handing out how to vote at Geelong pre_poll for the last Federal election speaking with the Communist representative.   He was further from Green philosophy than the Liberal Party.   The greens are very much about free choice and real democracy.  The communists would require obedience to their doctrines.  A very big difference here.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> ... it is well established that people who who can think for themselves and dare to question the status quo are branded commos...



Actually no, they are branded deniers... as you so disgracefully keep using.


----------



## trainspotter

This is how communism contributes to global warming (AHEM) climate change ...




No wait ... they contribute to polluting the Earth's atmosphere with this stuff ...



> Russian production of oil and gas condensate increased to an average of 10.83 million barrels per day in December, compared with 10.78 million barrels per day in November, the ministry reported. For all of 2015, output was up to 10.73 million barrels today, compared with average 2014 production levels of 10.58 million barrels per day.
> 
> Many observers had expected Russia to reduce energy production during the past year to help rally prices in the midst of its current economic problems. For one thing, Moscow’s budget has been strained because oil revenues account for about 40 percent of its revenue.
> 
> And the country’s economy as a whole has been hurt by sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union because of Moscow’s long involvement in the conflict in neighboring Ukraine. These sanctions have deprived Russia of the Western financing and technology it needs to streamline energy extraction.




http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...-Continues-To-Post-Record-Oil-Production.html


----------



## Smurf1976

Always amuses me when people talk about "big oil" and infer that it's something to do with capitalism and oil companies.

If you add up the combined production of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron then they're collectively considerably smaller than Saudi Aramco alone.

Big oil = governments mostly. Most of the oil majors actually produce as much or more gas as they do oil - they're "big gas" with a sideline in oil these days.

So far as gas is concerned, there is only one country on earth that exports gas and applies a "free market" approach to doing so, that being Australia. Everywhere else either doesn't export gas, has the industry in government ownership, or mandates that private operators shall supply domestic needs first, generally at lower prices than could be obtained via exports.


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmm oil huh? I thought Russia was up there with Saudia Arabia at approx 13% of world supply each.



> According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 over 64% of world oil production came from the top ten countries: Russia 544 Mt (13%), Saudi Arabia 520 Mt (13%), United States 387 Mt (9%), China 206 Mt (5%), Iran 186 Mt (4%), Canada 182 Mt (4%), United Arab Emirates 163 Mt (4%), Venezuela 162 Mt (4%), Kuwait 152 Mt (4%) and Iraq 148 Mt (4%). Total oil production was 4,142 Mt, up 3% from 4,011 Mt the previous year




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Interesting website which takes into account the military might of a country as well ...

http://www.globalfirepower.com/oil-production-by-country.asp

**** gets real here ...

https://www.iea.org/statistics/


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> What is the meaning of a communist in Australia today?
> 
> .



It's what self confessed (sic) "super $rse holes" say it is.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Actually no, they are branded deniers... as you so disgracefully keep using.




Yeh,  just to get under your skirt ole Pal.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yeh,  just to get under your skirt ole Pal.




That's very big of you Plod.

Is this infantilism of yours old age related, or a life-long affliction?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Hanson further damages his credibility.
> 
> http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/
> 
> At each public utterance, I am more and more vindicated basilio.
> 
> <ETA> Curry's assessment https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/




Really Wayne ?  Really. Are we actually reading the same articles or do you simply find something in there that disagrees with James Hansen paper and use that to justify your dismissal of the whole concept.  (and there were 18 other scientists who contributed to the analysis)

A few comments from Judith Curries analysis in June 2015.


> Policy relevance
> 
> The policy relevance of the Hansen et al. paper is the articulation of a possible worst case scenario of sea level rise.  In robust decision making, the plausible worst case scenario informs decision making but does not necessarily dominate the decision making process.
> 
> What role does a ‘possible’ worst case scenario play, apart from clarifying what is plausible?  Well, to alarm people and to help build political will to ‘act’ on emissions reductions, particularly for forthcoming Paris COP.
> 
> JC reflections
> 
> That said, I am very sympathetic to what Hansen did.  I regard him as a fellow maverick – thinking for himself and not afraid to challenge the ‘consensus’ – Hansen and I are of course on opposite ends of the climate maverick spectrum, with Hansen more alarmed and myself being less alarmed.
> 
> I think what Hansen did raises a whole host of very important issues about climate research, the science-policy interface, and how research is publicized.  I will be addressing these issues in a follow-on post (which should be up Mon or Tues).




https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/

What else did Climate Home say about the paper.


> For other scientists, that is beside the point. While media reports have focused on the worst case scenario – emphasised by Hansen – t*he paper itself is more nuanced.*
> 
> Valerie Masson-Delmotte, one of the co-authors, told Climate Home: “For me, the most interesting part is not this sort of alarmist presentation, *what is interesting is this is addressing a key unknown. It is the part that is related to the interplay between the ice sheets and the oceans.”*
> 
> It points to where further data is needed to narrow down the range of predictions for the future. There is consensus that Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting and causing oceans to rise. But how fast? That is the big question for millions of people living in coastal areas.
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will consider the study among others in its next report, said Masson-Delmotte, appointed to the UN body’s expert bureau last Autumn.
> 
> *In fact, Hansen and colleagues do not predict huge sea level rise as such. They assume it is possible the polar ice sheets could disintegrate rapidly, then model the implications.
> 
> “The paper is highly hypothetical… it is an interesting thought experiment,” said glaciologist Ruth Mottram. “I don’t think it is very likely, but we shouldn’t dismiss it.”*




http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/

The issue that should raise concern is the current exceptional increases in global temperatures and in particular the Arctic and Antarctic. The paper was analysing the possible consequences of a rapid breakdown of the ice sheets. The current temperature extremes just add further fuel to the risk of an acceleration of the ice sheet melt.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> That's very big of you Plod.
> 
> Is this infantilism of yours old age related, or a life-long affliction?




The disdain has us both way off focus.  Lets pull our fkn socks up and talk about the hysteria in climate change. 

Govmint spending millions to seek the health/bad effects in windmils.   Maybe they should also investgate alternators in cars cause they are only about a metre away from the whole family.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Really Wayne ?  Really. Are we actually reading the same articles or do you simply find something in there that disagrees with James Hansen paper and use that to justify your dismissal of the whole concept.  (and there were 18 other scientists who contributed to the analysis)
> 
> A few comments from Judith Curries analysis in June 2015.
> 
> 
> https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
> 
> What else did Climate Home say about the paper.
> 
> 
> http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/
> 
> The issue that should raise concern is the current exceptional increases in global temperatures and in particular the Arctic and Antarctic. The paper was analysing the possible consequences of a rapid breakdown of the ice sheets. The current temperature extremes just add further fuel to the risk of an acceleration of the ice sheet melt.




From my post 1013 from the Greens Party.

If only you could believe them......Of course there is plenty of naive people who do....It is about time the alarmist stopped trying pulling the wool over our eyes. ...The game is up.


*Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.

Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The day after tomorrow. [xxix]

Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors, [xxx] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true. For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.

The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.

Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within western civiliz*ation itself. [xxxi]


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Really Wayne ?  Really. Are we actually reading the same articles or do you simply find something in there that disagrees with James Hansen paper and use that to justify your dismissal of the whole concept.  (and there were 18 other scientists who contributed to the analysis)
> 
> A few comments from Judith Curries analysis in June 2015.
> 
> 
> https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
> 
> What else did Climate Home say about the paper.
> 
> 
> http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/
> 
> The issue that should raise concern is the current exceptional increases in global temperatures and in particular the Arctic and Antarctic. The paper was analysing the possible consequences of a rapid breakdown of the ice sheets. The current temperature extremes just add further fuel to the risk of an acceleration of the ice sheet melt.



You see you've cherry picked the most alarmist content, I've just cited the whole articles for their balance.

Do you see the difference there? Do you see that you have a problem in only being able to see the most worst case and most improbable scenario?

Do you see that you've observed an El Nino spike (that even Gavin Schmidt thinks is temporary) and extrapolated that as some sort of permanent new trend?

Get a grip man!


----------



## wayneL

Here's another interesting thing concerning Fannery's Flim-Flammery, The Australian Climate council; disingenuity of the worst order:

The Climate Council’s Memory Hole


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Here's another interesting thing concerning Fannery's Flim-Flammery, The Australian Climate council; disingenuity of the worst order:
> 
> The Climate Council’s Memory Hole




Wayne, isn't amazing, no what you throw in the face of these alarmist about the misrepresentation and myths of these so called peer reviewed papers on Global Warming, sorry I should say "Climate Change" , they still keep on keeping on.

When will they ever give up?


----------



## Knobby22

I will send it into ABCs media watch. This is the sort of stuff they love to attack.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> You see you've cherry picked the most alarmist content, I've just cited the whole articles for their balance.
> 
> Do you see the difference there? Do you see that you have a problem in only being able to see the most worst case and most improbable scenario?
> 
> Do you see that you've observed an El Nino spike (that even Gavin Schmidt thinks is temporary) and extrapolated that as some sort of permanent new trend?
> 
> Get a grip man!




I don't accept your interpretation Wayne. James Hansen and others examine the effects of a rapid (as distinct from slower) break up of the Antarctic /Arctic ice sheets.  At this stage all the glaciologists accept that the sheets are melting and that 100-200-300 years we will have sea level rises of many metres with the obvious consequences.

This paper suggest this might come far sooner if their hypothesis proves correct.  Do we think it's worth exploring that hypothesis further ?

This is connected with the huge spike in temperatures this year because this changes the climate parameters of last years paper. Yes we have an El Nino event.  But the underlying temperature increase also seems to be accelerating. Yes the spike will moderate as El Nino recedes but on all present indications the gradient of  future temperature increases has steepened.

We are not stabilising  global temperatures Wayne. We are not cooling.  We have a vanishingly small chance of  stabilising the current temperatures.


----------



## wayneL

Such deterministic certainty cannot exist in a chaotic system, particularly when so much data is "adjusted" by unknown parameters, bazza.

Did you read the Quadrant article? Do you see this as emblematic of the disingenuity of the leftist branch of (cough) "science"?

Have you had the cajones to read recent and embarrassing deconstructions of the Cookesque 97% fraud?


----------



## trainspotter

Tell  me basilio .. is the glass half full or half empty?


----------



## wayneL

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 66145
> 
> 
> Tell  me basilio .. is the glass half full or half empty?




THE ICE IS MELTING!!!


----------



## trainspotter

Drat's ... you are onto me wayneL


----------



## basilio

Keep deluding yourselves boys.  I'm sure it will be a cheaper way to stay sane and happy than considering the alternatives


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Such deterministic certainty cannot exist in a chaotic system, particularly when so much data is "adjusted" by unknown parameters, bazza.
> 
> Did you read the Quadrant article? Do you see this as emblematic of the disingenuity of the leftist branch of (cough) "science"?
> 
> Have you had the cajones to read recent and embarrassing deconstructions of the Cookesque 97% fraud?




Wayne, it is the Greens faith and  belief and they are as thick as a brick when it comes to presenting them with the truth that this whole Global Warming stunt is a farce.....a scam.....They will never change no matter how much argument you throw up them.....It is there bible and they dare not stray away from what they have been brain washed with......Their Global Warming bible is made of lies, myths, scenarios and fictitious modeling. 

They know they have been beaten time and time again......It is time for them to give up the crap they are trying fill our heads with.


----------



## Knobby22

Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
Look at the North Pole Noco.
Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.

And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Keep deluding yourselves boys.  I'm sure it will be a cheaper way to stay sane and happy than considering the alternatives




Funny that you mention sanity.......

I couldn't give  stuff about your Apocalypse fantasy, but I do care about those you collectively affect. I've already been close to one of your collective victims.

Hey and guess how Bernie's getting around.


----------



## explod

Knobby22 said:


> Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
> Look at the North Pole Noco.
> Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.
> 
> And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.




Spot on Knobby22, but I have found time and time again that the reality of what is really taking place on the ground is ignored.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
> Look at the North Pole Noco.
> Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.
> 
> And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.




Yes it is a fact the Arctic ice sheet is melting and nobody can deny it, but this  phenomenon has happened before in the 17th century and also some 10,000 ago and has more to do with the tilting of the axis of the Earth to the Sun than man made CO2.....When the ice melts there is a lot more methane gas released as well which accentuates the melting.

There is a multitude of information on google if anyone needs further information.....There are some interesting articles pertaining to the subject.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/icefreearctic.html

*Talking about ice-free arctic often triggers a lot of shouts and accusations of catastrophism. Yet, we know that the arctic has already been ice-free in summer before. We know it's possible, what is left to understand are the conditions which may produce such an event.
There is evidence (Polyak et. al 2010) that current conditions of an extensively glaciated Arctic were established at the beginning of the Pleistocene, about 3 million years ago. The quaternary glacial-interglacial cycles, governed by orbital cycles, are reflected in the Arctic sea ice extension. At times, average temperature has been 3-5  °C higher than present and totally or almost totally ice-free conditions during summer occured.

It is thought that the main driver of these ice retreats is summer insolation at high latitudes, though regional effects (e.g. the presence of large ice sheets) produce geographically non uniform or delayed retreats. The last occurrence of a maximum in northern high latitude summer insolation was about 10 thousand years ago. It was a generally warmer than present period, but not uniformly so, and the temperature north of 60 ° was a couple of degrees centigrade above present (Kaufmann 2004).

A recent review on arctic ice variability suggests that "the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice-free summers in the central Arctic Ocean". This finding lowers the "threshold" for an ice-free summer to a few degrees centigrade of warming.

This fact may come as a surprise. Indeed, IPCC projections of summer arctic sea ice extent, while showing an overall decrease, do not show ice-free conditions up to at least the end of 21st century.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_the_Arctic

*According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world."[4] The period of 1995-2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2  °C (3.6  °F) above the 1951-1990 average.[5] Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada's temperature rising by 3 to 4  °C (5.40 to 7.20  °F).[6] This warming has been caused not only by the rise in greenhouse gas concentration, but also the deposition of soot on Arctic ice.[7] A 2013 article published in Geophysical Research Letters has shown that temperatures in the region haven't been as high as they currently are since at least 44,000 years ago and perhaps as long as 120,000 years ago. The authors conclude that "anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth."[8][9]*

*Conditions in the Arctic change dramatically through the seasons. In the depths of winter, the Earth’s tilt puts the Arctic in 24 hour-a-day darkness. Temperatures, cold year round, plunge even lower. The sea surface freezes over. At the height of summer, the opposite tilt puts the Arctic in 24 hour-a-day sunlight. While it’s a cold cold place even at these times, the constant sunshine, warmer air, and influx of warm waters from further south serve to melt the ice. The ice cap usually starts shrinking in March, and then reaches its smallest area in mid-September, before cooling temperatures and shorter days start the water freezing and the ice cap growing once again.*


----------



## cynic

The remarkable thing about these religious debates is the way in which they highlight the folly of presuming the infallibility of one's personal opinion and subsequently compounding that error by assuming that this entitles one to pressure others into adoption of an identical viewpoint.

My opinion of mankind's capacity to influence and irrevocably alter the course of nature is somewhat different to that of those ceaselessly banging the apocalyptic drum.

Given the strength of my personal convictions, which happen to be supportable by numerous scientific facts, am I now entitled to insist that everyone convert to my philosophy?


----------



## Knobby22

If your convictions are strong enough and you are elequent then there is money to be obtained.by publishing them from a number of shadowy organisations. Who knows ? If you are persuasive enough and form a philosophy then you could set up a religion like Ron Hubbard. Go for it, Cynic.


----------



## Knobby22

Hi noco. The change in  tilt of the earth is a very slow process and would not cause such a sudden warming and in any case would result in cooler weather in the southern atmosphere which has obviously not occurred. I do agree soot is an important factor and methane release increasingly so.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> If your convictions are strong enough and you are elequent then there is money to be obtained.by publishing them from a number of shadowy organisations. Who knows ? If you are persuasive enough and form a philosophy then you could set up a religion like Ron Hubbard. Go for it, Cynic.




Thanks for your encouragement. 

An additional question is:

Will the proponents of AGW be happy when they discover that my scientifically based opinion happens to identify them as a far greater threat to the longevity of mankind than CO2 emissions?


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> If your convictions are strong enough and you are elequent then there is money to be obtained.by publishing them from a number of shadowy organisations. Who knows ? If you are persuasive enough and form a philosophy then you could set up a religion like Ron Hubbard. Go for it, Cynic.




Speaking of shadowy organisations, how about The Climate Council that surreptitiously (But amateurishly, so got busted) deleted Ms Curry as detailed just above?

How about the Pacific Institute?



> On Thursday, March 24th, POLITICO announced disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick has stepped down as president of the Pacific Institute, though he will remain there as a researcher and fundraiser. Interestingly, no successor has been named, so “the search for a new president is underway.” What was the hurry?
> 
> In 2012, Gleick stole the identity of a Heartland board member (committing identity theft, a federal crime) and used it to commit a second crime (stealing and revealing confidential documents from a competitor, industrial espionage). He confessed to both crimes, but not to a third crime, libel, which he very likely committed by forging a document and lying repeatedly to his allies ”” and then to the general public and to his own board of directors ”” about the true origins of that document. He has yet to confess to that crime. This whole hoary incident is called Fakegate and is documented on this site.
> 
> The Heartland Institute, Gleick’s victim, carefully documented Gleick’s crimes and tried to persuade the U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois to prosecute him, but failed. At the time, we couldn’t understand why: Gleick confessed to committing crimes, and the crimes he committed caused great damage to Heartland’s reputation and to the wider world of public policy debate. Letting him go unpunished would set a terrible precedent: Groups that support different perspectives on controversial issues are now apparently free to break the law to attack and discredit their opponents.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Speaking of shadowy organisations, how about The Climate Council that surreptitiously (But amateurishly, so got busted) deleted Ms Curry as detailed just above?
> 
> How about the Pacific Institute?




Sounds to me like he was an undercover working for the oil lobby.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Sounds to me like he was an undercover working for the oil lobby.




Okay plod, pinching myself.... WTF????

Who was working undercover?


----------



## explod

explod said:


> Sounds to me like he was an undercover working for the oil lobby.




Climate Council,  Pacific Institue,  all infiltrated by oil lobby FBI to destroy credibilty of climate change


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> Climate Council,  Pacific Institue,  all infiltrated by oil lobby FBI to destroy credibilty of climate change




I don't think anyone denies climate changes....it's more playing the man who is carrying the message that is contentious and whether that message has correct cause and solution.... that and a lot of Henny Pennys doing battle with a lot of self professed debunkers and the rest of us are Cocky Lockys.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Climate Council,  Pacific Institue,  all infiltrated by oil lobby FBI to destroy credibilty of climate change




Okay, I'm still at a loss. *Who* are these "oil lobby" infiltrators?


----------



## trainspotter

Nurse .... NURSE ....


----------



## explod

From a bit of facebook chat today: 

"Just in case you were worried that our federal government weren't taking climate change seriously,  you'll be relieved to know that a Senate Committee report has 'examined the possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissiond in Australia,  and makes hard recommendations for achieving these greenhouse gas reductions.   The Committee concluded that the greenhouse effect is real after examining the scientific evidence and from there,  working towards finding practical and affordable solutions'. 

That report was tabled on 12th February 1991, so I'm sure we'll be getting on to it anytime now.   Just as well I recognised it was real early enough"


----------



## noco

explod said:


> From a bit of facebook chat today:
> 
> "Just in case you were worried that our federal government weren't taking climate change seriously,  you'll be relieved to know that a Senate Committee report has 'examined the possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissiond in Australia,  and makes hard recommendations for achieving these greenhouse gas reductions.   The Committee concluded that the greenhouse effect is real after examining the scientific evidence and from there,  working towards finding practical and affordable solutions'.
> 
> That report was tabled on 12th February 1991, so I'm sure we'll be getting on to it anytime now.   Just as well I recognised it was real early enough"




No doubt the Senate committee would have been dominated by the Greens and Labor...Who was on the committee plod?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> No doubt the Senate committee would have been dominated by the Greens and Labor...Who was on the committee plod?




Apparently pretty even noco.   Margarette Thatcher in United Kingdom was a very big influence on this acceptance that there was an established problem but the money lobby destroyed it all. 

Your mob are run by the wealthier lobbyists and the ordinary people,  that you call commos,  do not stand a chance.  And for the record state Alp govmints,  victoria and queensland are  supporting coal expansion. So a lot of your rantings and large quotes cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Apparently pretty even noco.   Margarette Thatcher in United Kingdom was a very big influence on this acceptance that there was an established problem but the money lobby destroyed it all.
> 
> Your mob are run by the wealthier lobbyists and the ordinary people,  that you call commos,  do not stand a chance.  And for the record state Alp govmints,  victoria and queensland are  supporting coal expansion. So a lot of your rantings and large quotes cannot be taken seriously.




Pretty even ha....A little bit of research indicates 3 Labor...1 Green ....2 Liberals....That is 2 to1 on the Climate Change committee......Looks like  leftist domination to me.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Pretty even ha....A little bit of research indicates 3 Labor...1 Green ....2 Liberals....That is 2 to1 on the Climate Change committee......Looks like  leftist domination to me.




Would not describe them as very left back then,  Thatcher certainly was not.  Though not part of the Aussie scene the point is the evidence was and remains overwhelming.  The distortions were introduced as the lobby groups began to donate big to political parties and many scientists rely on government funding for thier research.   CSIRO cut back because this right facist government does not want people to know. 

Have you picked up and read that book I recommended to you noco,  a few times but you never respond.   "The Sixth Extinction was on the science of our current situation.   In great annotated detail is discusses the core samples taken in Antartica which jwere found to have been in place and solid for many millions of years,  so to say a bit of el Nino and melting happens often is pure crapola.  Currently the bottoms of the permafrost are melting and releasing methane which in turn is now accelerating the global warming.


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> Pretty even ha....A little bit of research indicates 3 Labor...1 Green ....2 Liberals....That is 2 to1 on the Climate Change committee......Looks like  leftist domination to me.



A little bit more research  would have been useful Noco: 

Plod refers to a Senate Committee report tabled 12 February 1991 (hereinafter The Plod Report).

1.  The Plod Report was the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, not a "Climate Change committee".  In 1990 its members were:

Senator B.K. Childs (ALP, NSW) (Chair)
Senator B.R. Archer (LP, TAS)
Senator the Hon. P.E. Baume (LP, NSW)
Senator R.L.D. Boswell (NPA, QLD)
Senator B.R. Burns (ALP, QLD)
Senator J.R. Coulter (AD, SA)
Senator R.A. Crowley (ALP, SA)
Senator J.R. Devereux (ALP, TAS) 

i.e.  ALP 4, Coalition 3, Democrat 1. Government majority and Democrat wild card, though of course in committee balance of power isn't relevant. 

2.  The Australian Greens party was formed in 1992, more than a year after The Plod Report was tabled. No Greens were involved in the report.

3.  As far as I can see there has never been a Senate "Climate Change committee". You might have been looking at the Senate Select Committee on Climate Change Policy, which reported in November 2009. But that had 10 members where you only refer to eight, and really 18 years is surely beyond the time travelling abilities even of an Australian Green. Even a female Australian Green from Tasmania. FWIW the members were:

Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck, Chair, Tasmania, LP 
Senator Christine Milne, Deputy Chair, Tasmania, AG 
Senator the Hon Ronald Boswell, Queensland, NATS 
Senator Doug Cameron, New South Wales, ALP
Senator Michaelia Cash, Western Australia, LP 
Senator David Feeney, Victoria, ALP
Senator Mark Furner, Queensland ALP
Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald, Queensland LP 
Senator Louise Pratt, Western Australia, ALP 
Senator Nick Xenophon, South Australia, IND

That's ALP 4, Coalition 4, Australian Greens 1, Independent 1. You'll remember that the dissenting report from this committee came from the 4 ALP (i.e. government) senators, which strongly suggests that the views of the committee were far more diverse than a simple left V right. As is usually the case when grownups discuss complex issues. 

If anyone is still reading, I found all the committee information on the Australian Parliament website (www.aph.gov.au), which is complicated to navigate and painfully slow on my painful broadband connection.


----------



## orr

ghotib said:


> A little bit more research  would have been useful Noco:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is still reading, I found all the committee information on the Australian Parliament website (www.aph.gov.au), which is complicated to navigate and painfully slow on my painful broadband connection.




I did and appreciate the effort Thimker; And fear not our 'enlightened' current political overlords are hurrying us toward internet infrastructure on par, almost,  with Zambia. I like to think of it, affectionatly, as 'Fibrosis to the no-nodes'....


----------



## ghotib

orr said:


> I did and appreciate the effort Thimker; And fear not our 'enlightened' current political overlords are hurrying us toward internet infrastructure on par, almost,  with Zambia. I like to think of it, affectionatly, as 'Fibrosis to the no-nodes'....



Fibres up the Nose?? Such strange affection


----------



## basilio

Another paper has been published in Nature which suggest the Antarctic ice sheet could break up  far more quickly than currently expected.



> *Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly*
> 
> By JUSTIN GILLISMARCH 30, 2016
> Continue reading the main story
> Share This Page
> 
> For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet, a remnant of the last ice age, as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization.
> 
> The great ice sheet, larger than Mexico, is thought to be potentially vulnerable to disintegration from a relatively small amount of global warming, and capable of raising the sea level by 12 feet or more should it break up. But researchers long assumed the worst effects would take hundreds ”” if not thousands ”” of years to occur.
> 
> Now, new research suggests the disaster scenario could play out much sooner.
> 
> Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century.
> 
> *With ice melting in other regions, too, the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago, and so high it would likely provoke a profound crisis within the lifetimes of children being born today.*




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html


----------



## explod

In my view political actions and behaviour have everything to do with the climate change debate. 

From Clarissa Waters 24th Feb 2016

"For every $1 they donate to the old parties,  fossil fuel companies get $2000 back in government handouts and subsidies.  What do the Libs and Labour get?   Massive election warchests and cushy jobs working for coal,  oil and gas companies.


----------



## explod

"WE SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW


I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss,  ecosystems collapse and climate change. 

I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. 

But I was wrong. 

The top envioronmental problems are selfishness,  greed and apathy... 
... and to deal with those we need a spritual and cultural transformation

-and we scientists don't know how to do that. "  Gus Speth. 

So I am convinced that the only current alternative here in Australia is to join the growing support for the Greens.   And by the way they do not accept donations or monies from the corporate sector.


----------



## Logique

The Greens are part of the Coalition now aren't they? In Victoria anyway.

Here are the Greens not accepting corporate sponsorship:



> *Web millionaire bankrolled Greens* - January 8, 2011
> SMH, Paddy Manning: http://www.smh.com.au/national/web-millionaire-bankrolled-greens-20110107-19iw9.html
> 
> A MULTIMILLIONAIRE *internet entrepreneur* worried about climate change bankrolled the Greens' federal election surge last year by making the *largest single political donation in Australian history*.
> 
> Wotif founder Graeme Wood, whose wealth is estimated at $372 million, gave *$1.6 million to fund the Greens' television advertising campaign*, helping to significantly increase votes for the party in key states. The Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate from mid-year....


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> The Greens are part of the Coalition now aren't they? In Victoria anyway.
> 
> Here are the Greens not accepting corporate sponsorship:




Yes,  do recall that now.  Should have qualified it to the oil, gas and coal industry.  There is little doubt that clean energy such as Momentum will increasingly move to support the Greens. 

They do not have coalition type agreements wih labour or libs.   In fact the ALP can them here in Victoria at every opportunity.


----------



## wayneL

The law of unintended consequences, Green rule would be a social and environmental catastrophe of megalithic proportions.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> The law of unintended consequences, Green rule would be a social and environmental catastrophe of megalithic proportions.




_The oceans would rise and devour the land. The skies would  burn piteously scorching all beneath it. Death would stalk the land.  The Green Heel would crush the pips of life.

_
    _______________________________________
Oops that's the scenario under business as usual isn't it ?  We just don't want to talk about it do we ?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> The law of unintended consequences, Green rule would be a social and environmental catastrophe of megalithic proportions.




And how do you know that?


----------



## trainspotter

This thread has taken a turn for the worse. 

Case point example ...



> Unfortunately, we have grown to expect dreadful politics. Since 2010, *both the MP and the council have gone Green, turning the town into a laboratory for their kooky ideas*. Given that they are being called the Ukip of the left — an outsider party on the verge of an electoral breakthrough that could make them bigger than the Lib Dems —* the Green experiment in Brighton ought to serve as a warning to the entire country*.




http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/...lesson-in-why-it-is-a-disaster-to-vote-green/


----------



## noco

I am anxiously waiting for someone bob up on this thread claiming they are GOD or that they have a direct phone line to God predicting the end of the world.

In fact I think it might already have happened with their God like predictions we are currently receiving that we all are going to shrivel and die from sunburn on the top of the Snowy Mountains or drown in ocean deep waters out in Alice Springs.

OMG...could this really happen?....Does anyone know his number?


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> I am anxiously waiting for someone bob up on this thread claiming they are GOD or that they have a direct phone line to God predicting the end of the world.
> 
> In fact I think it might already have happened with their God like predictions we are currently receiving that we all are going to shrivel and die from sunburn on the top of the Snowy Mountains or drown in ocean deep waters out in Alice Springs.
> 
> OMG...could this really happen?....Does anyone know his number?



According to the good book: 7

For those with a preference for apocalyptic outcomes, Her opposite number can be contacted by dialling 666 (or your local neighbourhood climatologist)


----------



## basilio

Clearly the imminent threat of a tidal flood of green gob is threatening the very basis of our existence and identity.

FOR EXAMPLE


> *
> Campaign to change Imperial to Gaia College*
> Times Staff
> 
> Students have called for Imperial College and King’s College to be renamed as part of an attempt to “decolonise and demisogynise” higher education.
> 
> Members of the University of London student union said the names of the universities were “symptomatic of the historical and structural racism and sexism that cause daily microaggressions to students of colour and those who self-identify as female” and they should instead be called Gaia College and Citizen’s College.
> 
> Frederick Chetwynd-Talbot, president of the King’s College Indigenous Peoples’ Society, argued the current names were “inimical to a place of learning that claims to offer a safe space




We've gone to dogs I say..!


----------



## SirRumpole

March temperatures sets record as hottest ever, Bureau of Meteorology says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...sets-record-as-hottest-ever,-bom-says/7293500

The frogs continue to come to the boil.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> March temperatures sets record as hottest ever, Bureau of Meteorology says
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...sets-record-as-hottest-ever,-bom-says/7293500
> 
> The frogs continue to come to the boil.




Rumpy old chap....It is the Sun...you know that bright light in the sky during the day you cannot look at directly during the day......The Sun has explosions like 100 Hiroshima Atom bombs several times each day......Those explosions send radiation and heat waves like we have had  many times before.

I picked up a lovely green frog in my back yard this afternoon......I stroked his back and he look so healthy to me.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> According to the good book: 7
> 
> For those with a preference for apocalyptic outcomes, Her opposite number can be contacted by dialling 666 (or your local neighbourhood climatologist)




haha... good one.


----------



## basilio

I've worked it out.  I've worked it all out...

At some benighted stage some political party left of Genghis  Khan will gain power... somewhere

Whatever xhit is happening with global warming, melting of the ice caps, cities under threat , etc, etc* there is now a golden opportunity to place all blame onto the green menace* 

*It will all be the fault of THE GREENS*

No history, no causation, no thinking, nufink.  

_______________________________________________

I read the tripe that TS used as some sort of excuse to trash the greens.  Enough said...

PPS.  Is anyone remotely interested in having a look at the post I ran highlighting  the latest review of how quickly Antarctica is melting and the consequences ? Too scary ? Too challenging ?


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> I picked up a lovely green frog in my back yard this afternoon......I stroked his back and he look so healthy to me.




Well, hurry up and boil the damned thing before the climatologists notice that they missed one!


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Rumpy old chap....It is the Sun...you know that bright light in the sky during the day you cannot look at directly during the day......The Sun has explosions like 100 Hiroshima Atom bombs several times each day......Those explosions send radiation and heat waves like we have had  many times before.
> 
> I picked up a lovely green frog in my back yard this afternoon......I stroked his back and he look so healthy to me.




Is there a test the scientists can do to prove to you that Climate Change/Global Warming is both man-made and will destroy much of the planet within 100 years if we keep doing what we're doing?

"Climate Change" is a term coined by the denier lobbyist, and man aren't they worth every cent just to come up with that term. The weather has always been changing, big deal. WOW! 

Come on noco... what if you're wrong and the grandkids pay the price?

Headline on Reuters today said drought in Thailand is the worst in twenty years. Will affect its sugar canes, and no doubt other crops, crops like rice.

Vietnam is suffering from historic drought right now too and I heard from my folks that in some region people are starving because they can't afford rice and the basics at current prices.

Same with Queensland, same with California... 

Anyway, I guess climate change won't be proven true because long before it get to be scientifically proven, the world will have gone to war and it'd be the nukes and carpet bombs that'll kill rather than Mother Nature.


----------



## wayneL

These straw man arguments are becoming increasingly tiresome. C'mon fellas, bring your A game, not this bothersome tripe.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Come on noco... what if you're wrong and the grandkids pay the price?




What if noco turns out to be right and the grandkids pay the price?
 Do you see how this argument can easily cut both ways?


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> These straw man arguments are becoming increasingly tiresome. C'mon fellas, bring your A game, not this bothersome tripe.




Too right!

These guys have been promising an apocalypse for decades now, and yet they continually fail to deliver!


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> What if noco turns out to be right and the grandkids pay the price?
> Do you see how this argument can easily cut both ways?




My grand kids and great grand kids will be fine from "GLOBAL WARMING" as the climate will change each year and they will adapt whether the temperature goes up or down.......It has happened before and it will happen again...... the bigger threat to my off springs will come from Islam....Now what will you Greenies do about that?

See my post #7241 and read it again.

*Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.
*


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> My grand kids and great grand kids will be fine from "GLOBAL WARMING" as the climate will change each year and they will adapt whether the temperature goes up or down.......It has happened before and it will happen again...... the bigger threat to my off springs will come from Islam....Now what will you Greenies do about that?
> 
> See my post #7241 and read it again.
> 
> *Faith and belief
> 
> For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.
> 
> To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.
> *




I agree that this topic,like so many others, has indeed become a religion. Whilst I have no complaint about humanity's decision to participate in various forms of religion, I have a definite problem with religious zealotry, particularly when it extends to the point of imposing their belief system on others. Such zealotry is noticably present within this thread. Unfortunately this tends to hamper the progression of this debate. All too quickly one side or another side will dismiss their opposition as a false prophet or heretic rather than assessing the merits of the argument.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.
> [/B]




BS. It's based on evidence which you choose to ignore, then hide under your tin hat and say its a conspiracy.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> BS. It's based on evidence which you choose to ignore, then hide under your tin hat and say its a conspiracy.




Evidence?

Well yeah, we had a minor ice age with ended approximately 150 years age. The world has warmed from that cold period... must have been all those candles, eh?

Since then, the evidence has been subject to what can only euphemistically be described as "adjustment".

The warmists have actually done us all a disservice by causing critical thinkers to doubt their corrupted science and question their motives.

You might want to take another look at the "evidence".

It will of course show warming, but with critical thinking cap on, the picture will be a bit different.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Evidence?
> 
> Well yeah, we had a minor ice age with ended approximately 150 years age. The world has warmed from that cold period... must have been all those candles, eh?
> 
> Since then, the evidence has been subject to what can only euphemistically be described as "adjustment".
> 
> The warmists have actually done us all a disservice by causing critical thinkers to doubt their corrupted science and question their motives.
> 
> You might want to take another look at the "evidence".
> 
> It will of course show warming, but with critical thinking cap on, the picture will be a bit different.




I'd rather listen to the opinions of those with the knowledge in the area of climate science than to your good self and noco with very little.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I'd rather listen to the opinions of those with the knowledge in the area of climate science than to your good self and noco with very little.




That's a good idea. So long as you listen to the great range of opinions in the field, rather than only those who support your personal belief.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> And how do you know that?






trainspotter said:


> This thread has taken a turn for the worse.
> 
> Case point example ...
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/...lesson-in-why-it-is-a-disaster-to-vote-green/






basilio said:


> I've worked it out.  I've worked it all out...
> 
> At some benighted stage some political party left of Genghis  Khan will gain power... somewhere
> 
> Whatever xhit is happening with global warming, melting of the ice caps, cities under threat , etc, etc* there is now a golden opportunity to place all blame onto the green menace*
> 
> *It will all be the fault of THE GREENS*
> 
> No history, no causation, no thinking, nufink.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> *I read the tripe that TS used as some sort of excuse to trash the greens.*  Enough said...
> 
> PPS.  Is anyone remotely interested in having a look at the post I ran highlighting  the latest review of how quickly Antarctica is melting and the consequences ? Too scary ? Too challenging ?




I didn't trash the Greens in the UK .. they did it all by themselves 

Plod asked how do we know that. I placed up a case point example which you ignored.

C'est la vie basilio. 

Like wayneL said earlier ... A game please.

Google ... record cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'd rather listen to the opinions of those with the knowledge in the area of climate science than to your good self and noco with very little.




Yes distorted and untruthful science.....It is a scam and a farce for the likes of Al Gore and his cohorts to make millions of dollars.

* It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

*

Wake up Rumpy to what is really going on......


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Plod asked how do we know that. I placed up a case point example which you ignored.
> 
> 
> Google ... record cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere




You contiually straw pick without accepting underlying cause and effect. 

Yes a record cold winter in the north but it is occuring down to more southern regions.   Why?  Because it is actually warmer at the poles which makes more moisture rise into the atmosphere which creates the increase in storms heading south.   Snow will fall when conditions are around zero so at the poles a few degrees warmer is still extrordinarily cold.   However this season where it normally hits 50 below there were recordings of zero.   This is 50 Celsius above normal.   This alarming discrepancy is creating huge changes and volatility in our weather. 

But of course our dear friends of oil, gas and coal will paper over with simplification and garbage,  oh and name calling and any other embicilliafication that can help to confuse the crowd. 

Increasingly though,  the crowd are waking up that things are not right.  Just ask a Phillipino or Fijian


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> You contiually straw pick without accepting underlying cause and effect.
> 
> *Yes a record cold winter in the north but it is occuring down to more southern regions.   Why?  Because it is actually warmer at the poles which makes more moisture rise into the atmosphere which creates the increase in storms heading south.  * Snow will fall when conditions are around zero so at the poles a few degrees warmer is still extrordinarily cold.   However this season where it normally hits 50 below there were recordings of zero.   This is 50 Celsius above normal.   This alarming discrepancy is creating huge changes and volatility in our weather.
> 
> But of course our dear friends of oil, gas and coal will paper over with simplification and garbage,  oh and name calling and any other embicilliafication that can help to confuse the crowd.
> 
> Increasingly though,  the crowd are waking up that things are not right.  Just ask a Phillipino or Fijian




That makes no sense Plod. 

If it is the coldest Northern Hemisphere winter on record and you are saying _"occuring down to more southern regions"_ but there has been a record set for March as the "hottest year" as per below ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...sets-record-as-hottest-ever,-bom-says/7293500

What the hell does the Philippines and Fiji have to do with it? Oh I get it you are alluding that they have had the"worst cyclone season" on record blah blah blah

Yep ... Cyclone Winston was the most powerful cyclone in the Pacific nation's history (not by much only 7km/h) 

Also not forgetting in 1985 there were 4 cyclones that hit Fiji in 2 months (but that is another story) Eric, Nigel, Gavin & Hina were their names .. look it up Plod.

As for the Phillippines .., The deadliest overall tropical cyclone to impact the Philippines is believed to have been the Haiphong typhoon which is estimated to have killed up to 20,000 people as it passed over the country in September 1881.

"A" game my learned friend


----------



## Knobby22

Didn't that movie on climate change predict extremely ccold weather for winter? You know, the Al Gore one due to slowing sea currents.


----------



## trainspotter

Yep save the world from that nasty C02 stuff  from your private jet ... tut tut !



> Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio may be banned from returning to Indonesia following his criticisms that palm oil plantations are destroying the country's rainforests and endangering wildlife, an immigration official says.
> The Oscar winner recently made* a one-day visit* to protected Mount Leuser National Park in northern Sumatra and uploaded photos to his Instagram account, expressing concerns over species whose habitats are threatened.
> "The expansion of palm oil plantations is fragmenting the forest and cutting off key elephant migration corridors," he posted.
> "A world-class biodiversity hotspot, but palm oil expansion is destroying this unique place."
> Heru Santoso, the spokesman for the Directorate General for Immigration at the Law and Human Rights Ministry, said that DiCaprio used his visit to discredit the palm oil industry and the Indonesian government.
> "We support his concern to save the Leuser ecosystem," Santoso said on Saturday.
> "But we can blacklist him from returning to Indonesia at any time if he keeps posting incitement or provocative statements in his social media."
> 
> *Slash-and-burn practices destroy huge areas of Indonesian forest every year during the dry season, creating haze that pollutes neighbouring countries and causes massive economic losses, as well as contributing to Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions. The fires are often set to clear land for agriculture, including palm oil plantations.* (_Which I have been banging on about but no one cares_)
> 
> Santoso said companies and organisations that objected to DiCaprio's comments have the right to request that immigration authorities bar him from re-entering Indonesia, though none have done so yet.
> He said DiCaprio entered and left Indonesia legally with a proper visa and immigration documentation. *DiCaprio and his entourage arrived on a private jet at Kualanamu Airport on the island of Sumatra on March 26, and the group took a helicopter to the protected park, and left the island a day later*.




http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...n/news-story/c8f1b3c45e747fdfafab99369e235c7a

Goodness ... all that in ONE day !


----------



## wayneL

Could there be any greater hypocrite than Leo?


----------



## basilio

Just no point having a conversation with you clowns is there?  The destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil is an environmental disaster on many levels.  But don't worry about the issue. Let's just trash Leo because he wings it to Indonesia to make a point.

I know your memories are failing but just a quick recap of the graphs showing how global temperatures are increasing and the very sharp increase in the last couple of months.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil is an environmental disaster on many levels.




I'm no expert on the subject but I'm told that palm oil is bad in other ways too. Worse for human health than alternatives such as olive or sunflower oil. That's my understanding at least. Too much "bad" fat in it apparently.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Just no point having a conversation with you clowns is there?  The destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil is an environmental disaster on many levels.  But don't worry about the issue. Let's just trash Leo because he wings it to Indonesia to make a point.
> 
> I know your memories are failing but just a quick recap of the graphs showing how global temperatures are increasing and the very sharp increase in the last couple of months.
> 
> View attachment 66198




Basilio, it's not that those in disagreement have poor memories, it's simply that they don't automatically subscribe to singularly apocalyptic conclusions.

There's a lot more to data interpretation and extrapolation than simply concluding that it can only possibly mean one thing. 

There are various alternative theories that can account for changing weather patterns on this planet. To automatically subscribe to one theoretical cause, in isolation to all others, simply because it happens to support one's personal ideology and then dismiss opposition as being bereft of cognitive faculties, only serves to stagnate this discussion.

There are some in this debate that already have their minds made up,  and no amount of counter evidence is ever likely to sway them from their deeply held convictions.

Others are genuinely open to reviewing their stance in the event that recognisably compelling evidence is presented.
 So a question one might ask oneself is : "Am I open to reconsidering my views on the basis of new information?"

Whilst I have deep reservations about the impartiality of those presenting the apocalyptic case, I like to believe that, in the event that sufficiently compelling evidence emerges, I  would be amenable to reviewing my stance.

How about you?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Just no point having a conversation with you clowns is there?  The destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil is an environmental disaster on many levels.  But don't worry about the issue. Let's just trash Leo because he wings it to Indonesia to make a point.
> 
> I know your memories are failing but just a quick recap of the graphs showing how global temperatures are increasing and the very sharp increase in the last couple of months.
> 
> View attachment 66198




What if everybody was Leo basilio? Or Al? Or David SuzukI? Et al? We'd be at 2% co2 next month. So Leo has no credibility on so many levels it's not even funny.

Unfortunately while *you clowns* crap on about co2 emissions and spend all your time fiddling data, real environmental problem go unnoticed.

The Indo palm oil thing is a big issue, but nobody is going to listen to a hypocrite about it. He's probably set back the ability to do anything about that by 20 years because of that.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> Unfortunately while *you clowns* crap on about co2 emissions and spend all your time fiddling data, real environmental problem go unnoticed.




You mean like the absurdism of QLD State government and LNP national governments pursuit of increased development of coal reserves that no Financier on the planet will touch, whilst these very conflicted proponents actively avoid the harbingers of the catastrophic consequences of their ill-guided intent occurring just off the coast. 
That 'canary' in that Barrier Reef has dropped to the floor of the cage like its fellow up on the Arctic ice sheet and its singed compatriot on the highland bogs of Tasmania ... 
Co2 is the problem ...leo's not.
And avoid palm oil as best you can... and Think carefully whether you want or need children regardless of what your government, culture, religion or family pressure or enthuse you to do.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Just no point having a conversation with you clowns is there?  The destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil is an environmental disaster on many levels.  But don't worry about the issue. Let's just trash Leo because he wings it to Indonesia to make a point.
> 
> I know your memories are failing but just a quick recap of the graphs showing how global temperatures are increasing and the very sharp increase in the last couple of months.




Must be ground hog day?

When I mentioned the Indonesian slash and burn policy on the forest it was ignored. But somehow when you say it the credibility level rises +100%.

I also mentioned the Southern California Methane leak which was also ignored. TOTALLY.

I banged on about China coal fired power stations and American oil policy in Alaska. IGNORED.

*THESE ARE THE REASONS BEHIND WHY THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE RISING *



> Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change




Really ... 0.85 degrees Celsius from the IPCC no doubt and they can be trusted !

No wait NASA to the rescue ... http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

And finally this little gem ..



> To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from direct temperature readings to temperature anomalies-values that represent the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date.* Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to fill in the missing values.* Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring Earth's surface temperature over time.




https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

And around we go again


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> You mean like the absurdism of QLD State government and LNP national governments pursuit of increased development of coal reserves that no Financier on the planet will touch, whilst these very conflicted proponents actively avoid the harbingers of the catastrophic consequences of their ill-guided intent occurring just off the coast.
> That 'canary' in that Barrier Reef has dropped to the floor of the cage like its fellow up on the Arctic ice sheet and its singed compatriot on the highland bogs of Tasmania ...
> *Co2 is the problem ...leo's not.*
> And avoid palm oil as best you can... and Think carefully whether you want or need children regardless of what your government, culture, religion or family pressure or enthuse you to do.




Leo's private jet pumping Co2 into the atmosphere is the problem orr


----------



## basilio

Well  TS you have a very special capacity to create contradictions in the space of two posts. I'm at  a loss to understand your POV at all.

*What is causing the last 100 years of global warming ?*

IMV (and this just mirrors the science around the topic) no single, simple factor. Essentially it is largely the impact of humans on the environment releasing  many billions of tons of Greenhouse Gases thus trapping extra heat.

*Contributors to those extra billions of tons  (and there will be others as well..)
*
1) Large scale burning of fossil fuels particularly in the last 30-60 years

2) Widespread clearing of forests which reduce the earth's capacity to absorb CO2

3) Burning of forests as per no 2   (This is where the effect of the clearing of Indonesian rain forest  comes in)

4) Release of Methane and Carbon Dioxide through extensive mining operations (the methane  bubble. tick again)

5) Huge expansion of coal fired power stations (China, India others. tick)

6) The release of methane from the Arctic as frozen tundra melts.  (This is a timebomb. Just starting but potentially capable of destroying the world in a decade if the release of methane ramps up spectacularly as it did millions of years ago)
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/03/...den-plumes-eruptions-and-large-ocean-craters/

So TS your comments about the slash and burn, methane escapes , coal stations are spot on. But in the overall picture the biggest contributor of GG gases has been the billions of tons of cement produced, billions of gallons of oil burned and so on. These other factors are just part of the picture.

*The result?*

Yep .87C average increase in temperature world wide. (thanks for the NASA link) .  Then the comment about NASA scientists filling in the data from surrounding area information. No mystery here. Just a long recognised  methodology.

So I'm left puzzled. You acknowledge the increase in temperatures. You acknowledge that CO2 (and other green house gases) are the prime cause. Where is the disagreement ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> So I'm left puzzled. You acknowledge the increase in temperatures. You acknowledge that CO2 (and other green house gases) are the prime cause. Where is the disagreement ?




HOLY **** CAKES BATMAN !! You actually read what I have been writing for the past 5 years now 

My disagreement is the ALARMISM !! 

Nope we will not be 6 metres under water in the next 10 years. Nope the glaciers have not FULLY melted and the Alps still have snow on them. I remember you tried to blame GW and Co2 on salmon deaths in the North American wilderness and it turned out to be a parasite that attacks the lungs of the fish. Your shrill argumentative style is bordering on loonyism as scientists are only now starting to figure out what is actually going on with this blue spinning orb. And it's a lot trickier than they know.

Also the manipulation of the data to fit their own opines is bordering on FRAUD (IPCC predictions anyone?) 



> Not only do NASA and NOAA make up fake data for much of the planet, but they massively tamper with their existing data, like this station in Siberia where they have cooled the past nearly two degrees C since 2012 – and now claim that it is two degrees C above normal.




http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/

Read the title of the thread basilio - Resisting Climate Hysteria. 

Plenty more where that came from as well ...


----------



## basilio

Clear as mud TS... 

On the one hand you appear to accept the the scientific case for CO2 and other greenhouse gases to trap heat and warm up the atmosphere. Hence your concern about methane bubbles, clearing of Indonesia rain forests (and others I presume) and bulk coal fired power stations.

On the other hand...well you reckon the global temperature figures are cooked. That in effect NASA all the meteorologists and associated centres are part of a giant fraud to artificially inflate nominal temperatures around the world. 

And the consequence of of all this ? Well on your reading it seems as if we have nothing serious to worry about at all. Now or ever. Amen. All we have to do is ignore it and everything will be fine. 

PS And if you use Steve Goddard as a reference for reality God help you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard


----------



## CanOz

> My disagreement is the ALARMISM !!




Hey! That's very similar to the thread title


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, Goddard is more on the money than say..... Hansen?

Wasn't it you who protested me dissing Hansen, yet in the same breath prepared to diss others.

Let's have some continuity of logic ffs?


----------



## trainspotter

CanOz said:


> Hey! That's very similar to the thread title




You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto


----------



## trainspotter

Yeah wayneL ... logic in this thread ... bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa 




explod said:


> Sounds to me like he was an undercover working for the oil lobby.






explod said:


> Climate Council,  Pacific Institue,  all infiltrated by oil lobby FBI to destroy credibilty of climate change






basilio said:


> Lovely piece of work Ghotlib.  I had seen a similar graph before but I love the way each contributing factor is identified and the impact noted.
> 
> One big interesting factor was the way *aerosals  are actually reducing global temperature*. The problem with that is that if/when we reduce the amount of pollution from coal fired power stations and other similar factors *temperatures will rise* and quite significantly.






trainspotter said:


> View attachment 65444
> 
> 
> It would appear that we are doing nothing to save our planet?






trainspotter said:


> Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.
> 
> E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html
> 
> Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...
> 
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ns/fit-for-the-future/pollution/trash-vortex/
> 
> View attachment 64963
> 
> 
> Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere
> 
> *Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564
> 
> And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:
> 
> You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...
> 
> http://aqicn.org/map/india/#@g/24.0238/78.7424/4z
> 
> 
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ee-in-china/story-myTrPZM8DHmQOhxB9cc5hI.html
> 
> So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.




Try as I might it get's more and more stupefying to the point where my brain is beginning to hurt from this


----------



## basilio

Your brain should hurt TS.  It's clearly not capable of dealing with complex yet nonetheless simple issues.

The overall question of how our climate changes is complex. Lot's of factors have affected the climate on earth over millions of years.  Our scientific understanding of that process is developing but certainly not complete. 

The simple part however, * the real simple part,*  is that Greenhouse Gases have been an integral part of creating a habitable earth.  Without the traces of CO2 in the atmosphere we would be much colder. 

Next simple part.  *Substantially increase the greenhouse gases and you will substantially increase the temperature on earth.*  Exactly how much ? Not quiet sure. But do we want to hang around and find out ? And what is the practical difference between 3C increase or 5C increase. We are just as cooked.

Or do we just bury our head in the sand and say "It can't happen to us !!" and pray that some "misguided" scientific outliers have more chance of being correct than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community ?

______________________________________________________________

By the way that crack you made about Ghotlibs graph and my response was priceless. On memory the graph was an excellent breakdown of the varying contributions to global warming from different sources. The takeaway story was that over the past 30 years the ever increasing contributor was human caused GG emissions.

My observation was completely accurate.  If by some miracle we immediately stopped coal fired power stations there would be an increase in temperature.

This is because power stations also send out aerosol particles which in themself dim the sun and reduce temperatures ( The CO2 is raising temperatures in the longer term but in the short term the aerosols are reducing the immediate temperature) So sadly stopping the power stations would stop the aerosol shield that in the short term is masking the extra CO2 being pumped out..


http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html


----------



## noco

We have bush fires in most parts of Australia every year as has occurred for centuries in the past....

Fossil fuel = Green house gases.....I have always understood from school days that the bush fires in south east Australia combined with the cold air drifting down from the Himalayas produces monsoon rains.

Does anyone on this thread have any details of the amount of green house gases produced in comparison to man made green house gases.....Does bush fires produce more or less green house gases than fossil fuel?

I also read where the oceans absorb an enormous amount of C02....The Pacific Ocean has to be a certain high temperature to be able to form a cyclone off the Queensland Coast but we have not had any cyclones this year or last year.


----------



## wayneL

Bas this might be fairly nuanced, but regarding "substantially increase".

300ppm to 400ppm is a substantial increase, 33%. But at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is it a substantive increase?

I don't believe that has been irrevocably established.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> *Contributors to those extra billions of tons  (and there will be others as well..)
> *




Figures are approximate from various sources:

About half of all crude oil ever used by man has been used since 1990 and about three quarters of it since 1975. 

Virtually all natural gas ever used has been used since 1960 and about three quarters of it since 1990.

Regardless of the CO2 issue, the rate we're using this stuff is frightening given that it's a non-renewable resource. That alone is a good reason to change, CO2 is just another reason to add to the list of problems with fossil fuels really - wars, acid rain, groundwater pollution, ocean pollution, economic and political troubles, impact on the landscape, air pollution in the conventional sense, and so on.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Bas this might be fairly nuanced, but regarding "substantially increase".
> 
> 300ppm to 400ppm is a substantial increase, 33%. But at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is it a substantive increase?
> 
> I don't believe that has been irrevocably established.




And whilst considering these numbers, let's not overlook the contribution of biological (as opposed to technological) CO2 exhalations by the increasing human populace during the period in question.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> My observation was completely accurate.  If by some miracle we immediately stopped coal fired power stations there would be an increase in temperature.
> 
> This is because power stations also send out aerosol particles which in themself dim the sun and reduce temperatures ( The CO2 is raising temperatures in the longer term but in the short term the aerosols are reducing the immediate temperature) So sadly stopping the power stations would stop the aerosol shield that in the short term is masking the extra CO2 being pumped out..
> 
> http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html




This is why my head hurts 



> . There is only one aerosol — soot, also known as black carbon — that actually helps contribute to global warming by boosting the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.




http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/



> Soot as an airborne contaminant in the environment has many different sources, all of which are results of some form of pyrolysis. *They include soot from coal burning*, internal-combustion engines,[1] power-plant boilers, hog-fuel boilers, ship boilers, central steam-heat boilers, waste incineration, local field burning, house fires, forest fires, fireplaces, and furnaces.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot

And finally ...



> *By reducing aerosol (soot) emissions, *we can buy ourselves some climate time — about 5 to 10 years — while we work on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in parallel. CO2, you see, hangs around in the atmosphere for an extremely long time, from decades to centuries, so even if we implement cuts today, it will take years for them to take effect. Aerosols, on the other hand, have much shorter lifetimes. If we work to reduce soot emissions now, which can enhance the global warming effect of CO2 by 20-50 percent, the climate impacts will be felt more rapidly.




http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/

But but but aerosols mask GW don't you know ...



> In contrast, atmospheric aerosol particles are largely localized near their sources, and do not linger in the atmosphere for long so that, even if we continue to emit them at current rates,* their atmospheric concentrations will not build up markedly over time. *Thus the effect of long-lived global warming emissions will far outweigh the cooling effect of short-lived particles.




http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...sols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VwIqF5x961s

BAH HUMBUG one site contradicts the other yet again !


----------



## trainspotter

And yet it still continues ...

View attachment 66205


We are CONSUMING more than we can renew but never fear basilio is here to save the day with graphs telling me how warm it is on record and how we will be inundated with sea water and BURN from over heating our planet with nasty Co2 and Leo DiCaprio flies his private jet to say Indonesia is burning forests (lotsa Co2 there) but prolly more coming out the tail pipe of his Gulf 50 but that's another story whilst Plod is libeling oil execs and FBI agents into stooges and looking at Fiji cyclone data and China and America are burning coal polluting the skies with Co2 at a maddening rate but turn up to Paris with a Greenpeace logo tattooed to their foreheads and all is forgiven while Volkswagen codes their diesel engines to give false readings and pays a meagre fine to make it alright and I can buy carbon credits whenever I fly on Jetstar for a measly $2.60 (insert f@cken maniacal laughter here) and no one cares where the money goes.

WHAT A JOKE BASILIO


----------



## basilio

Great set of references TS.  Learnt something extra from checking them out.

There is nuance in the discussion about the effect of different aerosols on the climate. As the NASA site pointed out most aerosols emitted by power stations cooled the earth thus masking global warming from the extra CO2 but the soot accelerated it. 

Frankly I think it is detail. The big picture is that we have way too much CO2 / GG in the atmosphere and we must do whatever we can to reduce the amount.  At the same time we already have a severe problem which will only get worse  for the medium term. All of our understandings at this stage suggest that that the full effect of the current CO2 levels have not impacted on the environment. There is more heat to come even if we somehow manage to stop everything right now (which is not going to happen)

Regarding the amount of of CO2 going from 300-400 PPM and the effect this has on the climate. There are  a range of historical data which suggest that  earth eras with 400 plus PPM of CO2 were much warmer. This seems to be backed up by climate models which postulate big increases in trapped heat as the GG levels rise (this can also include methane, nitrous oxide, other gases as well).

The figures for suggested temperature increase are still within a range.  But the uncomfortable facts are that at even the lower ranges of effect we will face further increases in temperature - and this is before any additional climate tipping effects come into play.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938


----------



## basilio

Some food for thought on the consequences of further thawing of the frozen Arctic regions



> *Concern Over Catastrophic Methane Release ”” Overburden, Plumes, Eruptions, and Large Ocean Craters*
> 
> The amount of methane in the Arctic hydrates alone is estimated as 400 times more than the global atmospheric CH4 burden. The question is timescale of the methane liberation: gradual, abrupt, or something in between. Satellite monitoring of methane over the Arctic Ocean is necessary. ”” Dr. Leonid Yerganov



*  *  *  *

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/03/...den-plumes-eruptions-and-large-ocean-craters/


----------



## Tisme

Current projection for making provision to year 2070 air conditioning systems : 35% higher cooling load for Brisbane


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> Current projection for making provision to year 2070 air conditioning systems : 35% higher cooling load for Brisbane




They might need to review those figures again.  Climate scientists are still considering new data on the effects of clouds on global warming.



> * Global warming may be far worse than thought, cloud analysis suggests*
> 
> Researchers find clouds contain more liquid – as opposed to ice – than was previously believed, threatening greater increase in temperatures
> 
> Oliver Milman
> @olliemilman
> 
> 
> Climate change projections have vastly underestimated the role that clouds play, meaning future warming could be far worse than is currently projected, according to new research.
> 
> Researchers said that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere compared with pre-industrial times could result in a global temperature increase of up to 5.3C – far warmer than the 4.6C older models predict.
> 
> The analysis of satellite data, led by Yale University, found that clouds have much more liquid in them, rather than ice, than has been assumed until now. Clouds with ice crystals reflect more solar light than those with liquid in them, stopping it reaching and heating the Earth’s surface.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming


----------



## basilio

With regard to leaking Methane gas (which is a 25 times more powerful GG than CO2).

Apparently the gas fields of the US are leaking like a sieve. Short story is that this is adding a huge boost to global warming even if CO2 emissions are moderated.


> *
> Methane leaks across US pose a much greater threat than Aliso Canyon*
> Utah, Colorado and Texas are being aggressively pumped for oil and natural gas, producing methane leaks in quantities much higher than previously thought – and little is being done to contain the problem
> Leah Messinger
> 
> Thursday 3 March 2016 08.14 AEDT
> Last modified on Friday 4 March 2016 02.19 AEDT
> 
> When Stephen Conley, an atmospheric scientist and pilot, saw an emissions indicator skyrocket in his Mooney TLS prop plane, he knew he had found a significant methane leak. His gas-detecting Picarro analyzer indicated he was flying through a plume of gas escaping at 900kg per hour. The colorless, odorless gas was enough to cover a football field to a height of 20 feet in a single day. But this flight wasn’t over the highly publicized Aliso Canyon in Los Angeles; Conley was circling the Bakken Shale, a rock formation in western North Dakota that has been aggressively pumped for oil and natural gas.
> 
> Day in and day out, small leaks in oil and gas producing regions like the Bakken Shale are emitting methane in quantities that collectively rival or even exceed Aliso Canyon. New figures released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month indicate the potent greenhouse gas is being emitted from leaks across the US in quantities “much larger” than previously thought.
> 
> “There’s all these small leaks everywhere and they eclipse [Aliso Canyon],” said Paul Wennberg, professor of atmospheric chemistry and environmental science and engineering at the California Institute of Technology.




http://www.theguardian.com/vital-si...yon-ghg-epa-edf-environmen-climate-change-gas


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Great set of references TS.  Learnt something extra from checking them out.
> 
> There is nuance in the discussion about the effect of different aerosols on the climate. As the NASA site pointed out most aerosols emitted by power stations cooled the earth thus masking global warming from the extra CO2 but the soot accelerated it.
> 
> Frankly I think it is detail. The big picture is that we have way too much CO2 / GG in the atmosphere and we must do whatever we can to reduce the amount.  At the same time we already have a severe problem which will only get worse  for the medium term. All of our understandings at this stage suggest that that the full effect of the current CO2 levels have not impacted on the environment. There is more heat to come even if we somehow manage to stop everything right now (which is not going to happen)
> 
> Regarding the amount of of CO2 going from 300-400 PPM and the effect this has on the climate. There are  a range of historical data which suggest that  earth eras with 400 plus PPM of CO2 were much warmer. This seems to be backed up by climate models which postulate big increases in trapped heat as the GG levels rise (this can also include methane, nitrous oxide, other gases as well).
> 
> The figures for suggested temperature increase are still within a range.  But the uncomfortable facts are that at even the lower ranges of effect we will face further increases in temperature - and this is before any additional climate tipping effects come into play.
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
> http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938





* The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11 °F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history ”” 400 parts per million ”” climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

*

So at that time there were no coal fired power stations and no steel mills polluting the atmosphere.

Now we have modern coal fired power stations which capture C02 and sends only a steam vapor out.

We now have steel mills closing in Australia, England and the USA and reduced production in China.using less coal which means less pollution = a decrease in Global Temperature.

Whoopee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...Now everyone should be happy except Bas.

Man made Global manipulation by Green Alarmist...Phffft.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> They might need to review those figures again.  Climate scientists are still considering new data on the effects of clouds on global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming




Unlike the various sham engineering institutes, Ashrae and Airah actually focus on lots of data sets, lots of transparent mathematics and lots of empirical feedback. It's not a politic, but a proper professional organisation that has pedigree.

But you may well be correct. but it won't be viewed with the emotional skepticism that has been attracted to the climate change debate. Even John Howard capitulated his attitude to kyoto and slavishness to Bush and signed us up. I'm not suggesting you are emotional, just every other bugger out there that doesn't agree with my point of view.


----------



## basilio

The risk of catastrophic collapse of the  West Antarctic ice sheet  ie very quickly and very soon, can't be ignored. 

If the risk and reality is legit *our current society cannot function.* 



> *Climate Catastrophe, Coming Even Sooner?*
> By Elizabeth Kolbert
> 
> New research indicates that, due to global warming, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) may be headed for an unavoidable and disastrous collapse, triggering a rapid rise in sea levels.	Credit Photograph by Natacha Pisarenko / AP
> 
> One of the first people to propose that climate change could result in rapid sea-level rise was an eccentric British geographer named John Mercer. A hesitant speaker in public, Mercer was less restrained in private. He was once arrested for jogging naked. It was said that he liked to do his fieldwork in the nude””a curious habit for a man who studied glaciers.
> 
> In a seminal paper published in 1968, Mercer proposed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, known in scientific circles as WAIS, was vulnerable to collapse. The reason, he wrote, was that the ice sheet rests on land that is below sea level. It is buttressed by floating ice shelves that extend far out to sea, but were these to disintegrate, Mercer wrote, then “changing horizontal forces” would cause the ice sheet to lift off its base. At that point, the sea would rush in and WAIS would start to warm from below as well as above. This would initiate the ice sheet’s demise, which would be “rapid, perhaps even catastrophic.” Several meters of sea-level rise would ensue.
> 
> More recent research has tended to confirm Mercer’s worst fears. The latest example comes from a study published Wednesday, in the journal Nature. “Antarctic Model Raises Prospect of Unstoppable Ice Collapse,” ran the headline in the news story that accompanied it.




http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/climate-catastrophe-coming-even-sooner


----------



## macca

basilio said:


> The risk of catastrophic collapse of the  West Antarctic ice sheet  ie very quickly and very soon, can't be ignored.
> 
> If the risk and reality is legit *our current society cannot function.*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/climate-catastrophe-coming-even-sooner




As this was first suggested as a possibility about 50 years ago is there any indication as to what time frame is very quickly ? Another 50 years or next year ?

If it next year perhaps we should stop swallowing the BS about CO2 and start working on the real problem in the Northern Hemisphere, which is all the pollution being pumped out by China etc 

The latest charts on the link supplied on this thread showing air quality monitor readings, make it very obvious for thinkers that while CO2 is a naturally occurring gas with some benefit to nature all that visible cr*p in the air is the elephant in the room.


----------



## Ijustnewit

macca said:


> As this was first suggested as a possibility about 50 years ago is there any indication as to what time frame is very quickly ? Another 50 years or next year ?
> 
> If it next year perhaps we should stop swallowing the BS about CO2 and start working on the real problem in the Northern Hemisphere, which is all the pollution being pumped out by China etc
> 
> The latest charts on the link supplied on this thread showing air quality monitor readings, make it very obvious for thinkers that while CO2 is a naturally occurring gas with some benefit to nature all that visible cr*p in the air is the elephant in the room.




I reckon you will see it happen by next year at this rate , April has been cooking down here in Tasmania and another record braking month is well on the cards .


----------



## sptrawler

Ijustnewit said:


> I reckon you will see it happen by next year at this rate , April has been cooking down here in Tasmania and another record braking month is well on the cards .




Well the ice melt might help the rainfall.

Maybe we should all open our fridges?


----------



## Ijustnewit

sptrawler said:


> Well the ice melt might help the rainfall.
> 
> Maybe we should all open our fridges?




Actually it just might cool the waters down here allowing more cold fronts to hit us ? They are being driven South by the warm waters surrounding Tassie due to warm sea current changes and made worse by the current El Nino. No cold fronts = no rain for Tasmania.
I did try the fridge trick and found two problems , the first one the beer goes warm and the second one it keeps beeping at me.


----------



## basilio

Just some reminders of 

1) What scientists have understood about the effects of greenhouse gases
2) When the Oil Industry was aware  of this information
3) What they did about it since then



> The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)
> Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation””a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.
> Download
> Full report
> 
> For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.
> 
> Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"””collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.
> 
> Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> UPDATE (July 9, 2015): As this report went to press, a newly discovered email from a former Exxon employee revealed that the company was already factoring climate change into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981. Learn more.




http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

can't say we havn't been told can we ?


----------



## basilio

*We don't have to go back to the caves to reduce our greenhouse gas impact.*



> *Is it possible to reduce CO2 emissions and grow the global economy?*
> 
> *Yale Environment 360: Surprising new statistics show that the world economy is expanding while global carbon emissions remain at the same level. Is it possible that the elusive ‘decoupling’ of emissions and economic growth could be happening?*
> 
> Friday 15 April 2016 00.04 AEST
> Comments
> 43
> Save for later
> 
> The statistic is startling. In the past two years, the global economy has grown by 6.5 percent, but carbon dioxide emissions from energy generation and transport have not grown at all, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported last month. CO2 emissions in Europe, the United States, and ”” most stunningly ”” China have been falling. What is going on?
> 
> These numbers raise a key question of huge importance if nations are to avoid the worst effects of climate change: Is the world on a path toward “decoupling” economic activity from carbon dioxide emissions?
> 
> Put another way: Is the idea of a future of “green growth,” with prosperity rising and emissions falling, real? Or as some fear, is it a dangerous myth?
> 
> When the United Nations holds an official signing ceremony for the Paris climate agreement on April 22, the hope is this high-profile event will ensure political momentum for meeting the Paris pledge to halt global warming at “well below” two degrees Celsius. But even climate scientists elated by the Paris agreement agree that, even with political will, the task will be extremely tough. Many are unsure whether to be optimists, keen to show the job can be done, or pessimists, determined to ensure nobody thinks it will be easy.
> 
> In its analysis last month, the IEA, a body linked with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), reported that global CO2 emissions from energy-related activities have not risen since 2013, staying at 32.1 billion tons even as the global economy grew.
> 
> This surprising “decoupling” of emissions from economic activity was led by the two largest emitters, China and the U.S., which both registered declines in emissions of about 1.5 percent.
> 
> The IEA finding followed a similar conclusion about global emissions from an international team of climate scientists, headed by Corinne le Quere of the University of East Anglia in England, reported during the Paris climate conference last December.
> 
> A good part of the decoupling, both studies agree, is attributable to China. Its turnaround has been “quite remarkable,” says Fergus Green, an analyst of China’s energy policy at the London School of Economics. The country’s coal use grew annually by more than 8 percent between 2000 and 2013, and that growth was the biggest single cause of rising global CO2 emissions. As recently as 2011, China got 80 percent of its electricity from coal.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...uce-co2-emissions-and-grow-the-global-economy


----------



## basilio

*On the other hand if we don't take action we might have to live in caves again...*



> *
> Climate change: website reveals which homes will be swamped by rising sea levels*
> 
> Coastal Risk Australia combines Google Maps with detailed tide and elevation data, as well as future sea level rise projections
> 
> @MikeySlezak
> email
> 
> Friday 15 April 2016 06.53 AEST
> Last modified on Friday 15 April 2016 09.27 AEST
> Comments
> 322
> Save for later
> 
> For the first time, Australians can see on a map how rising sea levels will affect their house just by typing their address into a website. And they’ll soon be able to get an estimate of how much climate change will affect their property prices and insurance premiums, too.
> 
> Launched on Friday, the website Coastal Risk Australia takes Google Maps and combines it with detailed tide and elevation data, as well as future sea level rise projections, allowing users to see whether their house or suburb will be inundated.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ch-homes-will-be-swamped-by-rising-sea-levels


----------



## Knobby22

Cool website, Basilio.
There are such things as sea walls though. I doubt the government will let the CBD get swamped.
The areas of concern are more in coastal zones away from the major cities.


----------



## pixel

What's new?
If Tobacco companies and Asbestos floggers could lie and get away with mass murder, why should the oil and coal companies be any different?

*There is money to be made today! Who cares about tomorrow?*

Let the survivors - if any - deal with the effects at a future date.


----------



## basilio

> There are such things as sea walls though. I doubt the government will let the CBD get swamped.
> The areas of concern are more in coastal zones away from the major cities.




And how high is this sea wall?  One metre ?  Two metres ?  Five metres ? How wide does it go ? How deep are the foundations ? What do you do about ground water coming under the wall ?

Sorry this will never happen in the longer term.  I'm sure many cities will start to build walls to protect themselves from rising sea levels. But because this is a long term issue solutions can only work for 30-50 years at maximum before the walls are topped.

And anyway.  Melbourne will be stuffed as a city when the Western and Eastern sewage works are flooded.  Or some other vital piece of infrastructure. Same thing will happen to other cities. You are only as strong as your weakest critical link.


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> I did try the fridge trick and found two problems , the first one the beer goes warm and the second one it keeps beeping at me.



If the beer starts beeping then that means you've already drunk too much of it. 

If it's the fridge that's beeping then thankfully there's a solution. Power point. Switch. Off.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> If the beer starts beeping then that means you've already drunk too much of it.
> 
> If it's the fridge that's beeping then thankfully there's a solution. Power point. Switch. Off.




Hi Smurf , no sign of any rain yet despite the constant forecast of showers. One things for certain I'll need cold beer next week when Hobart is forecast to still have days around 25 degrees as we head into late April. Amazingly warm and won't do the water supplies any favours with that heat. Lots of back burning this week over this side of the river , word has it the Eastern shores turn is next week. Anyway still no significant rainfall even on the 30 day forecast and just more hot sunny days.  
Maybe the tipping point on climate change has already tipped in Tasmania  ? It's certainly copping a beating this year.


----------



## SirRumpole

Interesting article

Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...e-has-dropped-off-the-political-radar/7328538


----------



## Ijustnewit

There was an interesting article last week in the local Hobart paper that basically said the Salmon Fisheries are having a hard time due to the warming waters of Tasmania. In fact I think it won't be to much longer before the fishery has to move their growing pens way further South of the State or face closure.
Which brings me to this article today about the warm waters off Tasmania now are warm enough to support tropical species of large pelagic fish. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/massive-swordfish-caught-off-tasmania/7331238


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem)




The inevitable consequence of too many silly claims that should never have been made and which haven't come true.

Remember that nonsense about dams never filling up again? That's the sort of rubbish which puts people off the entire issue unfortunately.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> The inevitable consequence of too many silly claims that should never have been made and which haven't come true.
> 
> Remember that nonsense about dams never filling up again? That's the sort of rubbish which puts people off the entire issue unfortunately.




Exactly, It also put people off every other (real) environmental issue.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Smurf1976 said:


> The inevitable consequence of too many silly claims that should never have been made and which haven't come true.
> 
> Remember that nonsense about dams never filling up again? That's the sort of rubbish which puts people off the entire issue unfortunately.




I agree 100% , things are changing for sure . But it's the way out extremist claims and doomsday predictions that are clouding the real science.


----------



## basilio

Yep absolutely nothing to worry about here. 

Move along folks.  

Life will be good . 

Nothing bad will happen. 

The dams are not empty.

Believe whatever makes you happy...


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Yep absolutely nothing to worry about here.
> 
> Move along folks.
> 
> Life will be good .
> 
> Nothing bad will happen.
> 
> The dams are not empty.
> 
> Believe whatever makes you happy...




You just love your argumentative fallacy bas, don't you?


----------



## basilio

> * March temperature smashes 100-year global record*
> 
> Average global temperature was 1.07C hotter - beating last month’s previous record increase
> An illustration shows that 2015 was the hottest year since 1880.
> 
> Damian Carrington
> @dpcarrington
> 
> 
> The global temperature in March has shattered a century-long record and by the greatest margin yet seen for any month.
> 
> February was far above the long-term average globally, driven largely by climate change, and was described by scientists as a “shocker” and signalling “a kind of climate emergency”. But data released by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) shows that March was even hotter.
> 
> Compared with the 20th-century average, March was 1.07C hotter across the globe, according to the JMA figures, while February was 1.04C higher. The JMA measurements go back to 1891 and show that every one of the past 11 months has been the hottest ever recorded for that month.
> 
> 
> 
> Data released released later on Friday by Nasa confirmed last month was the hottest March on record, but the US agency’s data indicated February had seen the biggest margin. The Nasa data recorded March as 1.65C above the average from 1951-1980, while February was 1.71C higher.
> 
> The World Meteorological Organisation, the UN body for climate and weather, said the March data had “smashed” previous records.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

The frogs are cooking Wayne et al.   But if you keep your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears you can still keep ignoring it.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
> 
> The frogs are cooking Wayne et al.   But if you keep your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears you can still keep ignoring it.




Frogs legs! Mmmmmmmm!


----------



## explod

Ijustnewit said:


> I agree 100% , things are changing for sure . But it's the way out extremist claims and doomsday predictions that are clouding the real science.




Disagree here,  even many of the scientists have been understating the problem to ensure thier funding   And the IPCC has been shown to be at least 5 years behind developments.   This is because most governments owe thier positions to the petro,  coal,  oil and gas lobbies support.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting article
> 
> Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem)
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...e-has-dropped-off-the-political-radar/7328538




It is because it is not an issue any more among the majority who now realize it is a farce, a scam and a manipulation.

:horse:


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is because it is not an issue any more among the majority who now realize it is a farce, a scam and a manipulation.
> 
> :horse:




It has gone off the radar because the current Government will not discuss it and have taken considerable steps to ensure the press do not also.   Nearest they will allow is to talk about el nino,  which is just a part of weather cycles anyway. 

How can you say it is a farce,  lol,  it might be true,  you have not put up any reasoning or evidence at all to counter the overwhelming pointers of huge weather change that is obvious to those of us who live within and actually watch nature and the weather.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> It has gone off the radar because the current Government will not discuss it and have taken considerable steps to ensure the press do not also.   Nearest they will allow is to talk about el nino,  which is just a part of weather cycles anyway.
> 
> How can you say it is a farce,  lol,  it might be true,  you have not put up any reasoning or evidence at all to counter the overwhelming pointers of huge weather change that is obvious to those of us who live within and actually watch nature and the weather.




Where have you been plod?......You are asleep at the wheel and you are headed for a large tree on the side of the road....You say now it "MIGHT BE TRUE"......are you now starting to have doubts yourself?

No reasonable evidence you say!!!!!!!!!

Scroll back up to posts ;-
7241
7279
7289
7288
7304
7325
7336

It has gone off the radar because the alarmist have been proven wrong over and over again.....Need I mention Tim Flannery?......or is his name a dirty word among you alarmist?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Where have you been plod?......You are asleep at the wheel and you are headed for a large tree on the side of the road....You say now it "MIGHT BE TRUE"......are you now starting to have doubts yourself?
> 
> No reasonable evidence you say!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Scroll back up to posts ;-
> 7241
> 7279
> 7289
> 7288
> 7304
> 7325
> 7336
> 
> It has gone off the radar because the alarmist have been proven wrong over and over again.....Need I mention Tim Flannery?......or is his name a dirty word among you alarmist?



No doubt in my mind at all noco.   My suggestion is,  do you think you may be wrong?  If it's even only slightly then you and the other deniers and doubters are taking a great risk with the future of our planet. 

So think about it noco,  what if you are wrong?  

So even if there is just a small chance that co2 (coal,  oil and gas)  are destroying our planet then in all consciousness we need to change away from these filthy things and move to alternative,  wind,  solar and wave power.  Forget dams,  they are drying up. 

And these alternative industry changes will create lots of jobs.  Have asked you many times where are tge jobs coming from and all youcan do is mumble up your sleave about lefties,  commos and unions.   Of couse they are going to go crook and be against you if your mob don't provide real opportunities. 

So alternative energy,  here is your chance noco on jobs and to remove that uneasy feeling in your mind that you are not doing anything about the looming posibility that climate change is real. 

But can assure you noco,  there has never ever been any doubt in my mind.


----------



## keithj

explod said:


> No doubt in my mind at all noco.



Therein lies the problem.  Whatever evidence is presented to you, you say you are unable to change your mind.



explod said:


> My suggestion is,  do you think you may be wrong?  If it's even only slightly then you and the other deniers and doubters are taking a great risk with the future of our planet.



Rational people never see things as 100% black or white.  There is ALWAYS a balance of probabilities, based on evidence driven
probabilistic data models; they always consider the chance that new evidence may arise that changes those probabilities & models. A rational person always holds a little doubt.



explod said:


> there has never ever been any doubt in my mind.



I'm afraid that comes across as a faith based conclusion, rather than a rational thinking process.

Is there anything that would make you change your mind ?  Global temps stabilising for 20 years ? Sea levels continuing the  pattern prior to significant carbon emissions ?  Something else ?


----------



## explod

keithj said:


> Therein lies the problem.  Whatever evidence is presented to you, you say you are unable to change your mind.
> 
> Rational people never see things as 100% black or white.  There is ALWAYS a balance of probabilities, based on evidence driven
> probabilistic data models; they always consider the chance that new evidence may arise that changes those probabilities & models. A rational person always holds a little doubt.
> 
> I'm afraid that comes across as a faith based conclusion, rather than a rational thinking process.
> 
> Is there anything that would make you change your mind ?  Global temps stabilising for 20 years ? Sea levels continuing the  pattern prior to significant carbon emissions ?  Something else ?




My Father in the 1950s was worried about climate change.   The farm where I grew up was mud to the ankles from April to November every year. Now dry through every winter.  On the way to school we collected tadpoles,  there have been no frogs there since the first big dry of 1969.   Dad was very upset at the Premier back then,  Henry Bolte allowing the clearing of land near the Otways.  The weather in the Western district changed dramatically after that.   This of course is not current co2 effect but to point out that our family were/are close weather watches.   My Grandfather,  also a farmer was particularly active against land clearing and his letter can be found in the archives of newspaper articles at Bendigo library.  Was there doing research yesterday.  My Greatgrandfather and his two brothers arrived in Australia as a result of the potatoe famine in Ireland.  

Was in Queensland as a shearer and witnessed the sheep being transported south in 1970 as a result of a very long drought.  Loss of trees and vegitation of course.   But now there is little left to absorbe the co2.   Therefore our only solution is to stop releasing co2.

Beliefs are airy fairy in the sky in my view.   I can see what is happenning on the ground and it is very bleak indeed.  Some species have perished from the climate change over the last few years that at have taken millions of years to evolve in those places.  Case in point,  a few years back at Mount Martha,  vic.,  we had a burst of 49 degrees late one afternoon.  Next morning under the trees along the Belcolm Creek a whole species of possum were lying.  Never to be seen again.   So this was the hottest day there for millions of years. 

Forget the conflicting arguments of the scientists,  just get out and talk to farmers and older people who have been serious gardeners all their lives and you will soon realise "Houston we have a problem"


----------



## SirRumpole

keithj said:


> Is there anything that would make you change your mind ?  Global temps stabilising for 20 years ? Sea levels continuing the  pattern prior to significant carbon emissions ?  Something else ?




What would convince you that climate change is real and man made ?

Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2015 	Year 	Anomaly  °C 	Anomaly  °F
1 	2015 	0.90 	1.62
2 	2014 	0.74 	1.33
3 	2010 	0.70 	1.26
4 	2013 	0.66 	1.19
5 	2005 	0.65 	1.17
6 (tie) 	1998 	0.63 	1.13
6 (tie) 	2009 	0.63 	1.13
8 	2012 	0.62 	1.12
9 (tie) 	2003 	0.61 	1.10
9 (tie) 	2006 	0.61 	1.10
9 (tie) 	2007 	0.61 	1.10
12 	2002 	0.60 	1.08
13 (tie) 	2004 	0.57 	1.03
13 (tie) 	2011 	0.57 	1.03
15 (tie) 	2001 	0.54 	0.97
15 (tie) 	2008 	0.54 	0.97


A lot of the hottest years of record in the last 20 years.

Does that say anything to you ?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> No doubt in my mind at all noco.   My suggestion is,  do you think you may be wrong?  If it's even only slightly then you and the other deniers and doubters are taking a great risk with the future of our planet.
> 
> So think about it noco,  what if you are wrong?
> 
> So even if there is just a small chance that co2 (coal,  oil and gas)  are destroying our planet then in all consciousness we need to change away from these filthy things and move to alternative,  wind,  solar and wave power.  Forget dams,  they are drying up.
> 
> And these alternative industry changes will create lots of jobs.  Have asked you many times where are tge jobs coming from and all youcan do is mumble up your sleave about lefties,  commos and unions.   Of couse they are going to go crook and be against you if your mob don't provide real opportunities.
> 
> So alternative energy,  here is your chance noco on jobs and to remove that uneasy feeling in your mind that you are not doing anything about the looming posibility that climate change is real.
> 
> But can assure you noco,  there has never ever been any doubt in my mind.





How come a few years back you alarmist could talk  nothing but man mad Global Warming but now it is climate change?...Is it because the facts are on the table there has been no Global Warming in the past 20 years.

Look, I believe as well as millions of others that climate change is real....The climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so......even as little as a century or two ago there was climate change which was long before the claim that climate change is man made.....I was born in the early 1930's and have seen lots of climate change over the years......It is a natural phenomena created by the Sun, the elliptic  circuit the Earth traverses around the Sun, the angle of the Earth axis which changes from time to time and the radiation from small and large explosion on the Sun which has dramatic affects on the Eartha and no doubt other planets in the Solar system.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that this argument that keeps popping up under the Green Alarmist banner is a manipulated farce and a scam which has a hidden agenda.....I also believe the UN is behind most of it in an attempt at world government under one supreme commander ..After all Ban-ki- Moon and most of his UN followers are Greenies.

Time for all this crap to end...full stop.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Time for all this crap to end...full stop.




Indeed it is.

Shut up.


----------



## pixel

keithj said:


> Therein lies the problem.  Whatever evidence is presented to you, you say you are unable to change your mind.
> 
> Rational people never see things as 100% black or white.  There is ALWAYS a balance of probabilities, based on evidence driven
> probabilistic data models; they always consider the chance that new evidence may arise that changes those probabilities & models. A rational person always holds a little doubt.
> 
> I'm afraid that comes across as a faith based conclusion, rather than a rational thinking process.
> 
> Is there anything that would make you change your mind ?  Global temps stabilising for 20 years ? Sea levels continuing the  pattern prior to significant carbon emissions ?  Something else ?




Let's play the ball, Keith, not the man.

There is, and there should be, willingness to accept new evidence. Such evidence can then be built into a scientific model to refine it and arrive at more precise extrapolations.
The problem at the core of this debate is a simple one: What is the risk if either side is wrong?

If the majority of Climate Scientists were wrong and temperatures and sea levels were miraculously reverting to pre-industrial levels, what effect would that have?
A: The air would be cleaner. Energy would be cheaper and available everywhere there's sunshine, wind, or ocean waves. Oil and coal wouldn't be wasted by one-time consumption, creating mainly useless heat, but remain available for future generations to turn into plastics and useful products we haven't even dreamed of today.

If the Pollution Industry wins the argument and turns out wrong, what effect would that have long-term?
A: Oil, Gas, and Coal companies would continue to flourish, control Governments and Public Opinion, and pay their loyal shareholders token dividends, their directors and media consultants obscene salaries.
Outside their office towers and penthouse suites, the air will be too thick to breathe. But don't worry, we'll sell you portable oxygen pumps to keep you alive. At a small markup, you can even get the battery-driven model that you can recharge at any (coal-fired) power station.
Ocean waves will be lapping at the threshold of every Australian State Parliament. Canberra will probably remain dry, although they would deserve it the most. But don't worry, we'll build sea walls around the wealthiest suburbs that should keep them dry most of the time. And even if they fail to withstand a once-in-a-lifetime flood, don't worry, we'll offer you comprehensive insurance premiums that spread the risk across all of Australia.

Based on those risks, and taking into account the overwhelming odds that Climate Science is closest to the truth, I'll continue to favour any Policy that cuts pollution. I hope it's not too late,


----------



## keithj

pixel said:


> Let's play the ball, Keith, not the man.



_What would change your mind ?_ is such a simple, yet powerful question.

Ask any believer what it would take to change their mind about God.

If the response is either anecdotal or a deflection, or some other failure to answer, then there's no point continuing  debate.

So, I feel I am playing the ball and not the man - I am genuinely interested in the answer to what is a really simple question that any rational debater should have a ready answer to.

If your god appeared in front of me & 1000 sceptics and performed miracles on demand on a regular basis then I would change my mind about him/her.

If the temperature uniformly changed with a change in CO2 emissions (discounting other natural factors), and a series of peer reviewed papers & models supported the correlation over a statistically significant period of time, then I'd take it seriously.



pixel said:


> The problem at the core of this debate is a simple one: What is the risk if either side is wrong?



That's black & white thinking again. The overwhelming likelihood is that it'll get warmer in some places & cooler in others, sea levels will rise in some places, land will rise in others.... just like it has for millennia.

And just like the last few billion years, every living thing will adapt (some will perish, new species will evolve), just like it would if the only CO2 emissions were from higher than average volcanic activity (which incidentally is how the IPCC explains the last 20 yrs of stable temps).


Your (& others) view is that the likelihood is high, and the impact is also high.

Others view it as currently low probability, and that impact will be that stuff changes, some for the better, some for the worse... just like it has since well before the dinosaurs.  Humans (& indeed everything else alive today) have survived not because they can forecast this sort of stuff, but because they can adapt to it.

Surely a lot better solution is to adapt, rather than spend a significant percentage of GDP on what many believe is the impossible task of changing nature.


----------



## Smurf1976

keithj said:


> Surely a lot better solution is to adapt, rather than spend a significant percentage of GDP on what many believe is the impossible task of changing nature.




A question there is what is cheapest?

In Tasmania even the Liberals seem to be becoming aware that the cost is real, is occurring now, and is rising. All up, the known and measurable effects on both the public and private sectors of the economy are at least $1 billion thus far and that's in a small state with just over 2% of the national population. It's arguable as to why the climate is changing, but it most certainly is changing and that's already starting to get expensive.

At the national level it could well send us broke. Putting in irrigation schemes on an island where there's a river only 20km away from the farm is one thing. Sending water from the NT to farms in NSW is a far bigger problem.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed it is.
> 
> Shut up.




By you and whose army?:sword::sword::sword:

Typical Fabian tactic......Don't let the deniers have their say......It is the Fabian rule or no other rule.

Nice bloke you are....Have a good socialist day.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> By you and whose army?:sword::sword::sword:
> 
> Typical Fabian tactic......Don't let the deniers have their say......It is the Fabian rule or no other rule.
> 
> Nice bloke you are....Have a good socialist day.



Always try for the last word noco. 

Solar flares and other sun storms have little effect on global warming in fact. 

As I have pointed out many times,  (and you choose to ignore the fact)  the earth and sun are supposed to be cooling from the firballs they were some 5 plus billion years ago. 

The other fact you ignore is that previous warmings actually occurred over thousands of years.  Some of the coolings were fast due to volcanoes or metiorites.   The situation being recorded and sighted now is very different and unnatural. 

Deforestation followed by the burning of fossill fuels is the cause today and it somehow has to be stopped.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Always try for the last word noco.
> 
> Solar flares and other sun storms have little effect on global warming in fact.
> 
> As I have pointed out many times,  (and you choose to ignore the fact)  the earth and sun are supposed to be cooling from the firballs they were some 5 plus billion years ago.
> 
> The other fact you ignore is that previous warmings actually occurred over thousands of years.  Some of the coolings were fast due to volcanoes or metiorites.   The situation being recorded and sighted now is very different and unnatural.
> 
> Deforestation followed by the burning of fossill fuels is the cause today and it somehow has to be stopped.




Nice to note your confession that Global Warming, oops I mean Climate Change had occurred millions of years ago and as little as 100 years..

You have pointed out nothing only a lot of Greenie rhetoric.
Yes we burn lots of fossil fuel in Australia as noted every year with the bush fires......lots of smoke going into the atmosphere......HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! we are all going to die.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Nice to note your confession that Global Warming, oops I mean Climate Change had occurred millions of years ago and as little as 100 years..
> 
> You have pointed out nothing only a lot of Greenie rhetoric.
> Yes we burn lots of fossil fuel in Australia as noted every year with the bush fires......lots of smoke going into the atmosphere......HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! we are all going to die.




I also heard that Reagan said farming, particularly them rice fields in Asia, is a leading cause of ...CO2? Well, it somehow causes more damage to the environment than the combustion engines and factories and power plants.

Also heard that the last time Earth have this massive rate of species extinction was when Dinosaurs walks the Earth and an asteroid hit it or/and massive volcanoes toxicate the atmosphere. 

I haven't seen or heard any massive asteroid hitting Earth past couple centuries; neither has any extensive volcano activities... so what the heck causes this massive extinction of species since 65 million years ago? 

Must be just the weather changing as it always has. Nothing to do with stupid homosapiens.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Typical Fabian tactic......Don't let the deniers have their say......It is the Fabian rule or no other rule.




You continue to have your say, it's just a lot of rubbish conspiracy theories.

Did you even look at the table that showed that the hottest 16 years in the last 140 years occured in the last 20 years ?

That is more than the occasional warm year and indicates a trend which we can't afford to ignore.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Nice to note your confession that Global Warming, oops I mean Climate Change had occurred millions of years ago and as little as 100 years..
> 
> You have pointed out nothing only a lot of Greenie rhetoric.
> Yes we burn lots of fossil fuel in Australia as noted every year with the bush fires......lots of smoke going into the atmosphere......HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! we are all going to die.




You ignore the facts put up and merely scoff with head in the sand


----------



## basilio

What does Climate Change look like in 2016 ?  One of the big issues is the warming of the oceans.  One of the consequences is the death of coral reefs that can't cope with the warmer temperatures.

Have a look at what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef today.



> * Great Barrier Reef: the scale of bleaching has the most sober scientists worried*
> James Woodford
> 
> Australia’s world heritage site is the largest living thing on Earth. But warm water driven by El Niño is bleaching the reef, and a recent report calls for it to be listed as in danger
> 
> Sunday 17 April 2016 09.04 AEST
> Last modified on Sunday 17 April 2016 11.14 AEST
> Comments
> 307
> Save for later
> 
> I pulled on my mask and dropped off the back of the boat into the warm water above Nursery Bommie, a dive site at Agincourt Reef more than 70km offshore from Port Douglas, in far-north Queensland, Australia. It is widely regarded as one of the most spectacular tourist reefs in the area.
> 
> As soon as I could start to make out the immense shadow of the bommie (an outcrop of coral reef) looming before me I could see that all around its flanks and on the summit, covered in just a metre of water in some places, were blemishes of white.
> 
> The closer I got, and the more I looked, it was clear there were white patches everywhere. The bleached colonies ranged from tiny plates, shaped like an upturned hand, to areas the size of a table top. Even more striking than the snow white corals was that all around them were other corals coloured in gaudy fluorescent hues that I had never before seen on such a scale. It was as if a masterpiece of nature had been repainted with a colour scheme more befitting a pound shop.
> 
> What I was seeing beneath me was evidence of an environmental disaster that has been unfolding over the past few months – the largest mass coral bleaching event ever recorded in this region. This bleaching is the result of a huge El Niño that has driven warm water into the western Pacific Ocean, smothering coral with temperatures beyond their tolerance.
> 
> I have dived hundreds of times, with different teams of scientists, along the reef. I have seen the aftermath of other mass coral bleaching episodes such as the most recent major event in 2002.
> 
> In my past experiences of bleached corals, the effect is patchy and, while one area is devastated, another will be mysteriously untouched. Yet the scale of this bleaching event has even the most sober and senior coral reef scientists worried. If the rhetoric from marine biologists is to be believed, then the Great Barrier Reef is now in the grip of a “bommie apocalypse”.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/great-barrier-reef-worst-destruction

One could ask the question of how earlier El Ninos didn't affect the reefs so badly. 

Simple. The temperature of the oceans before the El Nino were comfortably low enough to allow for the short term increase. In 2016 that is no longer the case.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> What does Climate Change look like in 2016 ?  One of the big issues is the warming of the oceans.  One of the consequences is the death of coral reefs that can't cope with the warmer temperatures.
> 
> Have a look at what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef today.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/great-barrier-reef-worst-destruction
> 
> One could ask the question of how earlier El Ninos didn't affect the reefs so badly.
> 
> Simple. The temperature of the oceans before the El Nino were comfortably low enough to allow for the short term increase. In 2016 that is no longer the case.




No ocean warming , no cyclones in NQ this season......Ocean has to be 28c for cyclones to form.....Ocean therefore must be cooling.

The good old commo paper the Guardian cheery picked one isolated case ...what about the other 2500 km of reef....he better check that out too.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You ignore the facts put up and merely scoff with head in the sand




You mean those manipulated farcical peer reviewed facts?  .....:jump:


----------



## Tisme

Any correlation between the globe expanding from heat soak and the current wave of earth quakes?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> No ocean warming , no cyclones in NQ this season......Ocean has to be 28c for cyclones to form.....Ocean therefore must be cooling.
> 
> The good old commo paper the Guardian cheery picked one isolated case ...what about the other 2500 km of reef....he better check that out too.




Why not actually read the story Noco ? 



> Scientists report that the same scenes are being replicated along a 1,000km section of the reef, more than a third of its total expanse. Of 500 reefs between Cairns and Papua New Guinea surveyed during this current episode, 95% have experienced significant coral bleaching – only four reefs showed no impact.




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/great-barrier-reef-worst-destruction


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Why not actually read the story Noco ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/great-barrier-reef-worst-destruction




Yes more exaggeration from the good old commie paper the Guardian.......I could  not give credence to anything they come up with...Full of lies and propaganda.

I would prefer to take note of Professor Peter Ridd JCU who has studied the the Barrier Reef for 30 years and he is still adamant the reef is in excellent shape.

The reef will survive as it has down for the past 1000 years......I can recall them talking about coral bleaching back in the 1950 when I holidayed   on South Molle Island as  a teenager...I went out to the reef and saw it for myself.....

So stop worrying Bas...the  Sun will rise in the morning and next year if the ocean's temperature rises to 28c we might even get one or two cyclones but while the ocean is cooler than normal....no cyclones.....do your own research or contact Peter Ridd at JCU Townsville I am sure he will be very informative with his superior  knowledge of the reef.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Yes more exaggeration from the good old commie paper the Guardian.......I could  not give credence to anything they come up with...Full of lies and propaganda.
> 
> I would prefer to take note of Professor Peter Ridd JCU who has studied the the Barrier Reef for 30 years and he is still adamant the reef is in excellent shape.




Keep digging Noco.  I think you have gone past bedrock and should reach the mantle soon. Perhaps if you cut into an underground stream it might wash some sense into you. 

Anyway responding to your ignorant rubbish is a waste of time and energy.  I'll leave it at that
__________________________________________________________________________________
The research was done for and behalf of a group of Reef stakeholders  including the Tourist Authority.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Keep digging Noco.  I think you have gone past bedrock and should reach the mantle soon. Perhaps if you cut into an underground stream it might wash some sense into you.
> 
> Anyway responding to your ignorant rubbish is a waste of time and energy.  I'll leave it at that
> __________________________________________________________________________________
> The research was done for and behalf of a group of Reef stakeholders  including the Tourist Authority.




LMAO...What a joke you Greenies are.....always right and anyone Else's opinion is rubbish....If you can't win an argument you always resort the Fabian method of ridicule, intimidation and character assassination.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> LMAO...What a joke you Greenies are.....always right and anyone Else's opinion is rubbish....If you can't win an argument you always resort the Fabian method of ridicule, intimidation and character assassination.



Now that is the pot calling the kettle BLACK.


----------



## basilio

Tackling Climate Change effectively



> The one thing, which is most important, is the assertion by the fossil fuel industry and the people who support them, that it would be expensive to solve the problem, is absolutely wrong. There have been economic studies that show if you add a gradually rising fee to fossil fuels, by collecting a fee on fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine, or port of entry, and if you distribute the money to the public, an equal amount to all legal residents, it would actually spur the economy. It would increase the gross domestic product and add millions of jobs.
> 
> *We need to have such a common sense solution, which is revenue neutral, so it doesn’t make the government bigger. Instead of proposing taxes or regulations that conservatives will fight tooth and nail, we should find an approach that both liberals and conservatives would be willing to support.* That’s what needs to be understood, that it’s not painful to solve this problem if we are smart, but we have to think this through.


----------



## basilio

What is happening to the Great Barrier Reef


> *The Great Barrier Reef: 93% hit by coral bleaching, surveys reveal
> *
> Date
> April 20, 2016 - 6:00AM
> 
> 195 reading now
> 
> Tom Arup
> *
> Although bleaching of the reef has occurred before, this event is by far the biggest.
> *
> Scientists surveying the mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef say only 7 per cent of Australia's environmental icon has been left untouched by the event.
> 
> The final results of plane and helicopter surveys by scientists involved in the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce has found that of the 911 reefs they observed, just 68 had escaped any sign of bleaching.
> A diver checks out the bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.
> 
> The severity of the bleaching is mixed across the barrier reef, with the northern stretches hit the hardest.
> 
> Overall, severe bleaching of between 60 and 100 per cent of coral was recorded on 316 reefs, almost all of them in the northern half of the barrier reef. Reefs in central and southern regions of the 2300 kilometre Great Barrier Reef have experienced more moderate to mild affects.
> 
> The mass bleaching event has been driven by significantly higher than average sea temperatures as a result of the current El Nino event, coupled with a long-term warming of the oceans due to climate change.
> 
> While the barrier reef has experienced mass coral bleaching events in the past – notably in 1998 and 2002 – Professor Terry Hughes, convenor of the bleaching taskforce, said the current event was by far the biggest.



http://www.smh.com.au/environment/t...bleaching-surveys-reveal-20160419-goa6jw.html

The coral around Sydney is also bleaching for the first time.


----------



## Ijustnewit

If this heat keeps up in Hobart ( 26C today and it's April )  we will see the end of our salmon industry one day soon . The bonus is we can now replace all the apple farms with pineapple farms and all the coral will move down here with rest of the tropical fish that have decided it's warm enough to call Tassie home now.


----------



## Ijustnewit

*"Marine Heatwave longest Warm spell for Tasmania since records began "*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...nce-records-began/7340366?WT.ac=statenews_tas


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> What is happening to the Great Barrier Reef
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/t...bleaching-surveys-reveal-20160419-goa6jw.html
> 
> The coral around Sydney is also bleaching for the first time.




Bas you and others have never explained to me why their has been no cyclones in North Queensland in the past 2 years......The waters in the Coral Sea have to be 28c to be able to form a cyclone....So all I can say is the waters are too cool.....Coral will not survive in cool waters as was demonstrated maybe a couple of 100 years ago in Morten Bay where coral reefs once thrived......they died because the waters were too cool......Coral reefs love warmer waters.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> Bas you and others have never explained to me why their has been no cyclones in North Queensland in the past 2 years



I did a few weeks back and you never responded to my post.   Actually, I recall providing a response to you on several occasions and being ignored.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...17955&page=181&p=901052&viewfull=1#post901052


----------



## Ves

The basic theory of the three phases of ENSO are here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

TL;DR version is in each phase the ocean winds / currents are acting differently so the warmer water ends up in a different part of the Pacific Ocean.

During El Nino the water closer to the northern parts of Australia is cooler,  so generally there is less rainfall and less cyclone activity.  Land temperature is warmer because there is less cloud coverage etc.

During La Nina the water in that region is warmer.


----------



## Ijustnewit

*Hottest March in Modern Times*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/hottest-march-in-modern-times/7340246

The way April has gone it will be the next story.


----------



## basilio

Mapping the coral bleaching on the  Great Barrier Reef





http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...oral-bleaching-surveys-reveal-20160419-goa6jw


----------



## basilio

> *Quiet cyclone season predicted for Australia as El Nino sets in*
> 
> Date
> *    October 12, 2015 *
> 
> Peter Hannam
> 
> Forecasters expect a below average cyclone season but we "will see floods" along with hailstorms and heatwaves.
> 
> This year's powerful El Nino in the Pacific will likely have one benefit for Australia, with fewer tropical cyclones expected in the region, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
> 
> There is only a 9 per cent chance that Australia will have more than the 11 cyclones typical for the November-April season, the bureau said in its seasonal outlook released on Monday. Of those 11, four storms usually cross the Australian mainland coast.
> 
> *In El Nino years, weather patterns shift eastwards and conditions are less conducive for cyclones to form in the Australian region. Those patterns, including a stalling or reversal of the easterly equatorial trade winds in the Pacific, also tend to reduce rainfall and lift temperatures over much of Australia*.




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...ralia-as-el-nino-sets-in-20151011-gk6o31.html

Straightforward explanation of current quiet cyclone season in Northern Queensland


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> The basic theory of the three phases of ENSO are here:
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml
> 
> TL;DR version is in each phase the ocean winds / currents are acting differently so the warmer water ends up in a different part of the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> *During El Nino the water closer to the northern parts of Australia is cooler,  so generally there is less rainfall and less cyclone activity.  Land temperature is warmer because there is less cloud coverage etc.
> *
> During La Nina the water in that region is warmer.




One day we are talking about Global warming, how the oceanic waters are getting warmer to a depth of 1700feet due to green house gases and is causing coral bleaching.

Then another day the waters close to the northern parts of Australia is cooler.

Seems a bit confusing to say the least.

Ves, I did read your previous post which you claim I ignored and there is also some conflicting evidence...There are some gases which are more potent than x300 CO2...

There is plenty of mention of the burning of fossil fuels including cutting down forest trees for generating power....But I have asked the question several times, and I do not seem to get any answers from the alarmist, what is the % of green house gases produced from the massive bush fires we experience every year in Australia let alone apart from the rest of the world?...I would like someone to tell me what the proportion is of CO2 emitted by natural bush fires caused by lightning and man made CO2 here in Australia?

There is also little mention of the affects of the Sun on Global temperatures...For some reason the emphasis is always placed on man made.

*How does the sun affect our climate?

The sun is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather. The rate of energy coming from the sun changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of the sun’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in solar output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes. 

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages).  However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

Figure 1. Record of Minimal Variation in Sun’s Energy

 Figure 1. Two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant'. This composite, compiled by the VIRGO team at the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center Davos, Switzerland, shows TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles.  Image courtesy of SOHO consortium a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.

Explore more about the sun's effect on our climate. 



*


----------



## basilio

Fundamental big change happening in Melbourne. A consortium of major businesses is putting out  a tender for 110 gigawatts of renewable energy.  

This will give the renewable energy a very big kick and the tender process itself will create framework for other communities and businesses to make similar decisions.


> *
> Energy: consortium offers to buy 110 gigawatt hours from renewables*
> 
> 
> @MikeySlezak
> 
> Wednesday 20 April 2016 08.08 AEST
> 
> 
> Australia’s first large renewable energy project driven by a group of big energy consumers is a step closer to reality today, with the Melbourne Renewable Energy Project advertising its call for tenders for 110 gigawatt hours of renewable energy.
> 
> Organised by the City of Melbourne, the consortium includes two other councils, Australia Post, National Australia Bank, two universities and Zoos Victoria.
> 
> Between them they are offering to buy 110GWh of energy, which would require a renewable energy plant with about 15 wind turbines or 250,000 solar panels.
> 
> Councillor Arron Wood from the City of Melbourne said the project emerged from the council’s target to source 25% of its energy from renewables by 2018.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ers-to-buy-110-gigawatt-hours-from-renewables


----------



## Smurf1976

Ijustnewit said:


> If this heat keeps up in Hobart ( 26C today and it's April )  we will see the end of our salmon industry one day soon . The bonus is we can now replace all the apple farms with pineapple farms and all the coral will move down here with rest of the tropical fish that have decided it's warm enough to call Tassie home now.




I won't claim that it's due to CO2, another man-made cause or is natural but overall there is a _lot_ of data which shows that the climate in Tasmania has substantially changed and is approaching the point of becoming a problem as such. 

You don't need to be a meteorologist or work in a directly affected industry to know that, anyone who has lived in Tas for 20+ years will be well aware that things have changed noticeably. What used to be permanently flowing minor streams are now permanently dry unless there's a flood. Where there used to be ice every winter it's rare now. Farms that were always wet have now spent big $ installing irrigation just to keep growing the same crops that previously were fine without it. Etc.

The change might be natural or it might be man-made but it's extremely obvious on this island that there is a change occurring.


----------



## pixel

Smurf1976 said:


> The change might be natural or it might be man-made but it's extremely obvious on this island that there is a change occurring.




Smurf, Don't concede so easily that the nay sayers might have a point when they recite their "not man-made" mantra. They're wrong!

For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, vested interests of the coal, gas, and oil industry use all kinds of red herrings, lies, and false reasoning to deny the obvious. And it's easy to be seen how the less scientifically educated members of the public and Parliaments fall prey to misinformation and propaganda. 

There is big money to be made. Who cares that it's killing the Planet.


----------



## cynic

pixel said:


> Smurf, Don't concede so easily that the nay sayers might have a point when they recite their "not man-made" mantra. They're wrong!
> 
> For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.
> 
> Unfortunately, vested interests of the coal, gas, and oil industry use all kinds of red herrings, lies, and false reasoning to deny the obvious. And it's easy to be seen how the less scientifically educated members of the public and Parliaments fall prey to misinformation and propaganda.
> 
> There is big money to be made. Who cares that it's killing the Planet.




Thermodynamics of heat dissipation alone, can be difficult to quantify within a closed system, let alone on an entire planet moving through outer space!

The only "no brainers" in this argument, are those with over-inflated views on their grasp of the complexity of nature, its evolution and response to change!


----------



## basilio

> For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.




Sorry Pixel but I don't think the physics of combustion will let you say that the energy released from fossil fuel use is hanging around and causing the earth to warm.

*The earth is warming because the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is trapping more heat from the sun.* That's the issue in a nutshell. So if for example you could combust something and not produce CO2 - no global warming. That is the argument behind  using hydrogen as a fuel because it produces no CO2 on combustion. On a similar note methane produces less CO2 than other hydrocarbons which is the argument for natural gas over other carbon fuels.

Of course burning fossil fuels leaves a little residual heat. However the overwhelming heat source of the earth is the Sun every day and our problem with extra GG is that we are trapping more and more of this energy in the atmosphere  which then enters the oceans and land.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...e-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx


----------



## sptrawler

cynic said:


> Thermodynamics of heat dissipation alone, can be difficult to quantify within a closed system, let alone on an entire planet moving through outer space!
> 
> The only "no brainers" in this argument, are those with over-inflated views on their grasp of the complexity of nature, its evolution and response to change!




At last a sensible answer, to the climate change hysteria.

If fossil fuels weren't burnt over the last 100 years, would it have made a difference?

If it would have made a difference, why has climate change happened through the centuries before fossil fuel burning, as is proven in ice core samples?


----------



## noco

I have asked the alarmist on a few occasions as to how much CO2 is released from bush fires in Australia in comparison to the burning of fossil fuel for power stations and to date I have not been able to get an answer so they either do not want us to know or they have no idea.

Now bearing in mind our modern power stations do capture CO2 and they release nothing more than a steam vapor but not so with bush fires.

So I did some research and the information as per the attached link will surprise you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-fires-carbon-idUSTRE51P12120090226


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> If it would have made a difference, why has climate change happened through the centuries before fossil fuel burning, as is proven in ice core samples?




You know the answer ~ orher factors. You can look them up. Why is it happening now and with such rapidity? You know the answer.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> You know the answer ~ orher factors. You can look them up. Why is it happening now and with such rapidity? You know the answer.




You forgot to say amen.


----------



## qldfrog

noco said:


> Now bearing in mind our modern power stations do capture CO2 and they release nothing more than a steam vapor but not so with bush fires.



where did you get that?
I am not aware of a single power station in Australia capturing C02.
Worldwide, less than a dozen out of tens of of thousands do it.
Please prove me wrong!

But i would not dismiss the idea of increase temperature on earth due to human (burning aka released energy) activities:
I agree with Pixel there
----
_For more than 100 years, humans have been releasing the fossil heat that has been stored over hundreds of Millions of years, by burning fossil fuels. Where is the excess heat supposed to go? Warming the air and the oceans, that's where. The increased Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is but one measurable by-product of the man-made warming of the entire globe. It's a no-brainer.

Sorry Pixel but I don't think the physics of combustion will let you say that the energy released from fossil fuel use is hanging around and causing the earth to warm._
---
sorry Basilio, no one wants to hear/care  that but i have already produced a basic computation on this forum which indicates around 2C increase  from stable system due to human activity so far (aka 3/4y ago when i computed the numbers;
that has not much to do with CO2, but the fact that most of human activities end up as heat;
in a closed system that the earth is once a balance is reached (solar energy/geothermal energy in, loss in space out), the equilibrium can easily be changed by a minute but constant heat emission;

Sadly no one wants to hear that: the oil/coal and now nuclear lobby and people like Noco as this means human has to take responsability; nor the green movement as the only way to reduce the warming is to use less and only the wind/solar energy (aka using already here energy), it also means less people on earth a green basic principle, but not a green party one(see attitude vs immigration) ;

Noco, I am really intrigued by your attitude: I live in Qld as you do, out of the big city; in the last 20y the actual physical changes in the climate are in your face everyday: 
every farmer, logger, fisherman or huntereople living near to nature can see it and is convinced of a global warming
The swallows being here nearly all year round and not migrating north anymore, the nesting season, when your harvest is ready, the shortened growth period for your winter vegies etc etc
Not one example, hundreds..
Usually city people are the one who do not care/can not actually see it and deny it, after you can blame red martians or whatever but the changes are here.How can someone living out of a city not see it;

my basic computation on GW due to human activities is here if anyone wants to actually care instead of going into this ping pong of not real/real

Smurf, when you have time, would you consider doing your own computation there if interested?


----------



## orr

The Barrier Reef earns how much for the Qld economy? Employs how many people directly and indirectly?

The forward bookings from this point on will only be coming from that small percentage of ghouls who like to tour disaster zones...  .
Because the Courier Mail has done its best to ignore to the unfolding environmental catastrophe, this will not stop  the down steam consequences. These  will be empirically measured in its effect on business.... Cairns real estate anyone? DYOR...

But you hope things don't unfold that way... hope.

And when hopes gone...There'll always be for future generations the archived film of what  was.


----------



## wayneL

The rare occasion bas is spot on re closed and open systems.

Curious he could be so right on one point, and so wrong on the other


----------



## basilio

Well that's intriguing Qldfrog. I can't make an informed comment on your calculations about the warming of the earth by human activity rather than the trapping of extra GG.

I am going to flick it around to more accomplished mathematicians/scientists to see what they think of it. Frankly I would be very surprised if this line of thinking hadn't been explored.

Nice work.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> You forgot to say amen.




You answer it then. I haven't.
You won't though. 


(you don't won't to challenge your religious beliefs by thinking about facts, It's Galileo all over again)


----------



## basilio

The first three months of 2016 has seen soaring world wide temperatures.  How has this affected the Greenland ice cap?



> *Alert! Greenland's Ice Now Melting At Catastrophic Speed*
> By Leah NY
> Apr 16, 2016 04:57 AM EDT
> 
> 
> Greenland ice melted on Monday at such a catastrophic speed that scientists could hardly believe it. It was such an the "extreme melt event" that experts had to check if they were making a mistake.
> 
> "We had to check that our models were still working properly. Such a melt is normal for late May, but not mid-April. Something like this wipes out all kinds of records," said Peter Langen, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. "This could be a sign of things we're going to see more often in the future."
> 
> Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) discovered that there was at least one millimeter thick and 1.7 million square kilometers wide melted ice on top of Greenland's ice sheet. This makes up around 12 percent of the whole ice sheet, double the rate of melting the day before which was only at 4 percent, according to  Inquisitr.




http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...nlands-ice-now-melting-catastrophic-speed.htm


----------



## qldfrog

basilio said:


> Well that's intriguing Qldfrog. I can't make an informed comment on your calculations about the warming of the earth by human activity rather than the trapping of extra GG.
> 
> I am going to flick it around to more accomplished mathematicians/scientists to see what they think of it. Frankly I would be very surprised if this line of thinking hadn't been explored.
> 
> Nice work.



The trouble is that it is easy to check the effect of C02 as an isolation layer, far less to compute a model which is earth sized with a lot of unknowns,
I just based the computation on the assumption the earth had reached a balance (i believe it is globally true) and that in a balanced system even a small and constant push does end up with significant effects.
I understand that with higher average temperature, you have more losses but space is vacuum so losses are not like a hot dish cooling in the kitchen, only Infra red radiations would actually escape  the system.
Anyone can freely prove me wrong, very open as my scenario is even worse than the usual option
This is not my field of expertise but I have based a whole career so far on taking a step back and building systems/solution that none of the conventional scientists had ever thought about;
you would be surprised at the academic world basilio.
I am an engineer in the noble form of the term not a scientisty, I find solution using sciences.
And it could be that these computations have been done and the results identical, but not released;
Why release a conclusion of doom?
targetting CO2 reduction is not a bad thing in itself, favor wind/solar/hydro anyway which is good in this scenario so could be a nice first approach, I just know i do not care about my cattle emission of methane nor using wood fire (recycled energy) but am using solar as much as possible (HW and PV)


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> The first three months of 2016 has seen soaring world wide temperatures.  How has this affected the Greenland ice cap?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...nlands-ice-now-melting-catastrophic-speed.htm




Once again the ALARMIST have pressed the panic button to consolidate there claim to man made Global Warming.

Look at this...you must believe us. .....Look what is happening in Greenland.....The ice is melting at an alarming rate.....We must stop this coal fired power stations from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere....This what is causing the melt down in Greenland......It is going to flood the world if we don't stop it now.

Absolute utter rubbish.

I posted a similar link on Greenland some years ago when the ice melted 1000 years ago and allowed the grazing of sheep, goats and cattle.....They grew wheat rice and barley......then there was a mini ice age 500 years ago which halted farming.

History has repeated itself of one natural phenomenal which has  occurred many times over thousands of years.

For gawd sake stop this gloom and doom madness. 



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

*Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it GrÃ¦nland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.*


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Once again the ALARMIST have pressed the panic button to consolidate there claim to man made Global Warming.
> 
> Look at this...you must believe us. .....Look what is happening in Greenland.....The ice is melting at an alarming rate.....We must stop this coal fired power stations from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere....This what is causing the melt down in Greenland......It is going to flood the world if we don't stop it now.
> 
> Absolute utter rubbish.
> 
> I posted a similar link on Greenland some years ago when the ice melted 1000 years ago and allowed the grazing of sheep, goats and cattle.....They grew wheat rice and barley......then there was a mini ice age 500 years ago which halted farming.
> 
> History has repeated itself of one natural phenomenal which has  occurred many times over thousands of years.
> 
> For gawd sake stop this gloom and doom madness.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland
> 
> *Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
> Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it GrÃ¦nland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.*




What happened to those Greenlanders when Greenland turn icy and froze all over?

Rising sea level will literally salt the deltas of the world. Deltas are where most farmland and food production are located. 

I'm not a horticulturalist or know the land, but I'd imagined the new water level won't just turn desert or higher land into fertile soil overnight or over a few years right?

how will the world be fed in the meanwhile?

If the ocean gets warmer, it might kill a few of those tiny planktons and algae at the bottom of the food chain. If they die off enough, less small fish to feed the bigger ones to feed the human ones.

Man, it's not like 50 or 50% of actual scientists are saying global warming is a real and serious threat to survival, it's somehwere in the high 90s. When that many people who tell us it's going to be a cluster bloom, and that bloom could kill hundreds of millions (mostly poor) people living in the deltas on farming or fisheries... then the record level drought, storms, hurricane, diseases...

meehhh... come back and let us know when all scientists agreed. Even the bought off ones.


----------



## noco

qldfrog said:


> where did you get that?
> I am not aware of a single power station in Australia capturing C02.
> Worldwide, less than a dozen out of tens of of thousands do it.
> Please prove me wrong!




Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.


----------



## basilio

What does a xucked coral reef look like ? The scientists who have spent their lives researching these gorgeous eco systems want to make sure we can't simply ignore  this devestation.



> *Mourning Loomis Reef - the heart of the Great Barrier Reef's coral bleaching disaster*
> Graham Readfearn
> 
> Corals on Loomis Reef are dying as one veteran scientist lets the “veil” of academia drop to reveal anger and frustration
> 
> Thursday 21 April 2016 15.53 AEST
> 
> Stretching for half a kilometre or so, Loomis Reef is the place where the alarm bells started going off.
> 
> Prof Justin Marshall has been diving this reef, about 270km north of Cairns, for 30 years. Right now he is, to say the least, angry.
> 
> “My veil is down,” he says, no longer bothering with the kind of polite niceties common among academics.
> 
> “I have cried. I have broken down in front of cameras. This is the most devastating, gut-wrenching **** up,” says Marshall, of the University of Queensland.








Clown fish in a bleached sea anemone at Lizard Island, Great Barrier reef.

[video]https://youtu.be/TB9I6UUoo_4[/video]


----------



## basilio

Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.



> *Link between fossil fuels and Great Barrier Reef bleaching clear and incontrovertible*
> Graham Readfearn
> 
> *Data shows bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef coincides with record warm ocean temperatures in the region*
> 
> Contact author
> @readfearn
> 
> Wednesday 30 March 2016 12.28 AEDT
> 
> Where only a few weeks ago there were swathes of vivid purples, blues and pretty much any other colour you fancy, now there is just grey and white.
> 
> Corals in the northern section of Australia’s vast Great Barrier Reef – a length of more than 1000km or so – have become the latest and most famous victims of the third global “mass bleaching” of corals since 1998.







* Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology
*
Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.

The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.




Get real ,  Google is part of the industrial world and thier info is designed for deniers and to keep the science as confused as possible. 

Clear plain unobtrusive observations of what is going on,  if we are capable of looking and thinking for ourselves,  outside of political sway, shows we have a shocking deterioration of the global envioronment and its clearly caused by the burning of coal and oil. Ie,  cars and power stations. 

And the shame is,  we can do it all at no more overall cost with clean alternatives.


----------



## basilio

How is the ocean heating up ? Where is it heating up ? What are the implications of these seismic changes ?
The Argo project is the key to understanding this critical part of the effects of global warming.

*The Argo project is under threat with the decision by the CSIRO to withdraw from public good Climate Research*


> *
> Global ocean monitoring program struggling to stay afloat, warn scientists*
> Graham Readfearn
> 
> The Argo array of ocean floats supported by 31 countries has ‘revolutionised’ our understanding of the oceans but its future is uncertain
> 
> Wednesday 24 February 2016 20.31 AEDT
> 
> Right now, roughly a kilometre below the surface of an ocean near you, a yellow cylinder about the size of a golf bag is taking measurements of the temperature and saltiness of the water.
> 
> Every couple of days, the float will drop deeper – down to 2km – and then rise to the surface to transmit its data, before disappearing back into the depths to do the whole thing again.
> _World's oceans warming at increasingly faster rate, new study finds
> Read more_
> 
> These floats do this for as long as eight years, until the poor little things die of exhaustion (well, their batteries run out).
> 
> There are about 3,800 of these floats scattered across the globe as part of a program called Argo, supported by more than 30 countries.
> 
> It’s likely you’ve never heard of Argo and much less likely you’ve ever seen one of the floats.
> 
> But for the last decade, climate scientists and oceanographers have been using the data from these Argo floats to plug a gaping ocean-sized hole in our understanding of global warming.
> 
> *Scientific papers that use the data from these floats are now appearing in science journals at the rate of about one per day. *
> 
> .....
> _
> *Argo is fundamental because this all comes back to the heat problem. The key thing that matters for the Earth is how much extra heat is retained in the system.
> 
> While we have seen this huge debate over the last 15 years about this so-called ‘hiatus’, really what Argo shows us is that surface variability [in temperature] is just a re-organisation of heat.
> 
> When you get below a couple of hundred metres you see the inexorable growth of global warming happening in the oceans. That’s driving a good chunk of the sea level rise. It is telling us what the radiation imbalance is at the top of the atmosphere.
> 
> Once that heat and that carbon is down there in the deep ocean it’s there for decades – if not longer – and it’s locking in that warming. We see that warming in Argo right down to the depths of our measurement – right down to two kilometres and its probably extending further.*_




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...loat-without-funding-promises-warn-scientists


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 66378
> 
> 
> * Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology
> *
> Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.
> 
> The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.
> 
> View attachment 66379
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists




Is this a permanent condition or will the reef return to normal if the sea cools ?


----------



## Ijustnewit

basilio said:


> Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 66378
> 
> 
> * Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology
> *
> Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.
> 
> The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.
> 
> View attachment 66379
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists




Great info Bas , such a disaster and this sort of  damaged cannot be downplayed . Interesting and also horrifying with waters around Tasmania and even though we are not loosing a reef down here the implications are causing massive problems . Hobart is set to break its April record for averages by probably 3 degrees over the current record. Unheard of in climate terms and in fact April will be hotter than the current November record. The 2016 April average is also going to be higher than a normal December , January and February Summer average.
El Nino hasn't helped but in the last 20 years down here records have continued to tumble , whatever the cause of climate change we have gone past the tipping point and can't go back.


----------



## basilio

SirRumpole said:


> Is this a permanent condition or will the reef return to normal if the sea cools ?




All depends... At a certain level of damage the coral can recover over time.  The problem is

1) The higher the severity of bleaching the higher the probability of complete collapse of the ecosystem
2) As the oceans temperatures steadily increase there will be more frequent bleaching events until recovery is impossible.

http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/bleaching/resistance-tolerance-and-recovery/


----------



## Ijustnewit

Here is the Global outlook forecast for the 28/4/16 to the 05/05/16 , the heat is going no where.


----------



## Ferret

Ijustnewit said:


> View attachment 66380
> 
> 
> Here is the Global outlook forecast for the 28/4/16 to the 05/05/16 , the heat is going no where.




Interesting figure.  I wonder what the white areas are?


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> ...
> 
> And the shame is,  we can do it all at no more overall cost with clean alternatives.




If it will kill us, we'd do it anyway just to be sure [?]

Don't we sometime wonder how the heck does our species survive and the dinosaurs didn't?


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> If it will kill us, we'd do it anyway just to be sure [?]
> 
> Don't we sometime wonder how the heck does our species survive and the dinosaurs didn't?




The dinosaurs survived for over 135 million years, and what killed them was not their fault.

We've been around for 200,000 years and look what we've done.

Call that intelligence, cos I don't.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> You answer it then. I haven't.
> You won't though.
> 
> 
> (you don't won't to challenge your religious beliefs by thinking about facts, It's Galileo all over again)




What are my religious beliefs Knobby?

DO I have to detail my official position all over AGAIN, to expose your appalling straw man fallacy?


----------



## qldfrog

noco said:


> Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.




yes, but Noco, please point to any power station that actually do it; I do not know your science level but you do not need to be einstein to know that it is actually impossible if only in term of volume; compressing emitted CO2 requires around a third of the power plant output and  then you need to pump it under pressure in a safe storage (underground reservoir, the only place I know of this being done is in Norway?from memory in the oil field where they actually need to inject gas to extract oil;
so once again how many power plants capture their CO2 emissions among the 65000 plus existing?

you may not "believe" (as if it was a belief) in global warming but at least do not fool yourself, power plants capture acid (sulfurs but do NOT capture CO2,but for a few experimental test ones.
Modern power plants DO NOT capture CO2.


----------



## basilio

Is global warming simply a consequence of the huge amount of heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels rather than the effects of greenhouse gases?

Apparently not.  The question has been asked and analysed.  Waste heat contributes 1% overall of the extra heating on the Earth. There are some regional differences . For example in highly industrial areas the US and Western Europe for example there will be some additional local warming.

The paper which does the maths on this question seems to be accessible if anyone would like to check it out.




> *It's waste heat*
> Link to this page
> What the science says...
> The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
> Climate Myth...
> 
> *It's waste heat
> "Global warming is mostly due to heat production by human industry since the 1800s, from nuclear power and fossil fuels, better termed hydrocarbons, – coal, oil, natural gas. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 play a minor role even though they are widely claimed the cause." (Morton Skorodin)*
> 
> When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn't just disappear - it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.
> 
> Radiative forcing from waste heat vs anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing
> 
> What does these numbers mean? They refer to radiative forcing, the change in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere. Or putting it in plain English, the amount of heat being added to our climate. Greenhouse warming is currently adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
> 
> ...Somebody's crunched numbers. Small globally, noticeable regionally:
> 
> Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth's land–atmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively. Here, present and future global inventories of anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) are developed, and parameterizations derived for seasonal and diurnal flux cycles. Equilibrium climate experiments show statistically-significant continental-scale surface warming (0.4–0.9 °C) produced by one 2100 AHF scenario, but not by current or 2040 estimates. However, significant increases in annual-mean temperature and planetary boundary layer (PBL) height occur over gridcells where present-day AHF exceeds 3.0 W m−2. PBL expansion leads to a slight, but significant increase in atmospheric residence time of aerosols emitted from large-AHF regions. Hence, AHF may influence regional climate projections and contemporary chemistry-climate studies.
> 
> Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> The basic theory of the three phases of ENSO are here:
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml
> 
> TL;DR version is in each phase the ocean winds / currents are acting differently so *the warmer water ends up in a different part of the Pacific Ocean.*
> 
> *During El Nino the water closer to the northern parts of Australia is cooler*,  so generally there is less rainfall and less cyclone activity.  Land temperature is warmer because there is less cloud coverage etc.
> 
> During La Nina the water in that region is warmer.




So are the waters in the Coral Sea getting warmer or cooler?....Cooler waters will have a greater affect on the reef than warmer waters.....The coral will survive much better in warmer waters.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> So are the waters in the Coral Sea getting warmer or cooler?....Cooler waters will have a greater affect on the reef than warmer waters.....The coral will survive much better in warmer waters.



There's two things here:

During El Nino the temperature in that part of the ocean is at a cooler part of the temperature cycle.  Temperatures aren't stagnant.  They fluctuate.

In saying that no one is saying that it is historically cooler than it usually is at this part of the cycle.

Can you confirm you understand the difference?

edit:  I'm talking exclusively about the area in the BOM map discussing ENSO.  Not the reef.

You asked why there were no cyclones this year,   I'm confident I've answered that question.


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> There's two things here:
> 
> During El Nino the temperature in that part of the ocean is at a cooler part of the temperature cycle.  Temperatures aren't stagnant.  They fluctuate.
> 
> In saying that no one is saying that it is historically cooler than it usually is at this part of the cycle.
> 
> Can you confirm you understand the difference?
> 
> edit:  I'm talking exclusively about the area in the BOM map discussing ENSO.  Not the reef.
> 
> You asked why there were no cyclones this year,   I'm confident I've answered that question.




I think you want 2 bob each way.

One thing I do know, having lived in the tropics of North Queensland for the past 45 years, the temperatures of the Coral Sea do vary greatly as I keep saying, it has to be 28c for cyclones to form...So the seas must have been cooler for the lack of cyclones

If the seas are cooler it will have a dramatic affect on the Coral.....This is not the first time coral bleaching has occurred since I have been up here and it will not be the last time either.....The coral has a way of regenerating itself so I would not be too concerned about.

So what is your answer to stop the bleaching in the meantime?


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> I think you want 2 bob each way.
> 
> 
> So what is your answer to stop the bleaching in the meantime?




Don't have an opinion on it at this point.   As I've said,   I only answered your question about why there were no cyclones in Northern QLD this year.

I'm not really interesting in debating anything outside of that.


----------



## qldfrog

basilio said:


> Is global warming simply a consequence of the huge amount of heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels rather than the effects of greenhouse gases?
> 
> Apparently not.  The question has been asked and analysed.  Waste heat contributes 1% overall of the extra heating on the Earth. There are some regional differences . For example in highly industrial areas the US and Western Europe for example there will be some additional local warming.
> 
> The paper which does the maths on this question seems to be accessible if anyone would like to check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm



Thanks basilio, I still stick to my gun of at least 2C increase temperature of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (am happy if someone can find a fayult in my computation (genuinely happy as this would increase the earth survival chances
, and instead of watt per square meter i would much prefer a temperature increase of the average atmosphere, the figures quoted above actually make me doubt the actual action of CO2....which is a paradox isn't it
cause if the CO2 effect is that much higher we should be boiling, as for measuring emission per m^2 and talking about various effect based on area, I would not give his degree to the university person involved; who cares if the heat is emitted in the US or in cChina, 10 y down the track the artic is warmer....
anyway, if i get time, I will have a quick look at the figure and double check them.
Thanks for the link Basilio, and I am not a GW denier in any way, I live on the land (small farm) and can recognise changes....


----------



## qldfrog

not able to access the paper refereed as source of truth for waste heat; i will try to see if I can get it otherwise


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> Don't have an opinion on it at this point.   As I've said,   I only answered your question about why there were no cyclones in Northern QLD this year.
> 
> I'm not really interesting in debating anything outside of that.




I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....

You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.

You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.

According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....
> 
> You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.
> 
> You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.
> 
> According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.




Sorry Noco,  but you too have posted a heap of deluded thoughts.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....
> 
> You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.
> 
> You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.
> 
> According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.



**** off mate.


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....
> 
> You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.
> 
> You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.
> 
> According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.




Are you sure that you've correctly understood the content and reason behind ves' post?


----------



## qldfrog

qldfrog said:


> not able to access the paper refereed as source of truth for waste heat; i will try to see if I can get it otherwise




found paper and added in attachment for people interested,
 in my first read a bag of BS completely off the subject 
this is what is used /has been used in the recent years to discard "waste emission"?It is abysmal IMHO
focus on the fallacy of "energy per square meter" then assume CO2 effect based on sun energy per square meter
View attachment Flannr09.pdf

we want to consider extra overall energy released vs status quo of sun input minus energy loss

As the waste energy per square meter of human activity is low (per year discarding cumulative effect and not sure it includes much as there are no details on the way it is measured) vs sun energy and potential GHG insulating effect, paper end up saying it is negligeable  

 a nice analogy :
insulated room , a heater on on a cold constant temp night; put main heater on a setting-> temperature stabilises;
then add second heater and switch in on, would you expect the temperature to stay the same and wait for the insulation  renovation work to get warmer?
The 2C increase of temperature atmosphere due to man made energy release did not just vanished...
And I discarded forest fire  /destruction since the 1800s or the fact that the 2C increase will reduce snow/ice cover and increase sun absorbtion (which is the biggy we all agree)
waste heat (as it is called) also has an avalanche effect.
Anyway, the fact is man made activity is f...ing this planet and i have no doubt about it, be it by checking figures or just spending years in outside activities

Read for yourself and make your own scientific mind about how flimsily this debate has been cut short..
I am not paid for that but it would be very worthwhile to have a decent 1 y study with a proper paper on "human released total energy since the industrial revolution and its effects on world temperature."
I will stop there 
the link Basilio sent me initially (thanks) had 4 pages of "comments" which are of kindergarden argument level  and I do not want to start the same here; take your calculator and do your sums if you please


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> Are you sure that you've correctly understood the content and reason behind ves' post?




Are you sure you. Ves and Basillio understand what is going on Greenland?......Do you all understand Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now....Do you understand Greenland went through a mini ice age 500 years ago?

I don't think any of you do!!!!!!!!!!...And there is a lot more you don't understand as to how the UN are manipulating naive people like your good selves.

I understand the temperatures in the Coral Sea varies greatly and I do know cooler waters do have a dramatic affect on corals more so than warmer waters and that is something I learned from the late Professor Bob Carter and Professor Peter Ridd from JCU Townsville at two seminars I was in invited to some 5 and 8 years ago.

But your worries will be over soon as Greg Hunt (Federal environmental Minister) will save the Great Barrier Reef for you with his injection of funds and the signing of the Paris agreement.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31420437/un-climate-deal-to-be-ratified-in-a-year/

*Australia will begin work to ratify the UN climate immediately and ratify within a year to exceed 2020 emissions reduction targets, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has promised.

Mr Hunt said on the basis of new projections, Australia will beat Kyoto targets by 78 million tonnes.

"We are therefore on track to meet our 2030 target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels.*

*The government was committing a further $11 million on projects to continue improving water quality on the Great Barrier Reef.*


----------



## noco

It is all a great WHITE LIE put out by the Alarmists...It has nothing to do with man made Global Warming. 

68% of the reef in under stress due to cooler waters and only 2% will die.

As I stated before the Barrier Reef has been through it all before and will regenerate itself in very quick time as it is already starting to do. 




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...g/news-story/e826d014a1b593efaf879cbb030804d5

*THE Great Barrier Reef’s most popular tourist sites show just two per cent of coral has died off, with the rest in “positive” signs of recovery, despite the world’s biggest mass coral bleaching event on record.

New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.

Latest findings by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre give hope about the resilience of the living wonder after scientists this week revealed 93 per cent of the 2300km-long reef system was in the grip of a mass bleaching event.

“It’s the Great White Lie,” said Col McKenzie, chief executive of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators. “It’s not dead, white and dying. It’s under stress but it will bounce back.’’
*
I trust this will put an end to the crazy arguments and vile propaganda that is currently being published on this thread.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> “It’s the Great White Lie,” said Col McKenzie, chief executive of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators. “It’s not dead, white and dying. It’s under stress but it will bounce back.’’
> [/B]
> I trust this will put an end to the crazy arguments and vile propaganda that is currently being published on this thread.




You don't think Col may have a vested interest in saying everything is fine ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> You don't think Col may have a vested interest in saying everything is fine ?




I would say Col is on the ground and has eyes to see for himself and is most likely on the reef on a daily basis just like I have observed over my years of sound observations unlike the naive who believe the the bloody propaganda published by the Alarmist in their endeavors  to prove these natural phenomenas are some how man made.
*
New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.
Latest findings by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre give hope about the resilience of the living wonder after scientists this week revealed 93 per cent of the 2300km-long reef system was in the grip of a mass bleaching event.*


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I would say Col is on the ground and has eyes to see for himself and is most likely on the reef on a daily basis just like I have observed over my years of sound observations unlike the naive who believe the the bloody propaganda published by the Alarmist in their endeavors  to prove these natural phenomenas are some how man made.
> *
> New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.
> Latest findings by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre give hope about the resilience of the living wonder after scientists this week revealed 93 per cent of the 2300km-long reef system was in the grip of a mass bleaching event.*




Would you mind posting links to the articles you cite ?


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> Are you sure you. Ves and Basillio understand what is going on Greenland?......Do you all understand Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now....Do you understand Greenland went through a mini ice age 500 years ago?
> 
> I don't think any of you do!!!!!!!!!!...And there is a lot more you don't understand as to how the UN are manipulating naive people like your good selves.
> 
> I understand the temperatures in the Coral Sea varies greatly and I do know cooler waters do have a dramatic affect on corals more so than warmer waters and that is something I learned from the late Professor Bob Carter and Professor Peter Ridd from JCU Townsville at two seminars I was in invited to some 5 and 8 years ago.
> 
> But your worries will be over soon as Greg Hunt (Federal environmental Minister) will save the Great Barrier Reef for you with his injection of funds and the signing of the Paris agreement.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31420437/un-climate-deal-to-be-ratified-in-a-year/
> 
> *Australia will begin work to ratify the UN climate immediately and ratify within a year to exceed 2020 emissions reduction targets, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has promised.
> 
> Mr Hunt said on the basis of new projections, Australia will beat Kyoto targets by 78 million tonnes.
> 
> "We are therefore on track to meet our 2030 target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels.*
> 
> *The government was committing a further $11 million on projects to continue improving water quality on the Great Barrier Reef.*



A simple "no, I misunderstood" would have been sufficient, but thanks for offering your input.  

You might be surprised at the degree of variance in the perspectives of the three posters you've so hastily lumped together!


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Would you mind posting links to the articles you cite ?




Agree,  particularly the supposed melt of Greenland 1000 years ago.   Prevously fixed perma frost/ice millions of years old now slipping into the sea.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Would you mind posting links to the articles you cite ?




http://rrrc.org.au/

All you needs are here....Enjoy the ride.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> http://rrrc.org.au/
> 
> All you needs are here....Enjoy the ride.




The latest publication from this group that i can find was in 2007. Slightly out of date I think.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> http://rrrc.org.au/
> 
> All you needs are here....Enjoy the ride.




Cannot even get the link up


----------



## Wysiwyg

> THE Great Barrier Reef’s most popular tourist sites show just two per cent of coral has died off, with the rest in “positive” signs of recovery, *despite the world’s biggest mass coral bleaching event on record*.



Like the last 50 years records? The ulterior motive is to get Government grants and be paid to loaf around on coral cays scrutinising coral.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> What happened to those Greenlanders when Greenland turn icy and froze all over?
> 
> Rising sea level will literally salt the deltas of the world. Deltas are where most farmland and food production are located.
> 
> I'm not a horticulturalist or know the land, but I'd imagined the new water level won't just turn desert or higher land into fertile soil overnight or over a few years right?
> 
> how will the world be fed in the meanwhile?
> 
> If the ocean gets warmer, it might kill a few of those tiny planktons and algae at the bottom of the food chain. If they die off enough, less small fish to feed the bigger ones to feed the human ones.
> 
> Man, it's not like 50 or 50% of actual scientists are saying global warming is a real and serious threat to survival, it's somehwere in the high 90s. When that many people who tell us it's going to be a cluster bloom, and that bloom could kill hundreds of millions (mostly poor) people living in the deltas on farming or fisheries... then the record level drought, storms, hurricane, diseases...
> 
> meehhh... come back and let us know when all scientists agreed. Even the bought off ones.




How did you arrive at that figure of 90% of scientists around the world saying Global warming is real?


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> “It’s the Great White Lie,” said Col McKenzie, *chief executive of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators*. “It’s not dead, white and dying. It’s under stress but it will bounce back.’’




Emphasis mine.

What else is he going to say? He's not going to run around saying the industry he represents is completely stuffed now is he? He needs to be doing whatever he can to keep people turning up so that's what he's doing.

I'm not accusing him of anything wrong, he's just doing his job, but he's not exactly an unbiased source.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Rarely mentioned is discouraging humans breeding faster than the death rate. I read somewhere the planet could handle 10 billion people at current consumption rates. Then we have the upward spiral of consumerism led by America and China with things to buy then throwaway when the next best thing comes along ever-so-more quickly nowadays. All the fossil fuel extraction, fossil fueled power plants and factories are here to feed the seemingly insatiable desire to have more and/or better with complete disregard for the cost to the environment. Jobs, jobs, jobs is the cry which equals churning out more stuff which equals more people which equals the cry for more jobs, jobs, jobs.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> What else is he going to say? He's not going to run around saying the industry he represents is completely stuffed now is he? He needs to be doing whatever he can to keep people turning up so that's what he's doing.
> 
> I'm not accusing him of anything wrong, he's just doing his job, but he's not exactly an unbiased source.




Col McKenzie was the messenger of a report by the Reef and Rain forest Research Center. 

It would appear you Greenies have not read the whole link but just jumped to conclusions.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Col McKenzie was the messenger of a report by the Reef and Rain forest Research Center.
> 
> It would appear you Greenies have not read the whole link but just jumped to conclusions.




Reef and rainforest Research Centres were de-funded by John Howard in 2004, and turned over to industry bodies.

Their research (if it still exists) is thus questionable and would tend to favour their funding bodies.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1100404.htm


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Reef and rainforest Research Centres were de-funded by John Howard in 2004, and turned over to industry bodies.
> 
> Their research (if it still exists) is thus questionable and would tend to favour their funding bodies.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1100404.htm




So what????.....That does not prove you and your Green buddies are right.....The principles of the argument are still there.
The Reef has been under stress more times than you have had hot dinners since it's conception 500,000 years ago...It has always recovered.....

The main section of the reef which is currently under stress is north of Port Douglas adjacent to a coastal strip which is not affected by the local environment of pollution from farming run off.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> How did you arrive at that figure of 90% of scientists around the world saying Global warming is real?




Luutzu, I am still waiting for your answer....Do you have a number or not?

Is that 90% of all scientist through out the world or 90% of a couple of thousand hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to the UN's Global Warming cause?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luutzu, I am still waiting for your answer....Do you have a number or not?
> 
> Is that 90% of all scientist through out the world or 90% of a couple of thousand hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to the UN's Global Warming cause?




I heard that figure from a few different sources over the years. Will google it for you. Pretty sure it's in the high 90s. What's more, a fair number of scientists believe the current "alarmist" predictions are way way too conservative and that some scientists actually censor themselves in case they're made out to be too extreme.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luutzu, I am still waiting for your answer....Do you have a number or not?
> 
> Is that 90% of all scientist through out the world or 90% of a couple of thousand hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to the UN's Global Warming cause?




Here we go:



> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that* 97 percent or more *of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

From same website:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Here we go:
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> From same website:
> 
> American Association for the Advancement of Science
> "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
> 
> American Chemical Society
> "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)




*Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:* Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. 

What I am trying to establish is that 97% of how many climate scientists agree?...You don't give a number!!!!!!

Is it 97% of 2000 or 2500 or maybe just 18?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> *Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:* Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
> 
> What I am trying to establish is that 97% of how many climate scientists agree?...You don't give a number!!!!!!
> 
> Is it 97% of 2000 or 2500 or maybe just 18?




97% from 11,944 research papers.

Each research would have multiple authors. So it's not a couple of guys at a bar.

Scanned through and it seem a few studies examining this consensus points to high 90s to 100% total agreement on climate change.

Some of the paper define a climate change scientist as one who published at least 20 studies on the subject. So these are not PhD graduate or some noop.. .but are actually expert and likely have been spending their entire career on the subject.

More here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


----------



## qldfrog

Do not bother Luutzu, in the same way whatever argument, figure, truth or actual experience I have,nothing  can change your "belief" about the illegal immigrants/aka refugees invation of europe, 
And Noco will never change his "belief".


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> 97% from 11,944 research papers.
> 
> Each research would have multiple authors. So it's not a couple of guys at a bar.
> 
> Scanned through and it seem a few studies examining this consensus points to high 90s to 100% total agreement on climate change.
> 
> Some of the paper define a climate change scientist as one who published at least 20 studies on the subject. So these are not PhD graduate or some noop.. .but are actually expert and likely have been spending their entire career on the subject.
> 
> More here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002




So what do you say about 31,478 scientists who do not agree with your unknown number of scientist who have put out  11,944 research papers.

I believe the scientists you have mentioned are hand picked by the UN and the whole thing is a manipulation of the truth......The UN are not interested in scientists who are skeptics ...The UN don't even want to know them....
they are not allowed to express their opinion...Myself and some others on this Forum are ridiculed by a few naive posters  as if we don't have the right to express our opinion even when you are proved wrong.....You and your mates want to dominate this thread as though you own it....You are always right and all others are wrong......perhaps one day we may all be proved wrong...... 

I have proved to you and some of your supporters about the fallacy of Greenland and in time you will be proved wrong about the exaggeration of the Great Barrier Reef......There is only 2% of complete carol death ...Why do you Greenies try to make out the reef has been totally destroyed when it is not true....It has suffered before on so many occasions over 500,000 years and has always recovered....As I told you I can recall the reef under stress in 1950 when I holidayed on South Molle Island.

The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> So what do you say about 31,478 scientists who do not agree with your unknown number of scientist who have put out  11,944 research papers.
> 
> I believe the scientists you have mentioned are hand picked by the UN and the whole thing is a manipulation of the truth......The UN are not interested in scientists who are skeptics ...The UN don't even want to know them....
> they are not allowed to express their opinion...Myself and some others on this Forum are ridiculed by a few naive posters  as if we don't have the right to express our opinion even when you are proved wrong.....You and your mates want to dominate this thread as though you own it....You are always right and all others are wrong......perhaps one day we may all be proved wrong......
> 
> I have proved to you and some of your supporters about the fallacy of Greenland and in time you will be proved wrong about the exaggeration of the Great Barrier Reef......There is only 2% of complete carol death ...Why do you Greenies try to make out the reef has been totally destroyed when it is not true....It has suffered before on so many occasions over 500,000 years and has always recovered....As I told you I can recall the reef under stress in 1950 when I holidayed on South Molle Island.
> 
> The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
> 
> www.petitionproject.org




Why do you have to make me agree with qldfrog?

Noco, 97% of research into Climate Change, of research by scientist specialising on the matter; scientists who spent their career studying the thing... 97% of known scientific research concludes that CC is happening and will likely cause devastating damage... and they're all wrong?

You do know that not all scientists are equal right? There are scientists and then there are "scientist"; there are specialists and there are some guy with a science degree and maybe a postgrad degree in some other science. Then there are sell-outs too. Scientists do like money and a nice job backed by big money.

Anyway, I'm sure that all "us" climate alarmist wish we're wrong. BUt what if we're not wrong? What if the science is right? What if you're wrong? Could your tears or apologies or bad feelings reverse the damage and prevent the deaths then?

Let see... 

Prolonged drought will reduce crops, jack up global prices, destroy crops and harvests, poor people starve or die.

Rising sea level floods the deltas, salt fertile land, destroy crops, send poor farmers the world over into further poverty and hunger, they flee to higher grounds and get send back for being economic migrants.

Higher temperature in the ocean, the atmosphere causes larger, more deadly, more frequent hurricane and storm surge; extreme weather.... people die.

But people always die and new ones are born? 

anyway, she'll be right. What does scientists know or done anything good with their knowledge and research anyway.


----------



## luutzu

qldfrog said:


> Do not bother Luutzu, in the same way whatever argument, figure, truth or actual experience I have,nothing  can change your "belief" about the illegal immigrants/aka refugees invation of europe,
> And Noco will never change his "belief".




You know you'd have to do more than channelling Trump and his "truth because I said so" to convince some people right?

Will be heading to Europe soon. Will report back on all the ruins. See what them barbarians have done to the place.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Why do you have to make me agree with qldfrog?
> 
> Noco, 97% of research into Climate Change, of research by scientist specialising on the matter; scientists who spent their career studying the thing... 97% of known scientific research concludes that CC is happening and will likely cause devastating damage... and they're all wrong?
> 
> You do know that not all scientists are equal right? There are scientists and then there are "scientist"; there are specialists and there are some guy with a science degree and maybe a postgrad degree in some other science. Then there are sell-outs too. Scientists do like money and a nice job backed by big money.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure that all "us" climate alarmist wish we're wrong. BUt what if we're not wrong? What if the science is right? What if you're wrong? Could your tears or apologies or bad feelings reverse the damage and prevent the deaths then?
> 
> Let see...
> 
> Prolonged drought will reduce crops, jack up global prices, destroy crops and harvests, poor people starve or die.
> 
> Rising sea level floods the deltas, salt fertile land, destroy crops, send poor farmers the world over into further poverty and hunger, they flee to higher grounds and get send back for being economic migrants.
> 
> Higher temperature in the ocean, the atmosphere causes larger, more deadly, more frequent hurricane and storm surge; extreme weather.... people die.
> 
> But people always die and new ones are born?
> 
> anyway, she'll be right. What does scientists know or done anything good with their knowledge and research anyway.




So we should all be terrified to death.......when is all this going happen?...Please tell me?

As I have mentioned before, I have proved the alarmists wrong about Greenland......What is happening now had happened 1000 years ago when the temperature was much warmer than it is today...That subject has some how dropped off your radar and I don't see any comments about it from you or any of the other alarmist on this forum....Have you conceded defeat on this natural occurrence?

* 1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?

    The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

    Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.

2. Has the petition project helped to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing?

    The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural environment of the Earth.

    Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible - atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) - denigrated as an atmospheric "pollutant" in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know that this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.

    There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology.
*


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So we should all be terrified to death.......when is all this going happen?...Please tell me?




Believe what you like mate, you're wrong and everyone knows it except you and your deluded mates

You may get your head out of the sand one day, but I doubt it.


----------



## Knobby22

Watched David Attenboroughs final Barrier Reef episode last night. 
Very sad. He expects the reef to be mostly gone in 40 years unless we change our ways. 40% gone already. If you love eating fish then this is particuarly bad. He blames global warming, acidification of the ocean, fertilizer run off and human predation.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Believe what you like mate, you're wrong and everyone knows it except you and your deluded mates
> 
> You may get your head out of the sand one day, but I doubt it.




Well Ruimpy, that is a typical response from you and it was one I fully expected.....You are continuing to lower standard of reasonable argument....You only know one way.....ridicule. intimidation and character assassination...It does not become you but I guess you know no other way.

Why don't you make some remark on Greenland?....Has that become all too hard for you and your Greenie mates since I have proved you all wrong?......You will also be proved wrong in time about the Great Barrier Reef.

You say I am always wrong so does that include the 31,438 scientist who signed a petition condemning this Global Warming scam.?


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Watched David Attenboroughs final Barrier Reef episode last night.
> Very sad. He expects the reef to be mostly gone in 40 years unless we change our ways. 40% gone already. If you love eating fish then this is particuarly bad. He blames global warming, acidification of the ocean, fertilizer run off and human predation.




The main part of the reef that has been affected is north of Port Douglas to Thursday Island  where there no  fertilizer run off.

I also watched David Attenborough episode and he has only been to one reef...How could he possibly generalize on 2500 km of the reef...Please be reasonable. 

Human Predation??????Do you mean depredation or predatory?..I am not familiar with your term predation.


----------



## explod

explod said:


> Agree,  particularly the supposed melt of Greenland 1000 years ago.   Prevously fixed perma frost/ice millions of years old now slipping into the sea.




You have not noco,  could not even get your link up,  told you so and no response. 

If you actually read some of the science papers and how the physical evidence is examined and tested there is no doubt. 

Have you bothered to read "The Sixth Extinction"  yet.   This must be about the fifth time I have asked.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> The main part of the reef that has been affected is north of Port Douglas to Thursday Island  where there no  fertilizer run off.




Yes I know. Which makes it worse. Effects of warm water.
Human predation means we are eating some sorts of fish that have thrown the ecosystem off balance. e.g. Crown of Thorns star fish infestation.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Why don't you make some remark on Greenland??




Read the attached. There is a cold "blob" around Greenland, but the rest of the world is warmer than average.

This article explains why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-a-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You have not noco,  could not even get your link up,  told you so and no response.
> 
> If you actually read some of the science papers and how the physical evidence is examined and tested there is no doubt.
> 
> Have you bothered to read "The Sixth Extinction"  yet.   This must be about the fifth time I have asked.




Plod, here it is again for your information.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

*Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it GrÃ¦nland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.*

If you want further information on what happened in Greenland 1000 years ago just go to Google.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Read the attached. There is a cold "blob" around Greenland, but the rest of the world is warmer than average.
> 
> This article explains why.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-a-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/




Thanks Rumpy...A very interesting article with a lot of "MAYBES" and with some uncertainties....I read the hold post and looked at all 27 photos of Greenland and #9 attracted my attention.

*July 30, 2013 Icebergs float by the home of potato and sheep farmer Otto Nielsen in Qaqortoq. Nielsen said that even though this summer has not been as warm as last year, the climate change has extended the crop growing season. Joe Raedle/Getty Images *

But that article does not detract from the fact that it all happened 1000 years ago and it may be happening again now.....CLIMATE CHANGE ????????...YES...man made NO.

So why can't you and other alarmists accept my POV?.....Is that an embarrassment for you?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So why can't you and other alarmists accept my POV?




If you were a scientist I might.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If you were a scientist I might.




Don't be smart Rumpy...You know what my POV is without me having to go over it all again.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Thanks Rumpy...A very interesting article with a lot of "MAYBES" and with some uncertainties....I read the hold post and looked at all 27 photos of Greenland and #9 attracted my attention.
> 
> *July 30, 2013 Icebergs float by the home of potato and sheep farmer Otto Nielsen in Qaqortoq. Nielsen said that even though this summer has not been as warm as last year, the climate change has extended the crop growing season. Joe Raedle/Getty Images *
> 
> But that article does not detract from the fact that it all happened 1000 years ago and it may be happening again now.....CLIMATE CHANGE ????????...YES...man made NO.
> 
> So why can't you and other alarmists accept my POV?.....Is that an embarrassment for you?




But you are only looking (convenientlt)  at one small part of tge globe,  and there is a bit in southern end of south America.  You are nitpicking to hold your argument. 

Elswhere,  heat,  floods and unseasonale storms are breaking out everywhere.  Just noted a piece on TV on large parts of India on shortage of water.  Deeper bore water causing huge health problems.  Farmers here at Bendigo have not seen it so dry and normal autumn rains nowhere to be seen.  Some say that it looks like it is not going to rain again.   The concerns of climate change is a growing topic on the streets. 

Time for you to sell those coal shares noco and join us in trying to find alternatives.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> But you are only looking (*convenient)*  at one small part of *the* globe,  and there is a bit in southern end of south America.  You are nitpicking to hold your argument.
> 
> *Elsewhere*,  heat,  floods and* unseasonable* storms are breaking out everywhere.  Just noted a piece on TV on large parts of India on shortage of water.  Deeper bore water causing huge health problems.  Farmers here at Bendigo have not seen it so dry and normal autumn rains nowhere to be seen.  Some say that it looks like it is not going to rain again.   The concerns of climate change is a growing topic on the streets.
> 
> Time for you to sell those coal shares noco and join us in trying to find alternatives.




What has the southern end of South America or India got to do with topic of conversation in Greenland?

Coal???? ...there is a new coal mine about to open up in Queensland with the approval of the state Labor Government....The biggest coal mine in the history of the state.

Yeah....Flim Flam Tim Flannery said Brisbane , Sydney and Melbourne would never ever see enough rain to fill the dams again.


----------



## basilio

Did you know ?


> * A global coalition mapping and motivating decarbonization*
> 
> A coalition of governments, oil companies, and other key parties works for climate action and carbon pricing
> Diplomats, business leaders, World Bank staff, and strategic partners gather just before the inaugural High-Level Assembly of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition.
> 
> Joseph Robertson
> 
> Monday 25 April 2016 20.00 AEST
> Last modified on Monday 25 April 2016 20.02 AEST
> 
> 
> *Would it surprise you to learn that governments, oil companies, NGOs and major investors are coming together to map””and to motivate””the decarbonization of the global economy?*
> 
> The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) is a policy-focused alliance of national and subnational governments, intergovernmental agencies, businesses and institutional investors, nonprofits and stakeholder networks. It was launched on the first day of the Paris climate negotiations, and its mission is simple: to collaborate across borders, across sectors, sharing information, know-how and capacity, to build the most economically efficient tools for decarbonization into every nation’s climate plan as soon as possible.
> 
> The Paris Agreement calls for non-state support for national climate action. The 17th Sustainable Development Goal is devoted to partnerships that build capacity and speed implementation. At the CPLC table, all of the partners are peers, and this takes the project well beyond the the conventions of global governance: honest and capable support for success is the shared focus, so governments and leading businesses work with intellectuals and policy advocates, to ensure no good thinking is left off the menu.
> 
> ......Some approaches focus on covering one or more sectors of the economy””power generation, transport, agriculture. Others prioritize rewarding early actors while limiting emissions overall. *But a simple fee applied to carbon-emitting fuels at the source with revenues recycled back into the economy can cover all sectors while adding day to day economic value at the human scale.* https://geoversiv.net/2014/06/12/remi/



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...lition-mapping-and-motivating-decarbonization


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Did you know ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...lition-mapping-and-motivating-decarbonization




One would think there is a high level de'tente happening regarding carbon reduction, to blindly go about it, would result in a world wide financial crisis 10 times bigger than the last one.IMO

It is unfortunate, Gillard and Bob Brown, weren't included.


----------



## wayneL

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/

From BOSTON UNIVERSITY:

BOSTON ”” An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled “Greening of the Earth and its Drivers” in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth’s vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees. Green leaves produce sugars using energy in the sunlight to mix carbon dioxide (CO2) drawn in from the air with water and nutrients pumped in from the ground. These sugars are the source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. More sugars are produced when there is more CO2 in the air, and this is called CO2 fertilization.

“We were able to tie the greening largely to the fertilizing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration by tasking several computer models to mimic plant growth observed in the satellite data,” says co-author Prof. Ranga Myneni of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA. Burning oil, gas, coal and wood for energy releases CO2 in to the air. The amount of CO2 in the air has been increasing since the industrial age and currently stands at a level not seen in at least half-a-million years. It is the chief culprit of climate change.

About 85% of the Earth’s ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area of all green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32% of the Earth’s total surface area – oceans, lands and permanent icesheets combined. “The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km²), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” says lead author Dr. Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first-half of this study as a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA, together with Prof. Myneni.

Every year, about one-half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted in to the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” says coauthor Prof. Shilong Piao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Science, Beijing, China.

The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5.

CO2 fertilization is only one, albeit a predominant, reason why the Earth is greening. The study also identified climate change, nitrogen fertilization and land management as other important reasons. “While the detection of greening is based on measurements, the attribution to various drivers is based on models, and these models have known deficiencies. Future works will undoubtedly question and refine our results,” says coauthor Dr. Josep Canadell of the CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Division in Canberra, Australia and leader of the Global Carbon Project.

###


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/
> 
> 
> 
> “ The amount of CO2 in the air has been increasing since the industrial age and currently stands at a level not seen in at least half-a-million years. It is the chief culprit of climate change.
> 
> ###




That's a bit disappointing; greening is obviously not keeping pace with the incipient carbon dioxide poising we must all be suffering, could explain some behavioural challenges....might just be plants and bugs left in the end. I'm also guessing that all that new green is soaking rainwater instead of recycling its way back into the increasingly salty rivers, aquafers, fisheries, etc?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/
> 
> From BOSTON UNIVERSITY:
> 
> BOSTON ”” An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled “Greening of the Earth and its Drivers” in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth’s vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees. Green leaves produce sugars using energy in the sunlight to mix carbon dioxide (CO2) drawn in from the air with water and nutrients pumped in from the ground. These sugars are the source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. More sugars are produced when there is more CO2 in the air, and this is called CO2 fertilization.
> 
> “We were able to tie the greening largely to the fertilizing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration by tasking several computer models to mimic plant growth observed in the satellite data,” says co-author Prof. Ranga Myneni of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA. Burning oil, gas, coal and wood for energy releases CO2 in to the air. The amount of CO2 in the air has been increasing since the industrial age and currently stands at a level not seen in at least half-a-million years. It is the chief culprit of climate change.
> 
> About 85% of the Earth’s ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area of all green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32% of the Earth’s total surface area – oceans, lands and permanent icesheets combined. “The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km²), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” says lead author Dr. Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first-half of this study as a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA, together with Prof. Myneni.
> 
> Every year, about one-half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted in to the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” says coauthor Prof. Shilong Piao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Science, Beijing, China.
> 
> The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5.
> 
> CO2 fertilization is only one, albeit a predominant, reason why the Earth is greening. The study also identified climate change, nitrogen fertilization and land management as other important reasons. “While the detection of greening is based on measurements, the attribution to various drivers is based on models, and these models have known deficiencies. Future works will undoubtedly question and refine our results,” says coauthor Dr. Josep Canadell of the CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Division in Canberra, Australia and leader of the Global Carbon Project.
> 
> ###




Nice work Wayne.......The Green Alarmist won't like your post one bit because it all goes against their grain of this Global Warming BS....The biggest farce and scam the World has ever known.

No matter what you throw up at these scaremongers, they will come back at you every time with more manipulated BS, propaganda and lies.

A typical case recently is the Greenland incident whereby they were shot down in flames of something happening today that happened 1000 years ago when it was warmer then than it is today but the naive still don't want to believe it.

97% of all scientist say Global Warming is real according to Luutzu but he can't tell you how many that 97% represents.......One shows that 31,478 scientists signed a petition stating the opposite that Global warming is not man made but that makes very little difference to their brains....They are completely brain washed and anyone Else's POV must be disregarded....They still cannot follow that this whole scam is a UN plot for World Government. 

The Great Barrier Reef, according to these scaremongers, is all but gone....The reef has been stressed before with coral bleaching and has always recovered.   

Wayne, be prepared for a blast today....


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Nice work Wayne.......The Green Alarmist won't like your post one bit because it all goes against their grain of this Global Warming BS....The biggest farce and scam the World has ever known.
> 
> No matter what you throw up at these scaremongers, they will come back at you every time with more manipulated BS, propaganda and lies.
> 
> A typical case recently is the Greenland incident whereby they were shot down in flames of something happening today that happened 1000 years ago when it was warmer then than it is today but the naive still don't want to believe it.
> 
> 97% of all scientist say Global Warming is real according to Luutzu but he can't tell you how many that 97% represents.......One shows that 31,478 scientists signed a petition stating the opposite that Global warming is not man made but that makes very little difference to their brains....They are completely brain washed and anyone Else's POV must be disregarded....They still cannot follow that this whole scam is a UN plot for World Government.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef, according to these scaremongers, is all but gone....The reef has been stressed before with coral bleaching and has always recovered.
> 
> Wayne, be prepared for a blast today....




Thanks for the laugh mate.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks for the laugh mate.




Is that the best you can do Rumpy?

That sort of response proves you don't have the answers...You are totally brainwashed with the Green manipulated propaganda..


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Is that the best you can do Rumpy?
> 
> That sort of response proves you don't have the answers...You are totally brainwashed with the Green manipulated propaganda..




I give you scientific studies like the one on Greenland which you simply dismiss as "propaganda", so there is no point continuing a discussion with someone so one eyed.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Tisme

The ghost of Tony Abbott and his anti climate change shrill still haunts the minds of the indentured into the LNP lip service. 

For us simpletons:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com.au/video/news/101-videos/151201-climate-change-bill-nye-news


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I give you scientific studies like the one on Greenland which you simply dismiss as "propaganda", so there is no point continuing a discussion with someone so one eyed.
> 
> Have a nice day.




You are WRONG...WRONG..WRONG again.

You just don't get it do you?

I am not denying what is happening on Greenland today as you try to make out.

What I am denying is that this event is not man made...How could it be when the same thing happened 1000 years ago and yet you still keep coming back.

You and your Greenie mates have had a set back and you don't like it and that is why you want to end the debate......You have been beaten left, right and center....Shot down in flames.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> What I am denying is that this event is not man made...How could it be when the same thing happened 1000 years ago




Nobody would seriously dispute that natural cycles exist and that man does not fully understand them. 

The question is whether or not recent events are "in step" with such cycles or are they "out of step"?

If the temperature is going up whilst natural cycles are such that it shouldn't be then that would suggest a man-made influence. Obviously that's not the case if the temperature is rising in accordance with natural cycles.

It's the same with anything. A child should become progressively taller and stronger at least until they're an adult. Something's seriously wrong if a 15 year old is weaker and shorter than they were 3 years earlier.

A car should slow down when you apply the brakes. It's a certain indication that you've got a big problem if it speeds up when the brakes are applied.

And so on. If anything is out of step with what it should be doing then that's always an indication that something's wrong.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You are WRONG...WRONG..WRONG again.
> 
> You just don't get it do you?
> 
> I am not denying what is happening on Greenland today as you try to make out.
> 
> What I am denying is that this event is not man made...How could it be when the same thing happened 1000 years ago and yet you still keep coming back.
> 
> You and your Greenie mates have had a set back and you don't like it and that is why you want to end the debate......You have been beaten left, right and center....Shot down in flames.




Noco,  you have failed to convince me of what happenned 1000 years ago in Greenland,  a link that does not work and no actual explanation from exactly what occurred with supporting scientific evidence.  And there were certainly no scientist around then.  So please clearly clarify. 

And to say anyone is "WRONG WRONG WRONG"   is plainly wrong till you can convince us that your,  mostly wild rantingis are right. 

So try to be sensible Champ


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Noco,  you have failed to convince me of what happenned 1000 years ago in Greenland,  a link that does not work and no actual explanation from exactly what occurred with supporting scientific evidence.  And there were certainly no scientist around then.  So please clearly clarify.
> 
> And to say anyone is "WRONG WRONG WRONG"   is plainly wrong till you can convince us that your,  mostly wild rantingis are right.
> 
> So try to be sensible Champ




How many times do you want me to give it to you?

Here it is again...If you cannot follow it this time then I will feel sorry for you.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

*Green·land  (grēn′lənd, -lănd′)
An island in the northern Atlantic Ocean off northeast Canada. It is the largest island in the world and lies mostly within the Arctic Circle. Settled by the Norse between the 10th and the 15th century and by the Inuit beginning around the 10th century, Greenland became a Danish colony in the 18th century and was granted home rule in 1979. Nuuk (GodthÃ¥b) is the capital.
Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it GrÃ¦nland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.
American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright  © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Greenland (ˈɡriːnlənd)
n
(Placename) a large island, lying mostly within the Arctic Circle off the NE coast of North America: first settled by Icelanders in 986; resettled by Danes from 1721 onwards; integral part of Denmark (1953–79); granted internal autonomy 1979; mostly covered by an icecap up to 3300 m (11 000 ft) thick, with ice-free coastal strips and coastal mountains; the population is largely Inuit, with a European minority; fishing, hunting, and mining. Capital: Nuuk (GodthÃ¥b). Pop: 57 714 (2013 est). Area: 175 600 sq km (840 000 sq miles). Danish name: GrÃ¸nland Greenlandic name: Kalaallit Nunaat
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014  © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Green•land (ˈgrin lənd, -ˌlÃ¦nd)

n.
a self-governing island belonging to Denmark located NE of North America: the largest island in the world. 58,203; ab. 840,000 sq. mi. (2,175,600 sq. km); over 700,000 sq. mi. (1,800,000 sq. km) icecapped. Cap.: GodthÃ¥b.
Green′land•er, n.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary,  © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:*


----------



## wayneL

CSIRO has busted the "river on fire" alarmism in no less a rag than Pravda itself:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro

As usual, The Watermelons are more interested in politicking about environmental matters than actual science.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> How many times do you want me to give it to you?
> 
> Here it is again...If you cannot follow it this time then I will feel sorry for you.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland
> 
> *Green·land  (grēn′lənd, -lănd′)
> An island in the northern Atlantic Ocean off northeast Canada. It is the largest island in the world and lies mostly within the Arctic Circle. Settled by the Norse between the 10th and the 15th century and by the Inuit beginning around the 10th century, Greenland became a Danish colony in the 18th century and was granted home rule in 1979. Nuuk (GodthÃ¥b) is the capital.
> Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
> Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it GrÃ¦nland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.
> American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright  © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
> Greenland (ˈɡriːnlənd)
> n
> (Placename) a large island, lying mostly within the Arctic Circle off the NE coast of North America: first settled by Icelanders in 986; resettled by Danes from 1721 onwards; integral part of Denmark (1953–79); granted internal autonomy 1979; mostly covered by an icecap up to 3300 m (11 000 ft) thick, with ice-free coastal strips and coastal mountains; the population is largely Inuit, with a European minority; fishing, hunting, and mining. Capital: Nuuk (GodthÃ¥b). Pop: 57 714 (2013 est). Area: 175 600 sq km (840 000 sq miles). Danish name: GrÃ¸nland Greenlandic name: Kalaallit Nunaat
> Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014  © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
> Green•land (ˈgrin lənd, -ˌlÃ¦nd)
> 
> n.
> a self-governing island belonging to Denmark located NE of North America: the largest island in the world. 58,203; ab. 840,000 sq. mi. (2,175,600 sq. km); over 700,000 sq. mi. (1,800,000 sq. km) icecapped. Cap.: GodthÃ¥b.
> Green′land•er, n.
> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary,  © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
> ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:*




Thanks for posting up noco. 

The issue here is time.   It looks like at the latest 1991, some 25 years ago.  An awful lot has changed since then with rising temperatures and the increasing melt has gained huge momentum in Greenland of late.   Having said that it is one of tge cooler places atm due to weather stream changes from the changing conditions of warming in other adjacent areas. 

Your statement is not conclusive,  few of us really know.   But if we look at most other areas of the planet it is clear we have an extreme problem.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> CSIRO has busted the "river on fire" alarmism in no less a rag than Pravda itself:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro
> 
> As usual, The Watermelons are more interested in politicking about environmental matters than actual science.




Wow you are now quoting The Guardian on the reporting on environmental issues ! Is that just cos you approve of the story (but still reserve the right to reject any story you don't like )? 

Nah you couldn't be that simplistic could you ?


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Wow you are now quoting The Guardian on the reporting on environmental issues ! Is that just cos you approve of the story (but still reserve the right to reject any story you don't like )?
> 
> Nah you couldn't be that simplistic could you ?




Is the Guardian a socialistic rag?


----------



## Tisme

Tisme said:


> Is the Guardian a socialistic rag?





My godfather, apart from the lunar dog, they are so obviously reds under the bed. The fact that they have literary and artistic bents is a dead give away...where's Pol Pot when you need him


https://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/may/18/guardian-australia-meet-the-team


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> That's a bit disappointing; greening is obviously not keeping pace with the incipient carbon dioxide poising we must all be suffering, could explain some behavioural challenges....might just be plants and bugs left in the end. I'm also guessing that all that new green is soaking rainwater instead of recycling its way back into the increasingly salty rivers, aquafers, fisheries, etc?




It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.

Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.
> 
> Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.




Ahhh....Gaia theory


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.
> 
> Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.




Of course, but how long can this hold out.   The oceans for a long time have absorbed our heat but it appears we are reaching the tipping point now (reef for one) 

We are playing with fire.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> Of course, but how long can this hold out.   The oceans for a long time have absorbed our heat but it appears we are reaching the tipping point now (reef for one)
> 
> We are playing with fire.




To me it's more a question of what size populace can this planet comfortably sustain. Change seems to be an inevitability of life. The challenge to humanity's survival is typically met by a willingness to adapt rather than resist.


----------



## Tisme

I hear India has 250 million people looking down the barrel of no water as the drought bites hard on the western side. They are even sending in water trains now as the well dry up.


----------



## Joules MM1

climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw

example excerpted:


> But there’s more work to be done. Toward the end of the year the scientists carried out a series of evaluations of some of Forbes magazine’s reporting on climate change. The results give an idea of the scale of the problem we’re tackling. Two of the magazine’s most popular articles for 2015, one of which attracted almost one million hits, turned out to be profoundly inaccurate and misleading. Both articles, reviewed by nine and twelve scientists, unanimously received the lowest possible scientific credibility rating. This rarely occurs, and just in case you’re wondering, yes, the scientists do score articles independently: ratings are only revealed once all scientists have completed their review.


----------



## basilio

Joules MM1 said:


> climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> example excerpted:




Now that is an interesting story.  Having Climate Scientists independently critique the the accuracy of reports in the media.

It was absolutely no surprise that James Taylor's stories managed to score rock bottom credibility. He is epic in this field.



> Recently, scientists analyzed some of Forbes’ most influential climate articles for 2015. While one article was rated as highly accurate, two articles were found to be deeply inaccurate and misleading by the more than 20 scientists who reviewed them. In both cases, all scientists independently gave the articles the lowest possible scientific credibility rating.
> 
> These two articles, both written by Forbes contributor James Taylor, include: “Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You,” which has 125,000 views; and “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat,” which has more than 750,000 views as of December 9 2015 and is still being pushed to tens of thousands of new readers every week – which gives an idea of the scale of the problem we’re tackling.
> 
> Dr David Bahr, an associate professor at Regis University and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, was one of the scientists who analyzed Taylor’s “Top 10 lies” article, and commented on its overall scientific credibility:
> 
> *    “I have rarely read such a misleading and factually inaccurate article,” he wrote. “This is not science journalism and has no place in a magazine that purports to be a leading source of reliable news. It cannot qualify as an informed or informative opinion piece, and Forbes does their readers a great disservice by allowing the publication of blatant falsehoods.”*
> 
> Taylor is one of the primary contributors to Forbes’ climate change coverage, and yet based on his stories his basic climate science knowledge appears to be seriously flawed. In addition to being inaccurate, these articles are deeply misleading, as noted by Dr Julienne Stroeve in “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”:  “The article is misleading and completely incorrect. It appears that the article is lumping together sea ice and ice sheets, although perhaps the author does not know the difference between sea ice and the ice on Greenland and Antarctica.”
> 
> Taylor discusses land and sea ice interchangeably, which is “a fundamental error, equivalent in other fields to confusing house and senate, or an artery and vein”, according to Dr Ken Mankoff.
> 
> In his article Taylor argues that “Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979.”
> 
> This is one out of many arguments that proves to be incorrect:
> 
> *Dr Robert Grumbine comments: “Incorrect on at least two levels. What he compares is ice at a particular time in 1979 with ice at a particular time in 2015. Today, the figure is negative; ice is again below the long term average, and below values at any time in 1979.
> The second and more important level on which this is wrong is that for examining long term trends, scientists use all the data, not just two particular days out of 36 (and growing) years of data. The long term trend is negative.”*
> *
> Dr Twila Moon comments: “This is flat out false. NASA has an excellent visualization and graph of Arctic sea ice decline since 1979 here. Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, has had some expansion. However, this expansion does not negate climate change, as explained in this news article.”*
> 
> So far, scientists have only analyzed a few articles from Forbes. More will be needed to confidently assess the overall credibility level of the outlet when it comes to climate change coverage. However, because these two inaccurate articles are among the most popular of the year, this is already a very significant result.
> 
> Though Taylor is a contributor and not a staff writer, we believe Forbes has a responsibility to ensure that the site is being used to disseminate accurate journalism, not factually inaccurate information, as is the case with both Taylor’s articles.
> 
> *    “This article simply ignores the essential principles of good scientific journalism: Truth and accuracy, independence, and impartiality. The article is plagued with inaccurate information and false statements about climate and glacier change.” – Dr. Tobias Sauter commenting on the “Updated NASA Data” article.*
> 
> Views of Forbes’ climate articles hover around 10,000. The mass audience that these articles have reached, which is still increasing even 7 months after publication, suggests that these articles are being actively pushed to a large audience. This raises the question of whether Forbes, an established and esteemed publication, is being used to broadcast inaccurate information about climate change and push a political agenda.




http://climatefeedback.org/popular-forbes-climate-coverage-found-inaccurate-and-misleading/


----------



## explod

Joules MM1 said:


> climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> example excerpted:




Thanks for putting this up Joules


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Now that is an interesting story.  Having Climate Scientists independently critique the the accuracy of reports in the media.




Like most people there aren't many things I'd regard myself as an actual expert on. Pick any random subject and I known nothing or at most a bit about it. Same with most people.

What I do know however is that whenever I read something in the mainstream media about power generation, something I do know rather a lot about, there are usually some errors or at best omissions. If they do get it right then that's because they just quoted a press release in most situations.

So it has long been my assumption that if there's lots of errors in reporting about something I can critique then most likely there are errors in the reporting of any other technical or scientific matter as well. It would seem rather odd if the only thing the media were getting wrong just happened to be the only one I can personally assess and know what's wrong and what's right. Almost certainly there are errors or at least omissions in other things as well. 

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the mainstream media has moved strongly away from "hard" reporting of facts and data and toward "soft" reporting that lacks detailed information or facts. Presumably that's because whoever is writing the story doesn't understand it well enough to actually include that information in a sensible manner. Climate would likely be the same.


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> What I do know however is that whenever I read something in the mainstream media about power generation, something I do know rather a lot about, there are usually some errors or at best omissions. If they do get it right then that's because they just quoted a press release in most situations.




I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know  They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know  They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.




Are you going to keep us guessing or post a YouTube ?


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I've noticed over the years is that the mainstream media has moved strongly away from "hard" reporting of facts and data and toward "soft" reporting that lacks detailed information or facts. Presumably that's because whoever is writing the story doesn't understand it well enough to actually include that information in a sensible manner. Climate would likely be the same.




Too much competition for the news stories these days. The 24 hour news cycle where the only thing that matters is getting the news out first and worry about accuracy later.

That's why we get cadet journos on tv saying things like "details are sketchy at the moment, we talked to neighbors and no one knows what's going on..."

I think it's a function of the public's willingness and ability to absorb details of  news stories in their busy day as well.

Some more detail about why the French submarine bid was better than the others would have been good, but the subject was only treated superficially on the TV reports I saw. No doubt there is a more detailed report somewhere, if I could be bothered looking.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know  They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.




So this is what you look like.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/queenslands-clanwilliam-health-portfolio-tipped-for-listing/news-story/9fa8d0a3f618d688f7c2e93d8b839c65


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> So this is what you look like.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/queenslands-clanwilliam-health-portfolio-tipped-for-listing/news-story/9fa8d0a3f618d688f7c2e93d8b839c65




I'm not going to pay 8 bucks to see him !


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not going to pay 8 bucks to see him !




Was jk. Some story about old people, ha ha.


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know  They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.



That's lucky! Most footage of me usually ends up on the cutting room floor.

As for others claiming ownership of solitary works, that's really no mystery and very much a compliment when one remembers that "failure is an orphan and success has many fathers".


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Are you going to keep us guessing or post a YouTube ?




Of no importance to my significant magnificence   can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!

Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Of no importance to my significant magnificence   can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!
> 
> Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire




Come on McG, let us bask in your glory.


----------



## qldfrog

Tisme said:


> Of no importance to my significant magnificence   can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!
> 
> Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire



Please


----------



## basilio

*Take the Climate Warmists to court!!*



> *Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
> [/B*



*]
Somewhere we hear the cries of climate change denialists that CC science is crooked, contrived , wrong, ect, ect.  So why not settle this argument in a Court of Law ?

Well it has just been done.

The now bankrupt Peabody Energy went to court in Minnesota to argue the case against a  social price on carbon.  Essentially just how much damage does CO2 cause and what should the result cost be against a ton of carbon.

In the Peabody corner we had Dr Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and William Happer. These are the big scientific names behind CC denial.  Their job was to convince the court that CC wasn't what it was cracked up to be and just a little glitch in the landscape.

They comprehensively lost their argument.   How was the case won ?




			How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science.

For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events. The environmental group’s side rebutted these viewpoints (see pages 15-19).

We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example).

Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are:

    22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 °C is correct.

    23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5 °C range.

    47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.


Click to expand...



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case


I wait to see how Andrew Bolt reports this case.*


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> *Take the Climate Warmists to court!!*
> 
> ]
> Somewhere we hear the cries of climate change denialists that CC science is crooked, contrived , wrong, ect, ect.  So why not settle this argument in a Court of Law ?
> 
> Well it has just been done.
> 
> The now bankrupt Peabody Energy went to court in Minnesota to argue the case against a  social price on carbon.  Essentially just how much damage does CO2 cause and what should the result cost be against a ton of carbon.
> 
> In the Peabody corner we had Dr Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and William Happer. These are the big scientific names behind CC denial.  Their job was to convince the court that CC wasn't what it was cracked up to be and just a little glitch in the landscape.
> 
> They comprehensively lost their argument.   How was the case won ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case
> 
> 
> I wait to see how Andrew Bolt reports this case.




In case some here have failed to notice, there is a chasm of difference between law and science! Courts of law are not laboratories and, as such, do not have the expertise to make scientific determinations.


----------



## basilio

> *Climate Change Debunked  !!!  Climate Change Scandal comprehensively Exposed !!*
> 
> A ground breaking documentary will be launched across the USA on May 2nd that will comprehensively destroy the scientific misinformation around climate change.
> 
> The documentary promises a rigorously argued case that will demolish the hysteria created by environmentalists and climate change scientists. The producer, Mark Morano,  is confident that after the launch of the documentary many scientists positions will become untenable. He anticipates widespread mass resignations followed by a total revamp of the scientific  position around Climate Change
> 
> *This could be the turning point in whole Climate Change debate.* For further information check out Climate Hustle








The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of _slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’


http://www.climatedepot.com/

PS. Views expressed in this post are not necessarily held by the poster.... DYOR_


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> In case some here have failed to notice, there is a chasm of difference between law and science! Courts of law are not laboratories and, as such, do not have the expertise to make scientific determinations.




There's a lot thats been noticed...
Courts of law bring in experts in scientific disciplines all the time... not least ballistics, which relates directly to physics.

Two hypothetical people could take aim at their victim at two hundred yards  one with a projectile charged with fairy dust and the other one with cordite, both with the same intent. The science, the physics will determine which of these two will face court and judgement.

Keep sprinkling that fairy dust cynic.


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> There's a lot thats been noticed...
> Courts of law bring in experts in scientific disciplines all the time... not least ballistics, which relates directly to physics.
> 
> Two hypothetical people could take aim at their victim at two hundred yards  one with a projectile charged with fairy dust and the other one with cordite, both with the same intent. The science, the physics will determine which of these two will face court and judgement.
> 
> Keep sprinkling that fairy dust cynic.




Did you actually understand my post? (Your response strongly suggests otherwise.)


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> In case some here have failed to notice, there is a chasm of difference between law and science! Courts of law are not laboratories and, as such, do not have the expertise to make scientific determinations.




Perhaps not but they can certainly evaluate evidence that is presented by various witnesses.

If you check up you'll discover that the CC deniers lost the case because the judge did not accept the quality of their evidence. I thought that was quite clear from the excerpts I posted.



> How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science.
> 
> For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events. The environmental group’s side rebutted these viewpoints (see pages 15-19).
> 
> We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example).
> 
> Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are:
> 
> *22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 °C is correct.
> 
> 23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5 °C range.
> 
> 47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.*


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Perhaps not but they can certainly evaluate evidence that is presented by various witnesses.
> 
> If you check up you'll discover that the CC deniers lost the case because the judge did not accept the quality of their evidence. I thought that was quite clear from the excerpts I posted.




Yes that was evident from your posting. However, your comments suggested that you see this as somehow validating the "science". Hence my reason for reminding that the courts have neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to make rulings on the laws of nature, chemistry or  physics!


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Yes that was evident from your posting. However, your comments suggested that you see this as somehow validating the "science". Hence my reason for reminding that the courts have neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to make rulings on the laws of nature, chemistry or  physics!




What I was saying with strong clarity was that  in a court of law the science arguments currently used by CC deniers didn't stand up.

I also have some faith in the capacity of a inpartial judge to examine the logic and quality of a series of arguments and judge which have more merit.

That's what happened in this case. But I am absolutely sure the CC deniers will still insist that black is white.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> What I was saying with strong clarity was that  in a court of law the science arguments currently used by CC deniers didn't stand up.
> 
> I also have some faith in the capacity of a inpartial judge to examine the logic and quality of a series of arguments and judge which have more merit.
> 
> That's what happened in this case. But I am absolutely sure the CC deniers will still insist that black is white.




Judges in the US are political activists.

Nothing to do with science or empiricisn.

Bob Dylan tagged it in his song about Rubin Carter


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> What I was saying with strong clarity was that  in a court of law the science arguments currently used by CC deniers didn't stand up.
> 
> I also have some faith in the capacity of a inpartial judge to examine the logic and quality of a series of arguments and judge which have more merit.
> 
> That's what happened in this case. But I am absolutely sure the CC deniers will still insist that black is white.




Those "heretics", to whom you refer, need only make mention (as I have done) that the courts have neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to decide the laws of nature. 

Those "deniers" could further argue that seeking the endorsement of non scientific authorities is a desperate effort to support a failing ideology!


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Judges in the US are political activists.
> 
> Nothing to do with science or empiricisn.
> 
> Bob Dylan tagged it in his song about Rubin Carter




Just a teensy bit of a sweeping assertion Wayne. This was actually an Administrative Court in Minnesota ?  Not the Supreme Court ?  They were evaluating the social cost of carbon - in this case what effects are likely to occur as a result of CO2  and other emissions by coal companies.

Anyway it's a fruitless discussion on this forum.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Just a teensy bit of a sweeping assertion Wayne. This was actually an Administrative Court in Minnesota ?  Not the Supreme Court ?  They were evaluating the social cost of carbon - in this case what effects are likely to occur as a result of CO2  and other emissions by coal companies.
> 
> Anyway it's a fruitless discussion on this forum.




I understand that there is some comfort to be found in having a favourable court ruling, but this says more about the frailty of legal processes than it does about science.

When presented with conflicting information from expert witnesses, how the heck can a legally (not scientifically) qualified magistrate be expected to differentiate between science fallacy and fact?


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> I understand that there is some comfort to be found in having a favourable court ruling, but this says more about the frailty of legal processes than it does about science.
> 
> When presented with conflicting information from expert witnesses, how the heck can a legally (not scientifically) qualified magistrate be expected to differentiate between science fallacy and fact?




Exactly the way they did it. Evaluate the internal consistency of the arguments; evaluate the quality of the people putting up the arguments.


----------



## basilio

*Unseasonal forest fires in Fort McMurry*

Most people would be aware of the huge fire that has forced the evacuation of 80,000 people plus from Fort McMurry deep in Canadas oil sands region. Apparently 1600 plus buildings have already been destroyed and the town is still vulnerable to further loss.

Interesting discussion on the  climate changes in the region that have contributed to this disaster. Remember this is still not summer in the area. 



> *The Fort McMurray Disaster: Getting Beyond “Is It Climate Change?”*
> 
> By: Bob Henson and Jeff Masters , 3:49 PM GMT on May 05, 2016
> 
> In just two days, the fire engulfing the Canadian city of Fort McMurray in Alberta has seared itself into the North American consciousness. This appears to be the first time in the continent’s history we have seen a city of more than 60,000 residents (officially an “urban service area” rather than a city), located hundreds of miles from any comparable population center, forced to evacuate a furious wildfire. The fact that a city this large is also so remote owes everything to the presence of vast oil sands, the driver that has increased Fort McMurray’s population more than twentyfold since the 1960s. As of Thursday morning, May 5, more than 1,600 structures had been destroyed and 7,500 hectares (18,500 acres) burned as the fire continued to burn out of control.




The story has quite detailed information and graphs on the climate changes  that have happened in recent years

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/J...-disaster-getting-beyond-is-it-climate-change


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks Basilio. Good article.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Hi Bas , thanks for the article . What's happening in Canada is very similar to what has been evolving over the years in Tasmania. Summer and the bushfire risk now starts in Spring , Winters are drier and colder but very short and at the back end Summer still pushes well into the end of Autumn. Hobart at the present moment ( despite one day of snow and one cold front ) is still pushing record temps well into May . Hobart  has broken the March / April records and looks likely now the May max average daily records will also fall. 
An article from the ABC below,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...t-april-on-record/7389410?WT.ac=statenews_tas

Also a link to the official record site of the BOM showing the record Monthly averages ,click and choose highest and note the pink shading denotes a record month , look at the trend and the number of records set from 2006 to 2016. And this is yet to updated with 2016 records  an amazing trend that is there for all to see.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/...e=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=094029


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Exactly the way they did it. Evaluate the internal consistency of the arguments; evaluate the quality of the people putting up the arguments.




In other words, adjudication of a debate and nothing to do with the actual science.


----------



## basilio

The  unmistakable changes in climate were predicted by Climate scientists to become apparent from 2025 onwards.  At least that was the view around 2000-2005.  The fact that we are seeing them evidenced 10 years earlier emphasises how much quicker the changes are happening. 

Where will we be in 2030 when our children are lust leaving school ? Perhaps 2-3C above long term averagewith all that entails (We are currently at 1.3C above long term average)

Another long read but enough detail to make one think

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm


----------



## basilio

Update on Fort McMurry fire in Canada

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/05/alberta-fort-mcmurray-wildfires-canada


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> The  unmistakable changes in climate were predicted by Climate scientists to become apparent from 2025 onwards.  At least that was the view around 2000-2005.  The fact that we are seeing them evidenced 10 years earlier emphasises how much quicker the changes are happening.
> 
> Where will we be in 2030 when our children are lust leaving school ? Perhaps 2-3C above long term averagewith all that entails (We are currently at 1.3C above long term average)
> 
> Another long read but enough detail to make one think
> 
> http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm




Wake up Bas...It has all happened 1000years ago......need I bring up Greenland again FFS?

You are determined to brain wash people into believing it is all man made.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> Wake up Bas...It has all happened 1000years ago......need I bring up Greenland again FFS?
> 
> You are determined to brain wash people into believing it is all man made.




Please turn your attentions to these misdirected souls 




from a Queensland publication.

note, the letter is abridged to the actual sent to the PrimeMinister. as are the published signatories.


----------



## basilio

Yeah.  I thought it was a big deal for the Queensland Tourism operators to bit the bullet and say publicly what everyone knows is happening - the reef is being killed by climate change and pollution.  So clearly if we want a Great Barrier Reef we have to stop the pollution and tackle CC. No more BS.

By the way did anyone see that the Environment Minister Greg Hunt is arguing that here is no definite link between the Adani coal mine and CC ?  Very sophisticated argument indeed.  Can't wait to see his take on smoking, asbestos etc. ....



> *
> Greg Hunt: no definite link between coal from Adani mine and climate change*
> 
> Australia’s environment minister denies he failed to consider impact of a coal mine on the Great Barrier Reef, court documents show




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...definite-link-between-coal-and-climate-change


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Please turn your attentions to these misdirected souls
> 
> View attachment 66561
> 
> 
> from a Queensland publication.
> 
> note, the letter is abridged to the actual sent to the PrimeMinister. as are the published signatories.




:crap::crap::crap:

First of all the letter is undated.

Secondly, I regard it as a $iss poor effort by the Greens to only secure 84 signatures when given the fact there are 400,000 small business operators in Queensland so that represents .021%......Say a quarter of those 400.000 operate in North Queensland it still only represents  .084 of one %.

If the Greens had rattled up 8,400 signatures then, I believe they may have made a point.

But 84 is only a drip in the bucket and there is no way such a minority should be allowed to have any influence what so ever.....They are nothing more than a  collection of "RAT BAGS".

The Barrier Reef will survive just as it has done for 500,000 years...The ulterior motive of the Greens is to destroy the Australian economy in order to convert to socialism...The more often the Greens promote their propaganda on Global Warming..oops sorry Climate Change the more chance they have of brainwashing the naive into believing they are right......The are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Yeah.  *I thought it was a big deal for the Queensland Tourism operators to bit the bullet and say publicly what everyone knows is happening - the reef is being killed by climate change and pollution.  So clearly if we want a Great Barrier Reef we have to stop the pollution and tackle CC. No more BS.*
> 
> By the way did anyone see that the Environment Minister Greg Hunt is arguing that here is no definite link between the Adani coal mine and CC ?  Very sophisticated argument indeed.  Can't wait to see his take on smoking, asbestos etc. ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...definite-link-between-coal-and-climate-change




You say a big deal by Queensland tourism operators....less than a third of those signatures are tourist operators.

Where do you get the idea that saying publicly "WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS IS HAPPENING"?.....Who is everyone?..Do you mean everyone who is associated with Greens or do you mean everyone in Queensland.?

The good old commo paper the Guardian are at it again.

Michael Slezak would have to be a good little Greenie to be working as a reporter for the Guardian....He is not even a Climate Scientist.


http://michaelslezak.com/

Michael Slezak

Journalist
About me


*I’m the environment reporter for The Guardian in Australia.

Before that, I wrote about science and its effect on the world for New Scientist. And earlier I was a full-time medical journalist and freelanced for publications around the world about a variety of topics.

Prior to becoming a journalist I studied, researched and taught philosophy of science at The University of Sydney.

You can see a selection of my published work here.

I’ve won and been nominated for a few awards recently:

2015
- My feature ‘Aliens versus predators: The toxic toad invasion‘ was selected for inclusion in the book Best Australian Science Writing 2015.
- I was shortlisted for the 2015 Bragg UNSW Press Prize for Science Writing, for my feature, ’Aliens versus predators: The toxic toad invasion‘.

2014
- Winner of “Article of the Year” in the Publishers’ Australia Excellence awards for my feature “High as a Kiwi“.
- My feature ‘The Now Delusion‘ was selected for inclusion in Best Australian Science Writing 2014, published by NewSouth Books.
- Runner-up for “Journalist of the Year” in the Publishers’ Australia Excellence awards.
- Runner up for the Luminous Award for Cancer reporting for my report “Making of a Monster“.
- One of three finalists in Australia’s top science journalism prize, The Eureka Prize for Science Journalism.

2013
- I won the Luminous Award for “Best Cancer-Related Feature – Print” for my report: ‘Fighting Cancer Darwin’s Way‘.*


----------



## basilio

No NOCO "everyone" are the people who can see with their own eyes how much of the Reef is now bleached. 

The letter is current and represents quite a change for the tourist industry which until now has preferred to keep quiet about the dangers to the reef because they are afraid it will put people off.  Now they have decided they *HAVE* to have a go at protecting *the asset upon which they live*.

These guys  get no joy from seeing the reef turn to dust Noco.  This is for real. No fairy tales or fairy dust.


----------



## wayneL

Bas, I am impressed just how much cognitive bias and logical fallacy you can shoehorn into so few words.

Kudos to you, it's a rare skill.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Bas, I am impressed just how much cognitive bias and logical fallacy you can shoehorn into so few words.
> 
> Kudos to you, it's a rare skill.




Easy to say, harder to justify.


Could you give some examples of what you think are basilio's logical fallacies ?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> No NOCO "everyone" are the people who can see with their own eyes how much of the Reef is now bleached.
> 
> The letter is current and represents quite a change for the tourist industry which until now has preferred to keep quiet about the dangers to the reef because they are afraid it will put people off.  Now they have decided they *HAVE* to have a go at protecting *the asset upon which they live*.
> 
> These guys  get no joy from seeing the reef turn to dust Noco.  This is for real. No fairy tales or fairy dust.




REAL in the eyes of a minority FFS.....Get it into your head sport, the reef is 500,000 years old......it has been through thousands of stressful years and has always recovered......Climate change......cyclones.....crown of thorns star fish....El nino....drought.....high and low water temperatures......  natural flood run off from major rivers over centuries.....Have you ever flown over major rivers in flood and observed how far out that silt travels into the Barrier Reef?...Well I have.....Fortunately the Burdekin dam has prevented that happening since 1973 although the reef is probably furtherest from the coast at that point.....The reef is closer to the coast around Cairns and Innsifail where it could possibly be affected more by coastal river run off from floods.

How can the reef turn to dust when it is underwater .....some of those corals are down 90 meters....Bleaching occurs close to the surface where it is more visible.

I suggest you  take a Bex powder and lay down for a while.


Those Green reports are grossly exaggerated in order to fulfill their hidden agenda....Believe a quarter of what you hear and a half of what you read and you will be somewhere new the mark.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> REAL in the eyes of a minority FFS.....Get it into your head sport, the reef is 500,000 years old......it has been through thousands of stressful years and has always recovered......Climate change......cyclones.....crown of thorns star fish....El nino....drought.....high and low water temperatures......  natural flood run off from major rivers over centuries.....Have you ever flown over major rivers in flood and observed how far out that silt travels into the Barrier Reef?...Well I have.....Fortunately the Burdekin dam has prevented that happening since 1973 although the reef is probably furtherest from the coast at that point.....The reef is closer to the coast around Cairns and Innsifail where it could possibly be affected more by coastal river run off from floods.
> 
> How can the reef turn to dust when it is underwater .....some of those corals are down 90 meters....Bleaching occurs close to the surface where it is more visible.
> 
> I suggest you  take a Bex powder and lay down for a while.
> 
> 
> Those Green reports are grossly exaggerated in order to fulfill their hidden agenda....Believe a quarter of what you hear and a half of what you read and you will be somewhere new the mark.




Which quarter of your writing should we believe noco?

From "I suggest..." me think.

btw, how does Alberta in Canada caught fire?

I never thought it would be possible to have bushfire up that far. And near the tar sands too.  

On unrelated news, China is expected to be out of water by 2030. 

With only 3% of the water in Shanghai suitable for drinking; half of all its rivers since the 1950s dead and dried... we better hope their new $80B project to bring water from Tibet somewhere didn't no nuclear with India or else a war looks like a perfect thing to do when your people are thirsty.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Easy to say, harder to justify.
> 
> 
> Could you give some examples of what you think are basilio's logical fallacies ?




I'm working today Horace, so I don't have time to intellectually spoon feed you. They're easy to spot just read any post.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> I suggest you  take a Bex powder and lay down for a while.




That stuff was banned back in the seventies because it killed people.

*"Bex powder killed more than pain"*
http://www.news.com.au/national/can...n/news-story/7637adcfe85ce4aa20e1bc267b8113ac


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> I'm working today Horace, so I don't have time to intellectually spoon feed you. They're easy to spot just read any post.




I'll look forward to your intellectual reply when you are not working.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I'll look forward to your intellectual reply when you are not working.




If you can't see it already, I can't help you


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> That stuff was banned back in the seventies because it killed people.
> 
> *"Bex powder killed more than pain"*
> http://www.news.com.au/national/can...n/news-story/7637adcfe85ce4aa20e1bc267b8113ac




Purely a figure of speech as you are well aware...It killed people who abused it and overdosed.......Panadol if you prefer as it is more gentle on your stomach...


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Which quarter of your writing should we believe noco?
> 
> From "I suggest..." me think.
> 
> btw, how does Alberta in Canada caught fire?
> 
> I never thought it would be possible to have bushfire up that far. And near the tar sands too.
> 
> On unrelated news, China is expected to be out of water by 2030.
> 
> With only 3% of the water in Shanghai suitable for drinking; half of all its rivers since the 1950s dead and dried... we better hope their new $80B project to bring water from Tibet somewhere didn't no nuclear with India or else a war looks like a perfect thing to do when your people are thirsty.




Dear luutzu, here is a link for all you need to know about wild fires in Canada and the USA going back to the 1825.....It gives you the dates, the area wiped out and the number of people killed.
Please do enjoy the reading and the historical facts not only in Canada but world wide.

Also have a look at extreme bush fires in Australia dating back to 1851.

You only believe in a quarter of the Green propaganda...You can believe in 100% of actual facts as I have indicated......The happenings of the past.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> If you can't see it already, I can't help you




Thought so, you've got nothing.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Dear luutzu, here is a link for all you need to know about wild fires in Canada and the USA going back to the 1825.....It gives you the dates, the area wiped out and the number of people killed.
> Please do enjoy the reading and the historical facts not only in Canada but world wide.
> 
> Also have a look at extreme bush fires in Australia dating back to 1851.
> 
> You only believe in a quarter of the Green propaganda...You can believe in 100% of actual facts as I have indicated......The happenings of the past.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires




Interesting. Didn't know it fires in Alaska either. 

Stand corrected then.


btw, how do you explain the frequencies of bushfires in North America from that list?

From 1825 to 2000, there seem as much bushfire as there has been from 2000 to now.

16 years have seen around the same number of major bushfires as the previous 175 years.


We can explain, say, the less frequent fires prior to 2000 were due to natural built up of dead wood and dried grass over decades or years.

More frequent fires now might be due to the same trees and grass dying a lot more frequently?


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> 16 years have seen around the same number of major bushfires as the previous 175 years.




Because the hottest 16 years on record have occurred in the last 20 years ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Thought so, you've got nothing.




Easy one Horace, spot the strawman argument in bas' last post. Can you see it? It's a clanger mate.

Wiki has the basics on these concepts, you should educate yourself.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Interesting. Didn't know it fires in Alaska either.
> 
> Stand corrected then.
> 
> 
> btw, how do you explain the frequencies of bushfires in North America from that list?
> 
> From 1825 to 2000, there seem as much bushfire as there has been from 2000 to now.
> 
> 16 years have seen around the same number of major bushfires as the previous 175 years.
> 
> 
> We can explain, say, the less frequent fires prior to 2000 were due to natural built up of dead wood and dried grass over decades or years.
> 
> More frequent fires now might be due to the same trees and grass dying a lot more frequently?




The simple explanation is 4 out of 5 fires are started by humans....We now have a much higher population where this is more likely contrary to the answer as expected  from Rumpy who does not have a clue.

http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wildfire.htm

*What causes a wildfire?
Common causes of wildfires include lightning, human carelessness, arson, volcano eruption, and pyroclastic cloud from active volcano. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as El Niño can also have a dramatic effect on the risk of wildfires. Although, more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people.*
Wildfire


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The simple explanation is 4 out of 5 fires are started by humans....We now have a much higher population where this is more likely contrary to the answer as expected  from Rumpy who does not have a clue.
> 
> http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wildfire.htm
> 
> *What causes a wildfire?
> Common causes of wildfires include lightning, human carelessness, arson, volcano eruption, and pyroclastic cloud from active volcano. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as El Niño can also have a dramatic effect on the risk of wildfires. Although, more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people.*
> Wildfire




The cause of the fire is not the issue. It's its severity and ability to spread which is caused by having a lot of dry fuel on the ground.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The cause of the fire is not the issue. It's its severity and ability to spread which is caused by having a lot of dry fuel on the ground.




Rumpy, how do I get through to you?

Did you bother to read in full the link I posted #7554......It indicates the severity of fires since 1825.....the areas which were burnt, the lives and buildings lost...

Please read it in full and please do not come back saying you do not understand or with some unworthy comment.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> The cause of the fire is not the issue. It's its severity and ability to spread which is caused by having a lot of dry fuel on the ground.




Have youvread thecwoeks of Levitt/Dubner?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, how do I get through to you?
> 
> Did you bother to read in full the link I posted #7554......It indicates the severity of fires since 1825.....the areas which were burnt, the lives and buildings lost...
> 
> Please read it in full and please do not come back saying you do not understand or with some unworthy comment.




You can keep wiki, real source unknown, I'll give you a real science journal



> Changing climate lengthens forest fire season
> 
> Date:
> July 20, 2015
> Source:
> South Dakota State University
> Summary:
> Over a 35-year period, the length of forest fire seasons worldwide increased by 18.7 percent due to more rain-free days and hotter temperatures, according to research. The study examined weather data from 1979 through 2013 to determine how a changing climate impacts forest ecosystems.




https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720133631.htm

But, looking at your wiki link, it couldn't have escaped your attention how many fires occurred since 1990 than all the years before ?

Wake up noco and do some critical thinking, don't just try to confirm your own prejudices.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> You can keep wiki, real source unknown, I'll give you a real science journal
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720133631.htm
> 
> But, looking at your wiki link, it couldn't have escaped your attention how many fires occurred since 1990 than all the years before ?
> 
> Wake up noco and do some critical thinking, don't just try to confirm your own prejudices.




I am trying to keep a sane mind with you Rumpy.......You are obviously asleep at the wheel again and have not read the full article...Something which you are in a habit of neglecting....You only read what suits you.

So you are trying to tell me the Wiki information is not true.

As the article well explains, one quarter of the globe is affected more than many other areas.

*The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth's vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.

The authors attribute the longer season in the western United States to changes in the timing of snowmelt, vapor pressure, and the timing of spring rains -- all of which have been linked to global warming and climate change. On the other hand, the easing of droughts in Western Africa and the Pacific coast of South America likely contributed to the shortening of fire seasons in those areas.

In some parts of the world, tough fire seasons have also become more frequent. "The map at the top of the page depicts steady trends in season length..." explained Jolly.

While many of the same areas that saw fire seasons grow progressively longer also faced more frequent fires seasons, the two measures differed significantly in some areas. Australia, for instance, has not experienced an increase in the length of fire seasons. However, eastern Australia has seen the years with long and severe fire seasons become more frequent.

Overall, 54 percent of the world's vegetated surfaces experienced long fire weather seasons more frequently between 1996 and 2013 as compared with 1979-1996, according to Jolly. This amounted to a doubling in the total global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons. (For this calculation, "long fire season" was defined as a length that was one standard deviation above the historical mean.)

It is important to note that although the study shows many environments have become more prone to fires, it does not demonstrate that the wildfires burned more intensely or charred more acres. That's because even with longer and more frequent fire seasons, other factors can affect whether fires occur and how they behave, such as: whether lightning or human activity ignites the fires; whether humans attempt to suppress them; and whether there is enough fuel to sustain them.


*


----------



## SirRumpole

> .You only read what suits you.




Yes you do.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes you do.




Another negative and unworthy response to an important happening.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> You can keep wiki, real source unknown, I'll give you a real science journal
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720133631.htm
> 
> But, looking at your wiki link, it couldn't have escaped your attention how many fires occurred since 1990 than all the years before ?
> 
> Wake up noco and do some critical thinking, don't just try to confirm your own prejudices.




That's right.

How can people not able to draw the link between the increase in frequency and scale of these "natural" disasters?

Seriously, if we're all told that tomorrow SkyNet (Terminator) were to unleash nuclear war on humanity, noco will say that an asteroid had hit Earth and kill all the dinosaurs yet we still survive and Earth still recovered.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> That's right.
> 
> How can people not able to draw the link between the increase in frequency and scale of these "natural" disasters?
> 
> Seriously, if we're all told that tomorrow SkyNet (Terminator) were to unleash nuclear war on humanity, noco will say that an asteroid had hit Earth and kill all the dinosaurs yet we still survive and Earth still recovered.




ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.

Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.




You have incapsulated in that sentence the metaphorical 'the canary in the coal mine'.  Now your own warped reasoning  leads you inevitably toward the only conclusion the facts allow. 
The sensitive effected areas obviously fair worse to begin with.

Buy in now to the future of coal noco, bet your house on it, at these prices it's a bargain.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.
> 
> Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.




I went to the wikipedia page you linked to to make your case noco: similar number of bushfires in N.America past 16 years than previous 175 years. That's a significant jump. 

But OK, it's not "man made" as such, it's just more people so more arsonist or accidental lighting up of the place.

But then it's only that quarter of the world.

Right now there's record drought in SE Asia; China - where 1+ billion people who's already living on much less water than our standard...

anyway, 97% of scientists can't convince you, what chance does anybody.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I went to the wikipedia page you linked to to make your case noco: similar number of bushfires in N.America past 16 years than previous 175 years. That's a significant jump.
> 
> But OK, it's not "man made" as such, it's just more people so more arsonist or accidental lighting up of the place.
> 
> But then it's only that quarter of the world.
> 
> Right now there's record drought in SE Asia; China - where 1+ billion people who's already living on much less water than our standard...
> 
> anyway, 97% of scientists can't convince you, what chance does anybody.




How have those 97% of "scientists" ascertained the causation of these events under discussion?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I went to the wikipedia page you linked to to make your case noco: similar number of bushfires in N.America past 16 years than previous 175 years. That's a significant jump.
> 
> But OK, it's not "man made" as such, it's just more people so more arsonist or accidental lighting up of the place.
> 
> But then it's only that quarter of the world.
> 
> Right now there's record drought in SE Asia; China - where 1+ billion people who's already living on much less water than our standard...
> 
> anyway, 97% of scientists can't convince you, what chance does anybody.




I have asked you before....97% of how many so called scientist.......Were they the ones hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to their GLOBAL WARMING cause?....

I have also told you there are 31,478 scientist who think the opposite to your 97%????????????????


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I have asked you before....97% of how many so called scientist.......Were they the ones hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to their GLOBAL WARMING cause?....
> 
> I have also told you there are 31,478 scientist who think the opposite to your 97%????????????????




Did you go to school noco.  

Not sure anyone could now believe you on your 31,478 against anymore. 

For the excercise 97 x 31,478 = more than 3 million scientists saying we have a problem.   Maybe just a bit early in the day ole Pal.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Did you go to school noco.
> 
> Not sure anyone could now believe you on your 31,478 against anymore.
> 
> For the excercise 97 x 31,478 = more than 3 million scientists saying we have a problem.   Maybe just a bit early in the day ole Pal.




I am scratching my head trying make sense out of your post......I am sure nobody else can either...You asked me did I go to school and the answer is  yes I did but I doubt you ever proceeded  past 1st grade.

I am trying to work out where that 97 fits into your equation.

The link below indicates the signatures of those scientists who disagree on man made Global Warming..oops sorry...Climate Change!!!....It was taken in 1997 so there are probably a heap more who have been added to that list since then.

www.petitionproject.org


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> ...It was taken in 1997 so there are probably a heap more who have been added to that list since then.
> 
> www.petitionproject.org




I say there would be much many more who have looked at the facts that that hottest 16 years on record have occurred in the last 20 years and now wish they never signed that petiton.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I say there would be much many more who have looked at the facts that that hottest 16 years on record have occurred in the last 20 years and now wish they never signed that petiton.




Where is your proof?...Put up or shut up!!!!.....Aka SirRumpole.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Where is your proof?...Put up or shut up!!!!.....Aka SirRumpole.




Get st...ed noco, where is your proof that there would be many more scientists supporting the petition ?

Put up or shut up yourself, you are just a troll.


----------



## artist

noco said:


> ROFL....The link you are talking about refers to 1/4 of the Globe......Others areas are much less affected but you are obviously turning a blind eye to that point.
> 
> Bring out and exaggerate on the affected areas it makes it look a lot worse by far.





The findings presented in the paper (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150714/ncomms8537/full/ncomms8537.html) are as follows:

The authors refer to three variables, evaluated over the years from 1979 to 2013; _Length _of fire weather seasons (days per year), _Frequency _of long fire weather seasons (seasons per year, or the more user-friendly years between fire weather seasons), and _Areas _experiencing long fire weather conditions (Km^2 and percent of total).

Length
They found that 25.3% of the global vegetated area experienced a (statistically significant) increase in fire weather season _length_, 10.7% experienced a decrease (I can’t tell at first reading whether the decrease was statistically significant) and the remaining area showed no change. So globally, from 1979 to 2013, fire weather season length increased by 18.7% and the area showing an increase was more than twice the size of the area showing a decrease.

Frequency
The period under review was further divided into two halves, from 1979 to 1996 and from 1996 to 2013. Upon comparing these two sub-periods, the _frequency _of long fire weather seasons increased across 53.4% of the global vegetated area as observed between 1996 and 2013, compared with 1979–1996, with decreased frequency only observed across 34.6%. That is, the area that experienced an increased frequency in the most recent period is 1.54 times larger than the area that experienced a decrease in frequency over the same periods.

Moreover “ince 1979, there have been 6 years, all in the last decade, where >20% of the global vegetated area has been affected by long fire weather seasons (2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013)”

Area
From 1979 to 2013 there was a 3.1% per year increase in the total global _area _observing fire weather seasons > 1 s.d. from the mean. This resulted in a 108.1% % increase in global long fire weather season affected area. That is, the long fire weather season affected area more than doubled over this period.

Their Conclusions
“Global fire regimes are the combined results of available fuel, ignition sources and conducive fire weather. As such, leveraging well-established fire danger indices to explore changes in global wildfire weather only capture part of the potential variations in global pyrogeography. Regionally, our documented fire weather changes may not appreciably alter fire regimes if fires are not ignited or if there is no fuel. However, we observed an overall lengthening of the number of days each year that wildfires may burn across more than a quarter of the Earth’s vegetated surface and these fire weather changes could manifest themselves as a positive feedback to global atmospheric carbon accumulations if all the requirements for wildfires are present. In addition, *this study may improve our ability to explore the complex drivers of global fire activity by isolating the climate-induced variations in fire potential from changes in either fuel availability or human and nature-caused ignitions, which lead to the realized burned area and subsequent fire emissions. In summary, we have shown that combined surface weather changes over the last three and a half decades have promoted global wildfire weather season lengthening.* If these trends continue, increased wildfire potential may have pronounced global socio-economic, ecological and climate system impacts.
(emphasis mine.)


So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> How have those 97% of "scientists" ascertained the causation of these events under discussion?




You can read it up from the paper I linked to a few pages back.

What that research that examine the studies on Climate Change did was quite simple:

They study all the Abstracts to all the research papers by specialist Climate Change scientists - they define these as, from memory, scientist who have published at least 20 papers on the subject etc.

In the abstract, scientific research guides require the researcher/s to summarise their aim, their method, their conclusion, way forward etc.

By counting the conclusions, they found that 97% of these researchers concludes that Climate Change is not accidental or "natural" - that it is caused by human activity; that it is real.

What's the specific evidence? That's the details in each of those papers. 

-----

Noco,

As said before in reply to that 34k scientists' petition... Are those scientists Climate Change scientist?

Not all scientists are the same. Just as you don't go to a GP to have any part of your body operated on, you don't just get a bunch of GP together and ask them about Climate Change because, I don't know, they're all "doctors" and know science and stuff.

You believe that 4 out of 5 bushfires are caused by people - I take that to mean arsonist or improper BBQ or glass bottle zapping the grass or something... That you believe... 

but all the toxic fumes, the coals, the methane, the god knows what our factories and power stations and cars and planes expels each day; the deforestation and run-offs from farm with their oil-based fertilisers and pesticides... these does not affect the air or the environment at all. 

From a simple logical point of view, that kind of denial is nuts.

From the fact that 97% of research papers by specialists on the subject reaching the same conclusion... 

It's pretty hard to deny the evidence. Maybe not so hard for some though.


----------



## SirRumpole

artist said:


> The findings presented in the paper (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150714/ncomms8537/full/ncomms8537.html) are as follows:




Thank you for that appraisal artist. I hope the facts will sink in to people.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> You can read it up from the paper I linked to a few pages back.
> 
> What that research that examine the studies on Climate Change did was quite simple:
> 
> They study all the Abstracts to all the research papers by specialist Climate Change scientists - they define these as, from memory, scientist who have published at least 20 papers on the subject etc.
> 
> In the abstract, scientific research guides require the researcher/s to summarise their aim, their method, their conclusion, way forward etc.
> 
> By counting the conclusions, they found that 97% of these researchers concludes that Climate Change is not accidental or "natural" - that it is caused by human activity; that it is real.
> 
> What's the specific evidence? That's the details in each of those papers.
> 
> -----
> 
> Noco,
> 
> As said before in reply to that 34k scientists' petition... Are those scientists Climate Change scientist?
> 
> Not all scientists are the same. Just as you don't go to a GP to have any part of your body operated on, you don't just get a bunch of GP together and ask them about Climate Change because, I don't know, they're all "doctors" and know science and stuff.
> 
> You believe that 4 out of 5 bushfires are caused by people - I take that to mean arsonist or improper BBQ or glass bottle zapping the grass or something... That you believe...
> 
> but all the toxic fumes, the coals, the methane, the god knows what our factories and power stations and cars and planes expels each day; the deforestation and run-offs from farm with their oil-based fertilisers and pesticides... these does not affect the air or the environment at all.
> 
> From a simple logical point of view, that kind of denial is nuts.
> 
> From the fact that 97% of research papers by specialists on the subject reaching the same conclusion...
> 
> It's pretty hard to deny the evidence. Maybe not so hard for some though.




31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

from post #7578
*
So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold*. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.

You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
> including 9,029 with PhDs
> 
> from post #7578
> *
> So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold*. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.
> 
> You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.




Noco,

That study was pretty simple.

Get all the research paper on Climate Change by Climate Change specialists.

Specialist defined as, say, researchers with 20+ published research papers in a reputable climate science journal.

Count the paper's conclusion.

How many percent conclude CC is real and cause by human activity. 97%!

----

True, we all could go through each one of those 97% of papers and examine and replicate its findings to test for ourselves...

First, for a paper to be published in a journal requires many level of reviews. And checking grammar or spelling isn't part of that review process.

There's at least the questioning of sample sizes, the accuracy of the data, what instruments were use to collect data... are the authors real scientists; can the research methods described replicable; on and on...

Then it gets published.


You seriously think anyone have time to go through all that again just to please a few people with serious doubt for some reason?

Anyway...


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
> including 9,029 with PhDs
> 
> from post #7578
> *
> So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold*. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.
> 
> You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.





Since you like headcounts so much. Check this out.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/

1999 figures, I guess they don't train too many scientists there anymore... but let's assume figure remain the same.

So...

Around 2.2M Scientists working in Science/Engineering roles.

Say only the 341, 900 in the Life and Related Sciences know anything about CC.

Assumes the 34K of "scientists" from that site are among these scientists... That's only 10% noco.

If Scientists are defined as all those with Science degree... there's some 10M of them in the US...

Do the maths.  34,000 / 10, 000, 000 = ???%


I personally take the "opinions" of the 97% specialists over the 34 thousand "scientist".


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I have asked you before....97% of how many so called scientist.......Were they the ones hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to their GLOBAL WARMING cause?....
> 
> I have also told you there are 31,478 scientist who think the opposite to your 97%????????????????




OK noco,  shouldn't bother but will walk you through it. 

You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%.  On that surmation there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.  

And on Ph.d's,  only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation.  Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> OK noco,  shouldn't bother but will walk you through it.
> 
> You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%.  On that surmation there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.
> 
> And on Ph.d's,  only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation.  Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.




That's a good point.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Noco,
> 
> That study was pretty simple.
> 
> Get all the research paper on Climate Change by Climate Change specialists.
> 
> Specialist defined as, say, researchers with 20+ published research papers in a reputable climate science journal.
> 
> Count the paper's conclusion.
> 
> How many percent conclude CC is real and cause by human activity. 97%!
> 
> ----
> 
> True, we all could go through each one of those 97% of papers and examine and replicate its findings to test for ourselves...
> 
> First, for a paper to be published in a journal requires many level of reviews. And checking grammar or spelling isn't part of that review process.
> 
> There's at least the questioning of sample sizes, the accuracy of the data, what instruments were use to collect data... are the authors real scientists; can the research methods described replicable; on and on...
> 
> Then it gets published.
> 
> 
> You seriously think anyone have time to go through all that again just to please a few people with serious doubt for some reason?
> 
> Anyway...



If you do not have the time to examine them yourself, then how do you know that you haven't been sold a pile of opinionated and unproven conjecture?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> If you do not have the time to examine them yourself, then how do you know that you haven't been sold a pile of opinionated and unproven conjecture?




You for real?

Should I also buy a few chemistry test to check if all the food I buy to eat does not contain poison too? Or get a few degrees to then be sure whether the medicine prescribed are good enough or not.

The paper was a study of all the published research; research published in peer review scientific journals. 

I think it's pretty safe to believe the scientists. I mean, sure they could be like those high priests feeding us the flat Earth theory but Scientific societies have gone a long way from "just take our words for it" kind of argument.

Anyway... all these record-breaking weather events and natural disasters happening all over the place over past couple years... all are just part of the cycle of climate changing everyday, all the time.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You for real?
> 
> Should I also buy a few chemistry test to check if all the food I buy to eat does not contain poison too? Or get a few degrees to then be sure whether the medicine prescribed are good enough or not.
> 
> The paper was a study of all the published research; research published in peer review scientific journals.
> 
> I think it's pretty safe to believe the scientists. I mean, sure they could be like those high priests feeding us the flat Earth theory but Scientific societies have gone a long way from "just take our words for it" kind of argument.
> 
> Anyway... all these record-breaking weather events and natural disasters happening all over the place over past couple years... all are just part of the cycle of climate changing everyday, all the time.



Yes I am for real!

For one thing it appears that the seasons are shifting forward in our calendar year. Hence the seasons are starting and ending later than they once were. So a temperature that is considered a record for a particular month in our year, might actually be quite  normal for the actual season to which it truly belongs!

Even if these "purported" extremes can be proven to be seasonal records, the question of causation still remains largely unanswered.

Climate "scientists" seem far too eager to claim virtually any event as "evidence" of their unproven conjecture regarding anthropegenically induced climate change.

 A number of reasonable challenges (founded in well established science) have been presented within this thread and remain unadressed by anything more than repeated assurances of the "infallibility" of the "elite" 97%.

Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)


----------



## noco

explod said:


> OK noco,  shouldn't bother but will walk you through it.
> 
> You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%.  On that *summation* there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.
> 
> And on Ph.d's,  only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation.  Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.




Now then Professor explod, you are trying to tell me  that if 31,478 = 3% of skeptic scientist out of 100% of all scientists in the USA then there are 97% who are Alarmists which according to my calculations = 3,147,800 but Luutzu say there are only 341,900 scientist in the USA. 

So are you right or is Luutzu right?

I think you are like the constipated professor who had to worked it out with a pencil.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Since you like headcounts so much. Check this out.
> 
> http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/
> 
> 1999 figures, I guess they don't train too many scientists there anymore... but let's assume figure remain the same.
> 
> So...
> 
> Around 2.2M Scientists working in Science/Engineering roles.
> 
> Say only the 341, 900 in the Life and Related Sciences know anything about CC.
> 
> Assumes the 34K of "scientists" from that site are among these scientists... That's only 10% noco.
> 
> If Scientists are defined as all those with Science degree... there's some 10M of them in the US...
> 
> Do the maths.  34,000 / 10, 000, 000 = ???%
> 
> 
> I personally take the "opinions" of the 97% specialists over the 34 thousand "scientist".
> 
> 
> View attachment 66573
> 
> 
> View attachment 66574




Thanks Luutzu for all that information but you still have not satisfied me as to the number that 97% represents.....So if you if don't have that answer, please say so....Never mind about trying to skirt around it.....I need the truth.

explod tried  to baffle me with science but he has got himself in such a muddle trying to do it....He was probably hoping I would fall for his "MUMBO JUMBO".


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Now then Professor explod, you are trying to tell me  that if 31,478 = 3% of skeptic scientist out of 100% of all scientists in the USA then there are 97% who are Alarmists which according to my calculations = 3,147,800 but Luutzu say there are only 341,900 scientist in the USA.
> 
> So are you right or is Luutzu right?
> 
> I think you are like the constipated professor who had to worked it out with a pencil.



Not at all.   Was just pointing out the anomoly of your first statement. 

Just calm yourself a bit and re-read it.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)




Sure, but we have to know your qualifications for evaluating specific evidence relating to climate.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but we have to know your qualifications for evaluating specific evidence relating to climate.




No you don't have to do that at all! 

All you need to do is check to see if what I am saying is supported by established science!

Just because someone has higher qualifications doesn't automatically render their assertions correct!


----------



## basilio

Back in the real world this is what is happening.



> * My family fell victim to a warming world. Now we need to build for this new reality*
> Louisiana’s sinking Isle de Jean Charles shows the urgent need for radical measures to combat climate change
> Hurricane Katrina debris
> 
> Vicki Arroyo
> 
> Sunday 8 May 2016 14.00 AEST
> 
> 
> As seas rise, as floods and droughts become more extreme, as crops fail and as storms intensify, the world will increasingly face a new challenge – climate refugees.
> 
> In the US, witness the recent plan by the federal government to resettle a Native American tribe before their Isle de Jean Charles home in Louisiana vanishes underwater – an example that hits close to home. I have deep family roots in south Louisiana: my mother, sister and brother-in-law, aunt and uncle were refugees from a weather disaster exacerbated by climate change, losing their homes in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A year before, a heart condition killed my father in the aftermath of a stressful evacuation from Hurricane Ivan.




http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Back in the real world this is what is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo




Errm , isn't this just another example of the climate brigade eagerly declaring any event as automatically and wholly attributable to climate change?

How about we try some critical thinking before assuming causation?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Yes I am for real!
> 
> For one thing it appears that the seasons are shifting forward in our calendar year. Hence the seasons are starting and ending later than they once were. So a temperature that is considered a record for a particular month in our year, might actually be quite  normal for the actual season to which it truly belongs!
> 
> Even if these "purported" extremes can be proven to be seasonal records, the question of causation still remains largely unanswered.
> 
> Climate "scientists" seem far too eager to claim virtually any event as "evidence" of their unproven conjecture regarding anthropegenically induced climate change.
> 
> A number of reasonable challenges (founded in well established science) have been presented within this thread and remain unadressed by anything more than repeated assurances of the "infallibility" of the "elite" 97%.
> 
> Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)




I've heard of climate shifting South at something like 8 miles per day in the Northern Hemisphere but season shifting... just past couple years or past 20 years where SirR read it's been the hottest on record?

Anyway, when's the last time 97% of any group agree on anything?


----------



## basilio

And on a more immediate threat the wildfires in Alberta have exploded and do not look like stopping any time soon. It looks like it will be jumping into the neighbouring state.



> *Canada wildfire 'out of control', doubled in size, officials say*
> 
> A ferocious wildfire wreaking havoc in Canada has doubled in size and officials have warned the situation in the parched Alberta oil sands region was "unpredictable and dangerous".
> Key points:
> 
> "This remains a big, out of control, dangerous fire," Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said of the raging inferno, that is now bigger than London.
> 
> Winds were pushing the flames east of the epicentre around the city late on Saturday local time as nearly all 25,000 people who were still trapped to the north finally left town either via airlift or convoys on the roads.
> 
> The blaze has forced the evacuation of the city of Fort McMurray.
> 
> Emergency workers in Alberta are joining a grassroots effort to rescue pets trapped in homes after the massive wildfire forced their owners to leave without them.
> 
> The wildfire doubled in size in one day, and covered more than 200,000 hectares by midnight and continued to grow, the Alberta Emergency Management Agency said in an update.
> 
> "Fire conditions remain extreme," it said.
> 
> The Government crisis agency cautioned that fire conditions remained extreme in the province due to low humidity, high temperatures and gusty winds.
> 
> Some 1,570 square kilometres have been devastated since the blaze began almost a week ago, Mr Goodale said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-08/canada-wildfire-out-of-control-doubles-in-size/7393958


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Thanks Luutzu for all that information but you still have not satisfied me as to the number that 97% represents.....So if you if don't have that answer, please say so....Never mind about trying to skirt around it.....I need the truth.
> 
> explod tried  to baffle me with science but he has got himself in such a muddle trying to do it....He was probably hoping I would fall for his "MUMBO JUMBO".




I thought Explod answered you pretty well.


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Errm , isn't this just another example of the climate brigade eagerly declaring any event as automatically and wholly attributable to climate change?
> 
> How about we try some critical thinking before assuming causation?




Nuh.  I referenced an earlier post which detailed an analysis on the rapidly changing climatic conditions in Canada. Basically much hotter, much earlier, less snow melt.  These have all contributed to creating a far more dangerous forest fire situation.

The argument is not about climate change "causing" this fire.  It's about how the rapidly warming ecosystems of the area are creating far more favourable conditions for a fire to become uncontrollable. 

Artist also posted a reference which detailed how this increase in fire risk is happening throughout the world as temperatures rise.


----------



## basilio

There could be other effects of the fires in the Alberta tar sands.



> *BP declares force majeure, warns on oil deliveries as Canadian wildfire burns on*
> 
> Date
> May 7, 2016
> 
> 
> Oil up as fire curbs Canada output
> 
> Oil prices surge after raging wildfire hit Canada's oil sands region, cutting as much as one-third of the country's daily crude capacity.
> 
> Three major oil firms have warned they will not be able to deliver on some contracts for Canadian crude, a further sign that output cuts due to wildfires are curbing supplies from the Alberta oil sands region.
> 
> British oil firm BP said it had alerted customers to a "force majeure event" at one of its suppliers, which means several grades of Canadian crude oil will not be as readily available to its customers through the rest of May.
> 
> Suncor Energy, Canada's largest oil producer, said it had issued various force majeure notifications to customers, service providers and other third party contractors that will be affected by reduced operations in the region.




http://www.theage.com.au/business/e...nadian-wildfire-burns-on-20160506-goopdo.html


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Nuh.  I referenced an earlier post which detailed an analysis on the rapidly changing climatic conditions in Canada. Basically much hotter, much earlier, less snow melt.  These have all contributed to creating a far more dangerous forest fire situation.
> 
> The argument is not about climate change "causing" this fire.  It's about how the rapidly warming ecosystems of the area are creating far more favourable conditions for a fire to become uncontrollable.
> 
> Artist also posted a reference which detailed how this increase in fire risk is happening throughout the world as temperatures rise.




That latest article you linked was essentially a highly prejudiced opinion piece. Those sharing the proferred opinion, might choose to entertain it as part of their personal take on reality, but others are entitled to hold out for something with a bit more substance and objectivity before committing to that particular viewpoint.


----------



## artist

noco said:


> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
> including 9,029 with PhDs
> 
> from post #7578
> *
> So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold*. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.
> 
> You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.




Is this response in reply to my discussion of the Nature article by Jolly et.al., or to Luutzu?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I've heard of climate shifting South at something like 8 miles per day in the Northern Hemisphere but season shifting... just past couple years or past 20 years where SirR read it's been the hottest on record?
> 
> Anyway, when's the last time 97% of any group agree on anything?




I have read all sorts of things also.

The seasons do appear to be gradually shifting forward. Whilst I cannot conclusively prove this to be the case, I believe that the temperature records are lending support to this observation.

As to the claims of the "elite" 97%, I won't be buying what they're selling until such time as they start to back their claims up with some rigorous scientific proof.

The publication of numerous papers, asserting unproven conjectures as factual, really only serves to confuse the issue and potentially damage the reputation of science.

If one is unwilling to take the time to understand the scientific basis for any claim being made, then one cannot automatically conclude that a scientific basis actually exists!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I have read all sorts of things also.
> 
> The seasons do appear to be gradually shifting forward. Whilst I cannot conclusively prove this to be the case, I believe that the temperature records are lending support to this observation.
> 
> As to the claims of the "elite" 97%, I won't be buying what they're selling until such time as they start to back their claims up with some rigorous scientific proof.
> 
> The publication of numerous papers, asserting unproven conjectures as factual, really only serves to confuse the issue and potentially damage the reputation of science.
> 
> If one is unwilling to take the time to understand the scientific basis for any claim being made, then one cannot automatically conclude that a scientific basis actually exists!




True that we can't just take people's words because they have this or that title. True too that just because it's published doesn't mean it's objective and beyond reproach.

But if you want scientific proof and indepth evidence, Basilio and others here can help you. Me I'm just a layman.

From a layman's perspective, and from knowing first hand the extensive literature review and scientific rigour requires in carrying out an experiment and come to a conclusion that your finding is not by chance or accidental... the standards are pretty high.

With high standards being required to conclude either way, and with 97% of research published having concluded one way. You tell a layman like me who should I believe?

It's not 50/50, maybe this or could also be that...the science are in.

Sure we can ask for specific evidence - all of them... can also ask for specific headcounts of scientists....

that or maybe open the window or take a hike through the mountain to see for ourselves.


I know a couple who travel practically everywhere around the world. Their trip are always to mainly hike and camp... they told me Climate Change is definitely here. So much so that they're willing to pay some 3 times more to only use electricity from renewable source.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I thought Explod answered you pretty well.




luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> True that we can't just take people's words because they have this or that title. True too that just because it's published doesn't mean it's objective and beyond reproach.
> 
> But if you want scientific proof and indepth evidence, Basilio and others here can help you. Me I'm just a layman.
> 
> From a layman's perspective, and from knowing first hand the extensive literature review and scientific rigour requires in carrying out an experiment and come to a conclusion that your finding is not by chance or accidental... the standards are pretty high.
> 
> With high standards being required to conclude either way, and with 97% of research published having concluded one way. You tell a layman like me who should I believe?
> 
> It's not 50/50, maybe this or could also be that...the science are in.
> 
> Sure we can ask for specific evidence - all of them... can also ask for specific headcounts of scientists....
> 
> that or maybe open the window or take a hike through the mountain to see for ourselves.
> 
> 
> I know a couple who travel practically everywhere around the world. Their trip are always to mainly hike and camp... they told me Climate Change is definitely here. So much so that they're willing to pay some 3 times more to only use electricity from renewable source.




Thanks for that lutzuu. Unfortunately I do not share your confidence in the claims that the "science are in". From what I  have observed thus far, the offerings are so heavily opinionated, that I am of the current view that the climate "science" is too far removed from scientific practices to be seriously entertained as anything more than a demonstration of human folly.

There's a lot more to science than merely observing changes in nature, hence my reason for not insisting my observation of seasonal shifts be taken as proof of anything more than the observation in and of itself.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.




Noco, I posted a link to that article before.

You could go there yourself, read the paper yourself, then go nuts counting how many papers they included and of each paper how many authors.

So no one is skirting around the numbers - it's there, just some of us have movies to watch.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Thanks for that lutzuu. Unfortunately I do not share your confidence in the claims that the "science are in". From what I  have observed thus far, the offerings are so heavily opinionated, that I am of the current view that the climate "science" is too far removed from scientific practices to be seriously entertained as anything more than a demonstration of human folly.
> 
> There's a lot more to science than merely observing changes in nature, hence my reason for not insisting my observation of seasonal shifts be taken as proof of anything more than the observation in and of itself.




Scientific conclusions work on probability... you're not going to find any scientific theory or evidence that will conclusively "prove" x cause y. Especially when there's a bunch of x causing a wide variation of y, and some a, b and c may also contribute depends on e, f, g being present or not. etc. etc.

Just read that the fire in Alberta doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping after 7 days. It got bigger, have its own weather pattern with lightning causing more fire.

Let's just hope the oil pipelines are deep enough underground or nowhere near it.

I'm sure that for the 88,000 residents who evacuated and most likely to lose their home, if there's a chance current human activities cause or add to chance of this kind of destruction happening... we should try to end it.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Noco, I posted a link to that article before.
> 
> You could go there yourself, read the paper yourself, then go nuts counting how many papers they included and of each paper how many authors.
> 
> So no one is skirting around the numbers - it's there, just some of us have movies to watch.




I can see I am not going to get a straight answer from when you start talking about assumptions...

You obviously do not know so just forget it OK.


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.



97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant. 

I think I  can recall basilio helpfuĺly offering some insight into the qualification process some time ago.

Like so many others, eagerly awaiting presentation of some rigorous scientific proof of natural happenings and their causation, I hold deep reservations about the integrity of the process used to establish this claim to 97% agreement.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Scientific conclusions work on probability... you're not going to find any scientific theory or evidence that will conclusively "prove" x cause y. Especially when there's a bunch of x causing a wide variation of y, and some a, b and c may also contribute depends on e, f, g being present or not. etc. etc.
> 
> Just read that the fire in Alberta doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping after 7 days. It got bigger, have its own weather pattern with lightning causing more fire.
> 
> Let's just hope the oil pipelines are deep enough underground or nowhere near it.
> 
> I'm sure that for the 88,000 residents who evacuated and most likely to lose their home, if there's a chance current human activities cause or add to chance of this kind of destruction happening... we should try to end it.




I can see fron your post that you have much in common with those that have accepted a given ideology and trusted that those promoting it had done their homework.

However, before aligning with a campaign to put an end to something or other, it would be wise to first make a sincere attempt to understand what it actually is. Actions taken based upon misinformation tend to cause more problems than they actually solve.


----------



## wayneL

cynic said:


> 97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant.
> 
> I think I  can recall basilio helpfuĺly offering some insight into the qualification process some time ago.
> 
> Like so many others, eagerly awaiting presentation of some rigorous scientific proof of natural happenings and their causation, I hold deep reservations about the integrity of the process used to establish this claim to 97% agreement.




The 97% claim has been thoroughly discredited in the real world. It is instructive that the alarmists continue to use this fraudulent stat.

Take your pick https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.8597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Modus operandi - 

Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.

Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.

Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.

If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (_inter alia_)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.

The 97% being the classic example.

Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Back in the real world this is what is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo




And this is typical of the disingenuous crap utilized by alarmists and employing the above MO.

Basilio has skipped over the part that it is SINKING.

Let's be clear there are a range of anthropogenic factors in this land loss, which have noting at all  to do with climate change.

Meanwhile as the basilios of this world intentionally and mendaciously misassign the factors to this land loss, focus is directed away from the true factors, which are not expedient to address.

As such, these climate alarmists actually do our planet the greatest disservice.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> As such, these climate alarmists actually do our planet the greatest disservice.




No, it's the people who say nothing needs to be done that do the greatest disservice.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> No, it's the people who say nothing needs to be done that do the greatest disservice.




Pray tell, what exactly is it that you believe yourself to know needs doing and what do you believe such action will achieve?

Whilst you're at it, could you also explain how it is that you know whatever it is that you think you know about whatever it is that you think needs to be done and how you know that such action will achieve the intended result?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Pray tell, what exactly is it that you believe yourself to know needs doing and what do you believe such action will achieve?




Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.



> Whilst you're at it, could you also explain how it is that you know whatever it is that you think you know about whatever it is that you think needs to be done and how you know that such action will achieve the intended result?




Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity  ?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> The 97% claim has been thoroughly discredited in the real world. It is instructive that the alarmists continue to use this fraudulent stat.
> 
> Take your pick https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.8597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> Modus operandi -
> 
> Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.
> 
> Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.
> 
> Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.
> 
> If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (_inter alia_)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.
> 
> The 97% being the classic example.
> 
> Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.




Thank you so much Wayne for your support.

If that link relating to that fictitious 97%  does not settle this recent argument perhaps we will just have to keep pounding the table with it until certain people sit up and take notice but you can bet your boots those same brainwashed naive people will rise again with their propaganda and manipulated truth.

The Greens have been very clever with their marketing using the tools to capture the minds of the young and the naive into believing the world is going to be destroyed with man made Global Warming......They will stop at nothing to intrude in their minds that we must stop mining coal because burning fossil fuels are adding too much CO2 into the atmosphere.......we need CO2 for plant life...... you can't build a dam here because it is the habitat of the hairy red nosed wombat or some rare snake........I could go on quoting but it all adds up to anti development by the Greens.

I was in sales and marketing for 28 years and you have to know what you are doing....You need a good product....you need to know your product....it is imperative to good service and you need attractive advertising of your product to catch the eye and finally it is important to consistently advertise......There is no point in doing one letter box drop as some do when starting a business say for lawn mowing or hair dressing or one TV advertisement....Viewers look at the first and it is forgotten in 5 minutes....they look a second one and it clicks the brain into action but on the 3rd and subsequent viewers begin to think more positively about the product you are trying to market.

The Greens have adopted the same philosophy but they have been unethical and immoral in using these tools...The Greens use their marketing through the media with their largest supporter being the ABC who have been very biased over the past years with 41% Grreen and 32% Labor journalists and also through the Aussie Stock Forum which has attracted thousands of viewers.......So if you sprout your message often enough, you will get some people believing it.......Their modus operandi is to convert the world into socialism, world domination and world government and their leader has been the UN General Secretary Ban-ki-Moon who is a recognized Greenie....This is why the Greens are known as the "WATER MELON PARTY", green outside and red inside....They all belong to the Fabian Society and their motto is we are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".....Time means nothing to them......They have all the time in the world to keep chipping away with their propaganda and lies.

I know I will be ostracized, ridiculed and character assassinated for this post but that is the just another way with the Greens if you do not accept what they say.....It is their Bible and they believe it no matter how hard anyone tries to convince them otherwise....They are totally brain washed and no matter what argument anyone displays against their propaganda they will keep coming back with more and more.

I will be told I am full of BS.....I will be told to shut up.....I will be told to get stuffed...I will be asked if I live on another planet....But I will tell you one thing I am at least ethical and have high moral standards and that has been my success in life.

Perhaps one day there will be more people waking up to what the Greens are really stand for.


----------



## SirRumpole

Thanks again for the laughs noco.

Pure gold.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity  ?




Whether or not pollution reduction is a good or bad thing for humanity is largely dependant upon the pollutants and the reduction method employed.


From your response it seems that you are of the opinion that the globe is warming and that this is a problem that may somehow  be addressed by reducing "grÃ¨enhouse gases".

If I have understood you correctly, what is your basis for these beliefs?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> From your response it seems that you are of the opinion that the globe is warming and that this is a problem that may somehow  be addressed by reducing "grÃ¨enhouse gases".
> 
> If I have understood you correctly, what is your basis for these beliefs?




The opinions of scientists who are experts at this sort of analysis.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> The opinions of scientists who are experts at this sort of analysis.



Given that there exist conflicting opinions in the scientific community, how did you determine which one to accept?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Given that there exist conflicting opinions in the scientific community, how did you determine which one to accept?




The majority view of those expert in the field.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity  ?




Rumpy, nobody is denying there is lots of pollution in the world including me.....I have traveled many parts of the Globe and have seen it for my self and more so in third world countries....The Western world is relatively free of pollution in comparison to the likes of Bangkok, Manila, Davao City and some Chinese cities......You go to the likes of Singapore and pollution is almost zero....Hong Kong has improved over the years since my first visit in 1981....

We are most fortunate to be living in Australia where over the years our authorities have  given high priority to clean air, clean water and the reduction of green house gases in order for a healthy life style....I was in the industry of town water supply and sewage for many years and I know from first hand how important these things are to a healthy  life style...MY industry was associated with a foundry in a remote area in NQ and they were forced by state government authorities back in the 1980's  to install anti pollution equipment to their cupolars  at a cost of some $3 million....So yes, I hope I have made my point that there is plenty of facilities which have been applied and still being included for a safe and better life style....I also know in NQ there is strict control of run off from cane farms....something you are probably not aware of because it is rarely publicized and if it is not publicized the public think nothing is being done.    

While all these things are great and important it has little affect on Climate change as has been proven with recent links..,,,,But I know you will  keep on pedaling your propaganda as I have pointed out on my previous post...Say it often enough and some will believe it.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity  ?




Rumpy, nobody is denying there is lots of pollution in the world including me.....I have traveled many parts of the Globe and have seen it fisrt hand and more so in third world countries....The Western world is relatively free of pollution in comparison to the likes of Bangkok, Manila, Davao City and some Chinese cities......You go to the likes of Singapore and pollution is almost zero....Hong Kong has improved over the years since my first visit in 1981....My visits to many European countries, North America and Canada are relatively clean in comparison to third world countries...It is the third world countries where  the Green UN should be concentrating their assistance...I have not been to India where I believe pollution is so it is almost unlivable in some places.    

We are most fortunate to be living in Australia where over the years our authorities have  given high priority to clean air, clean water and the reduction of green house gases in order for a healthy life style....I was in the industry of town water supply and sewage for many years and I know from first hand how important these things are to a healthy  life style...MY industry was associated with a foundry in a remote area in NQ and they were forced by state government authorities back in the 1980's  to install anti pollution equipment to their cupolars  at a cost of some $2 million....So yes, I hope I have made my point that there is plenty of facilities which have been applied and still being included for a safe and better life style....I also know in NQ there is strict control of run off from cane farms....something you are probably not aware of because it is rarely publicized and if it is not publicized the public think nothing is being done...Water testing in carried out on a regular basis in creeks and water ways...A classic example is the finding of leached ammonia and other chemicals in one of the local creeks from Clive Palmer's nickel refinery which he has been asked address but we all know QNI is to be wound up leaving  the state government to carry the can.     

While all these things are great and important it has little affect on Climate change as has been proven with recent links..,,,,But I know you will  keep on pedaling your propaganda as I have pointed out on my previous post...Say it often enough and some will believe it.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> The majority view of those expert in the field.



So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?

Given that you presumably understand the importance of CO2 (one of the purported greenhouse gases);an essential gas, catering to the survival needs of many species of flora and fauna on this planet, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is okay to side with the opinion of those scientists arguing for its reduction?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The majority view of those expert in the field.




Like that fictitious 97% which has now proven to be a lie.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> The majority view of those expert in the field.




LMAO and so we go around the circle of subterfuge once more.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> So when the science experts in the field differ, you side with the majority? Is that your sole basis for dismissal of the other experts in the field? Or did you examine the opinions of the minority before dismissing them from consideration and if so what was your basis for doing so?




The evidence of global temperature maps and the record hot years in the last 20 years have been presented numerous times in this thread. If you don't wish to consider that evidence then that is up to you, but I consider that they are important indicators of trend that can't be ignored.



> Given that you presumably understand the importance of CO2 (one of the purported greenhouse gases);an essential gas, catering to the survival needs of many species of flora and fauna on this planet, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is okay to side with the opinion of those scientists arguing for its reduction?




You are welcome to stick your head in a bag of CO2 and see how long you survive. The fact is that deforestation is occurring at great pace on the planet, and therefore the ability of flora to absorb co2 is being reduced. 

Human activity  due to land clearing and emissions of co2 is upsetting the plant/animal balance,  the climate is reacting and this needs to be redressed.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> LMAO and so we go around the circle of subterfuge once more.




Yes you are.


----------



## noco

As expected the Greens on this forum will not give up..

I am repeating my post #7072 and if I repeat if every day more and more people will begin to understand what CO2 is all about.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%!

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2.

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

*The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.*
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all.
The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer.

Terry McCrann writes:

Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:
Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?

UPDATE:
Gavin Atkins from Hybrid News Ltd writes:
Gillard’s brand new carbon tax lie

On ABC’s 7.30 program last night, Julia Gillard was asked why Australia should put a price on carbon dioxide when the United States does not and she responded with this:

JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.

Atkins then, using IPCC figures, shows Australia uses less! He also reminds us of Kevin Rudd's oft-told lie that Australia is the hottest and driest continent on Earth and concludes:

So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?




UPDATE:
Bob Carter has a new opinion piece in Quadrant-on-line.
Global warming: 10 little facts
by Bob Carter March 14, 2011
He starts off with 10 lies, including the above.

UPDATE: More Gillard lies.....


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As expected the Greens on this forum will not give up..
> 
> I am repeating my post #7072 and if I repeat if every day more and more people will begin to understand what CO2 is all about.




Completely irrelevant. It's the PROPORTION of CO2 in the atmosphere that is the problem, not the fact that it exists. 

Same goes for nitrogen a constituent (78%) of air, but if nitrogen was 90% of the atmosphere we would die.

Please take some science lessons before spouting this tripe.

Read this, it may educate you.

http://www.livescience.com/28726-nitrogen.html


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I can see fron your post that you have much in common with those that have accepted a given ideology and trusted that those promoting it had done their homework.
> 
> However, before aligning with a campaign to put an end to something or other, it would be wise to first make a sincere attempt to understand what it actually is. Actions taken based upon misinformation tend to cause more problems than they actually solve.




What campaign?

The campaign of researchers and all national scientific bodies all over the world to scare non-believers with their research?

Skepticism is good. Just it's a bit stupid when the overwhelming number of experts tell you one thing you decided not to believe them because... because you haven't studied it yourself so you can't decide.

So anyone who believe the Climate Scientists will now have to spend decades studying and reviewing all the literatures... if they can't or don't have time to do that, then they're just sheep following some "elite"?

Mind. Blown.

-------

Anyway, here's the link to NASA (yea, the group of idiots that somehow managed to send Man to the Moon, study the Solar System and stuff):

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)






-------

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. ..

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


---
same paper:
1. Introduction
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned...

Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent"


----------



## SirRumpole

Nice one luu.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> What campaign?
> 
> The campaign of researchers and all national scientific bodies all over the world to scare non-believers with their research?
> 
> Skepticism is good. Just it's a bit stupid when the overwhelming number of experts tell you one thing you decided not to believe them because... because you haven't studied it yourself so you can't decide.
> 
> So anyone who believe the Climate Scientists will now have to spend decades studying and reviewing all the literatures... if they can't or don't have time to do that, then they're just sheep following some "elite"?
> 
> Mind. Blown.
> 
> -------
> 
> Anyway, here's the link to NASA (yea, the group of idiots that somehow managed to send Man to the Moon, study the Solar System and stuff):
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> 
> Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations:
> 
> "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
> 
> American Chemical Society
> "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)
> 
> American Geophysical Union
> "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
> 
> American Medical Association
> "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
> 
> The Geological Society of America
> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)
> 
> 
> View attachment 66581
> 
> 
> -------
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> 
> Abstract
> The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. ..
> 
> We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
> 
> 
> ---
> same paper:
> 1. Introduction
> Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned...
> 
> Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent"




Here we go again....back on the same old  MERRY-G0- ROUND.

97% of what consensus?...Even the IPCC have doubts.

Are we really getting any wear with this discussion?..I think not but if one does not counter attack on the subject then the Greens will get the upper hand.

As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....

Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.

Read the link below and the many comments that follow.

It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.

*
http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/

If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?

Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.

The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.

Wait — why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?

New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.

Are the drafts kept secret?

They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] — over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.

Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?

Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.

Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”

zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago

"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail *


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....




Yes, you are living proof of that statement.


----------



## Joules MM1

lol

https://twitter.com/search?q=Antarctic&src=tren


What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year

---------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Climate Skeptic ‏@Carbongate

What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA http://shr.gs/SVq5yQZ

---------------------------------------------------------------

John Pratt ‏@Jackthelad1947 16m16 minutes ago Perth, Western Australia

Antarctic loss could double sea level rise by 2100, scientists say http://wapo.st/231PA2g?tid=ss_tw-bottom … #Auspol Demand #ClimateAction #VoteGreenin2016

--------------------------------------------------------------

:hammer: it home


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you are living proof of that statement.




You are a facetious character to say the lest if that is the best response you can come up with.


----------



## noco

Joules MM1 said:


> lol
> 
> https://twitter.com/search?q=Antarctic&src=tren
> 
> 
> What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
> A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pure Climate Skeptic ‏@Carbongate
> 
> What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA http://shr.gs/SVq5yQZ
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> John Pratt ‏@Jackthelad1947 16m16 minutes ago Perth, Western Australia
> 
> Antarctic loss could double sea level rise by 2100, scientists say http://wapo.st/231PA2g?tid=ss_tw-bottom … #Auspol Demand #ClimateAction #VoteGreenin2016
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> :hammer: it home




Joules, your link is so true but the Green Alarmists will hit back at you in a very short time with more manipulated data as to the reasons why there is more ice.....Just watch what comes up.....it will be the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing Global warming which in effect is creating more ice or it is only sheet ice which does not count.

They will not let you rest my friend.


----------



## SirRumpole

You may care to read NASA's view, not some climate sceptic's appraisal of the study.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Here we go again....back on the same old  MERRY-G0- ROUND.
> 
> 97% of what consensus?...Even the IPCC have doubts.
> 
> Are we really getting any wear with this discussion?..I think not but if one does not counter attack on the subject then the Greens will get the upper hand.
> 
> As I stated before, the Greens believe if you keep promoting lies, propaganda and manipulation of the truth, some will believe it.....
> 
> Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.
> 
> Read the link below and the many comments that follow.
> 
> It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.
> 
> *
> http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/
> 
> If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?
> 
> Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.
> 
> The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.
> 
> Wait ”” why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?
> 
> New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.
> 
> Are the drafts kept secret?
> 
> They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] ”” over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.
> 
> Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?
> 
> Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.
> 
> The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.
> 
> Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”
> 
> zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago
> 
> "Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
> Thumbnail *




Bloody


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> You may care to read NASA's view, not some climate sceptic's appraisal of the study.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses




I did read that article from start to finish an it made for interesting reading but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.....What has happened is quite normal and there will be increases and decreases over time.

My youngest son spent 6 months in Antarctica 5 years ago....He went to Davis on the Aura Australis in October when normally this vessel can dock at that time of the year but due to the late summer ice melt  the ship could not get in to port due to some 6 feet of sheet ice, so  he and his team had to walk  4 nautical  miles to Davis...The Aura Australis finally docked some 2 weeks later.

My point is the sheet ice can vary from year to year......It is really no big deal.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> My point is the sheet ice can vary from year to year......It is really no big deal.




Not if you take it by itself, which is why single factors are not the only things to look at , you also have to look at global land and sea temperatures, sea level rise etc etc.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> You may care to read NASA's view, not some climate sceptic's appraisal of the study.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses




Appeal to authority fallacy there Horace.

Have you been learning these from bas?

And ferchrissake, can you quit the kindergarten stuff... I presume we are all adults here?


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> And ferchrissake, can you quit the kindergarten stuff... I presume we are all adults here?




Sometimes I wonder.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Sometimes I wonder.




Well, you can help by raising your level of debate tobadult level


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Well, you can help by raising your level of debate tobadult level




You mean by quoting scientific publications not personal bias ?

Do you think CO2 is a harmless gas Wayne ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> You mean by quoting scientific publications not personal bias ?
> 
> Do you think CO2 is a harmless gas Wayne ?




Quote as many cites as you like, but thats not what Im referring to and you damn well know it.

Co2 is an important gas with a multifaceted implications. Couching of the question in such simplified terms is fallacious a puerile.


----------



## Joules MM1

noco said:


> My point is the sheet ice can vary from year to year......It is really no big deal.





i think a lot of farmers would agree - when people point to lack of rain or extreme temperatures
(of course, no one quotes them cos theyre just folkies who live on the land and don't wear lab coats)
true story


> Modern Architecture ‏@ModArchitecture
> 
> RT @Pu55yGalore: : New York, Blizzard of 1888 http://owl.li/DceX9   ☼” #NYC #climate



View attachment 66586


----------



## Joules MM1

interesting stuff (as many whingers know, i dont usually post to this thread, but, hey...fun fun fun)

2013


> New Records for Lack of Tornadoes
> 
> New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show the past 12 months set a record for the fewest tornadoes in recorded history. Not only did Mother Nature just set a record for lack of tornado activity, she absolutely shattered the previous record for fewest tornadoes in a 12-month period. During the past 12 months, merely 197 tornadoes struck the United States. Prior to this past year, the fewest tornadoes striking the United States during a 12-month period occurred from June 1991 through July 1992, when 247 tornadoes occurred.
> 
> The new tornado record is particularly noteworthy because of recent advances in tornado detection technology. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is able to detect more tornadoes in recent years than in prior decades due to technological advances. Even with such enhanced tornado detection capability, the past 12 months shattered all prior records for recorded tornadoes.
> 
> NOAA posted a list of the five “lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present.” Notably, each of these low-tornado periods occur since 1986, precisely during the time period global warming alarmists claim global warming is causing more extreme weather events such as tornadoes. According to NOAA, the lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present, with the starting month, are:
> 
> 197 tornadoes – starting in May 2012
> 
> 247 tornadoes – starting in June 1991




http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...vents-are-becoming-less-extreme/#382a7c754d14


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Co2 is an important gas with a multifaceted implications. Couching of the question in such simplified terms is fallacious a puerile.




I'm glad you agree.

So would you criticise this statement posted by noco ?



> The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:
			
		

> Yes, in the context of atmospherics, I do not consider co2 a pollutant. Without co2, life doesn't work. However, elevated levels may have consequences, some of which may be contextually negative, some of which may be contextually positive.




Right, but I had to counter the reductio ad absurdum posted by noco with reference to a similar argument for nitrogen which also satisfies your statement above as he didn't appear to understand the scientific principles involved.


----------



## wayneL

I would largely agree with that statement. Co2 is an essential compound in the physiology of life on earth.

The absolute level may have consequences, both positive and negative depending on the context of each organism. As far as humans are concerned, we see both, notwithstanding other anthropogenic and natural factors.

It's complicated dude.


----------



## wayneL

Ps sorry about the delete and repost. Smart phone issues ???


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Ps sorry about the delete and repost. Smart phone issues ???




No problem.

I think we can agree that the proportion of co2 is important in the environment for all living things, and you are right, it's complicated but a basic understanding of the science would help some people.


----------



## Knobby22

Interesting Artic watch chart.

The previous record for minimum ice was 2012, then the following years went closer to normal. 
This year though the melt is very high however there are still four months to go and possibly the melt won't proceed as quickly. I am going to keep my eye on it.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> No problem.
> 
> I think we can agree that the proportion of co2 is important in the environment for all living things, and you are right, it's complicated but a basic understanding of the science would help some people.




It's a fricken asphyxiant and highly toxic in higher than "normal" will lead to muscle twitch, headache, pallid skin colour, high blood pressure elevating to vomiting, hallucinations, poor judgement (e.g. politicians), panic attacks, heart beat irregularity, flaking out when it exceeds 10% of our air intake and a possible visit from Mr Death.

Welcome to the dawn of the genuine sicky


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> It's a fricken asphyxiant and highly toxic in higher than "normal" will lead to muscle twitch, headache, pallid skin colour, high blood pressure elevating to vomiting, hallucinations, poor judgement (e.g. politicians), panic attacks, heart beat irregularity, flaking out when it exceeds 10% of our air intake and a possible visit from Mr Death.
> 
> Welcome to the dawn of the genuine sicky




Ssshhh, we don't want to alarm people do we ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> The evidence of global temperature maps and the record hot years in the last 20 years have been presented numerous times in this thread. If you don't wish to consider that evidence then that is up to you, but I consider that they are important indicators of trend that can't be ignored.
> 
> ....
> 
> The fact is that deforestation is occurring at great pace on the planet, and therefore the ability of flora to absorb co2 is being reduced.
> 
> Human activity  due to land clearing and emissions of co2 is upsetting the plant/animal balance,  the climate is reacting and this needs to be redressed.



Yes there is some deforestation occurring and yes flora do naturally perform a co2 recycling function, but how on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that this purported temperature uptrend (20 years is a very short period of time in  the lifespan of this planet) is solely attributable to CO2?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Yes there is some deforestation occurring and yes flora do naturally perform a co2 recycling function, but how on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that this purported temperature uptrend (20 years is a very short period of time in  the lifespan of this planet) is solely attributable to CO2?




Did I ever say it was solely attributable to co2 ?, but co2 is a greenhouse gas along with methane that causes global warming.

Maybe there is a contribution by cows and humans farting, but that still comes down to human activity. More farting animals to feed more people, more land clearing to graze cattle etc.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Did I ever say it was solely attributable to co2 ?, but co2 is a greenhouse gas along with methane that causes global warming.
> 
> Maybe there is a contribution by cows and humans farting, but that still comes down to human activity. More farting animals to feed more people, more land clearing to graze cattle etc.




My apologies, how did you conclude that this purported warming is solely attributable to greenhouse gases?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> My apologies, how did you conclude that this purported warming is solely attributable to greenhouse gases?




What's your theory ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> What's your theory ?




My theory is that mankind is giving itself far more credit for its ability to understand and influence the environment than is truly waŕranted.

If someone can direct me to some actual scientific proof that my theory is false, then I would  be more than willing to reconsider my position. Until that time, I consider it appropriate that those insisting on action demonstrate an adequate understanding of the causation behind the phenomena they believe themselves to have observed.

Before engaging in remedial action, a number of questions ideally need to be answered:

(i) Is there an actual problem that needs to be fixed?

(ii) Will the chosen remedy actually fix the problem?

(iii) What problematic side effects will result from application of the chosen remedy and how do these problems compare to the severity and managability of the original problem?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> My theory is that mankind is giving itself far more credit for its ability to understand and influence the environment than is truly waŕranted.
> 
> If someone can direct me to some actual scientific proof that my theory is false, then I would  be more than willing to reconsider my position. Until that time, I consider it appropriate that those insisting on action demonstrate an adequate understanding of the causation behind the phenomena they believe themselves to have observed.
> 
> Before engaging in remedial action, a number of questions ideally need to be answered:
> 
> (i) Is there an actual problem that needs to be fixed?
> 
> (ii) Will the chosen remedy actually fix the problem?
> 
> (iii) What problematic side effects will result from application of the chosen remedy and how do these problems compare to the severity and managability of the original problem?




We keep going around in circles so I'll stop here.

I prefer to take notice of scientists and the theory that if we don't do anything or wait another 20 years before we see the continuation of the trend it will then be too late to do anything.

What's the problem with switching to renewable energy ? We will have to do it anyway eventually. It will create thousands more jobs than digging up coal. All the mum and dad businesses installing rooftop solar. That's what I think a lot of people are afraid of, diversion of power (electrical and political) away from corporations to the individual.

Phased in renewable energy has far more advantages than disadvantages. If we keep coal power for emergencies, renewables will extend the life of our coal resources.

Phasing in renewables is a no brainer. It's already being done with devices like the Tesla powerwall. It will happen anyway, climate change or not.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> We keep going around in circles so I'll stop here.
> 
> I prefer to take notice of scientists and the theory that if we don't do anything or wait another 20 years before we see the continuation of the trend it will then be too late to do anything.
> 
> What's the problem with switching to renewable energy ? We will have to do it anyway eventually. It will create thousands more jobs than digging up coal. All the mum and dad businesses installing rooftop solar. That's what I think a lot of people are afraid of, diversion of power (electrical and political) away from corporations to the individual.
> 
> Phased in renewable energy has far more advantages than disadvantages. If we keep coal power for emergencies, renewables will extend the life of our coal resources.
> 
> Phasing in renewables is a no brainer. It's already being done with devices like the Tesla powerwall. It will happen anyway, climate change or not.




When it comes to science and technology, the only "no brainer" of which I am currently aware, is the importance of implementing some level of critical thinking before faithfully embracing any new and largely unproven ideologies.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> ...
> 
> What's the problem with switching to renewable energy ? We will have to do it anyway eventually. It will create thousands more jobs ...
> 
> Phased in renewable energy has far more advantages than disadvantages. If we keep coal power for emergencies, renewables will extend the life of our coal resources.
> 
> Phasing in renewables is a no brainer. It's already being done with devices like the Tesla powerwall. It will happen anyway, climate change or not.



Probabpy
I think the questions regarding renewable energy are worthy of some examination. 

Some of these renewable sources may not be as renewable as they initially seem.

Do you understand from whence the tesla powerwaĺl draws its energy?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Probabpy
> I think the questions regarding renewable energy are worthy of some examination.
> 
> Some of these renewable sources may not be as renewable as they initially seem.
> 
> Do you understand from whence the tesla powerwaĺl draws its energy?




Solar PV.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Solar PV.




Ah ha. Sorry for my confusion, I thought you were referring to technology attributable to the discovery of a non electrical planetary current by the genius, Nikola Tesla.

Rechargeable batteries do have their usefulness, but are not an energy source in their own right. My understanding is that these solar panels feeding them do have a limited lifespan. Are the essential components easily recyclable into new panels or are we depleting another finite resource?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Ah ha. Sorry for my confusion, I thought you were referring to technology attributable to the discovery of a non electrical planetary current by the geniue, Nikola Tesla.
> 
> Rechargeable batteries do have their usefulness, but are not an energy source in their own right. My understanding is thatnthese solar panels feeding them do have a limited lifespan. Are the essential components easily recyclable into new panels or are we depleting another finite resource?




Solar PV panels last about 25 years I believe and there are recycling programs operating or planned. You would expect the cost of the technology to keep falling as new types of cells are discovered.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Solar PV panels last about 25 years I believe and there are recycling programs operating or planned. You would expect the cost of the technology to keep falling as new types of cells are discovered.




So from what you are saying, it seems that these recyclers are planning to contend with a sizable number of exhausted panels within the next twenty to forty years (good luck with that!) and, in the meantime there is an expectation that new discoveries supplanting this "renewable" energy source technology will be made.

Can you see how this might be tantamount to supplanting a doubtful problem with a definite problem?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> So from what you are saying, it seems that these recyclers are planning to contend with a sizable number of exhausted panels within the next twenty to forty years (good luck with that!) and, in the meantime there is an expectation that new discoveries supplanting this "renewable" energy source technology will be made.
> 
> Can you see how this might be tantamount to supplanting a doubtful problem with a definite problem?




Not really. Planned obsolescence has kept car makers in business for decades.


----------



## artist

Joules MM1 said:


> What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
> A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year




If you read the original NASA report and compare and contrast it with the Express version you will find the Express writer - I will not call him a journalist - has been less than accurate in dealing with the subject matter. The original report does not say what the Express claims it says. If contributors to this thread want an example of deceptive, hack journalism, with bias and unsubstantiated opinions inserted, this one would be hard to surpass. The Express version has been copied wholesale, from beginning to end, from the NASA report and then has been subjected to scurrilous editing  It is a very, very long time since I have encountered such execrable dross.

But, on the bright side, from this same scrivener we learn of some fascinating stories which, despite what I might think, are important. Apparently. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...aliens-EXIST-after-NASA-hints-at-announcement  , http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...ts-soldiers-will-soon-battle-little-green-men  , http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...imir-Putin-pictured-as-grown-man-95-years-ago). 

It seems to me he doesn't know fact from fiction in any context.

I'm off to have a shower, I feel as if I have been swimming in a sewer.


----------



## wayneL

wayneL said:


> Modus operandi -
> 
> Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.
> 
> Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.
> 
> Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.
> 
> If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (_inter alia_)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.
> 
> The 97% being the classic example.
> 
> Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.




And here is a classic example of exactly what I am talking about:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...ndicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/



> Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate
> Guest Blogger / 9 hours ago May 9, 2016
> Guest opinion by Ron Arnold
> 
> Willie Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
> 
> Soon’s career has proven to be a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravely facing the consequences.
> 
> Beginning in 1994, Soon produced an important series of astrophysics papers on the Sun’s impact on Earth’s climate, which received positive discussion in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) second and third assessment reports, released in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Throughout the 1990s, IPCC still acknowledged there were uncertainties about humankind’s potential influence on climate, despite pressure from nongovernmental organizations to find a “smoking gun” in the weak data.
> 
> In his 2007 book History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change, Bert Bolin, co-creator and first chairman of IPCC, deplored the denial of uncertainty, writing, “It was non-governmental groups of environmentalists, supported by the mass media who were the ones exaggerating the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by the IPCC.”
> 
> In 1997, Bolin told the Associated Press, “Global warming is not something you can ‘prove.’ You try to collect evidence and thereby a picture emerges.”
> 
> Soon’s study about the influence of the Sun on climate made him a target for alarmists, but Soon had defenders. In a 2013, Boston Globe article, iconic physicist Freeman Dyson praised Soon.
> 
> “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas,” said Dyson. “For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”
> 
> Unjustified ‘Conflict of Interest’ Claims
> 
> *In February 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic of Soon since 1997, falsely accused him of wrongfully failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal he submitted research to. Despite the fact the journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules, Davies’ accusation created a clamor amongst alarmist reporters, who repeated the claim without further investigation.*
> 
> The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.
> 
> *Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.*
> 
> *In March and April 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Soon, relying heavily on bogus claims.* The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education, *seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts.*




Please read the full article regarding the funding situation... enlightening.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks again for the laughs noco.
> 
> Pure gold.




For those who see you trying to argue with an idiot will see you as an idiot as well.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> For those who see you trying to argue with an idiot will see you as an idiot as well.




With the aim of improving your education perhaps you would like to read this:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> With the aim of improving your education perhaps you would like to read this:
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/




Nice one Rumopy.

Did you also show that to your Mummy when you arrived home from kindergarten?

Bless you my son.



.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Nice one Rumopy.
> 
> Did you also show that to your Mummy when you arrived home from kindergarten?
> 
> Bless you my son.
> 
> 
> 
> .






As long as it helped you noco, it was worth it.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> With the aim of improving your education perhaps you would like to read this:
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/




One look at their "Think like a scientist" revealed this site content for the opinionated rubbish that it is!

Nice one! Indoctrinate them whilst they're still young and hope that they will grow up to become preprogrammed and unquestioning supporters of this misguided crusade!


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> One look at their "Think like a scientist" revealed this site content for the opinionated rubbish that it is!
> 
> Nice one! Indoctrinate them whilst they're still young and hope that they will grow up to become preprogrammed and unquestioning supporters of this misguided crusade!




What unscientific statements did they maker ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> What unscientific statements did they maker ?




Have you actually read the section I am referring to?!

Exactly where in the "Think like a scientist" section may one find insight into the thought processes of a scientist?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Have you actually read the section I am referring to?!
> 
> Exactly where in the "Think like a scientist" section may one find insight into the thought processes of a scientist?




I'm interested in your opinion. You allege that section was rubbish, what's your evidence ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> I'm interested in your opinion. You allege that section was rubbish, what's your evidence ?




Are you saying that you can actually find insight into scientist thought processes in the section to which I refer?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Are you saying that you can actually find insight into scientist thought processes in the section to which I refer?




I'm not saying anything, you made an allegation, you back it up.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not saying anything, you made an allegation, you back it up.




I already have. Look at the section! It's clearly aimed at a target audience of children and invites them to "Think like a scientist" and yet it offers no insight into scientific thought processes. Instead it repetitiously asserts AGW throughout.


So when one cannot convince a thinking adult, the obvious solution is to indoctrinate impressionable children in the expectation that they will grow into compliant adults!

Very sinister, it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach to see science, education and the trust of children exploited in such a manner!

Even, if I believed the AGW ideology, I would like to think that I would still have sufficient presence of mind to distance myself from such a reprehensible approach to promoting such ideology.


----------



## basilio

*All about Willie Soon.*

Wayne has offered a story on how Willie Soon has been  trashed for Conflicts of Interest by accepting and *not declaring* large grants from the fossil fuel industry when he was writing papers that attempted to explain climate change as a result of changes in solar radiation.

Firstly there is a case for saying that solar radiation has a (small)  impact on the climate. I believe that is understood and accepted by almost all CC scientists. The point of difference is that Willie and CC deniers have attempted to explain any current CC in terms of changes in solar radiation and have denied the effect of greenhouse gases as the most substantial cause of current and immediate future changes. These papers have in fact been analysed and  seriously debunked by other scientists who found numerous errors in Willies methodology. It is just BS. 

But on top of this area Willie has resolutely denied that there is in fact an current CC. That has made him a special pin up boy of Waynes mob. But of course Willie was too practical to just create good stories for the deniers for free. Nope. He was paid good, GOOD money for his many and varied papers. - every single one , naturally, attempting to deny 

1) That there has been any CC 
2) But if there has ... CO2 has nothing to do with it

So how how much was Soon paid ?   At last count $1.2million.  And not only that he never actually told people that the funding for his research came from energy companies. That is a reall No no *when you are publishing papers in Science Journals*

Short story on that is as follows



> As reported at Inside Climate News, emails and related documents regarding Willie Soon's funding were obtained by Greenpeace through a Freedom of Information Act Request. Communications show that Soon had called a number of his research papers “delieverables” and had received funding in return from fossil fuel companies. [42]
> 
> Inside Climate News details “11 times Willie Soon failed to Disclose Fossil Fuel Funding”, with the primary contributor being Southern Company, which generates power for nine states (largely from coal). The studies in question are summarized below, as reported on at Inside Climate News: [43]
> 
> 
> Topic 	Journal 	Date 	Additional Funders
> 
> *Response to a critique of a 2007 paper co-authored by soon on polar bears and climate change (1) 	*
> Ecological Complexity1 	July, 2008 	Southern Company
> 
> *Modeling changes in rainfall patterns from monsoons(1)
> *
> Journal of Climate1 	Sept. 2008 	Southern Company
> 
> *
> Review of government reports on polar bear populations(1)*Interfaces1 	Sept. - Oct. 2008
> Southern Company
> 
> *How changes in sun's intensity explain the Artic's changing climate (1)* 	Physical Geography1 	March, 2009 	Southern Company
> 
> *Cycles of 20 active stars 	(1) *Astronomy & Astrophysics1 	May, 2009 	Southern Company
> 
> *Validity of the United Nations' climate change studies 	International Journal of Forecasting (1) *	Oct.-Dec 2009
> Southern Company
> 
> *How policymakers should consider potential climate change regulations *	Ecological Law Currents2 	2010 	Southern Company
> 
> *Surface air temperatures in China during the 20th century *	Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics2,3,4 	Aug. 2011 	Southern Company
> I
> *India's summer monsoons and solar activity 	*Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 2,3,4 	Aug. 2011 	Southern Company
> 
> *Air temperatures and Solar Activity 	Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*4 	Feb. 2013 	Southern Company
> 
> *How India's summer monsoons are affected by the sun 	*New Astronomy4,5 	Feb. 2015 	Southern Company
> 
> (1)  Deliverable Listed in Soon's Jan 2009 report for Southern Company
> Deliverable Listed in Soon's May 2011 report for Southern Company
> Deliverable Listed in Soon's Jan 2012 report for Donors Trust, Inc.
> Deliverable Listed in Soon's Nov 2012 report for Southern Company
> Soon's 2012 report to Southern Compnay said study had been submitted to Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
> 
> The documents were made public by Greenpeace on February 21. Greenpeace suggests that Soon “may have violated several scientific journals’ ethical guidelines by failing to disclose these conflicts of interest.” [44]
> 
> As of April, 2015, after supplying Soon with nearly $470,000 for research, Southern Company decided it will no longer fund Soon's work. [45]




http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Actually these examples of Willie Soons capacity to generate scientific papers on payment are just a sample of his work.  To appreciate the full breadth of his willingness to create a smog of uncertainty for money you have to digest his full CV.

You can check those at the URl above or look at the following  source

http://polluterwatch.org/willie-soon


----------



## basilio

*PS on Willie Soon*

One of Willies early seminal papers was written in 2003 and attempted to say that there wasn't any increase in temperatures  in the 20th Century. That in fact everything was pretty much ok.

The response from the scientific community ?



> January 31, 2003
> 
> Soon co-published a controversial review article titled “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years” (Climate Research, 2003) with Sallie Baliunas. The article claims that the twentieth century was not the warmest century in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. Senator James Inhofe used this article as proof that climate change is caused by natural variability, not human activity.
> 
> *After the article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. Storch declared the article was seriously flawed because “the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper.” In addition to the resignations, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Soon and Baliunas had misinterpreted their work*.
> 
> According to the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2007 report, “Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air,” the National Research Council recently published research concluding that the “global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period in the preceding four centuries.”




http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

It's not a good look to quote the work of 13 scientists in your paper a*nd then have them trash you for misinterpreting/misrepresenting their work*. You look like a very dishonest scientist.


----------



## basilio

For anyone still looking for evidence that the world is hotter (by a *BIG *margin ) than it's been for whenever check out what has happened around the globe in April. 

Another shattering of global record temperatures.  Lots of details about record sea temperatures on our Great Barrier Reef,  mass heat deaths in India and so on.



> *April joins parade of record global temperatures, making it 12 months in a row*
> 
> Date
> May 3, 2016
> 
> Peter Hannam
> 
> India swelters in deadly heat wave
> 
> India is in the grip of a heat wave that has killed more than 100 people.
> 
> Scary blue line that shocked scientists
> Emerging new threat in world's oceans
> 
> It's the sort of anniversary you don't want to celebrate.
> 
> Early reports indicate that April was another record hot month - by some margin - making it 12 months in a row that have set new high marks for heat.
> 
> Eric Holthaus, a US-based meteorologist took to Twitter with an estimate that sea and land-surface temperatures would again top 1 degree compared with the average for 1951-80 period used by NASA.
> 
> The previous biggest anomaly for April was recorded in 2010 at 0.83 degrees, implying that last month was easily the warmest ever registered for the month.
> 
> If confirmed by major meteorological agencies within coming weeks, the April figures would continue the remarkably warm start to 2016, with each month among a handful over the most abnormally hot months in more than 130 years of global figures.
> 
> Australia is also exceptionally warm. During the first four months of 2016, average mean temperatures were 1.28 degrees above the 1961-90 period used by the Bureau of Meteorology for its benchmark.
> 
> The previous record to this point of the year was 1.16 degrees in 2005, Blair Trewin, senior bureau climatologist, told Fairfax Media.




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ng-it-12-months-in-a-row-20160502-gokkg2.html


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> As long as it helped you noco, it was worth it.




I am so utterly bored with the same old GREEN broken record......It is the same old tripe  you were sprouting 4 years ago...
SO BORING.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> It's not a good look to quote the work of 13 scientists in your paper a*nd then have them trash you for misinterpreting/misrepresenting their work*. You look like a very dishonest scientist.




 I think the number of scientists dishonestly represented may have been somewhat higher than 13, only it wasn't in relation to Dr Soon's work, it was in relation to the generation of fraudulent claims to the purported  scientific consensus!


----------



## wayneL

cynic said:


> I think the number of scientists dishonestly represented may have been somewhat higher than 13, only it wasn't in relation to Dr Soon's work, it was in relation to the generation of fraudulent claims to the purported  scientific consensus!




Exactly, basilio's post really just reinforces my earlier point.


----------



## wayneL

> DeSmog team
> 
> James Hoggan	Jim Hoggan
> Jim Hoggan is one of Canada’s most respected public-relations professionals and the president and owner of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates.
> 
> A law school graduate with a longstanding passion for social justice, Jim also serves as chair of the David Suzuki Foundation””the nation’s most influential environmental organization””and as a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education.
> » read more
> Brendan DeMelle
> Brendan DeMelle
> Brendan is Executive Director and Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog. He is also a freelance writer and researcher specializing in new media, politics, climate change and clean energy. He has served as research associate for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., researcher for Ring of Fire Radio, researcher for Laurie David, and others. His work has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Grist, The Washington Times and other outlets.
> 
> » read more




So I looked up DeSmog bas and I see that neither of these guys has a scientific qualification and are in fact, leftist activists.

The irony of the name "DeSmog" is intense as the blog has absolutely no intention to clarify the science surrounding climate change, rather, using subterfuge to promote their activism.

This is advocacy and politics, not science.

So I can safely lump them in with other lunatics, Armageddonists, vested interests and totalitarian brownshirts just like Straightjacket Hansen, Romm the wrong, Cook(ing the books), Nuttercelli, The Moonbat, Mann the butthurt and the rest of them.

Let's cut the advocacy shall we bas?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I am so utterly bored with the same old GREEN broken record......It is the same old tripe  you were sprouting 4 years ago...
> SO BORING.




As is your constant spouting of denialist propaganda and one sided interpretation of scientific studies which you have no ability to understand so you just swallow the rubbish handed out that supports your own bigoted opinions.

Typical trollism.


----------



## Tisme

Brisbane broke some old records this month and it's still hot and sticky:



> April brought perfect swimming weather for Queensland, with daily average maximums of 32.8C, 2.9C warmer than normal and 0.4C higher than the previous record set in 2005.




And the rest of the state:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-01/hottest-may-night-on-record-20-queensland-towns-cities/7373922


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> As is your constant spouting of denialist propaganda and one sided interpretation of scientific studies which you have no ability to understand so you just swallow the rubbish handed out that supports your own bigoted opinions.
> 
> Typical trollism.




It's not like you to react negatively to deliberate baiting. Everyone knows, anecdotally at least,  the weather is changing and I'm guessing we are acclimating to it somewhat ...... although I am wondering if the elevated heat is affecting some people's ability to think cogently.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> As is your constant spouting of denialist propaganda and one sided interpretation of scientific studies which you have no ability to understand so you just swallow the rubbish handed out that supports your own bigoted opinions.
> 
> Typical trollism.




There is a difference between propaganda, facts and common sense.

The Alarmist propaganda is always based on models, lies  and supposition which has been been proven wrong time and time again.....

Tim Flannery...Yes??????No rains will ever fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne ever again.

Greenland ....Yes?????Warmer 1000 years ago than it is now......A mini ice age 500 years ago.

The Antarctic ice ...Yes???? More ice now than in previous years.

Wild fires around the world....Yes....all been occurring since records were kept back to 1925.

*All a farce, a scam and manipulation of the truth year after year after year put forward by the these so called leftist activist and probably paid for by that crooked UN Climate Climate Change Committee to push their own agenda. .*

On the other hand those who are in denial of man made Global Warming (oops sorry) I mean Climate Change have proven facts and use common sense.

We all believe in climate change as I have observed closing in on 90 years..I have been through severe droughts, floods, 4 cyclones, bush fires extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters.....Ah yes Climate Change is real.

Pollution in some major cities is real and certainly needs cleaning up.

So please don't come back at me with more of this nonsense. More and more people are awake to the greatest scam this world has ever seen.

It has all to do with the SUN my blessed son.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> It's not like you to react negatively to deliberate baiting. Everyone knows, anecdotally at least,  the weather is changing and I'm guessing we are acclimating to it somewhat ...... although I am wondering if the elevated heat is affecting some people's ability to think cogently.




Sometimes, ya just gotta hit em where it hurts...


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> This is advocacy and politics, not science.




Whereas the suppression of the scientific studies done by 'a major un-named Oil multi-national' lets call them Exxon, done decades ago into C02 and it's effects on the planetary climate, confirming concerns of those that you malign above,  Led to the mantra within the company ...
'We need advocacy and politics, '_not science'_ .

The fact that you're now in furious agreement with a poster who but a few comments back admitted to primary school level science being a Galilean heresy ..... _'Waynes World' alright_....


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Sometimes, ya just gotta hit em where it hurts...




The only thing that will change some people's minds about climate change is if their political masters have a change of attitude. It's just Collingwood V Carlton stuff for some.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> It has all to do with the SUN my blessed son.




Water off a duck, but some may find this useful.

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> The only thing that will change some people's minds about climate change is if their political masters have a change of attitude. It's just Collingwood V Carlton stuff for some.




Abbott's government decided to lavish billions of our tax dollars on companies to reduce GHG emissions, Direct Action.

Why waste this money if Climate Change is crap ?

noco ?


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> ...
> 
> The fact that you're now in furious agreement with a poster who but a few comments back admitted to primary school level science being a Galilean heresy ..... _'Waynes World' alright_....




To which posts and poster do you allude?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott's government decided to lavish billions of our tax dollars on companies to reduce GHG emissions, Direct Action.
> 
> Why waste this money if Climate Change is crap ?
> 
> noco ?




As I said before if one  continue to argue with idiots,  people will begin to think you are an idiot as well.

I can't be bothered anymore so by all means I will let you have the  last say..I am sure it will give your naive narrow mind a lot of satisfaction...But take it a capitulation on my part ...far from it.


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> As I said before if one  continue to argue with idiots,  people will begin to think you are an idiot as well.
> 
> I can't be bothered anymore so by all means I will let you have the  last say..I am sure it will give your naive narrow mind a lot of satisfaction.




Noco, whilst I share some of your frustration at being heard by those with reluctance to share your viewpoint I don't think that exchanging insults will serve any worthwhile purpose.


----------



## explod

Anyway, 

 todays news is about the dying mangrove swamps across the northern coastal areas of the continent. 
A scientist live on ABC TV this morning set out facts of temperature increase that are pretty alarming.  Much more he stated than the normal el nino and other weather cycles of the past. 

He looked a bit like a farmer or even a farrior that knows his stuff.   Nothing like the sort of scientists that some  here say are in fairy land.


----------



## wayneL

cynic said:


> To which posts and poster do you allude?




In trying to sound clever, orr makes herself unclear.  However her intention to misrepresent is clear.


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> Noco, whilst I share some of your frustration at being heard by those with reluctance to share your viewpoint I don't think that exchanging insults will serve any worthwhile purpose.




Yes you are correct and I don't like it either......But if certain people  on this Forum want to send insults to me, then they should be prepared to receive those insults back......Some only know one way which is to character assassinate a member whose view point they do not agree upon...civility cost nothing.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> So I looked up DeSmog bas and I see that neither of these guys has a scientific qualification and are in fact, leftist activists.
> 
> The irony of the name "DeSmog" is intense as the blog has absolutely no intention to clarify the science surrounding climate change, rather, using subterfuge to promote their activism.
> 
> This is advocacy and politics, not science.
> 
> So I can safely lump them in with other lunatics, Armageddonists, vested interests and totalitarian brownshirts just like Straightjacket Hansen, Romm the wrong, Cook(ing the books), Nuttercelli, The Moonbat, Mann the butthurt and the rest of them.
> 
> Let's cut the advocacy shall we bas?




Desmog is not a science group. They are journalists who examine the facts surrounding the organisations that purport to be discussing the non warming of the planet by the totally innocent greenhouse gases.  If they were mistaken or lying Wayne you can be absolutely sure they would be taken to court wouldn't they ? But that hasn't happened has it? What do you think that says about their journalism ?

At this stage of course given how challenging it is to credibly say the planet isn't warming at a serious rate the only alternative of deniers is to trash, trash and up the ante.

Hence your inability to actually look at facts but  trash the scientists.  That was a vewry special range of insults you managed Wayne. Must deserve some sort of award. 

Perhaps the Calliope Prize ??


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> In trying to sound clever, orr makes herself unclear.  However her intention to misrepresent is clear.




Another comical aspect is the fanciful notion that agreeing with one thing somebody said, somehow constitutes agreement with other things that same somebody previously said!

Where's the logic in that? Is there a scientific basis or foundation to such an erroneous belief?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> 1/ Desmog is not a science group.
> 
> 2/ At this stage of course given how challenging it is to credibly say the planet isn't warming at a serious rate the only alternative of deniers is to trash, trash and up the ante.
> 
> 3/ Hence your inability to actually look at facts but  trash the scientists.  .




1/ clearly

2/ Been through this and you clearly continue to misrepresent. That makes you a liar.

3/ Hypocrisy - You indulge in the most outrageous trashing of scientists if they disagree with your religion.

The difference between us bas, is that I DO actually look at facts and hence why I support moderate and unbiased scientists such as the Pielkes and Judith.


----------



## noco

It was interesting to note the history of this thread which was started by Mickel who was most skeptical of GLOBAL WARMING as per the link below.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria/

*In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

Since then, there has been 7,707 posts and 367,910 viewers to date with the thread being used and abused by those with a political rather than an environmental agenda......It would be interesting to learn how many of those  367,910 viewers are alarmists and who are skeptics. 
*
Where are you now Mickel?


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> Noco, whilst I share some of your frustration at being heard by those with reluctance to share your viewpoint I don't think that exchanging insults will serve any worthwhile purpose.




Take it you are one of the few that hasn't been insulted with personal invective from said person?


----------



## bellenuit

There is an interesting visual at the following link showing Global Temperature Change over the last 166 years.

http://bgr.com/2016/05/10/climate-change-facts-2016-graph-visualization/


----------



## basilio

bellenuit said:


> There is an interesting visual at the following link showing Global Temperature Change over the last 166 years.
> 
> http://bgr.com/2016/05/10/climate-change-facts-2016-graph-visualization/




I saw that and was pretty impressed.  Very effective graphic.

Did you notice just how much bigger the last years result is?  Stands out like the proverbials.


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> I saw that and was pretty impressed.  Very effective graphic.
> 
> Did you notice just how much bigger the last years result is?  Stands out like the proverbials.




Agree very much.   It alligns with what is being visually seen and felt the last year or so and one does not need to be a scientist to see that now.   Unfortunately the scientists are always a few steps back waiting for the measurements to come in and be confirmed

Till now the poles and oceans have been able to absorb most of it but suddenly the cup is full and starting to spill over. 

And from your previous post wayneL:

I note Pieikes indicates (2007) the warming is 28% co2 and 72% other activities.   There is no clear indication of what makes up the 28% nor the components of the other 72%.

Judith Curry's common remark is the "uncertainty monster".    And indeed it is,  but does tgat mean we should sit on our hands.   In 2014 stated that the 2degress above level should not be reached till the end of the 21st century.   The IPCC stated 2040 but recent reports indicate we are hitting it now and the graph a few posts back would also confirm that possibility.


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> Take it you are one of the few that hasn't been insulted with personal invective from said person?



True, but not my reason for choosing to appeal to noco.

My concern was that the interchange appeared to be in danger of escalating. Given that my topical exchanges with the other party revealed our opinions to be almost diametrically opposed, I considered  it prudent to appeal to the poster with least cause for misinterpreting my intent. My post most certainly was not intended to be seen as a judgment of guilt, nor was it an accusation about the party responsible for starting the interchange.


----------



## cynic

bellenuit said:


> There is an interesting visual at the following link showing Global Temperature Change over the last 166 years.
> 
> http://bgr.com/2016/05/10/climate-change-facts-2016-graph-visualization/




An interesting visual. I note that the change is being displayed in degrees centigrade and wonder why climate scientists aren't using degrees kelvin for their research calculations.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Yes very interesting visual. I note that the change is being displayed indegrees centigrade and wonder why climate scientists aren't using degrees kelvin for their research calculations.




Some people might say it was voodoo climate change because they don't know what degrees K means.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> True, but not my reason for choosing to appeal to noco.
> 
> My concern was that the interchange appeared to be in danger of escalating. Given that my topical exchanges with the other party revealed our opinions to be almost diametrically opposed, I considered  it prudent to appeal to the poster with least cause for misinterpreting my intent. My post most certainly was not intended to be seen as a judgment of guilt, nor was it an accusation about the party responsible for starting the interchange.




It never gets that far, just old war horses getting residual doses of manly hormones from desperate gonads.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Some people might say it was voodoo climate change because they don't know what degrees K means.




With a name like Kelvin, he would be a cafe latte socialist.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> With a name like Kelvin, he would be a cafe latte socialist.




Sounds worse than a Fabian.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Some people might say it was voodoo climate change because they don't know what degrees K means.




Well I am sure that you will have  googled it by now, or did you come back with absolute zero (those with knowledge of kelvin degrees will understand what is meant by this).


----------



## bellenuit

cynic said:


> An interesting visual. I note that the change is being displayed in degrees centigrade and wonder why climate scientists aren't using degrees kelvin for their research calculations.




For this particular graphic visualisation, it would be exactly the same if degrees kelvin were used. It is showing variation from the base year 1950 and as 1 degree kelvin variation is the same as a 1 degree centigrade variation, either scale would yield the same result.


----------



## cynic

bellenuit said:


> For this particular graphic visualisation, it would be exactly the same if degrees kelvin were used. It is showing variation from the base year 1950 and as 1 degree kelvin variation is the same as a 1 degree centigrade variation, either scale would yield the same result.



For displaying an end result that would be correct, but the underlying calculations leading to that end result for each year, should be performed using positive numbers, should they not?

Edit: upon further consideration I think I  may be mistaken on this one. After comparing a few centigrade versus kelvin averages in my head and converting they are consistent.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Well I am sure that you will have  googled it by now, or did you come back with absolute zero (those with knowledge of kelvin degrees will understand what is meant by this).




Any school child knows or should know what degrees K means. You seem to have been confused a bit yourself, Centigrade and Kelvin are the same scale with a gauge offset, so a 1 deg C increase is the same as a 1 deg K increase.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Any school child knows or should know what degrees K means. You seem to have been confused a bit yourself, Centigrade and Kelvin are the same scale with a gauge offset, so a 1 deg C increase is the same as a 1 deg K increase.




Yes I  certainly am aware that the scale is the same with a displacement of 273. My initial (although unwarranted) concern,  was the impact on the performance of calculations using mixtures of positive and negative numbers,particularly with respect to statistical derivations. However, I do believe that where practicable, calculations of large amounts of data should ideally be performed using positive numbers.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> In trying to sound clever, orr makes herself unclear.  However her intention to misrepresent is clear.




More the attempt to distract from the point raised ...Quick look  look over their what is it ....Oh look it's Exxon history in Climate science research.... Confirming back in the 1970's and 80's the fears of all those you malign.
Don't like to think about it? less assess the success of the misinformation campaigns effect on you?

And yes cynic;
 Your personal 'theory' posted in #7662. Is debunked by; to begin with Exxons CC work, and from there there's little need to go on. All that's needed is for you to prove Exxon's work wrong... Should be all in an afternoons work for you. Exxon are handing out cheque's to those that help with this very job. 
All this will help you with your imagined fallacies in this from  #7676 , see...

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
(_apologies to Sisyphos_)


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> ...
> And yes cynic;
> Your personal 'theory' posted in #7662. Is debunked by; to begin with Exxons CC work, and from there there's little need to go on. All that's needed is for you to prove Exxon's work wrong... Should be all in an afternoons work for you. Exxon are handing out cheque's to those that help with this very job.
> All this will help you with your imagined fallacies in this from  #7676 , see...
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
> 
> The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and review. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
> (_apologies to Sisyphos_)




There are some things in life that I would like to be true and others that I would prefer to be untrue. I would dearly love to live to see the day that my personal theory is truly disproven and humanity awakens to the true enormity of this universe and the unfortunate reality that our science, wonderful as it is, is still very much a work in progress.

I find it quite comical that, despite my earlier comments, you've chosen to link to, rather than distance yourself from, that epa website and the logically bereft, morally bankrupt rubbish contained therein.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> The only thing a scientist is indoctrinated to do is to study, question and *review*. Science 101, the lesson you must have missed... which will be the fundamental flaw with getting you though the first part of this exercise.
> (_apologies to Sisyphos_)




I'm glad we agree on that point. "Review", part of the scientific method is to test and falsify. Those in the alarmist community don't seem to like those steps though.


----------



## Tisme

Anyone see the piece on the Islands going under yesterday. I felt for the coconut trees being reduced to stumps, now out in the sea.

I bet China is making sure their island bases are built up high enough for the persistent rise in tides; no debates, just necessity.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Anyone see the piece on the Islands going under yesterday. I felt for the coconut trees being reduced to stumps, now out in the sea.
> 
> I bet China is making sure their island bases are built up high enough for the persistent rise in tides; no debates, just necessity.




Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.


----------



## wayneL

noco said:


> Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.




That's why they lose credibility Noco.

Manipulation of facts to fit a narrative.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> That's why they lose credibility Noco.
> 
> Manipulation of facts to fit a narrative.




If you want to argue against the scientific opinion that sea levels are rising then you need to provide evidence that the islands are sinking.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.




Well I don't really know Noco and that thought had crossed my mind too, but the article was at pains to say the tides had been rising 10mm/annum. It wasn't an hysterical piece, although foreboding in the context that the island are apparently a bellweather for the rest of us, especially with sea frontage (I'm only about 50 metres from the shore and thinking of installing stainless steel stumps ). 

I'd be interested if you find anything about it. Islands include the Solomons and the Torres Straits also, so it's over a wide area.


----------



## basilio

SirRumpole said:


> If you want to argue against the scientific opinion that sea levels are rising then you need to provide evidence that the islands are sinking.




Sorry Rumpy .  If you are Wayne you don't need to provide evidence.  It's all self evident.

(And for God's sake don't talk about what's happening in Antartica/Greenland..)


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see what the former head of the NAB had to say about climate change and the Liberal governments approach to renewable energy.



> * Australia's leaders 'wilfully blind' about climate change, says former NAB chief*
> 
> Cameron Clyne says he doesn’t think anyone has ‘grasped quite how revolutionary’ the emergence of renewable energy will be
> 
> Oliver Milman
> @olliemilman
> 
> Monday 3 August 2015 13.26 AEST
> *
> Australia’s political leaders are “wilfully blind” to the challenge of climate change, with the country at risk from an “economically reckless” reliance upon fossil fuels, the former head of the National Australia Bank has warned.
> *
> Cameron Clyne, who was chief executive of NAB from 2009 until he stood down last year, said he doesn’t “think any of us have grasped quite how revolutionary” the emergence of renewable energy will be, warning that Australia cannot continue to be wedded to carbon-heavy fuels such as coal.
> 
> “The truth is that Australia’s lack of diversification is economically reckless,” Clyne wrote in Fairfax newspapers. “Most of our electricity generation is reliant on coal; an overwhelming majority of our transport and a very large percentage of our export industries are reliant on fossil fuels.
> 
> *"When you look at this, you would be blind to not see a myriad of looming business risks.”*
> 
> Clyne wrote that falling global oil and coal prices, a dip in Chinese coal consumption owing to air pollution concerns, pressure on fossil fuel subsidies that have been estimated at $10m a minute and competition from solar and wind are leaving Australia’s fossil fuel assets at risk of being “stranded”.
> 
> *“So you can be as angry as you like with environmentalists and “environmentalism” but from an economic point of view, it still wouldn’t make sense to be so heavily addicted to this polluting business as Australia is,” Clyne said.*
> 
> “We know from history what happens when a business or a government sets its face against a change that is coming anyway. It’s usually not the politicians or the chief executives who end up at the unemployment office



. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nd-about-climate-change-says-former-nab-chief


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Well I don't really know Noco and that thought had crossed my mind too, but the article was at pains to say the tides had been rising 10mm/annum. It wasn't an hysterical piece, although foreboding in the context that the island are apparently a bellweather for the rest of us, especially with sea frontage (I'm only about 50 metres from the shore and thinking of installing stainless steel stumps ).
> 
> I'd be interested if you find anything about it. Islands include the Solomons and the Torres Straits also, so it's over a wide area.




Perhaps this link will explain the reasons why island sink rather than the sea rising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll

*Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the Darwin Point. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.

    Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct

    As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef

    As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside

Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an open lagoon
*


----------



## explod

Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.




Maybe it is called Climate Change or something like that.....


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Is the water rising on those islands you mentioned or are they sinking.?.....Many of those island originated from coral cays and on occasions disintegrate down under giving the appearance that waters are rising.




haha ha 

dam it noco, you always amaze me with your logic.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Perhaps this link will explain the reasons why island sink rather than the sea rising.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll
> 
> *Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the Darwin Point. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.
> 
> Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct
> 
> As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef
> 
> As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside
> 
> Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an open lagoon
> *




and when the atolls sinks, it displaced the water. Hence the rising sea level 

Next it'll be all due to too many boatpeople and illegals floating around displacing water.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Sorry Rumpy .  If you are Wayne you don't need to provide evidence.  It's all self evident.
> 
> (And for God's sake don't talk about what's happening in Antartica/Greenland..)




Tsk tsk. Is that all you have? You have to lie to think you're taking a shot at me?

One day Im going to find you and ask you to justify this sort of crap to my face. I'm punting you wont have the cajones.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.




10mm?

Cites please.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Tsk tsk. Is that all you have? You have to lie to think you're taking a shot at me?
> 
> One day Im going to find you and ask you to justify this sort of crap to my face. I'm punting you wont have the cajones.




No evidence then ?


----------



## basilio

SirRumpole said:


> No evidence then ?




Clearly...

But if one was looking for analysis of what is happening to our sea levels and why this reference might be useful

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html


----------



## SirRumpole

And one from CSIRO

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


----------



## basilio

> Quote Originally Posted by SirRumpole View Post
> No evidence then ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly...
> 
> But if one was looking for analysis of what is happening to our sea levels and why this reference might be useful
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...evel-rise.html
Click to expand...




But if that wasn't good enough these sources could offer similar explanations.  (But I'm not sure if they arn't part of the world wide conspiracy network..

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-future/sea-level
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevelclimate.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/cede_sealevel/365
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...oct/30/new-research-quantifies-sea-level-rise
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/SLR_PA.pdf


----------



## basilio

What absolutely gets up my nose about this "furious" non debate on CC is the steadfast refusal by most climate change deniers *to acknowledge the validity of moving to a clean, renewable energy based society.*  In my view it paints them as just sock puppets for the coal and oil lobby whose sole intention is to derail attempts to recast our energy future.

This has been brought up a number of times and in my eyes could be a point of  agreement amongst people who might disagree with how significant CC is and the effects it can have. If we agreed that, as useful as fossil fuels have been in the past, we now have the technology to re power our world cleanly and long term, we could  move in a decisive, constructive manner and bypass this fruitless bickering

That was actually the  argument put by the recent CEO of the NAB Cameron Clyne. I posted his story previously. So far no comments

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rmer-nab-chief


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> What absolutely gets up my nose about this "furious" non debate on CC is the steadfast refusal by most climate change deniers *to acknowledge the validity of moving to a clean, renewable energy based society.*  In my view it paints them as just sock puppets for the coal and oil lobby whose sole intention is to derail attempts to recast our energy future.
> 
> This has been brought up a number of times and in my eyes could be a point of  agreement amongst people who might disagree with how significant CC is and the effects it can have. If we agreed that, as useful as fossil fuels have been in the past, we now have the technology to re power our world cleanly and long term, we could  move in a decisive, constructive manner and bypass this fruitless bickering
> 
> That was actually the  argument put by the recent CEO of the NAB Cameron Clyne. I posted his story previously. So far no comments
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rmer-nab-chief




And others too:

Rockefeller family sells out of fossil fuels and into clean energy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ut-of-fossil-fuels-and-into-clean-energy.html


----------



## explod

I have noted for awhile Bas that what cannot be refuted is ignored wherby no further discussion takes place and thereby has low exposure. 

Put one up the other day on the deterioration of northern australian coastal vegitation.  Ignored. 

It is very clear who is behind the denier camp.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> I have noted for awhile Bas that what cannot be refuted is ignored wherby no further discussion takes place and thereby has low exposure.
> 
> Put one up the other day on the deterioration of northern australian coastal vegitation.  Ignored.
> 
> It is very clear who is behind the denier camp.




It seems you are asking the so called "denier camp" to do your homework for you and then dissing them for non compliance with such an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## wayneL

1/ @ bas and plod,  Where are the cites for 10mm per year

2/ @ Horace, what do you want me to supply evidence of?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> and when the atolls sinks, it displaced the water. Hence the rising sea level
> 
> Next it'll be all due to too many boatpeople and illegals floating around displacing water.




luutzu, I believe I have have given you a satisfactory answer...If you cannot accept it then you perhaps you  should  do some more research yourself...Go to google I am sure you will get confirmation from different links on that site similar to one I gave you.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> 1/ @ bas and plod,  Where are the cites for 10mm per year
> 
> 2/ @ Horace, what do you want me to supply evidence of?




I jut got home googled BBC and found this:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36255749



> Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared amid rising seas and erosion, Australian researchers say.
> The missing islands, part of the Solomon Archipelago, were not inhabited by human beings.
> But six other islands were found to have seen swathes of land turn into sea, destroying entire villages.
> The researchers say it is the first scientific confirmation of the impact of climate change on Pacific coastlines.
> The study, published in Environmental Research Letters, looked at 33 islands using aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014, combined with historical insight and local knowledge.
> It found that the archipelago had seen sea levels rise as much as as 10mm (0.4in) every year for the past two decades.


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> Noco the above does not explain why the ocean level is rising 10mm per year everywhere.




I did ask Noco to post anything that might help explain if the sea is rising, the islands are sinking or any facsimile in between.

Thankyou for the effort Noco


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> 1/ @ bas and plod,  Where are the cites for 10mm per year
> 
> 2/ @ Horace, what do you want me to supply evidence of?




Are you saying that the islands that are going under are actually sinking, rather that the sea levels rising ?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I jut got home googled BBC and found this:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36255749




I did notice more information further down as high lighted but that report does not elaborate on what they mean by "DOES NOT RESULT FROM SEA LEVELS ALONE"
.


*However, the report stresses that the inundation does not result from rising sea levels alone.

It found that shoreline recession was substantially worse in areas exposed to high wave energy, and that extreme events and inappropriate development were also factors contributing to the erosion. 
*

Like many reports and findings, conflict does occurs.....I guess anyone can choose according to their political beliefs or a particular persuasions to satisfy their needs.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> I did notice more information further down as high lighted but that report does not elaborate on what they mean by "DOES NOT RESULT FROM SEA LEVELS ALONE"
> .
> 
> 
> *However, the report stresses that the inundation does not result from rising sea levels alone.
> 
> It found that shoreline recession was substantially worse in areas exposed to high wave energy, and that extreme events and inappropriate development were also factors contributing to the erosion.
> *
> 
> Like many reports and findings, conflict does occurs.....I guess anyone can choose according to their political beliefs or a particular persuasions to satisfy their needs.




Nice work Noco.  You read the whole article and noticed there were additional factors at play along with the rise in sea levels. 

So accepting all that if the sea levels continue to rise as per the scientific survey would we expect other Pacific Island to be overrun as the oceans continue to rise  ? 

_________________________________________________________________________

PS:  Wayne. Are you happy with that reference  re sea level rises or are they part of the WWC as well ?  (World Wide Conspiracy ..)


----------



## wayneL

Tisme said:


> I jut got home googled BBC and found this:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36255749




Tisyou,

Unlike others in this thread, I note you are capable of critical thinking. I invite you to employ this skill when examining this situation.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Are you saying that the islands that are going under are actually sinking, rather that the sea levels rising ?




I haven't examined the particular islands mentioned, however it is noteworthy that some islands are gaining land mass while others losing it.

Do you think this may be indicative of something?


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> I haven't examined the particular islands mentioned, however it is noteworthy that some islands are gaining land mass while others losing it.
> 
> Do you think this may be indicative of something?




Feel free to state your theory.


----------



## basilio

Wayne, I thought the issue of whether some islands might accumulate land mass while others lose it *was separate to the issue of overall sea level rises ?* 
____________________________________________________________________________________-

Just looking at local community responses to developing renewable energy alternatives.  There is a great story in The Guardian highlighting the  work of Yackandandah in become self sufficient in renewable energy.  Worth a read



> * Australia's regions already have an energy crisis – and a climate of investment is the answer*
> 
> Community energy groups are coming up with renewable energy schemes. Shouldn’t government extend a hand to help them?
> The 2015 Uralla Lantern Parade. Uralla is one of numerous communities addressing renewable energy directly.
> 
> 
> Matthew Charles-Jones
> 
> Thursday 12 May 2016 09.26 AEST
> Last modified on Thursday 12 May 2016 12.10 AEST
> 
> 
> Yackandandah, like most Australian towns, has had its ups and its downs. One of its biggest ups was the north-east Victorian gold rush. By the 1890s our town was full of miners toiling to extract what was left of its alluvial gold. The only thing holding these folks back was an energy crisis. The miners were unable to source the power needed to sluice and dredge or crush the ore. The solution was a water race from high up on the West Kiewa river, which wasn’t the brainchild of government, or even the mines department – but rather a local man.
> 
> John Wallace, a Yackandandah resident, recognised a problem that needed immediate action and set about solving it.
> 
> Many people living outside of Australia’s cities are now observing a new energy crisis and, once again, it is from within these small communities that solutions are emerging. While policy makers dither and draft lifeless strategies, those outside of the political bubble have no time to waste as they already face the realities of climate change on a daily basis. With every hotter month, with every failing crop and with an ever increasing bushfire threat, those who live in rural and regional Australia are desperately looking within for climate change solutions – and acting.
> 
> Capturing the spirit of Wallace, our small community group Totally Renewable Yackandandah (TRY) is pushed by necessity to get on with putting new energy solutions in place.
> 
> We started by being ambitious: setting a Yackandandah renewable energy target of 100% renewable electricity by the year 2022. It won’t be easy but real change rarely is – as Wallace would vouch.




http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...sis-and-a-climate-of-investment-is-the-answer

And guess who will be the main speaker at a fund raiser to help Yackandandah become energy self sufficient?

(You'll have to check out the story and follow the links to find out)


----------



## wayneL

Bas

Im all for renewable energy.


----------



## sptrawler

wayneL said:


> Bas
> 
> Im all for renewable energy.




I certainly hope renewable energy, is viable, before the gas runs out.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne, I thought the issue of whether some islands might accumulate land mass while others lose it *was separate to the issue of overall sea level rises ?*
> ____________________________________________________________________________________-




The sea level has been rising ever since the end of the little Ice Age. As such the attributable factors become a little bit hazy.

However there are figures quoted in this thread at 10 millimetres per year. You and I both know that that is bogus and if such rises were measured relative to a said land mass, then there are obviously other factors involved.


----------



## sptrawler

wayneL said:


> The sea level has been rising ever since the end of the little Ice Age. As such the attributable factors become a little bit hazy.
> 
> However there are figures quoted in this thread at 10 millimetres per year. You and I both know that that is bogus and if such rises were measured relative to a said land mass, then there are obviously other factors involved.




The other week, there was a report that vegetation is increasing, due to the increase in CO2.

I think planet Earth will be fine, long after we have gone. 
We might not be able to survive, but the planet will be o.k, is that a problem?

If it wasn't global warming that will kill us off, it will be overpopulation, or it will be a global war, we will ensure our own demise.

Everyone says Earth can support about 4 billion people, we have seven going on eight and we worry like $hit about people dying. What a hoot.

We don't want genetically modified food, but normal crops don't provide enough yield.

We really are just putting our fingers in the dyke, there is too many of us, wanting too much.lol


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> The other week, there was a report that vegetation is increasing, due to the increase in CO2.
> 
> I think planet Earth will be fine, long after we have gone.
> We might not be able to survive, but the planet will be o.k, is that a problem?
> 
> If it wasn't global warming that will kill us off, it will be overpopulation, or it will be a global war, we will ensure our own demise.
> 
> Everyone says Earth can support about 4 billion people, we have seven going on eight and we worry like $hit about people dying. What a hoot.
> 
> We don't want genetically modified food, but normal crops don't provide enough yield.
> 
> We really are just putting our fingers in the dyke, there is too many of us, wanting too much.lol




The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need. Just most of that 7 billion can't afford to pay for it so some geniuses thought it'd be cool to turn a lot of them into bio-Fuel 

Then the other grains that's slightly expensive? It's sold for grain feed for livestocks to feed fat azz Westerners (myself included, of course).

So it's not a resource problem, it's a distribution problem.

But we solve that by spending more on guns and weapons to keep the barbarians at bay... problem solved 

So yes, we really are dump monkies putting fingers in the dyke.


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need.




Maybe for some types of food, but world fish stocks are seriously threatened.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> The world actually produce more food than all its 7 billion people need. Just most of that 7 billion can't afford to pay for it so some geniuses thought it'd be cool to turn a lot of them into bio-Fuel





luutzu said:


> Or maybe the price we pay for it, wouldn't cover the cost of transporting the excess, to where it is needed.
> 
> 
> luutzu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the other grains that's slightly expensive? It's sold for grain feed for livestocks to feed fat azz Westerners (myself included, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again as before because, if we added the cost of transport, someones got to pay for it, that doesn't sit well with the down, down price mentality
> 
> So it's not a resource problem, it's a distribution problem.
> 
> But we solve that by spending more on guns and weapons to keep the barbarians at bay... problem solved
> 
> So yes, we really are dump monkies putting fingers in the dyke.
Click to expand...



However if we sent all our excess production and waste to areas that need it, would it encourage a population boom?

Well that copy and paste went ape.lol


----------



## basilio

*Rising sea levels.*

This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of

1) Thermal expansion from global warming
2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.

All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.

*The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. * We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.

The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut.  This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science.  (Very little comment as far as I can remember)

There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces.  This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels. 

The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.

Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ? 

https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807 
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami 

This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html 
Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Bas
> 
> Im all for renewable energy.




I do remember that comment from you previously and great. 
Perhaps it is a basis on which people might agree on a new direction.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> *Rising sea levels.*
> 
> This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of
> 
> 1) Thermal expansion from global warming
> 2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.
> 
> All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.
> 
> *The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. * We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.
> 
> The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut.  This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science.  (Very little comment as far as I can remember)
> 
> There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces.  This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels.
> 
> The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.
> 
> Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ?
> 
> https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
> 
> This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore
> 
> http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988
> 
> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
> Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world




O.K we are all doomed, as has been the case with most species.

We expend and populate to the point of non sustainability, then we perish, what's new.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> I do remember that comment from you previously and great.
> Perhaps it is a basis on which people might agree on a new direction.




I too am in favour of genuinely renewable energy, but am averse to having the renewable choices limited by the unreasonable demonisation of CO2.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *Rising sea levels.*
> 
> This isn't as cut and dried an issue as one might imagine. On a simple basis there is no doubt from almost all the scientific research that sea levels are rising as a consequence of
> 
> 1) Thermal expansion from global warming
> 2) Large scale melting of glaciers and land based ice. Greenland, Antarctica ect.
> 
> All of the sources I cited in an earlier post just go through the same explanation.
> 
> *The stuff that scares the xhit out of glaciologists is the rapidly accelerating rate of melt in Greenland and Antarctica caused by the relatively high temperatures as global warming has taken hold. * We talk about 1C degree of warming around the world but in Arctic and Antarctic average temperatures are now 2-4C higher. Ice is melting earlier, quicker and longer.
> 
> The oceans are warmer to the point that glaciers are being undercut.  This has been well documented and I have posted many references to the science.  (Very little comment as far as I can remember)
> 
> There are other issues that affect the sea levels relative to nearby landmasses. For example different land areas are rising or falling as a consequence of other forces.  This can muddy the waters in some places but in no way diminishes the overall accelerating increase of sea levels.
> 
> The flooding of the Solomon Islands group may have other contributing factors. But like Alaska, Louisiana, Florida and in fact all coastal regions rising sea levels will create huge problems and it now seems sooner rather than later.
> 
> Attempting to obfuscate this reality is ... what ?
> 
> https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-science-really-say-about-sea-level-rise-56807
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
> 
> This is really worth reading to appreciate how Miami is being undercut by rising sea levels. It's a reality that is impossible to ignore
> 
> http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988
> 
> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
> Excellent analysis of the rapidly changing climate at the poles and the impact that is having on climate around the world




What is new Bas?....we keep telling you it all happened 1000 years ago......Don't you dig it FFS.

And yet you keep  harping on about modelling.....It is a manipulation of the truth...I sailed into Glacier Bay on the way up to Alaska 4 years ago......I saw chunks of ice as large as a bus falling into the sea from 5 Glaciers and this is where the Greenies take there fake photos to make it look good.......GLOBAL WARMING they say is causing the ice to melt....Those glaciers are moving all the time....The cruise ship the ROTTERDAM makes a special trip into Glacier Bay just so one can see these big chunks of ice falling into the sea...I have lots of photos.

If you don't believe me, take the cruise and you will see it for yourself...That is why it is called Glacier Bay.

I know it will not make any difference to you because you have your mind set with these extravagant figures of 2 to 4 c in crease in temperature and fictitious rise in sea levels with some islands being swamped while others are building bigger.....I explained to you about some islands sinking and not sea risings....why are some being swamped by the sea and others are not affected.....You are being manipulated into believing it all.

I also traveled many time on business over 18 years into PNG, the Solomon   Island , Vanuatu and Fiji...

I don't know how much traveling you have done but if you haven't you should do it some time...It is a hell of an education.

I don't mean to be sarcastic with you but it is a fact ......traveling is a great experience and you can see a lot of these things first hand for yourself.


----------



## Logique

My bolds.  Funny how neither the ALP nor Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue! 

The Green Left will have to find another issue to piggy-back on their way to world domination. This one is a swiss cheese that isn't going anywhere.

If it will help Basilio and co-travellers, the oceans are full of plastics in various forms, this could be your next "great moral challenge".



> _“climate science” which so far hasn’t produced a moon shot, built any planes, or eradicated small pox_



Link below. Nor will it ever do so. It was only ever a travelling medicine show.



> http://joannenova.com.au/
> 
> John Cook starts with a myth that isn’t a myth, and which isn’t science either:
> 
> MYTH BUSTED: There’s no scientific consensus on climate change
> 
> Despite getting a full time salary at UQ, Cook-the-consensus expert hasn’t done his reading and doesn’t know that *almost half  of meteorologists are skeptics*,  *two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics*, and most readers of skeptical blogs (see the comments) have hard science degrees.
> 
> *The number of hard science degrees in the world would outnumber the number of “climate scientists” 100 to 1*, or maybe a thousand to one.
> 
> Ergo, the scientific world at large is skeptical of the small group in the new immature, unproven branchlet called *“climate science” which so far hasn’t produced a moon shot, built any planes, or eradicated small pox*.
> 
> Climate science collectively fails to predict droughts, El Ninos, and barbeque summers, and fails to do it all over the world.


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> My bolds.  Funny how neither the ALP or Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue!




Certainly food for thought Logique.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> My bolds.  Funny how neither the ALP nor Coalition wants climate change to be an election issue!
> 
> The Green Left will have to find another issue to piggy-back on their way to world domination. This one is a swiss cheese that isn't going anywhere.
> 
> If it will help Basilio and co-travellers, the oceans are full of plastics in various forms, this could be your next "great moral challenge".
> 
> Link below. Nor will it ever do so. It was only ever a travelling medicine show.




Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done.

Policy statement of the American Meteorological Society



> _Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century. _






> _Climate is always changing. *However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. *The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years. _





https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...tatements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

In addition, the AMS has over 13,000 members, which means a bare 10% returned the survey, and if half were dissenters that means only 5% of the AMS members did not agree that climate change exists, a far cry from the 50% claim of the quoted website of whoever that person is.

Is it any wonder that CC sceptics are giving themselves a bad name when they make outrageous claims that can be refuted with 5 minutes of research by someone like me with no qualifications in the area but who is prepared to dig into some facts and not accept things on face value.

Apparently this is the basis of the claim that "50% of Meteorologists" did not agree with human induced CC.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...eorologists-destroys-climate-consensus-claims


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done.
> 
> Policy statement of the American Meteorological Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...tatements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/
> 
> In addition, the AMS has over 13,000 members, which means a bare 10% returned the survey, and if half were dissenters that means only 5% of the AMS members did not agree that climate change exists, a far cry from the 50% claim of the quoted website of whoever that person is.
> 
> Is it any wonder that CC sceptics are giving themselves a bad name when they make outrageous claims that can be refuted with 5 minutes of research by someone like me with no qualifications in the area but who is prepared to dig into some facts and not accept things on face value.



You might want to reexamine the mathematics behind your calculation of 5% dissent. Is it any wonder that CC alarmists are giving themselves a bad name when they attempt to use statistical sleight of hand in such a blatantly obvious distortion of facts.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> You might want to reexamine the mathematics behind your calculation of 5% dissent. Is it any wonder that CC alarmists are giving themselves a bad name when they attempt to use statistical sleight of hand in such a blatantly obvious distortion of facts.




What do you think of the mathematics of the claim that 50% of climate scientists dissent when only 1800 of the 13,000 members bothered to reply to the survey ?

It seems obvious that the majority support the statement in the AMS's website, otherwise that statement would not be there.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> What do you think of the mathematics of the claim that 50% of climate scientists dissent when only 1800 of the 13,000 members bothered to reply to the survey ?
> 
> It seems obvious that the majority support the statement in the AMS's website, otherwise that statement would not be there.




I would certainly prefer to see a larger crosssection accompanied by an independent assessment of the way in which the survey was presented before accepting the 50% conclusion, however, to suggest, as you have done, that the only dissenters were amongst those responding, is a blatantly obvious distortion of the findings. In isolation to the aforementioned concerns, the suggestion that a roughly 14% cross section is indicative of the whole, needn't necessarily be seen as entirely unreasonable.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> I would certainly prefer to see a larger crosssection accompanied by an independent assessment of the way in which the survey was presented before accepting the 50% conclusion, however, to suggest, as you have done, that the only dissenters were amongst those responding, is a blatantly obvious distortion of the findings. In isolation to the aforementioned concerns, the suggestion that a roughly 14% cross section is indicative of the whole, needn't necessarily be seen as entirely unreasonable.




Whatever, we can argue stats all you want, the AMS's official position is that CC is *unequivocal* and if a majority or even a large minority of it's own members disagreed with that they wouldn't rely on a survey to state their opinions, they would be doing it very publicly.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Whatever, we can argue stats all you want, the AMS's official position is that CC is *unequivocal* and if a majority or even a large minority of it's own members disagreed with that they wouldn't rely on a survey to state their opinions, they would be doing it very publicly.




So it's now quite  okay for the climate brigade to argue that the stats from opinion polls somehow prove their "science" but no one is allowed to counter argue with opinion polls of their own!

So what exactly has been proven?(Blatant hypocrisy would seem a reasonable summation at this juncture.)


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> So it's now quite  okay for the climate brigade to argue that the stats from opinion polls somehow prove their "science" but no one is allowed to counter argue with opinion polls of their own!
> 
> So what exactly has been proven?(Blatant hypocrisy would seem a reasonable summation at this juncture.)




Huh ?

No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Huh ?
> 
> No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.




Appeal to authority fallacy.

Did you know 100%of Muslims believe in God because Mohammad said so?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Huh ?
> 
> No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.



And I refer you to my official position that there is a dearth of scientific proof backing the claims of the climate brigade. One may choose to side with whomsoever one wishes,  but let's not pretend that one is blameless when choosing to unquestioningly align with another's agenda.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> Did you know 100%of Muslims believe in God because Mohammad said so?




How else would anyone follow any religion? 

Christians believe in God and Christ being His one and only Son because..... ?

Buddhists believes in Buddha and other fairies because...?

Pretty sure they believe it on faith and not on actual evidence Sifu.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> How else would anyone follow any religion?
> 
> Christians believe in God and Christ being His one and only Son because..... ?
> 
> Buddhists believes in Buddha and other fairies because...?
> 
> Pretty sure they believe it on faith and not on actual evidence Sifu.




Exactly my point Grasshopper


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Exactly my point Grasshopper




Sorry Sifu, should have known.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done...



You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.

And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.
> 
> And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.
> 
> View attachment 66684




Do you have climate  science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?

As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.


----------



## Smurf1976

I don't see why someone needs formal scientific qualifications to look at that chart and conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is clearly not linear. To see what the chart says only requires a high school level of understanding, not a masters degree. Understanding the reasons requires a deeper understanding certainly but the chart itself seems pretty clear.

I'll likewise say that you don't need a degree or other professional qualifications in finance to look at a chart of the ASX200 and conclude that it has gone up since the lows of early 2009 but has thus far never returned to the peak value seen in late 2007. I'm pretty sure that even those who have never invested in anything more complex than bank deposits and a superannuation fund could look at the chart and see that.

Back to the chart itself, what I do find interesting is the question of where the CO2 is actually going. Emissions have gone up massively compared to 40 years ago but the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration hasn't accelerated to anywhere near the same extent. 

My concern there is that if we simply cut CO2 emissions by, say, 30% then that's not going to result in a 30% slower rate of increase in atmospheric concentration as it doesn't seem to be a linear relationship. That being so, to have any real impact we may need to cut far more drastically and even then the concentration keeps rising albeit more slowly. 

The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Do you have climate  science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?
> 
> As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.




Oh Yeah.....Ain't science great when it goes the way you want it to go and not in the opposite direction of one's expectations.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right




Precisely. If it was lifted from a peer reviewed publication of experts in the field then we give more weight to it, but we also need to know the ifs, buts and maybe's.

Just as looking at a financial chart doesn't tell you the circumstances why stock prices behaved the way they did, you also need to know all the other contributing factors which in a complicated system are multifarious.

Graphs from the nasa site seem to show a different result to that above.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Precisely. If it was lifted from a peer reviewed publication of experts in the field then we give more weight to it, but we also need to know the ifs, buts and maybe's.
> 
> Just as looking at a financial chart doesn't tell you the circumstances why stock prices behaved the way they did, you also need to know all the other contributing factors which in a complicated system are multifarious.
> 
> Graphs from the nasa site seem to show a different result to that above.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/




We all know these peer reviewed publications by so called "EXPERTS" can be manipulated according to the way they want it to go to make one  believe they are true.......But someone gets up and says but 97% of scientists cannot be wrong.....I am still trying to find out from on this site and google what is the number of 97%....I have also been trying to make wine out of water but to date I have not had any success.....I did learn from Chemical engineer how to make  wine into urine..

Also one will always believe the charts and data that suits  their political beliefs. 

But there is nothing like believing in what one has seen and experienced in the closing in of 90 years of life after traveling around Australia for 12 months and to many parts of the Globe...There is nothing like having listened to my parents,who were both born in the late 1800's, and their experience with the weather.

Many people believe in God purely because they have been told to believe there is a God.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Do you have climate  science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?
> 
> As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.




Whilst we're at it, perhaps you could first direct us to the scientific body that has proven the existence of a degree or academic qualification that somehow confers sufficient immunity from error, bias and mendacity as to render the claims of the holder infallible and therefore beyond reproach.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Whilst we're at it, perhaps you could first direct us to the scientific body that has proven the existence of a degree or academic qualification that somehow confers sufficient immunity from error, bias and mendacity as to render the claims of the holder infallible and therefore beyond reproach.




It's really a matter of the odds isn't it ?

I consider a qualified doctor has a better chance of finding out my health status than a Chinese herbalist.

Of course doctors and other qualified people can be wrong, but the more of them that say the same thing increases the chances that they are right and that the mainly unqualified people who argue with them are wrong.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> It's really a matter of the odds isn't it ?
> 
> I consider a qualified doctor has a better chance of finding out my health status than a Chinese herbalist.
> 
> Of course doctors and other qualified people can be wrong, but the more of them that say the same thing increases the chances that they are right and that the mainly unqualified people who argue with them are wrong.




Aha. Now I know where you're coming from! Well, yes I suppose the sun is rotating around our flat earth.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Aha. Now I know where you're coming from! Well, yes I suppose the sun is rotating around our flat earth.




You make less sense every time you post here.

Where are you coming from, that you are right and that NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc are wrong ?

What's your evidence for that ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> You make less sense every time you post here.
> 
> Where are you coming from, that you are right and that NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc are wrong ?
> 
> What's your evidence for that ?



Scientific conjectures aren't rendered proven via ballot!


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.
> 
> And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.
> 
> View attachment 66684




Really Logique ?  I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.

If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have* fallen * in the past 18 years and there has only been  maximum of .4 C increase  in global temperatures since 1880.

And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.

If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.

But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming.  In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica  ice.

But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication.  I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.

The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.


	

		
			
		

		
	
  (From NASA website

This is in fact a few years old.  Currently the world is running at *1.3C * over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012.  The last few years have been exceptionally warm.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Really Logique ?  I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.
> 
> If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have* fallen * in the past 18 years and there has only been  maximum of .4 C increase  in global temperatures since 1880.
> 
> And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.
> 
> If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.
> 
> *But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming.  In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica  ice.*
> 
> But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication.  I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.
> 
> The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
> View attachment 66686
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (From NASA website
> 
> This is in fact a few years old.  Currently the world is running at *1.3C * over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012.  The last few years have been exceptionally warm.




Here we go again on that confounded Merry-Go-Round.

We have gone a full circle of what happened 1000 years ago when the temperatures in the Arctic and Greenland were higher than they are today....But that  makes little difference to your thinking...Your mind is set and nothing, I mean nothing will change it....You can come up with all the graphs and data but what happened 1000 years ago is not important or is it?

Any computer literate "SCIENTIST" can develop a graph and make it look extreme for the right people who are willing to pay for it....We see different graphs on this thread which conflict with each other.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Here we go again on that confounded Merry-Go-Round.
> 
> We have gone a full circle of what happened 1000 years ago when the temperatures in the Arctic and Greenland were higher than they are today....But that  makes little difference to your thinking...Your mind is set and nothing, I mean nothing will change it....You can come up with all the graphs and data but what happened 1000 years ago is not important or is it?
> 
> Any computer literate "SCIENTIST" can develop a graph and make it look extreme for the right people who are willing to pay for it....We see different graphs on this thread which conflict with each other.




What happenned 1000 years ago in a small section of the planet has nothing to do with the huge changes today all over the planet. 

And we do not have to worry about scientists,  it is very obvious to those of us who grew up on the land to see with our own eyes. 

Have put up very many clear examples over time on this thread,  but noco you choose to ignore them so could not be bothered anymore.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> What happenned 1000 years ago in a small section of the planet has nothing to do with the huge changes today all over the planet.
> 
> And we do not have to worry about scientists,  it is very obvious to those of us who grew up on the land to see with our own eyes.
> 
> Have put up very many clear examples over time on this thread,  but noco you choose to ignore them so could not be bothered anymore.




Well that is your opinion my friend ...What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with what happened to the planet...as what happened 500 years ago in the mini ice age which will happen again......As what happened in the dinosaur era...was it extreme temperatures...extreme cold?......was it drought or was it flood which was the result of climate change?...That never gets mentioned on this thread.

Those climate examples are based on supposition, manipulated modeling from peered reviewed "SCIENTIST" who are closely associated with the United Nations and who are using this scam to edge their way into World Government.

I too lived and worked on the land in south west Queensland in the late 1940's and early 1950's for 3 to 4 years when wool was one pound sterling for one pound of wool.....Were you on the land at that time?.....I experienced first hand, extreme heat, extreme cold, drought and floods...I was even marooned on Beechwood Station near Mehandarra  for two weeks..I worked on sheep stations around Roma, St George, Goondawindi, Thallon and Dirranbandi....So please don't try to tell what it is like living on the land....I too have had first hand experience.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Well that is your opinion my friend ...What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with what happened to the planet...as what happened 500 years ago in the mini ice age which will happen again......As what happened in the dinosaur era...was it extreme temperatures...extreme cold?......was it drought or was it flood which was the result of climate change?...That never gets mentioned on this thread.




Yes noco is right, there have been ice ages and periods hotter than today, but they have occured over long periods of time. The rate of warming today is the concern.



> How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
> 
> Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.
> 
> See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.
> Photograph of a section of an ice core, with bubbles.
> Graph of temperature anomalies from the EPICA ice core, Antarctica.
> 
> Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)
> 
> Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
> 
> As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
> Graph of multi-proxy global temperature reconstruction and instrumental records.
> 
> Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)
> 
> Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Yes noco is right, there have been ice ages and periods hotter than today, but they have occured over long periods of time. The rate of warming today is the concern.




Agree,  is why I have continually referred noco to "The Sixth Extinction"  which very clearly spells out what you refer to as the varying speed of the time periods.   Whats happening now is fast and accellerating.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Really Logique ?  I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.
> 
> If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have* fallen * in the past 18 years and there has only been  maximum of .4 C increase  in global temperatures since 1880.
> 
> And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.
> 
> If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.
> 
> But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming.  In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica  ice.
> 
> But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication.  I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.
> 
> The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
> View attachment 66686
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (From NASA website
> 
> This is in fact a few years old.  Currently the world is running at *1.3C * over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012.  The last few years have been exceptionally warm.




Is this the same crowd that used sea temperature next to the inlet valve of the engine of the ships and somehow over a 100 year period measured every bit of data from the steam ships to the US Navy warships and deduced the sea temperature was gettting hotter as they all used the same thermometer?


----------



## ghotib

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't see why someone needs formal scientific qualifications to look at that chart and conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is clearly not linear. To see what the chart says only requires a high school level of understanding, not a masters degree. Understanding the reasons requires a deeper understanding certainly but the chart itself seems pretty clear.




I didn't understand this chart last time I saw it, and I still don't. Logique, did you post it before? Where did you find it, and does the source explain:  

1. Why a chart of annual CO2 averages has data points 22 months apart. Unless the X-axis labels are for temperature?? But if that's so, what's the interval for the CO2 data points, and...

2. What does "plot of 30-year global temperature change" mean? How does the 30-year global temperature change relate to the 22 month data points, if it does? 

3.  Why does the subtitle refer to "Large sustained warming prior to growth of human industrial/consumer CO2 emissions" when the chart starts in 1880?



> I'll likewise say that you don't need a degree or other professional qualifications in finance to look at a chart of the ASX200 and conclude that it has gone up since the lows of early 2009 but has thus far never returned to the peak value seen in late 2007. I'm pretty sure that even those who have never invested in anything more complex than bank deposits and a superannuation fund could look at the chart and see that.
> 
> Back to the chart itself, what I do find interesting is the question of where the CO2 is actually going. Emissions have gone up massively compared to 40 years ago but the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration hasn't accelerated to anywhere near the same extent.




Into the oceans. Hence ocean acidification, sometimes known as 'global warming's evil twin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump (excuse a Wikiipedia citation - I'm out of time).



> My concern there is that if we simply cut CO2 emissions by, say, 30% then that's not going to result in a 30% slower rate of increase in atmospheric concentration as it doesn't seem to be a linear relationship. That being so, to have any real impact we may need to cut far more drastically and even then the concentration keeps rising albeit more slowly.




Spot on!! The problem is that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so annual emissions are cumulative. 



> The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right.




I'm commenting on the assumption that it's not deliberately obfuscating


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Agree,  is why I have continually referred noco to "The Sixth Extinction"  which very clearly spells out what you refer to as the varying speed of the time periods.   Whats happening now is fast and accellerating.




Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated  theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.

So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Spot on!! The problem is that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so annual emissions are cumulative.
> 
> ...




Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?

Hence co2 levels may  not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated  theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.
> 
> So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?




Their tribal elders sold an apocalyptic religion to the masses. A sizable minority of indoctrinated zealots took up the cause and passionately embarked on a crusade to wipe out all the heretics. The subsequent peace lasted only briefly as shortly thereafter division amongst the ranks of believers ensued giving rise to a further crusade for eradication of this new breed of heresy. This cycle continued and the rest is prehistory.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Wow..now it is evident you have all accepted the history of Climate change, (Global WARMING) or what ever the theme is today, but the new theory of the day is that it is accelerating faster than before.....Now I wonder who came up with that new ingenious manipulated  theory?...No don't tell me, It is all those expert scientist with their peer reviewed theories approved by the UN.....Mumma mia!!!!!!!!!!!!.
> 
> So what do you all think happened to the dinosaurs?...Any ideas from the brains trust?




What is happenning before our eyes is not theory,  its happening.   The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out. 

Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction"   by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin,  1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically,  rock samples etc)  of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.


----------



## Smurf1976

cynic said:


> Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?




CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.

So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.

My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.

I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?
> 
> Hence co2 levels may  not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.





With the world's "lung" being eaten away daily through deforestation; with CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and hence reduces its oxygen level (among other things)... this circle of life doesn't spin so well anymore.

Was watching the Jimmy Dorres show where some American politician, on hearing some sceptic who said CO2 is not a big deal, tell the guy to go put a bag around his head to see if it's a big deal.


----------



## Logique

We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world _should_ be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.

But it's still no reason to vote Greens.

Don't shoot the messenger Bas and SirR.  And my apologies for trolling you today!


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world _should_ be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.




There's data and charts showing no warming and there are others showing quite a big increase in temperature.

It seems rather obvious that at least some of this data is being measured in a manner intended to mislead and/or is simply false.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.
> 
> So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.
> 
> My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.
> 
> I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.




The relationship is not linear and the natural process is that the ocean absorbs CO2 as previously mentioned which causes them to become more acidic and damaging to marine life.

Also there is a limit to the amount of co2 that oceans can absorb. When that limit is reached global warming will accelerate.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> We are emerging from the post-Pleistocene Ice Age. The world _should_ be warming. Although it hasn't in the last 18 years and 9 months.
> 
> But it's still no reason to vote Greens.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger Bas and SirR.  And my apologies for trolling you today!
> 
> View attachment 66687




Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html


----------



## cynic

Smurf1976 said:


> CO2 was going up at a certain rate 40 (or 30 or 20) years ago. We've since massively increased the amount of CO2 that we're emitting but that hasn't been matched by an acceleration of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Some increase in the rate of increase yes, but not a linear relationship.
> 
> So there's definitely a lot of complexity here. No question about that.
> 
> My thought is that we're seeing a combination of both natural and man-made processes, some of which we are completely unaware even exist, and that's making it hard to see what's really going on.
> 
> I do agree strongly that the rate of warming seen in recent times, at least based on some data sources, is alarming and that is so regardless of the cause. Even if it's purely natural, such a rapid change is cause for concern.




Your thinking on this matter seems quite reasonable. That might simply be a consequence of the fact that I am largely agreeable with many of your points.

The absence of a linear relationship between increased co2 emissions and it's presence in the atmosphere might not be so mysterious as it initially seems. Could there, perhaps, be a minimum level of concentration required, before there is sufficient atmospheric conductivity to accomodate the natural recycling processes? Nature may have intially needed some time to adapt to sharp changes, thereby creating a hiatus in the recycling process.

As for recent climactic changes, I do believe it would be wise to accurately identify causation, before deciding whether or not a menacing situation actually exists. Armed with that information mankind might be better equipped to define the problem (if any) and subsequently determine an appropriate solution should one actually be required.


----------



## Tisme

I find myself wondering why the zeal to prosecute the case, but I am pleased to see other people have the same gut feel that I have. The worrying aspect for me is the absurdity of allowing political prostitutes to own the logical and moral sections of your own brain:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> With the world's "lung" being eaten away daily through deforestation; with CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and hence reduces its oxygen level (among other things)... this circle of life doesn't spin so well anymore.
> 
> Was watching the Jimmy Dorres show where some American politician, on hearing some sceptic who said CO2 is not a big deal, tell the guy to go put a bag around his head to see if it's a big deal.




So that's where the head in the bag of CO2 came from!

Couldn't someone equally use this argument to make similarly menacing claims about H2O?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I find myself wondering why the zeal to prosecute the case, but I am pleased to see other people have the same gut feel that I have. The worrying aspect for me is the absurdity of allowing political prostitutes to own the logical and moral sections of your own brain:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/




Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big  tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.

Pretty disgusting really.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big  tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
> 
> Pretty disgusting really.




But Shorten already said he would not reintroduce a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" under the government he leads.

So how is he going to get his 50% reduction target by 2030?

Ah yes an ETS of course which will jack up electricity prices by 78%.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> But Shorten already said he would not reintroduce a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" under the government he leads.
> 
> So how is he going to get his 50% reduction target by 2030?
> 
> Ah yes an ETS of course which will jack up electricity prices by 78%.




Where did you get 78% from ?


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big  tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
> 
> Pretty disgusting really.




 I think Abbott established his efficacy using argumentum ad populum from his political outset. That people swarmed to him is another troubling aspect of human behaviour in the need to belong to a tribe of (generally across parties) opportunistic truth pariahs.

Somehow we have been conditioned to admire the resilience and consistency of lying in parliament as some kind of victory for celebrity and determination to short shrift the majority of us.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So that's where the head in the bag of CO2 came from!
> 
> Couldn't someone equally use this argument to make similarly menacing claims about H2O?




I think it's established facts that too much of anything is not good for you, including H2O.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I think it's established facts that too much of anything is not good for you, including H2O.




That may well be the case. As it happens, both of these compounds are naturally occurring and also result from the burning of fossil fuels. 

Telling anyone to stick their head in a bag of either, really only serves to make one point, namely a lack of circumspection on the part of the one issuing such an absurd directive.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> That may well be the case. As it happens, both of these compounds are naturally occurring and also result from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> Telling anyone to stick their head in a bag of either, really only serves to make one point, namely a lack of circumspection on the part of the one issuing such an absurd directive.




A lot of things are "natural" results of doing something. That doesn't make it good, or safe.

Example, it is only natural that if poison is consumed, the consumer die. It is only natural that if you muck around with deadly snakes, it will probably bite you and you will probably die - so don't do it.

Same with burning of fossil fuel... it's only natural that burning it will produce energy, CO2 and other by-products... does it mean this natural stuff is good?

That's the question we're trying to answer right?


The bag example is crude but it gets to the point.

What if the entire planet is that bag? What if all life on it is the person whose head is in that bag?

A small amount of Co2 might not matter much; but if big enough amount of CO2 and other poisonous natural by--products fill up that bag, it'll matter a great deal.

----

Of our entire Solar System, this third rock from the Sun is the only one capable of sustaining life on it. As far as our technology can see and can detect, there's unlikely to be any other habitable planet around for literally light years away. And forget about our technology to get us to one if we do find it... 

so maybe we ought to be a bit cautious on this one.

I guess we all could say what's the use, long before CC wipe us out the wars for water and resources with them couple trillion dollars' worth of nukes will do it anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> That may well be the case. As it happens, both of these compounds are naturally occurring and also result from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> Telling anyone to stick their head in a bag of either, really only serves to make one point, namely a lack of circumspection on the part of the one issuing such an absurd directive.




Don't take it too literally, the point is well made. If humans breathe in too great a concentration to co2 they die. That's a simple counter to the "co2 is a harmless gas" debating point put up by the chronically stupid CC deniers.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Don't take it too literally, the point is well made. If humans breathe in too great a concentration to co2 they die. That's a simple counter to the "co2 is a harmless gas" debating point put up by the chronically stupid CC deniers.



Are you suggesting that humans inhaling too great a concentration of H2O will not also die?

If not, then I put it to you that the point is most certainly not well made and lacks circumspection.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> What is happe
> ning before our eyes is not theory,  its happening.   The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out.
> 
> Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction"   by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin,  1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically,  rock samples etc)  of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.




Ermmm no that did not happen plod 







> "The asteroid almost certainly did it but it just so happened to hit at a bad time when dinosaur ecosystems had been weakened by a loss of diversity," Brusatte said. "If the asteroid had hit a few million years earlier, or a few million years later, then dinosaurs probably wouldn't have gone extinct."




https://www.theguardian.com/science...-killed-off-biodiversity-edinburgh-scientists


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Don't take it too literally, the point is well made. If humans breathe in too great a concentration to co2 they die. That's a simple counter to the "co2 is a harmless gas" debating point put up by the chronically stupid CC deniers.




Rumpy Rumpy Rumpy  ... Horace do you know what concentration of Co2 the human being can adapt to before we run out of "gas"??

As in light headed .. giddy etc.???


----------



## noco

explod said:


> What is happenning before our eyes is not theory,  its happening.   The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out.
> 
> Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction"   by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin,  1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically,  rock samples etc)  of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.




Lots of theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs including climate change.  

http://www.unmuseum.org/deaddino.htm


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big  tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
> 
> Pretty disgusting really.




Horace ,,, divisions of security and state old **** .. Let's vote Labor and get 50% tax on all the ****e you consume for instance. Can't wait for my next electricity bill !!

CC is happening really? PROVE IT for ONCE and mebbe jus meebe I might listen. And FFS dont; go the world is hot and lizards are dying crapola.

Give me something real .... Oh yeah Tonga Island http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-emerge-of-new-Pacific-island-off-Tonga.html

PULLLLLEEZZE do not get me started on the volcano that just erupted ....



> First photographs emerge of new Pacific island off Tonga
> Three men scale peak of new one-mile island off Tonga which is believed to have formed after a volcano exploded underwater and then expanded




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-emerge-of-new-Pacific-island-off-Tonga.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZY6kH_RXSU


----------



## trainspotter

Resist the HYSTERIA !!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> A lot of things are "natural" results of doing something. That doesn't make it good, or safe.
> 
> Example, it is only natural that if poison is consumed, the consumer die. It is only natural that if you muck around with deadly snakes, it will probably bite you and you will probably die - so don't do it.
> 
> Same with burning of fossil fuel... it's only natural that burning it will produce energy, CO2 and other by-products... does it mean this natural stuff is good?
> 
> That's the question we're trying to answer right?
> 
> 
> The bag example is crude but it gets to the point.
> 
> What if the entire planet is that bag? What if all life on it is the person whose head is in that bag?
> 
> A small amount of Co2 might not matter much; but if big enough amount of CO2 and other poisonous natural by--products fill up that bag, it'll matter a great deal.
> 
> ----
> 
> Of our entire Solar System, this third rock from the Sun is the only one capable of sustaining life on it. As far as our technology can see and can detect, there's unlikely to be any other habitable planet around for literally light years away. And forget about our technology to get us to one if we do find it...
> 
> so maybe we ought to be a bit cautious on this one.
> 
> I guess we all could say what's the use, long before CC wipe us out the wars for water and resources with them couple trillion dollars' worth of nukes will do it anyway.




We seem to be on a different page here. The question of life on other planets and mankind's failure to recognise the likelihood of a much larger spectrum of lifeforms than is currently known, is an issue that speaks again to the arrogance of the human race and my theory that humanity is giving itself and its science far more credit than is truly warranted.

As for the question of dangers posed by natural products issuing from burning of fossil fuels, you can make a distinction if you wish. However, to single out one essential compound in isolation to others and declare it to be dangerous in sufficiently high concentrations, is pretty much stating the blindingly obvious and doesn't further anyone's cause. I maintain that mention of H2O is an adequate counter to ludicrous directives concerning placement of heads in bags of virtually any natural compound and consider those claiming otherwise to be doing themselves and their argument a great disservice.

Before deciding to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, surely it would be wise to first ascertain what levels earth ideally requires for sustenance of the current flora and fauna population, would it not? For all that is known, nature could already (and probably is) adjusting the concentration levels via natural processes. In such a scenario, efforts to reduce those levels, could potentially do needless harm to the ecosystems on this planet.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> We seem to be on a different page here. The question of life on other planets and mankind's failure to recognise the likelihood of a much larger spectrum of lifeforms than is currently known, is an issue that speaks again to the arrogance of the human race and my theory that humanity is giving itself and its science far more credit than is truly warranted.
> 
> As for the question of dangers posed by natural products issuing from burning of fossil fuels, you can make a distinction if you wish. However, to single out one essential compound in isolation to others and declare it to be dangerous in sufficiently high concentrations, is pretty much stating the blindingly obvious and doesn't further anyone's cause. I maintain that mention of H2O is an adequate counter to ludicrous directives concerning placement of heads in bags of virtually any natural compound and consider those claiming otherwise to be doing themselves and their argument a great disservice.
> 
> Before deciding to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, surely it would be wise to first ascertain what levels earth ideally requires for sustenance of the current flora and fauna population, would it not? For all that is known, nature could already (and probably is) adjusting the concentration levels via natural processes. In such a scenario, efforts to reduce those levels, could potentially do needless harm to the ecosystems on this planet.




Did I just read you right? Reducing CO2 may actually do harm?


Yes, humans and our own Sun are quite insignficant... but you're not giving us enough credit for the destruction we can cause, even if it is relatively insignicant and "temporary" in the grand scheme of the Earth's history.

Anywho...

The Scientists have all done enough and made their recommendations pretty clear on the appropriate level. Whether we want to accept it or not... 

I thought "our" leaders kind of all agree on the need to reduce CO2... it's now just a matter of doing the right thing by the grandkids or the corporations.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Where did you get 78% from ?




Rumpy, I heard on Sky news about a month ago.

The first phase will up power prices by 8 to 25% but future phases are still a bit sketchy.....I guess Labor has intentions of increasing the % over time.  

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-by-8-to-25-says-coalition-linked-economist

*A little-noticed part of Labor’s climate policy could push up retail power prices by between 8% and 25%, economist Danny Price has claimed, with price hikes in Victoria exceeding the impact of the former Labor government’s carbon tax.

Price, who helped devise the Coalition’s climate policy, told Guardian Australia last week the main plank of Labor’s policy – a new style electricity emissions trading scheme – was exactly what he designed for Malcolm Turnbull in 2009 and mirrored what the Coalition’s Direct Action plan would almost certainly have to become to meet Australia’s greenhouse targets. He said the price rises under that scheme would be “minimal” for many years.
Labor proposes two emissions trading schemes costing $355.9m
Read more

But Price has now modelled a second plank of Labor’s policy – a scheme under which big brown-coal generators, near the end of their operational life, would submit bids for how much money they would need to receive to shut straight away and deal with the community and employment fallout. The cost of the winning bid would be paid for by all the other generators in the market, who would enjoy higher prices because of their competitor’s closure.*


----------



## ghotib

cynic said:


> Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?
> 
> Hence co2 levels may  not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.



No I'm not. More to the point, scientists have done a great deal of work to find out how carbon circulates. 

Here's a discussion of the carbon cycle that's pitched at high school students, which is about the level I'm most comfortable. An extract:  "While carbon is exchanged in both directions between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere and between the ocean and the atmosphere, there is only a one-way movement of carbon from fossil fuels to the atmosphere." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

Fossil carbon was isolated from the natural processes that operate on roughly human timescales (the fast carbon cycle) until humans started releasing it into the atmosphere. The natural processes that will ultimately isolate it again are geological. http://www.petroleum.co.uk/carbon-cycle


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Did I just read you right? Reducing CO2 may actually do harm?




Yes you did read me correctly. 

Until such time as these "scientists", to whom you refer, demonstrate that they have actually done their homework and duly accounted for the full spectrum natural and "artificial" processes in their findings, I shall maintain my current position that scepticism is warranted. 

It is my belief that the burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of those calling for action.

So instead of the usual cycle of overhyped statistics,media reports and assertions that it is okay to allow a select subset of "scientists" to do all of our thinking for us, how about some scientific proof for a change?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Yes you did read me correctly.
> 
> Until such time as these "scientists", to whom you refer, demonstrate that they have actually done their homework and duly accounted for the full spectrum natural and "artificial" processes in their findings, I shall maintain my current position that scepticism is warranted.
> 
> It is my belief that the burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of those calling for action.
> 
> So instead of the usual cycle of overhyped statistics,media reports and assertions that it is okay to allow a select subset of "scientists" to do all of our thinking for us, how about some scientific proof for a change?




"subset" of so called "scientists"? 

Bloody el


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> No I'm not. More to the point, scientists have done a great deal of work to find out how carbon circulates.
> 
> Here's a discussion of the carbon cycle that's pitched at high school students, which is about the level I'm most comfortable. An extract:  "While carbon is exchanged in both directions between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere and between the ocean and the atmosphere, there is only a one-way movement of carbon from fossil fuels to the atmosphere." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/




Some bold claims being made on that climatechange centric (check their vision and mission statements if you do not believe me) website there ghotib. Did you happen to notice how they neglected to mention the potential for corruption of their "isotopic fingerprints" by cosmological factors?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> "subset" of so called "scientists"?
> 
> Bloody el




My sentiments exactly!


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> *>>>>>Revamped<<<<<* satellite data shows no pause in global warming
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html




Notice anything in that headline Horace?


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> CC is happening really? PROVE IT for ONCE and mebbe jus meebe I might listen. And FFS dont; go the world is hot and lizards are dying crapola.




I refer you to the statements of professional bodies posted here ad nauseum. If they are not good enough for you and you prefer the claims of tin hat wearing conspiracy theorists that's your problem.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Notice anything in that headline Horace?




The scientific process always includes refining and updating data sets. Of course the tin hat brigade see this as suspicious, but that is due to their lack of understanding of the process.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> The scientific process always includes refining and updating data sets. Of course the tin hat brigade see this as suspicious, but that is due to their lack of understanding of the process.




On the contrary. That process is well understood by those cognisant of the process whereby the zealots adjust the evidence to produce predetermined outcomes consistent with religious beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> On the contrary. That process is well understood by those cognisant of the process whereby the zealots adjust the evidence to produce predetermined outcomes consistent with religious beliefs.




Unlike religion, science dissidents are not executed. If they can prove their claims with evidence then those claims are accepted.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Unlike religion, science dissidents are not executed. If they can prove their claims with evidence then those claims are accepted.




Perhaps you could illuminate me on this matter of evidencing  and/or proving scientific claims. How exactly does evidence adjustment validate unproven scientific conjectures?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Perhaps you could illuminate me on this matter of evidencing  and/or proving scientific claims. How exactly does evidence adjustment validate unproven scientific conjectures?




Perhaps you should ask the experts about their data sets and let us know their response.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Perhaps you should ask the experts about their data sets and let us know their response.



So which experts should I be consulting, I wonder? Should I consult those experts in the field with whom Sir R agrees, or those in disagreeance with Sir R? And what difference would it make anyway?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> So which experts should I be consulting, I wonder? Should I consult those experts in the field with whom Sir R agrees, or those in disagreeance with Sir R? And what difference would it make anyway?




Contact anyone you like, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Contact anyone you like, it doesn't bother me.




Of course it doesn't. You already know which experts to believe in and which to doubt. Any disagreeable response one returns with may anticipate a similar reaction to current. 

One may rightly ask how could I possibly know this? 

The consistency of outcomes of repeated experiments on this thread shall be my reply!


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> One may rightly ask how could I possibly know this?




You might enquire about their qualifications in the area of interest.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> I think it's established facts that too much of anything is not good for you, including H2O.




Too much of a good thing? Apparently plant root systems don't like too much C02 either.

I wonder if the build up rate of C02 from 0.035% in 2005 to 0.04% today is straight line or exponential. 

My current profession means I have to know a bit about air quality and how to mitigate deleterious effects on the victims of the modern factory system where humans are caged animals in man made structures, duped into thinking they matter. 

In Oz, hi rise office buildings, especially green star and nabers accredited,  generally have their indoor air quality controlled by automation systems, at max 700ppm C02, although that's based on ASHRAE recommending 700ppm above outdoor levels (when outdoor levels were around the 300 ish ppm level). Exposure in the production workplace is generally maxed out to 5000 ppm over an 8 hour period, before the EPA takes over from the union rep's job. 

The real problem concerning ventilation of populated areas is VOC  concentrations, of which C02 is in the soup. It's the volatile organic compounds in confined spaces like office towers and homes that is the vociferous villain that injures/kills more by stealth than overt means. 

We've all been taught at high school about aromatic hydrocarbons, but would rather think about other things. The methylene chlorides, formaldehydes, etc are all around 500% greater inside homes than outside and we wonder why we can't kick the cancer habit. We get home and feel the immediate need to relax and blame it on a hard days work, when in fact we are giving ourselves a large dose of fatigue inducing, headache causing, rash promoting, itchy eye chemicals into our lungs. 

IMO the thing we have to consider is how the outdoor pollution levels of VOC gases, including CO2, reduce the gap to indoor concentrations and how much respite our bodies are going to get when when our brains say "get outside now before you die!". It's feasible our health will suffer much more from poisoning and disease than asphyxiation. So for our own sakes we should make sure we throw any empty plastic bottles into the outside bin dilgently rather than storing inside, keep our houses well ventilated and explain to the wife that painting the walls, vacuuming the carpets and mowing the lawn is bad karma.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> Of course it doesn't. You already know which experts to believe in and which to doubt. Any disagreeable response one returns with may anticipate a similar reaction to current.
> 
> One may rightly ask how could I possibly know this?
> 
> The consistency of outcomes of repeated experiments on this thread shall be my reply!




And maybe "dispassionate" and "empirical" evidence that ignores predisposed conviction to the contrary?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> IMO the thing we have to consider is how the outdoor pollution levels of VOC gases, including CO2, reduce the gap to indoor concentrations and how much respite our bodies are going to get when when our brains say "get outside now before you die!". It's feasible our health will suffer much more from poisoning and disease than asphyxiation. So for our own sakes we should make sure we throw any empty plastic bottles into the outside bin dilgently rather than storing inside, keep our houses well ventilated and explain to the wife that painting the walls, vacuuming the carpets and mowing the lawn is bad karma.




I've always wondered about the inside of vehicles too. A lot of plastic getting hot in the sun and releasing who knows what.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I've always wondered about the inside of vehicles too. A lot of plastic getting hot in the sun and releasing who knows what.




Huge concentrations of VOCs in thermo plastics. Anyone who suffered 1960's car sickness in the days of leaded fuels, cabin heat, broken polymer chains, etc would attest to the intense sensitivity to the assault on their smell and taste centres. Enter the fricken smoker and that's game over trying to hold it in.

In the cabin there's oils, alkanes, alcohols, phenols, ethanes, esters, acids, aldehydes, chlorides, nitrides, siloxanes, sulphides, etc all having a go at your every part. Then there's the usual crap like dust, CO2, CO, NO2, etc and we truly must be cockroaches on two legs to survive.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Too much of a good thing? Apparently plant root systems don't like too much C02 either.
> 
> I wonder if the build up rate of C02 from 0.035% in 2005 to 0.04% today is straight line or exponential.
> 
> My current profession means I have to know a bit about air quality and how to mitigate deleterious effects on the victims of the modern factory system where humans are caged animals in man made structures, duped into thinking they matter.
> 
> In Oz, hi rise office buildings, especially green star and nabers accredited,  generally have their indoor air quality controlled by automation systems, at max 700ppm C02, although that's based on ASHRAE recommending 700ppm above outdoor levels (when outdoor levels were around the 300 ish ppm level). Exposure in the production workplace is generally maxed out to 5000 ppm over an 8 hour period, before the EPA takes over from the union rep's job.
> 
> The real problem concerning ventilation of populated areas is VOC  concentrations, of which C02 is in the soup. It's the volatile organic compounds in confined spaces like office towers and homes that is the vociferous villain that injures/kills more by stealth than overt means.
> 
> We've all been taught at high school about aromatic hydrocarbons, but would rather think about other things. The methylene chlorides, formaldehydes, etc are all around 500% greater inside homes than outside and we wonder why we can't kick the cancer habit. We get home and feel the immediate need to relax and blame it on a hard days work, when in fact we are giving ourselves a large dose of fatigue inducing, headache causing, rash promoting, itchy eye chemicals into our lungs.
> 
> IMO the thing we have to consider is how the outdoor pollution levels of VOC gases, including CO2, reduce the gap to indoor concentrations and how much respite our bodies are going to get when when our brains say "get outside now before you die!". It's feasible our health will suffer much more from poisoning and disease than asphyxiation. So for our own sakes we should make sure we throw any empty plastic bottles into the outside bin dilgently rather than storing inside, keep our houses well ventilated and explain to the wife that painting the walls, vacuuming the carpets and mowing the lawn is bad karma.




Good writing McG. Gotta read it a few times to absorb all the nuggets.

Wait, you have a job? 

btw, how would cockroaches survive nuclear war but can't survive Mortein?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Lots of theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs including climate change.
> 
> http://www.unmuseum.org/deaddino.htm




Your reference is not in any way succinct as "The Sixth Extinction" 

This book does not deal in theories.   From anthropological diggings core sampling and scientific tests.  A straightforward and factual text.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> You might enquire about their qualifications in the area of interest.




I might enquire about their funding also.

Tell ya what. Spend a couple of days with me perusing papers on equine exercise physiology and or physiolology and morphology of the equine digit conducted by those so qualified.

We're even talking hard science here, with something you can see, test, dissect etc, not soft science.

I guarantee you'll have cause to question what you so fervently believe... whether your emotional investment allows you to take the step of healthy scientific skepticism remains to be seen.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Your reference is not in any way succinct as "The Sixth Extinction"
> 
> This book does not deal in theories.   From anthropological diggings core sampling and scientific tests.  A straightforward and factual text.




Why do you keep quoting a single novel?


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> I might enquire about their funding also.




Now let's try this Quick Quiz;

1/Which Multi national Oil Company Funded Exxon's CC research?
Was it...
a... Soviet Russia

b... The Queenland Housewives Association

c...Cobb&Co

d... The Leyland Brothers

2/ Which Fossil Fuel Conglomerate Funded The Koch Brother CC research?
Was it...
a... Soviet Russia

b... The Queenland Housewives Association

c...Cobb&Co

d... The Leyland Brothers

3/ Which lying Fasist Quisling Government/and or ancillary  funded the Stern Report into the Economic effects of CC?
Was it..
a... Soviet Russia

b... The Queenland Housewives Association, 'pass me the Courier Mail Marge'.

c... The IPA in association with the LNP

d...  The Rockefeller Foundation...'We got a Gusher'


4/ How do get a obscuratist zelot to retrive it's head from it own bum?
Do you ...
a... Not bother

b... Why Bother

C... 'Oh Brother'

d... slowly watch them Walk The Max Planck


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Now let's try this Quick Quiz;
> 
> 1/Which Multi national Oil Company Funded Exxon's CC research?
> Was it...
> a... Soviet Russia
> 
> b... The Queenland Housewives Association
> 
> c...Cobb&Co
> 
> d... The Leyland Brothers
> 
> 2/ Which Fossil Fuel Conglomerate Funded The Koch Brother CC research?
> Was it...
> a... Soviet Russia
> 
> b... The Queenland Housewives Association
> 
> c...Cobb&Co
> 
> d... The Leyland Brothers
> 
> 3/ Which lying Fasist Quisling Government/and or ancillary  funded the Stern Report into the Economic effects of CC?
> Was it..
> a... Soviet Russia
> 
> b... The Queenland Housewives Association, 'pass me the Courier Mail Marge'.
> 
> c... The IPA in association with the LNP
> 
> d...  The Rockefeller Foundation...'We got a Gusher'
> 
> 
> 4/ How do get a obscuratist zelot to retrive it's head from it own bum?
> Do you ...
> a... Not bother
> 
> b... Why Bother
> 
> C... 'Oh Brother'
> 
> d... slowly watch them Walk The Max Planck




Amusing dahling.

But really only serves to highlight your particular bias. All research requires funding. The favourite tactics of the Armageddon fantasists is:

1/ The fallacy that unless the conclusion is Apocalypse Now, the research is tainted. That *may* be true in *some* cases, but ignores their own black hole of a bias blind spot that much of their own research is tainted by the funding imperative.

Not to recognise that is asinine in the extreme.

2/ The old ad hominem fallacy, the kindergarten tactic of name calling and attempted mockery.

While that probably garners applause from the peanut gallery, in a true scientific debate it's just low brow pettiness.

Sorry orr, opposite to what you intended, but pick up the tone a bit and you might be include among the adults.


----------



## SirRumpole

Cape Grim carbon dioxide reading exceeds 400ppm landmark for first time

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ing-reaches-400ppm-for-the-first-time/7417434


----------



## Ijustnewit

SirRumpole said:


> Cape Grim carbon dioxide reading exceeds 400ppm landmark for first time
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ing-reaches-400ppm-for-the-first-time/7417434




This is not great news , however as in the article it is mentioned that El Nino is the main cause of this jump. Another factor left out of this report by error is the fact that across that whole area of Tasmania since October and into Summer and Autumn there have been major uncontrolled bushfires. Also forestry Tasmania has continued to have reduction burns as an ongoing process this time of year.  It would therefore make perfect sense that the reading would be very high .


----------



## explod

Ijustnewit said:


> This is not great news , however as in the article it is mentioned that El Nino is the main cause of this jump. Another factor left out of this report by error is the fact that across that whole area of Tasmania since October and into Summer and Autumn there have been major uncontrolled bushfires. Also forestry Tasmania has continued to have reduction burns as an ongoing process this time of year.  It would therefore make perfect sense that the reading would be very high .




Ok,  why is El Nino such a problem? 

Why so many uncontrolled bushfires?  

You got it,  accellerating climate change.


----------



## basilio

Latest figures are in for Global temperature.

No surprise after the last 6 months. We are cooking. The next question is whether this particular extended spell will trigger tipping points in the world ecology ie accelerate breakdown of perma frost.


> *
> April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs*
> 
> Latest monthly figures add to string of recent temperature records and all but assure 2016 will be hottest year on record
> 
> Michael Slezak
> @MikeySlezak
> email
> 
> Monday 16 May 2016 10.28 AEST
> Last modified on Monday 16 May 2016 12.08 AEST
> Comments
> 561
> Save for later
> 
> April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.
> 
> The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.
> 
> It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”.
> 
> *Figures released by Nasa over the weekend show the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980.*


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Amusing dahling.
> 
> But really only serves to highlight your particular bias. All research requires funding. The favourite tactics of the Armageddon fantasists is:
> 
> 1/ The fallacy that unless the conclusion is Apocalypse Now, the research is tainted. That *may* be true in *some* cases, but ignores their own black hole of a bias blind spot that much of their own research is tainted by the funding imperative.
> 
> Not to recognise that is asinine in the extreme.
> 
> 2/ The old ad hominem fallacy, the kindergarten tactic of name calling and attempted mockery.
> 
> While that probably garners applause from the peanut gallery, in a true scientific debate it's just low brow pettiness.
> 
> Sorry orr, opposite to what you intended, but pick up the tone a bit and you might be include among the adults.




One of the most important features of scientific research is  peer review both formally and informally. It is always essential to check the parameters, logic and calculations studies. 

In the field of Climate studies the overwhelming majority of *peer reviewed *research has acknowledged that

1)  The world is warming at a rate unparalleled in history.
2)  On all the best analysis the major contributor to this warming is the increase in GG gases since the Industrial revolution.  

Yep there are other factors. But CO2, Methane are the big drivers of global warming particularly in the past 50 years.

The problem with the anti global warming sector is their almost total failure at being scientists.

This forum won't even acknowledge that the world is warming at the rate that is being measured by NASA, and the other meteorological agencies.  According to the deniers the figures are manipulated. Up until recently there was an attempt to use UAH measures of global temperature (in the atmosphere) to prove the world wasn't warming. As Wayne pointed out, by referencing the article he did, even these figures have now shown we are cooking. And more significantly important adjustments to how these figures were obtained has  caused scientists to reassess past figures - upwards.

As to the cause of any global warming ? The deniers camp has attempted at every stage to  dismiss and diminish the effect of CO2 as a powerful greenhouse gas.  It's the sun, volcanoes, anything else ! The reason for this refusal to face reality ? Exactly the same reasons why tobacco companies denied smoking caused cancer, asbestos companies denied asbestos caused cancer, paint and petrol companies denied lead was poisoning people. The answer will affect the pockets of powerful vested interests.

Is the picture clear enough?

There is no truth in saying the world is not warming at an unprecedented rate
There is no truth in saying we don't know why. 

To say otherwise makes one simply ignorant, wilfully ignorant or a deliberate liar.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Why do you keep quoting a single novel?




Because there is a lot to it and you today are the first to question it at all since I first raised it on this forum over two years ago.   And love books,  my Mother introduced me to Charles Dickens when I was 14 and had to leave school to help support my 7 younger siblings.  

This ones titled has been used by two other Authors since:-

"The Sixth Extinction" by James Rollins" Orion 2014, fictional extinction like star wars; and

"The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert,  Bloomsbury 2014, on the pressures of our changing planet on plants and animal life.   You will remember my comments often on the tadpoles on our farm when I was a child and how the drought of 69 wiped them out never to return. Well Kolbert (inst.)  points out that frogs are the oldest surviving and very first land mammals and go back nearly a billion years and were well prior to the dinosaur.   Our current climate on its down hill run looks like wiping them out.   However I digress,  but a good book also. 

The first published book to which I bang on about is unpopular with general lobbies and consensus for good reason,  the clear facts leave little argument.   Unfortunately (too big a heart) I leant my copy to someone a few years back and it has not returned.   However just put a hold on it at the library so that in a few days I will refresh myself properly. 

INTERESTING  how others can lift another's book title.   Never stop running into funny smells like this around climate


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> 
> Is the picture clear enough?
> 
> There is no truth in saying the world is not warming at an unprecedented rate
> There is no truth in saying we don't know why.
> 
> To say otherwise makes one simply ignorant, wilfully ignorant or a deliberate liar.




Yes that seems pretty clear to me.

You believe that anyone in disagreement with your convictions is either stupid or lying.

How exactly does the adoption of such a stance aid the progression of science?


----------



## Knobby22

basilio said:


> To say otherwise makes one simply ignorant, wilfully ignorant or a deliberate liar.




Basilio, not really true, read this and you will understand why. Dr Spock (Star Trek)was right.

Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/...gical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Yes that seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> You believe that anyone in disagreement with your convictions is either stupid or lying.
> 
> How exactly does the adoption of such a stance aid the progression of science?




It has little to do with agreement in my view and it appears science as it evolves is all over the plac,  so as a child in front of the lollies,  take your pick. 

It is what we are seeing before our eyes,  if you have been a looker,  and what old farmers and gardeners are seeing and saying.   Things are changing before our eyes that have heen stable for millions of years.


----------



## Tisme

Because I can read the internet, I have become an expert on climate change in the last 10 or so minutes. Apparently we are in a negative phase of a 15 to 30 years Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) phase that is causing all that acquired heat to be stored ready to release as if a temperature capacitor. Look out when it discharges and you don't have your aircond ready to hand.

This is fairly serious because there is a three letter acronym in play here.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Cape Grim carbon dioxide reading exceeds 400ppm landmark for first time
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ing-reaches-400ppm-for-the-first-time/7417434






*WOW..WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE*

I've already got my niche booked at the crematorium.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Latest figures are in for Global temperature.
> 
> No surprise after the last 6 months. We are cooking. The next question is whether this particular extended spell will trigger tipping points in the world ecology ie accelerate breakdown of perma frost.




I just love all these graphs...very pretty......Like a rain bow but I can't see that pot of gold at the end.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> It has little to do with agreement in my view and it appears science as it evolves is all over the plac,  so as a child in front of the lollies,  take your pick.
> 
> It is what we are seeing before our eyes,  if you have been a looker,  and what old farmers and gardeners are seeing and saying.   Things are changing before our eyes that have heen stable for millions of years.




Let me see if I correctly understand the views you are expressing here:

(i) This matter isn't really about agreement

(ii) science as it evolves is all over the place

(iii) visual observations of change to things that you believe to have been stable for millions of years are being made by farmers and gardeners


So if evolving science is all over the place, and agreement isn't really an issue, how did you determine that there was millions of years of stability in areas that farmers and gardeners now agree are changing?

Are you or those farmers millions of years old?

Let me guess, if I read that book you keep mentioning, all will be made clear, right?

So I take it there will be no dependence on agreement or science that is "all over the plac" in the matters that esteemed tome expounds?


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> Because I can read the internet, I have become an expert on climate change in the last 10 or so minutes. Apparently we are in a negative phase of a 15 to 30 years Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) phase that is causing all that acquired heat to be stored ready to release as if a temperature capacitor. Look out when it discharges and you don't have your aircond ready to hand.
> 
> This is fairly serious because there is a three letter acronym in play here.




FTSE it! 

Why can't those FTSEing FTSEers use FTSEing four letter acronyms beginning with "F" when they tell us how FTSEed up the situation is and how all us FTSEing FTSEers are all FTSEing doomed because we didn't FTSEing listen!


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Amusing dahling.
> 
> But really only serves to highlight your particular bias. All research requires funding. The favourite tactics of the Armageddon fantasists is:
> 
> 1/ The fallacy that unless the conclusion is Apocalypse Now, the research is tainted. That *may* be true in *some* cases, but ignores their own black hole of a bias blind spot that much of their own research is tainted by the funding imperative.
> 
> Not to recognise that is asinine in the extreme.
> 
> 2/ The old ad hominem fallacy, the kindergarten tactic of name calling and attempted mockery.
> 
> While that probably garners applause from the peanut gallery, in a true scientific debate it's just low brow pettiness.
> 
> Sorry orr, opposite to what you intended, but pick up the tone a bit and you might be include among the adults.




Wayne old mate, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, the GREENS are very clever at the marketing of their manipulated scam of "THEIR PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE" led by Ban-ki-Moon and the UN who are striving for World Government......They must be "RIGHT" when 97% of scientists agree......They must keep plugging this scam daily in the hope of sucking in the young and the naive to covert the world into their beliefs.

Say it often enough and some will believe it.

The ALARMIST  are using this ASF thread for free advertising and they will keep it alive as long as they can no matter what you throw up at them....It is like pouring water on a duck's back.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> FTSE it!
> 
> Why can't those FTSEing FTSEers use FTSEing four letter acronyms beginning with "F" when they tell us how FTSEed up the situation is and how all us FTSEing FTSEers are all FTSEing doomed because we didn't FTSEing listen!




I guess coz they are being FTSEing ignored?


----------



## Ijustnewit

Explod , the point I was trying to make about the Cape Grim story is that if the monitoring station is bang smack in the middle of a bushfire and back burning zone it will affect the results.
Why wasn't the bushfire Co2 emissions mentioned in the story ? and taken into account ? Climate Hysteria that's why.

We are all cooking and May is well on track to break all heat records as well , the good news is here in Tasmania I can still wear shorts and t shirts and have not had to use the gas heating once yet this year. Not to mention the flowers are blooming thinking it is Spring already and my tomatoes are still producing crops. So it's not all bad .


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> Basilio, not really true, read this and you will understand why. Dr Spock (Star Trek)was right.
> 
> Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making
> http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/...gical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making




Your right Knobby.  I was wrong to be as simplistic as I was in my earlier statement.

There are many emotional aspects to peoples decisions. Things aren't as black and white as I made out. However in the case of CC I suggest the scientific evidence of what is happening is extremely strong. In that context I suggest that anyone standing up as a leader needs to look at the evidence more dispassionately and more objectively than just emotional responses allow. 

I don't believe our leaders are doing this.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> One of the most important features of scientific research is  peer review both formally and informally. It is always essential to check the parameters, logic and calculations studies.
> 
> In the field of Climate studies the overwhelming majority of *peer reviewed *research has acknowledged that
> 
> 1)  The world is warming at a rate unparalleled in history.
> 2)  On all the best analysis the major contributor to this warming is the increase in GG gases since the Industrial revolution.
> 
> Yep there are other factors. But CO2, Methane are the big drivers of global warming particularly in the past 50 years.
> 
> The problem with the anti global warming sector is their almost total failure at being scientists.
> 
> This forum won't even acknowledge that the world is warming at the rate that is being measured by NASA, and the other meteorological agencies.  According to the deniers the figures are manipulated. Up until recently there was an attempt to use UAH measures of global temperature (in the atmosphere) to prove the world wasn't warming. As Wayne pointed out, by referencing the article he did, even these figures have now shown we are cooking. And more significantly important adjustments to how these figures were obtained has  caused scientists to reassess past figures - upwards.
> 
> As to the cause of any global warming ? The deniers camp has attempted at every stage to  dismiss and diminish the effect of CO2 as a powerful greenhouse gas.  It's the sun, volcanoes, anything else ! The reason for this refusal to face reality ? Exactly the same reasons why tobacco companies denied smoking caused cancer, asbestos companies denied asbestos caused cancer, paint and petrol companies denied lead was poisoning people. The answer will affect the pockets of powerful vested interests.
> 
> Is the picture clear enough?
> 
> There is no truth in saying the world is not warming at an unprecedented rate
> There is no truth in saying we don't know why.
> 
> To say otherwise makes one simply ignorant, wilfully ignorant or a deliberate liar.




In your zeal to regurgitate the mantra (again), you have totally missed my point.

Tell ya what, share a cab with Horace when I pull out those hard science *peer reviewed* equine papers.

You can cast an unbiased eye over them and we can all fall about, laughing our a55es off.

I don't expect you will connect the dots, but at least it will be a fun evening.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> In your zeal to regurgitate the mantra (again), you have totally missed my point.
> 
> Tell ya what, share a cab with Horace when I pull out those hard science *peer reviewed* equine papers.
> 
> You can cast an unbiased eye over them and we can all fall about, laughing our a55es off.
> 
> I don't expect you will connect the dots, but at least it will be a fun evening.




I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.

I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.

I made two basic statements 

*One*. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate. 
*Two.*  The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.

This doesn't have to complicated.  Find evidence to disprove theses statements.  (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a  global conspiracy to create a One World Government.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.
> 
> I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.
> 
> I made two basic statements
> 
> *One*. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate.
> *Two.*  The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.
> 
> This doesn't have to complicated.  Find evidence to disprove theses statements.  (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a  global conspiracy to create a One World Government.




Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?

 But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today

Don't you believe me?


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> I can readily see how your "peer reviewed" equine papers could be suspect. No problems at all.
> 
> I don't think that CC science is in the ballpark.
> 
> I made two basic statements
> 
> *One*. Temperatures are rising at an historically very rapid rate.
> *Two.*  The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 and other GG are the main driver of this temperature increase. The reason they think is is because they have analysed the wide range of other climate change drivers and on all the evidence to date GG are the current principal driver.
> 
> This doesn't have to complicated.  Find evidence to disprove theses statements.  (And that doesn't mean saying all the meteorological societies around the world are in a  global conspiracy to create a One World Government.




No it doesn't have to be complicated at all.

There are things that are known to be true. 

There are things that are known to be untrue.

There are also things that are unknown and/or uncertain.

There are things that are believed or opined to be either, true, untrue unknown and/or uncertain.

There is a difference between reality and opinion of reality.

To assert that something claimed to be true by a select few, must be considered true unless detractors can prove otherwise, is simply deflecting the burden of proof away from where it truly belongs.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?
> 
> But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today
> 
> Don't you believe me?




Who can,  your reference would not come up properly and your explanation was cloudy to say the least. 

Give some anthropological and physical evidence and we can have a proper look at it.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Who can,  your reference would not come up properly and your explanation was cloudy to say the least.
> 
> Give some anthropological and physical evidence and we can have a proper look at it.




I think I have posted the info 3 times already...How many more times do you want it?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I think I have posted the info 3 times already...How many more times do you want it?




Yes,  but not convincing.   Sure there were parts then that were green for a few hundred years which allowed settlement. 

However it had no effect on the three kilometer thick 400,000 year old ice sheet.  It remained intact till recent times.   The perma frost under it is breaking up and it is melting. 

Noco,  some of this icemelt has been intact for 800,000 years.   Did not think I would need to bother with stuff that even school children are aware of. 

Things are happening this time before our eyes which show,  we have a problem


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> In your zeal to regurgitate the mantra (again), you have totally missed my point.
> 
> Tell ya what, share a cab with Horace when I pull out those hard science *peer reviewed* equine papers.
> 
> You can cast an unbiased eye over them and we can all fall about, laughing our a55es off.
> 
> I don't expect you will connect the dots, but at least it will be a fun evening.




The dots have already been joined by the professional bodies wayne, who say that CC is unequivocal. I couldn't be bothered going back to find the statement that I posted by the American Meteorological Society to that effect , but I'm sure you can find it in this thread if you cared to look.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Bas, we have heard it all before....Why do you keep repeating yourself?
> 
> But Bas, I keep telling you, it was warmer in Greenland and the Arctic 1000 years ago than it is today
> 
> Don't you believe me?




Arctic temps


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yes,  but not convincing.   Sure there were parts then that were green for a few hundred years which allowed settlement.
> 
> However it had no effect on the three kilometer thick 400,000 year old ice sheet.  It remained intact till recent times.   The perma frost under it is breaking up and it is melting.
> 
> Noco,  some of this icemelt has been intact for 800,000 years.   Did not think I would need to bother with stuff that even school children are aware of.
> 
> Things are happening this time before our eyes which show,  we have a problem




I can see you just don't want to accept what I have given you because you have your mind set otherwise....

Go to Google and see for yourself.

I cannot be bothered arguing anymore with somebody who will not accept the reality of history over continued false repetitive information put out on a daily basis.....

If you would only get off your bum and take a cruise to Glacier Bay off the Alaskan Coast you WIIL see with your own eyes...You will note...WOW..they are the same photos the Greens have been using for propaganda on Climate Change.....LOOK.....THE ICE IS MELTING....Of course the ice is falling into the sea as Glaciers are moving all the time.

Have you ever been to Alaska?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Arctic temps
> 
> 
> View attachment 66699




Here we go again....another pretty rainbow chart to catch the eye...very clever


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> No it doesn't have to be complicated at all.
> 
> There are things that are known to be true.
> 
> There are things that are known to be untrue.
> 
> There are also things that are unknown and/or uncertain.
> 
> There are things that are believed or opined to be either, true, untrue unknown and/or uncertain.
> 
> There is a difference between reality and opinion of reality.
> 
> *To assert that something claimed to be true by a select few, must be considered true unless detractors can prove otherwise, is simply deflecting the burden of proof away from where it truly belongs*.




I only made 2 points Cynic

1)  The temperature on earth has gone up very rapidly (by geological standards) in the past 50-80 years
2)  The view of the vast majority of CC scientists is that Greenhouse Gases are the current major driver of this temp increase

The first statement is empirical. For evidence we have the temperature records around the world . Of course that doesn't stop a number of people trying to say these records are cooked/ manipulated/part of a conspiracy.

The second statement is clearly not empirical.  There are a number of drivers of Climate Change.  The last 40 years of climate research has added enormously to our understanding of the earths climate systems.

Clearly we don't know everything. And what we think we know could change.  But at the present time and with the present information excessive GG are seen as the driver of the present warming.

We can wait for absolute certainty  -  or we can act on what we currently understand.  In any case moving to a clean, renewable energy based society is a no regrets strategy.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> The dots have already been joined by the professional bodies wayne, who say that CC is unequivocal. I couldn't be bothered going back to find the statement that I posted by the American Meteorological Society to that effect , but I'm sure you can find it in this thread if you cared to look.




Okay I'm going to repeat myself for the 484,764,145,036th time.

I agree that climate change is unequivocal. As skeptics keep reiterating, climate changes. I also agree that current changes are showing a warming trend, have done so since the end of the little ice age, also unequivocal IMO.

I also agree there have been anthropogenic factors in said change,

However I don't agree with the Apocalypse fantasists who promote some worst case scenario. I believe that climate science is not conducted honestly or fairly, that scientists MUST have pro *C*AGW hypotheses to gain funding for research.

I am also deeply suspicious of the retrospective adjustment of temperature records which always miraculously increase the temperature trend.

I also believe there are political and/or mercantile motives in exaggerating the warming trend.

I am more concerned about general pollution and environmental degradation than co2 (which I do not consider a pollutant) emissions. However the two often go hand in hand and therefore support renewable engery technologies, so long as we aren't robbing Peter to pay Paul; IOW supplanting one time of pollution with another such as is the case with Toyota Pious' et al.

Pielke Snr has a great summary here:https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress....tive-on-the-role-of-humans-in-climate-change/



> Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
> There continues to be misunderstandings on my viewpoint on the role of humans within the climate system. This weblog is written to make sure it is clear, and can be used whenever someone asks the question as to where does Pielke Sr. stand on this issue.
> 
> As I have written in the Main Conclusions of Climate Science
> 
> “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
> 
> and that
> 
> “Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
> 
> These conclusions are different from those who claim that the global average radiative effect of carbon dioxide is by far the major human climate forcing, as well as from those who conclude that natural climate variations dominate climate change and that the human climate forcings are inconsequential.
> 
> My viewpoint is also well articulated in
> 
> National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp
> 
> and you are encouraged to read the Executive Summary of that report [a report which whas been ignored by the media despite its broad base of authorship and its extensive review before it was published].
> 
> The reason that those who focus on the global average radiative forcing of carbon dioxide are missing the bulk of human climate forcings include the following:
> 
> 1. Atmosphere and ocean circulations respond to regional forcings not a global average (e.g., see and see)
> 
> 2. The other human climate forcings include
> 
> the diverse influence of human-caused aerosols on regional (and global)  radiative heating (e.g., see).
> the effect of aerosols on cloud and precipitation processes (e.g., see)
> the influence of aerosol deposition on climate (e.g., see and see)
> the effect of land cover/land use on climate (e.g., see and  see)
> the biogeochemical effect of added atmosopheric CO2 has a greater effect on the climate system than the radiative effect of added CO2 (e.g. see).
> Natural climate variations and change, have also been underestimated (and are only poorly understood) based on examination of the historical and paleo-climate record (e.g., see and see).
> 
> Human climate forcings have a more significant role in altering the weather than does a global average increase in the radiative effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.  This does not mean that we should not work to limit the increase of this gas in the atmosphere, but it is not the dominant climate forcing that affects society and the environment.
> 
> Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results (such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council report) that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report.  To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information.
> 
> The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominant human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.




As far as the meteorological and other science bodies go, their statements do not reflect the spectrum of views of their membership and are more or less politically imperative in order to gaurantee funding.


----------



## Tisme

NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:

Evidence of Arctic Warming




> Comiso’s new study presents some striking trends. When compared to longer- term, ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts by 10 to 17 days per decade. Temperatures increased on average by almost one and a quarter (1.22) degrees Celsius (C) per decade over sea ice in the Arctic summer. Conversely, Arctic winters cooled from the 1980s to the 1990s. The study finds that winters were almost 1 (0.89) degree C cooler per decade.




There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:
> 
> Evidence of Arctic Warming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php




100years Phsst!!!!!!

Go back 1000 years it was a lot warmer then than it is today.

Yeah...pretty charts can be set up by anyone who is computer savvy...more manipulation of the truth..... .so long as the Greenies catch the eye.....That is main objective and you must admit they look very impressive even though the degrees are graded in minute increases.....It does not even mention who set up that computer chart.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> 100years Phsst!!!!!!
> 
> Go back 1000 years it was a lot warmer then than it is today.
> 
> .




I must admit I'm having trouble understanding that statement. It could well qualify why Europeans decided to go crackers with war games, including 1066, but from what I've read we are in new territory since man invented fire. 

Karl Kruszelnicki was on ABC radio last week, in his usual timeslot, and far from being alarmist he simply pointed out that as the climate heats up we will migrate to the poles at great cost/profit and adapt, albeit with a crap lifestyle and drastic population reduction. Apparently the equatorial band was uninhabitable millions of years ago, which must have been before the great migrations.

I have tended to limit my source info to scientific organs, although I think Newscorp now has direct influence over National Geographic? so that will probably degenerate into a propaganda pulp  to be lapped up by lesser breeds.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I must admit I'm having trouble understanding that statement. It could well qualify why Europeans decided to go crackers with war games, including 1066, but from what I've read we are in new territory since man invented fire.




Ah yes.....1066 ...William Cromwell.....I remembered that one from British history at school.....Just can't remember his significance.....Guess I will have to google it.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Ah yes.....1066 ...William Cromwell.....I remembered that one from British history at school.....Just can't remember his significance.....Guess I will have to google it.




Orange


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Orange





http://www.hrp.org.uk/discover-the-palaces/monarchs/william-i/

:topic



r 1066-87

Famous for invading England in 1066

‘The Conquerer’ was the Duke of Normandy in Northern France. He defeated and killed King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. His descendents have ruled England ever since.
William I at the Tower

To conquer England, William and the Normans built castles at strategic sites. One of the most important was the Tower of London. Although not completed until after his death, the credit for the White Tower and the choice of site belong to William the Conqueror.

Known to us now as 'The Conqueror' William was known as ‘William the Bastard’, before he conquered England, as his parents, Duke Robert ‘the Devil’ of Normandy and Herleve, the daughter of a tanner from Falaise, were not married.

The next Monarch to have a significant impact on the Tower was Henry III.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> As far as the meteorological and other science bodies go, their statements do not reflect the spectrum of views of their membership and are more or less politically imperative in order to gaurantee funding.




Sounds reasonable wayne. As to the representation of the members of professional bodies supporting or opposed to CC, that will always be variable in a system that is not capable of experimental validation.

 If professional bodies make official policy statements I think we have to assume that it represents the *majority* of their members. This may change over time if new evidence is collected, but I think that the current pace of increasing temperatures will convert the sceptics rather than lead to increased scepticism.

If you are implying that professional bodies are altering data in order to get funding, that's a serious charge which requires more evidence than just your opinion.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If professional bodies make official policy statements I think we have to *assume* that it represents the *majority* of their members.
> 
> .




*ASSUME*

*It makes an ass out of you and me.*


----------



## Knobby22

Guys, look at the latest chart from the Artic, specifically this year so far.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> Guys, look at the latest chart from the Artic, specifically this year so far.
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/




Pretty sobering set of graphs. To see that rate of change in Arctic sea ice over only 35 years is scary. Certainly not something to be dismissed lightly or as just a temporary aberration.

The interesting part is when you click on the  individual years from 1980 onwards. There is a steady reduction in sea ice in most years.  It's not as if the lines are random with one or two outliers.


----------



## CanOz

Yeah, we're not buying property under 5m above sea level.


----------



## basilio

CanOz said:


> Yeah, we're not buying property under 5m above sea level.




All well and good but do you seriously think we could have a functioning world if ocean levels rose 3 metres in the next 30 years ? Your property might be physically safe but that could be about all.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> All well and good but do you seriously think we could have a functioning world if ocean levels rose 3 metres in the next 30 years ? Your property might be physically safe but that could be about all.




Daunting prospect. 

It must be yet another cunning ploy by those dastardly aliens seeking to drive us into extinction so that they can overtake our planet!

Damn them. If you don't believe me, simply google the relevant experts in the field of alien invasion conspiracies.


----------



## ghotib

cynic said:


> Some bold claims being made on that climatechange centric (check their vision and mission statements if you do not believe me) website there ghotib. Did you happen to notice how they neglected to mention the potential for corruption of their "isotopic fingerprints" by cosmological factors?




Under Education and Outreach? As I said with the link, the material is pitched at high school students. Focussing on the major issues isn't neglect; it's good lesson planning and communication. Of course, NOAA's Earth System Research labs have the advantage over us because they have first hand knowledge of what's major, what's minor, and what the questions are.


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> Under Education and Outreach? As I said with the link, the material is pitched at high school students. Focussing on the major issues isn't neglect; it's good lesson planning and communication. Of course, NOAA's Earth System Research labs have the advantage over us because they have first hand knowledge of what's major, what's minor, and what the questions are.




The section claiming that mass spectroscopy of samples taken from the environment, could somehow discern the fossil fuel contributions to the CO2 within those samples via identification of changes in the ratio of the carbon isotopes.

Did you notice the logical flaws in their process and interpretations of the results?

If all trees have trunks, does that mean Dumbo the flying elephant is a tree?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> NASA article. Not sure if NASA have reason to fake data, but I found this interesting:
> 
> Evidence of Arctic Warming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's even a colour chart for Noco to admonish and play Perry Mason with
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php




Arctic warming is apparently happening.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...rth's-spin-axis-shifted-by-melting-ice-sheets


----------



## cynic

sptrawler said:


> Arctic warming is apparently happening.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...rth's-spin-axis-shifted-by-melting-ice-sheets




Hmmm. So some scientists have determined that the cart is now driving the horse instead of the other way around!


----------



## sptrawler

cynic said:


> Hmmm. So some scientists have determined that the cart is now driving the horse instead of the other way around!




Apparently so, I was just on posting a Tisme post from another thread, personally I don't give a ratz.

But it did make the point that maybe, there is more at play, than cows farting.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Apparently so, I was just on posting a Tisme post from another thread, personally I don't give a ratz.
> 
> But it did make the point that maybe, there is more at play, than cows farting.





Yes..You can tell that until the cows come home  but you will have no hope of getting the Greenies to accept it....I tried some time ago to get them on the basic Earth science but without success.


Wait for the response tomorrow....They will have some fictitious story to tell.


----------



## ghotib

cynic said:


> The section claiming that mass spectroscopy of samples taken from the environment, could somehow discern the fossil fuel contributions to the CO2 within those samples via identification of changes in the ratio of the carbon isotopes.
> 
> Did you notice the logical flaws in their process and interpretations of the results?
> 
> If all trees have trunks, does that mean Dumbo the flying elephant is a tree?



No I didn't. Please point them out. But please also bear in mind that the article is not written for experts. If you want to dispute the results you would do better to go to the scientific literature, which will contain much more detail about methods, accuracy, and even the possible need to investigate flying elephants.


----------



## noco

What happened to the dinosaurs? 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuet3t9geXo


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> No I didn't. Please point them out. But please also bear in mind that the article is not written for experts. If you want to dispute the results you would do better to go to the scientific literature, which will contain much more detail about methods, accuracy, and even the possible need to investigate flying elephants.




Let me explain it another way. If all elephants have trunks, one might accurately state that Dumbo is an elephant, but does that mean that trees are elephants also?

Can you see how this misapplication of logic appears to have been employed in the use of measures of changed isotopic ratios?

Orr am I going to be accused of walking the Max Planck?


----------



## ghotib

cynic said:


> Let me explain it another way. If all elephants have trunks, one might accurately state that Dumbo is an elephant, but does that mean that trees are elephants also?
> 
> Can you see how this misapplication of logic appears to have been employed in the use of measures of changed isotopic ratios?
> 
> Orr am I going to be accused of walking the Max Planck?



You'll have to say what you mean cynic. I think I know what you think you're saying, but it would be unfair of me to accuse you of anything on the basis of what you didn't say.


----------



## SirRumpole

A few more inconvenient facts for those interested.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/jericho-climate-policy-silence/7424598

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/warning-on-tipping-point-for-east-antarctic-glacier/7425362


----------



## trainspotter

Post #7892 sums it up the best


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> You'll have to say what you mean cynic. I think I know what you think you're saying, but it would be unfair of me to accuse you of anything on the basis of what you didn't say.




The relationship between causation and isotopic ratio changes. Is that a one to one relationship?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> A few more inconvenient facts for those interested.
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/jericho-climate-policy-silence/7424598
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/warning-on-tipping-point-for-east-antarctic-glacier/7425362



Facts or opinions , and inconvenient to whom?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Facts or opinions , and inconvenient to whom?





You could read them and decide for yourself, if you could be bothered.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> You could read them and decide for yourself, if you could be bothered.




I did take a quick glance at those opinion pieces that you represented as "A few more inconvenient facts.."

Hence I consider it reasonable to direct the question at the entity making the claim, namely your good self.


----------



## trainspotter

This sums it up for me ....





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...riticised-for-taking-private-jet-from-cannes/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/21/leonardo-dicaprio-takes-private-jet-accept-environmental-award



> According to The New York Post, the private jet flights expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles.
> 
> During his Oscar acceptance speech earlier this year, DiCaprio had said, “Climate change is real. It is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species.”
> 
> Robert Rapier, an environmental analyst, told the Post that DiCaprio's history of private jets and yachts "*diminishes his moral authority to lecture others on reducing their own carbon emissions.*"
> 
> “[He] demonstrates exactly why our consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow," Rapier said. "It’s because everyone loves the combination of cost and convenience they offer. Alternatives usually require sacrifice of one form or another. Everybody says, ‘I’ve got a good reason for consuming what I consume’ ... It’s the exact same rationalization for billions of people."




He must be getting his temperature readings from the wrong side of the inlet valve of the steam engine with a Mercury thermometer attached?


----------



## basilio

*How can we make Climate Change "go away " ?*

Really if your the Federal Liberal Government of De Nile it's simple.  You just make sure no one publishes anything about the impact of CC on Australia.

Da Da !! It's all gone away.

Now that may sound like a fairy tale that not even the most brain dead, idiotic, denialist could muster up. But of course that doesn't do justice to the *exquisitely* brain dead, idiotic, denialists we have in our current government. Check out their efforts .


> * Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention*
> 
> Exclusive: All mentions of Australia were removed from the final version of a Unesco report on climate change and world heritage sites after the Australian government objected on the grounds it could impact on tourism
> 
> Revealed: Guardian Australia has obtained the Unesco report Australia didn’t want the world to see. Read it now
> Great Barrier Reef
> 
> Michael Slezak
> 
> 
> Friday 27 May 2016 06.07 AEST
> 
> Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
> 
> Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
> 
> *But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.*
> 
> *No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.*
> 
> Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”




http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-change-report-after-government-intervention


----------



## bellenuit

basilio said:


> *How can we make Climate Change "go away " ?*
> 
> Really if your the Federal Liberal Government of De Nile it's simple.  You just make sure no one publishes anything about the impact of CC on Australia.
> 
> Da Da !! It's all gone away.v
> 
> Now that may sound like a fairy tale that not even the most brain dead, idiotic, denialist could muster up. But of course that doesn't do justice to the *exquisitely* brain dead, idiotic, denialists we have in our current government. Check out their efforts .
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-change-report-after-government-intervention




Which raises the question, how can these reports be taken seriously when they are subject to the whims of government. I am sure the story is true, but what does it say about UNESCO. Can what it says be taken seriously anymore?


----------



## basilio

bellenuit said:


> Which raises the question, how can these reports be taken seriously when they are subject to the whims of government. I am sure the story is true, but what does it say about UNESCO. Can what it says be taken seriously anymore?




Well in this case UNESCO said (through gritted teeth)  "OK" and then promptly made sure that that this supremely stupid effort at Soviet style censorship was made public.  And of course the full report is now in the open and will attract even more attention that it otherwise might have.

I think your point Bellenuit however is more subtle. How can we be sure that UNESCO reports aren't massaged to suit particular countries interests? For example if the Environment Department had tried to offer an alternative story for publication ? In point of fact that does happen in a number of circumstances. 

Overall this has to be the most boneheaded, sackable action I have ever seen by a Minister.  In the world of real politick I can understand dubious efforts at disinformation, lying, cover ups. But when one analyses such actions the key questions are *"Can we get away with it ?  And  "If it turns to merde  do we have plausible deniability"  ?*

In what universe did  Minister Hunt think he could instruct (or allow) such an action and keep it secret or keep his fingerprints off it ? It  is so manifestly incompetent I cannot see how he can keep his position. 

In the same vein I struggle to see how Malcolm Turnball can deal with the fallout. This will make the Government a laughing stock for it's political stupidity as well as earning widespread contempt for it's dishonesty.

Good luck to the political spinners today.


----------



## basilio

For those interested in what the excised report on the Great Barrier Reef said check out this URL. Quite interesting.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ef-that-australia-didnt-want-the-world-to-see


----------



## basilio

This story is growing quickly.  SMH is now covering it. As is the ABC.

Somehow it appears that Minister Greg Hunt had absolutely nothing to do with the demand that the offending report be removed. He knew NOTHING according to the Department of the Environment. Not told, not briefed.

Let's see how the principles of Ministerial accountability holds up here. I don't believe it will pass the pub test.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/a...id-damaging-reef-tourism-20160526-gp4zzo.html
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4470533.htm


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> This story is growing quickly.  SMH is now covering it. As is the ABC.
> 
> Somehow it appears that Minister Greg Hunt had absolutely nothing to do with the demand that the offending report be removed. He knew NOTHING according to the Department of the Environment. Not told, not briefed.
> 
> Let's see how the principles of Ministerial accountability holds up here. I don't believe it will pass the pub test.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/a...id-damaging-reef-tourism-20160526-gp4zzo.html
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4470533.htm




Cnut trying to hold back the tide.


----------



## dutchie

Looks like a good idea to put our economy in jeopardy with a carbon tax (or whatever).

Meanwhile......

Bangladesh, regarded by many as the nation most vulnerable to the impacts of global climate change, is on track to construct two coal-fired power plants.

A major driver behind these new power power plants is to increase electricity resources for Bangladesh’s 157 million people and achieve its goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2021. Currently, the country produces 8,000 megawatts of electricity but the demand strongly outweighs supply, with regular power outages that last for hours.

https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/b...l-power-plant-project-despite-major-backlash/

Japanese to bankroll $4.6bn Bangladesh coal-fired power plants

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/...4-6bn-bangladesh-coal-fired-power-plants.html



No doubt the bad climate will hang over Bangladesh for a long time.


----------



## luutzu

dutchie said:


> Looks like a good idea to put our economy in jeopardy with a carbon tax (or whatever).
> 
> Meanwhile......
> 
> Bangladesh, regarded by many as the nation most vulnerable to the impacts of global climate change, is on track to construct two coal-fired power plants.
> 
> A major driver behind these new power power plants is to increase electricity resources for Bangladesh’s 157 million people and achieve its goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2021. Currently, the country produces 8,000 megawatts of electricity but the demand strongly outweighs supply, with regular power outages that last for hours.
> 
> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/b...l-power-plant-project-despite-major-backlash/
> 
> Japanese to bankroll $4.6bn Bangladesh coal-fired power plants
> 
> http://www.powerengineeringint.com/...4-6bn-bangladesh-coal-fired-power-plants.html
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt the bad climate will hang over Bangladesh for a long time.




These two must do well for coal stocks ey Dutch.

Why can't we be as brave and desperate as Bangladesh.


----------



## dutchie

luutzu said:


> Why can't we be as brave and desperate as Bangladesh.




Because we are already a "middle-income country" - whoopeee


----------



## Logique

My bolds. Save that the alarmists can, like a rabbit out of a hat, produce a new Galileo of climate science..their story is told, just another thought bubble from the Arts faculty.

It's hot, no it's cold..only Left wing politics can save us..



> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/29/a-major-malaise-of-climatology-is-pervasive-in-science/
> ...Here is what former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 said.
> 
> “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has *almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore*, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,”
> 
> “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...


----------



## orr

Logique said:


> My bolds. Save that the alarmists can, like a rabbit out of a hat, produce a new Galileo of climate science..their story is told, just another thought bubble from the Arts faculty.
> 
> It's hot, no it's cold..only Left wing politics can save us..




On my reading of what I think is your take on redistribution, you make the assumption that there's some type of centralized socialist detemanant at the heart of this.... But you are wrong.
As an example; 
If we take the redistribution in terms of power generation that applies today to an induvidual, they  can now power their home and increasingly their car from power from the sun on their roof. This is a distribution of wealth that technology has produced and that capital, (forward thinking capital) has take up to its advantage, and costs are plummeting,  that empowers individuals at the cost of centralised conglomerates. 
The climate is threatened by industrial policy. Policies determined by powerful entrenched  industrial interests and they are now threatened by the distribution of Sun light on the planet.


----------



## explod

OMG,  can't believe the pollies of both parties saying they can save the reef with money.  16 billion,  yee haarrrrr. everyone will take that as convincing.  What a joke. 

Nothing but a total change of world lifestyle NOW can provide any help at all and we can see that is not going to happen.  The reef is stuffed,  now we just need to stich up the skin and sit it up in the museum with our pollies.


----------



## wayneL

Maybe Leo could lead by example


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Maybe Leo could lead by example




A solar powered electrical motor, fixed to a hang glider, might make for an alternative mode of aerial solo transport. Provided the weather forecast favours sunny weather and is not based on cc computer model projections.


----------



## Logique

Thank goodness Tim Flannery is on station to save the Reef!  He's never been wrong before.



> The Great Barrier Reef is losing its adjective and it's our fault - June 3, 2016 - Tim Flannery
> SMH:http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-g...-our-fault-20160602-gp9qsh.html#ixzz4AUsQJMAc
> 
> ...A green turtle passes by. As the dead reef breaks down, *its habitat will be eroded to rubble*...
> 
> ...This great organism, the size of Germany and arguably the most diverse place on earth, is dying before our eyes. Having watched my father dying two years ago, I know what the signs of slipping away are. *This is death, which ever-rising temperatures will allow no recovery from*.  *Unless we act now*...


----------



## wayneL

The classic contrarian signal. Go long on the reef folks, it's about to  make an impressive recovery (as it always does after el ninos)


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> The classic contrarian signal. Go long on the reef folks, it's about to  make an impressive recovery (as it always does after el ninos)




As it has done for 500,000 years...As I have personally observed for over 80 years.....The reef is NOT dying as those radical Greens try to make out.....What utter propaganda to strengthen their stupid argument about Global warming.


----------



## macca

noco said:


> As it has done for 500,000 years...As I have personally observed for over 80 years.....The reef is NOT dying as those radical Greens try to make out.....What utter propaganda to strengthen their stupid argument about Global warming.




Even the pro green SMH has published an article that illustrates how the truth is distorted by the greens

"When we say .... 'only 7 per cent [of the reef] has no bleaching', that sometimes gets reported as '93 per cent of the reef is dead'," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rier-reef-is-mostly-dead-20160603-gpb6af.html


----------



## wayneL

What I thought was interesting was how David (sell out) Attenborough's comments, and the reportage thereof, transmogrified over the several days/weeks he was in the news here.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> As it has done for 500,000 years...As I have personally observed for over 80 years.....The reef is NOT dying as those radical Greens try to make out.....What utter propaganda to strengthen their stupid argument about Global warming.



Absolute rubbish,  what has died off will not recover.  On a substancial drop in sea temperature new reef growth may come back but will take a long time.  And that is common knowledge among scientists. 

Wonder where you live up there noco,  going to be a rough couple of days along the northern coast,  so close the window.   Such storms are very out of season too. 

Anyolehow,  the fact that frogs,  with us for 800 million years (before the dinosaurs) are suddenly being wiped out in just fifty years is nothing to an ole smoking Joe like your good self.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> What I thought was interesting was how David (sell out) Attenborough's comments, and the reportage thereof, transmogrified over the several days/weeks he was in the news here.




What do you mean sell out.  He did not say what was directed or paid for I suppose.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> Absolute rubbish,  what has died off will not recover.  On a substancial drop in sea temperature new reef growth may come back but will take a long time.  And that is common knowledge among scientists.
> 
> Wonder where you live up there noco,  going to be a rough couple of days along the northern coast,  so close the window.   Such storms are very out of season too.
> 
> Anyolehow,  the fact that frogs,  with us for 800 million years (before the dinosaurs) are suddenly being wiped out in just fifty years is nothing to an ole smoking Joe like your good self.




A lot of cells in my body die off never to be seen again also. Just a fact of nature really.

As to those frogs, 800 million years is one heck of a good innings! About time they made room for other species instead of hogging the limelight.

Edit: I forgot to add a reminder about this novel concept called evolution. In order for it to happen, things have to change, species and their habitat. There's this thing called nature and it is nothing to be alarmed about!


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Absolute rubbish,  what has died off will not recover.  On a substancial drop in sea temperature new reef growth may come back but will take a long time.  And that is common knowledge among scientists.
> 
> Wonder where you live up there noco,  going to be a rough couple of days along the northern coast,  so close the window.   Such storms are very out of season too.
> 
> Anyolehow,  the fact that frogs,  with us for 800 million years (before the dinosaurs) are suddenly being wiped out in just fifty years is nothing to an ole smoking Joe like your good self.




If you are as astute as you perceive yourself to be, you would have observed that I am from Townsville.....Have been here for nearly 50 years.....I am 42 km from Slashers and Brewers reef off Townsville which I have visited on several occasions....Don't try and tell me I me I am talking rubbish......I don't know where you live but it would not surprise me if you have never ever been any where near the Barrier Reef......My mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897 and she often told me how the reef was affected in her time.

Perhaps you should take a trip sometime to the reef if you have never been there before.....We all mostly white people but we do have a number of Indigenous people here but they are friendly.....We are very friendly people too.....we do have a few unwelcome visitors that swim off the beaches and in the creeks...But if you don't worry them they will not worry you because they are not very friendly if you try to pat them.....Anything else you would like to have some lessons on in North Queensland do not hesitate to ask......I will be here to help you.

BTW..the weather is fine here and enjoying the winter Sun shine......Still getting around in a pair of shorts from the time I get out of bed.
Hope I have been of some help to you.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> A lot of cells in my body die off never to be seen again also. Just a fact of nature really.
> 
> As to those frogs, 800 million years is one heck of a good innings! About time they made room for other species instead of hogging the limelight.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add a reminder about this novel concept called evolution. In order for it to happen, things have to change, species and their habitat. There's this thing called nature and it is nothing to be alarmed about!




Is there sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek I might have missed?

I'm not sure most people would be so philosophical if they or the one they love go through these "evolution" and death stuff that's just a natural part of evolution.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Is there sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek I might have missed?
> 
> I'm not sure most people would be so philosophical if they or the one they love go through these "evolution" and death stuff that's just a natural part of evolution.




I am guessing those ancestral climatologists were quite upset when, despite the widely proclaimed efficacy of climate models, their jurassic tariffs failed to reduce the size of their clawprints! The rest is prehistory!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I am guessing those ancestral climatologists were quite upset when, despite the widely proclaimed efficacy of climate models, their jurassic tariffs failed to reduce the size of their clawprints! The rest is prehistory!




sarcasm works better with actual facts AlgoMonk.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> sarcasm works better with actual facts AlgoMonk.




Prehistory may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes with history!  And that's a fact!


----------



## explod

I am only 70 noco and from what you say you are near the ton,  so take my hat off to you there ole pal. 

 I used to visit Townsville on holidays as a kid and as I have said many times on this site, was a shearer around Longreach.  Used to go out a lot with my Uncle and my Cousin has a fish wholesale business there established over 45 years ago.  I have fished it and swam in it.   We used to love diving and swimming underwater to see who could hold thier breath the longest.  As an artist from a very young age I loved the colours too. 

The reef in clarity of colour had changed enormously 10 years back when I attended a funeral.   My Cousin says it has further deteriorated drastically since then.  And fish stock,  strewth one could go on. 

But basically my Family are of the land and I grew up on a farm.  Recently retired fully to Bendigo and tapping back into the farming associates  I can say we do not need scientists to tell us something is very wrong and the accelleration matches the increase in pollution in my observation. 

Was at the local Green's candidate's election launch here yesterday and the thing is,  alternative clean power sources are becoming economically very competitive which provides the possibility for huge industry growth and jobs.   It is being done overseas big time but of course we will be held back till the big conglomerates can control it all first and thier donation power is great enough to support the right wing fascists of the Govum crooks Ments


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I am only 70 noco and from what you say you are near the ton,  so take my hat off to you there ole pal.
> 
> I used to visit Townsville on holidays as a kid and as I have said many times on this site, was a shearer around Longreach.  Used to go out a lot with my Uncle and my Cousin has a fish wholesale business there established over 45 years ago.  I have fished it and swam in it.   We used to love diving and swimming underwater to see who could hold thier breath the longest.  As an artist from a very young age I loved the colours too.
> 
> The reef in clarity of colour had changed enormously 10 years back when I attended a funeral.   My Cousin says it has further deteriorated drastically since then.  And fish stock,  strewth one could go on.
> 
> But basically my Family are of the land and I grew up on a farm.  Recently retired fully to Bendigo and tapping back into the farming associates  I can say we do not need scientists to tell us something is very wrong and the accelleration matches the increase in pollution in my observation.
> 
> Was at the local Green's candidate's election launch here yesterday and the thing is,  alternative clean power sources are becoming economically very competitive which provides the possibility for huge industry growth and jobs.   It is being done overseas big time but of course we will be held back till the big conglomerates can control it all first and thier donation power is great enough to support the right wing fascists of the Govum crooks Ments






THE GREENS ARE AT IT AGAIN......GROSS EXAGGERATION AND DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH AS THEY ARE DOING NOW AND HAVE DONE IN THE PAST....THE GREENS MUST COME CLEAN AND STOP THIS PROPAGANDA.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

*Activist scientists and lobby groups have distorted surveys, maps and data to misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, *according to the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt.

A full survey of the reef *released yesterday by the author*ity and the Australian Institute of Marine *Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.

Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of *onshore development and high water quality.

The report emerged as Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten traded political fire on the reef’s future this week at the halfway point of the election campaign.

As Labor announced $500 million towards protecting the reef, the Opposition Leader said: “We will invest in direct environmental management. We will invest in science and research. We will invest in proper reef management.’’

He said if Australia did not spend the money on the reef, “it is in serious danger of being irreparably damaged. If we do not act, our children will rightly ask us why didn’t we.’’

The Prime Minister said the reef and its health were “a great passion of mine and my government’’. He cited the chairman of the World Heritage Committee, Maria Bohmer, who said last year Australia’s management of the Great Barrier Reef was a world-class example of coral reef management. “So there is no question that we are doing a good job,’’ Mr Turnbull said.

Activist groups last week seized on reports that a UN *assessment of the impacts of climate change on iconic Australian World Heritage sites, including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Tasmanian Wilderness was censored by Australia. It later emerged that the report the government was accused of censoring was complimentary of the Turnbull government’s actions to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

The political debate and the *release of the authority’s survey results highlights a growing conflict between the lead Barrier Reef agency and the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce headed by Terry Hughes.

Dr Reichelt said the authority had withdrawn from a joint *announcement on coral bleaching with Professor Hughes this week “because we didn’t think it told the whole story”. The taskforce said mass bleaching had killed 35 per cent of corals on the northern and central Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Reichelt said maps accompanying the research had been misleading, exaggerating the *impact. “I don’t know whether it was a deliberate sleight of hand or lack of geographic knowledge but it certainly suits the purpose of the people who sent it out,” he said.

“This is a frightening enough story with the facts, you don’t need to dress them up. We don’t want to be seen as saying there is no *problem out there but we do want people to understand there is a lot of the reef that is unscathed.”

Dr Reichelt said there had been widespread misinterpretation of how much of the reef had died.

“We’ve seen headlines stating that 93 per cent of the reef is prac*tic*ally dead,” he said.

“We’ve also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire reef is now gone.

“However, based on our *combined results so far, the overall mortality rate is 22 per cent — and about 85 per cent of that die-off has occurred in the far north *between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250km north of Cairns. Seventy-five per cent of the reef will come out in a few months time as recovered.”*

I AM AFRAID THE GAME IS UP FOR THE GREENS AFTER BEING EXPOSED TODAY.

Bill Shorten's announcement of an injection of $500,000,000 into the reef is an absolute waste of money.....Governments both state and federal have been checking the water ways in NQ for years and have recently discovered some leaching from the NQ Nickel refinery which Clive Palmer' was supposed to have fixed 2 years ago hence the court action that was taken against him.

The main affect on the reef is off Cape York where there is unpolluted run off......The reefs of Townsville have not been affected, so plod don't believe a word the GREENS are ramming down your throat...The Greens do not have leg left to stand on...They are full of lies and deceit.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Prehistory may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes with history!  And that's a fact!




The expanse of history you're talking about repeating itself goes for how long? 65 million years?

Don't think people can live with not living for 65 million years.

This century, we're seeing at the level of species extinction as when the asteroid wipe clean the dinosaurs.

Have you noticed any asteroids of similar size or scale hitting our planet lately to have caused such level of species extinction? 

No? So it must be something else right?

What could it be? 

The weather just getting cold and hot as it normally does?

----

And with this species extinction... it is an established fact. Species are dying at rate of something like 1 or two species per year since 1900s. 

Normal rate of extinction and evolution are expected to average 1 to 2 every 100 years, not every year.


But maybe all the deniers are right... all these death and destruction are all natural and Earth will heal itself. Just our species' death are part of nature's way, too.


----------



## explod

Russell Reichelt has to be careful with his words as he is a servant of the Federal Government. So I don't buy any of it.   And noco,  why the bold print in your quotes,  it is annoying and a further destraction.   A quote should be done as "follows" 

The Greens are directed from the bottom up. Policy is developed from branch meetings across the country,  their scrutiny,  discussion and approval.  The others from top down and beware anyone who does not stick to the script. 

Its a bit of a contradiction the press picking up on inconsistencies so described.   In a democracy one should be able to put ones own individual thoughts out there as part of answers.  The knit picking are destractions to keep the electors confused and distracted.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Russell Reichelt has to be careful with his words as he is a servant of the Federal Government. So I don't buy any of it.   And noco,  why the bold print in your quotes,  it is annoying and a further destraction.   A quote should be done as "follows"
> 
> The Greens are directed from the bottom up. Policy is developed from branch meetings across the country,  their scrutiny,  discussion and approval.  The others from top down and beware anyone who does not stick to the script.
> 
> Its a bit of a contradiction the press picking up on inconsistencies so described.   In a democracy one should be able to put ones own individual thoughts out there as part of answers.  The knit picking are destractions to keep the electors confused and distracted.




I am sure the voting public would prefer to accept the word on the Great Barrier Reef from the GBRMPA,  based just south of Townsville near Tickle Belly Bay, over the Greens.....I don't know how you can say the Federal Government would have any influence over GBRMPA......NB. ..I was president of the AWWA...(The Australian Water and Waste Water Association) some years ago.....I had a close relationship with GBRMPA and had visited their operation several times.......They do not fudge their work like it has been proven about the Greens.

It is your prerogative as which political party you follow but I would be having a close look at the Greens hidden agenda......They do everything behind close doors and the  media have to keep their distance......The Greens are mostly Fabians ( socialist or communist ) or what ever you like to name them......The are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".......They believe in central control......profit is a dirty word.....

So plod think hard about who you believe.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I am sure the voting public would prefer to accept the word on the Great Barrier Reef from the GBRMPA,  based just south of Townsville near Tickle Belly Bay, over the Greens.....I don't know how you can say the Federal Government would have any influence over GBRMPA......NB. ..I was president of the AWWA...(The Australian Water and Waste Water Association) some years ago.....I had a close relationship with GBRMPA and had visited their operation several times.......They do not fudge their work like it has been proven about the Greens.
> 
> It is your prerogative as which political party you follow but I would be having a close look at the Greens hidden agenda......They do everything behind close doors and the  media have to keep their distance......The Greens are mostly Fabians ( socialist or communist ) or what ever you like to name them......The are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".......They believe in central control......profit is a dirty word.....
> 
> So plod think hard about who you believe.




Crap,  I have been very involved with the Greens for 15 years and can assure you from your take you do not have a clue as to how the party functions. 

Back in the 70s as Mayor of a municipalty I had considerable insight into the Liberal Party,  knew Malcolm Fraser,  Bill Borthwick,  Allan Hunt (Father of Greg) and some others at discussion level.   The ALP was my party from a youth and know thier workings very well.  Both they and the Libs are far removed from the idea of consensus among thier followers for the development of policy.  I am with the Green's because they represent the combined (democratic) voice of the membership.  Which as a matter of fact is how the AWU worked in my eight years as a young shearer. 

And I do not require your assistance noco to think.  I have a university Honours Degree (Distinction)  and completed the 6 years of promotional studies within Vicpol.   What you are used to is telling people what you want because you THINK you are correct,  seemingly on all matters. 

The Greens are very open and certainly do not operate behind closed doors,  anyone is welcome to party meetings at all levels including open invitations to state and federal conferences.  

On ABC right now Adam Bant is discussing community owned renewable power companies.  Very good concepts. 
Very off topic.  Apologies


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Crap,  I have been very involved with the Greens for 15 years and can assure you from your take you do not have a clue as to how the party functions.
> 
> Back in the 70s as Mayor of a municipalty I had considerable insight into the Liberal Party,  knew Malcolm Fraser,  Bill Borthwick,  Allan Hunt (Father of Greg) and some others at discussion level.   The ALP was my party from a youth and know thier workings very well.  Both they and the Libs are far removed from the idea of consensus among thier followers for the development of policy.  I am with the Green's because they represent the combined (democratic) voice of the membership.  Which as a matter of fact is how the AWU worked in my eight years as a young shearer.
> 
> And I do not require your assistance noco to think.  I have a university Honours Degree (Distinction)  and completed the 6 years of promotional studies within Vicpol.   What you are used to is telling people what you want because you THINK you are correct,  seemingly on all matters.
> 
> The Greens are very open and certainly do not operate behind closed doors,  anyone is welcome to party meetings at all levels including open invitations to state and federal conferences.
> 
> On ABC right now Adam Bant is discussing community owned renewable power companies.  Very good concepts.
> Very off topic.  Apologies




Well that is fine plod if you believe in the Greens and would like to live under the RED banner ...go for it.....It is very doubtful the Greens will ever govern in their own right but they may perhaps rail road Labor into forming a coalition...Something Shorten said he would not do.....But we all know how Shorten has flip flopped lately and we all well and truly know Shorten is tarred with the same brush as Gillard.

This environmental jargon the Greens are using is just a front for their hidden agenda...It is called sucker bait......They do do a lot of things in secretracy as is the case when they change leaders....You never hear of any pending change in leadership  until it is all over as was the case with Brown and Milne......You will never convince me those two went quietly and we may never know why......I thought Brown was the be  end to all end, then Milne took over and things started to go down hill....Di Natalie is a very clever politician and knows the right buttons to push and he is certainly pushing Barnacle Bill's buttons ATM...Shorten is terrified of the Greens ......If Labor and the Liberals gave each other their preferences, the Greens would be in trouble big time......But of course we know that will never happen. 

The Greens want to have open borders and allow the people smuggling trade to start up.....They want to bring in another 50,000 refugees.......They are economic illiterate to say the least and will be economics vandals worst than Labor.

Di Natalie forgot he had he had a hobby farm and did not declare it....He says he will stand up for workers penalty rates and then pays people working for him $6 per hour......He is worse than Shorten.


----------



## basilio

Came across some of the latest thoughts from climate scientists on where we go to somehow reduce GG.  Geo engineering is now on the radar because frankly the  option of using the safer ways of just reducing emissions has run out.

This story opens that discussion.  Had a great piece in from a number of climate scientists making their point.


> *Scientists debate experimenting with climate hacking to prevent catastrophe*
> 
> Funding for geoengineering computational experiments was mysteriously included in a Senate appropriations bill
> Dana Nuccitelli
> 
> Wednesday 1 June 2016 20.00 AEST
> 
> 
> On his late-night talk show, Jimmy Kimmel recently invited climate scientists to explain that they’re not just messing with us about global warming.
> 
> In fact, climate scientists are so worried that we’re going to fail to prevent catastrophic consequences that some are studying how we can hack the climate, also known as “geoengineering.” This approach is essentially viewed as a last-ditch, “break glass in case of emergency” desperation option in the event of such a failure. Some climate scientists view this as a potentially reasonable way to deal with climate change, but others disagree. It’s a controversial topic.
> 
> Scientists have proposed various ways that we might use geoengineering to stave off a climate emergency, but one of the most popular involves pumping particles into the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions spew tiny sulfur dioxide particles (aerosols) into the atmosphere, which reflect sunlight and act to temporarily cool the planet. If humans were to similarly pump aerosols into the atmosphere, in theory we could offset some global warming. This is known as albedo (whiteness) modification, because we would be modifying the Earth’s reflectivity.
> 
> If the idea of mimicking a continuous volcanic eruption makes you nervous, you’re not alone. A National Academies of Science (NAS) report warned that the potential side-effects of this type of climate hacking are not well understood or quantified. Moreover, it would not solve the problem of ocean acidification – sometimes referred to as “global warming’s evil twin” – a major threat to marine ecosystems that only 20% of the British public has ever heard of.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Came across some of the latest thoughts from climate scientists on where we go to somehow reduce GG.  Geo engineering is now on the radar because frankly the  option of using the safer ways of just reducing emissions has run out.
> 
> This story opens that discussion.  Had a great piece in from a number of climate scientists making their point.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe





OMG...The good old communist paper the Guardian again......The paper that exaggerates and distorts the truth by their own admission.......How can any one trust what they say now.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> OMG...The good old communist paper the Guardian again......The paper that exaggerates and distorts the truth by their own admission.......How can any one trust what they say now.




Is it a commie conspiracy that there seem to be weekly weather related disasters this past 5 months noco?

Around the world, back to at least a year if I remember right... there's just this new record and that new deadly fire or flood or storm or hurricane. Not the normal seasonal stuff, the serious off the chart killing people event.

Maybe there's some cause for all these, and seeing how lives are lost and home and businesses destroyed... maybe we ought to err on the side of caution? Even if it ends up we're giving in to the Red and Green idiots.


----------



## Logique

Any more of this global warming and we'll need bigger dams. Which of course won't fill

The water storage levels will rise even further during the week after the run off from the massive east coast low on the weekend. Several dams are now at 100% capacity.  The largest, Warragamba Dam, is at an unheard of 92.9% capacity, and a wet _La Nina_ winter is expected.  

560mm in 3 days at my place. 

WaterNSW: http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels
6 June 2016 - Dam levels NSW


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> OMG...The good old communist paper the Guardian again......The paper that exaggerates and distorts the truth by their own admission.......How can any one trust what they say now.




Right on cue Noco.  Mindless, factless and totally unwilling to actually read a report let alone  discuss it.

Tell you what.  If you can't actually comment on the  article how about just shutting up and stop repeatedly  demonstrating to everyone else how clueless you are on CC ? OK


----------



## basilio

On reflection perhaps we should look at the case for sufficient evidence  to acknowledge that CC is happening.

Is this a good start?



> *
> Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe*
> The skeptics laid out four conditions that must be met for them to accept that climate change isn’t simply a theory: 100 named hurricanes a year, the full evaporation of the Mississippi River, nine-month-long heat waves, and the complete extinction of every animal in the class Reptilia.
> NEWS
> August 19, 2015
> Vol 51 Issue 33
> 
> WASHINGTON””Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.
> 
> The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events””including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars””they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed.
> 
> “For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities””and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”
> 
> “I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”
> 
> “The reality is that we’re still experiencing cold, snowy winters, and the entire global population is not currently embarking on cross-continental migrations in search of arable land,” Davis continued. “Until that changes, we cannot be expected to believe climate change is occurring.”




http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-51129


----------



## wayneL

basilio;90974"8 said:
			
		

> Right on cue Noco.  Mindless, factless and totally unwilling to actually read a report let alone  discuss it.
> 
> Tell you what.  If you can't actually comment on the  article how about just shutting up and stop repeatedly  demonstrating to everyone else how clueless you are on CC ? OK




Ironic.

BTW, did you hear what's going on in Californ I A?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Ironic.
> 
> BTW, did you hear what's going on in Californ I A?




No wayne,  tried a google search but none the wiser.  Of course you will conclude I am not wise,  but would be pleased if you would elaborate.


----------



## wayneL

Google Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 Plod.

Apparently canned because lo and behold, it contravenes the first amendment. But it is a disgrace that it was ever even drafted.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Google Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 Plod.
> 
> Apparently canned because lo and behold, it contravenes the first amendment. But it is a disgrace that it was ever even drafted.




Unfortunately attempts to reinvent contemporary versions of the "Spanish inquisition" are alarmingly typical of the unchecked fanatacism of religious zealots.


----------



## trainspotter

Ooooerrr now this can't be right now can it?



> “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
> 
> “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Former US Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and later head of the UN Foundation
> 
> “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” – Former French President Jacques Chirac speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change
> 
> *“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”* – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> 
> “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” – Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state




http://www.bull****exposed.com/global-warming-is-bull****/

They must be using the wrong side of the water intake valve with their mercury thermometers again


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Ooooerrr now this can't be right now can it?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bull****exposed.com/global-warming-is-bull****/
> 
> They must be using the wrong side of the water intake valve with their mercury thermometers again




And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.  I read that drivel.  Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really. 

What is it with you guys ?  You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading  enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ?  It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.  I read that drivel.  Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.
> 
> What is it with you guys ?  You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading  enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ?  It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?




The rest of the scientific community? Do tell basilio ....

Why is it when you present something from the Guardian it is GOSPEL and should be adhered to like an alter boy going down on a priest but when there is an opposing view it is ...



> And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.




Just like the water temps from the war and steam ships right? 

The world is cooking ??? SERIOUSLY ??? So when there is one of the coldest winters in American history in 2014 this did not happen right? But but but when the scientists (and I use the term loosely) GUESS the anomalies in temperature vagrancies on areas they have do not have sensors in, it is always rounded UP ??

Basilio .. READ the title of this thread please 

So Proffesor Chris Folland DID NOT SAY THIS ??



> “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.  I read that drivel.  Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.
> 
> What is it with you guys ?  You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading  enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ?  It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?




Are you talking about that fake 97% of phony alarmist scientist?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Are you talking about that fake 97% of phony alarmist scientist?




How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?

I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?
> 
> I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.




How many times does this happen?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-27/major-sinkhole-swallows-vehicles-on-qld-coast/6807536

April 21st 2015 - The town of Dungog – which saw three deaths and houses washed away – recorded 190 mm of rain, a near record. Nearby Tocal saw a record-breaking 242mm, while Sydney recorded 119 mm.

Nahhhh happens every year 

14th April 1999 Hail storm anyone anyone?

http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/sevwx/14april1999.shtml


http://theconversation.com/explainer-was-the-sydney-storm-once-in-a-century-40824

Or in a 3 year cycle apparently !





13th October 2014?? Wanna check how many houses were washed in to the sea that year??


----------



## ghotib

trainspotter said:


> The rest of the scientific community? Do tell basilio ....
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> So Proffesor Chris Folland DID NOT SAY THIS ??




Yes he said it, and at the time it was accurate. The time was 1992. Scientists, including Professor Folland, have since spent more than 20 years gathering and analysing many independent sets of data , which is why more than 95% of practising scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous. 20 years of data collection has also enabled scientists to test and improve climate models, as they continue to do, which is why e.g. continuing to mine and burn coal and gas would be monumentally stupid. 

Here's Professor Folland's response to a 2014 inquiry about it from the climate contrarian blog Climate Reality ( https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/pr...ot-basing-our-recommendations-on-the-data-we/



> Dear Mr Battig
> *
> Thanks for your request. You are about the fifth person to ask me this in the last ten years or more.
> *
> What you quote a very abbreviated report of*a much longer discussion at least*22 years ago!**-*soon after the 1990 IPCC*report and possibly around the time of the 1992 Supplementary Report. I cannot be sure to which sceptical scientist it was made but it may have been Pat Michaels - and possibly others with him. Please check with Pat. *
> *
> At that time, the key driver for nations' concern about climate change was indeed mostly*driven by model projections of global warming.* The attached published*letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself*and one of the then*IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators*tried to accurately reflect*the*general view at that time*(1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. *Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s.*This view*was soon to change greatly; notice that the*letter looks forward at*its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations'*policy actions and concerns.
> *
> The situation is*now very different and has been since about 1995.**Up to*1993, there were no published*detection and attribution studies. The situation had changed*by the 1995 IPCC*report with the first published detection and attribution*studies and since then the many*results of these studies have become the most quoted and influential*aspect of all*the IPCC Reports. Detection and attribution depends critically on observed climate*data as well as climate*models. It had centre stage*of course*in the 2001, 2007 and 2013 IPCC*reports. So*climate data started to move to centre stage*by the mid 1990s and was definitely right there by 2001 when I was a convening lead author of the 2001 Report.*Observed data and climate models*are now*equally important and vital to each other. This was further helped by the fact that in 2001 the first error estimates of observed global mean temperatures were published (I lead the first paper) – much been improved conceptually but not greatly changed quantitatively in recent years - and now available for everywhere location in the world. So great efforts*continue to go on*into improving data by the leading climate scientists of the world using ever more advanced statistics. I, of course, have devoted*considerable*time since 1990 to climate data, uncertainties,*and assessing the*climate changes, and importantly, the variations,*that they show.**
> *
> You might notice*that some*sceptics have a bad habit of quoting, or going after,*very*out of date stuff, such as the conceptual curve of global temperature back to the Middle Ages*in the 1990 report, as if*climate*science stands still.* Thus another development for which climate data are essential is the relatively new subject of decadal to multidecadal prediction (now in the fifth IPCC Report as a stand alone chapter). I co-authored the first widely quoted decadal prediction paper 2007 in Science. Here I was particularly responsible for the use of observed data methods to test the veracity of the early part of these predictions. Moreover all decadal prediction models have to be initialised with climate data. So decadal forecasting is actually impossible without observed global climate data. *But decadal forecasting did not exist in 1992.
> *
> Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *
> *
> So climate*data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!
> *
> Please feel free to quote the attached published letter in the context of the above remarks in any publication – I encourage you to do this.
> *
> I hope this helps
> *
> Chris
> *
> *
> Professor Chris Folland
> Research Fellow
> Met Office Hadley Centre
> FitzRoy* Road Exeter Devon EX1 3 PB
> Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> *
> Hon. Prof. School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia
> *
> Guest Prof. Faculty of* Science Univ. of Gothenburg Sweden
> *
> Adjunct Prof.* Dept of* Sustainable Catchments* Univ. of Southern Queensland* Australia


----------



## trainspotter

ghotib said:


> Yes he said it, and at the time it was accurate. The time was 1992. Scientists, including Professor Folland, have since spent more than 20 years gathering and analysing many independent sets of data , which is why more than 95% of practising scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous. 20 years of data collection has also enabled scientists to test and improve climate models, as they continue to do, which is why e.g. continuing to mine and burn coal and gas would be monumentally stupid.
> 
> Here's Professor Folland's response to a 2014 inquiry about it from the climate contrarian blog Climate Reality ( https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/pr...ot-basing-our-recommendations-on-the-data-we/




Ermm pause ? Hiatus??



> Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the *current observed “pause” or hiatus*, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming *“pause” *is leading to new insights into *climate variability* which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *




This cannot be !! The world is warming at an alarming rate ghotib !! The hockey stick graph shows exponential warming year after year. We are cooking (according to basilio) because of Co2 and the fish are dying and and the oceans are warming and the temperatures are soaring and and we need to STOP immediately any kind of fossil fuel burning and go solar and and and ....... get my drift yet?

Yep one decent volcano and the whole thing is off.



> Tambora is the only eruption in modern history to rate a VEI of 7. Global temperatures were an average of *five degrees cooler* because of this eruption; even in the United States, 1816 was known as the “year without a summer.” Crops failed worldwide, and in Europe and the United States an unexpected outcome was the invention of the bicycle as horses became too expensive to feed.




http://www.livescience.com/28186-krakatoa.html#sthash.J6NLlOcM.dpuf

Only 200 years ago ... when is the next one coming? We have bigger things to worry about IMO


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> which is why more than 95% of practicing scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous.




Bullshyte.

There is a CSIRO just up the road from me and I have a few of the scientists as clients. A close friend, a PhD, was on staff at UWA and there was a group of scientists we socialized with.

*Not one* holds the above view ascribed by you. Not one qhotib.

As a matter of fact, I have only ever met one scientist that privately held the alarmist view.

All said they (and particularly those scientists in relevant fields) have to toe the line in public because of career considerations, but in private hold more moderate views. All remark on the parlous state of science with most research in every field totally bogus.

You should see what passes for science in the field I work in... LMAO.

I'm not a qualified scientist, but at the moment I'm part of a group trying to put together a study to a/ debunk current BS and b/ test a new hypothesis on perfusion in the equine digit. I have another friend in the UK in the middle of a study, and another doing his PhD in an allied field. We don't discuss CC in those circles, but all remark on the BS that passes as science.

So when you quote purported consensus figures (which have actually be thoroughly discredited), it's BS, pure propaganda that belongs in the cesspit that is politics, not scientific discussion.


----------



## basilio

Thanks Ghotlib for identifying the source and context of Professor Follands* 1992 comment*. It's noteworthy that,despite the fact it is 24 years old and has been overtaken and proven by subsequent research and data on Global Warming,  CC denialists still trot it out as a Gotcha line to deny what is happening around the world. 

Even with the benefit of this explanation TS still manages to ignore the current reality. Whatever slowing of the increase in temperatures between the peak of 1997 and 2013 has been overtaken by the record increases in 2014-15-16. 

Isn't a shame we can't reset the world and  go back to more pleasant times.


----------



## Knobby22

Don't worry about it Bas, the fact they are quoting something 24 years ago show they are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pretty embarrassing really.

Meanwhile: the need for a sea wall due to rising sea levels was recognised in 2014 but the residents didn't want to put in saying the council should have a levy for all residents to pay. They now realise they have no choice and will have to shell out about $130,000 per home and less for apartments.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-st...on-the-brink-of-collapse-20160607-gpdqsk.html

BTW  I was involved in the design and installation of the sea wall installed for St Kilda. it was built to protect the extensive property including the shopping centre and arterial road from being swamped over the next 50 years due to rising sea levels. Expensive process.


----------



## Knobby22

Some basic science.




btw the 2100 scenario won't be allowed to happen. I am confident mankind will do something.
One idea is to install a mirror between the sun and earth in orbit between the Sun and Earth. Wouldn't cost that much. And who knows, maybe the giant earthquake in California would occur by then.

David Brin (who is a well known scientist) in his latest SF book foretells earth partially freezing due to misjudgements in human actions combined with natural events. I like the mirror idea though as we could get rid of it easily if circumstances change. Possibly we could find a way to use the reflected energy also.


----------



## trainspotter

It's in the Daily Mail so it must be true !!



> A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
> The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
> They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
> Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
> Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
> But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz4AwLzlnIH 

Hmmmm yep the science is settled alright 

And now some facts ...



> So, according to NOAA, the chance that 2014 was the warmest on record was 48.0% and based on their table, the global surface temperature anomalies in 2014 appear in the range of “more unlikely than likely”.
> 
> Curiously, the NOAA omitted that all-important “more unlikely than likely” language from its main 2014 State of the Climate report webpage.  You have to click on the Supplemental Information links to discover that 2014 was “more unlikely than likely” the warmest on record.




https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01...in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> btw the 2100 scenario won't be allowed to happen. I am confident mankind will do something.
> One idea is to install a mirror between the sun and earth in orbit between the Sun and Earth. Wouldn't cost that much. And who knows, maybe the giant earthquake in California would occur by then.




Cloud seeding technology ... could be worse !!



> That, however, has been the worry with proposed technical fixes to the climate all along. We could fire a fleet of little mirrors into an orbit around the Sun that locks them in place to deflect sunlight from the Earth. But if it goes wrong, we could be plunged into an ice age. Manipulating the clouds has been a popular idea with would-be geo-engineers, but these proposals face the fact that the climate effects of clouds are among the hardest parts of the climate system to understand and predict, so we can’t be too sure what the results will be.




http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130304-the-trouble-with-cloud-seeding


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?
> 
> I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.




My dear friend, I will take you on a journey back to the 1930's and 40's.

As a kid, my parents would take the family to Palm Beach on the Gold Coast for the annual 2 weeks holiday and then some long weekends..Palm Beach was 100 yards wide and ideal for surfing and fishing.....the sand dunes were 60 to 80 yards wide and you could count the number of houses between the road and the beach on one hand.....there was a 4 Square corner store and a pub......houses were scattered on the western side of the High Way with bush beyond.

On an average of a by annual event, the seas would become angry with king tides  and the sand dunes would retreat some 20 to 30 yards towards the road leaving sand cliffs 6' to 8' high....Me and my siblings thought it was great fun jumping off the sand cliffs until my dear mother would scream at us not to do it in fear of being buried alive in a sand slide...Once the weather settled down the prevailing sea winds would blow the dry sands back up to form the original dunes and at times the sand would extend itself onto the road way....It was nature at work.

In 1962 a friend of mine told me of this beautiful block of land he had bought on Palm Beach and had started to build his retirement villa.....When I told him of my observations over the past years, I suggested to him that perhaps one day he may have to build a rock wall to save his house falling into the sea......Old Bill laughed at me....But in 1963, the very next year, natures fury struck again and old Bill had to build a rock wall to stop his house falling into the sea.....It cost him more than the cost of the house......then his next door neighbor had to do the same thing......I visited the Palm Beach a few  years ago and was shocked to sea a narrow strip of beach confronted with a rock wall the entire length of the beach with ugly groins jutting out into the sea.

The same thing has been happening along the NSW Coast for years.......It happened several times on Kirra Beach and the narrow strip of land at Southport known as "Narrow Neck" which almost broke through on several occasions.

So I have no sympathy for people who build a house so close to the seas and I condemn the greedy local council at the time for allowing such development......A nature strip should have been the order of the day and Palm Beach would have looked like it was 80 years ago...

Climate change...yes of course it was climate change.


----------



## basilio

Temperature records have been smashed around the world over 2015-16.  The result of these extreme temperatures has been hundreds/thousands of deaths by heat stroke.



> *Wet Bulb at 33 C ”” Human Hothouse Kills Nearly 800 in Pakistan*
> 
> Human-forced warming of the global climate system is pushing sea surface temperatures in some areas to a maximum of 33 C. Extreme ocean warming that is increasing the amount of latent heat the atmosphere can deliver to human bodies during heatwaves. And near a 33 C sea surface hot zone, the past few days have witnessed extreme heat and related tragic mass casualties in Sindh, Pakistan.
> 
> *    *    *    *   *
> 
> For Pakistan, the heat and humidity has been deadly. Temperatures over Southeastern Pakistan hit 100 to 113 Fahrenheit (40 to 45 degrees Celsius) during recent days. Night time lows dipped only into the 80s and 90s (30s Celsius). Relative humidity throughout this period has remained above a brutal 50% even during the hottest hours of the day.
> 
> Wet bulb temperatures (the wet-bulb temperature is the temperature air has if it is cooled to saturation ”” 100% relative humidity ”” by evaporation) climbed into a dangerous range of 30 to 33 degrees Celsius. This greatly reduced the ability of evaporation at skin level to cool the bodies of human beings exposed to such oppressive temperatures. As a result, people working outdoors, the elderly, or those without access to climate-controlled environments fell under severe risk of heat related injuries.




https://robertscribbler.com/tag/wet-bulb-temperatures-35-c/


----------



## trainspotter

Oh deary deary me ....



> “We only have 30 years of good climate data: the satellites tell us the pause is real, and last month’s summer temperatures is not a record anything. According to the UAH and RSS global satellites, lower troposphere averages for July 2014 were 0.30C and 0.34C, compared to July 2015 of 0.28C. Even June 2015 was hotter (UAH, 0.35C; RSS, 0.39C). *July 2015 is not even the hottest month since June*.”




http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...y-warmest-on-record-lie-debunked-by-nasa-data

As for the heatstroke in Pakistan and India .. happens EVERY year !! With or without an alleged "Hottest June/July on record"

*PAKISTAN*
June 2015 - 1219 die from heatstroke.

April 2016 - 2 people die from heatstroke.



> Last year, more than one thousand people died in a severe three-day heatwave in the metropolis. Nearly 80,000 people were treated for the effects of heatstroke and dehydration, according to medical officials.
> 
> The city of 20 million inhabitants is a sprawling metropolis with few green areas, poorly adapted to manage intensely hot weather.
> 
> Vast areas of concrete absorb heat during the day and radiate it back at night in what climatologists call the "urban heat island" effect.




http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/333460-Two-persons-die-of-heatstroke-in-Karachi-

*INDIA*

May 2015 - nearly 1,700 die from heatstroke.

April 2016 - At least 80 people have died of heatstroke in the south Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32926172

How many people killed in Pakistan per annum from terrorists?

Pakistan saw 3,021 deaths in terrorist attacks in in 2009, up 48% on the year before, 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/pakistan-militant-violence-death-toll

India's death rate according to CIA world factbook is about 7 per 1000. Based on this, 8.4 million people die every year in India which comes to 22,500 per day approximately. From a variety of ways to die.

Considering there is 1,290,439,147 people in India that is pretty good odds eh?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> My dear friend, I will take you on a journey back to the 1930's and 40's.
> 
> As a kid, my parents would take the family to Palm Beach on the Gold Coast for the annual 2 weeks holiday and then some long weekends..Palm Beach was 100 yards wide and ideal for surfing and fishing.....the sand dunes were 60 to 80 yards wide and you could count the number of houses between the road and the beach on one hand.....there was a 4 Square corner store and a pub......houses were scattered on the western side of the High Way with bush beyond.
> 
> On an average of a by annual event, the seas would become angry with king tides  and the sand dunes would retreat some 20 to 30 yards towards the road leaving sand cliffs 6' to 8' high....Me and my siblings thought it was great fun jumping off the sand cliffs until my dear mother would scream at us not to do it in fear of being buried alive in a sand slide...Once the weather settled down the prevailing sea winds would blow the dry sands back up to form the original dunes and at times the sand would extend itself onto the road way....It was nature at work.
> 
> In 1962 a friend of mine told me of this beautiful block of land he had bought on Palm Beach and had started to build his retirement villa.....When I told him of my observations over the past years, I suggested to him that perhaps one day he may have to build a rock wall to save his house falling into the sea......Old Bill laughed at me....But in 1963, the very next year, natures fury struck again and old Bill had to build a rock wall to stop his house falling into the sea.....It cost him more than the cost of the house......then his next door neighbor had to do the same thing......I visited the Palm Beach a few  years ago and was shocked to sea a narrow strip of beach confronted with a rock wall the entire length of the beach with ugly groins jutting out into the sea.
> 
> The same thing has been happening along the NSW Coast for years.......It happened several times on Kirra Beach and the narrow strip of land at Southport known as "Narrow Neck" which almost broke through on several occasions.
> 
> So I have no sympathy for people who build a house so close to the seas and I condemn the greedy local council at the time for allowing such development......A nature strip should have been the order of the day and Palm Beach would have looked like it was 80 years ago...
> 
> Climate change...yes of course it was climate change.




So we should put the recent Sydney storm down to those once-in-a-decade event then ey?

That once in a decade/century list has had a few items added to it this past decade noco.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Oh deary deary me ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...y-warmest-on-record-lie-debunked-by-nasa-data
> 
> As for the heatstroke in Pakistan and India .. happens EVERY year !! With or without an alleged "Hottest June/July on record"
> 
> *PAKISTAN*
> June 2015 - 1219 die from heatstroke.
> 
> April 2016 - 2 people die from heatstroke.
> 
> 
> 
> http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/333460-Two-persons-die-of-heatstroke-in-Karachi-
> 
> *INDIA*
> 
> May 2015 - nearly 1,700 die from heatstroke.
> 
> April 2016 - At least 80 people have died of heatstroke in the south Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32926172
> 
> How many people killed in Pakistan per annum from terrorists?
> 
> Pakistan saw 3,021 deaths in terrorist attacks in in 2009, up 48% on the year before,
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/pakistan-militant-violence-death-toll
> 
> India's death rate according to CIA world factbook is about 7 per 1000. Based on this, 8.4 million people die every year in India which comes to 22,500 per day approximately. From a variety of ways to die.
> 
> Considering there is 1,290,439,147 people in India that is pretty good odds eh?




That is definitely one way to use statistics trainspotter.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> So we should put the recent Sydney storm down to those once-in-a-decade event then ey?
> 
> That once in a decade/century list has had a few items added to it this past decade noco.




I do not know how many houses on the Collarroy strip were affected because the news items keep only showing the house with swimming pool on the beach and adjoining houses.......It may well be a once-in-a-decade event..so what?....It has happened before and it will happen again and while some people are stupid enough to build their house right on the sea front which could be susceptible to bad weather, then I still have no sympathy for them.

I have quoted you true facts on  Palm Beach as I have known it over the years.

I believe the authorities on the Sunshine Coast have left a lot of nature strips except around the Noosa Heads area.

It is fairly obvious from your previous posts, you would dearly like to blame Global Warming or Climate change or what ever the flavor of the day is for the Greenies.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I do not know how many houses on the Collarroy strip were affected because the news items keep only showing the house with swimming pool on the beach and adjoining houses.......It may well be a once-in-a-decade event..so what?....It has happened before and it will happen again and while some people are stupid enough to build their house right on the sea front which could be susceptible to bad weather, then I still have no sympathy for them.
> 
> I have quoted you true facts on  Palm Beach as I have known it over the years.
> 
> I believe the authorities on the Sunshine Coast have left a lot of nature strips except around the Noosa Heads area.
> 
> It is fairly obvious from your previous posts, you would dearly like to blame Global Warming or Climate change or what ever the flavor of the day is for the Greenies.




I don't think anyone is blaming one climate event on CC. I think all scientists look at patterns, severity and frequency.

For example, fracking is believed to cause Earthquake in and around places they operate. Geologists aren't conclusive and can't prove it, and they are not saying that Earthquake doesn't happen... but they looked at historical records of earthquakes in those areas and found the frequencies to be, can't remember, say 1 every 50 years... and since fracking it's more frequent.

Add to that their understanding of how fracking works - breaking rocks with pressure... when you break enough of the foundation, something will give.

----------

Yea, I don't know why people would build houses on sandy strips, or even face the open ocean directly.

Feng Shui fellow Aussies mate. Have a mountain or something to protect against mother nature a bit.

But lesson from these natural disasters is not so much that they are caused by CC or not (CC do play a role, but let's assume they don't)... 

Lesson ought to be that if we could do things to help prevent the possibility of such disaster, maybe it's worth a try - even if it can't help people who decides to be too close to nature for their own good.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> That is definitely one way to use statistics trainspotter.




Read the title of the thread luutzu for clarity


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Read the title of the thread luutzu for clarity




Perhaps the title of the tread is the problem....


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Perhaps the title of the tread is the problem....




Then start a new thread basilio 

*CLIMATE HYSTERIA WILL SAVE US *


----------



## wayneL

hysteria
hɪˈstɪərɪə/
noun
1.
exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement.
"the anti-Semitic hysteria of the 1890s"
synonyms:	frenzy, wildness, feverishness, irrationality; More
2.
an old-fashioned term for a psychological disorder characterized by conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization) or a change in self-awareness (such as a fugue state or selective amnesia).


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I don't think anyone is blaming one climate event on CC. I think all scientists look at patterns, severity and frequency.
> 
> For example, fracking is believed to cause Earthquake in and around places they operate. Geologists aren't conclusive and can't prove it, and they are not saying that Earthquake doesn't happen... but they looked at historical records of earthquakes in those areas and found the frequencies to be, can't remember, say 1 every 50 years... and since fracking it's more frequent.
> 
> Add to that their understanding of how fracking works - breaking rocks with pressure... when you break enough of the foundation, something will give.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Yea, I don't know why people would build houses on sandy strips, or even face the open ocean directly.
> 
> Feng Shui fellow Aussies mate. Have a mountain or something to protect against mother nature a bit.
> 
> But lesson from these natural disasters is not so much that they are caused by CC or not (CC do play a role, but let's assume they don't)...
> 
> Lesson ought to be that if we could do things to help prevent the possibility of such disaster, maybe it's worth a try - even if it can't help people who decides to be too close to nature for their own good.




Some people are not very wise when it come to real estate......WHEN THINGS GO WRONG THEY WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE......Like my friend old Bill at Palm Beach....I warned him and he did not heed...He and his wife paid the price with tears.

They should follow the unwritten law.....BUYER BEWARE...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/dde57586e6fda5d543f840b26a6344b0


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Some people are not very wise when it come to real estate......WHEN THINGS GO WRONG THEY WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE......Like my friend old Bill at Palm Beach....I warned him and he did not heed...He and his wife paid the price with tears.
> 
> They should follow the unwritten law.....BUYER BEWARE...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/dde57586e6fda5d543f840b26a6344b0




Fair enough for those who didn't know any better, but what about those who have no choice?

Say... the over 200 million people in India who's currently close to famine because the drought kill their crop and they cannot afford the imported food or water? Same with the tens of millions in SE Asia... or the farmers in Australia, US doing it really tough from the drought, then the flood.

Extreme weather, regardless of the cause, will destroy lives and livelihood; and will lead nations to war.

I mean, part of the reasons China is stealing the entire seas far from its mainland is also food and energy resources; it is also upsetting a few other neighbours with diverting water from the Himalayas/Tibet mountains into China itself; then other neighbours along the Mekong River.


So ignore for the moment the scientific community and their green agendas... I don't think humanity can keep keep doing what it has. Then you also have energy security, national security and those jets and missiles needing fossil fuels - a fast depleting resource; then the health effect of smogs.

Anyway, interesting times ahead.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Fair enough for those who didn't know any better, but what about those who have no choice?
> 
> Say... the over 200 million people in India who's currently close to famine because the drought kill their crop and they cannot afford the imported food or water? Same with the tens of millions in SE Asia... or the farmers in Australia, US doing it really tough from the drought, then the flood.
> 
> Extreme weather, regardless of the cause, will destroy lives and livelihood; and will lead nations to war.
> 
> I mean, part of the reasons China is stealing the entire seas far from its mainland is also food and energy resources; it is also upsetting a few other neighbours with diverting water from the Himalayas/Tibet mountains into China itself; then other neighbours along the Mekong River.
> 
> 
> So ignore for the moment the scientific community and their green agendas... I don't think humanity can keep keep doing what it has. Then you also have energy security, national security and those jets and missiles needing fossil fuels - a fast depleting resource; then the health effect of smogs.
> 
> Anyway, interesting times ahead.




Yes and those same Indian people are screaming  our for our coal to produce cheat power for lighting, pumping, irrigation for growing and processing food.....We need the royalties for mining that coal, we need jobs in those coal mines like Adami wants to provide and what do we get, those stupid Greenies taking out court orders on environmental excuses to prevent the mine from going ahead.......The Greens don't care about those starving people so long as they stop development and progress......The Indian Government want to help those starving people and all we get is hindrance from the barmy army of the Greens.

Now don't come back and tell me the Greens are trying to stop this  Global Warming crap....If India does not get our clean and efficient coal they will purchase it else where and we will finish up the losers and that is exactly what they want.......They have the National interest at heart and pigs might fly.


----------



## trainspotter

That is putting it mildly noco


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> ... and pigs might fly.



Well some do, but they're the one's that couldn't give a phooey about their carbon footprint!

Pigs and carbon crusaders travelling cattle class!? No way!!


----------



## Tisme

I must admit, to me most of the hysteria seems to come from people trying to assert climate change is not a taxing problem, as it:

1. does not exist or;
2. does not present a danger or;
3. is just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by sheeple scientists and socialists;
4. etc

I tend to think the determined few antagonists are more like "why wasn't I told" Dorry Evans from Number 96, with the rest of us feeling like an exasperated Herb or at best Flo Patterson.


----------



## wayneL

Tisme said:


> I must admit, to me most of the hysteria seems to come from people trying to assert climate change is not a taxing problem, as it:
> 
> 1. does not exist or;
> 2. does not present a danger or;
> 3. is just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by sheeple scientists and socialists;
> 4. etc
> 
> I tend to think the determined few antagonists are more like "why wasn't I told" Dorry Evans from Number 96, with the rest of us feeling like an exasperated Herb or at best Flo Patterson.




I gave you more credit than that.

Ah alas, alack.....


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yes and those same Indian people are screaming  our for our coal to produce cheat power for lighting, pumping, irrigation for growing and processing food.....We need the royalties for mining that coal, we need jobs in those coal mines like Adami wants to provide and what do we get, those stupid Greenies taking out court orders on environmental excuses to prevent the mine from going ahead.......The Greens don't care about those starving people so long as they stop development and progress......The Indian Government want to help those starving people and all we get is hindrance from the barmy army of the Greens.
> 
> Now don't come back and tell me the Greens are trying to stop this  Global Warming crap....If India does not get our clean and efficient coal they will purchase it else where and we will finish up the losers and that is exactly what they want.......They have the National interest at heart and pigs might fly.




Saw on the news yesterday, could be SBS but then it's about solar so definitely ABC , that some Aussie company is doing pretty well, and also helping, the poor in India's slump with lighting through solar. 

The device was a simple small solar panel and provide them with lighting at night. It seems the gov't or power provider dont see the worth in putting a meter on these tent cities.

So we could make money by selling them clean and green energy, one that is affordable to practically all slump dwellers.. or we could just dig coals and say it's a wonderful thing and all you people should enjoy God's creation.

Also saw some news before where Indian farmers living where the grid don't reach have resort to a few solar panels to power their home and farm equipment. The Chinese seem to be ahead of us in that innovation.

----

To your point... 

Choices noco. Choices and information, or lack thereof.

India being poor, most of its people have more important thing to worry about than whether their minuscule use of electricity harm the planet. 

We in the West, being richer and  having more choices and options, could - if we want to.

That and Indians may not have been told about Climate Change. I mean, the Canadian still sells them asbestos and Indian factories still have its workers handling the stuff like they're cotton. Then there's some of us who's fighting the commies and greenies for their conspiracies to drive us towards cleaner and non-depleting energy source.

So for the Greens and coal hater... they don't try to stop mining so people like those in India would die or pay more for their electricity... the greens does it so that CC won't kill the crops, the livestocks, the poor.

India is a pretty sunny place. Solar could play a big part in its energy mix. Might work out to be cheaper than coal since you don't need to transport the Sun all the way there.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I must admit, to me most of the hysteria seems to come from people trying to assert climate change is not a taxing problem, as it:
> 
> 1. does not exist or;
> 2. does not present a danger or;
> 3. is just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by sheeple scientists and socialists;
> 4. etc
> 
> I tend to think the determined few antagonists are more like "why wasn't I told" Dorry Evans from Number 96, with the rest of us feeling like an exasperated Herb or at best Flo Patterson.




Update your references Tisme.

That's like me telling my kids about Michael Jackson. Michael who?


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> To your point...
> 
> Choices noco. Choices and information, or lack thereof.
> 
> India being poor, most of its people have more important thing to worry about than whether their minuscule use of electricity harm the planet.
> 
> We in the West, being richer and  having more choices and options, could - if we want to.
> 
> That and Indians may not have been told about Climate Change. I mean, the Canadian still sells them asbestos and Indian factories still have its workers handling the stuff like they're cotton. Then there's some of us who's fighting the commies and greenies for their conspiracies to drive us towards cleaner and non-depleting energy source.
> 
> So for the Greens and coal hater... they don't try to stop mining so people like those in India would die or pay more for their electricity... the greens does it so that CC won't kill the crops, the livestocks, the poor.
> 
> India is a pretty sunny place. Solar could play a big part in its energy mix. Might work out to be cheaper than coal since you don't need to transport the Sun all the way there.




You should try an update yourself ...



> KOLKATA: Mercom Capital Group, a global clean energy communications and research firm estimates solar installations in India to total 5 GW in 2016.
> 
> Cumulative solar installations in India crossed the 7.5 GW mark in May 2016. About 2.2 GW new capacity has been installed so far this year and it is more than total solar capacity installed in 2015. India's solar project pipeline has now surpassed 22 GW with 13 GW under construction and 9 GW in the request for proposal process.
> 
> The government has shown a strong commitment to renewables and it's push towards solar is beginning to show results, at the end of FY2015-16, solar represented 2.5% of net installed power generation capacity in India, up from 1.4 % a year ago, and was the fastest growing new energy source in the country. Solar accounted for 17.4% of all renewable energy generation in FY2015-16 compared to 10.5 percent in FY2014-15.




http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

So what's the problem then?



> Of the estimated $8 billion (Rs.54,400 crore) collected under the Clean Environment Cess to date, only about $3 billion (Rs.20,400 crore) is expected to be transferred to the National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF). The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is likely to be allocated only 23% of the total amount collected so far under the Clean Environment Cess. With late tariff payment problems and rooftop subsidy delays, creation of a 'reserve backstop fund' against non-payments or delayed payments by DISCOMs using NCEF funds could have an immediate positive impact, eliminating offtaker risk, reducing interest rates and increasing lending.


----------



## trainspotter

cynic said:


> Well some do, but they're the one's that couldn't give a phooey about their carbon footprint!
> 
> Pigs and carbon crusaders travelling cattle class!? No way!!




Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?



> The problem is that DiCaprio himself is one of those “big polluters,” which diminishes his moral authority to lecture others on reducing their own carbon emissions. While DiCaprio has donated a lot of his time, money, and effort into raising awareness on the issue ”” as he did in his Oscar speech ”” he unnecessarily hands ammunition to his opponents with his own wasteful consumption. For years his critics have noted his* extensive usage of private jets* to travel around the globe for both business and pleasure. In 2014 he famously rented the world’s fifth largest yacht, owned by a UAE oil tycoon, to watch the World Cup in Brazil. In case you are wondering, neither the jets nor the yacht run on solar power.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27


----------



## Ves

Howdy cynic,

You're the resident master of the logical fallacies.

Is the above _Tu quoque_?


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27




Must all greenies canoe to protest, walk to raise awareness, and live off the grid? 

Not sure what is more hypocritical... people who uses energy, breathe air, want to live... yet at the same time thought it's perfectly fine to pollute the air and water; and if CC were to bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives... meeehhhh. 

There's a saying, don't $hit where you eat. 

Climate and weather, air and water tend to go round the earth.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Must all greenies canoe to protest, walk to raise awareness, and live off the grid?
> 
> Not sure what is more hypocritical... people who uses energy, breathe air, want to live... yet at the same time thought it's perfectly fine to pollute the air and water; and if CC were to bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives... meeehhhh.
> 
> There's a saying, don't $hit where you eat.
> 
> Climate and weather, air and water tend to go round the earth.




No .. but he could go cattle class instead of private jet luutzu 

WHERE OH WHERE has ANYONE said it is OK to pollute the air and water? PROVE where CC has _"bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives"_ 

There's a saying ... 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.' ”” Frank Zappa 

Now you are back to basics - Don't get weather confused with Climate Change luutzu :frown:


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> Howdy cynic,
> 
> You're the resident master of the logical fallacies.
> 
> Is the above _Tu quoque_?




More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated  in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.

I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!


----------



## cynic

trainspotter said:


> Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27




Good question!

I am having trouble figuring that out myself.

Perhaps he's the hybrid result of some gene splicing experiment, by relevant scientists, in their efforts to bio engineer a master race of carbon crusaders! Just another scary example of what can happen when lunatics FTSE around with pigs!


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> No .. but he could go cattle class instead of private jet luutzu
> 
> WHERE OH WHERE has ANYONE said it is OK to pollute the air and water? PROVE where CC has _"bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives"_
> 
> There's a saying ... 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.' ”” Frank Zappa
> 
> Now you are back to basics - Don't get weather confused with Climate Change luutzu :frown:




DiCaprio is a very big star right? So maybe he thought about other people's safety - fans all rushing to one end of the plane - and go private jet instead. 

I thought you guys are making a fuss about his "hypocrisy" about jetting around and crying over CC because the jet fuel ads to carbon footprint, it's an inefficient way to add carbon footprint. 

No?

If that's NOT why Leo is hypocritical, than it must follow that those who deny CC does not care about pollution and carbon footprint.

So if jet fumes doesn't add to CC, it then mean Leo is not hypocritical for jetting around.

So why is he hypocritical? Because he's rich and he cares?

----

97% of scientific studies on CC agrees that CC is most likely to be caused by human activity - namely the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel. That is, burning of fossil fuel greatly contributes to CC.

When a person doesn't believe in CC, doesn't it mean they think that the use of fossil fuel and all the pollution are fine? Why wouldn't it be fine when it has no effect on anything? I mean, burn coal and oil doesn't do a dam thing since mother nature will just clean it up anyway.

Or are we saying fossil fuel is just as clean as Solar or Wind?

----

What is Climate if not the Weather?

Why is the onus of proof on those who believe in CC?

Research and specialist scientists, all 97% of their studies, have shown a very strong correlation between human activities (fossil fuel) and CC.

Part of what defines CC is the extreme weather. Extreme weather kills people and destroy their livelihood.

Take a farm... if the rain doesn't come in time and the drought is prolonged, the soil will dry up, crops that's been nurtured will likely die, the farmer may go bankrupt.

If the rain then comes back and floods that farmland again, well it just doesn't make up for the losses, it contributes and further destroy whatever is left.

So extreme and unpredictable weather doesn't matter?

It matter a great deal to those affected by it.

---

Anyway, it's not up to believers to prove anything. It's up to deniers to prove CC doesn't exist.

Why?

Moral obligation. 

We know CC kills and costs people and countries a lot of dole. Those who think the consensus of a likely cause is all bs better come up with a good reason. And saying the weather changes all the time just doesn't do it. Not when the trend itself is also undeniable. i.e. 15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> DiCaprio is a very big star right? So maybe he thought about other people's safety - fans all rushing to one end of the plane - and go private jet instead.
> 
> I thought you guys are making a fuss about his "hypocrisy" about jetting around and crying over CC because the jet fuel ads to carbon footprint, it's an inefficient way to add carbon footprint.
> 
> No?
> 
> If that's NOT why Leo is hypocritical, than it must follow that those who deny CC does not care about pollution and carbon footprint.
> 
> So if jet fumes doesn't add to CC, it then mean Leo is not hypocritical for jetting around.
> 
> So why is he hypocritical? Because he's rich and he cares?
> 
> ----
> 
> 97% of scientific studies on CC agrees that CC is most likely to be caused by human activity - namely the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel. That is, burning of fossil fuel greatly contributes to CC.
> 
> When a person doesn't believe in CC, doesn't it mean they think that the use of fossil fuel and all the pollution are fine? Why wouldn't it be fine when it has no effect on anything? I mean, burn coal and oil doesn't do a dam thing since mother nature will just clean it up anyway.
> 
> Or are we saying fossil fuel is just as clean as Solar or Wind?
> 
> ----
> 
> What is Climate if not the Weather?
> 
> Why is the onus of proof on those who believe in CC?
> 
> Research and specialist scientists, all 97% of their studies, have shown a very strong correlation between human activities (fossil fuel) and CC.
> 
> Part of what defines CC is the extreme weather. Extreme weather kills people and destroy their livelihood.
> 
> Take a farm... if the rain doesn't come in time and the drought is prolonged, the soil will dry up, crops that's been nurtured will likely die, the farmer may go bankrupt.
> 
> If the rain then comes back and floods that farmland again, well it just doesn't make up for the losses, it contributes and further destroy whatever is left.
> 
> So extreme and unpredictable weather doesn't matter?
> 
> It matter a great deal to those affected by it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Anyway, it's not up to believers to prove anything. It's up to deniers to prove CC doesn't exist.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Moral obligation.
> 
> We know CC kills and costs people and countries a lot of dole. Those who think the consensus of a likely cause is all bs better come up with a good reason. And saying the weather changes all the time just doesn't do it. Not when the trend itself is also undeniable. i.e. 15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record.



It sounds like you have found your personal religion.


Those calling for action have the ultimate responsibility for proving their case!

How about you prove that the fallen angel, Lucifer, doesn't exist and that all climatologists aren't damned to an eternity of torment when their souls burn in a lake of sulphur!


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated  in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.
> 
> I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!



At least you call yourself out on these fallacies!!  Many don't do themselves this service!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It sounds like you have found your personal religion.
> 
> 
> Those calling for action have the ultimate responsibility for proving their case!
> 
> How about you prove that the fallen angel, Lucifer, doesn't exist and that all climatologists aren't damned to an eternity of torment when their souls burn in a lake of sulphur!




Correct me if I'm wrong, but science aren't supposed to "prove" anything. Science is about proposing a hypothesis with various independent and dependent factors, then test to see the probability that the effect of one factor on another is random or likely or how unlikely to be random or by chance.

With the vast majority of scientific studies on climate and its effects concluding that chances are very very likely that human activity causes CC. When 97% of scientific studies tell you their studies have point to a correlation, you might want to stop being a smart azz and take the expert's advice.

But say we're skeptical; we don't buy climate science from climate scientists just as we don't buy medicine from medical scientists... what is our alternative explanation for the notable extremes and frequencies of quite damaging weather phenomenon?

We can't seriously say... well it's the weather, it's the climate, and climate change and happen all the time.

Well, frickin specialists are saying these weather aren't "normal", that chances are human activity play a big massive part in it. And they backed that up with their scientific studies! What are the deniers backing theirs  with? Gut feelings?

----

Lucifer doesn't exist because the God in the Bible/Koran/Tora doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist because all the stuff in it are about and known only by people within the region (before imperialism spread it further). If a God who created the Earth, the stars and the universe were to exist, He would at least tell it to a bigger audience than just the few ME tribes.

Done.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated  in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.
> 
> I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!




what you call "fallacy" most would consider research and literature review.

Do you take medicine a doctor prescribed or just from anyone? Or you have to study and develop the drug yourself to believe in its efficacy?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but science aren't supposed to "prove" anything. Science is about proposing a hypothesis with various independent and dependent factors, then test to see the probability that the effect of one factor on another is random or likely or how unlikely to be random or by chance.
> 
> With the vast majority of scientific studies on climate and its effects concluding that chances are very very likely that human activity causes CC. When 97% of scientific studies tell you their studies have point to a correlation, you might want to stop being a smart azz and take the expert's advice.
> 
> But say we're skeptical; we don't buy climate science from climate scientists just as we don't buy medicine from medical scientists... what is our alternative explanation for the notable extremes and frequencies of quite damaging weather phenomenon?
> 
> We can't seriously say... well it's the weather, it's the climate, and climate change and happen all the time.
> 
> Well, frickin specialists are saying these weather aren't "normal", that chances are human activity play a big massive part in it. And they backed that up with their scientific studies! What are the deniers backing theirs  with? Gut feelings?
> 
> ----
> 
> Lucifer doesn't exist because the God in the Bible/Koran/Tora doesn't exist.
> 
> God doesn't exist because all the stuff in it are about and known only by people within the region (before imperialism spread it further). If a God who created the Earth, the stars and the universe were to exist, He would at least tell it to a bigger audience than just the few ME tribes.
> 
> Done.




Relevant specialists are saying that the fallen angel Lucifer exists! How is this different to your cc argument?


One of Lucifer's greatest powers is in convincing people that he doesn't exist! The fact that people disbelieve in his existence is evidence of him weilding this power! Prove it isn't so!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Relevant specialists are saying that the fallen angel Lucifer exists! How is this different to your cc argument?
> 
> 
> One of Lucifers greatest powers is in convincing people that he doesn't exist! The fact that people disbelieve in his existence is evidence of him weilding this power! Prove it isn't so!




Are you now comparing scientists to priest and religious leaders? They went to the same schools, follow the same scientific methods and principles?

Doesn't the fact that I, and most others, believe climate scientist and their findings _yet _does not believe the 100% of priests and other religious leaders and practitioners - that'll be around 90% of people on earth... .Doesn't the fact that we don't believe what most people believe, what all religious "expert" believe... prove that we don't just take authority at face value?

Anyway...


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Are you now comparing scientists to priest and religious leaders? They went to the same schools, follow the same scientific methods and principles?
> 
> Doesn't the fact that I, and most others, believe climate scientist and their findings _yet _does not believe the 100% of priests and other religious leaders and practitioners - that'll be around 90% of people on earth... .Doesn't the fact that we don't believe what most people believe, what all religious "expert" believe... prove that we don't just take authority at face value?
> 
> Anyway...




I used to think that too, until one day I met the climate brigade!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I used to think that too, until one day I met the climate brigade!




Yes, Climate Scientists are like the high Priesthood serving Power and themselves with all these "beliefs".

We all know the real money is not working for the fossil energy giants, it's at university and research labs that's well funded by the government.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Yes, Climate Scientists are like the high Priesthood serving Power and themselves with all these "beliefs".
> 
> We all know the real money is not working for the fossil energy giants, it's at university and research labs that's well funded by the government.




Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!

Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?

And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?

What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!
> 
> Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?
> 
> And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?
> 
> What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?




I didn't say that. It was in response to you grouping climate scientists ("climate brigade") with religious zealots.

And my point was that if climate scientists care for power and money (powerplay as you say), then won't be saying the stuff they're saying. i.e. they won't be going up against the established corporate and political power that's feeding us "skepticism" against scientific findings on one hand; with the other gut funding and greenlight more "growth" and "jobs" to add fuel to the fire.

Ya, people go into climate science because it's popular, have plenty of money for research, and politicians and media takes them seriously.

Sometime people might just want to do good and have integrity and stuff.


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!
> 
> Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?
> 
> And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?
> 
> What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?




The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...

But that aside How do you reconcile the ' _Unreasonably Demonised' _ when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?

I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I didn't say that. It was in response to you grouping climate scientists ("climate brigade") with religious zealots.




All climate activists are members of the climate brigade!

As is evidenced by the dearth of applied logic in their professed beliefs, precious few are scientifically literate.

A few claim to be scientists and climatologists and yet somehow manage to behave more like apacolyptic fantasists than would be seemly for true practitioners of science.

Just to clarify, anyone voicing support for reform, conversion and/or prosecution of heretics (a.k.a deniers) is most assuredly a member of the climate brigade!




> And my point was that if climate scientists care for power and money (powerplay as you say), then won't be saying the stuff they're saying. i.e. they won't be going up against the established corporate and political power that's feeding us "skepticism" against scientific findings on one hand; with the other gut funding and greenlight more "growth" and "jobs" to add fuel to the fire.
> 
> Ya, people go into climate science because it's popular, have plenty of money for research, and politicians and media takes them seriously.
> 
> Sometime people might just want to do good and have integrity and stuff.




Scepticism isn't limited to the  questioning of others beliefs and agendas! It can also be used to question your own! 


By the way, have you found a way to disprove the existence of Lucifer?


----------



## luutzu

orr said:


> The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...
> 
> But that aside How do you reconcile the ' _Unreasonably Demonised' _ when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?
> 
> I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.




ah yes, the people that tries to warn the world against potential death and catastrophe are just like the same people who burn and torture people.

One group uses voodoo 'science" and research and tests... just like the other who uses the Bible and "confessions".


I guess if I spent hundreds of millions in the right places, I'd be able to influence some minds too.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> All climate activists are members of the climate brigade!
> 
> As is evidenced by the dearth of applied logic in their professed beliefs, precious few are scientifically literate.
> 
> A few claim to be scientists and climatologists and yet somehow manage to behave more like apacolyptic fantasists than would be seemly for true practitioners of science.
> 
> Just to clarify, anyone voicing support for reform, conversion and/or prosecution of heretics (a.k.a deniers) is most assuredly a member of the climate brigade!
> 
> 
> Scepticism isn't limited to the  questioning of others beliefs and agendas! It can also be used to question your own!
> 
> 
> By the way, have you found a way to disprove the existence of Lucifer?




So I have an agenda now?

What's my agenda? 

I already argued that God does not exist, hence Lucifer does not exist. How does anyone "prove" God doesn't exist? Go bring him here? Go to all the corners of the universe a few times and if God can't be found then god doesn't exist?

Anyway, scientists have done enough to show a highly likely cause of the current extreme weather that's been all over the world lately... If you don't think they know what the heck they're talking about, you present another reason and see if it make sense.

So far though, all I've seen and heard from "skeptics" is "we don't know", "it's the weather, it changes all the time".

That won't cut it.


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...
> 
> But that aside How do you reconcile the ' _Unreasonably Demonised' _ when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?
> 
> I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.




Some years ago I got paid a bit of extra overtime searching for a "missing" file in the archives of an engineering branch of a major petroleum company. The file related to an oil spill, hence the reason for my suspicions regarding the true status of the file's misplacement. That same company tasked me with reverse engineering a number of charts of safe fill levels pertaining to bulk petroleum storage tanks at a terminal that had recently come under their purview. (They claimed they didn't have enough money left in their budget to send out a contractor to take fresh strapping measurements of the strakes of each of the tanks at that terminal.)

Needless to say, a couple of years later, that particular storage terminal made it into the news.

So do you really think that I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the petroleum industry to furnish my own answer to your question?

But of course, you've already taken the liberty of answering it for me! I would say it is a pity that you presumed to give yourself your preferred answer, rather than the truth,  but then I know from experience such behaviour is fairly typical of evangelism.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> So I have an agenda now?
> 
> What's my agenda?
> 
> I already argued that God does not exist, hence Lucifer does not exist. How does anyone "prove" God doesn't exist? Go bring him here? Go to all the corners of the universe a few times and if God can't be found then god doesn't exist?
> 
> Anyway, scientists have done enough to show a highly likely cause of the current extreme weather that's been all over the world lately... If you don't think they know what the heck they're talking about, you present another reason and see if it make sense.
> 
> So far though, all I've seen and heard from "skeptics" is "we don't know", "it's the weather, it changes all the time".
> 
> That won't cut it.




Your failed effort to disprove the existence of Lucifer won't cut it either, as it is relies heavily upon two unproven assumptions.

One being the assumption that the existence of Lucifer depends on the existence of God.

The second assumption being the non existence of God.

The unproven first assumption about a God dependent Lucifer is embraced by some religions, however, those same religions would totally reject the second assumption as they firmly believe in the existence of God.

Now, as to your question on agendas, could you tell me again exactly why it is you believe the onus is on deniers to disprove your climate religion?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Your failed effort to disprove the existence of Lucifer won't cut it either, as it is relies heavily upon two unproven assumptions.
> 
> One being the assumption that the existence of Lucifer depends on the existence of God.
> 
> The second assumption being the non existence of God.
> 
> The unproven first assumption about a God dependent Lucifer is embraced by some religions, however, those same religions would totally reject the second assumption as they firmly believe in the existence of God.
> 
> Now, as to your question on agendas, could you tell me again exactly why it is you believe the onus is on deniers to disprove your climate religion?




Lucifer is Satan right? The Devil? A fallen archangel or something?

If God does not exist, every fairy tales and belief systems that depend on his existence does not exist.

Anyway, we can save our sophistry and hot air for another day. Let's focus on the issue at hand... 


97% of climate science studies on the dam thing concludes that it is highly likely that CC is real and most likely cause by human activities.

What's the denier's argument for the opposite? 

I feel it in my gut that it doesn't. No way. Weather changes; storms and hurricane and drought and bushfire happens, big deal.

To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.

Deniers replies... na, can't be. I just don't believe it. Prove it.

----

Scientists have prove the correlation to the point that they can, and are trying to add to that knowledge everyday. 

Deniers? Na, can't be. Just weather changing.

----

One question: Do you eat whatever food or non food you see? Just consume it?

No right? 

Certain food you just won't touch... because you take something in it will affect your body, no?


So our factories, our vehicles, our power stations etc.... all pumping out non-organic, hazardous chemicals... doing it last couple centuries like never before in the history of the planet... and?

And all that just won't affect a living planet whatsoever.

Ok then.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Lucifer is Satan right? The Devil? A fallen archangel or something?
> 
> If God does not exist, every fairy tales and belief systems that depend on his existence does not exist.
> 
> Anyway, we can save our sophistry and hot air for another day. Let's focus on the issue at hand...
> 
> 
> 97% of climate science studies on the dam thing concludes that it is highly likely that CC is real and most likely cause by human activities.
> 
> What's the denier's argument for the opposite?
> 
> I feel it in my gut that it doesn't. No way. Weather changes; storms and hurricane and drought and bushfire happens, big deal.
> 
> To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.
> 
> Deniers replies... na, can't be. I just don't believe it. Prove it.
> 
> ----
> 
> Scientists have prove the correlation to the point that they can, and are trying to add to that knowledge everyday.
> 
> Deniers? Na, can't be. Just weather changing.
> 
> ----
> 
> One question: Do you eat whatever food or non food you see? Just consume it?
> 
> No right?
> 
> Certain food you just won't touch... because you take something in it will affect your body, no?
> 
> 
> So our factories, our vehicles, our power stations etc.... all pumping out non-organic, hazardous chemicals... doing it last couple centuries like never before in the history of the planet... and?
> 
> And all that just won't affect a living planet whatsoever.
> 
> Ok then.




And where exactly did you get the idea that CO2 was a "non-organic, hazardous chemical"?

Are 97% of  scientists saying  this?

Or is this something that somebody tells you when informing beliefs and actions to be taken lest all humanity be doomed?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> And where exactly did you get the idea that CO2 was a "non-organic, hazardous chemical"?
> 
> Are 97% of  scientists saying  this?
> 
> Or is this something that somebody tells you when informing beliefs and actions to be taken lest all humanity be doomed?




Let's not get cute with organic and inorganic chemistry shall we.

Not all scientists know climate science dude. Specialised field of study. Something scientists take decade to master but you and Donalld Trump feel it in your heart it isn't so.

If climate scientist all want to scare people, I have a feeling they won't be leaving room for doubt about their claims.

They'll be as confident as the Avengelists and genius Donald in saying it is because we say so.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Let's not get cute with organic and inorganic chemistry shall we.
> 
> Not all scientists know climate science dude. Specialised field of study. Something scientists take decade to master but you and Donalld Trump feel it in your heart it isn't so.
> 
> If climate scientist all want to scare people, I have a feeling they won't be leaving room for doubt about their claims.
> 
> They'll be as confident as the Avengelists and genius Donald in saying it is because we say so.




So not 97% of scientists, only climate scientists then?

And the chemical distinctions are somehow irrelevant unless somebody is being fanciful?


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.




You are regurgitating the mantra of alarmism Grasshopper. You need to check your facts on these points, real, risk adjusted data.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So not 97% of scientists, only climate scientists then?
> 
> And the chemical distinctions are somehow irrelevant unless somebody is being fanciful?




Let say we have a proposal to build one of those sky-freeways going over your house. It will carry trucks, buses, tankers and freight rail. 

How should the Council review such proposal? Just from an engineering perspective. How?

Send the engineering plans to all engineers? Or only to Civil Engineers? Structural Engineers? Road Engineers?

Should the engineering plans be sent to Electrical Engineers too? Chemical Engineer?

Maybe we should just ask what the developers think of it. It's safe. No worries, she'll be right.


Would you do that? I bet you wouldn't.

And if 97% of the engineer studies, with each examining different aspect of the proposal, come to the conclusion that the bridge is not safe and changes better be made... Will you be asking about the other 3% that didn't prove it safe otherwise - just that they can't be sure... Whose words are you going to take?

Oh yes, let's not appeal to authority. Those idiots with their fancy degrees trying to con the world.

Con the world into what?

Con us towards caution? Towards a cleaner alternative? To seriously start thinking that maybe all the extinction of spcecies we're seeing, all the major castastrophe might not be natural.

Frickin evil scientists.

----

Yes, you and friends apparently know more about atmospheric chemistry than them climate scientists. 

Maybe you forgot I also use the word "hazardous" with those adjectives on the chemicals the burning of fossil fuel releases. Hazardous is fine but whether it's organic or inorganic is the sticking point here?

I guess the important thing is whether the cause can be pinpoint with precision. The possibility that life on Earth may end, mehhh.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> You are regurgitating the mantra of alarmism Grasshopper. You need to check your facts on these points, real, risk adjusted data.




There's no need to be alarmed? Maybe just be alert?

As I've point to other studies before, over the past 100 years, an average of one species goes extinct per year. 

Before industrialisation, the average was estimated to be 1 extinction every 100 years.

That is a 100 fold increase. 

The last time Earth experience this rate of extinction, the dinosaurs were being wiped out.

But we shouldn't be too alarmist about that?

Then there's war over resources, drought and famine, lives lost, lifetime's savings wiped clean if a "freak" storm hit... 

Don't worry, be happy.


The climate scientists are telling us the potential problem; there are technology and ability to do something about it - and doing it will also create jobs and lift people out of poverty... naaahhh... why bother.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> There's no need to be alarmed? Maybe just be alert?
> 
> As I've point to other studies before, over the past 100 years, an average of one species goes extinct per year.
> 
> Before industrialisation, the average was estimated to be 1 extinction every 100 years.
> 
> That is a 100 fold increase.
> 
> The last time Earth experience this rate of extinction, the dinosaurs were being wiped out.
> 
> But we shouldn't be too alarmist about that?
> 
> Then there's war over resources, drought and famine, lives lost, lifetime's savings wiped clean if a "freak" storm hit...
> 
> Don't worry, be happy.
> 
> 
> The climate scientists are telling us the potential problem; there are technology and ability to do something about it - and doing it will also create jobs and lift people out of poverty... naaahhh... why bother.




Strawman argument.

Conflating separate issues.

Don't insult our intelligence Grasshopper


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Let say we have a proposal to build one of those sky-freeways going over your house. It will carry trucks, buses, tankers and freight rail.
> 
> How should the Council review such proposal? Just from an engineering perspective. How?
> 
> Send the engineering plans to all engineers? Or only to Civil Engineers? Structural Engineers? Road Engineers?
> 
> Should the engineering plans be sent to Electrical Engineers too? Chemical Engineer?
> 
> Maybe we should just ask what the developers think of it. It's safe. No worries, she'll be right.
> 
> 
> Would you do that? I bet you wouldn't.
> 
> And if 97% of the engineer studies, with each examining different aspect of the proposal, come to the conclusion that the bridge is not safe and changes better be made... Will you be asking about the other 3% that didn't prove it safe otherwise - just that they can't be sure... Whose words are you going to take?
> 
> Oh yes, let's not appeal to authority. Those idiots with their fancy degrees trying to con the world.
> 
> Con the world into what?
> 
> Con us towards caution? Towards a cleaner alternative? To seriously start thinking that maybe all the extinction of spcecies we're seeing, all the major castastrophe might not be natural.
> 
> Frickin evil scientists.
> 
> ----
> 
> Yes, you and friends apparently know more about atmospheric chemistry than them climate scientists.
> 
> Maybe you forgot I also use the word "hazardous" with those adjectives on the chemicals the burning of fossil fuel releases. Hazardous is fine but whether it's organic or inorganic is the sticking point here?
> 
> I guess the important thing is whether the cause can be pinpoint with precision. The possibility that life on Earth may end, mehhh.




There are several problems with your apocalyptic religion. The foremost is that you don't actually seem to be basing this on actual science. This is evident from your repititious regurgitation of the 97% consensus fiction. Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.

Another problem is the way you demonise CO2 emissions with words like non-organic and hazardous. It's as though you are oblivious to the fact that you physically exhale CO2 gas! Mother nature has been accommodating CO2 emissions since before we emerged from our caves! 

But the biggest problem, is that this religion that you've chosen to embrace, is so zealous that it somehow manages to contort any meteorological or biological event into evidence of impending doom and then claim that their apocalyptic vision somehow entitles them to command the support of the entire human populace. 

Now getting back to that Lucifer character that you don't believe exists...


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.




Who by ?

Amateur scientists or the real thing ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Who by ?
> 
> Amateur scientists or the real thing ?




http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Edit: Some more info here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#33e516685909


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> There are several problems with your apocalyptic religion. The foremost is that you don't actually seem to be basing this on actual science. This is evident from your repititious regurgitation of the 97% consensus fiction. Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Another problem is the way you demonise CO2 emissions with words like non-organic and hazardous. It's as though you are oblivious to the fact that you physically exhale CO2 gas! Mother nature has been accommodating CO2 emissions since before we emerged from our caves!
> 
> But the biggest problem, is that this religion that you've chosen to embrace, is so zealous that it somehow manages to contort any meteorological or biological event into evidence of impending doom and then claim that their apocalyptic vision somehow entitles them to command the support of the entire human populace.
> 
> Now getting back to that Lucifer character that you don't believe exists...




So these are the same stuff we all breathe out. 









Maybe there's CO2 and a bunch of other hazardous chemical and gases among these smog?

Yah dude, Mother Nature have been cleaning up CO2 long before... With what? Trees and rainforest? The stuff human seem to not be cutting down?

How else does Mother Nature clean up CO2 or carbon and other toxics? 

Maybe she burried it under layers and layers of rock, clay and ice... 

So the main mechanism to remove carbon and leave oxygen behind are being depleted; the chemicals and all those wonderful fossilised natural stuff are being extracted and burnt - releasing it back into the atmosphere.

But she'll be right. Nothing in nature has been changed or affected much. 

Just like how you would be a bit careful in what you consume because it have an impact on your health; Mother Nature is fine with fumes and toxic that's burried for millions of years being pumped back up at unprecedented rate... OK then.


Oh, the 97% is debunked? Wow. By whom? People at NASA or the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
> 
> Edit: Some more info here
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#33e516685909




ha ha... Bloody Wall St and Forbes.

Those guys aren't taking any money from fossil industry at all.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Strawman argument.
> 
> Conflating separate issues.
> 
> Don't insult our intelligence Grasshopper




Circle of Life stuff Sifu. 

Canary in the coal mine.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> So these are the same stuff we all breathe out.
> 
> View attachment 67082
> 
> 
> View attachment 67083
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe there's CO2 and a bunch of other hazardous chemical and gases among these smog?
> 
> Yah dude, Mother Nature have been cleaning up CO2 long before... With what? Trees and rainforest? The stuff human seem to not be cutting down?
> 
> How else does Mother Nature clean up CO2 or carbon and other toxics?
> 
> Maybe she burried it under layers and layers of rock, clay and ice...
> 
> So the main mechanism to remove carbon and leave oxygen behind are being depleted; the chemicals and all those wonderful fossilised natural stuff are being extracted and burnt - releasing it back into the atmosphere.
> 
> But she'll be right. Nothing in nature has been changed or affected much.
> 
> Just like how you would be a bit careful in what you consume because it have an impact on your health; Mother Nature is fine with fumes and toxic that's burried for millions of years being pumped back up at unprecedented rate... OK then.
> 
> 
> Oh, the 97% is debunked? Wow. By whom? People at NASA or the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil?



How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> ha ha... Bloody Wall St and Forbes.
> 
> Those guys aren't taking any money from fossil industry at all.




Perhaps.

Is that your sole reason for disputing the reported findings of those scientists?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?




I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?




I hope you are not denying that the climate brigade are largely fixated on CO2 emissions!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?




Yes, those gases look exactly like my exhale during winter. 

Maybe you should move next to places with those smoke stacks and see how you go. All natural and organic and what not.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Is that your sole reason for disputing the reported findings of those scientists?




I'd need to pay WSJ to read - so, no. But one can predict what they'd say right? What with sponsorship and advertising and general objectivity when it comes to business, greed and the environment.

The Forbes one I read...

ya dood... Popular Technology sounds like a magazine I'd quote against other popular scientific journals. What with them both on par when it comes to scientific rigour and the quality of research they publishes.

Serious man, I had actually wrote a final year research thesis where I was involved in an actual scientific research project. Mine was just to pass and get that degree and so won't see any peer to read, review and publish... and believe me, if the research Cook et. al. did were as sloppy as that "investigative journalist" from Forbes opinion piece were, they'd be laughed at and forwarded all over the place.

So until you have something more "in depth" than a Forbes article quoting a Popular Technology magazine, I'd stick with what those rocket scientists at NASA and other scientific bodies think are fair acceptable standard of science.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Yes, those gases look exactly like my exhale during winter.
> 
> Maybe you should move next to places with those smoke stacks and see how you go. All natural and organic and what not.




So in other words, you cannot differentiate between those gases and water vapour?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I'd need to pay WSJ to read - so, no. But one can predict what they'd say right? What with sponsorship and advertising and general objectivity when it comes to business, greed and the environment.
> 
> The Forbes one I read...
> 
> ya dood... Popular Technology sounds like a magazine I'd quote against other popular scientific journals. What with them both on par when it comes to scientific rigour and the quality of research they publishes.
> 
> Serious man, I had actually wrote a final year research thesis where I was involved in an actual scientific research project. Mine was just to pass and get that degree and so won't see any peer to read, review and publish... and believe me, if the research Cook et. al. did were as sloppy as that "investigative journalist" from Forbes opinion piece were, they'd be laughed at and forwarded all over the place.
> 
> So until you have something more "in depth" than a Forbes article quoting a Popular Technology magazine, I'd stick with what those rocket scientists at NASA and other scientific bodies think are fair acceptable standard of science.




It may interest you to know that "Cook et. al." are being "laughed at and forwarded all over the place."


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So in other words, you cannot differentiate between those gases and water vapour?




ohhhh... water vapours. 

ha ha....

if it's one of those nuclear plants, yeahhh... Not those.

And please don't tell me to show where those stacks are located and what they burnt exactly. They're for illustrative purposes. btw, you're ignoring the city pic. Convenient or what?


Some years back I spent a week in Dalian, China. The cityscape looks a lot like those "vapour" pipes you're thinking.

Just that each morning I could see the mountain ranges over the horizon; the sky blue and that.

By lunch, the vapours somehow haze the entire sky to a dull grey, covering the sun. And everywhere - on the trees, the scrubs, the streets, the buildings - are covered in brown/reddish dust.

I thought it was just the weather and sand from the desert or something; also thought people coughing up and spitting out are from smoking. Lots and lots of frozen spit around.

Turns out every major factory there have their own coal powered power plant. 


But yea, just vapours... kinda like our kitchen rangehood vapours. Not sure why we have to close all our windows each time the neighbour's wall exhaust are turned on in their kitchen.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> ohhhh... water vapours.
> 
> ha ha....
> 
> if it's one of those nuclear plants, yeahhh... Not those.
> 
> And please don't tell me to show where those stacks are located and what they burnt exactly. They're for illustrative purposes. btw, you're ignoring the city pic. Convenient or what?
> 
> 
> Some years back I spent a week in Dalian, China. The cityscape looks a lot like those "vapour" pipes you're thinking.
> 
> Just that each morning I could see the mountain ranges over the horizon; the sky blue and that.
> 
> By lunch, the vapours somehow haze the entire sky to a dull grey, covering the sun. And everywhere - on the trees, the scrubs, the streets, the buildings - are covered in brown/reddish dust.
> 
> I thought it was just the weather and sand from the desert or something; also thought people coughing up and spitting out are from smoking. Lots and lots of frozen spit around.
> 
> Turns out every major factory there have their own coal powered power plant.
> 
> 
> But yea, just vapours... kinda like our kitchen rangehood vapours. Not sure why we have to close all our windows each time the neighbour's wall exhaust are turned on in their kitchen.



Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It may interest you to know that "Cook et. al." are being "laughed at and forwarded all over the place."




obviously.

btw, can you forward us a survey of mothers' opinions on their children's good looks? I just want an unbiased survey of what parents think of their own children.

Oh, Climate Scientists reviewing each other's work - dam, they must all be in it too, right?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?




Where did I say the picture "show" CO2? But CO2 is in there somewhere in that picture right? 

But point was to rebutt your nonsense about these smog being the same stuff we breathe out.

Might want to stop nitpicking and focus on the bigger argument dude. Namely, industrialisation, the extraction and burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, polluted rivers and lakes... all these mean Mother Nature aren't as capable of absorbing and cleansing waste as she used to.

So your argument that Earth has been at it forever and now is no different... it kind of doesn't add up.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Where did I say the picture "show" CO2? But CO2 is in there somewhere in that picture right?
> 
> But point was to rebutt your nonsense about these smog being the same stuff we breathe out.
> 
> Might want to stop nitpicking and focus on the bigger argument dude. Namely, industrialisation, the extraction and burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, polluted rivers and lakes... all these mean Mother Nature aren't as capable of absorbing and cleansing waste as she used to.
> 
> So your argument that Earth has been at it forever and now is no different... it kind of doesn't add up.




Dude! The climate brigade prophecy is heavily reliant on the claim that increased levels of CO2 have humanity on a one way express trip to global doom!

And like it or not, CO2 is stuff that we breathe out!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> obviously.
> 
> btw, can you forward us a survey of mothers' opinions on their children's good looks? I just want an unbiased survey of what parents think of their own children.
> 
> Oh, Climate Scientists reviewing each other's work - dam, they must all be in it too, right?




Only the apocalyptic ones. The others are dismissed as irrelevant and/or deniers by their apocalyptic brethren and thereby excluded from consideration.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Dude! The climate brigade prophecy is heavily reliant on the claim that increased levels of CO2 have humanity on a one way express trip to global doom!
> 
> And like it or not, CO2 is stuff that we breathe out!




Maybe it's catchy to boil it down to CO2. What other elements are the public aware of? O2, H2O.

I had only scan through some more indepth article and there's Methane and blah blah other greenhouse gases. So you can't pin CO2 on Climate Scientists and their research then rebuke the entire field with CO2 alone.

Check out the various specialisation within Climate Science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

oceanographer, atmospheric, geological, geochemistry, ozone, meterology, palaeoclimatology, atmospheric physicist, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions etc. etc.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Only the apocalyptic ones. The others are dismissed as irrelevant and/or deniers by their apocalyptic brethren and thereby excluded from consideration.




I've heard in an interview where theey're saying Climate Scientists actually self-censor and try not to be too blunt or alarmist in case they're accused of being apocalyptic. i.e. it may actually be worst than the "hysteria" we're hearing.

Some are even saying that we ain't got another 100 years to switch over... got maybe 20 years, tops, before irreversible damage. i.e. the rate of change is accelerating faster than expected.

As an aside, the US plains that's producing most of its, and the world's, crops are expected to drain its entire aquifer reservoirs around 2050. China is going to run very dry next two decades...

Good luck to world peace and international cooperations this generation.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Maybe it's catchy to boil it down to CO2. What other elements are the public aware of? O2, H2O.
> 
> I had only scan through some more indepth article and there's Methane and blah blah other greenhouse gases. So you can't pin CO2 on Climate Scientists and their research then rebuke the entire field with CO2 alone.
> 
> Check out the various specialisation within Climate Science:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
> 
> oceanographer, atmospheric, geological, geochemistry, ozone, meterology, palaeoclimatology, atmospheric physicist, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions etc. etc.




I don't have to pin CO2 on the climate brigade, they have happily pinned it to themselves!

If you want to argue about methane, then I only need mention that Bryant and May have been selling the solution to that particular problem for years! I used to purchase boxes of 47 with pocket change!


----------



## SirRumpole

Nothing like a bit of hip pocket hurt to spur people into action:-


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tasmanian-farmers-ask-for-climate-action-after-floods/7506710


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Nothing like a bit of hip pocket hurt to spur people into action:-
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tasmanian-farmers-ask-for-climate-action-after-floods/7506710




Tsk, how tiresome. And linked on that very same story =>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/did-climate-change-cause-east-coast-low-storms/7483874

Talk of models etc (note that when the writer gets to data the story changes)


> Was it climate change?
> 
> While the frequency of cool-season east coast lows looks likely to decrease in the future, changes in the big ones are a lot less certain.
> 
> However, east coast lows are very variable in frequency and hard to predict.
> 
> A road is completely flooded on Tasmania's east coast. June 6, 2016.
> Photo: Studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far. (Supplied: Natasha Scott Ham)
> 
> So far, there has not been any clear trend in the past 50 years, although east coast lows may have been more frequent in the past.
> 
> *As for extreme rainfall, studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far.
> 
> *Climate variability, such as El Nino, currently plays a much larger role.
> 
> This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.
> 
> *So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.
> *


----------



## Tisme

Raining again in Brisbane and environs!!! 

Even the venerable, generational Queenslander, diehard Liberals in the area are starting to talk of climate calamity. Where's Tony when when you need a spokesman to publically deny the bleedin' obvious and calm the concerns? 

I have figured out how the protagonists work out their cases: there's a bag of multivariate cats eyes marbles, each allocated to a certain weather event. When there's an anomaly the associated colour marbles are  drawn out and if there is enough to satisfy the input variables then it's a catastrophe or normal depending on what side of the doogs circle you are crouching, if there isn't a enough cats eyes, the black mariah is put in play and the kids argue until they run out of puff.


----------



## basilio

Ah Wayne no change for you is there ?  As selective in your quoting and disingenuous as ever. Real campaigner.

The article you you quoted also noted that 



> This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.
> 
> So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.
> 
> But it is harder to rule out climate change having any influence at all.
> 
> For instance, what is the impact of higher sea levels on storm surges? And how much have record-warm sea temperatures contributed to rainfall and storm intensity?
> 
> We know these factors will become more important as the climate system warms further, so as the clean-up begins, we should keep an eye on the future.


----------



## wayneL

Oh bas. There is no disingenuity whatsoever, as by linking the article there is an invitation to read the whole.

I feel so sorry for you, struggling to see the dark side in everything, trying to alarm and depress all whom you come into contact with, obviously to try to mitigate some deep psychopathology of your own.

Why would you prefer to hold modelling and weasel statements above data and categorical and correct conclusions?

I rest my case.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Oh bas. There is no disingenuity whatsoever, as by linking the article there is an invitation to read the whole.
> 
> I feel so sorry for you, struggling to see the dark side in everything, trying to alarm and depress all whom you come into contact with, obviously to try to mitigate some deep psychopathology of your own.
> 
> Why would you prefer to hold modelling and weasel statements above data and categorical and correct conclusions?
> 
> I rest my case.




Because I like to see the most honest representation of reality (particularly in something as critical as the our collective future) and deal with it Wayne rather than using cheery picked sentences, BS analysis and outright lies.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Because I like to see the most honest representation of reality (particularly in something as critical as the our collective future) and deal with it Wayne rather than using cheery picked sentences, BS analysis and outright lies.




The Guardian Newspaper and the Greens are the ones who exaggerate and tell lies by their own admission.

I would take everything they say with a grain of salt.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Because I like to see the most honest representation of reality (particularly in something as critical as the our collective future) and deal with it Wayne rather than using cheery picked sentences, BS analysis and outright lies.




Models are reality? Lies? Who is lying? The author?

Holy sheeit dude. I sincerely think you need therapy. Honestly bro, get help.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Models are reality? Lies? Who is lying? The author?
> 
> Holy sheeit dude. I sincerely think you need therapy. Honestly bro, get help.




What can we say Wayne ?  I'm assuming for the sake of goodwill that your comments regarding the reality of CC, the causes and the likely effects are not directed to me personally. After all I am simply one person of hundreds of millions who has come to the same conclusions. So essentially when you paint a picture of *me *requiring therapy, being obsessed, dark and with a deep psychopathology *you are throwing the xhit can over hundreds of millions of other people.  *

And why have we come to these conclusions? Essentially because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have offered enough evidence to support this conclusion. Because we see the physical evidence of warming climate all around us. Because the climate records around the world also show an a rapid increase in temperatures. And because even if we can't be *absolutely and totally sure* that we are cooking the planet we are not prepared to ignore the current evidence in favour of a rapidly diminishing possibility "that it will all be right in the end there is nothing to worry about"

And your response to this situation is to say we are all obsessed with the dark side, having deep psychological problems and needing therapy. Wow.

Is this truly your idea or is simply the latest dark meme being circulated by deniers to muddy the waters?  It reminds me of the poster saying that the Unibomber also accepted CC. 

All I hear from you Wayne is the echo chamber of Donald Trump.  He is also a total CC denier. He's loud, abusive, aggressive, and repeatedly wrong. But hey he is now the Republician nominee for Prez of the most powerful country in the world.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Models are reality? Lies? Who is lying? The author?
> 
> Holy sheeit dude. I sincerely think you need therapy. Honestly bro, get help.






basilio said:


> What can we say Wayne ?  I'm assuming for the sake of goodwill that your comments regarding the reality of CC, the causes and the likely effects are not directed to me personally. After all I am simply one person of hundreds of millions who has come to the same conclusions. So essentially when you paint a picture of *me *requiring therapy, being obsessed, dark and with a deep psychopathology *you are throwing the xhit can over hundreds of millions of other people.  *
> 
> And why have we come to these conclusions? Essentially because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have offered enough evidence to support this conclusion. Because we see the physical evidence of warming climate all around us. Because the climate records around the world also show an a rapid increase in temperatures. And because even if we can't be *absolutely and totally sure* that we are cooking the planet we are not prepared to ignore the current evidence in favour of a rapidly diminishing possibility "that it will all be right in the end there is nothing to worry about"
> 
> And your response to this situation is to say we are all obsessed with the dark side, having deep psychological problems and needing therapy. Wow.
> 
> Is this truly your idea or is simply the latest dark meme being circulated by deniers to muddy the waters?  It reminds me of the poster saying that the Unibomber also accepted CC.
> 
> All I hear from you Wayne is the echo chamber of Donald Trump.  He is also a total CC denier. He's loud, abusive, aggressive, and repeatedly wrong. But hey he is now the Republician nominee for Prez of the most powerful country in the world.



How many of those hundreds of millions of people are riding bicycles, instead of automobiles, and forgoing overseas travel?

And how many hundreds of million people are being labelled as deniers for not joining this particular crusade?

If it's simply a case of superior numbers, then the Carbon Church would surely be losing this particular battle consequent to the failure of its congregation to practice what is preached.


----------



## basilio

What is it with CC denial? What are they saying ? Does it make sense ? Where should we go as far as public policy ? Some really interesting observations in this article

*The faux insurgency of the climate change deniers and the need for closure*




> .......A denier never admits the possibility of changing his or her mind. Just ask a climate change denier what will convince him or her that climate change is real and caused by humans. I guarantee that he or she will not have a response. Evidence simply doesn't matter, so they have never considered what evidence would convince them to change their minds....
> 
> ...Here are the crux of the deniers' strategy and the horrible implications of it: The deniers want to convince the world that no policy action can be taken so long as there is any disagreement. They somehow pretend that there must be 100 percent consensus one way or the other.
> 
> The hypocrisy of this, of course, is that there is no 100 percent consensus that we should continue to burn fossil fuels; yet, by policy we continue to do so in large quantities every day. Would the deniers consent to a moratorium on burning fossil fuels so long as there is a debate about the consequences of burning them? When the shoe is on the other foot, it doesn't fit so comfortably, does it?
> 
> I'm sure deniers will be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that public policy is always made without 100 percent certainty. Were it not so, there would be no public policy at all. Deniers know this, and that's what they want, public policy paralysis.
> 
> But there is something else that is disturbing about the deniers' tactics when we look at such tactics through an historical lens.
> 
> No doubt there are those who even today might argue that slavery ought to be legal. After all, the Bible, the holiest of books in the Christian world, sanctions slavery. And, the Bible was a frequently used weapon by the slaveholders and their apologists. Perhaps in the interests of honest inquiry we should engage those who argue for the reimposition of slavery.
> 
> ...Too farfetched? How about those who continue to argue for segregation of the races? Today we call them white supremacists. Shall we give them our ear in order to make sense out of the debate over segregation? Should we withhold our judgment about segregation until all the facts are in? (I am generously presuming that a white supremacist could actually give me facts.)
> 
> How about women's suffrage? There are cultures yet today that do not believe women should have a role in governing their own societies. Women, they say, are too immature and weak-minded to participate in such a lofty enterprise. Perhaps we should listen to those advocating the end of women's suffrage (or its prevention where it does not already exist) so we can try to discern whether we should take the vote away from women in our own societies.
> 
> As hard as it is to believe, some debates are actually closed. Yes, there may be a few dissenters left, but they are almost exclusively talking among themselves.




http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...imate-change-deniers-and-the-need-for-closure


----------



## wayneL

1 your definition of denial please

2 Who are you implying are deniers?


----------



## basilio

xxx


----------



## trainspotter

It would appear wayneL that our adversary has forgotten to take his medication on this instance. We both have explained our positions and we both have agreed with him but somehow he reminds me of a calliope.

_A calliope is typically very loud. Even some small calliopes are audible for miles. *There is no way to vary tone or loudness*. The only expression possible is the timing and duration of the notes._

I myself am busy correlating the steam ships/warships/cruise ships from 1912 to 1951 water intake valve temperatures using a mercury thermometer from 1936 as a base constant for accuracy to prove that the oceans are heating up


----------



## trainspotter

As the government grants see the sceptics/settled debate


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> 1 your definition of denial please
> 
> 2 Who are you implying are deniers?




You deny that coal and oil burning has any significant effect. 

Now deny that.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> You deny that coal and oil burning has any significant effect.
> 
> Now deny that.




Can you clarify your accusation.

Define significant.

Effect on what?

This better be good, because what you said looks like a disgraceful bald faced lie.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Can you clarify your accusation.
> 
> Define significant.
> 
> Effect on what?
> 
> This better be good, because what you said looks like a disgraceful bald faced lie.




Tut tut there,  no need to become upset.   We are merely having a conversation on the interenet.    "DISGRACEFUL"  

Now I am not a scientist but have had a good on the ground view of it all over my lifetime.  On the farm,  shearing, model aeroplanes all caused me to follow weather and its cause and effect intently. 

And as such an experienced layman (IMHO of course)  I have formed the strong view that coal and oil is the biggest culprit in causing the current climate change,  which by the  way is becoming evident by 100 year events happening every month or so.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Tut tut there,  no need to become upset.   We are merely having a conversation on the interenet.    "DISGRACEFUL"
> 
> Now I am not a scientist but have had a good on the ground view of it all over my lifetime.  On the farm,  shearing, model aeroplanes all caused me to follow weather and its cause and effect intently.
> 
> And as such an experienced layman (IMHO of course)  I have formed the strong view that coal and oil is the biggest culprit in causing the current climate change,  which by the  way is becoming evident by 100 year events happening every month or so.




Think again old fellow......The Sun has the biggest influence on Climate Change and not coal or oil......You have to get that GRREEN mentality out of your head...Don't believe a word those Greenies are ramming down your throat.

If you don't believe many of us here go to Google and check it out for the yourself....It is the Sun son.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Think again old fellow......The Sun has the biggest influence on Climate Change and not coal or oil......You have to get that GRREEN mentality out of your head...Don't believe a word those Greenies are ramming down your throat.
> 
> If you don't believe many of us here go to Google and check it out for the yourself....It is the Sun son.




It's not the bl00dy sun, you chose to ignore the post that I made refuting that lie.


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> It's not the bl00dy sun, you chose to ignore the post that I made refuting that lie.




 yes ignores any post with real facts. 

Remember the frogs,  older than any other land mammal,  pre date dinosaurs 800 million years and being wiped out now in a heart beat.   The sun was hotter back then too. 

I was onto climate change long before I joined the greens too.


----------



## trainspotter

And now back to your normal transmission ...



> For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. *Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man *(Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).




https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria/

This thread is beginning to resemble the Y2K bug phenomenon


----------



## trainspotter

Surprised no one has latched onto what is happening in Bali ... no wait ... that is weather and not CC or GW.



> "The dangerous wave conditions in Bali recently were not a result of a tsunami wave, but the combination of persistent large swell waves generated from a strong mid-latitude cyclone in the southern ocean off Western Australia," Robert explained.
> 
> "These large waves just happened to coincide with king tides, which are the highest tides of the year. What this means is that around high tide, the run-up and surge from the breaking waves rushes much further up the beach than it normally would and the backwash down the beach is also strong. These are dangerous conditions, but they are not freak waves or tsunami and conditions will return to normal once the swell decreases and the king tides finish," he said.




http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/06/two-killed-bali-storm-swell/

DERP !


----------



## noco

explod said:


> yes ignores any post with real facts.
> 
> Remember the frogs,  older than any other land mammal,  pre date dinosaurs 800 million years and being wiped out now in a heart beat.   The sun was hotter back then too.
> 
> I was onto climate change long before I joined the greens too.




If you go to google, there is a wealth of knowledge on the influence of the Sun on planet Earth.

The link below is just one of many articles pointing to the true facts.

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar...how-changes-in-the-sun-impact-earths-climate/


----------



## Logique

“_Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems_” - Tim Flannery , 2007



> *Warragamba Dam wall to be raised to avoid catastrophic flood event* - June 17, 2016 [dam currently* 97.7% full*]
> Sean Nicholls - SYDNEY MORNING HERALD STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/warragamb...lood-event-20160616-gpkqly.html#ixzz4BnL717x1
> 
> Three days before Warragamba Dam could spill due to severe storms, the Baird government has committed to raising its wall to prevent a potential flood disaster in western Sydney, four years after being advised to review the options.
> 
> As a looming east coast low raised the possibility that the dam *could spill on Sunday*, the government said it will commit $58 million towards raising the wall by 14 metres to avoid a catastrophe that could place 43,000 western Sydney residents at risk....




Meanwhile..



> *$535m paid to keep desalination plant in state of 'hibernation'*- April 12, 2015
> Tim Barlass, SMH
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/535m-paid...ibernation-20150410-1miuw6.html#ixzz4BnMo7AAP
> 
> *Water consumers have paid $534.7 million to keep the Sydney desalination plant in what its operators describe as a state of "hibernation"* since it was leased to a private investment company by the Liberal government in 2012.
> 
> Greens MP John Kaye, who has previously described the plant at Kurnell as a "white elephant",  which has never produced a drop of desalinated water outside testing, has called for it to be permanently mothballed, as he believes there is no likelihood of it being needed in the forseeable future....


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> “_Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems_” - Tim Flannery , 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile..




It is a wonder Flim Flam Tim has not migrated to Saudi Arabia......He must now feel like an absolute fool as are his Green followers ...

Will someone tell them it has all to do with the Sun...Elementary science I learned at school....But of course those dead heads did not go to the same school as yours truly.

It must be climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## basilio

How far has our climate changed world wide ?  If we want to see what is happening perhaps this analysis deserves a look.

It's particularly sobering to examine the second record which details the degree global temperature records have been smashed since October 2015. 


> * Seven climate records set so far in 2016*
> 
> From soaring temperatures in Alaska and India to Arctic sea ice melting and CO2 concentrations rising, this year is smashing records around the world




https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/17/seven-climate-records-set-so-far-in-2016


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> How far has our climate changed world wide ?  If we want to see what is happening perhaps this analysis deserves a look.
> 
> It's particularly sobering to examine the second record which details the degree global temperature records have been smashed since October 2015.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/17/seven-climate-records-set-so-far-in-2016




Ahhhhhh The Guardian the most trusted of sources for global warming ... AHEM ... climate change ... AHEM ... Weather.


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Ahhhhhh The Guardian the most trusted of sources for global warming ... AHEM ... climate change ... AHEM ... Weather.




Well it is cetainly less biased than Router's (Rothschild's)  and Murdock's coal oil lobby rags. 

Anthow,  just had the warmest 5 months for the planet ever recorded and getting 100 year events every few months so alls good,  back to sleep. 

  But reckon insurance companies will be writing belief into future contracts.


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> But reckon insurance companies will be writing belief into future contracts.




I should ask my actuary friend if factoring climate change is in the eqtn. as a big ticket item.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Ahhhhhh The Guardian the most trusted of sources for global warming ... AHEM ... climate change ... AHEM ... Weather.




Yeh  Real shame you can't actually read past the words *The Guardian* isn't it TS ?

If you could you might have educated yourself on a whole range of climate change situations around the world. Particularly interesting to see by just how much world global temperature records have been broken since October 2015

But isn't it sooo much easier to simply say anything that comes from "The Guardian"  can't be trusted . Yep understand you totally.

Pure xxxxxxx denial.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> How far has our climate changed world wide ?  If we want to see what is happening perhaps this analysis deserves a look.
> 
> It's particularly sobering to examine the second record which details the degree global temperature records have been smashed since October 2015.
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/17/seven-climate-records-set-so-far-in-2016



Hmmmmm.....from the good old reliable Guardian...Distorter of the truth by self admission.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Yeh  Real shame you can't actually read past the words *The Guardian* isn't it TS ?
> 
> If you could you might have educated yourself on a whole range of climate change situations around the world. Particularly interesting to see by just how much world global temperature records have been broken since October 2015
> 
> But isn't it sooo much easier to simply say anything that comes from "The Guardian"  can't be trusted . Yep understand you totally.
> 
> Pure xxxxxxx denial.




Resist the HYSTERIA basilio ....



> The map above depicts global temperature anomalies in 2015. *It does not show absolute temperatures,* but instead shows how much warmer or cooler the *Earth was compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980*.




Oooeeerrrrr "a baseline average from 1951 to 1980" is not quite a millennia of global history of weather now is it basilio? And not to show ABSOLUTE temperatures??? Seriously basilio??

*29 YEARS !! *

But but but where did this information come from if not the "Guardian" ??? 

WHY NASA of course !! http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87359


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Well it is cetainly less biased than Router's (Rothschild's)  and Murdock's coal oil lobby rags.
> 
> Anthow,  just had the warmest 5 months for the planet ever recorded and getting 100 year events every few months so alls good,  back to sleep.
> 
> But reckon insurance companies will be writing belief into future contracts.




One correct out of three statements aint bad for you explod 

The insurance companies will certainly be blaming ANYTHING they can to increase premiums.


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Resist the HYSTERIA basilio ....
> 
> ]




The hysteria seems to shifting to the deniers refusing to accept reality.   

The deterioration of the climate due to man made pollution the clearing of trees and overpopulation is accellerating and we need to move our energies over to acceptance and cooperative solutions.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> The hysteria seems to shifting to the deniers refusing to accept reality.
> 
> The deterioration of the climate due to man made pollution the clearing of trees and overpopulation is accellerating and we need to move our energies over to acceptance and cooperative solutions.




For once I agree with half of what you have stated.

Define man made pollution? Clearing of trees is forest degradation and not Climate Change. Overpopulation ... Hmmm go and watch the movie the Kingsman to resolve that issue.

The REALITY is that creating HYSTERIA will not fix one damn thing. Nup not a thing. Zero in fact. NADA at all.

Not once have I claimed nor accepted the title of "DENIER" ... try reality in the real world explod and Pullleeeze do not go on about the frogs dying again.

Co2 is only a small part of the equation. Scientists creating fairy tales to keep their snouts in the trough of billions of dollars of funding so they can keep performing "research" is another matter all together.

Ask basilio how the "scientists" averaged out sea temperatures from the water intake of ships crossing the oceans from the 1930's onwards using a mercury thermometer and not knowing which side of the water intake the temperature or what depth it was taken from and they deduced the sea temperature is RISING 

How is this for a BIGGER problem then explod ....

MICROBEADS



> Conservationists note that aquatic species mistake the beads for sediment, zooplankton, and other small organisms, and eat them as food. As the plastic freely enters the environment, it is increasingly likely that people will consume toxic fish. Research from 2012-2013 found that microbeads were having a major impact on the Great Lakes region, which holds 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water.
> 
> The 5 Gyres Institute, an organization that fights to eliminate plastic pollution, says that a single tube of facial cleanser can contain upwards of 300,000 microbeads. The group has been leading the fight for a ban in California along with Clean Water Action, Californians Against Waste, and the Story of Stuff Project.




https://news.vice.com/article/micro...oy-the-environment-so-california-may-ban-them


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The hysteria seems to shifting to the deniers refusing to accept reality.
> 
> The deterioration of the climate due to man made pollution the clearing of trees and overpopulation is accellerating and we need to move our energies over to acceptance and cooperative solutions.




Oh please stop exaggerating....the alarmist are becoming a minority and it is about time you Greenies faced reality that climate change has all to do with the Sun....It has been explained to you a dozen times and you still carry on with your brainwashed philosophy.

You have exaggerated about Greenland...you have exaggerated about the Great Barrier Reef.....Flannery exaggerated about no more rains filling our dams and you have been proven wrong time and time again.

Time for you to rethink or just give up...The majority of us are sick to death of all this crap and madness by the Greens.


----------



## wayneL

It is so tiresome TS, is it not, to have to keep reiterating these things?

And plod's amateur switcheroo strategy, is kust laughable.

Meanwhile, yes, microbeads etc.

The world is in deep **** and these clowns run interference.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> It is so tiresome TS, is it not, to have to keep reiterating these things?
> 
> And plod's amateur switcheroo strategy, is kust laughable.
> 
> Meanwhile, yes, microbeads etc.
> 
> The world is in deep **** and these clowns run interference.




_ego idem _ & _assentior_ wayneL .. does get a bit like a stuck record at times 

As Nelson Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”


----------



## basilio

Absolutely nothing wrong with recognising just how many other serious, serious problems we face.

Plastic microbeads.  A very big deal. Destruction of forests up there as well. But am I allowed to quote "The Guardian" on such problems or will our residents experts dismiss any such information out of hand because it's from The Guardian ?

Summarily dismissing the work of NASA, World Meteorological Organisation, Australia Bureau of Meteorology , ARC Centre of Excellence  for Coral Reef Studies and others because their information is quoted in The Guardian is just plain nuts. Or denial.  Take your pick.

The extreme climatic events in the past year have taken concerns about the impact of climate change from somewhere in the future to the near present. 

But TS would prefer to bang on about sea level temperatures from 50 years ago being suspect rather than face up to world wide temperature records being shattered month after month and the challenges and consequences we will face dealing with this reality.

The article I quoted originally just gave the bare facts of the extreme climate conditions in the past 12 months. If you want to join the dots of what the consequences of these situations this article  does that.

(*Please take your heart tablets now folks.  I don't want to you to go apoplectic on us...) *

[







> B] Shattered records show climate change is an emergency today, scientists warn[/B]
> 
> Unprecedented temperature levels mean more heatwaves, flooding, wildfires and hurricanes as experts say global warming is here and affecting us now
> 
> Damian Carrington
> @dpcarrington
> 
> Saturday 18 June 2016 01.23 AEST
> Last modified on Saturday 18 June 2016 07.00 AEST
> 
> *
> May was the 13th month in a row to break temperature records according to figures published this week that are the latest in 2016’s string of incredible climate records which scientists have described as a bombshell and an emergency.*
> 
> The series of smashed global records, particularly the extraordinary heat in February and March, has provoked a stunned reaction from climate scientists, who are warning that climate change has reached unprecedented levels and is no longer only a threat for the future.
> 
> Alongside the soaring temperatures, other records have tumbled around the world, from vanishing Arctic sea ice to a searing drought in India and the vast bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. The UK has experienced record flooding that has devastated communities across the country and scientists predict that the flash floods seen by parts of the country in recent days will increase in future.
> 
> “The impacts of human-caused climate change are no longer subtle – they are playing out, in real time, before us,” says Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University in the US. “They serve as a constant reminder now of how critical it is that we engage in the actions necessary to avert ever-more dangerous and potentially irreversible warming of the planet.”
> 
> ....The scorching temperatures mean 2016 is all but certain to be the hottest year ever recorded, beating the previous hottest year in 2015, which itself beat 2014. This run of three record years is also unprecedented and, without climate change, would be a one in a million chance. Scaife says: “Including this year so far, 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have been since 2000 – it’s a shocking statistic.”
> 
> *Thermometer records go back to 1880, but ice cores, tree rings and corals show global warming driven by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels and forests has left the planet at its hottest for at least 5,000 years*. “If we are not above this [temperature] already, we will be in 10 or 20 years’ time and then you have to go back 120,000 years to find higher temperatures than present,” says Rahmstorf.




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...limate-change-emergency-today-scientists-warn


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Oh please stop exaggerating....the alarmist are becoming a minority and it is about time you Greenies faced reality that climate change has all to do with the Sun....It has been explained to you a dozen times and you still carry on with your brainwashed philosophy.
> 
> You have exaggerated about Greenland...you have exaggerated about the Great Barrier Reef.....Flannery exaggerated about no more rains filling our dams and you have been proven wrong time and time again.
> 
> Time for you to rethink or just give up...The majority of us are sick to death of all this crap and madness by the Greens.




"A number of independant measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960,  over the same period that global temperatures have been warming.   Over the last 35 years of global warming,  sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.   An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun actually contributed to a slight cooling in recent decades. (Lockwood 2008)

Another study (Foster and Ralmstar 2011) also found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very light cooling effect... "

And very many other studies confirm those above.   See" Skeptical Science,  Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> It is so tiresome TS, is it not, to have to keep reiterating these things?
> 
> And plod's amateur switcheroo strategy, is kust laughable.
> 
> Meanwhile, yes, microbeads etc.
> 
> The world is in deep **** and these clowns run interference.




Would like you to be a bit more specific wayneL.   You tend to talk in odd and often indecipherable language.  

When I was responsible for the publication of intergovernmental document's I learnt to phrase so that all could understand for compliance in sometimes life or death situations.  No room for any mistakes. 

So tiresome dealing with many in the elite who are uneducated to the world on the ground.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Would like you to be a bit more specific wayneL.   You tend to talk in odd and often indecipherable language.
> 
> When I was responsible for the publication of intergovernmental document's I learnt to phrase so that all could understand for compliance in sometimes life or death situations.  No room for any mistakes.
> 
> So tiresome dealing with many in the elite who are uneducated to the world on the ground.




It's called English, Mr Plod. You know, our mother tongue of 50,000 words, the world language, the most beautiful language for literature. Sometimes it pays to play to the lowest common denominator, but in allegedly intelligent debate, this only serves to debase, rather than to edify.

I for one don't regard sesquipedalianism or punctiliousness as indecipherable.

But to simplify it down for you the assignation of hysteria to those in the moderate camp is ludicrous and mendacious, not to mention your ( and others) odious insistence on the use of the "denier" tag. It reveals a intellectually gruesome willingness to defame and vilify on the basis of a lie.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> 1) Absolutely nothing wrong with recognising just how many other serious, serious problems we face.
> 
> 2) Plastic microbeads.  A very big deal. Destruction of forests up there as well. But am I allowed to quote "The Guardian" on such problems or will our residents experts dismiss any such information out of hand because it's from The Guardian ?
> 
> 3) Summarily dismissing the work of NASA, World Meteorological Organisation, Australia Bureau of Meteorology , ARC Centre of Excellence  for Coral Reef Studies and others because their information is quoted in The Guardian is just plain nuts. Or denial.  Take your pick.
> 
> 4) The extreme climatic events in the past year have taken concerns about the impact of climate change from somewhere in the future to the near present.
> 
> 5) But TS would prefer to bang on about sea level temperatures from 50 years ago being suspect rather than face up to world wide temperature records being shattered month after month and the challenges and consequences we will face dealing with this reality.
> 
> 6) The article I quoted originally just gave the bare facts of the extreme climate conditions in the past 12 months. If you want to join the dots of what the consequences of these situations this article  does that.
> 
> (*Please take your heart tablets now folks.  I don't want to you to go apoplectic on us...) *




1) It's just that you are lumping it ALL into one heap and calling it Global Warming / Climate Change. EXAMPLE - The salmon dying in North America you "quoted" was caused by Global Warming was actually a disease of the gills caused by too much fertiliser in the water the fish were swimming in from farmers using fertiliser prior to heavy rains 

2) I regularly quote NASA, IPCC, CSIRO, UCSUSA, CCRC amongst other notable leading BUREAUS of weather forecasters as evidence but your information seems to come from one NEWSPAPER that isn't exactly the pillar of truth now is it ??? The Guardian will print ANYTHING it thinks will sell newspapers ... that's it's job basilio 

3) See above - I like my nut's sprinkled over ice cream and chocolate sauce thanks basilio 

4) Extreme climactic events? Oh you mean WEATHER ?? An extreme climactic event is a volcano erupting or a meteor hitting Earth.  NOAA said it is due to El Nino - The Atlantic had a below average hurricane season - So on 10th July 1913 what happened basilio? DYOR

5a) Isn't it bizarre behaviour you are exuding in regards to using the sea temperatures from 1930's ships as EVIDENCE the sea temperature is rising now you are discrediting the same information you held up for all to see as GOSPEL and PROOF that this is happening. FLIP FLOP  FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP - oh look there goes basilio. 

5b) Isn't it a bit bizarre when you type into Google "temperature records shattered" and it all is about how HOT it is getting and Global Warming is here to stay blah blah blah. Yet when you type in "Freezing temperature records shattered" ... yet again DYOR. No wait ... that must be Climate Change as some parts are getting hotter and some parts are getting colder. No wait .. that was from El Nino and the Polar Vortex 

6) The article is designed to sell newspapers. End of discussion.

Scientists measuring oxygen isotopes from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica (among other methods) report that temperatures were significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years. With the exception of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from approximately 1300-1850 and which almost ushered in a full-blown new ice age epoch, current temperatures remain cooler than almost all other time periods in human history.

Here is a question for you to ponder basilio - Temperatures have been significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years so how did the Great Barrier Reef survive? Think about it.

Have a BEX and a lie down basilio


----------



## basilio

Well TS that was a pretty detailed rebuttal of my observations. But it was the last paragraph that took my breath away and makes me wonder at your understanding of global warming.

Your statement is 


> Scientists measuring oxygen isotopes from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica (among other methods) report that temperatures were significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years. With the exception of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from approximately 1300-1850 and which almost ushered in a full-blown new ice age epoch, *current temperatures remain cooler than almost all other time periods in human history*.



*
This just isn't true in any way, shape or form.*  We have had this conversation at least twice before in this thread but somehow you you still seem to think that there is nothing special or concerning about the steep rise in global temperatures in the past 100 years and in particular the last 40 odd.

I had a look on the net for evidence/comments on the  "last 10,000 years statement".  It turns out it was crafted by Monckton who used one set of figures taken from the central Greenland icecap.  *The trouble was these figures were only valid until 1855*  And the world clearly wasn't warming up at that stage.

The entire analysis of this piece of can be found at Sceptical Scientist



> *
> Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer*
> 
> What the science says...
> *
> This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.*
> Climate Myth...
> 
> *Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer*
> _
> Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)_
> 
> This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.
> 
> Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
> 
> This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:
> 
> The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.
> 
> Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.




https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

So what has happened from 1855 until now that is causing us concern ??  NOAA offers an  analysis of how temperatures have changed over the past 10,000 years and where we currently are.  Note that this is 20 months old now and we have seen temperatures jump by .5C in that time.






> *What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?*
> Author:
> Michon Scott
> September 17, 2014
> 
> 
> This article is the second of two articles describing the hottest time periods in Earth’s history.
> 
> Throughout its 4.54-billion-year history, Earth has experienced multiple periods of temperatures hotter than today’s. But as far as the “recent” past, a study published in March 2013 concluded that global average temperature is now higher than it has been for most of the last 11,300 years.
> 
> The scientists assembled dozens of temperature records from multiple studies, including data from sediment cores drilled in lake bottoms and sea floors, and from ice cores. Assembling data from 73 records that overlap in time, the scientists pieced together global average temperatures since the end of the last ice age.



https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

___________________________________________________________________
PS

Your last comment about the survival of the survival of the Great Barrier Reef should have been a clue to what has actually happened for the last 10,000 years.

*It has not been warmer. *The Reef is now in trouble because of the recent steep increases in global temperature and ocean temperatures


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Well TS that was a pretty detailed rebuttal of my observations. But it was the last paragraph that took my breath away and makes me wonder at your understanding of global warming.
> 
> PS
> 
> Your last comment about the survival of the survival of the Great Barrier Reef should have been a clue to what has actually happened for the last 10,000 years.
> 
> *It has not been warmer. *The Reef is now in trouble because of the recent steep increases in global temperature and ocean temperatures




So you are not denying (pun intended) that your HYSTERICAL claims of fish dying and sea temperature rising is  a falsehood?



> *Why is the reef under threat?*
> Immediate threats to the reef come from agriculture and, more significantly, ports accommodating coal, natural gas and oil shale extraction plants. Water quality decline is caused by both agricultural irrigation, which carries pollutants into waterways and the reef lagoons, and by nearby port infrastructure development. But as James Cook University’s Jon Brodie told Crikey, although the government has made attempts to manage the agricultural impact on water, water quality decline as a result of coastal development has not been addressed.
> “In the case of ports, sediment is mobilised into the water in dredging and causes quite toxic effects. Turtles in Gladstone Harbour have high levels of metals, which is a contributing factor to mortality of turtles in the area,” he said.




http://ptba.org.au/why-is-the-great-barrier-reef-in-danger/

FFS basilio get a grip on reality man because I fear for your sanity. :cuckoo:



> A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the Medieval Warm Period deniers.  That review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies that included so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores, and historical accounts.
> 
> The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures higher even than today.  *That’s right, for at least a couple of hundred years during the middle ages the earth was warmer than today and it got warmer rather quickly too.*  Sea levels rose, there was massive global melting of ice, salinity in the northern oceans plummeted from the melting ice–and the planet survived quite nicely.  Even the polar bears made it through, no problem. In fact, for the most part, civilization thrived during this period.




https://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.c...-warm-period-demonstrates-that-agw-is-a-hoax/



> *A team of Harvard University* scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, *current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages*.
> 
> "This new study merely affirms the obvious: climate alarmism based on a few years' or even a century's data is sheer folly, reminding us again that geological cycles spanning millennia do not share the rush of agenda-driven scientists or activists," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free-market environmental think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute,




http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-harvard-study-heats-global-warming-debate

Shall I go on basilio?


----------



## Knobby22

What caused the spike in 1700?
Were we heading into another ice age? We are due one.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> What caused the spike in 1700?
> Were we heading into another ice age? We are due one.




During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. There was also quite a bit of volcanic activity which combined caused cooling.




To end the Little Ice Age, the sun did most of the early heavy lifting. Also not much volcanic activity.

But this is basic Atmospheric science


----------



## noco

I am well aware the ALARMISTS have little time for Andrew Bolt but the link below points out some of the DUD predictions made over the past 12 years or so.

He also points out how the Universities have taken over and if anyone dare steps out of line with their own opinions, as in the case of Professor Peter Ridd (JCU Townsville), their job is under threat.

What is their Marxist hidden agenda? 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/C883


----------



## basilio

> A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the Medieval Warm Period deniers. That review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies that included so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores, and historical accounts.




Really ?? You believe that statement TS ? Maybe you could quote some evidence for this paper.  The name of it for example??

I did have a look to see what was actually out there in 2008 that might have enabled someone like Mark Moroni to weave a persuasive story. I came up with the following paper.
*
A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES
by
Craig Loehle

ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 18  No. 7+8  2007*

Sure enough this was quoted widely at the time to challenge the work of every other actual climate scientist that the warming of the 20th Century was significantly above the past 2000 years.

And then the bottom started to fall out of his carefully constructed curve fitting paper

Firstly he had to make adjustments in the following year to the paper when the methodology was demonstrated to be faulty. the adjusted paper can be found here.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

Loehles paper was quoted widely by the usual suspects to try and demonstrate that the 20th Century wasn't as warm as earlier.  

Unfortunately it turned out that his data was only valid to 1935  !! It didn't cover the 75 years of global warming that in fact has been what scientists have been concerned over.  Of course that detail was ignored by the Judith Curries, Jo Nova and Watts Up who simply labelled the end of the graph as todays temperatures"



> Another aspect of the Loehle 2007 and 2008 papers that is frequently overlooked by the climatologically challenged is that his data do not extend to the present. [Loehle does at least make this clear with the statement in Loehle 2008, “Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007).”]
> 
> Yet they are frequently given, for example by Jo Nova, as evidence that “Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago” than “Today” in this appalling piece from WUWT last December:




https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/

But this paper of course doesn't explain 







> the team of Harvard scientists who reviewed 240 studies




That was another even more special story.

That research was conducted by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.  It was in fact one of the most notorious documents ever produced in the Climate science field. 

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_optional/Soon2003_paleorecord.pdf

Unfortunately it was essentially rubbish science. How bad  ?



> Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication)




Would it also surprise anyone to discover that Willie was paid  millions of dollars for his papers which 

1) Tried to deny any significant cliamte warming or
2) Managed to find something else to blame rather than greenhouse gas emissions.

So in essence TS (and others)  that story from Mark Moroni was a confabulated mixture of two papers. One was so badly (and misleadingly ) written it led to the resignation of six editors

The other (Loehle)  had to be recast and at that point did not have any relevance to the discussion *because it had no data since 1935 * 



> Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935
> AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007)




But Loehle was at least gracious enough to acknowledge his mistakes and the climate scientists who help him correct the paper.



> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> Thanks  to  all  authors  who  posted  or  provided  climate  time  series  data.  Thanks  in
> particular to Eric Swanson, Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre and the visitors to Climate
> Audit  (climateaudit.org)  who  helped  uncover  errors  in  data  handling.  Supplemental
> information, including interpolated data used in the reconstruction and data for Figure
> 2 available at www
> .ncasi.or
> g/programs/areas/climate/Loehle_Supplemental_Info.zip
> .




http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf 



References

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
Corrected paper of Loehle

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_optional/Soon2003_paleorecord.pdf
Willie Soons original 2003 paper

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/
Analysis of the corrected Loehle paper. Comments note the new 1935 end point to the data

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/
A discussion on the quality of Willie Soon research.  Notes the outcry at his 2003 paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#Impact_of_the_criticisms



> The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.
> 
> The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.


----------



## trainspotter

Basilio knock yourself out ... no seriously ... knock yourself out. I am done with your semantics and lack of ability to understand that what you are being fed by the media that you must swallow without a degree of protestation.

When you can honestly look yourself in the mirror and hold your hand on your heart that not one of the IPCC et al warming brigade maybe ... just maybe might not be telling the truth then and only then will you have a chance of improving your myopic position.

NASA uses a  29 year base level from 1951 to 1980 to extrapolate figures of ALARMIST warming. Scientists "create" or "guess" temperatures to fit their modelling without instruments, other agenda scientists create hockey sticks and discredit valid science because it does not fit their ideals (or funding models) and you BELIEVE this is AOK.

You then come out with salmon dying and water temperatures from 1930's steamships and the Guardian as proof.

RESIST THE HYSTERIA basilio 



> Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
> Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
> But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
> The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: *IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures * – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz4COX8xVnW

IPCC what a sham ...



> Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
> 
> Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
> 
> “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
> 
> — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
> 
> “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
> 
> “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
> 
> — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
> 
> “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”
> 
> — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
> 
> “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
> 
> — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
> 
> *“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.*”




http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> It's called English, Mr Plod. You know, our mother tongue of 50,000 words, the world language, the most beautiful language for literature. Sometimes it pays to play to the lowest common denominator, but in allegedly intelligent debate, this only serves to debase, rather than to edify.
> 
> I for one don't regard sesquipedalianism or punctiliousness as indecipherable.
> 
> But to simplify it down for you the assignation of hysteria to those in the moderate camp is ludicrous and mendacious, not to mention your ( and others) odious insistence on the use of the "denier" tag. It reveals a intellectually gruesome willingness to defame and vilify on the basis of a lie.



What a load of turbo charged rubbish.   

But of course it is about all you have left as well of course as attacking the person.  That alone indicates one defeated and you are supposed to be some sort of senior or authority on this site.  What an example. 

The real subject at the moment is that we are having 100 year extreme weather events every few months and the last individual five months of this year the hottest ever recorded.


----------



## basilio

TS you came up with a confabulated piece of rubbish to try and say global warming in the 20th century isn't real. To be fair you are only requoting the constructed lies of the denial industry. But if you choose to actually look at the alleged papers they were based on you would have found the same deception. 

Shame you couldn't do that.

However it doesn't matter does it ? You have used the same quotes in the past, I have demonstrated their error but you just recycle them anyway. After all they some of the very few papers that have managed to get published.  You'll just repeat these stories ad nausem.

It does remind me however how unwilling and incapable denialists are of evaluating the scientific research in the field. The facts are I could fill this thread a hundred times over with peer reviewed papers documenting the reality of global warming and the consequent effects on the environment. But the position of denial is simple.  The climate scientists, biologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, are liars; simply part of some global conspiracy to  create a one world socialist dictatorship and keep themselves in the spoils of research grants

On what I have seen there is no evidence that you will ever accept on this topic TS. If what is happening  around the world in terms of rapid increases in  temperature, and the physical results across all continents is insufficient for you nothing will suffice.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> What a load of turbo charged rubbish.
> 
> But of course it is about all you have left as well of course as attacking the person.  That alone indicates one defeated and you are supposed to be some sort of senior or authority on this site.  What an example.
> 
> The real subject at the moment is that we are having 100 year extreme weather events every few months and the last individual five months of this year the hottest ever recorded.




You fool plod.

I have not attacked the person, but I have pointed out, for your benefit, your transgressions, hypocrisy, obnoxious name calling and general 'tardery. This is attacking the sin, not the sinner. Big difference.

And if I was acting as mod here I would have pinged every single one of you that have used "denier", just like any overt sexism, racism or any other 'ism.

Stop trying to use retarded arguments, logical fallacy and repeating untenable mantra and debate like a man.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS you came up with a confabulated piece of rubbish to try and say global warming in the 20th century isn't real. To be fair you are only requoting the constructed lies of the denial industry. But if you choose to actually look at the alleged papers they were based on you would have found the same deception.
> 
> Shame you couldn't do that.
> 
> However it doesn't matter does it ? You have used the same quotes in the past, I have demonstrated their error but you just recycle them anyway. After all they some of the very few papers that have managed to get published.  You'll just repeat these stories ad nausem. (and you don't basilio??)
> 
> It does remind me however how unwilling and incapable denialists are of evaluating the scientific research in the field. The facts are I could fill this thread a hundred times over (but you do !!) with peer reviewed papers documenting the reality of global warming and the consequent effects on the environment. But the position of denial is simple.  The climate scientists, biologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, are liars; simply part of some global conspiracy to  create a one world socialist dictatorship and keep themselves in the spoils of research grants
> 
> On what I have seen there is no evidence that you will ever accept on this topic TS. If what is happening  around the world in terms of rapid increases in  temperature, and the physical results across all continents is insufficient for you nothing will suffice.




Just once more for comedy purposes only and I am now quoting NASA ...



> NASA’s analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. *These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm (created by whom I ask) that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions if left unaccounted for. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
> 
> Since the true temperature distribution is unknown, determining the right amount of homogenization to best capture the local details is challenging, and an active area of research. *



*

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

basilio - go and get a mercury thermometer and a dead salmon and come and talk to me on a basis where you have a basic understanding of the tripe you are trotting out.




			I have demonstrated their error but you just recycle them anyway
		
Click to expand...


 Bahahahahaaaaa basilio really?

IPCC = Climategate anyone .. anyone ? Your superiority on this subject matter at hand is outstanding .. I am wondering if you actually write some of their propaganda. It is a shame someone of your apparent intelligence can be hoodwinked into becoming a believer of fabrication and sleight of hand to further their own careers.

Such a sham and a shame on both accounts. :frown:*


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You fool plod.
> 
> I have not attacked the person, but I have pointed out, for your benefit, your transgressions, hypocrisy, obnoxious name calling and general 'tardery. This is attacking the sin, not the sinner. Big difference.
> 
> And if I was acting as mod here I would have pinged every single one of you that have used "denier", just like any overt sexism, racism or any other 'ism.
> 
> Stop trying to use retarded arguments, logical fallacy and repeating untenable mantra and debate like a man.




Ok good.  When after nearly 5 billion years the earth and sun should be cooling yet in recent recorded history the last five calendar months are the hottest ever recorded in human measurement times.   That the arctic this last northern winter recorded temperatures of zero at times when its supposed to be 40 to 50 below and that we are having wild 100 year weather events every few months. 

Why?  from your point of view, so that we can discuss it, climate change.


----------



## Knobby22

Trainspotter -your quote:


"Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
 Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
 But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions. 
 The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability." 

The cutoff date of 2012 is deliberate. Since that time the warming has exceeded expectations.
The truth is that natural variability is important and difficult to quantify. Overall though, the trend is obvious.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Trainspotter -your quote: (blah blah blah)
> 
> The cutoff date of 2012 is deliberate. Since that time the warming has exceeded expectations.
> The truth is that natural variability is important and difficult to quantify. Overall though, the trend is obvious.




Sorry Knobby22 that was when the article was written and not a deliberate cutoff point for the last 3 or 4 years.

From NASA no doubt - _"The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

Since the true temperature distribution is unknown, determining the right amount of homogenization to best capture the local details is challenging, and an active area of research."_

Yep it has been hot for the last 3 years ... also been bloody cold too. So if it is getting RECORD cold why is this not cancelling out the RECORD hot ? RECORD drought has just been wiped out by RECORD flood in parts of Australia.

How many temperature gauges do you think were around in the 1880's and to what degree of accuracy do you think this data was compiled and recorded? Now in 2016 there are over 6300 data pickup points across the globe that get fed into a computer that analyses the data through an ALGORITHM (adds in the unknown quantities _ie_ guesswork) and provides an estimate of the global temperature. That's science for ya !!

Not my words either - NASA !!


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Sorry Knobby22 that was when the article was written and not a deliberate cutoff point for the last 3 or 4 years.
> 
> From NASA no doubt - _"The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
> 
> Since the true temperature distribution is unknown, determining the right amount of homogenization to best capture the local details is challenging, and an active area of research."_
> 
> Yep it has been hot for the last 3 years ... also been bloody cold too. So if it is getting RECORD cold why is this not cancelling out the RECORD hot ? RECORD drought has just been wiped out by RECORD flood in parts of Australia.
> 
> How many temperature gauges do you think were around in the 1880's and to what degree of accuracy do you think this data was compiled and recorded? Now in 2016 there are over 6300 data pickup points across the globe that get fed into a computer that analyses the data through an ALGORITHM (adds in the unknown quantities _ie_ guesswork) and provides an estimate of the global temperature. That's science for ya !!
> 
> Not my words either - NASA !!



There are a number of reconstructions based on different data and I agree it is difficult to say how accurate each method is, but the result is also obvious.

View attachment 67202



Global temperatures also are construed before 1950s, and are really only accurate from the 1980s and are really only very accurate from 2000. Because temperatures are construed does not mean that they are wrong. it just means they are up for interpretation. I am sure NASA are very careful in their assumptions. They need to be as look what happened to the weather authorities in the USA who are now not allowed to research or comment on global warming.


----------



## trainspotter

Holy cheesecakes Batman - A meteorologist has actually been doing research on the weather !!







> Global Temps 1980-2014 (Smoothed)
> LOOK: I'm not saying it won't resume; I'm not saying Global Warming isn't real (although I do believe it's exaggerated by bad sensor locations); I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the Earth better. What I'm saying is that something happened there and we need to figure out what, because it wasn't predicted by the models (as shown by the graph below, which doesn't even include the last couple years). If we could figure out what happened, it would be awesome because we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction of the future.




http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...-global-cold-records-overtaking-warm/24662335


----------



## basilio

Did you notice TS that the picture you showed covered the year 2013.  It is written in March 2014.
And what do we learn from looking at the temperature records of just one year ? 

Also I wonder what has happened to Global Temperatures since 2014 ? Could there have been some spectacular new records set since then ?

I don't think this table includes 2016 yet.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Did you notice TS that the picture you showed covered the year 2013.  It is written in March 2014.
> And what do we learn from looking at the temperature records of just one year ?
> 
> Also I wonder what has happened to Global Temperatures since 2014 ? Could there have been some spectacular new records set since then ?
> 
> I don't think this table includes 2016 yet.
> View attachment 67206




Whose graph is it basilio?

Dear God,

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."  

I was evidencing a NON HYSTERICAL point of view but yet again you twist it into something it is not 



> *If we could figure out what happened, it would be awesome because we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction of the future.*




Maybe the salmon died from the hot water from the steam ships 

Like you said ... why look at 1 year of a meteorologist when you can look at two years from an unknown source.

Let's put it into context over 15,000 years now shall we?


----------



## basilio

Nuh TS. You were were just quoting a a single years interesting but totally meaningless set of stats on the weather around the world.  And really just what sort of numpty would want to redesign the whole suite of climate models based on ONE YEARS DATA?  

So just how "hysterical" is a steadily rising graph ?  I mean if it was the value of your share portfolio over 30 years would that be hysterical ?


----------



## basilio

But TS given that you are so keen to explore this topic why not do it properly.  For instance we could use the USA as a test case( just like you did)  and see what has happened to the numbers of record highs versus record lows.


> *
> Record Highs vs. Record Lows
> *
> Published: Aug 19th, 2015
> 
> By Climate Central
> 
> This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.
> 
> *Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.*
> 
> Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Nuh TS. You were were just quoting a a single years interesting but totally meaningless set of stats on the weather around the world.  And really just what sort of numpty would want to redesign the whole suite of climate models based on ONE YEARS DATA?
> 
> So just how "hysterical" is a steadily rising graph ?  I mean if it was the value of your share portfolio over 30 years would that be hysterical ?




Are you on drugs? Did you even read the link? Have you been drinking? The meteorologist was referring to the hiatus of not just one years worth of data. If you read the link he was talking about 17 years of data. I only posted up ONE graph.

SO a meteorologist has data evidencing there is an equal amount or record cold days compared to hot days and this is meaningless because it happened over a one year period but you can SCREECH that over a two year period IT IS GETTING HOTTER


----------



## basilio

The Graph was from NOAA.  I think you have seen it before.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif 

I like your little bit of fantasy denial fantasy. Guess what !! Yep According to the creatives who made that up current temperatures are way below the medieval warm period. And since you have chosen to post it I have to assume you believe it is accurate. 

So I have to gather that all that effort into showing the mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of Leohle 2007-8 paper was lost on you ? But my predication on your behaviour was totally spot on. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to show we are now much warmer than than anytime in the last 10,000 years.... it will never be enough.

Cheers !


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> The Graph was from NOAA.  I think you have seen it before.
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
> 
> I like your little bit of fantasy denial fantasy. Guess what !! Yep According to the creatives who made that up current temperatures are way below the medieval warm period. And since you have chosen to post it I have to assume you believe it is accurate.
> 
> So I have to gather that all that effort into showing the mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of Leohle 2007-8 paper was lost on you ? But my predication on your behaviour was totally spot on. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to show we are now much warmer than than anytime in the last 10,000 years.... it will never be enough.
> 
> Cheers !




Predicate all you like but it still does not make you right ...


----------



## basilio

Clearly one of us is not the full quid on reading articles TS.

Lets be clear about it.  Accuweather was only using data from one year to look at the number of record highs and lows.  The thrust of his article  was trying to understand what he saw as the pause in global warming.  This was the clamour of denialists who chose to ignore the steep temperature increases from 1970-96 and then wanted to say "Hey it's stopped . Nothing to worry about folks " during 2005-2012 And on the way lets kick the hell out the climate change models because for the last 17 years the temperature hasn't gone up like they said it would.

But of course since 2014 world temperatures have gone up with a vengeance.  In fact they are now sitting at the top of CC models.  Does this have any relevance to the discussion ?


----------



## basilio

And TS why do you insist of re presenting a graph that isn't even remotely  close to the facts ?  At least the one you used earlier on was close even if it ignored all the warming of the 20th Century.

Do you seriously expect anyone on the thread with more than 2 neurons operating would accept such a bare faced lie? (If you can find the author I'm happy to research it's origins and creative artiste..)


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Clearly one of us is not the full quid on reading articles TS.
> 
> Lets be clear about it.  Accuweather was only using data from one year to look at the number of record highs and lows.  The thrust of his article  was trying to understand what he saw as the pause in global warming.  This was the clamour of denialists who chose to ignore the steep temperature increases from 1970-96 and then wanted to say "Hey it's stopped . Nothing to worry about folks " during 2005-2012 And on the way lets kick the hell out the climate change models because for the last 17 years the temperature hasn't gone up like they said it would.
> 
> But of course since 2014 world temperatures have gone up with a vengeance.  In fact they are now sitting at the top of CC models.  Does this have any relevance to the discussion ?




Clearly your one sided blinded opine is clouding your comprehension abilities.

Accuweather was pointing out an "anomaly" based on his recorded data and was asking if they could understand what had happened and incorporate it into current climate models it would assist in future predictions/modelling being more accurate. And not for just one year only 

I will repeat his statement to prove yet again your unwillingness to observe and understand the matters at hand is nearly as flawed as the IPCC's predictions.



> LOOK: I'm not saying it won't resume;* I'm not saying Global Warming isn't real* (although I do believe it's exaggerated by bad sensor locations); I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the Earth better. What I'm saying is that something happened there and we need to figure out what, because it wasn't predicted by the models (as shown by the graph below, which doesn't even include the last couple years). *If we could figure out what happened*, it would be awesome because *we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction *of the future.




Only 2 years worth of data basilio ? 2014 - 2016 but but but NOAA and NASA have already credited this with an extended El Nino' effect.




I am off to get a mercury thermometer to shove up a dead salmons @ss as PROOF that the world is getting hotter!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> And TS why do you insist of re presenting a graph that isn't even remotely  close to the facts ?  At least the one you used earlier on was close even if it ignored all the warming of the 20th Century.
> 
> Do you seriously expect anyone on the thread with more than 2 neurons operating would accept such a bare faced lie? (If you can find the author I'm happy to research it's origins and creative artiste..)




Oh please do tell me you are going to bring in the hockey stick graph as exhibit "A"


----------



## trainspotter

2 neurons anyone ... anyone?


----------



## basilio

Don't worry about trying to identify the source of that wondrous "No global warming" graph TS.  It wasn't hard to find it on Google.  Essentially it is the  PIN Up Drool of every CC denier on the net and has been duly copied and recopied

(And no wonder !! It is just so convincing isn't it ..)

It is in fact a bastardised copy of the Eastbrook work on temperatures at the top of the Green land Ice cap. 
It's last accurate figure (even for that particular location) was* 1855 *.. 

Now if one wants to see what has happened since 1855 check out this analysis.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php


----------



## basilio

Had to give a geeup for the last website I cited. It is NASA's work of course

It really gives a fantastic ongoing visual analysis of changes around the world.  ( Absolutely nothing to do with CC of course.. All just natural stuff.)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php


----------



## trainspotter

So not wanting to admit you were wrong about the salmon or the mercury thermometers on steamships nor realising you were totally off base on the Accuweather statement you go back to hacking on one graph that goes back for 15,000 years. How many times do you need to be told - open your brain basilio.

Okay ... here is another one to chow down on over 2000 years.






> The researchers argue that “X-ray densitometry” enables a more accurate reconstruction of climate history than does analyzing the width of tree rings – the principal data used by MBH. For example, MBH found a “divergence,” starting in 1960, between a decline in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as reconstructed from tree ring data, and the increase in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as measured by thermometers and other heat sensing instruments. *The divergence raises the question of how MBH can be so sure the Medieval Warm Period was tiny or non-existent when their proxy data fail to reflect the instrument-measured warmth of recent decades.* To give the hockey stick its dangerous-looking blade, MBH had to “hide the decline.”
> 
> In contrast, the Esper team found no divergence between instrumental data and temperatures inferred from density analysis of living trees in the study area.
> 
> So what’s the upshot? Their reconstruction “shows a succession of warm and cold episodes including peak warmth during Roman and Medieval times alternating with severe cool conditions centred in the fourth and fourteenth centuries.”  The warmest 30-year period was A.D. 21-50, which was 1.05 °C warmer than the mean temperature for 1951-1980 and ~0.5 °C warmer than the region’s maximum 20th century warmth, which occured during 1921-1950.




http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...mer-than-the-medieval-and-roman-warm-periods/

Here is a graph for all the people out there with 2 neurons to understand.


----------



## explod

Antartica has just hit 400PPM CO2 for the firts time in...... 

...... 4 million years. 

from "IFLESCIENCE" today.


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> So not wanting to admit you were wrong about the salmon or the mercury thermometers on steamships nor realising you were totally off base on the Accuweather statement you go back to hacking on one graph that goes back for 15,000 years. How many times do you need to be told - open your brain basilio.
> 
> Okay ... here is another one to chow down on over 2000 years.
> 
> View attachment 67226
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...mer-than-the-medieval-and-roman-warm-periods/
> 
> Here is a graph for all the people out there with 2 neurons to understand.
> 
> View attachment 67227



Good chart there TS,  thanks for posting. 

It clearly shows the natural cooling up to 1900 and then the gradual rise to 2000.  If we could add the last 16 years then the alarming rise would stand out considerably. 

On "natural cooling"  the earth was a firball of gas 5 billion years ago and should continue to cool.  That fact that the temperature is rising at all is truly alarming and particularly when we take account of the sun cooling down also.


----------



## trainspotter

explod - you missed the point. The graph evidences the Medieval Global Warming in all it's glory. The hockey stick graph does not have the Medieval Warming Period in it's calculus. It was removed to "evidence" how SHARPLY temperatures have risen in the last 30 years and has since been disproved methodically by MANY scientists. 

The existence of the Medieval Warm Period was accepted without question and noted in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990. On page 202 of that 1990 IPCC report there was the graphic 7c, in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present.

By the time of the second IPCC report in 1995 where for the first time CO2 forcing began to be proposed more prominently as a cause of serious alarm, the Medieval Warm Period was sidelined in the text and narrative. An important way that this was done in the report was to alter the diagram of recent climate history by simply shortening the time period it covered so that it now started after the Medieval Warm Period.

In other words they have fudged the figures ... for all the people with 2 neurons to understand.


----------



## wayneL

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2

Let's get those v8s puping some co2!!!


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2
> 
> Let's get those v8s puping some co2!!!




We are due, mankind could be lucky, yet again. I think it has been eluded to previously.

This also shows that global warming through CO2 is real as though the sunspots have been dropping, and I looked it up, a new low is expected this year, the earth is still warming.


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2
> 
> Let's get those v8s puping some co2!!!




How can this be?

The climate models didn't say anything about this!

Does this mean that our very own sun is an acc denier?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> How can this be?
> 
> The climate models didn't say anything about this!
> 
> Does this mean that our very own sun is an acc denier?




They did actually, the Sun has been reducing output for a while. That's why the critics couldn't use it in their arguments unless they were demented.


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> How can this be?
> 
> The climate models didn't say anything about this!
> 
> Does this mean that our very own sun is an acc denier?




So we're supposed to be having an ice age every 11 years. 

And heat records top end of Australia this month and over the planet first five months (individually)  hottest ever recorded.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> We are due, mankind could be lucky, yet again. I think it has been eluded to previously.
> 
> This also shows that global warming through CO2 is real as though the sunspots have been dropping, and I looked it up, a new low is expected this year, the earth is still warming.




Lucky? An Ice Age will be far far worse for mankind a little bit of Warming.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> So we're supposed to be having an ice age every 11 years.
> 
> And heat records top end of Australia this month and over the planet first five months (individually)  hottest ever recorded.



Promises, promises, promises!

Shouldn't the winters be getting warmer also? 

This one feels very cold to me, and I am certainly not looking forward to my next energy bill.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> So we're supposed to be having an ice age every 11 years.
> 
> And heat records top end of Australia this month and over the planet first five months (individually)  hottest ever recorded.




It is snowing from southern Queensland to Victoria ATM.....Must be Global Warming BS.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> It is snowing from southern Queensland to Victoria ATM.....Must be Global Warming BS.




Ever had a kero fridge?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Ever had a kero fridge?




No I could not afford one......Had a good ice box and the iceman used to drop a new block in every day.

That was when I was in uniform and when you were in liquid form.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is snowing from southern Queensland to Victoria ATM.....Must be Global Warming BS.




Well established that the high temperatures at the poles creating huge weather volatility. 

Hot air rises,  learnt that as a kid watching the kettle.  

And our ice cart only came twice a week.  Guessed you came from a more priveledged background.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Well established that the high temperatures at the poles creating huge weather volatility.
> 
> Hot air rises,  learnt that as a kid watching the kettle.
> 
> And our ice cart only came twice a week.  Guessed you came from a more priveledged background.





No...The ice used to melt faster in the tropics than down south and that is why we received a block of ice every day.

BTW...it was just as hot then as it is today.

Didn't you learn about the effect of the Sun on Earth when you went to school?


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> Well established that the high temperatures at the poles creating huge weather volatility.
> 
> Hot air rises,  learnt that as a kid watching the kettle.
> 
> And our ice cart only came twice a week.  Guessed you came from a more priveledged background.




Yes we had a Coolgardie Safe and the iceman, with his leather apron and tongs, delivered twice a week at our seaside holiday house. Also had a giant bakehouse just few hundred yards away where we bought crusty hot bread and soft powdered rolls.

Adiabatic cooling in play


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Didn't you learn about the effect of the Sun on Earth when you went to school?




Of course but it goes no where near being responsible for the extreme changes being witnessed and experienced of late.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Of course but it goes no where near being responsible for the extreme changes being witnessed and experienced of late.




Hi plod.....What a timely event published in the Courier Mail today.

I wonder if our CO2 emissions are causing the Sun to blink?

Enjoy the link my friend.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2

*YOU may not have noticed but our sun has gone as blank as a cue ball. As in, it’s lost its spots.

According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age.

Meteorologist and renowned sun-watcher Paul Dorian raised the alarm in his latest report, which has sparked a mild panic about an impending Game of Thrones-style winter not seen since the 17th century.

“For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank,” Mr Dorian says.

“The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.

“At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir. The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020.”

If you’re confused about what a “blank” sun is, below is a picture of what it normally looks like, in all its solar flare-and-blemishes glory.*

Please read the rest and do listen to the U-Tube.

I wonder if those scientists are a part of that 97%...Perhaps they have changed their minds on "MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING" and are now ready to join the majority of DENIERS.


----------



## explod

explod said:


> "A number of independant measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960,  over the same period that global temperatures have been warming.   Over the last 35 years of global warming,  sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.   An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun actually contributed to a slight cooling in recent decades. (Lockwood 2008)
> 
> Another study (Foster and Ralmstar 2011) also found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very light cooling effect... "
> 
> And very many other studies confirm those above.   See" Skeptical Science,  Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"




Just check out the last paras of a post I put up a week or so ago noco


----------



## Logique

The sunspots /solar flares theory of global temps has been around for a while. Might have to put off that move to Tas. Also that _developing the North_ (of Australia) thing might gather momentum.



> The sun has gone blank twice this month. This is what it means - 30 June 2016
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2
> 
> YOU may not have noticed but our sun has gone as blank as a cue ball. As in, it’s lost its spots.  According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age...
> 
> ..Given that the sun is the main driver of all weather and climate, the sinister-sounding “blankness” to which Mr Dorian refers has *some experts predicting a “Maunder Minimum” phase similar to one which began in 1645 and which is referred to as the “Little Ice Age”*.
> 
> The Maunder Minimum, named after solar astronomer Edward Maunder, lasted for a brutal 70 years and was so cold the Thames froze over...
> 
> ...“If history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere ”” and where we all live,” Mr Dorian says...


----------



## noco

Where have all the alarmist gone on this thread in the past couple of days?

Have they gone into hiding?


----------



## basilio

Nah.  Just uninterested in conversing with  numpties whose nonsensical idea of talking about climate change is pointing to single weather events (and then totally ignoring any events they don't want to talk about)

Get back under the covers children.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Where have all the alarmist gone on this thread in the past couple of days?
> 
> Have they gone into hiding?




No alarmists on this thread noco.  Plenty of sound observations,  I put one on here yesterday. 

For myself I have been working on pre-polling and there is a fast growing concern for the deteriorating enviorenment. It appears one in five going for the green card here in bendigo.   It was one in eleven last time.  

If you live in the bush it is clear to see what is wrong.


----------



## wayneL

Numpty

noun

1. Anybody that does not agree with basilio


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Numpty
> 
> noun
> 
> 1. Anybody that does not agree with basilio




The alarmists don't like the word "GOTCHA".


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The alarmists don't like the word "GOTCHA".




Denialist's getting a bit boxed in. 

Certainly ignoring the posts of facts I have put up of late noco.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Denialist's getting a bit boxed in.
> 
> Certainly ignoring the posts of facts I have put up of late noco.




I think you are the one ignoring the true facts and you know it and don't like it.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I think you are the one ignoring the true facts and you know it and don't like it.




Spoken as the true blue with head in sand. 

Sun is cooler last 20 years (its in the posts you ignored) yet our planet still hitting record temperatures.


----------



## trainspotter

Leaked IPCC emails from 2009 might give you a hint basilio ...



> * In 2009, an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The materials were authored by some of the world’s leading climate scientists and accompanied by the following note:
> We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.[129] [130]
> 
> * These emails (commonly referred to as the ClimateGate emails) show IPCC scientists and authors:
> proposing to conduct an “honest” study about the “uncertainties” of proxies and then to “publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address,” because “what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show” that we “honestly know f**k-all” (i.e., little or nothing[131]) about Northern Hemisphere temperature variability over periods of more than a hundred years.[132]
> 
> writing, “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike [Mann] appears to … and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene [11,000 years ago to present] that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.”[133]
> 
> writing, *“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”*[134]
> 
> writing, “In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”[135]
> 
> planning to have the editor of a scientific journal “ousted” if he exhibits skepticism of global warming.[136]
> 
> instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.[137]
> 
> planning to evade Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.[138]
> 
> planning to boycott scientific journals that require authors to release all data and calculations used in their published papers.[139]
> 
> writing, “I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). … Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.”[140]
> 
> writing, “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.”[141]
> 
> planning to shorten the timeframe of a proxy data series so “it would do what we want.”[142]
> 
> burying one of their own studies, because it produced an outcome they did not want. (Click here for comprehensive facts about this email.)
> 
> writing, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”[143] (Click here for comprehensive facts about this email.)




http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Spoken as the true blue with head in sand.
> 
> Sun is cooler last 20 years (its in the posts you ignored) yet our planet still hitting record temperatures.




Australia is to feel the effects of the Indian Ocean Dipole which will bring heaps of rain across Australia from west to east in spring.....Yipee more rains to fill the dams....It is also going to get cooler.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...n/news-story/db9ebfcfa08c1f71770c3104ccadd964

*UMBRELLAS at the ready — it’s about to get a whole lot wetter Australia. But this time it’s nothing to do with those pesky Pacific powerhouses of La Nina or El Niño.

If you want to blame a weather event you’re going to have to look west to a little known phenomenon called the Indian Ocean Dipole, or IOD.

In its three monthly climate forecast, released on Thursday, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) broke the bad news that winter is not only likely to be cooler than average but in some parts of the east coast there could be up to 80 per cent more rainfall as we head towards September than is usual for this time of year.

“The Indian Ocean is shaping up to be the strongest influence on our weather this winter,” said Dr Paul Feikama, senior hydrologist with the BOM. “Expect the IOD to dominate the climate for many months.”

But what is a dipole anyway, why is one way off in the Indian Ocean expected to affect Australia’s east coast and how come it is little known outside of excitable discussions between meteorologists?

A dipole is a difference in surface temperatures within a large body of water, commonly an ocean. These differences can have a dramatic effect on the weather.

“It’s a bit like El Niño and La Nina in that the IOD is an oscillation of warm and cold sea surface temperatures between the west and east Indian Ocean,” Andrew King, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, told news.com.au.

A positive dipole in the Indian Ocean sees warmer seas around the African coast and cooler waters closer to Australia leading to less rainfall across the continent. This has been the case for the last few years.*

Read the rest.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> Where have all the alarmist gone on this thread in the past couple of days?
> 
> Have they gone into hiding?




Seldom does a skilled artisan, craftsmen, academic  or professional sit down with the village idiot to discuss the refined aspects of their specialty, something they have made their best  effort to understand and critique. No you start at the very beginning, more likely to help the other to unwrap their sandwiches and intimate the social advantage of doing up their flies.
There is though a limit to patience and  when against the best efforts; we cut them into nice shapes, we make some savoury and some sweet we hand them to you all on the flattened paper bag….. but still you insist on wearing them as a hat, djellaba to maybe calm down a wizz frizz .

Rest bite, just a little rest bite.


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Seldom does a skilled artisan, craftsmen, academic  or professional sit down with the village idiot to discuss the refined aspects of their specialty, something they have made their best  effort to understand and critique. No you start at the very beginning, more likely to help the other to unwrap their sandwiches and intimate the social advantage of doing up their flies.
> There is though a limit to patience and  when against the best efforts; we cut them into nice shapes, we make some savoury and some sweet we hand them to you all on the flattened paper bag….. but still you insist on wearing them as a hat, djellaba to maybe calm down a wizz frizz .
> 
> Rest bite, just a little rest bite.




I'm not sure what you are putting in your sandwiches orr but I suggest you lay off the sauce


----------



## noco

I watched a bit of QandA last night and SHY is still raving on about Global Warming.

Will somebody please tell her we are heading into MINI ICE AGE and it is about the SUN.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I watched a bit of QandA last night and SHY is still raving on about Global Warming.
> 
> Will somebody please tell her we are heading into MINI ICE AGE and it is about the SUN.



Not too many believe you Champ but admire your tireless ramping. 

Would be good if you could put up a reference that I can get into to evaluate. Or is it just vague


----------



## basilio

explod said:


> Not too many believe you Champ but admire your tireless ramping.
> 
> Would be good if you could put up a reference that I can get into to evaluate. Or is it just vague




The reference regarding the decrease in sunspot activity is here

http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

Of course the premise upon which a mini ice age could occur is that there is* no anthropogenic global warming* So if we wern't warming up at a great rate of knots already -  it could get cooler.

In fact the effect of anthropogenic global warming far overwhelms the effects of reduced sunspot activity.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Not too many believe you Champ but admire your tireless ramping.
> 
> Would be good if you could put up a reference that I can get into to evaluate. Or is it just vague




Please go back to post # 8148...You probably did not bother to read it....I would say there are billions of people around the world who have the common sense to understand and believe what is really happening instead of the fictitious argument and lies being promoted by many alarmists...

The lies like there will never be enough water to fill our dams

The Arctic ice is melting at a rapid rate and the seas will rise to the height of an 8 story building.....The seas are rising at a rapid rate and drowning all the Pacific Islands.

Greenland's polar bears are going to die.

The Great Barrier Reef is all but dead and all caused by CO2 emissions.

We will all be experiencing greater droughts, floods, fires and cyclones.

And you believe all this rubbish.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Please go back to post # 8148...You probably did not bother to read it....I would say there are billions of people around the world who have the common sense to understand and believe what is really happening instead of the fictitious argument and lies being promoted by many alarmists...
> 
> The lies like there will never be enough water to fill our dams
> 
> The Arctic ice is melting at a rapid rate and the seas will rise to the height of an 8 story building.....The seas are rising at a rapid rate and drowning all the Pacific Islands.
> 
> Greenland's polar bears are going to die.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef is all but dead and all caused by CO2 emissions.
> 
> We will all be experiencing greater droughts, floods, fires and cyclones.
> 
> And you believe all this rubbish.




I know it is happenning.  Talk to farmers noco.   We can see it. 

I did read your post 8148 and replied in post 8149 to which you have not responded.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I know it is happenning.  Talk to farmers noco.   We can see it.
> 
> I did read your post 8148 and replied in post 8149 to which you have not responded.




What would you like me to talk to farmers about?

So what did I have to respond to when you in fact agreeing with me about cooling and not Global Warming.

I don't get you.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> What would you like me to talk to farmers about?
> 
> So what did I have to respond to when you in fact agreeing with me about cooling and not Global Warming.
> 
> I don't get you.




You don't want to is more to the point. 

The following from Jeffrey Masters Ph. D.  Director of Meteorology Chicargo:-



> what about global warming caused by the sun?
> 
> Some scientists have theorized that increases in solar output are responsible for a significant portion of the observed global warming.   For instance Scapetta & West (2006) estimated that 25 - 35% of global warming in the 1980 -  2000 period was attributable to solar variability.   Other scientists (blue reference to them) disagree, finding no evidence of global warming due to solar activity changes...



And the article goes on. 

However,  even if we do experience a servere ice age it will still have no effect on the continued increase in the changing chemistry on the planet,  our oceans,  the effects on our health and loss of food productivity all caused by the burning of fossil fuels.   And the underlying heating will still return after this perceived ice age.   What of our people then noco.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You don't want to is more to the point.
> 
> The following from Jeffrey Masters Ph. D.  Director of Meteorology Chicargo:-
> 
> 
> And the article goes on.
> 
> However,  even if we do experience a servere ice age it will still have no effect on the continued increase in the changing chemistry on the planet,  our oceans,  the effects on our health and loss of food productivity all caused by the burning of fossil fuels.   And the underlying heating will still return after this perceived ice age.   What of our people then noco.




I would happy to talk to farmers on any subject...Drought...Floods...Fire....I told you some time ago I worked in the south west of Queensland in the early 1950's and have experienced the lot...So you name it.

More fossil fuel = more CO2 = better plant life.

Do you know what he is talking about with the  changing chemistry of the planet etc.

Our food production in Australia is at an all time high.

Our people will still survive as they have done for centuries.


----------



## Smurf1976

The carbon tax is back, sort of.

Average electricity prices (wholesale) for 2013-14 (with carbon tax):

NSW = $ 52.26 / MWh

Qld = $58.42

SA = $61.71

Tas = $41.98

Vic = $51.49

Average prices for 2015-16 (no carbon tax)

NSW = $51.60

Qld = $59.99

SA = $61.67

Tas = $102.70

Vic = $46.14

So whatever nasty things were going to happen with the carbon tax will now be happening without it. The only thing not happening is a reduction in CO2 emissions which have gone up.

Why the high prices? There's a few factors but in short:

All states = the Qld LNG plants ramping up has sent the gas price through the roof and made gas uneconomic for baseload generation.

Reduced capacity of coal-fired plants because their owners decided to close them.

In some cases the (private) owners of coal-fired plants are operating them well below capacity. Reasons = either to force the price up and in a couple of cases they look to be having operational troubles (that happens when you cut costs to the bone....).

In Tasmania's case = well we had a spot of bother that has been well covered elsewhere. Worst drought on record and the cable broke so we ended up using a lot of gas and some diesel too. That said, the price spike in Tas was largely notional since Hydro took the hit financially on behalf of all but a very small number of consumers who opted to be in the spot market.

For the past few weeks it's even worse. Prices around $100 in Qld and Tas, a bit more in NSW and Vic and a whopping $418.04 in SA. There's diesel generation (feeding the main grid) running in SA recently even in the middle of the night which says it all really.

And what about gas? Well that's ridiculously expensive these days, far more costly that it has ever been before in the Australian east coast (including SA and Tas) market. 

I wonder if all those opposed to the carbon tax and politicians associated with it will now be directing their efforts to the evils of free markets? 

More seriously, there goes another thing that once made Australia internationally competitive. Cheap energy? Not in this country we haven't. We blew that one and somehow managed to not even end up with anyone making much profit in doing so.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> The carbon tax is back, sort of.
> 
> Average electricity prices (wholesale) for 2013-14 (with carbon tax):
> 
> NSW = $ 52.26 / MWh
> 
> Qld = $58.42
> 
> SA = $61.71
> 
> Tas = $41.98
> 
> Vic = $51.49
> 
> Average prices for 2015-16 (no carbon tax)
> 
> NSW = $51.60
> 
> Qld = $59.99
> 
> SA = $61.67
> 
> Tas = $102.70
> 
> Vic = $46.14
> 
> So whatever nasty things were going to happen with the carbon tax will now be happening without it. The only thing not happening is a reduction in CO2 emissions which have gone up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the high prices? There's a few factors but in short:
> 
> All states = the Qld LNG plants ramping up has sent the gas price through the roof and made gas uneconomic for baseload generation.
> 
> Reduced capacity of coal-fired plants because their owners decided to close them.
> 
> In some cases the (private) owners of coal-fired plants are operating them well below capacity. Reasons = either to force the price up and in a couple of cases they look to be having operational troubles (that happens when you cut costs to the bone....).
> 
> In Tasmania's case = well we had a spot of bother that has been well covered elsewhere. Worst drought on record and the cable broke so we ended up using a lot of gas and some diesel too. That said, the price spike in Tas was largely notional since Hydro took the hit financially on behalf of all but a very small number of consumers who opted to be in the spot market.
> 
> For the past few weeks it's even worse. Prices around $100 in Qld and Tas, a bit more in NSW and Vic and a whopping $418.04 in SA. There's diesel generation (feeding the main grid) running in SA recently even in the middle of the night which says it all really.
> 
> And what about gas? Well that's ridiculously expensive these days, far more costly that it has ever been before in the Australian east coast (including SA and Tas) market.
> 
> I wonder if all those opposed to the carbon tax and politicians associated with it will now be directing their efforts to the evils of free markets?
> 
> More seriously, there goes another thing that once made Australia internationally competitive. Cheap energy? Not in this country we haven't. We blew that one and somehow managed to not even end up with anyone making much profit in doing so.




But the carbon tax was removed almost 3 years ago so I guess one would have to expect some increases with or without the carbon tax.

I cannot see rhyme nor reason why Tasmania has increased so much......That is one hell of a jump....Is there any explanation for such a large increase?


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> More seriously, there goes another thing that once made Australia internationally competitive. Cheap energy? Not in this country we haven't. We blew that one and somehow managed to not even end up with anyone making much profit in doing so.



It seems to be the Australian way.

Smurf, do you have any figures on the wholesale cost in other countries?


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> The carbon tax is back, sort of.
> 
> Average electricity prices (wholesale) for 2013-14 (with carbon tax):
> 
> NSW = $ 52.26 / MWh
> 
> Qld = $58.42
> 
> SA = $61.71
> 
> Tas = $41.98
> 
> Vic = $51.49
> 
> Average prices for 2015-16 (no carbon tax)
> 
> NSW = $51.60
> 
> Qld = $59.99
> 
> SA = $61.67
> 
> Tas = $102.70
> 
> Vic = $46.14
> 
> So whatever nasty things were going to happen with the carbon tax will now be happening without it. The only thing not happening is a reduction in CO2 emissions which have gone up.
> 
> Why the high prices? There's a few factors but in short:
> 
> All states = the Qld LNG plants ramping up has sent the gas price through the roof and made gas uneconomic for baseload generation.
> 
> Reduced capacity of coal-fired plants because their owners decided to close them.
> 
> In some cases the (private) owners of coal-fired plants are operating them well below capacity. Reasons = either to force the price up and in a couple of cases they look to be having operational troubles (that happens when you cut costs to the bone....).
> 
> In Tasmania's case = well we had a spot of bother that has been well covered elsewhere. Worst drought on record and the cable broke so we ended up using a lot of gas and some diesel too. That said, the price spike in Tas was largely notional since Hydro took the hit financially on behalf of all but a very small number of consumers who opted to be in the spot market.
> 
> For the past few weeks it's even worse. Prices around $100 in Qld and Tas, a bit more in NSW and Vic and a whopping $418.04 in SA. There's diesel generation (feeding the main grid) running in SA recently even in the middle of the night which says it all really.
> 
> And what about gas? Well that's ridiculously expensive these days, far more costly that it has ever been before in the Australian east coast (including SA and Tas) market.
> 
> I wonder if all those opposed to the carbon tax and politicians associated with it will now be directing their efforts to the evils of free markets?
> 
> More seriously, there goes another thing that once made Australia internationally competitive. Cheap energy? Not in this country we haven't. We blew that one and somehow managed to not even end up with anyone making much profit in doing so.




Evils of Free Markets? No way. 

If anything, they'd be saying things could be worst. Like Blair... if you think it's bad now, it could have been a lot worst. How? blah.

The LNG companies will now ramp up their campaign for "state energy security", and that if we want cheap electricity, we'd better allow more exploration and more drilling to bring supplies online.

In other news, major solar-powered electricity in the US, I think, are producing cheaper electricity than gas-powered plants now.


----------



## explod

And a couple of years back (under the coalition)  we let China into huge gas reserves for less than 6 cents a litre.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> But the carbon tax was removed almost 3 years ago so I guess one would have to expect some increases with or without the carbon tax.
> 
> I cannot see rhyme nor reason why Tasmania has increased so much......That is one hell of a jump....Is there any explanation for such a large increase?




My point is that we're right back to the same electricity prices we had with the carbon tax, the Qld LNG plants being the primary cause of that along with a few other factors mostly related to market activity. Meanwhile we've now got gas prices 3 or 4 times their historic level and far higher than we had with the carbon tax.

So if the carbon tax was going to ruin Australia and cost households and business a fortune, well that's exactly what's happening right now without it. 

We've seen massive political debate about the carbon tax but the same players haven't said a word about what's actually happened since. I sense a bias on the part of the major parties, particularly the Coalition, there. If an extra $20 per MWh was going to kill us economically then why aren't they screaming now when the same thing has happened? The silence is deafening.

And what about the massive increase in gas prices? That's going to seriously impact some industrial users, there's one in Qld already contemplating a permanent shutdown. Again all we hear from politicians is silence.

It's not as though this is a minor issue, the cost of energy has been a major theme in Australian politics for an extended period in the context of the carbon tax. It seems rather odd to me that apparently we can't afford higher prices if the money is going to government but somehow it's no problem if the money is going to a few private companies? Interesting to say the least.

Tasmania - that was (hopefully) a one-off situation due to major infrastructure failure (Basslink) taking 6 months to repair and coinciding with severe drought which caused some panic about the hydro system's ability to makeup the shortfall in supply with Basslink broken. End result was storage levels falling to 12.8%, the all time lowest on record (the previous low was 14.2% back in 1968) and we ended up hiring about 150 diesel generators and hooking them up to the grid in order to conserve what was left. The lights stayed on but market prices reflect that supply situation during half of the past financial year. That said, virtually nobody in Tas is actually paying the spot price unless by choice (and that's limited to a handfull of business users) with Hydro Tas taking the financial hit for the saga (about $180 million). Basslink has since been fixed, the diesels are no longer in use and heavy rain has lifted storage to about 30% so there's no longer any crisis. Some of the diesel generators are presently being removed and sent back to their owners, the rest being kept "just in case" until storage levels increase further.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> It seems to be the Australian way.
> 
> Smurf, do you have any figures on the wholesale cost in other countries?




Yup ....



> MORE than a million NSW households are paying more for electricity than any other developed nation.
> 
> New research by a leading economics consultancy reveals these customers, who are on non-discounted prices known as “standing offers” are being slugged about 32 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to shivering Swedes who pay about 14c per kWh and frozen Finns who only have to fork out about 15c per kWh.
> 
> Even the three million households on typically better value “market offers” are still paying energy companies over 25c per kWh, far more than Americans (about 17c per kWh), Dutch or Italians (both about 20c per kWh).
> 
> And this is before taking into account the new surge in NSW costs on July 1, when widespread price rises of up to 12 per cent kicked in, adding $170 to the average annual bill. There are reports of increases of up to 24 per cent.
> 
> The official advocacy body on electricity said the situation was concerning, with power increasingly *becoming a “significant expense for ordinary families”.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...d/news-story/75368ed35e0a817d403868636253e616


----------



## basilio

On going consequences of rises in Global Temperatures with an extra kick from El Nino becoming apparent.


> *
> Massive mangrove die-off on Gulf of Carpentaria worst in the world, says expert*
> 
> Climate change and El Niño the culprits, says Norm Duke, an expert in mangrove ecology, after seeing 7,000ha of dead mangroves over 700km
> 
> Michael Slezak
> @MikeySlezak
> email
> 
> Monday 11 July 2016 14.52 AEST
> Last modified on Monday 11 July 2016 15.05 AEST
> 
> Climate change and El Niño have caused the worst mangrove die-off in recorded history, stretching along 700km of Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria, an expert says.
> 
> The mass die-off coincided with the world’s worst global coral bleaching event, as well as the worst bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, in which almost a quarter of the coral was killed – something also caused by unusually warm water.
> 
> And last week it was revealed warm ocean temperatures had wiped out 100km of important kelp forests off the coast of Western Australia.
> 
> To assess the damage to the mangroves, Norm Duke, an expert in mangrove ecology from James Cook University, flew in a helicopter over 700km of coastline, where there had been reports of widespread mangrove die-offs.
> 
> He was “shocked” by what he saw. He calculated dead mangroves now covered a combined area of 7,000 hectares, as was first reported by the ABC on Sunday. That was the worst mangrove mass die-off seen anywhere in the world, he said.
> 
> “We have seen smaller instances of this kind of moisture stress before, but what is so unusual now is its extent, and that it occurred across the whole southern gulf in a single month.”
> 
> .....Mangroves die off naturally on a small scale, but Duke had never seen anything of this magnitude.
> 
> Around the world there had been widespread destruction of mangroves, but usually as a result of direct local impacts such as clearing for the creation of shrimp farms, he said. But the areas in northern Australia were “relatively pristine”.
> 
> “So you can see global changes or influences more easily. Usually, local influences are far stronger.”
> 
> *The clear culprit in this case was climate change, which was warming waters and making rainfall more erratic, Duke said. That put the mangrove forests at their tolerance limit, and when a strong El Niño hit the world this year – warming waters in northern Australia and drawing rainfall away – they were pushed past their tolerance thresholds.*
> 
> Greg Browning, from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, confirmed the past two years had seen unusually low rainfall and very high sea surface and air temperatures across the region where the die-off occurred.
> 
> “In a nutshell, there have been significantly below-average rainfall totals in the last two wet seasons ... and very warm sea surface temperatures,” he said. “When you have those departures from average conditions, it’s bound to affect the ecosystem in some way.”




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...of-carpentaria-worst-in-the-world-says-expert


----------



## basilio

Why have 700 Klm of mangroves died off in the Gulf of Carpenteria? 

Yep global temperatures are  rising at ridiculous rates and are now stressing many ecosystems beyond their capacity to cope. 

So they turn up their toes and die.


> * We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times*
> 
> Earth’s record hottest 12 consecutive months were set in each month ending in September 2015 through May 2016
> 
> Dana Nuccitelli
> 
> Monday 11 July 2016 20.00 AEST
> Last modified on Monday 11 July 2016 20.25 AEST
> 
> 2014 and 2015 each set the record for hottest calendar year since we began measuring surface temperatures over 150 years ago, and 2016 is almost certain to break the record once again.
> *
> It will be without precedent: the first time that we’ve seen three consecutive record-breaking hot years.*
> 
> .....For comparison, 1997–1998 saw a very similar monster El Niño event. And similarly, the 12-month hottest temperature record was set in each month from October 1997 through August 1998. That was likewise a case of El Niño and global warming teaming up to shatter previous temperature records.
> 
> The difference is that while September 1997–August 1998 was the hottest 12-month period on record at the time; it’s now in 60th place. It’s been surpassed by yearlong periods in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Many of those years weren’t even aided by El Niño events; unassisted global warming made them hotter than 1998.
> 
> *Global surface temperatures are now more than 0.3 °C hotter than they were in 1997–1998. That’s a remarkable rise over just 18 years, in comparison to the 1 °C the Earth’s average surface temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution began.*
> [/B]



https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-the-record-for-hottest-year-9-straight-times


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> And a couple of years back (under the coalition)  we let China into huge gas reserves for less than 6 cents a litre.




Watched a lectured on Austerity by this Scottish Economists (Mark Blyth ?) and he was saying how when it come to making money off of the Chinese, the Yanks are much more clever than the Aussies.

The Yanks just give the Chinese pieces of IOUs (at 2%) and get all the money and goodies; we Aussies actually sell and ship the actual stuff to them. 

At least we're not like the Middle Eastern countries shipping off finite resources for cheap and keep it all at the top... oh wait. Well at least our leaders are not being controlled by the yanks... wait... dam it!


----------



## Knobby22

This is interesting.

The world's storm tracks are shifting polewards and clouds are rising higher in the atmosphere, two trends that are likely to exacerbate global warming, US scientists say.

New analysis of satellite data for the 1982-2009 period by California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography has resolved what the researchers say is one of the biggest uncertainties involving climate science.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...climate-issue-cleared-up-20160706-gq085t.html


----------



## explod

Many of us have been saying for some time that warmer air rises. 

The north pole last winter recorded around zero degrees at times when historically it used to be 40 below.   The science is starting to catch up with what can be reasoned. 

The problem I feel and can see is when the science really confirms it all it will be far too late.

An article outlining the above in today's Age.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Many of us have been saying for some time that warmer air rises.
> 
> The north pole last winter recorded around zero degrees at times when historically it used to be 40 below.   The science is starting to catch up with what can be reasoned.
> 
> The problem I feel and can see is when the science really confirms it all it will be far too late.
> 
> An article outlining the above in today's Age.




Too late for what???


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Too late for what???




Could not be bothered,  you just do not (or refuse to) get it.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Could not be bothered,  you just do not (or refuse to) get it.




Sorry buddy.....you don't have the answers.

I am still waiting for your answer on what I am supposed to discuss with the farmers.

The farmers are in for a wet spring from the Dipole influence from the Indian Ocean.

It's got to  be caused by Man made Global Warming no doubt.

We have just gotta stop burning that nasty coal.

The mangroves are dying in the gulf of Carpentaria.

The Great Barrier Reef is but gone.

There will be no more rains to fill the dams around Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

The Polar bears are dying up in the Arctic.

But you know what?....The Sun will still rise from the East in the morning and we will all be saved. 

Laughter makes the world go around...Ya just gotta see the funny side of things.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Many of us have been saying for some time that warmer air rises.
> 
> The north pole last winter recorded around zero degrees at times when historically it used to be 40 below.   The science is starting to catch up with what can be reasoned.
> 
> The problem I feel and can see is when the science really confirms it all it will be far too late.
> 
> An article outlining the above in today's Age.




What if the Earth has changed its axis, wouldn't that make the North Pole warmer?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> What if the Earth has changed its axis, wouldn't that make the North Pole warmer?




SP, you are not allowed to talk about true science.....You talk about green house gases and the Greenies and the lefties will love you.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Too late for what???




Too late to do anything about it beside running for our lives.

Kinda like a crack in the dam. A few cracks and the dam would be fine... should need a close look and maybe additional structural fixes or something. But if the cracks get big enough and the dam thing goes, there's no way of stopping it.

Or bush fires. We can do some back burning and other mitigation. But if we let it pile up and lightning strike.

The impact of global warming is already being felt, somewhat permanently, in some places. Bangladesh has lost a lot of its fertile farmland and suffer annual flooding on scale that used to be a once in a hundred year event.

The rising sea salts its rice paddies and the hotter than usual climate mean more water from the glaciers. Flooding then killing the soil. So farmers lose everything they have, then have nothing left to rebuild.

Then in neighbouring India there isn't enough water so they're daming and diverting rivers to other parts of their country. Taking water from Bangladesh - which you'd think is a good thing but it just mean more land are salted as the sea rises further in.

You know how the world can still manage without oil but it still goes to war for it? Watch how many countries will be taken over for their water.


----------



## bellenuit

explod said:


> Many of us have been saying for some time that warmer air rises.
> 
> The north pole last winter recorded around zero degrees at times when historically it used to be 40 below.   The science is starting to catch up with what can be reasoned.
> 
> The problem I feel and can see is when the science really confirms it all it will be far too late.
> 
> An article outlining the above in today's Age.




I haven't read The Age article so I don't know the detail. However, I am a bit confused with the relationship between warm air rising and the North Pole. Although we say UP North and DOWN South, neither pole is up or down in regards to what we mean by warm air rising. Warm air rises vertically up from whatever point on the earth we are referencing. In other words on an axis more or less extending from the earth's core out into space. Movement towards the North pole is not up in that sense, but a lateral movement perpendicular to up.  

Lateral air currents are caused by the Coriolis Effect due to the Earth's spin.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Too late to do anything about it beside running for our lives.
> 
> Kinda like a crack in the dam. A few cracks and the dam would be fine... should need a close look and maybe additional structural fixes or something. But if the cracks get big enough and the dam thing goes, there's no way of stopping it.
> 
> Or bush fires. We can do some back burning and other mitigation. But if we let it pile up and lightning strike.
> 
> The impact of global warming is already being felt, somewhat permanently, in some places. Bangladesh has lost a lot of its fertile farmland and suffer annual flooding on scale that used to be a once in a hundred year event.
> 
> The rising sea salts its rice paddies and the hotter than usual climate mean more water from the glaciers. Flooding then killing the soil. So farmers lose everything they have, then have nothing left to rebuild.
> 
> Then in neighbouring India there isn't enough water so they're daming and diverting rivers to other parts of their country. Taking water from Bangladesh - which you'd think is a good thing but it just mean more land are salted as the sea rises further in.
> 
> You know how the world can still manage without oil but it still goes to war for it? Watch how many countries will be taken over for their water.




I think we should change this thread to HYSTERICAL because that is what a lot of people are becoming.

Flannery said the sea would rise to the height of 8 story buildings....What do you think of his prediction.

Australia has experienced similar weather conditions over the years and then we bounce back......Australia is expecting good spring rains due to the Dipole influence from the Indian Ocean and it will be felt from the west through to the east.

So don't panic my friend, the Sun will rise again tomorrow just as it has done this morning.....We should worship the Sun before any other...If the Sun don't shine we are all domed.


----------



## basilio

luutzu said:


> Too late to do anything about it beside running for our lives.
> 
> Kinda like a crack in the dam. A few cracks and the dam would be fine... should need a close look and maybe additional structural fixes or something. But if the cracks get big enough and the dam thing goes, there's no way of stopping it.
> 
> Or bush fires. We can do some back burning and other mitigation. But if we let it pile up and lightning strike.
> 
> The impact of global warming is already being felt, somewhat permanently, in some places. Bangladesh has lost a lot of its fertile farmland and suffer annual flooding on scale that used to be a once in a hundred year event.
> 
> The rising sea salts its rice paddies and the hotter than usual climate mean more water from the glaciers. Flooding then killing the soil. So farmers lose everything they have, then have nothing left to rebuild.
> 
> Then in neighbouring India there isn't enough water so they're daming and diverting rivers to other parts of their country. Taking water from Bangladesh - which you'd think is a good thing but it just mean more land are salted as the sea rises further in.
> 
> You know how the world can still manage without oil but it still goes to war for it? Watch how many countries will be taken over for their water.




The Cracks in the dam wall is a very apt analogy Luutzu.  One can see the problem developing and unless it is addressed the results will be inevitable and catastrophic.  One of the more troubling possibilities is that the problem becomes unfixable and the only alternative is evacuating everything down stream before the dam breaks.

But that course of action always has its' detractors.  It represents a complete loss of all that has been built.  Very hard to face that possibility.

At some stage soon the reality of rising sea levels fuelled by melting ice and expanding oceans will threaten all the coastal communities.  Miami and Florida for example are already in trouble. It's too late to reverse sea level rises already set in motion.  We can only slow them down if we work very hard. But how do you move a whole metropolis ? 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami


----------



## Knobby22

bellenuit said:


> I haven't read The Age article so I don't know the detail. However, I am a bit confused with the relationship between warm air rising and the North Pole. Although we say UP North and DOWN South, neither pole is up or down in regards to what we mean by warm air rising. Warm air rises vertically up from whatever point on the earth we are referencing. In other words on an axis more or less extending from the earth's core out into space. Movement towards the North pole is not up in that sense, but a lateral movement perpendicular to up.
> 
> Lateral air currents are caused by the Coriolis Effect due to the Earth's spin.




Correct Bellenuit.

The study shows that the clouds are higher in the atmosphere and storms are generally tracking closer to the poles than they were e.g. like the New York storm, it's more of a widening of the tropical belt. This changes the places where it rains creating winners and losers.

The North Pole warming is more to do with other factors (that may be related) but are not part of the findings.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Correct Bellenuit.
> 
> The study shows that the clouds are higher in the atmosphere and storms are generally tracking closer to the poles than they were e.g. like the New York storm, it's more of a widening of the tropical belt. This changes the places where it rains creating winners and losers.
> 
> The North Pole warming is more to do with other factors (that may be related) but are not part of the findings.




Once again, a lack of critical thinking.

Data, tortured into submission.

DYOR


----------



## wayneL

You know, I am so happy not to be you alarmist klaxons (although, once upon a time, I was).

What a way to live life, data mining to find the most pessimistic view of the future, having a hand in depression and suicide of our youth (just spent a weekend with mum and dad of the girl who topped herself).

None of us can be pollyannas if our eyes are open, but ffs, you guys.... Just WTF?


----------



## basilio

"...data mining to find the most pessimistic view of the future,"

It would be great if we weren't seeing repeated record temperatures set around the world. I'm sure Miami and Florida would like to ignore the rising sea levels that will wash away the city in the near future.  (In fact they are trying to do that at the moment.  It's not rising sea levels it's "nuisance flooding.")

But how long can that work ? Is there a more constructive way to deal with an issue instead of resolutely ignoring it, accepting it as inevitable or just saying there isn't a problem ?

I can remember back in the 60's when the national road toll just kept on climbing. Every weekend 6-8-10-16 people would die on the roads and scores more seriously injured. It seemed as if the increasing road death was the inevitable price of progress.  Road deaths were the biggest killer of people under 25. Three of my friends died in separate accidents. The argument was; more cars, more roads, more accidents, more deaths. It was seen as obvious and inescapable.

But even as that was happening it was also clear that drunken driving was a major cause of accidents.  Unrestrained people thrown throw windscreens and out of cars increase deaths and injuries dramatically. Badly designed and badly lit roads were also factors. 

It took a huge public effort to challenge the "inevitability" of more accidents and deaths and demand action on a number of fronts. And remember these actions were often strongly criticised by sectional interests.

1) Compulsory installation and wearing of seatbelts
2) Introduction of new regulations on car construction to protect passengers . Safety cells, crumple zones, soft interiors
3) Introduction of .05 drink driving laws and random breath testing
4) Maximum speed limits on roads.  (these didn't come in until mid 60's)
5) Systematic improvements in roads to eliminate black spots

Forty years later the road toll is 25% of the peaks of the 60's. If we had simply accepted the progress is inevitable scenario we would have at least 4000 road deaths a year in Victoria -  versus our current 260 a year .

Drunk drivers would still be racing around on bad roads in dangerous cars killing themselves, their friends and hundreds of other unsuspecting people.

Black spots would still claim a parade of victims.

People would still be speared on steering columns in 30k crashes

We can look at reality, recognise problems and tackle them as best we can. That's real progress.


http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/reports/health/ph06.htm
6. Road Safety Programs and Road Trauma


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> You know, I am so happy not to be you alarmist klaxons (although, once upon a time, I was).
> 
> What a way to live life, data mining to find the most pessimistic view of the future, having a hand in depression and suicide of our youth (just spent a weekend with mum and dad of the girl who topped herself).
> 
> None of us can be pollyannas if our eyes are open, but ffs, you guys.... Just WTF?




Come on Sifu... it's not depressing to face facts. Well... alright it can be depressing. But if we face the facts and do something about it, it's both a great motivator as well as a great inspiration to the kids.

I don't think we can blame the climate "alarmist" on depressing the youth. They're trying to warn us, with science and stuff, that we're heading into disaster - so do something, things like looking into alternative sources of energy etc. 

How could people who warn of the problems and suggest the solutions be at fault?

It'd be depressing to hear leaders who believe in CC, talk a great talk and then either do nothing or step on the accellerator. Now that's both suicidal for the charge and depressingly suicidal for young people in need of some inspiration.


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> "...data mining to find the most pessimistic view of the future,"
> 
> It would be great if we weren't seeing repeated record temperatures set around the world. I'm sure Miami and Florida would like to ignore the rising sea levels that will wash away the city in the near future.  (In fact they are trying to do that at the moment.  It's not rising sea levels it's "nuisance flooding.")
> 
> But how long can that work ? Is there a more constructive way to deal with an issue instead of resolutely ignoring it, accepting it as inevitable or just saying there isn't a problem ?
> 
> I can remember back in the 60's when the national road toll just kept on climbing. Every weekend 6-8-10-16 people would die on the roads and scores more seriously injured. It seemed as if the increasing road death was the inevitable price of progress.  Road deaths were the biggest killer of people under 25. Three of my friends died in separate accidents. The argument was; more cars, more roads, more accidents, more deaths. It was seen as obvious and inescapable.
> 
> But even as that was happening it was also clear that drunken driving was a major cause of accidents.  Unrestrained people thrown throw windscreens and out of cars increase deaths and injuries dramatically. Badly designed and badly lit roads were also factors.
> 
> It took a huge public effort to challenge the "inevitability" of more accidents and deaths and demand action on a number of fronts. And remember these actions were often strongly criticised by sectional interests.
> 
> 1) Compulsory installation and wearing of seatbelts
> 2) Introduction of new regulations on car construction to protect passengers . Safety cells, crumple zones, soft interiors
> 3) Introduction of .05 drink driving laws and random breath testing
> 4) Maximum speed limits on roads.  (these didn't come in until mid 60's)
> 5) Systematic improvements in roads to eliminate black spots
> 
> Forty years later the road toll is 25% of the peaks of the 60's. If we had simply accepted the progress is inevitable scenario we would have at least 4000 road deaths a year in Victoria -  versus our current 260 a year .
> 
> Drunk drivers would still be racing around on bad roads in dangerous cars killing themselves, their friends and hundreds of other unsuspecting people.
> 
> Black spots would still claim a parade of victims.
> 
> People would still be speared on steering columns in 30k crashes
> 
> We can look at reality, recognise problems and tackle them as best we can. That's real progress.
> 
> 
> http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/reports/health/ph06.htm
> 6. Road Safety Programs and Road Trauma
> 
> View attachment 67428




Now that's inspiring.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The Cracks in the dam wall is a very apt analogy Luutzu.  One can see the problem developing and unless it is addressed the results will be inevitable and catastrophic.  One of the more troubling possibilities is that the problem becomes unfixable and the only alternative is evacuating everything down stream before the dam breaks.




It's also a good analogy in that fixing the problem early is a lot cheaper and less disruptive than leaving it.

Design the dam properly. Review the design if it's decades old and you're unsure about the original design's suitability in view of modern knowledge.

Monitor performance once built (and that most certainly is done by the way). Is it moving (yes dams can move)? Is it leaking (dams generally do leak to some extent)? Etc? Does anything suggest there's a problem?

If a problem is found then determined if it's serious or not. What happens if nothing is done? If something bad happens, how long will that take for that to occur? Does it need fixing or is it just a case of a bit more leakage than was expected but it's structurally sound and expected to remain so and no corrective action is required? Is the incentive to undertake works to improve safety or is it purely economic?

If it needs fixing then assess the options for fixing it. Pick the best combination of practicality, cost, time and impact on other things.

Go about fixing it.

So you end up having to spend a few $ now to investigate and if necessary fix the dam. That's an order of magnitude cheaper than doing nothing, having the dam fail, and then having (1) to completely re-build the dam from scratch and (2) you've damaged however many other dams, roads, towns, bridges, farms, rail lines and the natural environment downstream plus putting however many people in danger when the wall of water came down the river. 

Knowing what's going on and taking any necessary action to avoid a disaster is a heck of a lot cheaper in the long term than not knowing there's a problem or choosing to ignore it until disaster occurs. That concept has a lot of similarity with the climate debate. However much it costs to avoid any problem, that's almost certainly going to be cheaper than dealing with the consequences of simply letting it happen.

Somewhat off-topic but here's how you strengthen an actual dam. Underlying reason - the original design was reviewed in light of modern knowledge and there were uncertainties that couldn't be proven one way or the other. Only sensible option was thus to assume the worst and take action on that basis. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEeH9d3B-E


----------



## explod

Smurf1976 said:


> ... - the original design was reviewed in light of modern knowledge and there were uncertainties that couldn't be proven one way or the other. Only sensible option was thus to assume the worst and take action on that basis. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEeH9d3B-E




Your last sentence Smurf is the only sensible way.  

No hysteria here.


----------



## basilio

> ... - the original design was reviewed in light of modern knowledge and there were uncertainties that couldn't be proven one way or the other. Only sensible option was thus to assume the worst and take action on that basis. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEeH9d3B-E





explod said:


> Your last sentence Smurf is the only sensible way.
> 
> No hysteria here.





And tick again and again and again...


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And tick again and again and again...




Why then do the chief alarmists race Around the World in private jets?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Why then do the chief alarmists race Around the World in private jets?




Not trolling along though


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> Why then do the chief alarmists race Around the World in private jets?




Closet deniers perhaps?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> "...data mining to find the most pessimistic view of the future,"
> 
> It would be great if we weren't seeing repeated record temperatures set around the world. I'm sure Miami and Florida would like to ignore the rising sea levels that will wash away the city in the near future.  (In fact they are trying to do that at the moment.  It's not rising sea levels it's "nuisance flooding.")
> 
> ]




So why did you pick Miami bas?

Why is sea level rising there? Could it be there are other factors at play? I know you know there are. 

This is actually worse than data mining, it's freakin misrepresentation, or worse. So you are either in denial or are a liar.

Which is it?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> So why did you pick Miami bas?
> 
> Why is sea level rising there? Could it be there are other factors at play? I know you know there are.
> 
> This is actually worse than data mining, it's freakin misrepresentation, or worse. So you are either in denial or are a liar.
> 
> Which is it?




I could have picked a score of other places Wayne where it's clear rising sea levels are creating serious problems. 
Miami is just big expensive and American.  How about Alaska or Shanghai ? 

But in the end the city I use for an example is irrelevant. The issue is the record temperatures in the Arctic that is rapidly melting ice caps in Greenland and will result in metres of seas level rise in the foreseeable future.

.....Or not if you just don't believe (or want to believe..)  anything untoward is happening.


----------



## basilio

By the way Wayne did you have any comments on Smurfs last contribution to the discussion ?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> So why did you pick Miami bas?
> 
> Why is sea level rising there? Could it be there are other factors at play? I know you know there are.
> 
> This is actually worse than data mining, it's freakin misrepresentation, or worse. So you are either in denial or are a liar.
> 
> Which is it?




It's a great article Sifu, should read it. The kind of journalism I'm shock to find still exists at established media houses.

So houses in Miami are being flooded, the people can't sell and can't afford to go anywhere... and politicians get pay to deny there's a problem. It's the moon that's causing the flooding; what climate change? Climate has always change - daily. Oi, remove "Climate Change" from all your research and studies into why Miami has a water problem.

I like this other one... so the streets are flooded and the residents just can't work out why since there hasn't been any rain, and I'm guessing the Moon can't be blame for it... Turns out the flood is caused by rising sea level flooding back up the stormwater system.

Guess it's either the sea is rising or the engineer back then can't use their water level to direct stormwater down towards the sea.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I could have picked a score of other places Wayne where it's clear rising sea levels are creating serious problems.
> Miami is just big expensive and American.  How about Alaska or Shanghai ?
> 
> But in the end the city I use for an example is irrelevant. The issue is the record temperatures in the Arctic that is rapidly melting ice caps in Greenland and will result in metres of seas level rise in the foreseeable future.
> 
> .....Or not if you just don't believe (or want to believe..)  anything untoward is happening.




How about Alaska then ...



> So what can we say about sea level trends along Alaska's coast? It's the geology, stupid.
> 
> "The land surface in Southern Alaska is moving faster than global sea level is presently changing," says Jeff Freymueller, a scientist with the Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
> 
> Absolute sea level in the Gulf of Alaska has been falling, contradicting a global trend, according to a new study that focused mainly on the "good news-bad news" situation in Chesapeake Bay on the United States' East Coast. But Alaska scientists have found a more complicated picture.




http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/southern-alaskan-sea-levels-defy-worldwide-trends/2010/12/28/

What's that about Miami you say ...



> This study attributed the	 flooding frequency increase to a	decadal-scale accelerating rates	of SLR.	However,	some	 of the increased flooding frequency might have caused due to local land subsidence, because	some 	of the low	elevation sections of the city were built on reclaimed swamps.




http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinski.pdf

Shanghai anyone, anyone ...



> Shanghai’s skyline glitters with sleek financial skyscrapers and glossy residential towers, but below the city’s lustrous facade lies an enduring problem. Thanks to mass urban migration, soft soil and global warming, Shanghai is sinking, and has been for decades. Since 1921, China’s most populous city has descended more than 6 ft. Across China, land subsidence affects more than 50 cities, where 49,000 sq. mi. of land have dropped at least 8 in.




http://science.time.com/2012/05/21/soaring-to-sinking-how-building-up-is-bringing-shanghai-down/

*RESIST THE HYSTERIA !!*


----------



## basilio

Great to see such a keen interest in land subsidence, building on reclaimed swamps, changes happening in the land as old ice caps retreat.  All good science.

*Which makes it all the more difficult to understand a complete refusal to acknowledge rapidly increasing temperatures and consequent rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.  Not to mention the risks of huge methane emissions from melting permafrost or frozen methane hydrates.
*

http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/study-2015-melting-greenland-ice-faster-arctic-warming-0616/
https://theconversation.com/methane-hydrates-a-volatile-time-bomb-in-the-arctic-9891
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189


----------



## basilio

Shanghai anyone ..anyone ?  TS



> Shanghai has inherently soft soil because of its geographical position at the mouth of the Yangtze River basin and, yes, groundwater accounts for nearly 70% of land subsidence; however, experts say, the weight of skyscrapers *and global warming* also play hefty roles in aggravating what they call “the most important geological disaster in Shanghai.” Unfortunately, the implications will only grow graver with the pace of development *and rising sea levels.*
> 
> ....Scientists expect the regulations to help curb the consumption of underground-water supplies, but there are a few things the government has less control over, like global warming. As land degradation and excessive guzzling of groundwater continue, environmentalists predict *waters surrounding Shanghai will rise 9 to 27 in. by 2050 as a result of melting ice caps.*
> ...  *Even then, global warming remains an obstacle. As skyscrapers in Shanghai go up and the glaciers in the North and South poles melt down, cities like Shanghai grow more and more vulnerable every day.*




All excerpts from the article you quoted TS.

http://science.time.com/2012/05/21/soaring-to-sinking-how-building-up-is-bringing-shanghai-down/


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Shanghai anyone ..anyone ?  TS
> 
> All excerpts from the article you quoted TS.
> 
> http://science.time.com/2012/05/21/soaring-to-sinking-how-building-up-is-bringing-shanghai-down/




Not denying it basilio ... it is not all about the oceans rising and the glaciers melting. Land is subsiding as well.

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller ... anyone ... anyone? 



> Shanghai has inherently soft soil because of its geographical position at the mouth of the Yangtze River basin and, yes, *groundwater accounts for nearly 70% of land subsidence*


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Not denying it basilio ... it is not all about the oceans rising and the glaciers melting. Land is subsiding as well.
> 
> Bueller, Bueller, Bueller ... anyone ... anyone?




Trick question: Which is faster - ice melting or land sinking?

Come on TS. With all the piers and floating slab engineers put into buildings, cities don't just sink and have water lapping at its doors. 

And if we allow for that kind of sinking, it won't be level... Leaning Tower of Pisa and stuff.

Heard that a few years ago, NASA's rocket propulsion lab figured some ice sheet in Iceland (Greenland?) was melting at a rate of some 50,000 tone/L of water a day. So unless there's an equivalent freezing somewhere in the world, that rate of new water might raise sea level faster than any soil subsidence.


----------



## wayneL

Venice anyone? Grasshopper?


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Trick question: Which is faster - ice melting or land sinking?
> 
> Come on TS. With all the piers and floating slab engineers put into buildings, cities don't just sink and have water lapping at its doors.
> 
> And if we allow for that kind of sinking, it won't be level... Leaning Tower of Pisa and stuff.
> 
> Heard that a few years ago, NASA's rocket propulsion lab figured some ice sheet in Iceland (Greenland?) was melting at a rate of some 50,000 tone/L of water a day. So unless there's an equivalent freezing somewhere in the world, that rate of new water might raise sea level faster than any soil subsidence.








> *Since 1921, China’s most populous city has descended more than 6 ft.*








> As land degradation and excessive guzzling of groundwater continue, environmentalists predict waters surrounding Shanghai will rise 9 to 27 in. by 2050 as a result of melting ice caps.




So in 95 years China’s most populous city has descended more than 6 ft and in 34 years "scientists" are predicting sea level rising ALONG with ground subsidence between 9 to 27 inches? OR 22.86mm - 68.58mm compared to 182.88mm previously??



Excessive guzzling of groundwater = ground subsidence.


----------



## trainspotter

No doubt this will cause global warming as well ...



> "Coronal holes are the source of a high-speed wind of solar particles that streams off the sun some three times faster than the slower wind elsewhere," NASA says.  They can appear anywhere from weeks to months at a time, and can take up as much as a quarter of the sun’s surface.
> 
> Even though a coronal hole on the sun doesn’t signal the end of the world, it can lead to a few pesky problems back on Earth.
> 
> "Solar winds released from the corona can form solar storms, which can disrupt satellite and radio communication systems," the Huffington Post reports.




http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-just-found-a-huge-hole-growing-on-the-surface-of-the-sun


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> I could have picked a score of other places Wayne where it's clear rising sea levels are creating serious problems.
> Miami is just big expensive and American.  How about Alaska or Shanghai ?
> 
> But in the end the city I use for an example is irrelevant. The issue is the record temperatures in the Arctic that is rapidly melting ice caps in Greenland and will result in metres of seas level rise in the foreseeable future.
> 
> *.....Or not if you just don't believe (or want to believe..)  anything untoward is happening. ;*)



I'm beginning to wonder if you have any comprehension abilities whatsoever. Either that or you just love fallacious and intellectually unscrupulous straw man arguments.

How many times on this thread have I listed my concerns for the environment on  number of fronts? Would you care to go back and count?

Ah but as usual you have to be a lying #### to try to further a largely political agenda of the left.

Yes sea level is rising, has been since the end of the little ice age, along with temperatures. You alarmists try to make an anthropogenic case for acceleration of this trend along with a purported causation. But you can only do so with examples like Shanghai, Maimi, those freakin Islands I can't remember the name of... all places where there are land mass shifts (and yes largely human induced) exacerbates this trend. 

Then comes the weasely worded predictions. My disdain for the likes of you grows exponentially with each pathetic corruption of the data to present a worst case scenario. You are sick basilio, see a psych.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> By the way Wayne did you have any comments on Smurfs last contribution to the discussion ?




Not really, except to say that as an analogy, it is not appropriate.

A dam is a physical structure, the soundness of which can be examined deterministically with physics and the hard sciences, mistakes notwithstanding.

Climate is a chaotic system, there is no comparison.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Venice anyone? Grasshopper?




Venice was built on an actual swamp Sifu, and it's still at similar flooding level as parts of Miami. One was built way back in the Middle Ages, the other only got started some 150 years ago when Jackson free it from the Spaniards. 

That and I saw other documents where Florida are mainly made up of ancient coral reefs and limestones. So it's soft, but not muddy... more prone to sink holes in places.

But let say soil subsidence and sinking is the main cause for water issues... wouldn't that also mean we ought to be more "hysterical" in our attempt to not risk sea level rises? That if there's a minute chance that our idiotic eggheads might be right about what's going to cause the ice to melt (warming planet), we might want to listen and maybe do things to prevent it. Just in case? No?

I put out an ice cube and it melt to water... but the icecaps and glaciers melting because the Earth is heating up? Get out of town. 

Come on Sifu, you know we're right.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> *Venice was built on an actual swamp Sifu*, and it's still at similar flooding level as parts of Miami. One was built way back in the Middle Ages, the other only got started some 150 years ago when Jackson free it from the Spaniards.
> 
> That and I saw other documents where Florida are mainly made up of ancient coral reefs and limestones. So it's soft, but not muddy... more prone to sink holes in places.
> 
> But let say soil subsidence and sinking is the main cause for water issues... wouldn't that also mean we ought to be more "hysterical" in our attempt to not risk sea level rises? That if there's a minute chance that our idiotic eggheads might be right about what's going to cause the ice to melt (warming planet), we might want to listen and maybe do things to prevent it. Just in case? No?
> 
> I put out an ice cube and it melt to water... but the icecaps and glaciers melting because the Earth is heating up? Get out of town.
> 
> Come on Sifu, you know we're right.




FACT CHECK - Venice was built in a LAGOON and the houses were constructed on wooden stumps. The stumps were smashed into sand. There is no subsidence in Venice other than the stumps disintegrating which have being replaced with metal and stone. 

FACT CHECK - The Florida peninsula is a porous plateau of karst limestone sitting atop bedrock known as the Florida Platform. The emergent portion of the platform was created during the Eocene to Oligocene as the Gulf Trough filled with silts, clays, and sands. 

FACT CHECK - 70% of subsidence is caused by excessive guzzling of groundwater and not rising sea levels.

FACT CHECK - Yes the ice is melting and the sea level is rising. Has been doing so for millions of years (as well as falling). That is how this planet was shaped. The ocean and atmosphere comprise the outer layer of the Earth and are major forces that shape its surface. They wear down mountains and redeposit them as sediments, carving the landscapes we live in. In turn, the positions of the continents and mountains, along with the heat from the Sun, determine ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. 

Geoid, anyone, anyone?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if you have any comprehension abilities whatsoever. Either that or you just love fallacious and intellectually unscrupulous straw man arguments.
> 
> How many times on this thread have I listed my concerns for the environment on  number of fronts? Would you care to go back and count?
> 
> Ah but as usual you have to be a lying #### to try to further a largely political agenda of the left.
> 
> Yes sea level is rising, has been since the end of the little ice age, along with temperatures. You alarmists try to make an anthropogenic case for acceleration of this trend along with a purported causation. But you can only do so with examples like Shanghai, Maimi, those freakin Islands I can't remember the name of... all places where there are land mass shifts (and yes largely human induced) exacerbates this trend.
> 
> Then comes the weasely worded predictions. My disdain for the likes of you grows exponentially with each pathetic corruption of the data to present a worst case scenario. You are sick basilio, see a psych.




Not impressed Wayne... Keep yourself nice..:frown:

I'll accept that you have strong environmental concerns. But that puzzles me even further because that suggest you read widely and are well capable of understanding complex ideas.  And of course that you care.

And then we come to global warming and climate change... Somehow you manage to resolutely ignore every piece of evidence that shows the temperature around the globe is rising at an unparalleled rate to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years

You resolutely ignore the work of glaciologists that shows the effects such temperature increase had on ice caps when temperatures were at those levels. Ocean levels were many metres higher than today.

And finally you appear to reject any significant connection between rapidly increasing green house gases and the increase in temperatures. (Of course if you say temperatures aren't actually at record levels you can keep a fig leaf of logic can't you. Shame about the facts  though..)

And in the end what do you do ? You arn't just insulting me Wayne by saying I need to go to a psychiatrist. I am just relating the work of the overwhelming body of science on the subject. Your accusing the whole climate science and related studies community of being corrupt and crazy.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...Your accusing the whole climate science and related studies community of being corrupt and crazy.




Unfortunately, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of evidence suggesting that they do indeed merit such accusations.


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Unfortunately, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of evidence suggesting that they do indeed merit such accusations.




*BS...*


----------



## basilio

*What is the research and evidence to show that increases in temperatures in the poles will cause substantial ice melt and rising sea levels ?*

[







> B]Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise
> Posted on 7 December 2012 by Rob Painting[/B]
> K*ey points
> 
> An accurately dated, near-continuous, history of sea level variations for the last 150,000 years has been compiled.
> 
> Comparison with ice core data reveals that major global ice volume loss, as implied by sea level rise,  has followed relatively quickly after polar warming. The Greenland ice sheet responding virtually straight away (0-100 years lag time), and a 400-700 lag for the Antarctic ice sheet.
> 
> These response times are much faster than was previously commonly suspected, and implies that once sufficient polar warming is underway, future ice sheet collapse may be unavoidable.
> 
> During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.
> *
> .....





http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pas...ests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html


----------



## basilio

*And what does the most recent analysis of the Antarctic Ice sheets tell us about the risk of rapidly rising sea levels* ?



> Connecting Dots ”” The News in Perspective
> *Why the New Sea Level Alarm Can't Be Ignored*
> 
> The physics of ice predicts that sea level will rise twice as much by the end of the century as previously estimated
> 
> PUBLISHED April 1, 2016
> 
> There are days when even a born optimist starts to waver in his conviction. The release of a new study projecting that sea level could rise between five and six feet by 2100””when many children born today will still be alive and have been forced to move inland””made Thursday one of those days




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> *And what does the most recent analysis of the Antarctic Ice sheets tell us about the risk of rapidly rising sea levels* ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/



Thankyou basilio for so amply demonstrating the veracity of my previous post.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> *BS...*




So when the IPCC removed the Medieval Warming Period in their analysis, this was done for what reason ... anyone, anyone?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Not impressed Wayne... Keep yourself nice..:frown:
> 
> I'll accept that you have strong environmental concerns. But that puzzles me even further because that suggest you read widely and are well capable of understanding complex ideas.  And of course that you care.
> 
> And then we come to global warming and climate change... Somehow you manage to resolutely ignore every piece of evidence that shows the temperature around the globe is rising at an unparalleled rate to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years
> 
> You resolutely ignore the work of glaciologists that shows the effects such temperature increase had on ice caps when temperatures were at those levels. Ocean levels were many metres higher than today.
> 
> And finally you appear to reject any significant connection between rapidly increasing green house gases and the increase in temperatures. (Of course if you say temperatures aren't actually at record levels you can keep a fig leaf of logic can't you. Shame about the facts  though..)
> 
> And in the end what do you do ? You arn't just insulting me Wayne by saying I need to go to a psychiatrist. I am just relating the work of the overwhelming body of science on the subject. Your accusing the whole climate science and related studies community of being corrupt and crazy.




Eh? 

I couldn't give a flying fig about being nice. I do care about integrity however.... and you are right, I do question the integrity od climate science, such as it is, on a number of levels.

I do NOT reject bona fide science or the observation that the earth is in a warming trend, or even that there are anthropogenic factors involved ( and more than just co2).

I do reject the politicized, mercantilized, movie starized, retrospectively adjusted version  thereof.

Integrity basilio, integrity.


----------



## basilio

Wayne your definition of "bona fide" science appears highly selective.  It appears to discard almost all the work of the climates science community.  All that remains are outlier works that in a number of cases have been proven to be wrong or misconstrued or puff stuff from non climate science researchers.

It also appears that, whatever acceptance you have of global warming, it does not acknowledge the  extreme measure of growth in the past 100 years in comparison to the the previous relatively stable period.

Even more importantly you don't seem to think the trend of warming will continue.  Somehow it will just stop or magically reverse.  You seem to have that view because you don't accept that GG have more than a passing affect on global temperatures.  This is despite the fact that, again, the overwhelming body of science disagrees strongly with that view and it is only promulgated by a select few scientists.

And with that perspective you are prepared to disparage the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and ignore the  exponentially accumulating physical evidence of rapid climate change.

Not buying it Wayne.  It has no legs.


----------



## trainspotter

Read the link ...



> During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). *This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.*




So 12mm per annum for 100 years = 1.2 metres .. Current rate is what again? As you were .... :1zhelp:



> It also appears that, whatever acceptance you have of global warming, it does not acknowledge the extreme measure of growth in the past 100 years in comparison to the the *previous relatively stable period*.




AND THIS WAS A PREVIOUS STABLE PERIOD ???? **HEADBANG**

12mm per annum sea level rise is STABLE??

I suggest you go and read the link you supplied basilio.


----------



## basilio

I'm puzzled at your comments TS. Are you saying that a rise in sea levels of 1.2 metres in 100 years  (12mm a year ) is inconsequential ? For some sort of comparison  consider the forecast of the current IPCC



> A draft version of the next report from the IPCC (AR5), due for publication in 2014, was recently leaked. Although the information is subject to change, the draft report says sea levels are likely to rise by between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century, (compared to 18-59 centimeters in the 2007 report).



https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

What would be the consequences of a 1.2 m increase in sea levels within 100 years ? Basically many coastal cities would be overwhelmed and effectively unlivable.  Is that an acceptable scenario ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I'm puzzled at your comments TS. Are you saying that a rise in sea levels of 1.2 metres in 100 years  (12mm a year ) is inconsequential ? For some sort of comparison  consider the forecast of the current IPCC
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
> 
> What would be the consequences of a 1.2 m increase in sea levels within 100 years ? Basically many coastal cities would be overwhelmed and effectively unlivable.  Is that an acceptable scenario ?




DERP! you are not real bright on the uptake are you basilio 

The link you supplied evidencing 150,000 years of Sea Level History stated that the ice caps have melted before and the oceans rose 12mm per annum for 100 years _ipso facto_ the oceans rose 1.2 metres in this time period.

The current IPCC "predictions" is between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century. 84 years to end of century divided by WORST PREDICTION of 820mm = 9.761904761mm per annum rate of ocean rise. Hardly record breaking stuff compared to recent history now is it?

So what caused the glaciers to melt and the sea level to rise so quickly *IN THE PAST*  basilio? Was it Co2 or something else?

But, but, but ... you were banging on that the global temperatures are rising at the "fastest" ever recorded. So if this is the case then the ice packs and glaciers would be melting a damn sight quicker than the current 3mm per annum 

So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.

Also as the weight of the water is spread over a larger area rather than concentrated at the poles the Earths mantle will buckle under the pressure and cause the tectonic plates to shift at an ALARMING rate. I would be more worried about THAT before some cities getting their feet wet.

As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!

Do you get it now basilio or do you want me to write this in crayon for you to understand.

P.S. Have you factored in Earth's gravitational pull when the water is dispersed? Look up *Geoid *basilio and arm yourself with some information instead of headline screaming Guardian scare tactics you DOLT !


----------



## explod

"DERP" and "DOLT"  sort of like swearing when you can't get you own way or trying to convince youself teee ssss. 

Five billion years ago this earth was a gaseous fireball.   Gradually it is cooling down but still some fire inside.  This information is not from any other source but my head,  what one learns from school and over life. 

So we should be in increasingly colder conditions and more prolonged ice ages.   But this is not happenning,  against all this,  as well as increased cloud due to warmer air (which should also cooling) it is getting hotter.  This is man made climate change and a major part of this from the burning of fossil fuels.  The other of course is the loss of forrests.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> "DERP" and "DOLT"  sort of like swearing when you can't get you own way or trying to convince youself teee ssss.
> 
> Five billion years ago this earth was a gaseous fireball.   Gradually it is cooling down but still some fire inside.  This information is not from any other source but my head,  what one learns from school and over life.
> 
> So we should be in increasingly colder conditions and more prolonged ice ages.   But this is not happenning,  against all this,  as well as increased cloud due to warmer air (which should also cooling) it is getting hotter.  This is man made climate change and a major part of this from the burning of fossil fuels.  The other of course is the loss of forrests.




I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.

Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth. 

So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so 

Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.
> 
> Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth.
> 
> So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so
> 
> Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action



None of this alters the fact that the north pole last winter was up to 40c warmer than normal WHEN THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE COOLING ole derp. 

The moon,  sun and all the other naural effects are counted by science in the total sum.

And the lobbyists for oil,  coal etc.,  can be shown to have effected official science output.  The Murdock and Reauters press are the front of big business.  And google is so stacked with crapola that facts are becomingvery difficult to duscern.   That is why I follow my own instincts,  knowledge and experience directly from community interaction.


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> None of this alters the fact that the north pole last winter was up to 40c warmer than normal WHEN THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE COOLING ole derp.
> 
> The moon,  sun and all the other naural effects are counted by science in the total sum.
> 
> And the lobbyists for oil,  coal etc.,  can be shown to have effected official science output.  The Murdock and Reauters press are the front of big business.  And google is so stacked with crapola that facts are becomingvery difficult to duscern.   That is why I follow my own instincts,  knowledge and experience directly from community interaction.




Class dismissed :bonk:


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Class dismissed :bonk:




Yep,  sorry you can't handle it all.


----------



## noco

Hey plod, did you hear the latest news on all those good rains in Queensland.....Must be the CO2 factor coming into play.

Townsville had it's lowest maximum of 15 c last Thursday.....I think the Sun is going blind or is it the CO2 factor also affecting the Sun.

They call it CLIMATE CHANGE.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/32073334/rain-to-clear-across-central-qld/#page1


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Hey plod, did you hear the latest news on all those good rains in Queensland.....Must be the CO2 factor coming into play.
> 
> Townsville had it's lowest maximum of 15 c last Thursday.....I think the Sun is going blind or is it the CO2 factor also affecting the Sun.
> 
> They call it CLIMATE CHANGE.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/32073334/rain-to-clear-across-central-qld/#page1




Yep,  displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming. 

Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yep,  displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming.
> 
> Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.




Have got a link to that....You have explained absolutely nothing that would even convince FLASH GORDON.

Now what about the Sun?

Your brain washed Green tripe has still got a hold on you.

What a about the DIPOLE?...Of course it has to be Global warming.

What about the lack of spots on the Sun?.....More Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Hey plod, did you hear the latest news on all those good rains in Queensland.....Must be the CO2 factor coming into play.
> 
> Townsville had it's lowest maximum of 15 c last Thursday.....I think the Sun is going blind or is it the CO2 factor also affecting the Sun.
> 
> They call it CLIMATE CHANGE.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/32073334/rain-to-clear-across-central-qld/#page1




Another frustrating weekend down here in Brisbane with rains in our dry season.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Yep,  displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming.
> 
> Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.




You can explain that red is green all you like, it will never fly.

Your points are so wide of the mark it's hilarious.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You can explain that red is green all you like, it will never fly.
> 
> Your points are so wide of the mark it's hilarious.




And your opinion is respected. 

This is a discussion thread and my VIEWS are based on a lifetime of interest and observations.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And your opinion is respected.
> 
> This is a discussion thread and my VIEWS are based on a lifetime of interest and observations.




So long as it is compatible with the Green propaganda and distortion of the truth.


----------



## trainspotter

trainspotter said:


> So when the IPCC removed the Medieval Warming Period in their analysis, this was done for what reason ... anyone, anyone?






trainspotter said:


> DERP! you are not real bright on the uptake are you basilio
> 
> The link you supplied evidencing 150,000 years of Sea Level History stated that the ice caps have melted before and the oceans rose 12mm per annum for 100 years _ipso facto_ the oceans rose 1.2 metres in this time period.
> 
> The current IPCC "predictions" is between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century. 84 years to end of century divided by WORST PREDICTION of 820mm = 9.761904761mm per annum rate of ocean rise. Hardly record breaking stuff compared to recent history now is it?
> 
> So what caused the glaciers to melt and the sea level to rise so quickly *IN THE PAST*  basilio? Was it Co2 or something else?
> 
> But, but, but ... you were banging on that the global temperatures are rising at the "fastest" ever recorded. So if this is the case then the ice packs and glaciers would be melting a damn sight quicker than the current 3mm per annum
> 
> So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.
> 
> Also as the weight of the water is spread over a larger area rather than concentrated at the poles the Earths mantle will buckle under the pressure and cause the tectonic plates to shift at an ALARMING rate. I would be more worried about THAT before some cities getting their feet wet.
> 
> As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!
> 
> Do you get it now basilio or do you want me to write this in crayon for you to understand.
> 
> P.S. Have you factored in Earth's gravitational pull when the water is dispersed? Look up *Geoid *basilio and arm yourself with some information instead of headline screaming Guardian scare tactics you DOLT !






trainspotter said:


> I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.
> 
> Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth.
> 
> So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so
> 
> Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action


----------



## basilio

My god you are so.so,* SO* delusional TS.  You are most certainly out of my reach.

Couple of points ? 

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years    ... but

2) Glaciology is a new science.  It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.
*
One thing for certain however. When the Arctic and Antarctic warm up the ice will melt.* That's just physics. And we are now seeing extended periods of higher temperatures in these regions and it is already clear that the ice caps are breaking up in ways that wern't even considered a few years ago. For instance it was initially thought that the caps would melt from above losing merely the top inches of ice cover.  Now scientists have discovered that in fact the warming oceans are rapidly undercutting the ice caps, melting the base of glaciers and speeding their movement to the sea.

*Coping with the melt*



> So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.




*As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!
*

Seriously ? For keeps ?  You somehow think that sea levels rises of even 50-80 cms can be kept back with walls? 
How big ? How far along the coast? How much money ? 

*And most importantly HOW XXXING HIGH ?*

This is the crux of the issue. The one point you resolutely refuse to consider.  What is the best available information on the longer term sea levels as a consequence of global warming? Basically it has come from glaciologists that have been studying the structure of the West Antarctic ice cap and it's vulnerability to rapid breakdown.  What did they say ?




> The Physics of Ice
> 
> Comes now the study published in Nature Thursday by Robert Deconto of the University of Massachusetts and David Pollard of Penn State. It’s different from other alarms, and here’s why.
> 
> Deconto and Pollard aren’t projecting the future based only on the experience of the past few millennia. They’re projecting it with a computer model of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and of the Antarctic climate””that is, from the laws of physics.
> 
> Just a model, you might say, and translating those laws into an accurate model of an ice sheet is hard. True again: the problem has stumped scientists for decades. They’ve known that ice melts, and that if climate warms enough, the ice sheet will collapse at some point, dumping lot of water into the sea. But they’ve had trouble saying how much warmth is enough and how fast the collapse might proceed. No one has ever watched it happen.
> 
> The geologic record offers some test cases. Some 125,000 years ago, for instance, Earth was in an interglacial period, like the one we’re in now, a warm interlude between 100,000-year-long ice ages. The temperature then was about the same as it is today, a degree or two warmer at most. But the best evidence indicates sea level was at least 20 feet higher””which in itself is disconcerting, suggesting as it does that we might be poised on the brink of something big.
> 
> Where did 20 feet of water come from? The Greenland ice sheet contains more than enough, but it sits on land and can’t easily fall into the sea.
> 
> The West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough water to raise sea level 15 feet. And if you could strip away the ice and look at the bedrock, as scientists have done with airborne radar, you’d see how vulnerable it is: Most of the ice sits not on land but on the seabed. It’s a big dome of ice rising out of a seafloor basin, like a soufflÃ© out of a bowl. Beyond the submarine ridges that form the sloping sides of the basin, floating ice shelves extend out to sea. They act like buttresses, propping up the ice dome and keeping it from collapsing and washing away.
> 
> *Warm Air, Warm Ocean, Bad Juju*
> 
> Deconto and Pollard’s model shows how the West Antarctic ice could have collapsed 125,000 years ago, generating the high seas of the last interglacial. That lends credence to the model’s forecast for our future.
> 
> Three key processes are work, the researchers write. First, as the ocean warms, it melts the floating ice shelf from below, thinning and weakening it.
> 
> Second, as the atmosphere warms, it melts the ice shelf from above, generating pools that become crevasses that help break the shelf apart. Scientists saw this happen when the Larsen B ice shelf broke up in 2002, but their ice-sheet models hadn’t fully reflected the importance of the process.
> 
> And once the floating ice shelves are gone, and the warm ocean is lapping directly against the face of the grounded ice sheet, and the ice has retreated inside the submarine ridge that forms the edge of the basin, a third process kicks in. Because the seafloor slopes down toward the center of the basin and the ice dome, further retreat exposes an ever larger ice face to the warm water. That accelerates the melting.
> 
> Soon tall cliffs of ice are towering above the impinging waves. Meltwater is percolating down into the cliffs and weakening them. But even without the impinging and the percolating, there’s only so tall an ice cliff can get before it becomes unstable.
> 
> Richard Alley of Penn State, who collaborated with Deconto and Pollard on an earlier study, has flown along what may be the tallest ice cliff on Earth today, the face of the Jakobshavn glacier on the west coast of Greenland. It is 30 stories tall, he says, and contains 10-story-tall cracks. It is retreating rapidly, by calving giant icebergs, but still there are long periods of waiting between calving events, when the glacier is just slowly thinning and getting ready to launch another floating berg.
> 
> The Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica is far more massive than the Jakobshavn glacier. According to another alarming study published last year, it has already become unmoored from the 2,000-foot high submarine ridge that holds it in place. If it begins to retreat down the long slope toward the center of the ice sheet, the cliffs it would produce would be far taller than the Jakobshavn one””and probably not stable.
> 
> “Then, rather than break-wait-wait-wait-break, it might switch to break-wait-break or just break-break-break,” Alley says.
> 
> That’s what Deconto and Pollard’s model suggests could start happening to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by the second half of this century, if we don’t curb our carbon emissions: Just break-break-break.  And by 2100, when sea level had risen five or six feet, the breaking would have only just begun.
> 
> *Time to Yell ‘Fire’?*
> 
> If we burn all of our fossil fuel reserves, another study last September confirmed, we’ll melt the entire Antarctic and probably all the ice on Earth. (Check out maps showing what that would look like.)
> 
> “All of us are fully aware how wrong it is to falsely yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater,” Alley writes. “But we are also aware of how wrong it is to sit silently while a fire begins to spread in that theater.
> 
> “Right now, I do not believe humanity can continue with unchecked warming while confidently assuming that sea level rise will be limited to roughly three feet in a century. Instead, the recent modeling now favors the view that continuing rapid warming will cause sea level rise to be larger, and perhaps much larger, especially if we look beyond the end of this century.”
> 
> On the other hand, according to Deconto and Pollard, if we take vigorous steps to reduce our emissions””of which the steps promised by the recent Paris agreement are only the first””we could still save even the fragile West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Which means we could still save Miami. (Read about how Miami is facing up to the challenge.)
> 
> But that may just be the optimism talking.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/


----------



## basilio

*The scientific communities response to Climate Change denialism in the US Congress.  
Getting xxxxing real*



> *
> 31 scientific societies just told Congress to take their climate denial and shove it*
> 
> By Andrew Freedman
> Jun 30, 2016
> 
> Scientists have had enough of Congress' climate denial. On Tuesday, a whopping 31 major scientific groups ”” representing tens of thousands of researchers ”” delivered a joint letter to Capitol Hill to present a unified front on the seriousness of human-caused global warming and the need to address it.
> 
> The 3-page letter, which is a more forceful version of a 2009 letter to which 19 scientific societies signed on, comes as the House Science Committee continues to investigate peer reviewed studies of climate change.
> 
> SEE ALSO: Earth's hot streak continues with warmest May since at least 1880
> 
> It also landed on Congress' doorstep as House lawmakers are maneuvering to block the Pentagon from spending money to implement its plan to adapt to global warming and prepare for the more unstable world it is ushering in.
> 
> In addition, money to fund climate adaptation efforts in developing countries, which is a key part of the Paris Climate Agreement, is also on the chopping block in negotiations between the House and Senate.
> 
> The letter sends a powerful message to lawmakers that have been standing in the way of climate action.




http://mashable.com/2016/06/29/science-groups-statement-congress/#13OfYKNXoEqI


----------



## basilio

What is the US Militarys take on the consequences of Global Warming ?  Check it out.



> *New Climate & Security Film: The Age of Consequences*
> 
> A documentary is taking a new twist on climate change: THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES, to be released in late 2016, investigates the impacts of climate change, resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability. *Through unflinching and eye-opening analysis, distinguished admirals, generals, and Pentagon insiders take us beyond the headlines of the European refugee crisis, the conflict in Syria, the social unrest of the Arab Spring, the rise of radicalized groups like ISIS, and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict*. 2016-02-03-1454534734-6805341-synopsisphoto.png
> 
> Whether a long-term vulnerability or sudden shock, the film unpacks how water and food shortages, extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise function as accelerants of instability and catalysts for conflict. Left unchecked, these threats and risks will continue to grow in scale and frequency, with grave implications for peace and security in the 21st century.




*This documentary will be shown in Melb at the ACMI Centre on Tuesday 26th July at 6.30. *

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophie-robinson/new-climate-security-film_b_9153642.html


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> 
> Couple of points ?
> 
> 1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years    ... but
> 
> 2) Glaciology is a new science.  It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.
> ...



Those points alone look suspiciously like a confession to doubt regarding the level of confidence one can have in the certainty of this "new science".

In fact, it sounds suspiciously akin to a confession of the fact that the scientific understanding can be as changeable as the weather!

Hardly a sound basis for sweeping changes to our lifestyles and practices!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Those points alone look suspiciously like a confession to doubt regarding the level of confidence one can have in the certainty of this "new science".
> 
> In fact, it sounds suspiciously akin to a confession of the fact that the scientific understanding can be as changeable as the weather!
> 
> Hardly a sound basis for sweeping changes to our lifestyles and practices!




This I'd called sweeping changes:





This, not so much:


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> This I'd called sweeping changes:
> 
> View attachment 67472
> 
> 
> 
> This, not so much:
> 
> View attachment 67473




So cute luutzu. You do like your holy pictures!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So cute luutzu. You do like your holy pictures!




Seriously, how many of our lives will be turned upside down if our electricity is generated by solar farm and other cleaner sources?

Would be really be struggling if our cars are powered by electricity rather than gasoline? If we miss the vroom, vroom, there's an app for that.

But life can be unfair sometime... I mean, renewables may actually create new jobs and innovation; cleaner air to breathe... 

Just can't do it mate... got a good thing going being dependent on a finite resource that may or may not kill all of us... it sure kills a lot of poor people and Muslims though... maybe a few wildfire and ocean fishies here and there.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> My god you are so.so,* SO* delusional TS.  You are most certainly out of my reach.
> 
> Couple of points ?
> 
> 1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years    ... but
> 
> 2) Glaciology is a new science.  It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.
> *
> One thing for certain however. When the Arctic and Antarctic warm up the ice will melt.* That's just physics. And we are now seeing extended periods of higher temperatures in these regions and it is already clear that the ice caps are breaking up in ways that wern't even considered a few years ago. For instance it was initially thought that the caps would melt from above losing merely the top inches of ice cover.  Now scientists have discovered that in fact the warming oceans are rapidly undercutting the ice caps, melting the base of glaciers and speeding their movement to the sea.
> 
> *Coping with the melt*
> 
> 
> 
> *As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!
> *
> 
> Seriously ? For keeps ?  You somehow think that sea levels rises of even 50-80 cms can be kept back with walls?
> How big ? How far along the coast? How much money ?
> 
> *And most importantly HOW XXXING HIGH ?*
> 
> This is the crux of the issue. The one point you resolutely refuse to consider.  What is the best available information on the longer term sea levels as a consequence of global warming? Basically it has come from glaciologists that have been studying the structure of the West Antarctic ice cap and it's vulnerability to rapid breakdown.  What did they say ?
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/




Did not answer any of my questions .. just more HYSTERICAL monkey poo flinging.

You HYSTERICALLY claimed that the_ "global temperatures are rising at their fastest ever which will melt all the ice on the poles"_ but the link you provided evidenced that in the last 150,000 years the ice has melted faster and raised ocean levels 1.2 metres over 100 years. So if this is the fastest EVER that global temperatures have heated up then why oh why is sea levels rising 3mm per annum and IPCC predictions WORST CASE is 820mm in 84 years?

Compared to 12mm per annum for a 100 year period. It seems you are incapable of the most basic understanding of the FACTS>

You then backtracked with this irrational statement ..



> 1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years    ... but




Wait a minute ... you are now saying hundreds/thousand of years ??? What happened to we are all doomed by the end of the century and the ocean is going to rise 20 metres or more?

More HYSTERIA and little on FACTS as per usual. You have Flip Flopped for the last time and have shown your true colours I am afraid basilio. Carry on in the nice warm sunshine and watch yourself slowly sink into the quagmire of lies and tripe you are spilling out for everyone to digest.


----------



## basilio

The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast. But  ice sheets can't and won't melt at such a pace. Historically they have taken anything from hundreds to thousands of years to reflect the increase in global temperatures.  In fact it was this belief that ice sheets are relatively stable that gave climate scientists hope that even if/when the ice sheets melted it might be way into the future  even if that was 200 years away.

But new evidence, new facts has caused that theory to be revised. That is the basis of the National Geographic article which analyses these papers.

Because the past 50 years has seen such steep increases in temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic quite new mechanisms of ice melting have been noticed. *It is the evidence of these warm water flows under the ice caps and through the ice caps that gives glaciologists the concern that we face metres of sea level rise with the next 100 years rather than the longer time frame  previously believed.*

PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilization as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient


----------



## basilio

The IPCC worst case scenario of .82 met by 2100 had  minimal allowance for significant melting of the ice sheets.  The increase in sea levels was mostly glaciers and expansion of warming ocean. 

The concern about the quicker collapse of ice sheets has  increase in the past few years and crystallised in the past two years.  

That's progress ..


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Seriously, how many of our lives will be turned upside down if our electricity is generated by solar farm and other cleaner sources?
> 
> Would be really be struggling if our cars are powered by electricity rather than gasoline? If we miss the vroom, vroom, there's an app for that.
> 
> But life can be unfair sometime... I mean, renewables may actually create new jobs and innovation; cleaner air to breathe...
> 
> Just can't do it mate... got a good thing going being dependent on a finite resource that may or may not kill all of us... it sure kills a lot of poor people and Muslims though... maybe a few wildfire and ocean fishies here and there.




When you start having fewer overseas flights than I, and stop driving fossil fuelled motor vehicles, I might consider taking your stance more seriously. Until then, I put it to you that I have a far smaller carbon footprint than yourself, despite not being a member of your climate religion!


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> The IPCC worst case scenario of .82 met by 2100 had  minimal allowance for significant melting of the ice sheets.  The increase in sea levels was mostly glaciers and expansion of warming ocean.
> 
> The concern about the quicker collapse of ice sheets has  increase in the past few years and crystallised in the past two years.
> 
> That's progress ..




So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> When you start having fewer overseas flights than I, and stop driving fossil fuelled motor vehicles, I might consider taking your stance more seriously. Until then, I put it to you that I have a far smaller carbon footprint than yourself, despite not being a member of your climate religion!




yea, back to that "hypocrisy" argument are we.

Man, those scientists flying helicopters to isolated sites for their research; going on diesel powered ships 

Maybe they ought to walk and swim; write their research on clay tablet... then they can talk about carbon footprint.


By your logic, people concerned about polluted water should stop drinking; those complaining about raw sewage on their streets should stop taking a dump; those wanting a sensible solution to waste management shouldn't consume or use anything that produces waste.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!




"wrong" or evidence of them being more conservative and not "alarmist".


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> yea, back to that "hypocrisy" argument are we.
> 
> Man, those scientists flying helicopters to isolated sites for their research; going on diesel powered ships
> 
> Maybe they ought to walk and swim; write their research on clay tablet... then they can talk about carbon footprint.
> 
> 
> By your logic, people concerned about polluted water should stop drinking; those complaining about raw sewage on their streets should stop taking a dump; those wanting a sensible solution to waste management shouldn't consume or use anything that produces waste.




Talk is cheap luutzu!

If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> "wrong" or evidence of them being more conservative and not "alarmist".




No they got their worst case scenario wrong! Wrong is simply wrong! Conservatism is something else entirely.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *The scientific communities response to Climate Change denialism in the US Congress.
> Getting xxxxing real*
> 
> 
> 
> http://mashable.com/2016/06/29/science-groups-statement-congress/#13OfYKNXoEqI




How much is the United Nations contributing to these so called Scientific communities to falsify information and promote their propaganda in an effort to squash Deniers....It is all about the UN seeking World Government and they will stop at nothing to fulfill their aim and with our KEVVIE at the top who knows what will happen next. 

What a load of CLAP TRAP.......Lots of IFS and BUTS......MAYBE....COULD BE.....SUPPOSITION.....but in actual fact we are not really sure.

A nice video of a melting glacier with the time frame sped up to make it look worse than it really is.....Take a cruise up the Alaskan Coast and into Glacier Bay where you will see some 6 or 7 glaciers creeping into the sea with chunks of ice as big as a bus falling into the sea as has been happening for 1000's of years.....No doubt that video WAS taken in Glacier Bay....I have been there and have seen it with my own eyes and true to the video.

Nobody can deny the influence of the Sun plays a major part of Climate Change on Earth and other planets.


http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...ain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=paid outbrain


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!




In fact a number of commentators suggest that prior to release the IPPC reports are massaged down to satisfy the respective government lobby (oil cartels etc)  groups.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> In fact a number of commentators suggest that prior to release the IPPC reports are massaged down to satisfy the respective government lobby (oil cartels etc)  groups.




Well that only makes matters worse! 

Where is their credibility if they are incapable of reporting actual scientific findings rather than having to pander to the whims of others?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast. But  ice sheets can't and won't melt at such a pace. Historically they have taken anything from hundreds to thousands of years to reflect the increase in global temperatures.  In fact it was this belief that ice sheets are relatively stable that gave climate scientists hope that even if/when the ice sheets melted it might be way into the future  even if that was 200 years away.
> 
> But new evidence, new facts has caused that theory to be revised. That is the basis of the National Geographic article which analyses these papers.
> 
> Because the past 50 years has seen such steep increases in temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic quite new mechanisms of ice melting have been noticed. *It is the evidence of these warm water flows under the ice caps and through the ice caps that gives glaciologists the concern that we face metres of sea level rise with the next 100 years rather than the longer time frame  previously believed.*
> 
> PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilisation as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient




Still hasn't answered any of my questions and is now trying to weasel his way out of it by backtracking on previous statements of HYSTERIA and now is claiming other "mechanisms" are at play. PURE FALSEHOOD basilio.

You have been hoist with your own petard and proven to be a follower of the religion of CC and GW. Al Gore blesses you and the IPCC summons you to their Holy Tower of religious fervour. I can hear the bells tolling for you now.

You made rash statements about GW and CC and claiming polar ice caps would melt and the water would be 20 metres deep within 100 years. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP there goes basilio.

And your ridiculous statement ... 

*



			PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilisation as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient
		
Click to expand...


*
A sea level rise of 1 - 2 metres is going to destroy civilisation as we know it? REALLY basilio ??? Do you even read this nonsense you are drivelling? 

DESTROY CIVILISATION !!!

There is that better for you ?? 

But wait there is a solution that is being worked on already ...

_Sea water over the Sahara desert will evaporate due to the high temperatures. However, pumping sea water and releasing it underground within the Sahara desert may counteract global rising sea levels and promote vegetation amenable to high temperatures that may in turn reduce warm air streams that would otherwise result in eastern super storms or hurricanes. The local vegetation may also lead to sustainability in agriculture and a means by which future well water from moisture of plants can manifest. Funding is needed for initial pumps and piping as well as initial planting for propagation of vegetation. Well water will take time to establish but some sea water pumps can be diverted toward desalination facilities for immediate use of water where necessary. 
_
ADAPTATION !!

PS You have completely ignored the FACT you have been caught out with your own HYSTERIA !


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Talk is cheap luutzu!
> 
> If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!




Beside Jesus Christ himself, show me a religious person who practise what he preaches. ha ha

Serious man, we've gone through this before... people who raise the issue of CC and the danger it poses - they do it, aside from the obvious fact that they can read and think and care about the world their grandkids or their neighbours' inherit... beside that, they also raise the alarm bell because they do use, do enjoy, do want the life that's made better by advances in technology... tech like, planes, cars, trains, boats, air conditioners.

It's them liking it, wanting others to live in a world that could provide such... that they raise the issue. Ey, the world as we know it cannot be polluted; oi, there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.

No climate fanatics say stop all these tech and good living stuff and get back to living like it was 5000BC. 

Maybe it's not "us" that are hypocritical... maybe it's those who want to live and enjoy the good things in life, yet at the same time don't give two shiet about what an overwhelming number of knowledgable scientists are warning... maybe those are the hypocrits. 

But naaaa... you travel man, you shouldn't talk about fossil fuel.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Beside Jesus Christ himself, show me a religious person who practise what he preaches. ha ha
> 
> Serious man, we've gone through this before... people who raise the issue of CC and the danger it poses - they do it, aside from the obvious fact that they can read and think and care about the world their grandkids or their neighbours' inherit... beside that, they also raise the alarm bell because they do use, do enjoy, do want the life that's made better by advances in technology... tech like, planes, cars, trains, boats, air conditioners.
> 
> It's them liking it, wanting others to live in a world that could provide such... that they raise the issue. Ey, the world as we know it cannot be polluted; oi, there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.
> 
> No climate fanatics say stop all these tech and good living stuff and get back to living like it was 5000BC.
> 
> Maybe it's not "us" that are hypocritical... maybe it's those who want to live and enjoy the good things in life, yet at the same time don't give two shiet about what an overwhelming number of knowledgable scientists are warning... maybe those are the hypocrits.
> 
> But naaaa... you travel man, you shouldn't talk about fossil fuel.




My house does not feature an air conditioner. I have never driven a motor vehicle other than my ride on lawn mower. My house is surrounded by trees and foliage.

In my entire life I have made a total of three domestic flights -two of which were business related.

Now explain to me again why I should believe in your commitment to your religion?


----------



## trainspotter

OMFG I just read this on a basilio post ...

*



			A documentary is taking a new twist on climate change: THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES, to be released in late 2016, investigates the impacts of climate change, resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability. Through unflinching and eye-opening analysis, distinguished admirals, generals, and Pentagon insiders take us beyond the headlines of the European refugee crisis, the conflict in Syria, the social unrest of the Arab Spring, the rise of radicalized groups like ISIS, and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict.

Whether a long-term vulnerability or sudden shock, the film unpacks how water and food shortages, extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise function as accelerants of instability and catalysts for conflict. Left unchecked, these threats and risks will continue to grow in scale and frequency, with grave implications for peace and security in the 21st century and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict.

Click to expand...


*
SO climate change is now under the eagle eye of the War Machine because it causes societal tensions? REALLY !!!





Yep .... when it is winter and rains too much and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is summer and too hot and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is autumn and it is too windy and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is spring and it is glorious and the birds are singing and everything is alive and ... what is cabin fever again?


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.




Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.

Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).

Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.

We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.

Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast.




Apart from the El nino, which is breaking down, these fast rises are only after revisions. An artificial construction by alarmists.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.
> 
> Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).
> 
> Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.
> 
> We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.
> 
> Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....




None are so blind, as those, who don't want to see.

The reality, will come crashing down, around their ears. IMO lol


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> My house does not feature an air conditioner. I have never driven a motor vehicle other than my ride on lawn mower. My house is surrounded by trees and foliage.
> 
> In my entire life I have made a total of three domestic flights -two of which were business related.
> 
> Now explain to me again why I should believe in your commitment to your religion?




If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.

Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be. 

By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?

You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.


----------



## basilio

> A sea level rise of 1 - 2 metres is going to destroy civilisation as we know it? REALLY basilio ??? Do you even read this nonsense you are drivelling?  basilio




2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence  of  key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)

So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere.  Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ?  Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?

Say goodbye to

Brisbane,  Shanghai.  Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg,  The Nile  Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London,  Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng,  and  lots and lots more.

But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres *it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time*.

So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line,  5 metre Line,  10 metre line?  Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.  

Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> 2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence  of  key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)
> 
> So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere.  Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ?  Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?
> 
> Say goodbye to
> 
> Brisbane,  Shanghai.  Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg,  The Nile  Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London,  Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng,  and  lots and lots more.
> 
> But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres *it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time*.
> 
> So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line,  5 metre Line,  10 metre line?  Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.
> 
> Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
> http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/
> 
> This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.
> 
> http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise




Bas, you had better start building your Noah's  ark now before it is too late...


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.
> 
> Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
> Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be.
> 
> By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?
> 
> You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.




What the FTSE has my toilet got to do with your religion?

Oh don't tell me! Let me guess! They're both full of it! Right?!


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> 2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence  of  key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)
> 
> So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere.  Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ?  Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?
> 
> Say goodbye to
> 
> Brisbane,  Shanghai.  Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg,  The Nile  Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London,  Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng,  and  lots and lots more.
> 
> But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres *it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time*.
> 
> So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line,  5 metre Line,  10 metre line?  Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.
> 
> Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
> http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/
> 
> This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.
> 
> http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise




So you have gone from HYSTERICAL claims of 20 metres and the destruction of civilisation as we know it to possible 2 metres sea level rise and some cities become uninhabitable over a 100 year period?

And in your own words ...



> 1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. *Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but*




I do not see why ALL the people would have to abandon the cities, only the low lying parts would be effected and the inhabitants would ADAPT and SURVIVE. OR engineers will design and contractors will build tidal surge barriers, wharves, water displacement canals, sea barriers and dykes etc. Which is going on right now basilio if you care to look. 

Google _"Mose flood barrier project"_ and educate yourself a little whilst you are at it 

Then you come out with this GEM of a statement ...



> Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent?




Nothing to do with global warming but more of a Greenie _"save the aboriginal gay whales"_ kinda stance 

Your shrill hysterical claims from the Guardian and such media outlets have worn thin basilio when faced with some FACTS and logic. I am still waiting for a sensible response for the Q's I posed earlier but alas alack I am sure you will choose to ignore reality and continue on in your blinkered myopic ways.

I am still getting the dead salmon out of the heat exchange inlet pipe of a 1930's steamship using a mercury thermometer to figure out that the oceans are warming


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> What the FTSE has my toilet got to do with your religion?
> 
> Oh don't tell me! Let me guess! They're both full of it! Right?!




Walk through your logic dude.

What you're saying is that since you don't have much of a carbon footprint, you're not responsible for, and do not care about, the cause and consequences of CC.

That's like walking down a street full of raw sewage, you just wade through it and not raise any issue because... well, because those aren't your shiet and so why should you or anyone care about the street being clean.

That's how ridiculous your thinking is if we replace carbon footprint with raw sewage.


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.
> 
> Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).
> 
> Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.
> 
> We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.
> 
> Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....




Yea, the world won't be able to completely get off of fossil any time soon; and some area are harder and all that... but there are alternatives right now, and there will be alternatives if we start putting serious effort into it.

I mean, household solar panels costs a fortune a decade or so back, they're very cheap and quite affordable now. Battery and storage like Tesla's wallpack weren't even available until recently.

With some incentives, more R&D, more investment, and more uptake of just these two options alone, we could economically power at least half of household electricity need all year. The other half? Some solar farm in the US could provide power more cheaply than gas-powered station already.

Imagine the rate of progress and what new alternatives we can come up with if CC is taken seriously. But yea, slowly does it... we got another hundred years.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Yea, the world won't be able to completely get off of fossil any time soon; and some area are harder and all that... but there are alternatives right now, and there will be alternatives if we start putting serious effort into it.
> 
> I mean, household solar panels costs a fortune a decade or so back, they're very cheap and quite affordable now. Battery and storage like Tesla's wallpack weren't even available until recently.
> 
> With some incentives, more R&D, more investment, and more uptake of just these two options alone, we could economically power at least half of household electricity need all year. The other half? Some solar farm in the US could provide power more cheaply than gas-powered station already.
> 
> Imagine the rate of progress and what new alternatives we can come up with if CC is taken seriously. But yea, slowly does it... we got another hundred years.




Ummm you might want to do some research luutzu 

In Australia to name a few ...



> *A $650 million wind farm with 96 turbines will be built in Victoria's southwest, making it the largest in the state.*
> 
> The approval of the Dundonnell project means 300 direct and indirect jobs will be created during construction, and the turbines will generate 1000Gwh of clean energy each year.
> "There's nothing ugly about wind farms, because there's nothing ugly about jobs. The world is shifting to renewable energy and Victoria can't get left behind," Premier Daniel Andrews said on Tuesday.




http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/61347-new-$650m-vic-wind-farm-approved.html

_South Australia has the highest per capita take up of household solar power in Australia. The first commercial-scale PV power plant was opened in 2011, the Uterne Solar Power Station, a 1 MW capacity grid-connected solar photovoltaic system located 5 km south of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory._

Around the world ...

_As of November 2014, Topaz Solar Farm was the largest PV solar plant in the world at 550 MWAC in central coast area and a second 550-MW plant, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is located in the far eastern desert region of Riverside County, California._

_The Alta Wind Energy Center in California, United States is the largest onshore wind farm outside of China, with a capacity of 1,020 MW. As of April 2013, the 630 MW London Array in the UK is the largest offshore wind farm in the world, followed by the 504 MW Greater Gabbard wind farm in the UK.
_

So you see there are steps being taken to transition over to clean energy once the nasty Co2 and oil runs out.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Walk through your logic dude.
> 
> What you're saying is that since you don't have much of a carbon footprint, you're not responsible for, and do not care about, the cause and consequences of CC.
> 
> That's like walking down a street full of raw sewage, you just wade through it and not raise any issue because... well, because those aren't your shiet and so why should you or anyone care about the street being clean.
> 
> That's how ridiculous your thinking is if we replace carbon footprint with raw sewage.




I said nothing of the sort whatsoever! 

What I did say was:



cynic said:


> Talk is cheap luutzu!
> 
> If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I said nothing of the sort whatsoever!
> 
> What I did say was:




Obviously you didn't think you said such thing. But like I said, walk through your argument and see how crazy it is.


Stop straw manning dude. I'm not a climate scientist or climate warrior. Maybe just one of those who thought that ey, maybe the experts who study these stuff actually know stuff.


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Ummm you might want to do some research luutzu
> 
> In Australia to name a few ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/61347-new-$650m-vic-wind-farm-approved.html
> 
> _South Australia has the highest per capita take up of household solar power in Australia. The first commercial-scale PV power plant was opened in 2011, the Uterne Solar Power Station, a 1 MW capacity grid-connected solar photovoltaic system located 5 km south of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory._
> 
> Around the world ...
> 
> _As of November 2014, Topaz Solar Farm was the largest PV solar plant in the world at 550 MWAC in central coast area and a second 550-MW plant, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is located in the far eastern desert region of Riverside County, California._
> 
> _The Alta Wind Energy Center in California, United States is the largest onshore wind farm outside of China, with a capacity of 1,020 MW. As of April 2013, the 630 MW London Array in the UK is the largest offshore wind farm in the world, followed by the 504 MW Greater Gabbard wind farm in the UK.
> _
> 
> So you see there are steps being taken to transition over to clean energy once the nasty Co2 and oil runs out.




Key word was seriousness of the investment effort.

Solar panel tech was developed way back in the 1950s for the Space programmes. Didn't really pick up or made much of until recently, right?

Most of the advances and cost reduction are due to China's gov't incentives and uptake - to diversify their energy mix since they're a bit late to the geopolitical party.

Anyway, how serious is that $650M wind turbine project compares to $150B new LNG projects in Australia?


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Key word was seriousness of the investment effort.
> 
> Solar panel tech was developed way back in the 1950s for the Space programmes. Didn't really pick up or made much of until recently, right?
> 
> Most of the advances and cost reduction are due to China's gov't incentives and uptake - to diversify their energy mix since they're a bit late to the geopolitical party.
> 
> Anyway, how serious is that $650M wind turbine project compares to $150B new LNG projects in Australia?
> 
> View attachment 67478




Not just Australia luutzu .... DYOR on how much it cost to build the London array wind farm


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Not just Australia luutzu .... DYOR on how much it cost to build the London array wind farm




I'm sure it costs hundreds of millions. Miniscule compare to new investment in fossil though right?


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> Walk through your logic dude.
> 
> What you're saying is that since you don't have much of a carbon footprint, you're not responsible for, and do not care about, the cause and consequences of CC.
> 
> That's like walking down a street full of raw sewage, you just wade through it and not raise any issue because... well, because those aren't your shiet and so why should you or anyone care about the street being clean.
> 
> That's how ridiculous your thinking is if we replace carbon footprint with raw sewage.



Doesn't that make the actions of Leo and the chief alarmists even more heinous.

Double stsndard there grasshopper


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> I'm sure it costs hundreds of millions. Miniscule compare to new investment in fossil though right?




Ummm hundreds of billions of dollars for the London array to keep the UK powered into the future.

If you have a look at what is happening globally a LOT of fossil fuel companies are delaying or winding back exploration. But you knew that right?


----------



## luutzu

trainspotter said:


> Ummm hundreds of billions of dollars for the London array to keep the UK powered into the future.
> 
> If you have a look at what is happening globally a LOT of fossil fuel companies are delaying or winding back exploration. But you knew that right?




Yea, they're winding back due to low oil prices right?

Guess how many new alternative energy projects are cancelled too.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Doesn't that make the actions of Leo and the chief alarmists even more heinous.
> 
> Double stsndard there grasshopper




I'm sure Leo would fly around in solar powered jets if it's available. Til then, fossil powered jets it is.

Would it be better if Leo jet around and said nothing about CC? Seriously?

Again, raising concerns and attention to CC does not mean telling us to stop civilisation - it's telling us that ey, look into alternatives, we can't go on like this... and, and we like and enjoy all these we're having. 

It's like getting from A to B... anway..


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I'm sure Leo would fly around in solar powered jets if it's available. Til then, fossil powered jets it is.
> 
> Would it be better if Leo jet around and said nothing about CC? Seriously?
> 
> Again, raising concerns and attention to CC does not mean telling us to stop civilisation - it's telling us that ey, look into alternatives, we can't go on like this... and, and we like and enjoy all these we're having.
> 
> It's like getting from A to B... anway..




Leo could travel cattle class and thereby set an example of "walking the walk" rather than merely "talking the talk".

His hypocritical actions drowned out his words with the exact opposite message!

So yes, his grandstanding did the AGW alarmism cause a great disservice.

Thankyou Leo for making the task of the climate skeptics soooo much easier!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Leo could travel cattle class and thereby set an example of "walking the walk" rather than merely "talking the talk".
> 
> His hypocritical actions drowned out his words with the exact opposite message!
> 
> So yes, his grandstanding did the AGW alarmism cause a great disservice.
> 
> Thankyou Leo for making the task of the climate skeptics soooo much easier!




Sooo...

A person who has minimal carbon footprint, such as yourself, shouldn't care about CC because your footprint is so small it's not your fault.

But, also...

A person who jets around and have a massive carbon footprint... they still shouldn't talk about it because... because they have a big footprint?



Gotta pick a consistent point to argue from Cryptic Monk.

Add to this... Scientists whose speciality is on climate science shouldn't talk about climate change either - because they're obviously biased.

Concerned citizens shouldn't talk about it, or believe scientists, or do anything about CC because.... 

what have you been smoking?


----------



## cynic

cynic said:


> Talk is cheap luutzu!
> 
> If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!




Luutzu. Exactly which part of my post didn't you understand!

Oh, don't  tell me let me guess!

The part that confronts the climate preacher with their own elite brand of hypocrisy!

Happy to preach to others what they can do, but when asked to demonstrate some actual commitment to the cause with some personal sacrifice, one is promptly inundated with excuses, excuses, excuses!

Now would you please stop distorting my posts and start practicising what you are preaching or shut the FTSE up!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Luutzu. Exactly which part of my post didn't you understand!
> 
> Oh, don't  tell me let me guess!
> 
> The part that confronts the climate preacher with their own elite brand of hypocrisy!
> 
> Happy to preach to others what they can do, but when asked to demonstrate some actual commitment to the cause with some personal sacrifice, one is promptly inundated with excuses, excuses, excuses!
> 
> Now would you please stop distorting my posts and start practicising what you are preaching or shut the FTSE up!




Sooo... doctors shouldn't advise people to eat healthily unless that doctor does not eat at all?

Oohhh... doctors should only recommend healthy diets if they themselves are also on healthy diets. Got it.

The fact that a healthy diet is good for the patient is irrelevant. What is important is the doctor practise what they preach. Kinda like a four year old not able to comprehend the message but copy-catting what the parent does ey.

So OK. Only those with a Tesla PowerWall pack, electric vehicle (or train/tram/bicycle/walk) or otherwise goes off the grid... only those are able to talk about carbon and its impact on CC.

But wait a minute... climate scientists and their minions are not, not, telling the world to switch off the grid. Not right now, not even ever. They're telling the world that the way these grids are powered, the way we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere... these greatly contributes to CC and the result of full steam ahead like there's no tomorrow.

That is, to keep our current standard of living - find alternative sources to power it. 

That is, such alternatives do exists... and, and our standard of living might actually improved from it.


Anyway, there's 16 pieces of solar panels on my roof. Does that count?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> ...
> Anyway, there's 16 pieces of solar panels on my roof. Does that count?




That's a start. 

Why the recent overseas trip luutzu?  Aren't you concerned for the welfare of your planet?

Or is that too much of a personal sacrifice for your cause?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> That's a start.
> 
> Why the recent overseas trip luutzu?  Aren't you concerned for the welfare of your planet?
> 
> Or is that too much of a personal sacrifice for your cause?




I'm telling you what I'll tell my four year old: do as I say, not as I do.





You guys have got to come up with better argument against climate science than these kill the messenger stuff man. They're pretty weak.

btw, I thought those who care for the planet and the welfare of its parasites are the ones being "alarmist" about its health and the consequences from that. They might even care more about life going on as it is with all these alarmist science and facts.

No?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I'm telling you what I'll tell my four year old: do as I say, not as I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have got to come up with better argument against climate science than these kill the messenger stuff man. They're pretty weak.
> 
> btw, I thought those who care for the planet and the welfare of its parasites are the ones being "alarmist" about its health and the consequences from that. They might even care more about life going on as it is with all these alarmist science and facts.
> 
> No?




Myself and others on this thread have raised a number of scientifically and logically valid questions concerning the pro alarmism claims being made. Those questions continue to remain unaddressed!

Actions speak louder than words! Anyone can preach any religion and falsely claim that the truth, facts, or other deities are on their side!

As I keep saying: "Talk is cheap!"


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Myself and others on this thread have raised a number of scientifically and logically valid questions concerning the pro alarmism claims being made. Those questions continue to remain unaddressed!
> 
> Actions speak louder than words! Anyone can preach any religion and falsely claim that the truth, facts, or other deities are on their side!
> 
> As I keep saying: "Talk is cheap!"




I know right?

As cheap as university degrees  + years and decades of scientific research on the matter; as cheap as so-called Scientific organisations and them rocket scientists and their number crunching and fancy satellites. 

I'll take my climate science from the Wall Street Journal and Fortune Magazine any day. There, reading the opinions of their "journalist", I can be sure no undue influence from business interests would ever take place.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I know right?
> 
> As cheap as university degrees  + years and decades of scientific research on the matter; as cheap as so-called Scientific organisations and them rocket scientists and their number crunching and fancy satellites.
> 
> I'll take my climate science from the Wall Street Journal and Fortune Magazine any day. There, reading the opinions of their "journalist", I can be sure no undue influence from business interests would ever take place.




So am I to understand that universities offer infallibility to their patrons?

Wonderful. Perhaps some of those graduates would like to furnish some answers to the outstanding questions posed on this thread.

Any takers? Anyone?


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> I'm sure Leo would fly around in solar powered jets if it's available. Til then, fossil powered jets it is.
> 
> Would it be better if Leo jet around and said nothing about CC? Seriously?
> 
> Again, raising concerns and attention to CC does not mean telling us to stop civilisation - it's telling us that ey, look into alternatives, we can't go on like this... and, and we like and enjoy all these we're having.
> 
> It's like getting from A to B... anway..




The attempted sophistry is so bad it's UNsophist.

Please, grasshopper, don't insult our intelligence.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So am I to understand that universities offer infallibility to their patrons?
> 
> Wonderful. Perhaps some of those graduates would like to furnish some answers to the outstanding questions posed on this thread.
> 
> Any takers? Anyone?




I think those scientists actually studies and practises real science, not the bs economics and financial "sciences".

So while they might not be as bright as those giving opinions in the financial presses... you know, they sometime wear white coats and do lab work too. Gotta take people like that somewhat seriously. Haven't those toothpastes and Ford commercial shown us anything?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> The attempted sophistry is so bad it's UNsophist.
> 
> Please, grasshopper, don't insult our intelligence.




I know Sifu... but it's better than my cursing. I only know like two curse words to go with a war-face.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I think those scientists actually studies and practises real science, not the bs economics and financial "sciences".
> 
> So while they might not be as bright as those giving opinions in the financial presses... you know, they sometime wear white coats and do lab work too. Gotta take people like that somewhat seriously. Haven't those toothpastes and Ford commercial shown us anything?




Whoopee! They've actually done some lab work! That's great! 

I did some lab work and wore a coat when I was at school also!

Does that grant my utterances infallibility and immunity from any and all challenges?

You went to university didn't you lutzuu?

Perhaps you can answer some of the questions posed by T.S. recently?

Or if you'd prefer something easier , maybe my questions surrounding the changes to isotopic carbon ratios and their causation.


----------



## basilio

Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by  Wayne, Cynic TS and co.

It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".

If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of  "corrupted" meteorologists.

If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past -  again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.

If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics)  that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many  metres... *Well that just isn't going to happen is it ? 
*

And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.

*It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around  Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.*


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by  Wayne, Cynic TS and co.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".
> 
> If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of  "corrupted" meteorologists.
> 
> If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past -  again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.
> 
> If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics)  that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many  metres... *Well that just isn't going to happen is it ?
> *
> 
> And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.
> 
> *It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around  Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.*



Basilio , with all these materials at your disposal and your immutable faith in same, why are you unable to furnish answers to the questions that have been raised by those that you have chosen to vehemently rebuke?


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Basilio , with all these materials at your disposal and your immutable faith in same, why are you unable to furnish answers to the questions that have been raised by those that you have chosen to vehemently rebuke?




I have laid out the case for the cause, effects and likely future consequences of human propelled global warming ad nauseam. Just go back over my posts on this forum. ( I remember being particularly careful in my earlier posts. )

Repeating them again to the same people who simple refuse to accept the credibility of the science and the scientists behind these comments is a waste of time.


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> OR engineers will design and contractors will build tidal surge barriers, wharves, water displacement canals, sea barriers and dykes etc.




The issue there is cost. Sure, we can design and build things, no question about that. But looking at the likely cost, well it makes all recent debate about things such as the NBN, health funding etc seem rather trivial.

Australia might be able to afford to do it in Sydney if we all share the cost. Then we've also got to spend $ tens of billions in Tasmania too. And a few more $ billions in SA. Another few $ billion in Melbourne. More $ billions in towns along the NSW coast. Heaven knows how many hundred $ billion in Qld but it will be an outright fortune for sure. More $ billions for WA and more for the NT too.

Ends up being a significant % of GDP diverted each and every year. Some will be happy, others not so happy, about that. Realistically, increased taxation is the only way we'll pay for it, the question being how to apply a substantial new tax raising $ billions each year without killing the economy in the process.

Switching to alternatives is largely a capitalist response, those who create the problem incur the cost of fixing it and do so directly.

Adaptation is in practice almost certainly ends up as a socialist response. A tax on everyone to pay for the engineering works etc regardless of whether someone personally benefits or not. That's the most likely outcome, simply because those who need it can't afford to pay the full cost (and largely aren't the ones who caused it in the first place).


----------



## Macquack

luutzu said:


> If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.
> 
> Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
> Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be.
> 
> By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?
> 
> You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.




By Jesus, I love you work luutzu. 

All your stuff is gold and you can take the piss out of yourself to boot.

If you have ever seen the comedian Jim Jefferies, you could write some awesome material for him. Stuff that questions the norm, can be extremely funny and biting at the same time.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> I have laid out the case for the cause, effects and likely future consequences of human propelled global warming ad nauseam. Just go back over my posts on this forum. ( I remember being particularly careful in my earlier posts. )
> 
> Repeating them again to the same people who simple refuse to accept the credibility of the science and the scientists behind these comments is a waste of time.




If that's the case then why do recent questions challenging your case remain unanswered?

And if posting here is such a waste of time, then why do you do so much of it?


----------



## basilio

Probably the main points I have ever wanted to get across are

1) *The role of  Risk Analysis. * No one, no one ever has all the information upon which to make a decision. In business, personally, as a country, as an engineer we weigh up the best of our current knowledge and attempt to assess what risks we might be running with certain actions. As a concrete example an aeroplane designer will allow only the smallest risks of failure in his engineering and almost certainly will have multiple failsafe measures in place to ensure a plane doesn't fall apart.

On all current knowledge CC is real and already creating demonstrable effects. The  risk and consequences of even more dangerous future outcomes should be sufficient to create the case for full scale preventative action.  It would certainly be the case in any other field of endeavour.

2)* Taking no regret actions. * There are a score of actions society can take or mandate that would create a better and safer future in their own right. These actions would also act to reduce GG emissions. But so what ? Why not just decide we wanted to improve our world in the following ways

   a)* Embark on a world wide effort to move to clean, renewable energy sources.* These would clean the air, dramatically reduce the toxic effects of smoke and particle inhalation. It would ensure long term energy security dramatically reducing the risk of a whole of society failure when fossil fuels inevitably run down.

   b)* Restore vast areas of land to forests (not monoculture)* .  Trees are the lungs of the earth and the forests the source of an infinite variety of life. Why not recreate such valuable resources  especially if they can cool the earth and reduce our CO2 levels.?

   c) *Protect the areas of forests currently remaining.* Why are we allowing rainforests to be destroyed at rates  threaten to change entire climates in South America and Asia ? It's just madness.

   d) *Encourage simplicity of lifestyle*. Our economic world, our economic model is based on relentless, mindless consumption. Does more and more stuff make people any happier ? What are the effects of this relentless obsolescent consumerism on the environment?  I suggest such a paradigm change would improve the quality of peoples lives and make a huge difference to the environment (as well as reducing GG emissions) 

I'm sure others could add some similar thoughts on changes of direction that would certainly improve the quality of peoples lives ( and make an impact on CC)


----------



## CanOz

basilio said:


> Probably the main points I have ever wanted to get across are
> 
> 1) *The role of  Risk Analysis. * No one, no one ever has all the information upon which to make a decision. In business, personally, as a country, as an engineer we weigh up the best of our current knowledge and attempt to assess what risks we might be running with certain actions. As a concrete example an aeroplane designer will allow only the smallest risks of failure in his engineering and almost certainly will have multiple failsafe measures in place to ensure a plane doesn't fall apart.
> 
> On all current knowledge CC is real and already creating demonstrable effects. The  risk and consequences of even more dangerous future outcomes should be sufficient to create the case for full scale preventative action.  It would certainly be the case in any other field of endeavour.
> 
> 2)* Taking no regret actions. * There are a score of actions society can take or mandate that would create a better and safer future in their own right. These actions would also act to reduce GG emissions. But so what ? Why not just decide we wanted to improve our world in the following ways
> 
> a)* Embark on a world wide effort to move to clean, renewable energy sources.* These would clean the air, dramatically reduce the toxic effects of smoke and particle inhalation. It would ensure long term energy security dramatically reducing the risk of a whole of society failure when fossil fuels inevitably fun down.
> 
> b)* Restore vast areas of land to forests (not monoculture)* .  Trees are the lungs of the earth and the forests the source of an infinite variety of life. Why not recreate such valuable resources  especially if they can cool the earth and reduce our CO2 levels.?
> 
> c) *Protect the areas of forests currently remaining.* Why are we allowing rainforests to be destroyed at rates  threaten to change entire climates in South America and Asia ? It's just madness.
> 
> d) *Encourage simplicity of lifestyle*. Our economic world, our economic model is based on relentless, mindless consumption. Does more and more stuff make people any happier ? What are the effects of this relentless obsolescent consumerism on the environment?  I suggest such a paradigm change would improve the quality of peoples lives and make a huge difference to the environment (as well as reducing GG emissions)
> 
> I'm sure others could add some similar thoughts on changes of direction that would certainly improve the quality of peoples lives ( and make an impact on CC)




I'm all for that, I'm totally with it!


----------



## basilio

> Stable and Radiocarbon Isotopes of Carbon Dioxide
> The Data: The Story Told from CO2 Samples
> A Mosaic of Stories
> 
> Different sources of carbon dioxide have their own, unique isotopic fingerprints. However, the story of a sample of carbon dioxide becomes more complex when carbon dioxide from many different sources mix together in the atmosphere. While carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels does not have 14C, and carbon dioxide from terrestrial plants has less 13C than from the ocean, an air sample contains carbon dioxide from all of these sources. The story becomes even more complicated because the ratio of isotopes in the mixture also reflects how much atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up from different sinks. Therefore, an air sample will show the effect of all these different components–each with their unique characteristic isotopic fingerprints.




Just keep reading to see the point.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Just keep reading to see the point.
> 
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html




I have already examined that site and raised several questions regarding the conclusions drawn from changes to the isotopic carbon ratios.

To date none of the alarmists on this thread has bothered to furnish an answer!

Are the correlations between isotopic carbon ratio change and their causation a one to one relationship?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by  Wayne, Cynic TS and co.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".
> 
> If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of  "corrupted" meteorologists.
> 
> If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past -  again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.
> 
> If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics)  that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many  metres... *Well that just isn't going to happen is it ?
> *
> 
> And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.
> 
> *It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around  Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.*




Still waiting ... 
	

		
			
		

		
	





FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP  basilio !


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue there is cost. Sure, we can design and build things, no question about that. But looking at the likely cost, well it makes all recent debate about things such as the NBN, health funding etc seem rather trivial.
> 
> Australia might be able to afford to do it in Sydney if we all share the cost. Then we've also got to spend $ tens of billions in Tasmania too. And a few more $ billions in SA. Another few $ billion in Melbourne. More $ billions in towns along the NSW coast. Heaven knows how many hundred $ billion in Qld but it will be an outright fortune for sure. More $ billions for WA and more for the NT too.
> 
> Ends up being a significant % of GDP diverted each and every year. Some will be happy, others not so happy, about that. Realistically, increased taxation is the only way we'll pay for it, the question being how to apply a substantial new tax raising $ billions each year without killing the economy in the process.
> 
> Switching to alternatives is largely a capitalist response, those who create the problem incur the cost of fixing it and do so directly.
> 
> Adaptation is in practice almost certainly ends up as a socialist response. A tax on everyone to pay for the engineering works etc regardless of whether someone personally benefits or not. That's the most likely outcome, simply because those who need it can't afford to pay the full cost (and largely aren't the ones who caused it in the first place).




It is already working in other parts of the world so why not here? 



> MOSE (MOdulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico, Experimental Electromechanical Module) is a project intended to protect the city of Venice, Italy, and the Venetian Lagoon from flooding. The project is an integrated system consisting of rows of mobile gates installed at the Lido, Malamocco and Chioggia inlets that are able to temporarily isolate the Venetian Lagoon from the Adriatic Sea during high tides. Together with other measures such as coastal reinforcement, the raising of quaysides, and the paving and improvement of the lagoon, MOSE is designed to protect Venice and the lagoon from tides of up to 3 metres (9.8 ft).




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project

Bueller ... Bueller  ...


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by  Wayne, Cynic TS and co.




Answer the questions I have posed GODDAMMIT !!


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Answer the questions I have posed GODDAMMIT !!




I have TS.  You just don't like the answers mate..

__________________________________________________  ___________________

Found an interesting video from Judith Curry called  "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster."

All very interesting and I even found some points to agree with. There were however observations she made that didn't sit right with most other climate scientists.  

There was a comment which in my view summed up the presentation and the discussion.



> You know this uncertainty argument is very misunderstood. One thing Curry never talks about is the risk magnitude. Yes there are uncertainties on how bad it can get, how fast it can get bad, or simply can it even get bad at all. Here's the deal there Ms Curry. You have to 1st consider the potential magnitude. If we were talking about the possibility of G.E. blenders blowing circuits then we could relax and wait for 100% certainty. But when the possibility is mass extinction, then you take no chances at all. Even if certainty(probability)  is only 1 percent that catastrophic impacts could happen cuz of human behavior, then humans, being the most intelligent species in the known universe, should do what ever is possible to change that behavior. Simple common sense..


----------



## cynic

Yikes! The boogey man has changed its name! 

Run for the hills everyone or the  "uncertainty monster"'s gonna getcha all!


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> It is already working in other parts of the world so why not here?




Cost.

We've got a huge area versus relatively few people so the cost per person is almost certain to be larger than most other countries.

Also we've got a bit of a focus on balanced budgets in Australia that's not going to sit too well with spending this sort of money.


----------



## wayneL

For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf


----------



## cynic

wayneL said:


> For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf




It's interesting how the centuries examined have oscillated between warmer and colder extremes. Could it be that there is a larger natural cycle in play, one that features an alternation between colder and warmer centuries?

Naturally more than 4 centuries of data would be required to thoroughly test this angle, but it will be interesting to see if the 21st century turns out to be colder than the 20th.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I have TS.  You just don't like the answers mate..
> 
> __________________________________________________  ___________________
> 
> Found an interesting video from Judith Curry called  "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster."
> 
> All very interesting and I even found some points to agree with. There were however observations she made that didn't sit right with most other climate scientists.
> 
> There was a comment which in my view summed up the presentation and the discussion.





Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh ignorance is bliss in basilios world ... I am off to the bottom of the garden to play with the fairies ...Tra la la tra la la la, tra la la, tra la la la, tra la la tra la la la.

I have noticed in this modern age that the way to respond to something is to just ignore it in the hope it will go away. You know when the dog craps in the room behind the couch and everyone can smell it but no one wants to deal with it you just ignore it kind of thing and spray air freshner around.

And then change the subject ... well played basilio you are fitting my profile of you like a glove.

Still have not answered a single Q that has been posed. You got confused with your own HYSTERIA and started spouting opposite views to your mandate. When pulled up on it you FLIP FLOPPED at first, then ignored it and now you have changed the subject.

10/10 for confirming my position on your views of HYSTERIA bordering on MANIA.


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Cost.
> 
> We've got a huge area versus relatively few people so the cost per person is almost certain to be larger than most other countries.
> 
> Also we've got a bit of a focus on balanced budgets in Australia that's not going to sit too well with spending this sort of money.




Ermmm not down with that Smurf1976. The high coastal population we have is very intensified in very small pockets compared to most parts of the world which have cities, villages, towns, burros etc to protect in low lying areas (think Netherlands) 

_It is amazing how fast a human can pump a whale gusher when the boat is sinking _

TRANSLATION

_People will pay anything to save their own necks_

I don't think we would have to protect this part for a start and it makes up nearly a 1/4 of our coastline ....




or this part either ...


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf




Most interesting article Wayne but I doubt whether Basillio would take the time to read it......He has probably screwed it up and tossed in the bin as sheer drivel....He is so brainwashed by the Greens that nothing and I mean nothing would ever change his mind on the misrepresentation of Global Warming.


----------



## SirRumpole

The records keep falling.


Climate: Last month was hottest June on record, scientists say


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june-in-modern-times-scientists-say/7643240

Of course it's Lefty conspiracy rubbish, right ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The records keep falling.
> 
> 
> Climate: Last month was hottest June on record, scientists say
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june-in-modern-times-scientists-say/7643240
> 
> Of course it's Lefty conspiracy rubbish, right ?




Yes I agree with you..I am pleased you have seen the light.


----------



## Ijustnewit

SirRumpole said:


> The records keep falling.
> 
> 
> Climate: Last month was hottest June on record, scientists say
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june-in-modern-times-scientists-say/7643240
> 
> Of course it's Lefty conspiracy rubbish, right ?




More records have already fallen this Month as well , Canberra has just had it's warmest night on record.
Here in Hobart it has been more like Spring than Winter , our nights are breaking a 121 year record so far.
The daytime temps ( despite one massive cold front ) have been well over average and as I said it really has been Spring Weather already. Consistent 17 degree days in the middle of Winter in Hobart are not what we want , it will  mean another bush fire season starting in October or earlier.


----------



## CanOz

wayneL said:


> For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf





Yeah, great paper. Fascinating.



I like this site for checking potential flood risk due to rising sea levels and/or king tides in the future, in case one is interested in low lying property.

Coastal Risk


----------



## noco

Ijustnewit said:


> More records have already fallen this Month as well , Canberra has just had it's warmest night on record.
> Here in Hobart it has been more like Spring than Winter , our nights are breaking a 121 year record so far.
> The daytime temps ( despite one massive cold front ) have been well over average and as I said it really has been Spring Weather already. Consistent 17 degree days in the middle of Winter in Hobart are not what we want , it will  mean another bush fire season starting in October or earlier.




Townsville had it's lowest maximum temperature on record at 15.2 c last Thursday.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Townsville had it's lowest maximum temperature on record at 15.2 c last Thursday.



Yes,  we are getting increased cold and warm snaps.  The weather is becoming very volatile. 

With the increasing temperatures in the polar regeons we are seeing the colder conditions being spread towards the centre and heat back to the poles.  What I call displacement.  References to this situation are very many  and complex.   Having studied the subject very close for a long time I have have simplifidied it.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yes,  we are getting increased cold and warm snaps.  The weather is becoming very volatile.
> 
> With the increasing temperatures in the polar regeons we are seeing the colder conditions being spread towards the centre and heat back to the poles.  What I call displacement.  References to this situation are very many  and complex.   Having studied the subject very close for a long time I have have simplifidied it.




I am afraid you have a lot more study to do as you are out of touch with reality.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I am afraid you have a lot more study to do as you are out of touch with reality.




Bwaaaahhhhh !


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I am afraid you have a lot more study to do as you are out of touch with reality.




It is what is happening noco,  if you open up your window you can even see it.


----------



## CanOz

explod said:


> Y References to this situation are very many  and complex.   Having studied the subject very close for a long time I have have simplifidied it.





Ah yes, similar approach to derivative analysis as well...


----------



## explod

CanOz said:


> Ah yes, similar approach to derivative analysis as well...




Yep,  it is a close analogy,  the derivative has its value on hot air but in this case the hot air is moving (displacement) the cold air, which unlike the derivative,  does have physical substance). 

In fact Godfrey Bloom had a bit to say overnight in the European Parliament on how crooked its all getting,  but the ones being sent to gaol when it blows up are in fact the taxpayers.


----------



## noco

According to scientists the Antarctic is cooling....Well what do you know about that.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/b69b61d71286ae3668301baa33ab0eb1

*The Antarctic Peninsula, regarded as a “global warming hot spot”, has been cooling for almost 20 years.

Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature.

The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected.*


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by  Wayne, Cynic TS and co.
> 
> *It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around  Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.*




Pot ... Kettle ... Black ...





Still waiting for an answer to the Q's I have posed basilio ...


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> According to scientists the Antarctic is cooling....Well what do you know about that.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/b69b61d71286ae3668301baa33ab0eb1
> 
> *The Antarctic Peninsula, regarded as a “global warming hot spot”, has been cooling for almost 20 years.
> 
> Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature.
> 
> The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected.*




Just need to clarify that a bit noco ...



> The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.




http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...2&spJobID=962855827&spReportId=OTYyODU1ODI3S0


----------



## basilio

Congratulations TS  !! Well done.

You have just discovered that  local climate changes can happen that go against overall global warming. That is certainly what the research paper says.  

In no way does it resile from the facts of overall warming and the impact this will have on ice shelfs in the Antarctic. But it was interesting to note that The Australians reporting of the paper never acknowledged the fact that local variability was the key the cooling. No surprise there.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/the-antarctic-peninsulas-retreating-ice-shelves/




> *Antarctic seawater temperatures rising*
> December 4, 2014
> Antarctic seawater temperatures rising
> 
> The temperature of the seawater around Antarctica is rising according to new research from the University of East Anglia.
> 
> New research published today in the journal Science shows how shallow shelf seas of West Antarctica have warmed over the last 50 years.
> 
> The international research team say that this has accelerated the melting and sliding of glaciers in the area, and that there is no indication that this trend will reverse.
> 
> Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-antarctic-seawater-temperatures.html#jCp


----------



## basilio

TS,  I wonder if The Australian will cover this event in it's discussion on Global Warming



> *Earth Just Experienced The Hottest June Ever Recorded*
> This marks the 14th consecutive month of record-breaking global temperatures.
> 20/07/2016 4:24 PM AEST | Updated 9 hours ago
> 
> Dominique Mosbergen
> 
> Last month was the hottest June ever recorded, according to both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This marks the 14th month in a row that global heat records have been broken. It’s the longest streak of record-breaking temperatures since reporting began in 1880.
> 
> Global average temperatures in June were 0.9 degrees Celsius hotter than the average for the 20th century. These temps broke the previous record, set last year, by 0.02 degrees Celsius.
> 
> .....The scorching temperatures of the past several months were partly fueled by this year’s powerful El Niño. However, these effects have been fading in strength, clearly revealing the impact of global warming.
> 
> “While the El Niño event in the tropical Pacific this winter gave a boost to global temperatures from October onwards, it is the underlying trend which is producing these record numbers,” Schmidt said in a statement this week.
> 
> NASA noted that rising global temperatures were further exacerbated by extreme regional warming in the Arctic.
> 
> “It has been a record year so far for global temperatures, but the record high temperatures in the Arctic over the past six months have been even more extreme,” Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at the agency, said. “This warmth as well as unusual weather patterns have led to the record low sea ice extents so far this year.”




http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...st-june-ever-recorded/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage

(And the relevance of dead fish to current record temperatures around the globe ???  Really ? )


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Congratulations TS  !! Well done.
> 
> You have just discovered that  local climate changes can happen that go against overall global warming. That is certainly what the research paper says.




Just the FACTS basilio .. that is all I deal in and not some HYSTERICAL RELIGIOUS FERVOUR bordering on MANIA.




ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz still waiting ...


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> TS,  I wonder if The Australian will cover this event in it's discussion on Global Warming
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...st-june-ever-recorded/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
> 
> (And the relevance of dead fish to current record temperatures around the globe ???  Really ? )




Get some perspective basilio ...

June 2016 was 1.62 °F hotter than the average global land and ocean ... blah blah blah in the last 130 years blah blah blah .. HYSTERIA MANIA .. blah blah blah ... tortured data with "averaging" blah blah blah ... don't have gauges in certain areas so we guess .. blah blah blah.

Why aren't the poles melting at record rates like in the link you posted with the 150,000 years of sea level etc?

You know the one where over 100 years the ocean rose 12mm per annum? Must have been pertty hot back then but the data don't count as it is more than 130 years ago and does not fit our modelling.



> (And the relevance of dead fish to current record temperatures around the globe ??? Really ? )




You claimed the salmon were dying from global warming ... I did some research on the subject matter at hand ... the salmon were dying from a gill disease from fertiliser run off into the streams and rivers. That is the relevance basilio ... FACTS and not HYSTERIA.


----------



## basilio

Right TS.... So those facts about record global temperatures and soaring Arctic temperatures and so on are  what ... exactly ????


----------



## basilio

TS  why don't we just wait for say another 20-30  years to see how the Arctic and Antarctic react to the the huge increase in heat load that is currently warming the ocean underneath the glaciers ? If you go back to that graph I just posted on increases in global temperature you can see the most substantial increase have happened since the 1980's. I don't believe you will find substantial evidence of  ice melt from the Polar regions before that time. So obviously there won't have been any contribution to rising sea levels from that source.

And while we are doing that why not look at the research and analysis of the glaciologists who know something about this field ?

How obvious is it to say that if one puts a large block of ice in saucepan and then turns on the gas it won't actually melt immediately ?


----------



## basilio

You know TS I can't actually remember carrying on about Global Warming killing salmon by the millions.(But I may well have..)

But no problems there. 

Have you actually googled that phrase for any information? Check it out.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/dead-salmon-climate-change-and-northwest-dams/

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...iver-salmon-dying-climate-change-heats-waters

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/lakes-and-rivers.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...se-800m-as-algal-bloom-kills-millions-of-fish


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Right TS.... So those facts about record global temperatures and soaring Arctic temperatures and so on are  what ... exactly ????




Record global temperatures in the past 130 years basilio. Medieval Warming Period anyone ... anyone? The one that the IPCC removed from their analysis to create HYSTERIA about climate change, global warming remember!

But what is this? It has been warmer (and I mean a LOT warmer) thousands of years ago ... was that man made?





Looked up *Geoid* yet basilio?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> You know TS I can't actually remember carrying on about Global Warming killing salmon by the millions.(But I may well have..)
> 
> But no problems there.
> 
> Have you actually googled that phrase for any information? Check it out.
> 
> http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/dead-salmon-climate-change-and-northwest-dams/
> 
> http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...iver-salmon-dying-climate-change-heats-waters
> 
> http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/lakes-and-rivers.html
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...se-800m-as-algal-bloom-kills-millions-of-fish




Bahahahhaaa that is the problem when sprouting so much BS .. you can't remember all the BS you tell 

Algal blooms kill salmon but in the case you were referring to it was over fertilisation running into the tributaries that killed the fish by causing a disease to from on their gills.

PS Algal blooms are not caused SOLELY by global warming - HABs occur naturally, but human activities that disturb ecosystems seem to play a role in the increased occurrence of some blooms. Increased nutrient loadings and pollution, food web alterations, introduced species, water flow modifications have all been implicated.


----------



## basilio

So TS when you produce the graph of ice core temperatures from Greenland what is the status of the two crosses on the right hand side ?

And did you actually check the first two references for salmon being "cooked" in warming river waters ? How do you arbitrarily dismiss that information  ?


----------



## Ves

trainspotter said:


> Medieval Warming Period anyone ... anyone?




Further reference... in case anyone is interested.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Looks like it was geographically centred in Europe,  rather than a global event. Interesting that some areas were cooler (especially the Pacific).


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> So TS when you produce the graph of ice core temperatures from Greenland what is the status of the two crosses on the right hand side ?
> 
> And did you actually check the first two references for salmon being "cooked" in warming river waters ? How do you arbitrarily dismiss that information  ?






> _Pat Ford lives in Boise, Idaho. He worked for the Save Our Wild Salmon coalition from 1992 through 2013, but this column reflects his own views._




An opinion piece to further his own agenda ... if you read the article NOAA dismisses his findings.

Still waiting basilio ...


----------



## basilio

Exactly mow many references do want to show that elevated temperatures in river waters due to global warming have caused the death of millions of salmon ?   

I think it also a pretty poor comment to blame the deaths on algae and infection when these events have been radically affected by the warming of waters. 


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685149/dead-salmon-pacific-northwest/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...-rivers-sockeye-salmon-dying-due-to-heat.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/for_california_salmon_drought_and_warm_water_mean_trouble/2834/


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Exactly mow many references do want to show that elevated temperatures in river waters due to global warming have caused the death of millions of salmon ?
> 
> I think it also a pretty poor comment to blame the deaths on algae and infection when these events have been radically affected by the warming of waters.
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685149/dead-salmon-pacific-northwest/
> http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...-rivers-sockeye-salmon-dying-due-to-heat.html
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm
> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/for_california_salmon_drought_and_warm_water_mean_trouble/2834/





Once again you fail to understand or comprehend the written language 

I wrote ...



> _Algal blooms kill salmon but in the case you were referring to it was over fertilisation running into the tributaries that killed the fish by causing a disease to form on their gills._
> 
> *PS Algal blooms are not caused SOLELY by global warming -* HABs occur naturally, but human activities that disturb ecosystems seem to play a role in the increased occurrence of some blooms. Increased nutrient loadings and pollution, food web alterations, introduced species, water flow modifications have all been implicated.




Poor form to not answer any of the Q's I posed earlier ... still waiting for the HYSTERICAL reply ....  :horse:

Also wrote this ...



> if you read the article NOAA dismisses his findings.


----------



## basilio

> And did you actually check the first two references for salmon being "cooked" in warming river waters ? How do you arbitrarily dismiss that information ?




Clearly not because if you had you would have noticed that the warming of rivers was the primary and overriding reason for the death of the salmon.  End of story.


----------



## Ijustnewit

basilio said:


> Exactly mow many references do want to show that elevated temperatures in river waters due to global warming have caused the death of millions of salmon ?
> 
> I think it also a pretty poor comment to blame the deaths on algae and infection when these events have been radically affected by the warming of waters.
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685149/dead-salmon-pacific-northwest/
> http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...-rivers-sockeye-salmon-dying-due-to-heat.html
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm
> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/for_california_salmon_drought_and_warm_water_mean_trouble/2834/



Actually it's a similar story here in Tasmania , the Salmon farms lost heaps of revenue and had to cut back on production down here last Summer. The heat in the waters was extreme and was about 20 degrees c at 20 meters down. So the fish were actually cooking and also it caused gill disease , the Salmon industry down here is now spending thousands building anchor systems so they can take the Salmon pens further towards the ocean floor to try and offset the warm waters.


----------



## basilio

On the topic of the world wide decimation of the salmon population as a result of out of control global warming.

*So what *? Ok they are tasty creatures and bears love em but if for whatever reason the salmon runs become a thing of the past how would that affect us ?

If fact the decimation of salmon would create very large knock-on effects to entire ecosystems.  

http://www.pebblescience.org/salmon_ecology.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12849019
https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/natu...mon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.pdf


----------



## basilio

*How fast  are the Antarctic ice caps are melting and what is the risk of catastrophic rises in ocean levels within the next 50-100 years*

The knowledge base on this subject has been expanding at exponential rates as new technology lets glaciologists  examine the base of ice caps and rapidly melting glaciers offer previously unknown information. Check out this story from National Geographic 



> *Scientists Are Watching in Horror as Ice Collapses
> *
> Everything we learn about ice shows that it is disturbingly fragile, even in Antarctica.
> 
> By Douglas Fox
> 
> PUBLISHED April 12, 2016
> 
> The soldiers at Matienzo Base in Antarctica made an odd discovery in January 1995””an antique dog sled, unlike any they had ever seen, bound together by leather straps, with a label reading “Made in England.”
> 
> Matienzo was an Argentine research base on a small island 30 miles off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. It was surrounded by a vast plain of white””a slab of glacial ice, 700 feet (215 meters) thick, that floated on the ocean. That floating slab, called Larsen A Ice Shelf, covered an area of water the size of San Francisco Bay. It had existed for a thousand years or more. But this hot summer it looked strange. The men had to go onto the ice shelf to collect snow for drinking water, and it made them uneasy.
> 
> The ice shelf was crisscrossed with narrow cracks””which the men nervously jumped over””and dotted with deep blue melt ponds. It was there, protruding from a melt pond, that they found the sled. It must have been discarded by a British expedition that passed through decades before.
> *
> That old sled turned out to be an omen of disaster, like a long-buried coffin that resurfaces when a city is ravaged by floods. It showed that Larsen A had been quietly deteriorating for years.
> 
> ....The catastrophic collapse of Larsen A and several other ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula has yielded important lessons about the vulnerability of Antarctica’s ice sheets to a warming climate. A new analysis of ice sheet instability, published March 31 in Nature, took the public by surprise when it projected that global sea level might rise six feet by 2100, and as much as 40 to 50 feet by the year 2500. (Read "Why the New Sea Level Alarm Can't Be Ignored.") That study seemed to double, overnight, the amount of sea level rise that can be expected. But many glacial scientists weren’t surprised. The new estimate is based on insights that have emerged slowly, over 20 years, in the aftermath of these ice shelf collapses.*




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-antarctica-sea-level-rise/


----------



## trainspotter

More HYSTERIA ... still waiting basilio :sleeping:



> Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming. However, the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into warmer waters north of Antarctica, has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950. A large area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, probably because of warmer water deep in the ocean near the Antarctic coast. In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, *although some stations appear to be cooling slightly*. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland.





https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html


----------



## trainspotter

And it is about time ...



> A small terrace house in the inner Sydney suburb of Glebe is hosting what is believed to be the world’s first building integrated solar system that generates electricity as well as heat.
> 
> bluescope bipvcThe array combines thin-film solar PV and solar thermal technologies into a steel sheet roofing product produced by Australian steel manufacturer Bluescope, with assistance from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
> 
> The top layer of the roofing product (pictured) generates electricity in the same way as solar PV modules – although it uses thin film technology for less weight and thickness – while heat is trapped and distributed between the two layers for use in water and space heating.




http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/bluescope-unveils-world-first-solar-roof-with-heat-and-power-32417


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> *How fast  are the Antarctic ice caps are melting and what is the risk of catastrophic rises in ocean levels within the next 50-100 years*
> 
> The knowledge base on this subject has been expanding at exponential rates as new technology lets glaciologists  examine the base of ice caps and rapidly melting glaciers offer previously unknown information. Check out this story from National Geographic
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-antarctica-sea-level-rise/




So, in your estimation, how much metallurgical coal will need to be burnt. When all the low lying cities have to moved, to higher ground?


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> So, in your estimation, how much metallurgical coal will need to be burnt. When all the low lying cities have to moved, to higher ground?




Does it matter what I think ? Maybe we should examine the research of the glaciologists who have spent their careers trying to understand the behaviour of glaciers/icecaps as temperatures rise.

Did you read the article ?

_*Allow for the worst, hope for the best.*_


----------



## Knobby22

Amazing pictures. National Geographic point out Miami is probably the biggest US city to be turned into Venice first. 

I think the headline is false though. Scientist's wouldn't have been watching in horror, they would have been excited to see the event of an ice shelf collapse happening so quickly. I personally don't think Antarctica is much of a problem, yet.


----------



## noco

Renewable energies ain't all they are cracked up to be going by what is happening in South Australia and other parts of the world which is pushing up power prices far in excess of what they should be.

Coal is by far the cheapest source of energy.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/e2555e47e18de7b8256199bd2c743a6a

*The South Australian energy debacle is a timely reminder of the consequences of preferring wishful thinking to common sense.

But we needn’t have waited for price hikes and supply disruptions in South Australia to work out that intervening in energy markets has its shortcomings.

Case studies of the consequences of force-feeding higher-priced energy sources into energy markets have been piling up for some time.

Just a few months ago, US think tank the Manhattan Institute released a report titled Energy Policies and Electricity Prices: Cautionary Tales from the EU, authored by senior energy fellow Robert Bryce.

Bryce found that the European nations that intervened the most in their energy markets — Germany, Spain, and Britain — had seen their electricity costs increase the fastest.

“According to Eurostat, during 2005-14 residential electricity prices in the EU increased by an average of 63 per cent. In Germany, those rates grew by 78 per cent; in Spain, they increased by 111 per cent; and in the UK they rose 133 per cent. Over the same period, residential rates in the US rose by 32 per cent.”

The Bryce study also cited a report by Swiss consulting firm Finadvice, which examined renewable energy policies in Europe and their effect on consumers. The Finadvice report concluded that “a correlation exists between the amount of variable renewable energy capacity that a country has (PV and wind) and its household electricity prices including taxes, levies and value-added tax”.

We also need a little reality check on the global take-up of renewable energy.

The BP Statistical Review 2016 released last month highlights the indispensable role being played by fossil fuels in the provision of primary energy.

The BP data is particularly useful because it compares actual consumption in a single common metric.

The data, hitherto barely reported, provides a sharp cold dose of rea*lity.


----------



## basilio

Knobby22 said:


> Amazing pictures. National Geographic point out Miami is probably the biggest US city to be turned into Venice first.
> 
> I think the headline is false though. Scientist's wouldn't have been watching in horror, they would have been excited to see the event of an ice shelf collapse happening so quickly. I personally don't think Antarctica is much of a problem, yet.




I think the "horror" is to do with the realisation of how fragile the ice sheet was and understanding the consequences if this  swift break up of huge ice shelfs was normal.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I think the "horror" is to do with the realisation of how fragile the ice sheet was and understanding the consequences if this  swift break up of huge ice shelfs was normal.




Let us not forget that National Geographic is a magazine and not an authority on GW


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Let us not forget that National Geographic is a magazine and not an authority on GW




And lets not forget the whole story was based on the work of the glaciologists research.  They didn't just dream it up.


----------



## basilio

> Renewable energies ain't all they are cracked up to be going by what is happening in South Australia and other parts of the world which is pushing up power prices far in excess of what they should be.
> 
> Coal is by far the cheapest source of energy.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin...6199bd2c743a6a




Trouble with The Australian Noco is that they just get it wilfully wrong on issues of climate change and renewable energy. They are total muppets.

The piece you quoted was a justification for coal by trying to say renewable energies arn't reliable enough and far too variable.  

Turns out they totally stuffed up the information on what happened in South Australia. What is curious is that the real  figures were so far out of kilter but the journalist was incapable/unwilling to recheck them. The error was 30 fold.



> Oz’s wind claim deflated
> 
> The Australian’s front page “exclusive” attack on wind energy on 20 July was convincing. “Business blows ups as turbines suck more energy than they generate” suggested that South Australia’s wind turbines were drawing electricity from the grid just as the state was experiencing a shortage.
> 
> But as Renew Economy pointed out the figures were wildly inaccurate. It took a few days but the Oz admitted its figures were way off the mark. “Figures provided to the Australian by a third party were wrongly adjusted. On 7 July all wind farms in South Australia were producing* 189.72MW between 6am and 7am, not 5780MW,* and by mid-afternoon energy generation by all wind farms was minus 2MW not minus-50MW.”



https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ions-den-and-circles-the-elephant-in-the-room


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And lets not forget the whole story was based on the work of the glaciologists research.  They didn't just dream it up.




Yeah!!!!!!!..says you.....Take a cruz up to Alaska.....go into Glacier Bay and you will see 5 or 6 glaciers falling into the sea as they have done for thousands of years.....Glaciers are moving all the time from the weight of new snow falling higher up.

I have seen with my own eyes...I have lots of photos of them, the same photos that most of these so called scientists take to try and prove a point of Global Warming.

Please Bas, if you can afford it take the cruz and see it for yourself...I did it in 2012......It will amaze you to see chunks of ice the size of a bus falling into the sea....Glacier Bay is full of floating ice.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Yeah!!!!!!!..says you.....Take a cruz up to Alaska.....go into Glacier Bay and you will see 5 or 6 glaciers falling into the sea as they have done for thousands of years.....Glaciers are moving all the time from the weight of new snow falling higher up.
> 
> I have seen with my own eyes...I have lots of photos of them, the same photos that most of these so called scientists take to try and prove a point of Global Warming.
> 
> Please Bas, if you can afford it take the cruz and see it for yourself...I did it in 2012......It will amaze you to see chunks of ice the size of a bus falling into the sea....Glacier Bay is full of floating ice.




Your on a treadmill aren't you Noco ? You see one  picture and that is the only piece of information you want to remember and so you repeat it forever.

What is happening with the breakdown of vast ice shelfs and the rapid speeding up of glaciers is a totally different phenomenon to the natural attrition of glaciers down the fiords. 

By the way do you still want to believe the wildly wrong predications of the Australian  (as long as they support coal and challenge CC )?  Thought so..


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Your on a treadmill aren't you Noco ? You see one  picture and that is the only piece of information you want to remember and so you repeat it forever.
> 
> What is happening with the breakdown of vast ice shelfs and the rapid speeding up of glaciers is a totally different phenomenon to the natural attrition of glaciers down the fiords.
> 
> By the way do you still want to believe the wildly wrong predications of the Australian  (as long as they support coal and challenge CC )?  Thought so..




Bas, you have been told 100 times, it has all happened 1000  years ago and it will happen again.....Get over it.


----------



## noco

The Sun and it's affect on Earth.

Enjoy this scary U-Tube.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLUgEXI9RYI?rel=0


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> The Sun and it's affect on Earth.
> 
> Enjoy this scary U-Tube.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLUgEXI9RYI?rel=0




Well that was a fascinating trip down a huge rabbit hole (or sink hole.)

I think they lost me when they tried to say that the Sun was slowing the earths rotation because of the reduction in solar storm activity.  And then the creative analysis of how the stray electrons are causing the earth to move and split and, bingo, huge sinkholes.

Just goes to show anyone can anything on the net and anyone can believe it.  Plasma Cosmology folks.  1.1m million views in 4 months.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Turns out they totally stuffed up the information on what happened in South Australia. What is curious is that the real  figures were so far out of kilter but the journalist was incapable/unwilling to recheck them. The error was 30 fold.




Anyone can check the output of every power station in the National Electricity Market at any time they choose since AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) publishes the data online.

It requires some understanding of the grid and which power station is which to understand it, but AEMO also has that data on its public website for all to see. Also available on the AEMO site is interstate power flows both present and historical.

www.aemo.com.au

For those wanting a simplified state by state view have a look here. This data includes estimated production from small (eg household) solar systems as well as large coal, gas, hydro, wind farms, biomass (that's most of the "other"), solar farms and oil-fired power stations. http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/

Most electricity generation companies don't publish detailed data about their fuel stocks and operations online but Hydro Tas does and it's here: http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/water-storage/storage.pdf

Hydro's historical storage data for the past 6 years is also published and it's here (requires Excel or equivalent to view): http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/water-storage/storage_summary-4.xls

There's far less secrecy in the power industry than many seem to think and with the modern era of the internet no excuse for someone to get their facts wrong.

For what it's worth, in the pre-internet days obviously live data wasn't available to the public but the SECV, HEC and other state utilities put both average output and peak production for each power station during the past year in their annual reports for many decades so again no secrecy. Fuel consumed was also reported by type (coal, oil etc). And Hydro has been giving out storage data to anyone who phoned to ask or who wanted to publish it (newspapers mostly, usually in the context of recreational use of the lakes) for many decades since it was realised that someone was actually interested in knowing. So again no secrecy.


----------



## noco

When will Tim Flannery ever give up with dud predictions.....

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tim_flannery_flops_again/


----------



## noco

From: "cairnsnews.org" <comment-reply@wordpress.com>
Subject: [New post] WA engineer destroys global warming myth
Date: 1 August 2016 at 10:33:26 AM AEST
To: dbr2728@bigpond.com
Reply-To: "cairnsnews.org" <comment+pwbx91osfsci5lfqayx09ww@comment.wordpress.com>

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on cairnsnews.org



WA engineer destroys global warming myth
by cairnsnews



Miranda Devine
Respected journalist Miranda Devine published the article below October 4, 2015, throws engineered evidence supporting taxpayer funded environmentalist empires selling global warming/ CO2 doomsday/climate change Armageddon to instigate damage control protection of their gravy train.
Dr David Evans makes this statement in the video below that is a must view for concerned Australians - “Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government ”” how exciting for the political class!” 

Harry Palmer - sosnews.org

Source: Miranda Devine- Perth Now - news.com.au - October 4, 2015
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.
“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.
His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.
If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren't reflected in the actual temperatures.


Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova who hosts climate change skeptics blog - joannenova.com.au
Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.com
“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”
Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.
He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.
He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.
When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.
“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”
Editorial:
Unable to find any peer review for Dr Evans findings does not dismiss those finding. It does however keep the gate wide open for environment engineers and their loyal supporters of the gravy train environmental express.
Further, peer review factor is the current tool of the loony greens which is understandable when they develop climate change doom reports having it endorsed only by capitulating peer review.
Posted 2011 - Dr Evans four fatal pieces of evidence- http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/
posted 2011 - Unknown climate change supporters opinion to Dr Evans - http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Harry Palmer

cairnsnews | August 1, 2016 at 11:33 am | Tags: Climate Change Skeptics, Dr David Evans, Environmental Fictional Engineering, government corruption | Categories: Agenda 2030, Climate Change, corruption, environment engineering, Global warming, mythmanagement, New World Order, People Control | URL: http://wp.me/p2dFb5-1YG
Comment
   See all comments



Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from cairnsnews.org.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. 
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
http://cairnsnews.org/2016/08/01/wa-engineer-destroys-global-warming-myth/




Thanks for flying with   WordPress.com


----------



## trainspotter

> Bluff Knoll Cafe’s Chris Thomas said it had been “very, very cold” for the past few weeks but the snowfall had taken locals by surprise.
> 
> “Rangers say that unless the wind is from the south, it’s unlikely,” he told PerthNow.
> 
> The last time it snowed in WA was also at Bluff Knoll, which copped two falls within weeks of each other in August and September last year.
> 
> Temperatures dipped to 3C at Ongerup, about 70km from Bluff Knoll, on Sunday morning, while Norseman, 726km east of Perth, shivered through an icy -2.9C overnight.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes.../news-story/13ef81f6a836073960b23dfc25c8a49e?

Yeah ... gotta love global warming


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> When will Tim Flannery ever give up with dud predictions.....
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tim_flannery_flops_again/




While Andrew Bolt peddles lies and misinformation and people like yourself keep swallowing and regurgitating them as pellets of wisdom you will all stay in an echo chamber of madness.

Noco have you ever actually seen what Tim Flannery said about the ongoing effects of CC  ? (that was so expertly twisted..) 





> So every time it rains or there is a good crop somewhere in the world, we have an attack on Flannnery.
> 
> The constant repetition of this nonsense has some saying that Flannery claimed it would never rain again.
> 
> In the first place, Flannery’s statement was not a prediction.
> 
> It was a statement about the reduced runoff that was actually occurring as a result of higher temperatures. Here is what Flannery said before the part that Mr Bolt quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the “prediction” part, after the bit Mr Bolt quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The “prediction’ is what is known in logic as an If, then statement. It does not require the ‘If’ part to be fullfilled to be correct.
> 
> It is false only when the warming trend continues, and this does not result in serious problems particularly for irrigators.
> 
> Anyone want to argue that?
Click to expand...



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tim_flannery_flops_again/


----------



## wayneL

So you're annoyed that leftist tactics are used against leftists basilio?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> So you're annoyed that leftist tactics are used against leftists basilio?




Actually I'm just interested in the facts Wayne.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Actually I'm just interested in the facts Wayne.




No seriously


----------



## basilio

Just so fascinating.

A few posts ago Noco come out for the 16,791st time quoting Andrew Bolt on how spectacularly wrong Tim Flannery was in suggesting dams might not fill again.

This piece of deliberate misquoting has been corrected numerous times but of course that is irrelevant to climate deniers. far more fun to just ignore facts and repost lies. So I chose for the umpteenth time to point out what Tim Flannery actually said and the context of the statement.

Just the facts.

The response from Wayne ?  Just another cheap shot attempting to equate Andrew Bolts repeated lies with the work of all recognised climate scientists.

And TS of course who still can't recognise a fact if it jumped out of a birthday cake and bit him on the nose.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> The response from Wayne ?  Just another cheap shot attempting to equate Andrew Bolts repeated lies with the work of all recognised climate scientists.




Actually bas, I did nothing of the sort.

You should try integrity in your arguments the odd time mate, just a thought.


----------



## wayneL

...and why do you like subjective facts when that is so oxymoronic?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Noco have you ever actually seen what Tim Flannery said about the ongoing effects of CC  ? (that was so expertly twisted..)




It was / is misquoted extensively by both sides of the debate.

Those on the "green" side twisted it to "dams will never be full again" with an inference that building more dams would be a bad idea. Greens have never liked dams, it's the issue that lead to the party's formation after all, and this was a convenient argument against building more of them.

Those on the "pro-coal" side have mocked it ever since it started raining. Last thing the coal lobby wants is someone with credibility pointing out that climate change isn't just a theory and that it is actually happening right now.

Looking at it factually, well here in Tas I can assure you with 100% certainty that the issue is being taken very seriously and we're all too aware that higher temperatures will reduce runoff into storages even if rainfall remains constant. If rainfall also declines then that's a double impact and the end result is lower inflows.

We're had two abrupt "steps" down in inflows in Tas, one since about the mid-1970's and the second since about the beginning of this century. WA has experienced a similar but more severe trend also with abrupt "steps" occurring at exactly the same time as observed in Tas, thus ruling out any local factors as the cause.

WA's water authorities have responded by downgrading their expectations of surface water availability and have increasingly turned to ground water and desalination to make up the shortfall.

In Tasmania the Hydro has publicly acknowledged the situation, Hydro has done a lot of research into it, and it's publicly disclosed that Hydro is working on the basis that future inflows will be 85% of the 20th Century average for future planning purposes. That 15% downgrade, implemented in two steps along with the changing climate, isn't an arbitrary figure, it's based on actual observations across the system. Hydro has also spent about $400 million on capital works trying to get back some of what has been lost - things like diverting minor creeks into existing storages, a lot of "tweaks" to the system to operate better with the present climate reality and so on. $400 million worth all up, that's a lot of individually small creeks and tweaks, and there's more to come.

The other response in Tas has been major irrigation development for agriculture in a place where, in the past, it just wasn't necessary for most farms to be irrigating on a large scale. Big $ being spent there both by farmers and government.

Back to Flannery, well yes he has been misquoted widely by both sides.


----------



## Macquack

wayneL said:


> Actually bas, I did nothing of the sort.
> 
> You should try *integrity in your arguments *the odd time mate, just a thought.




Just like this gem


wayneL said:


> So you're annoyed that *leftist tactics *are used against *leftists* basilio?




Just recently, I realized by an actual experience that if you have 3 people saying that "black"' is "white" and you are the sole person saying that "black" is "black", then guess what - "black" is "white", you better get used to it whether you like it or not, end of the story.


----------



## wayneL

Macquack said:


> Just like this gem
> 
> 
> Just recently, I realized by an actual experience that if you have 3 people saying that "black"' is "white" and you are the sole person saying that "black" is "black", then guess what - "black" is "white", you better get used to it whether you like it or not, end of the story.



I know English isn't your strong suit Quacker, but you appear to be supporting my point,


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Just so fascinating.
> 
> A few posts ago Noco come out for the 16,791st time quoting Andrew Bolt on how spectacularly wrong Tim Flannery was in suggesting dams might not fill again.
> 
> This piece of deliberate misquoting has been corrected numerous times but of course that is irrelevant to climate deniers. far more fun to just ignore facts and repost lies. So I chose for the umpteenth time to point out what Tim Flannery actually said and the context of the statement.
> 
> Just the facts.
> 
> The response from Wayne ?  Just another cheap shot attempting to equate Andrew Bolts repeated lies with the work of all recognised climate scientists.
> 
> *And TS of course who still can't recognise a fact if it jumped out of a birthday cake and bit him on the nose*.




Sorry I have only just managed to stop larfin at the"FACT" joke.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO taking temperatures from the inlet (or is it outlet) valve of a steam ship cruise liner with a mercury thermometer is PROVEN a fact and even subjective when they did not know what depth the measurement was taken is a FACT 

National Geo does a HYSTERIA piece and fluffs it up as the scientists look on in "HORROR" as ice melts.

PULLEEEEEEEEEZZZE 





P.S. I AM STILL WAITING basilio for a response


----------



## trainspotter

Asteroid anyone? No I am serious ANYONE? No wait ... I bought this up quite a while ago ... carry on 



> large asteroid capable of wiping out planet Earth has become the focus of a new study set to be launched by NASA.
> 
> Astronomers are planning to get close enough to collect a sample of rock from the asteroid named ‘Bennu’, which measures about 487 metres in diameter.
> 
> Bennu crosses the Earth’s orbit once every six years and inches closer to our planet each year, according to The Times.
> 
> In 2135, the rock will pass between the moon and Earth, and while it may seem like a fair distance, it’s really on a hair’s breadth in space terms.
> 
> Arizona University’s Professor of Planetary Science Dante Lauretta said Earth’s gravity could change the asteroid’s course.




https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3220713...-look-at-asteroid-that-could-end-earth/#page1


----------



## basilio

*State of the Climate report from Noaa.*



> * Environmental records shattered as climate change 'plays out before us'*
> 
> Temperatures, sea levels and carbon dioxide all hit milestones amid extreme weather in 2015, major international ‘state of the climate’ report finds
> A scientist leaps over water during a trip to the Greenland ice sheet, which saw melting over more than 50% of its surface last year.
> 
> Oliver Milman in New York
> @olliemilman
> 
> Wednesday 3 August 2016 01.00 AEST
> Last modified on Wednesday 3 August 2016 01.40 AEST
> 
> The world is careening towards an environment never experienced before by humans, with the temperature of the air and oceans breaking records, sea levels reaching historic highs and carbon dioxide surpassing a key milestone, a major international report has found.
> 
> The “state of the climate” report, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) with input from hundreds of scientists from 62 countries, confirmed there was a “toppling of several symbolic mileposts” in heat, sea level rise and extreme weather in 2015.




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-change-records-broken-international-report

Scary stuff.  Climate tipping points are being reached and breached.


----------



## basilio

*Some of the health consequences of global warming.*



> * Anthrax outbreak triggered by climate change kills boy in Arctic Circle*
> 
> Seventy-two nomadic herders, including 41 children, were hospitalised in far north Russia after the region began experiencing abnormally high temperatures
> 
> Alec Luhn in Moscow
> 
> Tuesday 2 August 2016 06.12 AEST
> 
> 
> A 12-year-old boy in the far north of Russia has died in an outbreak of anthrax that experts believe was triggered when unusually warm weather caused the release of the bacteria.
> 
> The boy was one of 72 nomadic herders, including 41 children, hospitalised in the town of Salekhard in the Arctic Circle, after reindeer began dying en masse from anthrax.
> 
> Five adults and two other children have been diagnosed with the disease, which is known as “Siberian plague” in Russian and was last seen in the region in 1941.
> 
> More than 2,300 reindeer have died, and at least 63 people have been evacuated from a quarantine area around the site of the outbreak.
> 
> “We literally fought for the life of each person, but the infection showed its cunning,”the Yamal governor, Dmitry Kobylkin, told the Interfax news agency. “It returned after 75 years and took the life of a child.”
> 
> The tabloid LifeNews reported that the boy’s grandmother died of anthrax at a nomad camp last week.
> 
> *Authorities said the outbreak was linked to climate change. For the past month, the region has been experiencing abnormally high temperatures that have reached 95F.
> 
> Anthrax spores can survive in frozen human and animal remains for hundreds of years, waiting to be released by a thaw, according to Alexei Kokorin, head of WWF Russia’s climate and energy programme.*
> 
> “Such anomalous heat is rare for Yamal, and that’s probably a manifestation of climate change,” he said.
> 
> Average temperatures in Russia have increased by 0.43C in the past 10 years, but the rise has been more pronounced in areas of the far north. The warmer climate has begun thawing the permafrost soil that covers much of Russia, including cemeteries and animal burial grounds. Thawing permafrost has also led to greater erosion of river banks where nomads often buried their dead, Kokorin said.
> 
> “They didn’t bury deep because it’s hard to dig deep in permafrost,” he explained.
> 
> According to custom, the Nenets tribe often inters its dead in a wooden coffin on open ground.
> *
> The disease from thawing human and animal remains can get into groundwater that people then drink. The boy in Salekhard died from the intestinal form of the disease, which typically results in fever, stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting.*




https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/anthrax-outbreak-climate-change-arctic-circle-russia


----------



## trainspotter

Woop woop .. it's an outbreak of Anthrax in a remote part of Russia that they are trying to pin on GW 

SERIOUSLY basilio you have sunk to the bottom of the list on my opinion scale ...

Go and watch the movie "The Thaw"



> The Thaw is a 2009 American science fiction horror thriller film directed by Mark A. Lewis starring Val Kilmer, Martha MacIsaac, and Aaron Ashmore.
> 
> Federico comes running out, refusing to be checked for infection, then turns on Evelyn and Atom. As he is about to shoot Evelyn, he is shot from behind by David. David insists they destroy the research station. Evelyn finds a video David recorded and discovers that David has intentionally infected himself, preparing to set the bugs loose to teach humanity a lesson about global warming's effects.




It will be right up your HYSTERICAL alley.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Woop woop .. it's an outbreak of Anthrax in a remote part of Russia that they are trying to pin on GW
> 
> SERIOUSLY basilio you have sunk to the bottom of the list on my opinion scale ...
> 
> Go and watch the movie "The Thaw"
> 
> 
> It will be right up your HYSTERICAL alley.




Well given your completely warped view of reality I truly don't want to be high on your opinion scale. Bit like being pin up boy at the looney bin.

As for the story.  Truly you can't understand what was quoted?. It's quite straightforward. The last anthrax epidemic was in 1940 odd.  The remains of the victims were frozen in their graves. Global Warming has melted these graves and the anthrax germs have  revived from the warmed bodies.



> Zombie diseases
> 
> The anthrax currently infecting reindeer and people in western Siberia likely came from the carcass of a reindeer that died in an anthrax outbreak 75 years ago and has been frozen ever since — until an unusually warm summer thawed permafrost across the region this year, according to local officials.
> 
> Bacillus anthracis, the bacteria that cause anthrax, are capable of surviving in the soil for centuries, so it's no surprise that melting permafrost could resurrect a long-dormant plague, Stewart said. Anthrax spreads through soil. Grazing animals pick up the bacteria, which quickly gain a toehold and start reproducing like mad in the animals' blood. Unlike many pathogens, which aim to keep the host alive long enough to reproduce, anthrax wants to kill, and it produces toxins to do so, Stewart said. That's because anthrax demands a dead and decomposing host to spread: Once oxygen enters the rotting animal, the bacteria transform into spores.
> 
> "Spores are basically a bacterial cell in a really tough protein shell," Stewart said. They're in a state of suspended animation, and they stay that way in the soil until another grazer accidentally ingests them.
> 
> In the United States, anthrax occasionally pops up along the cattle trails of the Old West, Stewart said, because cows stricken with anthrax were left to rot.
> 
> Because anthrax is so hardy, it's no surprise that it could survive in permafrost. Researchers warned in 2011 in the journal Global Health Action that outbreaks such as this one could become common as the remains of livestock killed in earlier outbreaks thaw. There are also fears that other pathogens may lurk in the frozen soil of Siberia. In 2015, researchers discovered that a 30,000-year-old virus isolated from permafrost was still infectious (though, fortunately, not dangerous to humans).




http://www.livescience.com/55621-zombie-anthrax-kills-in-siberia.html


----------



## trainspotter

Ho Hum .. more HYSTERIA .. watched the movie yet basilio?

I kid dies in Siberia from Anthrax and a couple of thousand reindeer's cark it.

More than 20,000 people die in America from the common cold.

37 people were killed trying to get a snack from a vending machine from 1978 to 1995.

275,000 people were killed in fourteen countries across two continents from the Boxing Day Tsunami.

And you want to worry about Anthrax being released from permafrost?


----------



## basilio

Perhaps we need to see a bigger picture perspective on what is happening around the world as a consequence of the climate crisis.

George Monbiot writes relatively rarely about global warming these days but as usual it's always worth reading. Also has something to say about the role of the media in covering this evolving crisis.



> * The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us*
> George Monbiot
> 
> *The media largely relegate the greatest challenge facing humanity to footnotes as industry and politicians hurtle us towards systemic collapse of the planet*
> 
> @GeorgeMonbiot
> 
> Wednesday 3 August 2016 15.00 AEST
> 
> *What is salient is not important. What is important is not salient. The media turns us away from the issues that will determine the course of our lives, and towards topics of brain-melting irrelevance.*
> 
> This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
> 
> Arctic sea ice covered a smaller area last winter than in any winter since records began. In Siberia, an anthrax outbreak is raging through the human and reindeer populations because infected corpses locked in permafrost since the last epidemic in 1941 have thawed. India has been hammered by cycles of drought and flood, as withering heat parches the soil and torches glaciers in the Himalayas. Southern and eastern Africa have been pitched into humanitarian emergencies by drought. Wildfires storm across America; coral reefs around the world are bleaching and dying.
> 
> Throughout the media, these tragedies are reported as impacts of El Niño: a natural weather oscillation caused by blocks of warm water forming in the Pacific. But the figures show that it accounts for only one-fifth of the global temperature rise. The El Niño phase has now passed, but still the records fall.




https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-greatest-challenge-hurtle-us-collapse-planet


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Perhaps we need to see a bigger picture perspective on what is happening around the world as a consequence of the climate crisis.
> 
> George Monbiot writes relatively rarely about global warming these days but as usual it's always worth reading. Also has something to say about the role of the media in covering this evolving crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-greatest-challenge-hurtle-us-collapse-planet




Bas, I have to give you 10 out of 10 for your dedication in  believing the lies that are presented to you by the Guardian, who, in the past have confessed to distorting the truth.

Once again they have shown photos of glaciers melting and falling into the sea.....Where exactly were those photos taken in the Arctic?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Perhaps we need to see a bigger picture perspective on what is happening around the world as a consequence of the climate crisis.
> 
> George Monbiot writes relatively rarely about global warming these days but as usual it's always worth reading. Also has something to say about the role of the media in covering this evolving crisis.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-greatest-challenge-hurtle-us-collapse-planet




Trolling now basilio ...



> *In Siberia, an anthrax outbreak is raging through the human * and reindeer populations because infected corpses locked in permafrost since the last epidemic in 1941 have thawed.




One child died .. that's right ... *ONE* ... let me repeat this *ONE *...no wait ...*ONE *and *ONE ONLY !*


Stop trolling basilio and when you come to your senses I would clearly enjoy to debate you once you have resisted the HYSTERIA 

What was that about FACTS you raised earlier basilio? .... nevermind *headbang*


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> Bas, I have to give you 10 out of 10 for your dedication in  believing the lies that are presented to you by the Guardian, who, in the past have confessed to distorting the truth.
> 
> Once again they have shown photos of glaciers melting and falling into the sea.....Where exactly were those photos taken in the Arctic?




If this was Facebook I would give this post a like button .... This is the best I can do for now.


----------



## wayneL

Sea level rise:



> 4 New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise
> 
> By Kenneth Richard
> 
> It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming. However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation. Instead, natural factors or internal variability override the detection of an anthropogenic signal and may instead largely explain the patterns in sea level rise in large regions of the global oceans.
> 
> Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming,” or that the “sea level rise pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal,” and that sea level “trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.”
> 
> Below are highlighted summaries from 4 peer-reviewed scientific papers published within the last few months.
> 
> 1. Hansen et al., 2016
> 
> For the convenience of the readers, our basic results are shown in Figure 1. We identified five individual oscillations (upper panel), including a sea-level amplitude of 70 mm (top–bottom [t-b]) of the 18.6-year oscillation caused by the lunar nodal oscillation (LNO) … Together with a general sea-level rise of 1.18 mm/y, the sum of these five sea-level oscillations constitutes a reconstructed or theoretical sea-level curve of the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea (Figure 1, lower panel), which correlates very well with the observed sea-level changes of the 160-year period (1849–2009), from which 26 long tide gauge time series are available from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea.  Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Palanisamy, 2016
> 
> Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show that most of the observed sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific can be explained by the wind driven vertical thermocline movement. By performing detection and attribution study on sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.
> 
> 3. Hadi Bordbar et al., 2016
> 
> The tropical Pacific has featured some remarkable trends during the recent decades such as an unprecedented strengthening of the Trade Winds, a strong cooling of sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern and central part, thereby slowing global warming and strengthening the zonal SST gradient, and highly asymmetric sea level trends with an accelerated rise relative to the global average in the western and a drop in the eastern part. These trends have been linked to an anomalously strong Pacific Walker Circulation, the major zonal atmospheric overturning cell in the tropical Pacific sector, but the origin of the strengthening is controversial. Here we address the question as to whether the recent decadal trends in the tropical Pacific atmosphere-ocean system are within the range of internal variability, as simulated in long unforced integrations of global climate models. We show that the recent trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.
> 
> 4. Dangendorf et al., 2016
> 
> The observed 20th century sea level rise represents one of the major consequences of anthropogenic climate change. However, superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system. … Gravitational effects and ocean dynamics further lead to regionally varying imprints of low frequency variability. In the Arctic, for instance, the causal uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought. This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age.
> - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/...e-sea-level-rise-signal/#sthash.WW6plw7G.dpuf


----------



## wayneL

and more.....



> A few more 2015 papers with similar conclusions:
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024 “[T]he anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry. … [T]he residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin.”
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JC011139/full “According to long-term sea level reconstruction and steric sea level data, regional sea levels in the tropical Pacific have oscillated between east and west on a decadal time scale over the past 60 years, but the oscillation has been intensified significantly in the last three decades. Using conditional composite analysis, we show that the recent intensification in sea level variability is caused by modulation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), i.e., an El Niño in a positive PDO or a La NiÃ±a in a negative PDO phase.”
> 
> http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/2723/2015/gmd-8-2723-2015.pdf “In case of the historical scenario, the difference between mean and median depth of thermal expansion shows that the amount of thSLR [thermal expansion-induced sea level rise] due to the externally forced warming during the period 1986–2005 is small compared to the underlying interannual variability that is generated by the internal variability of ocean dynamics (Palmer et al., 2009; Palter et al., 2014).” - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/...e-sea-level-rise-signal/#sthash.WW6plw7G.dpuf


----------



## basilio

So no comments about the remainder of George Monbiots analysis of the extent of the global climate crisis ? 
 Irrelevant ?  Too big to talk about ?  Easier to dismiss the anthrax scare as just small potatoes ? 

Is it worth pointing to the huge floods in China, the heat waves in India the wildfires in America  ect.
Perhaps not.

...........................................................................

Wayne with regard to the papers that suggest there is no significant rises in sea levels.
Does that mean I should start quoting the  numerous papers that clearly show sea levels are rising ? That's no problem.

But on the bigger picture of melting ice caps, and warming seas which clearly expand the volume of the oceans ? Where will this water go in the future ? Is there a new physics or an alternative  that can disappear ice melt and stop warm water from expanding ?  That would be interesting


----------



## SirRumpole

Getting serious or a PR exercise ?

CSIRO: Greg Hunt instructs organisation to renew climate science focus, confirms new jobs

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-04/greg-hunt-tells-csiro-to-renew-climate-science-focus/7688582


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> o
> 
> ...........................................................................
> 
> Wayne with regard to the papers that suggest there is no significant rises in sea levels.
> Does that mean I should start quoting the  numerous papers that clearly show sea levels are rising ? That's no problem.
> 
> But on the bigger picture of melting ice caps, and warming seas which clearly expand the volume of the oceans ? Where will this water go in the future ? Is there a new physics or an alternative  that can disappear ice melt and stop warm water from expanding ?  That would be interesting




Oh jeez bas, such a clear illustration of your disingenuity and amatuer straw man tactics.

At no time did I or any of the authors of those papers claim sea level is not rising. The papers show there is no, or very little discernible anthropogenic signal.... Which has been my consistent position.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> So no comments about the remainder of George Monbiots analysis of the extent of the global climate crisis ?
> Irrelevant ?  Too big to talk about ?  *Easier to dismiss the anthrax scare as just small potatoes* ?
> 
> Is it worth pointing to the huge floods in China, the heat waves in India the wildfires in America  ect.
> Perhaps not.
> 
> ...........................................................................
> 
> Wayne with regard to the papers that suggest there is no significant rises in sea levels.
> Does that mean I should start quoting the  numerous papers that *clearly show sea levels are rising *? That's no problem.
> 
> But on the bigger picture of melting ice caps, and warming seas which clearly expand the volume of the oceans ? Where will this water go in the future ? Is there a new physics or an alternative  that can disappear ice melt and stop warm water from expanding ?  That would be interesting




Do you actually understand what has been written? Both wayneL and myself have been very kid glove with you basilio to ensure we are not pushing you to a tipping point and start melting. Gloves are now off.

As for George Joshua Richard Monbiot ... he is a British writer, known for his environmental and political activism. DERP!! 

Not a scientist nor an IPCC official nor even a weather man. A fictional activist writer for a rag of a newspaper. His job is to string words together to sell newspapers. PERIOD.

And here I was thinking you were getting somewhere when you started sprouting you only believe in *FACTS!*

ONE CHILD DIED from (possible) anthrax being released from permafrost.

38 people per annum die from licking a 9v battery. You do the math.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Is it worth pointing to the huge floods in China, the heat waves in India the wildfires in America  ect.
> Perhaps not.
> 
> 
> Wayne with regard to the papers that suggest there is no significant rises in sea levels.
> Does that mean I should start quoting the  numerous papers that clearly show sea levels are rising ? That's no problem.
> 
> But on the bigger picture of melting ice caps, and warming seas which clearly expand the volume of the oceans ? Where will this water go in the future ? Is there a new physics or an alternative  that can disappear ice melt and stop warm water from expanding ?  That would be interesting




Bas, it has all happened before so worrying about it all.

As for the sea levels rising, there will probably be more sink holes to fill which will maintain sea levels at their current levels...Problem solved..


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Getting serious or a PR exercise ?
> 
> CSIRO: Greg Hunt instructs organisation to renew climate science focus, confirms new jobs
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-04/greg-hunt-tells-csiro-to-renew-climate-science-focus/7688582




Yes,  feel a bit sceptical but there is no doubt the public perception is changing and alternatives to coal,  oil and gas gaining traction. 

Those not accepting the sensible realities of what is occurring will gradually fade away.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yes,  feel a bit sceptical but there is no doubt the public perception is changing and alternatives to coal,  oil and gas gaining traction.
> 
> Those not accepting the sensible realities of what is occurring will gradually fade away.




Just ask the South Australians what they think of their over use of renewables.

Ask the South Aussies how they like paying higher prices for their power.


----------



## noco

Great news...The Darling River flows again in spectacular fashion.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g/news-story/9889aec11d47af105679f591a0e43739


----------



## wayneL

Great points on resisting climate hysteria


----------



## Ijustnewit

Great video WayneL  , pretty much what we have all been saying on the non alarmist side.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Great points on resisting climate hysteria





It is great to see the true facts on Climate change and how false and exaggerated claims that are being made by Alarmists.

But it will be LIES,LIES AND MORE LIES that will come out of the Green enthusiast's mouths on this forum......There is little chance of them accepting the reality of their errors.


----------



## trainspotter

Whilst I agree with the content of the video wholeheartedly, if it was not for the ALARMISTS going off like a claxon would the oil brigade sweep this GW under the carpet and would there be such an industry surrounding corporations like the IPCC ? I think not.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Great points on resisting climate hysteria






Wow. 

Bloody. 

I like how he said we should focus on making the poor rich so if a hurricane hit, they'll be properly sheltered in high rise buildings, Miami-style.


----------



## trainspotter

luutzu said:


> Wow.
> 
> Bloody.
> 
> I like how he said we should focus on making the poor rich so if a hurricane hit, they'll be properly sheltered in high rise buildings, Miami-style.




HUH? How did you derive at that opinion? NOT what was said at all


----------



## cynic

Is this the thread you were looking for climate facts in, rumpy?

There must assuredly be some facts to be found amidst the 8k+ of postings!

Whilst some facts won't necessarily meld with one's chosen opinion, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to dismiss them as attacks on "scientific" experts.


----------



## noco

Here we have some more abnormal activities with the Sun as monitored by NASA and how it could affect some satellites in October 2016. 


http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/...f-the-sun/21432313/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00001389


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> To me it is vague and ambiguous.   It has given me a view that a messure of intelligence from your point is to speak in a type of long/short hand.   To some it may be funny taking out the mickey.   It is ignorance personified in fact.
> 
> Lets make it simple and clear of ambiguities.   Do you believe in man made co2 climate change,  yes or know?




Oh you must be joking Plod... Oh my God! Okay, here we go* AGAIN *for the 34,746,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,094, 092,654,645,789,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654th time:

Climate change is real
Climate may not need warming or cooling to change
There has been a broad warming trend since the end if the little ice age
CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably at least partly responsible for some of the more recent warming
It is obvious there are also natural factors
There is no way to accurately measure the influence of each at this stage
Other anthropegenic factors are also responsible for climate change, at least on a regional scale.
I am deeply concerned about other anthropogenic impacts on the environment and feel these concerns have been crowded out by CC alarmism
I believe climate change has been overstated for political and financial gain
I am deeply suspicious of the use of retrospective "adjustments" which always make the trend seem steeper
I am in favour of developing renewable clean energy technologies to replace fossil fuels if and when viable

There are more points but that is off the top of my head


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Oh you must be joking Plod... Oh my God! Okay, here we go* AGAIN *for the 34,746,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,094, 092,654,645,789,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654,947,946,376,947,865,956,154,486,094,946,654th time:
> 
> Climate change is real
> Climate may not need warming or cooling to change
> There has been a broad warming trend since the end if the little ice age
> CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably at least partly responsible for some of the more recent warming
> It is obvious there are also natural factors
> There is no way to accurately measure the influence of each at this stage
> Other anthropegenic factors are also responsible for climate change, at least on a regional scale.
> I am deeply concerned about other anthropogenic impacts on the environment and feel these concerns have been crowded out by CC alarmism
> I believe climate change has been overstated for political and financial gain
> I am deeply suspicious of the use of retrospective "adjustments" which always make the trend seem steeper
> I am in favour of developing renewable clean energy technologies to replace fossil fuels if and when viable
> 
> There are more points but that is off the top of my head




Yes Wayne and I maintain the Green Socialist United Nations are behind all this MALARKEY.


----------



## Tisme

See Oz has moved 1.5 metres since the some while ago when a pointy head did a boundary check.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Oh you must be joking Plod... Oh my God! Okay, here we go* AGAIN *
> Climate change is real
> Climate may not need warming or cooling to change
> There has been a broad warming trend since the end if the little ice age
> CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably at least partly responsible for some of the more recent warming
> It is obvious there are also natural factors
> There is no way to accurately measure the influence of each at this stage
> Other anthropegenic factors are also responsible for climate change, at least on a regional scale.
> I am deeply concerned about other anthropogenic impacts on the environment and feel these concerns have been crowded out by CC alarmism
> I believe climate change has been overstated for political and financial gain
> I am deeply suspicious of the use of retrospective "adjustments" which always make the trend seem steeper
> I am in favour of developing renewable clean energy technologies to replace fossil fuels if and when viable
> 
> There are more points but that is off the top of my head




No more internet today ...


----------



## noco

Well, who would have expected it.

The Carbon dioxide means more green growth, so why are we trying to cut down on CO2?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/fruity_news_from_the_global_warming_front/


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> The Carbon dioxide means more green growth, so why are we trying to cut down on CO2?
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/fruity_news_from_the_global_warming_front/




Can't remember why we are trying to cut it down. - It's a good point he is making, we could make the whole world a giant greenhouse with high carbon and grow anything! We have increased the levels by 30%, imagine 60% could do!


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Can't remember why we are trying to cut it down. - It's a good point he is making, we could make the whole world a giant greenhouse with high carbon and grow anything! We have increased the levels by 30%, imagine 60% could do!




Get the levels up around the 1000ppm mark and we could look forward to more compelling naps between uncontrollable lethargy.... not sure how old fossils will handle it with their reduced lung capacity..... a much longer sleep perhaps?


----------



## basilio

*Our Children's Trust*

Young people are bringing  court cases around the world against their governments for the lack of action on Climate Change.

And they are winning.



> LANDMARK U.S. FEDERAL CLIMATE LAWSUIT
> 
> "[This is] the most important lawsuit on the planet right now." - Bill McKibben & Naomi Klein
> 
> 21 young people from across the United States have filed a landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Also acting as a Plaintiff is world-renowned climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, serving as guardian for future generations and his granddaughter. The complaint asserts that, in causing climate change, the federal government has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.
> 
> *On April 8, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the federal District Court in Eugene, OR, ruled in favor of 21 young Plaintiffs in their landmark constitutional climate change case brought against the federal government and the fossil fuel industry*. The court’s ruling is a major victory for the plaintiffs, ages 8-19, from across the U.S. This ruling is now under review by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, with oral arguments scheduled for September 13, 2016, after which the case will either proceed toward trial or to appeal.




http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/



> *GLOBAL LEGAL ACTIONS*
> 
> Our Children's Trust is working to support youth and attorneys around the world who are developing and advancing legal actions to compel science-based government action on climate change in their own countries, which will protect present and future generations. The success of our partners include Norway's successful adoption of a public trust-based constitutional climate amendment; *Urgenda’s big court win in the Netherlands mandating specific national emission reductions; and the Supreme Court of Pakistan allowing young Rabab Ali’s constitutional climate case to proceed on behalf of the public and future generations.* We streamline our global work by cultivating relationships with partnering attorneys and youth who lead the efforts in their countries and to whom we provide legal, outreach, and communications support. Click on a country below to learn more.




http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/global-legal-actions


----------



## cynic

Now all we need are some court rulings to save our immortal souls from eternal damnation in the lake of burning sulphur!

Now, now! We all know that many harbour doubts about the existence of Lucifer, but nobody can prove his non existence, and the consequences of being mistaken in this case could be sufficiently severe (eternal damnation) to render inaction unwise.

So we had better petition the courts to start ruling for enforcement of regular repentance by the entire populace, just in case!

Off to the confessionals everyone!


----------



## Logique

This is disgraceful bullying and misogyny against a female climatologist. 

Leave Valentina alone, you warmist misogynists!



> Physicist who foresees global cooling says other scientists tried to ‘silence’ her
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/10/physicist-who-foresees-global-cooling-says-other-s/
> 
> A physicist who foresees a 30-year period of global cooling says *other climatologists have tried to “silence” her latest research* on solar cycles.
> 
> *Valentina Zharkova*, a professor at Northumbria University at Newcastle in the United Kingdom, said the Royal Astronomical Society received requests to withdraw a press release on her team’s latest research pointing to a significant drop in solar activity by mid-century...


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Now all we need are some court rulings to save our immortal souls from eternal damnation in the lake of burning sulphur!
> 
> Now, now! We all know that many harbour doubts about the existence of Lucifer, but nobody can prove his non existence, and the consequences of being mistaken in this case could be sufficiently severe (eternal damnation) to render inaction unwise.
> 
> So we had better petition the courts to start ruling for enforcement of regular repentance by the entire populace, just in case!
> 
> Off to the confessionals everyone!




Creative Cynic.  Very creative.

Of course in this case the judges investigated the evidence around CC and decided that  in fact, on the evidence, it was very real and largely caused by human actions.

And then they decided that governments had a *duty of care to their citizens to protect them from severe but avoidable harm *and were thus under obligation to address the problem.

Just not quite the same as Lucifer as it ?


> *The Dutch Climate Case: Beginning of a New Era of Climate Litigation?*
> 
> In a worldwide first, the Hague District Court has ordered the Dutch government to cut its greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels by the end of 2020. The decision, an English translation of which can be found here, has been widely reported and discussed (including in an interview on CBC Radio’s The Current with Dianne). It has rekindled hopes around the world that courts can spur governments into taking serious steps to deal with climate change.




https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...nning-of-a-new-era-of-climate-litigation.aspx


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Creative Cynic.  Very creative.
> 
> Of course in this case the judges investigated the evidence around CC and decided that  in fact, on the evidence, it was very real and largely caused by human actions.
> 
> And then they decided that governments had a *duty of care to their citizens to protect them from severe but avoidable harm *and were thus under obligation to address the problem.
> 
> Just not quite the same as Lucifer as it ?
> 
> 
> https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...nning-of-a-new-era-of-climate-litigation.aspx




You are correct! The case for the existence of Lucifer has greater merit!

As has been said before, the judges' expertise and training is predominantly legal, not scientific! Their determinations usually depend very heavily on the honesty of those presenting their respective cases.

Before presenting one's case at court, which particular tome is one required to place one's hand over and swear an oath to telling the truth?

And amongst other things, which particular beings does aforementioned tome attest to the existence of?


----------



## trainspotter

Many a person is in jail for a crime they did not commit basilio ...



> “It’s frightening how easy it is to convict an innocent person in this country,” Ms. Saifee said. “And it’s overwhelmingly difficult to release an innocent person.”




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/n...after-25-years-in-prison-for-murder.html?_r=0

I liken it to more of the tail wagging the dog syndrome.


----------



## basilio

Malcolm Roberts newly elected One nation Senator was on Q & A last night. Not surprisingly he opened up with a flat denunciation of current climate science because "they don't have the empirical evidence".

But the real conspiracy was arguing that all the meteorologist organisation around the world were deliberately corrupting their data to create a totally false picture of world temperatures.

And this guy is in our Parliament



> *Malcolm Roberts leaves NASA 'flummoxed' with Q&A climate claims*
> Peter Hannam
> 
> 
> It probably takes a lot to faze Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, but the outlandish views of Malcolm Roberts, the newly elected One Nation senator, can do it from half a world away.
> 
> On Monday night's Q&A program on the ABC, Roberts was venting his now well-worn view that there was no empirical evidence of climate change.
> 
> ......Anyway, when Cox pulled out some charts on Q&A from US space agency NASA showing a clear upward trend in global temperatures, Roberts readily dismissed the data as "corrupted" and "manipulated".
> 
> Roberts' argument, apparently, is that the world was hotter in the 1930s but NASA had altered the figures to make the current era look warmer. (According to one take the issue is whether continental US was warmer in 1934 than in the hot years of 1998 or 2006 - but 2012 then blew all previous records away.)
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/envi...15-gqt9a4.html




(Excellent video on the link)


----------



## basilio

Another take on Malcolm Roberts inglorious efforts to deny the bleeding obvious. 


> *Malcolm Roberts' embarrassing clash with physicist Brian Cox*
> 
> Neil McMahon
> 
> 179 reading now
> 
> In searching for a moral from the story of Monday's Q&A - and the debut of a One Nation senator earning rave reviews for his revival of Queensland's finest vaudevillian traditions - let's tap the history books: the lesson of the Queen and the farting corgi.
> 
> .....Which brings us to Q&A debutante Malcolm Roberts, whose bursts of intellectual wind are often of the kind that make you want to move away in a hurry while shouting loudly at the world: "It wasn't us! It was him!", to which the world will nod sympathetically and say, "Who else?"
> 
> *That's the hope anyway; but what if they don't and instead start looking at us like we're all barmy? *
> 
> The question arose repeatedly on Q&A as Roberts delivered us the national embarrassment of rock star physicist Brian Cox having to put his eyes back in their sockets over and again as Roberts threw one conspiracy theory at him after another. When eyes weren't popping, they were rolling. Other panellists were aghast. Even host Tony Jones felt moved to clarify things in stark terms.
> 
> Jones: "You are hearing the interpretation of a highly qualified scientist and you're saying, "'I don't believe that' - is that right?"
> 
> It was.
Click to expand...



http://www.watoday.com.au/entertain...with-physicist-brian-cox-20160815-gqt941.html


----------



## trainspotter

Trainspotted a while ago basilio ....


----------



## explod

basilio said:


> Another take on Malcolm Roberts inglorious efforts to deny the bleeding obvious.
> ]






He's a joke and the exposure will help us get to the real task of trying to combat the causes of climate change full on.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> He's a joke and the exposure will help us get to the real task of trying to combat the causes of climate change full on.




How many times do you have to be told......It is the SUN.....The joke was on the mad professor from England.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> He's a joke and the exposure will help us get to the real task of trying to combat the causes of climate change full on.




....and, Mr Cox has a public career to protect


----------



## noco

I know I have posted this before, but it obvious the Alarmist on this Forum have either not bothered to read or decided to completely ignore it.

*CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALL ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SUN.*



New post on cairnsnews.org



WA engineer destroys global warming myth
by cairnsnews



Miranda Devine
Respected journalist Miranda Devine published the article below October 4, 2015, throws engineered evidence supporting taxpayer funded environmentalist empires selling global warming/ CO2 doomsday/climate change Armageddon to instigate damage control protection of their gravy train.
Dr David Evans makes this statement in the video below that is a must view for concerned Australians - “Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government ”” how exciting for the political class!” 

Harry Palmer - sosnews.org

Source: Miranda Devine- Perth Now - news.com.au - October 4, 2015
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.
“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.
His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.
If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren't reflected in the actual temperatures.


Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova who hosts climate change skeptics blog - joannenova.com.au
Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.com
“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”
Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.
He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.
He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.
When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.
“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”
Editorial:
Unable to find any peer review for Dr Evans findings does not dismiss those finding. It does however keep the gate wide open for environment engineers and their loyal supporters of the gravy train environmental express.
Further, peer review factor is the current tool of the loony greens which is understandable when they develop climate change doom reports having it endorsed only by capitulating peer review.
Posted 2011 - Dr Evans four fatal pieces of evidence- http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/
posted 2011 - Unknown climate change supporters opinion to Dr Evans - http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Harry Palmer

cairnsnews | August 1, 2016 at 11:33 am | Tags: Climate Change Skeptics, Dr David Evans, Environmental Fictional Engineering, government corruption | Categories: Agenda 2030, Climate Change, corruption, environment engineering, Global warming, mythmanagement, New World Order, People Control | URL: http://wp.me/p2dFb5-1YG
Comment
   See all comments


----------



## basilio

Just pure and utter rubbish Noco.  You clearly don't realise it but that doesn't change the facts.

David Evans long involved treatise has validity only in his mind and the other people subject to his delusions.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Just pure and utter rubbish Noco.  You clearly don't realise it but that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> David Evans long involved treatise has validity only in his mind and the other people subject to his delusions.




Couldn't the same statement be accurately made of many of the climate alarmists?


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> Couldn't the same statement be accurately made of many of the climate alarmists?




Oh No Cynic...You are not allowed to do that......The Alarmist are always right and everyone else speaks rubbish according to Basillio????????????????.....No matter what facts you throw up these Greenies they are so brainwashed into believing their masters from the UN that they dare not veer away from the the UN bible......I am sure if the UN told them to put their heads in a fire, they would do so....It is such a shame...I do feel sorry for these people.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Just pure and utter rubbish Noco.  You clearly don't realise it but that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> David Evans long involved treatise has validity only in his mind and the other people subject to his delusions.




It is very easy to say it is rubbish but you do not give a reason for saying such words.......It is well known the "FACTS" which you keep presenting are distorted and exaggerated and you cannot deny it......To harp on the idea that these so called Climate scientist have their work peer reviewed is all about the amount of money they are paid and they will keep doing it so long as their bank balance increases. 

This whole Global Warming scare is a scam.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Just pure and utter rubbish Noco.  You clearly don't realise it but that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> David Evans long involved treatise has validity only in his mind and the other people subject to his delusions.




Got any FACTS to back this up basilio? This guy is obviously a DUNCE and should be discredited IMMEDIATELY !






> *Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia's carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. *
> 
> Evans is a mathematician and engineer. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. He believes the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a sceptic.




http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/s3456871.htm


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> Another take on Malcolm Roberts ..................




Buried in Roberts crank-mania are the seeds of his own destruction with regard his CC belligerence. I his Q&A performance for a short while he reflected on education and made the direct point to the importance of teaching children not what to think, but how to think. In this all power to his arm; The elevation of critical thinking....

Anybody with this capacity would within a moments thought, see the bazaar nature of a conspiracy theory involving so many disparate and disconnected independent sources all coming to a similar conclusion for some nefarious end that then somehow benefits an international banking cabal, those long term bent is world domination through manipulation of the United Nations. As is Roberts delusion.

Maybe WayneL can point out, privately, to Roberts how Exxon and Koch brothers studies work in these parameters, in aligning with all these other infiltrated  scientific research insto's and confirms their findings .... Information your keen to keep close to your chest... 
Hang on I know the answer; Obviously penetrated by moles and sleeper agents. This thing just keeps getting bigger...
My god now I see it it's all true . _*AAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhh.........*_

Recommended reading on this from 'Catch-22' 344mm Leparge Gun;
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/180427-they-began-to-invent-humourless-glum-jokes-of-their-own


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Got any FACTS to back this up basilio? This guy is obviously a DUNCE and should be discredited IMMEDIATELY !
> 
> View attachment 67784
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/s3456871.htm




Too many people on this thread will believe what they want to believe re the causes and reality of global warming.

For those who are interested you can check these detailed breakdowns of David Evans misinformation re CC

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012...s-in-david-evans-case-against-global-warming/


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Too many people on this thread will believe what they want to believe re the causes and reality of global warming.
> 
> For those who are interested you can check these detailed breakdowns of David Evans misinformation re CC
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
> https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012...s-in-david-evans-case-against-global-warming/




Neither of which have any credibility.

The irony.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> Buried in Roberts crank-mania are the seeds of his own destruction with regard his CC belligerence. I his Q&A performance for a short while he reflected on education and made the direct point to the importance of teaching children not what to think, but how to think. In this all power to his arm; The elevation of critical thinking....
> 
> Anybody with this capacity would within a moments thought, see the bazaar nature of a conspiracy theory involving so many disparate and disconnected independent sources all coming to a similar conclusion for some nefarious end that then somehow benefits an international banking cabal, those long term bent is world domination through manipulation of the United Nations. As is Roberts delusion.
> 
> Maybe WayneL can point out, privately, to Roberts how Exxon and Koch brothers studies work in these parameters, in aligning with all these other infiltrated  scientific research insto's and confirms their findings .... Information your keen to keep close to your chest...
> Hang on I know the answer; Obviously penetrated by moles and sleeper agents. This thing just keeps getting bigger...
> My god now I see it it's all true . _*AAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhh.........*_
> 
> Recommended reading on this from 'Catch-22' 344mm Leparge Gun;
> http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/180427-they-began-to-invent-humourless-glum-jokes-of-their-own




It's nice to know you're thinking of me orr, but you'll have to do better than an intellectual spit wad and lacky band to be anything more than a mild annoyance. Good luck with it


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Couldn't the same statement be accurately made of many of the climate alarmists?




Nah.  It just has 10s of thousands of research papers,  observations and data across hundreds/thousands of scientists around the world. That is the body of evidence that underlies the current understandings of CC and the effects it is having on our planet.

So it isn't make believe Cynic.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Nah.  It just has 10s of thousands of research papers,  observations and data across hundreds/thousands of scientists around the world. That is the body of evidence that underlies the current understandings of CC and the effects it is having on our planet.
> 
> So it isn't make believe Cynic.




Ohhh! Does this have something to do with that magical 97% number?

You do know that claim to scientific consensus was found to be incorrect, right?


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Ohhh! Does this have something to do with that magical 97% number?
> 
> You do know that claim to scientific consensus was found to be incorrect, right?




Cynic do you have any idea of the tens of thousands of papers and research undertaken on CC?  You don't appear to accept even the reality of the amount of research.

I can't help you with your denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding CC. That's your decision.  But if  you want to inject some research into this discussion consider the following article.



> *Scientists tried to redo 38 climate change-denying studies and discovered some major flaws*
> 
> Kelly Dickerson
> 
> Sep. 9, 2015, 11:15 AM 11,517 122
> 
> 
> About 97% of scientists agree not only that climate change is real, but also that human activity, like driving a fossil fuel-burning car, is making it worse.
> 
> *That agreement stems from nearly 4,000 studies that suggest humans are culpable, compared to only about 80 that say we have nothing to do with the problem.*
> 
> Those numbers should leave us pretty confident that humans are indeed fueling climate change. However, you could argue there's a (really) small chance those 2% of studies actually have it right.
> 
> So, a team of seven climate scientists and meteorologists decided to give climate contrarians the benefit of the doubt, picked half of their more popular studies, and tried to redo them. (The hallmark of a good scientific paper is that it's reproducible, meaning another scientist can do the same experiment and get the same or similar results.)
> 
> *What happened? Beyond being unable to replicate most of the results, the team discovered major flaws in the papers. In fact, many papers left out essential data, and some even ignored basic physics.*
> 
> Dana Nuccitelli, one of the scientists who helped analyze the climate denier papers for the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, summed up what his team found in a blog post for The Guardian.
> 
> Below are the three biggest, most common problems Nuccitelli and the team found with the small minority of studies that dispute human involvement in climate change.




http://www.techinsider.io/global-warming-denier-studies-not-replicable-2015-9


----------



## basilio

While looking for information regarding the overwhelming acknowledgement by climate scientists that CC is real and largely caused by human activity I came across this article. 

It's relatively unusual in that it comes from writer of a free market/free minds magazine.




> *What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?*
> Scientific evidence does not mandate any particular policy.
> 
> Ronald Bailey | April 3, 2015
> 
> *
> In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century.* My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear.
> 
> At the 2007 annual gala dinner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a D.C.-based free-market think tank, the master of ceremonies was former National Review editor John O'Sullivan. To entertain the crowd, O'Sullivan put together a counterfeit tale in which I ostensibly had given a lecture on environmental trends pointing out that most were positive. After my talk, O'Sullivan told the audience, a young woman supposedly approached me to express her displeasure with regard to my change of mind on climate change.
> 
> Continuing his fable, O'Sullivan recounted to the hundreds of diners that I had tried to explain why my views had shifted. Eventually realizing that the young woman was having none of it, I then purportedly asked her if it wasn't enough that we two actually agreed on most environmental policy issues. The young woman paused for a moment, said O'Sullivan, and then retorted, "I suppose that Pontius Pilate made some good decisions, too." Being compared, even in jest, to the Roman governor who consented to the crucifixion of Jesus is, to say the least, somewhat disconcerting.
> 
> Welcome to the most politicized science of our time.
> 
> *So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? **Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.*




http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/what-evidence-would-persuade-you-that-ma/


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Cynic do you have any idea of the tens of thousands of papers and research undertaken on CC?  You don't appear to accept even the reality of the amount of research.
> 
> I can't help you with your denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding CC. That's your decision.  But if  you want to inject some research into this discussion consider the following article.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.techinsider.io/global-warming-denier-studies-not-replicable-2015-9




Quality, not quantity is what is required here!

Any idiot can produce an opinionated paper, pursuant to fashionable agendas, and then find acceptance amongst their idiot peers.

Throughout this thread, I have raised a number of very basic questions concerning the science behind the question of causation!

Despite all your claims to knowing the "facts", you've yet to furnish a logically and/or scientifically sound answer to such questions!

If the thousands of papers, by thousands of scientists, of which you claim to be aware, have any value, then surely you should be able to draw on that information and answer some simple questions concerning the scientific basis for your belief?


If you cannot, then I put it to you, that you don't even know what the facts are!

And for all you think you know, you  might be subscribing to a viewpoint promoted pursuant to a consensus of lunatic morons!


----------



## basilio

> If the thousands of papers, by thousands of scientists, of which you claim to be aware, have any value, then surely you should be able to draw on that information and answer some simple questions concerning the scientific basis for your belief?




Do you want to find my carefully explained reasons for accepting the validity of the current scientific consensus on CC ?  Just have a look at my contributions on this forum.  I have to have written /quoted hundreds of comments.

I offered the comments of Ronald Bailey in my last post because he in fact summarised the most cogent reasons for his change of mind on the topic. Check those out for answers.

Finally, as usual, Skeptical science has put together the ABC of the history of CC and reasons to accept CC. I'm not going to try and reinvent the wheel. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html




> The Big Picture
> Posted on 24 September 2010 by dana1981
> 
> Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming, and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Nah.  It just has 10s of thousands of research papers,  observations and data across hundreds/thousands of scientists around the world. That is the body of evidence that underlies the current understandings of CC and the effects it is having on our planet.
> 
> So it isn't make believe Cynic.




http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/s3456871.htm

Read page 47/48

That 97.5% of 77 Alarmist scientists....This is the number I have been trying to get fro Lutzu


*yet they keep calling us deniers with
 these illusions of holocaust and 
sympathy with Nazis and what not. That's name calling that started out, that's 
been running for years. So when are people on your side of the debate going 
to start saying well hold on a minute, couldn't we just call them independent 
scientists instead of calling them deniers. When are we going to raise the 
standards on that side of the debate? 
Anna:       I think this probably goes back to a poi
nt about you, as you said, accept that 
carbon pollution or carbon dioxide causing -   
Jo:            I don't accept its pollution. 
Anna:       Pollution is a by-product of production that has a bad impact on the world. 
Jo:            If it did and there's no evidence that it does. 
Anna:       Well actually I mean you've got the Climate Commission, you've got the IPCC 
saying it's beyond reasonable doubt. 
Jo:            You've got lots of associations. 
David:       You've got authority just like t
he Pope had authority. You can have the Pope 
himself on your side, it's still a battl
e of evidence which I've shown you. 
Anna:       The Pope has no expertise in climate science.   
Nick:         Sorry, what are they saying, what are they saying is beyond reasonable 
doubt? 
Anna:       That, you know, you've got scientists very - the vast majority of scientists - 
 © Smith & Nasht. 
I Can Change Your Mind About...Climate. 
Jo Nova & David Evans        
48
Jo:            No, no.  We can name more scientists
 than you can, the petition project has 
31,500 scientists named, it's been checked, it's been checked twice it was 
done by volunteers. 
Anna:       It has names like Mickey Mouse on it.   
Jo:            It's had names like that on the first round and you're ignoring the second 
round. Sorry, 31,500 scientists have named it, it's been double checked, 
9,000 PhDs, that's never really been reported to the public. It doesn't prove 
anything, okay, argument from authority, just because we outnumber you we 
never say we're right because we outnumber you. We outrank you as well. 
We've got the Nobel Prize winners like Ivar Giaever on our side. We don't 
say we're right because we outrank you either. We just say there is another 
side to the argument, can we put both sides forward. 
Anna:       The vast majority of scientis
ts, 97.5% of climate scientists?  
Jo:            No, the vast majority of the climate - which was 75 people. 
David:        Of the government climate scientists in the Western countries. 
Jo:            Did they tell you it was only 75 people out of 77? 
Anna:       There's been numerous studies that show that the absolutely overwhelming 
vast majority of climate scientists who are peer reviewed - 
Jo:            And they can name 75 scientists out of 77 in that and it was a 2-minute study 
done on the Internet which just asked them if the world was warming. We 
agreed, we say yes, it's warming so, you know, that's inane to report to that. 
David:       Anna, also the Chinese climate establishment, thinks it's a load of hooey. The 


*


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Do you want to find my carefully explained reasons for accepting the validity of the current scientific consensus on CC ?  Just have a look at my contributions on this forum.  I have to have written /quoted hundreds of comments.
> 
> 
> ...




And I have repeated a number of questions for which a single answer will suffice!  To date those questions remain unanswered!

Large quantities (hundreds) of written/quoted comments, and yet no quality answers to my questions are to be found therein.

What part of: "Quality, not quantity is what is required here!" continues to elude you?


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

Must we belabour the point that there is broad agreement that the globe has been warming since the little ice age. And let's not use the word consensus, that in an anethema to science.

There is also broad agreement that anthropogenic emissions have played some role in more recent warming.

Thete are also natural factors at play, as much the worst of the alarmists live in denial of that.

Where there is less confidence, iare the roles of each and their feefback mechanisms.

There is actually much less consensus than you think bas. As Ive said before, I have a few CSIRO scientists as clients; in private, they will tell you a different story the official line they must toe. Their employment is contingent upon them having a particular view which they might not necessarily agree with.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Basilio
> 
> Must we belabour the point that there is broad agreement that the globe has been warming since the little ice age. And let's not use the word consensus, that in an anethema to science.
> 
> There is also broad agreement that anthropogenic emissions have played some role in more recent warming.
> 
> Thete are also natural factors at play, as much the worst of the alarmists live in denial of that.
> 
> Where there is less confidence, iare the roles of each and their feefback mechanisms.
> 
> There is actually much less consensus than you think bas. As Ive said before, I have a few CSIRO scientists as clients; in private, they will tell you a different story the official line they must toe. Their employment is contingent upon them having a particular view which they might not necessarily agree with.




Professor Peter Ridd, JCU Townsville, was ostracized for stepping out of line with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority.


----------



## explod

Arr well,  about time to close this thread.  The hysteria,  so called,  is gone.   The majority of progressive people are converting to clean alternatives at an increasing rate.  Even our right wing former sceptical Government is pushing in the right dirsctions. 

I think the hundred year events happenning every few weeks around the world has put the final nail into it all.   Huge fires and floods in just the last week.   Cold and snow in WA confirming the imballances and volatility of it.  Trouble is it is past the point of return in our lifetimes and our Grandchildren will curse our inaction.   Margaret Thatcher saw and recognised it many years ago with the formation of the IPCC but the oil and coal lobbies soon distorted that.   But the money now recognises that it must get on board the new technology or miss out. Interesting times.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Arr well,  about time to close this thread.  The hysteria,  so called,  is gone.   The majority of progressive people are converting to clean alternatives at an increasing rate.  Even our right wing former sceptical Government is pushing in the right dirsctions.
> 
> I think the hundred year events happenning every few weeks around the world has put the final nail into it all.   Huge fires and floods in just the last week.   Cold and snow in WA confirming the imballances and volatility of it.  Trouble is it is past the point of return in our lifetimes and our Grandchildren will curse our inaction.   Margaret Thatcher saw and recognised it many years ago with the formation of the IPCC but the oil and coal lobbies soon distorted that.   But the money now recognises that it must get on board the new technology or miss out. Interesting times.




Saw some interview where a climate scientist said the US is seeing a heck of a lot of 1,000 year weather events lately. 

July being the hottest month ever recorded in the US; the past 15 years has increasingly been the hottest 15 years recorded around the world. 

The ME might become too hot in the future for human survival. It'll be quite peaceful if most of the Arabs have to pack up and move to where there's water and less heat.

Nothing to worry about folks. Just the weather changing, that's all.


----------



## basilio

Always interesting to see different points of view re CC from outside Oz..



> *Noah's Ark story is a 'fact' that disproves climate change, says Irish MP*
> 
> 'There were some centuries when the country was very hot and warm and then there were different centuries with so much rain and cold'
> 
> Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent
> 
> 
> An Irish MP has claimed the Biblical story about Noah’s Ark supports his view that climate change is not being caused by humans because “God above is in charge of the weather”.
> 
> Danny Healy-Rae, an independent, told music-and-politics magazine Hot Press said he was basing his views on “facts” and “history”.
> 
> Climate scientists were getting “more vehement” about the issue, he claimed, because they were “getting a lot of finance”.
> 
> Mr Healy-Rae, a publican in Kilgarvan, Kerry, told a debate in the Irish parliament earlier this year that “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can’t do anything about it”.
> 
> *And, following a backlash about his remarks, he told Hot Press: “Everyone is entitled to their view. I’m basing my views on facts. The facts are there and history proves it. *
> 
> “We had the Ice Age. We had Noah’s Ark. We had all those stories. We’ve proof of the Famine in 1740, which was caused by two years of incessant rain.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...p-danny-healy-rae-bible-science-a7198711.html


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Always interesting to see different points of view re CC from outside Oz..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...p-danny-healy-rae-bible-science-a7198711.html
> 
> View attachment 67808





How crazy is that ey?

God control the Weather... and He also promised Noah he won't flood the world again - so no way CC is real.


Don't know what goes on in the minds of "great" people, but I have a feeling they don't much care about the environment and such things as air pollution and floods because they live on high grounds in well insulated castles. 

And if all goes to heck where they live too, then there's always a seat in some ark taking them some place nice.

Much like the elites in the third world buying up a few pieces of heaven in Australia and elsewhere for retirement - away from the pollution and unrest that will ensue back home.


----------



## wayneL

Ah yes, and Obama et al are gonna stop warming at 2 °. :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Ah yes, and Obama et al are gonna stop warming at 2 °. :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:




Of course they're not. This is one of those times when they'll jump to it once the water reaches their gated mansions.


Though they'll send hope and prayers, and Tweets about heart breaks and stuff.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Of course they're not. This is one of those times when they'll jump to it once the water reaches their gated mansions.
> 
> 
> Though they'll send hope and prayers, and Tweets about heart breaks and stuff.




You will never live to see your supposition come to reality and neither will those born today.....

It is all a UN scam and it is a shame that so many people are falling for it.

That 97.5 % of those 77 scientists have been well paid to present their "PEER REVIEWED" nonsense which is far from the true facts.....You know that 97.5% of all climate change scientists you so often talked about, well that number has all finally been revealed....But don't forget there are 31,470 scientist who are sceptics and who are well versed on the scam that is taking place on a daily basis.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You will never live to see your supposition come to reality and neither will those born today.....
> 
> It is all a UN scam and it is a shame that so many people are falling for it.
> 
> That 97.5 % of those 77 scientists have been well paid to present their "PEER REVIEWED" nonsense which is far from the true facts.....You know that 97.5% of all climate change scientists you so often talked about, well that number has all finally been revealed....But don't forget there are 31,470 scientist who are sceptics and who are well versed on the scam that is taking place on a daily basis.




Rubbish.   Where does the money come for climate scientists to lie?  It comes from the oil and coal lobby to distort as you do so well noco.   There is no money needed to prove CC because its well proven and it is here now.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Rubbish.   Where does the money come for climate scientists to lie?  It comes from the oil and coal lobby to distort as you do so well noco.   There is no money needed to prove CC because its well proven and it is here now.




What distortion are you talking about by me?....explod you are letting your imagination run wild again.

The United Nations are full of Greens and socialists, including Ban-ki-Moon, and the UN is determined to gain World Government ...So the money comes from the UN which is contributed from various countries to the UN Climate Change committee of which Kevin Rudd was and may be still be  is a member......The Labor Party through Greg Combet committed $599,000,000 at the Cancun conference in Mexico with a further 10% of the proceeds of the the Carbon dioxide tax. ....Whether that ever took place I am not sure...it may have been stymied by Abbott.

Do you have a link or some proof about the oil and coal lobby group?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> You will never live to see your supposition come to reality and neither will those born today.....
> 
> It is all a UN scam and it is a shame that so many people are falling for it.
> 
> That 97.5 % of those 77 scientists have been well paid to present their "PEER REVIEWED" nonsense which is far from the true facts.....You know that 97.5% of all climate change scientists you so often talked about, well that number has all finally been revealed....But don't forget there are 31,470 scientist who are sceptics and who are well versed on the scam that is taking place on a daily basis.




What if you're wrong and all Queenslanders have to move south because of more intense heat and flooding? How will NSW and Victoria cope with so many... hmmm... patriots? 

jk, I found all the Queenslanders to be very nice people. Except for this oily Fish'n'Chip / Feng Shui master. But he's Asian so yea.


And no, it's 97% of all scientific studies on CC. Not of the 77 CC scientists. There are thousands of them. What with uni being so cheap and Masters and PhDs easy to come by.


----------



## brty

If anyone bothered to check my comments from a few years ago, you can clearly see that I was in neither camp, but a sceptic. At the time I considered that there was nowhere near enough evidence to "Prove" CC one way or the other.

However over the last few years, the number of new climate/weather records that support warming is happening is totally overwhelming. With the last 15 months being each a new record average high temperature, it is inconceivable that people are still doubting that we are on a warming trajectory.

The question of whether man made or natural is IMO mute, as a much warmer climate will have devastating effects for the human race.

There is a clear correlation between temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, whether man made or natural, so the only sensible thing to do is to drop the CO2 levels back to what they were pre industrialization, not put your head in the sand and say not enough evidence, prove this or that.

Is there any point in doing nothing until ALL the evidence is in, but it is too late to stop devastating effects from happening? No, the sensible approach is to try and do what is necessary to keep the atmosphere at a constant level according to historic records, not play with with the atmosphere as if it were a big experiment. 

We should therefore be doing everything possible to drop the CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels, but first we need to stop it from increasing.
This means green power sources, grid scale batteries, closing coal fired power stations, and encouraging Electric Vehicles and banning Internal combustion engines where ever possible.


----------



## cynic

brty said:


> If anyone bothered to check my comments from a few years ago, you can clearly see that I was in neither camp, but a sceptic. At the time I considered that there was nowhere near enough evidence to "Prove" CC one way or the other.
> 
> However over the last few years, the number of new climate/weather records that support warming is happening is totally overwhelming. With the last 15 months being each a new record average high temperature, it is inconceivable that people are still doubting that we are on a warming trajectory.
> 
> The question of whether man made or natural is IMO mute, as a much warmer climate will have devastating effects for the human race.
> 
> There is a clear correlation between temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, whether man made or natural, so the only sensible thing to do is to drop the CO2 levels back to what they were pre industrialization, not put your head in the sand and say not enough evidence, prove this or that.
> 
> Is there any point in doing nothing until ALL the evidence is in, but it is too late to stop devastating effects from happening? No, the sensible approach is to try and do what is necessary to keep the atmosphere at a constant level according to historic records, not play with with the atmosphere as if it were a big experiment.
> 
> We should therefore be doing everything possible to drop the CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels, but first we need to stop it from increasing.
> This means green power sources, grid scale batteries, closing coal fired power stations, and encouraging Electric Vehicles and banning Internal combustion engines where ever possible.



One of the rare occasions when I have had cause to be in disagreement with you. There are a number of concerns I have raised which appear to have been totally overlooked.

One of the my key concerns is the likelihood that the increased populace has necessitated elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, primarily for reasons of respiration.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> What if you're wrong and all Queenslanders have to move south because of more intense heat and flooding? How will NSW and Victoria cope with so many... hmmm... patriots?
> 
> jk, I found all the Queenslanders to be very nice people. Except for this oily Fish'n'Chip / Feng Shui master. But he's Asian so yea.
> 
> 
> And no, it's 97% of all scientific studies on CC. Not of the 77 CC scientists. There are thousands of them. What with uni being so cheap and Masters and PhDs easy to come by.




Please show me where I wrong about those 97.5% of 77 scientists instead of making wild statements.

BTW, it is getting cooler in Townsville...Longest winter I have ever known in 45 years living here.....21/08/2016 and we still need blankets on at night...So what intense heat and flooding are you talking about and what will cause it or is that more supposition and funky talk on your part?

It is called Climate Change caused by the SUN......you know that bright light in the sky that rises from the East and sets in the West every day.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Please show me where I wrong about those 97.5% of 77 scientists instead of making wild statements.
> 
> BTW, it is getting cooler in Townsville...Longest winter I have ever known in 45 years living here.....21/08/2016 and we still need blankets on at night...So what intense heat and flooding are you talking about and what will cause it or is that more supposition and funky talk on your part?
> 
> It is called Climate Change caused by the SUN......you know that bright light in the sky that rises from the East and sets in the West every day.




We've discussed the 97% at some length. If you still don't believe it then, nothing else will change your mind now.

Maybe part of CC is the abnormal weather pattern. That it's not always about heat or hurricane, but abnormality here, extreme wet or dry elsewhere. And that is also why, I am guessing, it is very difficult to "prove" direct causes. 

Was listening to an interview where some expert was saying that hotter air in the atmosphere mean greater capacity for it to soak up moisture, ie. rain. Then when it rain, it don't just pour, it "water bomb" an entire area. Flooding towns and villages not at all designed for or expecting that kind of stormwater. Like Texas or some state recently.

So I don't know about you, but I'd like my experts to tell me what's the possible cause of all these catastrophic weather event, and what can be done to hopefully mitigate it.

Whether you believe them experts or not, at least they're trying to figure out and have enough evidence to suggest possible causes (and ways to mitigate against it).... sure as heck beats the guys who said it ain't happening, but if it is happening it is natural and nothing we can do about it - but it ain't happening because that's just how weathers are: decade, hundred, thousand-year events happening a lot in the past decade.

On the bright side, if these extreme weather happen frequently enough, the deniers will be right to say that it's just all normal and occur very frequently. New normal and what not.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> One of the rare occasions when I have had cause to be in disagreement with you. There are a number of concerns I have raised which appear to have been totally overlooked.
> 
> One of the my key concerns is the likelihood that the increased populace has necessitated elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, primarily for reasons of respiration.




yea, I know right.

Bloody humans and animals and their breathing.

Burning fossil fuel, chopping down the forests, paving all the roads, polluting the rivers and seas... that's all normal. And we wouldn't have this Co2 problem if it weren't for the breathing!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> yea, I know right.
> 
> Bloody humans and animals and their breathing.
> 
> Burning fossil fuel, chopping down the forests, paving all the roads, polluting the rivers and seas... that's all normal. And we wouldn't have this Co2 problem if it weren't for the breathing!





Those things you describe are indeed quite normal to those viewing the planet from outside of the human centric perspective!

Do you happen to know what level of additional co2 would need to be present in our atmosphere to support the post industrial increase in this planet's population?

Yes! I know! Too many syllables!


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> We've discussed the 97% at some length. If you still don't believe it then, nothing else will change your mind now.
> 
> Maybe part of CC is the abnormal weather pattern. That it's not always about heat or hurricane, but abnormality here, extreme wet or dry elsewhere. And that is also why, I am guessing, it is very difficult to "prove" direct causes.
> 
> Was listening to an interview where some expert was saying that hotter air in the atmosphere mean greater capacity for it to soak up moisture, ie. rain. Then when it rain, it don't just pour, it "water bomb" an entire area. Flooding towns and villages not at all designed for or expecting that kind of stormwater. Like Texas or some state recently.
> 
> So I don't know about you, but I'd like my experts to tell me what's the possible cause of all these catastrophic weather event, and what can be done to hopefully mitigate it.
> 
> Whether you believe them experts or not, at least they're trying to figure out and have enough evidence to suggest possible causes (and ways to mitigate against it).... sure as heck beats the guys who said it ain't happening, but if it is happening it is natural and nothing we can do about it - but it ain't happening because that's just how weathers are: decade, hundred, thousand-year events happening a lot in the past decade.
> 
> On the bright side, if these extreme weather happen frequently enough, the deniers will be right to say that it's just all normal and occur very frequently. New normal and what not.




Yes we have discussed this quite often and I asked you several times what number represented that 97.5% and you could never tell but I eventually found out about the number of 77...Are you denying this number or have you come to accept it now?

When you speak about pouring rain like a water bomb, how much rain would you need, in say, a 12 hour period to compare to a water bomb?...Can you give me a figure in inches or mm?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Those things you describe are indeed quite normal to those viewing the planet from outside of the human centric perspective!
> 
> Do you happen to know what level of additional co2 would need to be present in our atmosphere to support the post industrial increase in this planet's population?
> 
> Yes! I know! Too many syllables!




Too much hot air too. 

I heard Reagan or Bush Snr. said rice farming is just as bad as fossil fuel. Yah dood, let them not eat rice then we'll think about serious investment into clean and renewable alternatives.

Wait, did you just say that all those smoke stacks and fossil engines; all them toxic, non bio-degradable effluent from factories... those are natural? Naturally occurring phenomena? 

See the issue with using too many syllables? Idiots like me can make fun of both your smart-dumbness.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yes we have discussed this quite often and I asked you several times what number represented that 97.5% and you could never tell but I eventually found out about the number of 77...Are you denying this number or have you come to accept it now?
> 
> When you speak about pouring rain like a water bomb, how much rain would you need, in say, a 12 hour period to compare to a water bomb?...Can you give me a figure in inches or mm?





From far away:




A supercell. Pretty. Unless you live under it.





http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/w...lls-21-in-macedonias-capital-skopje.html?_r=0

*A ‘Water Bomb’ of a Storm Kills 21 in Macedonia’s Capital, Skopje* 



> SKOPJE, Macedonia ”” A freakishly violent rainstorm that Macedonia’s top weather official called a “water bomb” ravaged Skopje during the weekend, collapsing streets, inundating vehicles and drowning trapped motorists and homeowners, most of them caught by surprise.
> 
> At least 21 people were killed and 77 injured in what officials described on Sunday as the worst flooding disaster in a half-century to hit Skopje, the Macedonian capital and a city of more than a half-million people in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula.
> 
> Officials said the death toll could rise because many people were still missing after the storm, which hit with shocking ferocity on Saturday night.
> 
> The police, army units and firefighters rescued more than 1,000 people from the raging water that flooded streets, buildings, houses, clinics and schools. Traffic in much of the city was paralyzed.
> ....




That particular case above quotes about 4 inches of rain. In matter of minutes or seconds? Like a bomb drop right?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Too much hot air too.
> 
> I heard Reagan or Bush Snr. said rice farming is just as bad as fossil fuel. Yah dood, let them not eat rice then we'll think about serious investment into clean and renewable alternatives.
> 
> Wait, did you just say that all those smoke stacks and fossil engines; all them toxic, non bio-degradable effluent from factories... those are natural? Naturally occurring phenomena?
> 
> See the issue with using too many syllables? Idiots like me can make fun of both your smart-dumbness.



The claims humans make to their technology being artificial, as distinct form natural, is simply humanity's vain attempt to maintain an illusion of superiority to all of nature!

Things can only truly be artificial when viewed from a strictly human perspective!

Instead of conflating CO2 with pollution, would you kindly answer the question!


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yes we have discussed this quite often and I asked you several times what number represented that 97.5% and you could never tell but I eventually found out about the number of 77...Are you denying this number or have you come to accept it now?....




How many specialist Climate Scientists are there in the world? 97% of them said we're screwed if we keep this up.

And note that the other 3% didn't say there aren't CC. It's either they can't be sure or not certain CC is caused by human activities.

Anyway, I tend to believe scientists. I mean, the weatherman don't always get  it right all the time, but the washing and the coat or no-coat do depend on their advise.

But ey, it's only life and death for hundreds of millions of people here... so let's be really really certain before we'd want to be reckless lest we end up living in cleaner world with cheaper renewable energy.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> The claims humans make to their technology being artificial, as distinct form natural, is simply humanity's vain attempt to maintain an illusion of superiority to all of nature!
> 
> Things can only truly be artificial when viewed from a strictly human perspective!
> 
> Instead of conflating CO2 with pollution, would you kindly answer the question!




Yea, I too get philosophical after a few drinks. What else you smoking there?

Dude, do I sound like a qualified climate scientist to you? If you don't believe in what those experts are telling you with their decades of research, what magic mushroom would I have to sell to you that would make you believe my saying so?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Yea, I too get philosophical after a few drinks. What else you smoking there?
> 
> Dude, do I sound like a qualified climate scientist to you? If you don't believe in what those experts are telling you with their decades of research, what magic mushroom would I have to sell to you that would make you believe my saying so?




If you think those "experts" are so knowledgable, then why do my very basic questions remain unanswered?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> If you think those "experts" are so knowledgable, then why do my very basic questions remain unanswered?




No idea Monk. 

Maybe they're busy and have no time answering another adult saying "If you're so smart, what's 2 plus 3! Aha!"

I know, bloody nerds and their smug arrogance.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> From far away:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A supercell. Pretty. Unless you live under it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/w...lls-21-in-macedonias-capital-skopje.html?_r=0
> 
> *A ‘Water Bomb’ of a Storm Kills 21 in Macedonia’s Capital, Skopje*
> 
> 
> 
> That particular case above quotes about 4 inches of rain. In matter of minutes or seconds? Like a bomb drop right?





On January 1992, we had 24 inches in 12 hours and there was a lot water around Townsville ...We had 8 inches of flood water though our office.....It had never happened before and may never happen again.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> No idea Monk.
> 
> Maybe they're busy and have no time answering another adult saying "If you're so smart, what's 2 plus 3! Aha!"
> 
> I know, bloody nerds and their smug arrogance.




Or maybe they're not as expert as they would have the trusting populace believe!


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> How many specialist Climate Scientists are there in the world? 97% of them said we're screwed if we keep this up.
> 
> And note that the other 3% didn't say there aren't CC. It's either they can't be sure or not certain CC is caused by human activities.
> 
> Anyway, I tend to believe scientists. I mean, the weatherman don't always get  it right all the time, but the washing and the coat or no-coat do depend on their advise.
> 
> But ey, it's only life and death for hundreds of millions of people here... so let's be really really certain before we'd want to be reckless lest we end up living in cleaner world with cheaper renewable energy.




Luu, haven't you read my last couple of posts?

I have just mentioned to you there are 77 paid by the UN to write stuff to suit their agenda.....97% of 77 = 75.

Why are still insisting that it is 97% of all World scientists?...there is also 31,470 scientists who are skeptics.

You know the whole thing is a farce and a scam.....

BTW, I was in Lae PNG in the early 80's when 45 inches fell on that city in 24 hours...I was confined to my hotel room the whole day.


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Do you happen to know what level of additional co2 would need to be present in our atmosphere to support the post industrial increase in this planet's population?




Um, your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe reword? That question is assuming an increase in CO2 is required to support the population.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Luu, haven't you read my last couple of posts?
> 
> I have just mentioned to you there are 77 paid by the UN to write stuff to suit their agenda.....97% of 77 = 75.
> 
> Why are still insisting that it is 97% of all World scientists?...there is also 31,470 scientists who are skeptics.
> 
> You know the whole thing is a farce and a scam.....
> 
> BTW, I was in Lae PNG in the early 80's when 45 inches fell on that city in 24 hours...I was confined to my hotel room the whole day.




That was so.   My Father knocked around the islands to the north in the 30/40's and said they measured the rain in the tropics by the foot and falls often even more than you describe noco. 

If we had those falls today cities would be washed into the sea.   In those days we had the bush and trees to absorb and hold it back. 

We do not get rain like that much anymore because of global warming.   We do get it out of the  blue where we did not before and its called 100 year events.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> That was so.   My Father knocked around the islands to the north in the 30/40's and said they measured the rain in the tropics by the foot and falls often even more than you describe noco.
> 
> If we had those falls today cities would be washed into the sea.   In those days we had the bush and trees to absorb and hold it back.
> 
> We do not get rain like that much anymore because of global warming.   We do get it out of the  blue where we did not before and its called 100 year events.




I think you are getting carried away with yourself about cities getting wash away into the sea....Your imaginations are running wild again.

According to the Alarmist, because of Global Warming we would see more  extreme events like more flooding, more cyclones etc. etc....Now you are saying Global warming is preventing good rain falls.....Sonny, it is all about the SUN causing climate change and the sooner you Greenies get that into your heads the better.

There has been record rain falls in Southern Queensland and northern NSW this year...Sydney and Brisbane have full dams...Even Perth has had its fair share of rain but here in Townsville we are on level 3 water restrictions with our dam below 20%.....I just hope this Labor Council here does not follow Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne Labor Governments who took Flim Flam Tim Flanery's word about not getting any rain when they got conned into constructing desalinization plants costing billions and which are now in moth balls......In my 45 years in Townsville I have observed out dam levels down to 10% on a couple of occasions......The rains will fall again on Townsville just as they have before....In the meantime we will be acquiring water from the might Burdekin dam which is currently near 100%.

Once again the alarmist have been proven wrong.

The Townsville dam was built in 1970 when we had just 90,000....we now have 200,000....The state Labor Government sat on its hands for over 20 years and did nothing to increase our water storage....There is now talk of the Federal Government providing money to construct a dam at Hells Gates on the Burdiken. 90 km west of Townsville which can be gravity fed....no pumping.


----------



## explod

Your not really taking in the content of my posts noco so I'm not going to bother with yours anymore either.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Your not really taking in the content of my posts noco so I'm not going to bother with yours anymore either.




That is because you have got yourself in such a confused state over the whole matter......You are full of contradictions with that stuff coming out of your head.


:topic


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Or maybe they're not as expert as they would have the trusting populace believe!




If people who spent decades researching one area of speciality, who published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals (reviewed by other eggheads)... if those aren't experts, who would be the experts? Those brought to you by Big Oil/Coal/Gas/Automobile?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luu, haven't you read my last couple of posts?
> 
> I have just mentioned to you there are 77 paid by the UN to write stuff to suit their agenda.....97% of 77 = 75.
> 
> Why are still insisting that it is 97% of all World scientists?...there is also 31,470 scientists who are skeptics.
> 
> You know the whole thing is a farce and a scam.....
> 
> BTW, I was in Lae PNG in the early 80's when 45 inches fell on that city in 24 hours...I was confined to my hotel room the whole day.




That 97% weren't 97% of 77 UN-backed scientists. 

I don't know where you got that 77 from. Well, maybe Murdoch and friends. But no, the 97% was a simple research paper counting all the peer-reviewed CC research ever published - with some filters to define what is a CC expert. e.g. those who published at least 5 or 10 research, those who have been at it 10 or more years etc.

So of all those papers, 97% concludes that CC is real and human activity play a big part contributing to it.


As to how many scientists made up that 97%, the paper didn't say. But it's not 77. You can count all the authors in all the papers they cited. Would be in the tens of thousands I'd imagine.

----

I'm sure there's been these kind of extreme weather before. But they weren't this frequent, and not in areas not designed for them.

Like that city in the article above. Most of the people that were killed in that sudden storm were on their way home and out of nowhere the stormwater floods and wash them away.

I think up North there, building regulation require hurricane bracing of all roofing to wall structure right? Just a loop of bracing from roof truss to top plates, a few dynabolt with washer onto bottom plate to slab/footing.

Those simple measure would help prevent roofs from being blown off in one of those events.

Down here, you don't need that kind of bracing. So if a freak storm, and if it occur more frequently... well, houses and rooftops could be open up like a can. 

Then there's the road plumbing. The roads and infrastructures. Most are designed around the expected stresses of their region... higher frequency of "freak" weathers will first take lives, then either live with what's left or double up on the engineering.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> That is because you have got yourself in such a confused state over the whole matter......You are full of contradictions with that stuff coming out of your head.
> 
> 
> :topic




If you are losing the argument then can the opposition,  and as nastily as possible. 

Agree,  off topic and unproductive ole Pal


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> If you are losing the argument then can the opposition,  and as nastily as possible.
> 
> Agree,  off topic and unproductive ole Pal




What's that saying about glass houses? 

Well, at least climate moderates dont fantasize about blowing people up or incarcerating them.


----------



## wayneL

IOW Plod, you can't stake claim on.the moral high ground, from the moral cesspit of climate alarmism.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> What's that saying about glass houses?
> 
> Well, at least climate moderates dont fantasize about blowing people up or incarcerating them.




Well that's a surprise!! Wayne has run out of anything intelligent to say and starts trolling .  Maybe we should have a look at how to deal with such behaviour ?



> *If you fight fire with fire, everyone burns': how to catch a troll like Trump*
> 
> Trolling experts offer tactics for dealing with ‘the world’s most effective button-pusher’, like meeting tantrums with facts
> 
> David Sax
> 
> Sunday 21 August 2016 21.30 AEST
> 
> In a crowded field, a new troll has established himself as the undisputed master of the art. To most people he’s repugnant, but to his peers he’s a formidable exemplar of a set of skills that have come to flourish in the era of online bile, useful only to those whose primary aim is destructive and reductive. He knows exactly the kind of incendiary comment that will bait his prey. And when the inevitable reaction comes, he basks in the reflected glory of his acolytes piling on, and turning a conversation into a battlefield. In so doing, he kills off any hope of a reasoned discussion, ensuring that name-calling, provocation and blatant hate take its place. This might not be good for the standards of public discourse, but it’s good for his ego – and it distracts from his ignorance.




https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll


----------



## basilio

Back to topic.

What are the consequences of the loss of our planets ice ?  A look at our rapidly changing world and the collapse of sea ice in the Arctic



> * A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams review – climate change writ large*
> The warning this book gives us about the consequences of the loss of the planet’s ice is emphatic, urgent and convincing
> The loss of our sea ice will have dire consequences across the planet, not just at the poles, says Peter Wadhams. Photograph: Staff/Reuters
> 
> Horatio Clare
> 
> Sunday 21 August 2016 16.00 AEST
> 
> 
> Shares
> 325
> 
> Becoming a world authority on sea ice has taken Peter Wadhams to the polar zones more than 50 times, travelling on foot and by plane, ship, snowmobile and several nuclear-powered submarines of the Royal Navy.
> 
> Nonscientists who read his astonishing and hair-raising A Farewell to Ice will agree that the interludes of autobiography it contains are engrossing, entertaining and, when one submarine suffers an onboard explosion and fire while under the ice, harrowing.
> 
> Any reader should find the science of sea-ice creation and the implications for us all of its loss – explored and explained here with clarity and style – beautiful, compelling and terrifying.
> 
> Wadhams thanks Ernest Hemingway for his title. Climate change, a cause and an effect of ice loss, brings conflict that would have interested the great author. *Persecuted by trolls and climate-change deniers, Wadhams made news last year when three of his peers met premature deaths. One fell down stairs. One died in wilderness, possibly struck by lightning. A third, out cycling, was crushed by a lorry. Claiming that he had been targeted by a lorry while cycling, Wadhams speculated that oil companies or governments had it in for him and his ilk because of the conclusions to which their work has led them.* But his book is more extraordinary than any conspiracy.
> 
> A Farewell to Ice proceeds methodically. Ice cores, tubes of compacted polar snow, record the last million years of atmospheric change, during which the Earth has oscillated between ice ages and warm periods. Now the pattern is breaking.
> 
> “Our planet has changed colour. Today, from space, the top of the world in the northern summer looks blue instead of white. We have created an ocean where there was once an ice sheet. It is Man’s first major achievement in reshaping the face of his planet,” Wadhams writes.
> 
> *Polar ice is thinning and retreating with unprecedented speed. All our ingenuity cannot, at present, change that. Because ice only grows in winter but can melt year-round, its growth rate is limited, while melt rate is unlimited.*




https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change


----------



## basilio

A little more background on Professor Peter Wadhams book* " A Farewell to Ice"*



> *
> Time to listen to the ice scientists about the Arctic death spiral*
> John Vidal
> 
> The Arctic’s ice is disappearing. We must reduce emissions, fast, or the human castastrophe predicted by ocean scientist Peter Wadhams will become reality
> Arctic sea ice melt in May. ‘The Arctic sea ice is declining by 13% a decade.’ Photograph: NOAA
> 
> Thursday 18 August 2016 18.38 AEST
> Last modified on Thursday 18 August 2016 21.10 AEST
> 
> Ice scientists are mostly cheerful and pragmatic. Like many other researchers coolly observing the rapid warming of the world, they share a gallows humour and are cautious about entering the political fray.
> 
> Not Peter Wadhams. *The former director of the Scott Polar Research Institute and professor of ocean physics at Cambridge has spent his scientific life researching the ice world, or the cryosphere, and in just 30 years has seen unimaginable change.*
> 
> When in 1970 he joined the first of what would be more than 50 polar expeditions, the Arctic sea ice covered around 8m sq km at its September minimum. Today, it hovers at around 3.4m, and is declining by 13% a decade. *In 30 years Wadhams has seen the Arctic ice thin by 40%, the world change colour at its top and bottom and the ice disappear in front of his eyes.*
> 
> In a new book, published just as July 2016 is confirmed by Nasa as the hottest month ever recorded, this most experienced and rational scientist states what so many other researchers privately fear but cannot publicly say – that the Arctic is approaching a death spiral which may see the entire remaining summer ice cover collapse in the near future.
> *‘Because Peter Wadhams says what other scientists will not, he has been slandered, attacked and vilified by denialists and politicians who have advised caution or non-action.’ Photograph: PR*
> 
> The warming now being widely experienced worldwide is concentrated in the polar regions and Wadhams says we will shortly have ice-free Arctic Septembers, expanding to four or five months with no ice at all. The inevitable result, he predicts, will be the release of huge plumes of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, accelerating warming even further.
> 
> He and other polar experts have moved from being field researchers to being climate change pioneers in the vanguard of the most rapid and drastic change that has taken place on the planet in many thousands of years. This is not just an interesting change happening in a remote part of the world, he says, but a catastrophe for mankind.
> 
> “We are taking away the beautiful world of Arctic Ocean sea ice which once protected us from the impacts of climate extremes. We have created an ocean where there was once an ice sheet. It is man’s first major achievement in re-shaping the face of the planet,” he writes.
> 
> And, boy, are we seeing extremes. So far this year, the planet’s average temperature has been 1.3C warmer than the late 19th century, and 2016 is virtually certain be the hottest year ever recorded.




https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-disappearing-reduce-emissions-peter-wadhams


----------



## basilio

And just to finish off the topic. (Nah )

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/tag/peter-wadhams/


----------



## basilio

Have you ever wondered what could the effect of a massive reduction human caused pollution ? For example closing down hundreds of coal fired power plants,  quick smart movement to electric cars and so on ?


> *
> A Faustian Bargain, David Spratt, Climate Code Red*
> Glenn MacIntosh | Posted: February 16, 2012 | Updated: February 19, 2012
> 
> .......The new NASA study (and science brief) reaffirms that increased levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity -- and not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming. With new calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance, the study finds the planet’s surface continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010.
> 
> The study uses improved measurements from free-floating instruments to calculate the amount of heat that has been absorbed by the world’s oceans, and thus refines understanding of how heat and energy imbalances are distributed in the climate system. And that’s where news becomes more sobering.
> 
> *One conclusion of the study is that "the overall cooling effect from aerosols could be about twice as strong as current climate models suggest".*
> 
> So what’s the big deal? Human activity modifies the impact of the greenhouse effect by the release of airborne particulate pollutants known as aerosols. These include black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates, nitrates, as well as dust from smoke, manufacturing, wind storms, and other sources. Aerosols have a net cooling effect because they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground and they increase cloud cover. This is popularly known as "global dimming", because the overall aerosol impact is to mask some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
> 
> *Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol "dimming" at 1.2 degrees (plus or minus 0.2 °), much higher than previously figured. Aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere by rain on average every 10 days, so their cooling effect is only maintained because of continuing human pollution, the principal source of which is the burning of fossil fuels, which also cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming that lasts for many centurie*s.
> 
> So on the one hand, we desperately need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero, and quickly. Emissions need to fall off a cliff. Hansen has shown that to keep warming in the long run to a safe level of under one degree, fossil fuel emissions would need to be cut by 6% a year beginning in 2012, plus 100 billion tonnes of carbon reforestation drawdown this century. Other work finds that if global emissions do not peak until 2020, then to limit warming to the (unsafe) two-degree range, the rate of emissions reduction needs to hit 9-10% a year, and requires total de-carbonisation by 2035-45. Needless to say, those figures are not on the cabinet whiteboard, and would be greeted with incredulity by most climate policymakers.
> 
> *On the other hand, rapid and deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions (and emissions from burning cleared vegetation from rainforest destruction) will cut the aerosols and their temporary cooling. If all aerosols were removed from the system, about half the 1.2 ° of lost cooling would appear very quickly as a pulse of warming, with the other half following over a few decades.*
> 
> And that is the Faustian bargain. If we keep burning fossil fuels the way we are, the planet will head towards four degrees of warming by century’s end, and a carrying capacity of less than a billion people. And if we cut emissions rapidly, we lose aerosol cooling and get a pulse of warming that creates very dangerous conditions.
> 
> There are two conclusions that help us find a way out of this maze. The first is that part of the answer is to develop and deploy, at very large scale, methods that draw down carbon from the atmosphere (whether by reforestation, biochar or other means) to reduce the energy imbalance and the warming to come. The second is that some form of geo-engineering, that provides temporary cooling while carbon emissions and aerosols are run down and carbon drawdown is scaled up, is probably the least-worst option.




http://www.ecosanity.org/blogsanity/faustian-bargain-david-spratt-climate-code-red


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Well that's a surprise!! Wayne has run out of anything intelligent to say and starts trolling .  Maybe we should have a look at how to deal with such behaviour ?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll




Oh... I'm trolling, but Plod isn't? 

Amusing glass house double down bas.

How far can you double down before running out of  monopoly intellectual capital?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Have you ever wondered what could the effect of a massive reduction human caused pollution ? For example closing down hundreds of coal fired power plants,  quick smart movement to electric cars and so on ?
> 
> 
> http://www.ecosanity.org/blogsanity/faustian-bargain-david-spratt-climate-code-red




So let's remove generative capacity and increade demand... Good plan LMAO


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Oh... I'm trolling, but Plod isn't?
> 
> Amusing glass house double down bas.
> 
> How far can you double down before running out of  monopoly intellectual capital?




Noco simply has a number of inaccurate, nonsensical talking points that he throws into the air and repeats in whatever order they come down.

They are rubbish the first time and disordered rubbish every other time. It isn't possible or worthwhile to respond to them because they don't even make sense.

You Wayne on the other hand choose to deflect the entire discussion to a specious attack on people you disagree with.

That's why I called you out.

If you have anything to say on the subject how about responding to the information on the effects of the loss of sea ice ? 

(I noticed your response to the wicked problem of dealing with consequences of a fast track reduction in human pollutants. So lame..so Wayne..)


----------



## Tisme

What's the purpose of the fights between factions when it comes to anthropogenic climate change?

I see people on here arguing the toss and wonder what satisfaction it gives the protagonists. The rest of the world seems to have geared up and making a quid out of a new industry in renewables, whether the world is coming to and end or not, why not us?

Tony Abbott and his nonsensical stand against local industry has gone, now's the time to retool, rejig, reindustrialise into energy technologists (amongst other value add industry) IMO. 

Spare a thought for all us DILLIGAFs out here.


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> What's the purpose of the fights between factions when it comes to anthropogenic climate change?
> 
> I see people on here arguing the toss and wonder what satisfaction it gives the protagonists. The rest of the world seems to have geared up and making a quid out of a new industry in renewables, whether the world is coming to and end or not, why not us?
> 
> Tony Abbott and his nonsensical stand against local industry has gone, now's the time to retool, rejig, reindustrialise into energy technologists (amongst other value add industry) IMO.
> 
> Spare a thought for all us DILLIGAFs out here.




Yeah.  Totally agree with you.  This forum is a waste of time/energy. There are far more productive ways to look at the issue.

Perhaps this thread ? 

Business decisions related to climate change


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Um, your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe reword? That question is assuming an increase in CO2 is required to support the population.




Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?

Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?

Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?

Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?
> 
> Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?
> 
> Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?
> 
> Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?




Q1 Yes,
Q2 Yes
Q3 Yes
Q4 - No
 It is a waste product but needed for plant growth. We don't need it as part of our biology and in fact it reduces our breathing ability if there is too much.  It is essentially a trace gas compared to nitrogen and oxygen, We have doubled the amount in the atmosphere and we aren't trying to reduce it, just slow down the increase. So your question is nonsensical hence I thought you had written it incorrectly.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Q1 Yes,
> Q2 Yes
> Q3 Yes
> Q4 - No
> It is a waste product but needed for plant growth. We don't need it as part of our biology and in fact it reduces our breathing ability if there is too much.  It is essentially a trace gas compared to nitrogen and oxygen, We have doubled the amount in the atmosphere and we aren't trying to reduce it, just slow down the increase. So your question is nonsensical hence I thought you had written it incorrectly.




Your answer to question four doesn't address the issue of increased population!

What level is required, in ppm, for the human ecosystem to be viable with our current population?


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?
> 
> Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?
> 
> Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?
> 
> Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?




The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc  In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc  In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
> 
> Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.




So what was the human population prior to the industrial age ?

What is the population now?

What were the pre industrial CO2 levels?

What are those levels now?

Is there a noteworthy correlation here?


----------



## basilio

Read the references Cynic. It's all there.

*Humans per se do not add to CO2 levels. Full stop. End of story. *
(Human industrial/agricultural activities are another story ..)


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Read the references Cynic. It's all there.
> 
> *Humans per se do not add to CO2 levels. Full stop. End of story. *
> (Human industrial/agricultural activities are another story ..)




You forgot to say world without end, forever and ever amen!


----------



## cynic

For every climate blog, there is an equal and opposite blog:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> You forgot to say world without end, forever and ever amen!




And gravity sucks, the world turns, we live and die. 
All have the same certainty Cynic.
Unless of course you want to create a whole new world with another set of Physics laws.
_
...(Just finishing the final draft he says ...)_


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc  In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
> 
> Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.




Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?




Along with CO2, H2O and possibly a few other things (depending upon the fuel).


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> And gravity sucks, the world turns, we live and die.
> All have the same certainty Cynic.
> Unless of course you want to create a whole new world with another set of Physics laws.
> _
> ...(Just finishing the final draft he says ...)_




And as per usual, you find yourself unable to answer the most basic question!

How many ppm, of CO2, is required in our atmosphere to support the biological needs of the human ecosystem? 

John Cook hasn't even bothered to consider, let alone answer that question!

Even if that site offered an answer, I would still need to verify it against some objective scientific findings, as that "skepticalscience" site is clearly disinterested in scientific objectivity.

In fact its name is a misnomor, it could rightly and accurately be labelled "pseudoscience".

Although in doing so, I might be doing self-respecting  pseudoscientists a grave injustice.

So perhaps "climate bulldust dressed up to pass as science in the eyes of the faithful zealot" might be a more suitable title.


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> How many ppm, of CO2, is required in our atmosphere to support the biological needs of the human ecosystem?




If you don't like the facts there are political parties that let you make up your own....go with them.

The following link goes to the Vostok ice core dating back 400,000years; that period encompasses pro-to-human to modern human development and the explosion to human  planetary domination. If you go as far to look at before dismissing it as a fabrication of some scientific conspiracy you'll notice that there  is not a point in that record that exceeds 300ppm Co2. ... Where is that atmospheric concentration today?

I'll leave it you to do the metal gymnastics applying your to question quoted above.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> If you don't like the facts there are political parties that let you make up your own....go with them.
> 
> The following link goes to the Vostok ice core dating back 400,000years; that period encompasses pro-to-human to modern human development and the explosion to human  planetary domination. If you go as far to look at before dismissing it as a fabrication of some scientific conspiracy you'll notice that there  is not a point in that record that exceeds 300ppm Co2. ... Where is that atmospheric concentration today?
> 
> I'll leave it you to do the metal gymnastics applying your to question quoted above.
> 
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg




You continue to miss the point! What was the human population back when there were 300ppm?

What is the human population today?

Such a simple question and yet none of your sacred religious tomes seem to even bother to address it!


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> You continue to miss the point! What was the human population back when there were 300ppm?




I've missed no point. I answered the question you posted. And you don't like the answer to it, you prefer to make up your own reality.
Human beings are part or the bio-sphere(do some work to understand that concept). Prior to human population exponential increase with the industrial age there were a whole lot of other aspects to the bio-sphere, a whole lot of which we as humans have pushed  toward extinction, can you think of any??? ever read 'Moby Dick' or are you aware to the fate of American bison. All those species resporated. The bazar 'furphy' you're pushing only illustrates your intellectual incompetence and lack of the desire to improve it.


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> I've missed no point. I answered the question you posted. And you don't like the answer it, you prefer to make up your own reality.
> Human beings are part or the bio-sphere(do some work to understand that concept). Prior to human population exponential increase with the industrial age there were a whole lot of other aspects to the bio-sphere, a whole lot of which we as humans have pushed  toward extinction, can you think of any??? ever read 'Moby Dick' or are you aware to the fate of American bison. All those species resporated. The bazar 'furphy' you're pushing only illustrates your intellectual incompetence and lack of the desire to improve it.




You still haven't answered the question!


----------



## cynic

According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.

In light of this information alone,  why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?

In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.
> 
> In light of this information alone,  why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?
> 
> In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html




That is really special Cynic.  Unique..  even in this discussion.  

I believe it is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to correlate the increase in human population with the  last century increase in CO2 levels as direct cause and effect (not a consequence of other human activity) . Why don't you contact Watts Up, and Heartland and Jo Nova and David Evans and perhaps construct a paper on it ?

It would certainly be a unique contribution to the debate....


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> That is really special Cynic.  Unique..  even in this discussion.
> 
> I believe it is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to correlate the increase in human population with the  last century increase in CO2 levels as direct cause and effect (not a consequence of other human activity) . Why don't you contact Watts Up, and Heartland and Jo Nova and David Evans and perhaps construct a paper on it ?
> 
> It would certainly be a unique contribution to the debate....




Why would I need to write a paper to state the bleeding obvious!

Oh that's right! I don't  need to write a paper because it is so blindingly obvious!

I'd only need to write papers to demonstrate things which are obscure to the point of being virtually undetectable.

Maybe that's the reason for the voluminous papers being paraded by the climate brigade!


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Why would I need to write a paper to state the bleeding obvious!
> 
> Oh that's right! I don't  need to write a paper because it is so blindingly obvious!
> 
> I'd only need to write papers to demonstrate things which are obscure to the point of being virtually undetectable.
> 
> Maybe that's the reason for the voluminous papers being paraded by the climate brigade!




Well that certainly makes mincemeat of the entire scientific community.  It's all obvious!! You don't need theory, evidence, analysis perhaps even someone else to cross check your work.

Nuh just the blinding insight that 1 Plus 1 equals 11.

I refuse to state the bleeding obvious...


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Well that certainly makes mincemeat of the entire scientific community.  It's all obvious!! You don't need theory, evidence, analysis perhaps even someone else to cross check your work.
> 
> Nuh just the blinding insight that 1 Plus 1 equals 11.
> 
> I refuse to state the bleeding obvious...




That's okay basilio. 

I do understand your definition of the scientific community (i.e. limited to only those scientists that are supportive of the climate alarmist fantasy). 

You are quite correct about the level of mathematical ineptitude required to entertain the multitude of claims within the papers issuing from aforementioned community.

It is amusing seeing someone claiming such confidence, continually failing to address some very basic questions.

Do you actually understand any science outside of your climate alarmism?

A basic and logical grasp of mathematics , chemistry, biology (and perhaps some physics) is all that is required to understand where I am coming from. 

Somehow the point behind my questions continues to elude you!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So what was the human population prior to the industrial age ?
> 
> What is the population now?
> 
> What were the pre industrial CO2 levels?
> 
> What are those levels now?
> 
> Is there a noteworthy correlation here?




Your logic really are quite unique Cynic. Very special. 

So it's the human exhaust that's causing all these. Is that why industrialists and politicians permit fossil fuel? To keep human population in check?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?




Whatever it is, it'll kill ya.

Was in Hanoi and took a rental scooter out for the evening. Cool fresh air, night lights around the old colonial city...

At the first traffic stop outside the hotel, I literally see black spots and almost fell over from the exhausts other scooters belches out. Head straight back, open a couple cans and off to bed. 

With more cars and buses, it was worst in Thailand riding those open air tuk tuk. We just paid and started our tour when we decided to get to heck off and into an air-conditioned taxi.

Australia is much better... but that's because we have less people and our cars are wind up. 


So for those who think all these fossil fuel aren't doing any harm... take a tuk tuk ride in Thailand and see if it's alright.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Your logic really are quite unique Cynic. Very special.
> 
> So it's the human exhaust that's causing all these. Is that why industrialists and politicians permit fossil fuel? To keep human population in check?



What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!

I just highlighted a correlation, unrelated to our energy choices, that is somehow being overlooked in favour of the carbon crisis fantasy.

No politics required, just a willingness to apply a modicum of basic logic!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!
> 
> I just highlighted a correlation, unrelated to our energy choices, that is somehow being overlooked in favour of the carbon crisis fantasy.
> 
> No politics required, just a willingness to apply a modicum of basic logic!




I thought you'd need politicians approval to start mining or extracting; need their OK to emit x and do y efficiency standards. But true, pollies do as they're told anyway right.

Anyway, many humans and their breathings could also cause global warming. Yea, maybe 97% of CO2 emission?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I thought you'd need politicians approval to start mining or extracting; need their OK to emit x and do y efficiency standards. But true, pollies do as they're told anyway right.
> 
> Anyway, many humans and their breathings could also cause global warming. Yea, maybe 97% of CO2 emission?




Only if increased CO2 levels are actually able to cause warming (I have yet to see any compelling justification behind such claims).

The reality is that the current CO2 levels are almost certainly necessary  (possibly even a touch too low) for our current population. If such levels do cause warming, then renewable energy alternatives are almost certainly unable to solve that particular problem!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Only if increased CO2 levels are actually able to cause warming (I have yet to see any compelling justification behind such claims).
> 
> The reality is that the current CO2 levels are almost certainly necessary  (possibly even a touch too low) for our current population. If such levels do cause warming, then renewable energy alternatives are almost certainly unable to solve that particular problem!




I have yet to see a compelling reason why there isn't a hundred billion dollars in my account, but you know... things tend to be what they are regardless of what I find compelling or not.

Seriously, CC isn't one of those philosophical question of what causes it - exactly - and what will it do to what degree - precisely.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I have yet to see a compelling reason why there isn't a hundred billion dollars in my account, but you know... things tend to be what they are regardless of what I find compelling or not.
> 
> Seriously, CC isn't one of those philosophical question of what causes it - exactly - and what will it do to what degree - precisely.




You are quite correct! 

CC alarmism is nothing more than a zealous religious movement. In the eyes of the faithful zealot there is no question! And as such there is no room in the CC ideology for the practice of science.

The aforesaid is clearly evident from the behaviour of the CC alarmists to date.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.
> 
> In light of this information alone,  why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?
> 
> In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html




Maybe factor in the loss of fauna as civilisation displaces it?

I wonder if migrating birds cause imbalances in CO2 ....hmmm


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> Maybe factor in the loss of fauna as civilisation displaces it?
> 
> I wonder if migrating birds cause imbalances in CO2 ....hmmm




Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?


----------



## noco

I think we should rename this thread, "THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES".

It has become nothing more than a soap opera where the impossible always seems to happen with no happy ending.

It has become nothing more than a joke.

We have the "SAYERS" with all doom and gloom needing antidepressants every night and we have the "NAY SAYERS" who are living happy lives with the knowledge that Climate Change is a natural event.

Notice to the Greenies...please don't respond to my post it will only give you more gray hairs which  in the end you will want to remove.


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> You are quite correct!
> 
> CC alarmism is nothing more than a zealous religious movement. In the eyes of the faithful zealot there is no question! And as such there is no room in the CC ideology for the practice of science.
> 
> The aforesaid is clearly evident from the behaviour of the CC alarmists to date.




So the fact that lakes are now being reported on the ice sheets across eastern Antartica is caused,  in your take,  by alarmist behaviour.  And some sort of religion??? ,  struth

Go get a life. 

"Science alert,  22 aug"


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?




Yeah there must be some kind of offset ... methane factories on hooves. That would be anthropogenic too?

At the start of the Industrial Revolution in the UK mid 1600's the human population was ~700 millions and by 1900 it was 1600 millions, now it's a lot more so I'm guessing bio diversity has taken a major hit along the way as meat production has kept pace. 

I wonder how many insects, birds, quokkas, bison, etc no longer add to the CO2 and methane count ......

Thank goodness we have all those overweight Americans acting as carbon sinks, every citizen must do his duty. Ban cremations?


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> So the fact that lakes are now being reported on the ice sheets across eastern Antartica is caused,  in your take,  by alarmist behaviour.  And some sort of religion??? ,  struth
> 
> Go get a life.
> 
> "Science alert,  22 aug"




Plod you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am saying here! 

I am not saying that the earth is warming.

Nor am I saying that the earth is cooling.

On a living, evolving, mobile planet, within a mobile solar system, galaxy, constellation etc. a static climate would be highly unlikely and nigh on impossible to maintain.

What I am saying is that the climate alarmists (whom somehow claim to be advocates of science, contrary to their  blatantly unscientific behaviours) are overlooking the essential need to understand the true causation of the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.


Much of the current CO2 level is more than likely a necessary (and natural) consequence of the exponential increase in the human population (irrespective of chosen fuel)!


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Plod you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am saying here!
> 
> I am not saying that the earth is warming.
> 
> Nor am I saying that the earth is cooling.
> 
> On a living, evolving, mobile planet, within a mobile solar system, galaxy, constellation etc. a static climate would be highly unlikely and nigh on impossible to maintain.
> 
> What I am saying is that the climate alarmists (whom somehow claim to be advocates of science, contrary to their  blatantly unscientific behaviours) are overlooking the essential need to understand the true causation of the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.
> 
> 
> Much of the current CO2 level is more than likely a necessary (and natural) consequence of the exponential increase in the human population (irrespective of chosen fuel)!




And have never disagreed with that.   In fact population reduction is the silent one we need to open up on and even sterilisation are matters I support.  Climate change has very many causes including natural,  well understood,  but it seems to me as a layman that to push to alternative clean energy sources (which is so competitive)  is a natural way to go.


----------



## noco

Well what do you know....I just found out we had climate change 66,000.000 years ago.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...o/news-story/0a75ffbc66cc035a8affdda964b58241

*IT’S been a widely accepted theory that an asteroid caused the extinction of dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

But the question has always remained: how exactly did the asteroid wipe out most of life on earth?

Researchers at Tohoku University in Japan say they’ve found an explanation to why dinosaurs were wiped out, but other ancient animals lived on.

The theory, which was a joint study by the university and the Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute, concluded that aerosol-soot in the air caused by the asteroid led to major climate changes which in turn led to the mass extinction of life 66 million years ago.

The team, led by Tohoku University Professor Kunio Kaiho, conducted the study by examining earth samples from Haiti and Spain — somewhere close to the crater of the asteroid, also known as the Chicxulub impactor, and somewhere far.*


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And have never disagreed with that.   In fact population reduction is the silent one we need to open up on and even sterilisation are matters I support.  Climate change has very many causes including natural,  well understood,  but it seems to me as a layman that to push to alternative clean energy sources (which is so competitive)  is a natural way to go.




Ah yes...Clean energy...don't you love it...Doesn't matter how it hits your pocket though.....Cost of living is not important any more particularly for the poor old pensioners...And pigs might fly.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/77cce60e5bb37814d24d95c92a1f3e08

*Wind farm subsidies rise, hitting consumers’ power bills
John Rolfe, Cost of Living Editor, News Corp Australia Network
August 21, 2016 12:00am

EXCLUSIVE

THE market price of the subsidy households end up paying to wind farms has surged by up to 270 per cent in just two years.

A grab-bag of green schemes is expected to add between $90 and $190 to power bills in 2016-17 depending on where consumers live, according to the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). Within this, the price of providing a leg-up to large wind, solar and hydro setups was put at $29 to $44 — a charge that had and would rise by 23 per cent a year.

The accuracy of these predictions is in question though, because of a leap in the price of Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) that deliver subsidies to wind farms and the other big renewable projects.

Electricity retailers have to buy a growing number of LGCs each year to comply with the Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET). They pass on these costs to customers.

The market price of LGCs has “gone through the roof”, said Matt Harris, head of climate change and renewables consulting at Frontier Economics, which the AEMC uses for its modelling.

A year ago an LGC certificate bought on the open market cost $54. It now costs $86, a jump of 60 per cent. In June 2014 the LGC price was barely more than $20. Today’s rate is a 270 per cent higher.

The AEMC’s estimate of Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) costs to residential consumers has at its heart an LGC price of just $46.52.
*

I can see the poor old pensioners having to use candles at night...... back to the 18th century.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?




True. 

The current way of livestocks breeding/farming meant a lot of water, methane gas, damage to the soil/land... all contributing to environmental degradation and perhaps CC.

Wait, did you just agree that human activities have an impact on the climate? 

So until we Westerners have our way of life taken from us by those barbarians, eating plenty of meat and drinking gallons of milk is how our heart likes it. So none of these hippy jibby vegan diet crab - even though it would serve the same nutritional value, good for the environment, and will be cheaper if done on scale anywhere close to the current livestock business.

That's another battle, for another day.

Still, it does not dismiss the damage being done by the burning of fossil, particularly at the current rate and for an ever growing population. Not a good idea on both the CC/environmental front, not a smart move given it's a finite resource that we're about 1/3 of the way through, the other 1/3 cannot economically extract... leaving 1/3 in the gas tank. Quite stupid considering we're only some 100 years into discovering the stuff.

Anywho... these grand plans are for great minds with deep pockets. People like myself and Bill Gates will have to do with giving a few chickens to the poor


----------



## basilio

This is a straightforward explanation of how respiration in mammals affects the world wide amount of CO2.



> *Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Why is this not considered to be a problem as far as global warming goes?*
> 
> The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly. Everything we eat can be traced back to photosynthesis, the process by which plants take up carbon dioxide from the air and use it to produce the vast array of organic compounds needed for life. Our bodies can be regarded as living engines that require fuel and oxygen to produce the energy needed to sustain life. In that sense we are not all that different from a car. Both for us and for the car the source of oxygen is the air, roughly 20% of which is made up of oxygen. An internal combustion engine burns gasoline and spews out water, carbon dioxide and a few combustion byproducts. We, instead of gasoline, burn the carbohydrates, fats and proteins in food. Like gasoline, these organic compounds are converted to carbon dioxide and water, which we then exhale.
> 
> How is it then that we don’t worry about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that are released with every breath taken by the billions and billions of people and animals that inhabit the world? Because every atom of carbon in the exhaled carbon dioxide comes from food that was recently produced by photosynthesis. Everything we eat, save for a few inorganic components like salt, was in some way produced by photosynthesis. This is obvious when we eat plant products such as grains, fruits and vegetables, but of course it is also the case for meat. The animals that we eat were raised on plant products. Indeed, a growing animal is basically a machine that converts plants into flesh. So, since all the carbon dioxide we exhale originated in carbon dioxide captured by plants during photosynthesis, we are not disturbing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by breathing.
> 
> On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels such as gasoline, we are releasing carbon dioxide that forms from carbon atoms that had been removed from the atmosphere millions and millions of years ago by photosynthesis and had then been sequestered in the coal, petroleum and natural gas that forms when plants and animals die and decay. By burning these commodities we are increasing the current levels of carbon dioxide. Clearly then, by living and breathing we are not contributing to global warming through the release of carbon dioxide. But can we help reduce global warming by dying? Probably. We no longer exhale carbon dioxide and it will be a long time before the carbon atoms in our body eventually make it back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Of course, there are always plenty of new babies who start to respire as we expire.




http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/04/...o-be-a-problem-as-far-as-global-warming-goes/


----------



## Tisme

HVAC&R is 11% of Australian emissions


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> This is a straightforward explanation of how respiration in mammals affects the world wide amount of CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/04/...o-be-a-problem-as-far-as-global-warming-goes/




Actually it doesn't! It is just another cc alarmist opinion blog that fails to recognise the blindingly obvious!

I have made numerous postings on this issue now!

On average, how many ppms of CO2 are exhaled by the respirating populace at any given moment?

The cycle between flora and fauna may balance nicely, but there has to be a discernible amount of CO2 in transit between the flora and fauna to facilitate this cycle.

How can an exponential increase in the population not impact the levels of transitory CO2?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> True.
> 
> The current way of livestocks breeding/farming meant a lot of water, methane gas, damage to the soil/land... all contributing to environmental degradation and perhaps CC.
> 
> Wait, did you just agree that human activities have an impact on the climate?
> 
> ....




Every member of our ecosystem exerts some influence on our environment. It is simply a question of degree, duration and whether that influence represents a problematic aberration of nature!


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> Actually it doesn't! It is just another cc alarmist opinion blog that fails to recognise the blindingly obvious!
> 
> I have made numerous postings on this issue now!
> 
> On average, how many ppms of CO2 are exhaled by the respirating populace at any given moment?
> 
> The cycle between flora and fauna may balance nicely, but there has to be a discernible amount of CO2 in transit between the flora and fauna to facilitate this cycle.
> 
> How can an exponential increase in the population not impact the levels of transitory CO2?




Cynic you are offering totally inane questions that have no scientific reality beyond your own headspace. There is no need to postulate any "transitory" level of CO2.  The simple observable fact is that CO2 levels do rise and fall around the globe each year in response to spring and fall seasons in the northern hemisphere.

Unfortunately CO2 levels are also marching upwards a very steady, indeed accelerating, path as result of an extra 30+ gigatons of CO2 injected by human industrial activity. That amount has absolutely nothing to do with the respiration of 6 billion people for the reasons adequately explained by the post I offered *and every other biologist who has passed an exam.*


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Cynic you are offering totally inane questions that have no scientific reality beyond your own headspace. There is no need to postulate any "transitory" level of CO2.  The simple observable fact is that CO2 levels do rise and fall around the globe each year in response to spring and fall seasons in the northern hemisphere.
> 
> Unfortunately CO2 levels are also marching upwards a very steady, indeed accelerating, path as result of an extra 30+ gigatons of CO2 injected by human industrial activity. That amount has absolutely nothing to do with the respiration of 6 billion people for the reasons adequately explained by the post I offered *and every other biologist who has passed an exam.*




Unfortunately that post did not address the matter I raised! 

Like yourself, it completely overlooked the blindingly obvious in order to favour of an apocalyptic fantasy!


----------



## Tisme

There's around 16 kg of carbon in the human body. 

About 750kg per year of oxygen is used by the body, so that's two molecules of oxygen to one carbon, so we exhale about 370kg of carbon each year, but that carbon comes from eating trees and other carbon sources so the net effect of breathing is zip and therefore if the body fuel runs out the breathing stops.

It's pretty obvious what the solution to carbon sinking = populate...... 112 billion tonnes can't be wrong.

Humans the oil source of tomorrow


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> There's around 16 kg of carbon in the human body.
> 
> About 750kg per year of oxygen is used by the body, so that's two molecules of oxygen to one carbon, so we exhale about 370kg of carbon each year, but that carbon comes from eating trees and other carbon sources so the net effect of breathing is zip and therefore if the body fuel runs out the breathing stops.
> 
> It's pretty obvious what the solution to carbon sinking = populate...... 112 billion tonnes can't be wrong.
> 
> Humans the oil source of tomorrow




But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle,  how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?

And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?


----------



## basilio

There is a good, accessible analysis of the long and the short Carbon Cycle in a Nasa website. Worth a read for anyone wishing to understand the big picture.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Another shorter analysis on Columbia University website

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

And another education  module on the carbon cycle
http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle,  how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?
> 
> And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?




I don't really notice what you have been asking, I'm just posting facts as opposed to postulations:- don't really care for an argument on something none of us are qualified to hold court on.

In answer to your first question : animals merely transfer carbon. Without carbon input there is no carbon output and carbon, as an element doesn't decay or multiply into something else.

In answer to the second probably many times, because perhaps only the few know/care what the key point is,


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle,  how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?
> 
> And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?




Tell me and I will try to help


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> There is a good, accessible analysis of the long and the short Carbon Cycle in a Nasa website. Worth a read for anyone wishing to understand the big picture.
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
> 
> Another shorter analysis on Columbia University website
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
> 
> And another education  module on the carbon cycle
> http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95



Well done basilio! 

Just what this thread needs! 

More links to yet more of the same climate change propaganda that has been regurgitated throughout this thread.

Unsurprisingly, none of these sites answer the very basic questions that have been repeatedly raised throughout this thread.

I have been talking about a bigger picture for some time now, but unfortunately, some here are so engrossed in their chosen fantasy, that they are unwilling (or unable) to entertain the possibility that such a thing, as a bigger picture, could even exist.

As someone with a lifelong passion for science, I can confidently state that there is a lot more to the realm of science than the climate brigade is willing to acknowledge!


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> I don't really notice what you have been asking, I'm just posting facts as opposed to postulations:- don't really care for an argument on something none of us are qualified to hold court on.
> 
> In answer to your first question : animals merely transfer carbon. Without carbon input there is no carbon output and carbon, as an element doesn't decay or multiply into something else.
> 
> In answer to the second probably many times, because perhaps only the few know/care what the key point is,




Your comments were largely fair. And some of the facts you offered are indeed helpful.

However, your claim that the net effect of breathing is zip, is really an opinion that the facts don't necessarily support. 

If there is an increase to the number of receptors and emitters (each operating at a constant rate) then the volume of traffic between the two must surely increase!

This is a crucial fact that is being repeatedly overlooked within this thread!


----------



## basilio

You don't have to read any references I post Cynic. They were for all readers on this thread . They offer a scientific basis on which to analyse the various  inputs, outputs and flows of the carbon cycle.

Contrary to your views they have little if anything to do with CC propaganda. You'll find similar work undertaken 30-40-50 plus years ago.  But of course as science learns more about the world  there will be extra information.

That fact that no scientific literature anywhere (as far as I can see) considers human respiration as some extra significant element of the carbon cycle should say something. Despite our numbers we are still only a small part of the biomass of earth.  Our impact is certainly immense but that is overwhelmingly because of the agricultural, building, engineering and transport activities we undertake.

Do you have any idea of how much cement we use and the impact that has on the atmosphere ?

Land clearing of forests ? Around urban areas ?  CO2 production via transport, power generation, burning fossil fuels ? Try 26 gigatons a year.  

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=6&t=294&&a=16

The comments section under this article offer plenty of food for thought


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> HVAC&R is 11% of Australian emissions




Is that before or after accounting for the breathing? Does measure of those breathing account for breather's weight and health status?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Every member of our ecosystem exerts some influence on our environment. It is simply a question of degree, duration and whether that influence represents a problematic aberration of nature!




Come on man. You said you're interested in "bigger picture" stuff and here you are raising issue about CO2 level from human breathing.

We'd get it if you mean industry, land clearing, extra resources spent to support the extra lives... but human breathing?

If CO2 could be problematic if there's enough of it, that's what you're saying right? Then the figures from Basillo and Tisme suggests how insignificant the hundreds of kg from  each human when factories and other machineries each exhale it by the tonnes.

Anywho.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> ...
> That fact that no scientific literature anywhere (as far as I can see) considers human respiration as some extra significant element of the carbon cycle should say something.
> ...





One can only speculate on the reasons behind the conspicuous absence of information addressing such a vitally important aspect of the human ecosystem! 

I have repeatedly highlighted a logically  (and biologically) sound basis for expecting elevated levels of CO2 within the atmosphere.

None of the information presented ,on this thread, to date, has successfully countered my assertions on this!


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> I have repeatedly highlighted a logically  (and biologically) sound basis for expecting elevated levels of CO2 within the atmosphere.




Would you care to summarise these ?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Come on man. You said you're interested in "bigger picture" stuff and here you are raising issue about CO2 level from human breathing.
> 
> We'd get it if you mean industry, land clearing, extra resources spent to support the extra lives... but human breathing?
> 
> If CO2 could be problematic if there's enough of it, that's what you're saying right? Then the figures from Basillo and Tisme suggests how insignificant the hundreds of kg from  each human when factories and other machineries each exhale it by the tonnes.
> 
> Anywho.




400 ppm atmospheric presence versus how many tonnes per year of biological output? 

(There's an important piece of information missing here! Hopefully somebody will furnish it!)

Read my last response to Tisme. 

Your post fails to counter the crucial fact that I have been repeating ad nauseam.

Can you find a flaw in the logic underlying my statement about volume of traffic between receptors and emitters?

Please note repititious climate mythology is not being called for!

Climate propaganda, phds, years of research etc. aren't required to understand the statement, and repeated attempts at obfuscation via such media shall not be well received. 

A simple application of sound logic, contesting the statement, will suffice.

So can you contest the logic? Can you debunk it?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Would you care to summarise these ?




Are you deliberately trying to annoy me?

Read back over my last couple of days of postings to this thread!


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Are you deliberately trying to annoy me?
> 
> Read back over my last couple of days of postings to this thread!




Seems to me that in typical sceptic fashion you are successfully confusing everyone.  In fact I am not even sure if you are a sceptic.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> Seems to me that in typical sceptic fashion you are successfully confusing everyone.  In fact I am not even sure if you are a sceptic.




Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?

An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!

And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!

Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!


----------



## noco

This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using  their cracked  records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?
> 
> An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!
> 
> And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!
> 
> Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!




Quite confusing Monk.

First, a while back, you said we humans are no miniscule and insignificant to dare think we could screw up the planet.

Now you're saying the increased numbers of us small little apes may play a big role in CO2 and hence CC [?] 

OK, CC doesn't exists... you're saying human breathing [and breeding] contributes to the natural CO2 levels...  But others smarter people have quantify how insignificant that CO2 emission is in relation to the industrial-scale fossile burning.


Man, my head hurts so bad I can't even crack wise tonight


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using  their cracked  records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:




Beating dead horses might add extra carbon noco.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Quite confusing Monk.
> 
> First, a while back, you said we humans are no miniscule and insignificant to dare think we could screw up the planet.
> 
> Now you're saying the increased numbers of us small little apes may play a big role in CO2 and hence CC [?]
> 
> OK, CC doesn't exists... you're saying human breathing [and breeding] contributes to the natural CO2 levels...  But others smarter people have quantify how insignificant that CO2 emission is in relation to the industrial-scale fossile burning.
> 
> 
> Man, my head hurts so bad I can't even crack wise tonight




Luutzu, you have a remarkable knack of completely misunderstanding virtually everything I post within this thread!

Yet again I ask, without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy), can you honestly dispute the logic behind my claim to there being a biological need for an elevated level of CO2 within the atmosphere?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Luutzu, you have a remarkable knack of completely misunderstanding virtually everything I post within this thread!
> 
> Yet again I ask, without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy), can you honestly dispute the logic behind my claim to there being a biological need for an elevated level of CO2 within the atmosphere?




https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/



> Last year, Americans drove almost three trillion miles according to estimates from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
> 
> That’s a lot of time on the open road, time stuck in traffic jams, and time for carbon emissions to enter our atmosphere.
> 
> *How much carbon?*
> 
> 12,000 mile average per year per passenger vehicle (cars, minivans, pick-ups, vans and SUVs) Ã· 25.5 average miles per gallon
> 
> = 470.6 average gallons per year
> 
> Ã— 17.68 average pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas
> 
> = 8,320 pounds of CO2 per vehicle per year....





1 pound = .45kg, say half... so each car emit 4Tonne of CO2?

How many people should not live so we could remove one car off the road to reduce CO2?

Maybe cleaner fuel source could spare lives, no?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 pound = .45kg, say half... so each car emit 4Tonne of CO2?
> 
> How many people should not live so we could remove one car off the road to reduce CO2?
> 
> Maybe cleaner fuel source could spare lives, no?




What part of "without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy)" didn't you understand?

Furthermore you have also completely missed the point!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> What part of "without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy)" didn't you understand?
> 
> Furthermore you have also completely missed the point!




So people should debate you without using any facts? 

When so many people are missing your point... maybe they're not the one missing something.


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?
> 
> An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!
> 
> And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!
> 
> Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!




I don't claim any science,  only what I see and have experienced from growing up on the land with a Dad that watched climate and weather for his stock etc.   Was talking about the changes we have observed with a 90 year old farmer from Warracnabeal.  (i do visiting for red cross)  particularly since the drought of 68/9 they have been enormous.   No science needed to observe the stuff up from too much human footprint on our planet.   Yes lots of causes but the burning of fuels and coal it seems is the worst.   But it can be stopped and with lakes now appearing across the ice sheets of Antartica the urgent call is really out.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> So people should debate you without using any facts?
> 
> When so many people are missing your point... maybe they're not the one missing something.




Luutzu, many people like to believe that their religion has a factual basis.

If one truly cannot differentiate between opinions, facts and opinions of facts, then one is wasting one's time debating anyone on any matter!

I am as yet undecided about the true reason behind the repeated misunderstanding of my postings during this past couple of days.

In some cases, I know that there was genuine misunderstanding. 

In others, I am of the opinion, that the misunderstanding was more than likely deliberate. 

The point I am making happens to threaten one of the major foundations of the Carbon Crusade. As such it is unlikely to be well received by Carbon Crusaders.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> I don't claim any science,  only what I see and have experienced from growing up on the land with a Dad that watched climate and weather for his stock etc.   Was talking about the changes we have observed with a 90 year old farmer from Warracnabeal.  (i do visiting for red cross)  particularly since the drought of 68/9 they have been enormous.   No science needed to observe the stuff up from too much human footprint on our planet.   Yes lots of causes but the burning of fuels and coal it seems is the worst.   But it can be stopped and with lakes now appearing across the ice sheets of Antartica the urgent call is really out.




The main area where I find myself in disagreeance with you is on the questions surrounding causation. 

Remedial action devised pursuant to mistaken causation, could easily be misdirected and exacerbate the issue (or possibly even create problems where none previously existed).

More objective, scientific work needs to be done on the what, why and how questions surrounding any anomalous observations.

Note when I say objective and scientific, I most definitely do not mean opinionated papers and/or websites calling on everyone to trust the authors expertise and dictates without question!


----------



## wayneL

cynic said:


> The main area where I find myself in disagreeance with you is on the questions surrounding causation.
> 
> Remedial action devised pursuant to mistaken causation, could easily be misdirected and exacerbate the issue (or possibly even create problems where none previously existed).
> 
> More objective, scientific work needs to be done on the what, why and how questions surrounding any anomalous observations.
> 
> Note when I say objective and scientific, I most definitely do not mean opinionated papers and/or websites calling on everyone to trust the authors expertise and dictates without question!




The crux of the matter right there.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Is that before or after accounting for the breathing? Does measure of those breathing account for breather's weight and health status?




That's greenhouse emissions associated with it: e.g the power production to produce the equipment, to run it, gas loss, etc.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Would you care to summarise these ?




You beat me to it. Being a lazy expert on all things, I'm not driven to look for problems to solve.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using  their cracked  records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:




Say what?  Noco, there is no need to troll this particular conversation. Cynic is asking for opinions on something abstract to the general theme and those of us without any particular hysteria are particpating. 

Far from boring now that the big thinkers  (i.e. me)are getting involved Noco.

For every doomsayer running around with their underpants on their heads, there's always someone else deliberately choosing to deny them that pleasure it seems.... for no particular reason than to be obstropolous.


----------



## wayneL

Tisme said:


> For every doomsayer running around with their underpants on their heads, there's always someone else deliberately choosing to deny them that pleasure it seems.... for no particular reason than to be obstropolous.




Thanks very bloody much Tisyou, now I have all these people in Maccas looking at me strangly because I'm PMSL at my phone.


----------



## Tisme

I haven't actually been out and counted the truth, but apparently cars and trucks transfer locked up carbon from the dirt to the environment at a rate of 14% of the total per annum. Ripping tees and undergrowth out accounts for 15%, which includes release of organic carbon in the soil.

I assume the net effect is that the carbon cycle intake is choked to 0.85 original capacity and the output is 1.29 of the previous year's equilibrium, which means runaway CO2 concentrations in the absorbers like the oceans, population growth, animal husbandry, remnant forests, crops, etc....whatever is left probably floats around the atmosphere looking for trouble.

Apparently conifers are the best at accumulating carbon in the top soils at a rate of at least twice that of deciduous trees, so I'm guessing they will be the choice for reforestation in the future, but it does take about 40 years to net out the negative effect of cultivation.


----------



## trainspotter

The floods will become more severe and other catastrophic warnings !! I wonder if they said that in 1893?








Breakfast Creek Hotel was wet in 1893 dontcha think?


----------



## orr

Some 'Inconvenient Flooding' ... sunny day flooding, so called up and down the East Coast of the US.

Of course it's causation ??? ... Sea level rise; Could it be that this is in fact the cause of Gobal Warming??? Simple physics 'a compessed gas heats'. So an expanding ocean compresses the atmosphere, causing it to warm. Or is it in fact as our new 'wide eyed' senator Malcolm Roberts contests, and he has the empirical evidence to prove it, that NASA have left the garden hose running...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/s...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


----------



## luutzu

Scientists just put a new ecological marker for our age - the Anthropocene era. a.k.a. the age stupid humans step harder on the gas when told there's a cliff ahead and they ain't got no bridge.

The last ecological marker was the Ice Age.


----------



## explod

Very very interesting times. 

The argument between local scientists and the Government on the perameters of action versus policies and economics to meet targets is all over the floor. 

  So hysteria is now on all fronts.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> The floods will become more severe and other catastrophic warnings !! I wonder if they said that in 1893?
> 
> View attachment 67938
> 
> 
> View attachment 67939
> 
> 
> Breakfast Creek Hotel was wet in 1893 dontcha think?




As the burbs have been developed so the flood plains have extended ... natural levees gone = less peak height.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> As the burbs have been developed so the flood plains have extended ... natural levees gone = less peak height.




Ermmmmm NO !! The Wivenhoe dam was not around in 1893


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Ermmmmm NO !! The Wivenhoe dam was not around in 1893




No what? 

The last flood was mismanagement of Wivenhoe spill. But as hydrologists pointed out it, would have been even more epic if development hadn't increased the flood plain. 

I'm not debating climate change, just offering an observation. The last one cost me tens of thousands of money so I'm rather interested in Wivenhoe and it's function.

You might be interested in this:


http://www.qhatlas.com.au/brisbane-floods-1893-summer-sorrow


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> No what?
> 
> The last flood was mismanagement of Wivenhoe spill. But as hydrologists pointed out it, would have been even more epic if development hadn't increased the flood plain.
> 
> I'm not debating climate change, just offering an observation. The last one cost me tens of thousands of money so I'm rather interested in Wivenhoe and it's function.
> 
> You might be interested in this:
> 
> 
> http://www.qhatlas.com.au/brisbane-floods-1893-summer-sorrow




Development increased the flood plain? 



> The ‘history books’, however, may also tell a different story of history repeating itself in tragic and predictable fashion. Questionable planning decisions, dubious waterfront development and the alleged parsimony of the insurance industry were all upshots of the disaster. While reducing the flood by approximately forty percent, many were shocked that Wivenhoe could not stop the flood water. Following the dam operation manual, the necessity to release water to ensure integrity of the dam wall caused downstream flooding.




http://www.qhatlas.com.au/brisbane-floods-1893-summer-sorrow



> The flood has been termed a “dam release flood” by hydrologists appointed by the Insurance
> Council of Australia. This suggests that a release of water from the Wivenhoe Dam was a principal
> cause of flooding along the mainstream and tributaries of the Brisbane River downstream of the dam
> over the period 11th–12th January 2011. Whilst the dam operators were acting in accordance with the
> operations manual for the dam, their modeling did not take account of forecast rainfall in determining
> the predicted dam water level, and this resulted in a sub-optimal water release strategy.




https://riskfrontiers.com/pdf/water-03-01149.pdf



> Structures: Structures that are placed in a creek or waterway, for example culverts in an urban drainage
> system or bridges in a river, reduce the water-carrying capacity of the waterway and may contribute to flooding. Debris can also become entangled on these structures, worsening this process. Levees along a waterway are designed to protect areas behind the levee from floods up to a certain level, but their constraining influence on flood flows can cause upstream flood levels to be higher than they otherwise would be. Road and railway embankments, with insufficient cross-drainage capacity (for example, use of culverts), can block off parts of the floodplain with a similar effect. Once levees or embankments are overtopped or breached, the way floodwaters spread over a floodplain can alter significantly and the impact of flooding is often severe.




http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.a...s/floods/understanding-floods_full_colour.pdf

The "Development" hardly contributed to the flood plain but actually made the flooding worse as the man made levees to protect the urbanisation increased the height of the water.

That is what I meant by "NO"


----------



## explod

Anyhoow,  when the country was covered in forests heavy downpours were cushioned, cradled and to some degree absorbed more. 

Stop all logging and plant more trees.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Development increased the flood plain?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.qhatlas.com.au/brisbane-floods-1893-summer-sorrow
> 
> 
> 
> https://riskfrontiers.com/pdf/water-03-01149.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.a...s/floods/understanding-floods_full_colour.pdf
> 
> The "Development" hardly contributed to the flood plain but actually made the flooding worse as the man made levees to protect the urbanisation increased the height of the water.
> 
> That is what I meant by "NO"




Creek blockades were a non event because the king tide exceeded the height of the creeks. Deforestation, land levelling, etc mitigated a worse outcome


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Anyhoow,  when the country was covered in forests heavy downpours were cushioned, cradled and to some degree absorbed more.
> 
> Stop all logging and plant more trees.




Plod, can you explain to me why we have had such good winter rains in central Australia and western Queensland recently causing flooding in many parts....Most unusual weather really.


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> Anyhoow,  when the country was covered in forests heavy downpours were cushioned, cradled and to some degree absorbed more.
> 
> Stop all logging and plant more trees.




The last flood in Brissy followed a relentless rain that went on month after month. As you may well know, Brisbane rains aren't like winter rains found in the southern states, they tend to bucket down. Every inch of the place was sodden and land locked by the various hill barriers that surround brisbane.

It's hard to describe the massive water flow that the dam's release caused as it also syphoned ground water into its tide. Down at Gailes, for instance, the river bank is a yawning chasm normally, but it filled and overflowed another 5 metres above with the torrent. I watched my factory become inundated with 4 metres of water in an industrial estate in a matter of a couple of hours....fortunately recent  major roads works opened a relief path to a wider flood plain. The gentrification of riverside suburbs had seen the old factories disappear and large scale drainage installed, etc

Unless you live it, you can't understand it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Plod, can you explain to me why we have had such good winter rains in central Australia and western Queensland recently causing flooding in many parts....*Most unusual weather really.*




That is the point, it is UNUSUAL. The natural cycles are being disrupted and replaced by freakish events that are unpredictable.

It's pretty hard to determine what is seasonal weather these days, and that stuffs farmers up and a lot of other people too.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> That is the point, it is UNUSUAL. The natural cycles are being disrupted and replaced by freakish events that are unpredictable.
> 
> It's pretty hard to determine what is seasonal weather these days, and that stuffs farmers up and a lot of other people too.




Thanks Plod, you have been a big help....It must be climate change or all those wind turbines that are disturbing the air and killing thousands of birds


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> That is the point, it is UNUSUAL. The natural cycles are being disrupted and replaced by freakish events that are unpredictable.
> 
> It's pretty hard to determine what is seasonal weather these days, and that stuffs farmers up and a lot of other people too.




Rumpy, unusual, seasonal weather,freakish events and stuffed farmers???????

This has been going on since Arthur Philip landed in Botany Bay in 1778......The old farmers knew what to do but unfortunately the modern farmer wants to do it all by computer just like these whacko Climate Change scientists who use computer modelling to try to determine whether their will be enough rains to fill the dams in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane or whether the temperature is going to rise .08 % in the next 100 years.

There were men like Indigo Jones who could predict the weather years ahead without computers...There were many men in the south west Queensland sheep stations in the 40's an 50's, many of whom I worked for in my plumbing days, who also could predict future weather conditions in advance and they prepared for it accordingly.  

Now I know I was a bit facetious in answering you as Explod before when I asked him why we were getting so much good winter rains in central Australia and recent flooding in western Queensland, I had bet my bottom dollar he would have no answer because of the fact these Greenies get carried away with being brain washed by their UN Global Warming masters  that when tough questions are asked, they either do not have any answers or more often than not they we will waffle on about something quite irrelevant.

Now for your information, and I will include Plod as well if he cares to take note, these good recent rains are the result of an Indian Ocean influence known as the Dipole and it normally brings good rains to Central Australia and Western Queensland....It will bring good rains through spring...It has happened before and it will happen again.....Nothing what so ever to do with Global Warming but a lot to do with the influence of bush fires in NSW, Victoria and South Australia meeting up the stream of cold air tracking down from the Himalayas.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Creek blockades were a non event because the king tide exceeded the height of the creeks. Deforestation, land levelling, etc mitigated a worse outcome




So the man made levees and culvert systems designed to protect the urbanisation had nothing to do with the flooding? King tide ??? What king tide????  

Flooding started on the 9th January and peaked on the 13th January. The king tide event wasn't until the 21st January 2011 and effected mainly in the Albion and Breakfast Creek areas, with the Brisbane River level peaking at 1.75 metres only.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...hes-over-lowlying-streets-20110120-19xx3.html

With the flood peaking at 4.46 m in Brisbane, the floods were the sixth highest in the city's history.



> Seven major flood peaks have been recorded at the Brisbane gauge since records began in 1841. A major flood peak of 4.46 metres (6th highest) was recorded at 3:00am on Thursday the 13th of January 2011. This is the largest flood peak recorded since the January 1974 flood when the Brisbane River reached 5.45 metres. Higher levels are possible in Brisbane with two floods (8.35 metres and 8.09 metres) being recorded two weeks apart in February 1893 and higher still in the record flood of January 1841 at 8.43 metres.




http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

YERRRRIGHTO


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> The last flood in Brissy followed a relentless rain that went on month after month. As you may well know, Brisbane rains aren't like winter rains found in the southern states, they tend to bucket down. Every inch of the place was sodden and land locked by the various hill barriers that surround brisbane.
> 
> It's hard to describe the massive water flow that the dam's release caused as it also syphoned ground water into its tide. Down at Gailes, for instance, the river bank is a yawning chasm normally, but it filled and overflowed another 5 metres above with the torrent. I watched my factory become inundated with 4 metres of water in an industrial estate in a matter of a couple of hours....fortunately recent  major roads works opened a relief path to a wider flood plain. The gentrification of riverside suburbs had seen the old factories disappear and large scale drainage installed, etc
> 
> Unless you live it, you can't understand it.




SHEEESHHH !!!!!! Nothing to do with Cyclone Tasha meeting up with an El Nina trough and the FACT that the operators of the Wivenhoe dam did not release water prior to the heavy rainfall or the FACT that they had excess water in the dam so that Brisbanites could use sprinklers during the summer months.

So the damage was severe due to the expansion of the population of the Brisbane and surrounding regions. In 1893 the Brisbane River peaked at 8.93 metres. 2011 was 4.46 metres. Was it CLIMATE CHANGE that caused that amount of rain to fall in the catchment areas 123 years ago??


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> SHEEESHHH !!!!!! Nothing to do with Cyclone Tasha meeting up with an El Nina trough and the FACT that the operators of the Wivenhoe dam did not release water prior to the heavy rainfall or the FACT that they had excess water in the dam so that Brisbanites could use sprinklers during the summer months.
> 
> So the damage was severe due to the expansion of the population of the Brisbane and surrounding regions. In 1893 the Brisbane River peaked at 8.93 metres. 2011 was 4.46 metres. Was it CLIMATE CHANGE that caused that amount of rain to fall in the catchment areas 123 years ago??





Really mate? I mean really!! You are picking a fight with someone who went through the trauma and you want to points score? 

Have a scour for the National Geo article that clearly points out how the dam was built to overflow, etc. Throwing up hindsight is for useless t1ts.

Just move on and suck it up cobber.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Really mate? I mean really!! You are picking a fight with someone who went through the trauma and you want to points score?
> 
> Have a scour for the National Geo article that clearly points out how the dam was built to overflow, etc. Throwing up hindsight is for useless t1ts.
> 
> Just move on and suck it up cobber.




No one is picking a fight Tisme. Just pointing out FACTS rather then incorrect stories. I went through Cyclone Tracy in 1974. I went through the 1999 flood in Gympie. Lost a lot of stuff in both. I have relatives living in St. Lucia, Ipswich and at Kangaroo Point that went through the 2011 flood.

Throwing up incorrect statements in regards to how flooding occurs (or did occur in this case) is not doing yourself a service of credibility.

Try reading the 5 or so links I have provided (or is the Chief Scientist of QLD wrong?) when you want some FACTS rather than a National Geo article or some flippant commentary from yourself.

SO back on track - The 1893 Flood, anyone want to explain that one?

P.S. The Wivenhoe dam water was intentionally released by the operators and did not just "overflow".


----------



## Ves

trainspotter said:


> Try reading the 5 or so links I have provided (or is the Chief Scientist of QLD wrong?) when you want some FACTS rather than a National Geo article or some flippant commentary from yourself.



Where are you reading that the Chief Scientist of Queensland said that development DID contribute to the flooding?   Must admit,  bit confused where he comes into this.

I'm not saying the development did not and it's definitely possible it did,  but the link your provided from the Chief Scientist doesn't confirm it DID  (ie.  it's not shown as a fact out of his mouth like you're making out).

Here's what you quoted:



> Structures: Structures that are placed in a creek or waterway, for example culverts in an urban drainage
> system or bridges in a river, reduce the water-carrying capacity of the waterway and *may contribute to flooding*. Debris *can* also become entangled on these structures, worsening this process. Levees along a waterway are designed to protect areas behind the levee from floods up to a certain level, but their constraining influence on flood flows *can* cause upstream flood levels to be higher than they otherwise would be. Road and railway embankments, with insufficient cross-drainage capacity (for example, use of culverts), *can* block off parts of the floodplain with a similar effect. Once levees or embankments are overtopped or breached, the way floodwaters spread over a floodplain *can* alter significantly and the impact of flooding is often severe.




(my bolds)

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au...ull_colour.pdf

No where does he say they DID in the Brisbane event in January 2011. 

In fact,  the very front of the report says this:



> Our report does not examine the specific events of the recent Queensland floods, but rather focuses on
> a number of critical, underlying questions relevant to floods generally.




Maybe I missed it,  but which of your links has the chief Scientist of Queensland stating development contributed to the flooding as a fact? 


EDIT:  It's possible I'm just misunderstanding what you guys are actually arguing about.


----------



## trainspotter

Ves said:


> Where are you reading that the Chief Scientist of Queensland said that development DID contribute to the flooding?   Must admit,  bit confused where he comes into this.
> 
> I'm not saying the development did not and it's definitely possible it did,  but the link your provided from the Chief Scientist doesn't confirm it DID  (ie.  it's not shown as a fact out of his mouth like you're making out).
> 
> Here's what you quoted:
> 
> (my bolds)
> 
> http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au...ull_colour.pdf
> 
> No where does he say they DID in the Brisbane event in January 2011.
> 
> In fact,  the very front of the report says this:
> 
> Maybe I missed it,  but which of your links has the chief Scientist of Queensland stating development contributed to the flooding as a fact?
> 
> EDIT:  It's possible I'm just misunderstanding what you guys are actually arguing about.




Not arguing VES ...merely pointing out some FACTS. So when the Chief Scientist "BROADLY" states that the urbanisation can contribute to floods this DID NOT happen in the 2011 Brisbane floods?

The other 4 links were more PRECISE in their wording as to what actually caused the flood but we are now ....





The point I was making is that in 1893 there was a flood that peaked at 8.93 metres in the Brisbane River. In 2011 the Brisbane River peaked at 4.46 metres. The 2011 flood has been blamed on Climate Change. What is to blame for the 1893 flood then?

Tisme claimed that the urbanisation lessened the height/impact of the 2011 flood as natural levees were removed to create suburbs/roads etc.

I submitted that the opposite is the case as the development contributed to the flooding as man made structures to protect the urbanisation heightened the flooding. As in culverts and bridges so on and so forth blocked up the natural flow of the water causing it to breach the containment levels.

If in 1893 there was little or no urbanisation and ALL the natural levees are in place then that must have been one hell of a lot of rain in the catchment area BEFORE the Wivenhoe dam was constructed as there was no impediment for the water to egress. As in it was PURE flowing water straight from the clouds into the catchment basins and then onto the Brisbane River !!!!!!!!!!!

Anyhoooooooo this is just my opinion


----------



## Ves

Thanks trainspotter that clarifies what you were trying to say for me.  I think the point you were trying to make got lost (at least for me) in the back/forth nature of your conversation with Tisme  (which obviously happens in most discussions on the internet as they go from a broad issue to splitting hairs over something within that broader issue).   


I don't really have any answers for you about 1893.  It's probably hard to infer much at all in regards to climate change from any of these extraordinary events.


----------



## noco

Jackie Trad, deputy  Premier of Queensland has invited Leonardo Dicaprio, a well known Greenie, to visit the Great Barrier Reef.
Now we all know he is no Climate Change Scientist but he is coming here to tell us that 965 km of the reef has been ruined by man made global warming and the ABC and all the left wing rags will be all over it like a rash promoting more lies and propaganda about a phenomen that has taken place over the past 500,000 years....It is gross exaggeration.
I would like the know the motive behind this invitation by Trad..Will she be seeking more money from the Federal Government?
Who is paying for this guy to visit the reef.....Will it be the Queensland tax payer?


https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/32648271/qld-extends-reef-invite-to-dicaprio/#page1

*The Queensland government has extended an invitation to Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio to visit the Great Barrier Reef and learn about its conservation efforts.

DiCaprio this week cited the plight of the reef at the Our Oceans Conference in Washington DC.

He told the gathering over 600 miles (965km) of reef previously "teeming with life" had been devastated in an unprecedented coral bleaching event.

"We are seeing this level of impact to coral reefs around the world from Hawaii to the Florida Keys, from Madagascar to Indonesia," he said.

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad on Saturday extended an open invitation to the actor to visit the reef.

"He can come any time he likes, he's absolutely welcome to come to Australia, to come to Queensland and to come to the Great Barrier Reef," she said in Brisbane.

"I know he's been there before and I really applaud his passion and his commitment to conserving and protecting the earth's oceans."

The reef remains at risk of being placed on UNESCO's "in danger" list - a move that would be both embarrassing for the state and federal governments and economically damaging to the tourism industry.

The Queensland government last month declared it would take reef protection to the next state election as a major platform after its tree-clearing laws were defeated on the floor of the hung parliament.

Labor linked that bill to the reef's health, given vegetation management can influence sediment in-flows.

UNESCO is due to review Australia's progress on its Reef 2050 plan later this*


----------



## Tisme

Ves said:


> Thanks trainspotter that clarifies what you were trying to say for me.  I think the point you were trying to make got lost (at least for me) in the back/forth nature of your conversation with Tisme  (which obviously happens in most discussions on the internet as they go from a broad issue to splitting hairs over something within that broader issue).
> 
> 
> I don't really have any answers for you about 1893.  It's probably hard to infer much at all in regards to climate change from any of these extraordinary events.




"The rainfall continued in various parts of the Brisbane River Basin until Wednesday 12 January 2011, resulting in the largest inflows into both Dams ever recorded."
https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/78145/report-append.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"It is, unfortunately, not possible for me to determine the depth the flood of 2011 would have achieved without dams on this information with any precision.   I can, however, compare its actual depth to the probable depths  of historical floods if the two dams has been built at the time of those floods.  Making that comparison we find that the highest floods since settlement would have been, if Wivenhoe and Somerset had both been built at that time, in ascending order:


17/2/1893 at 3.31 meters,
 4/2/1893 at 3.36 meters,
14/1/1841 at 3.43 meters,
27/1/1974 at 3.48 meters, and
13/1/2011 at4.46 meters. "

"(Edited 12/3/2011.  New modelling has shown the the height of the 2011 flood without dams would have been seven meters at the port office.  On that basis, it would have been the fourth largest of the historical floods.  Based on flood volume, it is the third largest at 14000 cumecs ignoring the effects of Wivenhoe and Sommerset.  That places it  behind 1893 at 14600 cumecs, 1841 at 14100 cumecs, but ahead of 1974, which would have reached 10,360 cumecs where it not for Sommerset.)"
http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/2011-and-history-how-big-was-brisbanes.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So 1974 had 10360/14000 the volume but the flood extent was slightly less of comparable....the water had to drain somewhere against a king tide:
https://riskfrontiers.com/pdf/water-03-01149.pdf


----------



## Tisme

Extent of "Great Flood" of Brisbane River 1893


----------



## Tisme

By Comparison with say Sumner Park 1893 = non flooded, but 2011 havoc and suicides:


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Really mate? I mean really!! You are picking a fight with someone who went through the trauma and you want to points score?
> 
> Have a scour for the National Geo article that clearly points out how the dam was built to overflow, etc. Throwing up hindsight is for useless t1ts.
> 
> *Just move on and suck it up cobber.*




Pot kettle black anyone?



> "(Edited 12/3/2011. New modelling has shown the the height of the 2011 flood without dams would have been seven meters at the port office. *On that basis, it would have been the fourth largest of the historical floods.* Based on flood volume, it is the third largest at 14000 cumecs ignoring the effects of Wivenhoe and Sommerset. *That places it behind 1893 at 14600 cumecs, 1841 at 14100 cumecs*, but ahead of 1974, which would have reached 10,360 cumecs where it not for Sommerset.)"
> http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com...brisbanes.html




my bolds


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Pot kettle black anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> my bolds





Really!!?  My post wasn't to you, but to someone else who does not appear to be in the conversation about a tragedy FTW. 

I was there Trainspotter, going by your comments you weren't, so it's pointless to argue. The govt itself spent lots of monies to carry out forensics, an inquiry that was had because large numbers smelled a rat and still do.

It's a simple eqtn: 2011 had nearly the same volume as the big two 1800's floods, but the extent was wider. The 2011 flood had way more water than 1974, but the height was noticeably less with similar boundaries (more runoff). Done dusted, no more correspondence entered into, no facsimile thereof.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Really!!?  My post wasn't to you, but to someone else who does not appear to be in the conversation about a tragedy FTW.
> 
> I was there Trainspotter, going by your comments you weren't, so it's pointless to argue. The govt itself spent lots of monies to carry out forensics, an inquiry that was had because large numbers smelled a rat and still do.
> 
> It's a simple eqtn: 2011 had nearly the same volume as the big two 1800's floods, but the extent was wider. The 2011 flood had way more water than 1974, but the height was noticeably less with similar boundaries (more runoff). Done dusted, no more correspondence entered into, no facsimile thereof.




Still not getting it are you Tisme. 2011 flood blamed on CC. 

Q. What caused the 1893 flood then.


----------



## explod

explod said:


> Anyhoow,  when the country was covered in forests heavy downpours were cushioned, cradled and to some degree absorbed more.
> 
> Stop all logging and plant more trees.




As I indicated the place is very different today to the 1880's so we cannot properly compare.

Heavy hail today in Darwin, record down pours in several places up north today.  unseasonal record flood in the US a few days back.  and these events are daily on our main stream news outlets.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> As I indicated the place is very different today to the 1880's so we cannot properly compare.
> 
> Heavy hail today in Darwin, record down pours in several places up north today.  unseasonal record flood in the US a few days back.  and these events are daily on our main stream news outlets.




It must be Global Warming causing it all....I explained to you what is causing all the rain...Didn't you read it?

BTW...where is Flim Flam Flannery these days...Has he gone into hiding?......Wish he would be brave enough to go on the Bolt Report...Andrew wants to ask him a few questions.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Still not getting it are you Tisme. 2011 flood blamed on CC.
> 
> Q. What caused the 1893 flood then.




I think you are confusing what I  was taking you to task on, but I shall take a teaspoon of my own and advice and move on.

The 2011 is an interesting study although the condensed version tends to focus on the conjunction of events in 2011 rather than considering the persistent rains during the previous year that were unusual and really annoying.

I'm not sure if I think the the floods are micro environment events within a larger pool, or if they are hysteresis effects from climate event overload, Milankovitch cycles, etc. 

I remember when the Three Gorges Dam was filling, there were earthquakes, necessary fresh water runoff to the seas where monsoons are formed was reduced and therefore followed drought in the countries affected and the annual ice formation on the Himalayas was zip. If a dam can contribute to major climate events, I'm thinking places like destruction of the Amazon forests and basin must be a key driver too?


----------



## Tisme

Ice retreating in Antarctica a month early, catching inhabitants by surprise.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Ice retreating in Antarctica a month early, catching inhabitants by surprise.




It must be Global Warming from burning all those nasty fossil fuels......We have to  close down all those coal mine or else we will all perish.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It must be Global Warming from burning all those nasty fossil fuels......We have to  close down all those coal mine or else we will all perish.




finally you are onside noco.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> finally you are onside noco.




Do you want me to become a water melon man?......Green outside and red inside.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Do you want me to become a water melon man?......Green outside and red inside.




Stand for the common people is correct.

Anyway back to topic:



> Study warns that science as we know it is evolving into something shoddy and unreliable
> Welcome to "the natural selection of bad science".
> PETER DOCKRILL 21 SEP 2016




And on Antarctica, the warmth down there is sending more cloud north, hence increased rains.  Its the displacement effect I have noted here many times but sceptics do not like common observations.  They prefer the distorted science backed by the oil/coal lobby


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Stand for the common people is correct.
> 
> Anyway back to topic:
> 
> 
> 
> And on Antarctica, the warmth down there is sending more cloud north, hence increased rains.  Its the displacement effect I have noted here many times but sceptics do not like common observations.  They prefer the distorted science backed by the oil/coal lobby




So do you have a link on your wise Green information.

My youngest son is going down to Antarctica with the RAAF on the 24th October for 3 months and I be in regular contact with him to get some first hand reports on the ground or the ice.

He has already spent 6 months at Davis in 2010/2011.

So tell me Plod, why have the Greens been losing support from the common people lately?...They must be pretty worried about PaulIne Hanson and One Nation showing some dominance in the Senate....They walked out in tottoe during maiden speech and it did not look good with their immaturity.....Watch the up coming Queensland state election..How many seats will the Greens win over One Nation?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> So do you have a link on your wise Green information.
> 
> My youngest son is going down to Antarctica with the RAAF on the 24th October for 3 months and I be in regular contact with him to get some first hand reports on the ground or the ice.
> 
> He has already spent 6 months at Davis in 2010/2011.
> 
> So tell me Plod, why have the Greens been losing support from the common people lately?...They must be pretty worried about PaulIne Hanson and One Nation showing some dominance in the Senate....They walked out in tottoe during maiden speech and it did not look good with their immaturity.....Watch the up coming Queensland state election..How many seats will the Greens win over One Nation?




Yep, 'Science Watch", todays issue, its free and worth linking to your email for daily updates.

The Greens are far from losing support if you check the overall numbers.  In fact very close to two new seats in the lower federal house, stopped only by Lib/Lab preferencing each other.  But that will wear that down next time.

Hanson, struth, in fairy land.  Many of the so called terrorist are kids looking for attention and the elder more serious migrated here from the terror created in their homelands by US aggression to protect oil rights.  A lot of them lost Parents and families in these conflicts and we wonder why they are so aggressive and angry.

Mate John Kelly as official artist was there three years back for a whole season.  We communicate regularly with circle he formed then.  You made no comment on my post a month back on the lakes of water appearing for the first time across the top of the ice sheets.

Notice upcoming winter Olympic's facing problems of not enough ice and snow cover in Greenland.  Of course as you clearly indicated, its happened before.  Trouble is that was an isolated area back then created by weather currents being blocked, this time all the blockages have gone and the melt and warmth is everywhere.

No frosts here at Bendigo this year.  Talking with an 87 year old farmer (a mate of my Dad's Brother actually) at a Red Cross meeting recently and he said he could not recall a winter like this.  Cold, very wet, yet warmer in a strange way (his words).  Lot of farmers are joining the Greens here in Victioria, not just the weather but fracking which threatens the water table.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yep, 'Science Watch", todays issue, its free and worth linking to your email for daily updates.
> 
> The Greens are far from losing support if you check the overall numbers.  In fact very close to two new seats in the lower federal house, stopped only by Lib/Lab preferencing each other.  But that will wear that down next time.
> 
> Hanson, struth, in fairy land.  Many of the so called terrorist are kids looking for attention and the elder more serious migrated here from the terror created in their homelands by US aggression to protect oil rights.  A lot of them lost Parents and families in these conflicts and we wonder why they are so aggressive and angry.
> 
> Mate John Kelly as official artist was there three years back for a whole season.  We communicate regularly with circle he formed then.  You made no comment on my post a month back on the lakes of water appearing for the first time across the top of the ice sheets.
> 
> Notice upcoming winter Olympic's facing problems of not enough ice and snow cover in Greenland.  Of course as you clearly indicated, its happened before.  Trouble is that was an isolated area back then created by weather currents being blocked, this time all the blockages have gone and the melt and warmth is everywhere.
> 
> No frosts here at Bendigo this year.  Talking with an 87 year old farmer (a mate of my Dad's Brother actually) at a Red Cross meeting recently and he said he could not recall a winter like this.  Cold, very wet, yet warmer in a strange way (his words).  Lot of farmers are joining the Greens here in Victioria, not just the weather but fracking which threatens the water table.




I think if you do some checking, the Greens lost one  seat in the Senate...What happened?:topic


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I think if you do some checking, the Greens lost one  seat in the Senate...What happened?:topic




Agree,  knew that,  its the overall support that's important for long term and our national percentage averaged out did not drop.   Think there was a slight gain in fact but will have to recheck with our local pea counter. 

Unfortunately change takes time but one thing accellerating things for us is the growing disparity between rich and poor and the rising tide of Parliamentarians turning the other cheek because I think its too hard for left or right.  Greens are a new evolving centre party. 

Off topic


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yep, 'Science Watch", todays issue, its free and worth linking to your email for daily updates.
> 
> 
> No frosts here at Bendigo this year.  Talking with an 87 year old farmer (a mate of my Dad's Brother actually) at a Red Cross meeting recently and he said he could not recall a winter like this.  Cold, very wet, yet warmer in a strange way (his words).  Lot of farmers are joining the Greens here in Victioria, not just the weather but fracking which threatens the water table.




Tell your old 87 year old farmer mate he won't get a frost while it is raining..But there again, I thought you would have known that.

Clear skies and dry air.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Tell your old 87 year old farmer mate he won't get a frost while it is raining..But there again, I thought you would have known that.
> 
> Clear skies and dry air.




Of course we know that.  Both old bushies and can tell the weather is changing dramatically, and news indicates across the entire globe.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Of course we know that.  Both old bushies and can tell the weather is changing dramatically, and news indicates across the entire globe.




You seem to have contradicted your pervious statement about no frosts in Bendigo until I drew your attention to it.

Having lived in Brisbane, I can remember my old lady hosing the lawn covered in frost early in the morning to stop burning the grass.

But as I have mentioned on previous occasion our weather is mainly due to activities of the Sun.

http://www.almanac.com/content/solar-activity-2016

I thought this link would be interesting reading for the Global Warming alarmist.....Enjoy the link.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You seem to have contradicted your pervious statement about no frosts in Bendigo until I drew your attention to it.
> 
> Having lived in Brisbane, I can remember my old lady hosing the lawn covered in frost early in the morning to stop burning the grass.
> 
> But as I have mentioned on previous occasion our weather is mainly due to activities of the Sun.
> 
> http://www.almanac.com/content/solar-activity-2016
> 
> I thought this link would be interesting reading for the Global Warming alarmist.....Enjoy the link.




No frosts this particular year (2016) ole Pal, which the old fellow said he had not seen before.  Bendigo is known for its servere frosts, jeez, remember my freezing fingers here as a kid.  No contradiction, seems you may seek angles to shoot messengers.

And of course solar plays its part, always has. As well, overall the sun is cooling as is the earth.  In fact on Science Watch the other day they say the sun is cooling exponentially much faster than previous studies had suggested.  But against all of this the earth is suddenly warming and much faster than previously known.  And there are lots of other causes too, but oil and coal pollution is one of the big ones.  Of course with the perma frost melt we now have the added problem of rising methane release as well.

Not good


----------



## noco

explod said:


> No frosts this particular year (2016) ole Pal, which the old fellow said he had not seen before.  Bendigo is known for its servere frosts, jeez, remember my freezing fingers here as a kid.  No contradiction, seems you may seek angles to shoot messengers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not good




You missed the point young fellow......You raved on about no frosts in Bendigo this year but you had no idea why until I drew your attention to it.

What Victoria.NSW, Western Queensland and central Australia are experiencing with a very wet winter/spring is the influence from the Indian Ocean known as the DIPOLE....A system that takes place once every 11 years or so....

Now do you need any more convincing or are still going to be on a set mind?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You missed the point young fellow......You raved on about no frosts in Bendigo this year but you had no idea why until I drew your attention to it.
> 
> What Victoria.NSW, Western Queensland and central Australia are experiencing with a very wet winter/spring is the influence from the Indian Ocean known as the DIPOLE....A system that takes place once every 11 years or so....
> 
> Now do you need any more convincing or are still going to be on a set mind?




Not only the old Chap but my Brother,  Sister and other locals say that this season (winter) has been very very different here at Bendigo and district. 

And calling me a young fella at 70 is not going to sway that.  Your vehemence indicates where the set mind is lol.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Not only the old Chap but my Brother,  Sister and other locals say that this season (winter) has been very very different here at Bendigo and district.
> 
> And calling me a young fella at 70 is not going to sway that.  Your vehemence indicates where the set mind is lol.




I was a working plumber before you were born......You are still only a boy to me.

You were still in liquid form when I was in uniform.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> It must be Global Warming from burning all those nasty fossil fuels......We have to  close down all those coal mine or else we will all perish.




There certainly seems to be a fluctuating set of circumstances that variously reports increased ice, reduced ice, early melt, etc.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I was a working plumber before you were born......You are still only a boy to me.
> 
> You were still in liquid form when I was in uniform.




And whats all that got to do with the price of eggs, being a plumber and being around longer. A Brother is a plumber and all he knows about the weather would fit on sixpence. Except for golf and the footy.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And whats all that got to do with the price of eggs, being a plumber and being around longer. A Brother is a plumber and all he knows about the weather would fit on sixpence. Except for golf and the footy.




You are still only a young fellow in my eyes.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You are still only a young fellow in my eyes.




Still cannot understand what difference age makes. 

Your infatuation with it makes me start to believe that you are a 35 year old troll representing the oil or coal lobby.  A lot of immaturity coming through.


----------



## trainspotter

And just like that - no more global warming ... *AHEM* ... climate change.



> nanoFlowcell ®-powered electric vehicles do not depend on a specific charging infrastructure nor require time-consuming battery recharging. Exhausted bi-ION liquids will be refueled as easily as gasoline. As bi-ION electrolytes are non-toxic and thermally stable, there will be no onerous regulatory requirements for logistics and storage of those liquids. Easily accessible everywhere, bi-ION electrolyte fluids could be distributed through existing petrol stations worldwide.
> 
> bi-ION liquids are inexpensive to manufacture and free of toxic compounds and rare materials.
> 
> High performance, extremely economical, fast refueling and zero emissions. nanoFlowcell ® will generate broad acceptance for electro mobility!




http://www.nanoflowcell.com/


----------



## trainspotter

Gee ... they were quick to extinguish that little flare up weren't they?

*SA weather: State-wide power loss raises 'serious questions', Josh Frydenberg says*



> Senator Xenophon linked the incident to South Australia's reliance on renewable energy.
> 
> "I support renewable energy, I support the Renewable Energy Target, but it's how you achieve it and how you achieve sensible greenhouse gas reduction policies," he said.
> 
> "*This has not been sensible, it has been reckless — we have relied too much on wind rather than baseload renewables, rather than baseload power, including gas which is a fossil fuel but it is 50 per cent cleaner than coal and a good transitional fuel."*
> 
> "We need a full independent inquiry. What I'm worried about now is that there are many vulnerable people in my home state that are at real risk of their health so we need to deal with that — this is an emergency."
> 
> "This is a textbook case of how not to do it and I cannot fathom, I can't believe, that my state is in darkness at the moment."
> 
> "This should not have happened and if heads have to roll, so be it."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...ons'-must-be-answered-frydenberg-says/7886262

*SA weather: No link between blackout and renewable energy, experts say*



> "There's no evidence to suggest this was caused by too much wind power, or the dependence on wind power, or anything else, or would've been any different if any of the power stations that had been shut down earlier this year had still been operating.
> 
> "If you've got a wind farm or a coal-fired power station at the end of a transmission line, and that system either is taken out by a storm or is forced to shut down to protect itself from a storm, it doesn't matter what the energy source is."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...n-blackout-and-renewables-expert-says/7887052


----------



## macca

trainspotter said:


> And just like that - no more global warming ... *AHEM* ... climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nanoflowcell.com/
> 
> View attachment 68268




Good read, thanks for the link


----------



## basilio

macca said:


> Good read, thanks for the link




Fascinating...And you actually believe this story ? 

I'd love to but frankly it is so bereft of any fact I suspect it is just another creative scam.  

Love to be proven wrong of course

http://jalopnik.com/the-supercar-that-runs-using-saltwater-is-likely-bullsh-1637600538
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/nanoflowcell-quant-quantino.28239/page-2


----------



## sptrawler

So now we have to worry about an ice age.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/technolo...k/news-story/6fca3f44843a1a444ae7b841dfd8ee56

When will it end, first we are going to cook, now we're going to freeze.:1zhelp:


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> So now we have to worry about an ice age.
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/technolo...k/news-story/6fca3f44843a1a444ae7b841dfd8ee56
> 
> When will it end, first we are going to cook, now we're going to freeze.:1zhelp:




This not good news for the Green/Labor socialists alarmist....Will it debunk all their Global Warming scare tactics...I hope so although I doubt I will ever see it.?


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> So now we have to worry about an ice age.
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/technolo...k/news-story/6fca3f44843a1a444ae7b841dfd8ee56
> 
> When will it end, first we are going to cook, now we're going to freeze.:1zhelp:




It depends on where you live. Same for flooding from rising sea level - those by the shores will get flooded, those in the inner cities will get a new beach front estate.

Humans and animals are quite fragile. A few degrees too much for too long and they could die, or severely weaken... then bacteria and diseases will get out of control and they're gone.

Maybe half the world's population do not live in air-conditioned or otherwise enclosed environment. Most of those live under tin sheds with a few slats of timber of fabric as walls. 

If extreme weather event heat or snap freeze their area for a bit, they die... first goes to young and elderly. Enough heat and their nearby water resource (lake or pond) will be dried and shared more with less... they die from that too.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> This not good news for the Green/Labor socialists alarmist....Will it debunk all their Global Warming scare tactics...I hope so although I doubt I will ever see it.?




Wonder what happens when the sun fires up again and the atmosphere has accumulated even more airbourne crap to keep the heat in?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Wonder what happens when the sun fires up again and the atmosphere has accumulated even more airborne crap to keep the heat in?




I guess you will have to keep wondering in your good old fashion way......There is one thing for sure, nobody can control the activities of Sun.....It is not a wonder the Green/Labor coalition have not blamed the burning of fossil fuels on Earth as the culprit...


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I guess you will have to keep wondering in your good old fashion way......There is one thing for sure, nobody can control the activities of Sun.....It is not a wonder the Green/Labor coalition have not blamed the burning of fossil fuels on Earth as the culprit...




Human can't control the sun or the stars, but their activities can turn the earth into a glass house though.

So instead of putting glass panes in the back garden, all them exhaust from planes, trains, automobiles and factories and power stations slowly creating a glass-like effect in the atmosphere.


----------



## wayneL

Heretic!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

Still pretty pessimistic, but interesting comments:



> What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
> 
> Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”






> Lovelock maintains that, unlike most environmentalists, he is a rigorous empiricist, but it is manifestly clear that he enjoys maddening the green movement. “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. t’s totally unscientific.”


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> Heretic!!!!
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over
> 
> Still pretty pessimistic, but interesting comments:




I would never have considered Singapore " one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in".


----------



## Knobby22

Tisme said:


> I would never have considered Singapore " one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in".




I was there last year for 3 weeks. Fantastic place to live, I could live there tomorrow for the rest of my life,  however being an island it is forced to resort to energy imports however they are building large solar facilities and their use of public transport and driverless taxis (they are trialling them now), shows that the high grid energy use is due more to how their ports and infrastructure works. 

Their total energy use per capita is half of that of Germany, Australia or the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption

Lovelock's comments are selective, unscientific, factually wrong and his conclusion doesn't really agree with the previous statements. I respect the guy though. I think, as a notable attention seeker, he is looking to be noticed again, the guy is 97 and enjoys a bit of publicity.

His history is chequered though, look up his stance on CFCs in the 70's where he fought to stop their removal. 
His Gaia hypothesis is obvious crap but I really like the beauty of it. I agree with his stance on nuclear energy to some extent but I don't think financially it really stacks up in most cases within the modern world. 

He has the right to poke a stick at the overly serious Green movement. At least he has a more open world view.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> I was there last year for 3 weeks. Fantastic place to live, I could live there tomorrow for the rest of my life,  however being an island it is forced to resort to energy imports however they are building large solar facilities and their use of public transport and driverless taxis (they are trialling them now), shows that the high grid energy use is due more to how their ports and infrastructure works.




Great place to visit, but for me I could see it becoming boring. I once toyed with  KL, but after many visits I realised the unrelenting climate and asian mono culture of toil is not for me.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Lovelock's comments are selective, unscientific, factually wrong and his conclusion doesn't really agree with the previous statements.




This is the same problem with the whole climate science arena.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> This is the same problem with the whole climate science arena.




Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.

Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.
> 
> Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.




IF they managed to keep the denial for another decade, these currently decade-event could be a annual thing and so, statistically, it doesn't sound that bad.


----------



## Knobby22

Some good news.
The artic ice chart, refer attached, shows that we didn't break the record set in 2012. July and September looked to have been colder than that year resulting in the early breakaway going back to below that previous highest level. Happy days.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Agree, what we can see going on is clear enough.
> 
> Fifty year events only weeks and sometimes days apart.






luutzu said:


> IF they managed to keep the denial for another decade, these currently decade-event could be a annual thing and so, statistically, it doesn't sound that bad.




I rest my case


----------



## explod

From noco on ABC thread to align topic.



> There has been no increase in Global warming in the past 10 years.
> 
> 
> http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/blog/14420
> 
> 
> Climate scientists know the energy is going somewhere other than the atmosphere because the imbalance continues and temperatures have not warmed in the last 10 years. The energy could be warming the land and/or melting ice or snow, but these sinks traditionally have played minor roles in the flow of energy. The best candidate is the ocean, which can suck up a lot of energy in the form of heat. The deep ocean in particular is a good sink and it can accumulate heat in numerous ways, including deceased sinking of Arctic surface waters during the winter and increased mixing of tropical water that allows warm surface water to sink.




This article is precisely the point.  The ocean in particular has been able to absorb the increased pollution/heat from co2 till now.  However the tipping point has been reached and now we have heat displacement occurring from the poles which is causing a rising of moisture (like the kitchen kettle) which in turn is creating the increased volatility in our weather.  So now 50 year events happening all over the place every week or two.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> From noco on ABC thread to align topic.
> 
> 
> 
> This article is precisely the point.  The ocean in particular has been able to absorb the increased pollution/heat from co2 till now.  However the tipping point has been reached and now we have heat displacement occurring from the poles which is causing a rising of moisture (like the kitchen kettle) which in turn is creating the increased volatility in our weather.  So now 50 year events happening all over the place every week or two.




Is that your thought bubble or do you have a link?

If Global warming has stabilized over the past 10 years then we may start to see a reverse trend down....MHO.


----------



## Tisme

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...mo_the_worlds_new_400ppm_climate_reality.html



> WMO: the world's new 400ppm climate reality
> Alex Kirby
> 
> 25th October 2016
> 
> 
> 
> Global CO2 concentrations have reached a historic new base of 400 parts per million, writes Alex Kirby, and are unlikely to fall below that level - 40% higher than the pre-industrial era - for many centuries to come. The WMO released the news just as the UK commits to a new London runway.


----------



## noco

How did the CSIRO and BOM get our climate, drought and rainfall so wrong?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...e/news-story/a686f3a55cca9373b3c686ef0195c414


----------



## explod

This is the real truth:



> BUT SCIENTISTS DON’T AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY US, RIGHT?
> Wrong. According to a little organization called NASA, 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming over the past century is “extremely likely due to human activities.”
> Among climate change deniers’ favorite arguments is that there is not “scientific consensus” that it is man-made. You’ll hear that phrase often, usually alongside talk that the current proven warming trend is part of a natural cycle.
> While the Earth has indeed experienced cycles of warming and cooling, scientists estimate that in the past it has typically taken around 5,000 years for the planet to recover – by warming between 4-7 degrees Celsius – after an ice age has ended. This makes the global average surface temperature increase of 1.1””1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6””0.9 degrees Celsius) across just the twentieth century alone roughly eight times faster than the usual post-ice-age-recovery warming rate.
> And it’s a cycle that is only accelerating. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record globally have occurred this century.
> The phrase “scientific consensus” itself refers to the collective judgement of a scientific community, and while it implies agreement, it does not require unanimity. Ninety-seven percent of the climate science community agrees that climate change is real and that it is being caused by human activities such as our use of fossil fuels. Indeed, some scientists have asserted that the evidence linking human activities to climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.
> REMIND ME HOW CARBON POLLUTION CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
> When carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into our atmosphere, it can hang around for a very long time. The more carbon pollution in the air, the more the sun’s energy gets trapped in our atmosphere as heat. Think about it like this: a build-up of carbon in the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the Earth. As more heat gets in and less is able to escape, things keep getting hotter and the result impacts every element of our climate system.




From The Climate Reality Project overnight


----------



## noco

explod said:


> This is the real truth:
> 
> 
> 
> From The Climate Reality Project overnight




Explod, here we go again on this 97% of scientists.....You are staring to go over the same ground which has been debunked.

Go back and read posts :-
8447
8457
8463
8467
8477
8480

It was 97% 0f 77 scientists paid for by the UN Climate Change Committee........there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.

So please get off the Merry-go-round.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Explod, here we go again on this 97% of scientists.....You are staring to go over the same ground which has been debunked.
> 
> Go back and read posts :-
> 8447
> 8457
> 8463
> 8467
> 8477
> 8480
> 
> It was 97% 0f 77 scientists paid for by the UN Climate Change Committee........there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.
> 
> So please get off the Merry-go-round.




8447     Evans is not a scientific climatologist,

8457     the wild flood waters are rising to the doors,

8463     it is 97% of all scientific studies, as apposed to scientists,

8467     and we have had the water bombs alluded to of late,

8477     you have said Noco, that 77 scientists are paid by the UN. What has this got to do with the 97% of       
                   scientific studies,


8480     you stated that I was getting carried away about cities getting washed away.  In the news of late 
                   they are getting washed away almost weekly.

Overall no proof as you claim at all.   Just the normal collection scraps and bits to maintain confusion among the general populace on behalf of the oil coal lobbies.  And the UN has been known for years to have been corrupted in the same way.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> 8447     Evans is not a scientific climatologist,
> 
> 8457     the wild flood waters are rising to the doors,
> 
> 8463     it is 97% of all scientific studies, as apposed to scientists,
> 
> 8467     and we have had the water bombs alluded to of late,
> 
> 8477     you have said Noco, that 77 scientists are paid by the UN. What has this got to do with the 97% of
> scientific studies,
> 
> 
> 8480     you stated that I was getting carried away about cities getting washed away.  In the news of late
> they are getting washed away almost weekly.
> 
> Overall no proof as you claim at all.   Just the normal collection scraps and bits to maintain confusion among the general populace on behalf of the oil coal lobbies.  And the UN has been known for years to have been corrupted in the same way.




What ever you reckon.

It is all old hat as far as I concerned.....

You Greenies just keep  harping on and on about the same old brain washed theories...It is so monotonous really.
Sooner or later you will face the reality of this scam.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> What ever you reckon.
> 
> It is all old hat as far as I concerned.....
> 
> You Greenies just keep  harping on and on about the same old brain washed theories...It is so monotonous really.
> Sooner or later you will face the reality of this scam.




A theory is a theory because it can be challenged 

What's the worst that can happen from this "scam" about Climate Change?

That we quickly and seriously transitioned towards cleaner, *renewable*, sources of energy so that when the oil and fossil fuel runs out in about 100 years, most of the world won't go dark and cold and dead?

If the climate "alarmist" are wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that maybe the sea won't rise so high it displaces hundreds of millions of people; the extreme weather won't form that perfect storm wiping out towns and cities... and cleaner air to breathe... and energy security because you can't stop the wind and you can't block out the Sun, say.

If the "deniers" are wrong, we're all stuffed.

Best to go where we won't be stuffed I'd say. That and a whole bunch of Climate scientists and 97% of their research agrees that human contributes to global warming and we better cut that crap out before we're all stuffed.

We only have one planet; it's the only one that can provide life as far as our technology can see - and we can see into distant galaxies. So it's quite rare and valuable. Something we shouldn't just shrugged off when experts are saying it could go the heck and end life as we know it.

Should be alarmed and alert.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> A theory is a theory because it can be challenged
> 
> What's the worst that can happen from this "scam" about Climate Change?
> 
> That we quickly and seriously transitioned towards cleaner, *renewable*, sources of energy so that when the oil and fossil fuel runs out in about 100 years, most of the world won't go dark and cold and dead?
> 
> If the climate "alarmist" are wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that maybe the sea won't rise so high it displaces hundreds of millions of people; the extreme weather won't form that perfect storm wiping out towns and cities... and cleaner air to breathe... and energy security because you can't stop the wind and you can't block out the Sun, say.
> 
> If the "deniers" are wrong, we're all stuffed.
> 
> Best to go where we won't be stuffed I'd say. That and a whole bunch of Climate scientists and 97% of their research agrees that human contributes to global warming and we better cut that crap out before we're all stuffed.
> 
> We only have one planet; it's the only one that can provide life as far as our technology can see - and we can see into distant galaxies. So it's quite rare and valuable. Something we shouldn't just shrugged off when experts are saying it could go the heck and end life as we know it.
> 
> Should be alarmed and alert.




There is enough coal in Queensland to last 1000 years and we will be depending on for many years to come.....This renewable energy is over done, over priced and not always unreliable as proved in South Australia.

When there is not enough wind the system fails.....When there is too much wind the system is shut down.

Some times the Sun shines and some times it doesn't and believe me there has not been too much Sun in the Southern Part of Australia over the past few months with all the cloud and wet weather.

You have to have reliable base load power generated from coal, gas or nuclear......S A have made one very bad decision to blow up there coal fired power station.

We have already reduced our emissions by some 20% and what has it done for Global Warming ....I mean climate change?
How many degrees have we reduced the Earth's temperature?
There is never any talk about the gas emissions from the dozens of active volcanoes.

How do you over come the emissions from the ever increasing number of air craft flying around the world ?

There is a lot not being taken into consideration......The Greenies keep  harping on about coal.


----------



## Tisme

I wonder if we will ever return to reasonable prces for meat now the perpetual drought that has beseiged the SW Qld has wiped out the financial ability for farmers to restock?


----------



## noco

Wow....the sceptics now out number the alarmist......It had to happen as more and more people are starting to wake up to this dreadful scam.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s/news-story/b7c29d05d862924d04a860b3d7d2f691

*Check the dirty trick the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology tried last week. Can anyone now trust these global warming alarmists?

The two government-funded bodies should apologise for the State of the Climate report they issued last week to scare us into believing.

“Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability,” it warned.*

Read more plus the comments from viewers.


----------



## explod

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/why-most-analysts-gold-silver-price-forecasts-are-wrong

In your last post noco you have selected a piece to suit you argument but the reference can only be accessed if you subscibe to the Courier Mail.

Typical


----------



## noco

explod said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/why-most-analysts-gold-silver-price-forecasts-are-wrong
> 
> In your last post noco you have selected a piece to suit you argument but the reference can only be accessed if you subscibe to the Courier Mail.
> 
> Typical




Here is the rest of it for your benefit.

*We’d be flooded by rising seas and torched by more days of terrible fire danger.

Key parts of the country were running short of rain, State of the Climate then claimed, presenting statistics so dodgy that I had to laugh.

The good news is that, outside the ABC, State of the Climate didn’t get the big media run you’d have expected only a few years ago.

Maybe that’s because it’s hard to worry about man-made global warming when Victoria has just suffered an unusually cold October. Or when the world just harvested its biggest grain crop on record.

But maybe it’s also because Australians have wised up. Last month, even a Climate Institute survey admitted only 30 per cent now believed the world was warming and humans were mostly to blame.

Many Australians may feel the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology should be ashamed to put out another report spruiking global warming without once saying sorry for their dud predictions of the past.

In 2008, for instance, when southeastern Australia was in drought, the bureau’s then head of climate analysis, David Jones, warned that “perhaps we should call it our new climate”.

“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent.” The year before, he wrote to the University of East Anglia: “Climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it.
Almost every one of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin) is on the verge of collapse.”

The CSIRO in 2009 also pushed this “permanent drought” scare.
Victoria’s desalination plant remains in mothballs, a monument to our stupidity. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

As the gullible Age newspaper reported: “A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.”

The bureau’s Bertrand Timbal was quoted: “It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming. In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark … But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’

This “permanent drought” was the consensus of scientists and activists.

Most famously, Tim Flannery, now head of the Climate Council, warned in 2007: “Even the rain that falls will not fill our dams and our river systems.”

Melbourne Water, in charge of the city’s supplies, agreed, and ruled out building another cheap dam because “unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to”.

And this “permanent drought” scare cost us billions.

Labor state governments across the country built not dams but hugely expensive desalination plants to prepare for a future without rain.
A permanent drought scare has cost us billions. Picture: Simon Cross

But the rains did return. The dams did fill: today, Sydney, Adelaide and Canberra’s are nearly full, and Melbourne and Brisbane’s are three-quarters full.

Result: the desalination plants of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane remain in mothballs, monuments to our stupidity.

Yet the CSIRO and the bureau ”” which helped to spread this costly panic ”” don’t say sorry in this report.

True, they do at least expose another dud warming scare ”” the claim pushed by Al Gore that hurricanes and cyclones would get bigger and come more often.

Remember how the Greens shamelessly called Cyclone Yasi in 2011 a “tragedy of climate change”?

Completely false. State of the Climate admits there’s actually been “a statistically significant downward trend in the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region”.

Nor is there convincing evidence that cyclones have got stronger: “The statistical significance of any observed trend in tropical cyclone intensity is overshadowed by large uncertainties due to the short satellite record and high variability.”

But then the bureau and the CSIRO in State of the Climate go back to torturing statistics to keep
us scared that global warming will end the rain.

Spot the obvious trick in this key passage: “In particular, May-July rainfall has reduced by around 19 per cent since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.

“There has been a decline of around 11 per cent since the mid-1990s in April-October rainfall in the continental southeast.

“Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April-October periods since 1997.”

See the con?

See how the report picks random and inconsistent dates ”” 1970 and 1997 and “mid 1990s” ”” as a starting point to track declines in rainfall caused by human emissions?

See how this decline is curiously seen only in patches of the country, and then only in inconsistent periods ”” “May-July” and “April-October”?
Despite the Bureau of Meteorology’s claim that the Murray-Darling basin was being threatened by drought, the area has recently been experiencing very heavy rains. Picture: The Australian

These are classic signs of cherry picking: deliberately looking for some place and period among all the conflicting data to produce the “evidence” you want.

That con is easily exposed.

Just go to the bureau’s website and click on “Climate change and variability” at the bottom of the homepage. You’ll see the bureau actually has rainfall totals for each state and region that go back not just to 1970 or 1997 or the “mid 1990s” but 1900.

Now compare what the State of the Climate report claims with what that complete data shows.

For instance, State of the Climate claims there’s been an “average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia”.

In fact, the complete data shows that rainfall in recent years is around average, and probably higher than it was over the first 45 years of last century, before we got nearly three decades of famously great rains.

Do the same check for southeast Australia.

State of the Climate claims it’s “had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April-October periods since 1997”.

But the bureau’s complete data shows rainfall over the past 10 years seems little lower than it was over the first 45 years of last century.

True, there has been less rain in Australia’s southwest, but across Australia our total rainfall over the past century has gone up.

Swings and roundabouts ”” and no “permanent drought”.

Oh, and check out the Murray-Darling Basin.

In 2007, the bureau claimed this criticalagricultural area was “on the verge of collapse” because of a permanent drought.

Yet rainfall since then has been, if anything, higher on average than for the first 45 years of last century.

So shouldn’t the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO just say sorry?

*


----------



## basilio

Reads like typical Andrew Bolt misinformation Noco. Arch cherry picker. Pure dribble.

I notice for example no mention is made of any temperature changes in the last 30 years. That would be a bit arkward.... And you wouldn't want to look at particular rainfall changes in different regions.

But don't worry Noco.  You'll swallow anything Andrew Bolt throws out on CC.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Reads like typical Andrew Bolt misinformation Noco. Arch cherry picker. Pure dribble.
> 
> I notice for example no mention is made of any temperature changes in the last 30 years. That would be a bit arkward.... And you wouldn't want to look at particular rainfall changes in different regions.
> 
> But don't worry Noco.  You'll swallow anything Andrew Bolt throws out on CC.




Oh dear bas, I know the truth often hurts......The facts are there that you cannot deny.

Where is your friend Tim Flannery these days huh?..Timmy said the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building and then he buys a block of land on the Hawksberry River just 2 meters above high water mark.

I believe if you care to go  back, you will see where Global temperatures have been adequately covered...Something like .5 of one degree increase since 1900.

I would certainly believe Andrew Bolt before the propaganda presented by the ABC, Four Corners, Insiders, GET UP and the Communist paper, the Guardian.......Al have confessed to publishing wrong information.

So I hereby give you the opportunity to prove what Bolt has stated as you say is misinformation......Extended drought.....no rains.....more cyclones as stated by the CSIRO and BOM?...All to be proven wrong.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> I would certainly believe Andrew Bolt.



 ...on the subject of polyps...


You never struck me as someone that would want Billions upon Billions of migrants from the middle east up there in Nth QLD noco, But it appears that they are on their way.... you just keep up the work cooking that reef of yours.

'Hot Water Corals in the Persian Gulf Could Help Save the World’s Reefs'... read the full artical below


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...rsian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/


ten percent of the current diversity, should suit your view of  'far N'Q' down to a tee...


----------



## noco

orr said:


> ...on the subject of polyps...
> 
> 
> You never struck me as someone that would want Billions upon Billions of migrants from the middle east up there in Nth QLD noco, But it appears that they are on their way.... you just keep up the work cooking that reef of yours.
> 
> 'Hot Water Corals in the Persian Gulf Could Help Save the World’s Reefs'... read the full artical below
> 
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/...rsian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/
> 
> 
> ten percent of the current diversity, should suit your view of  'far N'Q' down to a tee...




There are some 400 different species of corals, some of which can withstand higher water temperatures than others.
In the attached link I could not read anything about man made Global Warming affecting our corals.....They did mention matters relating  to coral bleaching such as cyclones, warmer waters, predators such as the crown of thorns star fish and believe it or not the use of UV sun creams by tourists...CO2 also received a mention.
But the recent bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef occurred north of Cooktown where very few tourist inhabit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching


----------



## Tisme

Coral bleaching for dummies:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html


----------



## basilio

> In the attached link I could not read anything about man made Global Warming affecting our corals....



 Noco

So you completly missed these statements in that particular link Noco ? Or did you think no one would bother actually checking it out ? Or doesn't it matter what was actually said because you and Andrew Bolt are saying it's just not true ?



> Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming have been identified as a leading cause for coral bleaching worldwide.[2






> Triggers
> 
> Coral bleaching is theorized to be a generalized stress response of corals that may be caused by a number of biotic and abiotic factors, including:
> 
> increased (most commonly due to global warming) or reduced water temperatures[7][8][9][10]






> While most of these triggers may result in localized bleaching events (tens to hundreds of kilometers), mass coral bleaching events occur at a regional or global scale and are triggered by periods of elevated thermal stress resulting from increased sea surface temperatures.[25] The coral reefs that are more subject to continued bleaching threats are the ones located in warm and shallow water with low water flow.






> Mass bleaching events
> Bleached Acropora coral (foreground) and normal colony (background), Keppel Islands, Great Barrier Reef
> 
> Most evidence indicates that elevated temperature is the cause of mass bleaching events. Sixty major episodes of coral bleaching have occurred between 1979 and 1990,[28][29] with the associated coral mortality affecting reefs in every part of the world. In 2016, the longest coral bleaching event was recorded.[30]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Noco
> 
> So you completly missed these statements in that particular link Noco ? Or did you think no one would bother actually checking it out ? Or doesn't it matter what was actually said because you and Andrew Bolt are saying it's just not true ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching




Well, it did mention Global warming ....The article I refer to does not mention Man Made Global Warming and that is what I mentioned..

You seem to be in a muddle over it.


----------



## basilio

So Noco* there is global warming taking place* (which is killing coral reefs, melting the ice caps, creating record temperatures around the world... but it isn't *manmade* global warming.  

Must be a computer glitch or an Act of God I suppose.

Priceless...


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> So Noco* there is global warming taking place* (which is killing coral reefs, melting the ice caps, creating record temperatures around the world... but it isn't *manmade* global warming.
> 
> Must be a computer glitch or an Act of God I suppose.
> 
> Priceless...




How many times must you be told it has to do with the Sun......Go back on previous post where I hope you will take note of the activities of the Sun and how it  affects on Earth.

The Great Barrier Reef is very resilient and has handled many stresses over 500,000 years.....It always recovers. 

I am still waiting for you to prove to me where Andrew Bolt has given misinformation.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> How many times must you be told it has to do with the Sun......Go back on previous post where I hope you will take note of the activities of the Sun and how it  affects on Earth.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef is very resilient and has handled many stresses over 500,000 years.....It always recovers.
> 
> I am still waiting for you to prove to me where Andrew Bolt has given misinformation.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> View attachment 68667




Jesus ride Dinosaurs... around Jerusalem? Probably in his wilder, pre-Earthling years before God give him a real job?


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Jesus ride Dinosaurs... around Jerusalem? Probably in his wilder, pre-Earthling years before God give him a real job?




I dunno cobber, it could have been the Little Ice Age that knocked 'em down. But like coral reefs, nature _always recovers_ and we will see them again for sure. Giddy Up dinoboys


----------



## explod

noco said:


> How many times must you be told it has to do with the Sun......Go back on previous post where I hope you will take note of the activities of the Sun and how it  affects on Earth.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef is very resilient and has handled many stresses over 500,000 years.....It always recovers.
> 
> I am still waiting for you to prove to me where Andrew Bolt has given misinformation.




Yes, made your point but the burning of coal and oil are very greatly exacerbating the problem.

There are so many clean alternatives being improved everyday.

Just one; an improved battery is coming on the market soon with double the current capacity for the same weight.  Your mobile phone will go twice as long or your can reduce its weight.  For cars too, twice the current travel distance.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> So Noco* there is global warming taking place* (which is killing coral reefs, melting the ice caps, creating record temperatures around the world... but it isn't *manmade* global warming.
> 
> Must be a computer glitch or an Act of God I suppose.
> 
> Priceless...




So hang on!

You're implying climate change cannot happen without human influence?

Just. 
What.
The.
F###????


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> So hang on!
> 
> You're implying climate change cannot happen without human influence?
> 
> Just.
> What.
> The.
> F###????




On the major changes in the past, two happened quickly due meteors and volcanic eruptions, the other three took an average of 5,000 years.

The current is very different.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> On the major changes in the past, two happened quickly due meteors and volcanic eruptions, the other three took an average of 5,000 years.
> 
> The current is very different.




Like the one that took out the Mayans?


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Like the one that took out the Mayans?




Agree, there have been many smaller patches as with the warming in Greenland as Noco mentioned 1000 years back.  The Mayan drought was punctuated as well with cultural upheaval too.

However the alarming warming at the poles is displacing moisture and now creating increased weather havoc, extreme winds, storms and floods.  And droughts also wiping out some areas concurrently.  The science? its now observable to those with eyes open.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Agree, there have been many smaller patches as with the warming in Greenland as Noco mentioned 1000 years back.  The Mayan drought was punctuated as well with cultural upheaval too.
> 
> However the alarming warming at the poles is displacing moisture and now creating increased weather havoc, extreme winds, storms and floods.  And droughts also wiping out some areas concurrently.  The science? its now observable to those with eyes open.




Have you seen Sifu's eyes? They're open, but they're cloudy


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I dunno cobber, it could have been the Little Ice Age that knocked 'em down. But like coral reefs, nature _always recovers_ and we will see them again for sure. Giddy Up dinoboys




We humans might not be around to see this time though. Maybe a handful of us.


----------



## macca

luutzu said:


> We humans might not be around to see this time though. Maybe a handful of us.




This post is what this thread is all about, hysteria !


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Agree, there have been many smaller patches as with the warming in Greenland as Noco mentioned 1000 years back.  The Mayan drought was punctuated as well with cultural upheaval too.
> 
> However the alarming warming at the poles is displacing moisture and now creating increased weather havoc, extreme winds, storms and floods.  And droughts also wiping out some areas concurrently.  The science? its now observable to those with eyes open.




And where is this extreme weather occurring?....Where are the droughts that the Alarmists keep telling us about which is supposed to be caused by man made Global Warming?...Wasn't that cry from the Alarmist for years?...Now you Greenies have reverted to storms and floods......So which is it do you now prefer to use?......perpetual droughts of rain and floods.....Or do you want 2 bob each way? 

They are certainly having some adverse weather in Antarctica ATM...So bad they cannot land planes at Casey Station......One of my sons was due to fly to Casey on Oct.24.....He has been holed up in Hobart for a week or more waiting for the weather to abate.

When he finally gets to Casey, I will ask him what caused these bad conditions and get back to you....I am sure the Climate scientists down there will be able to explain.


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> This post is what this thread is all about, hysteria !




It's not hysteria for the people who are not rich enough to afford brick houses with A/C and running water at a flick.

Know why nobody that matters gives any thought to the impact of CC? Because whatever happens, they're too rich to be affected.

There's the limos and the nice and comfortable houses; the A/C and the filtered air and the mansion by the water for summer and a nice lodge with proper floor heating for the winter and the skis. 

So for the elite, what's a few degrees or a few hurricane.

For ordinary people, particularly those in the poor countries, it's literally a matter of life and death. And that's not some exaggeration and hyperbolic bs. It's reality.

If a drought hit and they cannot sell that season's crop, they'll go bankrupt and the nice shark lenders will pay them a visit or two.

if it's a few degrees too high, their tin shed and open living mean the old and the infant will get sick and die. 

I know people whose houses are literally too hot to live in during summer; houses in areas where mosquitos are freaking everywhere inside and outside.

Anyway, big deal right? Why can't they just turn on the A/C and close the doors and flyscreens.


----------



## macca

luutzu said:


> It's not hysteria for the people who are not rich enough to afford brick houses with A/C and running water at a flick.
> 
> Know why nobody that matters gives any thought to the impact of CC? Because whatever happens, they're too rich to be affected.
> 
> There's the limos and the nice and comfortable houses; the A/C and the filtered air and the mansion by the water for summer and a nice lodge with proper floor heating for the winter and the skis.
> 
> So for the elite, what's a few degrees or a few hurricane.
> 
> For ordinary people, particularly those in the poor countries, it's literally a matter of life and death. And that's not some exaggeration and hyperbolic bs. It's reality.
> 
> If a drought hit and they cannot sell that season's crop, they'll go bankrupt and the nice shark lenders will pay them a visit or two.
> 
> if it's a few degrees too high, their tin shed and open living mean the old and the infant will get sick and die.
> 
> I know people whose houses are literally too hot to live in during summer; houses in areas where mosquitos are freaking everywhere inside and outside.
> 
> Anyway, big deal right? Why can't they just turn on the A/C and close the doors and flyscreens.




More emotive, green hysteria !

This is why there are less people who believe in the CC BS now than before, please think for yourself about reality, it is not our fault that their reality is different from ours.


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> More emotive, green hysteria !
> 
> This is why there are less people who believe in the CC BS now than before, please think for yourself about reality, it is not our fault that their reality is different from ours.




Yea I know. If people are too poor and can't afford a insulated house; can't be "smart" enough to work in a nice cool offices; can't afford a seaside mansion or live outside of designated industrial and dead zones.. that's their problems, right?

That is until their problems are no longer just their problems, but ours.

If CC turn what is currently barely arable land into deserts; or if it flood entire cities... where do you think those that managed to survive move to? They'd just know their place and wait to die where God meant for them? Else if they dare enter our borders, we shoot them on sight?

Or those Australians who got serious illnesses from breathing in smog, skin cancer, lung diseases... how will that affect our healthcare system?

We'd just privatise it and it's everyman for himself?


When does "reality" and being mature and adult is just a code word for being a total selfish prick?


----------



## Tisme

I'm not sure if we register as a blip on the pollution radar? 

Perhaps our ppm/person is high when burning world rain forests isn't included, or the methyl halides from global rice paddies is also ignored, volcanoes are excluded, etc, ... how about the annual burn the aboriginals carried out over tens of thousands of years to drive animals into traps, in turn resulting in most of the continent denuded of forests and hot as bugghary?

How about the lies we were told as children about our superior farming practices, only to witness desolation, dieback and salination of prime realestate.. etc.

I blame everyone one past, present and future, except me and I'm going to use my aircond when must needs dictates and rely on "she'll be right".


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I'm not sure if we register as a blip on the pollution radar?
> 
> Perhaps our ppm/person is high when burning world rain forests isn't included, or the methyl halides from global rice paddies is also ignored, volcanoes are excluded, etc, ... how about the annual burn the aboriginals carried out over tens of thousands of years to drive animals into traps, in turn resulting in most of the continent denuded of forests and hot as bugghary?
> 
> How about the lies we were told as children about our superior farming practices, only to witness desolation, dieback and salination of prime realestate.. etc.
> 
> I blame everyone one past, present and future, except me and I'm going to use my aircond when must needs dictates and rely on "she'll be right".




To recognise CC is not to ask that we do not use any modern advances and technology. So we could switch on the A/C, drive our cars and most still have a job.

No greenies or hippies are asking that all the ways of the world must stop.

But there are alternatives.

Must A/Cs be powered by electricity from fossil fuel? There are clean and renewable alternatives that could be made very economical - how are free sources from the Sun not economical compare to the drilling/mining, transporting etc. etc.?


Or food production... must our meat and poultry be farmed the way they are? Getting the animal all sick and genetically modified and coked up in anti-biotics? Maybe promotion of a better mixed diet, ones that still provide the same nutrients without the environmental damage and clogged arteries. 

We're still living like all the world's resources are infinite and we human have no impact whatsoever. When we parasitic apes have the power to blow up the world 30 or 60 times over, maybe we're that capable.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> To recognise CC is not to ask that we do not use any modern advances and technology. So we could switch on the A/C, drive our cars and most still have a job.
> 
> No greenies or hippies are asking that all the ways of the world must stop.
> 
> But there are alternatives.
> 
> Must A/Cs be powered by electricity from fossil fuel? There are clean and renewable alternatives that could be made very economical - how are free sources from the Sun not economical compare to the drilling/mining, transporting etc. etc.?
> 
> 
> Or food production... must our meat and poultry be farmed the way they are? Getting the animal all sick and genetically modified and coked up in anti-biotics? Maybe promotion of a better mixed diet, ones that still provide the same nutrients without the environmental damage and clogged arteries.
> 
> We're still living like all the world's resources are infinite and we human have no impact whatsoever. When we parasitic apes have the power to blow up the world 30 or 60 times over, maybe we're that capable.





 I have solar going back into the grid. Being on the waters edge  with a relentless breeze, I also have a car alternator hooked up to aerofoil blade that charges batteries....... that's using the sun and it's derivatives.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> And where is this extreme weather occurring?....Where are the droughts that the Alarmists keep telling us about which is supposed to be caused by man made Global Warming?...Wasn't that cry from the Alarmist for years?...Now you Greenies have reverted to storms and floods......So which is it do you now prefer to use?......perpetual droughts of rain and floods.....Or do you want 2 bob each way?
> 
> They are certainly having some adverse weather in Antarctica ATM...So bad they cannot land planes at Casey Station......One of my sons was due to fly to Casey on Oct.24.....He has been holed up in Hobart for a week or more waiting for the weather to abate.
> 
> When he finally gets to Casey, I will ask him what caused these bad conditions and get back to you....I am sure the Climate scientists down there will be able to explain.




Dreadful drought continues, particularly south west from Blackall.  Shore sheep all around that country in the 60's and it used to be well grassed and productive. Though when the dry really began up there around 1969 remember seeing the huge road-trains loaded with sheep heading south. Its been building for awhile.

And we also have tremendous volatility now, recent frosts and snow in WA where its never been seen before and destroying crops.  Across the world devastating floods, winds and droughts too.  And it is increasing now at an alarming rate.  It will be interesting to hear back from your Son's expedition.  And that is why the weather is so bad.  The slight increase in temperatures there is causing the atmosphere to have increased moisture to rise and head north to cause these new problems.  

This is what we see ourselves and it is being reported daily in MSM, less in our local media in Australia of course and I have a fair idea why.


----------



## Knobby22

I looked it up on the BOM and its in an in between zone.
Definitely getting more heat, possibly getting less rain in winter. It is a semi arid area so it can't have ever been that good. more likely to get a flood. Are you near Blacknall?


----------



## orr

noco said:


> And where is this extreme weather occurring?....Where are the droughts that the Alarmists keep telling us about which is supposed to be caused by man made Global Warming?...Wasn't that cry from the Alarmist for years?...Now you Greenies have reverted to storms and floods......So which is it do you now prefer to use?......perpetual droughts of rain and floods.....Or do you want 2 bob each way?
> .




NASA Finds Drought in Eastern Mediterranean Worst of Past 900 Years.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...eastern-mediterranean-worst-of-past-900-years



Mind you there doesn't appear to be any serious flow on ramifications from it.


----------



## macca

luutzu said:


> Yea I know. If people are too poor and can't afford a insulated house; can't be "smart" enough to work in a nice cool offices; can't afford a seaside mansion or live outside of designated industrial and dead zones.. that's their problems, right?
> 
> That is until their problems are no longer just their problems, but ours.
> 
> If CC turn what is currently barely arable land into deserts; or if it flood entire cities... where do you think those that managed to survive move to? They'd just know their place and wait to die where God meant for them? Else if they dare enter our borders, we shoot them on sight?
> 
> Or those Australians who got serious illnesses from breathing in smog, skin cancer, lung diseases... how will that affect our healthcare system?
> 
> We'd just privatise it and it's everyman for himself?
> 
> 
> When does "reality" and being mature and adult is just a code word for being a total selfish prick?




If we scour the world looking of problems we will Always find some, simply because we pick the worst situation and hold that up as an example.

We could say that Zimbabwe is a basket case and needs help because they are starving, not that long ago Zimbabwe was a food bowl that exported food. At the time it was run by a white minority and the black races were employed as farm hands and labourers etc, doing menial jobs.

As we know there was a rebellion and the government changed, in the books that I have read it stated that the previous white farm owners were given the option of selling to the government or staying and sharing ownership with their staff.

Not long after that they were all ordered of their properties completely and their staff took ownership. Within 5 years all of the properties ceased to produce any goods for export and very quickly became overgrown waste lands with forests stripped for firewood.

Zimbabwe now has its hand out saying "poor bu**ar us , CC has stopped us growing crops", but they are in that situation because they created it themselves through lack of application.

In other countries in Africa the farmers claim that if they plant crops they become targets for food thieves, either the rebels stick a gun up their nose and take the food or the Govt forces say we haven't been paid can we have some food please, thank you !

Here in Australia we enjoy a very good life style, it was created by our forefathers (and Mums) for our benefit, we do not have to feel guilty about it as it is a gift from those who have gone before.

Throughout history people have fought endless wars over territory, they have to, otherwise they and their families will soon be overrun and suffer.

Take a look at Europe right now, the lefties have let the hordes in and we will see a bloodbath there before a decade is up. There are problems already with people being told that the "refugees" have the right to do anything they like and the citizens just have to accept it, what a joke! They are the new arrivals they should be learning to fit into the existing laws not make their own. How long before Nazism returns ?

The first problem is that there are too many of us, China tried to limit it and the human rights, bleeding hearts, condemned them yet how different would Africa be if they limited their breeding to one per family ?

Climates will always vary, always have, always will and when the land is overgrazed by animals or humans there is no buffer for the poor times and animals and people starve until the right number is left. In Africa the west has been feeding people for decades and the people that we fed as children now have their own children and now we are feeding them as well. While ever they fight and squabble over there ideology, religion, corruption and anything else they can think of instead of working the land properly with the right number of people it will always be a problem.


----------



## noco

macca said:


> If we scour the world looking of problems we will Always find some, simply because we pick the worst situation and hold that up as an example.
> 
> We could say that Zimbabwe is a basket case and needs help because they are starving, not that long ago Zimbabwe was a food bowl that exported food. At the time it was run by a white minority and the black races were employed as farm hands and labourers etc, doing menial jobs.
> 
> As we know there was a rebellion and the government changed, in the books that I have read it stated that the previous white farm owners were given the option of selling to the government or staying and sharing ownership with their staff.
> 
> Not long after that they were all ordered of their properties completely and their staff took ownership. Within 5 years all of the properties ceased to produce any goods for export and very quickly became overgrown waste lands with forests stripped for firewood.
> 
> Zimbabwe now has its hand out saying "poor bu**ar us , CC has stopped us growing crops", but they are in that situation because they created it themselves through lack of application.
> 
> In other countries in Africa the farmers claim that if they plant crops they become targets for food thieves, either the rebels stick a gun up their nose and take the food or the Govt forces say we haven't been paid can we have some food please, thank you !
> 
> Here in Australia we enjoy a very good life style, it was created by our forefathers (and Mums) for our benefit, we do not have to feel guilty about it as it is a gift from those who have gone before.
> 
> Throughout history people have fought endless wars over territory, they have to, otherwise they and their families will soon be overrun and suffer.
> 
> Take a look at Europe right now, the lefties have let the hordes in and we will see a bloodbath there before a decade is up. There are problems already with people being told that the "refugees" have the right to do anything they like and the citizens just have to accept it, what a joke! They are the new arrivals they should be learning to fit into the existing laws not make their own. How long before Nazism returns ?
> 
> The first problem is that there are too many of us, China tried to limit it and the human rights, bleeding hearts, condemned them yet how different would Africa be if they limited their breeding to one per family ?
> 
> Climates will always vary, always have, always will and when the land is overgrazed by animals or humans there is no buffer for the poor times and animals and people starve until the right number is left. In Africa the west has been feeding people for decades and the people that we fed as children now have their own children and now we are feeding them as well. While ever they fight and squabble over there ideology, religion, corruption and anything else they can think of instead of working the land properly with the right number of people it will always be a problem.




Macca, never a truer word spoken...You have outlined it so well.....Congratulations my friend.

In Australia, I fear the new era of Socialism (Communism...Marxist) creeping into to control out lives, the way we think, what we can say or can't say, how we are  corrupting the juvenile mind with this "Safe Schools Program, how we run our businesses and whether or not a future Socialist Government ( a Green/Labor socialist left coalition) will move to central control of our banks, manufacturing, mining and agriculture....if this happens, Australia will finish up like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba and other communist led countries.

I realize I am off topic but the failures around the world are too often blamed on Man Made Global Warming...oops Climate Change.

Explod often raves on about his shearing days in the 60's and I will continue to rave on about my plumbing days in the late 40's and early 50's where I experienced drought, heat, fires, rain and floods.   Nothing new here folks.

The sheep cockies in those days were much smarter than they are now or even in the 60's.......It was nothing to be marooned on a sheep station for 2 weeks surrounded by water...No helicopters to drop food supplies.....The cockies in those days were smarter because they knew how to cater for variations in climate changes...We were never short of food.

They knew how to cover themselves in the event of drought by growing silage when they had good rain....They would harvest 500 to 600 acres and bury it in underground silos.......That fodder was good for 11 years and was there when needed in drought.....there was never a shortage of water with the bore drains......Today, the modern farmer finds it too much trouble and that came from an old bowling friend of mine who owned a sheep station near Richmond Queensland...He was some 10 years older than me....The modern farmer is too quick to put his hand out for Government assistance as soon as the ground driers up or he is inundated with too much rain.

Bring back the good old days.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Macca, never a truer word spoken...You have outlined it so well.....Congratulations my friend.
> 
> In Australia, I fear the new era of Socialism (Communism...Marxist) creeping into to control out lives, the way we think, what we can say or can't say, how we are  corrupting the juvenile mind with this "Safe Schools Program, how we run our businesses and whether or not a future Socialist Government ( a Green/Labor socialist left coalition) will move to central control of our banks, manufacturing, mining and agriculture....if this happens, Australia will finish up like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba and other communist led countries.
> 
> I realize I am off topic but the failures around the world are too often blamed on Man Made Global Warming...oops Climate Change.
> 
> Explod often raves on about his shearing days in the 60's and I will continue to rave on about my plumbing days in the late 40's and early 50's where I experienced drought, heat, fires, rain and floods.   Nothing new here folks.
> 
> The sheep cockies in those days were much smarter than they are now or even in the 60's.......It was nothing to be marooned on a sheep station for 2 weeks surrounded by water...No helicopters to drop food supplies.....The cockies in those days were smarter because they knew how to cater for variations in climate changes...We were never short of food.
> 
> They knew how to cover themselves in the event of drought by growing silage when they had good rain....They would harvest 500 to 600 acres and bury it in underground silos.......That fodder was good for 11 years and was there when needed in drought.....there was never a shortage of water with the bore drains......Today, the modern farmer finds it too much trouble and that came from an old bowling friend of mine who owned a sheep station near Richmond Queensland...He was some 10 years older than me....The modern farmer is too quick to put his hand out for Government assistance as soon as the ground driers up or he is inundated with too much rain.
> 
> Bring back the good old days.




I wouldn't congratulate macca too quickly noco.

Wait til I drive a few basic facts of history and general knowledge into all the falsehood he took as facts.


In terms of farmers not storing their grains etc. I'm not sure how it is in Australia but in the US, Big Ag like Monsanto do not permit farmers who buy crops from them to store and re-seed their grains. It is illegal under US patent laws or whatever.

So unless the farmer is completely organic and does not ever buy any grains from Big Ag., they cannot store any grains but must always buy new ones for each season. 

And if their neighbours GM grains somehow get into their field and they unknowingly store it... better not go broke trying to see the trial out.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Dreadful drought continues, particularly south west from Blackall.  Shore sheep all around that country in the 60's and it used to be well grassed and productive. Though when the dry really began up there around 1969 remember seeing the huge road-trains loaded with sheep heading south. Its been building for awhile.
> 
> And we also have tremendous volatility now, *recent frosts and snow in WA where its never been seen before* and destroying crops.  Across the world devastating floods, winds and droughts too.  And it is increasing now at an alarming rate.  It will be interesting to hear back from your Son's expedition.  And that is why the weather is so bad.  The slight increase in temperatures there is causing the atmosphere to have increased moisture to rise and head north to cause these new problems.
> 
> This is what we see ourselves and it is being reported daily in MSM, less in our local media in Australia of course and I have a fair idea why.




So you say it has never snowed in WA...NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE ??????

Perhaps a little research on your part may have enlightened you.

The old Chinese proverb states.......Get brain into gear before opening mouth. 


http://www.feargod.net/wa-snow1.php


----------



## explod

noco said:


> So you say it has never snowed in WA...NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE ??????
> 
> Perhaps a little research on your part may have enlightened you.
> 
> The old Chinese proverb states.......Get brain into gear before opening mouth.
> 
> 
> http://www.feargod.net/wa-snow1.php




I did not say that it never snowed there,  I was referring to an area where it had not before particularly in this case,  the frost.   Cherry picking to put down is not constructive debate.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I did not say that it never snowed there,  I was referring to an area where it had not before particularly in this case,  the frost.   Cherry picking to put down is not constructive debate.




Then perhaps you should have more explicit.

So where was that area?...I have given you past statistics...now back up your statement please.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Then perhaps you should have more explicit.
> 
> So where was that area?...I have given you past statistics...now back up your statement please.




it was on the news 3 or 4 weeks ago, south east of Perth, think the northern edge of Haytsbury.

Struth, you are not so explicit yourself.  This is just a discussion thread and in my view the way we each see things for ourselves


----------



## noco

explod said:


> it was on the news 3 or 4 weeks ago, south east of Perth, think the northern edge of Haytsbury.
> 
> Struth, you are not so explicit yourself.  This is just a discussion thread and in my view the way we each see things for ourselves




So now you are only thinking it might be......Please make up your mind......There has been lots of places in WA where snow has fallen.

It is my belief you will say anything to substantiate your beloved Green bible about man made Global Warming..opps I mean Climate Change......To the Greens, if it snows, if it rains heavy, if it floods somewhere, if we have a drought,if we have a cyclone, if there is coral bleaching, if the ice melts down at Antarctica in summer or there is too much ice or the winds blow over defective power poles in SA, we must blame Man Made Global Warming.......Stop the coal mines.....blow up the the coal fired power stations.....FFS...enough is enough......Stop trying to ruin a good country so loved by the majority. 

It is unbelievable how your organization  tries to manipulate the minds of the naive.


----------



## noco

The bush fires are raging in NSW and QLD.

Wait for it folks....The Greens will jump on this to blame Man Made Global Warming.

No Plod...we all know it happens every year....More CO2 to enhance plant life.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arc...huge-carbon-load/story-e6frg6of-1111118837677


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> So now you are only thinking it might be......Please make up your mind......There has been lots of places in WA where snow has fallen.
> 
> It is my belief you will say anything to substantiate your beloved Green bible about man made Global Warming..opps I mean Climate Change......To the Greens, if it snows, if it rains heavy, if it floods somewhere, if we have a drought,if we have a cyclone, if there is coral bleaching, if the ice melts down at Antarctica in summer or there is too much ice or the winds blow over defective power poles in SA, we must blame Man Made Global Warming.......Stop the coal mines.....blow up the the coal fired power stations.....FFS...enough is enough......Stop trying to ruin a good country so loved by the majority.
> 
> It is unbelievable how your organization  tries to manipulate the minds of the naive.




Wouldn't farmers not farm their crop in frosty areas noco?

So for frost to damage a fairly substantial amount of crops, it's a bit unusual. 

As to the term "Climate Change"... repeating here but you do know that it's a termed coined by consultants to the denier camp. They figured that calling it "Global Warming" sounds bad, hence change the conversation to Climate Change... that way, people who don't read into the science properly will just say, well it' the Climate, and Climate changes all of the time so what's the big deal?

Seems to be working too.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Wouldn't farmers not farm their crop in frosty areas noco?
> 
> So for frost to damage a fairly substantial amount of crops, it's a bit unusual.
> 
> As to the term "Climate Change"... repeating here but you do know that it's a termed coined by consultants to the denier camp. They figured that calling it "Global Warming" sounds bad, hence change the conversation to Climate Change... that way, people who don't read into the science properly will just say, well it' the Climate, and Climate changes all of the time so what's the big deal?
> 
> Seems to be working too.




In some cases of farming a frost is needed in the case of growing apples......I have a friend who grew small crops in the Bairnsdale area of Victoria and he tells me they used get the occasional frost which would wipe out the  whole crop of asparagus.....He took it in his stride and replanted.....$hit happens.

From what I have learned in the past it was the Alarmist, lefties and Greenies who change Global Warming to Climate Change when they found, in fact, there had been no global warming for 17 years.

Maybe we are both right one way or another.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

*Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena.  The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years.  Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology.  Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'.  There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne*


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> In some cases of farming a frost is needed in the case of growing apples......I have a friend who grew small crops in the Bairnsdale area of Victoria and he tells me they used get the occasional frost which would wipe out the  whole crop of asparagus.....He took it in his stride and replanted.....$hit happens.
> 
> From what I have learned in the past it was the Alarmist, lefties and Greenies who change Global Warming to Climate Change when they found, in fact, there had been no global warming for 17 years.
> 
> Maybe we are both right one way or another.
> 
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
> 
> *Summary
> 
> So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena.  The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years.  Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology.  Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'.  There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
> 
> Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne*





I think some frost are also good for grapes and wineries, citrus etc. So OK, farmers could refer to a wide range of farming... but barley and grains can't stand frost though right? So those who farm those tend to not operate around region known to have frost too frequently.


Frank Luntz is a political consultant. I can't imagine Climate scientists would call him in to ask which works better at manipulating the public.

Well, there's those Solar and renewables corporations like GE I guess.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> In some cases of farming a frost is needed in the case of growing apples......






			
				luutzu said:
			
		

> I think some frost are also good for grapes and wineries, citrus etc.




I can't find any where that says that frost is beneficial or needed for the growing of those fruit or any other types of fruit. 

It appears that it's the opposite:  worst case scenario the fruit is lost,   best case you need to spend money to protect it.

Can you please provide anything to support your comments?


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> If we scour the world looking of problems we will Always find some, simply because we pick the worst situation and hold that up as an example.



That or we can just pick the best in the world and say everything's just perfect.

So for us lucky few with insulated homes, with an indoor office job, with proper infrastructure for clean water and power at a flick... the impact of climate change might just be a bit more cost at the weekly supermarket.

For those elite who owns and run the world... moving from limos to secured castles to summer homes and winter lodges... and an occasional few minutes among the great unwashed... what climate change? What pollution? What back breaking work in the sun or the snow on what dead field?

And that is why "we" are dragging our feet on the impact of CC, but when it came to the Ozone layer... a big hole in the Southern Hemisphere weren't so bad - it only kills Southern brown people and some Australians anyway... but when it was reported that another hole is opening up in the North, well we can't have that and still sun bake on the Hamptons now can we?

It's a globalised world, as we're told. Crap will spread... 




macca said:


> We could say that Zimbabwe is a basket case and needs help because they are starving, not that long ago Zimbabwe was a food bowl that exported food. At the time it was run by a white minority and the black races were employed as farm hands and labourers etc, doing menial jobs.
> 
> As we know there was a rebellion and the government changed, in the books that I have read it stated that the previous white farm owners were given the option of selling to the government or staying and sharing ownership with their staff.
> 
> Not long after that they were all ordered of their properties completely and their staff took ownership. Within 5 years all of the properties ceased to produce any goods for export and very quickly became overgrown waste lands with forests stripped for firewood.
> 
> Zimbabwe now has its hand out saying "poor bu**ar us , CC has stopped us growing crops", but they are in that situation because they created it themselves through lack of application.





Like all African countries since European civilizing missions, I'm sure they all export food and raw materials to the world.

But if they have plenty to eat that they'd export, why were they complaining and wanting to upend that system?

What kill the Irish during the Potato Famine in Ireland? No crops or the crops were "exported" to England? How about the famine in most of VN and Indochina when Imperial Japan occupied it during those few years?

So it's not a simple matter of export figures. 




macca said:


> In other countries in Africa the farmers claim that if they plant crops they become targets for food thieves, either the rebels stick a gun up their nose and take the food or the Govt forces say we haven't been paid can we have some food please, thank you !




An interesting fact about Africa and Japan before European's race to divide Africa - that an average kingdom of Africa has the same standard of living as Japan's before the late 19th century European expansion into Africa.

Why did Africa become Africa of today but Japan is what it is? Black people aren't as clever or hardworking?

How does that explain the brown folks and the yellow folks? Japanese are Whiter and White is more superior and hardworking? How does that explain the Yellow Chinese dominating its hemisphere - with Japan included as a vassal state to China - all those millennia? 

What's the common thing about today's Third World countries? Beside skin tone and inherent laziness in their blood?

The common theme is all of them were, or still are, colonised. 

What does it mean to be colonised? Well if your people weren't mostly wiped out, they will be sold as slaves, or kept as slave and servants. Your cultural heritage are demeaned and destroyed; your natural resources are exploited and "export"; the taxes collected are also offshored with a few bucks paid to the more "moderate" leaders among your people who know and appreciate new civilising ways of the world.

This is not to say that imperialism is a European thing - all countries and people have their moment in that sun where they're the world's "best" and are taking on the burden to lift humanity out of its blah di dah.

So in Africa... European colonisation starts around the time of Napoleon in early 1800s and really got going by 1870s. Then came the first two World Wars being fought on part of the continent; then the post WW2 designation as a storehouse of natural resources for Europe to exploit in its reconstruction... and until recently, China is getting into the act.

So that's about 200 years of civilisation... and we are wondering why a country of such immense natural wealth are starving. It must be the warlords with their few rifles doing the population in.







macca said:


> Here in Australia we enjoy a very good life style, it was created by our forefathers (and Mums) for our benefit, we do not have to feel guilty about it as it is a gift from those who have gone before.
> 
> Throughout history people have fought endless wars over territory, they have to, otherwise they and their families will soon be overrun and suffer.




Are the Aborigines also among those forefathers and mothers?

I guess we aren't too honest and put some statue of some Aborigines who were slaughtered so that Australians may enjoy the fruit of their genocide.

There is no need to feel guilty about history, but there is also no need to excuse atrocities committed either. We should learn, recognise that it was a mistake and try to prevent it from happening.

For one thing, there is never a need for anyone to die for anyone else to enjoy their standard of living. Sure it's easier to just wipe some race out and take all their stuff, but morality aside, it's not free or cheap to do imperialism - not for the common people.

You and I all pay our ways in the world; none of the land, the oil, the food are ever given to us. So if, say if, our gov't were to go to the ME, say, and free the Arabs of their tyrants and oil... we here in Australia pay for the cost of that liberation, and we still pay for the oil at international market prices.

The same applies to all other imperial powers throughout history.

You know who doesn't pay for imperial wars of conquest? The warmongers and their logistical supports and suppliers.

So the lesson from history and empire is not that the strong will always do as they please while the weak suffer as they must (Herodotus) - that's an observation, not a lesson to learn and practise.

Lesson ought to be what Uncle Ben said to Peter: with great power come great responsibility.

Or as the rebooted Uncle Ben said: If you could do good things for other people, you have a moral obligation to do those thing. That's what at stake here, not choice - but responsibility. 


But responsibility, like kindness, begin and ends at home. So what's our responsibility to our own family and those idiots down the streets?

How do we protect ourselves and our country? By picking fights? By taking people's stuff and they have to be happy we don't also take all their lives too?

You can't unite a country by put fancy words around the idea of everyman for himself and screw the poor, the orphan and the widows. You cannot enrich the country by throwing money to those with so much they don't know what to do with, but kick and blame those with so little they only have their other selves of funny names and different skin colour to blame and hate.

And that's what we've been doing... blaming the poor and the weak; praising the greedy a holes who buy power and influence to rig the national wealth to themselves... both at home and abroad.

So CC? What CC? If people die or lost their home and livelihood... well that's just their problem.


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> If we scour the world looking of problems we will Always find some, simply because we pick the worst situation and hold that up as an example.



That or we can just pick the best in the world and say everything's just perfect.

So for us lucky few with insulated homes, with an indoor office job, with proper infrastructure for clean water and power at a flick... the impact of climate change might just be a bit more cost at the weekly supermarket.

For those elite who owns and run the world... moving from limos to secured castles to summer homes and winter lodges... and an occasional few minutes among the great unwashed... what climate change? What pollution? What back breaking work in the sun or the snow on what dead field?

And that is why "we" are dragging our feet on the impact of CC, but when it came to the Ozone layer... a big hole in the Southern Hemisphere weren't so bad - it only kills Southern brown people and some Australians anyway... but when it was reported that another hole is opening up in the North, well we can't have that and still sun bake on the Hamptons now can we?

It's a globalised world, as we're told. Crap will spread... 




macca said:


> We could say that Zimbabwe is a basket case and needs help because they are starving, not that long ago Zimbabwe was a food bowl that exported food. At the time it was run by a white minority and the black races were employed as farm hands and labourers etc, doing menial jobs.
> 
> As we know there was a rebellion and the government changed, in the books that I have read it stated that the previous white farm owners were given the option of selling to the government or staying and sharing ownership with their staff.
> 
> Not long after that they were all ordered of their properties completely and their staff took ownership. Within 5 years all of the properties ceased to produce any goods for export and very quickly became overgrown waste lands with forests stripped for firewood.
> 
> Zimbabwe now has its hand out saying "poor bu**ar us , CC has stopped us growing crops", but they are in that situation because they created it themselves through lack of application.





Like all African countries since European civilizing missions, I'm sure they all export food and raw materials to the world.

But if they have plenty to eat that they'd export, why were they complaining and wanting to upend that system?

What kill the Irish during the Potato Famine in Ireland? No crops or the crops were "exported" to England? How about the famine in most of VN and Indochina when Imperial Japan occupied it during those few years?

So it's not a simple matter of export figures. 




macca said:


> In other countries in Africa the farmers claim that if they plant crops they become targets for food thieves, either the rebels stick a gun up their nose and take the food or the Govt forces say we haven't been paid can we have some food please, thank you !




An interesting fact about Africa and Japan before European's race to divide Africa - that an average kingdom of Africa has the same standard of living as Japan's before the late 19th century European expansion into Africa.

Why did Africa become Africa of today but Japan is what it is? Black people aren't as clever or hardworking?

How does that explain the brown folks and the yellow folks? Japanese are Whiter and White is more superior and hardworking? How does that explain the Yellow Chinese dominating its hemisphere - with Japan included as a vassal state to China - all those millennia? 

What's the common thing about today's Third World countries? Beside skin tone and inherent laziness in their blood?

The common theme is all of them were, or still are, colonised. 

What does it mean to be colonised? Well if your people weren't mostly wiped out, they will be sold as slaves, or kept as slave and servants. Your cultural heritage are demeaned and destroyed; your natural resources are exploited and "export"; the taxes collected are also offshored with a few bucks paid to the more "moderate" leaders among your people who know and appreciate new civilising ways of the world.

This is not to say that imperialism is a European thing - all countries and people have their moment in that sun where they're the world's "best" and are taking on the burden to lift humanity out of its blah di dah.

So in Africa... European colonisation starts around the time of Napoleon in early 1800s and really got going by 1870s. Then came the first two World Wars being fought on part of the continent; then the post WW2 designation as a storehouse of natural resources for Europe to exploit in its reconstruction... and until recently, China is getting into the act.

So that's about 200 years of civilisation... and we are wondering why a country of such immense natural wealth are starving. It must be the warlords with their few rifles doing the population in.







macca said:


> Here in Australia we enjoy a very good life style, it was created by our forefathers (and Mums) for our benefit, we do not have to feel guilty about it as it is a gift from those who have gone before.
> 
> Throughout history people have fought endless wars over territory, they have to, otherwise they and their families will soon be overrun and suffer.




Are the Aborigines also among those forefathers and mothers?

I guess we aren't too honest and put some statue of some Aborigines who were slaughtered so that Australians may enjoy the fruit of their genocide.

There is no need to feel guilty about history, but there is also no need to excuse atrocities committed either. We should learn, recognise that it was a mistake and try to prevent it from happening.

For one thing, there is never a need for anyone to die for anyone else to enjoy their standard of living. Sure it's easier to just wipe some race out and take all their stuff, but morality aside, it's not free or cheap to do imperialism - not for the common people.

You and I all pay our ways in the world; none of the land, the oil, the food are ever given to us. So if, say if, our gov't were to go to the ME, say, and free the Arabs of their tyrants and oil... we here in Australia pay for the cost of that liberation, and we still pay for the oil at international market prices.

The same applies to all other imperial powers throughout history.

You know who doesn't pay for imperial wars of conquest? The warmongers and their logistical supports and suppliers.

So the lesson from history and empire is not that the strong will always do as they please while the weak suffer as they must (Herodotus) - that's an observation, not a lesson to learn and practise.

Lesson ought to be what Uncle Ben said to Peter: with great power come great responsibility.

Or as the rebooted Uncle Ben said: If you could do good things for other people, you have a moral obligation to do those thing. That's what at stake here, not choice - but responsibility. 


But responsibility, like kindness, begin and ends at home. So what's our responsibility to our own family and those idiots down the streets?

How do we protect ourselves and our country? By picking fights? By taking people's stuff and they have to be happy we don't also take all their lives too?

You can't unite a country by put fancy words around the idea of everyman for himself and screw the poor, the orphan and the widows. You cannot enrich the country by throwing money to those with so much they don't know what to do with, but kick and blame those with so little they only have their other selves of funny names and different skin colour to blame and hate.

And that's what we've been doing... blaming the poor and the weak; praising the greedy a holes who buy power and influence to rig the national wealth to themselves... both at home and abroad.

So CC? What CC? If people die or lost their home and livelihood... well that's just their problem. 

Uncle Ben would be very disappointed.


----------



## luutzu

Ves said:


> I can't find any where that says that frost is beneficial or needed for the growing of those fruit or any other types of fruit.
> 
> It appears that it's the opposite:  worst case scenario the fruit is lost,   best case you need to spend money to protect it.
> 
> Can you please provide anything to support your comments?




Those were just my (wrong) understanding of farming 

I thought grapes and them citrus won't mind the frost since they tend to grow in colder climates. Opps.


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> Take a look at Europe right now, the lefties have let the hordes in and we will see a bloodbath there before a decade is up. There are problems already with people being told that the "refugees" have the right to do anything they like and the citizens just have to accept it, what a joke! They are the new arrivals they should be learning to fit into the existing laws not make their own. How long before Nazism returns ?



It might surprise you that most of those refugees will one day greatly contribute to European successes. Just like how all migrant countries greatly benefited from migrants and refugees.

But ignoring studies on refugees' contribution... let's talk about Nazism.

What is it and why is it so bad?

What did the Nazi and Hitler's Germany do that were so horrible? Not saying it's not, so bear with me.

They consider themselves the Master Race? The superior gene and the right kind of hair and skin colour?

They invade other countries, kill a bunch of innocent people and take their resources?

They use "science" and their gut feeling to brand an entire people degenerate parasite that should be shipped offshore, locked those who were returned, then murder them?


Some of us don't consider Muslims and Islam to be pure evil?
We don't invade countries, flatten their cities and call it liberation?
We don't create internal refugees, flood neighbouring countries with dislocated people, then watch as they drown trying to cross into our territory to "invade" us, rape our women, and will one day murder us all?

Nazism aren't already here?




macca said:


> The first problem is that there are too many of us, China tried to limit it and the human rights, bleeding hearts, condemned them yet how different would Africa be if they limited their breeding to one per family ?




If China's one child policy is such a success, why did they recently repeal it?

Population is never a problem; it will never be a problem... if we distribute the wealth and stop exploiting and stealing people's crap.

There are fat farms and diet clinics and gym and health experts in third world countries. They cater for the few rich and not at all corrupted fat cats who must diet and cut back on too much of a good thing... all the while those around them could barely afford a decent meal once a day.




macca said:


> Climates will always vary, always have, always will and when the land is overgrazed by animals or humans there is no buffer for the poor times and animals and people starve until the right number is left. In Africa the west has been feeding people for decades and the people that we fed as children now have their own children and now we are feeding them as well. While ever they fight and squabble over there ideology, religion, corruption and anything else they can think of instead of working the land properly with the right number of people it will always be a problem.




Yea, the West has been very generous to Africans. 

To be fair, Western citizens are very generous. It's our masters of wars and policy makers that's psychotic. 

But if we're free, able to question our gov't, maybe even influence their decisions somewhat if we're upset enough... yet we buy into their bs story and become their useful idiots... ah well.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Frank Luntz is a political consultant. I can't imagine Climate scientists would call him in to ask which works better at manipulating the public.
> 
> Well, there's those Solar and renewables corporations like GE I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1GCZWQF-M




Frank Luntz did not create the term "Climate Change". People like Wallace Broecker were using it way back in the mid 70's when he (Frank) would have still been in primary school. It's always been a US disease, taking credit for other people's work.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Frank Luntz did not create the term "Climate Change". People like Wallace Broecker were using it way back in the mid 70's when he (Frank) would have still been in primary school. It's always been a US disease, taking credit for other people's work.




I think Luntz took the credit for popularising it for political speak, encouraging lobbyists and gov't to use it instead of "Global Warming".

Either way, it's already not going well for a lot of people.

Heard that a few years just before the current "civil war" in Syria, it suffered from a massive drought. Driving farmers into cities, overstressing security and infrastructure.

There's Bangladesh and southern India where the early melting of glaciers also mean hundreds of millions do not have enough access to water for parts of the year. So if the sea rises a bit more and the glaciers disappear quicker than usual...


----------



## macca

Blimey Luutzu,

That is long enough to be a novel but no need to post it twice 

As far as I can gather you have covered every possibility in the history of the human race.

I always admire someone who is dedicated to there beliefs, it seems to give them great solace. I have a brother in law who, without his christianity would be completely over whelmed by the world. It is so easy to poke holes in his statements but what is the point, he believes it so I leave him to it.

Just as I do now with you


----------



## luutzu

macca said:


> Blimey Luutzu,
> 
> That is long enough to be a novel but no need to post it twice
> 
> As far as I can gather you have covered every possibility in the history of the human race.
> 
> I always admire someone who is dedicated to there beliefs, it seems to give them great solace. I have a brother in law who, without his christianity would be completely over whelmed by the world. It is so easy to poke holes in his statements but what is the point, he believes it so I leave him to it.
> 
> Just as I do now with you




There was a delay and I thought the site logged me off. But did add an extra line regarding Uncle Ben though.

I can backed pretty much all of what I said above with facts, so maybe it's not just my personal belief and biases. And no, you cannot poke holes into them arguments - besides bad grammar and missing words.

And no, thinking the way I do doesn't make me feel better. Think enough about it and I might have to get off my hinnies and do something... and that's a lot of work, and it put my loved ones in danger


----------



## Tisme

So are we warming or are we vacillating?





http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> I can't find any where that says that frost is beneficial or needed for the growing of those fruit or any other types of fruit.
> 
> It appears that it's the opposite:  worst case scenario the fruit is lost,   best case you need to spend money to protect it.
> 
> Can you please provide anything to support your comments?




Some stone fruits can handle some frost but in the main, a term of "CHILL" in winter/spring is required to enhance a good crop.  


https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/plants/f...nuts/stonefruit/land-and-climate-requirements

*Chilling

Stonefruit require a period of winter cold to break dormancy, which is particularly important in coastal areas. The number of hours below 7 ° C required to condition the tree to break dormancy and resume normal growth is called the chilling requirement.

The chilling requirement varies according to the type and variety of stonefruit. It can be as low as 50 hours for some peaches and as high as 1200 hours for some European plums. It is important to choose varieties with the correct chilling requirement for your area. 

See the stonefruit information kit for advice on how to assess the amount of chilling received at your farm site.

Inadequate chilling occurs when varieties with a high chilling requirement are grown in warm areas. It results in death of flower buds, bud shed, erratic flowering, poor fruit set and poor fruit size. Leaf development is also delayed and erratic. In very severe cases, the shoots may remain dormant and die back. Some varieties will set fruit under such conditions but fruit may become more pointed and sutures more prominent, reducing its quality.

If a variety's chilling requirement is satisfied too soon in a location susceptible to late frosts, the crop and tree may be damaged. Small green fruit are more susceptible to frost damage than the blossoms. Once buds have started growing, a frost below -2 °C can damage the tree. Consequently, it is important that trees are planted on elevated sites with good air drainage to avoid damage from spring frost.

Frost

Frost damage to flowers and fruitlets in spring can severely reduce yields. Stonefruit at the small green fruit stage are more susceptible to frost damage than the blossoms. Peaches and nectarines are marginally more tolerant to frost than apricots and plums. High sites with good air drainage are used to avoid spring frost damage.*


----------



## basilio

Ves said:


> I can't find any where that says that frost is beneficial or needed for the growing of those fruit or any other types of fruit.
> 
> It appears that it's the opposite:  worst case scenario the fruit is lost,   best case you need to spend money to protect it.
> 
> Can you please provide anything to support your comments?




In fact a number of fruits need significant levels of chilling to enable them to fruit and flower properly. That doesn't necessarily mean hard frosts; just extended levels of low temperature at night.

One of the consequences of global warming which raises the overall temperature is that many areas which current grow stone fruit for example won't be able to.

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agric...d-nuts/stone-fruit/chill-units-of-stone-fruit


----------



## Ves

Thanks guys!


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> So are we warming or are we vacillating?
> 
> View attachment 68729
> 
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/




For Real Tisme? You are citing graphs and papers that only run until the mid 70's ? 
What are we to make of what has happened since then ?

That website seems to be in a time warp.  There is nothing wrong with looking at data and analysis from 40 years ago but the fact of the matter is that global temperatures have soared in teh last 40 years.  

That's why the overwhelming body of science recognises we have a serious problem.



By the way the graph I have posted seems out of date. In 2016 the global average temperature were well over 1 degree from the previous normal.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> For Real Tisme? You are citing graphs and papers that only run until the mid 70's ?
> What are we to make of what has happened since then ?
> 
> That website seems to be in a time warp.  There is nothing wrong with looking at data and analysis from 40 years ago but the fact of the matter is that global temperatures have soared in teh last 40 years.
> 
> That's why the overwhelming body of science recognises we have a serious problem.
> 
> View attachment 68735
> 
> By the way the graph I have posted seems out of date. In 2016 the global average temperature were well over 1 degree from the previous normal.




It's part of a conspiracy blog that maintains the global warming is a furphy for profit notion. It's a silver back wikipedia editor driving it by removing the cooling facts ... .apparently


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Some stone fruits can handle some frost but in the main, a term of "CHILL" in winter/spring is required to enhance a good crop.
> 
> 
> https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/plants/f...nuts/stonefruit/land-and-climate-requirements
> 
> *Chilling
> 
> Stonefruit require a period of winter cold to break dormancy, which is particularly important in coastal areas. The number of hours below 7 ° C required to condition the tree to break dormancy and resume normal growth is called the chilling requirement.
> 
> The chilling requirement varies according to the type and variety of stonefruit. It can be as low as 50 hours for some peaches and as high as 1200 hours for some European plums. It is important to choose varieties with the correct chilling requirement for your area.
> 
> See the stonefruit information kit for advice on how to assess the amount of chilling received at your farm site.
> 
> Inadequate chilling occurs when varieties with a high chilling requirement are grown in warm areas. It results in death of flower buds, bud shed, erratic flowering, poor fruit set and poor fruit size. Leaf development is also delayed and erratic. In very severe cases, the shoots may remain dormant and die back. Some varieties will set fruit under such conditions but fruit may become more pointed and sutures more prominent, reducing its quality.
> 
> If a variety's chilling requirement is satisfied too soon in a location susceptible to late frosts, the crop and tree may be damaged. Small green fruit are more susceptible to frost damage than the blossoms. Once buds have started growing, a frost below -2 °C can damage the tree. Consequently, it is important that trees are planted on elevated sites with good air drainage to avoid damage from spring frost.
> 
> Frost
> 
> Frost damage to flowers and fruitlets in spring can severely reduce yields. Stonefruit at the small green fruit stage are more susceptible to frost damage than the blossoms. Peaches and nectarines are marginally more tolerant to frost than apricots and plums. High sites with good air drainage are used to avoid spring frost damage.*




Thanks noco, that's very honest of you sir.

Maybe you'd be fighting on the right side of facts and history if you didn't subscribe to the Murdoch press   jk.

btw, reading an old biography of Murdoch ["The Paper Prince" by Munster] and guess who the young Murdoch was supporting for PM?

Gough Whitlam!

Yea, the Murdoch papers were all for Whitlam before they decided to go for Fraser a few years later.

Though Whitlam did say that Murdoch was only going for him because the political climate show Whitlam would win and Uncle Rupee wants to be credited as the king maker. Something he use to sell more ads and scare more politicians with.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Thanks noco, that's very honest of you sir.
> 
> Maybe you'd be fighting on the right side of facts and history if you didn't subscribe to the Murdoch press   jk.
> 
> btw, reading an old biography of Murdoch ["The Paper Prince" by Munster] and guess who the young Murdoch was supporting for PM?
> 
> Gough Whitlam!
> 
> Yea, the Murdoch papers were all for Whitlam before they decided to go for Fraser a few years later.
> 
> Though Whitlam did say that Murdoch was only going for him because the political climate show Whitlam would win and Uncle Rupee wants to be credited as the king maker. Something he use to sell more ads and scare more politicians with.




Whitlam was a true *FABIAN* (commo).:topic


----------



## explod

:iagree::iagree:







noco said:


> Whitlam was a true *FABIAN* (commo).:topic




Yes we've come a long way since then, 

Everyone for himself and just about broke.:1zhelp:


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> :iagree::iagree:
> 
> Yes we've come a long way since then,
> 
> Everyone for himself and just about broke.:1zhelp:




Especially in Tassie, where Greens have the most influence


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Whitlam was a true *FABIAN* (commo).:topic




So Murdoch's bedding of the Chinese commo a couple decade ago weren't an accident then?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Especially in Tassie, where Greens have the most influence




How's QLD doing Sifu?


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> So Murdoch's bedding of the Chinese commo a couple decade ago weren't an accident then?




Murdoch jumped into bed with John Howard & coy back in 1975, publishing contrived and viscous untruths about Whitlam.... he managed to scare the bejesus out of every half wit who would take the bait. Tony Abbott learned from his master's voice.

John Howard brought Khemlani to Oz with the view of seeing the paper trail of malfeasance in two suit cases brought by Khemlani to a Canberra hotel room.... all for nought. The real malfeasance was John and his snivelling mates. Another Murdoch inspired event.

Murdoch put Whitlam in only because he hated Menzies and McMahon for being in the Packer Empire corner. When Gough didn't do as he was told, Rupert took exception to the insolence and  ingratitude by sending the word to all the editors 10 months before the dismissal to politically assassinate Whitlam. And kill his career they did. This was a new low that repeated itself in the Gillard reign.

Murdoch doesn't care about political tags, he just wants to control it.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> How's QLD doing Sifu?




Just had a nice storm, but Labor has ####ed the economy.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Murdoch jumped into bed with John Howard & coy back in 1975, publishing contrived and viscous untruths about Whitlam.... he managed to scare the bejesus out of every half wit who would take the bait. Tony Abbott learned from his master's voice.
> 
> John Howard brought Khemlani to Oz with the view of seeing the paper trail of malfeasance in two suit cases brought by Khemlani to a Canberra hotel room.... all for nought. The real malfeasance was John and his snivelling mates. Another Murdoch inspired event.
> 
> Murdoch put Whitlam in only because he hated Menzies and McMahon for being in the Packer Empire corner. When Gough didn't do as he was told, Rupert took exception to the insolence and  ingratitude by sending the word to all the editors 10 months before the dismissal to politically assassinate Whitlam. And kill his career they did. This was a new low that repeated itself in the Gillard reign.
> 
> Murdoch doesn't care about political tags, he just wants to control it.




Tisme, are you sure you have your facts right about John Howard's association with Khemlani?

John Howard did not enter politics until May 1974......The Labor Mines and energy Minister Rex O'Connor was the one associated with Khlemlani in 1975........O'Connor tried to borrow big heaps of money to buy back the farm ( all the mines) and place them under central control of the Labor Socialist Government.....I doubt John Howard being a junior back bencher would have had too much say....There was a Trevor Howard floating around at that time.

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs239.aspx

*A plan to develop Australia’s minerals and energy resources

Reginald Francis Xavier (‘Rex’) Connor, Australia’s Minister for Minerals and Energy from 1972 to 1975, saw enormous potential for Australia to develop its considerable minerals and energy resources in a way that retained Australian control over them. With a world energy crisis and a worsening economy, Connor looked to overseas loans through non-traditional sources as the solution. The series of events that occurred as Connor pursued these loans through 1974 and 1975 became known as the 'loans affair'.

In November 1974, through a chain of personalities that included fellow minister Clyde Cameron, Adelaide businessman, Gerry Karidis, and contacts of Karidis in Hong Kong and Amsterdam, Connor was introduced to a London-based commodities trader named Tirath Khemlani. On 13 December 1974 a meeting of the Federal Executive Council gave Connor authorisation to raise loans of US$4,000 million for what was described as ‘temporary purposes’ (this allowed the decision to bypass the Loan Council). Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was not at the meeting, but signed the minute the next day. This authority was revoked in early January, but on 28 January the Council again authorised Connor to seek loans – this time of US$2,000 million.*


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Tisme, are you sure you have your facts right about John Howard's association with Khemlani?




Absolutely. I know my politics Noco and he was in their boots and all. He was the new breed of polly who actually detested the Labor Party, not merely played to the crowd. It was something even Malcolm Fraser couldn't have realised at the time....  when the game became serious and hate entered through the front door.

Khemlani was a CIA plant who had never organised a loan in his life, but was there to seduce Rex Connor into a loan that never happened; Gough made sure Rex pulled the plug but Murdoch kept the smoking gun going without any basis of truth.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Absolutely. I know my politics Noco and he was in their boots and all. He was the new breed of polly who actually detested the Labor Party, not merely played to the crowd. It was something even Malcolm Fraser couldn't have realised at the time....  when the game became serious and hate entered through the front door.




I have tried to find a ink to your statement about John Howard.....Also John Howard was a member of the opposition.

Can you please supply me with a link?
:topic


----------



## macca

noco said:


> I have tried to find a ink to your statement about John Howard.....Also John Howard was a member of the opposition.
> 
> Can you please supply me with a link?
> :topic




Hi Noco,

Not the link you want but this article came up on Google and was published by the Age, so you can be assured that if there was any way they could criticise John Howard they would have.

Interesting read but does seem to blame it all on Labor Govt

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...air-to-remember/2004/12/31/1104344982914.html


----------



## Tisme

I can't believe people don't know what actually happened. Of course Murdoch press isn't going carry the actual events when it was complicit in the charade.

Time line:

Rex Connor needed $4bn to jump start Australia's commodities boom.

Gerry Karidis was friends with Clyde Cameron and reckoned he could help by hooking up with Arab money. Clyde let Rex and trendite mate Jim Cairns know.

Khemlani was the potential broker of the petro dollar loan that would be laundered through several shopfronts, just like they are commonly done today.

Khemlani and Karidis met Rex on 11th November (ring any bells on that date?)

After a couple of months Rex realised it was all a farce and terminated Khemlani's commission

Khemlani persisted and persisted with fake loan offerings and Connor was stupid enough to entertain them even though he had lost the authority to make a deal. Enough correspondence accumulated for Khemlani approach the Libs and offer them the trigger they needed for conspiracy. The Libs and Murdoch jumped at the opportunity.

Khemlani himself went on to be arrested for fraud in the US, but plea bargained a suspended sentence in exchange for spilling the beans on the gangsters he had been working for.

Forged documents from nowhere showed up and the game began.

Philip Lynch organises for Khemlani to come into Australia secretly. Whitlam is aware, but stupidly naive that politics has changed into nasty.

Two suitcase full of documents in tow, Khemlani arrives and is taken by John Howard to a Canberra hotel room, where the gang go over the documents looking for the smoking gun, but there isn't anything to see

Howard, Murdoch and Lynch are unphased and proceed to scare the public and demonise the govt regardless. 

It was the trigger that moved us away from the balanced national interest to self serving political interest and the disillusionment and ambivalence of the today's voters .


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I can't believe people don't know what actually happened. Of course Murdoch press isn't going carry the actual events when it was complicit in the charade.
> 
> Time line:
> 
> Rex Connor needed $4bn to jump start Australia's commodities boom.
> 
> Gerry Karidis was friends with Clyde Cameron and reckoned he could help by hooking up with Arab money. Clyde let Rex and trendite mate Jim Cairns know.
> 
> Khemlani was the potential broker of the petro dollar loan that would be laundered through several shopfronts, just like they are commonly done today.
> 
> Khemlani and Karidis met Rex on 11th November (ring any bells on that date?)
> 
> After a couple of months Rex realised it was all a farce and terminated Khemlani's commission
> 
> Khemlani persisted and persisted with fake loan offerings and Connor was stupid enough to entertain them even though he had lost the authority to make a deal. Enough correspondence accumulated for Khemlani approach the Libs and offer them the trigger they needed for conspiracy. The Libs and Murdoch jumped at the opportunity.
> 
> Khemlani himself went on to be arrested for fraud in the US, but plea bargained a suspended sentence in exchange for spilling the beans on the gangsters he had been working for.
> 
> Forged documents from nowhere showed up and the game began.
> 
> Philip Lynch organises for Khemlani to come into Australia secretly. Whitlam is aware, but stupidly naive that politics has changed into nasty.
> 
> Two suitcase full of documents in tow, Khemlani arrives and is taken by John Howard to a Canberra hotel room, where the gang go over the documents looking for the smoking gun, but there isn't anything to see
> 
> Howard, Murdoch and Lynch are unphased and proceed to scare the public and demonise the govt regardless.
> 
> It was the trigger that moved us away from the balanced national interest to self serving political interest and the disillusionment and ambivalence of the today's voters .





Darnmit! 

Australian politics can be interesting. 

Oh ey, what's the CIA's role in Whitlam's coup?

From a John Pilger [?] doco and that other book on Murdoch, there's a passing reference to how the US considered Whitlam to be "a threat to Australia's security and national interest"... all because he wanted the Australian gov't to know the whereabouts of US intelligence on Australian soil. That and not granting them bases.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Darnmit!
> 
> Australian politics can be interesting.
> 
> Oh ey, what's the CIA's role in Whitlam's coup?




You know how Whitlam knew about the Libs having Khemlani over? Well someone in Hawaii found a teletext from the CIA to it's operative that instructed him to use his influence to bring down Whitlam via a loans scandal; it was sent to Gough. A forged pivotal document was one piece of influence, later admitted to by a named CIA operative and presumably implausible enough for Howard not to bother with.



luutzu said:


> From a John Pilger [?] doco and that other book on Murdoch, there's a passing reference to how the US considered Whitlam to be "a threat to Australia's security and national interest"... all because he wanted the Australian gov't to know the whereabouts of US intelligence on Australian soil. That and not granting them bases.




Whitlam was jumping the gun on diplomacy with China. Harold Holt and Willy McMahon had managed to insult the Republic by recognising Taiwan over the mainland, but thinking trade was a possibility.... the Chinese were pretty pissed off at our impudence. Mick Young organised an ALP outing with the Chinese boss rather than making it a shadow govt meet and greet. You can imagine how the Libs reacted to that.

Rupert paid some of the cost of travel in exchange for several articles of the trip by Whitlam to be published in The Australian. Gough got on pally well with the Chinese Premier and the US got pretty edgy, even though Gough made it clear the ALP policy enshrined ANSUS and SEATO and saw the US as it's primary ally in all things.

Although Canada had already managed a wheat deal, Gough's visit forced the hand of the US to establish trade and diplomatic dialogue, which was a domestic save face problem after all the years of McCarthyism.


----------



## Tisme

I should add that Willy McMahon went to jelly when he found out Nixon was jumping on the Whitlam bandwagon. He asked if he could go with Nixon, to carry bags presumably


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I can't believe people don't know what actually happened. Of course Murdoch press isn't going carry the actual events when it was complicit in the charade.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Philip Lynch organises for Khemlani to come into Australia secretly. Whitlam is aware, but stupidly naive that politics has changed into nasty.




In your post #8722 you stated John Howard brought Khemlani to Australia but in this post #8728 you now state Philip Lynch was the one.

Are you trying to implicate John Howard by association?...He may well have been involved in viewing 2 suit cases of documents with Philip Lynch but you seem to have contradicted yourself on this occasion.
:topic again.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> In your post #8722 you stated John Howard brought Khemlani to Australia but in this post #8728 you now state Philip Lynch was the one.
> 
> Are you trying to implicate John Howard by association?...He may well have been involved in viewing 2 suit cases of documents with Philip Lynch but you seem to have contradicted yourself on this occasion.
> :topic again.




Oh for goodness sakes Noco. You have the opportunity to learn something and you let your thinly disguised hate of me get in the way. They were a cabal. 

Please don't bother asking if you just want to play Perry Masonesque games.


----------



## moXJO

Yeah that's the "labor touch up" to history.
The labor govt tried to sneak one past and the opposition caught them out. Whitlam took an overseas trip while others did his dirty work.

Letters and such from the national archives probably reveal the real story.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/TheLoansAffair_tcm16-45426.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj604i81prQAhVBUWMKHeISBBUQFgghMAM&usg=AFQjCNF3U9S8nksX16qgQzbwgycn3DtZrg&sig2=dJgx75_wRMrYr5fJ0YlqzQ


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Oh for goodness sakes Noco. You have the opportunity to learn something and you let your thinly disguised hate of me get in the way. They were a cabal.
> 
> Please don't bother asking if you just want to play Perry Masonesque games.




Tisme, I am sorry if you don't like being brought to heal......You should also learn that it is the Government opposition duty to hold the Government to account...That is what the Green/Labor left wing socialists keep harping on about.

In this case it was Philip Lynch who was doing his duty to hold Whitlam and Connor to account over the loans affair in 1975.....John Howard would have played only a very small part in the affair.

You, being the political expert as you profess to be, I would have thought you would have known all this....What do you think?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Tisme, I am sorry if you don't like being brought to heal......You should also learn that it is the Government opposition duty to hold the Government to account...That is what the Green/Labor left wing socialists keep harping on about.
> 
> In this case it was Philip Lynch who was doing his duty to hold Whitlam and Connor to account over the loans affair in 1975.....John Howard would have played only a very small part in the affair.
> 
> You, being the political expert as you profess to be, I would have thought you would have known all this....What do you think?




Now you are lecturing me on the basics of parliament  And I gave up indignantly reacting to snide taunts & teasing, around grade 3 time, when I started to understand that some people aren't as clever as the few of us and should be allowed to fabricate their own yarns and self esteem..

You should try long trousers some time.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Now you are lecturing me on the basics of parliament  And I gave up indignantly reacting to snide taunts & teasing, around grade 3 time, when I started to understand that some people aren't as clever as the few of us and should be allowed to fabricate their own yarns and self esteem..
> 
> You should try long trousers some time.




I believe you are a one time loser this time Tisme...You are totally confused in your own importance and your know all in politics....Your reply is a total confession of a c*ck up. 
:topic


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I should add that Willy McMahon went to jelly when he found out Nixon was jumping on the Whitlam bandwagon. He asked if he could go with Nixon, to carry bags presumably




Thanks McGee. And here I was thinking Australian history was all about unused land, sheep, cattle and iron ore.

Any good Australian historian you can recommend?


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Thanks McGee. And here I was thinking Australian history was all about unused land, sheep, cattle and iron ore.
> 
> Any good Australian historian you can recommend?




If you really want the scoop, you being in Canberra an all, there is probably a senior public servant or two who will help you with national politics over a red wine or two. Journos and pollies are good too and easy tongues with gossip off the record.

I'm currently being humbled with recognition in print and media regarding some aspects Australian history so I reckon I'm the bees knees. I was thinking I should defer to our venerable member who lives in Robert Towns' namesake village


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> I believe you are a one time loser this time Tisme...You are totally confused in your own importance and your know all in politics....Your reply is a total confession of a c*ck up.
> :topic




Yadda yadda yadda ....haters are so easily wound up


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Yadda yadda yadda ....haters are so easily wound up




I think you need to grow up sonny.....You don't have the answer......Your rhetoric is becoming boring......


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> I think you need to grow up sonny.....You don't have the answer......Your rhetoric is becoming boring......




I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the godawful realisation of what I wrote as truth hits you  

I used to believe my sister when she would parrot "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" .... I've recalibrated my belief system as of yesterday. 

BTW your posts are off topic:


----------



## Tisme

moXJO said:


> Yeah that's the "labor touch up" to history.
> The labor govt tried to sneak one past and the opposition caught them out. Whitlam took an overseas trip while others did his dirty work.
> 
> Letters and such from the national archives probably reveal the real story.
> https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/TheLoansAffair_tcm16-45426.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj604i81prQAhVBUWMKHeISBBUQFgghMAM&usg=AFQjCNF3U9S8nksX16qgQzbwgycn3DtZrg&sig2=dJgx75_wRMrYr5fJ0YlqzQ




Yes people should read all thelegitimate correspondence instead of counting on the Murdochs for factual diatribe. Wiki is not a recognised peer reviewed source.

Noco could always contact Bob Ellicot and John Howard and ask them how the hotel room food was.


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> Yes people should read all thelegitimate correspondence instead of counting on the Murdochs for factual diatribe.





How boring would it be though. I love a good yarn.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the godawful realisation of what I wrote as truth hits you
> 
> I used to believe my sister when she would parrot "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" .... I've recalibrated my belief system as of yesterday.
> 
> BTW your posts are off topic:




Yes a heap of muddled truth and you know it about John Howard bringing  Klemlani to Australia when in fact it was Philip Lych.....But to give you satisfaction and a bit of happiness I will let you have the last word.

You have been off topic since you started this nonsense.,,Time to get back on track:topic


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> If you really want the scoop, you being in Canberra an all, there is probably a senior public servant or two who will help you with national politics over a red wine or two. Journos and pollies are good too and easy tongues with gossip off the record.
> 
> I'm currently being humbled with recognition in print and media regarding some aspects Australian history so I reckon I'm the bees knees. I was thinking I should defer to our venerable member who lives in Robert Towns' namesake village




I don't live in Canberra. But do live in Australia's future power centre though: where the Lebs and Muslims are 

I can imagine real journos having much knowledge and no employer, but ex-pollies seems like a couple of $5,000 red wine too much, no?

Taking history lessons from a dude on a forum. Didn't some wise crack thought that that's not a good idea? That'd be like taking candies from an old White dude  

Serious though, I thought you're an engineer so what's this historian business?

Noco is honest and to the point, but his Right eye seems a bit blurry while his Left is as sharp as a hawk. Right noco?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yes a heap of muddled truth and you know it about John Howard bringing  Klemlani to Australia when in fact it was Philip Lych.....But to give you satisfaction and a bit of happiness I will let you have the last word.
> 
> You have been off topic since you started this nonsense.,,Time to get back on track:topic




Don't know noco... people don't get to be a four-term PM without the godfather's blessing.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Noco is honest and to the point, but his Right eye seems a bit blurry while his Left is as sharp as a hawk. Right noco?




ROFL....LMAO

lUU, if you and many others on this forum achieve the same capacity of sight and alertness when you  reach my age, you may consider yourselves very fortunate......I would say with reasonable confidence that my age would not be superseded by any others on this forum....But they say age is only a number..:topic


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> I don't live in Canberra. But do live in Australia's future power centre though: where the Lebs and Muslims are
> 
> I can imagine real journos having much knowledge and no employer, but ex-pollies seems like a couple of $5,000 red wine too much, no?
> 
> Taking history lessons from a dude on a forum. Didn't some wise crack thought that that's not a good idea? That'd be like taking candies from an old White dude
> 
> Serious though, I thought you're an engineer so what's this historian business?
> 
> Noco is honest and to the point, but his Right eye seems a bit blurry while his Left is as sharp as a hawk. Right noco?




Engineers tend not to colour their world with subjectives, although the legal side of me....... And I wasn't aware there was a limit to one of the educational multiplicands ?

Imagine if I had actually biased my post with anti Liberal sentiment LOL


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> Engineers tend not to colour their world with subjectives, although the legal side of me....... And I wasn't aware there was a limit to one of the educational multiplicands ?
> 
> Imagine if I had actually biased my post with anti Liberal sentiment LOL




Good old engineers. 
Possibly the worst people to work for, because they apparently knew how to do it better after you fix it.
If there's one group you can stereotype - then engineers are the safe bet. 
Always triple your price, because it's either not worth the pain or you want to be compensated for the headache.


----------



## Tisme

moXJO said:


> Good old engineers.
> Possibly the worst people to work for, because they apparently knew how to do it better after you fix it.
> If there's one group you can stereotype - then engineers are the safe bet.
> Always triple your price, because it's either not worth the pain or you want to be compensated for the headache.




 Yeah but, yeah but, no .......


I know the type pf guys you are talking about ....... an aggravation to common sense. A bit like the ALP. LNP and Greenies?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> ROFL....LMAO
> 
> lUU, if you and many others on this forum achieve the same capacity of sight and alertness when you  reach my age, you may consider yourselves very fortunate......I would say with reasonable confidence that my age would not be superseded by any others on this forum....But they say age is only a number..:topic




Yea true. CC will take a decade or two off most of us and our kids. 
[see how I turn it back on topic there? ]

But yea, quite good genes you got there noco. We could only hope to have that brain still ticking within a decade or two of yours now. Good food and an active life seem to also help... maybe also the socialist healthcare system we got going too [so you welcome comrade ]


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Engineers tend not to colour their world with subjectives, although the legal side of me....... And I wasn't aware there was a limit to one of the educational multiplicands ?
> 
> Imagine if I had actually biased my post with anti Liberal sentiment LOL




No, your posts are not anti-Liberal at all. Not one bit. It's only noco 

There are no limit or restrictions to self-taught geniuses. But you must be really old to be both a proper engineer and also know something else worth listening to outside of it.

Serious, many people of my generation tend to just specialise in one thing and wouldn't even think about learning or doing anything useful outside of that. And they're proud of it too.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> No, your posts are not anti-Liberal at all. Not one bit. It's only noco
> 
> There are no limit or restrictions to self-taught geniuses. But you must be really old to be both a proper engineer and also know something else worth listening to outside of it.
> 
> Serious, many people of my generation tend to just specialise in one thing and wouldn't even think about learning or doing anything useful outside of that. And they're proud of it too.




Donald Trump believes this Climate Change is BS and will pull out of the Paris agreement and so should Australia.

The money we send to the UN Climate Change committee could be directed in Australia for better purposes...The UN is corrupt and this Climate Change is a scam.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> No, your posts are not anti-Liberal at all. Not one bit. .




Enjoy:


http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs239.aspx


----------



## Tisme

Perhaps Rumpole can explain why our resident Liberal tragic(s) knows the true story of the Loans Affair (and any other subject involving the LNP)  enough to argue the toss even if it is at odds with the Liberal Party's own Shadow Cabinet minutes at the time? 

I'm thinking it's a warp in the space time continuum rather pig headed delusion? 

http://gallery.its.unimelb.edu.au/umblumaic/imu.php?request=multimedia&irn=10770


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Enjoy:
> 
> 
> http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs239.aspx




Wait, you go to the original source material for your research? Like what real scholars do?

That's... hmmm... a bit more impressive than my quoting YouTube and Wikepedia.

----
Reading the executive summary... so Connor was forced to resigned pretty much out of a technicality right? I mean, what responsible public servant keeps on working for the public good once ordered to stop. 

Maybe Connor's (and Whitlam's) mistakes was the fact that they dare thought to socialise Australia's resources by keeping it under gov't control. That and they ought to know better that loans from the sheikdoms are only supposed to be spent on acquiring US made fighter jets and weapons systems, not to be loaned out for other country's independent ownership of its resources.

I'm starting to feel like Australia is just a better version of the ME.


----------



## noco

Well, at long last we have some one in Donald Trump who is willing to expose this Global Warming scam by the UN.

Good on him and I hope he drags other nations into his belief.....

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/11/finally-warmists-find-real-threat/


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Perhaps Rumpole can explain why our resident Liberal tragic(s) knows the true story of the Loans Affair (and any other subject involving the LNP)  enough to argue the toss even if it is at odds with the Liberal Party's own Shadow Cabinet minutes at the time?
> 
> I'm thinking it's a warp in the space time continuum rather pig headed delusion?
> 
> http://gallery.its.unimelb.edu.au/umblumaic/imu.php?request=multimedia&irn=10770




I can't work miracles mate.


----------



## basilio

Tisme we now live in a post-truth, post- reality world.  It's a world where people like Noco can steadfastly deny the work of thousands of climate scientists to flatly state CC is not real. (which in fact is the mad beginnings of this tortuous thread)   

In that same ,post truth/ post real world situation,  flatly denying the history around the loans affair even when it comes from Liberal party sources just because it is inconvenient is a mere bagatelle.


----------



## wayneL

Isn't it astonishing? The left only invented "post-truth" last year, and already it is so nauseatingly cliched.

It will be interesting if real scientists, ones that are not on the gravy train, will be emboldened to come out and speak the truth.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> I only invented "post-truth" last year,.




There's a fantastic theme for a thread .. "Post Truism's _& other offerings from the IPA_"


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> There's a fantastic theme for a thread .. "Post Truism's _& other offerings from the IPA_"





 Nice application of post-truth there in your quote tags:

_-Originally Posted by wayneL  View Post
I only invented "post-truth" last year,_. .


----------



## wayneL

the only IPA I know is a beer


----------



## Knobby22

*The Arctic has recorded its lowest sea ice ever for October. *The seas are just to warm this year to allow much ice to form.

I like this area of measurement as it is quite simple. You can see the ice, you can measure it and it is very hard to form conspiracy theories to say its not happening.  

*China, unrestrained by political blinkers, is working with Iceland* to develop ports and access the mineral and believe it or not geothermal wealth that will be obtainable as the sea continues to melt.

_Moreover, Beijing’s interest in Arctic development can be associated with two questions: Who will gain access to regional mineral resources and how will melting ice impact commercial shipping through Northern routes from Asia to Europe and back?

Iceland has two potential oil and gas shelf sites: Dreki and Gammur. Dreki is operated by a joint venture of CNOOC, Eykon Energy and Petoro Iceland, in which the Chinese side has a 60 percent share. A strategic environmental assessment of Gammur is still pending approval, so no licenses have been granted. However, it is evident that Chinese oil giants will participate in development bids._ http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-iceland-and-the-arctic/

*Russia also has an excellent deep port in the Arctic and is working with Cocono Philips* to take advantage.
the *Canadian Government has proposed a rail link to create a new port to ship iron ore out as the Arctic melts*. http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Ports

*The first major cruise ship ever to sail through the arctic occurred this summer.*
https://news.vice.com/article/a-massive-luxury-cruise-is-now-sailing-through-the-arctic


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> *The Arctic has recorded its lowest sea ice ever for October. *The seas are just to warm this year to allow much ice to form.
> 
> I like this area of measurement as it is quite simple. You can see the ice, you can measure it and it is very hard to form conspiracy theories to say its not happening.
> 
> *China, unrestrained by political blinkers, is working with Iceland* to develop ports and access the mineral and believe it or not geothermal wealth that will be obtainable as the sea continues to melt.
> 
> _Moreover, Beijing’s interest in Arctic development can be associated with two questions: Who will gain access to regional mineral resources and how will melting ice impact commercial shipping through Northern routes from Asia to Europe and back?
> 
> Iceland has two potential oil and gas shelf sites: Dreki and Gammur. Dreki is operated by a joint venture of CNOOC, Eykon Energy and Petoro Iceland, in which the Chinese side has a 60 percent share. A strategic environmental assessment of Gammur is still pending approval, so no licenses have been granted. However, it is evident that Chinese oil giants will participate in development bids._ http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-iceland-and-the-arctic/
> 
> *Russia also has an excellent deep port in the Arctic and is working with Cocono Philips* to take advantage.
> the *Canadian Government has proposed a rail link to create a new port to ship iron ore out as the Arctic melts*. http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Ports
> 
> *The first major cruise ship ever to sail through the arctic occurred this summer.*
> https://news.vice.com/article/a-massive-luxury-cruise-is-now-sailing-through-the-arctic




That must be so very comforting for you! However, despite these observations, the questions regarding causation remain unresolved.

Hardly surprising really, given the blatantly obvious lack of competence of self proclaimed experts in the field. Like the one in this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

If the subject was understood as fully as was being claimed, then how did this forecast come to be so wide of the mark?

Clearly this phenomenon has not been correctly understood!


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> That must be so very comforting for you! However, despite these observations the questions regarding causation remain unresolved.
> 
> Hardly surprising really given the blatantly obvious lack of competence of self proclaimed experts in the field. Like the one in this article:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
> 
> If the subject was understood as fully as was being claimed, then how did this forecast come to be so wide of the mark?
> 
> Clearly this phenomenon has not been correctly understood!




Firstly: It's a theory of a complex system. Of course it's not fully understood. 
Secondly: one expert is quoted, not lots of experts. It's like the stock exchange, you get heaps of "Ã«xperts" predicting the next crash.  I think the official prediction for ice free is 2050 from memory.

The facts are that it is obviously happening and the Chinese, Canadians, Icelandians and Russia know it is and are acting on it. As is the company that owns the Cruise ships. 

I look at it more as a way to make good share market investments. I know that we can handle some warming and that the big interests are paying big money to ensure that their interests aren't hurt.  I know there is a right wing think tank working on a technological fix and I reckon they will probably succeed.

Anyway, one decent nuke will stop thermal runaway should it occur.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Firstly: It's a theory of a complex system. Of course it's not fully understood.
> Secondly: one expert is quoted, not lots of experts. It's like the stock exchange, you get heaps of "Ã«xperts" predicting the next crash.  I think the official prediction for ice free is 2050 from memory.




I am glad you agree that it is not fully understood. I would even venture to say that it has almost certainly been largely misunderstood!

Do you really expect me to wait another 34 years to prove that prediction wrong also?

These buffons have been wrong for decades now! Time to wake up!!


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> I am glad you agree that it is not fully understood. I would even venture to say that it has almost certainly been largely misunderstood!
> 
> Do you really expect me to wait another 34 years to prove that prediction wrong also?
> 
> These buffons have been wrong for decades now! Time to wake up!!




But the ice cap is melting every year and the serious interests are in their making money. When do you propose to wake up to the fact??? How do you trade shares?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> I am glad you agree that it is not fully understood. I would even venture to say that it has almost certainly been largely misunderstood!
> 
> Do you really expect me to wait another 34 years to prove that prediction wrong also?
> 
> These buffons have been wrong for decades now! Time to wake up!!




But the ice cap is melting every year and the serious interests are in their making money. When do you propose to wake up to the fact??? How do you trade shares? Don't you use pattern recognition?


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> But the ice cap is melting every year and the serious interests are in their making money. When do you propose to wake up to the fact??? How do you trade shares?




The sun shines every day!!! What the FTSE have my business practices got to do with your religion?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> The sun shines every day!!! What the FTSE has my business practices got to do with your religion?




Your the one with religion. Your beliefs fly in the face of reality that is obvious and visible and you can't see it due to your belief of some prophet.
I'm with the Chinese, Canadians and Russians and the cruise ship owner. If something is happening I act on it. Again, how do you trade shares? Can't you see opportunity?


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Your the one with religion. Your beliefs fly in the face of reality that is obvious and visible and you can't see it due to your belief of some prophet.
> I'm with the Chinese, Canadians and Russians and the cruise ship owner. If something is happening I act on it. Again, how do you trade shares? Can't you see opportunity?




So do you mean to say that you don't have faith in the climate "scientists" and their predictions?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> So do you mean to say that you don't have faith in the climate "scientists" and their predictions?




There is no "scientists". they are trained scientists. Your ""experts"" that you have such faith in like the esteemed Andrew Bolt are the untrained ones. 

Here's the ice levels. try to open your mind a little. Or if not, tell me why its all not true.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## luutzu

Knobby22 said:


> *The Arctic has recorded its lowest sea ice ever for October. *The seas are just to warm this year to allow much ice to form.
> 
> I like this area of measurement as it is quite simple. You can see the ice, you can measure it and it is very hard to form conspiracy theories to say its not happening.
> 
> *China, unrestrained by political blinkers, is working with Iceland* to develop ports and access the mineral and believe it or not geothermal wealth that will be obtainable as the sea continues to melt.
> 
> _Moreover, Beijing’s interest in Arctic development can be associated with two questions: Who will gain access to regional mineral resources and how will melting ice impact commercial shipping through Northern routes from Asia to Europe and back?
> 
> Iceland has two potential oil and gas shelf sites: Dreki and Gammur. Dreki is operated by a joint venture of CNOOC, Eykon Energy and Petoro Iceland, in which the Chinese side has a 60 percent share. A strategic environmental assessment of Gammur is still pending approval, so no licenses have been granted. However, it is evident that Chinese oil giants will participate in development bids._ http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-iceland-and-the-arctic/
> 
> *Russia also has an excellent deep port in the Arctic and is working with Cocono Philips* to take advantage.
> the *Canadian Government has proposed a rail link to create a new port to ship iron ore out as the Arctic melts*. http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Ports
> 
> *The first major cruise ship ever to sail through the arctic occurred this summer.*
> https://news.vice.com/article/a-massive-luxury-cruise-is-now-sailing-through-the-arctic






I guess Danger and Opportunity are all the same in every language.

Remember that news last year where ExxonMobil have funded research into CC; found that CC is happening and so shut down the research and hide the results?

Apparently the geniuses at Exxon didn't stop there. 

Nope.

They then start to plan out which part of the Earth will melt first and when they ought to explore and get rights to drill. 

That's planning for you.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> *The Arctic has recorded its lowest sea ice ever for October. *The seas are just to warm this year to allow much ice to form.
> 
> I like this area of measurement as it is quite simple. You can see the ice, you can measure it and it is very hard to form conspiracy theories to say its not happening.
> 
> *China, unrestrained by political blinkers, is working with Iceland* to develop ports and access the mineral and believe it or not geothermal wealth that will be obtainable as the sea continues to melt.
> 
> _Moreover, Beijing’s interest in Arctic development can be associated with two questions: Who will gain access to regional mineral resources and how will melting ice impact commercial shipping through Northern routes from Asia to Europe and back?
> 
> Iceland has two potential oil and gas shelf sites: Dreki and Gammur. Dreki is operated by a joint venture of CNOOC, Eykon Energy and Petoro Iceland, in which the Chinese side has a 60 percent share. A strategic environmental assessment of Gammur is still pending approval, so no licenses have been granted. However, it is evident that Chinese oil giants will participate in development bids._ http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-iceland-and-the-arctic/
> 
> *Russia also has an excellent deep port in the Arctic and is working with Cocono Philips* to take advantage.
> the *Canadian Government has proposed a rail link to create a new port to ship iron ore out as the Arctic melts*. http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Ports
> 
> *The first major cruise ship ever to sail through the arctic occurred this summer.*
> https://news.vice.com/article/a-massive-luxury-cruise-is-now-sailing-through-the-arctic




Don't worry Knobby, it has all happened before and all to do with then Sun and the Earth's axis.

The polar bears survived and will do so again according to the latest reports.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/147a4aa8d7089adbbf2a0de714237d9d


*The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is approaching its annual nadir. By early September each year about two-thirds of the ice cap has melted, then the sea begins to freeze again. This year looks unlikely to set a record for melting, with more than four million square kilometres of ice remaining, less than the average in the 1980s and 90s, but more than in the record low years of 2007 and 2012. (The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing in recent years, contrary to predictions.)

This will disappoint some. An expedition led by David Hempleman-Adams to circumnavigate the North Pole through the Northeast and Northwest passages, intending to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through”, was recently held up for weeks north of Siberia by, um, ice. They have only just reached halfway.

Meanwhile, the habit of some scientists of predicting when the ice will disappear completely keeps getting them into trouble. NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally told the Associated Press in 2007: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.” Two years later Al Gore quoted another scientist that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years” — that is, by now.

This year Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University has a new book out called Farewell to Ice, which gives a “greater than even chance” that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free next month. Not likely.

He added: “Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer ... You will be able to cross over the North Pole by ship.” The temptation to predict a total melt of the Arctic ice cap, and thereby get a headline, has been counter-productive, according to other scientists. Crying wolf does not help the cause of global warming; it only gives amusement to sceptics.

Would it matter if it did all melt one year? Here’s the point everybody seems to be missing: the Arctic Ocean’s ice has indeed disappeared during summer in the past, routinely. The evidence comes from various sources, such as beach ridges in northern Greenland, never unfrozen today, which show evidence of wave action in the past. One Danish team concluded in 2012 that 8500 years ago the ice extent was “less than half of the record low 2007 level”. A Swedish team, in a paper published in 2014, went further: between 10,000 years ago and 6000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a “regime dominated by seasonal ice, ie, ice-free summers”.

This was a period known as the “early Holocene insolation maximum” (EHIM). Because the Earth’s axis was tilted away from the vertical more than today (known as obliquity), and because we were then closer to the Sun in July than in January (known as precession), the amount of the Sun’s energy hitting the far north in summer was much greater than today. This “great summer” effect was the chief reason the Earth had emerged from an ice age, because hot northern summers had melted the great ice caps of North America and Eurasia, exposing darker land and sea to absorb more sunlight and warm the whole planet.

The effect was huge: about an extra 50 watts per square metre 80 degrees north in June. By contrast, the total effect of man-made global warming will reach 3.5 watts per square metre (but globally) only by the end of this century.

To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.

That the Arctic sea ice disappeared each August or September in those days does not seem to have done harm (remember that melting sea ice, as opposed to land ice, does not affect sea level), and nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming. Indeed, the reverse was the case: evidence from stalagmites in tropical caves, sea-floor sediments and ice cores on the Greenland ice cap shows that temperatures gradually but erratically cooled over the next few thousand years as the obliquity of the axis and the precession of the equinoxes changed. Sunlight is now weaker in July than January again (on global average).

Barring one especially cold snap 8200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past 10 millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out.

It seems that the quantity of Arctic sea ice varies more than we used to think. We don’t really know how much ice there was in the 1920s and 30s — satellites only started measuring it in 1979, a relatively cold time in the Arctic — but there is anecdotal evidence of considerable ice retreat in those decades, when temperatures were high in the Arctic.

Today’s melting may be man-made, but the EHIM precedent is still relevant. Polar bears clearly survived the ice-free seasons of 10,000-6000 years ago, as they cope with ice-free summers or autumns in many parts of their range today, such as Hudson Bay. They need sea ice in spring when they feed on seal pups and they sometimes suffer if it is too thick, preventing seals from breeding in an area.

Meanwhile, theory predicts, and data confirms, that today’s carbon-dioxide-induced man-made warming is happening more at night than during the day, more during winter than summer and more in the far north than near the equator. An Arctic winter night is affected much more than a tropical summer day. If it were the other way around, it would be more harmful.

Some time in the next few decades, we may well see the Arctic Ocean without ice in August or September for at least a few weeks, just as it was in the time of our ancestors. The effect on human welfare, and on animal and plant life, will be small. For all the attention it gets, the reduction in Arctic ice is the most visible, but least harmful, effect of global warming.

The Times
*


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> There is no "scientists". they are trained scientists. Your ""experts"" that you have such faith in like the esteemed Andrew Bolt are the untrained ones.
> 
> Here's the ice levels. try to open your mind a little. Or if not, tell me why its all not true.
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/



I am not questioning the ice levels!!

As I have stated numerous times throughout this thread, the question of causation remains unresolved!

Some may be happy to revere buffoonery whenever it happens to comply with one's chosen ideology. However, the fact that an opinion happens to conform with one's chosen religion doesn't automatically render it correct.

Are we looking at the same page yet? You seem to be totally missing the point I am contesting, namely the question of causation!


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Are we looking at the same page yet? You seem to be totally missing the point I am contesting, namely the question of causation!




What do you think is causing it?


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> Are we looking at the same page yet? You seem to be totally missing the point I am contesting, namely the question of causation!




Could you clarify "causation" as you mean it here.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> What do you think is causing it?




The Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis...Read my previous post.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> The Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis...Read my previous post.




The post doesn't say that is happening now.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> The post doesn't say that is happening now.




Perhaps this may convince you a little better.


http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/arctic-sea-ice-it-all-melted-before-and-it-didnt-matter/

*Matt Ridley in The Australian explains how every man and his dog is forecasting the doom of the Arctic sea ice, and not only have they been wrong year after year, but they all assume that if the ice all melts it’ll be a global disaster. But Earth’s already been-there done-that, and for years, and it was no-biggie. Polar bears obviously got through it, as did seals. Humans without protective solar panels somehow spread far and wide, and generally flourished.

I suspect the main climate refugees from the Arctic would have names like Donner and Blitzen. This is the one thing Matt doesn’t explain — in 8,000BC when the ice melted,  what the heck happened with Santa?

Ice scares aren’t all they’re cracked up to be

This was a period known as the “early Holocene insolation maximum” (EHIM). Because the Earth’s axis was tilted away from the vertical more than today (known as obliquity), and because we were then closer to the Sun in July than in January (known as precession), the amount of the Sun’s energy hitting the far north in summer was much greater than today. This “great summer” effect was the chief reason the Earth had emerged from an ice age, because hot northern summers had melted the great ice caps of North America and Eurasia, exposing darker land and sea to absorb more sunlight and warm the whole planet.

The effect was huge: about an extra 50 watts per square metre 80 degrees north in June. By contrast, the total effect of man-made global warming will reach 3.5 watts per square metre (but globally) only by the end of this century.

To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.

Barring one especially cold snap 8200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past 10 millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out.*


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> What do you think is causing it?




More likely than not, natural forces. Unlike climate "scientists" I do not claim to be infallibly omniscient and am open to examining alternative possibilities if the supportive evidence is sufficiently compelling.

The fact of some ice melting only proves that ice melts and precious little else. All possible causes need to be duly considered before arriving at any conclusion regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of any problems. At least that's what I would expect a real scientist to do!


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> Are we looking at the same page yet? You seem to be totally missing the point I am contesting, namely the question of causation!




Do you have an understanding of why a number of different gaseous molecules distributed in the earths(and other planets) atmospheres are described as 'greenhouse gases'?

There is empirical, scientific, proven, incontestable,(by people open to reason) demonstrable evidence to the effect that these gases have on the temperature of the bodies they envelope?

Your arguments may get traction with the vast bulk of those toward the back end of the intellectual and educational  bell curve, but not here... So give us all your debunk of Physics understood now for over one fifty years? 

That's three questions, count them  1,  two, 3. All with veracity with regard your causation canard, they relate to a thing understood as 'the Earths heat budget'...  should keep you busy for the weekend. See you on Monday bring a bag of 'Smiths Crisps' to class.


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> Do you have an understanding of why a number of different gaseous molecules distributed in the earths(and other planets) atmospheres are described as 'greenhouse gases'?
> 
> There is empirical, scientific, proven, incontestable,(by people open to reason) demonstrable evidence to the effect that these gases have on the temperature of the bodies they envelope?
> 
> Your arguments may get traction with the vast bulk of those toward the back end of the intellectual and educational  bell curve, but not here... So give us all your debunk of Physics understood now for over one fifty years?
> 
> That's three questions, count them  1,  two, 3. All with veracity with regard your causation canard, they relate to a thing understood as 'the Earths heat budget'...  should keep you busy for the weekend. See you on Monday bring a bag of 'Smiths Crisps' to class.




So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?




A glass house ought to illustrate it well enough.

Failing to find a glass house, drop by any major intersection and enjoy the fresh air.



btw, didn't CFC [?] from spray cans and compressors put a couple holes in the Ozone layer after a few decades of common usage?

So human activity could damage the mighty earth 

Then when actions were taken to stop pumping that gas into the atmostphere, the Ozone is slowly recovering. Tum tum tum


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> A glass house ought to illustrate it well enough.
> 
> Failing to find a glass house, drop by any major intersection and enjoy the fresh air.
> 
> ...




There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!




What if the entire planet is slowing becoming like a glass house? 

What if, say, the melting ice not only raises the sea level, but also releases long-trapped CO2, also reduce the white ice sheet that reflects some of the Sun's heat... further accelerating what might, in small doses, could be absorbed by the earth and buried deep beneath it all these millennia.

Riddle me that


----------



## basilio

cynic said:


> So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?




Venus.
http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> What if the entire planet is slowing becoming like a glass house?
> 
> What if, say, the melting ice not only raises the sea level, but also releases long-trapped CO2, also reduce the white ice sheet that reflects some of the Sun's heat... further accelerating what might, in small doses, could be absorbed by the earth and buried deep beneath it all these millennia.
> 
> Riddle me that




Let's leave the fantasizing to the hollywood scriptwriters and keep this debate grounded in reality.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=glass+house+picture&prmd=imsvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=5yyDA267kTaaoM%253A%252CoTLT2GE7tyWl9M%252C_%253BzzX4hBzImJyy5M%253A%252CQtaIxPE3wTv7HM%252C_%253BE1YfuqkO7hRK9M%253A%252C8ETDmOaHIa719M%252C_%253Bw-VDqodGC1UNXM%253A%252CV0eEWNBA2F3aAM%252C_%253BXwDwJ15lwYgxyM%253A%252CsPyheGq-95SNrM%252C_%253BRi1lYryYpQo73M%253A%252CilS2iOcuNA_u_M%252C_%253B2Lw99b0XemgjNM%253A%252CvyTjh3uXnUK7dM%252C_%253BsSjDmhQ_BuVhaM%253A%252CLCr0ZDTMcAmdiM%252C_%253BGM5Nlfpd74BBhM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BCAV0e-fkaDTyrM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BE_tJv2ZGxFT5VM%253A%252CW8Go8XtuIoOr3M%252C_%253B8IrSjeYwqCBtFM%253A%252CysW9FDInih_O6M%252C_%253BMOPF96aYdwMljM%253A%252CQLZe6ev1Blry8M%252C_&usg=___O7I-5lN6sHsLf-R9yc50CBldz4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi295HpnLLQAhXEG5QKHUATBsAQ7AkINw&biw=768&bih=1024#tbm=isch&q=green+house+picture&imgrc=XOxpeTJTUnpUvM%3A

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=glass+house+picture&prmd=imsvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=5yyDA267kTaaoM%253A%252CoTLT2GE7tyWl9M%252C_%253BzzX4hBzImJyy5M%253A%252CQtaIxPE3wTv7HM%252C_%253BE1YfuqkO7hRK9M%253A%252C8ETDmOaHIa719M%252C_%253Bw-VDqodGC1UNXM%253A%252CV0eEWNBA2F3aAM%252C_%253BXwDwJ15lwYgxyM%253A%252CsPyheGq-95SNrM%252C_%253BRi1lYryYpQo73M%253A%252CilS2iOcuNA_u_M%252C_%253B2Lw99b0XemgjNM%253A%252CvyTjh3uXnUK7dM%252C_%253BsSjDmhQ_BuVhaM%253A%252CLCr0ZDTMcAmdiM%252C_%253BGM5Nlfpd74BBhM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BCAV0e-fkaDTyrM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BE_tJv2ZGxFT5VM%253A%252CW8Go8XtuIoOr3M%252C_%253B8IrSjeYwqCBtFM%253A%252CysW9FDInih_O6M%252C_%253BMOPF96aYdwMljM%253A%252CQLZe6ev1Blry8M%252C_&usg=___O7I-5lN6sHsLf-R9yc50CBldz4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi295HpnLLQAhXEG5QKHUATBsAQ7AkINw&biw=768&bih=1024#tbm=isch&q=earth+picture&imgrc=YgY4l5SdNTT6OM%3A


Note the difference!


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Venus.
> http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/



Therein lies the problem. Venus is ssooo much closer to the sun it cannot be used to make a valid comparison! 

It is interesting how that article totally neglects to mention the most pertinent factor contributing to the elevated temperature of that planet. Namely its proximity to the sun!

Either the authors are totally misinformed about some very basic scientific facts or they are being intentionally dishonest!!

At this point I could readily believe either scenario. Either way, the article can only serve to misinform the scientifically unwary.


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> Therein lies the problem. Venus is ssooo much closer to the sun it cannot be used to make a valid comparison!



Mars and Titan aren't though...


----------



## basilio

Just a peek at what Donald Trump has in store for the EPA and the rest of us. Make sure you read this story to end. It's bracing.


> Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
> John Abraham
> 
> Trump’s plans to roll back environmental protections seem worse than many feared
> 
> Thursday 17 November 2016 22.00 AEDT
> Last modified on Thursday 17 November 2016 23.27 AEDT
> 
> Shares
> 1195
> 
> Come on, you can admit it. I admit it. I admit that after Trump’s election victory, I secretly hoped and even though that his rhetoric was worse than its bite. He only said those crazy things during the campaign to get elected. He wouldn’t really follow through on his plans to completely gut the US commitment to keeping the Earth habitable. Oh how naive we were. Trump’s plan to fill positions in his administration shows things are worse than we could have ever feared.
> 
> According to recent reports, Trump has picked long-time climate denier and spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry Myron Ebell to head the Environmental Protection Agency transition. This basically means the EPA will either cease to function or cease to exist. It also appears that the US will pull out of any agreements to limit greenhouse emissions.
> 
> It means we have missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change. That may sound hyperbolic, but I study the rate that climate change is happening – the amount of heat accumulating in the Earth’s system. We didn’t have any time to waste in implementing Obama’s aggressive plans, and Trump will result in a decade of time lost.
> 
> So who is Myron Ebell? He is a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition. Where did he get his PhD in science? Nowhere. In fact, he isn’t a scientist at all, but he does have a degree in economics. Yeah!
> 
> Is there any conflict that Ebell’s Competitive Enterprise Institute is funded by companies such as ExxonMobil and groups such as the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation? Surely not.
> 
> Myron Ebell is not new to obstructing action on climate change. Years ago, it was reported that he favored editing Bush-era scientists’ reports on climate change.



https://www.theguardian.com/environ...egins-filling-environmental-posts-with-clowns


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> Mars and Titan aren't though...




True. 

Correct me if mistaken, but Titan is a moon, is it not?


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> Correct me if mistaken, but Titan is a moon, is it not?



Does it matter?


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> Does it matter?




Orbitting a star or orbitting a planet that orbits a star.

The overall proximity to the star would be similar, so perhaps not.

Still, there are some notable differences between Earth and those planetary bodies.

Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?



They definitely add to the evidence.  But,  as always,  science is an evolving process,  there is still further to go,  and we learn more with each "mission" to those areas.   I'm really not sure the whole hypothesis relies on the Mars/Titan observations though, the observations of those areas just adds to it.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!





Is there? You say that, but are there proofs that a fish bowl experiment in a fish bowl is invalid?

Did looking at earth from out of space change the coastlines, change the weather, etc? Did the prediction modelling of the successful mission to the moon rely on some other planet's space program?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?




According to cynic we have to ignore the small scale experiments, ignore the proven knowledge established many decades ago and ignore physics which explains how CO2 scatters infra red radiation, ignore the laser experiment showing the effect working in the atmosphere, ignore the actual warming occurring and ignore the fact that no alternative explanation has been found.
We just need to treat it as a big experiment. 

I worry how science is being taught.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> According to cynic we have to ignore the small scale experiments, ignore the proven knowledge established many decades ago and ignore physics which explains how CO2 scatters infra red radiation, ignore the laser experiment showing the effect working in the atmosphere, ignore the actual warming occurring and ignore the fact that no alternative explanation has been found.
> We just need to treat it as a big experiment.
> 
> I worry how science is being taught.




You're worried? 

I'm outright alarmed, for all the reasons I've previously stated.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> According to cynic we have to ignore the small scale experiments, ignore the proven knowledge established many decades ago and ignore physics which explains how CO2 scatters infra red radiation, ignore the laser experiment showing the effect working in the atmosphere, ignore the actual warming occurring and ignore the fact that no alternative explanation has been found.
> We just need to treat it as a big experiment.
> 
> I worry how science is being taught.




Your efforts to misunderstand my stance are most definitely unwelcome and inappropriate!

I am most certainly not saying to ignore anything that has been conclusively proven! I am, however, saying that precious little has been conclusively proven!

The models have, by their repeated failings, proven that the climate is not adequately understood by the "relevant scientists" and, as such, at this juncture, it would seem premature to take any action beyond further investigation (and perhaps also the sacking of the existing body of "relevant scientists" for their blatant incompetence and departure from the practice of actual science).

Before telling us that we're all doomed and that remedial action is urgently required, some of the more rational members of the populace, want to see that some rigorous scientific investigation has served as the basis for such conclusions. More objective science, and less of this apocalyptic religious zealousy, is what is required at this time.

When viewed in isolation to other factors, the effects of elevated concentrations of particular gases in a planetary atmosphere might indicate the possibility of a warming effect. But if there truly exists an adequate understanding of all factors concerned, then why do the projections of the models keep getting it so wrong?


----------



## Wysiwyg

The Fijian Prime Minister was pleading with country leaders to come see the effects of global warming on the island. Probably looks a bit destroyed after cyclone Winston in March. A big fat liar. Oh the global warming muppets have taken over the minds of ordinary people.


----------



## noco

Donald Trump has got it right......Global Warming is one gigantic UN scam and people are finally waking up to it all.

The UN just cannot keep lying about these things......sooner or later it will all come tumbling down.


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> The models have, by their repeated failings, proven that the climate is not adequately understood by the "relevant scientists" and, as such, at this juncture, it would seem premature to take any action beyond further investigation (and perhaps also the sacking of the existing body of "relevant scientists" for their blatant incompetence and departure from the practice of actual science).



This statement is both an example of the Continuum fallacy and the Nirvana fallacy.

This has been explained in this thread ad nauseam and since you continue to keep making the exact same statement I will let you educate yourself on these fallacies if you are interested.

Cheers


----------



## explod

Ves said:


> This statement is both an example of the Continuum fallacy and the Nirvana fallacy.
> 
> This has been explained in this thread ad nauseam and since you continue to keep making the exact same statement I will let you educate yourself on these fallacies if you are interested.
> 
> Cheers




Agree.

And because of the doubt and the obvious and visible turmoil we cannot wait,  this is gambling with the future of our children and grandchildren.

We have the alternatives and if supported by Governments will also create many jobs and new industries.  We must stop burning coal and oil.


----------



## explod

> The Caribbean is probably not the first place you’d think of when it comes to water scarcity, but a lack of rain plus poor infrastructure management””plus a severe economic crisis””has crippled the island’s freshwater reserves. It’s so bad that citizens are now subject to water rationing, which started in May: Some residents have their water cut off every three days for 48 hours at a time. Hefty fines are imposed upon water wasters and the National Guard has distributed purification systems to help those in rural areas. Today it was announced that rationing will be extended, with about 350,000 residents being hit with water restrictions. Water is also being shipped in to the island.






> 54 percent of India is experiencing high or extremely high water stress, according to the WRI’s India Water Tool
> 
> The searing, deadly temperatures cities like Mumbai saw earlier this spring are only making matters worse for the country, which is facing one of the biggest groundwater crises on the planet. A recent study with data collected by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites revealed that Northern India is home to the most quickly depleting aquifers on Earth. According to the World Resources Institute, it’s large-scale irrigation practices which are to blame, with farmers extracting so much water for agricultural purposes that the aquifers could collapse, ruining the supply of potable water forever. With so much of the population already without access to clean water due to widespread pollution, the loss of groundwater sources could be catastrophic.






> Sao Poalo:
> 
> Municipal water shut-offs have also been a reality for the residents of this Brazilian city, which is one of the densest and most populous cities in the world. The worst drought in 80 years has been exacerbated by deforestation in the Amazon basin but that’s only one part of the problem here: The water system is polluted and has horrendously leaky pipes (and, of course, many are blaming the city’s failures on the exorbitant costs of last year’s World Cup). The region’s water system was nearly depleted earlier this spring and officials had to turn to emergency reserves, warning residents they might “need to flee.” Now the city’s electrical grid could also be compromised as much of the city’s power relies on hydroelectric dams which don’t have high enough flow to power them.






> North Korea is coping with a 100-year drought that has decimated one main source of food production: It’s reporting that one-third of its rice paddies have dried up. Malnourishment is already widespread in the country and people have died due to government-controlled food rationing; it’s estimated that 2 to 3 million people in North Korea were killed in the last famine. Although some are claiming that North Korea exaggerates these claims to get humanitarian aid””its ally Iran has already offered to help””NASA captured these Landsat 7 images of North Korea from June 29, 2002 (left) and June 26, 2015. Red is vegetation, and as you can see, there’s a whole lot less of it now. Things in North Korea are bad enough. Now this?




Just love that "100 year event" expression as the extremes are in fact recurring all the time.  A number of recent 100 year floods have hit some places twice in the last 12 months.  The problem is that combined with the dry good soil is being washed away also at an alarming rate.

From GIZMODO


----------



## explod

> Floods apocalypse around the world in June 2016: USA, Mexico, Russia, China, France, Germany, Belgium, Ukraine, Romania
> By Strange Sounds - Jun 3, 2016
> 6K8121511
> 6K
> Shares
> 
> The current floods apocalypse isn’t only centered around Europe but is also hitting countries worldwide.
> 
> UN – 1995 to 2015, Flood Disasters Affected 2.3 Billion and Killed 157,000
> 
> 11 JANUARY, 2016 1 COMMENT
> A recent report by the UN, “The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”, reveals that in the last 20 years, 157,000 people have died as a result of floods. The…
> 
> Read Full Article




And the massive number of sudden 100 year floods are becoming too much to properly document.


----------



## trainspotter

Gonna buy this for 11 million USD and take my chances with the ocean rising. No wait ... this house was built in 1900 on Tavern Island, Connecticut and there is NO SIGN of oceans rising as you can plainly see.


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> Gonna buy this for 11 million USD and take my chances with the ocean rising. No wait ... this house was built in 1900 on Tavern Island, Connecticut and there is NO SIGN of oceans rising as you can plainly see.
> 
> View attachment 68845




Gee that beach has receeded, looks like low tide too. 

Be looking for a quick sale before the pool goes in too i'd say.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Gonna buy this for 11 million USD and take my chances with the ocean rising. No wait ... this house was built in 1900 on Tavern Island, Connecticut and there is NO SIGN of oceans rising as you can plainly see.
> 
> View attachment 68845




Where's the heliport ?


----------



## Wysiwyg

explod said:


> We must stop burning coal and oil.



Will you lead the way? That is strip down to a modest leaf covering and live in the bush free of ALL materials and energies created with oil and coal. I doubt that very much.


----------



## Wysiwyg

trainspotter said:


> Gonna buy this for 11 million USD and take my chances with the ocean rising. No wait ... this house was built in 1900 on Tavern Island, Connecticut and there is NO SIGN of oceans rising as you can plainly see.



Be interesting to see an image of the island in 1700's when first landed on by whities. No camera back then  but if a global warming disciple then it would be because of the industrial revolution as are all present day natural events.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And the massive number of sudden 100 year floods are becoming too much to properly document.




Ah yes...The good old UN Climate Change committee and their fake claims.

Plod, better book your flight to Mars...The end of the World is near.



:bs::crap:


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Ah yes...The good old UN Climate Change committee and their fake claims.
> 
> Plod, better book your flight to Mars...The end of the World is near.
> 
> 
> 
> :bs::crap:




How are occurring events before our very eyes fake noco.

Increasingly occurring I might add, in fact the UN is about four years behind where we're going now. Polar bears walking on dry land now.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> How are occurring events before our very eyes fake noco.
> 
> Increasingly occurring I might add, in fact the UN is about four years behind where we're going now. Polar bears walking on dry land now.




Plod, it has all happened before....You just won't accept it......You just keep plodding along with your Green bible and people are now well awake to it all..

Watch the next Queensland state election where the Green vote will be way behind One Nation...

The Greens had better change their ways and start listening to the people or it will be their demise.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Plod, it has all happened before....You just won't accept it......You just keep plodding along with your Green bible and people are now well awake to it all..
> 
> Watch the next Queensland state election where the Green vote will be way behind One Nation...
> 
> The Greens had better change their ways and start listening to the people or it will be their demise.




It has not happened at this rate before noco (apart from the volcano and meteorite hits).

And your ole Greenland was an isolated area due to weather flows being blocked further to its north.

I have posted some real and current events today, how about some real and current events to back your stance.

And dont' you worry about the Greens, recent Council elections see us plodding upwards very well.  I think the Country Party is doomed though and the old rant of "jobs and growth" with no plans of substance behind it are seeing the Libs fall too.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> It has not happened at this rate before noco (apart from the volcano and meteorite hits).
> 
> And your ole Greenland was an isolated area due to weather flows being blocked further to its north.
> 
> I have posted some real and current events today, how about some real and current events to back your stance.
> 
> And dont' you worry about the Greens, recent Council elections see us plodding upwards very well.  I think the Country Party is doomed though and the old rant of "jobs and growth" with no plans of substance behind it are seeing the Libs fall too.




Your current events, as usual, are fake...Just ask Donald Trump....He is on the ground and up to speed with the UN and their scam.

Many predictions, 10 to 15 years ago by Tim Flannery and other alarmist are now proving to be false....Flannery said there would never be enough rains to fill the dams around Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane......He also said there would be permanent drought in the West......The West, central Australia and western Queensland have had their best rains in years thanks to to the Dipole  system from the Indian ocean. 

Jobs and growth?????.....The Greens are trying stop and disrupt progress, new mines, new dams and job growth where ever and when ever they can.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Your current events, as usual, are fake...Just ask Donald Trump....He is on the ground and up to speed with the UN and their scam.




I really think you have lost it mate. A guy who told so many lies to get elected he's starting to believe his own lies.

As far as credibility goes, he's got zero, so please quit quoting his b.s.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Your current events, as usual, are fake...Just ask Donald Trump....He is on the ground and up to speed with the UN and their scam.
> 
> Many predictions, 10 to 15 years ago by Tim Flannery and other alarmist are now proving to be false....Flannery said there would never be enough rains to fill the dams around Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane......He also said there would be permanent drought in the West......The West, central Australia and western Queensland have had their best rains in years thanks to to the Dipole  system from the Indian ocean.
> 
> Jobs and growth?????.....The Greens are trying stop and disrupt progress, new mines, new dams and job growth where ever and when ever they can.




Tim Flannery and most others did not anticipate the effect that warmer polar regions would have on air and moisture movement.

The whole system is very complex and difficult even for the best of science. Which is why it is fair game for distortion by deniers.

I work on the basis that things are not looking good and that we cannot take the risk in case the worse case scenarios may be correct.  

The amount of work that could be generated by high intensity farming on small lots with families help to fully sustain themselves would create huge opportunities.

As I have said before, 400 families could be housed and feed themselves on our old 600 acre family farm.  But it would not be profitable for the right wing fascists or for coal or oil.  But could be a good start in protecting our planet from what appears to be looming.


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> This statement is both an example of the Continuum fallacy and the Nirvana fallacy.
> 
> This has been explained in this thread ad nauseam and since you continue to keep making the exact same statement I will let you educate yourself on these fallacies if you are interested.
> 
> Cheers




Thanks for that Ves. I had a quick look at some examples of those fallacies. Perhaps some will believe me to have a blind spot here, but I am not really seeing the presence of those fallacies without at least a little bit of stretching. 

I do however, acknowledge that I am viewing this debate with a significant level of prejudice against the apocalyptic arguments being so eagerly presented. This prejudice has been formed over some years now, and is largely attributable to my resentment towards those whom so hastily claim virtually any meteorological event as evidential proof of their apocalyptic philosophy. Whilst that doesn't necessarily mean that their is no problem, it does mean that I consider many apocalyptic claims suspect on account of the behaviour of those making such claims. 

They are going to need to do a lot better, in the future, to regain the trust of myself (and others like myself) if they are to have any chance of regaining the trust and confidence that has been all but obliterated by such zealous behaviour.

The downside of all this, is that if any sound claims are presented , such gems might not be easily recognisable amidst all the faeces that is now permeating the media and academic fields.

Some may call myself (and others like myself) "deniers", but such unenlightened people only have themselves (and their departure from rationality into hysteria) to blame for the scepticism and contempt that they are encountering.


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> Thanks for that Ves. I had a quick look at some examples of those fallacies. Perhaps some will believe me to have a blind spot here, but I am not really seeing the presence of those fallacies without at least a little bit of stretching.
> 
> I do however, acknowledge that I am viewing this debate with a significant level of prejudice against the apocalyptic arguments being so eagerly presented. This prejudice has been formed over some years now, and is largely attributable to my resentment towards those whom so hastily claim virtually any meteorological event as evidential proof of their apocalyptic philosophy. Whilst that doesn't necessarily mean that their is no problem, it does mean that I consider many apocalyptic claims suspect on account of the behaviour of those making such claims.
> 
> They are going to need to do a lot better, in the future, to regain the trust of myself (and others like myself) if they are to have any chance of regaining the trust and confidence that has been all but obliterated by such zealous behaviour.
> 
> The downside of all this, is that if any sound claims are presented , such gems might not be easily recognisable amidst all the faeces that is now permeating the media and academic fields.
> 
> Some may call myself (and others like myself) "deniers", but such unenlightened people only have themselves (and their departure from rationality into hysteria) to blame for the scepticism and contempt that they are encountering.




Cynic...so very true.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I really think you have lost it mate. A guy who told so many lies to get elected he's starting to believe his own lies.
> 
> As far as credibility goes, he's got zero, so please quit quoting his b.s.




And your socialist champion Hillary is Lilllie white....If she does not finish up in jail over her fraudulent Clinton foundation, I will be very surprised.....It was only while she had control of the FBI that she has been protected. 

Rumpy, play the ball and not the man..........Your character assassination is in full swing again.

Get over it..Trump won...Clinton lost....He knows the UN Climate Change is a scam along with the majority of Americans.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Your current events, as usual, are fake...Just ask Donald Trump....He is on the ground and up to speed with the UN and their scam.
> 
> Many predictions, 10 to 15 years ago by Tim Flannery and other alarmist are now proving to be false....Flannery said there would never be enough rains to fill the dams around Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane......He also said there would be permanent drought in the West......The West, central Australia and western Queensland have had their best rains in years thanks to to the Dipole  system from the Indian ocean.
> 
> Jobs and growth?????.....The Greens are trying stop and disrupt progress, new mines, new dams and job growth where ever and when ever they can.




Tim Flannery and most others did not anticipate the effect that warmer polar regions would have on air and moisture movement.

The whole system is very complex and difficult even for the best of science. Which is why it is fair game for distortion by deniers.

I work on the basis that things are not looking good and that we cannot take the risk in case the worse case scenarios may be correct.  

The amount of work that could be generated by high intensity farming on small lots with families help to fully sustain themselves would create huge opportunities.

As I have said before, 400 families could be housed and feed themselves on our old 600 acre family farm.  But it would not be profitable for the right wing fascists or for coal or oil.  But could be a good start in protecting our planet from what appears to be looming.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Tim Flannery and most others did not anticipate the effect that warmer polar regions would have on air and moisture movement.
> 
> .




In that case, Flannery should never have opened his mouth because he cost the Labor states of Victoria, NSW and Queensland billions of dollars in Desalinization plants which are now in moth balls and costing millions every day....Flannery did not have a clue.

The North Pole may have become warmer due to the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun......The South Pole is actually cooler......So you have got it wrong as far as the South Pole goes....There was no warmer air from that region....I think you getting all baffled with your own science.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Gee that beach has receeded, looks like low tide too.
> 
> Be looking for a quick sale before the pool goes in too i'd say.




Good call.

I was going to give the agent a ring.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> Where's the heliport ?




It's probably under the pool. See, when they need to, the pool will slide sideways and up came the batcopter.


Dam, the rich know how to live don't they. It's nice to have money where you somehow need a pool right next to your own private beach.


----------



## cynic

Well as I have already stated, I am less than impartial in my approach to this topic.

As such, I found the following article somewhat endearing:

http://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

Whether or not it is factually correct, is something I haven't yet delved into. So I thought I would save myself some time and effort by posting it here.

Perhaps those siding more with the climate alarmism side of this debate, may be able to offer some helpful insights into the accuracy (or lack thereof) and consequent implications.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Orbitting a star or orbitting a planet that orbits a star.
> 
> The overall proximity to the star would be similar, so perhaps not.
> 
> Still, there are some notable differences between Earth and those planetary bodies.
> 
> Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?




I'm actually quite impressed at you somehow managed to mental gymnast your way out of Ves and others' scientific evidence there. 

It's a fail but still, good effort.


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> Thanks for that Ves. I had a quick look at some examples of those fallacies. Perhaps some will believe me to have a blind spot here, but I am not really seeing the presence of those fallacies without at least a little bit of stretching.



It's not a stretch.  I'll give you a hint.  It's got to do with thoughts that have the theme "Science was wrong before so...." and the creation of a false dichotomy of right/wrong. The denialist/alarmist dichotomy is another example.  The second part is the implication that nothing should ever be done until a perfect solution can be found (another false dichotomy).


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> It's not a stretch.  I'll give you a hint.  It's got to do with thoughts that have the theme "Science was wrong before so...." and the creation of a false dichotomy of right/wrong. The denialist/alarmist dichotomy is another example.  The second part is the implication that nothing should ever be done until a perfect solution can be found (another false dichotomy).




Ves. My sincere thanks for taking the time and patience in clarifying your point. You might find yourself in partial (or perhaps even full) disagreement with the rest of what I have to say here (then again perhaps not!). Whether my views perpetuate the creation of further dichotomies (false or true) will likely distract from the seemingly real question of what (if anything) is going on in the universe (whether that universe be a manifestation of reality, duality or something else entirely!).

I am most definitely demanding a far greater degree of scientific certainty from those campaigning for action, whilst at the same time being prejudicially lenient with those leaning towards the other side of the debate. (Anyway I have already stated my reasons for choosing this approach). However,  I am still just a tad reluctant to accept the mantle of demanding a "perfect solution" as I do not see that as an at all realistic expectation. 

On the subject of the continuum fallacy, I believe I can see what you are saying, however I believe I can recognise both downsides and upsides (in roughly equal measure) to the application of this "fallacy"!

I am reasonably certain some  examples of what I am talking about will likely have occurred to you upon reading the above. (Unless of course, we're stepping down the path of that philosophy that ascribes all duality to illusion and falsehood!)

Whilst experiencing myself as a material physical being, I am of the opinion that all claims to infallibility and/or omniscience warrant the utmost scepticism until such time that such scepticism can be proven to be no longer warranted! Perhaps others will choose to disagree, but I am simply not enamoured by the thought of the likely outcomes of surrendering free will to the self acclaimed "demigods" of our time!

So if this "continuum fallacy" is something that one perceives as worrisome, then one had better place me on ignore, or start getting used to seeing more of it, because I am damned if I am abandoning it!


----------



## Tisme

Those mercury thermometers that were used in, say, the 1910 Terra Nova Expeditions; I wonder how they stack up with repeatability of accuracy when moved from London to the south pole with a colder glass (more constricted) column and larger polar magnetic differential?

Mercury becomes a super conductor below 4degK and a perfect diamagnet. They didn't discover that until 1911. Being the poles are the strongest magnetic fields, I'm wondering if accurate corrections have been made on past data to compensate for the 50% decline in magnetic strength over the last 4k years, with 15% of that in the last 150 years and accelerating.


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> These buffons have been wrong for decades now! Time to wake up!!




These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;







Time to 'wake-up' indeed.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;
> 
> View attachment 68849
> View attachment 68850
> 
> 
> 
> Time to 'wake-up' indeed.




Orr, where is your graft for 100 and 1000 years ago?..Can you provide one please?


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;
> 
> View attachment 68849
> View attachment 68850
> 
> 
> 
> Time to 'wake-up' indeed.




I am glad to find myself in agreement with you on something. But about these squiggly lines you've chosen to present, are they actually supposed to mean something?


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> I am glad to find myself in agreement with you on something. But about these squiggly lines you've chosen to present, are they actually supposed to mean something?




cynic, orr is trying press home his point that the dark red squiggly at the bottom (note how they have made it to stand against all the others, very clever) is the one caused by that nasty Global Warming....the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of it all hence the sea ice is melting at a faster rate not seen since 1000years ago.

The alarmist just will not accept that it has to do with the angle of the axis the Earth to the Sun......The Alarmist will not accept the fact that it occurred 1000years ago as  per details I have posted on previous occasions...Their Green bible tells them tells them it is the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that bush fires represent half of those emissions, and they believe it....Brian washed.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> cynic, orr is trying press home his point that the dark red squiggly at the bottom (note how they have made it to stand against all the others, very clever) is the one caused by that nasty Global Warming....the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of it all hence the sea ice is melting at a faster rate not seen since 1000years ago.
> 
> The alarmist just will not accept that it has to do with the angle of the axis the Earth to the Sun......The Alarmist will not accept the fact that it occurred 1000years ago as  per details I have posted on previous occasions...Their Green bible tells them tells them it is the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that bush fires represent half of those emissions, and they believe it....Brian washed.




Actually Noco if you follow the graph you will see that it represents the last 40 years of measurements of minimum and maximum sea ice expanses in the Arctic. The overall trend for the last 40 years shows a substantial reduction in sea  ice levels. The red line for 2016 is just an horrific off the chart indication of how the loss of sea ice is accelerating as a result of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warning Noco; the fact that in 2014-15-16 we have had three successive  leaps in  average global temperature that have shattered all records to date.  And of course the temperatures in the Arctic have been even higher than elsewhere in the world.

As for bush fires being half of emissions .

Total and utter BS Noco.  Of course if you want to include the clearing forests for agriculture in Indonesia and Brazil and elsewhere that has an effect.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Actually Noco if you follow the graph you will see that it represents the last 40 years of measurements of minimum and maximum sea ice expanses in the Arctic. The overall trend for the last 40 years shows a substantial reduction in sea  ice levels. The red line for 2016 is just an horrific off the chart indication of how the loss of sea ice is accelerating as a result of runaway global warming.
> 
> Runaway Global Warning Noco; the fact that in 2014-15-16 we have had three successive  leaps in  average global temperature that have shattered all records to date.  And of course the temperatures in the Arctic have been even higher than elsewhere in the world.
> 
> As for bush fires being half of emissions .
> 
> Total and utter BS Noco.  Of course if you want to include the clearing forests for agriculture in Indonesia and Brazil and elsewhere that has an effect.




The use of 40 year data is absolutely useless when you consider how long Earth has existed....The science of Climate Change has taken place over a much longer period of 40 years.

You still won't accept that this event happened 1000 years ago at which time I have pointed out on several occasions what took place in Greenland.......You still persist with your deranged data of recent times.

So how are you and the Greenies going to stop this ice melt?....


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The use of 40 year data is absolutely useless when you consider how long Earth has existed....The science of Climate Change has taken place over a much longer period of 40 years.
> 
> You still won't accept that this event happened 1000 years ago at which time I have pointed out on several occasions what took place in Greenland.......You still persist with your deranged data of recent times.
> 
> So how are you and the Greenies going to stop this ice melt?....




People dying increasingly of excessive heat in the last few years was not something of concern in the past and  back then no air conditioners either.

Towns being washed away in floods of little concern back then either.  If it had been they would not have built them in the current locations.  And they did not have dam controls back the either.

What happened 1000 years ago when checked out properly (and I posted that here before) was due to an interruption to a weather stream from the north, thus blocking the normal cold.  It was an incident isolated at that time to the Greenland area only.

And as far as the sun shining down and the earth's axis it has always been there and has no effect whatever on the changes now suddenly taking place.

In any case even if the above does not convince you the fact that its possible should on that possibility alone send a chill down our spines for the future of our children.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> People dying increasingly of excessive heat in the last few years was not something of concern in the past and  back then no air conditioners either.
> 
> Towns being washed away in floods of little concern back then either.  If it had been they would not have built them in the current locations.  And they did not have dam controls back the either.
> 
> What happened 1000 years ago when checked out properly (and I posted that here before) was due to an interruption to a weather stream from the north, thus blocking the normal cold.  It was an incident isolated at that time to the Greenland area only.
> 
> And as far as the sun shining down and the earth's axis it has always been there and has no effect whatever on the changes now suddenly taking place.
> 
> In any case even if the above does not convince you the fact that its possible should on that possibility alone send a chill down our spines for the future of our children.




So how are you going to stop the ice melt?

Your fabricated science makes no sense.

The emphasis was placed on Greenland being  affected at the time because very little would have been know about the Arctic ice which obviously would have been affected also.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> So how are you going to stop the ice melt?
> 
> Your fabricated science makes no sense.
> 
> The emphasis was placed on Greenland being  affected at the time because very little would have been know about the Arctic ice which obviously would have been affected also.




I am not a scientist, one cannot absorb the huge amount of science information. Like you I am an ordinary human being who has taken an interest in the land and the climate since a child.

I go by what I see and read in the everyday news and as an old tree hugger speak to farmers in this Bendigo region.

No one can stop the ice melt, particularly now that the methane from underneath is escaping.  One would hope that mankind can some how collectively develop a way to slow it down and one day stop it.  But procrastinating on who's right and wrong is not going to get us anywhere.

From memory, unfortunately I lent the book "The Sixth Extinction" it was a huge ice sheet that blocked the cold air flow from the polar region that in fact warmed/sheltered Greenland at that time.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> I am not a scientist, one cannot absorb the huge amount of science information. Like you I am an ordinary human being who has taken an interest in the land and the climate since a child.
> 
> I go by what I see and read in the everyday news and as an old tree huger speak to farmers in this Bendigo region.
> 
> No one can stop the ise melt, particularly now that the methane from underneath is escaping.  One would hope that mankind can some how collectively develop a way to slow it down and one day stop it.  But procrastinating on who's right and wrong is not going to get us anywhere.
> 
> From memory, unfortunately I lent the book "The Sixth Extinctiion" it was a huge ice sheet that blocked the cold air flow from the polar region that in fact warmed/sheltered Greenland at that time.




plod, it is a natural Phenomenon and will right it's self in time.......So take a Panadol, sit back and relax.

I may not live long enough to see the change but I am sure you will bare witness to it all in time.


----------



## explod

The picture is emerging, note the people in the middle east struggling to get a few drops of water on main stream TV news last night.



> NASA director debunks Malcolm Roberts' theory on climate data manipulation in polite letter
> Updated Thu at 8:42am
> 
> From left to right: Malcolm Roberts and Gavin Schmidt
> PHOTO: One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts (L) and NASA's Gavin Schmidt (R). (ABC/Twitter)
> RELATED STORY: Behind the scenes with Australia's newest One Nation senatorRELATED STORY: Q&A showdown: Brian Cox takes on Malcolm Roberts
> MAP: Australia
> In a politely worded letter, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has addressed One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts' concerns that the organisation's data on climate change has been manipulated.
> 
> In a rare occurrence, director Gavin Schmidt personally wrote a letter in response to Senator Roberts' request for information about the NASA GISTEMP analysis of global surface temperature history.
> 
> The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) is an estimate of global surface temperature change.
> 
> In the letter obtained by Fairfax Media and circulated widely on social media, the NASA scientist directed Senator Roberts to a number of links on the NASA website that published the entirety of NASA's raw data and the code they use to analyse that data.
> 
> "However, you appear to hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time," the letter went on.
> The first "misconception" noted by Mr Schmidt related to a graph that Senator Roberts had included in his request.
> 
> The graph, as Mr Schmidt pointed out, originated from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), a project run by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
> 
> "Perhaps you might not be aware, but NOAA is a different US Govt. agency than NASA, and questions relating to their activities or products might be more usefully addressed to them," Mr Schmidt said.


----------



## macca

BBC news item

<<Log books from the early Antarctic expeditions indicate that the area of summer sea-ice around the continent has barely changed in size in a century.>>

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38085147

All the pollution in the Northern hemisphere could be doing some damage though


----------



## basilio

*So what is happening to the natural world as a result of global warming to date ?*

Unless one is in complete and total denial of reality we accept the fact that the world is now an average of 1 degree C warmer than say 50 years ago. What are the consequences on the ecosystem we all depend on to survive ?



> * 'Nowhere on earth safe' from climate change as survival challenge grows*
> Peter Hannam
> 
> As if humans weren't making it hard enough for the world's creatures great and small.
> 
> Evidence continues to mount that global warming is having an impact on ecosystems across the planet in a myriad of ways, altering both individual species and ecological communities.
> 
> Thirty years of Arctic ice decay
> 
> Incredible animated video released by NASA shows the drastic change of the Arctic ice shelves over thirty years.
> 
> "There's really nowhere on earth where the natural systems are not being affected by climate change," Lesley Hughes, a professor of biology at Macquarie University, said.
> 
> "Climate change is simply an additional stress on already stressed ecosystems," Professor Hughes said, listing habitat loss, pollution and over-exploitation among the existing challenges.
> 
> *A recent paper in Science surveyed research on 94 core ecological processes and found 82 per cent were already revealing climate change impacts as temperatures warmed*.
> 
> James Watson, a conservation biologist at the University of Queensland and one of the paper's authors, said people often fixated on polar bears, penguins or another emblematic species.
> 
> *"They think, 'that's miles away from me; it's a pity but it doesn't affect me'," Professor Watson said. "It's everything that's affected."
> 
> Here are six key areas of change:
> *
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...survival-challenge-grows-20161123-gsvgcj.html


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *So what is happening to the natural world as a result of global warming to date ?*
> 
> Unless one is in complete and total denial of reality we accept the fact that the world is now an average of 1 degree C warmer than say 50 years ago. What are the consequences on the ecosystem we all depend on to survive ?




How much warmer was it 1000 years ago?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Actually Noco if you follow the graph you will see that it represents the last 40 years of measurements of minimum and maximum sea ice expanses in the Arctic. The overall trend for the last 40 years shows a substantial reduction in sea  ice levels. The red line for 2016 is just an horrific off the chart indication of how the loss of sea ice is accelerating as a result of runaway global warming.




The 2016 line on that chart ought to ring some serious alarm bells no matter what the subject or context. Data going back to 1978 shows that for November the range has been 20 - 23 but in 2016 it's 17. That's a very substantial change and would raise some alarm bells for anyone familiar with looking at data on any subject simply due to the magnitude and suddenness of the change.

First question would be is the data accurate? Has this been verified? Sudden changes certainly can be due to inaccurate measurement (in any context).

If the data is confirmed as accurate then it's a real concern certainly simply due to the speed and magnitude of the change unless there's a known explanation which is not likely to recur each year into the future.

On other matters relating to the environment:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/o...y/news-story/15c347b077a12c23cc5eeccb644da46f


----------



## explod

noco said:


> How much warmer was it 1000 years ago?




There were areas warmer 1000 years ago and up to 3c warmer 10,000 years ago.

But as once a fireball the earth is supposed to be cooling down but abruptly it is not and the sudden rate of increase is quite alarming.

Anyway, "some people you just caaaant reach"



> One Nation accuses NASA of manipulating climate science data, while literally choosing to view part of the Great Barrier Reef which is more than 1000km from where the most severe coral bleaching crisis on record has had its greatest impact.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> There were areas warmer 1000 years ago and up to 3c warmer 10,000 years ago.
> 
> But as once a fireball the earth is supposed to be cooling down but abruptly it is not and the sudden rate of increase is quite alarming.
> 
> Anyway, "some people you just caaaant reach"




Perhaps you could go back just 600 years ago.....Some interesting facts for all to read.

https://www.nersc.no/sites/www.nersc.no/files/The role of the Barents_ROG.pdf


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Perhaps you could go back just 600 years ago.....Some interesting facts for all to read.
> 
> https://www.nersc.no/sites/www.nersc.no/files/The role of the Barents_ROG.pdf




Typically another site one cannot reach.  How about posting the main bit of it up.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Typically another site one cannot reach.  How about posting the main bit of it up.




You should have been able to connect to the link...I had no trouble...I am not a subscriber.

Just go to google and type in " WHAT WAS THE TEMPERATURE IN ARCTIC AND GREENLAND 1000 YEARS AGO"


----------



## basilio

Excellent paper you noted Noco.  Makes it  totally clear just how global warming is affecting the climate in the Arctic and the surrounding areas.  Thanks.

And just to highlight what is happening now check out the following analysis. Essentially runaway climate change as a result of numerous feedback loops is the next step. The video is a great summary.



> * Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
> *
> Scientists warn increasingly rapid melting could trigger polar ‘tipping points’ with catastrophic consequences felt as far away as the Indian Ocean
> Current Time 0:00
> 
> Fiona Harvey
> 
> Friday 25 November 2016 05.01 GMT
> Last modified on Friday 25 November 2016 22.00 GMT
> 
> Arctic scientists have warned that the increasingly rapid melting of the ice cap risks triggering 19 “tipping points” in the region that could have catastrophic consequences around the globe.
> 
> The Arctic Resilience Report found that the effects of Arctic warming could be felt as far away as the Indian Ocean, in a stark warning that changes in the region could cause uncontrollable climate change at a global level.
> 
> Temperatures in the Arctic are currently about 20C above what would be expected for the time of year, which scientists describe as “off the charts”. Sea ice is at the lowest extent ever recorded for the time of year.
> 
> “The warning signals are getting louder,” said Marcus Carson of the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the lead authors of the report. “[These developments] also make the potential for triggering [tipping points] and feedback loops much larger.”




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...er-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Excellent paper you noted Noco.  Makes it  totally clear just how global warming is affecting the climate in the Arctic and the surrounding areas.  Thanks.
> 
> And just to highlight what is happening now check out the following analysis. Essentially runaway climate change as a result of numerous feedback loops is the next step. The video is a great summary.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...er-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level




Ah yes....the good old commo paper the Guardian.....A natural pro alarmist....

There are other links on google that may give you a different version.

I live 400 feet above sea level but I am still going to build a Noah's Ark just in case the Guardian is right.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Ah yes....the good old commo paper the Guardian.....A natural pro alarmist....
> 
> There are other links on google that may give you a different version.
> 
> I live 400 feet above sea level but I am still going to build a Noah's Ark just in case the Guardian is right.




Noco's Ark. No greens and reds allowed.

btw, what if the "climate alarmists" are right and no ark's around? Opps?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Ah yes....the good old commo paper the Guardian.....A natural pro alarmist....
> 
> There are other links on google that may give you a different version.
> 
> I live 400 feet above sea level but I am still going to build a Noah's Ark just in case the Guardian is right.




Your delusional Noco.  There are other links that offer a different version of reality. They also are either delusional or lie through their teeth.

The Guardian simply reports what the scientists are saying and the evidence is demonstrating. 

I remember around 2006 many Climate Change scientists voiced their concern about the feedback loops involved with the melting of the Arctic ice caps. They pointed out that as ice was replaced by Tundra, sea ice replaced by open water and the frozen Arctic thawed out the feedback loops would be devastating.

It was simple science Noco. Nothing more extraordinary than recognising that a forest fire starts small and then builds momentum as it gets bigger and bigger until it becomes unstoppable - or just burns everything in it's path

And that's where we now are with the melting of the Arctic ice cap.

https://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/arctic_climate.pdf



> *Arctic Sea Ice: What, Why, and What Next*
> 
> By Ramez Naam on September 21, 2012
> 
> On September 19th, NSIDC, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, announced that Arctic sea ice has shrunk as far as it will shrink this summer, and that the ice is beginning to reform, expanding the floating ice cap that covers the North Pole and the seas around it. The Arctic Sea Ice extent this September was far smaller than the previous record set in 2007. At 3.4 million square kilometers of ice coverage, this year’s Arctic minimum was 800,000 square kilometers smaller than the 2007 record. That difference between the previous record and this year’s is larger than the entire state of Texas. An ice-free summer in the Arctic, once projected to be more than a century away, now looks possible decades from now. Some say that it looks likely in just the next few years.
> 
> What’s happening in the Arctic? Why is it happening? And does it matter for the bulk of us who live thousands of miles away from it?



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/





Figure 12 - Arctic sea ice has receded dramatically faster than the mean of IPCC models projected, reaching levels not expected until 2065. Positive feedback loops such as those that have accelerated sea ice loss might accelerate the loss of permafrost and the release of additional CO2 and methane from the Arctic.

__________________________________________

By the way that Scientific American story *was written in 2012.* This years is way off their charts.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Ah yes....the good old commo paper the Guardian.....A natural pro alarmist....
> 
> There are other links on google that may give you a different version.
> 
> I live 400 feet above sea level but I am still going to build a Noah's Ark just in case the Guardian is right.




So we can only follow your right wing fascist news hey. 

The Guardian prints facts with proper notation.  Maybe Zero Hedge is a bit out of it but it does help balance the overall scales.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Noco's Ark. No greens and reds allowed.
> 
> btw, what if the "climate alarmists" are right and no ark's around? Opps?




Luu, I am so old in the tooth, I don't think I need to worry and don't reckon Prince George will either.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> So we can only follow your right wing fascist news hey.
> 
> The Guardian prints facts with proper notation.  Maybe Zero Hedge is a bit out of it but it does help balance the overall scales.




I a line the Guardian with the ABC.....Both are very biased towards the Greens and the left.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including you and I and we should both respect that.without getting personal.


----------



## basilio

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion including you and I and we should both respect that.without getting personal.  Noco




_Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion.. but not to their own facts_. Daniel Moynihan 

On the other hand perhaps we could put it another way.

"Your not entitled to your opinion.You are entitled to your *informed* opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant."


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luu, I am so old in the tooth, I don't think I need to worry and don't reckon Prince George will either.




I've seen the movie 2012 and you're right that Prince George and his pet dogs wouldn't have much to worry about, ever.

Though people of your advanced age in countries without much socialist medical care or public housing would have a tough time when the temperature goes a few celcius either way. This is happening right now, not in some dystopian future the nerds and greens are trying to scare us about.


----------



## noco

I have just been chatting to my son in Antarctica in the last hour and there are two groups of scientists at Casey Station....All up there are 75 personal manning the station.

One group is studying the sea ice, while the other is studying the Glaciers.

I don't have a link and probably should not post this without a link so you will have to take my word for it, but they are saying the burning of fossils fuels do have a minor influence but the Sun also plays a major part....Non of them can really say what it will be like in 50 or 100 years from now but they are saying there could be some sea level rises, but once again to what extent no one really knows.

There has been comment down there that Al Gore has exaggerated Global Warming 10 fold just to make money on emissions trading schemes.  

I trust the moderators will accept my post without a link.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I have just been chatting to my son in Antarctica in the last hour and there are two groups of scientists at Casey Station....All up there are 75 personal manning the station.
> 
> One group is studying the sea ice, while the other is studying the Glaciers.
> 
> I don't have a link and probably should not post this without a link so you will have to take my word for it, but they are saying the burning of fossils fuels do have a minor influence but the Sun also plays a major part....Non of them can really say what it will be like in 50 or 100 years from now but they are saying there could be some sea level rises, but once again to what extent no one really knows.
> 
> There has been comment down there that Al Gore has exaggerated Global Warming 10 fold just to make money on emissions trading schemes.
> 
> I trust the moderators will accept my post without a link.





How come you're suspicious of the left and greens but not at all suspicious of the Right and the "climate realist"?

Fair enough to be sceptical of the hippies do gooders, but come on noco. If Al Gore can benefit from the carbon trading scheme so exaggerate CC and fossil's role in it... who else would benefit from denying fossil have no role in what CC?


I think the Sun is the problem all along. IF there's no Sun, we can have all the CO2 and methan and whatever gas that traps heat.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> The Guardian prints facts with proper notation.




Thanks Plod, got a good chuckle from that one


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Thanks Plod, got a good chuckle from that one




And so did I....Both the ABC and the Guardian have even confessed to exaggerating and making false claims.


----------



## Logique

Page 444 of this thread! 

I don't know which is flat-lining the most in the public opinion. The extreme claims of _some_ of the AGW zealots, or Malcolm Turnbull's PM'ship.

Nobody wanted to talk AGW during the latest Fed election campaign.


----------



## explod

Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.



> Great Barrier Reef scientists confirm largest die-off of corals recorded
> Higher sea temperatures have led to the worst bleaching event on record, new study finds, with coral predicted to take up to 15 years to recover
> Play VideoPlay
> Current Time 0:00
> /
> Duration Time 3:00
> Loaded: 0%
> Progress: 0%
> FullscreenMute
> Terry Hughes: coral bleaching ‘has changed the Great Barrier Reef forever’
> Guardian staff and agencies
> Tuesday 29 November 2016 06.49 AEDT
> View more sharing options
> Shares
> 314
> Comments
> 101
> A new study has found that higher water temperatures have ravaged the Great Barrier Reef, causing the worst coral bleaching recorded by scientists.
> 
> In the worst-affected area, 67% of a 700km swath in the north of the reef lost its shallow-water corals over the past eight to nine months, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies based at James Cook University study found.
> 
> “Most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in the northern, most-pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef,” Prof Terry Hughes said. “This region escaped with minor damage in two earlier bleaching events in 1998 and 2002, but this time around it has been badly affected.”
> 
> Play VideoPlay
> Current Time 0:00
> /
> Duration Time 1:51
> Loaded: 0%
> Progress: 0%
> FullscreenMute
> Facebook Twitter Pinterest
> Great Barrier Reef: diving in the stench of millions of rotting animals
> The southern two-thirds of the reef escaped with minor damage, Hughes said. This part was protected from the rising sea temperatures because of cooler water from the Coral Sea.
> 
> Scientists expect that the northern region will take at least 10 to 15 years to regain the lost corals but are concerned a fourth bleaching event could interrupt the slow recovery.
> 
> The dire assessment of the reef’s health comes as the Australian government is due to report to Unesco’s world heritage committee on its handling of the reef.
> 
> After the federal government submits the report Unesco will decide whether to again consider listing the Great Barrier Reef on its “list of world heritage in danger”.
> 
> The government will need to report on how it has funded and implemented its Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan, as well as how the bleaching event has affected the reef.
> 
> Since it last considered including the Great Barrier Reef on its list, the reef has undergone the worst bleaching event in recorded history. According to government agencies, 22% of the reef was killed in one hit, as unusually warm waters bleached and killed the coral.
> 
> Climate change is intergenerational theft. That's why my son is part of this story
> Naomi Klein
> Read more
> Climate change poses such a threat to the reef that the former head of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has called for a ban on all new coalmines in Australia to protect the reef from climate change.
> 
> Graeme Kelleher, who was the first chief executive of the authority, a position he held for 16 years, said: “Australia cannot have a healthy Great Barrier Reef and a continuing coal industry.
> 
> “I love the reef and I have worked to preserve it since 1979; I will oppose anything that threatens to destroy it,” he said.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.




Well, it did not take long to find out about Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein is a member of the Fabian Society...She is a socialist left from Canada...She is anti capitalism....anti coal mines ...anti development and her criticism of the Great Barrier Reef is highly exaggerated.

The Great Barrier Reef is in great shape and has gone through severe stress over the past 500,00 years.....Most of any coral bleaching recovers within 12 months. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.




*Graeme Kelleher, who was the first chief executive of the authority, a position he held for 16 years, said: “Australia cannot have a healthy Great Barrier Reef and a continuing coal industry.

“I love the reef and I have worked to preserve it since 1979; I will oppose anything that threatens to destroy it,” he said. 
*

Graeme Kelleher was a civil engineer and past CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority who has expressed his personal view on the Barrier Reef and is not necessarily the view of the Marine Authority.

Graeme Kelleher is a member of the Greens Party and is obviously anti coal mines.

That whole article posted by Explod is a typical fabrication of the truth particularly when one see the involvement of the Guardian and the ABC.

I for one cannot place a lot of credence in that article given the past history of lies and fabrications admitted to by the Guardian and the ABC.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I for one cannot place a lot of credence in that article given the past history of lies and fabrications admitted to by the Guardian and the ABC.




Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.

Filthy Commies.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.
> 
> Filthy Commies.




And don't forget that evil David Attenborough.


----------



## noco

*Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville has studied the Great Barrier Reef for 30 + years.......I have met Peter on two occasions as President of the AWWA  and found both he and the late Professor Bob Carter to be of good character who were both very open minded about the Reef.

Peter was outspoken and critical of some of the lies and propaganda being spruiked about the reef and silenced with the threat of the sack by the JCU......HOW DARE THEY.?

I ask all viewers to read the link from beginning to end.

NB. Much of the reef that has recently been affected is north of Cooktown where there is no coal mines or agricultural run off from sugar cane farms.

Naomi Klein visited the reef, did a video of the bad areas but did not video the good areas.....There was no indication of which part of the 2,500 km long reef she visited. 

More lies and propaganda to make out the reef is totally destroyed......These people could not lie straight in bed.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...y/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d


When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts. 

After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.

“These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the internet and used very widely to claim damage,” Professor Ridd told The Weekend Australian.

The photographs were taken near Stone Island off Bowen. A photograph taken in the late 19th century shows healthy coral. An accompanying picture supposedly of the same reef in 1994 is *devoid of coral. When the before-and-after shots were used by GBRMPA in its 2014 report, the authority said: “Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs.”

Professor Ridd said it was only possible to guess within a kilometre or two where the original photograph was taken and it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away, as his researchers had done. Nor was it possible to say what had killed the coral in the 1994 picture.

“In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” he said. “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”

A GBRMPA spokesman said last night “the historical photos serve to demonstrate the vulnerability of nearshore coral reefs, rather than a specific cause for their decline.

“Ongoing monitoring shows coral growth in some locations, however this doesn’t detract from the bigger picture, which shows shallow inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef south of Port Douglas have clearly degraded over a period of decades.” Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies chairman Terry Hughes did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian.

Professor Ridd was disciplined for breaching principle 1 of JCU’s code of conduct by “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues”. He has been told that if he does it again he may be found guilty of *serious misconduct.

A JCU spokesman said it was university policy not to comment on individual staff, but that the university’s marine science was subject to “the same quality assurance processes that govern the conduct of, and delivery of, *science internationally”.

This is the crux of the issue for Professor Ridd: “I feel as though I am the whistleblower.”

His potential downfall is the *result of a long campaign for better quality assurance standards for ocean and reef research, which has come under fire globally for exaggerating bad news and ignoring the good. Reef politics is a hot topic in the wake of widescale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef as part of what US agencies have called the world’s third mass-bleaching event.

James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird
James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird

About a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef has died and could take years to rebuild. The damage is concentrated in the northern section off Cape York. The scientific response to the bleaching has exposed a rift *between GBRMPA and the JCU’s Coral Bleaching Taskforce led by Professor Hughes over how bleaching data should be treated and presented to the public. Conservation groups have run hard on the issue, with graphic *images of dying corals. All sides of politics have responded with *increased funding to reduce sediment flow and to combat crown of thorns starfish.

University of Western Australia marine biologist Carlos Duarte argued in BioScience last year that bias contributed to “perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence”.

A paper published this year claimed scientific journals had exaggerated bad news on ocean acidification and played down the doubts. Former GBRMPA chairman Ian McPhail accused activists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain”. Dr McPhail told The Weekend Australian it “seems that there is a group of researchers who begin with the premise that all is disaster”.
Concerns about quality assurance in science are not confined to the reef. Drug-makers generated headlines when they were unable to replicate the results of landmark studies in the basic science of cancer. Professor Ridd poses the question: “Is the situation in marine science likely to be worse than in medicine and pharmaceuticals, psychology, education? Do we have a decent system of replication and checking of results?

“Is there a chance that many marine scientists are partially driven by ideology? Is there a chance that peer review among this group is self-selecting of the dominant idea? Is there a robust debate without intimidation?”

Professor Ridd wants an independent agency to check the science before governments commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no doubt the current bleaching is a serious event but there are also many questions still to be answered. The consensus position of reef experts is that bleaching events will get worse as ocean temperatures continue to rise because of climate change.*


----------



## explod

The punch line in the following is this statement: "It's not the expected signature of climate change," lead researcher Michael Tippett told Christopher Joyce at NPR, "it could be either something else, or we really don't understand what climate change is doing."

So "we don't really understand" and by ignoring the overall issue we are playing with fire and the future for our children.





> Tornado outbreaks in the US are getting worse, and no one knows why
> Twister chains are twice as big as they used to be.
> PETER DOCKRILL 2 DEC 2016
> If you're lucky, you and your family won't ever be seriously threatened by a tornado – but if the worst happens, chances are that tornado probably didn't come alone.
> 
> Tornado outbreaks – mega-storms in which a cluster of six or more tornadoes occur in close succession – are responsible for nearly 80 percent of tornado-related fatalities in the US. And the worst part is, these deadly chains of twisters have been getting even more intense in recent years.
> 
> Earlier in the year, researchers led by Columbia University found that the average number of tornadoes making up these outbreaks had risen since the 1950s, increasing from about 10 per year back then to about 15 per year now.
> 
> But new research published by the same team has found that something even scarier is going on.
> 
> Looking at records from the last 50 years, the researchers found that the frequency of US outbreaks with multiple tornadoes is increasing – and is rising faster for the most extreme outbreaks.
> 
> In the worst of these storms, outbreaks can contain dozens of individual twisters that collectively wreak havoc over a large region for days at a time.
> 
> Between 1965 and 2015, the researchers identified 435 of these extreme events, and during that timeframe, the membership in these mega-storms effectively doubled, from an estimated 40 twisters per outbreak in 1965 to nearly 80 in 2015.
> 
> Outside these trends, rogue outbreaks are even deadlier. The worst tornado outbreak ever occurred in 2011, spawning more than 360 tornadoes across the US and Canada, and killing some 348 people.
> 
> Before that, a 148-twister outbreak in 1974 claimed 319 victims.
> 
> But while freak storms like that don't fit into the overall patterns, it's clear that tornado outbreaks are getting worse, but why?
> 
> "It's not the expected signature of climate change," lead researcher Michael Tippett told Christopher Joyce at NPR, "it could be either something else, or we really don't understand what climate change is doing."
> 
> While the team did originally suspect that global warming could be tied to the tornado outbreaks, the data didn't bear that out.
> 
> The researchers analysed meteorological data sets generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), looking out for two factors in particular.
> 
> One of these factors, called convective available potential energy (CAPE), is a measure of energy in the atmosphere; the other factor is a measure of vertical wind shear, called storm relative helicity.
> 
> Conventional modelling suggests that CAPE will increase in a warmer climate, which could induce greater storm activity.
> 
> But the data the researchers looked at suggested the rise in tornado outbreaks wasn't in line with CAPE, but instead with trends in storm relative helicity – which had not been projected to increase under climate change.
> 
> The upshot then is that we know tornado outbreaks are getting worse, but we don't know why – and as far as we can tell right now, it's not clearly linked to climate change.
> 
> "The findings are surprising," said one of the team, Joel Cohen, in a statement. "What's pushing this rise in extreme outbreaks is far from obvious in the present state of climate science."
> 
> Despite the ambiguity, other researchers say it's important to follow these trails as far as they go, as even the apparent dead ends help to increase our understanding of these changes in extreme weather patterns.
> 
> "The study is important because it addresses one of the hypotheses that has been raised to explain the observed change in number of tornadoes in outbreaks," says meteorologist Harold Brooks from the NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, who was not involved with the study.
> 
> "Changes in CAPE can't explain the change. It seems that changes in shear are more important, but we don't yet understand why those have happened and if they're related to global warming."
> 
> If there is a definite answer, it's that there will be plenty more work needed to get to the bottom of what's inducing these deadly storms to swell so dangerously.
> 
> "We know temperature is going up, we know some things pretty sure, but the details of the weather – there's a lot more uncertainty," Tippett told Grennan Milliken at Motherboard.
> 
> "The answer to the question can tell us what to expect in the future. That's why we think it's an important question."


----------



## basilio

*Our rapidly changing world*

The reality of rapid global warming is affecting the environment everywhere. Check it out



> *
> 'Nowhere on earth safe' from climate change as survival challenge grows*
> Peter Hannam
> 
> Peter Hannam
> 
> 
> As if humans weren't making it hard enough for the world's creatures great and small.
> 
> Evidence continues to mount that global warming is having an impact on ecosystems across the planet in a myriad of ways, altering both individual species and ecological communities.
> Thirty years of Arctic ice decay
> 
> Incredible animated video released by NASA shows the drastic change of the Arctic ice shelves over thirty years.
> 
> "There's really nowhere on earth where the natural systems are not being affected by climate change," Lesley Hughes, a professor of biology at Macquarie University, said.
> 
> "Climate change is simply an additional stress on already stressed ecosystems," Professor Hughes said, listing habitat loss, pollution and over-exploitation among the existing challenges.
> Related Content
> 
> Threat to NASA climate role a 'disaster' for global warming action
> NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts
> 
> *A recent paper in Science surveyed research on 94 core ecological processes and found 82 per cent were already revealing climate change impacts as temperatures warmed.*
> 
> James Watson, a conservation biologist at the University of Queensland and one of the paper's authors, said people often fixated on polar bears, penguins or another emblematic species.
> 
> "They think, 'that's miles away from me; it's a pity but it doesn't affect me'," Professor Watson said. "It's everything that's affected."
> Here are six key areas of change:




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...survival-challenge-grows-20161123-gsvgcj.html


----------



## Wysiwyg

7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

7:2-3 "And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea," "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."


----------



## Wysiwyg

8:6-7 "And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound." "*The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire* mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: *and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up*."

It's all there, foretold eons ago.


----------



## Wysiwyg

I have another good idea. Enough solar panels covering the planet will soak up the radiation from that mass of hydrogen doing so much damage to poor little human beans. Maybe human beans can design the planet better than nature. Government rebates on air conditioners and a planet wide turn on your air con. day once a year.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.




I have said this before in this thread, but....

I have several CSIRO scientists as clients. We often chat how this is indeed often the case, not just in climate science, every field.

My wife's dearest friend (now deceased  ) was a PhD in gene technology and safety officer (not sure of the exact title) at UWA. Basically she was overseer of every study done there in her field. She reckoned no more than 10% of science conducted was fair dinkum and used to have all sort of problems with her dept and in ensuring the integrity of studies.

I myself am a consumer of science in my own field. Most of it is just farkin laughable and results in all sorts of misery for equines.

Scientists are not some special breed of human (except in *very* rare cases), they are just average morons like all of us, subject to all the usual foibles, biases, vested interest, mercantilism that we are.

*So FFS stop this appeal to authority fallacy.*

Doubt everything, test everything, repeat everything and ask the most important question - qui bono? Follow the Goddamn money folks... and don't immediately exercise your raging bias by looking to oil companies. The money trail is a labrinth.


----------



## wayneL

Horace, basilio, Plod, Knobby et al. 

Have a read of this article by Pielke Jr (Who is not a warming skeptic) if you please. It is emblematic of the state of debate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518



> Somewhat reproduced at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/ if you don't have a WSJ sub.
> 
> Roger Pielke Jr.: My unhappy life as a climate heretic
> 
> My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
> By Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writing in the Wall Street Journal h/t to multiple sources
> Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by*John Podesta*in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for*Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors,*Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”
> WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research””which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.
> I understand why Mr. Podesta””most recently*Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman””wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.
> More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests””even our own?
> I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.
> Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy*signaled*that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.
> Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.
> When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.
> The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.
> Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.
> For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the*New York Times,Justin Gillis,had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his*Twitter*feed. Other reporters did the same.
> In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable*about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse””including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor,*Andrew Freedman,*helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”
> I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.
> Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.
> Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting*Roger Pielke*will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”
> Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My*first article*there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.
> That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.
> In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor*Mike Wilson*demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer*Brad Johnson,*and advised by Penn State’s*Michael Mann,called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.
> Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program.*Those conclusions*indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts””in the U.S. or globally.
> In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser*John Holdren*testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.
> I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed*reads*more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.
> But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep.*Raul Grijalva,*the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.
> The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I””and six other academics with apparently heretical views””might be on the payroll of*Exxon Mobil*(or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.
> But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> . She reckoned no more than 10% of science conducted was fair dinkum and used to have all sort of problems with her dept and in ensuring the integrity of studies.




I'd suspect 90% is filling out procedural, policy and other non productive forms which keeps 90% of the public service shuffling paper and in a job too. In return they get an over inflated wage, salary sacrificed superdupa superannuation, a negatively geared house paid by taxpayers and flexitime to do as little as possible in a very small productivity window whilst reading the latest trends in science China and India.


----------



## explod

> ‘There is no evidence’ ”” Yes, there is
> By Coby Beck on Oct 27, 2006
> Share Tweet
> (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
> 
> Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
> 
> Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places ”” in England, for example ”” that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
> 
> These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
> 
> NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
> CRU direct surface temperature analysis
> Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
> 
> Satellite Data
> Radiosondes
> Borehole analysis
> Glacial melt observations
> Sea ice melt
> Sea level rise
> Proxy Reconstructions
> Permafrost melt
> There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.




That last sentence is the nail.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/


----------



## Knobby22

It won't work. As Malcolm Roberts said, there is no real damage to the barrier reef and the Bureau of Meteorology is manipulating data. you could stand him on the north pole in 10 years time and as he is drowning he will say that there is plenty of snow and someone has put him in the North Sea and that the satellite data is a plot. 

He can't see that but he complains we can't see the obvious things like the fact the Rothschild's killed JFK.


----------



## basilio

I thought this piece from The Guardian was pretty much on the money.  Certainly resonated with me.



> * Why we’re all everyday climate change deniers*
> Alice Bell
> 
> Global warming is scary and abstract. No wonder we struggle to face up to it – and let politicians and industry off the hook
> 
> Contact author
> @alicebell
> 
> Tuesday 6 December 2016 06.00 GMT
> 
> After Donald Trump won last month’s US presidential election, hot takes speedily declared it game over for the planet. But as Al Gore said at the weekend, “despair is just another form of denial”. About this, he is entirely right. Now is not the time to cry into your graphs of melting Arctic sea ice. That only helps the people who profit from delay on climate change.
> 
> Because climate denial isn’t just something other people do – bad people, sad people, stupid people. It’s not just a niche hobby practised by the president-elect and weirder bits of the internet. It’s mainstream.




https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/06/trump-world-climate-change-denial


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I thought this piece from The Guardian was pretty much on the money.  Certainly resonated with me.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/06/trump-world-climate-change-denial




Al Gore????...The Guardian????......The ones who exaggerate and distort the truth....The one's who self confess to false information..OMG..????????......You should have included Tim Flannery to make it sound better.

There are some naive people in this world.


----------



## noco

Well what do you know?....The waters in the Coral Sea are actually cooling.....Means no La-Nina = no rain for Townsville......And while Labor sits on its hands with more water storage we enter into a crisis.

I hope Tim Flannery does not visit Townsville otherwise he might con the Labor saturated city with another desalinization plant...That is the last thing we need...we have been screaming out for another dam for 2 decades and the Labor Party does  nothing except talk...We now have a useless Federal MP, 3 state useless MPs and an all Labor local council.......Is it any wonder nothing gets done.

The Labor council are pumping  water from the Burdiken at $27,000 per day......How many more days?...At that rate it will cost $1,620,000 over the next 60 days and maybe another 60 days after that.....Who knows. 

No doubt, we, the stupid rate payers will have it reflected on our next rates bill.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...h/news-story/b4531ba31785b5b387a6ced961ee9103


----------



## noco

I trust this link will put to rest all the propaganda and lies spread about the Adani coal mine by the looney left Greens.
The state Labor Party government is on board and I suggest the Greens do the same and create jobs as they are always spruiking.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...e/news-story/aa3fd0d8f926619e4751a38d98bef022

*Myth buster: Ten things you need to know about the Adani mine
KIERAN ROONEY, Townsville Bulletin
December 6, 2016 1:37pm
Subscriber only

THERE has been a lot of speculation about exactly what the Adani Carmichael coal mine will mean for North Queensland. Here, we bust some common myths and explain the facts.

ISSUE 1

The Federal Government is going to pay for half of Adani’s $2 billion rail line despite assurances it would not fund the project.

FACT

An application involved the proposed rail line to Abbot point has been passed on to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The $5 billion fund is designed to develop Northern Australia by providing loans to projects that meet strict economic tests. Any money provided to kickstart the project would need to be financially viable Adani would be required to pay it back.

Source: NAIF website

ISSUE 2

Shipping the coal from North Queensland will put the reef in danger from spills and other forms of damage.

FACT

Every ship travelling through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority area is under strict guidelines and must be operated by highly experienced Australian pilot. This was introduced in 1991 to significantly reduce the risk of collisions and groundings. This will be the same for any ships travelling on their way to India.

Source: GBRMPA
Tug boat heads out to sea to retrieve a the next coal tanker to be filled at the Abbot Point terminal. (File image)

ISSUE 3

The government has bent over backwards and removed regulations to get this project over the line.

FACT

Adani has spent the past six years working to get the Carmichael mine project underway by meeting government regulations. It has already spent $3.3 billion to get to this stage and $100 million in court costs to date. Since the start of 2015, 22 key Commonwealth, State and local government approvals have been granted for Adani’s mine, rail and port facilities and there have been 29 key milestones reached.

Source. State Government.

ISSUE 4

Adani cannot be trusted with their environmental responsibilities

FACT

There are about 200 rigorous environmental control imposed on this project as part of its approval process. Failure to meet these would mean immediate consequences from the State or Federal Government that would jeopardise the project.

Source: State Development Minister Dr Anthony Lynham
Rigorous environmental restrictions are in place to protect the Great Barrier Reef. (File picture)

ISSUE 5

Jobs will not be created for Australians or regional Queenslanders.

FACT

Adani has given a written pledge that it will not use 457 Visa holders for any construction or operational jobs.

Source: Adani Group

ISSUE 6

The mine will drain from the water table damaging the environment and farmers.

FACT.

Adani is in currently applying for a water licence that will directly address this issue. Similar objections were raised in the Land Court and were cleared. Adani claim that not one directly affected land holder raised any objection in the Land Court.

Source: State Government/ Adani/ Land Court
Job creation. (File picture)

ISSUE 7

The economic case does not stack up for the mine

FACT

Adani is an infrastructure company, owning and running the ports, power plants and even the wires which provide power to homes. Given the company knows its own demand requirements the Australian mine will fit into this vertical structure from the ground to the grid. It has also invested $3.3 billion into the project and fought multiple legal battles instead of pursuing similar projects in other countries.

Source: Adani

ISSUE 8

Dredged spoil will damage the Great Barrier Reef

FACT

Adani has reached an agreement with the State Government that spoil will be placed onshore in an area approved by environmental authorities. The company owns and operates the Abbot Point bulk coal loading facility and wants to expand this with a once-off dredging operation because the port is not affected by river run off and silting. This has been approved on stringent conditions the spoil will not touch the reef.

Source: State Government*


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Al Gore????...The Guardian????......The ones who exaggerate and distort the truth....The one's who self confess to false information..OMG..????????......You should have included Tim Flannery to make it sound better.
> 
> There are some naive people in this world.




There are also people who constantly play the man instead of the ball because they don't know the subject and find it easier to denigrate than do research, and they mindlessly swallow and regurgitate the tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> There are also people who constantly play the man instead of the ball because* they don't have the knowledge and skillset to kick goals *.




Modified version


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Modified version




Or if they do, they are own goals.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> There are also people who constantly play the man instead of the ball because they don't know the subject and find it easier to denigrate than do research, and they mindlessly swallow and regurgitate the tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense.




That is the pot calling the kettle black because you and Tisme are past masters at playing the man......Ridicule your opponents in the hope of silencing them....Plenty of examples from the past.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> That is the pot calling the kettle black because you and Tisme are past masters at playing the man......Ridicule your opponents in the hope of silencing them....Plenty of examples from the past.




*TROLL Alert !!!!!*


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> *TROLL Alert !!!!!*




Yes and that is the type of juvenile answer I expected...Time to grow up.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Yes and that is the type of juvenile answer I expected...Time to grow up.




and then what? Look forward to senility and trolling the internet forums with a grab bag of broken records?


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> and then what? Look forward to senility and trolling the internet forums with a grab bag of broken records?




...or, put those MacGuyver electrical engineering skills to work on using waves and tides to electrify the home; then dig them holes to go geothermal.

Or troll noco.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> *Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville has studied the Great Barrier Reef for 30 + years.......I have met Peter on two occasions as President of the AWWA  and found both he and the late Professor Bob Carter to be of good character who were both very open minded about the Reef.
> 
> Peter was outspoken and critical of some of the lies and propaganda being spruiked about the reef and silenced with the threat of the sack by the JCU......HOW DARE THEY.?
> 
> I ask all viewers to read the link from beginning to end.
> 
> NB. Much of the reef that has recently been affected is north of Cooktown where there is no coal mines or agricultural run off from sugar cane farms.
> 
> Naomi Klein visited the reef, did a video of the bad areas but did not video the good areas.....There was no indication of which part of the 2,500 km long reef she visited.
> 
> More lies and propaganda to make out the reef is totally destroyed......These people could not lie straight in bed.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...y/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d
> 
> 
> When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.
> 
> After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.
> 
> His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.
> 
> “These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the internet and used very widely to claim damage,” Professor Ridd told The Weekend Australian.
> 
> The photographs were taken near Stone Island off Bowen. A photograph taken in the late 19th century shows healthy coral. An accompanying picture supposedly of the same reef in 1994 is *devoid of coral. When the before-and-after shots were used by GBRMPA in its 2014 report, the authority said: “Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs.”
> 
> Professor Ridd said it was only possible to guess within a kilometre or two where the original photograph was taken and it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away, as his researchers had done. Nor was it possible to say what had killed the coral in the 1994 picture.
> 
> “In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” he said. “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”
> 
> A GBRMPA spokesman said last night “the historical photos serve to demonstrate the vulnerability of nearshore coral reefs, rather than a specific cause for their decline.
> 
> “Ongoing monitoring shows coral growth in some locations, however this doesn’t detract from the bigger picture, which shows shallow inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef south of Port Douglas have clearly degraded over a period of decades.” Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies chairman Terry Hughes did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian.
> 
> Professor Ridd was disciplined for breaching principle 1 of JCU’s code of conduct by “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues”. He has been told that if he does it again he may be found guilty of *serious misconduct.
> 
> A JCU spokesman said it was university policy not to comment on individual staff, but that the university’s marine science was subject to “the same quality assurance processes that govern the conduct of, and delivery of, *science internationally”.
> 
> This is the crux of the issue for Professor Ridd: “I feel as though I am the whistleblower.”
> 
> His potential downfall is the *result of a long campaign for better quality assurance standards for ocean and reef research, which has come under fire globally for exaggerating bad news and ignoring the good. Reef politics is a hot topic in the wake of widescale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef as part of what US agencies have called the world’s third mass-bleaching event.
> 
> James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird
> James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird
> 
> About a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef has died and could take years to rebuild. The damage is concentrated in the northern section off Cape York. The scientific response to the bleaching has exposed a rift *between GBRMPA and the JCU’s Coral Bleaching Taskforce led by Professor Hughes over how bleaching data should be treated and presented to the public. Conservation groups have run hard on the issue, with graphic *images of dying corals. All sides of politics have responded with *increased funding to reduce sediment flow and to combat crown of thorns starfish.
> 
> University of Western Australia marine biologist Carlos Duarte argued in BioScience last year that bias contributed to “perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence”.
> 
> A paper published this year claimed scientific journals had exaggerated bad news on ocean acidification and played down the doubts. Former GBRMPA chairman Ian McPhail accused activists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain”. Dr McPhail told The Weekend Australian it “seems that there is a group of researchers who begin with the premise that all is disaster”.
> Concerns about quality assurance in science are not confined to the reef. Drug-makers generated headlines when they were unable to replicate the results of landmark studies in the basic science of cancer. Professor Ridd poses the question: “Is the situation in marine science likely to be worse than in medicine and pharmaceuticals, psychology, education? Do we have a decent system of replication and checking of results?
> 
> “Is there a chance that many marine scientists are partially driven by ideology? Is there a chance that peer review among this group is self-selecting of the dominant idea? Is there a robust debate without intimidation?”
> 
> Professor Ridd wants an independent agency to check the science before governments commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> There is no doubt the current bleaching is a serious event but there are also many questions still to be answered. The consensus position of reef experts is that bleaching events will get worse as ocean temperatures continue to rise because of climate change.*




An interview with Peter Ridd on the false actuations of the Great Barrier Reef bleaching.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...s/news-story/da65fb7bac61af3677e171dafe072a1f


----------



## trainspotter

Global warming? What global warming? House has been there for 86 years.


----------



## Knobby22

Did he buy boats too big to fit in his garage?


----------



## wayneL

Great article from Roy Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12...p-end-the-bias-in-government-funded-research/




> SNIP: So, you thought government-funded science is objective?
> 
> Oh, that’s adorable.
> 
> Since politicians are ultimately in charge of deciding how much money agencies receive to dole out to the research community, it is inevitable that politics and desired outcomes influence the science the public pays for
> 
> SNIP:The problem with attribution in global warming research is that any source of warming will look about the same, whether human-caused or nature-caused. The land will warm faster than the ocean. The high northern latitudes will warm the most. Winters will warm somewhat more than summers. The warming will be somewhat greater at 10 km altitude than at the surface. It doesn’t matter what caused the warming. So, it’s easy for the experts to say the warming* is “consistent with” human causation, without mentioning it could also be “consistent with” natural causation.
> *
> SNIP: In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.
> 
> *Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish.*


----------



## explod

So its being suggested that Government funded research has intoned a bias towards man made causes of climate change.  You have to be joking.  Of course early in the piece from the time of Thatcher to some degree yes but it is pretty well common knowledge that the petro/coal lobbies soon got behind Governments and turned that screw around.

On causation there are many shades of grey at our public level/view.  However we have hit the tipping point in overpopulation, economic expansionism and the climate instability.  Peoples are being swept, washed, frozen and burnt away by the day now.  Any possible contributions that can be stopped is a good thing if it MAY help.  Coal and oil burning is one as the alternatives are advancing through good science at an amazing rate, creating new employment frontiers and cheaper more efficient power.

Note I stated "MAY",  we have to err on the side of caution for our future generations.  If it is later shown that coal and oil is not the factor then our future generation will thank us for leaving some resources for their benefit.  Not like the dreadful deal a couple of years back where we sold most of our future gas to China for less than five cents a litre.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> So its being suggested that Government funded research has intoned a bias towards man made causes of climate change.  You have to be joking.




No joke mate. If you went to the government with a hypothesis that varies from the mainstream Climate establishment view, you won't get funding... fact.

They won't even support that essential part of scientific process, falsification.

It happens in all fields now, especially the soft sciences, prostitutes to a higher mercantile or political imperative. Read up.


----------



## Tisme

Does anyone remember the hysteria about Los Angeles and smog? Ralph Nader perhaps?

Just saying that sometimes leadership and galvanised people power can  change the world for better, while others sit on their hands and chant bah humbug:


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> An interview with Peter Ridd on the false actuations of the Great Barrier Reef bleaching.
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...s/news-story/da65fb7bac61af3677e171dafe072a1f



Interesting that the reef of today is only 8,000 years old, and grew not despite, but because of a gradually warming climate and rising sea levels since the last Ice Age.


> http://greatadventures.com.au/great-barrier-reef-information/
> ...The reefs we see today have grown on top of older reef platforms during the last 8000 years – since the last Ice Age.


----------



## explod

Logique said:


> Interesting that the reef of today is only 8,000 years old, and grew not despite, but because of a gradually warming climate and rising sea levels since the last Ice Age.



Interesting that we are going beyond that.  But who cares.

More 50 to 70 year weather events today.  Even cricket fans scratching their heads.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> Interesting that the reef of today is only 8,000 years old, and grew not despite, but because of a gradually warming climate and rising sea levels since the last Ice Age.




So we shouldn't try to save it from the various influences that we contribute to its demise, like phosphates, oil and bilge spills, concentrated synthetic chemicals, rising water temps, over fishing, irresponsible charter operators, etc

Personally I think the oil and gas operations in the Timor seas are like the elephant in the room when it comes to killing coral and the worst damage being the part of the barrier reef closest to that operation.


----------



## explod

We were warned about coal 104 years ago.  And we even contemplate crooks like Adani to get on our land to ruin it.  Flash floods in Victoria overnight washing soil away.  Of couse we thinned out the trees in the hills over the last few years, so nothing to hold it.


----------



## explod

And how can one question this.  Particularly the comparison between what is happening underwater to where we are headed above.  Our planet is dying but the money machine does not give a fig.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/june/1464703200/jo-chandler/grave-barrier-reef

“Australia argued to UNESCO that the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage area is intact because we have this northern 30% of the Reef where everything is hunky dory,” says Professor Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. “That is no longer the case. In the space of a month or two, the northern third is now more degraded than the southern two thirds.”

In early May, as Canberra waited for the bell to ring on the federal election campaign, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) chairman, Dr Russell Reichelt, broke the news to a distracted Senate committee that more than half the coral in reefs in the far northern section were dead. He was unequivocal about where the blame lay. This was not the consequence of this summer’s whopping El Niño, a natural warming cycle that occurs every five years or so. Bleaching was driven by “the upward trend in ocean temperatures, which is about 1 degree [Celsius] in the past century ..."


----------



## Tisme

Rained in Brisbane and surrounds tonight!! This is a welcome event, given we are supposed to be a sub tropical location with monsoonal reliance and apparently climate change is a socialist invention that is doomed to failure.....very clever the way politics has hijacked the weather systems around the world ... who would have ever thought telekinesis was real.


----------



## notting




----------



## Tisme

2016 hottest year on record for world:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/2016-year-of-extreme-weather-bom-climate-report/8162366


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> 2016 hottest year on record for world:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/2016-year-of-extreme-weather-bom-climate-report/8162366




Yeah, and the all the sceptics just stay inside, turn their air cons up and pretend it's nothing unusual.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, and the all the sceptics just stay inside, turn their air cons up and pretend it's nothing unusual.





Don't forget that pig headed skeptics have the full power of the internet at their disposal and not fooled by actual data and training in the field. So they have a more valid argument than scientists, common sense and the bleeding obvious. Gut feel and romantic nonsense always gazumps godawful truths.


----------



## basilio

Nah Tisme this is 2017.  A Post truth world where reality is what you make it and where reality can be denied as fearlessly as your lack of scruples will allow.

One of the most challenging problems in the cliamte change issue has been watching the past three years of record breaking world wide temperatures (and then some) and still having people refuse to acknowledge  the rapid increase in temperatures.


----------



## Wysiwyg

explod said:


> We were warned about coal 104 years ago.



That is correct and the time to be weaned off coal has begun. It isn't going to stop abruptly in some knee jerk reaction. Then the cars/trains/planes burning oil derivatives, then the industries pumping waste into the atmosphere/waterways/earth, then the nic nac factories closing down, then the planting/conservation of vegetation, then the reduction in human population and the planet can breathe again.


----------



## basilio

Excellent article in The Guardian on a research paper that shoes the world is warming faster than we originally thought.

What makes it really interesting is the analysis of how the research was done and the scores of parameters that had to be considered. Great insight into the scientific method.

* New study confirms NOAA finding of faster global warming *
Thomas Karl and colleagues were harassed by Republicans for publishing inconvenient science. A new study proves them right.




House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Photograph: Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Im
John Abraham

Thursday 5 January 2017 06.00 AEDT   Last modified on Thursday 5 January 2017 11.37 AEDT


 
* Comments*
 268 
A new study has shown that a 2015 NOAA paper finding that the Earth is warming more rapidly than previously thought was correct.
Once again, science is shown to work. The laborious process in which scientists check and recheck their work and subject their ideas to peer review has led to another success. An independent test of global warming data has confirmed a groundbreaking 2015 study that showed warming was faster than prior estimates. 
Because of its inconvenient findings, the study’s lead author Thomas Karl was subjected to harassment by Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Science Committee, in an effort to impugn his credibility. But now Karl and his co-authors have been vindicated. 
Let’s take a step back and discuss the science. Measuring the temperature of the Earth is hard. There are many locations to measure and many choices to make. Should we measure the temperature of the ground? Of the ocean waters? How deep in the water? If we measure air temperatures, what height should the measurements be taken? How many locations should we make measurements at? What happens if the instruments change over time or if the location changes? What happens if a city grows near a measurement location and the so-called urban heat-island effect grows? How do we estimate the temperatures in areas where no measurements exist? 

These and many other questions make measuring global warming challenge. Different groups of scientists make different decisions so that depending on the institution, they will get a slightly different temperature result.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...onfirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Excellent article in The Guardian on a research paper that shoes the world is warming faster than we originally thought.
> etc etc




Have you had that peer reviewed by an anti Fabian with a subscription to Newscorp, or are you trying to slip it under the radar instead?


----------



## noco

Her is the latest up date on Global Warming......No computer modelling BS.....No peer reviews just actual happenings around the world.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/06/record-cold-and-snow-has-descend-upon-the-planet/


----------



## explod

The article you put up reflects the extremes we have come to know noco.  No argument, 50 to 70 year extremes recorded somewhere on the planet every few days.  *BUT..... BOTH HOT AND COLD.
*
Caused by displacement which I have conferred a number of times.  Warmer at the poles is causing greater air and moisture movements both north and south respectively.  Of course you can point to new freezing areas and in some places not seen before, equally there are very hot bursts in places not seen before, as well as exceptionally strong winds, abnormal rains and hail.  

Caused by the *OVERALL* rises in world temperature.  How about the huge ice shelf breaking away in Antarctica at the moment,  which will clear the way for massive glacial collapses and resulting then in further displacement for even greater increases in weather volatility.  

The stories you put up noco are very much one sided concoctions to keep the masses from becoming alarmed.  However the message is getting through and not only that, alternative clean power is coming online across the planet as a result.  Something new everyday, this morning some place in Europe (from memory) have all their trains now running on solar and wind.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The article you put up reflects the extremes we have come to know noco.  No argument, 50 to 70 year extremes recorded somewhere on the planet every few days.  *BUT..... BOTH HOT AND COLD.
> *
> Caused by displacement which I have conferred a number of times.  Warmer at the poles is causing greater air and moisture movements both north and south respectively.  Of course you can point to new freezing areas and in some places not seen before, equally there are very hot bursts in places not seen before, as well as exceptionally strong winds, abnormal rains and hail.
> 
> Caused by the *OVERALL* rises in world temperature.  How about the huge ice shelf breaking away in Antarctica at the moment,  which will clear the way for massive glacial collapses and resulting then in further displacement for even greater increases in weather volatility.
> 
> The stories you put up noco are very much one sided concoctions to keep the masses from becoming alarmed.  However the message is getting through and not only that, alternative clean power is coming online across the planet as a result.  Something new everyday, this morning some place in Europe (from memory) have all their trains now running on solar and wind.




You are so wrong my friend.....Extreme heart.....extreme cold ......The alarmist always blame it on Global Warming.......You are being brain washed by the United Nations who started all this crap in their endeavour for World Government......All you alarmists want 2 bob each way and people are finally waking up to it all.

If the USA pull out of the United Nations there  will be a domino affect and that will be the end of the UN.
I hope you noted there will be more coal sold overseas than ever before.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You are so wrong my friend.....Extreme heart.....extreme cold ......The alarmist always blame it on Global Warming.......You are being brain washed by the United Nations who started all this crap in their endeavour for World Government......All you alarmists want 2 bob each way and people are finally waking up to it all.
> 
> If the USA pull out of the United Nations there  will be a domino affect and that will be the end of the UN.
> I hope you noted there will be more coal sold overseas than ever before.



Rubbish, Noco, my Father was concerned about it in 1965, from his and forebears observations in working and understanding the land.  And you say I am wrong without any qualification or reasoning from yourself.  And the UN, where would their expertise come from, probably a similar pace as yours from below.  Anyone can Google up something to fit an argument.  How about speaking for yourself.

No two bob each way here Pal, due to excessive fossil fuel use anyone with eyes open can see we are on the downhill slide which is not a gambling issue, its one for action.

As a kid we had to wear gumboots from late April till November each year and now it gets wet there for a week or two a couple of times a year.  And the frogs who took many millions of years to evolve where our driveway used to run have been wiped out in a heart beat.  I'd love to take you for a trip over the land I worked and know so well and know you'd learn some surprising facts, not just from myself but old experienced cockies along the way.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Rubbish, Noco, my Father was concerned about it in 1965, from his and forebears observations in working and understanding the land.  And you say I am wrong without any qualification or reasoning from yourself.  And the UN, where would their expertise come from, probably a similar pace as yours from below.  Anyone can Google up something to fit an argument.  How about speaking for yourself.
> 
> No two bob each way here Pal, due to excessive fossil fuel use anyone with eyes open can see we are on the downhill slide which is not a gambling issue, its one for action.
> 
> As a kid we had to wear gumboots from late April till November each year and now it gets wet there for a week or two a couple of times a year.  And the frogs who took many millions of years to evolve where our driveway used to run have been wiped out in a heart beat.  I'd love to take you for a trip over the land I worked and know so well and know you'd learn some surprising facts, not just from myself but old experienced cockies along the way.




I quote you actual happenings and you say it is rubbish...Rubbish in the eyes of the Greenies who don't like to be proven wrong.

The UN are so corrupt that most of their "Peer reviewed" modelling is rigged to suit their cause....It is all a pack of lies and the sooner countries pull out of the UN the better and soon they will die of natural death.

You don't have to lecture me about  country life...I have already told you I spent some years in the South Western Queensland...I went through drought, floods and fire
 before you were born.

Plenty of frogs in Townsville ATM....Had some good rains last week.

The Bendigo frogs are probably being frightened away with all those wind turbines down your way and they also kill millions of rare birds every year....Why aren't you Greenies shouting from the roof tops about the loss of birds?


----------



## noco

The fake reports on Global Warming have well and truly emerged and gaining momentum.
Read the link which gives the truth and the many comments that follow.
The world is finally waking up to the lies and propaganda put out by the predominantly Green UN. 


https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/no-global-warming-for-25-years/


----------



## noco

*The Aussies are getting the same BS as Canucks.*


*The Carbon Tax....*

*Who do you really believe an engineer or a scientist, the jury is still out!*

*Make your own mind up on who is telling the truth. I merely pass this along.*

*
It's just three minutes of Primary School CO2 Science that the Government doesn't want made public.*

*This three-minute video puts carbon dioxide into perspective.*

*You really should watch this. WHY? Because when someone asks,* *you* *will then know the answer!*

*Yes, it's principally aimed at Aussies but the* *science, not hype, is universal.*


*"Https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8"*


----------



## Tisme

snapshot of the ugly side of climate and environment

http://www.anonews.co/photos-end-near/


----------



## Wysiwyg

A glimpse of global cooling with parts of Europe experiencing record cold weather temperatures.


----------



## basilio

Really Wysiwyg ? You actually believe that the cold snap in Europe is part of global cooling?  
Somehow you have managed to miss the the relentless increase in temperatures worldwide that has accelerated in the past 3 years ?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Really Wysiwyg ? You actually believe that the cold snap in Europe is part of global cooling?
> Somehow you have managed to miss the the relentless increase in temperatures worldwide that has accelerated in the past 3 years ?




Same thing in Canada and North America with record cold temperatures and large snow falls.

I refer you to my posts #8914 and 8919.

You are being brainwashed by the UN Climate Change committee who distorting the truth about Global Warming..


----------



## Wysiwyg

basilio said:


> Really Wysiwyg ? You actually believe that the cold snap in Europe is part of global cooling?
> Somehow you have managed to miss the the relentless increase in temperatures worldwide that has accelerated in the past 3 years ?



Just sayin'.


----------



## explod

> The long-debated hiatus or pause in global warming, championed by climate denialists who tried to claim it proved scientists' projections on climate change are inaccurate or overblown, probably did not happen at all.
> 
> A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world's warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.
> 
> "The rate of temperature increase during the last half of the 20th century is virtually identical to that of the 21st century," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and lead author of the study.
> 
> The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science this week, is just the latest in a growing number of studies refuting the idea of a slowdown or stop in global warming.
> 
> "Tom Karl and colleagues have done solid work here, but they've mostly just confirmed what we already knew," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "There is no true 'pause' or 'hiatus' in warming."




https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=CjwKEAiAtefDBRDTnb


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> 2016 hottest year on record for world:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/2016-year-of-extreme-weather-bom-climate-report/8162366




Tisme, I tried to pick up in something in your link referring to "The hottest year of record for the world.
The link is mainly about Australia being the 4th hottest year on record in 2016.

We also had some record rainfalls broken which  you failed to mention placing  much of your emphasis on record temperatures....Was there any reason for that?

The record rain falls were as a result of  the Dipole system in the Indian Ocean which has brought a lot of rain to the West, Central West, Western Queensland , South Australia and Victoria.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=CjwKEAiAtefDBRDTnb




This the link I posted a couple of days ago which differs from  your link.

It is hard to fathom why there can be so much variation from one report to another.

They both cannot be right.

NOAA is funded by commerce in the United States under Obama......I am not saying it is but it could also be a remote chance that NOAA could have been influenced by the UN through Obama....Whether that will change under Trump remains to be seen when Trump has threatened to pull out of the UN.

There has been some queer happenings in the USA in recent times...One thing that is mentioned is NOAA has tampered with reports exaggerating  Global Warming.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/no-global-warming-for-25-years/


----------



## wayneL

An interesting juncture


----------



## Knobby22

?
	

		
			
		

		
	






wayneL said:


> An interesting juncture
> 
> View attachment 69579



Why that graph among the many alternatives? I thought the aove graph from the same website was more relevant as it includes the whole world.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> View attachment 69583
> 
> Why that graph among the many alternatives. I thought the aove graph from the same website was more relevant as it includes the whole world.




Got a median and mean representation?


----------



## Knobby22

Heaps of options on the website woodfortrees.org


----------



## wayneL

That wasn't the point, rather that this massive acceleration as claimed a few months ago seems to be el nino induced and return to trend (whatever trend floats your boat). Just as the level heads expected.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> That wasn't the point, rather that this massive acceleration as claimed a few months ago seems to be el nino induced and return to trend (whatever trend floats your boat). Just as the level heads expected.




The last big El Nino was about 10 years ago wasn't it? I seem to recall it became a prominent name back in the early 80's when it bit really hard?  So long as the air pressure over Darwin harbour is slightly greater than Tahiti this time of the year we should be sweet until the early 2020s.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> That wasn't the point, rather that this massive acceleration as claimed a few months ago seems to be el nino induced and return to trend (whatever trend floats your boat). Just as the level heads expected.




It's interesting how close the spikes relate. I agree, there is no obvious acceleration.

The warming is linear which makes sense. The new greenhouse gases only form a small proportion of the existing greenhouse gases the warming effect should be subdued. If we do see acceleration then we should all be  very worried but I think that is unlikely.

Still a 1 degree rise ever twenty years isn't something to relax about.


----------



## explod

Many rest on the idea "that it has all occurred before".  It hasn't.


"One of the most commonly used arguments against human-caused climate change is that Earth has experienced severe fluctuations in temperature over its 4.5-billion-year lifespan, so it doesn’t make sense to start freaking out about it now.

But while Boston was once covered in almost a mile (1.6 km) of ice, and the Arctic Circle was once so warm, palm trees and crocodiles populated it instead of ice and polar bears, what’s been going on over the past century is unprecedented.

Not convinced? Just check out the infographic below by Randall Munroe of XKCDfame.

Illustrating the rise in global temperatures from 20000 BCE right up to 2016, nothing makes it more clear just how insane things have gotten during the fraction of Earth's timeline that humans have been dominating.

As you can see below, in 20000 BCE, Earth was at the peak of the last ice age, and was 4.3 degrees Celsius colder than it was in the late 20th century.

That might not sound like much, but it made a huge difference - glaciers reached as far south as New York City, and our early human ancestors had to fight for survival.

But slight changes in Earth's orbit at around 18500 BCE meant some of that polar ice could finally be reached by more sunlight, and the warming period began. 

Ice sheets start melting in earnest across the North and South Poles, and humans start to spread out and proliferate in the more favourable conditions. 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/159aee6fad6f1915

Between 9000 and 8500 BCE - just before we domesticated cows for the first time - temperatures hit modern levels, and continue to rise. 

For thousands of years afterwards, things start wavering around that middle line, and we see a big cool-down around the 15th and 16th centuries. 

The 20th century happens, and then... BAM. Things get real.

Something else to keep in mind is that, regardless of what's happened before, we humans are incredibly sensitive creatures.

We struggled to survive when global temperatures were 4.3 degrees colder than the late 20th century average, and we'll struggle just the same if we let Earth warm by just 1 or 2 degrees in the coming decades - something that 2015 Paris Climate Conference attempted to draw everyone's attention to.

As Brad Plumer points out over at Vox:

"What’s most relevant to us humans, living in the present day, is that the climate has been remarkably stable for the past 12,000 years. That period encompasses all of human civilisation - from the pyramids to the Industrial Revolution to Facebook and beyond.

We’ve benefited greatly from that stability. It’s allowed us to build farms and coastal cities and thrive without worrying about overly wild fluctuations in the climate."


----------



## trainspotter

explod said:


> Many rest on the idea "that it has all occurred before".  It hasn't.
> 
> 
> "One of the most commonly used arguments against human-caused climate change is that Earth has experienced severe fluctuations in temperature over its 4.5-billion-year lifespan, so it doesn’t make sense to start freaking out about it now.






> If you wonder where today’s temperature fits in with the grand scheme of time on Earth since the dinosaurs were wiped out, here’s the history. We start with the whole 65 million years, then zoom in, and zoom in again to the last 12,000 from both ends of the world. What’s obvious is that in terms of _homo sapiens_ history, things are warm now (because we’re not in an ice age). But, in terms of _homo sapiens civilization,_ things are cooler than usual, and appear to be cooling.
> 
> Then again, since T-rex & Co. vanished, it’s been one long slide down the thermometer, and our current “record heatwave” is far cooler than normal. The dinosaurs would have scoffed at us: “What? You think _this _is warm?”




http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/


----------



## trainspotter

One meteor and ALL your theories are in the S Bend with the fluffy white paper ... 







> The mystery of why the dinosaurs  became extinct after the Cretaceous meteor strike, while birds and mammals flourished, may finally have been solved.
> 
> Paleontologists have discovered that dinosaur young took so long to hatch and grow into adulthood that populations failed to recover quickly enough after the devastating impact 65 million years ago.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ecame-extinct-could-not-hatch-quickly-enough/


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/





What is the significance of 1950 Graph in that article. Particularly the red median line ticking up?

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png


----------



## explod

trainspotter said:


> One meteor and ALL your theories are in the S Bend with the fluffy white paper ...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ecame-extinct-could-not-hatch-quickly-enough/



If you read "The Sixth Extinction by  Eleizabeth Kolbert" which I have referred to on this thread for over seven years you will learn that it has not occurred like this in the past.  On the news rightn now that we are at the point of no return unless we reduce co2 output now'


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> If you read "The Sixth Extinction by  Eleizabeth Kolbert" which I have referred to on this thread for over seven years you will learn that it has not occurred like this in the past.  On the news rightn now that we are at the point of no return unless we reduce co2 output now'




I think the the debate has moved from denial of change to one of "where the chips fall" versus can we offset what is happening regardless of the cause


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> What is the significance of 1950 Graph in that article. Particularly the red median line ticking up?
> 
> http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png




It's just another misrepresentation (lie actually) which is regularly trotted out by JoNova and her band of CC deniers.

The graph comes from temperatures calculated at one point in Greenland through ice cores. The last calculation on the graph refers to 1855. It doesn't in any way recognise the last 160 years of global warming - which would take the the red line way over the top.

When you go to the website you can see the the note at the bottom of the graph which explains the updated figure.

To quote

"This graph shows the ice core date until 1855. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the LIA (Little Ice age)"

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/


----------



## Wysiwyg

What will your children and children's children do for a quality of life? Consider coal and the associated government revenue which the gov.s use for infrastructure, health, education etc. will not be there and it is a massive source of revenue which will need something to replace. That is if present life qualities are to be maintained. The businesses that rely on coal are significant and the    local economies benefits significant. Large scale solar power production does not require people to run. Two people for a 95 megawatt field of arrays I heard. Where is the large revenue going t come from once coal stops? Expect a considerable timeline extension for achieving personal goals, local infrastructure maintenance (forget new), a degradation of social cohesion and a rising crime rate as no money bites hard. The industrial era will take a big hit and technology will make more people redundant. I do not see a way out.


----------



## luutzu

Wysiwyg said:


> What will your children and children's children do for a quality of life? Consider coal and the associated government revenue which the gov.s use for infrastructure, health, education etc. will not be there and it is a massive source of revenue which will need something to replace. That is if present life qualities are to be maintained. The businesses that rely on coal are significant and the    local economies benefits significant. Large scale solar power production does not require people to run. Two people for a 95 megawatt field of arrays I heard. Where is the large revenue going t come from once coal stops? Expect a considerable timeline extension for achieving personal goals, local infrastructure maintenance (forget new), a degradation of social cohesion and a rising crime rate as no money bites hard. The industrial era will take a big hit and technology will make more people redundant. I do not see a way out.




If the planet becomes uninhabitable, is there a way out? Mars is pretty far away and we can't all go there.

2016 was the "warmest" (they don't use "hottest" now, it's warm not hot )... so it was hottest year ever recorded in a string of hottest 16 or 15 years in a row. Some might look at that and see a pattern.

Coal and mining are being automated, they will have autopilot driving those trucks at all sites soon. But if we assume there's at least some job, coal mine do run out of coal, eventually. Especially at the rates that modern machineries and top cutting mountain removal kind of practices allows.

But renewables, it being a new field... would create more jobs, more scientific discoveries; more manufacturing jobs in plant construction, in robotics etc. etc. Then when it's implemented, more new jobs are created to put it on people's roofs, new gridlines, new plants etc.


----------



## orr

Wysiwyg said:


> What will your children and children's children do for a quality of life? Consider coal and the associated government revenue which the gov.s use for infrastructure, health, education etc. will not be there and it is a massive source of revenue which will need something to replace. That is if present life qualities are to be maintained. The businesses that rely on coal are significant and the    local economies benefits significant. Large scale solar power production does not require people to run. Two people for a 95 megawatt field of arrays I heard. Where is the large revenue going t come from once coal stops? Expect a considerable timeline extension for achieving personal goals, local infrastructure maintenance (forget new), a degradation of social cohesion and a rising crime rate as no money bites hard. The industrial era will take a big hit and technology will make more people redundant. I do not see a way out.




Charles Murray is a Libertarian rightwing economic/social adviser and author, a scholar who works for the American Enterprise Institute. Spend an hour here as he talks to Bill Kirstol... And then see if you carn't see a way out...


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> coal mine do run out of coal, eventually.




Estimates vary as to how much coal is economically recoverable but there's definitely a limit.

Looking at the UK, the first place to aggressively exploit their once-plentiful coal, well production peaked way back in 1913 and has trended down ever since. It's not zero today but it's minimal compared to what it once was. There's still coal in the ground but it's simply too expensive to mine - it's cheaper to use something else and that includes renewables.

China's offical reserves of anthracite and bituminous coal are about 60 billion tonnes. Sounds like a lot but they're mining 3 billion tonnes a year roughly so it won't last long. There's another 60 billion tonnes of lower grade coal but that contains less energy per tonne, so it's an inferior resource, and even if that's included it's still only going to last half a human lifetime.

Closer to home, estimates for NSW vary considerably but it seems very likely that a child born today will see the peak of extraction and the beginnings of decline simply due to the best quality, most easily accessible coal being used up. A point comes where what remains is simply too costly to get at and is effectively useless.

In WA they're already heading down that track. The best coal is gone, what remains is either inferior quality or costs more to mine. Hence there never was a coal boom in WA and the mines are struggling financially.

That we're proposing to export lower grade (sub-bituminous) coal from Tasmania says rather a lot. That was always considered worthless apart from local industry (mostly the cement works and paper mill) using it for boiler fuel and of course if we'd built a coal-fired power station it could have been used for that. That anyone else in the world wants to buy it says an awful lot about coal supply globally - nobody wants inferior product, of anything, if there's still plenty of the good stuff.

I won't claim to know how long it will last but most likely we're talking decades in terms of it being a growing industry (if there were no issue with CO2) and after that it's a long, slow decline as one by one the mines with good coal run out and it's increasingly uneconomic to use what's left. Even without the CO2 issue it would become uneconomic slowly but surely as coal extraction costs rise due to the best coal being used up first and renewables costs decline due to technology improvements.

So an intentional shift to renewables will bring the timing forward but ultimately coal is dead eventually no matter what we do or don't do about CO2 emissions.


----------



## SirRumpole

Coal is dead alright,  buried and cremated.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Coal is dead alright,  buried and cremated.




Not in Germany.

They love coal fired power stations.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/201...-germanys-new-coal-boom-reaches-record-level/


----------



## Wysiwyg

orr said:


> Charles Murray is a Libertarian rightwing economic/social adviser and author, a scholar who works for the American Enterprise Institute. Spend an hour here as he talks to Bill Kirstol... And then see if you carn't see a way out...



He certainly has an opinion, generalised in many cases and drew conclusions. An Americans experience that I don't connect with. Thanks for posting though.


----------



## Tisme

Wysiwyg said:


> What will your children and children's children do for a quality of life? Consider coal and the associated government revenue which the gov.s use for infrastructure, health, education etc. will not be there and it is a massive source of revenue which will need something to replace. That is if present life qualities are to be maintained. The businesses that rely on coal are significant and the    local economies benefits significant. Large scale solar power production does not require people to run. Two people for a 95 megawatt field of arrays I heard. Where is the large revenue going t come from once coal stops? Expect a considerable timeline extension for achieving personal goals, local infrastructure maintenance (forget new), a degradation of social cohesion and a rising crime rate as no money bites hard. The industrial era will take a big hit and technology will make more people redundant. I do not see a way out.




That's probably a concern of the ages.

I seem to recall a figure of 0.5% of Australian coal reserve is exported annually and we only use 0.05% for domestic use. It's a shame we didn't get into the carbon swap scheme, we could have all sat back and let other nations double pay us to take our carbon, just like those Indian solar guys convince us to install a system and take the carbon credits for India's benefit.


----------



## noco

Al Gore's 10 year predictions in 2006 about Global Warming has come back to bite him......He now has egg on his face.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...g-point-refuses-to-answer-enters-suv-in-snow/

*Coleman’s Key Climate Facts: 

*

*97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is settled.  Not by a long shot.  That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of smart phones, heating and air conditioning and swift and safe transportation is in some magical way destroying our climate.  The 97% claim has been disproved over and over again, but Gore, government and media continue to issue horrible scare claims.  *
 

*The oceans are not going to flood our cities.  *
*Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth. *
*Heat waves are not going kill millions.  *
*Our crops are not going to fail.  *
*(*_*More on the latest climate science here: *_


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> *The oceans are not going to flood our cities. *
> 
> *Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth. *
> 
> *Heat waves are not going kill millions. *
> 
> *Our crops are not going to fail. *
> 
> *(*_*More on the latest climate science here:*_




Hasn't that happened already???? Maybe they didn't get Andrew Bolt's permission to be included in the soup.

And perhaps if things aren't as bad as might have been, mitigation by responsible nations/corporations has been working?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Al Gore's 10 year predictions in 2006 about Global Warming has come back to bite him......He now has egg on his face.
> 
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...g-point-refuses-to-answer-enters-suv-in-snow/
> 
> *Coleman’s Key Climate Facts:
> 
> *
> 
> *97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is settled.  Not by a long shot.  That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of smart phones, heating and air conditioning and swift and safe transportation is in some magical way destroying our climate.  The 97% claim has been disproved over and over again, but Gore, government and media continue to issue horrible scare claims.  *
> 
> 
> *The oceans are not going to flood our cities.  *
> *Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth. *
> *Heat waves are not going kill millions.  *
> *Our crops are not going to fail.  *
> *(*_*More on the latest climate science here: *_



And maybe your just regurgitating complete and total BS as is Climate Depots and your want Noco.

But with President Alternative Facts in power clearly any tosh can be thrown up for belief by the  dumb and feeble.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> And maybe your just regurgitating complete and total BS as is Climate Depots and your want Noco.
> 
> But with President Alternative Facts in power clearly any tosh can be thrown up for belief by the  dumb and feeble.




So sorry if the truth hurts Bas......When the USA pull out of the UN things will gradually get worse for the Global Warming Alarmists.....There will be a domino affect and we will see other countries following suit....The UN will eventually disintegrate and will go down in the history books as a disgraceful organization.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> And maybe your just regurgitating complete and total BS as is Climate Depots and your want Noco.
> 
> But with President Alternative Facts in power clearly any tosh can be thrown up for belief by the  dumb and feeble.



Petulent leftist labeling and name-calling (sigh); when will you ever learn.

Clearly basilio, most of the dire predictions of the catasrophists have no eventuated. Sorry, but that's just the truth.

Now that the politics of CC has had a rocket fired up its ring, let's see if we gan get to the bottom of this thing. Looking forward to some revisions of the revisions.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Petulent leftist labeling and name-calling (sigh); when will you ever learn.
> 
> Clearly basilio, most of the dire predictions of the catasrophists have no eventuated. Sorry, but that's just the truth.
> 
> Now that the politics of CC has had a rocket fired up its ring, let's see if we gan get to the bottom of this thing. Looking forward to some revisions of the revisions.



Quite right Wayne. With President Alternative Reality on the throne I'm certain there will be revisions of all current CC "facts".

Temperatures around the globe  but  particularly in the US will fall.  There will be adjustments made to past calculations to show that nothing significant has actually happened. Any scientists employed with any US government money  who says otherwise won't be employed with US government money forwith.

All that will remain to complete the task is  convincing  the Antarctic ice shelves, Greenland glaciers,  Amazon forests, assorted plants, animals ecosystems and what not to accept the new dictaks. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS.  You have a very selective view of no catastrophes as a consequence of global warming
https://weather.com/science/environ...otos-climate-change-global-warming-20140820-0


----------



## Tisme

I'm guessing employment within the *Office of Global Change *will be rather smaller come their summer.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing employment within the *Office of Global Change *will be rather smaller come their summer.




There's a lot of openings at their local Riot Police and Crowd Control operations.


----------



## Knobby22

Knobby22 said:


> In the US
> 
> Record rain on the way for Victoria‎
> 
> NEWS.com.au - 5 hours ago
> RECORD rainfall is forecast for parts of the state as severe weather strikes again - and again. Another 200mm or more could be dumped on Victoria's ...
> 
> *Go short insurance companies*.




Good prediction if I say so myself. Suncorp had a CEO that said global warming was bunkum. They have now have had natural hazards exceed provision in 9 of the last 10 years and announced they in trouble again this year despite add 10% to their modelling this year as a sort fudge figure. IAG also has been wrong  8 times out of 10.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...right-on-extreme-weather-20170131-gu2rd4.html


----------



## Tisme

Darling Downs is losing it's crops due to heat...13 years ahead of schedule. Hottest summer ever.

Expect high grocery prices.

Next seven days more record breaking temps expected


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Al Gore's 10 year predictions in 2006 about Global Warming has come back to bite him......He now has egg on his face.
> 
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...g-point-refuses-to-answer-enters-suv-in-snow/
> 
> *Coleman’s Key Climate Facts:
> 
> *
> 
> *97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is settled.  Not by a long shot.  That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of smart phones, heating and air conditioning and swift and safe transportation is in some magical way destroying our climate.  The 97% claim has been disproved over and over again, but Gore, government and media continue to issue horrible scare claims.  *
> 
> 
> *The oceans are not going to flood our cities.  *
> *Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth. *
> *Heat waves are not going kill millions.  *
> *Our crops are not going to fail.  *
> *(*_*More on the latest climate science here: *_




The going orange bits is the Earth's way of welcoming Sun Emperor Trump.


----------



## explod

Things are really starting to burn up now.



> Piles of dead turtle hatchlings are lining Queensland's famous Mon Repos beach amid a heatwave which has pushed the sand's temperature to a record 75 degrees Celsius.
> 
> While the majority of hatchlings break free from their nests at night when the sand is cooler, those escaping in the day face overheating.
> 
> "They can't sweat, they can't pant, so they've got no mechanism for cooling," Department of Environment and Heritage Protection chief scientist Dr Col Limpus said.




http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036?pfmredir=sm


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Things are really starting to burn up now.
> 
> 
> 
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036?pfmredir=sm




Perhaps you should listen and read the link below.....I don't think you should believe what is in  your link put out by the ABC...The ABC are pro Global Warming.....Hatchlings only make to water at night when the sand is cooler......Only one in 1000 hatchlings survive to adulthood.....the link below is most interesting.

http://www.seeturtles.org/baby-turtles/


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Perhaps you should listen and read the link below.....I don't think you should believe what is in  your link put out by the ABC...The ABC are pro Global Warming.....Hatchlings only make to water at night when the sand is cooler......Only one in 1000 hatchlings survive to adulthood.....the link below is most interesting.
> 
> http://www.seeturtles.org/baby-turtles/




There are thousands of rookeries though out Australia and the world......Mon Repos seems to be an isolated case, which I might add, has happened before over the past 5000 years...Some research by your good self will confirm will confirm this....We have lots of hutches on the Townsville beaches and to date I have not seen any news of this problem or from any other parts of Australia.
Hatchlings normally wait until the sand cools down before venturing down the beach to the open sea.....I have not heard of hatchings traversing over hot sands in the middle of the day.,


----------



## noco

The great Global Warming scam has finally been revealed by a whistle-blower from NOAA......NOAA have been caught out fiddling with data to influence the Paris agreement which Trump is preparing to tear up.

No doubt in my mind NOAA has been influenced by the corrupt United Nations.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> The great Global Warming scam has finally been revealed by a whistle-blower from NOAA......NOAA have been caught out fiddling with data to influence the Paris agreement which Trump is preparing to tear up.
> 
> No doubt in my mind NOAA has been influenced by the corrupt United Nations.




As with everything there are two sides to the story

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1


> The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.




And on the actual science side 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> As with everything there are two sides to the story
> 
> http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
> 
> 
> And on the actual science side
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise




*But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.


It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised...


In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.


Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.*


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> *But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.*




As I pointed out we can go tit for tat on this but there is no point as it won't alter your position.  I love how Dr John Bates now has an "impeccable" reputation, I bet a week ago he was just another scientist standing in the way of the Daily Mails climate denial. 

Do you consider it possible that climate change caused by man is real but also that certain authorities and powers (UN) are using it as a power grab to run an alternative political agenda?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> As I pointed out we can go tit for tat on this but there is no point as it won't alter your position.  I love how Dr John Bates now has an "impeccable" reputation, I bet a week ago he was just another scientist standing in the way of the Daily Mails climate denial.
> 
> Do you consider it possible that climate change caused by man is real but also that certain authorities and powers (UN) are using it as a power grab to run an alternative political agenda?




Climate Change (it used to be Global Warming) is a scam set up by the United Nations to scare people into believing UN led World government is the answer......The UN is so corrupt and disorganized and to the point of collapse and that event will be assisted by the USA when they pull out of the UN within the next 2 years...The USA provides 22% of the finances to the UN. 

The information on Climate Change is  a fiddle with the truth which has now been proven over and over again.


----------



## Tisme

I see the turtle population is declining because the nesting beaches are too hot for the eggs to incubate. 

Eggs are being moved under shade cloth shelters.

I'm guessing the prolonged degree days are causing major heat soak into the sand.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I see the turtle population is declining because the nesting beaches are too hot for the eggs to incubate.
> 
> Eggs are being moved under shade cloth shelters.
> 
> I'm guessing the prolonged degree days are causing major heat soak into the sand.




That is at Mon Repo near Bundaberg and is an isolated case....They don't say how many have perished...Is it 200 or 500?..... it really does not matter as only one in 1000 survive to adult hood, so they were probably in the 999 group. 

Once again another beat up on Global Warming justification.

We have heaps of rookeries on the Townville beaches and lots of others beaches in NQ....No problem up this way......


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Climate Change (it used to be Global Warming) is a scam set up by the United Nations to scare people into believing UN led World government is the answer......The UN is so corrupt and disorganized and to the point of collapse and that event will be assisted by the USA when they pull out of the UN within the next 2 years...The USA provides 22% of the finances to the UN.
> 
> The information on Climate Change is  a fiddle with the truth which has now been proven over and over again.



This would be a greater con job than if man didn't actually walk on the moon or the whole jet fuel can't melt steel beams conspiracy.  There is no way they have been able to manipulate multiple agencies around the world and peer reviewed papers into some climate change hoax.

But hypothetically if they're wrong a world with low emissions is still a much better world to live in than one that continues to pollute the air we breathe.


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> This would be a greater con job than if man didn't actually walk on the moon or the whole jet fuel can't melt steel beams conspiracy.  There is no way they have been able to manipulate multiple agencies around the world and peer reviewed papers into some climate change hoax.
> 
> But hypothetically if they're wrong a world with low emissions is still a much better world to live in than one that continues to pollute the air we breathe.




So we have to cleanup the legacy of our forefathers for the benefit of our descendants? I can't see that happening soon .... it's so unfair and nuisance factor = high.


----------



## explod

Tisme said:


> So we have to cleanup the legacy of our forefathers for the benefit of our descendants? I can't see that happening soon .... it's so unfair and nuisance factor = high.



So just give up and party hey


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> So just give up and party hey





I think so. We have to leave something for the next generation to solve. And why should Australia take a hit for the excesses of USA, China, India, Europe, etc?

If 19.2590° S, 146.8169° E is fine then the whole thing must be a hoax.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I think so. We have to leave something for the next generation to solve. And why should Australia take a hit for the excesses of USA, China, India, Europe, etc?
> 
> If 19.2590° S, 146.8169° E is fine then the whole thing must be a hoax.





That's slightly better than policy makers and makers of policy makers thinking that if their mansions in X, Y and Z are fine, CC doesn't really matter.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Darling Downs is losing it's crops due to heat...13 years ahead of schedule. Hottest summer ever.
> 
> Expect high grocery prices.
> 
> Next seven days more record breaking temps expected




Hottest summer ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......Not according to past records.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/ex...he-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Hottest summer ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......Not according to past records.
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/ex...he-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/





I'll be really impressed if you can show me another period of time where each and every consecutive year is the hottest ever recorded. That is, average yearly temperature keep on rising for 15 years in a row.

I heard from scientist who study these stuff that the chances of these set of records are one in some billion.

So we can point to one day in the past that has been hotter, show 15 consecutive years please.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I'll be really impressed if you can show me another period of time where each and every consecutive year is the hottest ever recorded. That is, average yearly temperature keep on rising for 15 years in a row.
> 
> I heard from scientist who study these stuff that the chances of these set of records are one in some billion.
> 
> So we can point to one day in the past that has been hotter, show 15 consecutive years please.





luutzu said:


> I'll be really impressed if you can show me another period of time where each and every consecutive year is the hottest ever recorded. That is, average yearly temperature keep on rising for 15 years in a row.
> 
> I heard from scientist who study these stuff that the chances of these set of records are one in some billion.
> 
> So we can point to one day in the past that has been hotter, show 15 consecutive years please.




We are talking about heat wave conditions.......The 15 years you included is a scam and NOAA have been proven to be fiddling  with the grafts to please the UN...Go back to some of the previous posts and it will be  confirmed as to  what I am saying.


----------



## Tisme

About time the public were educated about the difference between peak daily dry bulb temps and actual total daily enthalpy.

If they did they would understand why a 32degC day in Brisbane summer is ~just as uncomfortable as a 38degC in, say Adelaide, maybe worse.

It's undeniable that the tropics are marching south and pushing the coastal rains of Southern Australia south too, a gradual desertification of S/W through to S/E Oz.

I just have look at how the Pilbra is looking greener and greener each year.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> This would be a greater con job than if man didn't actually walk on the moon or the whole jet fuel can't melt steel beams conspiracy.  There is no way they have been able to manipulate multiple agencies around the world and peer reviewed papers into some climate change hoax.
> 
> But hypothetically if they're wrong a world with low emissions is still a much better world to live in than one that continues to pollute the air we breathe.
> 
> View attachment 69867




It is not a hoax but a con job.

I have said over and over again on this Forum that it is to do with the axis of Earth tilting towards the Sun at different angles.

The link below confirms what I have been saying.

http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> It is not a hoax but a con job.
> 
> I have said over and over again on this Forum that it is to do with the axis of Earth tilting towards the Sun at different angles.
> 
> The link below confirms what I have been saying.
> 
> http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/




Again lets say you are correct and man isn't causing climate change we still know that the ocean absorbs CO2 which creates carbonic acid.  We know that since the industrial revolution the ocean is 30% more acidic than prior.  So climate change aside our release of CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing levels isn't a great thing for the environment.  No one can deny that to currently continue burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere is unsustainable, we're just delaying the inevitable by a few generations when they will have no choice but to act.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Again lets say you are correct and man isn't causing climate change we still know that the ocean absorbs CO2 which creates carbonic acid.  *We know that since the industrial revolution the ocean is 30% more acidic than prior.  So climate change aside our release of CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing levels isn't a great thing for the environment.  No one can *deny that to currently continue burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere is unsustainable, we're just delaying the inevitable by a few generations when they will have no choice but to act.




Where is your link to support your statement?


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Where is your link to support your statement?




http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification



> In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification




Hey mate, that info is from NOAA...They are the ones proven to fiddle with the information to please the UN.

Take it with a grain of  salt.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Hey mate, that info is from NOAA...They are the ones proven to fiddle with the information to please the UN.
> 
> Take it with a grain of  salt.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-06/uhlmann-on-power-blackout-in-south-australia/7906844

And the lights went out across the state.

It should be noted here that the report says that 14 of the 22 transmission towers that went down did so, "following the SA black system".


----------



## wayneL

30% eh?

Tricky maths there.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-06/uhlmann-on-power-blackout-in-south-australia/7906844
> 
> And the lights went out across the state.
> 
> It should be noted here that the report says that 14 of the 22 transmission towers that went down did so, "following the SA black system".





Poor ol' Chris, he got played big time.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Hey mate, that info is from NOAA...They are the ones proven to fiddle with the information to please the UN.
> 
> Take it with a grain of  salt.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54




I already addressed that in an earlier reply but since you can't remember.

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1


> The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.




Who knows what John Bates agenda is but he certainly has mislead about some if not all of his accusations

So on one hand you completely refuse to accept NOAAs findings but then are happy to sprout an online survey of 600 people with very questionable methodology and funded by a known anti-Muslim organisation to push your agenda further.  If you're going to be a skeptic can you at least be consistent.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I already addressed that in an earlier reply but since you can't remember.
> 
> http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
> 
> 
> Who knows what John Bates agenda is but he certainly has mislead about some if not all of his accusations
> 
> So on one hand you completely refuse to accept NOAAs findings but then are happy to sprout an online survey of 600 people with very questionable methodology and funded by a known anti-Muslim organisation to push your agenda further.  If you're going to be a skeptic can you at least be consistent.




Hey it was not me completely refusing to accept NOAA's findings.....I was only the messenger but it is not only John Bates blowing the whistle....If you go back through various post you will see how NOAA has been exposed with deceptive with their data......I know you don't like being told but it is a fact


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Hey it was not me completely refusing to accept NOAA's findings.....I was only the messenger but it is not only John Bates blowing the whistle....If you go back through various post you will see how NOAA has been exposed with deceptive with their data......I know you don't like being told but it is a fact




Not just NOAA's findings, it's NASA's findings, CSIRO and every other reputable science authority around the world you refuse to accept.  We've seen this all before with the tobacco industry that in the face of irrefutable data showing the link between smoking and lung cancer, they still paid physicians to deny the health risks posed by smoking.


----------



## Ves

overhang said:


> Not just NOAA's findings, it's NASA's findings, CSIRO and every other reputable science authority around the world you refuse to accept.  We've seen this all before with the tobacco industry that in the face of irrefutable data showing the link between smoking and lung cancer, they still paid physicians to deny the health risks posed by smoking.



Leaded fuel and asbestos to add others.    Actually I guarantee there's still probably idiots out there arguing that both of these are safe.


----------



## Tisme

Ves said:


> Leaded fuel and asbestos to add others.    Actually I guarantee there's still probably idiots out there arguing that both of these are safe.




You never see sick dead people, so therefore the myths of lead poisoning, asbestosis, etc are not proved as unhealthy


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> You never see sick dead people, so therefore the myths of lead poisoning, asbestosis, etc are not proved as unhealthy




As  a plumber back in the 40's, I had a good dose of asbestos and did lots of lead burning (welding)...The old plumbers would lean over my shoulder and whisper in my ear..."SUNNY, MAKE SURE YOU DRINK PLENTY OF MILK TONIGHT"...I still have plural plaques around my lungs from asbestos but I am still alive,


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> As  a plumber back in the 40's, I had a good dose of asbestos and did lots of lead burning (welding)...The old plumbers would lean over my shoulder and whisper in my ear..."SUNNY, MAKE SURE YOU DRINK PLENTY OF MILK TONIGHT"...I still have plural plaques around my lungs from asbestos but I am still alive,




Yes I remember wearing pearly white knitted asbestos gloves while welding. I remember the lead brazing too, thank goodness for eutectic filler rod.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Yes I remember wearing pearly white knitted asbestos gloves while welding. I remember the lead brazing too, thank goodness for eutectic filler rod.




Lead brazing????...What is that?.....never heard of lead brazing.....What sort of flux and brazing rod did you use?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Not just NOAA's findings, it's NASA's findings, CSIRO and every other reputable science authority around the world you refuse to accept.  We've seen this all before with the tobacco industry that in the face of irrefutable data showing the link between smoking and lung cancer, they still paid physicians to deny the health risks posed by smoking.




Some good reading on the accuracy of NASA MODELS.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

And Soros paid Al Gore to lie about Global Warming.

http://www.choiceandtruth.com/2016/...ore-millions-to-lie-about-global-warming.html


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Lead brazing????...What is that?.....never heard of lead brazing.....What sort of flux and brazing rod did you use?





OK you can't help yourself can you ..., the difference is merely the temperature of filler rod melting point or didn't they teach you that at plumbing school, they obviously did me; 450degC being the threshold temp for soldering?

We used lead/silver and lead/copper filler alloys that fall into the brazing class. You of course would have used soft solder no doubt. It's hardly leading edge technology to be behaving like a pedant is it.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> OK you can't help yourself can you ..., the difference is merely the temperature of filler rod melting point or didn't they teach you that at plumbing school, they obviously did me; 450degC being the threshold temp for soldering?
> 
> We used lead/silver and lead/copper filler alloys that fall into the brazing class. You of course would have used soft solder no doubt. It's hardly leading edge technology to be behaving like a pedant is it.




Excuse me, we were talking about lead brazing but you have wondered off onto soldering.

Silver soldering is something different again...We originally use Tobin bronze for brazing copper tube long before silver solder came into play which had a much lower melting point...Silver solder was great on copper capillary fitting where it could penetrate the whole joint...In my day we did not have capillary fittings and had to make  our own tees and bends....Did you ever do any copper tube bending?

Now back to lead brazing what sort of flux and rod did you use on a lead joint?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Excuse me, we were talking about lead brazing but you have wondered off onto soldering.
> 
> Silver soldering is something different again...We originally use Tobin bronze for brazing copper tube long before silver solder came into play which had a much lower melting point...Silver solder was great on copper capillary fitting where it could penetrate the whole joint...In my day we did not have capillary fittings and had to make  our own tees and bends....Did you ever do any copper tube bending?
> 
> Now back to lead brazing what sort of flux and rod did you use on a lead joint?




A bit off topic for climate change aren't we ? 

<runs for cover>


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> A bit off topic for climate change aren't we ?
> 
> <runs for cover>



yes it is off topic but you see Tisme broached the subject and I followed on because there is no thread covering that particular subject....Tisme staring talking about asbestos and lead poisoning..


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Excuse me, we were talking about lead brazing but you have wondered off onto soldering.
> 
> Silver soldering is something different again...We originally use Tobin bronze for brazing copper tube long before silver solder came into play which had a much lower melting point...Silver solder was great on copper capillary fitting where it could penetrate the whole joint...In my day we did not have capillary fittings and had to make  our own tees and bends....Did you ever do any copper tube bending?
> 
> Now back to lead brazing what sort of flux and rod did you use on a lead joint?




At a pinch borax powder and water paste

You're not reading through your rage again are you. LOL. 

And yes I still keep my hand in using my benders, expanders, swaging tools, pullers etc. I have oxy sets and many MAP/Pro gas sets. Two weeks ago I was brazing 8" copper on a chilled water plant to help my employees out. I also helped stainless steel weld a manifold to header those pipes.

I have migs, tigs and stick welders and I can chew gum when I use them. I stitch weld, I plasma cut,  even have spot welders.......I am a GOD! I have several personal workshops where large investments in tools, machinery and project cars reside.

I was classically trained in the railway workshops to gas weld, electric weld, braze and solder and what's more I had to pass exams including material stress and pull testing and boilermaking/smithing/plumbing is not my original trade, although now I have multiple certified trade qualifications. I would hazard a guess you have nowhere near an idea of just how able anyone here is and it probably galls you to think you might have been bested by a more ubiquitous person and someone who has a bigger gas axe tip than you do.

Dammit I have run out of red rags


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> A bit off topic for climate change aren't we ?
> 
> <runs for cover>



 I dunno, resisting and hysteria is not a bad two out of three attempt


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> At a pinch borax powder and water paste
> 
> You're not reading through your rage again are you. LOL.
> 
> And yes I still keep my hand in using my benders, expanders, swaging tools, pullers etc. I have oxy sets and many MAP/Pro gas sets. Two weeks ago I was brazing 8" copper on a chilled water plant to help my employees out. I also helped stainless steel weld a manifold to header those pipes.
> 
> I have migs, tigs and stick welders and I can chew gum when I use them. I stitch weld, I plasma cut,  even have spot welders.......I am a GOD! I have several personal workshops where large investments in tools, machinery and project cars reside.
> 
> I was classically trained in the railway workshops to gas weld, electric weld, braze and solder and what's more I had to pass exams including material stress and pull testing and boilermaking/smithing/plumbing is not my original trade, although now I have multiple certified trade qualifications. I would hazard a guess you have nowhere near an idea of just how able anyone here is and it probably galls you to think you might have been bested by a more ubiquitous person and someone who has a bigger gas axe tip than you do.
> 
> Dammit I have run out of red rags




Just another diversion from the real subject Tisme...I don't really give a stuff about all you welding equipment...You seem to be a JACK of all TRADES and master of none.

I want to know how do you braze lead which is 600 F (315.5 C) melting point?....You were the one who mentioned lead brazing....Now this time stay with the question...

When soldering what percentage lead and tin did you use on galvanized iron, copper and lead?...What flux do you use on each metal before soldering?

You can use copper benders on small bore copper pipe but how do you bend copper tube of larger diameters like 2"...3"...4"...and 6 ".?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Just another diversion from the real subject Tisme...I don't really give a stuff about all you welding equipment...You seem to be a JACK of all TRADES and master of none.
> 
> I want to know how do you braze lead which is 600 F (315.5 C) melting point?....You were the one who mentioned lead brazing....Now this time stay with the question...
> 
> When soldering what percentage lead and tin did you use on galvanized iron, copper and lead?...What flux do you use on each metal before soldering?
> 
> You can use copper benders on small bore copper pipe but how do you bend copper tube of larger diameters like 2"...3"...4"...and 6 ".?





You don't braze lead at 315.5 deg C. You soft solder at that temp master of none.

We were trained to make zinc hydro-chloride flux via hydrochloric acid and zinc and use resin/rosin fluxes on the electrical joins. We would work PGI with blow torch and stick solder and still do on sealed ducting, although a Birko style electric is our choice of preference.

We pull large bends when resistance is a problem otherwise buy preformed. If you need a masterclass just ask. We also have hydraulic mandrel benders

Hardly worth making a science out of a home economics level trade.

BTW my record for apprentices of the year is fairly impressive for a master of none.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> You don't braze lead at 315.5 deg C. You soft solder at that temp master of none.
> 
> We were trained to make zinc hydro-chloride flux via hydrochloric acid and zinc and use resin/rosin fluxes on the electrical joins. We would work PGI with blow torch and stick solder and still do on sealed ducting, although a Birko style electric is our choice of preference.
> 
> We pull large bends when resistance is a problem otherwise buy preformed. If you need a masterclass just ask. We also have hydraulic mandrel benders
> 
> Hardly worth making a science out of a home economics level trade.
> 
> BTW my record for apprentices of the year is fairly impressive for a master of none.




Why did you mention in your early post about brazing lead?...Now you are saying you don't braze lead...You seem to have contradicted yourself on this occasion.....Perhaps maybe you wish you had not opened the subject.

Yes you can soft solder lead but you are obviously not familiar with lead burning where you do not use solder...I lined dozens of acid vats 8'x 4'x 4' deep and no solder could be used...these vats held Surphuric and Hydrochloric acids......Solder and acid are not a good combination...Now then would you like me elaborate on the process so that you have a better understanding of lead burning?

I would also like you to tell me how you bend 2" to 6" copper tube.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Why did you mention in your early post about brazing lead?...Now you are saying you don't braze lead...You seem to have contradicted yourself on this occasion.....Perhaps maybe you wish you had not opened the subject.
> 
> Yes you can soft solder lead but you are obviously not familiar with lead burning where you do not use solder...I lined dozens of acid vats 8'x 4'x 4' deep and no solder could be used...these vats held Surphuric and Hydrochloric acids......Solder and acid are not a good combination...Now then would you like me elaborate on the process so that you have a better understanding of lead burning?
> 
> I would also like you to tell me how you bend 2" to 6" copper tube.





No cobber, you'll have to learn how to punch above your weight if you think I'm giving you anymore free training.

Your comprehension skill are consistently woeful and I'm too busy writing intelligent posts on discussion boards and social media, while still running a company to get down an dirty over basic trade skills.

I'm kinda pleased you have something to hang onto from ancient Australia, but time marches on and so does rankings of technology as important.

I bet you still have a leather patch for lead wiping too


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> No cobber, you'll have to learn how to punch above your weight if you think I'm giving you anymore free training.
> 
> Your comprehension skill are consistently woeful and I'm too busy writing intelligent posts on discussion boards and social media, while still running a company to get down an dirty over basic trade skills.
> 
> I'm kinda pleased you have something to hang onto from ancient Australia, but time marches on and so does rankings of technology as important.
> 
> I bet you still have a leather patch for lead wiping too




Well Tisme, I can see I have got you rattled because you do not have the answers on the subject which you started.......You don't know a bee from  bull's foot about lead burning or copper pipe bending or the percentage of lead and tin solder used on various metals......so now you wriggle out by saying you are too busy....I have forgotten more about plumbing than you have learned.
I am sure you wish you had not started this conversation because it has become such an  embarrassment for you.

For you to be running a company, you sure spend a lot of time on ASF.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Well Tisme, I can see I have got you rattled because you do not have the answers on the subject which you started.......You don't know a bee from  bull's foot about lead burning or copper pipe bending or the percentage of lead and tin solder used on various metals......so now you wriggle out by saying you are too busy....I have forgotten more about plumbing than you have learned.
> I am sure you wish you had not started this conversation because it has become such an  embarrassment for you.
> 
> For you to be running a company, you sure spend a lot of time on ASF.




Still trolling and jealous much I suspect. 

If you want to know my basic training familiarise yourself with the once biggest workshops in Oz and many parts of the world and renowned for turning out he best trained in Oz for the many disciplines. You could never appreciate the skill sets I have and what's more I have no desire to debate them so you can attempt to debase them.

Your mealy mouthed behaviour, as usual, is to personify your obscurity and narrow focus as something of an exclusive club, a club that few have a desire to join. My mistake was to offer you some conversation about soldering and brazing, but as expected you went all magpie and attacked to protect your precious nest. My bet is you have few people who (can be bothered) argue with you in real life?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Still trolling and jealous much I suspect.
> 
> If you want to know my basic training familiarise yourself with the once biggest workshops in Oz and many parts of the world and renowned for turning out he best trained in Oz for the many disciplines. You could never appreciate the skill sets I have and what's more I have no desire to debate them so you can attempt to debase them.
> 
> Your mealy mouthed behaviour, as usual, is to personify your obscurity and narrow focus as something of an exclusive club, a club that few have a desire to join. My mistake was to offer you some conversation about soldering and brazing, but as expected you went all magpie and attacked to protect your precious nest. My bet is you have few people who (can be bothered) argue with you in real life?




I know you have a very  ego and high opinion of yourself and love to look down your nose at those whom you think are inferior to yourself , but if you are genuine and would like to learn how to lead burn, bend copper tubing and steel piping  2" to 6". I would be happy to explain it to you...We had to do this before copper capillary fittings and weld neck steel bends and tees became available.

But I guess you will ignore my invitation knowing how  you could not possibly lower yourself to learn something from an expert on the subject.


----------



## wayneL

Interesting segment with Howard Brady just then on chris smith program 4bc.

Anyone listening?


----------



## noco

Some interesting historical facts.


*Australia's Hottest Day !




  HI ALL … here are some interesting facts from “TROVE” old


newspaper articles.




  Click on the underlined type to read the old newspaper cuttings …


Trevor.




> AUSTRALIA'S HOTTEST DAY ON RECORD 1828!


> 


> NOT 2016, BUT 1828 AT A BLISTERING 53.9 °C


> 


> BACK BEFORE MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE WAS FRYING AUSTRALIA, WHEN CO2


> WAS AROUND 300PPM, THE CONTINENT SAVOURED AN IDEAL PRE-INDUSTRIAL


> CLIMATE ... _RIGHT?_


> 


> _THIS IS THE KIND OF CLIMATE WE ARE SPENDING $10B PER ANNUM TO GET


> BACK TOO__ __... RIGHT AGAIN?_


> 


> WE ARE TOLD TODAY'S CLIMATE HAS MORE RECORDS AND MORE EXTREMES THAN


> TIMES GONE BY, BUT THE FEW RECORDS WE HAVE FROM THE EARLY 1800'S ARE


> EYE-POPPING.  THINGS WERE NOT JUST HOTTER, BUT SO WILDLY HOT IT BURST


> THERMOMETERS.  THE EARLIEST TEMPERATURE RECORDS WE HAVE SHOW THAT


> AUSTRALIA WAS A LAND OF SHOCKING HEATWAVES AND DROUGHTS, EXCEPT FOR


> WHEN IT WAS BITTERLY COLD OR RAGING IN FLOOD.


> 


> _IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, EXCEPT POSSIBLY THINGS MIGHT


> NOT BE QUITE SO HOT NOW!_


> 


> SILLIGGY (LANCE PIDGEON) HAS BEEN RESEARCHING RECORDS FROM EARLY


> EXPLORERS AND FROM NEWSPAPERS.


> 


> _WHAT HE'S UNCOVERED IS FASCINATING!   IT'S AS IF HISTORY IS BEING


> ERASED!_


> 


> FOR ALL THAT WE HEAR ABOUT RECENT RECORD-BREAKING CLIMATE EXTREMES,


> RECORDS THAT ARE EQUALLY EXTREME, AND SOMETIMES EVEN MORE SO, ARE


> IGNORED. IN JANUARY 1896 A SAVAGE BLAST "LIKE A FURNACE" STRETCHED


> ACROSS AUSTRALIA FROM EAST TO WEST AND LASTED FOR WEEKS.


> 


> _THE DEATH TOLL REACHED 437 PEOPLE IN THE EASTERN STATES. _


> 


> NEWSPAPER REPORTS SHOWED THAT IN BOURKE THE HEAT APPROACHED 120°F


> (48.9°C) ON THREE DAYS.


> 


> LINKS TO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (1 [1])(2 [2])(3 [3])


> 


> _THE MAXIMUM AT OR ABOVE 102 DEGREES F (38.9°C) FOR 24 DAYS


> STRAIGHT!_


> 


> USE THE SEVERAL LINKS BELOW TO READ THE NEWS REPORTS AT THE TIME FOR


> YOURSELF ..


> 


> 1.    BY TUESDAY JAN 14, PEOPLE WERE REPORTED FALLING DEAD [4] IN THE


> STREETS.


> 


> 2.    UNABLE TO SLEEP, PEOPLE IN BREWARRINA WALKED THE STREETS AT


> NIGHT FOR HOURS, THERMOMETERS RECORDED 109F AT_  __MIDNIGHT_ [5].


> 


> 3.    OVERNIGHT, THE TEMPERATURE DID NOT FALL BELOW 103°F.


> 


> 4.    ON JAN 18 IN WILCANNIA, FIVE DEATHS WERE RECORDED IN ONE DAY,


> THE HOSPITALS WERE OVERCROWDED [6] AND REPORTS SAID THAT _"MORE DEATHS


> ARE HOURLY EXPECTED"_.


> 


> 5.    BY JANUARY 24, IN BOURKE, MANY BUSINESSES HAD SHUT DOWN [7]


> (ALMOST EVERYTHING BAR THE HOTELS).


> 


> 6.    PANIC STRICKEN [8] AUSTRALIANS WERE FLEEING TO THE HILLS  [9]IN


> CLIMATE REFUGEE TRAINS.


> 


> AS REPORTED AT THE TIME, THE GOVERNMENT FELT THE SITUATION WAS SO


> SERIOUS THAT TO SAVE LIVES AND EASE THE SUFFERING OF ITS CITIZENS THEY


> ADDED CHEAPER TRAIN SERVICES:


> 


> WHAT I FOUND MOST INTERESTING ABOUT THIS WAS THE SKILL, DEDICATION


> AND LENGTH OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA TAKEN IN THE 1800'S. WHEN OUR


> CLIMATE IS "THE MOST IMPORTANT MORAL CHALLENGE" WHY IS IT THERE IS SO


> LITTLE INTEREST IN OUR LONGEST AND OLDEST DATA?


> 


> WHO KNEW THAT ONE OF THE MOST METICULOUS AND DETAILED TEMPERATURE


> RECORDS IN THE WORLD FROM THE 1800'S COMES FROM ADELAIDE, LARGELY


> THANKS TO SIR CHARLES TODD.


> 


> THE WEST TERRACE SITE IN ADELAIDE WAS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD AT


> THE TIME, AND PROVIDES ACCURATE HISTORIC TEMPERATURES FROM


> "AUSTRALIA'S FIRST PERMANENT WEATHER BUREAU [10] AT ADELAIDE IN 1856?.


> 


> 


> RAINFALL RECORDS EVEN APPEAR TO GO AS FAR BACK AS 1839.  LANCE


> PIDGEON WENT DELVING INTO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND WAS SURPRISED AT


> WHAT HE FOUND.


> 


> _THE MEDIA ARE IN OVERDRIVE, MAKING OUT THAT "THE EXTREME HEAT IS THE


> NEW NORMAL" IN AUSTRALIA. _


> 


> THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN HEATWAVE OF JANUARY 2013 DIDN'T PUSH THE MERCURY


> ABOVE 50C AT ANY WEATHER STATION IN AUSTRALIA, YET IT'S BEEN 50C


> (122F) AND HOTTER IN MANY INLAND TOWNS ACROSS AUSTRALIA OVER THE PAST


> CENTURY.


> 


> SEE HOW MANY ARE IN THE LATE 1800'S AND EARLY TO MID 1900'S.


> 


> YOU CAN'T BLAME THOSE HIGH RECORDS ON MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!


> 


> _Click as Suggested. _


> 


> _The Trove Newspaper cuttings are especially interesting for


> Genealogists as people who died are named__.___






Links:


------


[1] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/33121679?zoomLevel=4

*



*
*
17 Jan 1896 - THE WEATHER IN NEW SOUTH WALES. - Trove
*

trove.nla.gov.au


The National Library of Australia's Copies Direct service lets you purchase higher quality, larger sized photocopies or electronic copies of newspapers pages.




[2] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14033806?zoomLevel=6

*



*
*
INTENSE HEAT AT BOURKE. - THREE MORE DEATHS AND FURTHER SUNSTROKES. BOURKE, Saturday. - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) - 20 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


There is no cessation in the great heat, in fact it is increasing, the thermometer registering 120° to-day. Three more deaths were reorded to-day, directly caused by the sun. The town was ...




[3] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/53682260?zoomLevel=6

*



*
*
THE WEATHER IN THE EASTERN COLONIES. - SHADE TEMPERATURE AT BOURKE 120. MORE DEATHS REPORTED. Sydney, January 22. - South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900) - 23 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


A welcome fall of rain occurred to-day over the central coastal district aud highlands, accompanied by a great lowering of the temperature all over the colony except in the far west. ...




[4] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44132389?zoomLevel=5

*



*
*
The Death Roll. - A Melancholy List. Apoplexy, Thirst, and Sunstroke. SYDNEY, Tuesday. - Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW : 1888 - 1954) - 14 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


William Clark, aged 51, proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Singleton, died yesterday of beat apoplexy. Arthur Hassett, a director of the ...




[5] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44159099?zoomLevel=5

*



*
*
Thunderstorms and High Temperatures. - Alarming Sickness in Many Towns. SYDNEY, Thursday. - Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW : 1888 - 1954) - 23 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


M[?] depressing reports come from the country districts. A Cudal correspondent reports that thunderstorms travel over that district ...




[6] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/14033576?zoomLevel=5

*



*
*
(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENTS.) EXTRAORDINARY HEAT AT WILCANNIA. - THERMOMETER 119[?] IN THE SHADE. FIVE DEATHS IN ONE DAY. THE HOSPITAL CROWDED. WILCANNIA, Friday. - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) - 18 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


Tho heat has been unbearable to-day. The thermometer registered 119[?] in the shade at 2 o'clock. Five deaths from heat have occurred since last night, the Rev. Father Davern being ...




[7] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/75263800?

*



*
*
THE HEAT IN NEW SOUTH WALES. - AN UNPRECEDENTED RECORD. - The Horsham Times (Vic. : 1882 - 1954) - 24 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


Telegrams from Sydney and more complete details in the Sydney papers furnish amazing and. distressing accounts of the terrible effects of the ...




[8] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8888573?zoomLevel=6

*



*
*
THE GREAT HEAT IN NEW SOUTH WALES. - NO CHANGE YET. MORE DEATHS REPORTED._ RESIDENTS OF BOURKE PANICSTRICKEN. SYDNEY, TUESDAY. - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 22 Jan 1896
*

trove.nla.gov.au


The light rain which has fallen during the past three doys on the coast has penetrated inland across the mountains, with the result that only six places to-day report heat over ...




[9] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/79288908?zoomLevel=5


[10] http://www.rahs.org.au/history-resources/the-first-weather-bureau/















*


----------



## Logique

Heavy going in that post format Noco!

The lady is right, how do people think solar panels and wind farms are made?  Disposing of toxic materials in solar panels will be a growing problem.


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Heavy going in that post format Noco!
> 
> The lady is right, how do people think solar panels and wind farms are made?  Disposing of toxic materials in solar panels will be a growing problem.





But perhaps nothing remotely as difficult as dealing with the millions of tons of pollutants spewed out by coal fired power stations at the moment.
You know the ones that are largely responsible for creating hideous air pollution in China and which the Chinese government has vowed to stop by moving very rapidly to solar and wind power.
Not to mention of course the fact that the billions of tons of CO2 spewing from coal fired power stations are the direct cause of the the escalating rate of global warming which is destroying the world we know and most of us with it.

_"[...]If you don’t know about or understand the evidence that shows incontrovertibly that we are warming the planet, you are IGNORANT. No sin here. You can rectify your ignorance by hard study.

If you refuse to put in the hard study, then you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and your opinion is worthless.

If you refuse even to look at the evidence even when it is shoved in front of your face and still insist you understand better than all the experts, then you are a DENIALIST.

Finally, if you insist that all the scientists are engaged in a global hoax to preserve their lucrative grants (which amount in salary to about what a mid-level IT administrator would make), then you are an IDIOT_.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-13/#comment-142986


----------



## explod

General news this morning,  "200 extreme weather records broken in the last three months" 

Coming up on ABC tv as I type.


----------



## orr

Second year running of coral bleaching onthe Barrier Reef.... who would of thought?

Press on with that Abbot Point coal loader, there'll be no reef for it to ruin shortly anyway.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Second year running of coral bleaching onthe Barrier Reef.... who would of thought?
> 
> Press on with that Abbot Point coal loader, there'll be no reef for it to ruin shortly anyway.




Where is your proof?...Which part of the 2,500 km long Barrier reef are you talking about.

Most of the coral bleaching that took place last year was north of Cooktown...No mining or agriculture run off....The Greens are full of exaggeration.


----------



## orr

From the WWF ....
http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef/coral-bleaching-on-the-reef#gs.X=KptdI

Reports effected areas off Lizard Is This month...

_"WWF oceans campaigner Richard Leck said he was “shocked and saddened by what is unfolding”. 

“Scientists warned that without sufficient emissions reductions we could expect annual mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef by 2050,” he said. “Consecutive bleaching events have arrived 30 years early.”

WWF also released footage on Monday of severely bleached coral at Vlasoff Cay near Cairns, where cinematographer Richard Fitzpatrick filmed sequences for David Attenborough’s Great Barrier Reef series."

“Now with the water sitting at 32 degrees all the way to the bottom, the corals are dying. Many are already dead and covered in algae.”

“The reef is facing an imminent danger of mortality at a level that far exceeds last year over a greater geographical distance.”

Pictures of newly bleached coral were taken in recent weeks at Moore Reef, near Cairns, by the reef scientist Tyrone Ridgway, as well as by divers further south near Palm Island.
_


----------



## IFocus

_
“Scientists warned that without sufficient emissions reductions we could expect annual mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef by 2050,” he said. “Consecutive bleaching events have arrived 30 years early.”

I go surfing in the Mentawai Islands off Sumatra Indonesia  same thing is happening out there bleaching just wiping out the coral environments on a massive scale apparently its just a natural phenomena..................  _


----------



## noco

orr said:


> From the WWF ....
> http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef/coral-bleaching-on-the-reef#gs.X=KptdI
> 
> Reports effected areas off Lizard Is This month...
> 
> _"WWF oceans campaigner Richard Leck said he was “shocked and saddened by what is unfolding”.
> 
> “Scientists warned that without sufficient emissions reductions we could expect annual mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef by 2050,” he said. “Consecutive bleaching events have arrived 30 years early.”
> 
> WWF also released footage on Monday of severely bleached coral at Vlasoff Cay near Cairns, where cinematographer Richard Fitzpatrick filmed sequences for David Attenborough’s Great Barrier Reef series."
> 
> “Now with the water sitting at 32 degrees all the way to the bottom, the corals are dying. Many are already dead and covered in algae.”
> 
> “The reef is facing an imminent danger of mortality at a level that far exceeds last year over a greater geographical distance.”
> 
> Pictures of newly bleached coral were taken in recent weeks at Moore Reef, near Cairns, by the reef scientist Tyrone Ridgway, as well as by divers further south near Palm Island._




https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/34610891/barrier-reef-in-unchartered-territory/#page1


----------



## explod

Dose not matter what you put up anymore noco, the games is up and the people now want the changes of alternative energy to combat climate change.  And they are doing it world wide and it is catching on like a huge wave here too.

The hysteria is now with the last few deniers, the failing support of false news and Coal/oil backed scientisticaltrolls


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Dose not matter what you put up anymore noco, the games is up and the people now want the changes of alternative energy to combat climate change.  And they are doing it world wide and it is catching on like a huge wave here too.
> 
> The hysteria is now with the last few deniers, the failing support of false news and Coal/oil backed scientisticaltrolls




Is that so........Well I"ll be blowed......Now lets start with South Australia and Victoria...How are things going down there?....Not so good I hear......Black outs occurring on a regular basis....Electricity prices have gone through the roof.....Business threatening to close......Hundreds of workers out of a job .......and things will only get worse when Hazelwood power station closes on Mrach31.......Jay Weatheril suggesting to big business to install their own diesel generators allowing more green house gases to pollute the atmosphere and defeating the purpose of reducing green house gas emissions.

I tell you what people want is a reliable supply of electricity at a reasonable price so business can stay alive, so pensioners can afford heating in the winter and air conditioning in the hot summers SA experience.

Can't wait to see the results of the next election in SA and Vic.......


----------



## noco

orr said:


> From the WWF ....
> http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef/coral-bleaching-on-the-reef#gs.X=KptdI
> 
> Reports effected areas off Lizard Is This month...
> 
> _"WWF oceans campaigner Richard Leck said he was “shocked and saddened by what is unfolding”.
> 
> “Scientists warned that without sufficient emissions reductions we could expect annual mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef by 2050,” he said. “Consecutive bleaching events have arrived 30 years early.”
> 
> WWF also released footage on Monday of severely bleached coral at Vlasoff Cay near Cairns, where cinematographer Richard Fitzpatrick filmed sequences for David Attenborough’s Great Barrier Reef series."
> 
> “Now with the water sitting at 32 degrees all the way to the bottom, the corals are dying. Many are already dead and covered in algae.”
> 
> “The reef is facing an imminent danger of mortality at a level that far exceeds last year over a greater geographical distance.”
> 
> Pictures of newly bleached coral were taken in recent weeks at Moore Reef, near Cairns, by the reef scientist Tyrone Ridgway, as well as by divers further south near Palm Island._




Normally when we get such high water temperatures we also get cyclones in NQ and we have had none this year......The water temperature has to be over 28c to form a cyclone....Where are the cyclones?...Of course why didn't I think of Global Warming......That must be the cause.


----------



## IFocus

Go Noco, in case you missed what those pesky scientists keep saying the out look with  warming oceans (one of) is less cyclones but of a greater intensity which what we have seen on the west coast of course there will be cycles inside of cycles as we head higher.
Note once the oceans die then that's endgame for human life.
I think the projected numbers now are such we are going to get a higher temperatures regardless which is a bit of a dooms day out come for future generations I am sure they will look back and wonder at our ravaged consumption burning through the earth's finite resources.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Go Noco, in case you missed what those pesky scientists keep saying the out look with  warming oceans (one of) is less cyclones but of a greater intensity which what we have seen on the west coast of course there will be cycles inside of cycles as we head higher.
> Note once the oceans die then that's endgame for human life.
> I think the projected numbers now are such we are going to get a higher temperatures regardless which is a bit of a dooms day out come for future generations I am sure they will look back and wonder at our ravaged consumption burning through the earth's finite resources.




So where am I supposed to go?

IFocus you are all doom and gloom and heavily brainwashed with the Green ideology as put out by fictitious information from  the United Nations.

Some scientist are now saying with all this RE crap it will reduce the temperature of the Earth by .02% by the end of this century.

We have seen less  cyclones in WA with less intensity and have only been Category 1 and 2 which are very low rated in deed....But where are the cyclones in North Queensland? ...As I said before to get cyclones in NQ, the water temperature has to be over 28 c.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> So where am I supposed to go?
> 
> IFocus you are all doom and gloom and heavily brainwashed with the Green ideology as put out by fictitious information from  the United Nations.
> 
> Some scientist are now saying with all this RE crap it will reduce the temperature of the Earth by .02% by the end of this century.
> 
> We have seen less  cyclones in WA with less intensity and have only been Category 1 and 2 which are very low rated in deed....But where are the cyclones in North Queensland? ...As I said before to get cyclones in NQ, the water temperature has to be over 28 c.





Dr Moran argues that the Paris Agreement will only lower temperatures by 0.2 degrees, but only if 'everybody does what they say'.













-0:35

_HD_

_Captions_
_More settings_


----------



## Ijustnewit

Interesting to see that most of Victoria is on track to break the March average heat record by up to 5 degrees . The frightening story is the record has only stood 12 months , broken March last year by an amazing 2.5 c over the current records.  To top this off it's only the second week with most models suggesting the heat may hang around another 2 weeks. Most of Tasmania is also in the same boat with extreme runs of heat lasting up to 7 plus days in a row. The most I can remember is a run of 3 days back in 2013 when the last March record was broken. 
I would say there will several days of total fire bans for both states this week , where Hobart is set to reach 31 degrees by next Sunday.


----------



## Tisme

QLD now 87.47% drought declared. Things going swimmingly well for rusted on LNP supporters, but not so great for the rest who are being punished for being less sceptical about climate change.


----------



## explod

One persons direct observations:-



> The reef last weekend was a palpable contrast to the vibrant colours I saw there two years ago. And what a palpable contrast to the first time I dived on the reef in 1985 with my then 14-year-old daughter, who had just got her diving certificate. Alas, this is now no longer about the legacy we hand to our children and grandchildren. At this rate, the reef will die in the lifetime of us grandparents.
> 
> 
> crispinhull.com.au




And for your observation recently noco:



> Yes, the catastrophic bleaching of the 2015-16 summer got some media attention and got a bit of playing down, too. But in some ways, the 2016-17 summer was worse for the reef. Not in what happened but in what didn't happen....
> 
> ...   Maybe the combination of climate change with El Nino, fewer cyclones to well up colder water and lower rainfall to cool the top of the ocean was a perfect storm of destruction that would only happen in 2015-16. Maybe, I'd thought, the reef could recover before such an event recurred, in time for climate change to be reversed.




http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-...-last-weekend-and-i-wept-20170308-guu0r0.html

Yes these articles are appearing in the everyday hard copy newspapers these days.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Updated forecast now has 3 days in Hobart at 31 degrees starting Tuesday , did someone take the Island and move it to the Torres Straits while I wasn't looking !
Beyond any record breaking events now for Tasmania and Victoria , just one word " Crazy ".


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> QLD now 87.47% drought declared. Things going swimmingly well for rusted on LNP supporters, but not so great for the rest who are being punished for being less sceptical about climate change.




So what are you saying, it is all because of Global Warming.
Queensland and Australia live under a Sun burnt country.


----------



## Tisme

Consilience of Inductions


----------



## noco

noco said:


> So what are you saying, it is all because of Global Warming.
> Queensland and Australia live under a Sun burnt country.




It has all happened before the Man made Global Warning farce and scam going back to the 1800's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> It has all happened before the Man made Global Warning farce and scam going back to the 1800's.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia




1)Drought declaration is a once  in 10 - 15 year rainfall deficiency.

2)Rainfall on the Fraser Coast is lowest ever recorded, even on Wiki

3)The drought affected area the greatest ever

4) QFF is taking it seriously, referring to it rightly as a disaster  http://www.farmerdisastersupport.org.au/

5) If you can't bring yourself to behave as anything but truculent, perhaps you should leave important threads to those with an objective mind.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> 1)Drought declaration is a once  in 10 - 15 year rainfall deficiency.
> 
> 2)Rainfall on the Fraser Coast is lowest ever recorded, even on Wiki
> 
> 3)The drought affected area the greatest ever
> 
> 4) QFF is taking it seriously, referring to it rightly as a disaster  http://www.farmerdisastersupport.org.au/
> 
> 5) If you can't bring yourself to behave as anything but truculent, perhaps you should leave important threads to those with an objective mind.




I suggest you ask the QFF to go back a little further in history as per the link I gave with my post # 9033.


----------



## macca

Maybe it all decided to move to WA for a holiday
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/exceptionally-wet-and-mild-summer-in-western-australia/8319786


----------



## Tisme

Someone is pretty upset for the loss of coral:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-...-last-weekend-and-i-wept-20170308-guu0r0.html


----------



## wayneL

Well didn't take long for the alarmist cretins to start did it?

And what is it? The first cyclone in two years? Geez I remember several a year as common.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Well didn't take long for the alarmist cretins to start did it?
> 
> And what is it? The first cyclone in two years? Geez I remember several a year as common.




And why wayneL does your first sentence need to lead in such a nasty/lash out fashion.

Indicates uncertainty IMHO.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> And why wayneL does your first sentence need to lead in such a nasty/lash out fashion.
> 
> Indicates uncertainty IMHO.



Okay, lets go along with your uncertainty hypothesis for a moment. 

The main source of nasty is the alarmists,  wanting to imprison or assasinate sceptics, even if they are children... remember 350.org's little video?

Hoist by your own petard there olmate.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> And what is it? The first cyclone in two years? Geez I remember several a year as common.



There has been 5 named cyclones during the 2016/17  season.

Yvette, Alfred, Blanche, Caleb, and Debbie.  As well as tropical lows 06U, 09U, 10U, 14U, 15U, 22U (which were all close, but didn't meet the official classifications of a cyclone system).


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Okay, lets go along with your uncertainty hypothesis for a moment.
> 
> The main source of nasty is the alarmists,  wanting to imprison or assasinate sceptics, even if they are children... remember 350.org's little video?
> 
> Hoist by your own petard there olmate.




Today we had the extremist Green DH Adam Brandt trying to convince us that TC Debbie was caused by coal fired power stations.......What a grub.


----------



## explod

"Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) let visible light pass through, but absorb infrared light

This causes the earth to heat up.

The warmer atmosphere emits more infrared light, which tends to be re-absorbed

Since the industrial age began around 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 40% and methane has increased by 150%.

Such increases cause extra infrared light absorption, further heating Earth above its typical temperature range (even as energy from the sun stays basically the same).

Energy that gets to Earth has an even harder time leaving it causing Earth’s average temperature to increase–– producing global climate change.

Emissions are measurable. Temperature changes are measurable. The effects are measurable.

They lead to the same conclusion. 97% of scientists agree. The standouts have ties to fossil fuel industries.

Thanks Karen! "

https://www.indy100.com/article/cli...ing-lorrie-goldstein-twitter-mic-drop-7476856

The last sentence says it all really.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) let visible light pass through, but absorb infrared light
> 
> This causes the earth to heat up.
> 
> The warmer atmosphere emits more infrared light, which tends to be re-absorbed
> 
> Since the industrial age began around 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 40% and methane has increased by 150%.
> 
> Such increases cause extra infrared light absorption, further heating Earth above its typical temperature range (even as energy from the sun stays basically the same).
> 
> Energy that gets to Earth has an even harder time leaving it causing Earth’s average temperature to increase–– producing global climate change.
> 
> Emissions are measurable. Temperature changes are measurable. The effects are measurable.
> 
> They lead to the same conclusion. 97% of scientists agree. The standouts have ties to fossil fuel industries.
> 
> Thanks Karen! "
> 
> https://www.indy100.com/article/cli...ing-lorrie-goldstein-twitter-mic-drop-7476856
> 
> The last sentence says it all really.




Here we again on this fictitious 97% of scientist agree....That is really old hat that you bring up again in the hope that viewers have forgotten your claim being false.

From my post #8650

*Explod, here we go again on this 97% of scientists.....You are starting to go over the same ground which has been debunked.

Go back and read posts :-
8447
8457
8463
8467
8477
8480

It was 97% 0f 77 scientists paid for by the UN Climate Change Committee........there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.

So please get off the Merry-go-round.
*
And from my post #8951

A*l Gore's 10 year predictions in 2006 about Global Warming has come back to bite him......He now has egg on his face.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...g-point-refuses-to-answer-enters-suv-in-snow/

Coleman’s Key Climate Facts: 

*

*97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is settled. Not by a long shot. That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of smart phones, heating and air conditioning and swift and safe transportation is in some magical way destroying our climate. The 97% claim has been disproved over and over again, but Gore, government and media continue to issue horrible scare claims. *
 

*The oceans are not going to flood our cities. *
*Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth. *
*Heat waves are not going kill millions. *
*Our crops are not going to fail. *
*(More on the latest climate science here: *
*
*


----------



## Tink

Adam Bandt said the same when we had the Victorian bushfires.


----------



## Knobby22

Last year was the hottest March ever. This year might break this record.
The Great Barrier Reef is dying and cruise ships can now sail over the Arctic in summer.

Everyone run around and hold their heads and say "not happening!".


----------



## noco

Al Gore gets rewarded by the Victorian Government in his efforts to close coal fired power stations.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...g/news-story/64b52480d71278d017ba56c0a4683e89


----------



## luutzu

Knobby22 said:


> Last year was the hottest March ever. This year might break this record.
> The Great Barrier Reef is dying and cruise ships can now sail over the Arctic in summer.
> 
> Everyone run around and hold their heads and say "not happening!".




At first they say it's not happening; then they'll say it happen all the time, so what's the big deal?


----------



## orr

_'For pro-free marketers climate change is a nasty bur in their shoe. If you accept climate change could lead to rising sea levels, coastal inundation, dislocation of large masses of people, increased intensity of tropical storms and droughts, and grave risks to food and water supply, then you have to accept the market failed to account for such impacts and not only allowed, but ensured they would happen.

Little wonder many free marketeer thinktanks and political parties have instead embraced lunatic theories about climate change being a conspiracy involving the UN, Nasa, every university in the world, China, all major meteorological bodies, the World Bank and the makers of tin foil hats. 

Delusion is preferable to admitting fault.'
_
A very concise couple of paragraphs...


----------



## noco

orr said:


> _'For pro-free marketers climate change is a nasty bur in their shoe. If you accept climate change could lead to rising sea levels, coastal inundation, dislocation of large masses of people, increased intensity of tropical storms and droughts, and grave risks to food and water supply, then you have to accept the market failed to account for such impacts and not only allowed, but ensured they would happen.
> 
> Little wonder many free marketeer thinktanks and political parties have instead embraced lunatic theories about climate change being a conspiracy involving the UN, Nasa, every university in the world, China, all major meteorological bodies, the World Bank and the makers of tin foil hats.
> 
> Delusion is preferable to admitting fault.'
> _
> A very concise couple of paragraphs...




And when is all this going to happen?

Reminder..Tim Flannery said 10 years ago we never get enough rains to fill the dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne......They are all full.....He said we would have continous drought for decades and crops would fail.....All the Labor states at the time took his advice and built desalinization plants costing billions  dollars and still costing $500,000 to maintain each day an now in moth balls.......Where did he get his information from?..Was it the UN, NASA, NOAA or the CSIRO?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> And when is all this going to happen?
> 
> Reminder..Tim Flannery said 10 years ago we never get enough rains to fill the dams in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne......They are all full.....He said we would have continous drought for decades and crops would fail.....All the Labor states at the time took his advice and built desalinization plants costing billions  dollars and still costing $500,000 to maintain each day an now in moth balls.......Where did he get his information from?..Was it the UN, NASA, NOAA or the CSIRO?




Heard some climatologist saying how there's no new water on Earth. That whatever H2O there were when the Earth was formed, it's still there now. 

That means that when one part of the Earth get more rainfall than usual, somewhere else will get less than usual. 

Which part of the world will get flooded and which will suffer droughts scientists cannot predict. 

One thing that's predictable is that lives will be lost, property damaged, and we all pay for it.

So while QLD and NSW have been drenched like a tropical cyclone just pass through it, places like Somalia, South Sudan have been suffering drought, its crops destroyed and the population there are in a famine.

There was a drought in Syria a few years ago. Forcing its farmers to leave the land and head for the city. That create social unrest and certain faction within Syria thought to use that to overthrow the gov't. Certain friends of ours thought that's a good idea and here we are, liberating another ME country like it's never been done before.

Maybe us lucky few in rich countries are used to changing our own climate at a flick, with healthcare and developed infrastructures to know what it feels like living among open sewers, rubbish tips and general tin sheds... but a proper downfall tend to wash shiets all over the place, breed mosquitoes and viruses, or just drown them in a mudslide.

But I guess that's other people's problems and climate has always been changing.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> .there are some 35,500 who say they are wrong.




Name 5,000 of them.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Name 5,000 of them.




LMAO.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> LMAO.




Because you cant. You are stuck.

Well just name a few of them.


----------



## wayneL

There could possibly be a few named here http://www.petitionproject.org


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> There could possibly be a few named here http://www.petitionproject.org




One of the people who signed that petition was Edward Teller, famous physicist and nuclear bomb designer who was one of the first proponents of AGW. 

He died in 2003, so he never saw the last 14 years of global temperature data which shows rapidly increasing warming.

The petition itself was last circulated in 2007, 10 years ago so it's somewhat out of date. It's called the Oregon Petition and has been discredited by people submitting false names, and having most of it's claimed PhD signatories not being involved in climate science.



> The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as "a small independent research group") in 1998, and again in 2007.[1] Frederick Seitz, then the chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition, emphasizing connection to the National Academy of Sciences (of which Seitz had previously served as president).[2][3] "*In a highly unusual move, the National Academy held a press conference to disclaim the mailing and distance itself from its former president*."[3]
> 
> Robinson asserted in 2008 that the petition has over 31,000 signatories, with 9,000 of these holding a PhD degree.[1] Most signatories with a PhD hold their degree in engineering.[4] A 2009 report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—a group that "disputes the reality of man-made climate change"[5]—lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with PhDs.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting the names of Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls and characters from _Star Wars_, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition


----------



## wayneL

So its like Cookes 97%?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> There could possibly be a few named here http://www.petitionproject.org




Thanks Wayne...I do remember posting a similar list some tome ago.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> So its like Cookes 97%?




Yes, that 97% of the 77 UN Climate Change well paid goons was probably some years ago also.


wayneL said:


> So its like Cookes 97%?




I believe that 97%????? was also about 10 years ago.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> So its like Cookes 97%?




Of the 'scientific' Literature you like to subscribe to; who amongst them have prepared you for the bleaching and consequent death of vast areas of the barrier reef. Or do you prefer James Delingpols(on Breightbart funnily enough) assertion that these events are 'fake news'.
Which of your sources are explaining the;
* Disappearance of Arctic ice?
*East coast US and Florida's flooding?
*Exxons studies concluding the warming effects of the burning of fossil fuel on the atmosphere?
*the Koch brothers like while investigations?
*little things like the laws of thermodynamics?

*Every serious Business organisation in the country calling for an emissions trade scheme. To which the right wing of of the Federal Government seem oblivious. Oblivious is a comfortable bedfellow to delusion.

It's ok we all know....'_Delusion is preferable'_


----------



## explod

In Columbia in the last few days we see cars, trees, houses, many people buried and drowned(including many young children) washed away.  Deforestation there has played its part but the huge and sudden rainstorms the direct culprit.  The same in Indonesia, (now), many people buried in a rain driven landslide.  At the same time the north eastern states in Australia, well you know about that.  However the rains and storms are in strips and the rest, untouched and over increasingly large areas people are starving and moving out due to these increasing droughts, particularly Africa.

Why, full on global warming, now not only driven by our own pollution but by many multiples more from the methane releases due to permafrost melts at the two poles, Greenland (yep noco 1000 years back but not on this magnitude) and the northern tips of continents across Scandanavia, Russia, Ukraine etc.

This is causing the poles to warm, which is causing more moisture to rise, increasing wind and rain towards the equator.  We have lost our steady seasonal rains here in the south which came in off the south west trade winds (as the early sailing ships did from England) All gone now, as was the mud up to the knees on our farm from May till November every year till the first drought of 68.

And on our recent floods there are many descriptions that they are the worst in 60 years etc etc, blah bla. Rubbish, collectively this is the worst in recorded history.  If it had been anything like this before would they have built their towns, hotels, houses and highways there, of course not.

And the insurance companies to name a little start, there is going to be some serious head scratching.

The climate change is unfortunately going to sweep us all (including the sceptic deniers) away before we have time to correct things.  But you were told, not very accurately I'll admit but in fact science can at best only follow behind.  It is unpredictable but it is certainly happening and now.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Of the 'scientific' Literature you like to subscribe to; who amongst them have prepared you for the bleaching and consequent death of vast areas of the barrier reef. Or do you prefer James Delingpols(on Breightbart funnily enough) assertion that these events are 'fake news'.
> Which of your sources are explaining the;
> * Disappearance of Arctic ice?
> *East coast US and Florida's flooding?
> *Exxons studies concluding the warming effects of the burning of fossil fuel on the atmosphere?
> *the Koch brothers like while investigations?
> *little things like the laws of thermodynamics?
> 
> *Every serious Business organisation in the country calling for an emissions trade scheme. To which the right wing of of the Federal Government seem oblivious. Oblivious is a comfortable bedfellow to delusion.
> 
> It's ok we all know....'_Delusion is preferable'_




Just more leftist exaggeration from the same old cracked Green records.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Just more leftist exaggeration from the same old cracked Green records.




Typical, when you have no argument sling off at those who have one.  And how could anyone exaggerate more than the right fascists.  Jobs and Growth, Jobs and growth with no content.  For every available job in Australia there are 19 applicants noco.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Typical, when you have no argument sling off at those who have one.  And how could anyone exaggerate more than the right fascists.  Jobs and Growth, Jobs and growth with no content.  For every available job in Australia there are 19 applicants noco.




There have been plenty of arguments opposing the UN scam on Climate Change or Global Warming which ever you chose to use at the time....The problem is plod you only believe in one bible and that is the Green bible.....You are so brainwashed with this false stuff and  just cannot reason any other way but the Green way.

Many a prediction given out by the Greens , which includes Tim Flannery, has be proven false when those prediction did not take place.

You know as well I do this whole Global Warming  caper is a scam backed up by the UN Climate Change Committee with doctored pier reviewed data....You know that 97% of 77 scientist who are well paid by the UN...They are the ones causing all this propaganda and more and more people are starting to wake up to it all.


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Of the 'scientific' Literature you like to subscribe to; who amongst them have prepared you for the bleaching and consequent death of vast areas of the barrier reef. Or do you prefer James Delingpols(on Breightbart funnily enough) assertion that these events are 'fake news'.
> Which of your sources are explaining the;
> * Disappearance of Arctic ice?
> *East coast US and Florida's flooding?
> *Exxons studies concluding the warming effects of the burning of fossil fuel on the atmosphere?
> *the Koch brothers like while investigations?
> *little things like the laws of thermodynamics?
> 
> *Every serious Business organisation in the country calling for an emissions trade scheme. To which the right wing of of the Federal Government seem oblivious. Oblivious is a comfortable bedfellow to delusion.
> 
> It's ok we all know....'_Delusion is preferable'_




The  Arctic ice disappeared  in 1940 when a 300 tonne wooden vessel St Roche sailed through and returned  back again.....That vessel had no ice braking equipment......It also apparently occurred back as far as 1840......So it runs in 70 year cycles and the Arctic will build up again.

I live on the ground here in North Queensland and the majority of us know the Great Barrier Reef dying is nothing more than a hoax.......The majority of the reef in in good shape...So don't believe everything you hear from the radical Greens....Most of the bleaching has occurred north of Cooktown where there is no mining or agriculture interference......It is like sun burn and the reef will recover.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/arctic-ice-a-historical-viewpoint/


----------



## Jorgensen

Probably the only study into One Nation voters was done by David Marr....His findings were that most were older men that had worked hard in their lives.They longed for the past,the way things were in their fathers' days and in their early days.A time when minorities had no place or credibility in their world.This anti-UN theory comes out of their need to turn back the block.Climate change did not exist back then and certainly does not exist now.No evidence will be accepted.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> Typical, when you have no argument sling off at those who have one.  And how could anyone exaggerate more than the right fascists.  Jobs and Growth, Jobs and growth with no content.  For every available job in Australia there are 19 applicants noco.



It's a bit rich a member of the watermelon totalitarian party accusing the current administration of Fascism after your party's behaviour this week.

You have got to be joking Plod.

I would be slinking away with embarrassment if I were you bro.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> There have been plenty of arguments opposing the UN scam on Climate Change or Global Warming which ever you chose to use at the time....The problem is plod you only believe in one bible and that is the Green bible.....You are so brainwashed with this false stuff and  just cannot reason any other way but the Green way.
> 
> Many a prediction given out by the Greens , which includes Tim Flannery, has be proven false when those prediction did not take place.
> 
> You know as well I do this whole Global Warming  caper is a scam backed up by the UN Climate Change Committee with doctored pier reviewed data....You know that 97% of 77 scientist who are well paid by the UN...They are the ones causing all this propaganda and more and more people are starting to wake up to it all.





We are not talking predictions.  It is happening now and the UN Climate Council I have never considered to be up with it.  In fact their reports are at least five years behind due to Government monitoring and delays to satisfy the oil/coal lobbies.

I follow no dogmas but my own experiences from childhood.  I back the Greens more for humanitarian reasons.  I am an instigator of the AUWU (Aust Unemployed Workers Union), why, because I care about the less fortunate and downtrodden.  19 applicants to the job in Australia.

The current climatic disturbances are not make believe beat ups.  They are happening now with accelerating intensity.  No longer so labelled hysteria, but physical facts NOW.


----------



## basilio

This story/analysis on the role of water in controlling climate adds another dimension to the convesration.

* There’s another story to tell about climate change. And it starts with water *
Judith D Schwartz
In this time of reckless US action, it’s crucial to shift the narrative beyond despair over fossil fuels and look at water as a primary tool of climate control



Illustration by Nicola Jennings

Monday 3 April 2017 15.00 AEST

It’s easy for all concerned about air, water and nature to descend into despair as we watch brazen rollbacks of environmental legislation in the US. Just last week, developments included an executive order to rewrite US carbon emissions rules, jeopardising the country’s ability to uphold its Paris climate talk commitment; the end of a moratorium on new coal leases; and the green-lighting of a pesticide claimed to cause harm to children. But as apathy is not an option, let’s try to think beyond the usual strategies. For one, we can recognise that the way we talk about our environmental challenges has interfered with our ability to truly grapple with them: that we limit ourselves by creating too simple a story. Specifically, the story we tell about climate.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/03/climate-change-water-fossil-fuel


----------



## luutzu

An Inconvenient Sequel.


----------



## basilio

luutzu said:


> An Inconvenient Sequel.




Isn't it AMAZING what Hollywood can do with special effects.! I mean there's no way our world is actually behaving the way that Inconvienent trailer tried to show, is there ?

Couldn't be true could it ? That's what Donald Trump and Noco say so it must be so.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Isn't it AMAZING what Hollywood can do with special effects.! I mean there's no way our world is actually behaving the way that Inconvienent trailer tried to show, is there ?
> 
> Couldn't be true could it ? That's what Donald Trump and Noco say so it must be so.



Could a point be more fallacious?


----------



## noco

Jorgensen said:


> Probably the only study into One Nation voters was done by David Marr....His findings were that most were older men that had worked hard in their lives.They longed for the past,the way things were in their fathers' days and in their early days.A time when minorities had no place or credibility in their world.This anti-UN theory comes out of their need to turn back the block.Climate change did not exist back then and certainly does not exist now.No evidence will be accepted.




David Marr is also a well known socialist (communist).


----------



## Jorgensen

Are you going to try to make intelligent comments.Why do you always denigrate others?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> We are not talking predictions.  It is happening now and the UN Climate Council I have never considered to be up with it.  In fact their reports are at least five years behind due to Government monitoring and delays to satisfy the oil/coal lobbies.
> 
> I follow no dogmas but my own experiences from childhood.  I back the Greens more for humanitarian reasons.  I am an instigator of the AUWU (Aust Unemployed Workers Union), why, because I care about the less fortunate and downtrodden.  19 applicants to the job in Australia.
> 
> The current climatic disturbances are not make believe beat ups.  They are happening now with accelerating intensity.  No longer so labelled hysteria, but physical facts NOW.




Plod, you are not listening....I have previously demonstrated the dud prediction from 2007 by Tim Flannary, but you chose to ignore them along with other events....Remember Flannary said, "THERE WOULD BE CONTINUOUS DROUGHTS FOR DECADES TO COME AND THERE WOULD NEVER BE ENOUGH RAINS TO FILL THE DAMS".
I have just posted an article on the Arctic whereby a 300 tonne ship sailed through the straights and returned again in 1940....The article also mentioned the Arctic iced melted in 1840.

You just cannot see past that Green bible of yours.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Isn't it AMAZING what Hollywood can do with special effects.! I mean there's no way our world is actually behaving the way that Inconvienent trailer tried to show, is there ?
> 
> Couldn't be true could it ? That's what Donald Trump and Noco say so it must be so.




So you don't believe in historical events on Climate Change in the past?

You only have a one track mind on today and plods Green Bible.


----------



## noco

Jorgensen said:


> Are you going to try to make intelligent comments.Why do you always denigrate others?




It is because David Marr is anti One Nation.....So it is OK for him to denigrate One Nation and Pauline Hanson but not OK for me to be critical of David Marr.


----------



## Jorgensen

noco said:


> So you don't believe in historical events on Climate Change in the past?
> 
> You only a one track mind on today and plods Green Bible.



The difference is the rapidity of climate change today...the climate change that you like to revert to happened over longer historical periods.


----------



## noco

Jorgensen said:


> The difference is the rapidity of climate change today...the climate change that you like to revert to happened over longer historical periods.




Do you have a link to your comment "the climate change that you like to revert to happened over longer historical periods"?


----------



## wayneL

Jorgensen said:


> The difference is the rapidity of climate change today...the climate change that you like to revert to happened over longer historical periods.



Are you referring to the rapidity of retrospective adjustments?


----------



## basilio

Jorgensen said:


> Are you going to try to make intelligent comments.Why do you always denigrate others?



It's because Noco is completely incapable of constructing an intelligent rebuttal of the evidence around human produced climate change.

End of story. Full stop.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Are you referring to the rapidity of retrospective adjustments?




Is this your new word for climate change denial Wayne ?  That somehow the last three years of climate shattering records never actually happened ? 

Of course !  My apologies for not including your good self with Drumph and Noco as blind eyed deniers. My error.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> It's because Noco is completely incapable of constructing an intelligent rebuttal of the evidence around human produced climate change.
> 
> End of story. Full stop.





...and how's your scoresheet Mr AdHom?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Is this your new word for climate change denial Wayne ?  That somehow the last three years of climate shattering records never actually happened ?
> 
> Of course !  My apologies for not including your good self with Drumph and Noco as blind eyed deniers. My error.



Thanks, I was feeling left out there Mr C Little. Of course if you'd like to elevate yourself from kindergarten level insult... we could go Aussie bogan colloquial... or even Shakespearean if you like?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Thanks, I was feeling left out there Mr C Little. Of course if you'd like to elevate yourself from kindergarten level insult... we could go Aussie bogan colloquial... or even Shakespearean if you like?




How could we leave you out Wayne ? You go to the absolute top of the charts in CC denial.  It's totally obvious that when the core of your (current) rebuttal of CC is saying that all the world scientists have systematically rigged the temperature charts in the last 3- to whatever years to create "global warming" - Well that's indisputably the most heroic defence of the indefensible yet seen in the conversation.

But I'm sure you won't rest on your laurels.


----------



## basilio

What are the real scientists and meteorologists  saying about the relentless record breaking temperatures around the world ?

* Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’ *
Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organisation publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows




A boat lies in the dry Cedro reservoir in Quixadá, Brazil. Climate change increases the risk of extreme weather events like drought. Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images


* Comments*
 2,191 
Damian Carrington
Tuesday 21 March 2017 11.39 AEDT   Last modified on Tuesday 21 March 2017 22.40 AEDT

The record-breaking heat that made 2016 the hottest year ever recorded has continued into 2017, pushing the world into “truly uncharted territory”, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.

The WMO’s assessment of the climate in 2016, published on Tuesday, reports unprecedented heat across the globe, exceptionally low ice at both poles and surging sea-level rise.

Global warming is largely being driven by emissions from human activities, but a strong El Niño – a natural climate cycle – added to the heat in 2016. The El Niño is now waning, but the extremes continue to be seen, with temperature records tumbling in the US in February and polar heatwaves pushing ice cover to new lows.

“Even without a strong El Niño in 2017, we are seeing other remarkable changes across the planet that are challenging the limits of our understanding of the climate system. We are now in truly uncharted territory,” said David Carlson, director of the WMO’s world climate research programme.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...king-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Isn't it AMAZING what Hollywood can do with special effects.! I mean there's no way our world is actually behaving the way that Inconvienent trailer tried to show, is there ?
> 
> Couldn't be true could it ? That's what Donald Trump and Noco say so it must be so.




Al Gore and his Hollywood friends! With his investment in green technologies pushing this Chinese hoax to make America less competitive with all the environmental regulation while they destroy their water ways, air, forests and fisheries to beat the US. 

Anything but human activities.

the world burn about 100M barrels a day. Compare that some 5M barrel pd Saddam set aflame in Kuwait. That 5M cause enormous damage yet somehow the 100M bpd doesn't do anything because... because VW and GM engine burn more efficiently. 

Imagine living in Colombia and in one night, the equivalent of 1/3 of the season's rainfall is dump on your city. Genghis Khan used to dam up a river to then flood cities to wipe out its inhabitants. The kind of damage that's being done make that act of war look like a fun day at Wet'n'Wild. 

I better get out of fossil fuel man.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> How could we leave you out Wayne ? You go to the absolute top of the charts in CC denial.  It's totally obvious that when the core of your (current) rebuttal of CC is saying that all the world scientists have systematically rigged the temperature charts in the last 3- to whatever years to create "global warming" - Well that's indisputably the most heroic defence of the indefensible yet seen in the conversation.
> 
> But I'm sure you won't rest on your laurels.




You see we heroes rely on the truth, with our superpowers, able see past Propaganda and soldier on in the face of the most appalling straw man argument known to mankind.

I knew there was a reason I ate all the bread crusts when I were a lad.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> You see we heroes rely on the truth, with our superpowers, able see past Propaganda and soldier on in the face of the most appalling straw man argument known to mankind.
> 
> I knew there was a reason I ate all the bread crusts when I were a lad.




That is so special Wayne.. !! I think I heard something similar many years ago when I visiting a friend in Larundel. Still in the same head place i believe  and still quite sure he has it all figured out.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> How could we leave you out Wayne ? You go to the absolute top of the charts in CC denial.  It's totally obvious that when the core of your (current) rebuttal of CC is saying that all the world scientists have systematically rigged the temperature charts in the last 3- to whatever years to create "global warming" - Well that's indisputably the most heroic defence of the indefensible yet seen in the conversation.
> 
> But I'm sure you won't rest on your laurels.




All the world scientists...You mean the 75 UN a$$ lickers......Man oh man you really are getting carried away with yourself.

Are you trying to tell the ASF viewers there are only 75 Climate Change scientist in the world?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> That is so special Wayne.. !! I think I heard something similar many years ago when I visiting a friend in Larundel. Still in the same head place i believe  and still quite sure he has it all figured out.




Ad Hom.

That's all you got Komrade. And you ain't even good at it.

Oh yeah, and a story that makes kiddies want to top themselves.

Feel good about yourself?


----------



## basilio

I  have engaged in this discussion on this forum for nine years.  I have been through the theoretical science, the practical observations, the long term history of climate change (millions of years ).  I have explored conversations on the environmental and biological changes that demonstrate our climate is changing rapidly and the impact this is having around the world.

On various occasions I produced and developed arguments that showed* purely on risk assessment analysis *we need to address the risks associated with continuing our present directions. ( fossil fuel focused - high waste society).

When Wayne was incessantly banging on about improperly sited weather stations I proved how specious this argument actually was. Finally one CC sceptic decided to "do all the  temperature figures again". Check out just what was being alleged by the mainstream Climate Scientists and prove once and for all "the truth" If I remember correctly he was funded by the Koch brothers.

Yep it was Richard Muller. A CC sceptic who went out and did the research to finally address the issue. His findings ?

_"In an op-ed published in the New York Times on 28 July 2012, Muller announced further findings from the project. He said their analysis showed that average global land temperatures had increased by 2.5 °F (1.4 °C) in 250 years, with the increase in the last 50 years being 1.5 °F (0.8 °C), and it seemed likely that this increase was entirely due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions. His opening paragraph stated: 
_
*"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." [13]*
_
 He said that their findings were stronger than those shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Their analysis, set out in five scientific papers now being subjected to scrutiny by others, had used statistical methods which Robert Rohde had developed and had paid particular attention to overcoming issues that skeptics had questioned, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, data selection and data adjustment."
_
Since 2012 the rate of world wide temperature increase as a result of global warming has skyrocketed. In 2014,15 and 16  average world temperatures increased by .35C. To put that in perspective* this is the steepest rate of increase ever recorded.
*
And yet.. Wayne dismisses these world wide metrological records as  specious adjustments. Apparently all the meteorological societies in US, Europe, UK, Japan, Australia, Timbuktu  are part of a world wide conspiracy to create a false picture of our climate. Yeah that makes sense doesn't it ?

He steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that we might even have a small problem let along an unfolding calamity. Noco  just trots out irrelevant rubbish about socialists and Fabians under the bed. Not to forgot of course distorted comments about one statement made by Tim Flannery in 2006.

I stand by my disgust with your non arguments.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/  Global Temperature changes 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth  Summary of Berkley earths findings on CC


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

For the millionth time.... actually no, just go back yourself and read my clearly stated position. You might enjoy the politicization of available data, I prefer to just look at the data via reasonable "honest broker" scientists such as Pielke and Curry.

If you wanna keep playing childish dumbsh!t with the ad hom and denier tag, I will just have to maintain my opinion of you, which in no universe could ever be considered favourable.

Interestingly, M. Mann used the same petulant, petty nonsense in his latest Senate hearing (or whatever it was) as you, so I suppose you are just emulating your role models. It is your stock in trade: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...se-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude

Another example http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...lobal-warming-advocates?target=topic&tid=1916


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> It's because Noco is completely incapable of constructing an intelligent rebuttal of the evidence around human produced climate change.
> 
> End of story. Full stop.




I quoted you what happened in 1940 in the Arctic with a link whereby the a ship named the St.Roche sailed through the Arctic and return......It has also happened back in 1840...... You find it hard to believe and accept in factual information because it counters your claims where you Greenies are trying to make out that the current melt is caused by MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING from coal fired power stations.

The current event of ice melt in the Arctic has been going on for 4 years....You could not say that is rapid......your argument does not hold water......

When you find you have been beaten, you them resort to the nasty character assassination...A well known trait by the Socialist left.......Silence you opponents by nasty innuendos....You and plod are both tarred with the one brush by making stupid statements that I do not conduct a sensible argument....I have have quoted you lots of true facts that have happened in the past all of which you turn a blind eye to.

Start showing decency in you if you have any left.


----------



## Tisme

Imagine if we could install wind and water flow generators with storage to harness cyclone power.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio
> 
> For the millionth time.... actually no, just go back yourself and read my clearly stated position. You might enjoy the politicization of available data, I prefer to just look at the data via reasonable "honest broker" scientists such as Pielke and Curry.



Your clearly stated position Wayne is that whatever gentle wafts of CC are happening aren't  that serious...and anyway the only people you take seriously happen to contradict the entire meteorological community.

As for actually looking at the effects of this global warming - record temperatures in the Arctic, rapid melting of ice shelfs, ice caps, widespread bleaching of coral reefs as oceans temperatures rise, collapse of ecosystems ? 

Nah  too hard isn't it ? Might scare the kiddies ? Far easier to put more lipstick on the pigs and pretend it's just "politicization of data"


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> Imagine if we could install wind and water flow generators with storage to harness cyclone power.




Imagine the engineering requirements to sort of do that... 
Perhaps not the most doable idea ? Most times we just get the hell out of the way of cyclones !!


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> ...and anyway the only people you take seriously happen to contradict the entire meteorological community.
> 
> "



And this illustrates just how mendacious and/or out of touch with reality you have become bas.

This is what happens when you refuse to venture from your echo chamber and vested mercantile interests, into the real world.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> And this illustrates just how mendacious and/or out of touch with reality you have become bas.
> 
> This is what happens when you refuse to venture from your echo chamber and vested mercantile interests, into the real world.



Look in the mirror my delusional one.  When you decide that NASA, Hadley, Anglia and all the other  major weather measuring entities are corrupted and can't be trusted to record accurate information - your in fairy land.  But clearly you have plenty of fellow inmates so your not lonely are you ?

I keep wondering though why you are so persistent about decrying the paper figures of CC but decide that the physical evidence of this  increasing temperature are beyond your remit.


----------



## basilio

What do we need to prepare for in a much warmer world ? Sherri Goodman is a former US deputy undersecretary of defence, and founder of the CNA Military Advisory Board. She is in Canberra this week to talk to policymakers and the public about how climate change threatens national security, and will speak at a screening of _The Age of Consequences_ documentary at the Australian National University on Wednesday. This is her take on the situation.

COMMENT
April 4 2017 - 2:33PM
Save
 Print 
* Climate threatens Australia's security in unexpected ways *

*Sherri Goodman*

When President Donald Trump became the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces, he accepted the responsibility to protect my country against enemies, foreign and domestic. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull shares the same responsibility to protect Australians.

Do these leaders understand that a key component of national security and global stability is climate change and the instability it is already causing around the world? The intersection of these two issues is already striking the world in unexpected ways, as climate change interacts with other pre-existing problems to become an accelerant to instability. The consequences include overwhelming humanitarian crises, forced migrations like those we are witnessing around the Mediterranean, and a breakdown in the human systems that make our societies work.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...urity-in-unexpected-ways-20170404-gvdaqx.html


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Imagine the engineering requirements to sort of do that...
> Perhaps not the most doable idea ? Most times we just get the hell out of the way of cyclones !!





I reckon we can do it. And it would be like a brake sapping energy from a flywheel or transferring energy from one lightweight flywheel to another more compact high inertia unit


----------



## basilio

When did we start disputing the effect of burning fossil fuels ?  The science on what happens when we release millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere was understood and accepted  many years ago. At that stage it was a largely theoretical situation because  the world hadn't yet jumped an extra degree.  That was to come.

But  have a read of this story to get a picture of what we knew and still know to be true - even if inconvenient.
* Donald Trump's anti-climate plans won't fool nature *







*Peter Hannam*
Back in 1983, well before the fossil fuel industry realised it had a climate problem, the physics and chemical impacts of burning coal, oil and gas were uncontroversial.

As US President Donald Trump unveils his plans to roll back his predecessor Barack Obama's climate change policies and end his "war on coal", it's worth a reminder the basic science has been settled for decades no matter what politicians do.

The Earth had an "effective temperature" that was a balance of solar radiation it received and what it radiated back to space, I learnt as a Harvard freshman in my Science A-30 atmosphere course.

Our atmosphere was "an insulating blanket" keeping the planet's surface at about 298 degrees Kelvin (25 degrees) compared with space's 3 degrees K, according to class notes I found while sorting some old boxes. 

Alter the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - back then it was rising at 1.2 parts per million a year or less than half the present rate - and you would warm it up.

Other consequences included melting tundra that would release the more potent greenhouse gas, methane, while oceans would become more acidic as they absorbed more carbon from the air.

*'Exceedingly bad'*
Among my notes was a 1983 paper by the US National Research Council that argued global warming impacts from burning fossil fuels on poorer nations "could be exceedingly bad news".

The paper warned of "claims for compensation as a matter of right may emerge" from affected populations, requiring "welfare aid".

Those lecture notes were unremarkable - if alarming - decades ago.

Since then, politicians in nations such as the US and Australia - often at the bidding of fossil industry donors and certain media outlets - have seeded sufficient voter doubt to stymie the introduction of consistent policies needed to curb carbon emissions.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...e-plans-wont-fool-nature-20170328-gv8lur.html


----------



## Tisme




----------



## Tisme




----------



## Logique

"_*Even the rain that falls won't fill the dams*_.." -Tim Flannery.

April 2017 - WaterNSW dam levels:
All Dams - 96.3%
Warragamba Dam (largest) - 95.8%


----------



## Knobby22

One Tim Flannery doth not a climate change argument maketh.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> When did we start disputing the effect of burning fossil fuels ?  The science on what happens when we release millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere was understood and accepted  many years ago. At that stage it was a largely theoretical situation because  the world hadn't yet jumped an extra degree.  That was to come.
> 
> But  have a read of this story to get a picture of what we knew and still know to be true - even if inconvenient.
> * Donald Trump's anti-climate plans won't fool nature *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Peter Hannam*
> Back in 1983, well before the fossil fuel industry realised it had a climate problem, the physics and chemical impacts of burning coal, oil and gas were uncontroversial.
> 
> As US President Donald Trump unveils his plans to roll back his predecessor Barack Obama's climate change policies and end his "war on coal", it's worth a reminder the basic science has been settled for decades no matter what politicians do.
> 
> The Earth had an "effective temperature" that was a balance of solar radiation it received and what it radiated back to space, I learnt as a Harvard freshman in my Science A-30 atmosphere course.
> 
> Our atmosphere was "an insulating blanket" keeping the planet's surface at about 298 degrees Kelvin (25 degrees) compared with space's 3 degrees K, according to class notes I found while sorting some old boxes.
> 
> Alter the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - back then it was rising at 1.2 parts per million a year or less than half the present rate - and you would warm it up.
> 
> Other consequences included melting tundra that would release the more potent greenhouse gas, methane, while oceans would become more acidic as they absorbed more carbon from the air.
> 
> *'Exceedingly bad'*
> Among my notes was a 1983 paper by the US National Research Council that argued global warming impacts from burning fossil fuels on poorer nations "could be exceedingly bad news".
> 
> The paper warned of "claims for compensation as a matter of right may emerge" from affected populations, requiring "welfare aid".
> 
> Those lecture notes were unremarkable - if alarming - decades ago.
> 
> Since then, politicians in nations such as the US and Australia - often at the bidding of fossil industry donors and certain media outlets - have seeded sufficient voter doubt to stymie the introduction of consistent policies needed to curb carbon emissions.
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...e-plans-wont-fool-nature-20170328-gv8lur.html




Well, it not take a lot research to find out Peter Hannam is the great pretender with false information.......He is most likely a good little Greenie who knows how to deceive the naïve. 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/23/...assively-doctored-photo/#sthash.r8oOSbj0.dpbs


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Well, it not take a lot research to find out Peter Hannam is the great pretender with false information.......He is most likely a good little Greenie who knows how to deceive the naïve.
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/23/...assively-doctored-photo/#sthash.r8oOSbj0.dpbs



Yes, part of the dumb left. Stuff like that which is really propaganda feeds into the propaganda of the opposing forces. I would think Hannan never even thought this photo would be attached to his article and it was some work experience student that was asked by a sub editor to produce this rubbish.

His article is fair though, the physics of burning fossil fuels is uncontroversial. The Radio National science show reported on greenhouse warming back in the 1960s in their first program (heard it on their 50th anniversary last year). When you listen to the studious tones of the physicists back then you wonder why everyone sounds so shrill now. They just expected to be believed. In this age a scientist can be expected to be disbelieved.


----------



## noco

The almighty SUN.

The major contributor to Climate Change.

No doubt this will open up a can of worms for the Greenies.

http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.lpPrBoHu.dpbs

Some more exposure the Climate Change scandals and exaggerated and false information.

Enjoy the reading.

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/#sthash.ONMeBPZk.dpbs


----------



## Logique

The moral poseurs will doubtless devise a new 'Sun Tax' Noco. They want to tax the air we breathe, so why not the sunlight!  

Warming, cooling - tax collection and wealth re-distribution seem to be the constants.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> One Tim Flannery doth not a climate change argument maketh.



 I'm all for hyperbole to win a an argument, but that chestnut is a pretty much over hyped and denial arguments deliberately pernicious. It also lacks a time stamp from both camps IMO.

he actually said:



> SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? *What will that mean for a farmer*?
> 
> PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.




The question really is have any deniers actually conferred with the farmers to find out if he's on track and what a reasonable time frame is when the framer's dams don't fill and their river streams don't fill as a normal event either?

Dams are not just state owned mega structures, most are on farming properties for irrigation, cattle, sheep, etc.


----------



## basilio

Nice work Tisme.  I'm sure the actual words and context of Tim Flannerys original comment have been highlighted a number of times. But of course it is overlooked and completely ignored. Still doesn't stop the shrillness of deniers twisting a fairly obvious observation on the effects of global warming into a caricature - and then repeating and distorting it ad infinitum.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Nice work Tisme.  I'm sure the actual words and context of Tim Flannerys original comment have been highlighted a number of times. But of course it is overlooked and completely ignored. Still doesn't stop the shrillness of deniers twisting a fairly obvious observation on the effects of global warming into a caricature - and then repeating and distorting it ad infinitum.




Who in their right mind would believe anything Flannery says with his history of dud predictions.......I ma surprised he still shows his face.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Who in their right mind would believe anything Flannery says with his history of dud predictions.......I ma surprised he still shows his face.



Who in their right mind would listen to anything Noco says when he repeatedly misrepresents what anynme else actually says?

If after reading the transcript of the original comment you can't see that Tim Flannery has been misrepresented there is no point listening to ya.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Who in their right mind would listen to anything Noco says when he repeatedly misrepresents what anynme else actually says?
> 
> If after reading the transcript of the original comment you can't see that Tim Flannery has been misrepresented there is no point listening to ya.




You are obviously blind in one eye and cannot see out the other......You are at it again with your character assassination so you only have one resort left in your rhetoric.....Play ball and not the man basilio....Your modus operandi stands out like country thunder box in the back yard.


----------



## wayneL

The curious thing is the copious posting of politically charged Guardian articles,  somehow argues against the politicization of climate science.

Bas can call people name  all he likes,  but in the end there is the truth,  and there it is. 

By the way bas, can you please detail your main sources of income?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> The curious thing is the copious posting of politically charged Guardian articles,  somehow argues against the politicization of climate science.
> 
> Bas can call people name  all he likes,  but in the end there is the truth,  and there it is.
> 
> By the way bas, can you please detail your main sources of income?




Wayne, the left are past masters at their ridiculous name calling in the hope they can drive the likes of you and I off the ASF so they dominate with their false and misleading posts.

I wonder when they will wake to the fact that it is not working.....Although I  notice recently that some have and I admire them for it.


----------



## basilio

"_And SuperWayne burst his chains with one mighty leap taking his pal Noco by his side"
_
You don't touch base with reality much these days do you boys ? You just serve up the same non sequiturs that disregard what is actually happening to the world we live in as a result of human created global warming.
Wayne catch cry is " the politicization of climate science." Somehow when all the meteorologists around the world record steeply increasing temperatures in the last 3 years on top of previous increases in the past 40 years that's  "politicization of climate science". 

When the inevitable social consequences of such changes in our climate are discussed by senior white house defence  personnel that is just "the politicization of climate science."

When glaciologists document how rapidly ice shelfs, and glaciers are collapsing and the consequences of these events the same catchcry "the politicization of climate science."

When earth scientists note the rapid melting of frozen arctic areas in Siberia and Canada and the release of millions of tons of methane - again "the politicization of climate science."

Seems to just be a convoluted way of say "I don't believe any of that xhit is happening


----------



## basilio

*The consequences of global warming. 
*
The Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers are melting at accelerated rates. None of this was imaginable 20-30 years ago.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/antarctic-melting-161027111059714.html

*The Antarctic melt revealed: Dramatic Nasa images claim to show staggering loss of ice at the south pole*

*For the past eight years, Nasa's Operation IceBridge has been recording how polar ice is changing*
*In 2014 IceBridge data revealed the ice loss at the south pole might have reached irreversible levels *
*This year's Antarctic Campaign, a series of 12-hour flights around the West Antarctic, began on 19 October*
*Now, just over two weeks into its eighth Antarctic Campaign, Nasa has released a series of draimages*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...gering-loss-ice-south-pole.html#ixzz4dMpsUvk9 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## basilio

*The consequences of Global Warming.
*
In the Northern Hemisphere the rapid increase in temperatures is causing millions of square klms of permafrost to melt. The amount of stored methane and CO2 in the permafrost is almost double the current CO2 in the atmosphere. 

*Release of Carbon from Melting Permafrost Could Trigger Rapid Warming*




	

		
			
		

		
	
Posted by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University on September 1, 2016
(0)
More »

A study published last week in _Nature Geoscience_ provides the first measurements of greenhouse gases from permafrost under Arctic lakes in Alaska, Siberia, and Canada. Although the research reveals that only a small amount of old carbon has been released in the past 60 years, it also suggests that much more could be released as the Arctic warms up faster than any other place on Earth.

“It’s a lit fuse, but the length of that fuse is very long,” said lead author Katey Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska. “According to the model projections, we’re getting ready for the part where it starts to explode. But it hasn’t happened yet.”

The scientists determined that the permafrost-carbon feedback is thus far small by looking at aerial photographs and using radiocarbon dating to determine the age of methane emitted from the Arctic lakes that are expanding to consume and thaw terrestrial permafrost. As that permafrost melts and decomposes, it releases ancient carbon as carbon dioxide and methane. Analysis of 113 radiocarbon dating measurements and 289 soil organic carbon measurements showed that approximately 0.2 to 2.5 petagrams of permafrost carbon was released as methane and carbon dioxide in the past six decades.

The billions of tons of carbon stored in permafrost are approximately double the amount currently in the atmosphere. Many researchers are concerned that emission of that stored carbon will contribute to warming that then contributes to permafrost thawing in an accelerating feedback loop.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.co...lting-permafrost-could-trigger-rapid-warming/


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *The consequences of Global Warming.
> *
> In the Northern Hemisphere the rapid increase in temperatures is causing millions of square klms of permafrost to melt. The amount of stored methane and CO2 in the permafrost is almost double the current CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> *Release of Carbon from Melting Permafrost Could Trigger Rapid Warming*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University on September 1, 2016
> (0)
> More »
> 
> A study published last week in _Nature Geoscience_ provides the first measurements of greenhouse gases from permafrost under Arctic lakes in Alaska, Siberia, and Canada. Although the research reveals that only a small amount of old carbon has been released in the past 60 years, it also suggests that much more could be released as the Arctic warms up faster than any other place on Earth.
> 
> “It’s a lit fuse, but the length of that fuse is very long,” said lead author Katey Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska. “According to the model projections, we’re getting ready for the part where it starts to explode. But it hasn’t happened yet.”
> 
> The scientists determined that the permafrost-carbon feedback is thus far small by looking at aerial photographs and using radiocarbon dating to determine the age of methane emitted from the Arctic lakes that are expanding to consume and thaw terrestrial permafrost. As that permafrost melts and decomposes, it releases ancient carbon as carbon dioxide and methane. Analysis of 113 radiocarbon dating measurements and 289 soil organic carbon measurements showed that approximately 0.2 to 2.5 petagrams of permafrost carbon was released as methane and carbon dioxide in the past six decades.
> 
> The billions of tons of carbon stored in permafrost are approximately double the amount currently in the atmosphere. Many researchers are concerned that emission of that stored carbon will contribute to warming that then contributes to permafrost thawing in an accelerating feedback loop.
> 
> http://voices.nationalgeographic.co...lting-permafrost-could-trigger-rapid-warming/




I tried to explain  to you it has all to do with the Sun and the 70 year climate change cycle and have given you links to follow but you are still very narrow minded about it all and just cannot accept to historical information.

You instead prefer to name calling to  ridicule not my opinion but that of  history in an attempt to silence any opposition.

What are you afraid of?....Being defeated with with your Green philosophy?......

Can you not have sensible discussion with the name calling or do you think that will help your cause?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I tried to explain  to you it has all to do with the Sun and the 70 year climate change cycle and have given you links to follow but you are still very narrow minded about it all and just cannot accept to historical information.
> 
> You instead prefer to name calling to  ridicule not my opinion but that of  history in an attempt to silence any opposition.
> 
> What are you afraid of?....Being defeated with with your Green philosophy?......
> 
> Can you not have sensible discussion with the name calling or do you think that will help your cause?




CC isn't just some intellectual exercise noco. It affects real people in real ways. Literally a matter of life and death for tens of millions - if not the survival of our own species.

That's no exaggeration. 

If those scientists, the type that develop drugs and engineer and cure illnesses and develop systems that predict cyclones and the weather... if there's a chance that they're right... might want to take it seriously.

So maybe you too ought to get "rude" and put some anger behind how some people are too laid back about this.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> "_And SuperWayne burst his chains with one mighty leap taking his pal Noco by his side"
> _
> You don't touch base with reality much these days do you boys ? You just serve up the same non sequiturs that disregard what is actually happening to the world we live in as a result of human created global warming.
> Wayne catch cry is " the politicization of climate science." Somehow when all the meteorologists around the world record steeply increasing temperatures in the last 3 years on top of previous increases in the past 40 years that's  "politicization of climate science".
> 
> When the inevitable social consequences of such changes in our climate are discussed by senior white house defence  personnel that is just "the politicization of climate science."
> 
> When glaciologists document how rapidly ice shelfs, and glaciers are collapsing and the consequences of these events the same catchcry "the politicization of climate science."
> 
> When earth scientists note the rapid melting of frozen arctic areas in Siberia and Canada and the release of millions of tons of methane - again "the politicization of climate science."
> 
> Seems to just be a convoluted way of say "I don't believe any of that xhit is happening



What is your main source of income sir?


----------



## Logique

Tisme said:


> I'm all for hyperbole to win a an argument, but that *chestnut is a pretty much over hyped* and denial arguments deliberately pernicious. It also lacks a time stamp from both camps IMO.
> *he actually said*:
> The question really is have any deniers actually conferred with the farmers to find out if he's on track and what a reasonable time frame is when the framer's dams don't fill and their river streams don't fill as a normal event either?
> Dams are not just state owned mega structures, most are on farming properties for irrigation, cattle, sheep, etc.



That's historical revisionism, and just plain false. I can provide the attributions. And the term 'Denier' is pure propaganda, with it's Holocaust overtones, most commonly used to silence dissent.

I don't recall too much disagreement from the CAGW crowd with the high priest's pronouncements of the time. 

Now it's '_One Tim Flannery doth not a climate change argument maketh_.' You've been benched Tim, along with Michael Mann and his hockey stick.


----------



## Knobby22

Back to the real news.
Allianz is officially fleeing Nth Queensland. they made an assessment a while back that the weather was only going to get worse and have been easing out since 2003. They look smart now as Suncorp (until recently a climate change doubter with a denier at the helm) and IAG takes another huge hit. The good thing is that these companies now plan to increase premiums greatly holding up their share prices.
http://www.insurancenews.com.au/local/allianz-flees-north-queensland-personal-lines-market

I have always avoided Suncorp as they were a lemming company with poor risk control and awful results but I think there may be an opportunity coming up with their more enlightened management.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> *That's historical revisionism*, and just plain false. I can provide the attributions. And the term 'Denier' is pure propaganda, with it's Holocaust overtones, most commonly used to silence dissent.
> 
> I don't recall too much disagreement from the CAGW crowd with the high priest's pronouncements of the time.
> 
> Now it's '_One Tim Flannery doth not a climate change argument maketh_.' You've been benched Tim, along with Michael Mann and his hockey stick.




What has been revised? I just posted a transcript and suggested both bookends (believers and deniers) of failing to apply appropriate vectors to the argument.

There is no corollary between my post and Nazism and surely a giant PC segue too far into the ridiculous zone. I'm assuming you flew into a blind rage and had a brain fart on that one because it's really entering that historical no go zone of discussion boards.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> What is your main source of income sir?



My business - not yours and Off topic


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> I must admit, to me most of the hysteria seems to come from people trying to assert climate change is not a taxing problem, as it:
> 
> 1. does not exist or;
> 2. does not present a danger or;
> 3. is just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by sheeple scientists and socialists;
> 4. etc
> 
> I tend to think the determined few antagonists are more like "why wasn't I told" Dorry Evans from Number 96, with the rest of us feeling like an exasperated Herb or at best Flo Patterson.




Always interesting  to reflect on previous comments. Very apposite


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> My business - not yours and Off topic



As one who acuuses others (usually inaccurately) of vested interests, It could very well be on topic, if you have a vested interest in inflating alarmism.

What do you have to hide?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> As one who acuuses others (usually inaccurately) of vested interests, It could very well be on topic, if you have a vested interest in inflating alarmism.
> 
> What do you have to hide?




I think we all have a vested interest in stopping climate change Sifu.

What with wanting the kids and grand kids to stay alive and stuff.


----------



## Logique

luutzu said:


> I think we all have a vested interest in stopping climate change Sifu.
> What with wanting the kids and grand kids to stay alive and stuff.



The climate has always changed and always will. I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in trying to prevent this. WayneL. simply asks Basilio to make a commitment in similar terms, either way.

As Wayne says, what does Basilio have to hide?

With the kids staying alive, it will be a lot harder with the (unnecessary) runaway costs of electricity to cope with, and less available jobs because industry has been driven offshore in search of affordable energy.


----------



## luutzu

Logique said:


> The climate has always changed and always will. I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in trying to prevent this. WayneL. simply asks Basilio to make a commitment in similar terms, either way.
> 
> As Wayne says, what does Basilio have to hide?
> 
> With the kids staying alive, it will be a lot harder with the (unnecessary) runaway costs of electricity to cope with, and less available jobs because industry has been driven offshore in search of affordable energy.




It's not about "hiding" something. It's about things being private and none of other people's business. 

The Sun and the Wind are free, right? 

The cost of setting up a solar or wind farm is a whole lot less than the typical coal or nuclear powered station. And that doesn't include the non-existence costs to the environment and people's health costs. Doesn't include the cost to mine, clean, transport and waste disposal of the fuel etc.

So cost wise, it's a no-brainer. 

Job wise... new tech, new construction projects mean new jobs, new R&D; mean less automation (for the time being).

I'm pretty sure manufacturing weren't shipped offshore due to high cost of electricity. I mean those jobs were gone long before the power utilities were privatised


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> It's not about "hiding" something. It's about things being private and none of other people's business.
> 
> The Sun and the Wind are free, right?
> 
> The cost of setting up a solar or wind farm is a whole lot less than the typical coal or nuclear powered station. And that doesn't include the non-existence costs to the environment and people's health costs. Doesn't include the cost to mine, clean, transport and waste disposal of the fuel etc.
> 
> So cost wise, it's a no-brainer.
> 
> Job wise... new tech, new construction projects mean new jobs, new R&D; mean less automation (for the time being).
> 
> I'm pretty sure manufacturing weren't shipped offshore due to high cost of electricity. I mean those jobs were gone long before the power utilities were privatised




Wind and solar have been heavily subsidized......It is only 15% efficient compared to 35% coal fired power stations which last up to 60 years...Coal is also cheap and plentiful.

The life of solar panels and wind turbines have a life span of some 25 years at which time will have to be replaced at probably double the cost.

Battery storage is still in its infancy and most likely will be expensive and have to be replaced every 7 to 10 years.

Finally I should ask you the question why have electricity prices risen so fast and so high in South Australia....The cost of power in SA is creating a headache for business.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> I think we all have a vested interest in stopping climate change Sifu.
> 
> What with wanting the kids and grand kids to stay alive and stuff.




How naive you are Grasshopper. 

Nobody can stop climate change,  because... climate changes,  irrespective of human activities. 

Especially,  climate change cannot be changed by posting copious amounts Of Guardian articles,  or specious mendacities from skepical science blog, or Quoting fudged and discredited claims of consensus. 

Even if there is as much of an anthropomorphic influense as basilio claims,  Australia's efforts are an exercise in futility work zero effect. 

In fact basilio has no interest in mitigating climate change,  basilio is interested only in ramping alarmism,  because I suspect it profits him to do so. This is evident by his focus on alarmism in this thread and disregard for other factors I have mentioned. 

What had basilio got to lose? We don't know his real name, or where he lives... what harm is there in disclosing his vested interest? 

BTW I'm happy to disclose my full name and business activities.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Wind and solar have been heavily subsidized......It is only 15% efficient compared to 35% coal fired power stations which last up to 60 years...Coal is also cheap and plentiful.
> 
> The life of solar panels and wind turbines have a life span of some 25 years at which time will have to be replaced at probably double the cost.
> 
> Battery storage is still in its infancy and most likely will be expensive and have to be replaced every 7 to 10 years.
> 
> Finally I should ask you the question why have electricity prices risen so fast and so high in South Australia....The cost of power in SA is creating a headache for business.




I haven't looked into SA but my guess is it's high because it's been privatised.

Fund more solar and wind projects then watch its costs drop and efficiency gained and accelerate. 

And all infrastructure projects are subsidized anyway.

Costs are often counted as it occur, and occur on the project and development. But if we take in the actually costs... say the costs people around the coal power plant paid with their illness, cancer, shortened lifespan; count the costs to those living around oil and gas refineries... 

and let's assume that fossil fuel does contribute to global warming, increasing the frequency and intensity of cyclones, droughts and floods. What's the costs to a community when a cyclone that might otherwise not be so extreme or would not happen, happened?


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> How naive you are Grasshopper.
> 
> Nobody can stop climate change,  because... climate changes,  irrespective of human activities.
> 
> Especially,  climate change cannot be changed by posting copious amounts Of Guardian articles,  or specious mendacities from skepical science blog, or Quoting fudged and discredited claims of consensus.
> 
> Even if there is as much of an anthropomorphic influense as basilio claims,  Australia's efforts are an exercise in futility work zero effect.
> 
> In fact basilio has no interest in mitigating climate change,  basilio is interested only in ramping alarmism,  because I suspect it profits him to do so. This is evident by his focus on alarmism in this thread and disregard for other factors I have mentioned.
> 
> What had basilio got to lose? We don't know his real name, or where he lives... what harm is there in disclosing his vested interest?
> 
> BTW I'm happy to disclose my full name and business activities.





What's in your pr0n collection Sifu?

We're sure you got nothing to hide. I'm sure it's all legal. So give us a screenshot, screen capture.

So let say Basillo invest in some green tech company... his point about CC is self-interested?


Like I was saying a while back, remember that couple of holes in the Ozone layer? Some idiot scientific community figured it's caused by the release of CFC or whatever gas it was in hairspray and refridgerants. 

Laws were passed to ban that gas. Those holes are getting smaller and are expected to heal in another decade. Less White people will die of skin cancer now.

See how human activities does impact the world around it? See how scientists tend to know their area of expertise. See how following their advice does turn the tide? See how if it were to kill more White people than the brown and black folks it tend to be fix in a real hurry?

You think I'm kidding about the last point. 

Don't be so naive Sifu.


----------



## wayneL

Happy to share my pr0n collection on the appropriate forum Grasshopper, if you'd like to start a thread on that. However as it does not play to my moderate stance on CC, it is not relevant.

I'm more likely to watch shoe making pr0n to be honest, this is me on a a two heat concave front, as a matter of disclosure.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> As one who acuuses others (usually inaccurately) of vested interests, It could very well be on topic, if you have a vested interest in inflating alarmism.
> 
> What do you have to hide?





Sussed out.  9 years and 658,912 posts on the issues surrounding  human caused CC and  Wayne has worked out I have an interest in the outcome.

Of course I do and it’s priceless. The short story as Luutzu accurately notes are my children and grandchildren.  But on reflection that is far too short. If we cook , we all cook.  Us, my kids,  Waynes kids Luutzu children. If we somehow address the issues we all have a better chance of surviving and thriving. So if I want to see action taken that averts this disaster it’s for everyones’ sake.

If I or my children ever want to see the Great Barrier Reef in all it’s glory there is precious little time.  In fact the realist in me would say "see it before it goes".  And unfortunately that is probably the case for thousands of ecosytems that are under CC threat. Of course when whole ecosytems collapse let’s not pretend humans will survive in some man made bubble. Mind you when the merde does hit the fan there will no doubt be enclaves for the superrich to survive. At least  for a few years.

And through all this Wayne somehow suspects I have some driving economic interest that has driven my posts on this forum and work elsewhere. By the same token Wayne must also believe that the scientific community that has researched, modelled and examined  CC and its effects are similarly economically driven – and to be dismissed in the same light.

My financial interests are meagre. On principle I won’t “disclose” them because frankly they add absolutely nothing to the discussion.  In the context of  CC  discussion my interest is trying to leave a world in a state can support life as we know it. I can’t eat money. I can’t breathe it.  The essentials that sustain life are not found on the stock exchange.


----------



## Ves

Appeals to vested interests,  conflicts of interests, motives etc.  are all Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) fallacies.

Given that the foundation of science is based upon the concept of falsifiability it says more about the person making the types of appeals listed above than it does the person for whom these are being made about.


----------



## Knobby22

Ves said:


> Appeals to vested interests,  conflicts of interests, motives etc.  are all Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) fallacies.
> 
> Given that the foundation of science is based upon the concept of falsifiability it says more about the person making the types of appeals listed above than it does the person for whom these are being made about.




You make it sound like a bad thing. it is a way from differentiating science from pseudo science.

_According to Popper, Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Popper concluded that a hypothesis or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. Therefore, he sees Falsifiability as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Scientific theories for Popper therefore comprised all those theories that fit the scientific status of a theory in its Falsifiability, refutability or testability.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...oncept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php_


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> Appeals to vested interests,  conflicts of interests, motives etc.  are all Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) fallacies.
> 
> Given that the foundation of science is based upon the concept of falsifiability it says more about the person making the types of appeals listed above than it does the person for whom these are being made about.



Interesting you draw this rather long bow, without mentioning basilios constant outright ad hom, and dodging a reasonable (in light of his frequent argument re vested interests) question.

That's instructive Ves, as is basilio's clumsy sidestep.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> Interesting you draw this rather long bow, without mentioning basilios constant outright ad hom, and dodging a reasonable (in light of his frequent argument re vested interests) question.



Did you ever consider that I am saying that both sides are guilty of it?

It's not a long bow at all.   Vested interests are completely irrelevant.  Any data produced by a vested interest that leads to a false conclusion,  can and will be proved false. 

That's how science works.  It's worked like that for a very long time.  With great results.


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> Did you ever consider that I am saying that both sides are guilty of it?
> 
> It's not a long bow at all.   Vested interests are completely irrelevant.  Any data produced by a vested inI terest that leads to a false conclusion,  can and will be proved false.
> 
> That's how science works.  It's worked like that for a very long time.  With great results.




I agree, with the caveat that proper scientific process is followed. 

This is often not so.


----------



## Ves

Knobby22 said:


> You make it sound like a bad thing. it is a way from differentiating science from pseudo science.
> 
> _According to Popper, Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Popper concluded that a hypothesis or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. Therefore, he sees Falsifiability as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Scientific theories for Popper therefore comprised all those theories that fit the scientific status of a theory in its Falsifiability, refutability or testability.
> 
> https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...oncept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php_



Didn't see this before.   I've either not expressed myself properly or you have misread what I wrote,  but I'm not at all saying falsifiability is a bad thing.

Read my follow up post to WayneL.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Sussed out.  9 years and 658,912 posts on the issues surrounding  human caused CC and  Wayne has worked out I have an interest in the outcome.
> 
> Of course I do and it’s priceless. The short story as Luutzu accurately notes are my children and grandchildren.  But on reflection that is far too short. If we cook , we all cook.  Us, my kids,  Waynes kids Luutzu children. If we somehow address the issues we all have a better chance of surviving and thriving. So if I want to see action taken that averts this disaster it’s for everyones’ sake.
> 
> *If I or my children ever want to see the Great Barrier Reef in all it’s glory there is precious little time.*  In fact the realist in me would say "see it before it goes".  And unfortunately that is probably the case for thousands of ecosytems that are under CC threat. Of course when whole ecosytems collapse let’s not pretend humans will survive in some man made bubble. Mind you when the merde does hit the fan there will no doubt be enclaves for the superrich to survive. At least  for a few years.
> 
> And through all this Wayne somehow suspects I have some driving economic interest that has driven my posts on this forum and work elsewhere. By the same token Wayne must also believe that the scientific community that has researched, modelled and examined  CC and its effects are similarly economically driven – and to be dismissed in the same light.
> 
> My financial interests are meagre. On principle I won’t “disclose” them because frankly they add absolutely nothing to the discussion.  In the context of  CC  discussion my interest is trying to leave a world in a state can support life as we know it. I can’t eat money. I can’t breathe it.  The essentials that sustain life are not found on the stock exchange.




Well Bas, what do you know?......TC Debbie has saved the Great Barrier Reef and reduced the sea temperature by 3C......Now isn't that wonderful news......Your children won't be disappointed after all.


----------



## orr

Ves said:


> Didn't see this before.   I've either not expressed myself properly or you have misread what I wrote,  but I'm not at all saying falsifiability is a bad thing.
> 
> Read my follow up post to WayneL.




Ves ... Knobby... what are you guy's doing? just when this thread had reached the heights of 'show'n'tell' and we are only  a step away from  'kissy kissy touchy touchy wee wee'.... you blokes bring in Popper.... 
*Fellas*; ostensibly ... '_we're talking to Queensland_'...  who's education system though to the 1980's is renound.... and not in a good sense.
Just wait till noco finds out Popper's christian name and draws his conclusion.

Logic and scientific method ... wouldn't that be a thing...


----------



## noco

orr said:


> Ves ... Knobby... what are you guy's doing? just when this thread had reached the heights of 'show'n'tell' and we are only  a step away from  'kissy kissy touchy touchy wee wee'.... you blokes bring in Popper....
> *Fellas*; ostensibly ... '_we're talking to Queensland_'...  who's education system though to the 1980's is renound.... and not in a good sense.
> Just wait till noco finds out Popper's christian name and draws his conclusion.
> 
> Logic and scientific method ... wouldn't that be a thing...




It is such a shame that you cannot accept the truth.......The Great Barrier Reef has been saved by TC Debbie.


----------



## noco

Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville questions the the coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef......Peter Ridd, whom I have met on two occasions has studied the reef for 30 years. 

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...f/news-story/ef9dca8cd45394c9481253ef2ba387a4


----------



## basilio

There is an excellent physicist on the net who manages to make a thousand different science based questions interesting and accessible.
He did a neat little line on 13 misconceptions about Global warming.   Managed to argue against himself actually. Good stuff


If CC isn't your cup of tea his other science videos are  still fascinating.


----------



## basilio

Veritsitum (the guy I referenced above) did a neat little video on an anti gravity wheel.

Enjoy it.


----------



## basilio

If you watched the anti gravity wheel and were perplexed about the final question ie did the wheel lighten  when it was spinning, the following vid examines the phenomenon in detail.


----------



## basilio

So this guy  ca*n really* makes you think. 
Can you solve his mathematical puzzle ?  Very clever


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Happy to share my pr0n collection on the appropriate forum Grasshopper, if you'd like to start a thread on that. However as it does not play to my moderate stance on CC, it is not relevant.
> 
> I'm more likely to watch shoe making pr0n to be honest, this is me on a a two heat concave front, as a matter of disclosure.





A hammer, a chisel, a guy in leather apron and one big anvil.

Dam it Sifu, even Fifty Shades didn't go that far. 

It did take me a few days to come up with that one.


----------



## luutzu

Knobby22 said:


> You make it sound like a bad thing. it is a way from differentiating science from pseudo science.
> 
> _According to Popper, Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Popper concluded that a hypothesis or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. Therefore, he sees Falsifiability as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Scientific theories for Popper therefore comprised all those theories that fit the scientific status of a theory in its Falsifiability, refutability or testability.
> 
> https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...oncept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php_




So then, the claim that CC is wrong because "the climate has always been changing"... that's pseudo-science because it cannot be falsified?


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville questions the the coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef......Peter Ridd, whom I have met on two occasions has studied the reef for 30 years.
> 
> http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...f/news-story/ef9dca8cd45394c9481253ef2ba387a4




Well good to see he is not saying the bleaching is not happening! Since he lives in Townsville it would be pretty hard to ignore. He has become the new go to guy for the Courier Mail.

Listening on the radio today, to a reef expert, he said the Cyclone came a month too late to save the reef and the previous winter was unseasonably warm not allowing the reef to flourish. They also released the official bleaching data. Cairns must be very worried. A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## basilio

The future of Coral Reefs  with Global Warming .
* Loss of coral reefs caused by rising sea temperatures could cost $1tn globally *
Loss of Great Barrier Reef alone could cost north Queensland 1m visitors a year, imperilling 10,000 jobs and draining $1bn from economy

Current Time 0:00
/

Mute
Devastation of world's coral reefs could cost $1tn


*Shares*
156
 
* Comments*
 91 
Ben Doherty and Christopher Knaus

_Wednesday 12 April 2017 06.12 AEST   Last modified on Wednesday 12 April 2017 06.41 AEST  


The loss of coral reefs caused by rising sea temperatures could cost $1 trillion globally, a report from Australia’s Climate Council has projected, with the loss of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef alone costing that region 1m visitors a year, imperilling 10,000 jobs and draining $1bn from the economy.


The longest global coral bleaching event on record, which began in 2014 and has affected some reefs in consecutive years, has given reefs little chance to recover, and should be a “wake-up call” to act to save the natural and economic assets, the Climate Council’s Lesley Hughes said.


“The extraordinary devastation being experienced on the Great Barrier Reef is due to the warming of our oceans, driven by the burning of coal, oil and gas,” Hughes said. “It would have been virtually impossible for this to have occurred without climate change.”






* Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage': scientists despair at latest coral bleaching data *
 Read more 

Hughes argued it was a false dichotomy in public debate “to pit the environment against the economy”. 


“This isn’t just an environmental issue. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s greatest economic assets. It’s responsible for bringing in more than $7bn each year to our economy, while also supporting the livelihoods of around 70,000 people. A healthy Great Barrier Reef underpins the tourism industry and the jobs that it supports.”


The $1 trillion figure for the value of the world’s coral reefs is derived from a 2015 report led by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, which found that worldwide, reefs supported 500 million people across 50 nations.

The cooler water temperatures brought by Cyclone Debbie are expected to offer Queensland reefs some relief from the bleaching events of 2016 and 2017, though this is expected to be only temporary, and could be offset by the physical damage caused by the Category 4 tropical cyclone._

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sing-sea-temperatures-could-cost-1tn-globally


----------



## noco

Man made Global Warming has hit Darwin.....Read the link to find out why.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/e9f024be59a2950ee44ff00a70dd69a6


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> Man made Global Warming has hit Darwin.....Read the link to find out why.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/e9f024be59a2950ee44ff00a70dd69a6



It's obvious why.

There's a tropical low up there at the moment.  Which will turn into a category 1 or 2 tropical cyclone after it has past.


----------



## basilio

So Noco, your response to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, most of the other 
coral reefs around the world, the ecosytems that live in the reefs, the loss of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of peoples livelihoods and billions of dollars is
*
a cold day in Darwin.
*


----------



## noco

Skiers will be happy this year, Mt Buller gets its snow 2 months earlier than normal.......And the cause is   man made Global Warming........All those coal fired power stations releasing that nasty black smoke full of carbon dioxide.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> So Noco, your response to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, most of the other
> coral reefs around the world, the ecosytems that live in the reefs, the loss of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of peoples livelihoods and billions of dollars is
> *
> a cold day in Darwin.*




Bas, you obviously did not read my link to my post  # 9148 so I will post it again just for your information.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...f/news-story/ef9dca8cd45394c9481253ef2ba387a4

CLIMATE change sceptic and geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has questioned research that blames global warming for devastating coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.

*Prof Ridd also says the work of a US schoolteacher, who claims a drop in sea level caused by the El Nino phenomenon might have caused bleaching, should not be discounted.*

Prof Ridd, of James Cook University’s Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, has re-entered the fray in a simmering climate war.

He was disciplined last year under JCU’s code of conduct for questioning the relevance of photographs being used by the university’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to highlight the decline of coastal reefs.

Yesterday, Prof Ridd maintained research findings needed more scrutiny, particularly in environmental sciences where they could impact on tourism, the potential “closing down of the coal industry” and on the operations of the sugar cane and beef cattle industries.

“We need to do better than maybe a couple of mates who have read (the research papers) for a couple of hours," Prof Ridd said.

“I have called for an institute of policy science (for) quality assurance.”


----------



## basilio

Well that surprises me Noco. I understood from your original posts that the coral bleaching "was very limited, just a bit of a touch up that happened normally and would just get better". Basic denial of reality stuff.

But now we have a new story. Seems like "yep there is some serious coral bleaching your honour" *but I have  a statement  from a US high school teacher that undermines all the research and observations from every other ocean scientist and I don't think it's global warming.*

Well done NOCO.  No surprises here.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well that surprises me Noco. I understood from your original posts that the coral bleaching "was very limited, just a bit of a touch up that happened normally and would just get better". Basic denial of reality stuff.
> 
> But now we have a new story. Seems like "yep there is some serious coral bleaching your honour" *but I have  a statement  from a US high school teacher that undermines all the research and observations from every other ocean scientist and I don't think it's global warming.*
> 
> Well done NOCO.  No surprises here.




Bass, that was not my opinion, I was only the messenger.......If you don't like that opinion by  those two gentlemen, then, stiff bickies....The alarmist are always promoting sea rises due to Global Warming where as in this case they are stating the sea levels dropped some 150mm which in turn have exposed the corals closer to the surface creating a Sun burn effect....Either you are right based on your Green bible and false information or they are right based on scientific observations.

Most of us know now, the organizations such as NOAA, CSIRO and NASA have self confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data just to please the UN Climate Change committe.


----------



## noco

The Barrier reef will survive as it has done hundreds of times before.....On the full moon in November the spectaular spawning begins, and if you have never seen it before it is an absolute ecological wonder....New corals are born and the life cycle begins again.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...s/news-story/bc41ac51df7e5e98dac32ebac0c25c59


----------



## GlobeTrekker

noco said:


> Most of us know now, the organizations such as NOAA, CSIRO and NASA have self confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data just to please the UN Climate Change committe.



Wow, I must have missed that, can you provide a link to the web pages on NOAA's, CSIRO's and NASA's websites where they made these startling admissions?


----------



## noco

GlobeTrekker said:


> Wow, I must have missed that, can you provide a link to the web pages on NOAA's, CSIRO's and NASA's websites where they made these startling admissions?




You sure did miss a lot......You must have been on the lazy side instead of reading my posts and the associated links.
So here is a bit of home work for you to do in catching up.
Posts numbers as follows :-
8091
8095
8965
8967
8990
8997
9044
9065
9107
9109
There are more links pertaining to IPCC and the CSIRO false information if you like to go back further.

Man made Global warming is a farce and a scam set up by the corrupt United Nations.


----------



## GlobeTrekker

noco said:


> So here is a bit of home work for you to do in catching up.
> Posts numbers as follows :-
> 8091
> 8095
> 8965
> 8967
> 8990
> 8997
> 9044
> 9065
> 9107
> 9109



Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim.  Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary?  I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.


----------



## noco

GlobeTrekker said:


> Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim.  Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary?  I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.




Dr Bates, a former scientist with NOAA for 40 years confessed to exaggerated and false data which submitted to the Un Climate Change committee to strengthen the UN case at the Paris conference.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ed-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> How naive you are Grasshopper.
> Nobody can stop climate change,  because... climate changes,  irrespective of human activities.
> Especially,  climate change cannot be changed by posting copious amounts Of Guardian articles,  or specious mendacities from skepical science blog, or Quoting fudged and discredited claims of consensus.
> Even if there is as much of an anthropomorphic influense as basilio claims,  Australia's efforts are an exercise in futility work zero effect.
> In fact basilio has no interest in mitigating climate change,  *basilio is interested only in ramping alarmism*,  because *I suspect it profits him to do so*. This is evident by his focus on alarmism in this thread and disregard for other factors I have mentioned.
> What had basilio got to lose? We don't know his real name, or where he lives... what harm is there in disclosing his vested interest?
> BTW I'm happy to disclose my full name and business activities.



I noted that a MKR contestant in 2017 said her occupation is: '_social media influencer_' (David & Betty) - link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4141802/MKR-s-Betty-Banks-s-raunchy-photos.html
Which I only note because ..'_social media influencer_'..wow that's a job now.  Although I'm sure Basilio is a very good cook.


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> Dr Bates, a former scientist with NOAA for 40 years confessed to exaggerated and false data which submitted to the Un Climate Change committee to strengthen the UN case at the Paris conference.
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ed-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/



Noco,

GlobeTrekker asked for a reference to an organisation's website with a first-hand statement. This doesn't fit the bill. It's also wrong on the facts, though not quite as wrong as your summary suggests.

Here's a more complete version of the dispute:  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study  In particular:



> ...Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
> 
> Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.




Similarly, from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5...warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended



> Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. ...
> 
> ... However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
> 
> "It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."




This article also demolishes Bates' claim that a paper was rushed to publication:



> Science's new editor-in-chief Jeremy Berg said it usually takes 109 days between a paper's submission and its publication. The Karl study was received by the journal on Dec. 23, 2014 and published 185 days later, on June 26, 2015.
> 
> "The paper was not rushed in any way," McNutt said. "It had an exceptional number of reviewers, many more than average because we knew it was on a controversial topic. It had a lot of data analysis."




In more than 10 years closely following climate change discussion I've found that misusing, misinterpreting, misquoting, or misrepresenting genuine scientific disagreements are almost characteristic of climate change denial. I don't know whether this comes from misunderstanding, misreading, or malice, but the pattern is strong and is one reason for my acceptance of the 97% climate change consensus. 

Noco, I respect you for the amount of reading you do. I often find that digging into the climate counter-claims you post is a good way to learn more about what scientists are really saying, although these days I can't often post in reply. But not when your sources are The Daily Mail or WUWT. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> The  Arctic ice disappeared  in 1940 when a 300 tonne wooden vessel St Roche sailed through and returned  back again.....That vessel had no ice braking equipment......It also apparently occurred back as far as 1840......So it runs in 70 year cycles and the Arctic will build up again.
> 
> I live on the ground here in North Queensland and the majority of us know the Great Barrier Reef dying is nothing more than a hoax.......The majority of the reef in in good shape...So don't believe everything you hear from the radical Greens....Most of the bleaching has occurred north of Cooktown where there is no mining or agriculture interference......It is like sun burn and the reef will recover.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/arctic-ice-a-historical-viewpoint/



Ice disappeared from the entire Arctic Ocean and nobody noticed? Even in the middle of a war that would be remarkable. But it didn't happen. 

The article says: 







> The Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner St Roch sailed across the Arctic ocean west to east during the period 1940-1942, and in 1944 made the east to west return trip.



The linked Wikipedia article, like the website for the St Roch itself, reports that the St Roch sailed through the North West passage i.e. through the archipelago across the top of Canada. The first journey, from Vancouver to Halifax, included being frozen in place through two winters - so much for the disappearing ice. 

More significantly, to claim that St Roch sailed across the Arctic Ocean when her voyage were actually through the Canadian archipelago is like claiming that Matthew Flinders crossed the Pacific when he actually circumnavigated Australia: non-geographical nonsense. St Roch's voyages provide no evidence of ice conditions on other Arctic coasts or over the Central Arctic Basin. 

Ghoti


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> Ice disappeared from the entire Arctic Ocean and nobody noticed? Even in the middle of a war that would be remarkable. But it didn't happen.
> 
> The article says:
> The linked Wikipedia article, like the website for the St Roch itself, reports that the St Roch sailed through the North West passage i.e. through the archipelago across the top of Canada. The first journey, from Vancouver to Halifax, included being frozen in place through two winters - so much for the disappearing ice.
> 
> More significantly, to claim that St Roch sailed across the Arctic Ocean when her voyage were actually through the Canadian archipelago is like claiming that Matthew Flinders crossed the Pacific when he actually circumnavigated Australia: non-geographical nonsense. St Roch's voyages provide no evidence of ice conditions on other Arctic coasts or over the Central Arctic Basin.
> 
> Ghoti




Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206

You mentioned that dubious figure of 97% reference your post #9170......To what does that 97% relate?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
> http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206




Did you read that analysis In Popular Science  Noco ? In fact it went into quite excellent detail on what Dr Bates was saying and the implications regarding CC data. 
Short story is there was no "falsification" of data.  The only falsification was the CC deniers who twisted Dr Bates comments to suit their agenda.  Read it .
Again no surprises there.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Did you read that analysis In Popular Science  Noco ? In fact it went into quite excellent detail on what Dr Bates was saying and the implications regarding CC data.
> Short story is there was no "falsification" of data.  The only falsification was the CC deniers who twisted Dr Bates comments to suit their agenda.  Read it .
> Again no surprises there.




It all depends which side of politics you are on as to whether the story is true or false and the left are past masters at putting out false news.

This whole Global Warming BS is a fabrication by the UN who full of corrupt Greenies......The sooner the UN breaks up the better it will be for the world.....Trump is going to cut funding big time and that is when the UN will start to fold......The UN is already in financial trouble.


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
> http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206
> 
> You mentioned that dubious figure of 97% reference your post #9170......To what does that 97% relate?



You've lost me. The post you quote was about Arctic sea ice and the voyages of the St Roch. The article you link to is about an internal disagreement in NOAA about data management, and matches the two articles I linked to in my earlier post. What sides do you mean? 

This Wikipedia article describes several studies of the climate science consensus, including four that used different methods to study opinions and concluded that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is happening because of human activity. You can also see how the consensus has firmed over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

If you want to challenge the John Cook study of climate science extracts, I suggest you look first at the website http://theconsensusproject.com/  There's a link in the FAQ that enables anyone to repeat the process that the authors used.


----------



## basilio

The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic.  One example

* Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse




An aerial view of the ice canyon that now carries meltwater from the Kaskawulsh Glacier, seen here on the right, away from the Slims River and toward the Kaskawulsh River. Photograph: Dan Shugar/University of Washington Tacoma

  

*Shares*
3,991
 
* Comments*
 808 
Hannah Devlin Science correspondent

 
Tuesday 18 April 2017 01.00 AEST   Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 07.03 AEST

 
*Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse

An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.

The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.







For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.

The continental-scale rearrangement was documented by a team of scientists who had been monitoring the incremental retreat of the glacier for years. But on a 2016 fieldwork expedition they were confronted with a landscape that had been radically transformed.
....
The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the Slims’ flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016.

Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”

*Prof Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the work, said the observations highlight how incremental temperature increases can produce sudden and drastic environmental impacts. “There are definitely thresholds which, once passed in nature, everything abruptly changes,” he said.*

https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic.  One example
> 
> * Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *




Hysteresis ?


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> You've lost me. The post you quote was about Arctic sea ice and the voyages of the St Roch. The article you link to is about an internal disagreement in NOAA about data management, and matches the two articles I linked to in my earlier post. What sides do you mean?
> 
> This Wikipedia article describes several studies of the climate science consensus, including four that used different methods to study opinions and concluded that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is happening because of human activity. You can also see how the consensus has firmed over time.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
> 
> If you want to challenge the John Cook study of climate science extracts, I suggest you look first at the website http://theconsensusproject.com/  There's a link in the FAQ that enables anyone to repeat the process that the authors used.





Perhaps you should read the link below where there are a lot of claims debunking the consensus........Please read right to the bottom and all the comments.

There are some 30,000 + scientist who are sceptical of man made Global Warming.
I believe the scientist mentioned are a very select few of which consensus has been taken while ignoring the opinion of those scientist who are sceptics.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)


----------



## explod

Tisme said:


> Hysteresis ?



Naar, cant be true Tisme, what we see with our own eyes is not counted as its continually ignored by noco.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Naar, cant be true Tisme, what we see with our own eyes is not counted as its continually ignored by noco.





basilio said:


> The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic.  One example
> 
> * Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
> First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An aerial view of the ice canyon that now carries meltwater from the Kaskawulsh Glacier, seen here on the right, away from the Slims River and toward the Kaskawulsh River. Photograph: Dan Shugar/University of Washington Tacoma
> 
> 
> 
> *Shares*
> 3,991
> 
> * Comments*
> 808
> Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
> 
> 
> Tuesday 18 April 2017 01.00 AEST   Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 07.03 AEST
> 
> 
> *Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
> First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse
> 
> An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.
> 
> The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.
> 
> The continental-scale rearrangement was documented by a team of scientists who had been monitoring the incremental retreat of the glacier for years. But on a 2016 fieldwork expedition they were confronted with a landscape that had been radically transformed.
> ....
> The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the Slims’ flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016.
> 
> Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”
> 
> *Prof Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the work, said the observations highlight how incremental temperature increases can produce sudden and drastic environmental impacts. “There are definitely thresholds which, once passed in nature, everything abruptly changes,” he said.*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change




It also happened may years ago......Nothing new except the time factor.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-in-four-days-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”*


----------



## Tisme

GlobeTrekker said:


> Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim.  Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary?  I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.




You some kinda 'tard or something ... do I need to train you in the use of a genuine "Climate Denier Keyboard MKII" by Mattel?


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> Perhaps you should read the link below where there are a lot of claims debunking the consensus........Please read right to the bottom and all the comments.
> 
> There are some 30,000 + scientist who are sceptical of man made Global Warming.
> I believe the scientist mentioned are a very select few of which consensus has been taken while ignoring the opinion of those scientist who are sceptics.
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> 
> Climate Myth...
> There is no consensus
> The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)



Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alone
(https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm) i.e. 99.7% who didn't sign the petition. 

That doesn't mean that there's a 99.7% consensus on global warming. Doesn't mean there isn't either. Yet. 

Thanks for your response. I won't be able to reply further for a while.


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alone
> (https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm) i.e. 99.7% who didn't sign the petition.
> 
> That doesn't mean that there's a 99.7% consensus on global warming. Doesn't mean there isn't either. Yet.
> 
> Thanks for your response. I won't be able to reply further for a while.




10million people qualified people over 46 years and you are trying to claim that 31,000 into 10 million represents 3%.....Tricky to say the least.......That is really average out to 23043 per year.

Now you say they were qualified in what science?
Which ones of the following:-

Biological
Engineering
Factual methology
Human Behavior and societies
Physics
Physical
Chemistry
Earth
Oceanography
Meteorology
Geology
Space
Biology
Zoology
Human Biology
Botany
Mathematics
Logic
Statistics
Systems Theroy
Theoretical Computer
Applied 
Nursing.

Now having posted your link, it  has also brought to the surface lots of contradictions pertaining to doctored data and the way polls were taken.
Here one to look at:-
*Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 14 October, 2011 
 Tristan @10, the petition was originally circulated to "virtually every scientist in every field" in the US according to one of its critics. But the OISM refuses to indicate the size of the mailout.

From SourceWatch: 

"OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [16]"

The original mail out only garnered about 15,000 responses. Despite Robinson's claims, without a precise statement of the mail out number, no significance can be assigned to the petition as a survey of scientific opinion. What is more, given the anecdotal evidence of the size of the mailout, and the small size of the respondents (15,000) compared to the number of "virtually every scientist in every field", the reasonable conclusion is that the response rate was very small. Indeed, if it were not, you can be sure that the OISM would be trumpeting not only the absolute number of signatories, but the response rate as well.

Since the original mail out, the petition has been available online to add the signature, and has been frequently trumpeted by various political figures, so its presence has been known. Given that, the response rate is best given by the number of signatories divided by the number of potential signatories as given in the main article, ie, 0.3%.

As such, this petition is no more significant than any of the various creationist petitions that get circulated. Indeed, given the close ties of the OISM and the Discovery Institute (an Intelligent Design creationist site), it can be viewed as one of the various petitions circulated by creationists.
*
Also check out further comments from your link*.

Comment #39 Tom Curtis
Comment #40 Eclectic
Comment #41 Tom Curtis.
*
So when you analyze all the information, there can be a lot of doubt as to the authenticity of what is said, what has not been said and what should have been said.  
I believe there are too many factors hidden and unknown which can create a lot of confusion.


----------



## Tisme

90% of all scientists that ever were are alive today, the rise starting in the 70's...that's a lot of new observations and analysis that are replacing thumb sucks, doctored data and gut feel.


----------



## cynic

During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.

One wonders just how many more individuals, families and townships ,are going to suffer the very real tragedies that occur consequent to the placation of others' delusional apocalyptic fantasies!

Whilst the alarmists continue to "selfrighteously" and arrogantly bluster about imagined future doom, they somehow fail to acknowledge the very real harm their crusade is presently visiting upon innocent communities.

Well I am now very, very, very alarmed by the very real and very destructive impact of climate alarmism!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
> This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.
> 
> One wonders just how many more individuals, families and townships ,are going to suffer the very real tragedies that occur consequent to the placation of others' delusional apocalyptic fantasies!
> 
> Whilst the alarmists continue to "selfrighteously" and arrogantly bluster about imagined future doom, they somehow fail to acknowledge the very real harm their crusade is presently visiting upon innocent communities.
> 
> Well I am now very, very, very alarmed by the very real and very destructive impact of climate alarmism!!




Nasty Greenies. Wanting to save lives instead of 270 jobs (that'll either go soon or are going to be located in Tasmania anyway).

While we're at it, dam those peaceniks. Wanting to end wars, save lives instead of the jobs those weapons are offering. Dam anti-smoking hippies, imagine the jobs lost from nursing and cancer specialists.

As Sun Tzu says, jobs lost can be found again; the dead can never be brought back to life. Neither can a family home swept with the wind and the seas.

As some recent greenie research have found, new jobs created in the US solar industry last year are greater than all coal mining jobs in the US currently available.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Nasty Greenies. Wanting to save lives instead of 270 jobs (that'll either go soon or are going to be located in Tasmania anyway).
> ....
> As some recent greenie research have found, new jobs created in the US solar industry last year are greater than all coal mining jobs in the US currently available.




As expected, another lame effort to justify abdication of personal responsibility for harm being inflicted upon others!

Do you truly believe that the people that just lost their jobs, and the local businesses that depend upon patronage, are going to come through this unscathed?

One doesn't require a consensus of scientists and mounds of academic research papers to recognise that people are being adversely impacted by your religion!


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> As Sun Tzu says, jobs lost can be found again; the dead can never be brought back to life. Neither can a family home swept with the wind and the seas.




Which probably why many Asian countries live in abject poverty while waiting in the queue to be the next up for westernisation by the illuminated sons of Great Britain and Jesus Christ.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> As expected, another lame effort to justify abdication of personal responsibility for harm being inflicted upon others!
> 
> Do you truly believe that the people that just lost their jobs, and the local businesses that depend upon patronage, are going to come through this unscathed?
> 
> One doesn't require a consensus of scientists and mounds of academic research papers to recognise that people are being adversely impacted by your religion!




That particular case you linked to doesn't really show the fault to be with the Greenies, does it? It seem as though the gov't put a quota on how much hardwood timber they'll be buying, so the company can still employ people, just make less money. But management decided that's it's not worth it so they're moving to Tasmania. 

Yet somehow that's all "our" alarmist's fault? How long do you reckon those jobs will last anyway?

But main point is this: those people who lost their jobs can find new ones. Maybe the workers can work together, lobbied the gov't for some fund and set up their own sustainable timber farm. Maybe use their knowledge and experience of the forest and start an eco-tourism business. etc. etc.

As to those who would die when a freak storm hit; or die from drought and famine... what are their choices? Starve while they wait a few years for the rain to come back? Be homeless while the insurers ran out of wiggle room the fine prints will let them get away without paying their due? Come back to life if the water swept them away?

Oh yea, alarmist! Jobs, save the jobs. Screw the children.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> That particular case you linked to doesn't really show the fault to be with the Greenies, does it? It seem as though the gov't put a quota on how much hardwood timber they'll be buying, so the company can still employ people, just make less money. But management decided that's it's not worth it so they're moving to Tasmania.
> 
> Yet somehow that's all "our" alarmist's fault? How long do you reckon those jobs will last anyway?
> 
> But main point is this: those people who lost their jobs can find new ones. Maybe the workers can work together, lobbied the gov't for some fund and set up their own sustainable timber farm. Maybe use their knowledge and experience of the forest and start an eco-tourism business. etc. etc.
> 
> As to those who would die when a freak storm hit; or die from drought and famine... what are their choices? Starve while they wait a few years for the rain to come back? Be homeless while the insurers ran out of wiggle room the fine prints will let them get away without paying their due? Come back to life if the water swept them away?
> 
> Oh yea, alarmist! Jobs, save the jobs. Screw the children.



Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!

Concerns over environmental sustainability were most definitely cited as the reason for denying the ASH mill the resources it needed to be viable. So don't you dare pretend that your religion didn't put those people out of their jobs!

And don't you dare use your subscription to delusional apocalyptic fantasies as your justification for hurting people in the here and now!

And don't even try to pretend that your religion and its followers are concerned for the welfare of others and their families! The deeds that are done, in its name, speak strongly to the contrary! 

This incident is just one of many examples of the devastation caused by unchecked religious zealousy!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!
> 
> Concerns over environmental sustainability were most definitely cited as the reason for denying the ASH mill the resources it needed to be viable. So don't you dare pretend that your religion didn't put those people out of their jobs!
> 
> And don't you dare use your subscription to delusional apocalyptic fantasies as your justification for hurting people in the here and now!
> 
> And don't even try to pretend that your religion and its followers are concerned for the welfare of others and their families! The deeds that are done, in its name, speak strongly to the contrary!
> 
> This incident is just one of many examples of the devastation caused by unchecked religious zealousy!




That's one way to spin it mate.

Save jobs, not lives. 

No kidding the gov't's decision play a part in those lost jobs. But is that your final argument? If it is, it's pretty pizz weak. 

What would happen if, say the gov't allow any company to log as much as their workers can swing them chainsaw. They'd clear the land in a few months.

Then say a normal rainstorm hit and, I don't know, mudslide happens, naturally. 

Here's a trick question... if drought, famine, flood, storm kill a bunch of people, how many jobs were lost and how many jobs would it generate? 

But anyway, it's only the coal, mining and logging jobs that counts. New jobs in greentech, new industry and innovation to improve and replace crumbling and obsolete infrastructures with those green tech... those don't count. Lives don't count too, apparently. I guess other people's lives don't count.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> That's one way to spin it mate.
> 
> Save jobs, not lives.
> 
> No kidding the gov't's decision play a part in those lost jobs. But is that your final argument? If it is, it's pretty pizz weak.
> 
> What would happen if, say the gov't allow any company to log as much as their workers can swing them chainsaw. They'd clear the land in a few months.
> 
> Then say a normal rainstorm hit and, I don't know, mudslide happens, naturally.
> 
> Here's a trick question... if drought, famine, flood, storm kill a bunch of people, how many jobs were lost and how many jobs would it generate?
> 
> But anyway, it's only the coal, mining and logging jobs that counts. New jobs in greentech, new industry and innovation to improve and replace crumbling and obsolete infrastructures with those green tech... those don't count. Lives don't count too, apparently. I guess other people's lives don't count.



Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.

By now I would have hoped that you would realise that I do not consider fantasized future outcomes as justification for inflicting real harm on others in the present. It appears my hopes were in vain (but then what more could I reasonably expect from a religious zealot than more proselytizing?).

Your responses show a callous disregard for the welfare of those directly impacted by actions taken pursuant to certain apocalyptic fantasies (to which you have unfortunately chosen to subscribe).

From this, I can readily discern, that you care more for your chosen fantasy than you do for the welfare of others in the here and now!

I invite you to  take the time to compare your beliefs and behaviour to that of certain zealous religious bodies during recent centuries. Organisations that thought that they knew better than the heretical skeptics (aka "deniers") and thus considered their destructive actions to be somehow justified by fantasised future outcomes!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.
> 
> By now I would have hoped that you would realise that I do not consider fantasized future outcomes as justification for inflicting real harm on others in the present. It appears my hopes were in vain (but then what more could I reasonably expect from a religious zealot than proselytizing?).
> 
> Your responses show a callous disregard for the welfare of those directly impacted by actions taken pursuant to the apocalyptic fantasies (to which you have unfortunately chosen to subscribe).
> 
> From this, I can readily discern, that you care more for your chosen fantasy than you do for the welfare of others in the here and now!
> 
> I invite you to  take the time to compare your beliefs and behaviour to that of certain zealous religious bodies during recent centuries. Organisations that thought that they knew better than the heretical skeptics (aka "deniers") and thus considered their destructive actions to be somehow justified by fantasised future outcomes!




I don't know man.. .I look at people losing jobs and feel bad for them. Then I look at hundreds and thousands and possibly millions of people now dead from landslides, floods, famine and thought, fark that's a whole lot worst than losing a job; life is a one-off, God don't give two of them.

Different priorities and scale I guess.

btw, where's the outrage for the company who decides to sack all their workforce instead of just reducing it; or selling the company to the gov't? 

So the gov't want to balance between all the jobs or some of the jobs but with preservation - that's bad and terrible. 

A company getting rid of all jobs so they can move to more fertile forests and get that economy of scale and efficiency... that's understandable.

Company gotta make money; people needing clean air and maybe a forest to wonder through... god dam parasites.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> ...
> Different priorities and scale I guess.
> ...



On that particular sentence I can agree that the priorities and scale are indeed quite different.

One set is grounded in current reality and the other set is informed by apocalyptic fantasy!

Maybe you think that you feel bad about people losing their livelihood, but your posts strongly suggest that your concern for others is, at best, feigned.


----------



## Jorgensen

The timber industry had many years to invest in plantation timber.However they assumed,as in this case a well,that they could always use the forest as they pleased.No matter what the cost to future generations and the maintenance of fauna diversification.
If the workers are upset,and I can understand that,they should direct a lot or their upset toward derelict timber companies.
I worked in the timber industries for over twenty years.


----------



## cynic

Jorgensen said:


> The timber industry had many years to invest in plantation timber.However they assumed,as in this case a well,that they could always use the forest as they pleased.No matter what the cost to future generations and the maintenance of fauna diversification.
> If the workers are upset,and I can understand that,they should direct a lot or their upset toward derelict timber companies.
> I worked in the timber industries for over twenty years.



Thanks for chiming in on this one. Given your years of experience in the industry I value your input on this issue.

Over the years I have noticed reference to political interference with industry efforts to establish and/or accommodate rotational timber plantations.

From your experience within the industry, are you able to confirm or deny that such interference took place?


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
> This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.



With all due respect,  you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.

It's a debate that has been going on for decades,  far longer than the climate change debate you want to keenly insert it into.

The timber debate,  especially the one in regards to the Heyfield Mill closure,  isn't solely the domain of the global warming /  climate change debate.   Most of this debate has to do about forest sustainability.

It has to do with timber *sustainable* supply. The equation is simple:   you cannot cut down trees quicker than they mature or the supply decreases and eventually becomes non-exist  (ie.  you run out of trees).

Rapid population growth in Australia and historic forest clearing mean there are obviously less trees but more demand.

There are two sources of timber:  plantations and natural forests. Victoria has a big supply deficit from plantations so they need to cut down natural forests to make up supply.

Forests with the best types of wood can take 120 years to reach required maturity.  Plantations are somewhere between 20-40 years.

Plantations have enormous trouble on a mass scale to encourage people to invest in them, because let's face it,  due to the long pay-off date and big risks involved it's not necessarily attractive.

What has happened at Heyfield is that the State Government is concerned that the natural supply is decreasing way too fast so they have significantly reduced the contract supplied from state owned logging enterprises to the Mill.  Both the Mill (especially when it was owned and sold by Gunns) and the Government have known about this dilemma for years.  For instance, there was a Commission into this in 2005 if you want to read it.

Plantations have a quicker growth cycle,  but the quality and type of wood make it much more limited in its final uses. This especially applies to hardwood.  From what I recall most of the plantations in Victoria really aren't the right mix to fill the supply gap.   I think there was some plantations made to fill some of this gap,  but obviously these take 20-40 years to grow.  But that doesn't provide a solution right now.

The issue, in my view,  is a structural one,  and really has little to do with 'Climate change',  'Carbon crusaders'  and 'religious zealots.'  That's wishful thinking of the type that achieves little else but impresses uninformed forum posters.


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> With all due respect,  you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.
> 
> It's a debate that has been going on for decades,  far longer than the climate change debate you want to keenly insert it into.
> 
> The timber debate,  especially the one in regards to the Heyfield Mill closure,  isn't solely the domain of the global warming /  climate change debate.   Most of this debate has to do about forest sustainability.
> 
> It has to do with timber *sustainable* supply. The equation is simple:   you cannot cut down trees quicker than they mature or the supply decreases and eventually becomes non-exist  (ie.  you run out of trees).
> 
> Rapid population growth in Australia and historic forest clearing mean there are obviously less trees but more demand.
> 
> There are two sources of timber:  plantations and natural forests. Victoria has a big supply deficit from plantations so they need to cut down natural forests to make up supply.
> 
> Forests with the best types of wood can take 120 years to reach required maturity.  Plantations are somewhere between 20-40 years.
> 
> Plantations have enormous trouble on a mass scale to encourage people to invest in them, because let's face it,  due to the long pay-off date and big risks involved it's not necessarily attractive.
> 
> What has happened at Heyfield is that the State Government is concerned that the natural supply is decreasing way too fast so they have significantly reduced the contract supplied from state owned logging enterprises to the Mill.  Both the Mill (especially when it was owned and sold by Gunns) and the Government have known about this dilemma for years.  For instance, there was a Commission into this in 2005 if you want to read it.
> 
> Plantations have a quicker growth cycle,  but the quality and type of wood make it much more limited in its final uses. This especially applies to hardwood.  From what I recall most of the plantations in Victoria really aren't the right mix to fill the supply gap.   I think there was some plantations made to fill some of this gap,  but obviously these take 20-40 years to grow.  But that doesn't provide a solution right now.
> 
> The issue, in my view,  is a structural one,  and really has little to do with 'Climate change',  'Carbon crusaders'  and 'religious zealots.'  That's wishful thinking of the type that achieves little else but impresses uninformed forum posters.




Whilst I grant that this might not have been the best example to use (for some of the reasons you've mentioned) the phrase "not environmentally sustainable" features in the linked article.

As an informed forum poster, I am sure that you are already aware of many instances from the past 20 years, where the environmental movement has influenced government (federal, state and local) in ways that resulted in lives being adversely impacted. As such, I trust that I won't need to link further media releases to illustrate the point I am highlighting.


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> Whilst I grant that this might not have been the best example to use (for some of the reasons you've mentioned) the phrase *"not environmentally sustainable"* features in the linked article.



It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article.  Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable!  It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...



cynic said:


> As an informed forum poster, I am sure that you are already aware of many instances from the past 20 years, where the environmental movement has influenced government (federal, state and local) in ways that resulted in lives being adversely impacted.



There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place.  Now,  whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society,  surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well?  If those actions were *never* taken then no one would be adversely affected,  would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.

But making that argument puts both corporate interests and government authorities into an awkward position so we will never hear that line of thinking in the media.


----------



## cynic

Ves said:


> It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article.  Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable!  It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...
> 
> 
> There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place.  Now,  whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society,  surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well?  If those actions were *never* taken then no one would be adversely affected,  would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.
> 
> But making that argument puts both corporate interests and government authorities into an awkward position so we will never hear that line of thinking in the media.



And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?

Another example, much closer to home (quite literally and dangerously so), was the introduction of local laws about canopy trees, which subsequently prevented me from being able to quickly and efficiently dispense with a dangerous tree. 

I had to patiently wait months for approval from the council, whilst the tree dropped large branches from a considerable height onto my neighbour's house and yard, only to be told that approval was contingent on me planting two larger trees to take it's place.

Now that particular situation, and the associated laws, had nothing, whatsoever, to do with sustainability of timber supply!

Your responses about the ASH mill and similar scenarios, might well be sound, but, in my direct personal experience, there is no question that the intent and impact, of this environmental movement, extends a lot further than issues concerning availability of supply and any unsound practices that may have occurred prior to the tightening or introduction of regulatory practices.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?




No doubt the same argument applied when candle makers were put out of business by Edison and cart makers suffered the same fate at the hands of Henry Ford.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> No doubt the same argument applied when candle makers were put out of business by Edison and cart makers suffered the same fate at the hands of Henry Ford.



There is a distinct problem, with that analogy, in that it relates to evolutions in technology that provided very attractive, real (and tangible) benefits to the progression of human society.

A far more apt anology, for the Carbon Crusade, would be the Spanish inquisition.


----------



## Ves

cynic said:


> And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?



I do feel sorry for them and I truly believe that there should be a safety net present in society for circumstances like this (there is the dole,  but I don't think it's adequate - another argument for another day).  In this day and age there should not be such a thing as 'economic refugees' in a wealthy country like Australia due to forced or voluntary changes in industry and commerce.  However the safety net should apply to everyone equally,  not just isolated cases like the timber industry.

People should not be penalised for having to reskill and adapt to changing economic and social conditions.

There's other ways of dealing with such instances  (such as corporations being held more responsible and providing funding)  but government support would be the most reliable for workers in displaced industries.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> There is a distinct problem, with that analogy, in that it relates to evolutions in technology that provided very attractive, real (and tangible) benefits to the progression of human society.
> 
> A far more apt anology, for the Carbon Crusade, would be the Spanish inquisition.




It is a bit of a torture to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have a lower probability of losing your home, your live's savings, your own live or those of your loved ones because those once in a decade, once in a century, once in a thousand year weather event happen quite regularly.

Bloody do-gooders man. Telling corporations and businesses to dump their waste in a responsible manner; telling us to preserve things for future generations; telling us that our current reliance on fossil fuel will either kill all of us, or it will end one day. End by just running out or end through wars.

Make one feel like re-watching Mad Max and get furious.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> It is a bit of a torture to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have a lower probability of losing your home, your live's savings, your own live or those of your loved ones because those once in a decade, once in a century, once in a thousand year weather event happen quite regularly.
> 
> Bloody do-gooders man. Telling corporations and businesses to dump their waste in a responsible manner; telling us to preserve things for future generations; telling us that our current reliance on fossil fuel will either kill all of us, or it will end one day. End by just running out or end through wars.
> 
> Make one feel like re-watching Mad Max and get furious.



What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?




So it regenerates as fast as it's used does it ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> So it regenerates as fast as it's used does it ?




Who said anything about regeneration? (Drop the "re"). 

Production of the purported "fossil" fuels, courtesy of planet Earth, is continuing whilst I type!

The question of whether or not supply exceeds the current rate of demand is one that I am unable to ascertain from the data available to me at this time. 

But it is certainly a matter that warrants deeper consideration in this contentious debate for more reasons than the questions surrounding longevity of supply. It happens to pose a serious challenge to some rather dubious research findings which erroneously claimed to have proven a causative link between "fossil" fuel consumption and increased atmospheric CO2 levels.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?




Is the Earth flat or round?

Hmm... you for real man?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?
> 
> Another example, much closer to home (quite literally and dangerously so), was the introduction of local laws about canopy trees, which subsequently prevented me from being able to quickly and efficiently dispense with a dangerous tree.
> 
> I had to patiently wait months for approval from the council, whilst the tree dropped large branches from a considerable height onto my neighbour's house and yard, only to be told that approval was contingent on me planting two larger trees to take it's place.
> 
> Now that particular situation, and the associated laws, had nothing, whatsoever, to do with sustainability of timber supply!
> 
> Your responses about the ASH mill and similar scenarios, might well be sound, but, in my direct personal experience, there is no question that the intent and impact, of this environmental movement, extends a lot further than issues concerning availability of supply and any unsound practices that may have occurred prior to the tightening or introduction of regulatory practices.




Sounds like job creation to me. 

Trees, and grass, are quite important to cool the house down. Also holds water and help with oxygen and other useless stuff.

Serious though, if a tree is dangerous. i.e. it's rotting or about to snap, you can have it removed after an arborist's report.

If you feel certain of its branches are hanging dangerously in the wind, you can get people to prune it. Up to 10% does not require council permission. 

Could be an annual job creation opportunity


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Sounds like job creation to me.
> 
> Trees, and grass, are quite important to cool the house down. Also holds water and help with oxygen and other useless stuff.
> 
> Serious though, if a tree is dangerous. i.e. it's rotting or about to snap, you can have it removed after an arborist's report.
> 
> If you feel certain of its branches are hanging dangerously in the wind, you can get people to prune it. Up to 10% does not require council permission.
> 
> Could be an annual job creation opportunity




As usual, you pretend to know things that you clearly do not.

The arborist I intially consulted was legally powerless to do squat until I obtained a permit from the local council! The arborist correctly informed me that any action taken without the requisite council permit would likely result in us both being fined.

My next door neighbour on the other side, had, just a few years earlier, been fined by that same council for cutting down a completely dead tree without first obtaining a permit!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Is the Earth flat or round?
> 
> Hmm... you for real man?



In answer to your first question, it is neither, but I wouldn't expect you to understand my reason for answering thus.

In response to your second question:
Do you understand the scientific basis for my questioning of the use of the word "fossil" in the phrase "fossil fuel"?

If you don't, then how do you expect me to treat your postings to this thread seriously?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> As usual, you pretend to know things that you clearly do not.
> 
> The arborist I intially consulted was legally powerless to do squat until I obtained a permit from the local council! The arborist correctly informed me that any action taken without the requisite council permit would likely result in us both being fined.
> 
> My next door neighbour on the other side, had, just a few years earlier, been fined by that same council for cutting down a completely dead tree without first obtaining a permit!




Dunno man, I just literally had a neighbour's tree pruned in preparation for my new castle.

Got a few quotes and they all say that if it's just a prune, there's no need for council approval. I mean, you can't lopped off the entire canopy. Keep it at 10%.

I'd rather the tree is completely removed as it's leaning toward my house but the neighbour said he tried to have them remove but council didn't approved. Pruning is legal.

Well duh man. To remove any large tree require approval. An arborist's report goes for $1000 or so - you kinda need that to prove that the tree was dead and weren't just annoying you.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> In answer to your first question, it is neither, but I wouldn't expect you to understand my reason for answering thus.
> 
> In response to your second question:
> Do you understand the scientific basis for my questioning of the use of the word "fossil" in the phrase "fossil fuel"?
> 
> If you don't, then how do you expect me to treat your postings to this thread seriously?




Fossil fuel are gas, oil, coal and its derivatives. No?

Crude oil and gas came about when organic material, like dead dinosaurs, dead sea organics deposit itself at the bottom of the ocean/water, got trapped by silt and things like that over millions of years as  they're being cooked by the Earth's heat and pressure etc. etc.

So yea, they're renewable. Just kinda take a few tens of million of years.

Coal... burnt forests got layered over the millennia, compressed etc. etc.

Well, that's one way to define renewable. Kinda like how our houses and roads aren't impacting the land because if we leave them long enough, they'll be overgrown and returned to the Earth again. So what impact.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Fossil fuel are gas, oil, coal and its derivatives. No?
> 
> Crude oil and gas came about when organic material, like dead dinosaurs, dead sea organics deposit itself at the bottom of the ocean/water, got trapped by silt and things like that over millions of years as  they're being cooked by the Earth's heat and pressure etc. etc.
> 
> So yea, they're renewable. Just kinda take a few tens of million of years.
> 
> Coal... burnt forests got layered over the millennia, compressed etc. etc.
> 
> Well, that's one way to define renewable. Kinda like how our houses and roads aren't impacting the land because if we leave them long enough, they'll be overgrown and returned to the Earth again. So what impact.



Therein lies the problem. You're still subscribing to the view that fossil fuels were produced from decaying organic matter from prehistoric times.

Scientists have recently proven that an alternative (and previously unpopular ) theory, which had nothing whatsoever to do with decaying dinosaur carcuses, merits consideration.

Are you capable of doing your own google search to find information about the scientific discovery (my postings have been alluding to), or must I continue with the spoon feeding?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Therein lies the problem. You're still subscribing to the view that fossil fuels were produced from decaying organic matter from prehistoric times.
> 
> Scientists have recently proven that an alternative (and previously unpopular ) theory, which had nothing whatsoever to do with decaying dinosaur carcuses, merits consideration.
> 
> Are you capable of doing your own google search to find information about the scientific discovery (my postings have been alluding to), or must I continue with the spoon feeding?




You're not talking Ethanol from corn; Methane from rubbish tips are you?

'Cause ethanol seems a bit of a waste of perfectly good food starving millions could use.

Methane from organic waste need some scrubbing and mixing with LNG and other fossil goodness. 

Dunno, sounds pretty stupid when there's the Sun that rises every day. That if a day's worth of the Sun's ray could be captured, it'll supply the world's demand for an entire year. 

But that's just stupid.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You're not talking Ethanol from corn; Methane from rubbish tips are you?
> 
> 'Cause ethanol seems a bit of a waste of perfectly good food starving millions could use.
> 
> Methane from organic waste need some scrubbing and mixing with LNG and other fossil goodness.
> 
> Dunno, sounds pretty stupid when there's the Sun that rises every day. That if a day's worth of the Sun's ray could be captured, it'll supply the world's demand for an entire year.
> 
> But that's just stupid.



Sigh!!!

It seems we really are on different pages of different books in different libraries on totally different planets.

How about I do just a little more spoon feeding and link you to just one of the many articles discussing some of the discoveries that raise credible challenges to the "fossil fuel" theory.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Sigh!!!
> 
> It seems we really are on different pages of different books in different libraries on totally different planets.
> 
> How about I do just a little more spoon feeding and link you to just one of the many articles discussing some of the discoveries that raise credible challenges to the "fossil fuel" theory.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html





Good one. ha ha

hmmm... drilled through 4 miles of hard granite to get 80 odd barrel of oil. Better buy stocks in drill bits companies then.

But sure man, drill for more oil... or... or the sun and the wind at sea level.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Good one. ha ha
> 
> hmmm... drilled through 4 miles of hard granite to get 80 odd barrel of oil. Better buy stocks in drill bits companies then.
> 
> But sure man, drill for more oil... or... or the sun and the wind at sea level.



Did you misunderstand the scientific significance of that oil discovery?

Or are you purposefully missing the point?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Did you misunderstand the scientific significance of that oil discovery?
> 
> Or are you purposefully missing the point?




That there's oil in them rocks, if only we squeeze hard enough? 

Seriously though, assuming that the Earth does produce abiotic oil on a daily basis under them granites... have you tried to drill through a travertine tile? Or play with granite? Man, if you think getting the drill bits through deep water is hard, try doing that through deep water and then miles of granite.

That and there's this Climate Change thingy where scientists, you know, the idiots that came from the same school of science and stuff, idiots we all rely on for medicine and technology... they tend to say all the fossil ought to be left in the ground, yesterday!

I'd rather put a few panels up at ground level, or roof level.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> That there's oil in them rocks, if only we squeeze hard enough?
> 
> Seriously though, assuming that the Earth does produce abiotic oil on a daily basis under them granites... have you tried to drill through a travertine tile? Or play with granite? Man, if you think getting the drill bits through deep water is hard, try doing that through deep water and then miles of granite.
> 
> That and there's this Climate Change thingy where scientists, you know, the idiots that came from the same school of science and stuff, idiots we all rely on for medicine and technology... they tend to say all the fossil ought to be left in the ground, yesterday!
> 
> I'd rather put a few panels up at ground level, or roof level.



Okay! That answers my question! You are indeed, deliberately missing the point! (However, religion does tend to have the effect of rendering some people unwilling or unable, to entertain challenges presented by science.)

The point you keep overlooking is the scientific significance of the fact of any oil being discovered in that location. You have also overlooked other pertinent discoveries mentioned in the same article.

This and other discoveries were of huge scientific significance because they challenge the validity of the fossil fuel theory!  

Those discoveries illustrate that the "scientists", you keep blathering on about, have gotten some very important facts totally wrong! 

Any conclusions premised upon scientific fallacies (as opposed to scientific facts) will very likely prove to be seriously amiss!

The discovery of faulty assumptions, about the origins of fossil fuels, threatens at least one of the major foundations of your climate religion!!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Okay! That answers my question! You are indeed, deliberately missing the point! (However, religion does tend to have the effect of rendering some people unwilling or unable, to entertain challenges presented by science.)
> 
> The point you keep overlooking is the scientific significance of the fact of any oil being discovered in that location. You have also overlooked other pertinent discoveries mentioned in the same article.
> 
> This and other discoveries were of huge scientific significance because they challenge the validity of the fossil fuel theory!
> 
> Those discoveries illustrate that the "scientists", you keep blathering on about, have gotten some very important facts totally wrong!
> 
> Any conclusions premised upon scientific fallacies (as opposed to scientific facts) will very likely prove to be seriously amiss!
> 
> The discovery of faulty assumptions, about the origins of fossil fuels, threatens at least one of the major foundations of your climate religion!!!




ermmm...

Has the oil companies of the world know about this? Better let them know so we might have peace in the world.

This discovery is almost as awesome as that other discovery of clean Hydrogen energy from water I once saw in a Keanu Reeves movie. 

Anyway, call around and have that tree prune dude.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> ermmm...
> 
> Has the oil companies of the world know about this? Better let them know so we might have peace in the world.
> 
> This discovery is almost as awesome as that other discovery of clean Hydrogen energy from water I once saw in a Keanu Reeves movie.
> 
> Anyway, call around and have that tree prune dude.



I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.

From the facetious nature of your response, I can see that you are reluctant to embrace the profound significance of the scientific findings mentioned in the linked article .

I note that you have attempted to make light of that dangerous situation, mentioned earlier, where the safety of people and their domiciles was threatened by a tree, on my land, that I was legally prohibited from removing.

I detest any law that gives the welfare of trees precedence over the welfare of humans. 

The existence of such laws is certainly nothing to joke about. Based upon the justifications cited in the council's brochure on canopy trees, I can see that the Carbon Crusade was most certainly responsible for the precipitation of these oppressive laws, giving me yet further reason to view the Carbon Crusade (and the Crusaders eagerly joining its ranks) with the utmost contempt.


----------



## basilio

Well Cynic I thought your initial foray into the windmills of Carbon Crusaders was a brave and valiant effort.
Umpteen posts later your still rabbiting on with unrelenting determination - if little sense.

Do you have any sense of balance or perspective ? The efforts to move from a carbon based fossil fuel society to a clean renewable energy environment has many interrelated reasons. Somehow you have dismissed or ignored them all.

1) The current scientific understanding says that the excessive CO2 produced by fossil fuels is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures world wide and threatening to take the worlds climate to  situations that won't support current eco- systems.
2) Fossil fuels produce  pollutants (other than CO2) that kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world.  Air Pollution from cars,  coal fired power stations and industrial processes are killers.
3) Energy production from renewable energy sources is now more cost competitive than traditional fossil fuels. Essentially that's it Cynic. Wind farms,  2/3rd Gen solar panels, wave energy, pumped hyro are all cheaper energy sources than new coal or gas fired power stations. Why would you go in that direction when it isn't economically viable?
4) On all our current understandings fossil fuels are finite. They will  run down in the  foreseeable future. When they do our current society will disappear - unless it has migrated to an ongoing clean, renewable energy source.

Could you be right about about global warming being a hoax or scam ?  Could you be right in showing that CO2 isn't in fact any cause of any possible warming anyway ? Could you be right in discovering that oil is actually being produced all the time and only needs 5klm drills through granite to bring them to the surface ?
There is always a possibility your right Cynic. But I'm more inclined to see this as a risk assessment activity and accept the current best scientific understandings and current observations. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249


----------



## basilio

Our Energy Future.

*Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs *
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM








_An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer 

A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.


Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.


It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.


Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827_


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Our Energy Future.
> 
> *Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs *
> By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer
> 
> A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.
> 
> 
> Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.
> 
> 
> It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.
> 
> 
> Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827_




The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
> A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.



I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale,  but generally,  and it's a given since there is a private company involved,  there are not only costs to build something,  but things such as return on investment to consider.

Since you seem to know everything,  how do these compare for the two projects? How do the net present values compare?


----------



## Klogg

noco said:


> The cost now is $2billion.....The cost to replace them after 25 years for the next generation will most likely be $5billion....And don't forget Solar panels lose a lot of their efficiency with age.
> A 1600 MW coal fired power station could have been built for $5billion now and lasted for 50 years...A great saving for the next generation I would say.




There's so many things wrong with this statement, even ignoring the climate change component...

1) The cost of solar panels, in real (inflation adjusted) terms will have decreased as technology progresses.

2) At an interest rate of 3.8% over 25 years, $2bn becomes $5bn. Inflation won't run at 3.8% per annum, nor will wage increases. Not sure where you got this number.

3) Over and above the initial cost, what does it cost per MW to run (opex)? Perhaps solar is cheaper...? (I genuinely don't know, but it's a consideration)

4) Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming/climate change, why would you keep a dependency on a finite resource, when the sun is basically infinite and free? (infinite as far as the human race is concerned)


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Well Cynic I thought your initial foray into the windmills of Carbon Crusaders was a brave and valiant effort.
> Umpteen posts later your still rabbiting on with unrelenting determination - if little sense.
> 
> Do you have any sense of balance or perspective ? The efforts to move from a carbon based fossil fuel society to a clean renewable energy environment has many interrelated reasons. Somehow you have dismissed or ignored them all.
> 
> 1) The current scientific understanding says that the excessive CO2 produced by fossil fuels is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures world wide and threatening to take the worlds climate to  situations that won't support current eco- systems.
> 2) Fossil fuels produce  pollutants (other than CO2) that kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world.  Air Pollution from cars,  coal fired power stations and industrial processes are killers.
> 3) Energy production from renewable energy sources is now more cost competitive than traditional fossil fuels. Essentially that's it Cynic. Wind farms,  2/3rd Gen solar panels, wave energy, pumped hyro are all cheaper energy sources than new coal or gas fired power stations. Why would you go in that direction when it isn't economically viable?
> 4) On all our current understandings fossil fuels are finite. They will  run down in the  foreseeable future. When they do our current society will disappear - unless it has migrated to an ongoing clean, renewable energy source.
> 
> Could you be right about about global warming being a hoax or scam ?  Could you be right in showing that CO2 isn't in fact any cause of any possible warming anyway ? Could you be right in discovering that oil is actually being produced all the time and only needs 5klm drills through granite to bring them to the surface ?
> There is always a possibility your right Cynic. But I'm more inclined to see this as a risk assessment activity and accept the current best scientific understandings and current observations.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
> https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249




From your response it appears that you haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the wider implications of all of the things I am saying.

I can see from your comments that you have either, failed to (or chosen not to) recognise, the implications of some recent discoveries of "fossil" fuels in places that it could not reasonably expected to be found (if the "fossil" fuel theory had been true). In light of these more recent discoveries, it appears that a formerly unpopular origin theory is more likely true. I understand that these discoveries present significant challenges to the validity of key components of the sacred doctrine of the Church of Carbon.

I note that the crucially important question, concerning  how the atmospheric CO2 levels, appropriate to the biological needs of the increased world populace, were derived by your esteemed climate priests, remains unanswered!

I reiterate my view that the question concerning the impact (or lack thereof) from elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, within a complex system (of minerals, flora and fauna) located on a planet that is in motion, within a solar system that is in motion, within a galaxy of solar systems within motion, is far beyond mankind's current technological capacity to confidently answer. The multitude of failed climate predictions, courtesy of the esteemed Church of Carbon, have provided ample evidence to support aforesaid contention.

As for safety comparisons between nuclear power and other "fossil" fuels, I am certain that I don't need to remind you of the tragic devastation caused by a number of nuclear events throughout the past century. A person would need to reside at a considerably greater distance from a nuclear power plant, to have any prospect of survival in the event of a nuclear meltdown.

In relation to arguments about "renewable" energy. Some of those things mentioned, aren't nearly so renewable as they might at first seem. Remember that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes form!
Please spend a little time thinking about the deeper implications of that well established scientific law, and how some of these "renewable" sources might be exhausting their very own source of supply (and potentially impacting the environment in unexpected ways whilst doing so!). The words "meeting one's destiny on the path taken to avoid it" spring to mind.

One thing I do wish to emphasise, is that I am not opposed to people choosing to use solar power, if it suits their interests to do so (e.g. although now somewhat outdated, one of my solar powered calculators celebrated its 30th birthday last year!)

I am, however, with very good reason, opposed to changes being forced upon society, based upon the unreasonable demonisation of a gas, that happens to be essential to our biological needs, namely carbon dioxide.

As far as I am concerned, the questions concerning our planet, the true extent of the impacts of mankind's activities, and nature's capacity to provide a healthy response to those impacts, needs to be much better understood, before deciding whether or not a problem truly exists. Taking extreme actions, based upon misunderstandings of causation, will very likely create new problems, in places where none previously existed. As such, I consider the activism, pursuant to the vanity and selfrighteousness, of the Carbon Crusade, to represent a greater menace to our society.

Whilst I do not deny that I have become strongly prejudiced against the Carbon Crusade (I have already given my various reasons for this prejudice throughout my postings), I like to believe, that I am still capable of being receptive to sincere efforts to identify the existence and causation of any anomolous climate behaviour.

However, as many will have noticed, I do not take at all kindly to apocalyptic proselytising, especially when it is being misconstrued, by its preachers, as science!


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> However, as many will have noticed, I do not take at all kindly to apocalyptic proselytising. Especially when it is being misconstrued, by its preachers, as science!




People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.



If it doesn't need science as you suggest, then why all the hullaballoo over the bogus scientific consensus?

Without some scientific research, how do you expect to determine causation?

How did you come to recognise that these events are occurring at an increasing rate? 

Are you directly experiencing all the phenomena you mention? (if so I recommend you relocate)


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> I'm not sure if you've ever made any investment decisions on this scale,  but generally,  and it's a given since there is a private company involved,  there are not only costs to build something,  but things such as return on investment to consider.
> 
> Since you seem to know everything,  how do these compare for the two projects? How do the net present values compare?




Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.




More hear say rhetoric without back up.


----------



## noco

Klogg said:


> There's so many things wrong with this statement, even ignoring the climate change component...
> 
> 1) The cost of solar panels, in real (inflation adjusted) terms will have decreased as technology progresses.
> 
> 2) At an interest rate of 3.8% over 25 years, $2bn becomes $5bn. Inflation won't run at 3.8% per annum, nor will wage increases. Not sure where you got this number.
> 
> 3) Over and above the initial cost, what does it cost per MW to run (opex)? Perhaps solar is cheaper...? (I genuinely don't know, but it's a consideration)
> 
> 4) Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming/climate change, why would you keep a dependency on a finite resource, when the sun is basically infinite and free? (infinite as far as the human race is concerned)




Here is the inflation rate trend calculated by economists.
1% July 2016
1.5% January 2107
2.1% January 2018
3.8% by 2020.
So you are saying inflation rate won't run at 3.8% per annum......It could go higher after 2020...So where did you get your information from?

The use of coal fired power stations are cheaper and a more reliable source of energy.....Coal fired power stations still operate when the Sun does not shine or the wind does not blow or it blows too hard as happened in SA......The cost ofpower from renewable energy has soared in SA.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/inflation-cpi/forecast


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Are you directly experiencing all the phenomena you mention?




My insurance policies certainly are, how about yours ?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
> Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
> I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.




With coal fired power plants, you'd need to freight the coals in. To do that, you'd need to mine it first. Does the $5B price tag include those costs or are they excluded the same way the cost of carbon emission is free on the company but others will have to wear its consequences?

Then there's the improvement and further advances from Solar. As they are taken up, economy of scales mean they'll be cheaper; more work mean more competition on not just price, but quality and application from new R&D efforts.

With coal... the kind of efficiency and technological improvement on an old tech... I can't imagine it being on the same potential as solar would. 

Those and the fact that once a solar plant is built, the Sun kind of deliver the raw material on a daily basis without much costs on logistics.

That and it doesn't really pollute or kill anybody under normal operation.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> My insurance policies certainly are, how about yours ?



I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).

So out of the four questions posed, you've chosen to reply to only the last one, and, in so doing, only by furnishing a cute little comment that fails to answer that question.

This situation speaks volumes to me about the importance of being able to distinguish between experienced reality and news media exaggerations.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> I wasn't asking about other entities, I was asking if you are directly experiencing the phenomena you cited (tornados, cracking ice bergs etc.).
> 
> So out of the four questions posed, you've chosen to reply to only the last one, and, in so doing, only by furnishing a cute little comment that fails to answer that question.
> 
> This situation speaks volumes to me about the importance of being able to distinguish between experienced reality and news media exaggerations.




You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.

I can read a graph of the global temperature increase, I don't have to physically be at every point on the globe to experience it personally.

By all means stick your head in the sand if you find the truth upsetting, but don't presume that others are so stupid.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> With coal fired power plants, you'd need to freight the coals in. To do that, you'd need to mine it first. Does the $5B price tag include those costs or are they excluded the same way the cost of carbon emission is free on the company but others will have to wear its consequences?
> 
> Then there's the improvement and further advances from Solar. As they are taken up, economy of scales mean they'll be cheaper; more work mean more competition on not just price, but quality and application from new R&D efforts.
> 
> With coal... the kind of efficiency and technological improvement on an old tech... I can't imagine it being on the same potential as solar would.
> 
> Those and the fact that once a solar plant is built, the Sun kind of deliver the raw material on a daily basis without much costs on logistics.
> 
> That and it doesn't really pollute or kill anybody under normal operation.




The $5billion tag is the construction cost......Th supply of coal is a production cost which is passed on to the consumer.

Cheaper solar panels means a cheaper and perhaps inferior quality to meet competition.

Once a solar plant is built it becomes less reliable if the Sun does not shine for one day or more.

There is lots of R and D taking place to reduce pollution from coal power and in time will be perfected.

Coal is 35% efficient as opposed to solar at 15%......Then, as I have said before solar panels have a life span of 25 years and their efficiency drops even further than 15%.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I am really not that much of a fan of Keanu.
> 
> From the facetious nature of your response, I can see that you are reluctant to embrace the profound significance of the scientific findings mentioned in the linked article .
> 
> I note that you have attempted to make light of that dangerous situation, mentioned earlier, where the safety of people and their domiciles was threatened by a tree, on my land, that I was legally prohibited from removing.
> 
> I detest any law that gives the welfare of trees precedence over the welfare of humans.
> 
> The existence of such laws is certainly nothing to joke about. Based upon the justifications cited in the council's brochure on canopy trees, I can see that the Carbon Crusade was most certainly responsible for the precipitation of these oppressive laws, giving me yet further reason to view the Carbon Crusade (and the Crusaders eagerly joining its ranks) with the utmost contempt.




You serious about your tree being dangerous?

If the tree is a real threat to you, your family, or even your property... Council will permit you to remove it. I know because I've seen it permitted, and my own father and his friend chop one massive tree in our front yard down - with permission. I remember because while they were pruning the top, a Councillor stopped by and asked if he got a permit.

I did say you should call around right? I've been told by a few arborist that pruning a bit off does not require permission. But if your Council require permission for anything to do with the tree, get an expert report and assessment, prove to them that it's dangerous.

They did tell you it's fine as long as you replace with two smaller ones right? 

Get a psychologist's assessment to show that you're losing your sleep over it. They will consider that too.

Just don't go and drop the tree down then tell them it's a dead tree. They might not believe you.

But if you have to go that way... maybe wait for a stormy weekend? I mean it's hard to tell whether the wind blew it down or a bobcat was nearby 

Failing that, you can always use your Climate Change argument: Look mate, hundreds of millions of barrels are burnt every day around the world. There's god know how many coal fired power station; rubbish and methane gases from farmland and oxens... and none of that affect the world's climate so how in the heck does me cutting one tree down mean it's cut down? Man have no impact on the environment so whatever it is we do still leave it the same as it was. 

It's a tree, it'll grow again.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> Well, the difference is you are talking about a 350MW solar unit costing $2billion and then increasing the output to 800MW at what extra cost in 4 years?...And what is your estimate of replacing those solar panels after 25 years expected life?....You also know those solar panels will lose a % of their efficiency over their life span.
> Solar panels are only 15% efficient in comparison to 35% efficiency of coal.
> I made the comparison of 1600MW coal fired power station to cost $5 billion and last for 50 to 60 years.



Total cost isn't important if ROI is greater on the other project.   Actually....   if ROI is higher,  wouldn't you want to invest more? 

For the second time, what's your ROI calculations for both projects?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> The $5billion tag is the construction cost......Th supply of coal is a production cost which is passed on to the consumer.
> 
> Cheaper solar panels means a cheaper and perhaps inferior quality to meet competition.
> 
> Once a solar plant is built it becomes less reliable if the Sun does not shine for one day or more.
> 
> There is lots of R and D taking place to reduce pollution from coal power and in time will be perfected.
> 
> Coal is 35% efficient as opposed to solar at 15%......Then, as I have said before solar panels have a life span of 25 years and their efficiency drops even further than 15%.




So the cost of the coal will be passed onto the consumer? Together with the costs of building the plant, running it, maintaining it... Wouldn't that mean more expensive electricity to consumers? And that's ignoring the costs to those who live near coal mines, did the mining, or breathing in the fumes.

I'm sure engineers know where to put the panels. We're quite lucky in Australia that we got a massive outback with plenty of Sun. So it can spread across regions. But yea, idea is to have a mix. It doesn't need to be just solar farm and those massive roof panels. They're already incorporating solar roof tiles and wall tiles in some European country. 

An average car now is pretty cheap yet it's definitely much safer and more luxurious than way back when. So when there's high demand, things will get better and a lot cheaper too. 

Solar panels powers the International Space Station up there. Sure they use more efficient (and expensive) material in a cloudless environment... but solar tech barely got off the ground until maybe 15 years ago. It's been discovered since the 50s or 60s, but the oil cartel was too powerful.


----------



## Ves

SirRumpole said:


> You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.



He's a David Hume fanboy,  let him go, he still thinks the British rule the world.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> You must be joking if you suggest that the only knowledge worth having comes from direct personal experience.
> 
> I can read a graph of the global temperature increase, I don't have to physically be at every point on the globe to experience it personally.
> 
> By all means stick your head in the sand if you find the truth upsetting, but don't presume that others are so stupid.




What I am suggesting, is that when reading/viewing sensationalised media headlines, it pays to exercise some discernment.

My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.

How is viewing only the charts that support one's preconceived opinion, whilst disregarding data to the contrary, going to help the progression of this discussion?
(I note that you have completely disregarded the questions challenging your assertion that science wasn't required.)

As to your final sentence, I can assure you that I am no ostrich, but believe that I would have been quite justified in saying "Right back at you!"

However, although my posts seldom convey this, I happen to have a little more respect for your intelligence than you might realise, hence my reason for exercising a modicum of restraint on this occasion.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> What I am suggesting, is that when reading/viewing sensationalised media headlines, it pays to exercise some discernment.
> 
> My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.
> 
> How is viewing only the charts that support one's preconceived opinion, whilst disregarding data to the contrary, going to help the progression of this discussion?
> (I note that you have completely disregarded the questions challenging your assertion that science wasn't required.)
> 
> As to your final sentence, I can assure you that I am no ostrich, but believe that I would have been quite justified in saying "Right back at you!"
> 
> However, although my posts seldom convey this, I happen to have a little more respect for your intelligence than you might realise, hence my reason for exercising a modicum of restraint on this occasion.




You feeling alright man? You sound a bit upset. Not just over the usual greenies conspiring with the trees to ruin your day kinda bad mood.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You feeling alright man? You sound a bit upset. Not just over the usual greenies conspiring with the trees to ruin your day kinda bad mood.



Thanks for your concern. Pretty much, just my usual cantankerous self, so nothing to panic about!


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> So the cost of the coal will be passed onto the consumer? Together with the costs of building the plant, running it, maintaining it... Wouldn't that mean more expensive electricity to consumers? And that's ignoring the costs to those who live near coal mines, did the mining, or breathing in the fumes.
> 
> I'm sure engineers know where to put the panels. We're quite lucky in Australia that we got a massive outback with plenty of Sun. So it can spread across regions. But yea, idea is to have a mix. It doesn't need to be just solar farm and those massive roof panels. They're already incorporating solar roof tiles and wall tiles in some European country.
> 
> An average car now is pretty cheap yet it's definitely much safer and more luxurious than way back when. So when there's high demand, things will get better and a lot cheaper too.
> 
> Solar panels powers the International Space Station up there. Sure they use more efficient (and expensive) material in a cloudless environment... but solar tech barely got off the ground until maybe 15 years ago. It's been discovered since the 50s or 60s, but the oil cartel was too powerful.




How did you work out that coal fired power would be dearer.......Do you have some figures?...Are you not up to speed with what is happening in SA....Power prices have risen dramatically since the introduction of renewable energy.......Industry in SA is complaining about the added cost to their products plus they cannot rely upon it......Many are considering moving away from SA.....Why has Jay Wetheril (the SA Premier) suggesting to business in SA to install their own back up diesel power plants?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> How did you work out that coal fired power would be dearer.......Do you have some figures?...Are you not up to speed with what is happening in SA....Power prices have risen dramatically since the introduction of renewable energy.......Industry in SA is complaining about the added cost to their products plus they cannot rely upon it......Many are considering moving away from SA.....Why has Jay Wetheril (the SA Premier) suggesting to business in SA to install their own back up diesel power plants?




Just working off of your figures noco: The Sun deliver free raw material; coal ain't free.

I haven't look at SA. Though in NSW the power prices has increased quite handsomely since last year without any renewable causing it - just greed and entrepreneurial efficiency gains I'm afraid.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Thanks for your concern. Pretty much, just my usual cantankerous self, so nothing to panic about!




Weren't that concerned. Was trying to see how hard I should crack wise at your expense


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> People don't have to prosthelyse. The reality of hurricanes, tornados, icebergs cracking, rivers drying up etc is bad enough. It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.




You do realise the Earth has has always had these phenomenon, don't you?

And you do realise that the observable trend is for less of most of these.

As for insurance premiums, we humans do insist on building in risk exposed locations, don't we


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> As for insurance premiums, we humans do insist on building in risk exposed locations, don't we




I certainly don't. I'm not flood prone, fire prone or earthquake prone, but in any case the premiums have rocketted over the last few years so that would indicate an increase in disasters not "situation normal" as the sceptics say.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> My questions were also alerting you to the need for the application of science, or some method of enquiry, for the purposes of assessment of the situation and determination of likely causation.




Thousands of scientists around the world have been doing just that so why do you ignore their expertise and work ?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Just working off of your figures noco: The Sun deliver free raw material; coal ain't free.
> 
> I haven't look at SA. Though in NSW the power prices has increased quite handsomely since last year without any renewable causing it - just greed and entrepreneurial efficiency gains I'm afraid.




Luu. you are not taking into account the 20% difference in efficiency of coal....You don't take into account what happens when the SUN does not shine or the wind does not blow.....So what do they fall back on when this takes place?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So what do they fall back on when this takes place?




Haven't you heard of storage ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Haven't you heard of storage ?




Battery storage at what cost?.......Batteries that have a life span of 7 years and will have to replaced ...At what cost?...Then replaced again in 14 years time....At what cost?


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly don't. I'm not flood prone, fire prone or earthquake prone, but in any case the premiums have rocketted over the last few years so that would indicate an increase in disasters not "situation normal" as the sceptics say.




Perhaps the vinegar test is those who don't believe in change are not allowed to insure their homes and possessions against cluster f#@ks?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Battery storage at what cost?.......Batteries that have a life span of 7 years and will have to replaced ...At what cost?...Then replaced again in 14 years time....At what cost?




Everything has a cost. Pumped hydro has a cost but it lasts for decades and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. Even a Conservative like Turnbull has realised that renewables need storage.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Everything has a cost. Pumped hydro has a cost but it lasts for decades and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. Even a Conservative like Turnbull has realised that renewables need storage.




Tricky aren't you......Your response does not answer my question.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Tricky aren't you......Your response does not answer my question.




What question ?


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Thousands of scientists around the world have been doing just that so why do you ignore their expertise and work ?



So science is required then!

I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions. 

Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?

Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?

So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What question ?




The question was asked of you my post # 9254.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> So science is required then!
> 
> I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.
> 
> Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?
> 
> Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?
> 
> So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?





Just asking, but when you say questions have been unanswered, do you believe you are the only person with the key to the solving it or do you cherry pick papers to suit your concreted stance?

I think we are all biased because we allow our own interpretations of life's experiences to skew the idea that we may be wrong.


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> Just asking, but when you say questions have been unanswered, do you believe you are the only person with the key to the solving it or do you cherry pick papers to suit your concreted stance?
> 
> I think we are all biased because we allow our own interpretations of life's experiences to skew the idea that we may be wrong.



I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.

I do consider the failure of the alarmists to answer some very pertinent (and crucial) questions, relating to our biological needs, to be cause for very great concern, hence my intense skepticism.

I would hope by now that you have noticed that I have never claimed to be without prejudice.

I would also hope that you have noticed that very few (if any) people in this thread, let alone the entire planet, can truly make such claims.


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> So science is required then!
> 
> I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.




Did I say science was not required ? I don't think so. What I said that not all knowledge is personal experience , in response to your assertion as to whether I had personally experienced hurricanes etc.

The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.

What informs you seems to be your own prejudices. I think it goes back to your polio experience, for which I have a lot of sympathy for you but it seems to have clouded your opinion of science in general to the point where you seem to think that scientists are all cranks and you know a lot better than they.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> Did I say science was not required ? I don't think so. What I said that not all knowledge is personal experience , in response to your assertion as to whether I had personally experienced hurricanes etc.
> 
> The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.
> 
> What informs you seems to be your own prejudices. I think it goes back to your polio experience, for which I have a lot of sympathy for you but it seems to have clouded your opinion of science in general to the point where you seem to think that scientists are all cranks and you know a lot better than they.



In relation to the topic of personal prejudice, I refer you to my most recent response to Tisme.

In relation to the cause, to which you attribute my prejudice, I have a couple of things to say.

Firstly the last thing this thread needs, is the introduction to this debate, of a matter pertaining to another zealous religion! I have already made ample comment on the health issue (that you have shamelessly chosen to draw into this debate) elsewhere, and do not consider it at all relevant to the topic of this thread.

Secondly, your decision to introduce it here, was both unwise and unkind. My respect for you has dramatically lowered as a result. If your expressions of sympathy were sincerely meant, you would never have unscrupulously attempted to discredit my arguments in this manner. I believe the forums ignore facility was designed to cater for situations such as this!


In relation to your claims about what you didn't say, I refer you to the final sentence in one of your earlier posts, in which you stated:


SirRumpole said:


> ... It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.



This gave rise to several of my questions of you, including the one about your personal experience of these phenomena.

Your selective amnesia is not at all helpful to the progression of this debate. Perhaps your health issues need to be brought into the argument!


----------



## SirRumpole

cynic said:


> Perhaps your health issues need to be brought into the argument!




I'm quite well, but thank you for asking.

Maybe I got the words the wrong way , I should have said "it doesn't need *just *science, also the ability..."

Anyway, you pick the scientists that agree with you, whoever they are, but I'll stick with the people who work in the field and most of them say AGW is real and is mostly caused by burning coal and other organic fuels.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> I'm quite well, but thank you for asking.
> 
> Maybe I got the words the wrong way , I should have said "it doesn't need *just *science, also the ability..."
> 
> Anyway, you pick the scientists that agree with you, whoever they are, but I'll stick with the people who work in the field and most of them say AGW is real and is mostly caused by burning coal and other organic fuels.



And when those "scientists", you've chosen to heed, start providing credible answers to the crucial questions that I have repeatedly raised, I will gladly join you in listening to them. 

But until that happens, I shall continue with my skepticism of their unscientific and unsound apocalyptic claims.


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.
> 
> I do consider the failure of the alarmists to answer some very pertinent (and crucial) questions, relating to our biological needs, to be cause for very great concern, hence my intense skepticism.
> 
> I would hope by now that you have noticed that I have never claimed to be without prejudice.
> 
> I would also hope that you have noticed that very few (if any) people in this thread, let alone the entire planet, can truly make such claims.




Is there a difference between and alarmist and say someone like me who just admits a belief that general climatic events are making a persistent entropic change?  I'm not spending any time running around with doom and gloom, although I do lament the loss of what I knew as a boy to be good predictable climate events peppered with the odd surprise (say an Indian rain during the dry spell).


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> Is there a difference between and alarmist and say someone like me who just admits a belief that general climatic events are making a persistent entropic change?  I'm not spending any time running around with doom and gloom, although I do lament the loss of what I knew as a boy to be good predictable climate events peppered with the odd surprise (say an Indian rain during the dry spell).




You already know the answer to your question. You've amply articulated the distinction between yourself and the alarmist brigade, within your very own post.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.
> 
> .




So what degree of intensity over would you say that I experienced in the 30's and 40's......I witnessed plenty of intense storms in Brisbane......plenty of heat waves through out the country.....Fires in Vic and NSW were a common occurrence except people were not stupid enough to build in the dense bush and those that did had adequate fire breaks.......Plenty of great floods.....in Brisbane, houses in the Chelma area where floods went over roof level in the 50's......Homehill and Ayr were often flooded before the Burdekin dam was built......I once saw a cow with its head stuck in the fork of a tree in Homehill 12 feet above the ground on the main highway.

So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You  make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .


----------



## cynic

noco said:


> So what degree of intensity over would you say that I experienced in the 30's and 40's......I witnessed plenty of intense storms in Brisbane......plenty of heat waves through out the country.....Fires in Vic and NSW were a common occurrence except people were not stupid enough to build in the dense bush and those that did had adequate fire breaks.......Plenty of great floods.....in Brisbane, houses in the Chelma area where floods went over roof level in the 50's......Homehill and Ayr were often flooded before the Burdekin dam was built......I once saw a cow with its head stuck in the fork of a tree in Homehill 12 feet above the ground on the main highway.
> 
> So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
> You  make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .



I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So science is required then!
> 
> I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.
> 
> Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?
> 
> Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?
> 
> So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?




Trump's kind of "scientist" or peer-reviewed scientific journals kind of scientists?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Trump's kind of "scientist" or peer-reviewed scientific journals kind of scientists?



Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?

How can the peer review process take effect when the "scientists" insist that their assertions are not open to debate?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luu. you are not taking into account the 20% difference in efficiency of coal....You don't take into account what happens when the SUN does not shine or the wind does not blow.....So what do they fall back on when this takes place?




Efficiency will also be gained once there's a stable market for solar. There's already a few innovation I've seen happening at Australian universities that could potentially triple the current panel's efficiency, and that was by chance watching a doco on the ABC. 

Safer to go with an energy mix. Coal might still not be able to be delivered. That's why there's a panic in China from Cyclone Debbie. They have to scramble for coal from other places due to the shut downs and damages Debbie cause to rail and ports.

Then there's that eventual running out of coal and other finite resources. Not to mention pollution, health effects and that imaginary climate disaster.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
> You  make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...al-temperature-records-once-every-three-years


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.





Wow, that guy certainly had Mr.Nair over a barrel........He was like some of the parrots on the ASF about that 97%.....Mr.Nair just did not have the answers and could not accept that perhaps he was wrong.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?
> 
> How can the peer review process take effect when the "scientists" insist that their assertions are not open to debate?




Ted "Carpet Bomb 'em" farking Cruz. That's the "sceptic" you're asking people to listen to?

The smarter guy there told Cruz that by "not open to debate" he meant the issue is settled by scientific evidence. That is, it is clear from research and data that Climate Change will first kill poor minority community. 

How can you not see through the political spin Cruz did there? What are you saying Mr Smarty Pants, that we can't debate your hysteria?

No, Ted! You can debate it, but the results are quite clearly evident that when the shiet storm hits, those in poor areas will get stuffed while those in richer areas will get rescued and properly looked after by both the insurers and the high grounds and the welfare state.

That when famine hit, the poor will not be able to afford food or medicine or a jet plane ticket out of the country.

I guess that kind of common sense from any idiot with two eyes and a grey cell is just too much for some people.

Let's bring on Rex Tillerson on Climate Change; or Ryan what's his face on Healthcare.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Efficiency will also be gained once there's a stable market for solar. There's already a few innovation I've seen happening at Australian universities that could potentially triple the current panel's efficiency, and that was by chance watching a doco on the ABC.
> 
> Safer to go with an energy mix. Coal might still not be able to be delivered. That's why there's a panic in China from Cyclone Debbie. They have to scramble for coal from other places due to the shut downs and damages Debbie cause to rail and ports.
> 
> Then there's that eventual running out of coal and other finite resources. Not to mention pollution, health effects and that imaginary climate disaster.




So you are saying that one day solar panels will be 45% efficient...Where is your back up link or is that just your usual mere hear say.....Perhaps Smurf might may be able to help here.

There is enough coal for the next 186 years and beyond.

Yes the some coal mines were shut down after TC Debbie but have you seen the massive stock pile at Abbott Point?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> So you are saying that one day solar panels will be 45% efficient...Where is your back up link or is that just your usual mere hear say.....Perhaps Smurf might may be able to help here.
> 
> There is enough coal for the next 186 years and beyond.
> 
> Yes the some coal mines were shut down after TC Debbie but have you seen the massive stock pile at Abbott Point?




That was some research a professor at either UNSW or UTS was trialing. You can look it up noco, we all have the same internet, for now.

From memory, there was another research where they try to reuse the sunlight that bounces back once it hit the cell.

Anyway, point is, science and technology will improve and become more efficient with further application and cash injection. Cash from investment. Investment come about when there's a fair market with some gov't incentive and none of the obstacles.

Look at the hidden incentives and welfare all gov't around the world forces its people to subsidise the oil and fossil fuel industry. It's in the trillions. And that's not counting the wars of liberation in places with weak armies and lotsa oil.

TC Debbie just prove the point noco. That just a mere shut down of the ports disrupt supplies to China's power stations. To make up for it they'd have to source it from the Americas etc.

It's very rare for the Sun to be cloudy continuously for over a couple of weeks at a time right? Not when engineers and scientists have the entire outback to place their panels and farm. That kind of planning lessen the chances of frequent cloud disruption.

Yup, 186 years of coal vs a few hundred million years, give or take a million or two of the Sun still shining. Pretty sure it's in the billions of years, but pretty sure the human species won't last that long given our love for war in the age of nukes.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...al-temperature-records-once-every-three-years




There has ben no Global Warming for over18 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> There has ben no Global Warming for over18 years.
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/





OK I'll have to assume that you can't read and leave it at that.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> OK I'll have to assume that you can't read and leave it at that.




And the same applies to your good self.


----------



## noco

Even the IPCC have admitted their prediction of Global Warming has been exaggerated.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Ted "Carpet Bomb 'em" farking Cruz. That's the "sceptic" you're asking people to listen to?
> 
> The smarter guy there told Cruz that by "not open to debate" he meant the issue is settled by scientific evidence. That is, it is clear from research and data that Climate Change will first kill poor minority community.
> 
> How can you not see through the political spin Cruz did there? What are you saying Mr Smarty Pants, that we can't debate your hysteria?
> 
> No, Ted! You can debate it, but the results are quite clearly evident that when the shiet storm hits, those in poor areas will get stuffed while those in richer areas will get rescued and properly looked after by both the insurers and the high grounds and the welfare state.
> 
> That when famine hit, the poor will not be able to afford food or medicine or a jet plane ticket out of the country.
> 
> I guess that kind of common sense from any idiot with two eyes and a grey cell is just too much for some people.
> 
> Let's bring on Rex Tillerson on Climate Change; or Ryan what's his face on Healthcare.




From the contents of your post, it appears you are siding with the alarmist views as expressed by the Sierra Club. Irrespective of the fairness (or lack thereof) of Senator Cruz's approach, there is no question, that this incident highlighted a lack of integrity in the "scientific" conduct of the Sierra Club.

There are many other instances of people raising doubt about the integrity of the "science". Would you like me to provide some more examples so that you can also "shoot those messengers"?

Surely if the "science" were truly settled, as alarmists like to claim, they shouldn't have too much to fear from open debate. Their reluctance alone, gives ample cause for suspicion about the integrity of the "science".


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> From the contents of your post, it appears you are siding with the alarmist views as expressed by the Sierra Club. Irrespective of the fairness (or lack thereof) of Senator Cruz's approach, there is no question, that this incident highlighted a lack of integrity in the "scientific" conduct of the Sierra Club.
> 
> There are many other instances of people raising doubt about the integrity of the "science". Would you like me to provide some more examples so that you can also "shoot those messengers"?
> 
> Surely if the "science" were truly settled, as alarmists like to claim, they shouldn't have too much to fear from open debate. Their reluctance alone, gives ample cause for suspicion about the integrity of the "science".




The thing about Science is that no theory or findings are ever closed to debate. So for a sell out moron of a politician like Cruz to twist a simple fact into some "Sierra Club" hysteria and denial of scientific facts... that's a bit much mate.

As discussed previously, a very simple study counting how many peer-reviewed climate science studies concludes that CC is happening, is substantially caused by human activity... it found that 97% of those studies came to that conclusion.

But ey, those are UN backed commies, greenies hoaxes. Unlike the honorable Ted Cruz not at all in the pocket of the Kochs and fossil fuel industry's pocket. At least Cruz is a bit more glib than some other idiot US Senator who said that global warming cannot be happening because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again. That and if it is God's plan that the Earth be flooded, who are we mortals to go against His wishes.

I guess if the water does rise and wash away poor people's homes, they can call up God to complain about forgetting His promise to Noah.


----------



## basilio

*Dealing with the effects of Global Warming
*
One of the very tangible consequences of  global  warming is the steady retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas  and the collapse of reliable ice melt to villages below. One brilliant engineer from India has  tackled the problem by simply creating artificial ice packs at ower mountains levels.
This is seriously good.  

* The ice stupas of Ladakh: solving water crisis in the high desert of Himalaya *
An ingenious idea to build artificial glaciers at lower altitudes using pipes, gravity and night temperatures could transform an arid landscape into an oasis




An ice stupa created by the innovative engineer Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh, India. Photograph: Courtesy of Sonam Wangchuk

*Shares*
1209
 
* Comments*
_ 91  
Michael Safi in Delh

 Saturday 22 April 2017 18.30 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 22 April 2017 18.32 AEST 


The idea crystallised in his mind one morning as Sonam Wangchuk was crossing a bridge in the Indian Himalayas.


The engineer from Ladakh, in the Jammu region of north India, was already a famous problem solver: a Bollywood film loosely based on his life had grossed a billion rupees in its first four days.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g-water-crisis-in-the-high-desert-of-himalaya_


----------



## MARKETWINNER

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/21/rivers-vanishing-thin-air-climate-crisis

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/ecjr-ngr033117.php

http://forward.com/culture/369744/t...hange-is-partially-responsible-for-the-syria/


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> The thing about Science is that no theory or findings are ever closed to debate. So for a sell out moron of a politician like Cruz to twist a simple fact into some "Sierra Club" hysteria and denial of scientific facts... that's a bit much mate.
> 
> As discussed previously, a very simple study counting how many peer-reviewed climate science studies concludes that CC is happening, is substantially caused by human activity... it found that 97% of those studies came to that conclusion.
> 
> But ey, those are UN backed commies, greenies hoaxes. Unlike the honorable Ted Cruz not at all in the pocket of the Kochs and fossil fuel industry's pocket. At least Cruz is a bit more glib than some other idiot US Senator who said that global warming cannot be happening because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again. That and if it is God's plan that the Earth be flooded, who are we mortals to go against His wishes.
> 
> I guess if the water does rise and wash away poor people's homes, they can call up God to complain about forgetting His promise to Noah.




Like the Sierra Club, other alarmists are having problems embracing this thing called reality. My understanding is that the claims to the existence of the 97% consensus have been thoroughly debunked.

Dr. Judith Curry had some interesting things to say:


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Like the Sierra Club, other alarmists are having problems embracing this thing called reality. My understanding is that the claims to the existence of the 97% consensus have been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Dr. Judith Curry had some interesting things to say:





Well... your understanding is wrong.

Mate, a few scientists goes through the entire published body of work on CC, did a simple count of their conclusions, add them up to work out a percentage of nay or yay. 

Somehow that's turned into "consensus seeking", stifling research and shutting down debate. 

But those sciences aside, let us lay person do our own research shall we... using gut feeling.

Say we go into our house, close all doors and windows, turn up the heat... it get hot soon enough; turn on the A/C, it get cold. Oh look, human can cause changes to their environment.

Now, let's chop down most of the world's rainforests - The Earth's lung - then burnt literally hundreds of millions of bbl of oil, tonnes of coals, other chemical from industries. Do that everyday for a hundred year or two... nope, nothing, no impact.

Does that make sense to you man?

But here's the kicker... that kind of "common sense" does not pass the scientific test. Hence, all those minute research to eventually built to a body of work - 97% of which show a correlation between human activities and CC. 

Scientific enquiries tend to test one variable at a time, right? Independent and dependent variables... to show the probably of one causing the other. That it is not by chance.

Anyway, a tree in your backyard looks dangerous so that's terrible and something should be done about it. Fair enough. But an overwhelming body of scientific research showing catastrophic climate events, potentially killing hundreds of millions... meehhhh... show me how freak weather ever kill people and I'd be convinced.

Mudslides; drought causing famine causing wars; rising sea level; record heatwaves and snowtorms killing the poor and the homeless... mehhhh... 

In other news, apparently the lead poisoning piplelines in other American cities don't just kill poor people... the rich who aren't rich enough to buy all bottled water are also poisoned. Maybe now it's going to fixed ey. In those parts of the city where rich people live first, of course.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Well... your understanding is wrong.
> ...



My understanding of your very first comment, is that you believe that you somehow know my understanding to be incorrect.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

Do you have any concrete scientific evidence to back up your statement, other than the bogus claims to the existence of that consensus?

Do you believe Dr Judith Curry is misinformed in her assertions?
 If so, on what basis?

(I should hope by now, that you realise that I am most definitely not disputing the known harmful impacts of pollution from heavy metals such as lead, mercury etc.

I happen to believe that those issues are genuine cause for some concern and warrant mankind's attention. I am however unaware of any significant causal relationship between that form of pollution and the matter of climate change. As such, I consider the discussion of same, to be out of accord with the topic of this thread.)


The rest of your post strikes me as akin to an evangelist preacher, standing on the corner of a busy thoroughfare, telling everyone they're damned if they don't repent!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> My understanding of your very first comment, is that you believe that you somehow know my understanding to be incorrect.
> 
> How have you arrived at this conclusion?
> 
> Do you have any concrete scientific evidence to back up your statement, other than the bogus claims to the existence of that consensus?
> 
> Do you believe Dr Judith Curry is misinformed in her assertions?
> If so, on what basis?
> 
> (I should hope by now, that you realise that I am most definitely not disputing the known harmful impacts of pollution from heavy metals such as lead, mercury etc.
> 
> I happen to believe that those issues are genuine cause for some concern and warrant mankind's attention. I am however unaware of any significant causal relationship between that form of pollution and the matter of climate change. As such, I consider the discussion of same, to be out of accord with the topic of this thread.)
> 
> 
> The rest of your post strikes me as akin to an evangelist preacher, standing on the corner of a busy thoroughfare, telling everyone they're damned if they don't repent!




Only the poor will be damned if we richer folks don't repent. So no, humanity won't all be doomed. Not at once.

See, the poor goes first, then we second. The uber rich will get into their giant yachts in the Himalayas then repopulate the world, creating useful industries like finance, derivative tradings or just being regal. A good way to start any new world order, it seem.

Mate, if 97% of the world's climate science research fail to convince you, my brain farts ain't going to do it. I know my limits.

How do I know Dr Curry is misinformed? hmm... maybe the fact that 97% of studies in her supposed field of expertise came to a different conclusion than hers. All else being equal, unless she discover a direct proof that human activities have no impact on the climate... she's just another incompetent idiot. 

I mean, any idiot can tell you it's hard for them to know or see evidence proving human activities and CC so they're sceptical. That doesn't make them some sort of genius, them being stupid and incompetent also explains their lack of knowledge.

To knock people's socks off, she'd need to maybe, I don't know, go prove that others research are wrong, reached the wrong conclusion. To shrug and say "i don't know"... that just doesn't have the same level of credibility, does it? My dog can tell you the same thing.

So unless she's the modern day Galileo while all her scientists are cranks and religious nuts... oh wait, you've been saying all along that that's the case.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Only the poor will be damned if we richer folks don't repent. So no, humanity won't all be doomed. Not at once.
> 
> See, the poor goes first, then we second. The uber rich will get into their giant yachts in the Himalayas then repopulate the world, creating useful industries like finance, derivative tradings or just being regal. A good way to start any new world order, it seem.
> 
> Mate, if 97% of the world's climate science research fail to convince you, my brain farts ain't going to do it. I know my limits.
> 
> How do I know Dr Curry is misinformed? hmm... maybe the fact that 97% of studies in her supposed field of expertise came to a different conclusion than hers. All else being equal, unless she discover a direct proof that human activities have no impact on the climate... she's just another incompetent idiot.
> 
> I mean, any idiot can tell you it's hard for them to know or see evidence proving human activities and CC so they're sceptical. That doesn't make them some sort of genius, them being stupid and incompetent also explains their lack of knowledge.
> 
> To knock people's socks off, she'd need to maybe, I don't know, go prove that others research are wrong, reached the wrong conclusion. To shrug and say "i don't know"... that just doesn't have the same level of credibility, does it? My dog can tell you the same thing.
> 
> So unless she's the modern day Galileo while all her scientists are cranks and religious nuts... oh wait, you've been saying all along that that's the case.



Firstly, please take care not to misconstrue what I, and others, have "been saying all along".

From your response, it appears that you're also claiming to know that Dr. Curry is wrong, and that your opinion is formed from your faith in the existence of the purported consensus, and upon an absence of disproof, from its detractors, of the associated ACC claims.

I note your liberal usage of the word "fact" throughout your postings. What you seem to have overlooked in all of this, is that your beliefs, like mine, are based upon your opinions on what the facts are. The objective (as opposed to subjective) facts may turn out to be quite different to those opined. As such, I consider it unwise to mistakenly represent opinions as facts.

I happen to hold a quite different opinion to yourself on the integrity of the purported consensus, and of those claiming to its existence.

One fact, of which I am quite confident, is the fact of my expressed opinion differing from yours!

A further fact, of which I am similarly confident, is that having a different opinion to yourself doesn't automatically make me wrong!

How is one justified in insisting that everybody accept another's opined (and unproven) fact as true, based solely upon the absence of disproof of said opinion.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?(i.e. first prove the opined fact to be actually true, or at the very least demonstrate that it has a reasonable level of merit.)

Failing this, in the absence of the ability to disprove the existence of Lucifer, we may all have to accept the evangelical preacher's dictates to repent lest we be damned for all eternity!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Firstly, please take care not to misconstrue what I, and others, have "been saying all along".
> 
> From your response, it appears that you're also claiming to know that Dr. Curry is wrong, and that your opinion is formed from your faith in the existence of the purported consensus, and upon an absence of disproof, from its detractors, of the associated ACC claims.
> 
> I note your liberal usage of the word "fact" throughout your postings. What you seem to have overlooked in all of this, is that your beliefs, like mine, are based upon your opinions on what the facts are. The objective (as opposed to subjective) facts may turn out to be quite different to those opined. As such, I consider it unwise to mistakenly represent opinions as facts.
> 
> I happen to hold a quite different opinion to yourself on the integrity of the purported consensus, and of those claiming to its existence.
> 
> One fact, of which I am quite confident, is the fact of my expressed opinion differing from yours!
> 
> A further fact, of which I am similarly confident, is that having a different opinion to yourself doesn't automatically make me wrong!
> 
> How is one justified in insisting that everybody accept another's opined (and unproven) fact as true, based solely upon the absence of disproof of said opinion.
> 
> Shouldn't it be the other way around?(i.e. first prove the opined fact to be actually true, or at the very least demonstrate that it has a reasonable level of merit.)
> 
> Failing this, in the absence of the ability to disprove the existence of Lucifer, we may all have to accept the evangelical preacher's dictates to repent lest we be damned for all eternity!




You write very well. Gotta start learning some critical thinking skill to make the most of it though. 

The 97% of climate scientists and their research does not agree with Dr. Curry. Does that make her wrong? To a lay person like me, yes it does. Will she ultimately be proven right... well, what is she right about, really? From that video clip, all she said was she weren't sure about human impact; maybe climate change doesn't exist at all.

errmmmm.... You know how Darwin proposes a theory on the evolution of species? He kinda show his line of reasoning, show "evidence" to support his claims, came to a conclusion. Our Dr. Curry here just shrugs and said she couldn't find any definitive answer, that she's not sure... well fark me, how can you prove anyone's wrong when they didn't say anything or know anything?

What's two plus two? I don't know. Wrong! The answer is not "I don't know".
Well, I'm sceptical about what two plus two is. 
But you're wrong because the answer is four! 

Can't say the person is wrong when they are "sceptical", can you?


As to my or your opinion... I'm no climate scientist so let's listen to the expert shall I?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You write very well. Gotta start learning some critical thinking skill to make the most of it though.
> 
> The 97% of climate scientists and their research does not agree with Dr. Curry. Does that make her wrong? To a lay person like me, yes it does. Will she ultimately be proven right... well, what is she right about, really? From that video clip, all she said was she weren't sure about human impact; maybe climate change doesn't exist at all.
> 
> errmmmm.... You know how Darwin proposes a theory on the evolution of species? He kinda show his line of reasoning, show "evidence" to support his claims, came to a conclusion. Our Dr. Curry here just shrugs and said she couldn't find any definitive answer, that she's not sure... well fark me, how can you prove anyone's wrong when they didn't say anything or know anything?
> 
> What's two plus two? I don't know. Wrong! The answer is not "I don't know".
> Well, I'm sceptical about what two plus two is.
> But you're wrong because the answer is four!
> 
> Can't say the person is wrong when they are "sceptical", can you?
> 
> 
> As to my or your opinion... I'm no climate scientist so let's listen to the expert shall I?





When there exists so much disagreement between the experts, how exactly does one determine whom to believe?

Should one give more credence to the expert humbly confessing to areas of uncertainty and recommending further investigation, or should one simply submit to the dictates (and apocalyptic threats) of those claiming that their findings are indisputable?

Which of those experts poses the greatest threat to the progression of science?

Which allows the freedom and enhancement of mankind's ability to accumulate and validate information?

I can recognise from your postings the type of "expert" you have chosen to heed.

Whilst I believe that everyone has the right to make their own choices about what to believe, I confess to having great difficulty respecting those choosing to side with tyrannical religions. Especially when those religions deny outsiders the right to freely choose whether or not to partake.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> When there exists so much disagreement between the experts, how exactly does one determine whom to believe?
> 
> Should one give more credence to the expert humbly confessing to areas of uncertainty and recommending further investigation, or should one simply submit to the dictates (and apocalyptic threats) of those claiming that their findings are indisputable?
> 
> Which of those experts poses the greatest threat to the progression of science?
> 
> Which allows the freedom and enhancement of mankind's ability to accumulate and validate information?
> 
> I can recognise from your postings the type of "expert" you have chosen to heed.
> 
> Whilst I believe that everyone has the right to make their own choices about what to believe, I confess to having great difficulty respecting those choosing to side with tyrannical religions which deny outsiders the right to freely choose whether or not to partake.




How does 97% of climate scientist making the same conclusion show "there exist so much disagreement between the experts"?

In case you don't know, those 97% weren't conducting the one single research paper. They didn't study the same variable either

I don't know if you've ever done anything close to a scientific research, but from the little attempt I did for my little thesis, peer-reviewed, scientific research studies a very small part of any field you care to mention.

That is, each study only ever focus on one or two variables. Collect the data, do their analysis and at the end of all that hard work, concludes whether their indepdendent and dependenable blah blah happen by chance or have a high probability of not being accidental.

So they'd study Arctic ice, say, measure the rate at which it melt over the seasons, the years, the decade. Then see if such rate are the normal cycle of Arctic ice melt. If not normal, if not random, why? Maybe the temperature in the Arctic are abnormally high... why are they so high... other research conducted by so and so point to it being caused by x, y, z.

So of all of these kind of independent research and studies into Climate Science... that 97% count came from a mere... tabulation [I know big words too, see?]... of each paper's conclusion. Result shows that 97% concluded that CC is real, human activities play a big azz major part in it.

If Dr. Curry want to be taken seriously, she better go ahead and disprove those individual papers, their data, their analysis and their conclusion. That or do her own research proving that CC does not exist because God intended this Earth and all its resources to be use else he won't have put it here, under all those oceans and rocks and granite.

----

Let's put that 97% another way.

Say there's a tree in someone's backyard.

One group of arborist was given a sample of its roots; another a sample of its trunk; another its bark; another its core drill sample; another its this and all that.

97% of the arborist's findings, after examining just the sample that was given to them, concludes that the tree definitely dead or dying.

Then there's this other 3% who can't work their microscope or were given a fresh sample... concludes that their finding is inconclusive or they just don't know.

Then all those report were presented to the Council and the Councillor, who is not at all bribed by the Greenies with money or else be crucified after a Spanish Inquisition show trial, concludes that meehhhh... tree's still standing so it must be alive because 3% of the studies can't prove it's dead or dying.

I bet you'd love that kind of decision mate.


----------



## noco

97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...

The GREENIES cracked record....They just hammering away hoping some naive galahs believe it.

97% of 79 scientist in the UN Climate Change Committee = 77....Well and truly hand picked to suit the UN requirements.

These idiots say the debate is over......Says who?

Models have been rigged and exaggerated....Even the IPCC have admitted to their errors.

33,800 scientist say it is crap.

Plenty of past posts to back it up.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> How does 97% of climate scientist making the same conclusion show "there exist so much disagreement between the experts"?
> ....




The purported 97% consensus wasn't derived from climate scientists arriving at the same conclusion!

It was derived from an analysis of diverse research paper abstracts!

A Washington Journal article, highlighting concerns about the derivation of the purported consensus, has been reproduced in the linked blog:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/


----------



## cynic

Would you purchase "a pig in a black sack" based upon the assurances of the author of this email:
http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/Cook31July.png

It seems that many climate alarmists are quite eagerly doing so!

Since opinions seem to somehow be getting more attention, within this debate, than objective data, why not allow consideration of the information presented in the following opinion piece?:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#726c3419485d


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> The purported 97% consensus wasn't derived from climate scientists arriving at the same conclusion!
> 
> It was derived from an analysis of diverse research paper abstracts!
> 
> A Washington Journal article, highlighting concerns about the derivation of the purported consensus, has been reproduced in the linked blog:
> http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/




I've read the original paper that 97% came from dude. Have talked about it before on this forum.

You know what's in the abstract? It's an executive summary detailing the key literature review, the method of the research, and the conclusion with suggestion on further studies and application.

So it pretty much summed up what each author of the research find and conclude.

So yes, like I said, if Dr. Curry doesn't believe it, she can go through each of those papers and show where those scientists and their methodology and conclusions are wrong.

Remember too that that 97% paper did ask the original researcher/s whether or not they agree with the paper's classifying their conclusion as either Yay or Nay.


----------



## noco

cynic said:


> Would you purchase "a pig in a black sack" based upon the assurances of the author of this email:
> http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/Cook31July.png
> 
> It seems that many climate alarmists are quite eagerly doing so!
> 
> Since opinions seem to somehow be getting more attention, within this debate, than objective data, why not allow consideration of the information presented in the following opinion piece?:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#726c3419485d




My dear friend, no matter what you throw in the face of the Geenies they will still hammer this false claim of 97% every day until the cows come home........Say it often enough and the naive will believe it.


----------



## basilio

Well firstly Luutzu congratulations on continuing the conversation with Cynic and Noco on what are the most rock solid basics of CC
1) It's real, it's currently overwhelmingly caused by human produced greenhouse gases and it's going to get much worse
2) This reality is acknowledged by the overwhelmingly number of scientists who study the climate and the effects of climate change on our eco systems.

The last pages of pseudo scientific rubbish and outright denial  from Cynic and Noco just demonstrate the cognitive impairment that has happened to millions of people as result of a determined disinformation campaign.  Yet not a single word of this rubbish will alter the consequences of global warming.
*
But I'm equally sure that whatever happens in our real world, melting icecaps, record temperatures, collapsing ecosytsems, rising sea levels, the same litany of denial will be rinsed and repeated.  If the proponents of this misinformation were ever accessible to demonstrated facts and even the principles of managing perceived risk this "argument" would be long gone. *


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Well firstly Luutzu congratulations on continuing the conversation with Cynic and Noco on what are the most rock solid basics of CC
> 1) It's real, it's currently overwhelmingly caused by human produced greenhouse gases and it's going to get much worse
> 2) This reality is acknowledged by the overwhelmingly number of scientists who study the climate and the effects of climate change on our eco systems.
> 
> The last pages of pseudo scientific rubbish and outright denial  from Cynic and Noco just demonstrate the cognitive impairment that has happened to millions of people as result of a determined disinformation campaign.  Yet not a single word of this rubbish will alter the consequences of global warming.
> *
> But I'm equally sure that whatever happens in our real world, melting icecaps, record temperatures, collapsing ecosytsems, rising sea levels, the same litany of denial will be rinsed and repeated.  If the proponents of this misinformation were ever accessible to demonstrated facts and even the principles of managing perceived risk this "argument" would be long gone. *




The thing that amazes me is that this thread has gone 466 pages to date.

What should be obvious from the evidence is still being denied by people who should know better, cockeyed optimists or who simply stick their head in the sand because they can't handle bad news.

You just can't tell some people no matter how hard you try, but I think the deniers are looking weaker by the year as the temperature records continue to be broken.


----------



## Knobby22

Poor Cynic gets his religion and science mixed up.


----------



## cynic

SirRumpole said:


> The thing that amazes me is that this thread has gone 466 pages to date.
> 
> What should be obvious from the evidence is still being denied by people who should know better, cockeyed optimists or who simply stick their head in the sand because they can't handle bad news.
> 
> You just can't tell some people no matter how hard you try, but I think the deniers are looking weaker by the year as the temperature records continue to be broken.



The funny thing about this post is, that, with the exception of the last eight words, I could have wholeheartedly agreed with the entirety of its content!

(Those aware of the dictionary definition of the word "denier", will likely recognise its versatility of application, and thereby understand the intent of my response.)


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Poor Cynic gets his religion and science mixed up.



A chart illustrating 60 years of data ?!!!

The source of this data ?!!!

And its relevance to the issues I have raised concerning causation are...
What exactly?!!!


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Well firstly Luutzu congratulations on continuing the conversation with Cynic and Noco on what are the most rock solid basics of CC
> 1) It's real, it's currently overwhelmingly caused by human produced greenhouse gases and it's going to get much worse
> 2) This reality is acknowledged by the overwhelmingly number of scientists who study the climate and the effects of climate change on our eco systems.
> 
> The last pages of pseudo scientific rubbish and outright denial  from Cynic and Noco just demonstrate the cognitive impairment that has happened to millions of people as result of a determined disinformation campaign.  Yet not a single word of this rubbish will alter the consequences of global warming.
> *
> But I'm equally sure that whatever happens in our real world, melting icecaps, record temperatures, collapsing ecosytsems, rising sea levels, the same litany of denial will be rinsed and repeated.  If the proponents of this misinformation were ever accessible to demonstrated facts and even the principles of managing perceived risk this "argument" would be long gone. *



I believe that the contents of my post#9291 will probably serve as ample response should you care to consider them.

I invite you to carefully observe the existence of distinctions between, "fact", "opinion", "fact of opinion" and "opinion of fact".


----------



## wayneL

Basilio makes a good point,  vis a vis that none of this (even international protocols) will change the consequences of global warming,  such as they exist (or not, as the case may be).

These could be nett negative, they could be nett positive,  or neutral.

<yawn>


----------



## Knobby22

Don't worry  Cynic.
The data shows the CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean.
I found the source for you.
The Pope faked it.by stealing Santa's sleigh stopping time and deliberately modifying all the measuring instruments.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Don't worry  Cynic.
> The data shows the CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean.
> I found the source for you.
> The Pope faked it.by stealing Santa's sleigh stopping time and deliberately modifying all the measuring instruments.




Are you able to locate a copy of the police report evidencing the theft of Santa's sleigh?

Was the Pope convicted of the theft during a trial by jury of peers?
 If so where is the record of conviction, and from whence were the pontiff's peers sourced?

What relevance does this matter have to the outstanding questions regarding causation?


----------



## noco

Here is all you need to know about the 97% myth.


----------



## noco

More blatant lies about Global Warming.


----------



## noco

Here how this Global Warming scare all started.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Here is all you need to know about the 97% myth.





We feel the same way that polar bear does noco.

Here's the thing... if we're to be tricked and lied to, wouldn't we rather it be the lies those commie greenies socialist and their "Climate Change"?

I mean, they're using "science" and "facts" and their fancy research with their big titles earned after years of studies... those eggheads... all so that we could breathe clean air, drink clean water and not get swept away here, there, everywhere to our doom.

What psychos! Just like our parents lying and tricking us into eating our veggies and not running with scissors or take candies from strangers.

Screw that! Give me a strangers with lots of lollies wanting me to enjoy it in his van any day. He doesn't scare me with "spiders" and "worm" eating my teeth if I don't brush! He's telling me that I could keep doing exactly what I've been doing - enjoying life and buying his stuff. 

oh yea, there's so much bs and outright lies in that video noco. It's as if the guy just make up stuff as he goes along.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> We feel the same way that polar bear does noco.
> 
> Here's the thing... if we're to be tricked and lied to, wouldn't we rather it be the lies those commie greenies socialist and their "Climate Change"?
> 
> I mean, they're using "science" and "facts" and their fancy research with their big titles earned after years of studies... those eggheads... all so that we could breathe clean air, drink clean water and not get swept away here, there, everywhere to our doom.
> 
> What psychos! Just like our parents lying and tricking us into eating our veggies and not running with scissors or take candies from strangers.
> 
> Screw that! Give me a strangers with lots of lollies wanting me to enjoy it in his van any day. He doesn't scare me with "spiders" and "worm" eating my teeth if I don't brush! He's telling me that I could keep doing exactly what I've been doing - enjoying life and buying his stuff.
> 
> oh yea, there's so much bs and outright lies in that video noco. It's as if the guy just make up stuff as he goes along.




I guess it is up to you to prove those video lies......I know you don't like the truth but there is plenty more where those 3 links came from and I will feed you more soon.....\
Have a ice day.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> We feel the same way that polar bear does noco.
> 
> Here's the thing... if we're to be tricked and lied to, wouldn't we rather it be the lies those commie greenies socialist and their "Climate Change"?
> 
> I mean, they're using "science" and "facts" and their fancy research with their big titles earned after years of studies... those eggheads... all so that we could breathe clean air, drink clean water and not get swept away here, there, everywhere to our doom.
> 
> What psychos! Just like our parents lying and tricking us into eating our veggies and not running with scissors or take candies from strangers.
> 
> Screw that! Give me a strangers with lots of lollies wanting me to enjoy it in his van any day. He doesn't scare me with "spiders" and "worm" eating my teeth if I don't brush! He's telling me that I could keep doing exactly what I've been doing - enjoying life and buying his stuff.
> 
> oh yea, there's so much bs and outright lies in that video noco. It's as if the guy just make up stuff as he goes along.




From your post, it seems that you consider that video to contain a blend of misinformation (i.e. "bs and outright lies").

Whilst I myself, certainly experienced it as opinionated, I happen to be fairly much in agreement with the overall opinion being expressed, so didn't feel any great need to decry it, despite its apparent subjectivity.

Given that there were a lot of statements (albeit opinionated) being made, I wonder if there were some things being said that you might, perchance, believe to be true.

Do you, perchance , believe any of the historical examples, given to highlight some issues surrounding subscription to scientific consensus, to be true?


----------



## basilio

*Global Warming - Climate Change Facts on the ground
*
Perhaps worth looking at how rising sea levels driven by global warming are affecting Florida.  The key issue is what happens when people realise their properties are going under and will effectively be worthless? When does realty sink in ? 
Back to Canberra Times
*The nightmare scenario for Florida’s coastal homeowners – sea levels rising*

Apr 21, 2017 Christopher Flavelle
Play
0:01
/
_
On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.


When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (75 kilometres) or value of the property along that coast ($4.65 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.


“These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”


*If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.


And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.

http://www.allhomes.com.au/news/the...homeowners-sea-levels-rising-20170421-gvp5t8/*_


----------



## basilio

So if we are looking at videos re Climate Change as Liberal Hoax consider the contribution of Noam Chomsky


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *Global Warming - Climate Change Facts on the ground
> *
> Perhaps worth looking at how rising sea levels driven by global warming are affecting Florida.  The key issue is what happens when people realise their properties are going under and will effectively be worthless? When does realty sink in ?
> Back to Canberra Times
> *The nightmare scenario for Florida’s coastal homeowners – sea levels rising*
> 
> Apr 21, 2017 Christopher Flavelle
> Play
> 0:01
> /
> _
> On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.
> 
> 
> When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (75 kilometres) or value of the property along that coast ($4.65 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.
> 
> 
> “These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”
> 
> 
> *If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.
> 
> 
> And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.
> 
> http://www.allhomes.com.au/news/the...homeowners-sea-levels-rising-20170421-gvp5t8/*_



Unfortunately your  video did not work.


----------



## explod

Good couple of posts Bas.  Noam Chomsky in particular.

The video worked perfectly for me noco.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> So if we are looking at videos re Climate Change as Liberal Hoax consider the contribution of Noam Chomsky





Bas, I watched that video from the beginning to the end and 99% Noam Chomsky's rhetoric was about USA politics and bugger all about Climate Change......No detail...No graphs and I am a bit bewildered why you even posted it.

Noam Chomsky is a Philosopher and political activist and does not appear to have too much knowledge on Climate Change. 

I hope you watch the video below from beginning to end of which may give you a different perspective of on the this Global Warming scam.....This presentation gives you some real data which debunks all the information presented by alarmists who follow their creed for the sake of funding.


----------



## basilio

The Great Global Warming swindle was a swindle Noco.  A confabulated bunch of distorted graphs, made up non facts and completely false unscientific nonsense. 
It was a creature of the "creation of doubt" brigade that was trying to stop the momentum of the Stern Review which in 2006 announced that climate change was very real and that the economic effects dictated  a whole world response.  The review was commissioned by the British Treasury  and represented the most holistic economic review of the consequences of unabated global warming. "Swindle" was a way of throw mud at the review.

For full details of the lies and misrepresentations on "Swindle" see
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

For an overview of  the Stern Review see
http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
The Wiki article summarises the main points as well as  criticism of the reveiw


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> *Global Warming - Climate Change Facts on the ground
> *
> Perhaps worth looking at how rising sea levels driven by global warming are affecting Florida.
> ...




I find it interesting that your first statement appears to be several joined opinions of facts. (But then that may be just my opinion!)

From your statement, you seem to be of the opinion that sea levels are rising.

You are of the further opinion that Florida is being affected.

You are also of the opinion that global warming is occurring.

And are further opining that global warming is causing rising sea levels.

For all I know, there may exist sound scientific evidence lending support to none, some, or all, of your opinions, the questions for me being the quality of the evidence and its objective interpretation.

About the only facts I am able to espy from your post, are the facts of the existence of opinions, and the fact of the existence of a sensationalised media report echoing those opinions.

 In saying this, I trust it is understood that what I am contesting in this particular post, is not the validity (or lack thereof) of the opined facts. I am, however, questioning the validity of the basis upon which those opinions were formed.  

Given that many conflicting media reports, peer reviewed research papers, scientific opinions etc. exist, what were your bases for determination of which reports and/or opinions to accept?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *Global Warming - Climate Change Facts on the ground
> *
> Perhaps worth looking at how rising sea levels driven by global warming are affecting Florida.  The key issue is what happens when people realise their properties are going under and will effectively be worthless? When does realty sink in ?
> Back to Canberra Times
> *The nightmare scenario for Florida’s coastal homeowners – sea levels rising*
> 
> Apr 21, 2017 Christopher Flavelle
> Play
> 0:01
> /
> _
> On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.
> 
> 
> When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (75 kilometres) or value of the property along that coast ($4.65 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.
> 
> 
> “These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”
> 
> 
> *If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.
> 
> 
> And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.
> 
> http://www.allhomes.com.au/news/the...homeowners-sea-levels-rising-20170421-gvp5t8/*_




Bas, nice post upon which the alarmist will jump on and blame Global Warming.

Now then, I ask the question, are the seas rising or is the ground under Florida and Miami sinking?

If you do some research into their problem you will find that area you talk about is actually sitting on very porous limestone, so porous in fact it is like Swiss Cheese.....That limestone is also  the only source of water supply from the underground fresh water.

Now then, over a period of time that area will experience king tides and every time there is a king tide it intrudes into the limestone.....Salt water and limestone are not a good mix and the salt water will decay the limestone causing it to lower the surface ground level which to all visual appearance will give the impression that the sea levels are rising.

you should ask yourself the question as to why the sea levels are only rising in Florida and Miami?

The same thing is happening in some of the Western Pacific Islands which are based on coral cays and as some corals die off the sea water decays the dead limestone corals causing the island to sink and once again giving the appearance of rising sea levels.......So once again we should ask the question as to why some  island gives the appearance of rising sea levels when islands in the same area are not affected.

http://sciencing.com/effects-rock-salt-limestone-7430286.html


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> I guess it is up to you to prove those video lies......I know you don't like the truth but there is plenty more where those 3 links came from and I will feed you more soon.....\
> Have a ice day.




The dude said the author of that 97% paper retracted this and that claim; he claim they claim they made mistakes in their analysis and that it's actually only 44 [or there about] of the 12000 [?] articles they cited has anything to do with Climate Science. blah blah blah.

So no, it's up to him to prove, to provide references where Cook and others made those retraction. To expect me to take his words or go and read up on all the works and interviews Cook ever made... no thanks.


Here's another mistake he and all deniers [sceptics] are making: That the gov't want to control our lives and are using CC hysteria to enforce it.

Beside the local council controlling tree preservation in your backyard, make sure your sewage goes into the sewage pipe and stormwater into the street... gov't does not give much of a dam about climate change and its impact.

The Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol... it's just some agreement and pinky promise to do something about CC... But mining or fossil fuel or carbon tax or removing subsidies to the fuel industry or tax incentive for serious work into renewables... CC change is not taken seriously.

Imagine being warned that an asteroid is going to it Earth, we'd be sending Bruce Willis or Elon Musk up there to do something. Why? Because those in power won't know where that asteroid is going to hit - might hit their New York towers instead of New Orleans; the North Shore instead of Western Sydney. 

But climate change... we all know who it's going to kill first. It ain't those with money to afford food, shelter, air conditioning, air filters and all the medical care money can buy. 

Then there's the melting artics... it softens up the ice, more economical to finally drill baby drill. Heck, much easier than going through 4 miles of granite that's for sure.

But of course it doesn't end with the poor and brown and black people dying... most of the world's food production came from deltas. Once the sea level rises enough, salt the soil enough... once climate refugees flee into cities and wars and social unrest starts out... maybe arms and security investment will do well... and they all can eat money.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> From your post, it seems that you consider that video to contain a blend of misinformation (i.e. "bs and outright lies").
> 
> Whilst I myself, certainly experienced it as opinionated, I happen to be fairly much in agreement with the overall opinion being expressed, so didn't feel any great need to decry it, despite its apparent subjectivity.
> 
> Given that there were a lot of statements (albeit opinionated) being made, I wonder if there were some things being said that you might, perchance, believe to be true.
> 
> Do you, perchance , believe any of the historical examples, given to highlight some issues surrounding subscription to scientific consensus, to be true?




He got one thing right... consensus aren't always right. 

I kinda told you that before though. That Dr Curry better be a Galileo or those geniuses and all those scientists are praying to Mother Earth their Goddess or something.

The thing about geniuses who successfully challenged the consensus and change the world is that they have something to say and proved it with facts. They have a new model, backed up by scientific research and observation. I don't see that in any of the sceptic's work. And saying "I don't know" ain't good enough.


----------



## basilio

God we can be convulted can't we? Are sea levels risings or is Florida simply sinking ? There is plenty of evidence to show that sea levels are rising around the world and that Florida is simply some of the most expensive Real Estate that is going to be washed into oblivion.

The interesting part about the article I quoted was the realising that financial disaster wouldn't happen when the city actually starts to be awash. (which it arguably is already on a number of occasions).
The plug will be pulled on Florida financially when it starts to become clear that Florida will indeed be submerged and all value in the real estate will disappear.

And of course it won't just be Florida that goes under. Think Shanghai, London, New York etc.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
https://theconversation.com/sea-lev...n-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Bas, nice post upon which the alarmist will jump on and blame Global Warming.
> 
> Now then, I ask the question, are the seas rising or is the ground under Florida and Miami sinking?
> 
> If you do some research into their problem you will find that area you talk about is actually sitting on very porous limestone, so porous in fact it is like Swiss Cheese.....That limestone is also  the only source of water supply from the underground fresh water.
> 
> Now then, over a period of time that area will experience king tides and every time there is a king tide it intrudes into the limestone.....Salt water and limestone are not a good mix and the salt water will decay the limestone causing it to lower the surface ground level which to all visual appearance will give the impression that the sea levels are rising.
> 
> you should ask yourself the question as to why the sea levels are only rising in Florida and Miami?
> 
> The same thing is happening in some of the Western Pacific Islands which are based on coral cays and as some corals die off the sea water decays the dead limestone corals causing the island to sink and once again giving the appearance of rising sea levels.......So once again we should ask the question as to why some  island gives the appearance of rising sea levels when islands in the same area are not affected.
> 
> http://sciencing.com/effects-rock-salt-limestone-7430286.html




New York sinking too noco? How about the few islands in the pacific and indian oceans that's already having water lapping at their feet... remember that funny joke our honorable what's his face was cracking?


----------



## basilio

*The Reality of Global warming - on the ground*

*Arctic climate warming higher and faster than expected*
*Open water in Arctic Ocean affecting weather patterns around world*
By Margo McDiarmid, CBC News Posted: Apr 24, 2017 9:00 PM ET Last Updated: Apr 24, 2017 9:44 PM ET






A polar bear sits on ice in Lancaster Sound. A new report by 90 scientists says Arctic temperatures are rising faster than in the rest of the world, and animals that rely on ice for survival are facing increased stress and disruption. (Jimmy Thomson/CBC)

240 shares





Facebook




*Related Stories*

 Human-influenced extreme weather has been felt across the globe: study 
 A glacial river has a dramatic change of course in Yukon's Kluane Park 
 'It scares me': Permafrost thaw in Canadian Arctic sign of global trend 
 Unusually high number of icebergs affecting shipping lanes in North Atlantic 
 Then and now: Photographers document rapid melting of world's glaciers 
 New wintertime low for Arctic sea ice: scientists 
 The world hit its warmest in 2016 — and it's getting hotter: study 
 Humans aren't the only ones driving Arctic ice loss, study reports 
_A new international report shows that Arctic temperatures are rising higher and faster than expected, and the effects are already being felt around the world.

"The Arctic's climate is shifting to a new state," warns the report.

"This transformation has profound implications for people, resources and ecosystems worldwide."
_
*The Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic assessment was written by more than 90 scientists from around the world who compiled the latest northern research on how climate change is affecting the Arctic ice and ecosystems.*
_
It's part of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program of the Arctic Council, which represents eight circumpolar countries.

Among the findings in this year's report:
_

_The Arctic Ocean could be largely free of sea ice in the summer as early as 2030 or even before that._
_Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as the temperatures in the rest of the world. In the fall of 2016 mean temperatures were six degrees higher than average._
_Thawing permafrost that holds 50 per cent of the world's carbon is already affecting northern infrastructure and could release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere._
_Polar bears, walruses and seals that rely on ice for survival are facing increased stress and disruption._
_Changes in the Arctic may be affecting weather as far away as Southeast Asia._
_ 
"The Arctic is connected to the rest of the planet," said David Barber, who is a leading expert on Arctic ice at the University of Manitoba and one of the authors of the report.

 "We are seeing the first and strongest signs of global warming in the Arctic. We knew this was coming, we knew 30 years ago that it was coming, and it is now here," said Barber in an interview with CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-climate-warming-ice-report-1.4083728
____________________________________________________

And check any of the other URL's in the article to see further examples of our rapidly changing climate_


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> He got one thing right... consensus aren't always right.
> ...



I find it refreshing that you are able to entertain claims to the historical unreliability of consensus.

But is that the only thing he got right?

In accusing him of lying and bs, is there not a burden of proof, upon yourself, consequent to such accusations?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I find it refreshing that you are able to entertain claims to the historical unreliability of consensus.
> 
> But is that the only thing he got right?
> 
> In accusing him of lying and bs, is there not a burden of proof, upon yourself, consequent to such accusations?




I already answer it in my recent reply to noco when he tell me to go prove what the guy lied and bs about.

But let's put it down to gut feel, having a nose for bs, and a brain for believing the climate science scientists over some dude on the internet shall we


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> The dude said the author of that 97% paper retracted this and that claim; he claim they claim they made mistakes in their analysis and that it's actually only 44 [or there about] of the 12000 [?] articles they cited has anything to do with Climate Science. blah blah blah.
> 
> So no, it's up to him to prove, to provide references where Cook and others made those retraction. To expect me to take his words or go and read up on all the works and interviews Cook ever made... no thanks.
> 
> 
> Here's another mistake he and all deniers [sceptics] are making: That the gov't want to control our lives and are using CC hysteria to enforce it.
> 
> Beside the local council controlling tree preservation in your backyard, make sure your sewage goes into the sewage pipe and stormwater into the street... gov't does not give much of a dam about climate change and its impact.
> 
> The Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol... it's just some agreement and pinky promise to do something about CC... But mining or fossil fuel or carbon tax or removing subsidies to the fuel industry or tax incentive for serious work into renewables... CC change is not taken seriously.
> 
> Imagine being warned that an asteroid is going to it Earth, we'd be sending Bruce Willis or Elon Musk up there to do something. Why? Because those in power won't know where that asteroid is going to hit - might hit their New York towers instead of New Orleans; the North Shore instead of Western Sydney.
> 
> But climate change... we all know who it's going to kill first. It ain't those with money to afford food, shelter, air conditioning, air filters and all the medical care money can buy.
> 
> Then there's the melting artics... it softens up the ice, more economical to finally drill baby drill. Heck, much easier than going through 4 miles of granite that's for sure.
> 
> But of course it doesn't end with the poor and brown and black people dying... most of the world's food production came from deltas. Once the sea level rises enough, salt the soil enough... once climate refugees flee into cities and wars and social unrest starts out... maybe arms and security investment will do well... and they all can eat money.





Oh dear, what a weak response Luu......You are getting worse than ever.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I already answer it in my recent reply to noco when he tell me to go prove what the guy lied and bs about.
> 
> But let's put it down to gut feel, having a nose for bs, and a brain for believing the climate science scientists over some dude on the internet shall we




Frankly, nothing has to be proved any more, itis all there for you. 

Hey Luu, there was more than one dude as you call them...Now you are working on gut feelings....where do you feel it most?...in your water?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Oh dear, what a weak response Luu......You are getting worse than ever.




I'm surprised I lasted this long on this topic noco. 

Running out of sarcasm so might start swearing soon.. .and I only know a couple of swear words. 

Know how that recent TC Debbie was forecasted to hit the Townsville area and your place was within its eye? Then as it moves further inland it swerve further south of Townsville?

How do you reckon the satellite was able to predict so accurately a weather event like that? From the same sort of climate science and scientists who's warning us about CC. 

The same group of people who could build instruments and models to predict the daily weather pretty accurately just somehow have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the weather.


----------



## basilio

*The reality of Global Warming - what happens when it gets really hot.
*

*World saw record temperatures in 2016 — and it's getting warmer: study*
*Climate change contributed to Fort McMurray's devastating wildfire, meteorological organization says*
By Laura Fraser, CBC News Posted: Mar 21, 2017 2:06 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 23, 2017 1:15 PM ET





Smoke and flames from the wildfires can be seen behind a car on a highway near Fort McMurray, Alta. (Mark Blinch/Reuters)

1761 shares






*Laura Fraser*
Digital Journalist, CBC Toronto

*Related Stories*
The world experienced its hottest year in 2016, a trend that contributed to the wildfires that decimated parts of Alberta and appears to already be worsening, according to a global analysis released Tuesday.

*Record heat pushing us to the melting point?*
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that temperatures increased consistently around the globe last year — hitting 1.1 C above the pre-industrial era — with even higher fluctuations in the Arctic.

And the early data for 2017 shows that the earth continues to get warmer
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-record-temperatures-1.4034449


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> *The reality of Global Warming - what happens when it gets really hot.
> *
> 
> *World saw record temperatures in 2016 — and it's getting warmer: study*
> *Climate change contributed to Fort McMurray's devastating wildfire, meteorological organization says*
> By Laura Fraser, CBC News Posted: Mar 21, 2017 2:06 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 23, 2017 1:15 PM ET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke and flames from the wildfires can be seen behind a car on a highway near Fort McMurray, Alta. (Mark Blinch/Reuters)
> 
> 1761 shares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Laura Fraser*
> Digital Journalist, CBC Toronto
> 
> *Related Stories*
> The world experienced its hottest year in 2016, a trend that contributed to the wildfires that decimated parts of Alberta and appears to already be worsening, according to a global analysis released Tuesday.
> 
> *Record heat pushing us to the melting point?*
> The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that temperatures increased consistently around the globe last year — hitting 1.1 C above the pre-industrial era — with even higher fluctuations in the Arctic.
> 
> And the early data for 2017 shows that the earth continues to get warmer
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-record-temperatures-1.4034449





In that Ted Cruz Senate hearing cynic posted, teddy doubts CC because the past few years were cold instead of hot. 

Now that it's hit record rising temperature, I wonder if Teddy there have changed his mind or he's still a "sceptic".


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I already answer it in my recent reply to noco when he tell me to go prove what the guy lied and bs about.
> 
> But let's put it down to gut feel, having a nose for bs, and a brain for believing the climate science scientists over some dude on the internet shall we




So if I were to directly accuse you of lies and bs, would it be reasonable for me to disavow any responsibility, for evidencing the basis for my accusations, when called upon to do so?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So if I were to directly accuse you of lies and bs, would it be reasonable for me to disavow any responsibility, for evidencing the basis for my accusations, when called upon to do so?




If you have already caught me on that bs and lies before, explain why you think I'm full of it... then the second time round when I repeat the same bs... there's no need to explain again.

Like I said, I've read the original article that guy referred to; have discussed it on this very threat before. So it's pretty reasonable for me to call bs when another guy made up stuff about the paper and its author I haven't read in the same paper he claimed to also have read; and he didn't provide any link or reference to his claims of retraction by Cook etc. etc.

Stop with these nonsense mate. You're pulling a Ted Cruz dude.

Hmm.. .mr smarty pants, I'm not a scientist but a sell out politician being given his talking points... so how dare you say climate change flooding poor neighbourhood, driving up food prices, washing away the poor's only livelihood and possibly all their life's savings... how can you as a scientist say that the fact that CC will affect poor and minority population being "close to debate".

I know it's obvious that it'll kill poor people first, but that conclusion being "close to debate", beyond doubt?... that's not scientific at all sir, so your climate hysteria is not scientific at all now is it? You cannot close anything to debate.

What a douche. At least he's paid to be a prick. What's your excuse?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *The reality of Global Warming - what happens when it gets really hot.
> *
> 
> *World saw record temperatures in 2016 — and it's getting warmer: study*
> *Climate change contributed to Fort McMurray's devastating wildfire, meteorological organization says*
> By Laura Fraser, CBC News Posted: Mar 21, 2017 2:06 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 23, 2017 1:15 PM ET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke and flames from the wildfires can be seen behind a car on a highway near Fort McMurray, Alta. (Mark Blinch/Reuters)
> 
> 1761 shares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Laura Fraser*
> Digital Journalist, CBC Toronto
> 
> *Related Stories*
> The world experienced its hottest year in 2016, a trend that contributed to the wildfires that decimated parts of Alberta and appears to already be worsening, according to a global analysis released Tuesday.
> 
> *Record heat pushing us to the melting point?*
> The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that temperatures increased consistently around the globe last year — hitting 1.1 C above the pre-industrial era — with even higher fluctuations in the Arctic.
> 
> And the early data for 2017 shows that the earth continues to get warmer
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-record-temperatures-1.4034449



 No Bas, all pointers are saying there has been no Global Warming for 18 years and 9 months...Did you not read my previous posts and links?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I'm surprised I lasted this long on this topic noco.
> 
> Running out of sarcasm so might start swearing soon.. .and I only know a couple of swear words.
> 
> Know how that recent TC Debbie was forecasted to hit the Townsville area and your place was within its eye? Then as it moves further inland it swerve further south of Townsville?
> 
> How do you reckon the satellite was able to predict so accurately a weather event like that? From the same sort of climate science and scientists who's warning us about CC.
> 
> The same group of people who could build instruments and models to predict the daily weather pretty accurately just somehow have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the weather.




Hey mate , I have been through 4 cyclones since Althea in 1971...How many have you been through?
My mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897...They lost their house in a horrific cyclone in 1908.....So what is new.....I am all ears.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Hey mate , I have been through 4 cyclones since Althea in 1971...How many have you been through?
> My mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897...They lost their house in a horrific cyclone in 1908.....So what is new.....I am all ears.




No one's saying bad weather is new. 

What's new is its magnitude and the high frequency it's occuring. Like a decade weather event occuring every year; or a thousand year event occuring in less than 1 decade, and all at once across a few US states last year or so.

Don't know noco, if I had witnessed, or my family had lost their home, in a cyclone or a drought... I'd thank the people who's trying to warn that that kind of weather will get more severe, more frequent if such and such aren't done.

For one, they mean well. For two, they got nothing to gain from being right. In fact, they'd have a better chance of being right if they put it out there and walk away, coming back later to tell us they've told us so.

But instead of looking at scientists, you somehow want to believe the freaking oil and fossil industry who's saying... don't worry about it, it's not happening, not going to happen, just keep on using the stuff we have plenty of to make us richer.

And if you, or they, are wrong and people die? Opps?

If the climate scientists are wrong? What would happen? Oh, new jobs, new industry, renewable energy that would last practically forever... and clean water, fresh air.

Dam those scheming watermelon! Wanting us to live well. No thank you!


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> No one's saying bad weather is new.
> 
> What's new is its magnitude and the high frequency it's occuring. Like a decade weather event occuring every year; or a thousand year event occuring in less than 1 decade, and all at once across a few US states last year or so.
> 
> Don't know noco, if I had witnessed, or my family had lost their home, in a cyclone or a drought... I'd thank the people who's trying to warn that that kind of weather will get more severe, more frequent if such and such aren't done.
> 
> For one, they mean well. For two, they got nothing to gain from being right. In fact, they'd have a better chance of being right if they put it out there and walk away, coming back later to tell us they've told us so.
> 
> But instead of looking at scientists, you somehow want to believe the freaking oil and fossil industry who's saying... don't worry about it, it's not happening, not going to happen, just keep on using the stuff we have plenty of to make us richer.
> 
> And if you, or they, are wrong and people die? Opps?
> 
> If the climate scientists are wrong? What would happen? Oh, new jobs, new industry, renewable energy that would last practically forever... and clean water, fresh air.
> 
> Dam those scheming watermelon! Wanting us to live well. No thank you!




Luu.you don't really know what you are talking about.......We have had as many a 5 cyclones here in NQ in one season.....some close to Cat 5 and others around cat 2or 3 ....This talk about them becoming more severe is just hear say to make the Green Global Warming alarmist feel good....

I have probably lived in the area long before you were born and reminisce well back in the early 30's and witnessed many extreme events from cyclones, floods, drought and fire, so nothing is really new that you keep on harping about.

Say it often enough and the naive will believe you.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> If you have already caught me on that bs and lies before, explain why you think I'm full of it... then the second time round when I repeat the same bs... there's no need to explain again.
> 
> Like I said, I've read the original article that guy referred to; have discussed it on this very threat before. So it's pretty reasonable for me to call bs when another guy made up stuff about the paper and its author I haven't read in the same paper he claimed to also have read; and he didn't provide any link or reference to his claims of retraction by Cook etc. etc.
> 
> Stop with these nonsense mate. You're pulling a Ted Cruz dude.
> 
> Hmm.. .mr smarty pants, I'm not a scientist but a sell out politician being given his talking points... so how dare you say climate change flooding poor neighbourhood, driving up food prices, washing away the poor's only livelihood and possibly all their life's savings... how can you as a scientist say that the fact that CC will affect poor and minority population being "close to debate".
> 
> I know it's obvious that it'll kill poor people first, but that conclusion being "close to debate", beyond doubt?... that's not scientific at all sir, so your climate hysteria is not scientific at all now is it? You cannot close anything to debate.
> 
> What a douche. At least he's paid to be a prick. What's your excuse?



So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?

Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?

If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?

By the way, just so that you know, I am not seeking another tiresome repetition of the "even if my reasoning were somehow wrong, you're still going to be better off by taking my advice" style justification.   

This is simply my opinion, but the stances people take in debates, sometimes become akin to "I know I am right! Therefore you are wrong!!"

Can you see how some might interpret your responses to criticism, of the purported consensus, as your very own personal brand of "bs"?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luu.you don't really know what you are talking about.......We have had as many a 5 cyclones here in NQ in one season.....some close to Cat 5 and others around cat 2or 3 ....This talk about them becoming more severe is just hear say to make the Green Global Warming alarmist feel good....
> 
> Say it often enough and the naive will believe you.




Yup, and if they happen more frequently, you'd be saying it happens all of the time, every month so what's the big deal.

Anyway... nothing to worry about.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?
> 
> Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?
> 
> If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?
> 
> By the way, just so that you know, I am not seeking another tiresome repetition of the "even if my reasoning were somehow wrong, you're still going to be better off by taking my advice" style justification.
> 
> This is simply my opinion, but the stances people take in debates, sometimes become akin to "I know I am right! Therefore you are wrong!!"
> 
> Can you see how some might interpret your responses to criticism, of the purported consensus, as your very own personal brand of "bs"?




That Moyleux guy says Cook and others admitted they were wrong about that 97% count. Didn't he?

He claim that Cook and others admit to all those 1200 [12000?] papers aren't at all related to climate science; that Cook admitted to falsely classifying them and they later admit that it was only 44 or something paper in their sample; 

He claims that there are no methodology in their paper; that they hid away their data so we won't find out.

I've read the paper he's talking about, and yea, Moyleux just made those up. 

And no, the climate scientist's warning being good for us either way is not to say that they're wrong... It is to say that they have no personal economic interests saying what they're saying. 

You're listening to oil salesman telling you that it's all fine and good to keep buying and using their oil. Don't worry about it, it's harmless.

Did you also take the tobacco industry's advise on the health benefit of smoking too?

Your honor, who's to know whether smoking causes cancer or not; there are examples of very old people who smoke all their lives and have no problem. Most smokers suffer ill health, but we're sceptical.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> No one's saying bad weather is new.
> 
> What's new is its magnitude and the high frequency it's occuring. Like a decade weather event occuring every year; or a thousand year event occuring in less than 1 decade, and all at once across a few US states last year or so.
> 
> Don't know noco, if I had witnessed, or my family had lost their home, in a cyclone or a drought... I'd thank the people who's trying to warn that that kind of weather will get more severe, more frequent if such and such aren't done.
> 
> For one, they mean well. For two, they got nothing to gain from being right. In fact, they'd have a better chance of being right if they put it out there and walk away, coming back later to tell us they've told us so.
> 
> But instead of looking at scientists, you somehow want to believe the freaking oil and fossil industry who's saying... don't worry about it, it's not happening, not going to happen, just keep on using the stuff we have plenty of to make us richer.
> 
> And if you, or they, are wrong and people die? Opps?
> 
> If the climate scientists are wrong? What would happen? Oh, new jobs, new industry, renewable energy that would last practically forever... and clean water, fresh air.
> 
> Dam those scheming watermelon! Wanting us to live well. No thank you!





luutzu said:


> Yup, and if they happen more frequently, you'd be saying it happens all of the time, every month so what's the big deal.
> 
> Anyway... nothing to worry about.




For your information and lack of knowledge, the cyclone season in NQ can run from November to April and not every month...

You are really getting desperate now to have the final word....What is next Luu?


----------



## noco

How Global Warming is explained to the dummies.


----------



## noco

The true facts about Global Warming......There is lots more from where this came from.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> That Moyleux guy says Cook and others admitted they were wrong about that 97% count. Didn't he?
> 
> He claim that Cook and others admit to all those 1200 [12000?] papers aren't at all related to climate science; that Cook admitted to falsely classifying them and they later admit that it was only 44 or something paper in their sample;
> 
> He claims that there are no methodology in their paper; that they hid away their data so we won't find out.
> 
> I've read the paper he's talking about, and yea, Moyleux just made those up.
> 
> And no, the climate scientist's warning being good for us either way is not to say that they're wrong... It is to say that they have no personal economic interests saying what they're saying.
> 
> You're listening to oil salesman telling you that it's all fine and good to keep buying and using their oil. Don't worry about it, it's harmless.
> 
> Did you also take the tobacco industry's advise on the health benefit of smoking too?
> 
> Your honor, who's to know whether smoking causes cancer or not; there are examples of very old people who smoke all their lives and have no problem. Most smokers suffer ill health, but we're sceptical.




It so happens that a dear friend of mine celebrated her 85th birthday earlier this year. She's been smoking on a daily basis, for the entirety of her adult life, and is more physically active than many non smokers half her age! But  the populace sure does pester her with their insistence about it being unwise. Perhaps it is unhealthy, but she happens to have managed her life very well despite the perceived risks.

However, in answer to your question, no, I believe it pays to exercise discernment when viewing any proferred information, irrespective of the level of altruism underlying the agenda. 

i.e. the evangelical preacher wants to save my immortal soul from eternal damnation! What an altruist! My supermarket wants to sell me groceries, including vitamins and specialised health foods, solely for reasons of profit! So selfish! 

These probably aren't the best examples, but I hope you see what I am getting at here. In my experience, whenever something is being marketed, whether it be a material product, a philosophy or an opinion, there is, almost invariably, the presence of an underlying agenda.

Whilst the presence of an agenda can conceivably undermine the integrity of the marketed product, giving rise to the need for discernment, it needn't necessarily be the main issue. Before spurning the offerings of my supermarket, and donning ashes and sackcloth at the behest of my preacher, I consider it prudent to ponder matters, just a little more deeply, lest I make a costly mistake.

In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?

I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.

You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.

Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.

By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made. 

Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.


----------



## GlobeTrekker

cynic said:


> So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?
> 
> Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?
> 
> If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?



Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view?  By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?

Seriously, 97%!  Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease.  You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world.  Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon.  Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option?  Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> ...
> 
> I hope you watch the video below from beginning to end of which may give you a different perspective of on the this Global Warming scam.....This presentation gives you some real data which debunks all the information presented by alarmists who follow their creed for the sake of funding.




AAAAAAAAARRRRGH!!  Zombie Videos!!!

Wayne posted a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle to ASF way way back when it was new and maybe even Noco was young and I was just old enough to get into An Inconvenient Truth and ignorant enough to think that everyone who talked about global climate was interested in finding the truth of it. I've learnt a bit about climate science and a lot about climate change denial since then. I'm grateful for the science. I'm desperately sad about the denial.

As for Swindle: it was well named.
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


----------



## noco

GlobeTrekker said:


> Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view?  By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?
> 
> Seriously, 97%!  Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease.  You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world.  Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon.  Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option?  Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?




Globe Trekker, how many times do I have to post on this thread about that 97%....It is a farce and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.......Just watch the videos and then make your comments.

I have also posted lots of videos which illustrates the difference between the Alarmists modelling and the actual happenings.......In those videos, if you care to watch them, you will learn from the graphic illustrations just what I mean.

BTW how have you come up with the videos being zombie videos?...Instead of making unfounded terse remarks perhaps you should explain yourself as to the reason why you made that statement


----------



## ghotib

cynic said:


> ... In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?
> 
> I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.
> 
> You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.
> 
> Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.
> 
> By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made.
> 
> Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.



Cynic, You don't need to waste Luutzu's time getting him to walk you through the process of Cook et al. (2013). Not only does the paper itself describe the methods, but the authors have published everything you need to try out the rating process for yourself. You might even enjoy some contact with real science as a change from the hand waving armchair abstractions you like to share with ASF. 

The 97% consensus figure does not come from only one paper. But you probably know that.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It so happens that a dear friend of mine celebrated her 85th birthday earlier this year. She's been smoking on a daily basis, for the entirety of her adult life, and is more physically active than many non smokers half her age! But  the populace sure does pester her with their insistence about it being unwise. Perhaps it is unhealthy, but she happens to have managed her life very well despite the perceived risks.
> 
> However, in answer to your question, no, I believe it pays to exercise discernment when viewing any proferred information, irrespective of the level of altruism underlying the agenda.
> 
> i.e. the evangelical preacher wants to save my immortal soul from eternal damnation! What an altruist! My supermarket wants to sell me groceries, including vitamins and specialised health foods, solely for reasons of profit! So selfish!
> 
> These probably aren't the best examples, but I hope you see what I am getting at here. In my experience, whenever something is being marketed, whether it be a material product, a philosophy or an opinion, there is, almost invariably, the presence of an underlying agenda.
> 
> Whilst the presence of an agenda can conceivably undermine the integrity of the marketed product, giving rise to the need for discernment, it needn't necessarily be the main issue. Before spurning the offerings of my supermarket, and donning ashes and sackcloth at the behest of my preacher, I consider it prudent to ponder matters, just a little more deeply, lest I make a costly mistake.
> 
> In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?
> 
> I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.
> 
> You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.
> 
> Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.
> 
> By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made.
> 
> Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.




My paternal grandfather smoked all his life since he was a teen, he died of old age at 92. My wife's great grandfather smoked since he was in his preteen, he passed away at 101 years of age.

My maternal grandfather on the other hand, died of lung cancer at 55; my own father almost lost his life due to smoking.

Should I look at these four examples and say it's more about genetic, exercise than smoking poisonous chemical?


As to this scepticism about the 97% "consensus"... It's not a consensus in that scientists getting together and vote on it. No peer pressure and kickbacks from the UN and China [yea, it's also a Chinese hoax too].

It became a consensus because a study of all the various published research on climate science showed that 97% of them came to the same conclusion.

Do you realise the scientific, mathematical, probabilistic significance of that?

That almost all papers published at different times, on different aspect of the climate, by different authors, across the world... came to the same conclusion. What are the chances of that being an accident? A fraud?

It's like me giving thousands of arborists different samples from different part of your tree. They analysed it and 97% says the tree's cactus. Then your councilor says.. .what about the other 3%? I'm still a bit sceptical as to the health of your tree because it's still standing and 3% aren't sure.

You'd say what to that councillor? Well fark head, one of those 3% didn't conclude either way because the sample weren't clear to them; the other 2% are either your mamma or retards.


As to the "costs" of being "alarmist".

Did any climate scientist ever say to stop fossil fuel right now, go dark and move back to our caves?

They're saying that if we keep going the way we have, the world will face catastrophic weather events. So we better start to move towards clean and renewable sources.

So using your examples about intention and agendas.... will a clean, renewable and eventually cheap, sources of energy a good or a bad thing?

Does it make sense to be so dependent on a finite resource that will run out in a hundred or so years? Will become ever more expensive and destructive to find and extract? And further add to pollution in both the sea, air, land, ocean.

I've already discussed that paper here before, look it up. Or search and read the original for yourself to see if that guy was honest or not.


----------



## luutzu

GlobeTrekker said:


> Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view?  By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?
> 
> Seriously, 97%!  Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease.  You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world.  Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon.  Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option?  Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?




And the weird thing is, the economic costs will be much less than staying with fossil but some still just don't want to risk it.

I guess there is such a thing as being too careful.

Take solar energy... the sun will always be there as far as human live is concern. Technology will mean it will get cheaper, more efficient. The Sun being a source of energy that's available everywhere on earth - no need to dig, mine, find, extract, transport... 

It's just insane.


----------



## cynic

GlobeTrekker said:


> Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view?  By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?
> ...



There is no absolute certainty yet on many theories. Unprecedented actions taken, based upon misinformation, do hold the potential to prove costly in unexpected ways.

If you don't understand what I am driving at here, consider the implications of racing into a new, and previously, unknown situation, based upon faulty information, about the theorised risk of inaction.

The consequences cannot truly be quantified, due to the lack of certainty underlying the basis for action, and the action in and of itself.
At times, I've made reference to some of the things that are being overlooked in these calls to action!
In particular the possibility that, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, arose consequent to a natural biological (rather than artificial technological) necessity.
Concerns about the impacts of a sudden widespread implementation of "renewable energy" technology, have also been alluded to within some posts.

Whilst a theory is uncertain, and proposed actions unprecedented, how can anyone, truly claim to be able to make valid risk assessments?

My evangelical preacher analogy was introduced to highlight(amongst other things) an obvious issue with the "we'd all better do something, just in case it turns out to be true!" assertion.

There are so many people eagerly making that same "just in case" assertion, and yet so few queuing for the confessional!

But then again, unlike some of the unprecedented actions being proposed, confession is a well established practice. So a trip to the confessional probably wouldn't do too much harm, you know "just in case"


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> There is no absolute certainty yet on many theories. Unprecedented actions taken, based upon misinformation, do hold the potential to prove costly in unexpected ways.
> 
> If you don't understand what I am driving at here, consider the implications of racing into a new, and previously, unknown situation, based upon faulty information, about the theorised risk of inaction.
> 
> The consequences cannot truly be quantified, due to the lack of certainty underlying the basis for action, and the action in and of itself.
> At times, I've made reference to some of the things that are being overlooked in these calls to action!
> In particular the possibility that, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, arose consequent to a natural biological (rather than artificial technological) necessity.
> Concerns about the impacts of a sudden widespread implementation of "renewable energy" technology, have also been alluded to within some posts.
> 
> Whilst a theory is uncertain, and proposed actions unprecedented, how can anyone, truly claim to be able to make valid risk assessments?
> 
> My evangelical preacher analogy was introduced to highlight(amongst other things) an obvious issue with the "we'd all better do something, just in case it turns out to be true!" assertion.
> 
> There are so many people eagerly making that same "just in case" assertion, and yet so few queuing for the confessional!
> 
> But then again, unlike some of the unprecedented actions being proposed, confession is a well established practice. So a trip to the confessional probably wouldn't do too much harm, you know "just in case"




What!

Climate Scientists are saying CC is real, is happening, will get worst.

Part of the argument people like myself are making, and it is only part of it, done for argument's sake, is that even IF, if CC is a hoax; IF it won't be as bad as is predicted, having cheap, renewable source of energy; clean air and water isn't a bad thing either.

Anyway...


----------



## cynic

ghotib said:


> Cynic, You don't need to waste Luutzu's time getting him to walk you through the process of Cook et al. (2013). Not only does the paper itself describe the methods, but the authors have published everything you need to try out the rating process for yourself. You might even enjoy some contact with real science as a change from the hand waving armchair abstractions you like to share with ASF.
> 
> The 97% consensus figure does not come from only one paper. But you probably know that.



My understanding is that, contrary to the insistence of many alarmists, consensus isn't science.


luutzu said:


> What!
> 
> Climate Scientists are saying CC is real, is happening, will get worst.
> 
> Part of the argument people like myself are making, and it is only part of it, done for argument's sake, is that even IF, if CC is a hoax; IF it won't be as bad as is predicted, having cheap, renewable source of energy; clean air and water isn't a bad thing either.
> 
> Anyway...



What scientists may or may not have opined, and what scientists have been able to prove, are, to my understanding, distinctly separate things. And I am really, for reasons already stated, not at all impressed by these lame "action will be beneficial even if we're wrong" type justifications.

Some scientists in climate related fields may believe the things you say, others may not!

Is there even a consensus of agreement, on the criteria used, to categorise a person as belonging within the field of climate science?

I was hoping that, this question, amongst others, might be answered during our exploration of Cook's consensus determining process.

Surely, in the absence of rigorous scientific proof, the questions surrounding what may or may not be happening, would need to remain open!

My reason for inviting you to step me through the process that Cook et al. used to produce his paper, was to ensure that we are both referring to the same information whilst discussing concerns, about said consensus, and its construction, thereby improving our prospects of resolving this impasse.

Whilst I do recall mention of the paper, throughout these years, I do not recall seeing any specific explorations of its process of construction, by your good self.

Given your passionate defense, of the purported consensus, and your eagerness to extol the virtues of this religion, I am just a little perplexed by your reluctance to accept my invitation.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> My understanding is that, contrary to the insistence of many alarmists, consensus isn't science.
> 
> What scientists may or may not have opined, and what scientists have been able to prove, are, to my understanding, distinctly separate things. And I am really, for reasons already stated, not at all impressed by these lame "action will be beneficial even if we're wrong" type justifications.
> 
> Some scientists in climate related fields may believe the things you say, others may not!
> 
> Is there even a consensus of agreement, on the criteria used, to categorise a person as belonging within the field of climate science?
> 
> I was hoping that, this question, amongst others, might be answered during our exploration of Cook's consensus determining process.
> 
> Surely, in the absence of rigorous scientific proof, the questions surrounding what may or may not be happening, would need to remain open!
> 
> My reason for inviting you to step me through the process that Cook et al. used to produce his paper, was to ensure that we are both referring to the same information whilst discussing concerns, about said consensus, and its construction, thereby improving our prospects of resolving this impasse.
> 
> Whilst I do recall mention of the paper, throughout these years, I do not recall seeing any specific explorations of its process of construction, by your good self.
> 
> Given your passionate defense, of the purported consensus, and your eagerness to extol the virtues of this religion, I am just a little perplexed by your reluctance to accept my invitation.




Should ask noco for the links, or maybe use the search feature. Or better yet, read the research yourself. 

Again, repeating it again here... it was not a polling, dial in, tick the box, raise your hand kind of "consensus". Cook and others did a simple literature review of Climate Science studies - I can't remember whether it was all research that has ever been done, but it was a substantial amount.

They had a set criteria of whose paper would be consider in the count. Such criteria includes publishing x amount of papers on climate science in peer-reviewed journals; maybe also include how much kickback China and Green Peace donate to them, don't know, go check it out.

Then they tallied up the conclusions as they understand it from the abstract. They further contacted the original researchers to as for confirmation as to whether this understanding of their conclusion is correct.

Then they report the findings... that came to what you'd call a "consensus" of 97%.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Only paid spokesmans for the fossil industry, and their fellow sceptics, managed to spin that "consensus" into a ... oh, so science need a consesus now...

anyway, have fun man.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Should ask noco for the links, or maybe use the search feature. Or better yet, read the research yourself.
> 
> Again, repeating it again here... it was not a polling, dial in, tick the box, raise your hand kind of "consensus". Cook and others did a simple literature review of Climate Science studies - I can't remember whether it was all research that has ever been done, but it was a substantial amount.
> 
> They had a set criteria of whose paper would be consider in the count. Such criteria includes publishing x amount of papers on climate science in peer-reviewed journals; maybe also include how much kickback China and Green Peace donate to them, don't know, go check it out.
> 
> Then they tallied up the conclusions as they understand it from the abstract. They further contacted the original researchers to as for confirmation as to whether this understanding of their conclusion is correct.
> 
> Then they report the findings... that came to what you'd call a "consensus" of 97%.
> 
> Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> Only paid spokesmans for the fossil industry, and their fellow sceptics, managed to spin that "consensus" into a ... oh, so science need a consesus now...
> 
> anyway, have fun man.



So they had a set of criteria! That's great!

What were the criteria?

And how were those criteria applied?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> And the weird thing is, the economic costs will be much less than staying with fossil but some still just don't want to risk it.
> 
> I guess there is such a thing as being too careful.
> 
> Take solar energy... the sun will always be there as far as human live is concern. Technology will mean it will get cheaper, more efficient. The Sun being a source of energy that's available everywhere on earth - no need to dig, mine, find, extract, transport...
> 
> It's just insane.




It is a shame the Sun does not shine 24 hours per day and of course don't forget those real cloudy days....What happens then?


----------



## noco

The great 97% consensus fraud.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> So they had a set of criteria! That's great!
> 
> What were the criteria?
> 
> And how were those criteria applied?




Of course there are criteria. They're not Faux News and just ask any idiot on the street or any TVs weather person what they think causes CC.

Like I said, if you do not believe the validity of their methodology, go right ahead and reason why they're wrong and are defrauding all of us.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> It is a shame the Sun does not shine 24 hours per day and of course don't forget those real cloudy days....What happens then?




8 to 10 hours a day is more than enough noco.

Cloudy days... there are no shut down or maintenance at coal powered stations? No delay or disruption to coal supplies? And coals will last forever?

Imagine the potential of just solar power alone. One day's energy from the Sun could power the entire world's energy need. It's delivered directly to our door everyday, free of charge. 

Naaa... what if it's cloudy that day. Let's go and search for more coal, frack more gas, drill, dig, mine and build pipelines and rail and ships and all that... 

Florida is "sinking" and so major parts of the city floods with the tide. There's a project costing $400M to build pumps and pipes and raise certain roads. Under the most optimistic scenario, all that work would keep those streets dry for about 50 years. Woo hoo!

There are plans in NY, if it's not already started, to build sea walls and emergency pump stations to its critical infrastructures... costing, from memory, about $100Billion. 

Yup, $100B is the best use of resources to keep things as dry as they were, hopefully. 

But ey, why risk being wrong about the existence or severity of CC.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Of course there are criteria. They're not Faux News and just ask any idiot on the street or any TVs weather person what they think causes CC.
> 
> Like I said, if you do not believe the validity of their methodology, go right ahead and reason why they're wrong and are defrauding all of us.



And the criteria were...?


----------



## cynic

Okay Luutzu.

I just had a quick glance at a research paper claiming to have been authored by Cook et al.

I am concerned that I might be looking at the wrong one!

The paper that I am looking at, has admitted to only having found 34.8% endorsement, of AGW, by the 29083 authors, of the 11944 papers under consideration.

Also note that the criteria do not allow for the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW. (i.e some scientists counted into endorsement, may believe there is some AGW, whilst not seeing it as a significant problem).

Aside from the obvious problems (namely absence of the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW, and the subjective nature of the selection criteria used for determining which papers to accept into consideration), the findings within that paper cannot logically support the alarmist claims of a 97% consensus of scientific agreement with their apacolyptic assertions.

That cannot be the same paper that you claim to have read now! Can it?

Hence my reason for asking you to step me through it!

So which paper did you actually read?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Okay Luutzu.
> 
> I just had a quick glance at a research paper claiming to have been authored by Cook et al.
> 
> I am concerned that I might be looking at the wrong one!
> 
> The paper that I am looking at, has admitted to only having found 34.8% endorsement, of AGW, by the 29083 authors, of the 11944 papers under consideration.
> 
> Also note that the criteria do not allow for the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW. (i.e some scientists counted into endorsement, may believe there is some AGW, whilst not seeing it as a significant problem).
> 
> Aside from the obvious problems (namely absence of the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW, and the subjective nature of the selection criteria used for determining which papers to accept into consideration), the findings within that paper cannot logically support the alarmist claims of a 97% consensus of scientific agreement with their apacolyptic assertions.
> 
> That cannot be the same paper that you claim to have read now! Can it?
> 
> Hence my reason for asking you to step me through it!
> 
> So which paper did you actually read?





Yup. Cool.

Busy now matey. Got to deal with Council regarding the stormwater plan and getting an easement on the neighbour's property. 

Why I don't know. The land still freaking slope to the neighbour's as it always had; my freaking roof will now take most of that water to the street for them... but if I touch the land I now need to magically prevent rainwater on the ground from going onto their site. 

Whatever happen to the good old days when my parent's neighbour just poke his stormwater pipe onto our land?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> 8 to 10 hours a day is more than enough noco.
> 
> Cloudy days... there are no shut down or maintenance at coal powered stations? No delay or disruption to coal supplies? And coals will last forever?
> 
> Imagine the potential of just solar power alone. One day's energy from the Sun could power the entire world's energy need. It's delivered directly to our door everyday, free of charge.
> 
> Naaa... what if it's cloudy that day. Let's go and search for more coal, frack more gas, drill, dig, mine and build pipelines and rail and ships and all that...
> 
> Florida is "sinking" and so major parts of the city floods with the tide. There's a project costing $400M to build pumps and pipes and raise certain roads. Under the most optimistic scenario, all that work would keep those streets dry for about 50 years. Woo hoo!
> 
> There are plans in NY, if it's not already started, to build sea walls and emergency pump stations to its critical infrastructures... costing, from memory, about $100Billion.
> 
> Yup, $100B is the best use of resources to keep things as dry as they were, hopefully.
> 
> But ey, why risk being wrong about the existence or severity of CC.




And the cost to replace the Solar panels in 25 years will be how much?

And if they ever develop a large enough battery storage the replacement in 7 years will cost how much?

No on going cost hey.

$2 billion to build a 350MW solar farm....$5billion to build a coal fired 1600MW power station that will last 50 to 60 years......$9.14 billion to build a 1600 MW solar farm that lasts 25 years...Then probably cost twice as much again to replace the spent solar panels in 25 years ........simple arithmetic for a 3rd grade kid at school.


----------



## Junior

noco said:


> And the cost to replace the Solar panels in 25 years will be how much?
> 
> And if they ever develop a large enough battery storage the replacement in 7 years will cost how much?
> 
> No on going cost hey.
> 
> $2 billion to build a 350MW solar farm....$5billion to build a coal fired 1600MW power station that will last 50 to 60 years......$9.14 billion to build a 1600 MW solar farm that lasts 25 years...Then probably cost twice as much again to replace the spent solar panels in 25 years ........simple arithmetic for a 3rd grade kid at school.




What about running costs?

Solar is getting cheaper every year, coal is not.  There will be a break-even point, if we haven't already reached it.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> And the cost to replace the Solar panels in 25 years will be how much?
> 
> And if they ever develop a large enough battery storage the replacement in 7 years will cost how much?
> 
> No on going cost hey.
> 
> $2 billion to build a 350MW solar farm....$5billion to build a coal fired 1600MW power station that will last 50 to 60 years......$9.14 billion to build a 1600 MW solar farm that lasts 25 years...Then probably cost twice as much again to replace the spent solar panels in 25 years ........simple arithmetic for a 3rd grade kid at school.




Fossil based fuel will get more expensive. It's a finite source and the easiest, most abundant, most economical places to get them are already being mined and extracted. So prices will go up and up as supplies deplete and new infrastructure to get them need to be built etc. etc.

Solar will always be there; the technology will improve and economy of scale will kick in once it's widely adopted.

You're not counting the costs to the environment, the miners, the people who breathe in its toxic fumes every day.

And IF all those scientists are right about fossil playing a major part in climate change, melting ice, rising sea, drought etc. I guess those costs are other people's problem so who cares.


----------



## noco

Junior said:


> What about running costs?
> 
> Solar is getting cheaper every year, coal is not.  There will be a break-even point, if we haven't already reached it.




So figures are you basing your assumption on.....Back up please.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Fossil based fuel will get more expensive. It's a finite source and the easiest, most abundant, most economical places to get them are already being mined and extracted. So prices will go up and up as supplies deplete and new infrastructure to get them need to be built etc. etc.
> 
> Solar will always be there; the technology will improve and economy of scale will kick in once it's widely adopted.
> 
> You're not counting the costs to the environment, the miners, the people who breathe in its toxic fumes every day.
> 
> And IF all those scientists are right about fossil playing a major part in climate change, melting ice, rising sea, drought etc. I guess those costs are other people's problem so who cares.




And the cost of solar panels and batteries will be the same cost in 25 and 7 years respective as they are now.?

The cost to the environment and what it does to Global Warming has already been debunked....Say what you like.......You want some more proof?.....Just let me know I have plenty more in the basket.

You mean if all those well paid 77 UN Scientist are right?......Once again I have given you plenty of graphs this week to compare between so called pier revered modelling and actual...You want some more just let me know.

The efficiency of solar panels declines year by year as they get older.

Melting ice, rising sea, droughts etc??????????......Once again I have given you heaps of information debunking your claim.......If you need some  more just let me know...Still have plenty in the basket.

Your argument is getting weaker by the day.

Have a nice sunny day today  for tomorrow it might be cloudy and wet.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> And the cost of solar panels and batteries will be the same cost in 25 and 7 years respective as they are now.?
> 
> The cost to the environment and what it does to Global Warming has already been debunked....Say what you like.......You want some more proof?.....Just let me know I have plenty more in the basket.
> 
> You mean if all those well paid 77 UN Scientist are right?......Once again I have given you plenty of graphs this week to compare between so called pier revered modelling and actual...You want some more just let me know.
> 
> The efficiency of solar panels declines year by year as they get older.
> 
> Melting ice, rising sea, droughts etc??????????......Once again I have given you heaps of information debunking your claim.......If you need some  more just let me know...Still have plenty in the basket.
> 
> Your argument is getting weaker by the day.
> 
> Have a nice sunny day today  for tomorrow it might be cloudy and wet.




Yup, the thing about technology is it always get more expensive. Just look at the computers, flat screen tv, cars.

You have a talent for ignoring facts noco. I spent like an entire week talking about that paper and where they got that 97% from. Then it became clear, you leave it alone and soon enough repeat the same stuff.

So thanks but no thanks about 77 UN scientists vs your whatever "scientist".

There's already a couple of European countries producing almost all of the energy need through Solar and Wind alone. One country, the Netherlands if I remember right, produced more than 100% of their energy need on some days from solar and wind - no batteries needed.

Sweden recently announced its plan to be totally energy renewable over next decade or so.  I think Germany get about 1/3 of its energy from solar - not solar farm so much as solar panels on their houses.

As I said before, my 16 cheap panels produce almost all my household's energy need over a summer quarter. Imagine how much more electricity my little shed alone could produce if the gov't make the energy companies pay fairly for the power households produce with their panels?

Anyway, even taking in your claims about solar inefficiency, it still does not make sense. I mean you worry about cloudy days... the entire system is designed for load where at least half of each day's 24 hours will not be receiving any sun [it's night time]... so just factor in to that chance of clouds and storm. Solved.

Can coal or gas powered station guarantee endless supply of their source energy? Nope. Can they even estimate the average cost of those energy over the next 10 years? Nope.

Any idiot can guarantee you the sun will rise every morning and their solar radiation will be delivered on time most days of the year - forever.

I mean, set up the solar farm... send a couple of engineer or trained technician to check and replace damaged panel now and then; maybe once a decade replace the panels with much cheaper and more efficient new generation panels.

You do realise that most of the costs in setting up solar farm comes from its main infrastructure right? The grid to the farm; the substations; the foundation for the farm; the system to control and monitor. 

The panels themselves maybe take up half the total costs.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Fossil based fuel will get more expensive. It's a finite source and the easiest, most abundant, most economical places to get them are already being mined and extracted. So prices will go up and up as supplies deplete and new infrastructure to get them need to be built etc. etc.
> 
> Solar will always be there; the technology will improve and economy of scale will kick in once it's widely adopted.
> 
> You're not counting the costs to the environment, the miners, the people who breathe in its toxic fumes every day.
> 
> And IF all those scientists are right about fossil playing a major part in climate change, melting ice, rising sea, drought etc. I guess those costs are other people's problem so who cares.



Does there exist an infinite source of supply for the materials used to produce solar panels?

If not, are the requisite materials able to be fully recovered from expired panels through a recycling process?

If so, have the associated recycling costs been included in your "economy of scale" assessment/s?

By the way, I note your reference to "all those scientists...".
My invitation for you to join me in an exploration of your basis for belief, in the existence of same, remains open.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Does there exist an infinite source of supply for the materials used to produce solar panels?
> 
> If not, are the requisite materials able to be fully recovered from expired panels through a recycling process?
> 
> If so, have the associated recycling costs been included in your "economy of scale" assessment/s?
> 
> By the way, I note your reference to "all those scientists...".
> My invitation for you to join me in an exploration of your basis for belief, in the existence of same, remains open.




Of course you're fully informed. I am so, so sorry. So very sorry that's for sure.

We're interested in recycling and whether a resource is finite or not? Wow.

Let see, solar panels have a lot of glass, those are recylable; copper wiring, recycleable; plastic and aluminium frame and support, also recylable; the photo-voltaic cells... let say they're not. 

That compare to LNG/oil/Coal... which part of those are recycable? Opps, once they're burnt they're recycled into CO2. Maybe tar and ash can be use for roads and bricks.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Yup, the thing about technology is it always get more expensive. Just look at the computers, flat screen tv, cars.
> 
> You have a talent for ignoring facts noco. I spent like an entire week talking about that paper and where they got that 97% from. Then it became clear, you leave it alone and soon enough repeat the same stuff.
> 
> So thanks but no thanks about 77 UN scientists vs your whatever "scientist".
> 
> There's already a couple of European countries producing almost all of the energy need through Solar and Wind alone. One country, the Netherlands if I remember right, produced more than 100% of their energy need on some days from solar and wind - no batteries needed.
> 
> Sweden recently announced its plan to be totally energy renewable over next decade or so.  I think Germany get about 1/3 of its energy from solar - not solar farm so much as solar panels on their houses.
> 
> As I said before, my 16 cheap panels produce almost all my household's energy need over a summer quarter. Imagine how much more electricity my little shed alone could produce if the gov't make the energy companies pay fairly for the power households produce with their panels?
> 
> Anyway, even taking in your claims about solar inefficiency, it still does not make sense. I mean you worry about cloudy days... the entire system is designed for load where at least half of each day's 24 hours will not be receiving any sun [it's night time]... so just factor in to that chance of clouds and storm. Solved.
> 
> Can coal or gas powered station guarantee endless supply of their source energy? Nope. Can they even estimate the average cost of those energy over the next 10 years? Nope.
> 
> Any idiot can guarantee you the sun will rise every morning and their solar radiation will be delivered on time most days of the year - forever.
> 
> I mean, set up the solar farm... send a couple of engineer or trained technician to check and replace damaged panel now and then; maybe once a decade replace the panels with much cheaper and more efficient new generation panels.
> 
> You do realise that most of the costs in setting up solar farm comes from its main infrastructure right? The grid to the farm; the substations; the foundation for the farm; the system to control and monitor.
> 
> The panels themselves maybe take up half the total costs.




Clap....Clap...Clap...You have got it all wrong again Luu.

Those mentioned on my link have no connection to solar and very little power production from wind.

Perhaps next time you might do some research before making silly statements.

Enjoy the reading and have a nice sunny day when the Sun does shine.


https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Clap....Clap...Clap...You have got it all wrong again Luu.
> 
> Those mentioned on my link have no connection to solar and very little power production from wind.
> 
> Perhaps next time you might do some research before making silly statements.
> 
> Enjoy the reading and have a nice sunny day when the Sun does shine.
> 
> 
> https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/



When the sun's not shining there is wind.  Its the combination that will solve the issue.

Batteries can be cleaned and continually reused.  You can do it yourself to your own car battery. Google it.

You reference noco gives a good outline of the advancements of clean energy up to 2012 and we have come a very long way since then.  The Chinese are currently producing solar roof covering at a cost little more than roofing ion.

And don't worry too much about the science, in growing numbers the people want renewables because with their own senses they can see that Co2 climate change is a reasonable deduction and appears catastrophic.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Of course you're fully informed. I am so, so sorry. So very sorry that's for sure.
> 
> We're interested in recycling and whether a resource is finite or not? Wow.
> 
> Let see, solar panels have a lot of glass, those are recylable; copper wiring, recycleable; plastic and aluminium frame and support, also recylable; the photo-voltaic cells... let say they're not.
> 
> That compare to LNG/oil/Coal... which part of those are recycable? Opps, once they're burnt they're recycled into CO2. Maybe tar and ash can be use for roads and bricks.



With the possible exception of my immediate life experiences, I do not claim to be fully informed.

My questions were intended to alert you to the possibility, that there exist some further considerations, that may need to be taken into account, and also to remind you of my open invitation to potentially resolve some of our conflicting views on the purported scientific consensus).

Anyway, the photovoltaic cell, does just happen to be, the essential component, for reasons that are obvious to those understanding its function. 
(If it happens to be readily recyclable, or can somehow be manufactured from a near inexhaustible supply of materials, then there may not be an issue.)

I've already mentioned discoveries that lend weight to the formerly unpopular theory, that oil is being continually produced within the Earth's mantle. (Note solar radiation, itself, is arguably finite due to the perception that the sun will ultimately expire. I merely mention this for the purposes of highlighting that things are seen as comparatively, rather than truly, infinite.)

As has already been mentioned in past posts, the fashionable opinions about finite, versus infinite supply, and "renewable" energy sources, may not prove quite so reliable as they once seemed. 

If you don't believe this to be the case, then I invite you to consider the scientific law about energy being neither created nor destroyed, but only changing form.

It implies that all energy is either finite or infinite - it cannot be both! Some potential ramifications of widespread saturation of the Earth with "renewable" energy technology, may become clearer to those considering the deeper implications of that long established scientific law. 

Whilst I cannot make claim to the infallibility of any branch of science, I currently have far more confidence in the soundness of that law, than I do in the apocalyptic claims of the Carbon Crusaders.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> When the sun's not shining there is wind.  Its the combination that will solve the issue.
> 
> Batteries can be cleaned and continually reused.  You can do it yourself to your own car battery. Google it.
> 
> You reference noco gives a good outline of the advancements of clean energy up to 2012 and we have come a very long way since then.  The Chinese are currently producing solar roof covering at a cost little more than roofing ion.
> 
> And don't worry too much about the science, in growing numbers the people want renewables because with their own senses they can see that Co2 climate change is a reasonable deduction and appears catastrophic.




You obviously have not watched the various videos I have presented this week, instead you continue to follow the Green bible.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> With the possible exception of my immediate life experiences, I do not claim to be fully informed.
> 
> My questions were intended to alert you to the possibility, that there exist some further considerations, that may need to be taken into account, and also to remind you of my open invitation to potentially resolve some of our conflicting views on the purported scientific consensus).
> 
> Anyway, the photovoltaic cell, does just happen to be, the essential component, for reasons that are obvious to those understanding its function.
> (If it happens to be readily recyclable, or can somehow be manufactured from a near inexhaustible supply of materials, then there may not be an issue.)
> 
> I've already mentioned discoveries that lend weight to the formerly unpopular theory, that oil is being continually produced within the Earth's mantle. (Note solar radiation, itself, is arguably finite due to the perception that the sun will ultimately expire. I merely mention this for the purposes of highlighting that things are seen as comparatively, rather than truly, infinite.)
> 
> As has already been mentioned in past posts, the fashionable opinions about finite, versus infinite supply, and "renewable" energy sources, may not prove quite so reliable as they once seemed.
> 
> If you don't believe this to be the case, then I invite you to consider the scientific law about energy being neither created nor destroyed, but only changing form.
> 
> It implies that all energy is either finite or infinite - it cannot be both! Some potential ramifications of widespread saturation of the Earth with "renewable" energy technology, may become clearer to those considering the deeper implications of that long established scientific law.
> 
> Whilst I cannot make claim to the infallibility of any branch of science, I currently have far more confidence in the soundness of that law, than I do in the apocalyptic claims of the Carbon Crusaders.




If you aren't so serious, I'd thought you're screwing with me.

We're going into the metaphysical about what is finite and infinite now?

Yes, we know the Sun isn't infinite either. But when will it _start_ to die? In 5,000,000,000 years. 

When will coal run out? Let's take noco's figure of about 185 years.

When will oil run out? Estimate have it that we've used 1/3 of known reserves; 1/3 are in places that is either too hard to get to or in too small a reservoir thta it won't be economical to get; that leaves about 1/3 of known reserves left in the tank. Or at previous rate of use, another 100 years.

Ohhhhh... it's made everyday deep under 4 miles of granite. 

Let's say that's true. Where in the world do you get enough diamond encrusted drill bits to go through that? Maybe takeover Russia and liberate its industrial-grade diamond mine some asteroid created a while back?

Maybe I'm just lazy and stupid, but doesn't the sun shine pretty much everywhere, at ground level? Are there places where wind don't blow either?

---------

energy created and transformed... 

yea, it's transformed into kinetic energy; heat and CO2. No?

Pretty sure I remember HS physics correctly. 

Anywho


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> If you aren't so serious, I'd thought you're screwing with me.
> 
> We're going into the metaphysical about what is finite and infinite now?
> 
> Yes, we know the Sun isn't infinite either. But when will it _start_ to die? In 5,000,000,000 years.
> 
> When will coal run out? Let's take noco's figure of about 185 years.
> 
> When will oil run out? Estimate have it that we've used 1/3 of known reserves; 1/3 are in places that is either too hard to get to or in too small a reservoir thta it won't be economical to get; that leaves about 1/3 of known reserves left in the tank. Or at previous rate of use, another 100 years.
> 
> Ohhhhh... it's made everyday deep under 4 miles of granite.
> 
> Let's say that's true. Where in the world do you get enough diamond encrusted drill bits to go through that? Maybe takeover Russia and liberate its industrial-grade diamond mine some asteroid created a while back?
> 
> Maybe I'm just lazy and stupid, but doesn't the sun shine pretty much everywhere, at ground level? Are there places where wind don't blow either?
> 
> ---------
> 
> energy created and transformed...
> 
> yea, it's transformed into kinetic energy; heat and CO2. No?
> 
> Pretty sure I remember HS physics correctly.
> 
> Anywho




Take a trip or two into PNG and see how much Sun get up there.

Hey Luu BTW, I am anxiously awaiting to your reply to my post # 9374.
What happened?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Take a trip or two into PNG and see how much Sun get up there.




No wind there either?


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> No wind there either?




Yeah but what about all that 100% solar and wind you mentioned in Europe?

Was it all wind on your part...Hope it is not giving you a belly ache.


----------



## basilio

Just can't let you have all the fun here Luutzu.  The inestimable opportunity of discussing the deep uncertainties of the uncertain fundamentals of metaphysical infinity.
Not to mention Noco's concern about the cost of renewable energy soaring into the stratosphere as all available sources of silicon (sand ..) are put into the  servitude of the Green Gospellers.

Unfortunately  I can't touch Cynic grasp of the metaphysical infinite  so we'll let be.

However as for the cost of renewable energy Energy Past, Present and Future - let's see

*The Price of Solar Is Declining to Unprecedented Lows*
Despite already low costs, the installed price of solar fell by 5 to 12 percent in 2015


By Robert Fares on August 27, 2016






_Credit: MARUFISH Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)_
The installed price of solar energy has declined significantly in recent years as policy and market forces have driven more and more solar installations.

Now, the latest data show that the continued decrease in solar prices is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, with total installed prices dropping by 5 percent for rooftop residential systems, and 12 percent for larger utility-scale solar farms. With solar already achieving record-low prices, the cost decline observed in 2015 indicates that the coming years will likely see utility-scale solar become cost competitive with conventional forms of electricity generation.   *(and please keep reading. It's worth expanding your knowledge)*
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/

*_______________________________________________*
*IRENA forecasts 59% solar PV price reduction by 2025*
New report from the International Renewable Energy Agency suggests that the average cost for electricity generated by solar PV could decrease by as much as 59% by 2025 compared to 2015 prices.

June 15, 2016 Ian Clover

A report released today by the Abu Dhabi-headquartered International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has projected a 59% cost reduction for electricity generated by solar PV by 2025.

The report, titled The Power to Change: Solar and Wind Cost Reduction Potential to 2025, suggests that solar  nurtured by the right regulatory frameworks and policy  can achieve huge reductions in cost over the next decade, bringing the global average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) to between $0.05 – $0.06.

IRENA states that solar PV module prices have fallen roughly 80% since 2009, and with every doubling of installed capacity module costs plunge a further 20% thanks to economies of scale and the types of performance and efficiency improvements currently being seen. (*and it gets better...)
*
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2016/06...9-solar-pv-price-reduction-by-2025_100024986/

___________________________________________________________
And what to do when the SUN don't shine ??

*  Despite the hype, batteries aren’t the cheapest way to store energy on the grid  *
December 2, 2016 5.50am AEDT
Batteries may be a good way to store energy in the home. Battery image from www.shutterstoc.com
*Author*

 Roger Dargaville 
Deputy Director, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne

*Disclosure statement*
Roger Dargaville has received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency

*Partners*

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

_The Australian government is reviewing our electricity market to make sure it can provide secure and reliable power in a rapidly changing world. Faced with the rise of renewable energy and limits on carbon pollution, The Conversation has asked experts what kind of future awaits the grid._

Storage is the word of the moment in the energy industry. Since Tesla unveiled its Powerwall, politicians, commentators and industry have hyped storage – and particularly batteries – as the solution for getting more renewable energy into electricity grids and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

The concept of storage is simple. A storage system takes power off the grid or from a local generation source and puts it back onto the grid or uses it locally later. It seems like a good idea if you have too much energy, or it is cheap at some times of the day and expensive at others.

So could storage be the answer, and how much would it cost?  (_and it's a really informative analysis -  but only if one wants to be informed. And anyway Smurf does it so much better.)
_
https://theconversation.com/despite...heapest-way-to-store-energy-on-the-grid-68417


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> If you aren't so serious, I'd thought you're screwing with me.
> ....
> 
> Ohhhhh... it's made everyday deep under 4 miles of granite.
> 
> Let's say that's true. Where in the world do you get enough diamond encrusted drill bits to go through that? Maybe takeover Russia and liberate its industrial-grade diamond mine some asteroid created a while back?
> ...



From your post I can see that you are either, pretending to, or have, completely failed to, understand the significance of the discovery of a quantity of oil in that location. I trust that you were taught the true extent of the Earth's mantle at school.


> ...
> Maybe I'm just lazy and stupid, but doesn't the sun shine pretty much everywhere, at ground level? Are there places where wind don't blow either?
> 
> ---------
> 
> energy created and transformed...
> 
> yea, it's transformed into kinetic energy; heat and CO2. No?
> 
> Pretty sure I remember HS physics correctly.
> 
> Anywho




No. The various contents of your response, strongly suggest a need for you to refresh your understanding of basic geology, chemistry and physics.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Yeah but what about all that 100% solar and wind you mentioned in Europe?
> 
> Was it all wind on your part...Hope it is not giving you a belly ache.




*Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand *
*"*
So much power was produced by Denmark’s windfarms on Thursday that the country was able to meet its domestic electricity demand and export power to Norway, Germany and Sweden.

On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, when electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%.

Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. Sweden took the remaining fifth of excess power.*"

lotsa wind here.

*


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> From your post I can see that you are either, pretending to, or have, completely failed to, understand the significance of the discovery of a quantity of oil in that location. I trust that you were taught the true extent of the Earth's mantle at school.
> 
> 
> No. The various contents of your response, strongly suggest a need for you to refresh your understanding of basic geology, chemistry and physics.




Will a 4mile thick plate of granite under all that pressure be as easy to drill through as the same granite at ground atmospheric pressure?

I'd imagine it'll take a lot of work (read expensive) to drill through miles and miles of granite to get to that oil. But I guess you'd only need to drill once since oil is always produced at that depth. Right 

Again, drill for miles and miles baby... or... or just take in the sun at ground level. 

Hmmmm... the Sun will one day die and is thus not infinite. True.

But the Earth can infinitely produce oil. Also true? 

I was never that good at physics or chemistry anyway. It's a bit like listening to the Murdoch media and churn out crap. Crap goes in, crap goes out.


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Just can't let you have all the fun here Luutzu.  The inestimable opportunity of discussing the deep uncertainties of the uncertain fundamentals of metaphysical infinity.
> Not to mention Noco's concern about the cost of renewable energy soaring into the stratosphere as all available sources of silicon (sand ..) are put into the  servitude of the Green Gospellers.
> 
> Unfortunately  I can't touch Cynic grasp of the metaphysical infinite  so we'll let be.
> 
> However as for the cost of renewable energy Energy Past, Present and Future - let's see
> 
> *The Price of Solar Is Declining to Unprecedented Lows*
> Despite already low costs, the installed price of solar fell by 5 to 12 percent in 2015
> 
> 
> By Robert Fares on August 27, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Credit: MARUFISH Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)_
> The installed price of solar energy has declined significantly in recent years as policy and market forces have driven more and more solar installations.
> 
> Now, the latest data show that the continued decrease in solar prices is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, with total installed prices dropping by 5 percent for rooftop residential systems, and 12 percent for larger utility-scale solar farms. With solar already achieving record-low prices, the cost decline observed in 2015 indicates that the coming years will likely see utility-scale solar become cost competitive with conventional forms of electricity generation.   *(and please keep reading. It's worth expanding your knowledge)*
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
> 
> *_______________________________________________*
> *IRENA forecasts 59% solar PV price reduction by 2025*
> New report from the International Renewable Energy Agency suggests that the average cost for electricity generated by solar PV could decrease by as much as 59% by 2025 compared to 2015 prices.
> 
> June 15, 2016 Ian Clover
> 
> A report released today by the Abu Dhabi-headquartered International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has projected a 59% cost reduction for electricity generated by solar PV by 2025.
> 
> The report, titled The Power to Change: Solar and Wind Cost Reduction Potential to 2025, suggests that solar  nurtured by the right regulatory frameworks and policy  can achieve huge reductions in cost over the next decade, bringing the global average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) to between $0.05 – $0.06.
> 
> IRENA states that solar PV module prices have fallen roughly 80% since 2009, and with every doubling of installed capacity module costs plunge a further 20% thanks to economies of scale and the types of performance and efficiency improvements currently being seen. (*and it gets better...)
> *
> https://www.pv-magazine.com/2016/06...9-solar-pv-price-reduction-by-2025_100024986/
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> And what to do when the SUN don't shine ??
> 
> *  Despite the hype, batteries aren’t the cheapest way to store energy on the grid  *
> December 2, 2016 5.50am AEDT
> Batteries may be a good way to store energy in the home. Battery image from www.shutterstoc.com
> *Author*
> 
> Roger Dargaville
> Deputy Director, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne
> *Disclosure statement*
> Roger Dargaville has received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency
> 
> *Partners*
> 
> University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.
> 
> _The Australian government is reviewing our electricity market to make sure it can provide secure and reliable power in a rapidly changing world. Faced with the rise of renewable energy and limits on carbon pollution, The Conversation has asked experts what kind of future awaits the grid._
> 
> Storage is the word of the moment in the energy industry. Since Tesla unveiled its Powerwall, politicians, commentators and industry have hyped storage – and particularly batteries – as the solution for getting more renewable energy into electricity grids and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
> 
> The concept of storage is simple. A storage system takes power off the grid or from a local generation source and puts it back onto the grid or uses it locally later. It seems like a good idea if you have too much energy, or it is cheap at some times of the day and expensive at others.
> 
> So could storage be the answer, and how much would it cost?  (_and it's a really informative analysis -  but only if one wants to be informed. And anyway Smurf does it so much better.)
> _
> https://theconversation.com/despite...heapest-way-to-store-energy-on-the-grid-68417





Way too much good info there Basilio. Cynic and noco will have a field day disputing them.

Well... noco will just blame it on UN and Watermelon propaganda; Cynic will call our Pope to verify.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You obviously have not watched the various videos I have presented this week, instead you continue to follow the Green bible.



How do you know I have not carefully watched your films?

How do you know I follow "the green bible" and what is it.  I follow my own observations and common sense as do most people which is why the majority of western educated people are concerned (not hysterical) about climate change.

I feel noco that you should seek a hill without cloud where the wind blows to fly your kite.  Cloud does not cut out solar:



> The thicker the clouds, the less *power* the system will produce. Yet when the sun shines through the clouds,*solar panels* still get direct sunlight plus light reflected from the clouds. Amazingly, you can get more *solar*energy out of a *cloudy day* than a sunny one!Feb 3, 2015




https://www.google.com.au/search?q=....69i57j0l2.20423j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Will a 4mile thick plate of granite under all that pressure be as easy to drill through as the same granite at ground atmospheric pressure?
> 
> I'd imagine it'll take a lot of work (read expensive) to drill through miles and miles of granite to get to that oil. But I guess you'd only need to drill once since oil is always produced at that depth. Right
> 
> Again, drill for miles and miles baby... or... or just take in the sun at ground level.
> 
> Hmmmm... the Sun will one day die and is thus not infinite. True.
> 
> But the Earth can infinitely produce oil. Also true?
> 
> I was never that good at physics or chemistry anyway. It's a bit like listening to the Murdoch media and churn out crap. Crap goes in, crap goes out.



I know my posts can often be a little too verbose. Perhaps you have genuinely misunderstood, but I am beginning to suspect, that your persistent misrepresentations, of the significance of the discovery of oil in that particular location, might be deliberate.

Either way, my preference is that you desist from these misconstrances, to which I am alerting you, as I am finding them annoying and cannot see any benefit arising from there continuance.

I do not blame anyone for being distrustful of diverse media sources, whether they be mainstream or other, but I do object to misrepresentation of statements made, by myself and others, even moreso when those misrepresentations are discovered to be deliberate.

If you are truly seeking to understand, I recommend that you carefully reread that particular news article.

If you've already decided to distrust everything said by a particular media outlet, then by all means challenge the content, and any conclusions drawn, should you feel so inclined.

However, in doing so, it is important to take care to understand what was said, so that it isn't misconstrued.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> *Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand *
> *"*
> So much power was produced by Denmark’s windfarms on Thursday that the country was able to meet its domestic electricity demand and export power to Norway, Germany and Sweden.
> 
> On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, when electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%.
> 
> Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. Sweden took the remaining fifth of excess power.*"*
> 
> *lotsa wind here.*




Luu, it obviously is an exceptional case for a few days but it is not really consistent day after day.

I noted in your link the following :-

*A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020, according to Kees van der Leun, the chief commercial officer of the Ecofys energy consultancy.*

And how many millions of birds have been killed in the meantime by those ugly swirling blades?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> How do you know I have not carefully watched your films?
> 
> How do you know I follow "the green bible" and what is it.  I follow my own observations and common sense as do most people which is why the majority of western educated people are concerned (not hysterical) about climate change.
> 
> I feel noco that you should seek a hill without cloud where the wind blows to fly your kite.  Cloud does not cut out solar:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com.au/search?q=....69i57j0l2.20423j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8




Firstly, you have admitted on several occasions that you are a Greenie.

Secondly, I suggested you had not watched those videos because still keep coming back with  this Global Warming nonsense.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> And how many millions of birds have been killed in the meantime by those ugly swirling blades?



Dunno,  but probably far less than things like power lines,  vehicles,  aeroplanes and a whole range of man made structures.

Probably just ignore those because it doesn't suit your agenda.


----------



## Junior

Many people out there clearly fear change, and the advancement of the human race.  Politicians and all other manner of outdated folk can argue the benefits of coal all they want, meanwhile, in the real world, big corporations long ago saw the many benefits of renewable energy and have been transitioning away from fossil fuel for years....this continues, regardless of climate change sceptics, and 'coal is good for humanity' propaganda advertisements on Sky News channel.

Think about electric cars for example.  How could you possibly not see the benefits of being able to walk through the CBD of Sydney or Melbourne for example, without even the slightest whiff of exhaust fumes??  Is that not something to be enthusiastic about?  It's technology, and it will continue to evolve at a rapid pace.  You can either embrace it, or be dragged into that future kicking and screaming.

These same people would have been arguing against the adoption of coal for electricity generation back in the late 1800s.... 'I'm perfectly happy, with my kerosene lanterns.....electricity is the devil'.


----------



## noco

More facts about about the great Global Warming hoax.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Luu, it obviously is an exceptional case for a few days but it is not really consistent day after day.
> 
> I noted in your link the following :-
> 
> *A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020, according to Kees van der Leun, the chief commercial officer of the Ecofys energy consultancy.*
> 
> And how many millions of birds have been killed in the meantime by those ugly swirling blades?




Maybe it's to show that on some day there are little or no wind, on others the unusually high wind make up for those?

Save the Birds. Stuffed the children, and the poor, and other birds, and wildlife getting cooked in bushfires, or floods and storm.

Come on noco.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I know my posts can often be a little too verbose. Perhaps you have genuinely misunderstood, but I am beginning to suspect, that your persistent misrepresentations, of the significance of the discovery of oil in that particular location, might be deliberate.
> 
> Either way, my preference is that you desist from these misconstrances, to which I am alerting you, as I am finding them annoying and cannot see any benefit arising from there continuance.
> 
> I do not blame anyone for being distrustful of diverse media sources, whether they be mainstream or other, but I do object to misrepresentation of statements made, by myself and others, even moreso when those misrepresentations are discovered to be deliberate.
> 
> If you are truly seeking to understand, I recommend that you carefully reread that particular news article.
> 
> If you've already decided to distrust everything said by a particular media outlet, then by all means challenge the content, and any conclusions drawn, should you feel so inclined.
> 
> However, in doing so, it is important to take care to understand what was said, so that it isn't misconstrued.




Here's another idea: set up a few solar panel, pretty much anywhere at ground level. 

Maybe leave those "oil" under its miles of granite. Who knows, maybe God intended it to be there so as to keep the Earth's gear moving.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> Maybe it's to show that on some day there are little or no wind, on others the unusually high wind make up for those?
> 
> Save the Birds. Stuffed the children, and the poor, and other birds, and wildlife getting cooked in bushfires, or floods and storm.
> 
> Come on noco.




So much for the Greenies concern about the environment.......Don't worry that there may be some rare species being killed......You know the ones the Greenies use to stop the building of dams etc.
http://savetheeaglesinternational.o...10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Here's another idea: set up a few solar panel, pretty much anywhere at ground level.
> 
> Maybe leave those "oil" under its miles of granite. Who knows, maybe God intended it to be there so as to keep the Earth's gear moving.



I realise that my criticisms probably make it sound like I am totally opposed to the use of alternative energy.

That's not quite the message that I am trying to convey here. What I am trying to convey, is that there are at least a few more things that might merit consideration before attempting to completely transform our world.

Some of the issues I am raising may prove to have negligible impact, and turn out to be needless concerns, and then again, perhaps some of those concerns will prove valid. 

The same applies to my concerns about the soundness of the claims about AGW and the possibility that CO2 is being unreasonably demonised. I believe that available energy sources, which give rise to CO2 emissions, whether alternative or current, shouldn't be excluded from consideration, until such time as there is a sound and well understood basis for such exclusion.

I note your continued misconstruance of the significance of that particular oil discovery, despite my request that you desist.

If you want me to help you understand the matter, of that particular discovery and its true significance, there are better ways to elicit clarification from myself.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> So much for the Greenies concern about the environment.......Don't worry that there may be some rare species being killed......You know the ones the Greenies use to stop the building of dams etc.
> http://savetheeaglesinternational.o...10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html



Again,  pretty much anything man builds has an effect on the natural order.

If you are really interested in animal welfare,  you should link some stats that provide context on how many animals die as a result of wind farms compared to other man made structures.

But you're not interested in animal welfare at all,  so you won't.

Your behaviour is exactly the same as the 'Greenies' you so despise.


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> Again,  pretty much anything man builds has an effect on the natural order.
> 
> If you are really interested in animal welfare,  you should link some stats that provide context on how many animals die as a result of wind farms compared to other man made structures.
> 
> But you're not interested in animal welfare at all,  so you won't.
> 
> Your behaviour is exactly the same as the 'Greenies' you so despise.




I have already given you the information of bird deaths......If you want to compare that with other man made structures, then do your own home work instead me having to it for you....Do you want me to spoon feed you like a baby?

The Greens seem to have the power to stop a dam because it might wipe a rare finch or a red nosed hairy wombat but  don't seem to care about the loss of rare birds on wind farms.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> Do you want me to spoon feed you like a baby?



No I'd just prefer if it you make an actual argument rather than cherry picking the first random stat that comes up in your Google feed.

I'm not sure if you're completely oblivious to the context of the bird death stat you've been posting or if you're deliberately not posting it because you know it weakens your argument.

Probably doesn't matter,  you've got little credibility around here any way.


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> No I'd just prefer if it you make an actual argument rather than cherry picking the first random stat that comes up in your Google feed.
> 
> I'm not sure if you're completely oblivious to the context of the bird death stat you've been posting or if you're deliberately not posting it because you know it weakens your argument.
> 
> Probably doesn't matter,  you've got little credibility around here any way.




BS..I don't see any weakness in the information I have presented...You and your Greenie mates just don't like me making as ass out of you all.

You are the one who wants the information about other man made structures, so do you own dirty work.

Who in the hell do you think you are telling me I have no credibility around here which I presume you mean on the ASF?...You really have tickets on your self and must place your self as God all Mighty.

Some old sick trick you pull again....Character assassination is the only  way you know when you are behind the 8 ball.

Some mothers do have them unfortunately.


----------



## basilio

*Dr Easterbrook and Global Warming BS
*
The most interesting part about that video is just how many fallacies, misrepresentations, lies and misunderstandings can be packed into an hour plus presentation.
Check out the analysis below.  By the way the Hot Whopper site does a good job of skewering the 1001 most repeated zombie denial statements
*  HotWhopper  *
Global warming and climate change. 
Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers.

*Thursday, September 26, 2013 *
* Denier Don Easterbrook gets it all wrong in his absurd fairytale on WUWT *
 Sou  |  11:50 AM   Go to the first of 17 comments.  Add a comment

Denier Don Easterbrook is America's answer to the potty peer from the UK, Christopher Monckton.  He's written an article on WUWT (archived here) in which it's hard to find half a sentence of his that might have a grain of truth to it.  The exceptions would be his direct quotes from an article in National Geographic.








A few weeks ago Anthony Watts told his readers not to be alarmed because ice can't melt when it gets hotter, therefore seas can't rise any faster and New York can't get any wetter.  He didn't phrase it quite like that but that's what his article all boiled down to.  He was referring to this same National Geographic article.

Today Anthony Watts has gone even further and put up an article by denier Don Easterbrook (more of his deceptions here) that rivals his various claims like "_the average surface temperature of earth equals minus 30 degrees Celsius as shown by my temperature chart for Central Greenland_".

Denier Don is (still) an Emeritus Professor from a University that he's continually embarrassing.  They don't withdraw titles too easily and I guess that he's not the first professor to have "gone emeritus" and won't be the last.


* Some of Denier Don's Wrongs*

Here are some of Denier Don's wrongs just from today's single article alone (archived here):

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/denier-don-gets-it-all-wrong-in-his.html


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> BS..I don't see any weakness in the information I have presented...



Well clearly that is the problem here. You rely on conspiracy blogs and youtube videos because you're too thick to make up your own views.

If they were your own views you wouldn't have any trouble coming up with answers to simple questions.  But you can't. 

I'd probably be an angry old man if I was like that too.



> Who in the hell do you think you are telling me I have no credibility around here which I presume you mean on the ASF?...You really have tickets on your self and must place your self as God all Mighty.
> 
> Some old sick trick you pull again....Character assassination is the only way you know when you are behind the 8 ball.
> 
> Some mothers do have them unfortunately.



Yeah no worries old man.   I'm sure you're in denial and think you have a completely clean record in this regard.


----------



## Klogg

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly don't. I'm not flood prone, fire prone or earthquake prone, but in any case the premiums have rocketted over the last few years so that would indicate an increase in disasters not "situation normal" as the sceptics say.






noco said:


> More facts about about the great Global Warming hoax.





Sorry, I haven't been a consistent participant in this thread, but I do have an issue with this.

I have my views on global warming, but those aside - we have finite energy on this planet without solar/wind. With them, we are only limited to the materials required to harvest solar/wind power.

Further, this seems like a case of Pascal's wager. Why take the chance that you're wrong on global warming, when you have this great alternative staring you in the face? The choice seems to be either to spend a bit more on renewable energy, or potentially make the earth unsuitable for human life... even if it's a 1% chance, is it worth the risk?


----------



## luutzu

Klogg said:


> Sorry, I haven't been a consistent participant in this thread, but I do have an issue with this.
> 
> I have my views on global warming, but those aside - we have finite energy on this planet without solar/wind. With them, we are only limited to the materials required to harvest solar/wind power.
> 
> Further, this seems like a case of Pascal's wager. Why take the chance that you're wrong on global warming, when you have this great alternative staring you in the face? The choice seems to be either to spend a bit more on renewable energy, or potentially make the earth unsuitable for human life... even if it's a 1% chance, is it worth the risk?





Their argument is along these lines:

1. Fossil isn't killing anyone, so why risk it. ... oh wait
2. There are plenty of fossil fuel as far as the eyes can see, why risk transitioning to solar and wind that might only last like forever. 
3. Planning based on expert advise is bunk. Wait until the water laps at our feet then we all jump. 
4. Jobs; birds dying from wind farm; cloudy days without any wind.

All boils down to If it might break, why fix it. We could just move to Mars and colonise the moon or something.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *Dr Easterbrook and Global Warming BS
> *
> The most interesting part about that video is just how many fallacies, misrepresentations, lies and misunderstandings can be packed into an hour plus presentation.
> Check out the analysis below.  By the way the Hot Whopper site does a good job of skewering the 1001 most repeated zombie denial statements
> *  HotWhopper  *
> Global warming and climate change.
> Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers.
> 
> *Thursday, September 26, 2013 *
> * Denier Don Easterbrook gets it all wrong in his absurd fairytale on WUWT *
> Sou  |  11:50 AM   Go to the first of 17 comments.  Add a comment
> 
> Denier Don Easterbrook is America's answer to the potty peer from the UK, Christopher Monckton.  He's written an article on WUWT (archived here) in which it's hard to find half a sentence of his that might have a grain of truth to it.  The exceptions would be his direct quotes from an article in National Geographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago Anthony Watts told his readers not to be alarmed because ice can't melt when it gets hotter, therefore seas can't rise any faster and New York can't get any wetter.  He didn't phrase it quite like that but that's what his article all boiled down to.  He was referring to this same National Geographic article.
> 
> Today Anthony Watts has gone even further and put up an article by denier Don Easterbrook (more of his deceptions here) that rivals his various claims like "_the average surface temperature of earth equals minus 30 degrees Celsius as shown by my temperature chart for Central Greenland_".
> 
> Denier Don is (still) an Emeritus Professor from a University that he's continually embarrassing.  They don't withdraw titles too easily and I guess that he's not the first professor to have "gone emeritus" and won't be the last.
> 
> 
> * Some of Denier Don's Wrongs*
> 
> Here are some of Denier Don's wrongs just from today's single article alone (archived here):
> 
> http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/denier-don-gets-it-all-wrong-in-his.html




Just more wacko Green defense of the farce and the lies of Global Warming which has proven to have paused for 18 years...What more would you expect.....I presented plenty of graphs showing the difference between the Alarmist modelling and what has actually happened but you cannot accept it.

We will just have to agree to disagree as to who is right and who is wrong......Only time will tell which is correct.


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> Well clearly that is the problem here. You rely on conspiracy blogs and youtube videos because you're too thick to make up your own views.
> 
> If they were your own views you wouldn't have any trouble coming up with answers to simple questions.  But you can't.
> 
> I'd probably be an angry old man if I was like that too.
> 
> 
> Yeah no worries old man.   I'm sure you're in denial and think you have a completely clean record in this regard.




So now  I am too thick  and have lost credibility.......May I ask are you the new moderator?...Have you taken over from Joe.......I think you should look at yourself in the mirror now and then...You might get a shock.

If you think you can ridicule and humiliate me enough to get me to leave the ASF so you can dominate this forum, well think again buster......You are nobody as far I am concerned.....Just a cheap shot when it suits you.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> So now  I am too thick  and have lost credibility.......May I ask are you the new moderator?...Have you taken over from Joe.......I think you should look at yourself in the mirror now and then...You might get a shock.
> 
> If you think you can ridicule and humiliate me enough to get me to leave the ASF so you can dominate this forum, well think again buster......You are nobody as far I am concerned.....Just a cheap shot when it suits you.



Yeah cool story bro...

I'm fairly sure, given the fact that I post here on ASF far less frequently these days,  that I've got no desires of being a forum moderator or any plans of forum domination (lol).

Some how you've created yet another situation in your mind where you can act like the victim and we're all out to get you off the forum.  All because you didn't like criticism of your argument.

There's no need to get upset,   post whatever you like,  but everyone here is allowed to respond.

I'm happy to sit here and argue until we're black and blue.


----------



## SirRumpole

Ves said:


> I'm happy to sit here and argue until we're black and blue.




I don't know why you bother. Some are just too willfully ignorant to be persuaded by anything unless it hurts them personally. They just turn the aircon up a few notches and pretend everything is fine.

Frogs being brought to the boil.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> *Dr Easterbrook and Global Warming BS
> *
> The most interesting part about that video is just how many fallacies, misrepresentations, lies and misunderstandings can be packed into an hour plus presentation.
> Check out the analysis below.  By the way the Hot Whopper site does a good job of skewering the 1001 most repeated zombie denial statements
> *  HotWhopper  *
> Global warming and climate change.
> Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers.
> 
> *Thursday, September 26, 2013 *
> * Denier Don Easterbrook gets it all wrong in his absurd fairytale on WUWT *
> Sou  |  11:50 AM   Go to the first of 17 comments.  Add a comment
> 
> Denier Don Easterbrook is America's answer to the potty peer from the UK, Christopher Monckton.  He's written an article on WUWT (archived here) in which it's hard to find half a sentence of his that might have a grain of truth to it.  The exceptions would be his direct quotes from an article in National Geographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago Anthony Watts told his readers not to be alarmed because ice can't melt when it gets hotter, therefore seas can't rise any faster and New York can't get any wetter.  He didn't phrase it quite like that but that's what his article all boiled down to.  He was referring to this same National Geographic article.
> 
> Today Anthony Watts has gone even further and put up an article by denier Don Easterbrook (more of his deceptions here) that rivals his various claims like "_the average surface temperature of earth equals minus 30 degrees Celsius as shown by my temperature chart for Central Greenland_".
> 
> Denier Don is (still) an Emeritus Professor from a University that he's continually embarrassing.  They don't withdraw titles too easily and I guess that he's not the first professor to have "gone emeritus" and won't be the last.
> 
> 
> * Some of Denier Don's Wrongs*
> 
> Here are some of Denier Don's wrongs just from today's single article alone (archived here):
> 
> http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/denier-don-gets-it-all-wrong-in-his.html




Hotwhopper?????

The woman who is behind HOTWHOPPER is a in her 60's something by the name of Miriam O'Brien (a.k.a.Sou).

She may have an interest in Climate Change but in actual fact has a Bachelor of Agriculture Science.

Now not holding that against her it would appear she is also associated with the Communist paper, The Guardian......Now the Guardian, being so far to the left, is well known to support Global Warming to its highest degree.......So one could well and truly say it would have a natural bias towards the Green philosophy regarding Global Warming or Climate Change which ever suits the day of reckoning.

Now from the Hotwhopper I have posted a link of an open  letter to Miriam O'Brien where she admits she does not know as much as she thought she did..

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/open-letter-to-miriam-obrien-of-hotwhopper-a-k-a-sou/


----------



## basilio

Hell will turn into a balmy tropical paradise before Noco will move. He is adamantly certain that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by world wide greenies with gross manufacturing of all relevant data by all the major scientific organisation, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as scientists in related disciplines. He also arbitrarily dismisses any observations by scientists that disagree with his view and in particular any evidence that challenges the "No CC mantra". No reasons, no logic, no argument. 

That is not my comment. Noco has expressed it clearly repeatedly. In that context simply bringing all the issues surrounding how the world is changing and the consequences  is for other posters benefit.  It is also worth doing because when critical facts are repeatedly denied and big lies allowed to stand unchallenged the landscape of discussion changes. In my view that is dangerous situation.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Hell will turn into a balmy tropical paradise before Noco will move. He is adamantly certain that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by world wide greenies with gross manufacturing of all relevant data by all the major scientific organisation, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as scientists in related disciplines. He also arbitrarily dismisses any observations by scientists that disagree with his view and in particular any evidence that challenges the "No CC mantra". No reasons, no logic, no argument.
> 
> That is not my comment. Noco has expressed it clearly repeatedly. In that context simply bringing all the issues surrounding how the world is changing and the consequences  is for other posters benefit.  It is also worth doing because when critical facts are repeatedly denied and big lies allowed to stand unchallenged the landscape of discussion changes. In my view that is dangerous situation.




Boy oh boy how you Greenies show so much hate for me for showing you up.....It is very satisfying to me when I get those sort responses Bas, because I know it is sticking in your gizzet

Even Marion O'Brien (Hotwhopper) admits she is clueless when it comes to Climate Change and you are happy to follow someone like her.

I just ROFL....LMAO.

Now then what is your next clown act in the 3 ring circus?


----------



## basilio

_"Hell will turn into a balmy tropical paradise before Noco will move. He is adamantly certain that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by world wide greenies with gross manufacturing of all relevant data by all the major scientific organisation, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as scientists in related disciplines. He also arbitrarily dismisses any observations by scientists that disagree with his view and in particular any evidence that challenges the "No CC mantra". No reasons, no logic, no argument."  Bas
_
Have I accurately summed up your views on CC Noco ?  Because that is all I was doing.


----------



## explod

Birds are very adaptable to changing obstacles. As a child on our farm we delighted in the mudlarks nest on the upper landing just under the swirling blade which we could see from our kitchen window.  Every year they hatched and raised 3 or 4 chicks who soon flipped amid the cyprus trees just below.

The big killer of birds  are fast moving cars and aircraft coming and going at airports.


----------



## explod

Spot on Bas.

In my lefty, green, commo, socialistic humble opinion of course.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Birds are very adaptable to changing obstacles. As a child on our farm we delighted in the mudlarks nest on the upper landing just under the swirling blade which we could see from our kitchen window.  Every year they hatched and raised 3 or 4 chicks who soon flipped amid the cyprus trees just below.
> 
> The big killer of birds  are fast moving cars and aircraft coming and going at airports.




Hmmm....not as much as those ugly wind turbines...Where are your facts and figures or is this more hear say rhetoric.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> _"Hell will turn into a balmy tropical paradise before Noco will move. He is adamantly certain that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by world wide greenies with gross manufacturing of all relevant data by all the major scientific organisation, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as scientists in related disciplines. He also arbitrarily dismisses any observations by scientists that disagree with his view and in particular any evidence that challenges the "No CC mantra". No reasons, no logic, no argument."  Bas
> _
> Have I accurately summed up your views on CC Noco ?  Because that is all I was doing.




Sum up what you like.......Sum up the evidence I have presented and there more where all that came from which is the opinion of many more than the alarmist.......Like 33,800 scientists who report the Global Warming is a farce and s scam.


----------



## explod

Observations are facts noco.  The windmill on our farm or the wind turbines just south at Yambuk have been there many years now and friends from my school footy days at Yambuk just laugh at those saying they kill the birds in that area.

Direct observation and on the spot experience are the best facts noco.  You should study law and learn about the real substance required to prove a fact.  The internet is comprised of multiple opinions which lose the truth due to intertwined bias and wishful thinking mixed in that endless tub.

We all wish that climate change did not exist noco, and its progress is so alarming that many turn their heads and pretend it is not so.  In my career only facts could and are acted upon and my head cannot turn away from the truth


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Observations are facts noco.  The windmill on our farm or the wind turbines just south at Yambuk have been there many years now and friends from my school footy days at Yambuk just laugh at those saying they kill the birds in that area.
> 
> Direct observation and on the spot experience are the best facts noco.  You should study law and learn about the real substance required to prove a fact.  The internet is comprised of multiple opinions which lose the truth due to intertwined bias and wishful thinking mixed in that endless tub.
> 
> We all wish that climate change did not exist noco, and its progress is so alarming that many turn their heads and pretend it is not so.  In my career only facts could and are acted upon and my head cannot turn away from the truth




Climate Change does exist and nobody will deny it, but it is not caused by man made, but a natural phenomena....Can't you understand that.....It is mainly to do with the Sun, Sun spots and the Earth's axis which changes the angle to the Sun as explained in the links I have provided.

I am still waiting for you to prove to me the number of birds killed by aircraft and motor vehicles...You really have not got a clue have you.......Your observations are very limited I am afraid.


----------



## explod

What natural phenomena noco, how about you explaining your own observations rather than unprovable statements like its sunspots.

Five billion years ago the earth was a fireball of gas and has been cooling down since except of late.  It should be getting colder but this natural process is being upset by the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels;  coal and oil.  Simple stuff really that we learnt at Primary School noco.  Did you go to school at all ole Pal, really feel for your ignorance of reality.


----------



## noco

Ves said:


> Yeah cool story bro...
> 
> I'm fairly sure, given the fact that I post here on ASF far less frequently these days,  that I've got no desires of being a forum moderator or any plans of forum domination (lol).
> 
> Some how you've created yet another situation in your mind where you can act like the victim and we're all out to get you off the forum.  All because you didn't like criticism of your argument.
> 
> There's no need to get upset,   post whatever you like,  but everyone here is allowed to respond.
> 
> I'm happy to sit here and argue until we're black and blue.




Yes of course everyone is allowed to respond but when you get nasty with your ridicule, insinuations and character assassination it only proves one thing and that is you show  no moderation with that vicious tongue of yours......You carry on like a delinquent juvenile who can't get his own way.....


----------



## Junior

noco said:


> Hmmm....not as much as those ugly wind turbines...




Hazelwood, Latrobe Valley:

















Toora wind farm, 100km down the road from Moe.  No smoke, no fire, no hole in the ground.  Yes, a lot less energy from just a few turbines, but would rather 10,000 of these than one big stinking, polluting coal plant, and the associated hole which grows larger by the year.  Not to mention the vast quantity of water these plants churn through every year.


----------



## Ves

noco said:


> Yes of course everyone is allowed to respond but when you get nasty with your ridicule, insinuations and character assassination it only proves one thing and that is you show  no moderation with that vicious tongue of yours......You carry on like a delinquent juvenile who can't get his own way.....



That's just your opinion of me and not something I'm too concerned about.   You've actually got it wrong,  I'm not carrying on like someone who doesn't get his own way,   I'm carrying on like someone who does get his own way and apparently that's very frustrating for people like you.


----------



## overhang

Junior said:


> Toora wind farm, 100km down the road from Moe.  No smoke, no fire, no hole in the ground.  Yes, a lot less energy from just a few turbines, but would rather 10,000 of these than one big stinking, polluting coal plant, and the associated hole which grows larger by the year.  Not to mention the vast quantity of water these plants churn through every year.



Yes spot on, Noco, Joe Hockey, Andrew Bolt and the like can go live next to a coal mine/plant and expose themselves to the proven negative health impacts associated with living in close proximity to coal operations, I'll take my chances on the unproven health impacts of a wind farm.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Observations are facts noco.  The windmill on our farm or the wind turbines just south at Yambuk have been there many years now and friends from my school footy days at Yambuk just laugh at those saying they kill the birds in that area.
> 
> Direct observation and on the spot experience are the best facts noco.  You should study law and learn about the real substance required to prove a fact.  The internet is comprised of multiple opinions which lose the truth due to intertwined bias and wishful thinking mixed in that endless tub.
> 
> We all wish that climate change did not exist noco, and its progress is so alarming that many turn their heads and pretend it is not so.  In my career only facts could and are acted upon and my head cannot turn away from the truth





explod said:


> Observations are facts noco.  The windmill on our farm or the wind turbines just south at Yambuk have been there many years now and friends from my school footy days at Yambuk just laugh at those saying they kill the birds in that area.
> 
> Direct observation and on the spot experience are the best facts noco.  You should study law and learn about the real substance required to prove a fact.  The internet is comprised of multiple opinions which lose the truth due to intertwined bias and wishful thinking mixed in that endless tub.
> 
> We all wish that climate change did not exist noco, and its progress is so alarming that many turn their heads and pretend it is not so.  In my career only facts could and are acted upon and my head cannot turn away from the truth




Plod I do believe we have been down this track before regarding direct observations....You have a short memory.

You may recall we established the fact that I was in uniform when you were in liquid form and just a twinkle in your fathers eyes.

You may recall me telling you how I worked on sheep stations in the South Western Queensland in the late 40's and early 50's.......I hope you have not forgotten me telling you how I went through drought, fire and floods having been marooned on one station for 2 weeks south of Meandarra.......No panic.....No helicopters to drop food....We all survived because of the past experience of the smart cockie who had been through it before and so had his father and grand father and all knew how to cater for extreme weather.

So extreme weather is not new....My mother was born in Port Douglas....She witnessed coral bleaching in the early 1900's.....Their house was completely destroyed in the 1908 cyclone.

*With all this installation of solar and wind power, by what degree  has it reduced the Global temperature?*

So yes I have been through violent thunder storms in Brisbane a s kid.....I have been through 4 cyclones in 46 years living in NQ.

So don't talk to me about observations young fellow....


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Yes spot on, Noco, Joe Hockey, Andrew Bolt and the like can go live next to a coal mine/plant and expose themselves to the proven negative health impacts associated with living in close proximity to coal operations, I'll take my chances on the unproven health impacts of a wind farm.




Perhaps you may change your mind after reading this link on how wind farms are affecting the health of human beings, sheep and cattle....So yes, go and live in wind farm and take your chances.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Perhaps you may change your mind after reading this link on how wind farms are affecting the health of human beings, sheep and cattle....So yes, go and live in wind farm and take your chances.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/




And we also must be concerned about all that sunlight reflecting off solar cells on roofs all around the country going back into the atmosphere and heating it up.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Perhaps you may change your mind after reading this link on how wind farms are affecting the health of human beings, sheep and cattle....So yes, go and live in wind farm and take your chances.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/




Is there any proof of infrasound and sickness, plus wouldn't city folk have more exposure to it than out on the farm?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Is there any proof of infrasound and sickness, plus wouldn't city folk have more exposure to it than out on the farm?




I  would have thought the link provided would have been enough proof of wind farm sickness.....I noted a TV interview with a woman in SA indicating the affects it had on her life.


----------



## basilio

I'm delighted to see Noco quoting papers presented in reputable Medical Journals on the effects of wind turbines on health.  Do we now do a comparative analysis on the effects of coal and diesel particulate emissions on health Vs wind turbine effects ?


----------



## basilio

Some interesting developments in the political landscape in US on Global Warming.

* The Republicans who care about climate change: 'They are done with the denial' *
As despair intensifies over Trump’s agenda, the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus brings Democrats and Republicans together to break the deadlock

......._Donald Trump, meanwhile, has vacillated on the issue but has previously called climate science “bull****” and a “hoax”. His actions since becoming president perhaps speak loudest: he has set about dismantling the Clean Power Plan, thrown open federal lands to coal mining, ordered the revision of clean air regulations and halted new vehicle emissions standards.
But amid climate activists’ despair, there are fresh shoots of hope that, as a party, Republicans’ climate intransigence is shifting. A growing group of Republicans in Congress are newly emboldened and are speaking out in favor of finally addressing a crisis that is starting to bite their constituents.
The Climate Solutions Caucus, set up just last year, now has 38 members, half of them Republicans. The congressional group, which is crafting bipartisan action on climate change, is bolstered by a new chorus of big business, faith groups and young college-based Republicans that are demanding the GOP drops the climate skepticism that has become a key part of its identity over the past decade.
If you want to join as a Democrat, you have to bring a Republican. It’s a Noah’s Ark approach, which is appropriate
_
Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat
_ 
 “The vast majority of Republicans in private buy the science – the likes of Inhofe are in the minority,” said Danny Richter, legislative director of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a non-profit group that painstakingly helped put together the caucus. 


 “What Republicans needed was safe passage to talk about climate action in public, to not be the the first one to walk down that rickety bridge. There’s now a group who can see their constituents are genuinely concerned about climate change.
 “They are done with the denial. That should really shift something fundamental in American politics.” 
The standard bearer in Congress is Carlos Curbelo, whose district includes the Florida Keys, an area in serious peril from the advancing seas. Curbelo, the son of Cuban migrants, said his generally moderate views and age – he’s 37 – make him “both an old-school Republican and also a new young Republican.”
Curbelo was the first Republican to join the Climate Solutions Caucus and co-chairs it alongside Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat. In a bid to get beyond partisanship, members of the group are evenly split. “If you want to join as a Democrat, you have to bring along a Republican,” said Deutch. “It’s a Noah’s Ark sort of approach, which is appropriate given the subject matter. We don’t argue about the science. It’s all very respectful.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/27/climate-solutions-caucus-republicans-trump_


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Perhaps you may change your mind after reading this link on how wind farms are affecting the health of human beings, sheep and cattle....So yes, go and live in wind farm and take your chances.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/




I will take the findings of the 20+ peer reviewed studies that have shown no proof of wind farms causing adverse health effects than 1 questionable paper authored by the board of directors of the "Society for Wind Vigilance".   http://www.aweablog.org/when-medica...-targets-family-doctors-with-bad-information/

A few crackpots worry so much about a risk that is non-existent that they cause themselves anxiety.



> The AMA has released a position statement on wind farms, saying its stance is based on credible Australian and international studies.
> 
> "People living near wind farms who experience adverse health or wellbeing may well do so because of heightened anxiety or negative perceptions about wind farms," he said.


----------



## basilio

Nice work Overhang.  I have to say I was very surprised at the Journal study because to my knowledge there was precious little peer reviewed research that identified illnesses caused by wind turbines. So when one  looks behind the study and sees just how it was constructed we realise how bad actors can twist words and research to create  they  results they want to see.
No surprises here.


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> I'm delighted to see Noco quoting papers presented in reputable Medical Journals on the effects of wind turbines on health.  Do we now do a comparative analysis on the effects of coal and diesel particulate emissions on health Vs wind turbine effects ?




There's a recent study showing a strong correlation between living near highways and high incidents of Alzheimer. But I guess it could just be due to poor diet or poverty.

A couple of politicians in Baltimore, US, is against offshore wind farm because it ruin the ocean view. That it's unfair on residents who work hard, got rich and live by the sea to now have their ocean horizon ruin by the turbines.

And of course it also affect tourism, leading to loss of jobs and destroyed families.

Incredible the kind of thing people can say when they're paid a bit.


----------



## cynic

overhang said:


> I will take the findings of the 20+ peer reviewed studies that have shown no proof of wind farms causing adverse...
> 
> A few crackpots worry so much about a risk that is non-existent that they cause themselves anxiety.




Perhaps your sentiments may be true of other things!

I am genuinely undecided on the percieved impacts (or absence thereof) attributed to various technologies.

I have voiced my concerns and speculations that there just might, conceivably, be some unforseen, or yet to be discovered harm from the sudden oversaturated usage of some of these alternative technologies.

By now the readers of this thread, will doubtless be aware, that I am not really much of a fan of the "lots of scientists agree" ideology.

Absence of proof, whilst it can be heartening, isn't quite the same thing as proof of absence!

 In saying this, I do recognise, that these same arguments, are more than likely, to have equal relevance to my chosen perspective on these matters.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Some interesting developments in the political landscape in US on Global Warming.
> 
> * The Republicans who care about climate change: 'They are done with the denial' *
> As despair intensifies over Trump’s agenda, the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus brings Democrats and Republicans together to break the deadlock
> 
> ......._Donald Trump, meanwhile, has vacillated on the issue but has previously called climate science “bull****” and a “hoax”. His actions since becoming president perhaps speak loudest: he has set about dismantling the Clean Power Plan, thrown open federal lands to coal mining, ordered the revision of clean air regulations and halted new vehicle emissions standards.
> But amid climate activists’ despair, there are fresh shoots of hope that, as a party, Republicans’ climate intransigence is shifting. A growing group of Republicans in Congress are newly emboldened and are speaking out in favor of finally addressing a crisis that is starting to bite their constituents.
> The Climate Solutions Caucus, set up just last year, now has 38 members, half of them Republicans. The congressional group, which is crafting bipartisan action on climate change, is bolstered by a new chorus of big business, faith groups and young college-based Republicans that are demanding the GOP drops the climate skepticism that has become a key part of its identity over the past decade.
> If you want to join as a Democrat, you have to bring a Republican. It’s a Noah’s Ark approach, which is appropriate
> _
> Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat
> _
> “The vast majority of Republicans in private buy the science – the likes of Inhofe are in the minority,” said Danny Richter, legislative director of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a non-profit group that painstakingly helped put together the caucus.
> 
> 
> “What Republicans needed was safe passage to talk about climate action in public, to not be the the first one to walk down that rickety bridge. There’s now a group who can see their constituents are genuinely concerned about climate change.
> “They are done with the denial. That should really shift something fundamental in American politics.”
> The standard bearer in Congress is Carlos Curbelo, whose district includes the Florida Keys, an area in serious peril from the advancing seas. Curbelo, the son of Cuban migrants, said his generally moderate views and age – he’s 37 – make him “both an old-school Republican and also a new young Republican.”
> Curbelo was the first Republican to join the Climate Solutions Caucus and co-chairs it alongside Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat. In a bid to get beyond partisanship, members of the group are evenly split. “If you want to join as a Democrat, you have to bring along a Republican,” said Deutch. “It’s a Noah’s Ark sort of approach, which is appropriate given the subject matter. We don’t argue about the science. It’s all very respectful.”
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/27/climate-solutions-caucus-republicans-trump_




From the good old communist paper the Guardian who are good friends of the Green/Labor socialist coalition.....What else would you expect from them?


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> From the good old communist paper the Guardian who are good friends of the Green/Labor socialist coalition.....What else would you expect from them?




Tell you what Noco.  You seem like a sporting man with a keen sense of a winning bet.

I've got $10,000 that says I can find that Climate Solutions caucus story right across the net.  Reuters, Sunshine news god knows where else. Same reality. Just covered by different media organisations. 
Are you game for a friendly wager ? Your allowed to have a peek on the net before you respond. Wouldn't want to take undue advantage of you mate.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Tell you what Noco.  You seem like a sporting man with a keen sense of a winning bet.
> 
> I've got $10,000 that says I can find that Climate Solutions caucus story right across the net.  Reuters, Sunshine news god knows where else. Same reality. Just covered by different media organisations.
> Are you game for a friendly wager ? Your allowed to have a peek on the net before you respond. Wouldn't want to take undue advantage of you mate.




I will take your $10,000 and raise it to a $1million.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> I will take your $10,000 and raise it to a $1million.




Never surrender, never retreat.  Bravo Noco - the same imperious denier of reality we are used to seeing every day of the week, every week of the year.
Anyone, including you, can find a dozen stories of the emergence of the joint Democratic- Republican Climate Solutions caucus on the net.  It is a very creative way of attempting to enable a political consensus on CC in the US. 
But you have to be very special Noco to denounce the reporting of this fact by The Guardian as another example of "good old communist paper The Guardian".
Don't worry about finding me with the million bucks mate. I'll send Tiny and Titch around next week to collect it.....  

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-congress-idUSKBN16905I
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/can-only-congress-prevent-climate-change
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/14/520022064/a-spark-of-hope-for-climate-change-reality
https://www.fcnl.org/updates/who-is-in-the-bipartisan-climate-solutions-caucus-772
http://www.courierpress.com/story/o...eeds-part-climate-solutions-caucus/100574492/
https://newny23rd.com/2017/03/31/climate-solutions-caucus/
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...-caucus-led-south-florida-congressmen-expands
https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus
https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus


----------



## wayneL

Done with the denial eh?

Curiously, the most extreme of the alarmist camp are among those suffering the worst from denial.

Confirmation bias is a bitch.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Never surrender, never retreat.  Bravo Noco - the same imperious denier of reality we are used to seeing every day of the week, every week of the year.
> Anyone, including you, can find a dozen stories of the emergence of the joint Democratic- Republican Climate Solutions caucus on the net.  It is a very creative way of attempting to enable a political consensus on CC in the US.
> But you have to be very special Noco to denounce the reporting of this fact by The Guardian as another example of "good old communist paper The Guardian".
> Don't worry about finding me with the million bucks mate. I'll send Tiny and Titch around next week to collect it.....
> 
> http://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-congress-idUSKBN16905I
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/can-only-congress-prevent-climate-change
> http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/14/520022064/a-spark-of-hope-for-climate-change-reality
> https://www.fcnl.org/updates/who-is-in-the-bipartisan-climate-solutions-caucus-772
> http://www.courierpress.com/story/o...eeds-part-climate-solutions-caucus/100574492/
> https://newny23rd.com/2017/03/31/climate-solutions-caucus/
> http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...-caucus-led-south-florida-congressmen-expands
> https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus
> https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus




Did I say a million bucks?

Sorry Bas it was millions ducks.......Send 5 semi trailers.


----------



## ghotib

A sign of your changing mind Noco? You wouldn't be the first: this guy used to write skeptic talking points for a living.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/



> [Joe Romm] told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so *with full knowledge they were being misleading.*



(My bolds)


----------



## basilio

ghotib said:


> A sign of your changing mind Noco? You wouldn't be the first: this guy used to write skeptic talking points for a living.
> 
> https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/
> 
> 
> (My bolds)



That was an eyeopener ghotib. Very , very thought provoking.

 Tell you what Noco.  I'll rip up the chit for a million bucks or a million ducks or whatever if you just check out that story and give it 10 minutes of your time- and then your thoughts on it.
Cheers


----------



## basilio

Well I think I have found a new CC guru. Anyway at least someone who seems to have their head around the reality of CC and what is required to  effectively address the  issue.  Check it out.

*Climate Ambitions vs. Policy Reality*
by Jerry Taylor 
On January 28th, I participated in a forum at the Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center to discuss the agreement that came out of Paris last year to address climate change. On the panel with me was President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, along with Matthew Rodriguez, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group.

I found myself as something of a skunk at an august garden party. In the midst of a great deal of shared congratulation regarding the COP-21 agreement, I argued that the Paris treaty failed to do much of anything to address the risks of climate change, and there is little reason to think that the endless train of global climate confabs on the horizon will do any better. You can see all of the panel presentations and subsequent conversation here. My presentation (about ten minutes or so) is isolated here.

The massive gulf between what is required if we take IPCC reports seriously (as I do) and what is being delivered in the policy world is important. It explains why small-bore initiatives like clean energy subsidies, tax credits, clean energy deregulation, and energy efficiency mandates (those in place and those envisioned) are utterly inadequate to the task. It explains why crash R&D programs—even if eventually successful—are unlikely to reduce emissions in the time required. It explains why many in the environmental establishment, with their easy-sell clean energy policies and relatively unambitious regulatory initiatives, such as the Clean Power Plan, often strike well-informed conservatives as disingenuous.
*Climate Ambitions*

Let’s review the challenge we’ve established for ourselves: stopping the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to limit global warming. The UNFCCC at Copenhagen (2009), and again in Paris, rallied around the goal of preventing warming in excess of 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures.
I see no reason to fight that goal.
Warming beyond 2°C puts us in a temperature range we have never before seen in human history. How the climate system will respond is unclear. Will the impacts from warming be linear or nonlinear? Are there temperature-related tipping points that could produce unforeseen abrupt and irreversible catastrophic climate events (see pp. 1114-1119)? We don’t know.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/climate-ambitions-vs-policy-reality/


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well I think I have found a new CC guru. Anyway at least someone who seems to have their head around the reality of CC and what is required to  effectively address the  issue.  Check it out.
> 
> *Climate Ambitions vs. Policy Reality*
> by Jerry Taylor
> On January 28th, I participated in a forum at the Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center to discuss the agreement that came out of Paris last year to address climate change. On the panel with me was President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, along with Matthew Rodriguez, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group.
> 
> I found myself as something of a skunk at an august garden party. In the midst of a great deal of shared congratulation regarding the COP-21 agreement, I argued that the Paris treaty failed to do much of anything to address the risks of climate change, and there is little reason to think that the endless train of global climate confabs on the horizon will do any better. You can see all of the panel presentations and subsequent conversation here. My presentation (about ten minutes or so) is isolated here.
> 
> The massive gulf between what is required if we take IPCC reports seriously (as I do) and what is being delivered in the policy world is important. It explains why small-bore initiatives like clean energy subsidies, tax credits, clean energy deregulation, and energy efficiency mandates (those in place and those envisioned) are utterly inadequate to the task. It explains why crash R&D programs—even if eventually successful—are unlikely to reduce emissions in the time required. It explains why many in the environmental establishment, with their easy-sell clean energy policies and relatively unambitious regulatory initiatives, such as the Clean Power Plan, often strike well-informed conservatives as disingenuous.
> *Climate Ambitions*
> 
> Let’s review the challenge we’ve established for ourselves: stopping the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to limit global warming. The UNFCCC at Copenhagen (2009), and again in Paris, rallied around the goal of preventing warming in excess of 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures.
> I see no reason to fight that goal.
> Warming beyond 2°C puts us in a temperature range we have never before seen in human history. How the climate system will respond is unclear. Will the impacts from warming be linear or nonlinear? Are there temperature-related tipping points that could produce unforeseen abrupt and irreversible catastrophic climate events (see pp. 1114-1119)? We don’t know.
> 
> https://niskanencenter.org/blog/climate-ambitions-vs-policy-reality/




Geez Bas, it has taken me 2 days to read all that info on Global Warming and I am now convinced we must do something about it.
You have  now  converted me into becoming a Green Fabian socialist left and dedicated to saving the world.

Now I believe there is something like 10% renewables compared to other sources of power which so far has reduced the Global temperature by .000001 %....So it is now up to you and I to bring that figure down to .00001%....How will we do it together?

We have to demonstrate with more Greenies to get rid of those nasty coal fired power station and make sure we close all the coal mines.......India won't be too happy not being able to provide power to some 100,000,000 people but who cares?.....Who cares about the 16,000 job loses in Queensland?.....What will the unions have to say about it ?......Hey I guess there is always the dole which might add a few million dollars to social welfare.......But who cares?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/six-myths-about-renewable-energy-1379884641


----------



## basilio

Interesting Noco. I can't quite grasp why you want to become a Green Socialist Fabian. Doesn';t quite jell with Jerry Taylors  story does it ?

I understood Jerry Taylor is  an right wing Libertarian.  He just happens to acknowledge the evidence around CC and is very concerned out our future if we don't rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. That article from WSJ was good stuff. I think if you take the trouble to analyse the CC information as per Jerry Taylor you'll recognise we have a looooonnng way to go if we are actually going to have an impact on the greenhouse gases we have already emitted and are committed to to releasing.

But hey you knew that didn't you ? And really Jerry's most telling point was recognising just how he had been  repeatedly stooged by the CC deniers.  Perhaps you might want to check that out as well ?


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Interesting Noco. I can't quite grasp why you want to become a Green Socialist Fabian. Doesn';t quite jell with Jerry Taylors  story does it ?
> 
> I understood Jerry Taylor is  an right wing Libertarian.  He just happens to acknowledge the evidence around CC and is very concerned out our future if we don't rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. That article from WSJ was good stuff. I think if you take the trouble to analyse the CC information as per Jerry Taylor you'll recognise we have a looooonnng way to go if we are actually going to have an impact on the greenhouse gases we have already emitted and are committed to to releasing.
> 
> But hey you knew that didn't you ? And really Jerry's most telling point was recognising just how he had been  repeatedly stooged by the CC deniers.  Perhaps you might want to check that out as well ?





The reason why I want to become a Greenie is because they would concur with everything Jerry Taylor has quoted.......He says he wants to get rid of CO2 but our plant life would not survive without  CO2.......Once you get under 150 ppm, plant will not survive....It is currently around 400ppm and plant life is flourishing on it.......This is the thing I cannot understand has why Jerry Taylor in his speech stated we must get rid of CO2.....As of today how much has the Global temperature been reduced with all this renewable energy and the closure of coal fired power stations......Do you really know or do any of the CC scientists know?

How will it affect Jerry Taylor if Trump tears up the Paris agreement which in my mind has not done a great deal anyway.

The major problem I also have right now is my wife is a Global Warming denier and when I told her I was joining the Greens she immediately wants to divorce me.......I have contacted Dorothy Dix for advice and I am awaiting on her suggestions.

The link below is just one of many who are saying Global Warming is a hoax and a scam.......Bas I am so confused as to who is right and who is wrong.




Bas can you tell me how much


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> As of today how much has the Global temperature been reduced with all this renewable energy and the closure of coal fired power stations......Do you really know or do any of the CC scientists know?
> Bas can you tell me how much




You do understand that the worlds consumption of energy continues to rise and that it offsets the gains made by renewables?  One wouldn't expect temperatures to be reduced when CO2 released into the atmosphere continues to rise.


----------



## noco

Dorothy Dix : Dear Noco, in response to your inquiry, you must take into consideration your age, that you are in your twilight  years of your life and to give up 35 years of a loving relationship with your wife would be the greatest mistake of your life....You will one day need your wife far more than you will need the Greens....
From what I have learned, the Green,Fabian socialist left are full of wishy washy false propaganda and will continue to promote this scam and hoax on Man Made Global Warming to fulfill the request of the corrupt UN who are full of Greens.
Stay with your wife and give up any ideas you had of joining these socialist Greens who use the environment as a shadow for their real agenda.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> You do understand that the worlds consumption of energy continues to rise and that it offsets the gains made by renewables?  One wouldn't expect temperatures to be reduced when CO2 released into the atmosphere continues to rise.




All I want to know is by how much will the Global temperature be reduced with the increase of renewable energy......Isn't that the crux of the game?......To eliminate CO2 as Jerry Taylor states is not good for our plant life which depends on CO2 to stay alive....We must have CO2 so why eliminate it?


----------



## basilio

Gently, gently good Noco.  Don't let any of this scary stuff about turning the world into a hothouse with balmy days at the Poles and beaches at Ayers Rock ruin your day.  After all we all have to go one day in some way and you really don't want to lose any sleep or your good wife.

I'm assuming of course you don't have any children or grand children or younger friends to be concerned about. And anyway whatever happens  later this century and beyond will be their problem won't it ? 

Just a last point. Jerry Taylor (and in fact all the libertarian/socialist/ sciencey types who have been hollering about human produced GG emissions) arn't trying to eliminate CO2  from the atmosphere.  It's just trying to stop us adding to the extra 40% that industrial human activity has injected in the past couple of hundred of years.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Gently, gently good Noco.  Don't let any of this scary stuff about turning the world into a hothouse with balmy days at the Poles and beaches at Ayers Rock ruin your day.  After all we all have to go one day in some way and you really don't want to lose any sleep or your good wife.
> 
> I'm assuming of course you don't have any children or grand children or younger friends to be concerned about. And anyway whatever happens  later this century and beyond will be their problem won't it ?
> 
> Just a last point. Jerry Taylor (and in fact all the libertarian/socialist/ sciencey types who have been hollering about human produced GG emissions) arn't trying to eliminate CO2  from the atmosphere.  It's just trying to stop us adding to the extra 40% that industrial human activity has injected in the past couple of hundred of years.




Firstly, ASSUME can make an ass out of you and me...So don't assume........For your information I have 3 kids, 5 grand children and 5 great grand children from 2 to 13 years of age.

So by what degree of temperature will Global Warming be reduced by if that 40% increase in CO2 (don't know where you plucked that figure from) is halted...If you listen to Jerry Taylor again, he said he wanted to eliminate CO2.

CO2 can increase to 600 ppm without harm...So why do these knuckle heads want to eliminate this essential plant food......It just does not make sense.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/


----------



## cynic

overhang said:


> You do understand that the worlds consumption of energy continues to rise and that it offsets the gains made by renewables?  One wouldn't expect temperatures to be reduced when CO2 released into the atmosphere continues to rise.



I could almost agree with the first sentence of your post, but would need prior clarification on the "gains".

As to the last sentence, I am genuinely undecided as to the true temperature effect from elevated CO2 levels, and am also genuinely undecided as to whether or not the rise in CO2 is continuing. I can accept that measures of historical CO2 levels have at times been significantly lower, (and possibly higher at other times!).

I can see from your post, (and the postings of others) you believe these things to be true. However, not everyone happens to share your confidence and certainty in these matters.

Perhaps some more debate about our respective bases for these opposing views with regard to our certainties/doubts, might help shift this debate out of the "rut" in which it seems to have gotten itself stuck.


----------



## noco

Carbon pollution debunked.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/




Why is ancient pre modern man days used as an argument to trivialise concerns for our health and well being today? Climate change was probably the reason old species died out and we find ourselves where we are today. 

The real questions are :

1) Why it is important to anyone outside of the powerful elite to argue the toss about climate change? I can only assume it's argument for the sake of argument and jousting for many....trolling mainly.

2) Will we evolve or devolve to accommodate any change? My guess is that disease and pestilence from war will be the far bigger concern in the future.

3) Why bother trying to convince dinosaurs they are ill equipped to handle new concepts?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> My guess is that disease and pestilence from war will be the far bigger concern in the future.




War may result if climate change destroys our ability to grow food and shortages result.

Competition for resources has always been a driver for war, but at the moment the driver seems mainly ideological or religious.


----------



## Junior

In my mind folks who are climate-change deniers are basically in favour of pollution.  Why would you actively promote the dirtiest means of producing energy when there are 100 cleaner ways to do it??  

What are the benefits of ignoring technological advancement in favour of aggressively clinging to outdated & superseded technology?  Old guys who love an argument, I reckon.

Whether or not you believe man is the cause of increased global temperature should really be beside the point.  This being the case or not, let's close down power plants which spew black smoke into the atmosphere and pursue the many better alternatives out there.  

Solar panels on every home, wind farms, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and gas-fired or nuclear base-load where necessary.


----------



## Tisme

Junior said:


> In my mind folks who are climate-change deniers are basically in favour of pollution.  Why would you actively promote the dirtiest means of producing energy when there are 100 cleaner ways to do it??
> 
> What are the benefits of ignoring technological advancement in favour of aggressively clinging to outdated & superseded technology?  Old guys who love an argument, I reckon.
> 
> Whether or not you believe man is the cause of increased global temperature should really be beside the point.  This being the case or not, let's close down power plants which spew black smoke into the atmosphere and pursue the many better alternatives out there.
> 
> Solar panels on every home, wind farms, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and gas-fired or nuclear base-load where necessary.




That tried to crucify Ralph Nader, but now we all breath suburban air free of those nauseous petrol fumes of the 70's and before, etc.

Back then the malevolent auto industry fought against concerned people's right of health for profit, these days it is industry fighting for belligerent and ambivalent peoples' right of health for profit..... go figure.

Odd people who have lost their way and become cantankerous old fools pining for the good old days of miserable health of early strokes, heart attacks, liver disease and cancers.


----------



## noco

Why can't people get into their thick heads that nobody will deny we  experience climate change......Climate change has been happening for millions of years.

The problem is because we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 18 years and 9 months, the alarmists have shifted the goal posts from Global Warming to Climate change...Any with half a brain can follow that one.

Why the alarmist want to reduce the level of carbon dioxide is beyond me......We are currently at around 400 ppm and it is a known fact we can go to 600 ppm without harm to humans.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The problem is because we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 18 years and 9 months




For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.




Perhaps if you half wits took the time to read past posts and links there to you might learn something.

You obviously did not read the post on the Global warning pause that is for sure....So further back up and evidence is there for all to read......Just take your time Rumpy and don't skip the good reading.


----------



## Junior




----------



## SirRumpole

Looks like the science haters in government are winning.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-05-02/csiro-missing-in-action-on-climate-advice/8479568


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Perhaps if you half wits took the time to read past posts and links there to you might learn something.
> 
> You obviously did not read the post on the Global warning pause that is for sure....So further back up and evidence is there for all to read......Just take your time Rumpy and don't skip the good reading.




So where is your evidence in view of the graphs that Junior posted ? (Not for the first time has this data been posted here, I'm surprised that you have managed to ignore it to date).


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> So where is your evidence in view of the graphs that Junior posted ? (Not for the first time has this data been posted here, I'm surprised that you have managed to ignore it to date).



Can you post the adjustment protocol too please,  then we can discuss


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.




Rumpy, I always held you high in regard of intelligents, but it seems you  have slipped a little on this occasion.

Now please take the time to go back and view my various posts and links by different scientists depicting the exaggerated graphs on models in comparison to actual happenings.

Now check out my posts as follows :-
# 9393
# 9346
# 9360
#9390
# 9410
#9447
#9454.

Please let me know if you need any more back up as I have plenty more to offer.


----------



## basilio

Good luck with Adani and co selling coal to India.  That boat has sailed and sank.

* Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels *
Plummeting wholesale prices put the country on track to meet renewable energy targets set out in the Paris agreement


Solar panels for sale at a market in New Delhi. India’s solar power prices have fallen to 2.62 rupees per kilowatt hour. Photograph: Saurabh Das/

* Comments*
 612 
Michael Safi

 
@safimichael

Wednesday 10 May 2017 22.29 AEST   Last modified on Thursday 11 May 2017 08.21 AEST
Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.
The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.
India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.
Ensuring it generates as much of that energy as possible from renewable sources is considered crucial to limiting catastrophic global temperature increases.
At a reverse auction in Rajasthan on Tuesday, power companies Phelan Energy and Avaada Power each offered to charge 2.62 rupees per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated from solar panels they hope to build at an energy park in the desert state. Last year’s previous record lowest bid was 4.34 rupees per kWh .






Analysts called the 40% price drop “world historic” and said it was driven by cheaper finance and growing investor confidence in India’s pledge to dramatically increase its renewable energy capacity.

It reduces the market price of solar tariffs well past the average charged by India’s largest thermal coal conglomerate, currently around 3.20 rupees per kWh . Wholesale price bids for wind energy also reached a record low of 3.46 rupees in February.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels


----------



## noco

Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.
> 
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#




That's some good piece of bs there. Gotta give it to some people though, they're really good at what they're paid to do.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> That's some good piece of bs there. Gotta give it to some people though, they're really good at what they're paid to do.



I haven't checked into the integrity of the article myself, but would agree that, like so many news articles these days, it is attempting to strongly convey a very definite opinion. Hence some discernment and critical thinking is certainly warranted.

Simply decrying it as bs, without substantiation, falls a long way short of what I would consider discerning.

Are your reasons for posting thus, perchance, similar to your reasons for decrying the criticisms of the bogus claims to scientific consensus?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I haven't checked into the integrity of the article myself, but would agree that, like so many news articles these days, it is attempting to strongly convey a very definite opinion. Hence some discernment and critical thinking is certainly warranted.
> 
> Simply decrying it as bs, without substantiation, falls a long way short of what I would consider discerning.
> 
> Are your reasons for posting thus, perchance, similar to your reasons for decrying the criticisms of the bogus claims to scientific consensus?




The article is not self-evident enough of its own bs? My words aren't enough?   Yea fair enough.

But no, this was not "another" 97% consensus argument. That argument was debated a long while back where I actually read the original paper and weren't interested in a repeat.

As to noco's article... It's one of those well written, well stats piece that sounds really good and make a lot of sense, until you think about it.

Some of its point against wind power includes:

1. Wind power is so insignificant. It contribute "zero" [when you round up the numbers] of worldwide energy consumption. So it's useless, and it kill birds and sometime its concrete foundation sink into the ground a bit.

--- Hmmm... it just kinda got started. Incentives and subsidies for it (have always been peanuts but) are on and off, depending on which side of politics get in and get bought. That make it very hard to start up, attract private investment or commitment. Yet it energises on and in certain country in Europe, play a big part in making that country's energy completely renewable. 

So if it's currently not contributing enough to demand, ramp up its use. i.e. build more farms.

2. Which bring us to the other point... That if wind farm are to power the world, its footprint would be larger than all the land of the UK [something like that].

--- Hmmm... Where are we going to put those ugly, noisy, bird killing turbine, right? 

Not in anyone's backyard, literally.

Wind farm need, wait for it... lotsa wind. Something most metro, suburbia and generally inhabited places have very little of. Or not enough to make it worth the trouble of fighting for a turbine down the street.

Hence, you'd rather place them in places with high wind most year round. Places like offshore, up the mountain and ridges.

Here's an interesting byproduct of windfarm even I could come up with... you add a few minor structure around the base of offshore windfarm and they together will provide a series of artificial reefs. Nursing fisheries. Might be good for the world's green and renewable food supplies.

So land and space is not an issue.

3. Wind farm are not clean because beside its fibreglass blades, there's steel, there's magnets, there's copper, concrete etc. So how is that clean? Coals need to be burnt to cast steel, hence dirty; iron ore and magnets need to be mined, so how's that clean?

---- The rail that delivery the coals; the ships and pipelines that delivery the oil and gas... those aren't mined? Those aren't dirty? And guess what, fossil fuel need to be mined and delivered, new tracks and new pipelines need to be extended, all the time. With a windfarm, once the infrastructure is set up, they lasts a long, long time. And all throughout that, wind just kind of deliver itself, for free, without using any extra costs or resources. 


Cool? And that's like the first few paragraphs of the article.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> The article is not self-evident enough of its own bs? My words aren't enough?   Yea fair enough.
> 
> But no, this was not "another" 97% consensus argument. That argument was debated a long while back where I actually read the original paper and weren't interested in a repeat.
> 
> As to noco's article... It's one of those well written, well stats piece that sounds really good and make a lot of sense, until you think about it.
> 
> Some of its point against wind power includes:
> 
> 1. Wind power is so insignificant. It contribute "zero" [when you round up the numbers] of worldwide energy consumption. So it's useless, and it kill birds and sometime its concrete foundation sink into the ground a bit.
> 
> --- Hmmm... it just kinda got started. Incentives and subsidies for it (have always been peanuts but) are on and off, depending on which side of politics get in and get bought. That make it very hard to start up, attract private investment or commitment. Yet it energises on and in certain country in Europe, play a big part in making that country's energy completely renewable.
> 
> So if it's currently not contributing enough to demand, ramp up its use. i.e. build more farms.
> 
> 2. Which bring us to the other point... That if wind farm are to power the world, its footprint would be larger than all the land of the UK [something like that].
> 
> --- Hmmm... Where are we going to put those ugly, noisy, bird killing turbine, right?
> 
> Not in anyone's backyard, literally.
> 
> Wind farm need, wait for it... lotsa wind. Something most metro, suburbia and generally inhabited places have very little of. Or not enough to make it worth the trouble of fighting for a turbine down the street.
> 
> Hence, you'd rather place them in places with high wind most year round. Places like offshore, up the mountain and ridges.
> 
> Here's an interesting byproduct of windfarm even I could come up with... you add a few minor structure around the base of offshore windfarm and they together will provide a series of artificial reefs. Nursing fisheries. Might be good for the world's green and renewable food supplies.
> 
> So land and space is not an issue.
> 
> 3. Wind farm are not clean because beside its fibreglass blades, there's steel, there's magnets, there's copper, concrete etc. So how is that clean? Coals need to be burnt to cast steel, hence dirty; iron ore and magnets need to be mined, so how's that clean?
> 
> ---- The rail that delivery the coals; the ships and pipelines that delivery the oil and gas... those aren't mined? Those aren't dirty? And guess what, fossil fuel need to be mined and delivered, new tracks and new pipelines need to be extended, all the time. With a windfarm, once the infrastructure is set up, they lasts a long, long time. And all throughout that, wind just kind of deliver itself, for free, without using any extra costs or resources.
> 
> 
> Cool? And that's like the first few paragraphs of the article.



It's an improvement in that you have offered some reasoning. I might have even been impressed if you had highlighted which (if any), of the statistics, used to support the opinion/s, were factually incorrect. However, I am  now getting the sense that this is too much to expect of those hastily decrying any contrary opinion.

As for the 97% scientific consensus, having read Cook's paper, I know consider myself amply qualified, having found some logical flaws within, to declare it to be unworthy for use as anything other than fish&chips wrapping and/or toilet paper.

To declare that paper to be bovine faecal matter, would be tantamount to inflicting a serious injustice on manure, which deserves much better than to be associated with a logically bereft, misleading, opinion piece, masquerading as a scientific paper.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It's an improvement in that you have offered some reasoning. I might have even been impressed if you had highlighted which (if any), of the statistics, used to support the opinion/s, were factually incorrect. However, I am  now getting the sense that this is too much to expect of those hastily decrying any contrary opinion.
> 
> As for the 97% scientific consensus, having read Cook's paper, I know consider myself amply qualified, having found some logical flaws within, to declare it to be unworthy for use as anything other than fish&chips wrapping and/or toilet paper.
> 
> To declare that paper to be bovine faecal matter, would be tantamount to inflicting a serious injustice on manure, which deserves much better than to be associated with a logically bereft, misleading, opinion piece, masquerading as a scientific paper.




You funny, man. 

How's that deadly tree the greens does not permit you to touch even if it kills you? Seeing how much you and noco love birds, I would have thought you would risk human lives rather than knock a tree down lest you risk a bird dying or not having shelter. BUt I guess it's screw the bird if it nests on an annoying tree on your property.

btw, remember to print that Cook paper out first before you wipe yourself with it. Tablets and smartphones aren't that smart. And under no circumstances should you use it to both wrap fish and chips and/or toilet paper. 


To that other opinion piece... know how whenever those greenies point to the 97% of climate scientists' peer-reviewed papers concurring that CC does exists and is cause by anthropocentric humans [ I too can use big words, in the wrong places] ... each time those 97% figure are raise, the emus pull their head out of the sand and point to the other 35,000 "scientists" who disagree. You know, all "scientists" are the same, they all specialise and know the same stuff so your sports science scientist is as good as climate science scientist when it comes to climate.

Long story short, the paper is clever in how they give you facts and stats that in and of itself are true [I assume they are, haven't bothered to check]... but then if they're put into context, it's just rediculous. Like, stupid.

For instance... Wind energy is not clean because of all the steel and coal and mining that's needed to build the turbine.

That's true. But... but it's as dirty and poisonous as always mining for coal, drilling for oil, and also polluting the environment throughout the actual work/production of energy?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You funny, man.
> 
> How's that deadly tree the greens does not permit you to touch even if it kills you? Seeing how much you and noco love birds, I would have thought you would risk human lives rather than knock a tree down lest you risk a bird dying or not having shelter. BUt I guess it's screw the bird if it nests on an annoying tree on your property.
> 
> btw, remember to print that Cook paper out first before you wipe yourself with it. Tablets and smartphones aren't that smart. And under no circumstances should you use it to both wrap fish and chips and/or toilet paper.
> 
> 
> To that other opinion piece... know how whenever those greenies point to the 97% of climate scientists' peer-reviewed papers concurring that CC does exists and is cause by anthropocentric humans [ I too can use big words, in the wrong places] ... each time those 97% figure are raise, the emus pull their head out of the sand and point to the other 35,000 "scientists" who disagree. You know, all "scientists" are the same, they all specialise and know the same stuff so your sports science scientist is as good as climate science scientist when it comes to climate.
> 
> Long story short, the paper is clever in how they give you facts and stats that in and of itself are true [I assume they are, haven't bothered to check]... but then if they're put into context, it's just rediculous. Like, stupid.
> 
> For instance... Wind energy is not clean because of all the steel and coal and mining that's needed to build the turbine.
> 
> That's true. But... but it's as dirty and poisonous as always mining for coal, drilling for oil, and also polluting the environment throughout the actual work/production of energy?




It's not only the fact that a lot of scientists have voiced disagreement, it is the logical flaws in Cook's approach to, and interpretation of, the collation of data. 

Would you care to explain how 34% agreement, based upon interpretaion of abstracts from approx. 12,000 papers, were somehow transmuted into a near absolute consensus?

It would seem that some people's idea of the definition of 'bs' is anything that disagrees with their chosen opinion.

It would also seem that those same people believe science to be defined as anything that agrees with their chosen opinion.


----------



## noco

Malcolm Roberts makes a lot of sense regarding CO2.

Luuzu will most likely regard it as BS.....But I guess that is up to him to prove it is wrong

*"**Https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8*


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It's not only the fact that a lot of scientists have voiced disagreement, it is the logical flaws in Cook's approach to, and interpretation of, the collation of data.
> 
> Would you care to explain how 34% agreement, based upon interpretaion of abstracts from approx. 12,000 papers, were somehow transmuted into a near absolute consensus?
> 
> It would seem that some people's idea of the definition of 'bs' is anything that disagrees with their chosen opinion.
> 
> It would also seem that those same people believe science to be defined as anything that agrees with their chosen opinion.




I seriously don't know where you got that 34% from. I have a pretty good memory and a bit of an education so I can tell when some egghead is lying or not making sense. Didn't find that with the paper. Again, I've discussed it before, noco can attest to that and you too can use the search feature on the forum right?

Come on man, a bit unfair to accuse me of not (trying) to reason why I find something to be bs. I did say that it was fair enough for you to demand that I please explain why a hit piece is actually what it is. 

I did try to explain. And if you still can't see how I came to that conclusion then there's a Sydney Harbour Bridge I can sell you.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I seriously don't know where you got that 34% from. I have a pretty good memory and a bit of an education so I can tell when some egghead is lying or not making sense. Didn't find that with the paper. Again, I've discussed it before, noco can attest to that and you too can use the search feature on the forum right?
> 
> Come on man, a bit unfair to accuse me of not (trying) to reason why I find something to be bs. I did say that it was fair enough for you to demand that I please explain why a hit piece is actually what it is.
> 
> I did try to explain. And if you still can't see how I came to that conclusion then there's a Sydney Harbour Bridge I can sell you.



I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.

34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.

Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
> 
> 34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.
> 
> Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?




you are.


----------



## cynic

cynic said:


> I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
> 
> 34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.
> 
> Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?



Edit: 34.8% of authors endorse AGW

Not CAGW as previously posted.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> you are.



That is a blatant lie which makes a liar out of you!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> That is a blatant lie which makes a liar out of you!




Maybe they don't all endorse it, just that their conclusions confirm it. 

If I'm really bored, I'll re-read the article again and we can debate who's a better reader.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Maybe they don't all endorse it, just that their conclusions confirm it.
> 
> If I'm really bored, I'll re-read the article again and we can debate who's a better reader.



That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.

Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!

The conclusions of the other 64.8% authors, based upon their paper abstracts alone, most certainly did not contain the requisite 62.2% (i.e. 97 - 34.8 = 62.2)  endorsement.

In fact, the majority (>60%) of the papers/authors (those assessed as having taken no position on AGW), were subsequently (and conveniently) excluded from the final calculations. Hence the totally bogus results.

And let's not forget that none of the endorsement criteria required a catastrophic perception of AGW.

But if an apocalyptic fantasy has become so important that the published facts no longer matter, well I believe that there may still exist, some specialised facilities, designed to cater for those who are no longer able to remain engaged with reality.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.
> 
> Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!
> 
> The conclusions of the other 64.8% authors, based upon their paper abstracts alone, most certainly did not contain the requisite 62.2% (i.e. 97 - 34.8 = 62.2)  endorsement.
> 
> In fact, the majority (>60%) of the papers/authors (those assessed as having taken no position on AGW), were subsequently (and conveniently) excluded from the final calculations. Hence the totally bogus results.
> 
> And let's not forget that none of the endorsement criteria required a catastrophic perception of AGW.
> 
> But if an apocalyptic fantasy has become so important that the published facts no longer matter, well I believe that there may still exist, some specialised facilities, designed to cater for those who are no longer able to remain engaged with reality.




Sooo... if it turns out that 97% of peer-reviewed papers on CC confirm it, you'd take their words? 

I thought you don't care for consensus or science and stuff, so what does it matter if it's 34% or 97% or 100%. It just doesn't feel like rampant deforestation, air and water pollution etc. could possibly affect the Earth.


----------



## cynic

Absolutely not! I believe I have already posted a phrase to the effect that science and consensus are distinctly different things.

Unlike yourself, I do not consider popularity of opinion to be a valid substitute for rigorous scientific proof.

My reason for reading this paper, was simply to find out whether or not the critics, decrying its claimed findings, were correct. I can now recognise that those decrying the findings had ample justification in so doing!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Absolutely not! I believe I have already posted a phrase to the effect that science and consensus are distinctly different things.
> 
> Unlike yourself, I do not consider popularity of opinion to be a valid substitute for rigorous scientific proof.
> 
> My reason for reading this paper, was simply to find out whether or not the critics, decrying its claimed findings, were correct. I can now recognise that those decrying the findings had ample justification in so doing!




Nobody ever said anything about consensus equal proof or scientific validity. 

It just so happen that this 97% "consensus" came about from a simple count of the conclusions of all Climate Science research ever published. So unless you yourself can go through each one of those papers and point out where the flaws and fludgings are, shall we assume then that the scientific community that reviewed each of those paper's methodology, results etc. etc. and found it to be up to scientific research standard... that they know what they're reviewing?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Nobody ever said anything about consensus equal proof or scientific validity.
> 
> It just so happen that this 97% "consensus" came about from a simple count of the conclusions of all Climate Science research ever published. So unless you yourself can go through each one of those papers and point out where the flaws and fludgings are, shall we assume then that the scientific community that reviewed each of those paper's methodology, results etc. etc. and found it to be up to scientific research standard... that they know what they're reviewing?



It just so happens that those things you are saying occurred, in actuality didn't occur at all!

Have you read Cook's paper yet!!?
Because it sounds like you still have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about the basis for the claims to scientific consensus.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It just so happens that those things you are saying occurred, in actuality didn't occur at all!
> 
> Have you read Cook's paper yet!!?
> Because it sounds like you still have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about the basis for the claims to scientific consensus.




Yes, and you're still wrong.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Yes, and you're still wrong.



Huh!??
About what exactly?!!

Was I wrong about that, 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement, figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Huh!??
> About what exactly?!!
> 
> Was I wrong about that 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?




Alright, let's go through the paper... Man, the things I do for science and humanity. 

[
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook et. al. 2013... Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. *We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. *Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.]

Your beef is with that 66.4% of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW, right?

Before we go into what Cook et. al. says about that, let's use our brain for a bit...

What does "express no position" mean to you? Literally, the abstract express no opinion. It *does not* mean that those 66.4% of papers are saying there is no such thing as AGW - which is what you are implying. It simply mean that their paper express no opinion on it, either for or against.

Why would a paper express no opinion on AGW? Perhaps the paper is not looking to express any opinion on AGW, that just because they have the keywords Cook et. al., uses does not mean the aim of their paper was to answer AGW, its causes or such.

In other words, not expressing an opinion regarding the causes of CC, its existence etc., does not mean the paper is implying one way or another regarding AGW. 

Now, for the papers does express an opinion on AGW... they express it because they're paid to do so by the UN and China, or perhaps express an opinion because that's the aim of their research thesis...

Of those that express an opinion in the abstract, 97.1% "...endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Pretty straight forward.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Alright, let's go through the paper... Man, the things I do for science and humanity.
> 
> [
> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
> John Cook et. al. 2013... Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)
> 
> Abstract
> 
> We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. *We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. *Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.]
> 
> Your beef is with that 66.4% of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW, right?
> 
> Before we go into what Cook et. al. says about that, let's use our brain for a bit...
> 
> What does "express no position" mean to you? Literally, the abstract express no opinion. It *does not* mean that those 66.4% of papers are saying there is no such thing as AGW - which is what you are implying. It simply mean that their paper express no opinion on it, either for or against.
> 
> Why would a paper express no opinion on AGW? Perhaps the paper is not looking to express any opinion on AGW, that just because they have the keywords Cook et. al., uses does not mean the aim of their paper was to answer AGW, its causes or such.
> 
> In other words, not expressing an opinion regarding the causes of CC, its existence etc., does not mean the paper is implying one way or another regarding AGW.
> 
> Now, for the papers does express an opinion on AGW... they express it because they're paid to do so by the UN and China, or perhaps express an opinion because that's the aim of their research thesis...
> 
> Of those that express an opinion in the abstract, 97.1% "...endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
> 
> Pretty straight forward.



I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.

It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.

Of the 1200 authors who replied to a self assessment invitation, the level of AGW endorsement was higher, but still fell a long way short of the 97%.

Again I reiterate only 34.8% author endorsement, was discovered, based upon the abstracts.

The findings cannot support Cook's claim to the existence of a 97.1% scientific consensus for the simple reason that he doesn't have a sound basis for claiming to know what the AGW position of the 60+% of papers and authors (excluded from his tally) would have been.

Even if he had treated the 1200 self assessment responses as a crosssection for statistical purposes, the results would still fall 30+% short of the mark.

Cook was clearly either being incompetent or dishonest in his conduct when producing that paper.


----------



## basilio

The overwhelming reason 66% of the abstracts didn't expressly support AGW was because this was a given for the authors. Abstracts are short and to the point. Adding redundant information is a no no.

For a practical example of this ask yourself "How many scientists  researching Plate Tectonics would explicitly note their support of the theory in the Abstract "

Check out the results.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
*Posted on 4 May 2017 by dana1981*

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus papers, showing that with a variety of different approaches, we all found the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 90–100%.

Most of the critiques of our paper claim the consensus is somehow below 97%. For example, in a recent congressional hearing, Lamar Smith (R-TX) claimed we had gone wrong by only considering “a small sample of a small sample” of climate studies, and when estimated his preferred way, it’s less than 1%. But in a paper published last year, James Powell argued that the expert consensus actually higher – well over 99%.

We thus had three quite different estimates of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming: less than 1%, 97%, or 99.99%. So which is right?

*Testing the 97% approach with plate tectonics*
Yesterday, the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society published our response to Powell, led by Andy Skuce. To determine who’s right, we turned our sights on the theory of plate tectonics.

In his critique of our study, Powell argued that on scientific theories as settled as human-caused global warming or plate tectonics, scientists don’t bother to state the obvious. In our 97% paper, we examined how many studies endorsed, rejected or minimized, or took no position on human-caused global warming.

In his study, Powell only looked at papers explicitly rejecting the human cause; he assumed that the rest endorsed the consensus. And, he argued, applying our approach to another settled scientific theory like plate tectonics wouldn’t yield any results, because Powell assumed no scientist would bother to state something so obvious. If our approach weren’t valid for plate tectonics, Powell argued that it wouldn’t be valid for global warming either.

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position. In short, of the papers taking a position, we found 100% consensus on plate tectonics in our sample of the peer-reviewed literature. Our method worked.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-consensus-97-99-plate-tectonics-hoax.html


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> The overwhelming reason 66% of the abstracts didn't expressly support AGW was because this was a given for the authors. Abstracts are short and to the point. Adding redundant information is a no no.
> 
> For a practical example of this ask yourself "How many scientists  researching Plate Tectonics would explicitly note their support of the theory in the Abstract "
> 
> Check out the results.
> 
> Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
> *Posted on 4 May 2017 by dana1981*
> 
> Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus papers, showing that with a variety of different approaches, we all found the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 90–100%.
> 
> Most of the critiques of our paper claim the consensus is somehow below 97%. For example, in a recent congressional hearing, Lamar Smith (R-TX) claimed we had gone wrong by only considering “a small sample of a small sample” of climate studies, and when estimated his preferred way, it’s less than 1%. But in a paper published last year, James Powell argued that the expert consensus actually higher – well over 99%.
> 
> We thus had three quite different estimates of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming: less than 1%, 97%, or 99.99%. So which is right?
> 
> *Testing the 97% approach with plate tectonics*
> Yesterday, the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society published our response to Powell, led by Andy Skuce. To determine who’s right, we turned our sights on the theory of plate tectonics.
> 
> In his critique of our study, Powell argued that on scientific theories as settled as human-caused global warming or plate tectonics, scientists don’t bother to state the obvious. In our 97% paper, we examined how many studies endorsed, rejected or minimized, or took no position on human-caused global warming.
> 
> In his study, Powell only looked at papers explicitly rejecting the human cause; he assumed that the rest endorsed the consensus. And, he argued, applying our approach to another settled scientific theory like plate tectonics wouldn’t yield any results, because Powell assumed no scientist would bother to state something so obvious. If our approach weren’t valid for plate tectonics, Powell argued that it wouldn’t be valid for global warming either.
> 
> So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position. In short, of the papers taking a position, we found 100% consensus on plate tectonics in our sample of the peer-reviewed literature. Our method worked.
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-consensus-97-99-plate-tectonics-hoax.html



Still totally overlooking the key point! 

The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!

The obvious shortcomings of Cook's approach are no excuse for presenting a dodgy result.

The research findings in Cook's paper cannot logically support his claim to the existence of the purported 97% consensus for the simple reason that 60+% of the authors/papers were excluded from the final calculation!

This convenient claim to the effect that "everybody believes, so therefore it's okay to presume roughly 60% were probably largely agreeable" is utter nonsense which has no place in the true practice of science.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.
> 
> It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.
> 
> Of the 1200 authors who replied to a self assessment invitation, the level of AGW endorsement was higher, but still fell a long way short of the 97%.
> 
> Again I reiterate only 34.8% author endorsement, was discovered, based upon the abstracts.
> 
> The findings cannot support Cook's claim to the existence of a 97.1% scientific consensus for the simple reason that he doesn't have a sound basis for claiming to know what the AGW position of the 60+% of papers and authors (excluded from his tally) would have been.
> 
> Even if he had treated the 1200 self assessment responses as a crosssection for statistical purposes, the results would still fall 30+% short of the mark.
> 
> Cook was clearly either being incompetent or dishonest in his conduct when producing that paper.




Should read their Discussion. But let me sum it up for you regarding the 66%... 

Each scientific research paper aims to advance or, in rare cases, replicate a controversial study to either confirm or disprove its findings. But overwhelmingly, research are conducted to move human understanding a bit forward.

In other words, scientists tend not to go out there to see if the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System, whether or not the Earth is flat, or if there is such thing as Climate Change and if it is caused by human activity. i.e. It's old news, established facts... let's move on and further human understanding on other aspects of Climate Science.

And btw, Cook et. al.'s paper isn't the only one. There are at least 6 others.. and they all find very similar results.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Still totally overlooking the key point!
> 
> The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!
> 
> The obvious shortcomings of Cook's approach are no excuse for presenting a dodgy result.
> 
> The research findings in Cook's paper cannot logically support his claim to the existence of the purported 97% consensus for the simple reason that 60+% of the authors/papers were excluded from the final calculation!
> 
> This convenient claim to the effect that "everybody believes, so therefore it's okay to presume roughly 60% were probably largely agreeable" is utter nonsense which has no place in the true practice of science.




Put another way...

Say Cook does a keyword search of scientific papers containing the word "Sun" or "Solar System". He's interested in answering whether or not the Sun is hot or cold.

Of all the papers whose abstract matches his keywords, 99% of them does not take a position on whether the Sun is hot or cold, does not give indication of whether or not it's hot or cold. That is, the authors discusses other aspects of the Sun and Solar System.

Only 1% of paper discuss the Sun's temperature or conclude as to whether or not it's hot or cold. And of that 1%, all agrees that the Sun is hot.

Following your logic, 99% of scientific studies on the Sun or solar system couldn't agree on whether or not the Sun is hot or cold. So we just don't know.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Put another way...
> 
> Say Cook does a keyword search of scientific papers containing the word "Sun" or "Solar System". He's interested in answering whether or not the Sun is hot or cold.
> 
> Of all the papers whose abstract matches his keywords, 99% of them does not take a position on whether the Sun is hot or cold, does not give indication of whether or not it's hot or cold. That is, the authors discusses other aspects of the Sun and Solar System.
> 
> Only 1% of paper discuss the Sun's temperature or conclude as to whether or not it's hot or cold. And of that 1%, all agrees that the Sun is hot.
> 
> Following your logic, 99% of scientific studies on the Sun or solar system couldn't agree on whether or not the Sun is hot or cold. So we just don't know.



Still missing the point!

What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof). 

He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Still missing the point!
> 
> What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof).
> 
> He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!




Should he also include all papers on "Science" and "Change" too?

Did those 66% of papers deny or disagree with CC and its causes? No. They just did not discuss the issue at hand. So why should they be counted?

I mean, not all papers on CC aim to discuss its causes. Just as not all papers on the Sun and Solar System does not aim to discuss its temperature. 

Anyway, have you had a chance to check out my Sydney Harbour Bridge yet?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Should he also include all papers on "Science" and "Change" too?
> 
> Did those 66% of papers deny or disagree with CC and its causes? No. They just did not discuss the issue at hand. So why should they be counted?
> 
> I mean, not all papers on CC aim to discuss its causes. Just as not all papers on the Sun and Solar System does not aim to discuss its temperature.
> 
> Anyway, have you had a chance to check out my Sydney Harbour Bridge yet?



This is getting lamer and lamer.

His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.

One of those reasons is the assessment criteria don't require subscription to the catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in AGW endorsement.

A further reason is that the search criteria were limited to the point that only 11,944 (of 12,465 papers originally selected) were entered into consideration. By Cook's own admission "11,944 papers is only a fraction of climate literature".

The method was demonstrably subjective in relation to the assessment of the abstracts. 33% of the endorsement ratings failed to achieve consistency, prior to allowing communication between those "independent" assessors with 16%, endorsement rating disagreement remaining thereafter.

The 14% response to self assessment, produced vastly different results, further demonstrating the shortcomings of the abstract assessment methodology.

And to top it all off, Cook then decides that it's okay to ignore the 60+% no position papers, because he likes to somehow believe that most of them would endorse AGW!!!

Now one can construct as many inapt analogies as one likes, around widely agreed scientific viewpoints on tectonic plates and solar temperature, but they are irrelevant to catastrophic climate change, etc. for the simple reason that widespread uncertainty and disagreement is evidenced by the heated disputes that continue to emerge from many members of the scientific community.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> This is getting lamer and lamer.
> 
> His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.
> 
> One of those reasons is the assessment criteria don't require subscription to the catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in AGW endorsement.
> 
> A further reason is that the search criteria were limited to the point that only 11,944 (of 12,465 papers originally selected) were entered into consideration. By Cook's own admission "11,944 papers is only a fraction of climate literature".
> 
> The method was demonstrably subjective in relation to the assessment of the abstracts. 33% of the endorsement ratings failed to achieve consistency, prior to allowing communication between those "independent" assessors with 16%, endorsement rating disagreement remaining thereafter.
> 
> The 14% response to self assessment, produced vastly different results, further demonstrating the shortcomings of the abstract assessment methodology.
> 
> And to top it all off, Cook then decides that it's okay to ignore the 60+% no position papers, because he likes to somehow believe that most of them would endorse AGW!!!
> 
> Now one can construct as many inapt analogies as one likes, around widely agreed scientific viewpoints on tectonic plates and solar temperature, but they are irrelevant to catastrophic climate change, etc. for the simple reason that widespread uncertainty and disagreement is evidenced by the heated disputes that continue to emerge from many members of the scientific community.


----------



## noco

The Global Warming debate is over.......It has been proven to be a scam,  a farce and full of lies set up by the UN....The models presented are contrary to the actual happenings. 

End of story.

Time to close the thread.


----------



## wayneL

Actually I agree with the 97% consensus.

97% of scientists agree that the best way to get funding is to be pro AGW. There is no money in scepticism


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> . There is no money in scepticism




Well that's probably true after the eccentrics take all the media monies by spruiking conspiracies all over the world and at town hall meetings.

I wonder how much loot Lord Monckton makes from his crusade public speaking and cashing in on his unearned hereditary title to the gullible who think his titular status means he has calibre?

I'd also like to know how much public money Tony Abbott gave to his mates under the disguise of balanced, albeit skepticism of climate change.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> The Global Warming debate is over.......It has been proven to be a scam,  a farce and full of lies set up by the UN....The models presented are contrary to the actual happenings.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Time to close the thread.




Do you ever wonder Noco why your views on this issue are regarded as totally delusional and completely separate from reality ?
( Of course not. Tha'ts the point of being totally delusional isn't it ?)


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Do you ever wonder Noco why your views on this issue are regarded as totally delusional and completely separate from reality ?
> ( Of course not. Tha'ts the point of being totally delusional isn't it ?)





Bootstrap argument


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Do you ever wonder Noco why your views on this issue are regarded as totally delusional and completely separate from reality ?
> ( Of course not. Tha'ts the point of being totally delusional isn't it ?)




I can see I used the right bait this morning....Hook line and sinker.
But you must admit, there has been plenty of evidence to debunk this AGW scare campaign....If you need more just let me know.


----------



## basilio

noco said:


> I can see I used the right bait this morning....Hook line and sinker.
> But you must admit, there has been plenty of evidence to debunk this AGW scare campaign....If you need more just let me know.




Good point ! You are an excellent troller and use the finest bait. But your "evidence" is bit smelly so I think you can keep it to yourself


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Actually I agree with the 97% consensus.
> 
> 97% of scientists agree that the best way to get funding is to be pro AGW. There is no money in scepticism




You haven't heard of Trump's hatchet job at US departments of environmental protection, sciences or anything that's not supportive of big fossil?  Have not heard of the Koch Brothers and a gazzillion other fossil multinationals funding certain groups of "sceptical" experts, buying politicians who will quote the bible and remove all references to CC in department planning documents?

It's not just them buying advertising at the Murdoch presses, they also buy/sponsor university research, chairs etc. etc.

I'm surprised at the number of scientists who haven't sold out yet.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You haven't heard of Trump's hatchet job at US departments of environmental protection, sciences or anything that's not supportive of big fossil?  Have not heard of the Koch Brothers and a gazzillion other fossil multinationals funding certain groups of "sceptical" experts, buying politicians who will quote the bible and remove all references to CC in department planning documents?
> 
> It's not just them buying advertising at the Murdoch presses, they also buy/sponsor university research, chairs etc. etc.
> 
> I'm surprised at the number of scientists who haven't sold out yet.



That's the best news I have heard in a very long time!! 

The response in kind, that you have described, was long overdue!!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> That's the best news I have heard in a very long time!!
> 
> The response in kind, that you have described, was long overdue!!!




I know right?

How do you solve CC? Global Warming? Just remove the words from all documents. 

Sure beats head in the sand.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> I know right?
> 
> How do you solve CC? Global Warming? Just remove the words from all documents.
> 
> Sure beats head in the sand.



Isn't that the same way alarmists tried to expunge skepticism of catastrophic CC and AGW?

The alarmists have nobody to blame but themselves! After all, they set the ground rules when they started attacking the freedom of others to express a contrary opinion!! 

And now the hypocrites are crying about being stung by their own venom!!!


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> I'm surprised at the number of scientists who haven't sold out yet.



I guess it would look suspicious if they sold out twice


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> I guess it would look suspicious if they sold out twice




Who did they sold out to first time round Sifu? Humanity or Science? Both?

The Green and Renewable Industry cartel didn't really exist until, maybe, the late 1990s? Climate Science have been around a few decades before that.

Ignoring the Indigenous and Natives and their hippie dippy love for not clearing land and slaughtering wildlife wholesale... the Greenie National Parks and preservation trend got started with Theordore Roosevelt in the early 1900s. And that's probably because the guy like to hunt and enjoy the outdoor a bit.

The next greenie piece of achievement was when the hippies forced Nixon to establish the Clean Air Act. Not because of the green cartel, but because people thought, for some reason, that clean air and clean water... you know, not seeing their rivers turn black or red... might be a nice thing to have.

Guess who will wear the greatest impact from CC? Poor people in rich countries, and poor countries.

The thing about the poor is that while they can barely afford food and safe housing, they sure can buy scientists, politicians and media personalities.


----------



## Knobby22

luutzu said:


> I'm surprised at the number of scientists who haven't sold out yet.




Many have. I read their twisted logic as they try to keep their jobs and I just feel sorry for them.

We are entering a new age of science where common sense and superstition rule with the populace just like the 13th century. It's not just climate science its environmentalism, vaccines etc.

There was an article of a lady in the Age a week ago who had rheumatoid arthritis and went three years avoiding the doctors trying one type of natural healing after another. She was so sick her daughter had to dress her. Finally she went to the doctor and he fixed her within a week. now she is writing a book of how she was conned by the fakirs. What's the point? People with superstitious beliefs won't read it. 

The following article exemplifies the new fuzzy thinking.
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/05/30/mainstream-science-religion/


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Isn't that the same way alarmists tried to expunge skepticism of catastrophic CC and AGW?
> 
> The alarmists have nobody to blame but themselves! After all, they set the ground rules when they started attacking the freedom of others to express a contrary opinion!!
> 
> And now the hypocrites are crying about being stung by their own venom!!!


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


>




Having witnessed you dismissing things as 'bs', and further refuting media articles on the basis of being obviously biased and/or agenda driven, how exactly is your delivery of same in response to myself justifiable?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Having witnessed you dismissing things as 'bs', and further refuting media articles on the basis of being obviously biased and/or agenda driven, how exactly is your delivery of same in response to myself justifiable?




It's called satire. Since I'm not that funny or talented, I let the folks at Juice Media do it for me.

How can anyone seriously debate with you when you honestly believe that 66% of papers not holding a position on the causes of CC ought to also be counted as to whether or not it hold a position on CC.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> It's called satire. Since I'm not that funny or talented, I let the folks at Juice Media do it for me.
> 
> How can anyone seriously debate with you when you honestly believe that 66% of papers not holding a position on the causes of CC ought to also be counted as to whether or not it hold a position on CC.



There you go again totally misconstruing what I was saying in a vain attempt to defend your precious 97% illusion!

34.8% does not a consensus maketh!!


----------



## basilio

Nice little  (satirical) summary of Adanis 19th Century Coal mine and Rail project  Luutzu. Made my day.
Every MP should be sent a copy-- repeatedly
________________________________________________
PS You really need a Gold Star and an Elephant stamp for continuing to engage with Cynics convoluted non sequiters.  Truly bizarre "reasoning"


----------



## wayneL

Ah Grasshopper,

Don't confuse climate alarmism with environmental sustainability.  two different issues. 

We have tje situation now where increased co2 is actually benefiting the environment


----------



## basilio

While we are on the subject of Juice Medias take on Government policies check out where Koalas and Forests are going.



______________

That's a nice little line on the evironmental value of CO2 you have there Wayne.  I won't bite because you are almost as good a troller as Noco and that is especially smelly bait.

By the way I understand the other CC (concentration camps) were excellent at curing obesity problems. 100% success I believe.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Ah Grasshopper,
> 
> Don't confuse climate alarmism with environmental sustainability.  two different issues.
> 
> We have tje situation now where increased co2 is actually benefiting the environment




Of course, Sifu. Increased CO2 is great since trees live off of CO2. Greater still now that there's a lot less trees, meaning there's more food for them, meaning they'll get fatter and healthier


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> There you go again totally misconstruing what I was saying in a vain attempt to defend your precious 97% illusion!
> 
> 34.8% does not a consensus maketh!!




90 to 100% does maketh though.

Your logic is this... 

I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"

I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.

What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.


Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.


----------



## wayneL

Troll basilio? 

I am offended by your mythical creaturism and demand an apology


----------



## Logique

basilio said:


> Do you ever wonder Noco why your views on this issue are regarded as totally delusional and completely separate from reality ?
> ( Of course not. Tha'ts the point of being totally delusional isn't it ?)



Noco is on the side of scientific evidence, not the received epithets of group think '.._what we're saying today..'_ climate alarmism.

We will see who is '_delusional_', and we will see who is a '.._social media influencer_'. Noco hasn't been influenced, nor has anyone with a Year 10 or beyond science education. Which excludes most of the alarmist commentariat.

The Arts Faculty shouldn't involve themselves in matters that are, let's face it,  beyond their comprehension.


----------



## basilio

Indeed Logique your so 'rite' about the Arts Faculty not involving themselves in matters so critical as the survival of our current ecosystem.
So isn't it great to see that practically the entire scientific community has come out squarely behind the research and record efforts of reputable, peer reviewed climate scientists who are overwhelmingly sure that:

1) The planet is cooking
2) Humanity with it's release of billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases is the primary cause.
Perhaps  you should  invoke the classically (non) educated Lord  BS Monckton as your chief denier and regal use with his alternative facts.

________________________________________________________________
*Scientific Societies*

*American Meteorological Society:* Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)


*American Physical Society*: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)


*American Geophysical Union*: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)


*American Association for the Advancement of Science: *AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)


*Geological Society of America*: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)


*American Chemical Society*: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

*National Science Academies*

*U.S. National Academy of Sciences*: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change 

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)


*International academies: *Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)


*International academies* The Science of Climate Change 

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)

*Research*

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010


U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) 

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...nce/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WRqPgLitHkc


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> 90 to 100% does maketh though.
> 
> Your logic is this...
> 
> I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"
> 
> I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.
> 
> What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.
> 
> 
> Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.




Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.

That is old hat and proven  to be wrong.

Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.

The debate is over.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.
> 
> That is old hat and proven  to be wrong.
> 
> Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.
> 
> The debate is over.




I thought it's red and green 

Oh man! That's why we're all on to this CC thing. We're working for the Chinese Communists! 

See, the comrades are getting ahead because they don't care for clean this and not poison that... Thank God for Trump and his we-also-don't-care-if-you-poor-all-die policies. Make merka great again!


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.
> 
> That is old hat and proven  to be wrong.
> 
> Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.
> 
> The debate is over.




btw, it's not "Lu"... that word mean "water tank", water pot. Add a "u" and my name have a very awesome meaning to it.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> I thought it's red and green
> 
> Oh man! That's why we're all on to this CC thing. We're working for the Chinese Communists!
> 
> See, the comrades are getting ahead because they don't care for clean this and not poison that... Thank God for Trump and his we-also-don't-care-if-you-poor-all-die policies. Make merka great again!




Red and green stands for the Water Melon team.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> 90 to 100% does maketh though.
> 
> Your logic is this...
> 
> I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"
> 
> I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.
> 
> What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.
> 
> 
> Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.



Exactly which part of 34.8% is beyond your mathematical comprehension?


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> While we are on the subject of Juice Medias take on Government policies check out where Koalas and Forests are going.
> 
> 
> 
> ______________
> 
> That's a nice little line on the evironmental value of CO2 you have there Wayne.  I won't bite because you are almost as good a troller as Noco and that is especially smelly bait.
> 
> By the way I understand the other CC (concentration camps) were excellent at curing obesity problems. 100% success I believe.






20 years ago the bay area had koalas everywhere to be seen, now days you see zip. nada, zilch, zero, nil, nought, ...... progress and sustainability in process.


----------



## noco

This thread is really becoming one big joke.

CC is all to do with the Sun and is going through its cycle....Many articles have been posted on the subject but unfortunately the Alarmist will   not accept it and will continue on with their scam......They will never admit they could be wrong.......


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> This thread is really becoming one big joke.
> 
> CC is all to do with the Sun and is going through its cycle....Many articles have been posted on the subject but unfortunately the Alarmist will   not accept it and will continue on with their scam......They will never admit they could be wrong.......




If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The debate is over.




Yes it is, and you lost.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?




Probably from North Korea with love.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes it is, and you lost.




 Just LMAO.
Time will tell.......Unfortunately I may not live long enough to witness the truth about about the AGW scam.


----------



## cynic

Tisme said:


> If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?



How many wind farms and batteries of solar panels do you think we'd need to repel it?

Or maybe a 10% missile tax, yeah that'll fix it for ya!


----------



## Tisme

cynic said:


> How many wind farms and batteries of solar panels do you think we'd need to repel it?
> 
> Or maybe a 10% missile tax, yeah that'll fix it for ya!





Don't know what the camel's back load is at the moment, but worth a crack given it's spawning new industries. enthusiasm and employment anyway.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Exactly which part of 34.8% is beyond your mathematical comprehension?




The part where 34.8% is the actual 100% of papers with a position on AGW, 97% of which said Yay. Wait, I can comprehend that confusing bit about 34% is the actual 100% of relevant papers.

Again, if we follow your logic, we might as well cite all scientific papers on all things ever published and say that 0.000000000001% if science holds no position on AGW.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Don't know what the camel's back load is at the moment, but worth a crack given it's spawning new industries. enthusiasm and employment anyway.




A bit risky isn't it McGee? I mean, cleaner air? Come one. Cleaner waterways? Who needs that? Cheaper energy because once the infrastructure is established, the raw material are delivered by nature pretty much on time and around the clock... are we going to relay on the Sun rising with chances of clouds, or are we going to rely on Aurizon delivering coals on time whether it rain, hail, flooded, or shine?

Then there's the unnecessary waste of building flood barriers, flood pumps, sea walls. Why risk and waste that when if CC does raise sea level, we'll just move all the world's ports and cities and farmland a bit higher up.


----------



## noco

luutzu said:


> A bit risky isn't it McGee? I mean, cleaner air? Come one. Cleaner waterways? Who needs that? Cheaper energy because once the infrastructure is established, the raw material are delivered by nature pretty much on time and around the clock... are we going to relay on the Sun rising with chances of clouds, or are we going to rely on Aurizon delivering coals on time whether it rain, hail, flooded, or shine?
> 
> Then there's the unnecessary waste of building flood barriers, flood pumps, sea walls. Why risk and waste that when if CC does raise sea level, we'll just move all the world's ports and cities and farmland a bit higher up.




Oh dear Mr. luutzu....Please stop romancing with yourself....It ain't gonna happen.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> The part where 34.8% is the actual 100% of papers with a position on AGW, 97% of which said Yay. Wait, I can comprehend that confusing bit about 34% is the actual 100% of relevant papers.
> 
> Again, if we follow your logic, we might as well cite all scientific papers on all things ever published and say that 0.000000000001% if science holds no position on AGW.



It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.
 Cook's faulty methodology and personal bias is no excuse for the exclusion of 60+% of papers!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.
> Cook's faulty methodology and personal bias is no excuse for the exclusion of 60+% of papers!





No, it's not 34.8% endorsement. It's 34.8% of paper containing the keywords that upon examination hold _*any *_position on the cause of AGW. Of that 34.8%, 97% came to the conclusion of Yay, we're screwing up the place.

You sure that branch haven't fallen already, just you cannot remember what happen one windy day gardening?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> No, it's not 34.8% endorsement. It's 34.8% of paper containing the keywords that upon examination hold _*any *_position on the cause of AGW. Of that 34.8%, 97% came to the conclusion of Yay, we're screwing up the place.
> 
> You sure that branch haven't fallen already, just you cannot remember what happen one windy day gardening?



No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!

Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!

34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!

It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!

34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!


----------



## explod

cynic said:


> No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!
> 
> Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!
> 
> 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!
> 
> It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!
> 
> 34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!



What does FTSEing mean?


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> What does FTSEing mean?



Four letter acronym beginning with "F" with ing added to the end.

I am sure you can figure it out.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!
> 
> Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!
> 
> 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!
> 
> It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!
> 
> 34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!





32.6% of *all abstracts*.
BUT 97.1% of *abstract with AGW position.*

Why is that so hard to understand?

To follow your logic, it'd be like saying that only 50% of Males have a penis because both Males and Females are Males.

Again, it is obvious that research with keywords Cook and others used - contains "Climate Change" etc., - does not necessarily mean it take any position on AGW. 

You cannot count a no position to be a position. No  means No.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> 32.6% of *all abstracts*.
> BUT 97.1% of *abstract with AGW position.*
> 
> Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> To follow your logic, it'd be like saying that only 50% of Males have a penis because both Males and Females are Males.
> 
> Again, it is obvious that research with keywords Cook and others used - contains "Climate Change" etc., - does not necessarily mean it take any position on AGW.
> 
> You cannot count a no position to be a position. No  means No.
> 
> View attachment 71155



You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!

34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.

Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!
> 
> 34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.
> 
> Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!




No he didn't. Those 66.4% of papers that held no position were discounted in a study on what are the position on AGW.

It's in black, white, table and charts up there dude.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> No he didn't. Those 66.4% of papers that held no position were discounted in a study on what are the position on AGW.
> 
> It's in black, white, table and charts up there dude.



Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!! 

That is in black and white!!! 

His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis. 

He hasn't done that!!

He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!

And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!
> 
> That is in black and white!!!
> 
> His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis.
> 
> He hasn't done that!!
> 
> He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!
> 
> And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.




What whale analogy? Male? 

Seriously, don't know how else to put it. You're nuts.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> What whale analogy? Male?
> 
> Seriously, don't know how else to put it. You're nuts.



Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.

34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.

But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.
> 
> 34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.
> 
> But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.





You do realise that there's at least half a dozen other, independent, research papers that found similar results to Cook and others, right?

So... What percentage of human males have breasts? 50%. Right?


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> You do realise that there's at least half a dozen other, independent, research papers that found similar results to Cook and others, right?
> 
> So... What percentage of human males have breasts? 50%. Right?



So!!

Are they any more reliable than Cook's failed effort at distribution of climate propaganda?

You do of course realise, that a lot of scientists have protested very loudly, that they are in disagreement with the claims to the existence of a scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW/CC. 

But then you'll probably just dismissively accuse them of lies, bs, or being nuts, as you seem so inclined to do, whenever someone contests your religion.


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> So!!
> You do of course realise, that a lot of scientists have protested very loudly, that they are in disagreement with the claims to the existence of a scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW/CC.



A lot??? Bull.  Provide evidence.


----------



## Knobby22

Looks like we might break another record for arctic melt.


----------



## basilio

Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion.  After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion.  After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.




The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.




It sure does and there has been plenty of graph comparisons to the false models put out by the Alarmists.

I have plenty more up my sleeve and I will start posting them just for you Rumpy.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.




Now what would we do without the Sun.

Here is some interesting reading about the Sun's cycle......I hope it is not heavy for you Green Alarmist to understand.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/15/cosmic-rays-on-the-rise-as-solar-minimum-approaches/


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> A lot??? Bull.  Provide evidence.



Actually you are quite correct to call me out on the inaccuracy of that post!

"A lot" is indeed a terrible understatement when a single petition claims to have been supported by more than 31,000 scientists.

http://www.petitionproject.org/ 

That's more than all the author's (including the 60+% omitted from the final calculation) in Cook's bogus paper!


----------



## Knobby22

Couldn't name one.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Couldn't name one.



You challenged me about my use of the phrase "A lot" and I replied accordingly.
If you wanted only one name, then how did you come to overlook the video, I posted a while back, featuring Dr Curry?


----------



## explod

Interesting article noco, read it all and in essence the lack of sunspots creates higher radiation levels entering the atmosphere. No effect on heat, in fact this line from your (that same article) indicates just the opposite; 

". Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. "

Perhaps its time to read the articles you put up yourself instead of directing others to, and in such a scornful way too.


Of course the reality is that the earth is supposed to be cooling down anyway, 5 billion years back it was a burning gaseous fireball and has been cooling and solidifying since.  But alas this cooling stopped when the industrial revolution began, driven by coal fired power and then motor cars.

But then I'm not going to convince the blind, move on plod.  Interesting travelling along the South Morang line into Melbourne City the other day I realised that solar panels are starting to appear on roofs all over the place. Denmark hit a mark in history yesterday to announce that more than 50% of vehicles are now battery driven.  And reports out everyday that solar wind combinations are not only reliable and continuous but becoming cheaper than coal.

So yes noco, as you say, this thread is now obsolete, climate change due to dirty co2 is accepted by the vast majority of people and your quotes are opposite in thrust to your intended assertions and therefore are in the realm of gobbledygook.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> Well that all makes sense- in  a Kaffasque type of way. According to the new evidence you have seen there is no global warming to worry about.
> 
> Thats great isn't it Wayne? It means we can go to sleep soundly at night and be assured that those heat waves, wild weather and droughts are just figments of our imagination that really arn't happening because there is now new evidence that global warming isn't happening.
> 
> I started this recent little flurry with the observation that summer ice in the Arctic reached its lowest level and appears almost certainly to be running down on an exponitial scale. To put it simply as more ice melts, the Arctic ocean absorbs far more summer heat which in turn will melt more ice.
> 
> These are the facts on the ground. There are a million other similar facts that indicate the earth is warming rapidly and will continue to do so. Coming up with some cherry picked, tricky set of numbers to "prove" otherwise just makes the proponents completely irrelevant to the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice





Knobby22 said:


> Looks like we might break another record for arctic melt.
> 
> View attachment 71159



Really?!!

Over 4 years ago, we were assured by an expert that the arctic ice would be all gone by now!

So how could it possibly still be melting if it's already gone?!!

That stubborn arctic ice!! 
How dare it defy the infallible climate prophecies of the esteemed climate priests!!! 
I suppose the alarmists will also now have to give the arctic ice a low credibility rating, and accuse it of being out of touch with CC reality!!

This incident certainly has much to say about the hypocrisy embodied within the following accusatory posts:



basilio said:


> Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion.  After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.






SirRumpole said:


> The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Interesting article noco, read it all and in essence the lack of sunspots creates higher radiation levels entering the atmosphere. No effect on heat, in fact this line from your (that same article) indicates just the opposite;
> 
> ". Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. "
> 
> Perhaps its time to read the articles you put up yourself instead of directing others to, and in such a scornful way too.
> 
> 
> Of course the reality is that the earth is supposed to be cooling down anyway, 5 billion years back it was a burning gaseous fireball and has been cooling and solidifying since.  But alas this cooling stopped when the industrial revolution began, driven by coal fired power and then motor cars.
> 
> But then I'm not going to convince the blind, move on plod.  Interesting travelling along the South Morang line into Melbourne City the other day I realised that solar panels are starting to appear on roofs all over the place. Denmark hit a mark in history yesterday to announce that more than 50% of vehicles are now battery driven.  And reports out everyday that solar wind combinations are not only reliable and continuous but becoming cheaper than coal.
> 
> So yes noco, as you say, this thread is now obsolete, climate change due to dirty co2 is accepted by the vast majority of people and your quotes are opposite in thrust to your intended assertions and therefore are in the realm of gobbledygook.




Well that is the typical negative  answer I would have expected from a member of the Socialist Green Party who has no understanding of the significance of the article......Instead you post some ridiculous statement to support your Green bible....Read again and you just might understand it.


----------



## SirRumpole

What a real Science journal says about sunspots and global warming.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/


----------



## basilio

So Knobby throws up a graph which demonstrates how rapidly and exponentially  Arctic ice is disappearing in summer. It is a particularly concerning phenomenon because the loss of Arctic ice is a very strong positive feedback mechanism in creating global warming. In simple terms sea ice reflects the warmth of the sun and protects the water below from getting warmer. When the ice is replaced by open water the summer suns warmth is directly transferred into the oceans. This warms the water which in turn quickens the further melting of ice.

It's clear that this process is advancing at a very rapid rate. And yet, And yet. Cynic response is that it hasn't all gone yet despite the fact that 4 years ago one Arctic researcher believed it would ! 

Is there any indication that this process is not going to continue ? Are any of the graphs, observations, temperature records pointing to a steady return of Arctic ice levels? Nuh. No way. It is all down hill. We just havn't hit the bottom yet. 

What we have seen is  evidence of how the change  in the climate around the Arctic is now impacting on weather events around the world.  These are the effects of global warming. The exact times and details of how our climate will change are still unknown.

Pretty much the same situation as careerning  out of control down a  ski slope and not knowing  *exactly *what will happen when you hit something..

* The Melting Arctic's Dramatic Impact on Global Weather Patterns *
Monday, January 04, 2016 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report   









	

		
			
		

		
	
(Photo: Melting Glacier via Shutterstock)

Arctic sea ice is melting at a record pace - and every summer looks grimmer. This past summer saw the ice pack at its fourth-lowest level on record, and the overall trend in recent decades suggests this will only continue.

"Using satellites, scientists have found that the area of sea ice coverage each September has declined by more than 40 percent since the late 1970s, a trend that has accelerated since 2007," according to the recent report "Arctic Matters: The Global Connection to Changes in the Arctic" by the National Research Council of the National Academies.

_To see more stories like this, visit "Planet or Profit?"_

The report added that by the end of each of the eight summers from 2007 to 2014, Arctic sea ice extent was over less area than at any time in the preceding three decades.

In addition to rapid melting of the sea and land ice in the Arctic, temperatures there are warming at least twice as fast as those of the rest of the planet - provoking other dramatic changes.

*"Eventually we should see an Arctic Ocean ice free in summers as global temperatures continue to warm."*
Massive wildfires on frozen ground, resulting from increasingly dry conditions caused by anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), are becoming common; this phenomenon is unprecedented over at least the last 10,000 years.

These and other recent changes across the Arctic are making the weather and climate patterns there - and across the rest of the planet - more difficult to predict.

As Arctic Matters reports, "Changes in the Arctic have the potential to affect weather thousands of miles away. Because temperatures are increasing faster in the Arctic than at the tropics, the temperature gradient that drives the jet stream is becoming less intense."

This causes the jet stream to weaken and shift away from its typical patterns, which then leads to weather patterns becoming more persistent and lasting longer in the mid-latitudes. This then results in longer droughts, more intense heat waves, and far longer and deeper cold snaps, such as those witnessed in the Northeastern United States and Europe during the last two winters.

Truthout interviewed several leading scientists on these issues, seeking a consistent expectation for what the dramatic changes in the Arctic mean. The verdict? If there's one thing that all the scientists' predictions have in common, it is significant change

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...-s-dramatic-impact-on-global-weather-patterns


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What a real Science journal says about sunspots and global warming.
> 
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/




Your link has no date but talks about active Sun Spots.......My link is current where it indicates the lack of Sun spots over a designated period.
The sun is spotless again today which makes 6 days in a row and marks the 36th day this year – already more than all of 2016

*Overview
Today marks the 6th day in a row that the sun is blank and the 36th time this year – already more spotless days than all of 2016.   In what has turned out to be a historically weak solar cycle (#24), the sun continues to transition away from its solar maximum phase and towards the next solar minimum. In April 2010, the sun was emerging from the last solar minimum which was historically long and deep.  The blank look to the sun will increase in frequency over the next couple of years leading up to the next solar minimum – probably to be reached in late 2019 or 2020.  By one measure, the current solar cycle is the third weakest since record keeping began in 1755 and it continues a weakening trend since solar cycle 21 peaked in 1980. One of the impacts of low solar activity is the increase of cosmic rays that can penetrate into the Earth’s upper atmosphere and this can have many important consequences.


Comparison of all solar cycles since 1755 in terms of accumulated sunspot number anomalies from the mean value at this stage of the solar cycle. Plot courtesy publication cited below, authors Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

">
	

		
			
		

		
	




*


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Interesting article noco, read it all and in essence the lack of sunspots creates higher radiation levels entering the atmosphere. No effect on heat, in fact this line from your (that same article) indicates just the opposite;
> 
> ". Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. "
> 
> Perhaps its time to read the articles you put up yourself instead of directing others to, and in such a scornful way too.
> 
> 
> Of course the reality is that the earth is supposed to be cooling down anyway, 5 billion years back it was a burning gaseous fireball and has been cooling and solidifying since.  But alas this cooling stopped when the industrial revolution began, driven by coal fired power and then motor cars.
> 
> But then I'm not going to convince the blind, move on plod.  Interesting travelling along the South Morang line into Melbourne City the other day I realised that solar panels are starting to appear on roofs all over the place. Denmark hit a mark in history yesterday to announce that more than 50% of vehicles are now battery driven.  And reports out everyday that solar wind combinations are not only reliable and continuous but becoming cheaper than coal.
> 
> So yes noco, as you say, this thread is now obsolete, climate change due to dirty co2 is accepted by the vast majority of people and your quotes are opposite in thrust to your intended assertions and therefore are in the realm of gobbledygook.




*Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. Last day shown: 30 April 2017. (Graph courtesy climate4you.com)


Cosmic rays
One of the consequences of extended periods of low solar activity is that it can result in an increase in cosmic rays that can penetrate into the Earth’s upper atmosphere.  Simply put, as sunspot numbers decline, cosmic rays intensify. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from space that impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Most of the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons and they actually arrive as individual particles – not in the form of a ray as the term “ray” would suggest. Usually, cosmic rays are held at bay by the sun’s magnetic field, which envelops and protects all the planets in the solar system. But the sun’s magnetic shield is weakening as the current solar cycle heads towards the next solar minimum and this allows more cosmic rays to reach the Earth’s atmosphere. *


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> So Knobby throws up a graph...
> ...
> It's clear that this process is advancing at a very rapid rate. And yet, And yet. Cynic response is that it hasn't all gone yet despite the fact that 4 years ago one Arctic researcher believed it would !
> ...



Oh come now bas! It wasn't only the arctic researcher who chose to believe in that whopping great tale!!

Many alarmists happily subscribed to his fiction, including at least one ASF member (named basilio if memory serves) who chose to proudly post a link to the Guardian news article (which reported that prediction) in this very thread!


----------



## basilio

What part of reality are you denying now Cynic? The Arctic is melting at a rapid, exponential rate. The climate is already changing as a direct result of this situation.  Are you saying it isn't ? Or are you saying because it  is not going as fast as some researchers thought it might it doesn't matter ?
__________________________________
When one looks at the Arctic sea ice maps 2012 was a particularly disastrous year.  I can see why researchers might have believed  that if the rate of change continued at that pace there would be minimal ice in 4 years time.
In reality from 2013-2016 the melt did not continue to accelerate. Thank heavens.
In 2017 however the current figures suggest the 2012 record will be broken. The trend is one way.
Check out the graphs where each years ice melt is recorded.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> What part of reality are you denying now Cynic? The Arctic is melting at a rapid, exponential rate. The climate is already changing as a direct result of this situation.  Are you saying it isn't ? Or are you saying because it  is not going as fast as some researchers thought it might it doesn't matter ?



An expert predicted that the arctic ice certainly wouldn't last beyond September 2016.

This was reported in a Guardian news article back in 2012.

A link to the article was posted by your good self.

So for all the above reasons, the prediction simply had to be true!

It is now May 2017.

May 2017 is later than September 2016.

Therefore there can no longer be any arctic ice left for us to fret about!!

It's simply a matter of logic. You can either admit to being wrong in the past, or you can admit to being wrong in the present!

Either way you are fallible!

Boldly claiming otherwise, in the face of the factual evidence to the contrary, is denial of the reality of this situation!

Why should I bother believing anything you now have to say about the plight of arctic ice, especially since you've clearly been heeding the advice of the wrong people and publications ?


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> An expert predicted that the arctic ice certainly wouldn't last beyond September 2016.
> 
> This was reported in a Guardian news article back in 2012.
> 
> A link to the article was posted by your good self.
> 
> So for all the above reasons, the prediction simply had to be true!
> 
> It is now May 2017.
> 
> May 2017 is later than September 2016.
> 
> Therefore there can no longer be any arctic ice left for us to fret about!!
> 
> It's simply a matter of logic. You can either admit to being wrong in the past, or you can admit to being wrong in the present!
> 
> Either way you are fallible!
> 
> Boldly claiming otherwise, in the face of the factual evidence to the contrary, is denial of the reality of this situation!
> 
> Why should I bother believing anything you now have to say about the plight of arctic ice, especially since you've clearly been heeding the advice of the wrong people and publications ?




It's making pretty darn good progress.

Ships can now cruise through the Arctic during the northern summer. Oil companies are salivating at the prospects of all that gas and oil they can now get to a whole lot easier than previous decades.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> *Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. Last day shown: 30 April 2017. (Graph courtesy climate4you.com)
> 
> 
> Cosmic rays
> One of the consequences of extended periods of low solar activity is that it can result in an increase in cosmic rays that can penetrate into the Earth’s upper atmosphere.  Simply put, as sunspot numbers decline, cosmic rays intensify. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from space that impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Most of the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons and they actually arrive as individual particles – not in the form of a ray as the term “ray” would suggest. Usually, cosmic rays are held at bay by the sun’s magnetic field, which envelops and protects all the planets in the solar system. But the sun’s magnetic shield is weakening as the current solar cycle heads towards the next solar minimum and this allows more cosmic rays to reach the Earth’s atmosphere. *



You still miss the point by a mile.  The cosmic rays are not leading to warming, as per the sentence I took from your article, they are ACTUALLY CAUSING A COOLING of the upper stratosphere.  Time for you to put your feet up and retire Dear Ole Pal.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> It's making pretty darn good progress.
> 
> Ships can now cruise through the Arctic during the northern summer. Oil companies are salivating at the prospects of all that gas and oil they can now get to a whole lot easier than previous decades.



Just another failed prediction to add to the pile which so convincingly and definitively proves that expert alarmists have been telling porkies!


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You still miss the point by a mile.  The cosmic rays are not leading to warming, as per the sentence I took from your article, they are ACTUALLY CAUSING A COOLING of the upper stratosphere.  Time for you to put your feet up and retire Dear Ole Pal.




You know Plod, you are all over the place with this AGW crap......One day you are saying the temperature is rising and Global warming is caused by man made green house gases and now you are agreeing with me that the Earth is actually cooling......Just can't make you out......Think you are the one that should be retiring from this AGW crap and get some perspective into your life.


----------



## Tisme

There was an article from Jenny Woodward on 7.00pm ABC news last night. She visited Isobel Kirk. owner of Rockley Station. 

Isobel meticulously takes rainfall and other measurements and has done of over 50 years, carrying on her father's work started in the 1930's.

The annual rainfall is pretty much spot the same on for all those years, of course with the expected apparitions and anomalies.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You know Plod, you are all over the place with this AGW crap......One day you are saying the temperature is rising and Global warming is caused by man made green house gases and now you are agreeing with me that the Earth is actually cooling......Just can't make you out......Think you are the one that should be retiring from this AGW crap and get some perspective into your life.



The cosmic rays are having a cooling effect but in spite of that the co2 output is still warming the earth at an increasing rate.

I am not agreeing with anything on this point, just trying to point out that your reference is counter to what you think it is.


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Really?!!
> 
> Over 4 years ago, we were assured by an expert that the arctic ice would be all gone by now!
> 
> So how could it possibly still be melting if it's already gone?!!
> :




Ahem, the IPCC stated mostly gone by 2050 in summer. I have always concurred with that. Still 33 years away. Read back the posts. You just make stuff up in your head.

Still some experts are saying it won't last that long and the IPCC is being too conservative due to not considering other factors such as wave action.

From Wikipedia (with sources)

_Observation with satellites show that Arctic sea ice area, extent, and volume have been in decline for a few decades. Sometime during the 21st century, sea ice may effectively cease to exist during the summer. Sea ice extent is defined as the area with at least 15% ice cover.__[8]__ The amount of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has declined considerably in recent decades. In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted for 26% of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7% of all Arctic sea ice.__[9]_
_
Scientists recently measured sixteen-foot (five-meter) __wave heights__ during a storm in the __Beaufort Sea__ in mid-August until late October 2012. This is a new phenomenon for the region, since a permanent sea ice cover normally prevents wave formation. Wave action breaks up sea ice, and thus could become a feedback mechanism, driving sea ice decline.__[10]_

I am personally very cynical believing government and industry based information in front of undeniable facts and trained scientists. I sometimes wish I was like you, the opposite of cynical, so optimistic. So willing to religously believe the lies. But I am cynical by nature.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Ahem, the IPCC stated mostly gone by 2050 in summer. I have always concurred with that. Still 33 years away. Read back the posts. You just make stuff up in your head.
> 
> Still some experts are saying it won't last that long and the IPCC is being too conservative due to not considering other factors such as wave action.
> 
> From Wikipedia (with sources)
> 
> _Observation with satellites show that Arctic sea ice area, extent, and volume have been in decline for a few decades. Sometime during the 21st century, sea ice may effectively cease to exist during the summer. Sea ice extent is defined as the area with at least 15% ice cover.__[8]__ The amount of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has declined considerably in recent decades. In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted for 26% of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7% of all Arctic sea ice.__[9]_
> _
> Scientists recently measured sixteen-foot (five-meter) __wave heights__ during a storm in the __Beaufort Sea__ in mid-August until late October 2012. This is a new phenomenon for the region, since a permanent sea ice cover normally prevents wave formation. Wave action breaks up sea ice, and thus could become a feedback mechanism, driving sea ice decline.__[10]_
> 
> I am personally very cynical believing government and industry based information in front of undeniable facts and trained scientists. I wish I was like you, the opposite of cynical, so optimistic.




It does seem the sheet ice cover is disappearing fast. Is there any figures of % loss of total ice (includes all that under sea level?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The cosmic rays are having a cooling effect but in spite of that the co2 output is still warming the earth at an increasing rate.
> 
> I am not agreeing with anything on this point, just trying to point out that your reference is counter to what you think it is.




You are still all over the place there is no doubt about that.


----------



## Tisme




----------



## explod

On the contrary I am discussing one point and that is that the behaviour of the sun is not the cause of climate change.  Radiation is not heat, think about it for a minute.


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Ahem, the IPCC stated mostly gone by 2050 in summer. I have always concurred with that. Still 33 years away. Read back the posts. You just make stuff up in your head.
> 
> ...



Okay I have read back over the posts to this thread, and it appears that amnesia may be a requisite quality for alarmism!



Knobby22 said:


> Since the scientists are saying the arctic will be ice free sometime between 2025 and 2030, I would advise Orr not to take up the sucker bet.
> ...




Now who is making stuff up in their head?!

At least back then you had allowed up to 18 years for the arctic ice to prove you wrong!


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> Okay I have read back over the posts to this thread, and it appears that amnesia may be a requisite quality for alarmism!
> 
> Now who is making stuff up in their head?!
> 
> At least back then you had allowed up to 18 years for the arctic ice to prove you wrong!




Good work. in 2012 we had that shock year of arctic melting and so I was quoting the Calgary Herald. But as I said, the IPCC is looking a bit conservative with their forecasts. When do you expect it to by 95% ice free?


----------



## cynic

Knobby22 said:


> Good work. in 2012 we had that shock year of arctic melting and so I was quoting the Calgary Herald. But as I said, the IPCC is looking a bit conservative with their forecasts. When do you expect it to by 95% ice free?



There is a very big difference between mostly gone by 2050 and all gone by 2030. Decades of difference in fact, (not to mention the difference in quantities of ice!)

Contrary to some popular alarmist opinions, I sincerely doubt that anthropegenic CO2 emissions have very much (if anything) to do with what may or may not be happening at the poles of this planet. 

My prediction is that the IPCC predictions will continue to follow their established trend of increased generalisation (i.e. extended time frames and lessened specificity and quantification in regard to the predicted events).

That's just my prediction of course, but based upon the historical performance of the alarmist predictions to date, I think my prediction has excellent prospects of coming to pass!

Let's see if the IPCC can prove my prediction wrong!!


----------



## noco

explod said:


> On the contrary I am discussing one point and that is that the behaviour of the sun is not the cause of climate change.  Radiation is not heat, think about it for a minute.




I was thinking about it before you were born sonny.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I was thinking about it before you were born sonny.



We'll you will just have to retrace and think a bit harder.  Us younger scholars feel for you old fellas but you cant get blood out of a stone, and that's recorded somewhere too.

Climate change induced by dirty co2 is accepted reality and one of our greatest problems, so time to move on and close down coal power stations and oil based fuel to cars.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> We'll you will just have to retrace and think a bit harder.  Us younger scholars feel for you old fellas but you cant get blood out of a stone, and that's recorded somewhere too.
> 
> Climate change induced by dirty co2 is accepted reality and one of our greatest problems, so time to move on and close down coal power stations and oil based fuel to cars.




What is dirty CO2......CO2 is CO2?

More coal mines are about to open in Queensland and you Greenies have failed miserably to close them even with the $600,000 the Queensland Government tax payers money they  gave you to fight their closure


----------



## Jorgensen

When I consider the climate change deniers I think of the old Persian proverb,something like-the dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.


----------



## explod

> All:
> There is a HUGE difference in various CO2 QVL's (Quality Verification Levels - there are five).
> ISBT (International Society of Beverage Technologists) has CO2 Guidelines for quality - this is what you want. Also CGA G-6.2 QVL I is Beverage Grade CO2 equivalent to ISBT.
> "Food Grade" is QVL H. It is technically not Food Grade, it is Food Processing Grade.
> Beverage Grade/Quality (ISBT/CGA G-6.2 QVL I) mandates many more impurities be removed that are not even checked in QVL H such as:
> Benzene (yes BENZENE), ammonia, phosphine, much lower levels of sulfur and acetaldehyde both of which will affect taste, oil and grease and methanol.
> You don't want higher levels of sulfur and acetaldahyde and you sure don't want unchecked benzene levels.




http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=58297


----------



## orr

I like those graphs 'UUzits'.from your post #9546. Leaving to one side the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion on the cause of Global Warming. The countering of that  illustrated in the graphs is also highly interesting; the vanishingly small objection percentage to AGW. Correctly pointed out as the 'ratbag fringe,' 'nutters' and payed-up puppets  of vested interests. And god knows how many old age homes  they trawled through to find enough Science qualified dementia sufferers even to get it to that percentage.
The tragedy is the broader scientific illiteracy of so many of the public. So much understanding is left unobtainable to 'them'. Only a few short years ago a statement like that would reek of elitism, but now the information is readily available to all those with an internet connection and the drive to learn... the laws of Thermo dynamics are a good place to start for 'them'.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=58297




CO2 is an essential part of life and not a pollutant.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp?MR=1


----------



## Junior

noco said:


> CO2 is an essential part of life and not a pollutant.
> https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp?MR=1




The human race has levelled around 80% of Earth's forest cover.....do you honestly believe this has no impact on the climate?


----------



## Knobby22

cynic said:


> There is a very big difference between mostly gone by 2050 and all gone by 2030. Decades of difference in fact, (not to mention the difference in quantities of ice!)
> 
> Contrary to some popular alarmist opinions, I sincerely doubt that anthropegenic CO2 emissions have very much (if anything) to do with what may or may not be happening at the poles of this planet.
> 
> My prediction is that the IPCC predictions will continue to follow their established trend of increased generalisation (i.e. extended time frames and lessened specificity and quantification in regard to the predicted events).
> 
> That's just my prediction of course, but based upon the historical performance of the alarmist predictions to date, I think my prediction has excellent prospects of coming to pass!
> 
> Let's see if the IPCC can prove my prediction wrong!!




Awww gee. I'm going to be very old by 2050. Hopefully we can come to a consensus by 2030.


----------



## luutzu

Junior said:


> The human race has levelled around 80% of Earth's forest cover.....do you honestly believe this has no impact on the climate?




That'll just mean there's more tree-food (CO2) to go around. Making ever bigger and fatter and healthier tree that'll surely make up for all that deforestation.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> CO2 is an essential part of life and not a pollutant.
> https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp?MR=1




Yes, because when we wanted some fresh air, we'd put a bag over our head and take deep breathes.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> Yes, because when we wanted some fresh air, we'd put a bag over our head and take deep breathes.



I love it.  You clowns hawk the science (no matter how flawed),  and then use totally inappropriate,  unscientific and absolutely ludicrous analogies.

No wonder you are struggling for hearts and minds.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I agree Wayne. 

It will not be the first nor the last time the majority of the Scientific Community was wrong.

This Global Warming phenomenon is taking on the characteristics of a religion. And we all know that religions always end in tears.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree Wayne.
> 
> It will not be the first nor the last time the majority of the Scientific Community was wrong.
> 
> This Global Warming phenomenon is taking on the characteristics of a religion. And we all know that religions always end in tears.
> 
> gg



Good to hear from you my man


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree Wayne.
> 
> It will not be the first nor the last time the majority of the Scientific Community was wrong.
> 
> This Global Warming phenomenon is taking on the characteristics of a religion. And we all know that religions always end in tears.
> 
> gg




I agree too GG.....Good to see you back again.


----------



## wayneL

Here's my consistent point,  if we are going to be scientific, lets be scientific. 

Let's use proper scientific process. 

If we measure stuff,  lets just measure it and not adjust it.

If we provide public funding,  it should be equally available to any reasonable hypothesis,  not just the one that supports current political expediency 

If we debate hypotheses,  lets not use emotive,  historically emotion charged terms suxh as denier.

Let's let the fact stand as sentinel to reason. let's not be biased by omission or torturing facts into submission. 

Accordingly,  we are right to study climate change, but we are not right to massage the fact s for a political totalitarian agenda.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> I love it.  You clowns hawk the science (no matter how flawed),  and then use totally inappropriate,  unscientific and absolutely ludicrous analogies.
> 
> No wonder you are struggling for hearts and minds.




It's for illustrative purposes Sifu. Scale that bag over our head to an entire planet and see if it'll have a similar effect. Or take a drive with your windows down in a busy city during peak hour traffic. Or  maybe move next to a coal mine, or an industrial area, or down a few block from oil refineries.

Oh look, CO2 is essential for life, so more of the essentials is good for life, right? What a load of bs. That's like saying that since water is essential for life, more flood and more hurricane is great for life.

Yup, human could not possibly have any impact on the planet. Except for that hole in the Ozone where CFC chemicals were thought by scientists to rip a couple of holes, rich White politicians with homes by the ocean thought skin cancer will kill them too so let's take scientists recommendation and oh look! Doing what scientists recommended is having an impact. Who would have thought!

But Climate Change... it'll only kill the poor, starve them, cause frequent flooding, mudslides, drought, war and famine. That's life and we rich people get our food from the supermarkets anyway so who cares.

Yes yes, I'm exaggerating.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Here's my consistent point,  if we are going to be scientific, lets be scientific.
> 
> Let's use proper scientific process.
> 
> If we measure stuff,  lets just measure it and not adjust it.
> 
> If we provide public funding,  it should be equally available to any reasonable hypothesis,  not just the one that supports current political expediency
> 
> If we debate hypotheses,  lets not use emotive,  historically emotion charged terms suxh as denier.
> 
> Let's let the fact stand as sentinel to reason. let's not be biased by omission or torturing facts into submission.
> 
> Accordingly,  we are right to study climate change, but we are not right to massage the fact s for a political totalitarian agenda.




Do you live behind the looking glass or something Sifu?

Is Australia's main energy sector comprised of Green and Clean tech companies? Or dominated by the miners, oilers and frackers? Who do you think have more political sway and have their agendas carried out by politicians?

Unless you seriously believe that we're a real democracy being run by the Greens party and a bunch of hippies.

It's the same all over the world. The only exception, as far as big economies is concern.. .would be China and India. Their gov't are pushing for more clean and reweables because they've tried the coal and fossil and pollution doesn't matter approach and death and cancer and dead rivers and smoggy cities are telling them that it's not a good idea.

Anywho... let's do science our way and get the results we like.


----------



## wayneL

Grasshopper,  I also think we (you) should eschew the liberal use of logical fallacy. 

It is self serving, bloats one's own ego,  and does not help the debate forward.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Grasshopper,  I also think we (you) should eschew the liberal use of logical fallacy.
> 
> It is self serving, bloats one's own ego,  and does not help the debate forward.




Logically speaking, for the ecosystem to remain un-impacted by human activities, for every tree that's cut down there must be an equivalent tree grown somewhere. 

So when we clear trees and forests, pave over it with roads and houses and buildings; does this all over the world and in most of its most habitable areas.. then further pump toxic into the air, drain waste into rivers etc. etc... 

Logically, without needing to refer to data or science, any idiot can tell you that such human activities have a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

So that's common sense. What does the experts and their research say?

Oh, they all say it's bad and will get worst... but they're all wrong.

So much for logic and science.


----------



## ghotib

Tisme said:


> It does seem the sheet ice cover is disappearing fast. Is there any figures of % loss of total ice (includes all that under sea level?



I noticed that you were interested in "below sea level" change in Arctic sea ice so I thought I'd post this link to the PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice volume reanalysis page as well as the graphic (figure 2) showing mean volume 1979-2016 and daily volume from 2010 to date. The page has info about how the figures are calculated and validated and about the uncertainties.







Grey shaded areas are one and two standard deviations.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> Here's my consistent point,  if we are going to be scientific, lets be scientific.
> 
> Let's use proper scientific process.
> 
> If we measure stuff,  lets just measure it and not adjust it.
> 
> If we provide public funding,  it should be equally available to any reasonable hypothesis,  not just the one that supports current political expediency
> 
> If we debate hypotheses,  lets not use emotive,  historically emotion charged terms suxh as denier.
> 
> Let's let the fact stand as sentinel to reason. let's not be biased by omission or torturing facts into submission.
> 
> Accordingly,  we are right to study climate change, but we are not right to massage the fact s for a political totalitarian agenda.





If you used that argument for road safety we would have less road congestion, higher speed limits and less revenue raising speed traps.....driving would be a pleasure rather than punishment.


----------



## basilio

* Current Consequences of global warming

 Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts *
No seeds were lost but the ability of the rock vault to provide failsafe protection against all disasters is now threatened by climate change




The Svalbard ‘doomsday’ seed vault was built to protect millions of food crops from climate change, wars and natural disasters. Photograph: John Mcconnico/AP

Shares
19,275

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 
Saturday 20 May 2017 01.39 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 20 May 2017 07.00 AEST

It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.

The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”.

But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...f-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts
*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> * Current Consequences of global warming
> 
> Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts *
> No seeds were lost but the ability of the rock vault to provide failsafe protection against all disasters is now threatened by climate change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Svalbard ‘doomsday’ seed vault was built to protect millions of food crops from climate change, wars and natural disasters. Photograph: John Mcconnico/AP
> 
> Shares
> 19,275
> 
> Damian Carrington Environment editor
> 
> 
> Saturday 20 May 2017 01.39 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 20 May 2017 07.00 AEST
> 
> It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.
> 
> The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”.
> 
> But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.
> *
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...f-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts*




Well they obviously didn't build it very well for weather events.

What a mob of tossers.

More Government money wasted.

gg


----------



## basilio

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Well they obviously didn't build it very well for weather events.
> 
> What a mob of tossers.
> 
> More Government money wasted.
> 
> gg




You folks are so far up the Nile... 
The relevant point was *the completely off the chart summer temperatures due to global warming which caused the melt.*

The other point that you and Cynic also make with excellent effect is how far climate change deniers can go in refusing to recognise what is happening.


----------



## cynic

basilio said:


> You folks are so far up the Nile...
> The relevant point was *the completely off the chart summer temperatures due to global warming which caused the melt.*
> 
> The other point that you and Cynic also make with excellent effect is how far climate change deniers can go in refusing to recognise what is happening.




According to that Guardian news article:

"It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster..."

And a little bit of ice melt somehow thwarted their "impregnable" design!!

Who is in denial now?!!


----------



## luutzu

cynic said:


> According to that Guardian news article:
> 
> "It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster..."
> 
> And a little bit of ice melt somehow thwarted their "impregnable" design!!
> 
> Who is in denial now?!!





Soooo... an extreme weather event that were not expected, thought to not be possible in a million years, did happen in a lot less years than that. But the takeaway lesson from this failure is that scientists and government are inept and wrong, not that maybe, perhaps, somewhat likely that they're wrong in not being more "alarmist" - that things could actually be a whole lot worst than the current climate science community thought it would.

That's quite an imagination.

It's like saying that we don't need proper engineering on bridges because a bridge designed for normal cars and trucks collapsed when a couple of jumbo jets smash into it.


----------



## cynic

luutzu said:


> Soooo... an extreme weather event that were not expected, thought to not be possible in a million years, did happen in a lot less years than that. But the takeaway lesson from this failure is that scientists and government are inept and wrong, not that maybe, perhaps, somewhat likely that they're wrong in not being more "alarmist" - that things could actually be a whole lot worst than the current climate science community thought it would.
> 
> That's quite an imagination.
> 
> It's like saying that we don't need proper engineering on bridges because a bridge designed for normal cars and trucks collapsed when a couple of jumbo jets smash into it.



Phrases like "from any global disaster", "natural or man-made disasters" seem to have totally (and conveniently) escaped your attention.

Quite typical of the desperate lengths alarmists will go to in order to misinterpret, virtually any, weather event or human blunder, as somehow constituting "evidence" supportive of their apocalyptic ideology.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

basilio said:


> You folks are so far up the Nile...
> The relevant point was *the completely off the chart summer temperatures due to global warming which caused the melt.*
> 
> The other point that you and Cynic also make with excellent effect is how far climate change deniers can go in refusing to recognise what is happening.




The whole idea behind building the seed box was to deal with any weather event. Any !!

gg


----------



## noco

The truth about C02.


----------



## explod

> Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.[17] Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues. In 2011, 52% of carbon monoxide emissions were created by mobile vehicles in the U.S.[18]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

What we are concerned about is all bad


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> * Current Consequences of global warming
> 
> Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts *
> No seeds were lost but the ability of the rock vault to provide failsafe protection against all disasters is now threatened by climate change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Svalbard ‘doomsday’ seed vault was built to protect millions of food crops from climate change, wars and natural disasters. Photograph: John Mcconnico/AP
> 
> Shares
> 19,275
> 
> Damian Carrington Environment editor
> 
> 
> Saturday 20 May 2017 01.39 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 20 May 2017 07.00 AEST
> 
> It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.
> 
> The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”.
> 
> But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.
> *
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...f-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts*




https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/guardians-seed-nonsense/




> The temperature record at Svalbard Airport only goes back to 1977, but the nearest long running station is at Tromo on the north coast of Norway.
> 
> Annual temperatures there were just as high in the 1930s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_634010250000_7_0_1/station.png
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, winter temperatures have been as high, and even higher, many times since 1921.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_634010250000_1_0/station.txt
> 
> 
> 
> At Svalbard itself, the winter of 1985 was actually milder than this year’s.
> 
> But facts never bother the Guardian or its readers.
> The temperature record at Svalbard Airport only goes back to 1977, but the nearest long running station is at Tromo on the north coast of Norway.


----------



## Knobby22

The article does seem strange.
It rained in winter and flooded.
Surely in summer it would flood also when the snow melts? Possibly it was in an area where snow was constant?

On the other hand Svalbard Airport is no where near Troms.
So I would argue that measurements from there aren't very applicable.


----------



## wayneL

If not Knobby, you are arguing for regional variations rather that global trends


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> If not Knobby, you are arguing for regional variations rather that global trends




Of course! 1200kms away is a long way, and mostly north. I would expect some regional variations.
That's like using Melbourne weather records for Gold Coast.
They would have been better comparing it to Greenland's weather, slightly closer and at the same latitude. Probably didn't work with the argument.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby, if you look at how alarmists aggregate ir homogenisethe arctic temps, the article is well justified in using that data. 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander


----------



## basilio

Well it goes to know someone else cares about the climate...

* China to partly fund new CSIRO climate research centre *







*Adam Morton*
CSIRO's re-embracing of climate change research will be underlined on Monday when the national science agency announces a new centre partly funded by Chinese interests.

Based in Hobart, the $20 million centre will examine the role oceans will play in future climate change, including their influence on floods and drought. It will be half funded by China's Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology.

The Centre for Southern Hemisphere Oceans Research will also look at the capacity of seas to keep absorbing carbon dioxide – more than 90 per cent of heat has been taken up by oceans in recent decades – and the expected impact of melting Antarctic ice shelves.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...-climate-research-centre-20170521-gw9sr2.html


----------



## basilio

*What are we learning about Global Warming in the Poles ?
*
It seems the latest research is indicating that accelerating warming in the Poles will steeply increase the possible rate of sea level rise. (Yeah hard to understand that..) 
And the results ?
* 'The great unknown': New climate change data lifts the sea-level threat *






*Peter Hannan*
38 reading now
The giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are melting faster than scientists previously estimated, raising the prospect of faster sea level rise placing at risk low-lying areas of Sydney and similar exposed cities around the world.

New research, including from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has lifted the "plausible" sea level rise by 2100 to as much as two metres to 2.7 metres.

That has superseded earlier estimates, such as the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that placed the likely top range of sea level rise at about one metre if greenhouse gas emission rises continued unabated.

Those higher forecasts have now been included in new mapping by Coastal Risk Australia that combines the estimates with national high-tide data and the shape of our coastline. 

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ifts-the-sealevel-threat-20170522-gwa963.html


----------



## basilio

This is the report upon which the possible new sea level projections are based.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/p...d_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf


----------



## noco




----------



## noco




----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> What is good for the goose is good for the gander




and chicken?


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> .
> 
> Those higher forecasts have now been included in new mapping by Coastal Risk Australia that combines the estimates with national high-tide data and the shape of our coastline.
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...ifts-the-sealevel-threat-20170522-gwa963.html




Thanks bas, been looking for these map predictions.

Woot only need a 12m rise in sea levels for a 5min walk to the beach.


----------



## basilio

We seem to have become blase about the daily reports of weather extremes around the world that are unfolding as the climate rapidly warms.
*Can we not forget that the last three years have seen successive steep increases in global temperatures ?*  Each year has set a new record.
As a consequence of these "now normal" temperatures the Great Barrier Reef has been bleached to within an inch of its life. The consequences of this from an economic POV are outlined by Delotite Access

*Great Barrier Reef 'too big to fail' at $56b, Deloitte Access Economics report says*
By Louisa Rebgetz
Updated about 2 hours ago

*Video:* Severe coral bleaching hits two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef (ABC News) 
*Related Story:* Cyclone Debbie leaves Whitsundays reefs in ruins
*Related Story:* Severe coral bleaching hits two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef, aerial surveys show
 *Map: * Hamilton Island 4803
The Great Barrier Reef has a total asset value of $56 billion and is "too big to fail", according to a new report.

*Key points:*

Deloitte Access Economics says GBR has calculated economic, social and iconic value of $56 billion
Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion
But tourist figures are down 50 per cent in the Whitsundays — operators say "this is as bad as it was during the GFC"

Deloitte Access Economics has calculated the economic, social and iconic value of the world heritage site in a report commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

Tourism is the biggest contributor to the total asset value making up $29 billion.

The Great Barrier Reef generates 64,000 jobs in Australia and contributes $6.4 billion dollars to the national economy, the report said.

It states the brand value, or Australians that have not yet visited the Reef but value knowing it exists, as $24 billion.

Recreational users including divers and boaters make up $3 billion.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/great-barrier-reef-valued-56b-deloitte/8649936


----------



## basilio

How has climate changed in the last 130 years ? Check out this Climate time machine.
https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> How has climate changed in the last 130 years ?



Yes, the way to sustain the lie of man-made global warming is to cherry pick the last 130 years of data but for the last 6000 years the trend is down. But let's stop burning coal for now anyway. We will need it more when the next mini-ice age starts.


----------



## Junior

We should stop burning coal anyway, it's an outdated technology in terms of generating electricity.

Same goes for internal combustion engines.  All cars will run on batteries in the near future so we may as well embrace it and speed up the process.  Imagine the air quality in Beijing or any other mega-city when this becomes reality?

Why would we choose to pollute the air we all have to breathe, when the technology already exists to generate energy in a far cleaner and more sustainable manner?  Hundred of thousands of people die as a direct result of pollution each year, it's an epidemic which needs to be addressed.

Whether or not man-made global warming is myth or fact, there is limited downside to curbing emissions dramatically, and there are many positives that come with it.


----------



## Tisme

Junior said:


> We should stop burning coal anyway, it's an outdated technology in terms of generating electricity.
> 
> Same goes for internal combustion engines.




I can vividly recall the stink from leaded petrol engines, the stink of coal steam locomotives, the stink of industry, of the abattoirs, etc; the oil slicks on the road, the asbestos dust falling out of the brake drums when replacing shoes, people burning off God knows what in their backyards; the poisons, the wood chip bath heaters with lead water pipes,.... all concatenated as a 24hour serving of pour health and stunted potential.

The place was an airborne and ground dwelling cesspit of long chain alkyl aromatics, benzene rings and heavy metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, etc). 

No wonder the incidences of old age derivatives of denial, dementia, liver disease and downright bloody mindedness from the early baby boomers and before. Thank goodness some sane people existed who managed to outlaw a lot of the treachery foisted on an all too complacent population of  chemically engineered cantankerous half wits.


----------



## Bintang

*Global Temperature hasn't risen in 20 years: latest data
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57680&s=LURQEd*
_News Weekly_, May 20, 2017
Recently published data ….  show that global temperatures have fallen back to about the levels of 20 years ago ….
Global temperatures dropped 0.5 degrees Celsius in April.  In the northern hemisphere they plunged a massive one degree. The Global Warming Policy Foundation commented: “As the record 2015–16 El Niño levels off, the *global-warming hiatus* is back with a vengeance.”

The explanation of the temperature pause since 1998 – *which contradicts the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) *– has been the subject of widespread discussion in academic journals, including the American Geophysical Union journal, _Geophysical Research Letters_, as well as_Climate Dynamics_, and the _Scientific Report_ of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. *All agree that temperature rises have stalled, but there is no consensus on the cause.
*
[And in Antarctica] … the overall area of sea ice around Antarctica is close to normal for this time of year, and recent research indicates that *temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have fallen slightly in recent decades.
*
New data *contradict the repeated claims of the IPCC* that global warming is causing irrevocable damage to the Antarctic continent.


----------



## wayneL

Junior said:


> We should stop burning coal anyway, it's an outdated technology in terms of generating electricity.
> 
> Same goes for internal combustion engines.  All cars will run on batteries in the near future so we may as well embrace it and speed up the process.  Imagine the air quality in Beijing or any other mega-city when this becomes reality?
> 
> Why would we choose to pollute the air we all have to breathe, when the technology already exists to generate energy in a far cleaner and more sustainable manner?  Hundred of thousands of people die as a direct result of pollution each year, it's an epidemic which needs to be addressed.
> 
> Whether or not man-made global warming is myth or fact, there is limited downside to curbing emissions dramatically, and there are many positives that come with it.




Now your last paragraph is something i can wholeheartedly agree with.

The big bogey is base load electricity generation.


----------



## Logique

I would hardly call this "limited downside".  Businesses will close, jobs will be lost, many will face economic hardship.







> 28 June 2017 - *South Australia power prices to rise to highest in the world *on Saturday, energy expert warns
> By Isabel Dayman, ABC:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/sa-has-most-expensive-power-prices-in-the-world/8658434
> 
> South Australia will overtake Denmark as having the world's most expensive electricity when the country's major energy retailers jack up their prices this Saturday.
> 
> AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy will all increase their electricity prices from July 1, adding hundreds of dollars to annual household bills.
> 
> Residential customers will see an average rise of 18 per cent under AGL, *19.9 per cent from EnergyAustralia*, 16.1 per cent with Origin Energy...


----------



## orr

Bintang said:


> *Global Temperature hasn't risen in 20 years: latest data
> http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57680&s=LURQEd*
> _News Weekly_, May 20, 2017
> Recently published data ….  show that global temperatures have fallen back to about the levels of 20 years ago ….
> Global temperatures dropped 0.5 degrees Celsius in April.  In the northern hemisphere they plunged a massive one degree. The Global Warming Policy Foundation commented: “As the record 2015–16 El Niño levels off, the *global-warming hiatus* is back with a vengeance.”
> 
> The explanation of the temperature pause since 1998 – *which contradicts the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) *– has been the subject of widespread discussion in academic journals, including the American Geophysical Union journal, _Geophysical Research Letters_, as well as_Climate Dynamics_, and the _Scientific Report_ of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. *All agree that temperature rises have stalled, but there is no consensus on the cause.
> *
> [And in Antarctica] … the overall area of sea ice around Antarctica is close to normal for this time of year, and recent research indicates that *temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have fallen slightly in recent decades.
> *
> New data *contradict the repeated claims of the IPCC* that global warming is causing irrevocable damage to the Antarctic continent.




Go Tangers Go
You still keeping your razors sharp under a pyramid ???


----------



## orr

Tisme said:


> I can vividly recall the stink from leaded petrol engines, the stink of coal steam locomotives, the stink of industry, of the abattoirs, etc; the oil slicks on the road, the asbestos dust falling out of the brake drums when replacing shoes, people burning off God knows what in their backyards; the poisons, the wood chip bath heaters with lead water pipes,.... all concatenated as a 24hour serving of pour health and stunted potential.
> 
> The place was an airborne and ground dwelling cesspit of long chain alkyl aromatics, benzene rings and heavy metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, etc).
> 
> No wonder the incidences of old age derivatives of denial, dementia, liver disease and downright bloody mindedness from the early baby boomers and before. Thank goodness some sane people existed who managed to outlaw a lot of the treachery foisted on an all too complacent population of  chemically engineered cantankerous half wits.




You 'ol' greeny you.


----------



## Bintang

orr said:


> Go Tangers Go
> You still keeping your razors sharp under a pyramid ???




Amusing,  the witless ad hominem attack of a climate cooling denier.


----------



## wayneL

Diminishing in number? I don't think so orr.

Just not indulging in the futility of argueing with political activists.


----------



## Junior

Logique said:


> I would hardly call this "limited downside".  Businesses will close, jobs will be lost, many will face economic hardship.




All it takes is careful planning, an open mind and a long term view.  Instead of fear-mongering and demanding the construction of more coal-fired plants when there are so many alternatives which are rapidly becoming more cost-effective.


----------



## Bintang

Man-made global warming surging ahead – will not be long before we are all toast.

*Melbourne weather: City shivers through chilliest morning in two years*
Melburnians have shivered their way through the coldest morning in two years as temperatures dipped to just 1.1℃ in the city on Saturday.
The morning is the coldest since 2015, when a low of just 0.6℃ was recorded on July 19.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/m...est-morning-in-two-years-20170630-gx2ivo.html

*Weekend snap-freeze: Cold spell slashes temperature records across Australia*
Temperature records have fallen as many Australians woke to freezing weather this morning.
http://www.9news.com.au/wild-weather/2017/07/02/10/30/weekend-cold-weather-records-australia


----------



## Knobby22

Bintang said:


> Man-made global warming surging ahead – will not be long before we are all toast.
> 
> *Melbourne weather: City shivers through chilliest morning in two years*
> Melburnians have shivered their way through the coldest morning in two years as temperatures dipped to just 1.1℃ in the city on Saturday.
> The morning is the coldest since 2015, when a low of just 0.6℃ was recorded on July 19.
> http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/m...est-morning-in-two-years-20170630-gx2ivo.html
> 
> *Weekend snap-freeze: Cold spell slashes temperature records across Australia*
> Temperature records have fallen as many Australians woke to freezing weather this morning.
> http://www.9news.com.au/wild-weather/2017/07/02/10/30/weekend-cold-weather-records-australia



Coldest since 2008 in Goulburn . Wow!
Um, does that count as a record? What about all the heat records broken throughout Australia since measurements began over the last two years?


----------



## basilio

Speaking of temperature records has anyone cast an eye on what has happened in Europe this summer.?

* Europe's extreme June heat clearly linked to climate change, research shows *
Heatwaves that saw deadly forest fires in Portugal and soaring temperatures in England were made up to 10 times more likely by global warming, say scientists




Firefighters try to extinguish a forest wildfire in Colmeal in central Portugal on 21 June. Photograph: Francisco Leong/AFP/Getty Images
*Shares*
1,880

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 
Friday 30 June 2017 23.06 AEST   Last modified on Friday 30 June 2017 23.07 AEST

Human-caused climate change dramatically increased the likelihood of the extreme heatwave that saw deadly forest fires blazing in Portugal and Spain, new research has shown.

Much of western Europe sweltered earlier in June, and the severe heat in England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland was also made significantly more likely by global warming. Such temperatures will become the norm by 2050, the scientists warned, unless action is taken to rapidly cut carbon emissions.

Scientists combined temperature records and the latest observations with a series of sophisticated computer models to calculate how much the global rise in greenhouse gases has raised the odds of the soaring temperatures.

They found the heatwave that struck Portugal and Spain was 10 times more likely to have occurred due to global warming. In Portugal, 64 people died in huge forest fires, while in Spain 1,500 people were forced to evacuate by forest blazes.

The intense heat was made four times more probable in central England, which endured its hottest day since 1976, and in France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where emergency heatwave plans were triggered.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...early-linked-to-climate-change-research-shows


----------



## basilio

On a similar note scientists are now concerned that attempting to abate global warming by channelling  excess CO2 into the soil is not as promising as they originally hoped.

* Soil carbon storage not the climate change fix it was thought, research finds *
Soil’s potential to soak up planet-warning carbon dioxide has been overestimated by as much as 40%, say scientists




Scientists have found that a large amount of the greenhouse gas that it was previously thought could be stored in the soil will actually stay in the atmosphere. Photograph: Bullit Marquez/AP


 
* Comments*
 176 
Oliver Milman

 
Friday 23 September 2016 04.00 AEST   Last modified on Thursday 23 February 2017 04.44 AEDT

Hopes that large amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide could be buried in soils appear to be grossly misplaced, with new research finding that the ground will soak up far less carbon over the coming century than previously thought.

Radiocarbon dating of soils, when combined with previous models of carbon uptake, has shown the widely assumed potential for carbon sequestration to combat climate change has been overestimated by as much as 40%.

Scientists from the University of California, Irvine (UCI) found that models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume a much faster cycling of carbon through soils than is actually the case. Data taken from 157 soil samples taken from around the world show the average age of soil carbon is more than six times older than previously thought.

This means it will take hundreds or even thousands of years for soils to soak up large amounts of the extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activity – far too long to be relied upon as a way to help the world avoid dangerous global warming this century.

“A substantial amount of the greenhouse gas that we thought was being taken up and stored in the soil is actually going to stay in the atmosphere,” said study co-author Steven Allison, UCI associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and Earth system science. 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mate-change-fix-it-was-thought-research-finds


----------



## Bintang

How long will the naked emperor be able to tolerate a freezing butt?
*Dozens killed by Europe's coldest weather in years*
*Jan. 10, 2017*
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/10/bitter-cold-kills-dozens-europe/96404042/
Millions of Europeans continued to shiver Tuesday as dangerous cold and bouts of heavy snow hammered the region. At least 61 people have died over the past week as a result of the coldest weather in years.
*Deadly cold wave continues to sweep across Europe*
*A cold wave across Europe has left at least 23 dead in the past two days, including several migrants and homeless people, authorities said Saturday*
Russia meanwhile celebrated the coldest Orthodox Christmas in 120 years, and even Istanbul was covered with a blanket of snow.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170107-europe-weather-cold-deaths-across-deep-freeze-continues


----------



## macca

The area of Portugal that burned has a lot of gum tree plantations, as we are very aware, gum trees need to be hazard reduced every second or third year or you will get a holocaust when the conditions are right.

We have learned this the hard way, so has Portugal


----------



## Bintang

macca said:


> The area of Portugal that burned has a lot of gum tree plantations, as we are very aware, gum trees need to be hazard reduced every second or third year or you will get a holocaust when the conditions are right.




The trouble is, thanks to man-made global warming,  it was so cold during the previous months that nobody wanted to freeze their butts off in the plantations while doing the hazard reduction.
*The Portugal News*
*March 2016, coldest since the mid-1980s*
*April 2016
The average minimum temperature registered last month was the lowest in 32 years, according to the national Met office, and the sixth coldest since 1931.*


----------



## Bintang

Here is the most recently available global temperature anomaly update for June 2017, i.e. +0.21 deg C, which is back to 1997 levels and implies zero global warming for the last 20 years. This satellite temperature data just cannot be correct. It's clearly time for another 'hockey stick' adjustment to the data to make it agree with the 97% of scientists who all agree that humans are causing global warming.


----------



## Tisme

Bintang said:


> Here is the most recently available global temperature anomaly update for June 2017, i.e. +0.21 deg C, which is back to 1997 levels and implies zero global warming for the last 20 years. This satellite temperature data just cannot be correct. It's clearly time for another 'hockey stick' adjustment to the data to make it agree with the 97% of scientists who all agree that humans are causing global warming.
> View attachment 71725





You'd have to explain that a little more for me. 

I know it's a give you are arguing some kind of conspiracy, but I'm affected at the pointy end in one of my businesses by rising enthalpy and degree days,  man made or not.  

Also seeing a persistent, but incipient rise in recorded ppm VOC gases from our air quality sensors and a curious corresponding  increase in vociferous arguments against climate change, presumably caused by blood poisoning  from polluted air.


----------



## basilio

Bintang what you you might choose to do is extend your observations of global temperatures to take in *the entire global land and sea based temperature records.
*
These are the ones that measure the temperature on earth. The temperature that affects all our ecosystems, ice melt in the poles, heat levels in the oceans. 

After that you can examine the number of adjustments that have been made to these satellite based temperature readings.








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php


----------



## Bintang

Tisme said:


> You'd have to explain that a little more for me. I know it's a give you are arguing some kind of conspiracy, but I'm affected at the pointy end in one of my businesses by rising enthalpy and degree days, man made or not.




I have simply showed the most recent data obtained from satellite observations, which is not consistent with temperature projections made by ICPP global warming models. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the data is wrong or the models are wrong.



basilio said:


> Bintang what you might choose to do is extend your observations of global temperatures to take in *the entire global land and sea based temperature records.* These are the ones that measure the temperature on earth.




Michael Mann (of 'hockey stick fame') et al discuss the aspects of satellite versus surface temperature measurements in this recent paper:
*Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates*
Benjamin D. Santer, Michael E. Mann et al, 19June 2017
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

_"Our focus is on satellite- and model-based estimates of tropospheric temperature. There are two reasons for this choice. First, s*atellite tropospheric temperature measurements have time invariant, near-global coverage. *In contrast, *there are large, non-random temporal changes in spatial coverage in the observed surface temperature data sets.*
If the reduction in early twenty-first century warming is mainly an artifact of errors in surface temperature data independent, satellite-based measurements of tropospheric temperature should show little evidence of a recent `slowdown in warming consistent with corrected surface results. *Current satellite data sets, however, provide support for a reduced rate of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century."*_


----------



## Tisme

Bintang said:


> I have simply showed the most recent data obtained from satellite observations,




Well no, you are transparently predicating an argument based on your own bias. My curiosity is why it is so important to people, including yourself to have a bias either way and argue the point? It's not like it's important like, say Collingwood versus Sydney.

My observations on the otherhand are impirically evidenced and merely used to base compensations accordingly.


----------



## Bintang

Like I said. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## basilio

_"I have simply showed the most recent data obtained from satellite observations, which is not consistent with temperature projections made by ICPP global warming models._"  Bintang

Let's be quite clear here. The current world wide* actual temperatures* as measured by thousands of stations around the world show average temperatures at record levels. This is not models or theories. These are facts on the ground. The physical consequences of these temperature extremes are seen in record ice melts in the Arctic and Antarctic,  bleaching coral reefs around the world as ocean temperatures soar, unheralded forest fires in Canada and other far north localities and scores of other heat related phenomenon.

If there is an argument about satellite observations of temperatures not replicating these figures it just brings into question the methodology of these constructs. Are you aware that there have been 11 adjustments made to UAH figures since 1991 ? These simply reflect the range of technical issues that have caused irregularities in the recorded temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

For more detailed information on current and recent global temperatures check out NOAA Global Climate Report for April 2017
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201704


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> The physical consequences of these temperature extremes are seen in *record ice melts* in the Arctic and Antarctic,  bleaching coral reefs around the world as ocean temperatures soar, unheralded forest fires in Canada and other far north localities and scores of other heat related phenomenon.




where is the evidence of record ice melts?


----------



## basilio

*March 23, 2017*
*Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles*
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles


----------



## wayneL

I wonder if there is an organisation... Peesimists Anonymous?


----------



## wayneL

Adjustments****

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf



> VII. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. That was accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks between UAH and RSS as well as with Balloon data. The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.


----------



## basilio

Very interesting "Research Report " Wayne.  Any idea what journal it was published in ? Perhaps who peer reviewed it?  (Don't look too long we already know the answer don't we ..)

Adjustments ?  Sure.  Lots of them. But they don't affect the final outcome in any good way.
The final result? After all the adjustments are noted world temperatures are still at all time records. Check out Gavin Schmidt Twitter account to see the graphs. (For whatever reason I cannot successfully copy a single image which I have saved . Any suggestions ?)
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin


----------



## basilio

While we are on the topic of adjustments to data.

For decades now climate sceptics have argued that temperatures  measured by proxy in the lower troposphere are not actually increasing.  Hence, it is stated, despite all the other temperature records around the world posting record departures - they can't be true because the conflict with these satellite observations.
These satellite observations as I noted earlier are even more prone to adjustments than world temperature records. Check out the most recent adjustments and the impact on the temperature records.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
30 June 2017 6:38
*Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998*

*A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.






Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS.

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
*


----------



## Knobby22

What's surprising me Basilio is the Antarctic melt happening at present.
Most scientists didn't expect to see any real melting for a few decades yet.


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> While we are on the topic of adjustments to data.
> 
> For decades now climate sceptics have argued that temperatures  measured by proxy in the lower troposphere are not actually increasing.  Hence, it is stated, despite all the other temperature records around the world posting record departures - they can't be true because the conflict with these satellite observations.
> These satellite observations as I noted earlier are even more prone to adjustments than world temperature records. Check out the most recent adjustments and the impact on the temperature records.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> What's surprising me Basilio is the Antarctic melt happening at present.
> Most scientists didn't expect to see any real melting for a few decades yet.



Antarctic sea ice is currently building as per normal seasonal variation and tracking the *1980* trend. Not much difference in 37 years.


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> While we are on the topic of adjustments to data.
> GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
> 30 June 2017 6:38
> *Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998*
> *A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.*


----------



## Bintang

Greenland Ice sheet currently has greater extent and mass than average for the period 1981-2010:








http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/


----------



## Bintang

Arctic summer ice looking healthy. Polar bears must be happy.




http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod/page2.xhtml?CanID=10110&lang=en&title=Arctic+Ocean


----------



## basilio

Bintang how closely do you read the documents you post on ASF ?  I'm assuming that you don't scour the web looking for the range of documents you post. What you post would be ones you have seen on climate denier websites which as a *complete rule *either

1) Find or create doctored information and graphs.
2) Selectively quote elements of papers that suit their story and ignore the wider context
3) Use old information that has been superseded by updated research.

Having said that after I look at the Ministry of Climate truth video I can appreciate the skill that is used to debase the entire climate science community as Climate Mafia.

Lets pick up a few points.

1) Satellite recording of temperatures has often been adjusted because of acknowledged degradation of satellite capacity, distance from the earth, travel times. When you read the reasons for the adjustments it is reasonably clear what is happening.  Again check out the ref below
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

2)  You quoted the reference from the paper  regarding the extent and mass of the  Greenland ice sheet . Did you read the reference  in full ? It says.

_If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. *As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade. *

Greenland Climate Research Centre collaborates with DMI on research in both atmospheric impact on the Greenland Ice Sheet and the ice flow itself and its interaction with the rest of the climate system.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
_
3) The adjustments made to climate data from weather stations around the world are not all upwards. I'll leave a reference which explains this in more detail. The locations of weather stations do change as once rural areas become urbanised and experience the increase in local temperatures that big cities produce.

But in the end the overwhelming proof of unprecedented global warming is not just measured by thermometers or satellites. It is seen in the effects on ecosytems which thrive or fail according to the climate they inhabit. The world wide collapse of coral reefs points to increasing sea temperatures. The breakdown of perma frost across the Northern Hemisphere shows the marked changes there. The march of trees to the northern latitudes is another sign. 

These are the facts on the ground.


----------



## Knobby22

Bintang said:


> Antarctic sea ice is currently building as per normal seasonal variation and tracking the *1980* trend. Not much difference in 37 years.
> View attachment 71795



That's ocean, not land mass. Check land mass, that is what matters.


----------



## basilio

This article analysis the "research paper" that challenges all the data published on global temperatures.
 

*Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming *
The best efforts to undermine the established climate science behind the Endangerment Finding are pathetically bad

....
*The errors in the white paper*
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually r_educes_ the long-term global warming trend:

....
Additionally, a peer-reviewed study last year led by Hausfather verified the validity of the temperature adjustments by showing that they bring the data in closer agreement with that from pristinely located temperature stations.

The white paper also claims that the adjustments remove a “cyclical pattern” that appeared more clearly in early versions of the temperature record. As Hausfather told me, that’s simply because we now have more data that better represent the planet as a whole:

_What they don’t tell you is that the 1980 record in question only comes from around 500 land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and does not include any ocean data at all. There is a well-known warm period in the mid-to-high latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not really show up much in the oceans and not at all in the Southern Hemisphere. As scientists have collected more historical temperature records from around the world in the past 35 years, we have created more complete records that show less warmth in that period simply because they cover more of the planet. 

....The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made.* Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence*. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming_


----------



## Knobby22

Bintang said:


> Arctic summer ice looking healthy. Polar bears must be happy.



Check link.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The ice loss has been huge.
China has bought an area  for a new sea port ready for the new trade route. They don't have to cope with politics and politicians paid by "interests"
https://www.porttechnology.org/index.php?/news/china_plans_arctic_shipping_route


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Check link.
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> The ice loss has been huge.
> China has bought an area  for a new sea port ready for the new trade route. They don't have to cope with politics and politicians paid by "interests"
> https://www.porttechnology.org/index.php?/news/china_plans_arctic_shipping_route





That's a lot of melt ice. I wonder if someone could bottle it, sans the polar bear urine.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> That's ocean, not land mass. Check land mass, that is what matters.



You referred earlier to the Antarctic melt. The only thing that melts in the Antarctic is the sea-ice, which is why I posted the chart showing the sea-ice seasonal variation.
Now you say it’s the ‘land mass’, by which I assume you mean the mass of the ice sheet which covers the Antarctic land mass. The ice sheet temperatures are too cold for the ice to melt, except at the edges due to sea temperature (see map of ice sheet mean temperature, scale in deg C:




https://nsidc.org/data/thermap/antarctic_10m_temps/dixon_map.html

*NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses*
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Oct. 31, 2015
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> Check link.
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> The ice loss has been huge.



Huge loss (factor of 3 to 4 times) is quite normal between summer and winter.  The link you posted states that"Arctic ice extent near levels recorded in 2012", which was true in the summer of 2012 except that it reversed in the summer of 2013:


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> China has bought an area  for a new sea port ready for the new trade route. They don't have to cope with politics and politicians paid by "interests"
> https://www.porttechnology.org/index.php?/news/china_plans_arctic_shipping_route




*Northwest Passage Still Out of Reach Despite Rise in Shipping Traffic
https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/a...out-of-reach-despite-rise-in-shipping-traffic
Feb 2017*
Researchers have charted an increase in Arctic shipping numbers, but Canada’s Northwest Passage is unlikely to become a regular route any time soon, due to the *enduring presence* of hard, thick, multi-year sea ice in the more northerly channels.


----------



## Bintang

*The Settled Science Of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Violates The Laws Of Physics*
_Published on July 10, 2017_
http://principia-scientific.org/the...-global-warming-violates-the-laws-of-physics/
“_Worrying about a future climate catastrophe has no basis in the physics of the climate.  It turns out that the so-called settled science has internal flaws in the physics that constitutes its very most fundamental basis.  The advocates of the global warming by carbon dioxide hypothesis have told us that the science is settled. They make some very specific claims about how so-called greenhouse gases cause the present temperatures of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere to be warm as a part of what they claim to be the settled science.  Consequently, we can challenge the physics they claim to be behind the present conditions that control the Earth’s basic climate.  We do not even need to wait to see if their catastrophic man-made (anthropogenic) global warming hypothesis makes correct predictions for the future.  In challenging the physics of their theory, we may well learn more about what the effect of additional carbon dioxide on the climate in the future will be.  In any case, if their reasoning for the present temperatures of the surface and atmosphere is substantially wrong and in violation of fundamental laws of physics, then any further predictions they may make have no basis in science.  If they do not understand the present, they certainly do not understand the future."_


----------



## Knobby22

Global warming is against the fundamental laws of physics! Classic. I did physics and am a trained engineer. That is quite funny. Simple experiments can be created showing how the greenhouse effect works. Satellites can measure the amount of heat entering and leaving outr atmosphere. Where's the violation of physics?

This is the graph you should have looked at. I should have named it. the one you posted shows how much melt per year and so is cumulative. Still a long way to go before it's mostly melted though.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> This is the graph you should have looked at. I should have named it. the one you posted shows how much melt per year and so is cumulative. Still a long way to go before it's mostly melted though.



The chart you posted is just a snapshot for the month of June which has a natural range of ~20%, i.e. 10.6 to 12.7 million sq km. Looks dramatic except that the complete natural range of summer minimum to winter maximum dwarfs this, ie. ~ 400% 4.0 to 16.0 million sq km


----------



## Knobby22

Well its at the peak of June obviously but if it was a share you would short it.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> Global warming is against the fundamental laws of physics! Classic. I did physics and am a trained engineer. That is quite funny. Simple experiments can be created showing how the greenhouse effect works. Satellites can measure the amount of heat entering and leaving outr atmosphere. Where's the violation of physics?



Congratulations on being a trained engineer. The author of the paper Charles R. Anderson, is a Ph.D. physicist. I suggest you actually read the paper before claiming that your credentials somehow give you superior insight.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I can vividly recall the stink from leaded petrol engines, the stink of coal steam locomotives, the stink of industry, of the abattoirs, etc; the oil slicks on the road, the asbestos dust falling out of the brake drums when replacing shoes, people burning off God knows what in their backyards; the poisons, the wood chip bath heaters with lead water pipes,.... all concatenated as a 24hour serving of pour health and stunted potential.
> 
> The place was an airborne and ground dwelling cesspit of long chain alkyl aromatics, benzene rings and heavy metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, etc).
> 
> No wonder the incidences of old age derivatives of denial, dementia, liver disease and downright bloody mindedness from the early baby boomers and before. Thank goodness some sane people existed who managed to outlaw a lot of the treachery foisted on an all too complacent population of  chemically engineered cantankerous half wits.





bloody 'ell. That's some good, well cultured, cursing and insults there McGee.


----------



## Bintang

*On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding*
A peer-reviewed study questions the validity of three key global temperature data sets (NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data).  It concludes that these key global temperature data sets as used in recent climate change models have been "adjusted" in such a way as to not be "a valid representation of reality.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
_"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."_


----------



## Knobby22

I did read it and he has completely lost his objectivity.
I will reply later as the issue is complex and I am at work.


----------



## dutchie

*Aussie Weather Bureau Busted For Tampering With Climate Data*

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments *after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations*.

*BOM has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations.* The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.

Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.

*Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-01/aussie-weather-bureau-busted-tampering-climate-data



I wonder why this has not been covered by Australian MSM???


----------



## Smurf1976

One thing's for sure, it's not raining at lot right now:

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...test&step=1&map=percent&period=month&area=nat

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...0630&step=0&map=percent&period=month&area=nat

Looks like a few people in the NT and those in northern NSW took all the rain....


----------



## Logique

Please reassure me Knobby, Bas and others,

they're not seriously coming after our cars are they (the climate change lobby, because older vehicles burn 'dirty' fuels?).

It would put a lot of drivers off the road, especially older Australians. And car collectors as well.

This possibility leaked out from the Liberal party backroom last month.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> Please reassure me Knobby, Bas and others,
> 
> they're not seriously coming after our cars are they (the climate change lobby, because older vehicles burn 'dirty' fuels?).
> 
> It would put a lot of drivers off the road, especially older Australians. And car collectors as well.
> 
> This possibility leaked out from the Liberal party backroom last month.




I would have thought they already had. All those cleaner emission standards. VW couldn't even make it so they rigged it. There is an out for car collectors, I am sure it will still exist.

The car lobby has been pushing for years for changes.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/535763/...-on-future-automotive-tech-like-amateur-hour/


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> I would have thought they already had. All those cleaner emission standards. VW couldn't even make it so they rigged it. There is an out for car collectors, I am sure it will still exist.
> The car lobby has been pushing for years for changes.
> http://www.caradvice.com.au/535763/...-on-future-automotive-tech-like-amateur-hour/



Thanks Knobby, always best to know what's coming down the pike!


----------



## Tisme

http://www.ntd.tv/inspiring/life/na...now-climatic-changes-our-home-sweet-home.html


----------



## Logique

Crackerjack speech from Tony Abbott.

But naturally, everything he says can be negated by a funny little cartoon on _The Project.  _Waleed still hasn't told us where he stands on gay marriage. Why so coy Waleed?







> ABBOTT ATTACKS GLOBAL WARMING SCARE
> October 10, 2017:  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...e/news-story/7f59289de15b4c12cb8b56938c9271e8


----------



## Knobby22

Tony Abbott
_In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
_
In Australia though it's heat as my dead great Aunt would attest if she could speak from the grave.

I do think that we need another efficient coal powered substation. Burning gas for electricity is not a good solution. If Tony could only talk about power and pricing etc. and get off the denier bandwagon he might be a force for good. 

Unfortunately he makes too many statements that are demonstrably false (e.g. mentioning sunspots as a cause for global warming) that he just appears as a crank and only slightly better than Senator Roberts.

He loves England, he came from England, he should go back permanently. Surely Australian Knight Sir Philip would help him out.


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott
> _In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial._
> In Australia though it's heat as my dead great Aunt would attest if she could speak from the grave.
> I do think that we need another efficient coal powered substation. Burning gas for electricity is not a good solution. If Tony could only talk about power and pricing etc. and get off the denier bandwagon he might be a force for good.
> Unfortunately he makes *too many statements that are demonstrably false* (e.g. mentioning sunspots as a cause for global warming) that he just appears as a crank and only slightly better than Senator Roberts.
> He loves England, he came from England, he should go back permanently. Surely Australian Knight Sir Philip would help him out.



Unlike the AGW warmists. They wouldn't dream of making a false statement, as we know.

England? I think you'll find that's Bill Shorten's homeland


----------



## wayneL

I thought it was a great speech. Bang on , we need Tony back.


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott
> 
> He loves England, he came from England, he should go back permanently. Surely Australian Knight Sir Philip would help him out.




Descend Sir Pository you are Benighted... and so it was with this 'gong' the failed seminarian was etched into history... fitting .Tight fitting, like a long sleeved canvas jacket thats cuffs tie neatly together in the small of your back.

Knobby, I'm reading Origins reports, coal generation investment is not making any sense financially in this country and it's an increasingly marginal prospect everywhere else. They, Origin, will not touch it; no bank will touch it. Gas is scalable, but it's medium term at best. Coal is a fifty year mill stone, it's not going to be viable even if the coals for free.


----------



## PZ99

So in 8 years Tony Abbott goes from saying...

climate change is crap to
climate change is real to
climate change is good
Which is why Tony Abbott as PM put in place a "direct action" scheme to reduce carbon emissions which still operates today despite his criticisms of it. 

He is also a self confessed liar. Nup, we don't need him back.


----------



## wayneL

Which liar do you prefer PZ99


----------



## PZ99

One that has some acceptable level of intelligence would be a good start.

They can at least learn from their mistakes.


----------



## wayneL

PZ99 said:


> One that has some acceptable level of intelligence would be a good start.
> 
> They can at least learn from their mistakes.



We in trouble then hey? 

Tones is the closest then  I say. I am literally going to OD myself on any available pharmaceutical the day Shorten, Plibvfdfffdggsek, et al get into power.


----------



## IFocus

Abbotts speech proves beyond doubt what I have always said.......he is a tosser.


----------



## PZ99

Symbolic suicide won't make Tony any more intelligent, Wayne.


----------



## wayneL

PZ99 said:


> Symbolic suicide won't make Tony any more intelligent, Wayne.



It will remove me from witnessing the final destruction of the country formerly known as Australia


----------



## PZ99

It's not yet hot enough for that


----------



## Tisme

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-a-hole-bigger-than-scotland-has-opened-up-in-antarctica-20171011



> it's known as a polynya, which is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice. Apparently, this polynya was discovered in the 1970s, however it's five times larger than the one that was found then.


----------



## SirRumpole

Climate sceptics become believers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Climate sceptics become believers.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406



These are not recent converts. They have been pious observers of the religion and grateful grant recipients for quite some time.


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> These are not recent converts. They have been pious observers of the religion and grateful grant recipients for quite some time.



It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
> Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.



I don't think so. 

And can always find scientists who've jump the fence in the opposite direction


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> And can always find scientists who've jump the fence in the opposite direction




Care to name any?


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> Care to name any?



Well, I'm at work, burning copious amounts of fossil fuels,  for the benefit of entitled leftists, pious lecturers of the green religion,  from the pulpit of their large,  opulent, air conditioned mansions and their Range Rovers and Chev Suburbans to pull the horse float. 

There are many,  but will have to look them up later


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> Well, I'm at work, burning copious amounts of fossil fuels,  for the benefit of entitled leftists, pious lecturers of the green religion,  from the pulpit of their large,  opulent, air conditioned mansions and their Range Rovers and Chev Suburbans to pull the horse float.
> 
> There are many,  but will have to look them up later




I'll be interested to hear.  I mean if you believe scientists have altered their stance for grants then surely you would be equally open to scientists change in position due to big oil etc payments.


----------



## basilio

overhang said:


> It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
> Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.




Dr Richard Mueller was probably the best example of that situation.  I remember for years the climate deniers were banging on about urban heat islands and dodgy  temperature records etc being the  primary cause of nominal increases in recorded temperatures.

Dr Mueller, a climate sceptic at that stage,  was paid by the Koch brothers (ardent climate deniers) to re-examine all the temperature records and discover the errors made by the rest of the worlds  climate scientists/meteorologists.

His team duly did the research and then to the stunned horror of his climate denying  funders and the associated baggage  hangers on, declared  yes climate change was real and the alleged urban heat islands problems  did not invalidate the overall results.

So of course after he produced his research results he was promptly branded as one of the "not to be believed" climate scientists.  Worth reading his story in more detail.

*The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic*
By RICHARD A. MULLERJULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

*CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.*

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

*Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.*

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Continue reading the main story
*Related Coverage*


*Opinion Dot Earth Blog *
* 'Converted' Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming JULY 29, 2012 *


Continue reading the main story
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html


----------



## Logique

overhang said:


> Care to name any?



Care to provide evidence of AGW?


----------



## overhang

Logique said:


> Care to provide evidence of AGW?




We are 486 pages in, there are an abundant amount of posts that are evidence of AGW.  Given that you presumably have read most of those then I fail to see how there is one piece of evidence that would convince you otherwise.  You tell me what piece of evidence would you accept as proof?


----------



## Knobby22

Red herring.


----------



## Logique

So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.

In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.







> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10...cientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/
> October 25, 2017 - *So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm *by Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone
> During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…


----------



## overhang

Logique said:


> So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.
> 
> In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.







> Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:




https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

We've seen this in the past, scientists when questioned are shocked to find their research has been used by climate skeptics as some sort of proof AGW doesn't exist when often their studies show no such thing.


----------



## basilio

The take down by Snopes on the way No Tricks  Zone fabricates arguments against AGW is full on. Well worth reading.

I suppose I keep wondering why Logique and others continue to quote sources that are repeatedly shown to take scientists work and then completely misrepresent it.


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> Care to provide evidence of AGW?



How about reading the NY times article I posted directly above your request ?


----------



## IFocus

Logique said:


> So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.
> 
> In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.





They don't live in the SW of WA then


----------



## wayneL

Snopes is no better than the Guardian


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> Snopes is no better than the Guardian




Have you found any scientists yet that have altered their position from support of AGW to agnostic?


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> Have you found any scientists yet that have altered their position from support of AGW to agnostic?



Lovelock, Dyson, Curry are three that come to mind off the top of my head


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> Lovelock, Dyson, Curry are three that come to mind off the top of my head




All of those you mention support AGW.  It seems they all disagree with the modeling.


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> All of who you mention support AGW.  It seems they all disagree with the modeling.



Absolutely,  which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'all


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> Absolutely,  which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'all




I thought you don't accept AGW?  Many skeptics don't.


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> I thought you don't accept AGW?  Many skeptics don't.



I don't accept the alarmist position on climate change,  but I have stated my position numerous times here.

It is the appalling tactics of the likes of basilio and plod to label it as denial.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Absolutely,  which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'all



"MODERATE",   starrruth!  a bit on the extreme to this ole black duck.

But then there are weather watcher's and there are weather watcher's.


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> I don't accept the alarmist position on climate change,  but I have stated my position numerous times here.
> 
> It is the appalling tactics of the likes of basilio and plod to label it as denial.




What do you consider an alarmist position?  Do you think any action is required?


----------



## basilio

Wayne I believe you totally lost me  as "moderate" re AGW at two points

1) In 2012 Dr Mueller finished his reappraisal of all global temperature records and said that in fact the world climate scientists and meteorlogists were correct. This was significant insofor as previously Dr Mueller was a pin up for the sceptic side of ADW. However when his research simply confirmed what all the other climate scientists were saying - he was immediately tarred as  "in it for the grant money". Stunning really.

2)  In 2014-5-6 the world experienced exceptional increases in average global temperature and off the wall increases in the polar regions. If there was ever an occasion for those with beliefs in  "moderate" global warming to reconsider their position that was it. However you, in step with the Judith Curries et all,  attempted to just deny the  veracity of the temperature increases and make totally fictious claims about dodgy temperature records.


----------



## wayneL

overhang said:


> What do you consider an alarmist position?  Do you think any action is required?



1/ Anyone making representations not supported by empirical data and/or retrospectively  and fraudulently adjusts data to create an illusion of a trend not supported by empirical data...  Gore, Hanson,  Schmidt, Mann, Romm for example. 

2/ I think any action to reduce pollution is worthwhile.  I think the current predeliction that demonises fossil fuels may prove to be counter-productive,  both in terms of economics and ecology.

However, I believe replacement of fossil fuels on a reasonable basis is a good goal, for a couple of reasons not related to co2 emissions


----------



## Logique

overhang said:


> What do you consider an alarmist position?  Do you think any action is required?



Dr Bjorn Lomborg is a moderate: http://www.lomborg.com/, and he is an actual believer in AGW.

But Lomborg was effectively run out of the country by the Australian academic establishment!


----------



## Logique

Fake sceptics - don't be conned folks







> http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/th...-who-change-their-minds-about-climate-change/
> October 2017 - *The rise of fake skeptics who “change their minds” about climate change*
> ..Alas, Kilvert doesn’t realize the traffic is all the other way, an exodus,  and there is no single outspoken skeptic that has convincingly switched the other way..


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> Fake sceptics - don't be conned folks




Interesting how such things, this, and the only the alarmist version of the purported science, are uncritically accepted by the Komrades.


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> 1/ Anyone making representations not supported by empirical data and/or retrospectively  and fraudulently adjusts data to create an illusion of a trend not supported by empirical data...  Gore, Hanson,  Schmidt, Mann, Romm for example.
> 
> 2/ I think any action to reduce pollution is worthwhile.  I think the current predeliction that demonises fossil fuels may prove to be counter-productive,  both in terms of economics and ecology.
> 
> However, I believe replacement of fossil fuels on a reasonable basis is a good goal, for a couple of reasons not related to co2 emissions




Thanks for the reply.  That sounds quite pragmatic and on many levels I agree.


----------



## basilio

Maybe this news is sufficient to reconsider drastic steps to reduce world wide CO2 emissions.  Or we could just wait... and wait..

* Global atmospheric CO2 levels hit record high *
UN warns that drastic action is needed to meet climate targets set in the Paris agreement


*Shares*
3957

Jonathan Watts and agencies

Monday 30 October 2017 13.06 GMT   First published on Monday 30 October 2017 11.23 GMT

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased at record speed last year to hit a level not seen for more than three million years, the UN has warned.

The new report has raised alarm among scientists and prompted calls for nations to consider more drastic emissions reductions at the upcoming climate negotiations in Bonn.

“Globally averaged concentrations of CO2 reached 403.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, up from 400.00 ppm in 2015 because of a combination of human activities and a strong El Niño event,” according to The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the UN weather agency’s annual flagship report.

This acceleration occurred despite a slowdown – and perhaps even a plateauing – of emissions because El Niño intensified droughts and weakened the ability of vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide. As the planet warms, El Niños are expected to become more frequent.

The increase of 3.3 ppm is considerably higher than both the 2.3 ppm rise of the previous 12 months and the average annual increase over the past decade of 2.08ppm. It is also well above the previous big El Niño year of 1998, when the rise was 2.7 ppm.

*The study, which uses monitoring ships, aircraft and stations on the land to track emissions trends since 1750, said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now increasing 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age due to population growth, intensive agriculture, deforestation and industrialisation.


The last time Earth experienced similar CO2 concentration rates was during the Pliocene era (three to five million years ago), when the sea level was up to 20m higher than now.*

The authors urged policymakers to step up countermeasures to reduce the risk of global warming exceeding the Paris climate target of between 1.5C and 2C.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/30/global-atmospheric-co2-levels-hit-record-high


----------



## moXJO

Anyone ever hear of ecosexuals?
The images are exactly how I imagine basket weavers to be.


----------



## basilio

While the world is waiting is understand just *exactly *how serious global warming could become the range of scenarios that are unfolding in the our childrens lifetime is looking even more "character building".

Well worth reading.

*The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming*
The UN is warning that we are now on course for 3C of global warming. This will ultimately redraw the map of the world

Friday 3 November 2017 06.45 GMT   Last modified on Friday 3 November 2017 15.12 GMT


*Shares*
9037

When UN climate negotiators meet for summit talks this month, there will be a new figure on the table: 3C.

Until now, global efforts such as the Paris climate agreement have tried to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. However, with latest projections pointing to an increase of 3.2C by 2100, these goals seem to be slipping out of reach.

“[We] still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future,” said Erik Solheim, the UN environment chief, ahead of the upcoming Bonn conference.

One of the biggest resulting threats to cities around the world is sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of water at higher temperatures and melting ice sheets on the north and south poles.

*Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be flooded at 3C of global warming.*

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...ee-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming


----------



## IFocus

Headlines keep banging on about temperature and rising sea levels and yes they are a problem and yes the obfuscation augments about CO2's role not to mention that idiot Abbott's contribution warmer is great news for the cold regions less people will die.............only problem is most people live in the warm bits.

And yet the end game is ocean acidification or the sight fall in the worlds oceans pH there is no argument against the fact that it takes out humanity and most of all other life on the planet as we know it.

CO2's is the culprit,  of course this is all warmest religion , a left wing plot, UN,s take over the world grand plan.


----------



## Knobby22

It's interesting how seriously China is taking with regard to protecting Shanghai. The cost of the massive sea walls must be large.·

I can't see New Orleans hiding out. Too many issues and too much money to fix. Maybe they can go the  Venice route.


----------



## explod

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html

"Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out," the letter warns. "We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home."


----------



## luutzu

overhang said:


> I'll be interested to hear.  I mean if you believe scientists have altered their stance for grants then surely you would be equally open to scientists change in position due to big oil etc payments.




Business people using their money and influence to buy "facts" that further their empire? No way. 

But no, big oil and the Kochs of the world can't buy scientists to deny the existence or likely causes of climate change. No scientists could do that kind of fudging the numbers without being laughed at to their faces.

All those scientists-for-hire would do is phrase their research's aim just enough that it's somewhat Climate Science related but won't answer or try to answer the cause/s. This then give them some sense of legitimacy in being a "sceptic". 

That's enough count and "scientific vigour" to sow doubt. Then you ramp up the PR machine; say it's some Leftist conspiracy to keep the air and water clean, save people's lives and livelihood "in case" a freak hurricane or moonsoon or drought were to to hit them. 

I mean, to have insurance where the premium you pay is new innovation, new jobs, clean air, water... greater reliance on a renewable sources of energy, one that drastically cut out the extra costs of mining, transporting, transmitting the same net energy need? 

Why take such risk by insuring at no costs but all gains?

Think of the pipeline corporations; the rail guys; the port operators; the ships that transport all the fossil.

Yea, all those industries and their owners just sit there and permit the likes of Obama or Trudeau and their comrades in Beijing [Moscow no longer has comrades right?] to buy and push scientists and their dastard schemes to not ruin the world.


----------



## luutzu

Genesis. In 3D!

One of the scientists [?] in the trailer said that if we don't believe in the Bible, there are consequences. Bad ones I'm assuming.

So if the world floods again, it will be because humans no longer believe in God and so he no longer hold his promise to Noah that he won't flood his beloved creation again.


----------



## Knobby22

Bill Gates to build a smart city on Arizona.
Getting lots of hate for doing so as he is not a Fox favourite. Mish  is funny in the article he wrote below saying he is not a global warming advocate but as the rainfall continues to fall in Arizona due to warming he doubts there will be adequate water for Bill Gates city long term.  So Mish you are a global warming advocate when it suits your argument? I have noted this before on other issues and I think he is a secret global warming advocate, after all he isn't dumb. He better be careful or will be blacklisted by the right wing dicks.

It's a worry, the left are just as bad if not worse, you are either completely on our team or you are excommunicated.

Anyway article follows.

https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/e...d-to-create-smart-city--DoEpqeiCUeMsJPLgmXD7A


----------



## Wysiwyg

Queensland, Australia, 22nd of November 2017. Just walked outside house and quickly returned inside due to cool natural air temperatures. Cool air temperatures that have continued throughout this November 2017 and are not expected this time of year. Meanwhile inTassie which is 1600 klm closer to Antarctica ....

"The weather bureau's Tim Bolden said it was shaping up to be the first time Hobart has recorded six consecutive days on or above 25 degrees Celsius in November in nearly 130 years."

Work that one out.


----------



## explod

Wysiwyg said:


> Queensland, Australia, 22nd of November 2017. Just walked outside house and quickly returned inside due to cool natural air temperatures. Cool air temperatures that have continued throughout this November 2017 and are not expected this time of year. Meanwhile inTassie which is 1600 klm closer to Antarctica ....
> 
> "The weather bureau's Tim Bolden said it was shaping up to be the first time Hobart has recorded six consecutive days on or above 25 degrees Celsius in November in nearly 130 years."
> 
> Work that one out.



Easy,  warmer at the two poles is causing displacement (in our case from the south) and therefore the increasingly unstable,  unpredictable weather.  Get used to it as its going to get worse.


----------



## Smurf1976

Wysiwyg said:


> "The weather bureau's Tim Bolden said it was shaping up to be the first time Hobart has recorded six consecutive days on or above 25 degrees Celsius in November in nearly 130 years."
> 
> Work that one out.



Tassie does get hot on occasion, the all time record for Hobart is 41.8, but what we're getting at the moment is abnormal that's for sure.

It's not hot as such, around 30 degrees, but to get that day after day, every day, sure isn't normal.

"Normal" hot weather in Tas means it was hot in SA yesterday and is hot in Vic today with a strong northerly wind blowing the heat down. We get a few such days each summer although in some years literally none - 20 or so years ago there was a summer when it didn't go above 25 right through the entire season. Having warm weather literally every day in November is unprecedented as far as the records go back and I'm very sure that it's one of those things everyone's talking about.

Hobart being warmer than Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Perth, and sometimes warmer than Melbourne, is also very unusual. Hot weather normally comes from Victoria after all not the reverse.

Also typical hot weather in Hobart involves a cool change, often extremely fast, later in the day. That's not really happening either - even when the wind does shift to the south it's still pretty warm.

Climate change? I won't claim to know that but it's very unusual weather that's for sure. Tasmanians running their air-conditioners (well, those who have one) to keep cool meanwhile it's cold enough in Qld to turn the heater on. 

I'm hearing reports of odd things happening like snakes getting too hot. I always thought they liked the heat but like everyone else down here they wouldn't be used to it happening day after day.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Easy,  warmer at the two poles is causing displacement (in our case from the south) and therefore the increasingly unstable,  unpredictable weather.  Get used to it as its going to get worse.




Well the upside is, it may give the media something else to talk about, other than SSM and citizenship.


----------



## Logique

We may only hope that the facts will prevail. As facts always prevail against rhetoric. Disclosure of the facts - contrary to the best interests of the state, says the university? What a sick joke..







> Winning: *UA ordered to surrender emails to skeptics of human-caused climate change*
> By: Anthony Watts, 8 December 2017
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12...s-to-skeptics-of-human-caused-climate-change/
> PHOENIX — The University of Arizona has been *ordered to surrender emails by two UA scientists* that a group claims will help prove that* theories about human-caused climate change are false and part of a conspiracy*.
> 
> Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner rejected arguments by the Board of Regents that disclosure of the documents would be “contrary to the best interests of the state.” ...


----------



## Logique

_An Engineer, a Mathematician and a “Climate scientist” are each asked “what is 2 + 2?

 The Engineer says “somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1”, the Mathematician says “4” and the “Climate scientist” says “what would you like it to be?”

This is the problem we have today.  “Climate change” can be anything you want if you are a “follower” ..._

Quoted from:
_David Bidstrup: What is 2 + 2? An old joke re-told._
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/12/15/david-bidstrup-what-is-2-2-an-old-joke-re-told/


----------



## cynic

Logique said:


> _An Engineer, a Mathematician and a “Climate scientist” are each asked “what is 2 + 2?
> 
> The Engineer says “somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1”, the Mathematician says “4” and the “Climate scientist” says “what would you like it to be?”
> 
> This is the problem we have today.  “Climate change” can be anything you want if you are a “follower” ..._
> 
> Quoted from:
> _David Bidstrup: What is 2 + 2? An old joke re-told._
> http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/12/15/david-bidstrup-what-is-2-2-an-old-joke-re-told/



I think that joke does the climate scientist a serious injustice. Every climate scientist knows that the answer can only be the one that supports, and confirms, the AGW theory. Furthermore, those producing a disagreeable answer, are clearly not qualified to practice mathematics.


----------



## wayneL

cynic said:


> I think that joke does the climate scientist a serious injustice. Every climate scientist knows that the answer can only be the one that supports, and confirms, the AGW theory. Furthermore, those producing a disagreeable answer, are clearly not qualified to practice mathematics.



They should also be arrested,  or blown up or something.


----------



## explod

*Arctic global warming so rapid that computer measuring it rejected the results*
Algorithm meant to be triggered if there is a fault in Alaskan recording equipment stops temperature recording because measurements were too high.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-rapid-computer-rejected-alaska-a8110941.html

So everything is having a problem with it hey.  Maybe we'd do better by accepting the facts and all doing something about it.


----------



## orr

wayneL said:


> They should also be arrested,  or blown up or something.




And so it has descended to this; Don't like the message shoot the messenger ....
Getting a bit hard to bang your square facts into your round holes boys?

Mathematics ??? Great to see the immediately above posters are at least up to speed with an early primary level understanding of the subject... credit where credit due. Are you all getting those coloured(square) rods back in the box Ok? or do you all have personalised round boxes? and that's where to trouble started?


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> And so it has descended to this; Don't like the message shoot the messenger ....
> Getting a bit hard to bang your square facts into your round holes boys?
> 
> Mathematics ??? Great to see the immediately above posters are at least up to speed with an early primary level understanding of the subject... credit where credit due. Are you all getting those coloured(square) rods back in the box Ok? or do you all have personalised round boxes? and that's where to trouble started?



It is wonderful to see you finally voicing some support for the sceptic camp.

Was that truly your intention?

Orr did you misunderstand the context underlying wayne's response to my post?


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> did you misunderstand the context underlying wayne's response to my post?




I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, I must have and I'll admit I still do. So get me up to speed.

If you're still having trouble with the cuiseaire rods I've got a slection of bigger hammers for sale, just drop personal message...


----------



## cynic

orr said:


> I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, I must have and I'll admit I still do. So get me up to speed.
> ...



You voiced criticism of the messenger shooting practice, and yet you somehow fail to recognise that, on this occasion , wayne's comment was in relation to the plight of the heretical sceptics (not the alarmists).

So, do you need me to assist you further with your rod?


----------



## Knobby22

explod said:


> *Arctic global warming so rapid that computer measuring it rejected the results*
> Algorithm meant to be triggered if there is a fault in Alaskan recording equipment stops temperature recording because measurements were too high.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-rapid-computer-rejected-alaska-a8110941.html
> 
> So everything is having a problem with it hey.  Maybe we'd do better by accepting the facts and all doing something about it.




Yes, interesting and suspicious. Firstly why is there an algorithm to detect high temperature numbers and then delete them?
It's like the government or big oil doesn't want you to know.


Anyway here is another article that you won't see on Fox news or any other Newscorp "news" site.
Seems its a bit warm.

Dec. 10, 2017, at 6:51 p.m.            



Alaska Sees Record-High Temperatures in December







JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — An unprecedented heat wave has toppled weather records across Alaska.

The National Weather Service thermometer at Juneau International Airport on Friday hit 54 degrees, tying the highest temperature recorded in December there, the Juneau Empire reported .

The low temperature Thursday in Sitka (53 degrees) was one degree above the previous record high for the day.

"These are some fairly long-standing records that have fallen. Definitely the Sitka temperature you could say that about," said Devid Levin, a general forecaster for the Weather Service in Juneau.

The heat wave in Alaska is due to a big ridge of upper-level high pressure, Levin said. With the jet stream moving to the north, warm air from the tropics has moved north, covering the state.

Records kept by the Weather Service since 1936 say three of the 10 warmest December days in Juneau's history have come in the past week.


----------



## orr

cynic said:


> So, do you need me to assist you further with your rod?




My rod seems fine, it measures five and half yards as it always has.
Measurement is an extremely important concept, without it accurate assessment is impossible...

On occasion misinterpretation, as has clearly been exposed by my response to the above, needs to be clarified.
May I suggest that you try with "facts" that don't blow  up in your face;  you will be much less likely to be 'Blown up' as illuded. ...'Taken out and shot' ...? give me at your leisure  as many examples as you have where this technique has proved historically superior to practitionors of scientific method in evaluation of accumulated data in assertaining understanding?..take your time...
Arrested???   well, that applies to a certian psyhcologocical conditioning...one long time observers of this thread are no stanger to.

Bit fuzzy around the length of your rod cynic? best you keep well calibrated. Lest you come undone in all sorts of ways. BHP Billiton(amungst more than a few Others) seem a little closed to those of your  particaular 'way' of 'Thinking', I have little doubt why  and so do any others with an understanding as to why water boils in a pot and where. All the best...


----------



## basilio

The effects of CC through droughts, heat waves, floods and storms will drive people out of their homes.  Where will they go ?  

* Devastating climate change could lead to 1m migrants a year entering EU by 2100 *
Researchers plotted temperature rises against the number of asylum applications and are predicting that as the southern hemisphere heats up the number of people migrating to the EU each year will triple

Climate change will drive a huge increase in the number of migrants seeking asylum in Europe if current trends continue, according to a new study.

The number of migrants attempting to settle in Europe each year will triple by the end of the century based on current climate trends alone, independent of other political and economic factors, according to the research. Even if efforts to curb global warming are successful, the number of applications for asylum could rise by a quarter, the authors predict.

Wolfram Schlenker, professor at the school of international and public affairs at Columbia University in New York, and lead author of the study, said: “Europe will see increasing numbers of desperate people fleeing their home countries.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was not involved with the report, told the Guardian the results should be taken seriously by policymakers, though current forecasting models frequently fail to take such factors into account.

He said: “This study shows how Europe will be impacted by one of the most serious impacts of climate change. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people will be exposed to coastal sea level rise and shifts in extreme weather that will cause mass migrations away from the most vulnerable locations. We know from human history that such migrations often lead to conflict and war, with devastating consequences. The huge potential costs of migration-related conflict are usually omitted from economic models of climate change impacts in the future.”

Climate change is predicted to result in more droughts, floods, heatwaves, and other extreme weather, as well as more intense storms and rising sea levels. These effects are likely to render agriculture more difficult, if not impossible, across swathes of the globe, including sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia.

These effects will also be felt in Europe, but its lower base temperatures, relative prosperity and advanced infrastructure mean the damage could be contained, and make it an attractive destination for migrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-million-migrants-a-year-entering-eu-by-2100


Just thinking back closer to home.  I wonder how Australians will repond when large inland towns become unliveable because of heat and drought ? Or parts of major cities become regularly flooded driving people out of their homes?


----------



## Smurf1976

The media is once again warning that Australia, this time the south-east, is about to be “smashed” by extreme weather.

A quick check of weather forecasts for NSW, ACT, Vic, SA and Tas finds nothing out of the ordinary, just the sort of weather that’s to be expected in Winter.

I do wish they’d drop the sensationalist rubbish and stick to facts and reasonably based hypothesis regarding the future instead of saying we’re all going to freeze to death or be blown away because it’s 10 degrees with a gentle breeze.

Have the people who write this “news” never been outside in Winter before?


----------



## SirRumpole

This may help describe the differences between weather and climate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-21/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather/9566168


----------



## explod

Interesting perspective.



Smurf:  70 years back I lived on a farm which had been recently subdivided for the Soldier Settlement Scheme.  There were no trees or shelter, just a 600 acre paddock with our corrugated iron hut.  No electricity or hot water service.  Everything revolved around our wood fireplace (IXL).  I was six and had four younger siblings and Mum had another in the bin.  Anyway I digress.

At this time of the year back then we had the constant trade winds from the south west.  They consistently began about the Warrnambool May Racing Carnival and barely let up till early September each year, in fact gumboots were needed till November.  Because of the weather I became a weather watcher, Dad always measured and recorded the falls and discussed it with us.  It averaged between 25 to 30 inches a year and never below that till the dry of 1967 to 69. The falls have never attained that level since.  Dad often spoke of the tree clearing that took place before our arrival and I must say the old stumps provided us with great fuel for the stove.  Some years later Dad and other farmers were very angry at the Premier Henry Bolte letting the dozers clear the Heytesbury Settlement (to our east)  It was sandy soil and proved unsuitable for the close settlement that followed.  In fact it marked the change in my view.

Today the variation of weather is inconsistent and all over the place.  I'm not a scientist but a constant observer over time.    So yes its not all coal and oil but also land clearing which continues unabated across most states.  Just north of where I live around Berwick almost to Warrigal we find prime grazing and productive vegetable ground being built on in swathes for houses. 

But do you think the press will focus on the real concerns of the Greens, not on your life cause its bad business.  Well times running out folks as the link at the top of my post reveals.   Actually an elderly Dear pointed out a few days back that when she was a girl there were 2 billion people on earth, today we have eight billion.  So a lot has happened over a lifetime but few have the eyes it seems to see it or where we are headed.


----------



## basilio

There is an excellent review of Professor James Hanson  1988 predictions on the effects of global warming.  This was his presentation to the US Senate where he laid out the effects of  CO2 created global warming alongside natural  climate variability due to other (non human) factors.

Turns out James predictions using the 1980's climate models was spot on. The sobering point is asking what the future holds for global warming given :
1) The fact that we already have a proven result from the 1988 predictions
2)  Current climate models are far more developed and predict  even larger temperature increases as we increase greenhouse gases

And finally - at what stage will the governments and organisations who don't accept the validity of the evidence acknowledge reality and create a united front on a common problem ?

*Climate Denial Crock of the Week*
with Peter Sinclair

* New Video: Hansen’s Global Warming Prediction at 30. How did He Do? *
*June 20, 2018*

June 23, 1988.

Easy to remember, because it’s my birthday.
And the day I thought that, at last, humans were serious about the 800 pound gorilla of environmental issues.

Senior NASA scientist James Hansen, whose work I had been following for some time, came before the Senate, on a brutally hot summer day – and laid out his findings. He was pushing the envelope of what the data could tell, but his instincts were telling him that what he was seeing was real.


----------



## SirRumpole

Happy birthday Bas !


----------



## orr

So much and for so long ad hominen pushed at Hansen...
Time for a mea culpa...
memories???


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

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

And yes, prosecute the Gorists and Gravy Trainers.

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

A lot of crow on the menu for some..

The writhing of the likes of the imbicile Craig Kelly inspire pity, similar to that of wanting to help the village idiot. But no matter how you help such as those today, you know tomorrow they'll be out in the cold and wet smeared from head to foot in their own faeces. 
Such is the burden of those up the bell curve.


----------



## basilio

orr said:


> So much and for so long ad hominen pushed at Hansen...
> Time for a mea culpa...
> memories???
> 
> 
> _"Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.
> 
> Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.
> 
> And yes, prosecute the Gorists and Gravy Trainers.
> 
> Unfortunately it will not happen, and they will resurrect the issue, Lazarus like, at some point in the future._ "
> 
> A lot of crow on the menu for some..
> 
> The writhing of the likes of the imbicile Craig Kelly inspire pity, similar to that of wanting to help the village idiot. But no matter how you help such as those today, you know tomorrow they'll be out in the cold and wet smeared from head to foot in their own faeces.
> Such is the burden of those up the bell curve.




You must be joking !! There is no known universe that the climate deniers will acknowledge that either the world is getting warmer (rapidly !) or that humans are the overwhelming contrubitor to the warming. Check out this analysis of the latest "it ain't happening " story.

* 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction *
Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...out-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction


----------



## Darc Knight

Considering that the science of climate change is supposed to be pretty much settled, if it is all a hoax, I'm guessing by academics to fund further research into renewable energy, jail sentences need to be handed out to all those involved. 
Just to further muddy the waters. Divers I speak to say the death of great areas of the Barrier Reef convince them that climate change is real.


----------



## Tisme

Darc Knight said:


> Divers I speak to say the death of great areas of the Barrier Reef convince them that climate change is real.




How much is pollution form our third world northern neighbours like Cairns, Indonesia, S/E Asia and China?


----------



## basilio

*Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week *
From Europe to Africa, extreme and widespread heat raises climate concerns in hottest La Niña year to date on record
*Shares*
1,755




The dried up River Kennet in Wiltshire following the prolonged heatwave in England. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Record high temperatures have been set across much of the world this week as an unusually prolonged and broad heatwave intensifies concerns about climate change.
climate change.

The past month has seen power shortages in California as record heat forced a surge of demand for air conditioners. Algeria has experienced the hottest temperature ever reliably registered in Africa. Britain, meanwhile, has experienced its third longest heatwave, melting the roof of a science building in Glasgow and exposing ancient hill forts in Wales.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said the rising temperatures were at odds with a global cyclical climate phenomena known as La Niña, which is usually associated with cooling.

Quick guide
*Recent record temperatures*
“The first six months of the year have made it the hottest La Niña year to date on record,” said Clare Nullis of the WMO.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week


----------



## Smurf1976

Darc Knight said:


> Divers I speak to say the death of great areas of the Barrier Reef convince them that climate change is real.



Tourism operators in Qld. Farmers in WA. Power generation in Tas.

The thing about this issue is that whilst one individual piece of "evidence" can readily be dismissed as some random natural occurrence or being due to x, there's rather a lot of data from diverse sources which all says much the same thing.

In WA they have a trend with drying conditions on the south-west of the state. Tasmania has the exact same trend which commenced at the same time. In both cases abrupt "steps" have occurred in that trend.

Then there's the Barrier Reef.

Then there's all sort of things internationally.

Some might be due to random nature etc but it seems very clear to me that the climate is changing and it's happening rather quickly.

My personal thought is that it will take an "incident" to bring any major action globally and I've thought that for quite some time now. Whilst such an incident will in practice need to occur in the USA to bring such a response, to put it into perspective in terms of the scale and impact I'll use some Australian examples of the sort of thing I mean.

Adelaide (or any other city but Adelaide is most likely of the main Aust cities) records a maximum temperature at an official BOM measuring station of 50.0 degrees or higher. 49.9 won't cut it, it has to be 50 to trigger the psychological "oh s***!" response that things are changing.

A tropical cyclone actually hits Brisbane or Sydney causing major destruction.

Combination of heat and humidity leads to a substantial number of fatalities in any city.

Mass scale crop failure to the point that Australia's wheat exports drop to zero or negative.

The Murray River completely dries up over a significant section (not just the mouth closing but the river itself goes dry).

It will take something of that magnitude to bring action but those are just examples since it really needs to be in the US not here.


----------



## basilio

Smurf in the US it would be something like the flooding of Florida or another Hurricane hitting the East Coast and flooding New York.

But frankly I think that wll be too late.  Right now all we are doing is* attempting* to mitigate the damage that climate scientists know will unfold as we reach a minimum of 2 degrees C global warming  in the lifetime of our children. 

I fear  one of the calculated responses will be attempting to create secure "lighthouse" communities to carry on civilization (for the wealthy) while everyone else has to look out for themself. Consider the mega rich currently buying into New Zealand.


----------



## SirRumpole

Reduce population growth. Pay people NOT to have children. 

Sad to say, but increasing the living standards of poor countries only increases consumption of resources and more greenhouse gases. Rich countries like us have to learn to live on less, less food and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

But then, we are a greedy lot and I doubt people will listen untill it's too late.


----------



## explod

As a youngster remember my amazement at seein galaars (lovely red on the necks) when I drove into NSW.  Grew up on a farm in Victoria's South so had never seen them before.  Only a few short years later observed them in the Bendigo area, a couple of years later at the start of my plod career they landed in the Melbourne level.  In that time on checking it out the patterns of weather were moving south and realised the birds were merely following needs. 

I have written hundreds of my life experiences on climate on ASF over the years and I'm now tired of it.  In fact the party is over but my advice is to just party whilst you are able to see the sun come up each day.

Joe, we have a like tick but we need a "don't like" and a "sad" tick to reflect our full range of feelings.

Feel absolutely fkn so sad for my eight Grandchildren.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Reduce population growth. Pay people NOT to have children.




On a different subject we can't even stop the bizarre and cruel non-sport of bull fighting in a developed country (referring particularly to Spain here) because of

wait for it............

Tradition!

Yep, we keep killing innocent animals for entertainment simply because it has been done that way for centuries. Talk about reluctance to change!

Closer to home SA can't work out when to open the shops and Hobart has been trying to work out whether or not to build a cable car for the past 40 years now. Before anyone laughs, fear not there are equally silly things in every state.

The only time things get done quickly, and by that I mean in less than a few decades, is during an outright crisis. Hence my view that's what will have to happen with climate and of course by then it's too late.


----------



## explod

Tisme said:


> How much is pollution form our third world northern neighbours like Cairns, Indonesia, S/E Asia and China?



Probably a fair percentage and its all combining to make matters worse.

Little can be rationalised anymore and in my view its too late now.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> The only time things get done quickly, and by that I mean in less than a few decades, is during an outright crisis. Hence my view that's what will have to happen with climate and of course by then it's too late.




Unfortunately it will have to be a series of global crises, because no one cares what happens to other countries.

I tend to think that crisis will be global sea level rises because that will affect most of the countries that are the biggest emitters, USA, China, India, Japan. The Sprattley Islands will probably disappear and that will annoy China, and when the Florida everglades go under then maybe even the USA may realise that something odd is going on.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> Reduce population growth. Pay people NOT to have children.
> 
> Sad to say, but increasing the living standards of poor countries only increases consumption of resources and more greenhouse gases. Rich countries like us have to learn to live on less, less food and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
> 
> But then, we are a greedy lot and I doubt people will listen untill it's too late.




There is evidence that increasing living standards results in a reduction in the birth rate so it is a double edged sword.


----------



## cynic

explod said:


> ....
> Joe, we have a like tick but we need a "don't like" and a "sad" tick to reflect our full range of feelings.
> ...



No! We absolutely do not need such a feature, as it would cause a catastrophic avalanche of dislikes, giving our resident snowflakes, ample opportunity for claiming to have been unfairly bullied!


----------



## Joe Blow

explod said:


> Joe, we have a like tick but we need a "don't like" and a "sad" tick to reflect our full range of feelings.




I think disagreement and sadness (and other feelings) should be expressed in a reply to the post in question. Sometimes I wonder if the "Like" button has reduced forum activity, as you don't even need to post to agree with someone any longer. I recall the days when people would post to agree with someone else and add to the discussion at the same time with some additional insightful commentary.

I encourage everyone to post more often and express their opinions and views that way. Let's keep ASF active!


----------



## notting

I think the like button has a longer term benefit.
Most times you don't have anything to add when someone says something well, because they already said it well!! So for the person posting how do they ever know that they said something well when there isn't any indication it was liked or commented on?

When you get liked it encourages you to post again, because you feel people appreciate what you say and feel what you say must be pretty damn amazing and want to feel the buzz of being a very insightful, stable genius again.  So keep posting.

Also if you are a complete lunatic and don't get many likes, you will be discouraged to keep raving on like a madman and annoying everybody because you're not getting any likes and may as well just be talking to the wall in your padded cell like you normally do.


----------



## SirRumpole

Records for hot nights are being set around the world.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...limate-change-has-deadly-consequences/9985340


----------



## Smurf1976

Another one:

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/tech...n/news-story/dc2dc28b05aa5d62570bfc7ceb5d50e3

In isolation this like the rest could be dismissed as just natural weather extremes but it's becoming too frequent to ignore.

Given that there's a time lag between emissions and any impact on climate, and given that emissions are continuing at record levels and rising, it looks to me like the "sudden forced change" scenario is the one that we're going to end up with.


----------



## basilio

The forced "sudden change" scenario needs to be revisited.
There has been analyis of the effects of massive immediate CC . This paper was prepared for the Pantagon in 2003.
https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Pentagon.pdf

It was reviewed later on noting that while it was a possible outlier similar events have occured and teh consequences were equally damaging.

Review of the Month
*The Pentagon and Climate Change*
_by_ The Editors
(May 01, 2004)


Topics: Ecology , Political Economy , Stagnation

Abrupt climate change has been a growing topic of concern for about a decade for climate scientists, who fear that global warming could shut down the ocean conveyer that warms the North Atlantic, plunging Europe and parts of North America into Siberian-like conditions within a few decades or even years. But it was only with the recent appearance of a Pentagon report on the possible social effects—in terms of instability and war—of abrupt climate change that it riveted public attention. As the _Observer _(February 22) put it, “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”

https://monthlyreview.org/2004/05/01/the-pentagon-and-climate-change/


----------



## Logique

Benny Peiser talks to Ian Plimer about his new book, *The Climate Change Delusion* and *the Great Electricity Ripoff'*.  The 'Greener than Thou's tried to silence and discredit Plimer, a trained and experienced scientist.
South Sea Bubble, Dutch Tulip Mania, highly appropriate analogies.
'How can Pensioners keep themselves warm?' Indeed.
Joe, how did embedding an Youtube become so obscure, so you now need tags,  media=youtube ..youtube code.. /media


----------



## explod

It's still winter and we have two wildfires out of control in NSW today.  Just reported on ch24 ABC.

Ian Pilmer is in La La Land, eyes shut to receive bonuses from big business would be my guess.


----------



## Knobby22

explod said:


> It's still winter and we have two wildfires out of control in NSW today.  Just reported on ch24 ABC.
> 
> Ian Pilmer is in La La Land, eyes shut to receive bonuses from big business would be my guess.



His books contain graphs that have been modified to support his views.
He claims he has caused Tony Abbott to support the cause.  Quite a "colourful" character.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> It's still winter and we have two wildfires out of control in NSW today.



Move along now, nothing to see here, bush fires in winter are perfectly normal and nothing to worry about. Adds to that "summer feeling" and the efforts of putting out the fires and rebuilding infrastructure boosts the economy. Move along now..... 

Seriously, well if there are fires in August then that's not good really.


----------



## Tisme

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030




A very useful graph. I hope they update it soon.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> A very useful graph. I hope they update it soon.




So did explod .....


----------



## Logique

I thought this as well, "Final Solution" justifiably attacked in parliament; but climate "denier",  straight through to the keeper.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...r/news-story/a0d45596248401bbcbe24166861d7f1b


----------



## rederob

SirRumpole said:


> I tend to think that crisis will be global sea level rises because that will affect most of the countries that are the biggest emitters, USA, China, India, Japan. The Sprattley Islands will probably disappear and that will annoy China, and when the Florida everglades go under then maybe even the USA may realise that something odd is going on.



Holland has proven that sea level mitigation is a viable option for continental regions, but certainly not small islands.  Anyways, their populations are so small that they will just be of nuisance value.
My take is that the big ticket item will be extreme weather events which will impact globally with greater loss of life and significantly greater financial cost.  In the northern hemisphere this can be caused by the increasingly erratic nature of polar jet stream while more generally the increased energy available to traditional weather events will wreak greater havoc than previously.
Less immediate will be effects on land use as drought regions "drift" and changes to rainfall patterns dislocate traditional agricultural regions.


----------



## Logique

Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is boiling Greece away!








Photos: *Snow coats ancient monuments in Athens and even dusts some beaches in Greece*
Rare snowfall, record-low temperatures hit Greece - Residents woke Jan. 8, 2019 to rare snow blanketing beaches. Many regions suffered power outages (Reuters)
By Jason Samenow *8 January 2019*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...-greece/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.99e08345883c
...Reuters reported an *all-time low of minus-23 degrees Celsius* (minus-9 Fahrenheit) in the city of Florina in northern Greece...


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is boiling Greece away!



It's called climate change... but whatever.
Your posted images will happen more regularly in future in the northern hemisphere due to changes in the polar jet stream, as linked previously.
All going as forecast so move along....


----------



## Darc Knight

I'm considering turning Alan Jones on tomorrow .I think he's back from holidays. I want to hear if he's come up with a greater argument for CC being a hoax other than "CO2 is great, the source of all plant life".
At some stage he has to put a reasonable argument forward otherwise his motives are looking more and more suspicious


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is boiling Greece away!
> .



Yes Logique, it used to be called global warming, when things cooled it was re titled to climate change, because the cold snaps came out of left field.


----------



## basilio

Still banging this drum folks ? Climate hysteria ? Belief that the concern the world is rapidly warming is just ridiculous ?
Hasn't the last 10 years of  rapidly increasing temperatures created new facts that just blow the "climate hysteria" case out of the water ?
Pointing to extreme cold weather events in Greece (or wherever) is great fun. But anyone who cares to check the science now understand that the reason for the these extremes is, in fact,the effect of global warming in the Arctic affecting the polar jet streams.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ined-global-warming-arctic-ice-climate-change


----------



## explod

Waste of time Bas, I've been pointing to the displacement effect for years but those who do not want to believe or more correctly don't just won't.


----------



## Logique

Reduce 'carbon', we were told, because that feeds the Greenhouse Effect and causes global warming.


----------



## Logique

rederob said:


> It's called climate change... but whatever.
> Your posted images will happen more regularly in future in the northern hemisphere due to changes in the polar jet stream, as linked previously.
> *All going as forecast so move along*....



Except that it isn't, which is why the extravagant alarmist claims have been ramped up


----------



## rederob

sptrawler said:


> Yes Logique, it used to be called global warming, when things cooled it was re titled to climate change, because the cold snaps came out of left field.



It was called *climate change* to begin and *based on* the known effects of CO2.
An earlier Youtube link to a Potholer54 video explained it in more detail.
The process leads to global warming.
The outcome is a theory where people cause an increase in GHGs over and above otherwise natural factors such that forcing effects increase the temperature of the planet = AGW theory.
Here's a link that shows *everything wrong* about those who deny the science.


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> Except that it isn't, which is why the extravagant alarmist claims have been ramped up



Do you realise that gibberish is irrelevant to science?


----------



## kahuna1

Yep ...

flat earth society rides again. Deny deny deny .,... its actually flat !!
better not watch this ....

You may learn something !!


Who is this Alan Joans ? Is he a denier ? Or some ex football player hit too many times ? Does he have a degree ? In anything  ?


----------



## basilio

Another scientific explanation of the reality and causes of global warming.


----------



## rederob

kahuna1 said:


> Who is this Alan Joans ? Is he a denier ? Or some ex football player hit too many times ? Does he have a degree ? In anything  ?



Queer questions?
Is he related to the incompetent Tony Jones who did the worst interview ever with an Australian Open champion last night?


----------



## basilio

rederob said:


> Queer questions?
> Is he related to the incompetent Tony Jones who did the worst interview ever with an Australian Open champion last night?




I suggest he meant Alan Jones the Sydney shock jock. 
Does that ring any bells ? ( For Alan Jones  it  usually sounds like a complete Cathedral peal..)


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> I suggest he meant Alan Jones the Sydney shock jock.
> Does that ring any bells ? ( For Alan Jones  it  usually sounds like a complete Cathedral peal..)



You mean he doesn't race cars anymore?


----------



## Darc Knight

*Alan Belford Joans* AO (born 13 April 1941, or possibly 1942 or 1943[1][2]) is an Australian radio broadcaster. He is a former coach of the Australia national rugby union team and rugby league coach and administrator. He has worked as a school teacher, a speech writer in the office of the Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and in musical theatre. He has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Queensland, and completed a one-year teaching diploma at Worcester College, Oxford. He has received civil and industry awards.
Joans hosts a popular Sydney breakfast radio program, on radio station 2GB. Joans advocates mainly conservative views, and the popularity of his radio program has made him a highly paid and influential media personality in Australia. Despite his success, he remains a controversial figure.[3] His on-air conduct has received adverse findings from Australia's media regulators, and he has frequently been sued for defamation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair


----------



## kahuna1

Whoops ....

Toady Jones ? Is he off home and away.

I know people rarely read stuff, or even watch ....  but some of the climate deniers backgrounds and lacl of scientific background on the topic, is stunning.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2012/oct/12/nobel-prize-quackpottery-chemistry

The debunked idiot 

https://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer

Making him look smart, difficult but here you go ... 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/weather-or-not/

a weather person with a degree in JOURNALISM .... 

Yep Jody JOANS .... or whatever that persons name is here, is a toad, and a stupid one !!!


----------



## kahuna1

Got the wrong Jones, sadly ....

TOM JONES at least is amusing.  Surprise surprise surprise .... Malcolm Frasers writer and John Howards mate, another well known denier along with current PM and his deputy ....  all know better than 50,000 scientists and 50 Nobel prize winners ... IN THE FIELD .... not some molecular biologist who assumes he knows shoot about climate change.

Jones along with all his rugby mates  maybe should just stick to rugby.


----------



## kahuna1

Amusing ...
who the F is Jones ? IS he with the bolt report on Fox ?

Nothing like a champion who ... well listen to this ...


this nutter makes even the main deniers look sane. What a toossseeerrr ...


----------



## Darc Knight

On 6 December 1988, Joans was arrested in an underground public toilet on Broadwick Street in the Soho area of London. He was taken to the Mayfair police station and charged with 'outraging public decency' and 'committing an indecent act'. 'Joans friends rushed to his support, and when the case was heard in the Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court the next day The Crown withdrew the more serious charge, with Joans  pleading not guilty to the lesser charge of committing an indecent act. The authorities ultimately did not present any evidence to support either charge, and the second charge was also later dropped, with  Joans lawyers winning ₤70 in costs.  Joans read a prepared statement when he first appeared back on his radio show on 16 January 1989, saying "I am and always was innocent of the charges levelled against me".[4][74] Joans has avoided talking about the incident ever since, although it is frequently raised by his opponents or those looking to highlight alleged hypocrisy in his comments.[10][25][75]


----------



## kahuna1

I knew he well was an opinionated dick, 

Whist Gillard not my fav PM, he told her that her father died of shamed. Gillard refused to bite and even FOX came out and hung this turd where he should have been.

First Gillard ... 


Next Fox ... not a bastion of anything decent, even they roasted this turd 


Wow a new low .... lower than all other climate change deniers put together, a human who, well s barely human.


----------



## Logique

Damn you global warming! Greece will just boil away from this Greenhouse Effect








> New Weather System To Bring Snow And Low Temperatures In Greece As Of Monday - 06 Jan 2019:  https://hellenicdailynews.com/en/20...-and-low-temperatures-in-greece-as-of-monday/


----------



## Darc Knight

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming! Greece will just boil away from this Greenhouse Effect
> 
> View attachment 91710




Yep, from Alan Joans to his colleague at 2GB Ray Hadley; Logique's post represents Ray Hadley 's reasoning for CC being a hoax. Everytime it'd rain or snow Hadley would point it out as more evidence of CC being a hoax.
The flimsy arguments, the fact it's a commercial network promoting the intetests of big business and Conservatives, the fact all the 2GB commentators sing from the same hymn book makes me suspicious of their remuneration.


----------



## kahuna1

Yep.

much like Dump, that guy in the USA. Climate change and global warming are two separate but connected things. Right now, as in the past, a main influence of CLIMATE and temperature in the USA is the massive jet streams above the USA at 10,000 plus feet. Right now, the polar Arctic Vortex has broken from spinning above the North pole and as it does, this time and ever more increasingly it goes into Canada and then Northern USA and they see wildly cold temps 20 degrees Fahrenheit below normal. 

When USA was burning in California and record lows in the East v Record highs in the West and California, Trump or Dump said the same. Stupid when the gulf stream that operates over the USA most of the time was in full effect, sucking heat from one side and depositing it on the other in  a massive vortex, Overall I suspect the 10 degrees higher one side of the nation and 10 colder the other were Net ZERO IF NOT POSITIVE,.

Whilst not pretending to be an expert I have read far and wide and approached this after listening and reading most of the debunkers views. They are very very convincing, if NOT examined at all. Of the deniers, NONE have any peer reviewed papers, NOT a single one.  SOME have zero qualifications in the field, MOST even the NOBEL prize winners have zero qualifications in any field associated with the issue.

Funding as Dark Knight was the next thing I looked at after reading the scientific reviews of their theories and found MOST, not all, but most were funded by extreme right wing billionaires and some directly by fossil fuel oil barons and coal barons. Koch brothers have a lot to answer for .... 

I suppose I have read and gone through 1,000 papers and scientific studies and various papers both sides of this discussion. Its NOT a debate. Yes CO2 once was 5 times what it was now. That was 65 million or so years ago. Not much lived in the sea. there were not 7 billion soon to be 10 billion humans needing 50 million sq km of land just to feed themselves and get 20% of the protein they require from the sea. 

Yes there were vast lush forests, but the change from the previous period around 260 million years ago ... where CO2 was even higher, BUT VIRTUALLY NO LIFE as we know it existed then, 99% of all species went extinct v 90% the 65 million years ago, easily and comprehensibly verified by fossil records, is an aside. NO life would exist at these extremes or little.

What one knows for sure is the last time, the 65 million year ago time was a period of 200,000 years where CO2 spiked twice, and it took that period for the temps to rise 10 degrees so YES it was warmer than even the 2100 level I suspect we are heading towards of 4 degrees. I stress two things here .... Again the need for virtually all arable land 50 million sq KM of land to feed us out of a total of 134 million sq KM and impacts of CO2 whilst supposedly good, and they are for plants, beyond where we are the crop yields drop significantly as we add co2 and temperature to the mix. On the other side, by 2100 likely we are close to 150% of the current population .... 10 billion v 7 billion. Likely and obviously will be a period of crop fails and poorer nations starving in massive ways never seen before. Again, covered in virtually all scientific papers of late.

Second is RATE of change and ignoring impacts well known, but if your NOT in a room, as I have had the pleasure of being in, with a volcanologist, a geologist or groups of them, them experts in 20 other fields, from weather to ICE formation and then ocean temperature experts then Ocean acidification ones and adding a BEST case and then a worst case .... the RATE of change in CO2 seen 65 million years ago and RATE of change of Temperature which by the way post 1980 via satellite and measured by 20 different groups has an at best 2 degree by 2100 if radical change happens which the current Plan is NOTHING but reducing the increasing output ,,,* so it assures 4 degrees by 2100 ..*. 

as I said, it took 200,000 years for it to occur a change of 8 degrees 65 million years ago, well we have done it in less than 200. I wish it wasn't so. I wish I could ignore it. Whilst I do understand the money driving some of the deniers, the science is chilling. In total I suppose there are about 50 different scientific people and expert groups in the the whole climate change issue. I only get to sit there, being to blunt for most, when they have prepared some forecasting model and they need someone to tell them the are mad.

Sadly. whilst so many times in the past, stupid and silly predictions of rising sea level in 1970 that by 2000 would be 20 meters prevailed, idiotic even then, I suspect a setup ...  in 2018, with a  computer that's well 30,000 times more powerful than the ones from 1980, its doesn't take even that to see, with a bloody 1980 PC or your mobile phone, when say CH4 is 33% more than 1980 and CO2 is 25% MORE and the ocean is 25% MORE acidic remembering its a logarithmic scale, the future is NOT too hard to see. 

Or then again, for some, for most, who cares. Massive sea rise will only occur when ANTARCTIC ide sheets melt totally and 3,000 meters of ice is added to the mix, not likely pre 2100. Assured mind you by 2200. A mere 180 years away. ASSURED, artic ice, NASA satellite has been watching with extreme precision since 1980, the North pole is likely to be ice free within 20 years in summer, and likely even winter by 2055-60. Scary since the end of the last event was the freezing and carbon capture of a lot of CO2, the ARTIC has a massive amount of captured organic material and Methane which if released in a short space, say 50-100 years totals all the fossil fuels released to date. Again, likely in the extreme no matter what we do.

Cambridge guys the leaders in this issue ARTIC ice and the Permafrost stuff, but to deny, its occurring, I suppose humanity will act, too late and it will take one of the almost assured crop fails of several years via climate change and droughts or extreme floods in a large population nation,  or a few over the space of a few years, and we see, the world .... a mass starvation event with deaths likely 100 million if not a billion by 2100. By then, sadly as we spit out 35 billion tons of CO2 MORE than the earth can handle which is the other 25 billion that it can and does recycle naturally ... more and more changes will occur.

Yep, climate is always changing. But, well, if you like acid rain and 250 degrees as Stephen called for in around 400 years, go right ahead. To stop it, well, it will require all of humanity and a change that will NOT COST MUCH ... less than 2% of GDP if not 1% .... but stop fossil fuels and capture some CO2 and reverse some of the crap. Stephen now departed of course is Stephen Hawkins, whilst NOT a climate expert and I did NOT agree with a lot of his views on how we got there, I tend NOT to ignore people a lot lot smarter than me without a lot of research and I do so with the utmost respect and knowledge I am the dummy in the corner ina room full of very smart people.

Bottom line, is that GREEN energy and its economics, another reason they have me there .... IS CHEAPER than fossil fuel burning options. This equation is forever changing with issues behind most green forms of energy and lack of storage, a MIX of HYDRO and various other forms WORKS and has been working for some time in most EU nations. Sure some of its NUCLEAR and whilst not economical an more due to massive cost of new reactors and political stuff, this MIX and new cheaper battery storage is advancing in leaps and bounds along with some very good ocean types that perform 24/7 and some that can be used as backup for when say wind and other forms such as PV and solar thermal are not possible.

This sadly would require massive amounts of NEWLY available due to new drilling techniques ... again why they let me in the door ... via fracking and even fracking old oil fields and fields with low permeability the world reserves of oil post 2005 have in fact exploded. That is IF .... we chose to burn them. Massive very vested interests and stability of many economies depend on this ....

In the end, I get depressed like most on top of this issue. I doubt we stop global warming and CO2 growth pre 2050. As such by 2100 top end is an at best ... 4 degrees and any ability to do anything either costs too much or its in fact too late for the oceans and humanity as we know it. 

I live in hope but even allowing for 50 fold increases from here in some of the CO2 technologies to capture and recycle, the window, without a massive reduction by 2050 is virtually closed EVEN allowing for some technologies to expand to 50 fold current efficiency. Of course maybe cold fusion is invented and we can via brute force remove CO2 using all the energy put into breaking it apart to take CH4 to CO2 and H2O or more complex ones. But hoping, or even wishing for it, is a fools game when faced with technical extinction v a maybe.


----------



## basilio

You sort of got the whole story together Kahuna. And it is very difficult to face the seemingly inevitable consequences of global warming. One really doesn't want to do that.

One of the ways of dealing with the issue is action. I remember George Monbiot was a very strong arguer about Global Warming until around 2008. At that stage he become a dad and I remember he made a decision to switch his focus to reservation and restoration of wilderness. He rightly argued that this was also a critical issue, helped address GW and was also far more personally nourishing. Didn't mean he ignored GW afterwards but his major focus changed to creating a community support for rewilding
https://www.monbiot.com/2015/12/17/walk-on-the-wild-side/

At the moment he is focused on  supporting the Extinction Rebellion movement. 

https://www.monbiot.com/
https://rebellion.earth/


----------



## chiff

I remember,a few years ago now,seeing Mombiot demolish Ian Plimer in debate re global warming.


----------



## kahuna1

Interesting.

Whilst any action, any is positive, the scale and scope is well beyond even his wildest nightmares. As someone who looks at models, economic and predictive ones, AI and trying to predict the future with any accuracy is possible via learning from history. Some and most of climate change is already well documented or very simple chemical reactions that occur the same way time and time and time again.

Here in 2018, or 2019, with some very large and comprehensive reports oiut late 2018, WHAT IS NOT contained in most projections, covered and not to be alarmist is quite stunning. Largest is that even via Kyoto and other measures, its NOT going to reduce CO2 but due to political pressure and economic one merely the RATE of increase. If one delves into the predictive models and some have been shocker from the past, the MODELS out of late 2018 without exception have MISSING or totally bullshoot .... inputs due to lack of actual data, so political powers forced them either to be removed TOTALLY or IGNORED due to true irrefutable empirical data.

Sure for a scientists, maybe doing so, leads NOT to stupid assumptions, but even this said the assumptions are chilling USING what are bogus inputs to start with, such as assuming ocean temperature HAS NOT risen due to CO2 when quite clearly this is NOT the case. Even this to one side, the NOISE .... the end date the 50,000 scientists arrived at was 400 years or so in the future. Stephen had 200 years .... ME about the same .... not that I matter. The question is WHEN is the tipping point, the point at which we can alter some of the impacts ? Or save humanity ? I suspect its already passed. 

Sure, I suspect some will survive, but certainty not 10 billion needing every inch of 50 million sq km arable land to feed themselves. Not even 1 billion. One of the biggest missing things other than ocean acidification and temperature rise, when the bloody ocean provides over 50% of the Oxygen we breathe and soaks up around 70% of the heat and post 1999 ARGUS buoys sinking and rising to 2000 meter depths have quite clearly shown a stark rise in the ocean temp is the frozen Methane and plant matter MISSING .... *BOTH* *MISSING totally from all current climate change models.*

With 1.7-3 trillion estimated tons of CO2, frozen there, and it being in ARCTIC regions .... and a lot of it initially released as METHANE ... which frankly is a time bomb temperature wise, to have ANY and all impact REMOVED from climate models in light of ARTIC ice almost disappeared is absurd. Insane and as recent events post these reports show, its whether it takes 20 years or 200 years to release the stuff, in the end, irrelevant because its 100 times faster than ever before and age of this bio mass was deposited over 2,000 to 12,000 years and having it released in either 20 or 200 years makes the future security and food security of a planet now with 10 billion apes on it v NONE and how it was ok 65 million years ago an aside. Who is going to feed us the banana's ? 

Sad, depressing and maybe ... maybe we get to zero or 25% CO2 by humans by 2050 and capturing it all by 2075 and soaking up some of this unavoidable mess we have created by 2100. Unlikely ... sadly but by then, sure only 4 degrees a lot of it in Arctic regions up by 8-10 degrees .... but the proverbial Humpty Dumpty egg has fallen and cant be put back together. We cannot reverse what has been done. Cannot change what is likely to occur, we can maybe mitigate it and slow it and eventually reverse some of it in 200 or so years, but its doubtful Humanity as a species can pull together in one way.

Happy happy happy ...


----------



## basilio

kahuna1 said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Whilst any action, any is positive, the scale and scope is well beyond even his wildest nightmares. As someone who looks at models, economic and predictive ones, AI and trying to predict the future with any accuracy is possible via learning from history. Some and most of climate change is already well documented or very simple chemical reactions that occur the same way time and time and time again.
> 
> Here in 2018, or 2019, with some very large and comprehensive reports oiut late 2018, WHAT IS NOT contained in most projections, covered and not to be alarmist is quite stunning. Largest is that even via Kyoto and other measures, its NOT going to reduce CO2 but due to political pressure and economic one merely the RATE of increase. If one delves into the predictive models and some have been shocker from the past, the MODELS out of late 2018 without exception have MISSING or totally bullshoot .... inputs due to lack of actual data, so political powers forced them either to be removed TOTALLY or IGNORED due to true irrefutable empirical data.
> 
> Sure for a scientists, maybe doing so, leads NOT to stupid assumptions, but even this said the assumptions are chilling USING what are bogus inputs to start with, such as assuming ocean temperature HAS NOT risen due to CO2 when quite clearly this is NOT the case. Even this to one side, the NOISE .... the end date the 50,000 scientists arrived at was 400 years or so in the future. Stephen had 200 years .... ME about the same .... not that I matter. The question is WHEN is the tipping point, the point at which we can alter some of the impacts ? Or save humanity ? I suspect its already passed.
> 
> Sure, I suspect some will survive, but certainty not 10 billion needing every inch of 50 million sq km arable land to feed themselves. Not even 1 billion. One of the biggest missing things other than ocean acidification and temperature rise, when the bloody ocean provides over 50% of the Oxygen we breathe and soaks up around 70% of the heat and post 1999 ARGUS buoys sinking and rising to 2000 meter depths have quite clearly shown a stark rise in the ocean temp is the frozen Methane and plant matter MISSING .... *BOTH* *MISSING totally from all current climate change models.*
> 
> With 1.7-3 trillion estimated tons of CO2, frozen there, and it being in ARCTIC regions .... and a lot of it initially released as METHANE ... which frankly is a time bomb temperature wise, to have ANY and all impact REMOVED from climate models in light of ARTIC ice almost disappeared is absurd. Insane and as recent events post these reports show, its whether it takes 20 years or 200 years to release the stuff, in the end, irrelevant because its 100 times faster than ever before and age of this bio mass was deposited over 2,000 to 12,000 years and having it released in either 20 or 200 years makes the future security and food security of a planet now with 10 billion apes on it v NONE and how it was ok 65 million years ago an aside. Who is going to feed us the banana's ?
> 
> Sad, depressing and maybe ... maybe we get to zero or 25% CO2 by humans by 2050 and capturing it all by 2075 and soaking up some of this unavoidable mess we have created by 2100. Unlikely ... sadly but by then, sure only 4 degrees a lot of it in Arctic regions up by 8-10 degrees .... but the proverbial Humpty Dumpty egg has fallen and cant be put back together. We cannot reverse what has been done. Cannot change what is likely to occur, we can maybe mitigate it and slow it and eventually reverse some of it in 200 or so years, but its doubtful Humanity as a species can pull together in one way.
> 
> Happy happy happy ...



I appreciate what you are saying and indeed it may all come to pass.
I know that George Monbiot (and others....) came to similar conclusions reviewing the evidence. But in the end we can only live one day at a time and do the very best we can to help create a different future. 
Allowing our head space to be totally xucked doesn't help. 
Yeah ?


----------



## kahuna1

Haha ...

*I deal with realities*, planting a hectare of trees removes 4 tons per year of CO2. Planting 1 sq km or 100 hectares 400 tons, with all available land pretty much under crop or pasture, if, and IF ... we planted 5 MILLION sq km of land ... deserts ... it would remove for about 50 years, a mere 200 million tons of CO2. 

Yes a good thing, but I suspect something the guy you quoted is aware of the math. When we put 35 billion tons into the air each year, removing 200 million tons is, well .... good but ... NOT a solution. I am not hysterical as this thread suggests, just a realist. I do know there are better ways of removing CO2 and whilst trees, planting 5 million SQ km year one then YEAR 2 .... by year 20 all land ... ALL even the top of mount Everest would be covered at the end of the carbon cycle for trees they burn ... or rot and new ones grow up, its not captured forever. Even then 200 mill v 35 billion rising to 40 billion is ... well under 2% by 2075, is NOT a solution some seem to think r believe it is.

There is hope, a small window, depends more on Arctic Methane and its rate of release again NOT covered in any predictive model used by governments yet, sadly a reality. 

As I said I try and deal with realities and eventually, whether via massive disaster which probability rises above 50% post 2050 to 85% if not 90% by 2100 of a global crop fail ... humanity, as we know it, changes, or does not. Davos forum did not deal with either tax theft, inequality or climate change and the Oligarchy meeting prior to it was, as per normal more concerned with ... their own issues. Me I am just the guy who, well .... writes stuff, checks projections and at times annoys the hell out of them via asking stupid but obvious questions.

I will not be around either way. I suspect I will see in coming years, a rising CH4 Methane count and exponentially rising one at that. First it heats at 26 times CO2 then via chemistry breaks down to CO2 and H2O but the breakdown rate already has gone 40% from  a mere 20 years ago.

Sorry to be a realist, but when the things in the atmosphere that break down one of the worst greenhouse gasses become less and less, I do wonder is even my just assuming the rate of breakdown stays the same and the release is kept to say 100 years v what seems likely 20-30 ...  in 100 years, humanity as we know it, around for 100,00 years or modern times say 2000 BC till now, an eye-blink geologically is in for an interesting 200 years. One which, WILL DEFINE us and likely, without early action, redefine the ability of this planet with an ocean so acidic that most life there stops by 2200 or so, heated to 36 degrees at the equator which the deniers seem to have forgotten the last time 65 million years ago occurred, its a race, for who or what survives post 2300.

Oh happy U tube on Permafrost with most of the guys I follow and have met, all ignored .... out of current models speaking on the topic. the best guy, from Oxford is NOT in there, he is more Melting Ice v Permafrost 

I do what I can ... and thats, a fair bit.
For the first link ... the deniers claim ice is NOT melting and its NASA ... over 20 years of artic ice covering this Methane Bomb 


the second one ... 
well its all methane so to speak !! 


why or HOW people deny this issue is not beyond me. Its all about self interest and money. Times are a changing. OLDEST PERMAFROST is actually over a million years old. I am not sure they mention the total number ... but its about 50 years of current emissions BUT ... at 26 times the impact due to it being CH4 first then ... CO2 ... Methane hits a lot harder in temperature change ... a well known and simple chemical reaction. So does 1,300 years or doubling of current CO2 impact anything happening in the space of 50 years ? 

Yep inevitable as such, cant be stopped even if we tried right NOW ... we can Limit however the diabolical impacts, if we try. IF .... if NOT ... when DEEP permafrost is warming 1.6 degrees kelvin .... DEEP as in 200 meters deep ... stopping this, is not possible. Its changed already. What we do from here, as a species I will watch and try to change. 

Enough sharing from me for a while.


----------



## Darc Knight

Geebus. Just did a Google and found this page on Artic Methane

http://climateye.org/compilation-ca...e-time-bomb-and-the-global-climate-emergency/
*"Compilation: Catastrophic Arctic ‘death spiral’ meltdown / imminent mass methane ‘time bomb’ release and the global climate EMERGENCY"*


----------



## kahuna1

Yep.. depressing but ...

there is darkness always before the light.
Hope still exists and its a matter of human brilliance verses indifference or greed and misinformation.

Time will tell and either way its post 2050 for the big big stuff. Time however as the realists say was 20 years ago to do something, now would be preferred, but even now the plan is lacking to limit the increase size ? Oh well. These things seem to go from crisis to crisis, this time, the crisis that maybe convinces humanity of an issue will be far too late. It is already now, to stop or reverse things like arctic ice going, or CO2 likely exploding post 2050 as the Arctic ice melts and heats the permafrost. Not include in ANY single predictive model due to political measures. 

Oh well ... love my Galah ... 

Cheers


----------



## kahuna1

Why only 200 million tons removed plating trees ... vs 2 billion ? One may have noted the apparent mistake in the above post.

Reason being is that trees die and rot or are burnt and capture of CO2 whilst good, is NOT forever and a cycle begins if we plant more trees, one that well ... goes round and round and actually unless frozen and captured or CO2 removed, the gain is not a lot about 2% ....

Do it grow something, capture pure CO2 and put it 2,000 meters into the ground and its gone for good, or a very long time if done well. there are better things than trees to capture CO2, best of all needs a lot of energy and unless cold fusion is invented, we will need a lot of different solutions from reducing emissions by man eventually to NET 25% then ZERO then going the other side and capturing for a long time the 2 trill tons we have sent by now then the 2 trillion of so frozen in the arctic and then add however much at 35-40 billion tons we emit from now on. Daunting, but possible. As to the ocean and warming aspects, Coral is gone, forget even trying, what can hopefully be limited is acidification beyond a level too far beyond the 7.8 level which I suspect is 2060 or so v estimates of 2120. 

Just thought I would correct that, apparent error. Plant a tree is a good thing, but the cycle of life and CO2 life is what it is.

Take care
Mark K


----------



## Logique

chiff said:


> I remember,a few years ago now,seeing Mombiot demolish Ian Plimer in debate re global warming.



No he didn't. He delivered a monologue, with the complicity of the tv host. Plimer wasn't allowed to speak.


----------



## Logique

Ijustnewit said:


> Just more spin doctoring , the fact is he said " *even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems* " . Fact is he was wrong , what about those dams and rivers in QLD that flooded ? See the latest news from NSW , wrong again .
> You see the problem I have with all this is that anyone that offers a different opinion to the climate change brigade is they are immediately called a *denialist  or sceptic*. I personally think that something is happening , the reasons may be varied from mainly natural occurring change with a little bit of added pressure due to mankind.
> However the Climate change extremist do themselves no favours by pushing extremist views upon the population of this planet. Tim Flannery is one of these extremist , and by the way isn't he a Geologist last time I looked and not a Meteorologist ?
> Again we today we see the ABC climate change pushes airing another article from NASA about sea levels rising to at least one meter in the next 100 to 200 years.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/sea-levels-set-to-rise-nasa-says/6728008
> I wonder how Tim will fair in his waterside home on the Hawksbury ?
> This fear based marketing is for one reason and one reason only.  To make some individuals and the UN very rich from Carbon based trading schemes or similar  projects.



'.._even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems_..'  Indeed, there's video of him saying it.
'.._denialist  or sceptic_'  Or 'racist'. It's code for 'shutup'.


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> '.._even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems_..'  Indeed, there's video of him saying it.
> '.._denialist  or sceptic_'  Or 'racist'. It's code for 'shutup'.



A principal theme of science denial is to not use science to construct an argument.
Instead, find something you can quote out of context that is insignificant in the greater scheme of things, an beat it to death.


Logique said:


> Plimer wasn't allowed to speak.



Too funny - must have been another debate than that with Tony Jones, as the ABC gave them near equal air time.
Aside from a lot changing in the last 7 years to confirm the science is solid, Plimer offered nothing scientific in his replies back then, and nothing thereafter in any of his contributions on climate.


----------



## basilio

rederob said:


> A principal theme of science denial is to not use science to construct an argument.
> Instead, find something you can quote out of context that is insignificant in the greater scheme of things, an beat it to death.




Worth repeating, and repeating and repeating.
Because that is the only thing that deniers have in this debacle.


----------



## kahuna1

Hahah ...

Hysteria is uncontrolled excitement or emotion. I know the title of this thread is meant to be ANTI Greenhouse issues or climate or warming ....

But I sadly have to admit to Hysteria and at times uncontrolled emotion when I listen and look at the hard science. The main emotion is one of fear, then despair, then anger at the plonkers denying it, paid for by Oligarchy and Koch Brothers who are coal barons. Sorry if its off topic, taking the title literally and sharing my hysteria on what I suspect with very good cause will be a Hysteria that becomes almost universal within 100 years.

Have fun
Mark K


----------



## rederob

kahuna1 said:


> Hysteria is uncontrolled excitement or emotion. I know the title of this thread is meant to be ANTI Greenhouse issues or climate or warming ....



Logically the thread title cuts both ways.
One aspect is where science has the issue of a probable climate pathway which is potentially catastrophic in terms of many of its effects, viz. drought, floods, inundations and more severe weather events.  So when the media pick up on these probabilities we get the inevitable hysteria being generated because the story lines could hardly be more exaggerated.  
While it's generally not the science community drumming up hysteria, it is based on science, and it may well eventuate - with the caveat that it can largely be avoided.  We cannot get away from the fact that there is a pretty miserable outlook for global climate without mitigation action being taken.
The other aspect is then countering often extreme claims from science deniers because they literally have no idea what they are talking about.  Another way of putting it is that they turn an immediately improbable event into a definite disaster.  They take great delight in whipping up hysteria, and when they cannot, they create straw men.
I burn straw men.


----------



## qldfrog

Do not loose hope.a new plague killing 25pc of mankind plus ongoing crisis wiping out many more could sort it all for us
Plenty of peoplr ready to help now in a God's name, and seeing how hysteria can take hold, soon maybe in global warming name.
But i appreciate at last the realism: yes we can not change or even pretend to lessen this from happening with our current population.so save our koalas to give them a chance if mankind take a hit


----------



## Darc Knight

qldfrog said:


> Do not loose hope.a new plague killing 25pc of mankind plus ongoing crisis wiping out many more could sort it all for us
> Plenty of peoplr ready to help now in a God's name, and seeing how hysteria can take hold, soon maybe in global warming name.
> But i appreciate at last the realism: yes we can not change or even pretend to lessen this from happening with our current population.so save our koalas to give them a chance if mankind take a hit




How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?
As the big kahuna said even cutting emissions to zero wouldn't stop the cycle for many years. 

Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover


----------



## rederob

Darc Knight said:


> How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?



You mean they have been responsible all this time and I never knew .
DK, *yo da man* when it comes to spotting a quick fix .


Darc Knight said:


> Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover



Wait, I think I have the solution - well, half of it...


----------



## qldfrog

Darc Knight said:


> How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?
> As the big kahuna said even cutting emissions to zero wouldn't stop the cycle for many years.
> 
> Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover



If mankind collapses, Emission will collapse and earth will recover unless we are past the collapse point, and if we are past, we are past and nothing to be done about it.
The green movement has been unable to save the planet due to a leftist PC view which prevent it from focusing on overpopulation with non white colour skin.
Add economic growth obsession, migrants fascination and here we are 50y later asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything while for example coal indian import reached 175mil tons last year..imports only...
That's 3 times the whole export of Australia to put things in perspective
We do not have a greenhouse issue, we have an overpopulation one.
Cause or effect..what is the best way to tackle a problem?
But it is too late unless the cause is dramatically removed/suppressed


----------



## Logique

Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is spreading, it's now boiling the Midwest! 






> *Polar Vortex to Grip Midwest With Most Extreme Cold in a Generation*
> Jan 28, 2019, By Mitch Smith: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/polar-vortex-cold-weather.html
> CHICAGO — Two of the most dreaded words in a Midwestern weather forecast — “polar vortex” — returned this week, promising life-threatening low temperatures that could *shatter records* and plunge much of the region into its *deepest freeze in decades*...


----------



## Darc Knight

Logique said:


> Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is spreading, it's now boiling the Midwest!
> 
> View attachment 91768




Surely there's other less serious topics you can amuse yourself taking the pee out of?


----------



## rederob

qldfrog said:


> If mankind collapses, Emission will collapse and earth will recover unless we are past the collapse point, and if we are past, we are past and nothing to be done about it.
> The green movement has been unable to save the planet due to a leftist PC view which prevent it from focusing on overpopulation with non white colour skin.
> Add economic growth obsession, migrants fascination and here we are 50y later asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything while for example coal indian import reached 175mil tons last year..imports only...
> That's 3 times the whole export of Australia to put things in perspective
> We do not have a greenhouse issue, we have an overpopulation one.
> Cause or effect..what is the best way to tackle a problem?
> But it is too late unless the cause is dramatically removed/suppressed



Really ill informed comments:
Deal with what we know, and a collapse of civilisations is fanciful right now.
Next, the green movement has zero to do with colour of anyone's skin: Total fail on that one.
The green movement continues to fight for environmental issues and has had many wins despite being a political non-event and having meagre finances.
Your idea that we are "*asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything*" is false.
Your claim about India ignores the fact that *Australia emits CO2 at 10 times the rate of India*.  Seems you would rather keep them a third world economy than let them progress as we have.
Your claim that we do "*we do not have a greenhouse issue*" defies science.  
Your claim that we have an "*overpopulation*" issue is beyond farcical: Australia ranks at 235 in population density among about 240 nations.


----------



## cynic

For the benefit of those interested in viewing facts (irrespective of whether, or not, those facts conform with one's favoured opinion), some actual data comparing India to Australia.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/india/australia?sc=XNC1

Note that this table demonstrates that in years as recent as 2017, India's CO2 emissions were approximately 6 times that of Australia's!


----------



## rederob

cynic said:


> For the benefit of those interested in viewing facts (irrespective of whether, or not, those facts conform with one's favoured opinion), some actual data comparing India to Australia.
> https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/india/australia?sc=XNC1
> 
> Note that this table demonstrates that in years as recent as 2017, India's CO2 emissions were approximately 6 times that of Australia's!



Facts have nothing to do with opinions - your comprehension skills continue to be lacking.
Official Australian government data show CO2 emissions at over 21 tonnes per person at June 2018.
This compares with your estimate and that of others of about 1.8 tonnes per person.
The maths do not support your claims.


----------



## cynic

rederob said:


> Facts have nothing to do with opinions - your comprehension skills continue to be lacking.
> Official Australian government data show CO2 emissions at over 21 tonnes per person at June 2018.
> This compares with your estimate and that of others of about 1.8 tonnes per person.
> The maths do not support your claims.



Why have you waited until now to disclose that your claims, and/or counter claims, are founded upon per capita figures?

I am not seeking to argue such figures, I was merely pointing to data reporting that India's CO2 emissions, in recent years, have been approximately 6 times that of Australia.


----------



## qldfrog

How can a country which import 3 times our coal total export can only generate 6 times more than us..unless we consider australia as producing the co2 from the coal extracted here but burn there?
A bit sceptical....


----------



## bellenuit

qldfrog said:


> If mankind collapses, Emission will collapse and earth will recover




There is nothing for the earth to recover from. The global warming issue is only of concern to mankind, so if mankind collapses, there is no issue. The earth will continue with or without mankind and whether it is habitable by living organisms or not is irrelevant. The only threats to the earth are cosmological events.


----------



## rederob

cynic said:


> Why have you waited until now to disclose that your claims, and/or counter claims, are founded upon per capita figures?
> 
> I am not seeking to argue such figures, I was merely pointing to data reporting that India's CO2 emissions, in recent years, have been approximately 6 times that of Australia.



Total emissions is a poor metric.
Aside from that I got a figure showing India below 5 times, not that it's a big deal.
I clearly said *Australia emits CO2 at 10 times the rate of India *which could only make sense at a per capita level given the massive differences in population.
Per capita data helps us understand underlying trends which may otherwise be hidden in gross data.


----------



## cynic

rederob said:


> Total emissions is a poor metric.
> Aside from that I got a figure showing India below 5 times, not that it's a big deal.
> I clearly said *Australia emits CO2 at 10 times the rate of India *which could only make sense at a per capita level given the massive differences in population.
> Per capita data helps us understand underlying trends which may otherwise be hidden in gross data.



Rather than expecting forum participants to use their clairvoyance faculties, and somehow bridge the gap between, your intended meaning, and the literal meaning of your statements, would it not be far easier, to simply admit to having actually made an error of omission, and perhaps apologise for the misunderstanding so caused?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

It's been pissing rain continuously here at the Ross Island Hotel in Townsville for the past five days. 

It is getting serious and we may have problems getting beer in from down south if it continues. 

And all this chatter about Climate Change.

The are a very selfish lot these wind and solar mobs when we have good coal and skilled jobless people here in Northern Australia.

gg


----------



## Darc Knight

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It's been pissing rain continuously here at the Ross Island Hotel in Townsville for the past five days.
> 
> It is getting serious and we may have problems getting beer in from down south if it continues.
> 
> And all this chatter about Climate Change.
> 
> The are a very selfish lot these wind and solar mobs when we have good coal and skilled jobless people here in Northern Australia.
> 
> gg




In FNQ the end of Mankind is defined as a shortage of Beer.


----------



## kahuna1

Oh blimey ....

We export enough food for 125 million people .... we export even more in minerals. Hence the higher per head numbers.

When you are producing say iron ore, exporting nearly 1 billion tons of it, it takes fuel. So too gas LNG the worlds largest exporter is ? Australia, on and in and on I could go.

Cheers


----------



## BlindSquirrel

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-en..._from_url=&link_location=live-reporting-story

Yeah but nah, it's still cold in winter in Australia...


----------



## Logique

Damn you Global Warming! Now it is causing record snowfall in Norway!
Can't Saint Greta do something about this?
https://electroverse.net/norway-breaks-snowfall-records/


> NORWAY BREAKS SNOWFALL RECORDS: “*I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED SO MUCH SNOW IN ONE DAY*,” SAYS TROMSØ METEOROLOGIST - APRIL 7, 2020
> Northern Norway was practically buried by heavy snow over the weekend, and it’s been that way all season, according to state meteorologist Eirik Samuelsen...


----------



## BlindSquirrel

Ah, the old Weather=Climate argument.


----------



## basilio

BlindSquirrel said:


> Ah, the old Weather=Climate argument.



Nah .  Just the usual  highly selective choosing of weather activities to justify claiming Glowing Warming is giant hoax. 

You'll notice that the website this came from  will never, ever highlight world wide  increasing temperatures or massive Greenland/Antarctica ice melts due to  regular extreme heat events.

You know the site is so sketchy when it says he  following.

_Don’t fall for bogus warm-mongering political agendas — our future is one of ever-descending *COLD & CROP LOSS*. 

*Prepare accordingly — *learn the facts, relocate if need be, and *GROW YOUR OWN*.


Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile)._


----------



## Knobby22

Don't look at the north pole, already melted ahead of schedule.


----------



## kahuna1

Same people .... deny all science.

CV19 ... is a conspiracy against Alan Jones, Fox news and Donald Trumpo ....


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Don't look at the north pole, already melted ahead of schedule.




Yeah not to mention Greenland this year.

The North pole ice melt is well documented

Governments accepted the science for Covid 19.............CC far greater consequences.


----------



## orr

Logique said:


> Damn you Global Warming! Now it is causing record snowfall in Norway!
> Can't Saint Greta do something about this?
> https://electroverse.net/norway-breaks-snowfall-records/
> View attachment 102319
> View attachment 102320





That snow looks almost as white as the Barrier Reef...
Snow should look white.  What's your favorite colour of coral reef? '_lack_' of Logique.


----------



## basilio

I wonder if this story will ever feature in the alternative universe of electroverse?  
Nah flying pigs are far more likely.

The wine industry is taking off in Sweden specifically becasue the climate is now much warmer. 
Conversely the wine industry is under huge challenges in France Italy and Spain  because of global heating. 

All laid out in black and white.

*Wine cooler: global heating helps Sweden's vineyards to success *
As climate change makes winemaking a torrid business in southern Europe, viniculture is taking off in Scandinavia

In a corner of his whitewashed 18th-century homestead, Håkan Hansson – the fifth generation of his family to farm this gently undulating stretch of land in southern Sweden – keeps a worn set of diaries, but not just for sentimental reasons.

From the early 1950s, Hansson’s mother, a keen amateur meteorologist, meticulously wrote down every detail of the weather in Skåne county. Her records show why, 70 years later, her son is now one of a fast-growing band of increasingly successful – and award-winning – Swedish winemakers.

“It’s really quite clear,” said Hansson, 68, a former financier who planted his first vines on the south-facing slopes of what is now the Hällåkra vineyard in 2003, and today has about 22,000 on 6.5 hectares.

“We have an extra month of summer now. And winters are not like what they used to be. That’s why we can make wine, and why 50 years ago, we couldn’t.”

September, Hansson said, used to be the month when temperatures would plummet, but not any more: “Now we’re seeing daytime temperatures of 24 or 25C, even at the end of the month, with perfect, cool nights. Impossible when I was a kid, and not very different from Burgundy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...al-heating-helps-swedens-vineyards-to-success


----------



## Logique

It's lean times for _Schoolkids Against Climate Change_. They can get a day off school regardless.
I can clarify the Weather=Climate proposition:
Cold = weather
Hot = climate


----------



## basilio

Logique said:


> It's lean times for _Schoolkids Against Climate Change_. They can get a day off school regardless.
> I can clarify the Weather=Climate proposition:
> Cold = weather
> Hot = climate




Ah the joys of wilful ignorance..  
The  special capacity to use part of one seasons weather patterns in one country to undercut 70 years of  demonstrated  climate change across multiple countries in Europe.


----------



## kahuna1

orr said:


> That snow looks almost as white as the Barrier Reef...
> Snow should look white. What's your favorite colour of coral reef? '_lack_' of Logique.




Love it ...

3 rd massive coral bleaching event. I had a discussion with similar types PRIOR to this and was told it was fake news. That 35% of reefs under survey were DEAD. NO coral.

That was 2019 ... I do wonder in 2020 as they survey will it get better or worse ? Jeopardy music  playing with a ticking clock ....

Of course these types will deny it all. 
Bas and myself and a few others went back and forth and astounding found on 35 scientific facts, ones that were beyond question, they denied all 35. Every single one !!

I gave up at that point Dark Knight tried but ... well it was too much and so too for me. I suppose Alan Jones types never change and thankfully he is no longer entertaining young boys at Kings. He now is denying climate change and CV19 as well !!


----------



## orr

Hey Kahu...
Max Plank years ago  helped me, long after he was dead... In one of those  throw away insightful  lines that true genius just matter of factually state...(sic) '_you can't change their minds. You have to wait for them to die and only then a new understanding becomes the understood reality_'  

apologies Max that was a crap remembering.


----------



## Logique

IFocus said:


> Yeah not to mention Greenland this year.
> The North pole ice melt is well documented
> Governments accepted *the science for Covid 19....CC* far greater consequences.



There are some very clever people at the top of the climate alarmism pyramid.  It's been very noticeable with Covid-19, no similar attempts at half-truth, misinformation and cherry-picked science. The impacts of a fast moving pandemic are too immediate, not enough wriggle room compared to the geological time of climate change.
In any case the short term decisions of  governments have suited the climate alarmist elites very well. It nudges society in the direction they want.  And as a bonus, filthy capitalism copping it in the neck over at the stock exchange.


----------



## Boggo

Reality ??


----------



## Logique

NSW Teachers union on 'the Science':

Climate Change - respect the science, take a day off school kids, all good
Covid 19 - ignore the science, we're not going back to work

Down and further down the international literacy rankings we slip


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> There are some very clever people at the top of the climate alarmism pyramid.



What evidence are you offering for there being a pyramid or, for that matter, what "alarmism" means?


----------



## Logique

We're getting back to normal transmission,
bickering on the politics and climate change threads, to the exasperation of our long suffering host Joe.
I understand every effort is being made to ban this recent movie release. Censorship is how the warmists operate. This is necessary when you have a flawed case.

_"..*Hurry, See "Planet of the Humans*,"* Before It’s Banned*_
Myron Ebell • April 24, 2020:  https://cei.org/blog/hurry-see-planet-humans-it’s-banned
_Planet of the Humans, the new documentary film from director Jeff Gibbs and executive producer Michael Moore, contains a s*tunning evisceration of so-called green energy and the people profiting from it*... 
..Every type of *green energy is exposed as phony, useless, and inextricably dependent on fossil fuel *production and large-scale hardrock mining..."
_


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> We're getting back to normal transmission,
> bickering on the politics and climate change threads, to the exasperation of our long suffering host Joe.
> I understand every effort is being made to ban this recent movie release. Censorship is how the warmists operate. This is necessary when you have a flawed case.



Some here look at the science, and for evidence when strange views are presented.  
Sadly, much of this thread is dedicated to pseudoscience and repetition of debunked claims.
A documentary which gets so many facts wrong might be banned because it's unworthy, but it is of no merit and, therefore, of no consequence to climate science.


----------



## moXJO

What are the thoughts on the film?
I'm surprised Moore went that way.


----------



## rederob

Logique said:


> _"..*Hurry, See "Planet of the Humans*,"* Before It’s Banned*_
> Myron Ebell • April 24, 2020: https://cei.org/blog/hurry-see-planet-humans-it’s-banned
> _Planet of the Humans, the new documentary film from director Jeff Gibbs and executive producer Michael Moore, contains a s*tunning evisceration of so-called green energy and the people profiting from it*...
> ..Every type of *green energy is exposed as phony, useless, and inextricably dependent on fossil fuel *production and large-scale hardrock mining..."_



I forgot to offer evidence - my bad.
Heres' a faultless refutation of some claims.
I mentioned repetition, so here's more.
This and this offer more criticisms, plus links, where every misstep is brought to account.
Why *ban *something that is so flawed it reminds the science community of why it has purpose


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> I forgot to offer evidence - my bad.
> Heres' a faultless refutation of some claims.
> I mentioned repetition, so here's more.
> This and this offer more criticisms, plus links, where every misstep is brought to account.
> Why *ban *something that is so flawed it reminds the science community of why it has purpose



Wow those links you posted didn't really have much to them. And if this statement is anything to go by:
 "we trusted Michael Moore’s track record of releasing quality films that are factually accurate." 
Then they are seriously brain dead rebuttals.

Moore is a hack as is most of his docos.

I'm not going to bother watching it but if he is talking of the corporations bleeding money from environmentalists similar to what I was talking about before he is spot on.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> Wow those links you posted didn't really have much to them. And if this statement is anything to go by:
> "we trusted Michael Moore’s track record of releasing quality films that are factually accurate."
> Then they are seriously brain dead rebuttals.



You are not very good at posting factual information and prefer  distortions.
The next paragraph said "*We are disheartened and dismayed to report that the film is full of misinformation (1, 2, 3, 4) - so much so that for half a day we removed the film from the site.*"
If that's the best you can do then it says a lot.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> You are not very good at posting factual information and prefer  distortions.
> The next paragraph said "*We are disheartened and dismayed to report that the film is full of misinformation (1, 2, 3, 4) - so much so that for half a day we removed the film from the site.*"
> If that's the best you can do then it says a lot.



Um no I was indicating that Fatty is consistently terrible  in all his docos and to suggest otherwise is some real cherry picking.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> Um no I was indicating that Fatty is consistently terrible  in all his docos and to suggest otherwise is some real cherry picking.



Ok... you rely on your opinion.
Some of Moore's docos are very insightful, and the reason this one is pulled apart is because it's a trainwreck.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> Ok... you rely on your opinion.
> Some of Moore's docos are very insightful, and the reason this one is pulled apart is because it's a trainwreck.



It's the same formula, emotive issue- prodded with half truth sticks. Doesn't mean their isn't good info sprinkled through. But he delivers an overall message that more often then not isn't based on actual evidence.   
I don't doubt this one is any different. Which is why I was surprised he went against his base. 

The only reason this one is a "trainwreck" and not the others, is that it doesn't fit your bias.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> The only reason this one is a "trainwreck" and not the others, is that it doesn't fit your bias.



I continue to provide evidence, versus your opinions.
You would need to show the science is wrong, but you do not.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> I continue to provide evidence, versus your opinions.
> You would need to show the science is wrong, but you do not.




If you want to argue his latest movie is as factual as the rest- go ahead. I doubt I'll watch it to argue.

You didn't actually provide any evidence in your links. Just some people's opinions. One you linked to multiple times. You rarely provide evidence elsewhere. But this thread I will concede, you normally give the data. However your zealotry is your blind spot.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> If you want to argue his latest movie is as factual as the rest- go ahead.



?
I would say the opposite.


moXJO said:


> You didn't actually provide any evidence in your links. Just some people's opinions. One you linked to multiple times.



This was the link I missed, having just noticed I copied the same one twice.


moXJO said:


> However your zealotry is your blind spot.



So *evidence *is zealotry in your book - guess that sums you up.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> ?
> I would say the opposite.



So all the other movies are correct except for this one?


----------



## explod

"https://grist.org/climate/dont-look...dS6i2w-8rehmlKTBDL7M5Y05XfHSM9MYOjPrTGiM1EE0E"


----------



## orr

Considering the topic...
Considering the timing(US election cycle)...
Considering Moore is no 'dill'...
Considering who Moore's got on board to do the early promotion, Colbert and others, not 'dills"

I just think there's a bigger game being played with 'planet 'o' da hoomans'
I could be wrong... have been in the past...
But 'my oh my' wouldn't you look silly to have been played like a fiddle.


----------



## Smurf1976

orr said:


> I just think there's a bigger game being played with 'planet 'o' da hoomans'



Unfortunately the whole issue is tied up in power (of the political kind) and money.

Technically, economically and in terms of human behaviour most of it's not rocket science but at just about every step someone's trying to leverage the issue for political or economic self advantage.

There's the odd one who just wants it fixed but they tend to not be the people making a fuss.


----------



## moXJO

Look at coronavirus. The world basically banded together with a common goal. And we spent trillions doing it. 
What's the issue with polluting less?
It's going to cause a lot more deaths.
A lot more damage.
And still there is huge resistance.

It's not big oil.
The fact is: the environmental movement was hijacked by dipshits.


----------



## dutchie

Wind turbines are so good for the environment.

Until they're not.







*Not so green energy: Hundreds of non-recyclable fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html


----------



## rederob

dutchie said:


> Wind turbines are so good for the environment.
> 
> Until they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not so green energy: Hundreds of non-recyclable fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill*
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html



The blame here sits squarely with the regulatory authorities, who are also allowing tyres which are equally recyclable to instead be buried.


----------



## explod

Fires currently raging now in Siberia:-

https://www.sciencealert.com/so-i-d...O6D7z3rnYfFON-1LL_tXFWBweXNTnpJY31sY5fabIAybE


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole is right   "you can't read plain English."

Not so green energy: Hundreds of *non-recyclable *fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill


----------



## rederob

dutchie said:


> SirRumpole is right   "you can't read plain English."
> 
> Not so green energy: Hundreds of *non-recyclable *fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill



They are recyclable, just like the tyres in the same picture are recyclable.


----------



## dutchie

rederob said:


> They are recyclable, just like the tyres in the same picture are recyclable.




What can fibreglass blades be recycled into?


----------



## rederob

dutchie said:


> What can fibreglass blades be recycled into?



Are you sure you want to be educated on recycling?
Do you know how to use google?


----------



## dutchie

rederob said:


> Are you sure you want to be educated on recycling?
> Do you know how to use google?



So you obviously can't answer the question.


----------



## sptrawler

dutchie said:


> What can fibreglass blades be recycled into?



Just about everything can be recycled into something, it is just a lot of the time the something is useful for nothing, so you have spent time, money and used energy to recycle something into usless shyte.
But that doesn't matter to the recycling warriors, I'm of the opinion if it can't be recycled into something usefull, bury it because you never know in a 100 years they might be able to use it.


----------



## rederob

dutchie said:


> So you obviously can't answer the question.



There was a link in my reply that showed that the blades could be recycled.
Stop kicking own goals after you have shot yourself in the foot.


----------



## dutchie

rederob said:


> There was a link in my reply that showed that the blades could be recycled.
> Stop kicking own goals after you have shot yourself in the foot.



My apologies. I stand corrected.


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as recycling versus landfill is concerned, the first and most obvious point is that burying something is not necessarily a problem. Recycling has value to conserve mineral resources and in many cases energy not because putting things in a hole in the ground is or itself a major problem in any place where there's somewhere to put it.

There are exceptions, things which buried in landfill do become a very real issue with potential groundwater pollution and so on, but wind turbine blades don't seem overly concerning in that regard. Ultimately they're just a product that came from basic minerals - sand, petroleum, limestone, clay and so on.

Recycling would certainly have benefits but I won't be losing sleep over landfill, there's bigger problems to worry about than that. 

I come back to a point I've made before, here and elsewhere, many times previously however. All Power Pollutes. All of it. We get to chose the nature and location of impact but there's no such thing as zero impact when it comes to energy and for any given source the details are generally case specific. A wind farm, hydro scheme or dumping stuff in landfill in one place can have a very different impact if it's done somewhere else.


----------



## explod

I find it a bit disappointing that many posts here are about alternative energy and not climate change. One feels that many are turning the cheek on the real and devastating changes that are occurring now.

Surely we have good threads for alternative energy.


----------



## moXJO

During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it. 
I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?


----------



## qldfrog

moXJO said:


> During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it.
> I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?



If global temperature peaked due to the absence of pollution and reduced co2 emission , will we ever know about it? No
My theory for which Basilio awarded me a nobel prize .. ironically of course, is that global warming is mostly cause by energy used, and co2 is not a problem.any dimwit with a calculator and 1/2  a day can show it with no use of complicated model to match increase measured temperature..real ones
Sadly the only solution to this is reduced population/energy used per inhabitant and Sun energy(and wind hydro which are recycled sun power)
Nuclear lobby does not like it ..nor the gas one
3 months of reduced activity will slightly reduced the warming but the co2 hysteria will carry on unabated and the reduced activity will also reduce pollution and atmospheric clouds which could very well increase the solar energy captured in our atmosphere


----------



## rederob

qldfrog said:


> If global temperature peaked due to the absence of pollution and reduced co2 emission , will we ever know about it? No



Really?
The opposite is true.
However, peaks are temporal.
A peak any time this year may be overtaken some time next year, or perhaps several years later.
More importantly we can and do measure CO2 levels:




Furthermore, interannual variability is a feature of the CO2 cycle:




So we would use "measurements" to determine exactly what was happening. 







qldfrog said:


> My theory for which Basilio awarded me a nobel prize .. ironically of course, is that global warming is mostly cause by energy used, and co2 is not a problem.



This is just nonsense.
Different types of "used" energy will contribute or otherwise to warming the planet.  Hydrogen would not of itself be a contributor, while nuclear energy would be negligible.  The net "warming" effects of wind and solar energy use over their product lifespans is also comparatively low.
Pollution is statistically inconsequential to planetary warming.


----------



## basilio

rederob said:


> Pollution is statistically inconsequential to planetary warming.




Not quite the case actually. Air pollution does reduce global warming.  It was significant enough from 1940-1970 to have an overall effect on global temperatures.

One of the consequences of  closing coal fired power plants and reducing industrial emissions is that there will be an increase in global temperatures.

*How Air Pollution Has Put a Brake on Global Warming *
In an interview with _Yale Environment 360_, Norwegian climate scientist Bjørn H. Samset talks about the results of his team’s recent research showing that aerosols linked to human activities cool the planet far more than previously believed.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200218124405.htm


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> Not quite the case actually. Air pollution does reduce global warming.  It was significant enough from 1940-1970 to have an overall effect on global temperatures.
> 
> One of the consequences of  closing coal fired power plants and reducing industrial emissions is that there will be an increase in global temperatures.
> 
> *How Air Pollution Has Put a Brake on Global Warming *
> In an interview with _Yale Environment 360_, Norwegian climate scientist Bjørn H. Samset talks about the results of his team’s recent research showing that aerosols linked to human activities cool the planet far more than previously believed.
> 
> https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200218124405.htm



Thanks Bas.
Yes, we know that some aerosols have in the past made a large difference to the rate of warming.  
And the present level of particulate matter/aerosols has continued to dampen the warming effect.  
My point was more along the lines of the fact that pollution levels year to year are relatively stable, so the cooling effect is, for all intents and purposes, "locked in." 
Over time we hope to reduce pollution levels and, as you note, that will definitely add to warming... little by little.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> I find it a bit disappointing that many posts here are about alternative energy and not climate change. One feels that many are turning the cheek on the real and devastating changes that are occurring now.




It comes down to the pragmatic reality that there's really only two approaches to solving the problem.

Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction, that leaves technological approaches, of which alternative energy is the most significant, as where the discussion ends up.

Same happens in all contexts. For example it's not hard to find some current or former politician who's strongly in favour of addressing climate change but also advocates that we do things like putting 8 million people in Sydney. Etc. In other words, they're pinning their hopes on technology which in practice is mostly about alternative energy.

I agree with your point though and for the record the same applies on the other side of the equation. There's plenty of people, professional and public, who in the context of discussions on energy wish that certain segments of the community would at least acknowledge that climate change isn't the only issue of concern and allow the discussion to focus on the other things also.

Personally I think a far more comprehensive approach is needed to the whole situation. There's more to the climate issue than how we generate electricity or power cars and there's more to the energy issue than what's going up the stack. A lot more in both cases.

Pragmatically though, anyone taking on the population issue is taking on everyone from various religions through to central banks, governments and big business. Technological approaches realistically have fewer barriers since at worst you're "only" taking on the big oil companies or someone with $100 billion, a relative pittance compared to what's entailed with the population issue.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> It comes down to the pragmatic reality that there's really only two approaches to solving the problem.
> 
> Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction, that leaves technological approaches, of which alternative energy is the most significant, as where the discussion ends up.
> 
> Same happens in all contexts. For example it's not hard to find some current or former politician who's strongly in favour of addressing climate change but also advocates that we do things like putting 8 million people in Sydney. Etc. In other words, they're pinning their hopes on technology which in practice is mostly about alternative energy.
> 
> I agree with your point though and for the record the same applies on the other side of the equation. There's plenty of people, professional and public, who in the context of discussions on energy wish that certain segments of the community would at least acknowledge that climate change isn't the only issue of concern and allow the discussion to focus on the other things also.
> 
> Personally I think a far more comprehensive approach is needed to the whole situation. There's more to the climate issue than how we generate electricity or power cars and there's more to the energy issue than what's going up the stack. A lot more in both cases.
> 
> Pragmatically though, anyone taking on the population issue is taking on everyone from various religions through to central banks, governments and big business. Technological approaches realistically have fewer barriers since at worst you're "only" taking on the big oil companies or someone with $100 billion, a relative pittance compared to what's entailed with the population issue.



Maybe population reduction is the most current topic and one which in reality does have to be addressed, maybe it is being addressed as we speak?
In reality it isnt, the mortality rate isnt high enough.


----------



## moXJO

moXJO said:


> During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it.
> I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?



Bit of an update here.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-could-help-solve-climate-riddles1/


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Maybe population reduction is the most current topic and one which in reality does have to be addressed, maybe it is being addressed as we speak?



I certainly don't advocate drastic measures, killing people off and so on.

Realistically though if emissions are to be reduced then it's either we have fewer people or we emit less per person which, if we're going to maintain a modern lifestyle, leads down the technology path.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I certainly don't advocate drastic measures, killing people off and so on.
> 
> Realistically though if emissions are to be reduced then it's either we have fewer people or we emit less per person which, if we're going to maintain a modern lifestyle, leads down the technology path.



Technology can only cope with so much.
Currently the infection rate is good, the target group is good , one more criteria and bingo.


----------



## qldfrog

For the people not aware of roman time dog days..a warm period before industrial area
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-roman-warm-period-vs-the-current-warm-period/


----------



## rederob

qldfrog said:


> For the people not aware of roman time dog days..a warm period before industrial area
> https://www.thegwpf.com/the-roman-warm-period-vs-the-current-warm-period/



What was the climate of Australia like back then? 

Honestly, the idea that any part of the world is a natural representation of global climate is logically flawed. Less smart is quoting from a site that does not use climate science to *inform *its readers.


----------



## rederob

Smurf1976 said:


> Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction... .



Given a population of less than 5% of the global population (ie USA) has contributed half the additional CO2 since the industrial revolution, *it is impossible for population to be the problem*.
Instead, per capita energy intensity is the main problem, along with type of energy used, and Europe has been solving this by transitioning to renewables.


----------



## basilio

rederob said:


> Given a population of less than 5% of the global population (ie USA) has contributed half the additional CO2 since the industrial revolution, *it is impossible for population to be the problem*.




Good point but not quite all or nothing situation .

The overall issue is the impact we have on the environment and resources. Deflecting the discussion to the millions of Indians/Chinese/Africans doesn't recognise the overwhelming impact of a consume and waste culture that is the heart of modern society.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> Europe has been solving this by transitioning to renewables.



Not really. If you move your manufacturing to a place where there are lax polluting laws it's not much better for the planet. 
Massaging figures doesn't help.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> Not really. If you move your manufacturing to a place where there are lax polluting laws it's not much better for the planet.
> Massaging figures doesn't help.



China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet.  So your point fails.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet.  So your point fails.



No it doesn't. Manufacturing plant in China will produce more pollution then if it were in Europe.
They are producing a huge % of world emissions.
 Per capita emissions is a bad metric on the size and scale of some countries. It also won't save sht as far as the planet is concerned.
Even the difference between China and India emissions are huge.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> No it doesn't. Manufacturing plant in China will produce more pollution then if it were in Europe.
> They are producing a huge % of world emissions.
> Per capita emissions is a bad metric on the size and scale of some countries. It also won't save sht as far as the planet is concerned.
> Even the difference between China and India emissions are huge.



First, if you cannot use data, then don't make spurious claims. 
Next, high per capita CO2 emission are largely responsible for the situation we got into regarding increased global CO2 emissions.  The third world, plus China are playing catch-up.
When I first starting commenting about climate change Australia had equivalent total CO2 emissions to about 1 billion people in India.  So your idea that per capita emissions is a poor metric is nonsensical.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> First, if you cannot use data, then don't make spurious claims.
> Next, high per capita CO2 emission are largely responsible for the situation we got into regarding increased global CO2 emissions.  The third world, plus China are playing catch-up.
> When I first starting commenting about climate change Australia had equivalent total CO2 emissions to about 1 billion people in India.  So your idea that per capita emissions is a poor metric is nonsensical.



For shifting emissions via manufacturing it's a bad metric. Pretending you are green while you offshore emissions. Bit like dumping your nuke waste on the cheap off the coast of Africa. Someone else's problem while you feign green.

Whats the argument from certain sources?
"emerging countries can pollute more to raise their economies" or something similar.
Western countries simply shifted emissions to higher polluting spaces.
Not only that, but we get cheap disposable goods that last a fraction of the time. We simply throw out goods now that we wouldn't have done in the past.


Since you like using  'totals' as an indicator. What's the total  emissions out of China?


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet.  So your point fails.



Should also point out that China was the biggest builder of coal plants as well.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> Should also point out that China was the biggest builder of coal plants as well.



That is *not *and argument.
The industries leaving USA and Europe relied heavily on coal power, so there is effectively a net reduction in CO2 by transferring them to China, as China has made massive investments in renewables to meet their energy demands. Note how coal intensity has declined in their energy mix. 

Furthermore, China's economies of scale mean more production with comparatively less energy, so transferring industry to China achieves efficiencies.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> so transferring industry to China achieves efficiencies.



Cost efficiencies, not environmental ones.


----------



## rederob

moXJO said:


> Cost efficiencies, not environmental ones.



With regard to CO2 emissions there are net environmental benefits, and China's laws on particulate scrubbing are world class.
You need to do some research as you are relying on very outdated thinking.  For years now China has been literally closing down and cleaning up thousands of businesses that were heavy pollutants and can no longer meet increasingly more stringent environmental standards.
China has a long way to go because when it began to industrialise there were very few impediments to harming the environment as the goal was to "produce" at any cost.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> That is *not *and argument.
> The industries leaving USA and Europe relied heavily on coal power, so there is effectively a net reduction in CO2 by transferring them to China, as China has made massive investments in renewables to meet their energy demands. Note how coal intensity has declined in their energy mix.
> 
> .



Crude and gas is also up.


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> With regard to CO2 emissions there are net environmental benefits, and China's laws on particulate scrubbing are world class.
> You need to do some research as you are relying on very outdated thinking.  For years now China has been literally closing down and cleaning up thousands of businesses that were heavy pollutants and can no longer meet increasingly more stringent environmental standards.
> China has a long way to go because when it began to industrialise there were very few impediments to harming the environment as the goal was to "produce" at any cost.



Manufacturing in Germany is a completely different beast to China. Both in emission controls and also costs.
All of this wasn't to slight China either. Big business is interested in the most cost effective measures they can get. 
China has made huge leaps in a short space of time. But as soon as costs increase till it is no longer economically  viable, business will shift.
Great if you are in a first world country. Just offshore our smog. 

There are attitudes in third world countries where the dollar outweighs the environment until they achieve a middle-class.


----------



## IFocus

Mo genuine question wasn't the recent reduction in air pollution in China as a result of Covid observed by satellite due to a reduction in traffic / diesel?


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> Mo genuine question wasn't the recent reduction in air pollution in China as a result of Covid observed by satellite due to a reduction in traffic / diesel?



Manufacturing shut down as well. All the smog lifted out of the cities from memory.


----------



## Smurf1976

rederob said:


> Given a population of less than 5% of the global population (ie USA) has contributed half the additional CO2 since the industrial revolution, *it is impossible for population to be the problem*.



The issue is that most of the world wants that USA style of living and obtaining it ranks as a higher priority than anything about the environment.

For decades now there's been no shortage of people moving to Australia, US, Canada etc driven by what amounts to a higher energy consuming lifestyle. A freestanding house on some land is attractive enough that people will literally move to the other side of the world to get it.

Any discussion of population needs to assume that most people live in a house, they use electricity, heating, water and transport without thinking twice about it and so on. They have that US or Australian style of living and take it for granted. Only once those things are delivered does the environment tend to become a more pressing concern. 

That's not to say nobody wants to live in an apartment or ride on trains but broadly speaking, people aspire to a higher energy consuming lifestyle not a lower consuming one and will remove any government which doesn't provide that.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Good point but not quite all or nothing situation .
> 
> The overall issue is the impact we have on the environment and resources. Deflecting the discussion to the millions of Indians/Chinese/Africans doesn't recognise the overwhelming impact of a consume and waste culture that is the heart of modern society.




Comes back to technology versus numbers.

Give people the Western lifestyle with a lower impact and they won't object to that. Nobody's going to complain that their heating or car emits less CO2 as long as it still performs as expected.

What they won't accept is being told to sit in unheated rooms, don't drive and so on. That's not on the list of options realistically, things like cars and air-conditioning are here to stay the only question is whether we can power them with less impact. 

Nobody's complaining that whatever device they're reading this on uses less energy than a desktop PC with a CRT monitor would. Nobody's complaining because whilst using less resources it's still doing the same or better job - that's the technology approach.

But then Melbourne's getting 15 degree days and Victoria's total gas consumption is up 150% above summer levels. The method of heating could be changed but having comfortable temperatures indoors isn't negotiable. If we can't do it with lower emissions then it's either don't worry about it or we have fewer people and buildings.


----------



## rederob

Smurf1976 said:


> Comes back to technology versus numbers.
> 
> Give people the Western lifestyle with a lower impact and they won't object to that. Nobody's going to complain that their heating or car emits less CO2 as long as it still performs as expected.
> 
> What they won't accept is being told to sit in unheated rooms, don't drive and so on. That's not on the list of options realistically, things like cars and air-conditioning are here to stay the only question is whether we can power them with less impact.
> 
> Nobody's complaining that whatever device they're reading this on uses less energy than a desktop PC with a CRT monitor would. Nobody's complaining because whilst using less resources it's still doing the same or better job - that's the technology approach.
> 
> But then Melbourne's getting 15 degree days and Victoria's total gas consumption is up 150% above summer levels. The method of heating could be changed but having comfortable temperatures indoors isn't negotiable. If we can't do it with lower emissions then it's either don't worry about it or we have fewer people and buildings.



Wind, solar, hydro, battery and hydrogen properly scaled resolve every point you have raised.
The irony is that we temporarily ruined our economy to save lives, but because climate change isn’t instantaneous we are reluctant to spend on the vaccine we are sure can prevent it.


----------



## moXJO

Hydrogen feels like the replacement that works.


----------



## explod

https://weather.com/news/climate/ne...owyVrCAvo1zdKJAxr__f2F2Vc8uhljkvttPAyFdTr2Yd4

"
*At a Glance*

The study focused on "wet-bulb" temperatures, which relate to both heat and humidity.
Researchers uncovered thousands of brief outbreaks of locally rare or unprecedented heat and humidity around the world.
Heat indexes approaching or exceeding 115 degrees Fahrenheit have doubled since 1979.
Extreme and potentially deadly combinations of heat and humidity that were not expected to blast the U.S. and other countries for decades are already happening and becoming more frequent, according to a new study.

The study, published Friday in the journal Science Advances, analyzed nearly 40 years' worth of data collected from 7,877 weather stations around the world.
It focused on "wet-bulb" temperatures, which relate to both heat and humidity and how much people can cool off from extreme heat by sweating. Wet bulb temperatures are lower than air temperatures, but present a more accurate picture of the effects of heat and humidity combined on the human body.

A wet-bulb temperature exceeding 95 degrees is considered unsurvivable if humans are exposed to it for more than a few hours.

The new research uncovered a handful of the cases of wet-bulb temperatures that could have been deadly to humans. It also found thousands of brief outbreaks of locally rare or unprecedented heat and humidity around the world between the years 1979 and 2017.

Previous studies have predicted such conditions would happen, but not for several more decades.

“It’s sort of another brick in the wall of our understanding of just how rapidly extreme heat is expanding and now we can add extreme heat and humidity together," Colin Raymond, lead author of the study who did the research as a doctoral student at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told weather.com in a phone interview.


----------



## sptrawler

I said a long time ago, that Australia was moving toward a renewable energy grid as fast as possible, the loony left poo pahed me as usual.
Well this is a really interesting article, as i said early in the piece, I hope Australia has a hydrogen reservation policy in place.
Because it wont be long before every usable space will be taken.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/bp-look...huge-renewable-hydrogen-project-in-w-a-45931/
Yet all the naysayers scream that there isn't going to be renewables put in without a "Government" plan, what a crock of shyte, before you know it Australia's renewables will be contracted to overseas obligations.
Meanwhile the D#$k H@ds run around screaming and taking the kids out of school over climate change.
Australia your standing in it, up to your knees, the media has a lot to answer for.  Puppeteer's for the muppet brigade.

OMG why wont the Government legislate and put in a plan, so the taxpayer can subsidise big industry to screw us over.
Yet from the above article :
_The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which is putting $1.7 million towards a $4.4 million feasibility study, says the potential market of renewable fuels – both for export and domestic use – is so big it is thinking in terms of Australia *moving beyond “100 per cent renewables” to 700 per cent renewables*._


----------



## Knobby22

Who's putting the rest of the money in?


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> Who's putting the rest of the money in?



Investment banks, China, Singapore and everyone else who wants to put in a solar wind farms, there is only so much space and all we have got will be pre sold.


----------



## rederob

sptrawler said:


> I said a long time ago, that Australia was moving toward a renewable energy grid as fast as possible, the loony left poo pahed me as usual.



The reason your idea has been challenged is because we are actually a decade behind Europe in renewable *grid *development.
Moreover, if you read what our energy market operator reports, you will know that renewables infrastructure is a major constraint to renewables supply.


sptrawler said:


> Well this is a really interesting article, as i said early in the piece, I hope Australia has a hydrogen reservation policy in place.
> Because it wont be long before every usable space will be taken.
> https://reneweconomy.com.au/bp-look...huge-renewable-hydrogen-project-in-w-a-45931/
> Yet all the naysayers scream that there isn't going to be renewables put in without a "Government" plan, what a crock of shyte, before you know it Australia's renewables will be contracted to overseas obligations.



The massive overseas investment you link has nothing to do with Australia having an energy policy!
The question is, why isn't our government putting in place energy policies that clearly provide the framework to benefit Australian businesses and householders into the future.
Overseas investors have worked out they can bypass government to develop an export market for hydrogen.  However, there needs to be a pathway for that energy to be fed into our grid, and there is not. 
From a policy perspective we still have not worked out how to get rid of coal and replace it with our abundant, cheaper and cleaner gas.  


sptrawler said:


> OMG why wont the Government legislate and put in a plan, so the taxpayer can subsidise big industry to screw us over.



The legislation already exists for our energy market, and there is no need to subsidise renewables because they are demonstrably cheaper than fossil fuels.  Big industries are being allowed to screw us over because our federal Energy Minister remains committed to more-expensive fossil fuels, so that's where most capacity remains.
For many years big industry as you call it has been seeking energy policy clarity from the government so it can safely invest in our local energy market.


----------



## basilio

rederob said:


> The reason your idea has been challenged is because we are actually a decade behind Europe in renewable *grid *development.
> Moreover, if you read what our energy market operator reports, you will know that renewables infrastructure is a major constraint to renewables supply.
> The massive overseas investment you link has nothing to do with Australia having an energy policy!
> The question is, why isn't our government putting in place energy policies that clearly provide the framework to benefit Australian businesses and householders into the future.
> Overseas investors have worked out they can bypass government to develop an export market for hydrogen.  However, there needs to be a pathway for that energy to be fed into our grid, and there is not.
> From a policy perspective we still have not worked out how to get rid of coal and replace it with our abundant, cheaper and cleaner gas.
> The legislation already exists for our energy market, and there is no need to subsidise renewables because they are demonstrably cheaper than fossil fuels.  Big industries are being allowed to screw us over because our federal Energy Minister remains committed to more-expensive fossil fuels, so that's where most capacity remains.
> For many years big industry as you call it has been seeking energy policy clarity from the government so it can safely invest in our local energy market.




_We are actually a decade behind Europe in renewable *grid *development.
The question is, why isn't our government putting in place energy policies that clearly provide the framework to benefit Australian businesses and householders into the future_

 Excellent post Rederob. These are  the key points  that would ensure that a new 700% renewable energy industry worked in the interests of  all our citizens and all our businesss rather than a narrow business interest often led by overseas  interests.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> _We are actually a decade behind Europe in renewable *grid *development.
> The question is, why isn't our government putting in place energy policies that clearly provide the framework to benefit Australian businesses and householders into the future_
> 
> Excellent post Rederob. These are  the key points  that would ensure that a new 700% renewable energy industry worked in the interests of  all our citizens and all our businesss rather than a narrow business interest often led by overseas  interests.



As long as its Chinese owned, you guys should be happy.


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> As long as its Chinese owned, you guys should be happy.




How about Australian community owned ? 

A National  Renewable Energy Co-op that is financed by worker run superannuation funds, and run by co-operative boards.  It employs a large Australian work force to provide a seamless  renewable energy grid and support a reintegration of metal refining and manufacturing plant  based on new cheap energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...re-self-reliant-but-we-must-be-smart-about-it
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...irus-economic-recovery-to-be-tackled-together
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ld-a-green-economy-from-the-covid-19-wreckage


----------



## Smurf1976

rederob said:


> From a policy perspective we still have not worked out how to get rid of coal and replace it with our abundant, cheaper and cleaner gas.



We have however done our absolute best to make gas scarce, expensive and more polluting than it needs to be.

A cynic would think this was a backdoor way to keep coal in business...... 

Australia is one of the few (only ?) places where CCGT has become uneconomic and two facilities have been permanently downgraded to open cycle whilst various industrial users have quietly been switching from gas to coal or even oil to save on costs. 

Gas should have been as you say - abundant, cheaper and cleaner than the alternatives but we've managed to turn it into the opposite.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> How about Australian community owned ?
> 
> A National  Renewable Energy Co-op that is financed by worker run superannuation funds, and run by co-operative boards.  It employs a large Australian work force to provide a seamless  renewable energy grid and support a reintegration of metal refining and manufacturing plant  based on new cheap energy.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...re-self-reliant-but-we-must-be-smart-about-it
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...irus-economic-recovery-to-be-tackled-together
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ld-a-green-economy-from-the-covid-19-wreckage



The thread is about climate change, if we are producing 700% of our domestic requirements, I mistakenly thought that would be good because we will be reducing someone else's carbon footprint.
I personally think the amount of money required, would only be available from overseas and or super funds in Australia, but they don't appear to be interested.
Anyway I just thought, you would have been excited about the talk of so much clean energy being produced, obviously in your opinion it isn't as important as who owns it, I would never have guessed from your past posts.
Rob I can understand it is all about politics, climate change is just another vehicle for him, to mount his political crusade.


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> I personally think the amount of money required, would only be available from overseas and or super funds in Australia, but they don't appear to be interested.
> Anyway I just thought, you would have been excited about the talk of so much clean energy being produced, obviously in your opinion it isn't as important as who owns it, I would never have guessed from your past posts.




Come now ... Surely it's clear to all and sundry that I'm an out and proud Red Book toting  Marxist-Leninist . 

Yep absolutely delighted with the possibility of a Clean Energy Superpower Australia. I'm sure I must have rattled on about the idea previously when Ross Gaurnat (that other  Marxist-Leninist- Anarchist )  floated the technicalities  in his book.

My "proposition" that such a energy transformation should be made under the banner of a Australian led consortium seems heretical in an era when we are lead to believe that only the Big Overseas Corporations have the gravitas and skills to extract every dollar from a such a deal. 

Quite right of course. One can absolutely depend of these bodies to maximise their economic return and minimise their tax liability. 

Perhaps we have other possibilities and priorities ??


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Come now ... Surely it's clear to all and sundry that I'm an out and proud Red Book toting  Marxist-Leninist .
> 
> Yep absolutely delighted with the possibility of a Clean Energy Superpower Australia. I'm sure I must have rattled on about the idea previously when Ross Gaurnat (that other  Marxist-Leninist- Anarchist )  floated the technicalities  in his book.
> 
> My "proposition" that such a energy transformation should be made under the banner of a Australian led consortium seems heretical in an era when we are lead to believe that only the Big Overseas Corporations have the gravitas and skills to extract every dollar from a such a deal.
> 
> Quite right of course. One can absolutely depend of these bodies to maximise their economic return and minimise their tax liability.
> 
> Perhaps we have other possibilities and priorities ??



Pretty sad really, shows how shallow the whole scam is IMO.
Neither side has a moral compass.
As with the industry super funds, not stumping up members funds, to save members jobs.
It is a sad situation in Australia IMO, you have those risking nothing, trying to encourage everyone else to risk everything.
My guess is those who shout loudest are on a public service pension, I know a mate is always writing letters to the newspapers saying how life should be, he is on an indexed public service pension for life.
So self righteous.


----------



## Knobby22

The problem SP is that It is easier for a foreign company to invest in, and own the  rights once built, and avoid the taxes than it is for us Aussies to do it. 

I do think the government is aware of this and is working to correct this but it is difficult.

I hope that when the hydrogen plants are built in our deserts are not owned by the Chinese, that the tech we create is not subsequently owned by the Chinese and that most of the product goes to China.


----------



## wayneL

Wondering if he who may not be named (by me at least), et al., has read the latest study from W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer regarding CO2 and H2O vapour saturation?

I have to PDF but don't know how to link it here.


----------



## wayneL

The foremost expert on the co2 molecule on the planet and another scientist to be cancelled, obviously collecting Megabucks from big oil... one may find the study mentioned in my previous post below:









						Study suggests no more CO2 warming
					

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In …




					wattsupwiththat.com


----------



## Joules MM1

498 pages in this thread
the last post dated October 30 2020

when popularity  clouds urgency





> Canada broke its temperature record for a third straight day on Tuesday - 49.6C (121.3F) in Lytton, British Columbia.












						Canada weather: Dozens dead as heatwave shatters records
					

The country has recorded its highest ever temperature - 49.6C (121.3F) - for the third day in a row.



					www.bbc.com
				












						Heat Wave Sets Records in US Pacific Northwest
					

Temperatures are forecast to remain significantly above normal for days




					www.voanews.com


----------



## basilio

Don't worry Joules. "The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West."  "Guns don't kill, people kill."

Climate Change denial in all its forms is still alive and well.
There* have *been a number of original  CC skeptics  who over time and with more evidence recognised the reality of what is happening. Probably the most notable one was Richard Muller.  I think it's  worth highlighting his contribution the debate.

After  previous skeptics Richard Muller painstakingly reviewed  all the evidence around global warming and the human impact  and came up with his analysis he was duly crucified by the cliamte denier community

*OUR HISTORY*​
_Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in August 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed. 

We have several major objectives for our continuing work. We plan further scientific investigations on the nature of climate change, a major education and communications program to strengthen the scientific consensus on global warming, and work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the places that will be the worst emitters over the next 30 years. One key element of this latter program will be to try to forge a new coalition between industry and environmental groups for the use of cleanly-produced natural gas as a bridging fuel to slow global warming over the next few decades – with a particular focus on China.









						About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth
					

Berkeley Earth is an independent U.S. non-profit organization focused on environmental data science. OUR MISSION AND PURPOSE Global warming is the defining environmental challenge of our time.  The need for quality, unbiased scientific information about global warming could not be more urgent...




					berkeleyearth.org
				



_


----------



## basilio

Liked this analysis of the evidence around CO2 as a critical driver of our heating planet. The writer started doing as response to one of the typical responses to an earlier story he produced that noted how global heating was rapidly melting perma frost

_As always, I expected skeptical pushback — but nothing as extreme as this:_


> _As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored._



Anyway well worth a read.









						Here’s What Real Science Says About the Role of CO2 as Earth’s Preeminent Climatic Thermostat
					

Our relatively thin atmospheric cocoon that protects us from meteor impacts and radiation also makes for a habitable climate, thanks to the greenhouse gases it contains — carbon dioxide first and foremost.




					www.discovermagazine.com


----------



## wayneL

So, bas et al would consider me a climate change denier.

Our power bill is about $160 per quarter (no solar).
We only put the bin out about once every three weeks and recycle out once every two months.

We buy Australian where we can, especially if packaging is at a minimum.

We do almost everything by hand, almost no gadgets or machines, we don't use a dryer, all washing gets hung out.

Our vehicle choices are, to our best knowledge, to have the least impact on the planet overall, but also the least impact on humanity (slave labour and all that sort of thing)

Our food choices also reflect that philosophy... Good health outcomes, but also as far as we can ascertain, the least environmental damage to the planet

Etc

We try to encourage our friends and circle influence to be the same.

When I meet my maker I will be happy to detail how I was a climate change denier.

I wonder if the alarmists can be so proud of their lifestyle?


----------



## rederob

Joules MM1 said:


> 498 pages in this thread
> the last post dated October 30 2020
> 
> when popularity  clouds urgency



It has been interesting to look at some of parallels with covid-19 and the pseudoscience spawned by many, not to mention to moronic antivaxxers, and the irresponsible folk who think their personal freedoms are being destroyed.
Their style is usually anecdote and pseudoscience when not repeating debunked claims.  Elsewhere in one of ASF's threads @bellenuit went to great lengths to correct  misunderstandings about data which often occurs when people don't understand the full context of an issue.

Then we have the likes of @wayneL above who spend a lot of time avoiding accepted science when they are not otherwise using pseudoscience or drawing from climate science deniers to post in this thread.  No doubt @wayneL has a very low carbon footprint, which is commendable, but he also swims in hypocrisy:


wayneL said:


> If we debate hypotheses, lets not use emotive, historically emotion charged terms suxh as *denier*.



As we note from post #9495 both *alarmist *and *denier *are regularly used.
In scientific debate, however, these terms are not being used.
In lay discussion it does sound reasonable that a person who consistently denies the veracity of science is called a climate science denier. On the other hand, the denialist camp often uses exaggerated claims about climate which *out of context* might seem alarming.
Should we be *alarmed *about our future climate?
Not really.
For all practical purposes anthropogenic climate change has moved from hypothesis to theory.  If there was a reasonable counter to it then, given the tens of millions of dollars poured into organisations wanting to prove it wasn't the case, you would think that over the past 3 decades it would have materialised!
We should not be alarmed because climate science projections are trending as expected.
What we should be is disappointed.
Disappointed that politics has interfered with the adoption of policies and practices that should be in place to mitigate an extremely undesirable climate future.


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> It has been interesting to look at some of parallels with covid-19 and the pseudoscience spawned by many, not to mention to moronic antivaxxers, and the irresponsible folk who think their personal freedoms are being destroyed.
> Their style is usually anecdote and pseudoscience when not repeating debunked claims.  Elsewhere in one of ASF's threads @bellenuit went to great lengths to correct  misunderstandings about data which often occurs when people don't understand the full context of an issue.
> 
> Then we have the likes of @wayneL above who spend a lot of time avoiding accepted science when they are not otherwise using pseudoscience or drawing from climate science deniers to post in this thread.  No doubt @wayneL has a very low carbon footprint, which is commendable, but he also swims in hypocrisy:
> 
> As we note from post #9495 both *alarmist *and *denier *are regularly used.
> In scientific debate, however, these terms are not being used.
> In lay discussion it does sound reasonable that a person who consistently denies the veracity of science is called a climate science denier. On the other hand, the denialist camp often uses exaggerated claims about climate which *out of context* might seem alarming.
> Should we be *alarmed *about our future climate?
> Not really.
> For all practical purposes anthropogenic climate change has moved from hypothesis to theory.  If there was a reasonable counter to it then, given the tens of millions of dollars poured into organisations wanting to prove it wasn't the case, you would think that over the past 3 decades it would have materialised!
> We should not be alarmed because climate science projections are trending as expected.
> What we should be is disappointed.
> Disappointed that politics has interfered with the adoption of policies and practices that should be in place to mitigate an extremely undesirable climate future.



That's the nicest ad hominem insult I've ever got from you Robee...

Thanks bro 

BTW... ***** You


----------



## Humid

wayneL said:


> So, bas et al would consider me a climate change denier.
> 
> Our power bill is about $160 per quarter (no solar).
> We only put the bin out about once every three weeks and recycle out once every two months.
> 
> We buy Australian where we can, especially if packaging is at a minimum.
> 
> We do almost everything by hand, almost no gadgets or machines, we don't use a dryer, all washing gets hung out.
> 
> Our vehicle choices are, to our best knowledge, to have the least impact on the planet overall, but also the least impact on humanity (slave labour and all that sort of thing)
> 
> Our food choices also reflect that philosophy... Good health outcomes, but also as far as we can ascertain, the least environmental damage to the planet
> 
> Etc
> 
> We try to encourage our friends and circle influence to be the same.
> 
> When I meet my maker I will be happy to detail how I was a climate change denier.
> 
> I wonder if the alarmists can be so proud of their lifestyle?



Geez your're in for a shock here.....excuse the pun
$1/day supply charge here anyway did you live in a cave ,$160 a quarter is amazing!


----------



## wayneL

Humid said:


> Geez your're in for a shock here.....excuse the pun
> $1/day supply charge here anyway did you live in a cave ,$160 a quarter is amazing!



Lot of 12v lighting and using the wood BBQ on the verandah.... And fast showers 😉


----------



## Humid

wayneL said:


> Lot of 12v lighting and using the wood BBQ on the verandah.... And fast showers 😉



I reckon the daughters hairdryer would be costing me that
Mrs has had the wood fire going all day and she's outside on the phone.....I just pay the bills and shutup


----------



## wayneL

Humid said:


> I reckon the daughters hairdryer would be costing me that
> Mrs has had the wood fire going all day and she's outside on the phone.....I just pay the bills and shutup



We have the double edged sword of not having daughters (or sons).

No hairdryer bills, but miss out on that delight


----------



## basilio

It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of  CC denial.  

There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and  Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!)  of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.

As well it should of course. In fact if it was true they should get a dozen Nobel Prizes each for such a ground breaking discovery.  But hey that isn't going to happen is it ? And for exactly the same reason no Physics Journal with any sort of Peer Review process would touch it with a barge pole.

I did find a very interesting story however of a public debate a few years back on the topic of how wonderful our earth would be with CO2 levels at  2000 plus PPM (Currently 415 plus and burning down the house..) The debate and almost all the material reflected the  views of William Happer.

It's long story but it is interesting to see just how the ol guy tortures tables, cherry picks research to a pip and ignores absolutely everything he possibly can that doesn't fit his pre paid story.  And of course he wraps it up in his special  tasty sauce of dense, complex, creative physics. 


Debating Climate Science:  Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim ​ June 29, 2019 /  JeffreyBennett /  Climate/Global Warming Science, Op/Ed Pieces


_Please also see this post as published on Medium. _
If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the threats claimed by most scientists; he may also lead the proposed panel. Happer’s views are perhaps best summarized by this quote from an op-ed that he co-authored:¹

“_Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity_.” — William Happer, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2013

You might wonder where a view like this comes from, and as it turns out, I recently had the opportunity to gain some insight into the truth behind the “more CO2 is better” claim. This came about because I engaged in a formal debate (hosted by The Soho Forum in New York City) against a guy by the name of Craig Idso, who shares Happer’s views. Indeed, in researching both individuals, I found virtually no daylight between any of their claims. Moreover, it appears likely that two Idso-led groups — the “NIPCC” and the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (more on those organizations below) — provide the source material behind many or most of Happer’s statements.

Given the potential prominence of the proposed Happer-led panel, I’ve decided to share my insights from the debate in this post. I hope that people of all political persuasions will find these insights enlightening.









						Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim - Jeffrey Bennett
					

Please also see this post as published on Medium. If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the...




					www.jeffreybennett.com


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of  CC denial.
> 
> There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and  Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!)  of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.
> 
> As well it should of course. In fact if it was true they should get a dozen Nobel Prizes each for such a ground breaking discovery.  But hey that isn't going to happen is it ? And for exactly the same reason no Physics Journal with any sort of Peer Review process would touch it with a barge pole.
> 
> I did find a very interesting story however of a public debate a few years back on the topic of how wonderful our earth would be with CO2 levels at  2000 plus PPM (Currently 415 plus and burning down the house..) The debate and almost all the material reflected the  views of William Happer.
> 
> It's long story but it is interesting to see just how the ol guy tortures tables, cherry picks research to a pip and ignores absolutely everything he possibly can that doesn't fit his pre paid story.  And of course he wraps it up in his special  tasty sauce of dense, complex, creative physics.
> 
> 
> Debating Climate Science:  Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim ​June 29, 2019 /  JeffreyBennett /  Climate/Global Warming Science, Op/Ed Pieces
> 
> 
> _Please also see this post as published on Medium. _
> If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the threats claimed by most scientists; he may also lead the proposed panel. Happer’s views are perhaps best summarized by this quote from an op-ed that he co-authored:¹
> 
> “_Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity_.” — William Happer, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2013
> 
> You might wonder where a view like this comes from, and as it turns out, I recently had the opportunity to gain some insight into the truth behind the “more CO2 is better” claim. This came about because I engaged in a formal debate (hosted by The Soho Forum in New York City) against a guy by the name of Craig Idso, who shares Happer’s views. Indeed, in researching both individuals, I found virtually no daylight between any of their claims. Moreover, it appears likely that two Idso-led groups — the “NIPCC” and the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (more on those organizations below) — provide the source material behind many or most of Happer’s statements.
> 
> Given the potential prominence of the proposed Happer-led panel, I’ve decided to share my insights from the debate in this post. I hope that people of all political persuasions will find these insights enlightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim - Jeffrey Bennett
> 
> 
> Please also see this post as published on Medium. If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jeffreybennett.com



I  reckon Happer might have an inkling or two about the co2 molecule.

Just a thought.


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of  CC denial.
> 
> There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and  Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!)  of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.



It remains alive and well @basilio.
The narratives created by actual scientists like Happer that deny climate change are mind boggling.  They don't get much traction nowadays  - except in the world of those welded on to AGW denial such as we can see from @wayneL's post above - because they have little to do with what is actually occurring and have no explanatory powers. 
For example, what could be the possible explanation for the sea ice extent chart posted above by @Joules MM1?
I propose excessive use of hairdryers by those living in a @Humid climate  .


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> It remains alive and well @basilio.
> The narratives created by actual scientists that deny climate change are mind boggling.  They don't get much traction nowadays  - except in the world of those welded on to AGW denial - because they have little to do with what is actually occurring and have no explanatory powers.
> For example, what could be the possible explanation for the sea ice extent chart posted above by @Joules MM1?
> I propose excessive use of hairdryers by those living in a @Humid climate  .



The explanation is of course climate change. The debate is causation, especially as it relates to regionality of such.


----------



## rederob

wayneL said:


> The explanation is of course climate change. The debate is causation, especially as it relates to regionality of such.



Unless there is a compelling hypothesis to counter AGW theory there is no practical debate to be had.
The notion that causation has regionality is nonsensical as AGW can only be derived *globally *(it's given away by the "*G*" in AGW). 
The climatic effects of AGW will differ regionally due to factors such as changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> Unless there is a compelling hypothesis to counter AGW theory there is no practical debate to be had.
> The notion that causation has regionality is nonsensical as AGW can only be derived *globally *(it's given away by the "*G*" in AGW).
> The climatic effects of AGW will differ regionally due to factors such as changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.



Roger Pielke Snr disagrees, as do many others


----------



## rederob

wayneL said:


> Roger Pielke Snr disagrees, as do many others



If they disagree then they should offer an explanation that is more credible.
Consilience overrides pettiness.


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> If they disagree then they should offer an explanation that is more credible.
> Consilience overrides pettiness.



Pielke Snr, et al are petty? Wow rederob.

These people are in fact warmists, but have a more considered view of regionality, globallality(sic) and causation, based on data rather than politics and funding.


----------



## rederob

wayneL said:


> Pielke Snr, et al are petty? Wow rederob.
> 
> These people are in fact warmists, but have a more considered view of regionality, globallality(sic) and causation, based on data rather than politics and funding.



Offer something worth our time rather than your opinions.
If you have science that suggests AGW is flawed then offer it to us.
Your ability to present a case at ASF is not particularly good.


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> Offer something worth our time rather than your opinions.
> If you have science that suggests AGW is flawed then offer it to us.
> Your ability to present a case at ASF is not particularly good.



You could always read the scientist mentioned, plus others, rather than going the low road *yet again* and indulging in putrid ad hom.

FYI https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ plus other sources I'm sure you may be intelligent enough to Google.


----------



## rederob

wayneL said:


> You could always read the scientist mentioned, plus others, rather than going the low road *yet again* and indulging in putrid ad hom.



I note this thread was started by quoting from Richard Lindzen who is particularly good at cherrypicking for his views:
"Look at the *attached*.  There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.  Why bother with the​arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?  (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)"
	

		
			
		

		
	




*The trend was pretty obvious when Lindzen made that remark and a more honest scientist would have used what was available at the time, and has since become even more obvious:*






What was notable from Lindzen's article was his total lack of appreciation of AGW theory which relies on a vast body of scientific evidence across many fields over century timeframes.  Lindzen is one of the many con artists in science who craft a story from incomplete and occasionally totally discredited information to suggest we need not worry because what's happening now is symptomatic of the natural cycle.  E.g:




The Will Happers and Lord Moncktons of the science world are less credible and mostly get recognition in the climate science denying community which @wayneL often links to.


----------



## Joules MM1

The New York Times
@nytime
·15h






"Last month was the hottest June on record in North America. 1,200 daytime records were broken in the final week. But there was an even greater number of daily records set by a different — and maybe more dangerous — measure: overnight temperatures.


----------



## Joules MM1

#permafrost July 22nd 2021


----------



## Joules MM1

__





						IPCC AR6-WGI Atlas
					

IPCC Assestment Report 6 Atlas




					interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch
				




Zack Labe (Climate (Atmospheric) Scientist | Postdoc at @CSUAtmosSci | PhD - @uciess, @CornellEAS )


" I HIGHLY recommend checking out the interactive 
@IPCC_CH
 climate atlas - https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#InteractiveAtlas…. Great for education and outreach. For example, look at change in boreal winter temperatures in the #Arctic by the end of the 21st century... just awful."


----------



## Joules MM1

Hurricanes and climate change - SciLine
					

Science facts describing how human-induced climate change is causing hurricanes to grow stronger and more destructive.




					www.sciline.org
				




excerpt 

The five costliest U.S. Earth-system disasters (including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, and all kinds of extreme weather, adjusted for inflation) have all been hurricanes, and all five have occurred within the past 15 years: Harvey (2017), Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012), Irma (2017), and Maria (2017).
inc citations


----------



## Knobby22




----------



## Joules MM1

NASA Climate
@NASAClimate
·Sep 3
Our climate has changed naturally throughout history, but this time it's different: Human activity is now considered the principal cause.


----------



## wayneL

Joules MM1 said:


> View attachment 129850
> 
> 
> NASA Climate
> @NASAClimate
> ·Sep 3
> Our climate has changed naturally throughout history, but this time it's different: Human activity is now considered the principal cause.
> View attachment 129851



So are you going to scuttle the private jet, mate?


----------



## Joules MM1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-Y0D9GXECAHRvf?format=jpg&name=small
		










__





						Robbie Andrew: Professional home page
					

Professional home page of Robbie Andrew, listing research projects with links to journal articles, reports, and other publications



					folk.universitetetioslo.no


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> There* have *been a number of original CC skeptics who over time and with more evidence recognised the reality of what is happening.



There's nothing wrong with questioning and seeking to prove or disprove. That concept lies at the heart of science after all.

Not accepting the results of proper research is the problem.

That was the problem with lead in petrol. The hazard was demonstrated back in the 1920's beyond reasonable doubt but still they persisted with putting tetraethyllead in, by the time it was fully rolled out, pretty much all petrol used anywhere on the planet. End result is lead contamination turned up even in places a long way from the nearest car, for example the North Pole and south-west Tasmania, and pretty much the entire population copped low level poisoning.

Asbestos was another one. The dangers were known long before most of it was mined and before any of us were born but still the went ahead regardless and the end result is the stuff's pretty much everywhere. Personally well I've had a known exposure incident, hopefully it doesn't kill me but it could end up doing so, but don't kid yourself - there's asbestos fibre in _your_ lungs that I'll guarantee you. That goes for everyone who reads this. Even worse, asbestos mining is in some countries still a major industry to day - and despite being illegal some does find its way to Australia yes.

Tobacco was another one. Lung cancer deaths started to shoot up about 1930, 20 years after cigarette smoking dramatically increased. They knew the truth but denied it through to the late 1950's then carried on anyway even when the danger was finally acknowledged. FWIW one of the tobacco companies had the "clever" idea of putting asbestos in cigarette filters - I kid you not.

Now it's the same with climate. There were things written about it expressing concern as far back as the 1800's and, from his old handwritten engineering notes that I have, it seems my own grandfather was aware of it during the early 1950's. He wasn't a climate scientist (he was a civil engineer) but from his handwritten notes it seems that he was definitely aware of the concept that humans were changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere and that, if this went far enough, it would affect the climate.

Now I won't claim to be a climate scientist, since I'm not one, but I can certainly read reports of work done by others who are climate scientists, I can look for any apparent omissions, I can look at observed data and see if their past projections were accurate to date and so on.

My conclusion, in short, is that there's certainly some "science" that's in the junk or game playing category but the problem is very real and, in short, we're outright ****** if it isn't meaningfully addressed in a very timely manner. That there's some nonsense surrounding it in a manner not dissimilar to asbestos, lead, tobacco etc doesn't change that there's a real issue that needs to be sorted ASAP.


----------



## rederob

Smurf1976 said:


> Not accepting the results of proper research is the problem.



It remains the problem, although a lesser problem than continuing inaction.
Posted almost 12 years ago in this thread @Vizion's points have had no valid counter since:


Vizion said:


> Can someone show me one study that shows the earth has not warmed, that the oceans have not risen, that the planet has greater biodiversity, that this planets varied species has flourished.
> 
> How about a study that shows carbon is not in greater quantities in the atmosphere, that the temperature in Australia is going down.
> How about a study that shows our forest are in better condition, that the air is safer for our children to breathe.
> 
> The chief scientist in my division spent two years as part of the Australian Antarctic Expedition from 95 to 97, I am going to listen the results gathered from their ice cores, before I listen to a few people here who do NOT believe we are causing damage to our planet. I don't care what anyone posts, there is NOT ONE FACT that supports the naysayers, it's a matter of degree's you are all arguing about. Meanwhile the damage keeps getting done...



AGW denialists at ASF have posted a continuing stream of codswallop and pseudoscience to support what they believe, and that's pretty much the same as what well funded industry lobby groups have espoused.  As @Smurf1976 notes, it's a theme that borrows heavily from denialist playbooks, and even creeps into ASF covid threads where baseless beliefs thrive.

The idea that if our planet gets a few degrees warmer it won't be a problem seems reasonable on the surface (excuse pun).  Day to day weather varies considerably, after all.  However, that ignores what the science tells us.  That's things like longer, earlier and warmer summers that exacerbate bush fires.  And about warmer oceans that not only add intensity to hurricanes/cyclones, but add unseasonally extra moisture into the air so that unexpected and unprecedented flooding events are becoming more common.  These are *NOW *occurrences.   Not events we have to wait for in another 50 to 80 years.

There are actual life threatening dangers in promoting poorly based themes and sustaining them year after year.  But that's what so called "free speech" allows, so let's be grateful after all as we are heavily backed at the coal face....


----------



## Joules MM1




----------



## Joules MM1

Zack Labe

We have a problem. Checking in on the latest observations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄)... 





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					gml.noaa.gov
				









			https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_k1FAoUYAIVYYg?format=jpg&name=4096x4096


----------



## Joules MM1

https://www.amap.no/documents/download/6759/inline
		


excerpts: 
PERMAFROST TEMPERATURE Arctic permafrost has warmed by 2–3°C since the 1970s. 
At many colder permafrost sites, rates of warming over the past 20 years have been 
greater than any since 1979. The seasonally thawed active layer has grown deeper 
at many sites since the 1990s, and landscape observations indicate permafrost thaw across the Arctic.

TERRESTRIAL SNOW COVER Arctic snow cover extent during the months of 
May through June declined by 21% from 1971 to 2019, with a larger decrease (25%) over 
Eurasia compared with North America (17%).


----------



## Joules MM1

@explod  ....juust one more


----------



## explod

Joules MM1 said:


> @explod  ....juust one more




Yes, the accelerating effects are now quite alarming.  

Thanks for your posts Joules.


----------



## mullokintyre

As we approach the souther hemisphere cyclone season, the warnings about being prepared are starting to come out.
According to the BOM,bia ABC News



> Queensland is facing an increased risk from a trifecta of natural disasters this summer, according to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).
> There is a heightened risk of cyclones, bushfires and flooding for Queenslanders and residents are being told to get ready.
> 
> The BOM said an average to slightly-above-average number of tropical cyclones are expected to form in the Australian region this season.
> 
> The season, which runs from November through to April, usually results in around 11 cyclones impacting Australian waters, with about four crossing the coast.
> "The outlook this year is that we could see more tropical cyclones than we usually see in a typical year.
> 
> "The details of location, intensity and timing, that's the information that we don't have.
> BOM data shows at least one tropical cyclone a year has crossed the coast since records began in the 1970s.



I get a couple of interesting things from the above.
1. Records only go back as far as 1970's . I found this a little surprising, given that  tropical cyclones  have been known about for a very long time. but I guess because they didn't happen in Canberra , Melbourne , Sydney . Adelaide, Perth or Hobart, they were not considered important.
2. BOM also predicted that last year 2020 would also have a greater than average number of cyclones. We managed to get 8, not the greater than 11 they forecast. see New Daily 
Last year, i read the following in an ABC News  article that was dated July 23rd.



> Cyclones have been notoriously hard to predict over decades, but a new scientific model could prove to be a circuit-breaker, particularly in the cyclone-battered Pacific.
> The University of Newcastle, in collaboration with New Zealand's National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, has released a new predictive tool call Long-Range Tropical Cyclone Outlook for the Southwest Pacific (TCO-SP), which can forecast cyclones up to four months in advance.
> Current modelling only produces forecasts one month in advance, while actual cyclone paths may not necessarily follow predicted paths.
> Traditionally, tropical cyclones have been hard to predict but the new model captures the interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere to provide an outlook for the number of tropical cyclones that will occur during the cyclone season.



I did not see any predictions for the 8 cyclones of last season even a week in advance, much less four months in advance.
If the brilliant new predictive model was working well, we should have the predictions now  for at least through to January this year. 
It matters little whether we get two or ten cyclones this year, the only useful prediction is their track, which still seems to be pretty much a hit and miss affair for anything beyond 24 to 36 hours. 
Cyclones that blow out to sea are of interest to mariners, but of little import to those on the mainland.
Having had the doubtful privilege of going through two cat 5 cyclones plus one puny  cat 3, it is more than a touch alarming.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> As we approach the souther hemisphere cyclone season, the warnings about being prepared are starting to come out.
> According to the BOM,bia ABC News



You continue to have real problems with data and forecasts.
You first link referred only to Queensland, and was spot on:
_Senior meteorologist Laura Boekel said while *she could not give specific numbers*, more than four cyclones were predicted to form in the Coral Sea this season, as well as one to two in the Gulf of Carpentaria._​_“One to two of those [could be expected to] cross the coast … and with the La Nina, more likely than not, we’ll see an increase in those numbers,” she said._​​Here's the map showing what happened:







mullokintyre said:


> I did not see any predictions for the 8 cyclones of last season even a week in advance, much less four months in advance.  If the brilliant new predictive model was working well, we should have the predictions now for at least through to January this year.



I guess you do not watch the weather forecasts, as all were detailed well beforehand.
WRT to advanced forecasting, this has already been published:





The BOM, however, has yet to update us with their 2021-22 TC expectations.
None of your post has anything to do with climate hysteria, however, just your failure to work out what modelling attempts to achieve.


----------



## mullokintyre

> You continue to have real problems with data and forecasts.
> You first link referred only to Queensland, and was spot on:



And you continue to never read what is quoted,
The article about Queensland is the forecast for the coming season.
You put up a map purporting to show what happened.
Thats pretty amazing seeing as we have not yet entered the cyclone season.
I don't know where you got the map from, but it gots nothing to with the forecasts for the 2021 season.
You screwed up Rob, and no amount of your bullsh!t will escape that.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> And you continue to never read what is quoted,
> The article about Queensland is the forecast for the coming season.
> You put up a map purporting to show what happened.
> Thats pretty amazing seeing as we have not yet entered the cyclone season.
> I don't know where you got the map from, but it gots nothing to with the forecasts for the 2021 season.
> You screwed up Rob, and no amount of your bullsh!t will escape that.
> Mick



I definitely used the wrong link in my reply - my bad - but it was based on what BOM forecast and what actually happened in 2020-21 as per what you posted when you said "see New Daily".
What BOM said was on the money for the previous TC season, and this is mapped for all to see.
You have not actually posted any TC forecasts for the 2021-22 TC season as all BOM said today was:
_"The BOM said an average to slightly-above-average number of tropical cyclones are expected to form in the Australian region this season."_​On the other hand I have also shown you are unaware of the forecast made for the coming TC season, despite you naming the model being used.
I have no idea what you think your posts have achieved as they are off topic and seem to contradict what you claim.


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> I definitely used the wrong link in my reply - my bad - but it was based on what BOM forecast and what actually happened in 2020-21 as per what you posted when you said "see New Daily".
> What BOM said was on the money for the previous TC season, and this is mapped for all to see.
> You have not actually posted any TC forecasts for the 2021-22 TC season as all BOM said today was:
> _"The BOM said an average to slightly-above-average number of tropical cyclones are expected to form in the Australian region this season."_​On the other hand I have also shown you are unaware of the forecast made for the coming TC season, despite you naming the model being used.
> I have no idea what you think your posts have achieved as they are off topic and seem to contradict what you claim.



yea right.


----------



## Joules MM1

onya, Austraya ......or South Australia .....the rest of us shall catch up 

"...if it was an independent country South Australia would now rank second behind 
Denmark in the take-up of VRE (variable renewable energy) "


----------



## wayneL

As the "elite" fly around in private jets and choppers, to and fro gabfests, massive mansions and enormous yachts...


----------



## wayneL

Exempli Gratia:


----------



## orr

I wonder what would happen if I pulled my head out from between my cheeks and took the the time to google 'microsoft net zero'???

Ohh look I did ...  And what did I find out.....
If only Australia had half the ambition in twice the time...

Look what can happen when you spend less time with your head up you arse...


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> I wonder what would happen if I pulled my head out from between my cheeks and took the the time to google 'microsoft net zero'???
> 
> Ohh look I did ...  And what did I find out.....
> If only Australia had half the ambition in twice the time...
> 
> Look what can happen when you spend less time with your head up you arse...



Happy to see the mathematics, genius.


----------



## macca

orr said:


> I wonder what would happen if I pulled my head out from between my cheeks and took the the time to google 'microsoft net zero'???
> 
> Ohh look I did ...  And what did I find out.....
> If only Australia had half the ambition in twice the time...
> 
> Look what can happen when you spend less time with your head up you arse...




And if he was fair dinkum he could actually be better couldn't he, he does have the right to ego trip, he just doesn't need 4 planes to do it in


----------



## wayneL

macca said:


> And if he was fair dinkum he could actually be better couldn't he, he does have the right to ego trip, he just doesn't need 4 planes to do it in



Mate this is the most astonishing thing to me, how these leftist clowns justify the lifestyles of Gates, Bezos, Charles, and a litany of other climate preachers with carbon footprints measuring in the thousands of tons.

....and then accuse those of us who are doing everything to minimise their power bill and trim down their comparatively extremely modest lifestyle as having their head up their @ss.... not realising how absolutely asinine they are.


----------



## sptrawler

orr said:


> I wonder what would happen if I pulled my head out from between my cheeks and took the the time to google 'microsoft net zero'???
> 
> Ohh look I did ...  And what did I find out.....
> If only Australia had half the ambition in twice the time...
> 
> Look what can happen when you spend less time with your head up you arse...



How do you find the fresh air?


----------



## basilio

Well thanks for the tip Orr.
Impressive piece of planning and accountability.  
Certainly worth respect and recognition.

Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030​ 

                                            Jan 16, 2020                                         |                          Brad Smith - President & Vice Chair 







	

		
			
		

		
	
Microsoft President Brad Smith, Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood and CEO Satya Nadella preparing to announce Microsoft’s plan to be carbon negative by 2030. (Jan. 15, 2020/Photo by Brian Smale)
The scientific consensus is clear. The world confronts an urgent carbon problem. The carbon in our atmosphere has created a blanket of gas that traps heat and is changing the world’s climate. Already, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade. If we don’t curb emissions, and temperatures continue to climb, science tells us that the results will be catastrophic.

As the scientific community has concluded, human activity has released more than 2 trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere since the start of the First Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s. Over three-quarters of this is carbon dioxide, with most of this carbon emitted since the mid-1950s. This is more carbon than nature can re-absorb, and every year humanity pumps more than 50 billion metric tons of additional greenhouse gases into the air. This isn’t a problem that lasts a few years or even a decade. Once excess carbon enters the atmosphere it can take thousands of years to dissipate.

The world’s climate experts agree that the world must take urgent action to bring down emissions. Ultimately, we must reach “net zero” emissions, meaning that humanity must remove as much carbon as it emits each year. This will take aggressive approaches, new technology that doesn’t exist today, and innovative public policy. It is an ambitious – even audacious – goal, but science tells us that it’s a goal of fundamental importance to every person alive today and for every generation to follow.
Microsoft: Carbon negative by 2030​While the world will need to reach net zero, those of us who can afford to move faster and go further should do so. That’s why today we are announcing an ambitious goal and a new plan to reduce and ultimately remove Microsoft’s carbon footprint.
By 2030 Microsoft will be carbon negative, and by 2050 Microsoft will remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975.

We recognize that progress requires not just a bold goal but a detailed plan. As described below, we are launching today an aggressive program to cut our carbon emissions by more than half by 2030, both for our direct emissions and for our entire supply and value chain. We will fund this in part by expanding our internal carbon fee, in place since 2012 and increased last year, to start charging not only our direct emissions, but those from our supply and value chains.




	

		
			
		

		
	
We are also launching an initiative to use Microsoft technology to help our suppliers and customers around the world reduce their own carbon footprints and a new $1 billion climate innovation fund to accelerate the global development of carbon reduction, capture, and removal technologies. Beginning next year, we will also make carbon reduction an explicit aspect of our procurement processes for our supply chain. Our progress on all of these fronts will be published in a new annual Environmental Sustainability Report that will detail our carbon impact and reduction journey. And lastly, all this work will be supported by our voice and advocacy supporting public policy that will accelerate carbon reduction and removal opportunities.
Taking a principled approach​








						Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030 - The Official Microsoft Blog
					

The scientific consensus is clear. The world confronts an urgent carbon problem. The carbon in our atmosphere has created a blanket of gas that traps heat and is changing the world’s climate. Already, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade. If we don’t curb emissions, and...




					blogs.microsoft.com


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Well thanks for the tip Orr.
> Impressive piece of planning and accountability.
> Certainly worth respect and recognition.
> 
> Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030​
> 
> Jan 16, 2020                                         |                          Brad Smith - President & Vice Chair
> 
> 
> View attachment 132192
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft President Brad Smith, Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood and CEO Satya Nadella preparing to announce Microsoft’s plan to be carbon negative by 2030. (Jan. 15, 2020/Photo by Brian Smale)
> The scientific consensus is clear. The world confronts an urgent carbon problem. The carbon in our atmosphere has created a blanket of gas that traps heat and is changing the world’s climate. Already, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade. If we don’t curb emissions, and temperatures continue to climb, science tells us that the results will be catastrophic.
> 
> As the scientific community has concluded, human activity has released more than 2 trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere since the start of the First Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s. Over three-quarters of this is carbon dioxide, with most of this carbon emitted since the mid-1950s. This is more carbon than nature can re-absorb, and every year humanity pumps more than 50 billion metric tons of additional greenhouse gases into the air. This isn’t a problem that lasts a few years or even a decade. Once excess carbon enters the atmosphere it can take thousands of years to dissipate.
> 
> The world’s climate experts agree that the world must take urgent action to bring down emissions. Ultimately, we must reach “net zero” emissions, meaning that humanity must remove as much carbon as it emits each year. This will take aggressive approaches, new technology that doesn’t exist today, and innovative public policy. It is an ambitious – even audacious – goal, but science tells us that it’s a goal of fundamental importance to every person alive today and for every generation to follow.
> Microsoft: Carbon negative by 2030​While the world will need to reach net zero, those of us who can afford to move faster and go further should do so. That’s why today we are announcing an ambitious goal and a new plan to reduce and ultimately remove Microsoft’s carbon footprint.
> By 2030 Microsoft will be carbon negative, and by 2050 Microsoft will remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975.
> 
> We recognize that progress requires not just a bold goal but a detailed plan. As described below, we are launching today an aggressive program to cut our carbon emissions by more than half by 2030, both for our direct emissions and for our entire supply and value chain. We will fund this in part by expanding our internal carbon fee, in place since 2012 and increased last year, to start charging not only our direct emissions, but those from our supply and value chains.
> View attachment 132193
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are also launching an initiative to use Microsoft technology to help our suppliers and customers around the world reduce their own carbon footprints and a new $1 billion climate innovation fund to accelerate the global development of carbon reduction, capture, and removal technologies. Beginning next year, we will also make carbon reduction an explicit aspect of our procurement processes for our supply chain. Our progress on all of these fronts will be published in a new annual Environmental Sustainability Report that will detail our carbon impact and reduction journey. And lastly, all this work will be supported by our voice and advocacy supporting public policy that will accelerate carbon reduction and removal opportunities.
> Taking a principled approach​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030 - The Official Microsoft Blog
> 
> 
> The scientific consensus is clear. The world confronts an urgent carbon problem. The carbon in our atmosphere has created a blanket of gas that traps heat and is changing the world’s climate. Already, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade. If we don’t curb emissions, and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.microsoft.com



IMO, it should be read in conjunction with this article, which highlights that a lot of these companies who are going to claim carbon zero or carbon negative are not factoring in the end use of their product.








						Big business 'sniffs' the green dollar at COP26
					

Climate change conferences were once the domain of scientists and bureaucrats. Now, they are increasingly attended by big business delegations eyeing off the "green dollar".




					www.abc.net.au
				




The rise of 'greenwashing'​Increasingly, carbon-intensive businesses like Ampol — who pledge to deliver net zero on emissions by 2040 — will come under the microscope.

Critically, Ampol's plan will not deal with "scope 3" emissions — the emissions from customers burning their fuels — according to Richie Merzian.


> "Companies will try and greenwash their way into only offsetting the emissions from scope 1 and 2, their domestic emissions," Mr Merzian told 7.30.



"And if you're a major fossil fuel producer, the majority of your emissions are when your goods are burnt.

"We're seeing a rise of greenwashing. We're seeing more junk credits being put on the market and purchased up by big polluters. We're seeing a lot more marketing, and not a lot of action. And that's the real risk." 

In Australia, one in five carbon credits generated here could very well be hot air, according to new research by the Australian Conservation Foundation.

However, COP26 will see new commitments from some of the industries hardest to abate.


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> IMO, it should be read in conjunction with this article, which highlights that a lot of these companies who are going to claim carbon zero or carbon negative are not factoring in the end use of their product.




Quite true and if you read the rest of the piece you will find that Microsoft identifies Scope 2 and scope 3 emissions as part of their Zero emissions responsibility.  They also recognise they have  to directly reduce emissions and  directly tackle the emissions they have already produced.

No loopholes. They might or might not achieve this goal but they are not trying to do a ScoMo.


----------



## orr

basilio said:


> Impressive piece of planning and accountability.




This is where the rubber hits the road.. Looking toward the next decade with solar and wind based Electricity, even now, being the cheapest form of energy generation in human history (see IEA's data) and only going lower;  And at every turn, the serious finance World  over subscribing every oppertunaty that comes their way in this regard ...
To expect one of the top most valuable company's traded W/W'd not to be looking to ths form of energy? as the future??? .... 

Some, tragically, presumably saw their _cuisinière_ rods  as eatible.  and their Shibboleths as duarable...


----------



## mullokintyre

So much posturing  on the part of everyone connected to Climate change.
The 400 odd jets that burst in to Glasgow , the 85 car motorcade of president Biden,  the army of Chauffeur driven cars clogging up the streets of Glasgow, the fact that China and India want the rest of the world to stump up 1 trillion so that they and the other developing world  can  get loans to tackle climate change.
They might have a little mote success if they  were not such a bunch of hypocrites,
MICK


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> So much posturing  on the part of everyone connected to Climate change.
> The 400 odd jets that burst in to Glasgow , the 85 car motorcade of president Biden,  the army of Chauffeur driven cars clogging up the streets of Glasgow, the fact that China and India want the rest of the world to stump up 1 trillion so that they and the other developing world  can  get loans to tackle climate change.
> They might have a little mote success if they  were not such a bunch of hypocrites,
> MICK



The per capita carbon footprint of Australians is amongst the highest in the world.
It's hypocrites like you that want to blame the countries who have been least responsible for getting CO2 levels to where they are today, and at the same time enjoy a 21st century lifestyle that billions of others can only aspire to.
One day you might make sense.


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> So much posturing  on the part of everyone connected to Climate change.
> The 400 odd jets that burst in to Glasgow , the 85 car motorcade of president Biden,  the army of Chauffeur driven cars clogging up the streets of Glasgow, the fact that China and India want the rest of the world to stump up 1 trillion so that they and the other developing world  can  get loans to tackle climate change.
> They might have a little mote success if they  were not such a bunch of hypocrites,
> MICK




Ha Ha..  Argument  101 in the well thumbed Climate deniers handbook of disinformation..

I wonder which particular news source you have quoted that decided to focus on jets, cars and associated baggage that accompanies our leaders flying to such conferences ?  Fox perhaps,  Breibart ?  Zero Hedge ?  Andrew Bolt ?  Who cares.

Did they or you have any observation on  the  current effect of  human caused  CC  and where we will be if we don't get on top of it ?


----------



## mullokintyre

Sticking pejorative labels on people is a poor way prosecute an argument.
What part of what i said allows you to call me a climate deniers?
At no stage have I denied climate change.
At no stage have I denied the effects human induced climate change.
Everything I said was about the hypocrisy of the elites preaching about  reducing carbon emissions while they blithely put out more carbon in a day than the average person puts out in a year.
Inconvenient or as embarrassing as it may be, everything I posted has been well documented.
Video footage of the motorcade, ADSB flight path data of the planes. 
The fact that your favourite media source does not report it does not invalidate it.
Mick


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> Sticking pejorative labels on people is a poor way prosecute an argument.
> What part of what i said allows you to call me a climate deniers?
> At no stage have I denied climate change.
> At no stage have I denied the effects human induced climate change.
> Everything I said was about the hypocrisy of the elites preaching about  reducing carbon emissions while they blithely put out more carbon in a day than the average person puts out in a year.
> Inconvenient or as embarrassing as it may be, everything I posted has been well documented.
> Video footage of the motorcade, ADSB flight path data of the planes.
> The fact that your favourite media source does not report it does not invalidate it.
> Mick




Indeed you may not be climate denier Mullokintyre.  But you still choose to cite  the most basic, tedious, climate denier "arguments" that do the rounds of the the climate denial media. So why  ?

Of course Heads of Government and big wigs fly in and out of conferences. Should they walk or hitch a ride on a yacht like Greta Thundberg ? And sure you can look at many lifestyles there and see conspicuous consumption  that is xissing out tons of CO2. But focusing on those symbols to distract people from the disaster that is unfolding  summararises your first point to  a *T*
_*Sticking pejorative labels on people is a poor way prosecute an argument.*_

The rabbiting on about "the hypocrisy of the elites" has nothing to do with wanting to focus serious, serious action on dealing with climate change. It's intention is to undermine anyone and everyone who speaks up in this conversation.  Whether it was trashing Al Gore,  Tim Flannery or any ASF poster who didn't live in a cave the charge was always the same. 

And it never, ever wanted to acknowledge what CC was doing  and how we could deal with it.


----------



## basilio

It is encouraging to see at least some of the big players in Australian Mining move quickly to zero emission mining and not use BS carbon credits in the process.  One of the most obvious leaders has been Twiggy Forrest (who has his own private jet..) but there are others as well. (Havn't seen Gina Rinehart yet )

Good story on the ABC.

Key points:​
Miners have been ramping up plans to cut their carbon emissions in the lead up to COP26
Some, like FMG, are creating completely new revenue streams
Lobby groups want more action, sooner, on "scope 3" emissions









						'Clean up our own backyard': Australian miners ramp up plans to cut carbon emissions
					

Fossil fuels are fast losing favour in Australia as some of the country's biggest miners shift to a greener business model.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## mullokintyre

Why do heads of government need to fly in and out of conferences?
Whats wrong with zooming like we have had to do over the past two years.
And why do we need people like Bezos, Gates, Soros  etc?
And why the hell do we have to listen to a n18 year old girl who has not even finished school yet, much less got any world experience.
it does not matter what the elites do in  Glasgow.
They have to convince the suckers back working for a living to go on with them.
It is no surprise that the most vocal on the  bandwagon are those who are well off enough to not be adversely affected by the decisions.
You only have to look at the last federal Election to see how voters do not take to  the say one thing do another  syndrome.
Right now , they are failing miserably because of their "let them eat cake syndrome".
And the biggest failing is weak response to  China, the biggest carbon emitter of all.
Australia could become carbon neutral tomorrow , and would make the barest of difference to the human induced climate change problem.
And that is not some right wing conspiracy crap, its plain fact. 
So why are we as Australians being beaten around the head over not  setting a 2030 net zero position when the Increase in China's emissions in a year is equivalent to all of pours?
Why, because its about the politics.
The climate is just the medium to do the beating.
Micki


----------



## basilio

*Is there a  critical CC problem or not Mull ?*    Are the CC scientists correct when they say our greenhouse gas emissions have already raised global temperatures by 1.2C and if left to business as usual we will create a world that humans and most of our current ecosystems will not survive. ?


----------



## mullokintyre

Like most others, I believe that the  climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.
I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.
Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.
I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon  emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.
I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.
The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation  causation. 
Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.
The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced. 
The rest is politics.
Mick


----------



## sptrawler

mullokintyre said:


> So why are we as Australians being beaten around the head over not  setting a 2030 net zero position when the Increase in China's emissions in a year is equivalent to all of pours?



Because it gives our media something to write about. 😂
Why are we going on about the P.M upsetting France because we cancelling a contract to buy fossil fueled subs, which would be absolutely useless?
Instead of just saying well maybe it could have been handled better, but the outcome is really a better outcome for Australia and it was a business decision?
Because the media are having a field day.

Why isn't the media still going on about when Andrews cancelled an East West road in Melbourne and forked out heaps of money, because people probably really didn't give a $hit, that's what happens when circumstances change business decisions change compensation is paid and things move on.

Why don't the media mention the lack of tact France is showing with regard the U.K leaving the E.U and France demanding fishing rights in U.K waters and even going to the extent of impounding a U.K fishing boat? It's a bit rich the French having their feelings hurt when they trample over others feelings.








						UK boat detained by France amid fishing rights row
					

A minister says his officials are "urgently" investigating the situation surrounding the detained boat.



					www.bbc.com
				




What about the Rainbow Warrior incident? I mean sinking a ship in a New Zealand harbour, during a time of peace? I mean really.
It's about time Australians stopped pizzing on themselves and took a spoon of concrete, to harden up. 

The time for this media induced inferiority complex needs to come to end, every time a known identity comes to Australia the first thing they get when they step foot on the tarmac, is the media asking "what do you think of Australia? what do you think of how we are doing things? oh please tell us we are good and doing well, tell us you like us, please, please".

We have become a country full of insecure whimps, being led around by the nose by the media, seeking everyone else's approval because we don't have enough patriotic pride in our countries ability and judgement and a media that encourages that lack of self worth.

China has shown how much effect continually grovelling to appease other countries has, once you step out of line and stop grovelling, they just cut you off at the knees with embargoes.

Maybe Morrison should apologise to Macron and buy both lots of subs the useless French ones and the U.S ones, then everyone's is happy.
We just need to grow up and grow a pair, oh sorry please forgive me, I can't say that please don't send me to the naughty corner. 😂
My rant for the week.


----------



## basilio

Ok Mull.  That makes sense. 

Your an intelligent person. If on seriously reading the work of climate scientists around the world you can't recognise what is happening to our climate and why it has happened then clearly you really don't see a problem. In that sense all this COP 26 stuff is just hot air from
"the elites"  who are "hypocrites".   I can see from your talking points the places you get your information from.

By the way.  No one talks about "climate denial" anymore. The talking points  now are now pretty much what you have said.  'We don't really know"  "Climate  has always changed " "Warming could be good for some" "We don't know what has caused it ".  In the end it means the same thing.  Don't do anything and don't worry.

If you want to refresh your understanding of what is  happening with CC the NASA website  offers a clear analysis.









						Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Ok Mull.  That makes sense.
> 
> Your an intelligent person. If on seriously reading the work of climate scientists around the world you can't recognise what is happening to our climate and why it has happened then clearly you really don't see a problem. In that sense all this COP 26 stuff is just hot air from
> "the elites"  who are "hypocrites".   I can see from your talking points the places you get your information from.




Bas, you keep putting words in my mouth that I never utter.
Where did I say I did not see a problem?
The issue is trying to work out the
I can see lots of problems, but a hot air political gabfest is not going to solve too many.




> By the way.  No one talks about "climate denial" anymore. The talking points  now are now pretty much what you have said.  'We don't really know"  "Climate  has always changed " "Warming could be good for some" "We don't know what has caused it ".  In the end it means the same thing.  Don't do anything and don't worry.




No one talks about climate denial? really,
So what does this statement of yours from post #9997 look like?


> Ha Ha.. Argument 101 in the well thumbed Climate deniers handbook of disinformation..




I could put up URL's about climate change as well, but I suspect your response would be that they come from the sort of sources you may not approve of. 

Kinda pointless really.
Mick


----------



## wayneL

It's nice being blocked by Bas, just sayin'.


----------



## basilio

Mick if you can find an analysis of climate change that refutes all the evidence presented on the NASA website I'm all ears.  I choose that site because it *simply *summarizes the main issues, evidence and solutions to the problem. Your welcome to check it out and then come back with another analysis that you believe is credible.

I didn't put "words in your mouth" Mick.  You chose to run off a stream of talking points all  intended to trash the process creating a world wide solution to a world wide problem.  The fact that you made no effort to  even acknowledge there was a serious problem said  everything else. Your recent post with "don't really know" "climate is always changing" "is human CO2 the problem " ( *there is clear proof that human produced CO2 is the problem) * "some places will be better off" confirms your views.

Years ago one presenter came up with an excellent argument of why we had to take CC seriously. It was based on the premise that if there was only a small chance all the scientists were right then the consequences letting CC going unchecked would be disastrous. Essentially it was "How lucky do you feel ?" in ignoring the wealth of scientific understanding of what was happening to our climate.

The world works on this principle. Engineers would never consider  building a dam with a 5% chance of failure. Or a plane or a power station or a bridge for that matter. So why are people so willing to disregard or undermine evidence of a situation that poses far bigger threats?   20-30 years ago the reality of CC consequences might not have been obviously apparent. But in 2021  we know we have a 1.2 C warmer world and we can see the consequences to date. Is it smart to ignore what is now obvious ?

Perhaps CC is boring ?











						RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
					

RealClimate: Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion. Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have...




					www.realclimate.org


----------



## rederob

Let's look at the logic:


mullokintyre said:


> Like most others, I believe that the  climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.



That is not a reasoned response to AGW's potential  to have dire consequences for the global economy, environment, or humanity.  Those impacts are already starting to play out.


mullokintyre said:


> I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.



Most action is based on probability, or "most likely" explanations as science has no role in certainties.  All you are saying is you do not believe the evidence, and you have a personal basis for maintaining your belief.  At what point would you believe the many world leaders at COP26 who made unequivocal statements about the urgent need for action?  The point here is that your need for certainty is not relevant to the real world issue of their being a problem.


mullokintyre said:


> Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.



This is a fallacious position based on an illogical equivalence.  For example, the fact catastrophic bush fires provide work for firefighters is not equivalent to the suffering of victims.


mullokintyre said:


> I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon  emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.



Neither do climate scientists.  They can only provide the scientific explanations that give rise to a greenhouse effect, and show with data high confidence that this is what is happening, why, and the likely trend.


mullokintyre said:


> I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.



There is a scientific explanation to what is happening that has a 200 year genesis.  If you are reading about "arguments" then you are discounting knowledge.


mullokintyre said:


> The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation  causation.
> Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.



That would only be true if you were *not *reading about climate science.  If a scientist cannot differentiate correlation from causation then they have no basis for any finding.  


mullokintyre said:


> The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced.
> The rest is politics.



If renewables had a carbon footprint then nuclear would be an option, especially as it has the capacity to generate massive amounts of energy - 1 g of uranium or plutonium is the energy equivalent of 3 tons of coal - for millions of years, and would solve the AGW issue.  But renewables are actually the most economic solution and continue to get cheaper, while the opposite is the case for FF. 

The politics is about what individual countries do to bring forward the mass scale implementation of renewables to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Economics is likely to win out over politics, except it may be too late to prevent the capped 1.5 degree rise that is aimed for.


----------



## IFocus

mullokintyre said:


> Like most others, I believe that the  climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.
> I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.
> Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.
> I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon  emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.
> I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.
> The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation  causation.
> Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.
> The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced.
> The rest is politics.
> Mick





Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.



Why are the protagonists still flying around in private jets then?


----------



## basilio

IFocus said:


> Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.




Or even just the  executive  summaries   of each section.





__





						Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —
					






					www.ipcc.ch


----------



## mullokintyre

I presume you mean This one , the September 2021 which was the latest I could find?
I admit to only reading the summary.


IFocus said:


> Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.



Look I tried to read some of it, but the bloody thing is huge.
Bas has suggested reading the executive summaries, but I am only interested in the data and "the science", and its very hard to get to the bottom of it. 
There are a number of authors (some of them actual scientists) who will dispute some of  "the science" and the conclusions drawn from them. 
People like Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Stephen Macintyre, Wills Eschenbach  have a different interpretation that they can argue with some good logic and data.
I am not saying they are right and IPCC is wrong,  but I think its important to read both.
I can guess that someone will chime in and say that all of these have been debunked.
And therein lies the problem.
Saying that something is debunked or fake news, or part of a right wing/leftwing/no wing conspiracy org just shuts down legitimate debate.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> I presume you mean This one , the September 2021 which was the latest I could find?
> I admit to only reading the summary.
> 
> Look I tried to read some of it, but the bloody thing is huge.
> Bas has suggested reading the executive summaries, but I am only interested in the data and "the science", and its very hard to get to the bottom of it.
> There are a number of authors (some of them actual scientists) who will dispute some of  "the science" and the conclusions drawn from them.
> People like Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Stephen Macintyre, Wills Eschenbach  have a different interpretation that they can argue with some good logic and data.
> I am not saying they are right and IPCC is wrong,  but I think its important to read both.
> I can guess that someone will chime in and say that all of these have been debunked.
> And therein lies the problem.
> Saying that something is debunked or fake news, or part of a right wing/leftwing/no wing conspiracy org just shuts down legitimate debate.
> Mick



In simple terms you seem unable to work out what the unequivocal data shows.
Judith Curry, who you mentioned, said this in an interview earlier this year:
*"Well, there is almost certainly a signal of manmade emissions the earth climate. All other things being equal, it’s warmer than it would otherwise be. The real issue is the magnitude of man-made warming relative to the whole host of other things that go on in the natural climate system."*​
Climate systems are complex but at the end of the day the number that counts is energy gain.  It cannot get hotter without mechanisms that either increase heat retention or separately raise atmospheric temperature (or both).  Curry and other will have us believe that this "host of other things" remain unknown factors that cast doubt on IPPC conclusions.  That's a curious proposition because climate is cyclical, meaning her "host of other things" has many times been factored in since the Industrial Revolution.

Curry, who actually is a credible climate scientist, unlike the others you named (Tisdale for example has no idea about energy conservation), seems not to understand the logical bind she created for herself.  If, as she notes, manmade emissions gave rise to the signal, then we have at least one causal factor and a start date.  Curry has never been able to explain how her "host of other things" has been able to contribute to our 1.2 degree temperature rise, as distinct from predicable cyclical variability.

Given that science works on its explanatory basis, if you want to give credibility to people who can offer no credible alternative explanation to AGW then what is there to debate?


----------



## mullokintyre

How can you talk about energy conservation?
The earth and its atmosphere is not a closed system.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> How can you talk about energy conservation?
> The earth and its atmosphere is not a closed system.
> Mick



Tisdale's contentions relate warming to ENSO events, specifically heat transfers from ocean to atmosphere. 
If the oceans are losing energy to heat the atmosphere, how come the oceans are still warming?
We also know Tisdale's ENSO events cannot be modulations returning temperatures to equilibrium as if that were the case the modulations should lead to incrementally decreasing changes in temperature, whereas in fact the opposite is the case.

It's true that energy flows to and from Earth, but these fluxes have constantly rebalanced over billions of years such that energy transfers between the atmosphere and oceans can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales.


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> It's true that energy flows to and from Earth, but these fluxes have constantly rebalanced over billions of years such that energy transfers between the atmosphere and oceans can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales.



Says who? Another model?
What proof do you or anyone that it is valid to approximate the earth and its atmosphere can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales?
The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.

Mick


----------



## wayneL

mullokintyre said:


> The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
> Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.
> 
> Mick



It IS a chaotic system, that much is indisputable.

Donald Rumsfeld described it best in relation to something completely different:

Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown unknowns


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> Says who? Another model?
> What proof do you or anyone that it is valid to approximate the earth and its atmosphere can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales?
> The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
> Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.
> 
> Mick



If you want to quote Tisdale as having a viewpoint worth considering then you should also understand what would make it credible.
So rather than obfuscate, explain how ENSO is contributing to global warming as Tisdale claims.

 While you say "I am only interested in the data and "the science" you are offering nothing.  Or should I say you play from the copybook of climate science denialism?


----------



## Belli

Putting aside political views about her, her background as an industrial chemist gave her the foundation to understand the science unlike many other politicians since.





__





						Speech at 2nd World Climate Conference | Margaret Thatcher Foundation
					






					www.margaretthatcher.org


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> If you want to quote Tisdale as having a viewpoint worth considering then you should also understand what would make it credible.
> So rather than obfuscate, explain how ENSO is contributing to global warming as Tisdale claims.



Another great contribution. 
You make assertions and never back them up, just go on and make another one.
You made an assertion about Curry and energy conservation without providing any link to the interview. 
When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof.
Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.
You are just as guilty of all the sins you blame others.
You constantly  belittle others comments, but are happy to make your own statements as if they are fact.
In other words, you consistently play man when people don't accept your words as gospel.
Something you have accused a number of others of doing.
As me ole man would say, Ya full of it.


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> You made an assertion about Curry and energy conservation without providing any link to the interview.



I did link to the Curry interview so please read it.  Curry acknowledges a human influence on climate but, despite an abundance of information, seems unable to work out that it must have occurred since the Industrial Revolution and is increasing in pace today. Less forgivable is her unwillingness to point the finger at GHGs, and as mitigation being a solution.


mullokintyre said:


> When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof.  Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.



I clearly state why Tisdale *cannot *be right.  ENSO operates via energy transfers between the ocean and atmosphere.  AGW is a completely different mechanism, and acts via energy transfers between our atmosphere and the rest of the galaxy.   As ENSO is cyclical at decadal scales, if it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must cool,  However, the oceans are continuing to warm, and so is the atmosphere, through successive cycles.  Irradiance does not explain this, but AGW does.


mullokintyre said:


> You constantly  belittle others comments, but are happy to make your own statements as if they are fact.



I hoped that you might explain why you offered scientists as a defence of your assertions *rather than science*.  It is a logically fallacious way to show that *you *are "only interested in the data and 'the science' " as you put it.
If you were true to your word then the things that appear to confuse you regarding AGW are thoroughly explained in IPCC Reports.

I occasionally explain how some of the points you make are not well reasoned, as in the case above where you use the fallacy of an argument from authority in quoting authors rather than their science.

What anyone believes in science should have a reasoned basis, and people believing what they do should at least have some ability to explain how they arrived at their position.  While climate science is complex most of the concepts are not, and what the IPCC does is offer both lay and scientific explanations of what is occurring.


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> I did link to the Curry interview so please read it.  Curry acknowledges a human influence on climate but, despite an abundance of information, seems unable to work out that it must have occurred since the Industrial Revolution and is increasing in pace today. Less forgivable is her unwillingness to point the finger at GHGs, and as mitigation being a solution.



I read the Curry interview and all the comments underneath it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the quote. It merely proves that unlike you, she keeps an open mind.


rederob said:


> I clearly state why Tisdale *cannot *be right.  ENSO operates via energy transfers between the ocean and atmosphere.  AGW is a completely different mechanism, and acts via energy transfers between our atmosphere and the rest of the galaxy.   As ENSO is cyclical at decadal scales, if it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must cool,  However, the oceans are continuing to warm, and so is the atmosphere, through successive cycles.  Irradiance does not explain this, but AGW does.



You clearly stated Why Tisdale cannot be right?
You did nothing of the kind.
If it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must be cool makes no sense. Does the it refer to enso? If so, how on earth can it be cool? its not a  temperature is a pressure differential.
I dsuspect you just copy and past stuff without actually understanding what you have written.


I 


rederob said:


> I occasionally explain how some of the points you make are not well reasoned, as in the case above where you use the fallacy of an argument from authority in quoting authors rather than their science.



Oh how noble of you!
I fawn at your superior intelligence and outstanding  knowledge.
You still full of it.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> I read the Curry interview and all the comments underneath it.
> I see absolutely nothing wrong with the quote. It merely proves that unlike you, she keeps an open mind.



How so?  Curry has been consistently wrong in her commentaries and has never, ever, been able to show how her nameless "host of other reasons" can cause the warming that we experience.  Curry has been so egregiously wrong in her commentaries that she remains one of many high profile scientists that the academic website _The Conversation_ will no longer reference.


mullokintyre said:


> You clearly stated Why Tisdale cannot be right?
> You did nothing of the kind.
> If it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must be cool makes no sense. Does the it refer to enso? If so, how on earth can it be cool? its not a  temperature is a pressure differential.



I did explain it.  I suggest you tell me how it can be the case that the ENSO heat loss from oceans to the atmosphere still leads to warming oceans.  As I said earlier, Tisdale does not understand the law of conservation of energy.


mullokintyre said:


> I fawn at your superior intelligence and outstanding  knowledge.



Aren't *you *"only interested in the data and 'the science' "?
It's all laid out as an easy read in summary form in the numerous IPCC Reports.
I don't have to anything except point this out to people who seem to believe in things that don't stack up.


----------



## rederob

For those who want to keep an "open mind" on climate change, and choose to believe Judith Curry, here's just one of many examples that show it to be unwise:
"Sea level rise operates on very long timescales. And the manmade warming that we’ve seen so far, I don’t think is really contributing much to the sea level rise that we’ve observed so far. I mean, that’s just a much longer term processes. And even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide today, the sea level rise would keep rising."​
For about 100 years from 1850 - as shown below -  there was little change in sea levels.  
After that there were several step changes in the rate of rise:





The IPCC says:
*Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)*. GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm yr–1 over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm yr–1 over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm yr–1 over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm yr–1 over the period 2006–2015 (_high confidence_). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (_high confidence_).​
Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.


----------



## sptrawler

rederob said:


> Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.



What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?


----------



## rederob

sptrawler said:


> What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?



If properties are not coastal, ie., subject to wave action, then anything a metre above present sea level won't have a problem for at least 50 years.
This paper gives a good overview of wave action at coastal locations.


----------



## wayneL

sptrawler said:


> What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?



...and the growing fleet of Gulfstreams and Lear jets among the alarmist "elite".

"They" don't believe it bro.


----------



## sptrawler

rederob said:


> If properties are not coastal, ie., subject to wave action, then anything a metre above present sea level won't have a problem for at least 50 years.
> This paper gives a good overview of wave action at coastal locations.



Here is a good website, for predictive flooding.




__





						Coastal Risk Australia
					






					coastalrisk.com.au


----------



## mullokintyre

So, yo


rederob said:


> For those who want to keep an "open mind" on climate change, and choose to believe Judith Curry, here's just one of many examples that show it to be unwise:
> "Sea level rise operates on very long timescales. And the manmade warming that we’ve seen so far, I don’t think is really contributing much to the sea level rise that we’ve observed so far. I mean, that’s just a much longer term processes. And even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide today, the sea level rise would keep rising."​
> For about 100 years from 1850 - as shown below -  there was little change in sea levels.
> After that there were several step changes in the rate of rise:



Unfortunately, the graph "shown Below" is  is a  global temperature  versus Time graph.
It does not mention sea level rise.
An accidental screw up or a deliberate trick?



rederob said:


> View attachment 132560



So you just to help You, heres a graph from NOAA for a US coastal port that has data going back to 1930
NOAA Sea level History
And heres one closer to home at Lord Howe island
There appears little evidence of an acelleration in sea levels from either graph.
I guess I could put up lots more, but whats the poin.



rederob said:


> The IPCC says:
> 
> *Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)*. GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm yr–1 over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm yr–1 over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm yr–1 over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm yr–1 over the period 2006–2015 (_high confidence_). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (_high confidence_).​
> Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.



The IPCC needs to check what it writes.
Heres an extract from the Executive Summary of  Chapter 9 of the IPCC.



> Despite numerous problems associated with estimates of globally coherent, secular changes in sea level based on tide gauge records, we conclude that it is highly likely that sea level has been rising over the last 100 years There is no new evidence that would alter substantially the conclusions of earlier assess-ments regarding the rate of change Our judgement is that The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr '
> * There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this centuiy (although there is some evidence that sea level rose faster in this century compared to the previous two centuries) *
> As to the possible causes and their specilic contributions to past sea level rise, the uncertainties are very large, particularly tor Antarctica However in general it appears that the observed rise can be explained by thermal expansion of the oceans and by the increased melting ol mountain glaciers and the margin ot the Greenland ice sheet From present data it is impossible to judge whether the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is currently out of balance and is contributing, either positively or negatively, to changes in sea level



I don't even need to go to the "Climate Deniers Websites " for any of the above.
Mick


----------



## rederob

sptrawler said:


> Here is a good website, for predictive flooding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coastal Risk Australia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalrisk.com.au



There will be many coastal areas where waves "break through" narrow coastal strips as the sea level rises, and significantly worsen the predicted scenarios. 
Buying anything on the Gold Coast less than a few metres above mean sea level is likely to have disappeared by 2100 imo.
The coastal strip from Freo to Dunsborough looks equally dodgy.
I might move the learjet from the airport at Brissie to Wellcamp too, just in case.


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> It does not mention sea level rise.



This is better.






mullokintyre said:


> The IPCC needs to check what it writes.
> Heres an extract from the Executive Summary of  Chapter 9 of the IPCC.



You quoted from a 30 year old IPCC Report.

Your use of specific locations to make your points about sea level changes is called cherry picking.


----------



## basilio

Interesting


rederob said:


> You linked to a 30 year old IPCC Report.




Interesting.  Mull were you aware that report was so old ? Or was it just one of the  references  highlighted in the on line forums you visit.?

The clearest and  potentially most disastrous evidence/consequence of accelerating global warming is the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice packs.  Redrob thinks we may not see sea levels rises  of more than a metre before 2100.  But if global heating isn't brought under control quickly by drastically reducing GG emissions then there will be  very rapid undermining of these ice shelves and land based ice mountains.

And that spells the end of our current civilisation as we know it.









						One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise
					

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.



					www.sciencedaily.com
				











						Increased frequency of extreme ice melting in Greenland raises global flood risk
					

Global warming has caused extreme ice melting events in Greenland to become more frequent and more intense over the past 40 years according to new research, raising sea levels and flood risk worldwide.



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> This is better.
> View attachment 132564
> 
> 
> You linked to a 30 year old IPCC Report.
> 
> Your use of specific locations to make your points about sea level changes is called cherry picking.



Yeah, but at least I used actual data on sea level.
You didn't even get the fruit right.
How many more actual tide gauges do you want me to provide?
That graph shows imperceptible changes in the rate of sea level rise of actual data.
And yet the model projections suggest a sudden massive rise in sea level.
Model projections tacked in to the end of real data.
A trick used by Michael Mann with Keith Briffas data to make the infamous Hockey stick.
The report I looked at came up in a google search.
It had no date on it.
I have no idea whether its thirty years old or three years old.
But  what changed in the time since what I quoted was written and what you wrote?
More models.
How did the IPCC come to a conclusion so different to the original.
The data obviously shows that it has not increased much at all.
And yet the models show an explosion of  of sea level rises.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> Yeah, but at least I used actual data on sea level.



I included several links to sea level rise.  You clearly did not read them as they totally refuted Curry's claims. 
The level of detail in those links made it very clear that there was an increasing rate of sea level rise.


mullokintyre said:


> How did the IPCC come to a conclusion so different to the original.



That is an appalling level of ignorance given the links available to you, and suggestions made that you at least read the latest IPPC Report summaries.


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Interesting
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Mull were you aware that report was so old ? Or was it just one of the  references  highlighted in the on line forums you visit.?
> 
> The clearest and  potentially most disastrous evidence/consequence of accelerating global warming is the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice packs.  Redrob thinks we may not see sea levels rises  of more than a metre before 2100.  But if global heating isn't brought under control quickly by drastically reducing GG emissions then there will be  very rapid undermining of these ice shelves and land based ice mountains.
> 
> And that spells the end of our current civilisation as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise
> 
> 
> Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased frequency of extreme ice melting in Greenland raises global flood risk
> 
> 
> Global warming has caused extreme ice melting events in Greenland to become more frequent and more intense over the past 40 years according to new research, raising sea levels and flood risk worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com



As I said to Rob,
I googled IPCC report.
Unfortunately, I chose  the first one that came up, but it gave no indication of its age , and the  Website did not look 30 years old.
I should have guessed there was something fishy in that the document looked like it was scanned  and had there were some typos.
But as I said, the IPCC have changed their tune since whenever it was produced.
As to the "extreme melting " of the ice caps, Greenland etc,  it would be noticed already in sea level rises.
As for the melting of the East Antarctic Ice sheet, the fact that there are 138 Volcanoes of varying levels of activity under Antarctica might give a clue as to why at least some of the melting might be natural ( see PBS ).
it is also instructive to note that any change in the IPCC sea level rises has come since they used satellite data to detect the sea level rather than tide data.  The tide data shows little accelleration
And the biggest change occurred when the satellites were changed from the Topex and Jason 1 to Jason 2 and Jason 3.
The excellent website Permanent Service Mean Sea Level has excellent continuous data from  many sites across the world.
It shows the huge variations in sea level rise and fall  across different regions.
Mick


----------



## basilio

Interesting to bring up the " 138  volcanoes under the Antarctic"  trope.  This is an informed analysis of what is happening.

log | May  6, 2020, 10:16 PDT​
Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets​
By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory






Mount Waesche is a 10,801-foot-high (3,292 meters) possibly active volcano at the southern end of the Executive Committee Range in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica. Credit: NASA/Michael Studinger


Few natural phenomena are as impressive or awesome to behold as glaciers and volcanoes. I’ve seen both with my own eyes. I’ve marveled at the enormous power of flowing ice as I trekked across a glacier on Washington’s Mount Rainier — an active, but dormant, volcano. And I’ve hiked a rugged lava field on Hawaii’s Big Island alone on a moonless night to witness the surreal majesty of a lava stream from Kilauea volcano spilling into the sea — its orange-red lava meeting the waves in billowing steam — while still more glowing ribbons of lava snaked down the mountain slopes behind me.

There are many places on Earth where fire meets ice. Volcanoes located in high-latitude regions are frequently snow- and ice-covered. In recent years, some have speculated that volcanic activity could be playing a role in the present-day loss of ice mass from Earth’s polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. But does the science support that idea?




	

		
			
		

		
	
 Illustration of flowing water under the Antarctic ice sheet. Blue dots indicate lakes, lines show rivers. Marie Byrd Land is part of the bulging "elbow" in the left center of the image. Credit: NSF/Zina Deretsky

In short, the answer is a definitive “no,” though recent studies have shed important new light on the matter. For example, a 2017 NASA-led study by geophysicists Erik Ivins and Helene Seroussi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory added evidence to bolster a longstanding hypothesis that a heat source called a mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. *While the study may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change and why it’s so unstable today, the researchers emphasized that the heat source isn't a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, but rather has been going on over geologic timescales, and therefore represents a background contribution to the melting of the ice sheet.*

I checked in with Ivins and Seroussi to get a deeper understanding of this question, which our readers frequently ask about. Here's what I learned…









						Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> But as I said, the IPCC have changed their tune since whenever it was produced.



That is completely untrue.
What was presented in the first IPCC climate report was accurate according to the information at the time.  It was consistent with what I quoted from the latest IPCC Report on sea levels as stated at post #10025 where 2 step changes in the rate of rise were quantified since 1990.


mullokintyre said:


> As to the "extreme melting " of the ice caps, Greenland etc,  it would be noticed already in sea level rises.



In fact the IPCC quote I referenced said "*The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)*."


mullokintyre said:


> As for the melting of the East Antarctic Ice sheet, the fact that there are 138 Volcanoes of varying levels of activity under Antarctica might give a clue as to why at least some of the melting might be natural ( see PBS ).



True, but insignificant, as @basilio pointed out above. Volcanoes do not actually represent the mechanisms which cause glacial calving.


mullokintyre said:


> it is also instructive to note that any change in the IPCC sea level rises has come since they used satellite data to detect the sea level rather than tide data.  The tide data shows little accelleration



Another completely false claim.  Here's the chart overlaying satelite data:




Your responses to date lack global data references and omit any knowledge of climate science, despite your claim to these being your bedrock.
I certainly have a habit of not reading my posts before pressing "post reply" and make mistakes from time to time which I cannot fix after ASF's editing time runs out.  I have no problems acknowledging this and making the necessary fix.


----------



## mullokintyre

rederob said:


> That is completely untrue.
> What was presented in the first IPCC climate report was accurate according to the information at the time.  It was consistent with what I quoted from the latest IPCC Report on sea levels as stated at post #10025 where 2 step changes in the rate of rise were quantified since 1990.



Crap. They have changed their tune.
And the mechanism for change was using proxies to create  pre 1870's estimation, then tacking on real data from tide gauges, then tacking on an entirely different measuring mechanism, the first satellites in 1970s; then a new set of satellites in 1990.
Basic rule no1 in science, you change measuring mechanisms or  apparatus, and you change the data.
You still have not explained why there is a discrepancy in the tide data.
Discrepancies in Tide versus Satellite data has a graph showing the discrepancies.
NASA has tried to use a Novel Modelling Tool that gives a reason for the discrepancy and due to changes in earths rotation and gravity.
As with most models, you have no way of checking their accuracy nor their validity.
However, if indeed it were true, the under reading of the tide gauges would have existed permanently, not just since the 1990's, so the period before 1990 would also have been under reading, so would need to be "adjusted" upwards accordingly.
Hence increasing the gauge values which would remove the stated increase in rates.
We also have no idea as to 
This is especially true when one considers the following from Springer


> The surface of the solid Earth is continually adjusting and responding to external (e.g. atmospheric loading, tidal loading) and internal (mantle flow) forces exerted upon it. Whilst many of the short-term elastic readjustments are tangible (e.g. tectonic plate friction and resultant earthquakes), the Earth is still trying to reach isostatic equilibrium in response to deglaciation of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets that occupied a significant proportion of the northern hemisphere and the advance and retreat cycles of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The process of ongoing viscoelastic relaxation in response to this redistribution of (specifically) ice (_glacio-isostasy_) and water (_hydro-isostasy_) on the Earth’s surface is termed ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ (henceforth ‘GIA’). Regions located both inside and outside former ice sheet centres are still responding to the deglaciation of many of the northern hemisphere ice complexes (Laurentide, Cordilleran, Innuitian, Eurasian and the British-Irish) that concluded several thousand years ago.





And secondly, as I pointed out,  the 


rederob said:


> In fact the IPCC quote I referenced said "*The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)*."
> 
> True, but insignificant, as @basilio pointed out above. Volcanoes do not actually represent the mechanisms which cause glacial calving.



I never mentioned global calving, I never mentioned the mechanism.
You bring in extraneous stuff as if I had stated it.


rederob said:


> Another completely false claim.  Here's the chart overlaying satelite data:



Which part is a completely false claim? That the two sets of data don't match after 1990??
The graph you showed did exactly what I stated - it splced the satellite data onto tide data but omitted tide data from 1990.
Its a cheap trick and has been called out numerous times before, but you just blithely repost it.




rederob said:


> View attachment 132578



I don't see any point in taking this any further,.
You can have the last say.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof.
> Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.
> You are just as guilty of all the sins you blame others.



Here's a link to a climate scientist's blog that said pretty much what I did.  In short, what Tisdale claimed defied the laws of physics.  
This was not hard to work out because the barrier to outflowing energy is our atmosphere.  
The closed system approximation can be assumed from fractional changes to equilibrium climate sensitivity which occur over century/millennia timescales, whereas ENSO is a natural variation of temperature that is regarded as a transient climate response measurable at decadal scales:




In simple terms ENSO has no long term effect on forcing as it is regarded as a coupled system cycling through positive and negative feedbacks.


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> I don't see any point in taking this any further,.
> You can have the last say.
> Mick



None of us have the last say Mick.
In the end  the consequences of human caused  CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
___________________________

One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.

But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC.  Why so ?

Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures  as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..

These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows* exactly* what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> Crap. They have changed their tune.
> And the mechanism for change was using proxies to create  pre 1870's estimation, then tacking on real data from tide gauges, then tacking on an entirely different measuring mechanism, the first satellites in 1970s; then a new set of satellites in 1990.



Using proxy data is a scientific process, and always carries error bars to show the boundary ranges.  Tide data and satellite data are very close and trend similarly upwards at an increasing rate.  Both are shown on the chart above.



mullokintyre said:


> Basic rule no1 in science, you change measuring mechanisms or  apparatus, and you change the data.
> You still have not explained why there is a discrepancy in the tide data.



You should read (eg, page 1114) more about the topic and not rely on me to keep schooling you.


mullokintyre said:


> Discrepancies in Tide versus Satellite data has a graph showing the discrepancies.



How does this affect the global trend?
Where is your evidence that shows Curry was right?
You act like the classic denier of climate science who has nothing but obfuscation to offer.



mullokintyre said:


> I never mentioned global calving, I never mentioned the mechanism.
> You bring in extraneous stuff as if I had stated it.



You never showed how your claim was a meaningful factor, so I did.


mullokintyre said:


> The graph you showed did exactly what I stated - it splced the satellite data onto tide data but omitted tide data from 1990.



For the umteenth time, read the links seeing you won't accept that the charts separately show both tidal and satellite data


mullokintyre said:


> I don't see any point in taking this any further,.



It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe but you did say you were interested in data and science and have shown few competencies in keeping with that.


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC.  Why so ?



Referencing people who have been denounced as deniers of climate science is never a good start. 
However, it's true we should keep an open mind.
The question is, what have they offered that is credible or explanatory.
Curry accepts the forcing effect of CO2, but beyond that chooses to ignore the temperature trajectory that she cannot otherwise explain.  "A host of other factors" is not an explanation, and nor is Tisdale's ENSO idea which fails the Bjerknes feedback theory.

Climate science denial is now rooted in promoting the idea of *uncertainty *given that there is no data or science showing that AGW can be mitigated without reducing CO2 (given that other GHG;s as not as long lasting).  The problem with this idea is that the IPCC now quantifies uncertainty as best as possible and qualifies its findings in terms of probability.

In many regards antivaxxers are the same as climate science deniers.  They reference discredited professionals, link to pseudoscience or debunked claims, and have a fallback on breach of human rights to support their position.  They either don't understand how vaccines have rid the world of some diseases and prevented pandemics, or they don't care.  How they make sense of it seems very personal and is seldom rational.


----------



## BlindSquirrel

I saw a video many years ago (around the year 2000?) on a thought experiment which didn't even try to justify whether or not CC is a real problem - I cannot even begin to think where it was now - but it simplifies the problem greatly.

The gist of it was:

This guy had a 2x2 grid drawn up with one axis showing two options of whether or not man made climate change is real, the other axis had whether humanity did something about it or not.
If CC is real, and humanity does something about it - it will cost money but humanity will survive.
If CC is not real and humanity does something about it - it will cost the same amount of money and humanity will still survive - and perhaps feel a little silly but will have a cleaner environment.
If CC is not real and humanity doesn't do anything about it then humanity will survive, have a polluted atmosphere and basically be trundling along as normal.
If CC is real and humanity does nothing, humanity (& most living things) will not have a hospitable environment and will result in social upheaval and/or mass extinction.

Listing the outcomes from most palatable to least shows that when humanity addresses climate change, the outcomes are more desirable, whether or not climate change is real - with the only chance of (basically) total annihilation happening if humanity doesn't act.

Therefore logically, it makes sense to try to stop climate change.

(I wish I could remember where I saw it online back then)


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> None of us have the last say Mick.
> In the end  the consequences of human caused  CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
> ___________________________
> 
> One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.



Well, I follow some science.
there are some things that are beyond my level of knowledge and understanding.
So I try to stick to what I reckon I can understand and follow.


basilio said:


> But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC.  Why so ?
> 
> Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures  as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..
> 
> These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows* exactly* what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?



I think I may have said  it before, but I have always regarded the IPCC reports as more political statements than anything else.
The studies I look at  use data , because I, along with many others, do not have as much faith in modelling  something that is mind bogglingly complex. 
Then there is the inferences that each draws from the data supplied.
Very few things are absolute, very few things are black and white, right or wrong.
There are many shades of grey (50 at last count).
Some things you can reduce to simple set of variables.
If we go back to the very start of all the climate change, and all the discussion was on the greenhouse gas effect of Co2.
The concept of  Radiative forcing values for Co2 was used to describe how much temperature would increase for a given level of Co2. 
The debate on what the value of forcing that can be ascribed  has never been resolved. 
I have seen the formula described as   
*R.F = 6.6 log (C/280) , where C is CO2  *
also as
 RF = 5.35*ln(C/280)
The original value for the formula came from Myre et Al back in 1998.
The question what is the correct value for the constant in this formula has never been resolved. 
Mainly because we cannot know it.
Experiments have been done using spectral analysis, but they are always an approximation of the atmosphere.
There have been a number of papers on what its value should be ( see HERE HERE ), but no one actaully knows.
So at a very fundamental level, there are unknowns.
I find the idea that we should do something on the grounds of what might happen a bit strange when there is so much conjecture on what might happen.
By all means have renewables, phase out fossil fuels because they are finite.
They are arguments I can deal with.
But the catastrophic alarmism that permeates discussion  is not based on science or reason.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> Well, I follow some science.
> there are some things that are beyond my level of knowledge and understanding.
> So I try to stick to what I reckon I can understand and follow.
> 
> I think I may have said  it before, but I have always regarded the IPCC reports as more political statements than anything else.
> The studies I look at  use data , because I, along with many others, do not have as much faith in modelling  something that is mind bogglingly complex.
> Then there is the inferences that each draws from the data supplied.
> Very few things are absolute, very few things are black and white, right or wrong.
> There are many shades of grey (50 at last count).
> Some things you can reduce to simple set of variables.
> If we go back to the very start of all the climate change, and all the discussion was on the greenhouse gas effect of Co2.
> The concept of  Radiative forcing values for Co2 was used to describe how much temperature would increase for a given level of Co2.
> The debate on what the value of forcing that can be ascribed  has never been resolved.
> I have seen the formula described as
> *R.F = 6.6 log (C/280) , where C is CO2  *
> also as
> RF = 5.35*ln(C/280)
> The original value for the formula came from Myre et Al back in 1998.
> The question what is the correct value for the constant in this formula has never been resolved.
> Mainly because we cannot know it.
> Experiments have been done using spectral analysis, but they are always an approximation of the atmosphere.
> There have been a number of papers on what its value should be ( see HERE HERE ), but no one actaully knows.
> So at a very fundamental level, there are unknowns.
> I find the idea that we should do something on the grounds of what might happen a bit strange when there is so much conjecture on what might happen.
> By all means have renewables, phase out fossil fuels because they are finite.
> They are arguments I can deal with.
> But the catastrophic alarmism that permeates discussion  is not based on science or reason.
> Mick



The ICC Reports contain climate science, so holding a view that it is "political" makes no sense.  Perhaps you can explain what you mean.

The value for alpha which you query can never be perfect due to how gases mix and their vertical profiles in the atmosphere. MHSS98 has refined its calculation and instead of being a constant, alpha is now a function of the CO2 and N2O concentrations.  Furthermore, absolute error factors have been calculated so that ESMs can run iterations within these ranges to determine variability:






Your comments about inferences from data is unusual.  The unequivocal data shows temperature increases, rising CO2 levels, and rising sea levels.  These are real things that have happened and don't need to be inferred.  Attribution studies are increasingly showing that severe weather events are being exacerbated by greater energy content via warming, while bushfires are happening with greater frequency and severity.

You don't need to be a scientist to now what is happening, so when world leaders express their concern its based on what they have experienced.

(As a complete aside, last night I listened to a glaciologist on BBC radio.  He was kind of glad he was being being exposed to the most rapid climate transition ever recorded.  But he lamented that in 50 years time there won't be any need for glaciologists as there won't be much to study on any of the continents - except perhaps Antarctica.)


----------



## Dona Ferentes




----------



## basilio

BlindSquirrel said:


> I saw a video many years ago (around the year 2000?) on a thought experiment which didn't even try to justify whether or not CC is a real problem - I cannot even begin to think where it was now - but it simplifies the problem greatly.
> 
> The gist of it was:
> 
> This guy had a 2x2 grid drawn up with one axis showing two options of whether or not man made climate change is real, the other axis had whether humanity did something about it or not.
> If CC is real, and humanity does something about it - it will cost money but humanity will survive.
> If CC is not real and humanity does something about it - it will cost the same amount of money and humanity will still survive - and perhaps feel a little silly but will have a cleaner environment.
> If CC is not real and humanity doesn't do anything about it then humanity will survive, have a polluted atmosphere and basically be trundling along as normal.
> If CC is real and humanity does nothing, humanity (& most living things) will not have a hospitable environment and will result in social upheaval and/or mass extinction.
> 
> Listing the outcomes from most palatable to least shows that when humanity addresses climate change, the outcomes are more desirable, whether or not climate change is real - with the only chance of (basically) total annihilation happening if humanity doesn't act.
> 
> Therefore logically, it makes sense to try to stop climate change.
> 
> (I wish I could remember where I saw it online back then)




That was an elegant absolutely brilliant analysis.  I was trying to find it myself to post it because, frankly, it just destroys the various smoke screens used to undermine swift comprehensive action of dealing with global warming. On any rational basis the risks associated with global warming are too terrible to contemplate.  To oppose any significant action and just let "nature takes it course" presumes either

1) There is just no chance the thousands of climate scientists who have researched and warned about this are gravely wrong or
2) It's actually too late to do anything.


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> That was an elegant absolutely brilliant analysis.  I was trying to find it myself to post it because, frankly, it just destroys the various smoke screens used to undermine swift comprehensive action of dealing with global warming. On any rational basis the risks associated with global warming are too terrible to contemplate.  To oppose any significant action and just let "nature takes it course" presumes either
> 
> 1) There is just no chance the thousands of climate scientists who have researched and warned about this are gravely wrong or
> 2) It's actually too late to do anything.



Let's assume the Curry's of the world are right, instead of the IPCC.
Where is their peer reviewed work outlining the climate factors which impact on the pathway from here?
What does their modelling tell them is likely to occur?
For that matter, where is their peer reviewed work explaining how we got to where we are?
Where is their science showing that warming is not increasing, or that the long term  trend is soon to naturally end?

Remember, the IPCC first reported over 30 years ago, so it's not like there shouldn't be a fair deal out there that explains *how *the IPCC is completely mistaken.   The Curry's of the world are critical of the IPCC relying on work that can never be certain, and the IPCC has responded to these justifiable concerns by quantifying the level of confidence they have in all their work.

As I said earlier, while climate is complex the key drivers of temperature depend on energy fluxes and the greenhouse effect.   Hansen worked this out over 40 years ago and here's one of his projections for the period to 2020 based on a low CO2 growth scenario:




	

		
			
		

		
	
We instead had a much higher CO2 output since then so the actual temperature increase was much greater as shown in the chart below using various data series for the same period:




So while the Hansens of the world worked out what was likely to happen and why over 40 years, the people we are encouraged to keep an open mind to have produced nothing that is consist with events.


----------



## mullokintyre

So COP26 has come to a close after lots of diplomatic   communiques and fervent words.
And what is the take?
From  ABC News


> The latest draft of the COP26 UN climate talks features a proposal to make sure rich countries deliver climate finance to the world's poorest nations in future years, after past promises remain unfulfilled.
> 
> The third draft COP26 agreement maintains core demands for countries to set more ambitious emissions targets
> It also features proposals to make sure promised climate finance arrives for the world's poorest nations
> Delegates from nearly 200 nations are working overtime to deliver a final deal at the conference
> 
> The new draft agreement also maintained a core demand for countries to set more ambitious plans to tackle global warming and asked them to phase out inefficient subsidies for the fossil fuels heating the planet.
> 
> But finance has proved one of the toughest issues to solve at the meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.
> 
> Rich nations, whose emissions are responsible for the majority of human-caused climate change, failed to meet a long-held promise to deliver US$100 billion (A$137bn) a year by 2020 to support poorer countries' efforts to cope with the effects of global warming.
> 
> That has cast a shadow over the summit, making other negotiations on carbon markets and strengthening climate targets harder to unblock, with some poorer nations saying they cannot cut emissions faster unless they get more financial help.
> 
> The draft proposal, one of many drawn up by Britain to be published at the end of COP26, asks a UN committee to report next year on progress towards delivering the $100 billion, and proposes government ministers meet in 2022, 2024 and 2026 to discuss climate finance.
> 
> The regular check-ins would attempt to keep up pressure on rich countries to fulfil promises to mobilise the cash. The British proposal also asks countries to increase their contributions to deliver the $100 billion.ABC News
> 
> The draft needs approval from the nearly 200 countries represented at the summit.
> 
> Rich countries expect to deliver the US$100 billion in 2023, although some have suggested it could be met next year.
> 
> The European Union and Italy were drawing up a last-minute proposal on Friday that would use special drawing rights to help make sure the target is met next year, an EU official said.
> 
> A second draft document published on Saturday morning local time would kick off talks among countries to set a post-2025 target on climate finance.
> 
> The US$100 billion target should be delivered each year from 2020 to 2025, after which a new one is supposed to kick in.



So Nations like Australia, the EU member countries,  USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand etc  will be required yo hand over money to  a UN committee to distribute to other nations. Nations like China, India, Vietnam, Iran, any country in the pacific or Africa, and so on.
And yet two of the biggest emitters of Co2  are net receivers of this largesse.
Anyone still think that these climate summits are all about reducing CO2 emissions and not about politics?
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> So COP26 has come to a close after lots of diplomatic   communiques and fervent words.
> And what is the take?
> From  ABC News
> 
> So Nations like Australia, the EU member countries,  USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand etc  will be required yo hand over money to  a UN committee to distribute to other nations. Nations like China, India, Vietnam, Iran, any country in the pacific or Africa, and so on.
> And yet two of the biggest emitters of Co2  are net receivers of this largesse.
> Anyone still think that these climate summits are all about reducing CO2 emissions and not about politics?
> Mick



The two biggest emitters per capita were not mentioned.
The biggest emitter to date is the USA.
Australia remains as one of the world's worst per capita offenders.

For someone claiming to use data and science you do a poor job.
China, for example, has had one project approved by the UN (in 2019) for this so-called "largesse", and to date has not actually drawn any funding against it.  The UN's distribution to the project (with an end date of 2039) is expected to account for 0.1% of the total annual contribution sought from developed nations, and has been allocated to a province with a population of over 100M.
It also appears you have no idea what types of projects receive funding or why.
The hysteria in this thread continues to be from people who don't seem to know much.


----------



## mullokintyre

At the risk of being denounced as a right wing conspiracy theorist/denier/ pick you label, I had a good laugh firstly at the  image, then at a response Tim Wilson gave.
From The OZ



>





> Climate activist group *Extinction Rebellion* posted the picture as part of a protest outside his office, and on its roof. Wilson required Australian Federal Police assistance to leave the locked-down office to attend a function but he didn’t miss as he left. “I’m not going to be bullied or intimidated by a bunch of Eco-fascists that demand we stop the same fossil fuels they used to drive to the office and protest,” he said. “The line-up of petrol-fuelled vehicles with XR stickers was a sight to behold.”



When it comes to hypocrisy,  climate zealots  take the cake.
Mick


----------



## moXJO

rederob said:


> The two biggest emitters per capita were not mentioned.
> The biggest emitter to date is the USA.
> Australia remains as one of the world's worst per capita offenders.
> 
> For someone claiming to use data and science you do a poor job.
> China, for example, has had one project approved by the UN (in 2019) for this so-called "largesse", and to date has not actually drawn any funding against it.  The UN's distribution to the project (with an end date of 2039) is expected to account for 0.1% of the total annual contribution sought from developed nations, and has been allocated to a province with a population of over 100M.
> It also appears you have no idea what types of projects receive funding or why.
> The hysteria in this thread continues to be from people who don't seem to know much.



Is per capita output in tons a much used metric?


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> At the risk of being denounced as a right wing conspiracy theorist/denier/ pick you label, I had a good laugh firstly at the  image, then at a response Tim Wilson gave.
> From The OZ
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to hypocrisy,  climate zealots  take the cake.
> Mick



How amusing.  The world is cooking to crisp as a result of massive use of fossil fuels.
The Government puts up a position of dealing with this world wide problem with a  no action proposal that includes actively supporting an extension of the gas industry.  

But Mullo, The Australian and all remaining camp followers staunchly believe CC protesters are the problem.

Pick your own label Mullo.


----------



## Investoradam

basilio said:


> None of us have the last say Mick.
> In the end  the consequences of human caused  CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
> ___________________________
> 
> One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.
> 
> But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC.  Why so ?
> 
> Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures  as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..
> 
> These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows* exactly* what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?



the faceless and nameless scientists who have been wrong for the past 70 years
yet the scitents who defect who make there name public and risk there reputation are defamed by the usual faceless cowards

if they really cared for the environment they would not be extracting all those poison toxic goods from the ground to make those useless wind turbines & solar panels, they rape and pillage the environment extremely more toxic products than coal, nickel, copper, cobalt, silver to name a few, extremely hard rock minerals, toxic to mine and destroy natural vegetation and forestry, the poison tailings from the refining or production are pumped back in to the environment polluting the ground and water ways whilst pumping the toxic gases in to the air at the same time,
yet this is ignored and the left blame coal from western countries who are reducing there omissions whilst ignoring largest polluting countries such as china, Russia etc whom omissions continue to rise

the greatest con for me is the cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by African children for this green energy scam. where on earth are the champaign socialists of the useless UN? do gooder celebrities, sport brat daughter of Antifa parents Gretta or marxists BLM, people raising these issues?
its about money, control and power for the select few who control this earth

yet western countries and cows farting are the issue!

leftism is the measure of how stupid a society has become. 
that's based on history of what leftism does to societies of the pas! communism has never ever worked and only destroyed society's, placed corrupt evil people at the top of power at the expense of millions on millions of innocent victims.

the people that peddle this leftism crap were called "useful idiots' by vlatimer Lenin him self


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> How amusing.  The world is cooking to crisp as a result of massive use of fossil fuels.



The title of the thread is climate Hysteria.
You have just demonstrated how apt it is.
Cooking to a crisp indeed.
Mick


----------



## rederob

Investoradam said:


> the faceless and nameless scientists who have been wrong for the past 70 years
> yet the scitents who defect who make there name public and risk there reputation are defamed by the usual faceless cowards



Just so you know, all scientists produce work which includes their names.  


Investoradam said:


> if they really cared for the environment they would not be extracting all those poison toxic goods from the ground to make those useless wind turbines & solar panels, they rape and pillage the environment extremely more toxic products than coal, nickel, copper, cobalt, silver to name a few, extremely hard rock minerals, toxic to mine and destroy natural vegetation and forestry, the poison tailings from the refining or production are pumped back in to the environment polluting the ground and water ways whilst pumping the toxic gases in to the air at the same time,



Mining companies get raw materials from the ground, not scientists.


Investoradam said:


> yet this is ignored and the left blame coal from western countries who are reducing there omissions whilst ignoring largest polluting countries such as china, Russia etc whom omissions continue to rise



While you ignore the role of America and Europe to get us to where we are today!
Here's the 10 year trend in emissions growth, which is likely to continue:




	

		
			
		

		
	
Russia is not increasing emissions as you suggest.



Investoradam said:


> the greatest con for me is the cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by African children for this green energy scam. where on earth are the champaign socialists of the useless UN? do gooder celebrities, sport brat daughter of Antifa parents Gretta or marxists BLM, people raising these issues?
> its about money, control and power for the select few who control this earth



Cobalt is no longer necessary in battery technologies.  LiFePo4 is likely to take over for EVs.


Investoradam said:


> yet western countries and cows farting are the issue!



Only in your mind.


Investoradam said:


> leftism is the measure of how stupid a society has become.



Many might assume you were a leftist based on what you post.


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> https://www.ctif.org/news/wildfires-are-spreading-arcticThe title of the thread is climate Hysteria.
> You have just demonstrated how apt it is.
> Cooking to a crisp indeed.
> Mick



Memory check here Mullo.. "Cooking to a crisp" may be a  shorthand  way of explaining what is going to happen  as the planet warms up. But it also reflects the reality of the massive unprecedented wild fires across Canada, Europe, Russia and* Australia* in the past few years.









						Wildfires are spreading in the Arctic
					






					www.ctif.org
				











						The sky turns black in Western Canada as a thousand wildfires rage throughout the nation
					






					www.ctif.org
				





List of largest fires of the 21st century​

This is a list of the largest fires of the XXI century.

RankNameCountryArea burned (Km2)DeathsNotes12021 Russia wildfires[1][2]Russia200,0000[3]22019-2020 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia180,00034+[4][5]32019 Siberia wildfiresRussia43,0000[6][_deprecated source_]42014 Northwest Territories firesCanada34,0000[7]52009 black Saturday bushfiresAustralia21,000173[8]62020 California wildfiresUnited States18,00031[9]72010 Bolivia forest firesBolivia15,0000[10]82011–2012 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia14,0000[11]92006-2007 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia13,0005[11]102017 British Columbia wildfiresCanada12,0000[12]112015 Russian wildfiresRussia11,00033[13]122012–2013 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia9,0004[11]132019 Amazon rainforest wildfiresBrazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru9,0002[6][_deprecated source_]


----------



## Investoradam

rederob said:


> Just so you know, all scientists produce work which includes their names.



like Mickey Mouse?








						‘Mickey Mouse’ scratched from 11,000 scientists declaring global climate crisis - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The scientists behind the letter say a few "invalid" names among the 11,000 signatures do not diminish their very real warning.




					globalnews.ca
				





rederob said:


> Mining companies get raw materials from the ground, not scientists.
> 
> While you ignore the role of America and Europe to get us to where we are today!
> Here's the 10 year trend in emissions growth, which is likely to continue:



some one is needing and paying for these materials!
setting up and running & continue to run a mine isn't cheap


rederob said:


> View attachment 133052
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is not increasing emissions as you suggest.



top polluting countries








						Top 5 most polluting countries
					

Discover which nations pump most carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere




					www.activesustainability.com
				




only the USA are reducing there omissions. the rest are not
the champaign socialists and other idiot left continue to ignore this and blame the cows in the USA and Australia  for the worlds rising gases


rederob said:


> Cobalt is no longer necessary in battery technologies.  LiFePo4 is likely to take over for EVs.



no try again


rederob said:


> Only in your mind.
> 
> Many might assume you were a leftist based on what you post.



now that you have tried to cherry pick my post and attempt to sound intelligent. try addressing the rest?


----------



## Investoradam

basilio said:


> Memory check here Mullo.. "Cooking to a crisp" may be a  shorthand  way of explaining what is going to happen  as the planet warms up. But it also reflects the reality of the massive unprecedented wild fires across Canada, Europe, Russia and* Australia* in the past few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildfires are spreading in the Arctic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctif.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sky turns black in Western Canada as a thousand wildfires rage throughout the nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctif.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of largest fires of the 21st century​
> 
> This is a list of the largest fires of the XXI century.
> 
> RankNameCountryArea burned (Km2)DeathsNotes12021 Russia wildfires[1][2]Russia200,0000[3]22019-2020 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia180,00034+[4][5]32019 Siberia wildfiresRussia43,0000[6][_deprecated source_]42014 Northwest Territories firesCanada34,0000[7]52009 black Saturday bushfiresAustralia21,000173[8]62020 California wildfiresUnited States18,00031[9]72010 Bolivia forest firesBolivia15,0000[10]82011–2012 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia14,0000[11]92006-2007 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia13,0005[11]102017 British Columbia wildfiresCanada12,0000[12]112015 Russian wildfiresRussia11,00033[13]122012–2013 Australian bushfire seasonAustralia9,0004[11]132019 Amazon rainforest wildfiresBrazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru9,0002[6][_deprecated source_]



fires magically start them self?
most of Australian native parks have been heritage listed by the United Nations and closed up and have not had regular back burning for decades. going against everyone how they were looked after in the past along with how the aboriginal looked after them

poor land management and people lighting fires








						Legal action taken against 183 people this bushfire season
					

NSW Police have taken legal action against 183 people so far this bushfire season, including charging 24 people with deliberately lighting bushfires.




					www.smh.com.au
				




useful idiot protestors blocking back burning




__





						Greenie Nowa Nowa protesters blocked back burning before East Gippsland bushfire | Express Digest
					

Express Digest is a giant collection of the best news and interesting links on the web!




					expressdigest.com


----------



## mullokintyre

I am not sure why you posted the list of the largest fires of the 21 st century.
I mean we are only 21 years into it for starters.
Are you suggesting that this list of the largest fires  in this century proves that the planet earth is burning to a crisp?
Back in 1938-1939 during the infamous black Friday, there were 200,000 kms burned in Victoria alone.
In 1974/75   burnt an estimated 1,170,00 square kilometres throughout Australia. 
The black Thursday fires way back in 1851 burnt out nearly a quarter of Victoria, some 5 million hectares.
Before Australia was inhabited, and the land was extensively covered in bush, I can imagine that fires once started may well have burnt massively large tracts of land, as there were no CFA, no water bombers,no fire suppressants, no firebreaks etc.
There is  a reason Dorothea Mackeller struck such a resonant chord with earlier Australians when she wrote  My Country " I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping  plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, Of drought and flooding rains".

But i guess a female poet of the 1920's is probably irrelevant in this digital age.
Mick


----------



## rederob

Investoradam said:


> like Mickey Mouse?



No peer reviewed papers from this name so you clearly do not understand science.


Investoradam said:


> top polluting countries



America, with 4.25% of the population has contributed nearly one third of all CO2: 
	

		
			
		

		
	








Investoradam said:


> only the USA are reducing there omissions. the rest are not



America has sold large swathes of its production to China, as have most nations.  So yes, America does not need as much energy as previously because it has exported this burden.


Investoradam said:


> the champaign socialists and other idiot left continue to ignore this and blame the cows in the USA and Australia  for the worlds rising gases



The IPCC are representative of all nations, so that's a fail.


Investoradam said:


> no try again



No need to.  You are a long way behind on battery technologies.


Investoradam said:


> now that you have tried to cherry pick my post and attempt to sound intelligent. try addressing the rest?



I won't be responding to you again as your points are not rational.


----------



## Investoradam

rederob said:


> No peer reviewed papers from this name so you clearly do not understand science.











						‘Mickey Mouse’ scratched from 11,000 scientists declaring global climate crisis - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The scientists behind the letter say a few "invalid" names among the 11,000 signatures do not diminish their very real warning.




					globalnews.ca
				




no real names on any peer reviewed papers. where are the names of those so called 30 thousand and some of there work?



rederob said:


> America, with 4.25% of the population has contributed nearly one third of all CO2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 133079
> 
> 
> America has sold large swathes of its production to China, as have most nations.  So yes, America does not need as much energy as previously because it has exported this burden.











						China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's: study
					

China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.




					www.reuters.com
				











						China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?
					

China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.




					time.com
				




second time Ive posted this links and you have continued to ignore them and some how the rest of the world is in a climate crisis due to farting cows








						CO2 emissions
					

How much CO2 does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?




					ourworldindata.org
				



look at the decline of omissions of the western world and the boom of china! all those hundreds of new coal fired power stations that are being built or yet to be built?
remember the world is in a climate crisis and its going to end of we dont act!


rederob said:


> The IPCC are representative of all nations, so that's a fail.



like who? and where are some of these peer reviewed reports! out site of just claims of nameless champaign socilists


rederob said:


> No need to.  You are a long way behind on battery technologies.
> 
> I won't be responding to you again as your points are not rational.



you still haven't answered any of my questions or provided any proof to them

just attempt to deflect


----------



## mullokintyre

At the last federal election, there were more than a few experts who got the result spectacularly wrong.
The rednecks of Queensland were blamed for their dinosaur views on coal etc.
If you look at some of the political responses its not hard to see why they distrusted the anti fossil fuel meme.
The Queensland government, along with all the other state governments,  have demanded that the federal government get a net zero plan together.
All the while, the  Queensland government was making a motzah out of coal royalties.
And lying through their back teeth about what they going to do with it.
From Todays OZ


> Coalmining towns are yet to see a single dollar from a $100m regional infrastructure fund announced by former treasurer Jackie Trad almost three years ago.
> In early 2019, the Palaszczuk government promised to lock in the royalty rate it charges coalmining companies for three years in exchange for $70m to build infrastructure in towns where they operate.
> 
> The group of 27 mining companies, including BHP and Peabody, signed on to the deal, which allowed them to contribute a fraction of the cash they would have been paid under a royalty hike.
> A board was appointed in July, chaired by former Townsville mayor and ALP candidate Tony Mooney, but no infrastructure projects have been announced.
> 
> Mining giant Glencore, Kestrel Coal Resources and South32 all have representatives on the board, which has met “several times” along with the manager of Hay Point Coal Terminal, south of Mackay.
> 
> A spokeswoman from the state development department said: “Announcements about successful projects funded under round one are expected to be made shortly”.
> 
> As the deadline looms for the three-year freeze, which expires at the end of this financial year, Treasurer Cameron Dick is yet to decide whether he will hike royalties in the next budget.



As usual, its what they do rather than what they say that shows where they really stand.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre

Looking at the latest 8 day BOM forecast, it seems that this year, much of Eastern  Australia will be concerned with flooding rather than bushfires. The BOM have a  history of overstating rain events, but with catchment areas still fairly wet, so SES and other volunteer orgs will be run off their feet. May have to turn the auto sprinklers again.

i


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> Looking at the latest 8 day BOM forecast, it seems that this year, much of Eastern  Australia will be concerned with flooding rather than bushfires. The BOM have a  history of overstating rain events, but with catchment areas still fairly wet, so SES and other volunteer orgs will be run off their feet. May have to turn the auto sprinklers again.
> 
> i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 133280



Yeah.  Climate change and La Nina are here with a vengance. The extra moisture in the atmosphere associated with higher temperatures means that  rain events will be more intense.  This is happening all around the world
The La Nina factor adds another layer of short term climate affects to the mix.









						Sharp rises in large-scale, long-duration precipitation extremes with higher temperatures over Japan - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
					

The intensity of extreme precipitation has been projected to increase with increasing air temperature according to the thermodynamic Clausius–Clapeyron (C-C) relation. Over the last decade, observational studies have succeeded in demonstrating the scaling relationship between extreme...




					www.nature.com


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Yeah.  Climate change and La Nina are here with a vengance. The extra moisture in the atmosphere associated with higher temperatures means that  rain events will be more intense.  This is happening all around the world
> The La Nina factor adds another layer of short term climate affects to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sharp rises in large-scale, long-duration precipitation extremes with higher temperatures over Japan - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
> 
> 
> The intensity of extreme precipitation has been projected to increase with increasing air temperature according to the thermodynamic Clausius–Clapeyron (C-C) relation. Over the last decade, observational studies have succeeded in demonstrating the scaling relationship between extreme...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com




La Nina is not a result of Climate changes, its been around a long time. 
The Enso oscillations  that are the driver for El Nino/La Nina events are reasonably well understood.
However, I have yet to read a definitive proof that  CO2   is driving the  atmospheric changes in the trade winds that create the synoptic imbalance.
The article in Nature you highlighted says


> However, the effect of synoptic patterns on the scaling relationship remains unclear.



Mick


----------



## mullokintyre

Tropical Cyclone Paddy has formed to the North West of Broome.
Unlikely to affect AUS as its tracking south west.
Didn't get a much warning about this one.
BOM may or may not get the number of cyclones right, but forecasting when and where they occur , and what their track might be, is still very much a short term affair.
Mick


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> La Nina is not a result of Climate changes, its been around a long time.
> The Enso oscillations  that are the driver for El Nino/La Nina events are reasonably well understood.
> However, I have yet to read a definitive proof that  CO2   is driving the  atmospheric changes in the trade winds that create the synoptic imbalance.
> The article in Nature you highlighted says
> 
> Mick




Never suggested (or meant to suggest) that La Nina is a result of climate change. It is just another factor that adds a  layer to steadily increasing  temperatures caused by excessive human production of CC gases.

What is interesting is that historically a  La Nina event would see a recognisable drop in temperatures . However the underlying rise in global temperatures has meant that this doesn't really happen. Temperatures stay roughly the same. Global Heating is, in effect, cancelling the  cooling effects of La Nina.

However the impact of increased evaporation caused by the higher temperatures  means that the rain events triggered by La Nina now have  far more moisture in the atmosphere to turn into floods.

In relation to the Nature article. It's basic tenant was that increasing global temperatures, AKA Global Warming, are behind the intense rainfall events that are now occuring in Japan and elsewhere . There is simply a lot more moisture in the atmosphere


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Never suggested (or meant to suggest) that La Nina is a result of climate change. It is just another factor that adds a  layer to steadily increasing  temperatures caused by excessive human production of CC gases.
> 
> What is interesting is that historically a  La Nina event would see a recognisable drop in temperatures . However the underlying rise in global temperatures has meant that this doesn't really happen. Temperatures stay roughly the same. Global Heating is, in effect, cancelling the  cooling effects of La Nina.
> 
> However the impact of increased evaporation caused by the higher temperatures  means that the rain events triggered by La Nina now have  far more moisture in the atmosphere to turn into floods.
> 
> In relation to the Nature article. It's basic tenant was that increasing global temperatures, AKA Global Warming, are behind the intense rainfall events that are now occuring in Japan and elsewhere . There is simply a lot more moisture in the atmosphere



When you say a drop in Temperatures are you referring to sea surface temperatures ( as in this National Geographic article ) or are you referring to a local air temperature or earths 'average Temperature'.?
Mick


----------



## basilio

Take your pick Mull.


----------



## mullokintyre

No you need to take your pick.
You stated 


> What is interesting is that historically a La Nina event would see a recognisable drop in temperatures



According to the deffiniton  of La  Nina


> La Niña is the name given to the phenomenon where the trade winds become stronger, enhancing the warm pool in the western Pacific and causing the sea surface temperatures in the Central and Eastern Pacific to become cooler with above normal rainfall in the west compared to eastern Pacific.



So which temperatures are you talking about when you say there is a drop in temperatures that is no longer there?
The SST in central and Eastern Pacific have decreased, and the Western Pacific SST's have increased, otherwise they would not have called the La Nina.
I am willing to be convinced if you can show me some data that determines that in the past Lan Nina events global air or sea temperatures  have changed with the La Nina.
Mick


----------



## basilio

Sea surface  temperatures in La Nina/El Nina areas will fluctuate according to the cycle. Having said that I was noting that the overall ocean and land temperatures are increasing at what is a historically very fast rate. That reality is a large factor in increasing the rate of evaporation and the capacity of the atmosphere to hold larger volumes of moist air. 

There is an excellent analysis of the impact of La Nina/El Nino by Berkley Earth.











Pin It

ENSO Temperature Trends​
 Berkeley Earth estimates of the change in average annual global surface air temperature (1966–2015) show that much of the short-term variability in the upward temperature trend is produced by the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a 2–7 year climate pattern in the tropical Pacific.  Average air temperature is affected by many different factors, including: anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) that is mainly caused by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels; the 11-year solar sunspot cycle; sulfate aerosols from volcanic eruptions; and the periodic ENSO. 









						ENSO Temperature Trends
					

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.



					skepticalscience.com


----------



## basilio

Overview of the impact of natural and human factors in Global Warming.
The Natural Variability line includes the La Nina/El Nino influences














						Global warming controversy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Sea surface  temperatures in La Nina/El Nina areas will fluctuate according to the cycle. Having said that I was noting that the overall ocean and land temperatures are increasing at what is a historically very fast rate. That reality is a large factor in increasing the rate of evaporation and the capacity of the atmosphere to hold larger volumes of moist air.
> 
> There is an excellent analysis of the impact of La Nina/El Nino by Berkley Earth.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pin It
> 
> ENSO Temperature Trends​
> 
> Berkeley Earth estimates of the change in average annual global surface air temperature (1966–2015) show that much of the short-term variability in the upward temperature trend is produced by the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a 2–7 year climate pattern in the tropical Pacific.  Average air temperature is affected by many different factors, including: anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) that is mainly caused by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels; the 11-year solar sunspot cycle; sulfate aerosols from volcanic eruptions; and the periodic ENSO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENSO Temperature Trends
> 
> 
> Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
> 
> 
> 
> skepticalscience.com



Yes thats fine, but you still have not answered the question I posed, namely what temperature were you talking about when you said that temperatures historically drop, or what sources you might have to support whichever temperature to which you refer.

The Berkeley statement  whilst admitting there are a number of known factors affecting average air temperatures, makes a rather curious  statement around the word "mainly".
I read it to say that the word "mainly" refers to the amount of anthropogenic warming  caused by fossil fuels, not that overall air temperatures are affected mainly by fossil fuels.
 A very fine but most important distinction. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Stephen Macintyre of Climate Audit asking that question of Berkeley and got no answer.
I will try and hunt down the article.
Mick
Mick


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> A very fine but most important distinction. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Stephen Macintyre of Climate Audit asking that question of Berkeley and got no answer.
> I will try and hunt down the article.
> Mick
> Mick



I wouldn't worry about it Mick. The overall question is the reality of global heating and the overwhelming causation by human produced Greenhouse gases. That  reality has been well established both empirically and  through theoretical constructs around the impact of increased greenhouse gases on heat retention on our  communal home.

Our concern now is how do we control and hopefully reverse the process. Splitting hairs in various rabbit warrens is just a distraction isn't it ?


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> Yes thats fine, but you still have not answered the question I posed, namely what temperature were you talking about when you said that temperatures historically drop, or what sources you might have to support whichever temperature to which you refer.



You said in this thread that you like to use data and science, yet seldom do so.
Here's the data confirming what @basilio referred to:






mullokintyre said:


> The Berkeley statement  whilst admitting there are a number of known factors affecting average air temperatures, makes a rather curious  statement around the word "mainly".



Actually it made a very clear statement, and you did not quite grasp it ...


mullokintyre said:


> I read it to say that the word "mainly" refers to the amount of anthropogenic warming  caused by fossil fuels, not that overall air temperatures are affected mainly by fossil fuels.



No, it named different* factors that affect average air temperature*, and never mentioned an "amount".


----------



## Joules MM1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Arctic is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world.​Arctic Peoples are seeing their lives and livelihoods altered, and they're finding ways to adapt.








						The Arctic - Our changing home
					

The Arctic is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world. Arctic Peoples are seeing their lives and livelihoods altered, and they're finding ways to adapt.




					arctic-council.org
				




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Investoradam

Joules MM1 said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Arctic is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world.​Arctic Peoples are seeing their lives and  altered, and they're finding ways to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arctic - Our changing home
> 
> 
> The Arctic is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world. Arctic Peoples are seeing their lives and livelihoods altered, and they're finding ways to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arctic-council.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------




*the way people the doom dayers carry on you'd almost think its never happened before!*​​​Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before​








						Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before, But There's A Catch
					

A recent study by NASA found that sea ice is growing faster during the winter months today than it did decades ago. This increased growth of sea ice has helped to slow down the overall reduction in Arctic sea ice and delayed an ice-free Arctic.




					www.forbes.com
				





Evidence of ancient rainforests found in Antarctica​When dinosaurs roamed the Earth 90 million years ago, the planet was much warmer, including Antarctica at the South Pole. But in a surprising twist, researchers have discovered evidence that Antarctica also supported a swampy rainforest at the time, according to a new study. 
Researchers captured a slice of the seafloor using a drill rig aboard a polar research vessel on West Antarctica's Amundsen Sea between February and March in 2017. The sediment core sample was taken near the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers. 
CT scans of the sediment core revealed pristine samples of forest soil, pollen, spores and even root systems so well preserved that they could identify cell structures. The soil included examples of pollen from the first flowering plants found this close to the South Pole.











						Evidence of ancient rainforests found in Antarctica
					

Researchers have discovered evidence that Antarctica had a swampy rainforest 90,000 years ago thanks to sediment cores filled with pristine soil and root systems that preserved the plant cells.




					edition.cnn.com
				









The Green Sahara Of The Past​Last Updated on Tue, 30 Nov 2021  | Tropical Rainforest
Evidence from a whole range of sources shows that only a few thousand years ago, the climate of the whole Sahara region was very different from now. Animal bones in the desert sands show that giraffes and elephants once walked where there is now no vegetation and no water. The people who lived in the central Sahara at that time even recorded the animals they saw in rock paintings and engravings, vividly illustrating just how completely this place has changed in a few thousand years. A more detailed picture of the landscape at that time comes from pollen which has ended up preserved in the dried muds of old lake beds and empty river channels. It reveals a mosaic of scrublands, open woodlands and grasslands, consisting of plant species that now only grow hundreds of kilometers farther south. Even the extremely arid core of the Sahara, which nowadays gets less than 25 mm of rainfall a year, had a dense vegetation cover capable of sustaining cattle-herding and localized wheat-growing. All the evidence shows that the moistness of the Saharan climate at that time far exceeded the alternative "green Sahara" state of the present-day world. Perhaps we should honor the memory of this remarkable phase in climate history with the upper case "Green" Sahara, to distinguish it from the merely "green" Sahara.




__





						The Green Sahara Of The Past - Tropical Rainforest
					

Evidence from a whole range of sources shows that only a few thousand years ago, the climate of the whole Sahara region was very different from now. Animal




					www.climate-policy-watcher.org


----------



## rederob

Investoradam said:


> *the way people the doom dayers carry on you'd almost think its never happened before!*



Humans were never part of the equation.
I guess that's an issue which is beyond you.


----------



## Investoradam

rederob said:


> Humans were never part of the equation.
> I guess that's an issue which is beyond you.



given you you never answer the question directly and only dance around it in an attempt to preach the self mortal high ground!
its ironic your comment

so stating the question is beyond some ones capabilities your post is very ironic


----------



## rederob

Investoradam said:


> given you you never answer the question directly and only dance around it in an attempt to preach the self mortal high ground!
> its ironic your comment
> 
> so stating the question is beyond some ones capabilities your post is very ironic



I am better than most in answering questions at ASF, *and *providing substantiation.
However so few of your posts are intelligible that your capacity to  reason is questionable.  For example, how are non-AGW events from the prehistoric past relevant to present climate concerns?


----------



## mullokintyre

have not heard any warnings from the BOM etc, but I am going to have a stab at the liklihood of a Cyclone forming in the Cora Sea below the Solomons late Sunday or early Monday next week.
The forecast is for the low to creep under 1000 HP, which usually means a cyclone if the waters are warm enough.
At least a 60% chance by my reckoning.

Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> have not heard any warnings from the BOM etc, but I am going to have a stab at the liklihood of a Cyclone forming in the Cora Sea below the Solomons late Sunday or early Monday next week.
> The forecast is for the low to creep under 1000 HP, which usually means a cyclone if the waters are warm enough.
> At least a 60% chance by my reckoning.
> 
> Mick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 133978



FYI weather is *not *climate.
Maybe post here instead.
Or open a new thread on weather forecasting?


----------



## Joules MM1

DYOR opinion-sphere: "..here's the shocker, they arent always accurate"


----------



## explod

More than 70 killed as series of deadly tornadoes smash several US states
					

US President Joe Biden has approved an emergency declaration for Kentucky after the state was battered by a swarm of tornadoes that have killed at least




					thenewdaily.com.au
				




More than 70 people killed as series of deadly tornadoes smash several US states​


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> More than 70 killed as series of deadly tornadoes smash several US states
> 
> 
> US President Joe Biden has approved an emergency declaration for Kentucky after the state was battered by a swarm of tornadoes that have killed at least
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thenewdaily.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 70 people killed as series of deadly tornadoes smash several US states​



Weather.


----------



## bellenuit

wayneL said:


> Weather.




W=f(C)


----------



## mullokintyre

mullokintyre said:


> have not heard any warnings from the BOM etc, but I am going to have a stab at the liklihood of a Cyclone forming in the Cora Sea below the Solomons late Sunday or early Monday next week.
> The forecast is for the low to creep under 1000 HP, which usually means a cyclone if the waters are warm enough.
> At least a 60% chance by my reckoning.
> 
> Mick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 133978



Cyclone Ruby came and went without a mention.
Made it to cat 3, and battered the western side of New Cal, but no loss of life fortunately.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre

I thought the Chinese charade might have lasted a little longer.
The ink is barely dry on the COP  agreement, and already China is suggesting that they are not real targets.
From South China Morning Post


> Serving and former Chinese senior officials have urged caution on the path towards carbon neutrality, echoing the leadership’s assessment that climate targets “can’t be achieved in just one battle”.
> Addressing a forum in Beijing on Saturday, former finance minister Lou Jiwei said that while China had said it would “strive to” reach peak carbon emissions before 2030 and carbon neutrality before 2060, there was a difference between this and “ensuring [those targets would be achieved]”.
> “We are a developing country. We should bear common but differentiated responsibilities that are different from developed countries,” Lou told the gathering organised by the China Centre for International Economic Exchanges.
> Han Wenxiu, from the Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs, was similarly cautious, saying the two targets were complex and long-term tasks that required full consideration of the country’s energy and industrial structure.
> 
> “[The carbon targets] should not affect the country’s overall economic and social development,” Han said.



A developing country is China.
Hope they don't expect Oz to pitch in a few billion to "help" this developing country  as it "strives to"  reach peak carbon emissions. No word on actaully reducing them, but hey thats diplomacy for ya.
Mick


----------



## Joules MM1

youre interactive and so is this !









						Rising From the Antarctic, a Climate Alarm
					

Wilder winds are altering crucial currents. The sea is releasing ancient carbon dioxide. Vast ice shelves are melting from below. See why the experts are increasingly alarmed.



					www.nytimes.com
				




*not peer-reviewed material


----------



## Sean K

mullokintyre said:


> I thought the Chinese charade might have lasted a little longer.
> The ink is barely dry on the COP  agreement, and already China is suggesting that they are not real targets.
> From South China Morning Post
> 
> A developing country is China.
> Hope they don't expect Oz to pitch in a few billion to "help" this developing country  as it "strives to"  reach peak carbon emissions. No word on actaully reducing them, but hey thats diplomacy for ya.
> Mick




China and Indian demand is still there and even though they are taking up more renewables, coal is going to be more than 30% of the energy mix in Asia for some time. Global net zero by 2050 seems unachievable unless there's a dramatic change in Asia. If the CAGW activists are correct, then we're doomed.


----------



## Sean K

I'm an avid diver so the health of the reef has been of major concern to me.

Recent reports seem to indicate it's recovering and in pretty good shape.






						Reef in recovery window after decade of disturbances | AIMS
					

After a year’s reprieve, with no major pressures from heat stress or cyclones, widespread recovery on the GBR is underway.




					www.aims.gov.au
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/24/australia-great-barrier-reef-coral-spawning/
		


Coral cover seems to be back around 1985 levels. Other reports are still saying it's in really bad shape, although these graphs are pretty clear. Not sure what it was like pre-1985.






Hopefully the reef continues to recover, or adapt, to the warmer water. The other consideration for the reef is that, if the Coral Sea is warming or effected by run-off from the coast, the reef starts to extend south, over time. Might have a barrier reef coming down to Victoria one day perhaps.

Doing a 7-day live aboard early next year so will post up some photos of the coral.


----------



## mullokintyre

Was talking to friends in Utah last night, and they were telling me how cold it was over Christmas.
It got  down to the -5 F,  or -20C in our language,  in the higher regions where they lived, as i was telling them how we were having a pleasant 33 (or 91 in their language)  at home in OZ.
They are farmers, and take a bit of interest in the weather and climate.
Bob sent me two articles , This one from MSN


> As the climate continues to warm, more and more of the snow falling on California’s mountains will be replaced by rain. Already in recent decades, the snow season has shrunk by a month, according to one estimate, while snow levels have moved upward by 1,200 feet, according to another.
> his snowless future, according to a new study led by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, could arrive in California’s Sierra Nevada in as soon as 25 years. The study is among many to detail the decline in snow, but it’s unique in synthesizing decades of research to nail down exactly when the snow might be gone. And it offers a timeline that is alarmingly short.
> 
> “Warming just doesn’t allow for snow to persist,” said Alan Rhoades, a hydroclimate research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley Lab and one of the lead authors of the paper. “Our one major goal was to identify how much time we have to roll out adaption strategies.”
> 
> Experts say that preparing for a Sierra with less snow won’t be easy, or cheap, but they agree it must be done.



He also sent me this twitter post


> NEW DECEMBER RECORD: 193.7" With a 24 hour official #snow total of 38.9" at the lab, we have smashed the previous record of 179" of snow in December set in 1970! Snow rates are still heavy and we could even break the 200" mark today!
> So with two days to go before the end of December, the snowpack record from 1970 has already been smashed. with the possibility of getting ober 200 inches for December.



And this  barely a month since the dire prediction of  no snow in the Sierra Nevadas from the first article.
As I am sure someone will point out, its only one season, and its only weather rather than climate.
There were well above average falls in 2013 and 2019 when it was the 5th largest snowfall ever recorded.
There were also extremely low falls as in 2020.
On thwe bright side . Bob is pretty happy as it is the snowpack that provides the spring runoff that fills their dams and aquifiers.
Mick


----------



## rederob

mullokintyre said:


> As I am sure someone will point out, its only one season, and its only weather rather than climate.
> There were well above average falls in 2013 and 2019 when it was the 5th largest snowfall ever recorded.
> There were also extremely low falls as in 2020.



More precipitation is a byproduct of climate change and is little different to record flooding events in the northern hemisphere earlier this year.
On the other hand, so are record high temperatures, and these have been astonishing with Verkhoyansk in the Arctic hitting 38 degrees celsius this year, and last year Antarctic temperatures breaching 18 degrees.


----------



## sptrawler

Sean K said:


> China and Indian demand is still there and even though they are taking up more renewables, coal is going to be more than 30% of the energy mix in Asia for some time. Global net zero by 2050 seems unachievable unless there's a dramatic change in Asia. If the CAGW activists are correct, then we're doomed.



As you were saying @Sean K , it seems China is playing to its own song, while the rest of the World takes the birch branch to their backs.



			China fires up giant coal power plant in face of calls for cuts
		

From the article:
A report published this month by researchers at China's State Grid Corporation said energy security concerns mean the country is likely to build as much as 150 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity over the 2021-2025 period, bringing the total to 1,230 GW.


----------



## Sean K

sptrawler said:


> As you were saying @Sean K , it seems China is playing to its own song, while the rest of the World takes the birch branch to their backs.
> 
> 
> 
> China fires up giant coal power plant in face of calls for cuts
> 
> 
> From the article:
> A report published this month by researchers at China's State Grid Corporation said energy security concerns mean the country is likely to build as much as 150 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity over the 2021-2025 period, bringing the total to 1,230 GW.




In order to reduce coal it must mean a lot of old stations will be taken off in the coming years to offset the additional plants they are building. What sort of life span do these things have? 30 Years? So, if they stop building new one's by 2025 they'll still be consuming out to 2055, at least. 

Energy security needs to be a priority for Australia in the coming years. Building some fuel storage capacity in Darwin and deals with the US is a tiny step, but if supply is cut off we still have less than 30 days till everything stops. None of our new armoured vehicles will get out the door. I don't think there's any future plans to put batteries in them.


----------



## Smurf1976

Sean K said:


> What sort of life span do these things have? 30 Years?



Normal lifespan assuming it's properly built it should be absolutely rock solid for 40 years of constant operation.

After that, problems start to emerge, reliability diminishes, and ultimately a point comes where for economic and practical reasons it's game over.  

So as a generic answer it's 40 years hard running then a wind down over another 10 years or so during which time outages become more frequent and capacity will typically be de-rated 10 - 20%.

Example, Liddell power station in NSW. Original commissioning date 1971. Got a solid 40 years out of it apart from some trouble in the early 1980's which was ultimately due to a design flaw that took a while to become apparent but once that was resolved all was good. Over the past decade however capacity has been de-rated progressively, it's now limited to 84% of original design output, and the outage rate has steadily increased. Complete closure is to occur in two stages over the next 15 months.

That's a pretty typical life cycle scenario unless some major mishap or other circumstance kills it sooner.


----------



## Sean K

Smurf1976 said:


> Normal lifespan assuming it's properly built it should be absolutely rock solid for 40 years of constant operation.
> 
> After that, problems start to emerge, reliability diminishes, and ultimately a point comes where for economic and practical reasons it's game over.
> 
> So as a generic answer it's 40 years hard running then a wind down over another 10 years or so during which time outages become more frequent and capacity will typically be de-rated 10 - 20%.
> 
> Example, Liddell power station in NSW. Original commissioning date 1971. Got a solid 40 years out of it apart from some trouble in the early 1980's which was ultimately due to a design flaw that took a while to become apparent but once that was resolved all was good. Over the past decade however capacity has been de-rated progressively, it's now limited to 84% of original design output, and the outage rate has steadily increased. Complete closure is to occur in two stages over the next 15 months.
> 
> That's a pretty typical life cycle scenario unless some major mishap or other circumstance kills it sooner.




Thanks Smurf. So, all the coal plants being built, and will be built over the next decade plus, have a 40 year plus lifespan. Something is missing in the absolute imperative to get to net zero by 2050. Can the planned off-sets meet that from what you know?


----------



## Sean K

Good piece from Shellenberger. Might be better in an 'Energy Security' thread.









						Finally, Bloomberg Admits Renewables Mania Caused Energy Shortages
					

Plus, new Environmental Progress Analysis finds German emissions rose in 2021 and in will rise again in 2022




					michaelshellenberger.substack.com


----------



## mullokintyre

I am going to have another stab at Cyclone predicting.
Low forming along the monsoon Trough that may well end up as a cyclone forming North  west of  Derby  Monday or Tuesday next week.





Might be a bit of rain in the next 8 days.
Lake Eyre Basin gunna get a boost, the Todd river will most likely flow again, maybe even the finke river will get some water down it.
Should be a great year for pastoralists out there.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre

Norway is often touted as one of the Icons of the  Green Energy orld.
According to Life  in Norway ,97% of its Electricity generated by Renewables (mostly Hydropower).
It has decreed that all new vehicles sold after 2025 must be zero emissions (either Hydrogen or EV's), there are no import or duty taxes on RV's,  all municipial and govt charges can be no  higher than 50% of a gasoline powered car, such that in 2021 54% of all new car sales were EV's
However, the money that is forgone from all these generous  subsidies comes from the sales of oil and gas.


> Norway is the eighth largest oil exporter and third largest natural gas exporter thanks to these resources. This accounts for 40% of the country’s total exports and 17% of GDP.



Its funny how the French, the Brits and lots of others hang it on OZ for exporting  fossil fuels, but somehow the ninth biggest seller of fossil fuels gets off scot free.
politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
Mick


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> Its funny how the French, the Brits and lots of others hang it on OZ for exporting fossil fuels, but somehow the ninth biggest seller of fossil fuels gets off scot free.




Interesting perspective.

The problems with  our current governments attitude to fossil fuels ?

1) Despite the reality of global warming and the economic reality of collapsing fossil fuel demand the government is intent on encouraging an expansion of coal mines and gas production.

2)  Unlike Norway  the Australian  is making relatively minimal efforts to  drive  a renewable energy economy.  Every piece of evidence says we must rapidly reduce fossil fuel use AND that renewable energy is cleaner and cheaper. Just dumb

3) The Government has been dragging the chain on recognising how dangerous global warming is and the need for massive changes.

Norway has been clever  and forward thinking in using the wealth generated by its fossil fuel to drive a clean sustainable future. Australia hasn't.


----------



## mullokintyre

basilio said:


> Interesting perspective.
> 
> The problems with  our current governments attitude to fossil fuels ?
> 
> 1) Despite the reality of global warming and the economic reality of collapsing fossil fuel demand the government is intent on encouraging an expansion of coal mines and gas production.



I don't hear Norway encouraging the closure of their gas and oil fields either.


basilio said:


> 2)  Unlike Norway  the Australian  is making relatively minimal efforts to  drive  a renewable energy economy.  Every piece of evidence says we must rapidly reduce fossil fuel use AND that renewable energy is cleaner and cheaper. Just dumb



As it says in the accompanying article, Norway had a huge abundance of Hydro ability which they took advantage of long before they discovered their North sea gas and oil deposits, and long before the push to limit fossil fuels was even thought of.
Australia had a huge abundance of coal which they took advantage of before Fossil Fuels became a nono.
Just plain dumb luck on the part of the Norwegians.


basilio said:


> 3) The Government has been dragging the chain on recognising how dangerous global warming is and the need for massive changes.
> 
> Norway has been clever  and forward thinking in using the wealth generated by its fossil fuel to drive a clean sustainable future. Australia hasn't.



Norway is clever in that they promote all their green credentials  yet still get away with selling fossil fuels.
My original point was the hypocricy of the EU nations in particular on treating Australia and Norway differently.
Mick


----------



## Investoradam

mullokintyre said:


> Norway is often touted as one of the Icons of the  Green Energy orld.
> According to Life  in Norway ,97% of its Electricity generated by Renewables (mostly Hydropower).
> It has decreed that all new vehicles sold after 2025 must be zero emissions (either Hydrogen or EV's), there are no import or duty taxes on RV's,  all municipial and govt charges can be no  higher than 50% of a gasoline powered car, such that in 2021 54% of all new car sales were EV's
> However, the money that is forgone from all these generous  subsidies comes from the sales of oil and gas.
> 
> Its funny how the French, the Brits and lots of others hang it on OZ for exporting  fossil fuels, but somehow the ninth biggest seller of fossil fuels gets off scot free.
> politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
> Mick



leftist politics! hypocrites all the way !

accuse others of doing something then only do it your self


----------



## mullokintyre

mullokintyre said:


> I am going to have another stab at Cyclone predicting.
> Low forming along the monsoon Trough that may well end up as a cyclone forming North  west of  Derby  Monday or Tuesday next week.
> View attachment 136100
> 
> Might be a bit of rain in the next 8 days.
> Lake Eyre Basin gunna get a boost, the Todd river will most likely flow again, maybe even the finke river will get some water down it.
> Should be a great year for pastoralists out there.
> Mick



Failed in my predictions, so now have a 50/50 record.
So I will go out on a limb and bet that a Cyclone forms in the Coral Sea by Saturday, though given the projected movement of the deepening low, its more likely to affect Vanuatu or the New Cal rather than OZ.
Mick


----------



## macca

mullokintyre said:


> Failed in my predictions, so now have a 50/50 record.
> So I will go out on a limb and bet that a Cyclone forms in the Coral Sea by Saturday, though given the projected movement of the deepening low, its more likely to affect Vanuatu or the New Cal rather than OZ.
> Mick



Yep, you were wrong, but don't get in a spin over it


----------



## Sean K

I go to Dr Roy Spencer's blog every month to check the UAH satellite temperature data, which should be one of the most reliable measurements in the World as there's less urban heat island effect, no movements in screen siting, and no homogenisation of past records, yet.

He is not a 'climate denier' and regularly fronts US senate committees to testify regarding observable data and real time effects with facts. He believes the earth is warming and humans have contributed to it. 

Yet, Google have decided to demonetize his web site because he's identifying that the earth isn't warming as fast as the models have predicted.   

This censorship by the big tech companies is dangerous to any scientific discussion on the nuances of our response to global warming going forward. If we're really not warming as fast as predicted by the models, we have more time to prepare and get our house in order to transition in an orderly way without destroying our way of life and energy security which has some short term significant health, economic, and geopolitical effects, as we are seeing right now. 

*"Unreliable and harmful claims".*
January 7th, 2022

DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.

From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.

I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.

Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:

I believe the climate system has warmed
I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.


----------



## mullokintyre

mullokintyre said:


> Failed in my predictions, so now have a 50/50 record.
> So I will go out on a limb and bet that a Cyclone forms in the Coral Sea by Saturday, though given the projected movement of the deepening low, its more likely to affect Vanuatu or the New Cal rather than OZ.
> Mick



The Coral sea Cyclone took longer to form than I expected, but it passed to the west of Vanuatu and was heading for  Norfolk Island, though it may well just peter out to a  low storm.
Mick


----------



## Investoradam

The price of metallurgical coal has risen to record levels as trade tensions and border problems push the cost for Chinese importers sky-high.










						China, India propel Aussie coal price to record high despite global green energy push
					

Soaring demand for electricity in China and India has put a rocket under the coal market with prices for the fossil fuel hitting a record high despite efforts to de-carbonise the global economy.




					www.abc.net.au
				




thats ok! as climate change is racist and only happens in white western countries and not other countries so no out rage from the usual leftist crowd


----------



## mullokintyre

the Atlantic occasionally publishes some good stuff, unfortunately it also occasionally publishes soem garbage,
From the Atlantic



> But energy is not the only domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not. So does foreign policy—specifically, nuclear war.
> 
> Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a “no-fly zone.” But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than _any_ energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.
> 
> I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively “minor” exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planet’s climate in enormous and long-lasting ways.
> 
> Read: A 10-year-old nuclear-blast simulator is popular again
> 
> Consider a one-megaton nuke, reportedly the size of a warhead on a modern Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. (Warheads on U.S. ICBMs can be even larger.) A detonation of a bomb that size would, within about a four-mile radius, produce winds equal to those in a Category 5 hurricane, immediately flattening buildings, knocking down power lines, and triggering gas leaks. Anyone within seven miles of the detonation would suffer third-degree burns, the kind that sear and blister flesh. These conditions—and note that I have left out the organ-destroying effects of radiation—would rapidly turn an eight-mile blast radius into a zone of total human misery. But only at this moment of the war do the climate consequences truly begin.



If there was a nuclear war, climate change would be the least of our worries.
I doubt the people who night consider dropping them are going to give much consideration to the climate, either now or in the future.
Mick


----------



## Dona Ferentes

_If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail._


ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes


----------



## mullokintyre

Australia has been hammered by UN and European Union countries over its lack of climate action.
And yet, when you look at who is using the dirty coal  the most, we come pretty well down the list.
I guess its because they know unlike the biggest user of them all, we are not likely to fight back with sanctions, trade barriers etc.
Mick


----------



## Boggo

A dose of reality !


----------



## wayneL

A topic that comes up quite often


----------



## wayneL

Reducing UBI effect etc.

Now we're talkin'


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Reducing UBI effect etc.
> 
> Now we're talkin'





Well that was interesting.  The Leaf of Life Facebook page has a great range of permaculture/environment protection projects.  Obviously Wayne is well into that with his new lifestyle in WA.

Greening cities to reduce the Urban Heat Island effect is a big deal as cities become hotter and hotter with global warming plus the effects of the manmade local environment.  I'm (very) surprised at the suggestion that simply greening an area will drop local temperatures by the  suggested amounts. I never saw that suggestion in the  Video (48C to 26c)  and to my knowledge none of the science would ever claim such a dramatic temperature reduction.

Facebook  Leaf of Life.


----------



## Sean K

New Zealand is in trouble. If they put a price on cow farts, they're going to go broke.


----------



## macca

Sean K said:


> New Zealand is in trouble. If they put a price on cow farts, they're going to go broke.
> 
> View attachment 142666




This is the stuff that causes people to ignore the whole CC thing.

A cow eats grass, it digests the grass, farts, burps and poops while it makes milk or beef.

In the meantime, the poop fertilizes the grass, the farts are CO2, the grass also absorbs this so that it can grow again

It is basically, a closed cycle IMO

There used to be billions of herbivores before humans starting building houses etc, I think there would be less animals now than there was then so I don't see how they are part of the problem.


----------



## mullokintyre

As usual, they never explain how putting a price on  ag emissions will  cut the emissions, unless they expect a lot of farmers to go broke or at least cut the size of their herds.
Mick


----------



## macca

mullokintyre said:


> As usual, they never explain how putting a price on  ag emissions will  cut the emissions, unless they expect a lot of farmers to go broke or at least cut the size of their herds.
> Mick




They seem to forget that people need to eat.

I have read that certain wealthy people in the USA are pushing artificial meat made from cereal crops

How ridiculous, the amount of pollution created to plant, fertilize, water, harvest, transport, process, package before shipment is far more than a cow eating grass.

Can't get a monopoly on cows though can they


----------



## Sean K

macca said:


> This is the stuff that causes people to ignore the whole CC thing.
> 
> A cow eats grass, it digests the grass, farts, burps and poops while it makes milk or beef.
> 
> In the meantime, the poop fertilizes the grass, the farts are CO2, the grass also absorbs this so that it can grow again
> 
> It is basically, a closed cycle IMO
> 
> There used to be billions of herbivores before humans starting building houses etc, I think there would be less animals now than there was then so I don't see how they are part of the problem.




I watched a non-scientific opinion piece on sequestration of CO2 recently that surmised that Australia is already net zero due to our size and the amount of CO2 absorbed by the land and our sea compared to emissions. Not sure if a peer reviewed study has been done on this, but there should be. Perhaps Australia is already producing carbon credits and we can keep the lights on?


----------



## macca

Sean K said:


> I watched a non-scientific opinion piece on sequestration of CO2 recently that surmised that Australian is already net zero due to our size and the amount of CO2 absorbed by the land and our sea compared to emissions. Not sure if a peer reviewed study has been done on this, but there should be. Perhaps Australia is already producing carbon credits and we can keep the lights on?




I read that if we include the territorial waters off our coast line we are actually CO2 positive, I will try to remember where I read it...................

It does help that we claim a huge area of ocean  being an island.


----------



## mullokintyre

Ah you guys are forgetting the fact that because we export coal , oil. gas and meat etc, we export  emissions, which are included in our output.
And its not the amount we emit, its the amount per capita.
Thats the way they demonise OZ, but let of China scott free.
Mick


----------



## Sean K

mullokintyre said:


> Ah you guys are forgetting the fact that because we export coal , oil. gas and meat etc, we export  emissions, which are included in our output.
> And its not the amount we emit, its the amount per capita.
> Thats the way they demonise OZ, but let of China scott free.
> Mick




Yep, and I read somewhere recently that we're not accounting for our methane emissions correctly. NZ is going to start including them shortly which is going to significantly affect them. Maybe they'll catch the farts with little plastic bags tied to the sheep. 

It's an interesting one the issue of coal, oil, gas we export. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it?


----------



## wayneL

Sean K said:


> Yep, and I read somewhere recently that we're not accounting for our methane emissions correctly. NZ is going to start including them shortly which is going to significantly affect them. Maybe they'll catch the farts with little plastic bags tied to the sheep.



An absurd action, which can only have nefarious goals IMO.



> It's an interesting one the issue of coal, oil, gas we export. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it?



Would it be cynical of me to suspect it is double counted ❓


----------



## mullokintyre

Sean K said:


> t. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it



From Climate analytics


> When emissions from Australia’s current coal, oil and gas exports (3.6% of global total) are added to domestic emissions (1.4% of global total), Australia’s contribution to the global climate pollution footprint is already about 5%. That’s equivalent to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Russia, world’s fifth biggest carbon dioxide emitter.
> 
> Full report: Evaluating the significance of Australia’s global fossil fuel carbon footprint
> 
> Australia is the world’s top exporter of thermal and metallurgical coal, accounting for about 29% of global coal trade in 2016, and will soon be the world’s largest natural gas (LNG) exporter. As a consequence, Australia’s global carbon footprint is very significant, with exported fossil fuel emissions currently representing around 3.6% of global emissions. In 2017, Australian coal and gas exports produced around 2.9% and 0.6% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion respectively.



The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.
Mick


----------



## PZ99

So our overall total is 5% which means little unless they subtract it from the countries burning the fuel.

Can't see that happening so I'll stick with the 1.4%. If we export coal to fund renewables that's good enough for me.


----------



## Sean K

mullokintyre said:


> From Climate analytics
> 
> The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.
> Mick




So, as @wayneL intimated, surely it's not double counted then and the country actually burning the fuel doesn't include it. I think there should at least be some shared responsibility there, but my gut actually says they emitter should account for it. Who makes the rules on this, some UN body?


----------



## macca

Sean K said:


> So, as @wayneL intimated, surely it's not double counted then and the country actually burning the fuel doesn't include it. I think there should at least be some shared responsibility there, but my gut actually says they emitter should account for it. Who makes the rules on this, some UN body?




I believe it should be like GST, whoever is the end user pays the full bill or in this case, is responsible for All of the CO2.

We start the ball rolling by digging it out, the business that buys it adds the freight CO2 and then the processing CO2.

The wholesaler/end user is billed for all the CO2 created to get this far

Works for me, watch Europe and the USA scream then


----------



## Sean K

I'd really like to know exactly how we account for our CO2 emissions and how much we actually absorb. There seems to be some conflicting information about.

Not sure what sort of scientist Bill is, and he may have an agenda, like most other scientists I guess.

Renowned scientist says Australia could already be at “net-zero”​Eric Barker, 16/05/2022

A WELL-KNOWN Queensland scientist says there is emerging evidence that Australia has already reached its goal of net-zero CO2 emissions and would require little effort to maintain it beyond 2050.

Dr Bill Burrows is a former senior principal scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (now Department of Agriculture) and served the State Government for more than 40 years. He has long been known as an expert in vegetation management.

Lately, he has been studying the Federal Government’s target of reaching ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. He says it is likely the government has already reached that goal when it changed its wording about climate targets about 18-months-ago.

“In December 2020 Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources advised an Inquiry on two Climate Change Bills instigated by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy  that ‘for the Paris Agreement (PA) all net emissions from all lands (in Australia) will be accounted for – without restriction – using the independent monitoring systems of the national inventory’,” Dr Burrows said in a recent report.

“By way of contrast, for the Kyoto Protocol only about 1pc of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions.”

Earlier this month, a group of scientists in Tasmania discovered that the state was already carbon negative through a significant drop in native forest logging. Dr Burrows said if all of Australia’s rangelands were included in the accounting, the entire country would show similar results to Tasmania.

“Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people living in it than live in a single world ‘super’ city (e.g. Tokyo),” Dr Burrows said.

Detailed report here:

Australia is already a net zero CO2-e emitter – thanks to our forests and rangelands


----------



## wayneL

Sean K said:


> I'd really like to know exactly how we account for our CO2 emissions and how much we actually absorb. There seems to be some conflicting information about.
> 
> Not sure what sort of scientist Bill is, and he may have an agenda, like most other scientists I guess.
> 
> Renowned scientist says Australia could already be at “net-zero”​Eric Barker, 16/05/2022
> 
> A WELL-KNOWN Queensland scientist says there is emerging evidence that Australia has already reached its goal of net-zero CO2 emissions and would require little effort to maintain it beyond 2050.
> 
> Dr Bill Burrows is a former senior principal scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (now Department of Agriculture) and served the State Government for more than 40 years. He has long been known as an expert in vegetation management.
> 
> Lately, he has been studying the Federal Government’s target of reaching ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. He says it is likely the government has already reached that goal when it changed its wording about climate targets about 18-months-ago.
> 
> “In December 2020 Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources advised an Inquiry on two Climate Change Bills instigated by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy  that ‘for the Paris Agreement (PA) all net emissions from all lands (in Australia) will be accounted for – without restriction – using the independent monitoring systems of the national inventory’,” Dr Burrows said in a recent report.
> 
> “By way of contrast, for the Kyoto Protocol only about 1pc of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions.”
> 
> Earlier this month, a group of scientists in Tasmania discovered that the state was already carbon negative through a significant drop in native forest logging. Dr Burrows said if all of Australia’s rangelands were included in the accounting, the entire country would show similar results to Tasmania.
> 
> “Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people living in it than live in a single world ‘super’ city (e.g. Tokyo),” Dr Burrows said.
> 
> Detailed report here:
> 
> Australia is already a net zero CO2-e emitter – thanks to our forests and rangelands



IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.




Wouldn't it be interesting though if this gains traction and the science proved we were already net 0. I wonder if countries around the Amazon basin include the CO2 sequestration of the rainforest in the net emissions score...Apparently France includes their total land area as a sink.


----------



## Sean K

Sean K said:


> Apparently France includes their total land area as a sink.




National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC)

This second edition of the SNBC puts into action the Government’s ambition, presented in July 2017 via the Climate Plan and enshrined in the law (n° 2019-1147 of 8th November 2019 relating to energy and climate), to accelerate the implementation of the Paris Agreement by setting a target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 within French territories,* this being understood as achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and anthropogenic absorption of greenhouse gas, i.e. that which is absorbed by the natural environment managed by man (forest land, grassland, agricultural soils, wetlands, etc.) and certain industrial procedures (carbon capture, storage and reuse)*.


I guess this depends on if 'managed by man' includes a lot of our natural environment or not. Would that include the Daintree for eg? I think Tasmania include the SW national parks in its sink.


----------



## Sean K

On carbon sinks in The Fin.

So, if we just build the Bradshaw water scheme and put huge dams on the way from the Tully to the Murray, we could go net zero easily.

Although, the BHP thing has got something to do with magnesium in the tailing sucking out the CO2, not just the water.


----------



## mullokintyre

The "Blockade  Australia" protests in the Sydney area highlight the usual hypocrisy of climate  alarmists.
The woman from recently flooded Lismore who stopped her car across both lanes of the harbour Tunnel and then chained her head to the steering wheel said she was just so sick of the inaction.
Problem is she drove an ICE powered car, not an electric one, so contributed towards all the things that she and others say need to be curtailed to stop climate change. 
Dumb as dishwater.
Mick


----------



## mullokintyre

According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.


> The European parliament has backed plans to label gas and nuclear energy as “green”, rejecting appeals from prominent Ukrainians and climate activists that the proposals are a gift to Vladimir Putin.
> 
> One senior MEP said the vote was a “dark day for the climate”, while experts said the EU had set a dangerous precedent for countries to follow.
> 
> 
> The row began late last year with the leak of long-awaited details on the EU’s green investment guidebook, intended to help investors channel billions to the clean power transition.
> 
> The European Commission decided some gas and nuclear projects could be included in the EU taxonomy of environmentally sustainable economic activities, subject to certain conditions.
> 
> 
> Under the plans, gas can be classed as a sustainable investment if “the same energy capacity cannot be generated with renewable sources” and plans are in place to switch to renewables or “low-carbon gases”. Nuclear power can be called green if a project promises to deal with radioactive waste.



So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
Mick


----------



## IFocus

mullokintyre said:


> According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.
> 
> So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
> I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
> Mick




Plenty of incentive to include coal it just passed iron ore as out biggest export earner.


----------



## Sean K

So, China have decided to stop engaging with the US on global warming because of Vodka Pelosis' Taiwan stop-over. What does that mean? I think it means China will give the middle finger to any planned decreases in overall emissions and build more and more coal and gas fired power stations, as if they weren't going to do that anyway. 

Australia's annual emissions equate to just 2 weeks of China's yearly and that is reducing dramatically. Our total emissions might end up to be just 1 day of China's by 2030 at this rate. 

We are global warming walking into geostrategic security disaster.


----------



## Logique2

_"We are global warming walking into geostrategic security disaster....Sean K."_

You see this Sean K., and so does WayneL.  But we are now living in '_Adam Bandt World'_. 

And on the other side is the new Labor PM, that intellectual giant, who 3 months into office, has gone on holidays, poor lovey. Too much first class international travel, it's gruelling..


----------



## Sean K

Interesting read.



> Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
> 
> Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions. How the climate of the twenty-first century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate will present us.












						A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming - The European Physical Journal Plus
					

This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of...




					link.springer.com


----------



## wayneL

Snip: Results of an international study, delivered by leading scientists from the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics in conjunction with the prestigious University of Milan, found no statistical, data-linked evidence of any kind that the earth (and we earthlings) are in the grips of a climate emergency










						Trust the greenies to welcome news the world isn't ending with blind rage
					

In case you missed it, there was some terrific news that broke over the weekend.




					www.skynews.com.au


----------



## IFocus

Sean K said:


> Interesting read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming - The European Physical Journal Plus
> 
> 
> This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link.springer.com




Haven't read yet (will do)  Sean but did they talk about glaciers at all?


----------



## Knobby22

IFocus said:


> Haven't read yet (will do)  Sean but did they talk about glaciers at all?



Just another pathetic Newscorp rant.
Back to the real news.




__





						Weather-related disasters increase over past 50 years, causing more damage but fewer deaths
					

A disaster related to a weather, climate or water hazard occurred every day on average over the past 50 years – killing 115 people and causing US$ 202 million in losses daily, according to a comprehensive new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).




					public.wmo.int


----------



## mullokintyre

Knobby22 said:


> Just another pathetic Newscorp rant.
> Back to the real news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weather-related disasters increase over past 50 years, causing more damage but fewer deaths
> 
> 
> A disaster related to a weather, climate or water hazard occurred every day on average over the past 50 years – killing 115 people and causing US$ 202 million in losses daily, according to a comprehensive new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> public.wmo.int



@Knobby22 , you might need to back to the original message that I focus was referring to.
It is not a a Newscorp article, indeed it has nothing to do with the evil murdoch empire.
Its a statistical analysis from the European Physical Journal.
Mick


----------



## IFocus

mullokintyre said:


> @Knobby22 , you might need to back to the original message that I focus was referring to.
> It is not a a Newscorp article, indeed it has nothing to do with the evil murdoch empire.
> Its a statistical analysis from the European Physical Journal.
> Mick




Looks like the Murdock press ran extensive coverage of the article but if you have a look at it hmm... so before I read it some thing that's undeniable is the in your face glacier issue, hence the glacier question.

From the "extremist" Guardian 


"authors – three Italian physicists and an agricultural meteorologist – *did little original work, but instead reviewed selected papers from other scientists. This was an article, not a study.*

Climate scientists told Temperature Check *the work was selective and had misinterpreted the results of some studies*, while leaving others out.

But why is the article getting coverage now, when it appeared in the journal in January?

It was highlighted last week in online outlets known for publishing stories promoting climate denial. One UK-based climate sceptic group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, included the article in its Net Zero Watch newsletter."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ate-emergency-they-werent-looking-hard-enough"


----------



## mullokintyre

The Murray Darling Basin  Authority  puts out a weekly report on what is happening within the basin area in term of water flows, storage  levels and water allocations for the various bodies that seek water from the basin.
For the first week of each new month,  usually the  first paragraph is a summary of the  climate for the previous month.
This weeks report  starts with the following"


> September 2022 summary The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) reports that for Australia as a whole in September 2022 the mean temperature was +0.69 °C warmer than the average (1961-1990). Across the Murray-Darling Basin, minimum temperatures were mostly average to above average, whilst maximum temperatures were mostly below average to very much below average (Map 1).



I have a number of questions about this statement.
1. Why is the comparison between the average temperature with a 30 year period from 1961-to 1990. One might argue that the period prior to 1961 contained not enough datapoints perhaps, but why stop at 1990? Why is that 30 year period chosen as the Average Australian temperature?
2. Secondly, why compare a mean  temperature for September to an average.. 
The writers do not define which mean they refer to, as apart from the arithmetic mean, a dataset also has an harmonic mean and geometric mean. 
The arithmetic mean of a set of numbers is the same as the average of the set of numbers, so one can only assume they are talking about the arithmetic mean. So why not use the word average? They did not use the word mean  in the statement about the values from 1960 to 1990.
3. For the basin itself, which he minimum temperatures were mostly average to above average, whilst maximum temperatures were mostly below average to to very much below average, it would seem logical that the average temperature then was somewhat below average, but they do not provide how much below average.the MBA takes in a tad over 14% of the OZ land mass,  so for the rest of Australia, there must have been some pretty hot places to get the average up to 0.69 above the 30 year average.

4.  The concept of an average temperature is contentious.
I would suggest that if you asked a 100 Australians how the average temperature for Australia is derived, they would say that you add up all the maximum temperatures for the day, and divide it by the number of recording stations. However, if one looks at the September BOM Report , one can see that the  average is actually average of the days highest and lowest temperatures. So when the  BOm says that the daily, weekly or monthly  temperature is 0.69 above the long term average, that result can be achieved by  having a higher Max, a higher minimum, or a combination of both. if we are told that the earth is warming at rate X, one needs to ask is it because the maximum temperatures have increased, or because the minimum temperatures have increased. Either can achieve the average anomaly increase, but your average punter would see the outcome entirely differently. 
Mick


----------



## Knobby22

It's historic. Old records kept were just maximum and minimum temperatures. Also on point 1 comparing to the previous 30 years is logical as though some warming had occurred the data sets are more accurate and comparison is uncontentious.

Definitely happening though.
Especially in the arctic.




__





						Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
					





					nsidc.org


----------



## macca

mullokintyre said:


> The Murray Darling Basin  Authority  puts out a weekly report on what is happening within the basin area in term of water flows, storage  levels and water allocations for the various bodies that seek water from the basin.
> For the first week of each new month,  usually the  first paragraph is a summary of the  climate for the previous month.
> This weeks report  starts with the following"
> 
> I have a number of questions about this statement.
> 1. Why is the comparison between the average temperature with a 30 year period from 1961-to 1990. One might argue that the period prior to 1961 contained not enough datapoints perhaps, but why stop at 1990? Why is that 30 year period chosen as the Average Australian temperature?
> 2. Secondly, why compare a mean  temperature for September to an average..
> The writers do not define which mean they refer to, as apart from the arithmetic mean, a dataset also has an harmonic mean and geometric mean.
> The arithmetic mean of a set of numbers is the same as the average of the set of numbers, so one can only assume they are talking about the arithmetic mean. So why not use the word average? They did not use the word mean  in the statement about the values from 1960 to 1990.
> 3. For the basin itself, which he minimum temperatures were mostly average to above average, whilst maximum temperatures were mostly below average to to very much below average, it would seem logical that the average temperature then was somewhat below average, but they do not provide how much below average.the MBA takes in a tad over 14% of the OZ land mass,  so for the rest of Australia, there must have been some pretty hot places to get the average up to 0.69 above the 30 year average.
> 
> 4.  The concept of an average temperature is contentious.
> I would suggest that if you asked a 100 Australians how the average temperature for Australia is derived, they would say that you add up all the maximum temperatures for the day, and divide it by the number of recording stations. However, if one looks at the September BOM Report , one can see that the  average is actually average of the days highest and lowest temperatures. So when the  BOm says that the daily, weekly or monthly  temperature is 0.69 above the long term average, that result can be achieved by  having a higher Max, a higher minimum, or a combination of both. if we are told that the earth is warming at rate X, one needs to ask is it because the maximum temperatures have increased, or because the minimum temperatures have increased. Either can achieve the average anomaly increase, but your average punter would see the outcome entirely differently.
> Mick




If we are going to compare current monthly temps to an average then the longer the average the more meaningful the comparison.

Obviously, we have the data from 61 to 90, so we should add the data from 91 to 20 and then average 60 years of data, then compare.


----------



## basilio

This source lets one compare how Australian temperatures have changed  in the last 110 years.  The 1961-1990 average base line bisects  cooler than normal periods in the early part of the last century vs the much warmer times in the last 35 years.










__





						Loading...
					





					www.bom.gov.au


----------



## basilio

basilio said:


> This source lets one compare how Australian temperatures have changed  in the last 110 years.  The 1961-1990 average base line bisects  cooler than normal periods in the early part of the last century vs the much warmer times in the last 35 years.
> 
> View attachment 147828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loading...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bom.gov.au


----------



## basilio

This graph takes a broader global perspective over 170 years.


----------



## basilio

The impact of record heat waves on health is now  becoming much clearer.

England recorded 2,800 excess deaths in over-65s during 2022 heatwaves​Calls for government to take action now to prevent further unnecessary deaths next summer

...During the second heatwave, between 10 and 25 July – in which a new UK record temperature of 40.3C (104.5F) was set at Coningsby, Lincolnshire – overall excess deaths were 10.4% higher.

During the July heatwave, an extra 1,206 over-65-year-olds died – 7% more than would have been expected to based on the days surrounding the heatwave, according to the UKHSA.

The 8-17 August heatwave was the most devastating for older people, with 1,459 excess deaths (excluding Covid-19 deaths) – 15% higher than would have otherwise been expected.









						England recorded 2,800 excess deaths in over-65s during 2022 heatwaves
					

Calls for government to take action now to prevent further unnecessary deaths next summer




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Smurf1976

mullokintyre said:


> I would suggest that if you asked a 100 Australians how the average temperature for Australia is derived, they would say that you add up all the maximum temperatures for the day, and divide it by the number of recording stations. However, if one looks at the September BOM Report , one can see that the average is actually average of the days highest and lowest temperatures.



I accept that's probably true but what it tells me is nothing about the climate and simply that the average Australian isn't much good at maths or science.

Nobody would sensibly try to calculate the _average_ temperature using only _maximum_ temperatures as the data input, especially not when it's common knowledge that minimums are also routinely recorded.

I accept that a lot of people would probably do that but it's an inherently flawed approach if the aim is to measure _average temperature_.


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> The impact of record heat waves on health is now  becoming much clearer.
> 
> England recorded 2,800 excess deaths in over-65s during 2022 heatwaves​Calls for government to take action now to prevent further unnecessary deaths next summer
> 
> ...During the second heatwave, between 10 and 25 July – in which a new UK record temperature of 40.3C (104.5F) was set at Coningsby, Lincolnshire – overall excess deaths were 10.4% higher.
> 
> During the July heatwave, an extra 1,206 over-65-year-olds died – 7% more than would have been expected to based on the days surrounding the heatwave, according to the UKHSA.
> 
> The 8-17 August heatwave was the most devastating for older people, with 1,459 excess deaths (excluding Covid-19 deaths) – 15% higher than would have otherwise been expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England recorded 2,800 excess deaths in over-65s during 2022 heatwaves
> 
> 
> Calls for government to take action now to prevent further unnecessary deaths next summer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



That's covid vaccine deaths.


----------



## basilio

moXJO said:


> That's covid vaccine deaths.



Yeah of course .  

I didn't know you were one of "those" Moxy ?  Or is this just another one of your try ons ?


----------



## moXJO

basilio said:


> Yeah of course .
> 
> I didn't know you were one of "those" Moxy ?  Or is this just another one of your try ons ?



Hey, general has been boring without the stir.


----------



## Sean K

Breaking news:

*NZ to introduce cow burp tax.*


----------



## moXJO

Sean K said:


> Breaking news:
> 
> *NZ to introduce cow burp tax.*



I thought there was some pill that stops cows farting now?


----------



## Sean K

moXJO said:


> I thought there was some pill that stops cows farting now?




I thought they were going to use plastic bags as the capture plan. Just not sure what the storage solution was.


----------



## macca

Grass needs CO2 to grow, cow eats grass which has CO2 in it, cow removes nutrients and passes CO2, CO2 sinks to ground, grass uses it to grow, cow eats grass which has CO2 in it, cow removes nutrients and passes CO2, co2 sinks to ground, grass uses it to grow.................................

The world has gone mad


----------



## wayneL

macca said:


> The world has gone mad



Criminally so.


----------



## Sean K

I guess the next step is to tax us for our pets farts and burps. And then, our own farting, burping and breathing. I wonder if it will be an item on our annual tax return statement. 'How many farts did you do this FY?' I should be OK because my dog does all the farting at home.


----------



## moXJO

Sean K said:


> I guess the next step is to tax us for our pets farts and burps. And then, our own farting, burping and breathing. I wonder if it will be an item on our annual tax return statement. 'How many farts did you do this FY?' I should be OK because my dog does all the farting at home.



I always "dutch oven" or "cupcake" them onto other family members which in my mind is carbon sequestering. So I'd want a tax credit.


----------



## Sean K

moXJO said:


> I always "dutch oven" or "cupcake" them onto other family members which in my mind is carbon sequestering. So I'd want a tax credit.




Definitely a credit. XCO2 should add you to their portfolio.


----------



## wayneL

New client today, obvious lefties:

About to knock down a perfectly good house and build a new one
Both drive v8 Landcruisers
Hubby FIFO helping to create the moonscape that is WA
3 nags, regularly floated to training sessions and shoe with said Landcruisers
etc

I burnt up a ton of LPG custom-making some fancy shoes from bar stock for fat laminitic nag.

*

*

*

Really worried about getting a couple of cows in case they fart methane.

Drove away shaking my head and PMSL


----------



## Sean K

I've started to charge my Moodle $1 a week for her farts. We now have a fart jar in preparation for the upcoming fart tax. 

Talk today that power prices are going up 50% next year. How is that possible when RE is cheaper? Yes, yes, I know why.

Might have to make it $2 a fart for the Moodle.


----------



## mullokintyre

Sean K said:


> I've started to charge my Moodle $1 a week for her farts. We now have a fart jar in preparation for the upcoming fart tax.
> 
> Talk today that power prices are going up 50% next year. How is that possible when RE is cheaper? Yes, yes, I know why.
> 
> Might have to make it $2 a fart for the Moodle.



Really should be indexed to the CPI.
Mick


----------



## wayneL

Will there be fart credit trading?

I missed out on the carbon rort and want to get on the ground floor with this one.


----------



## wayneL

BTW, if you have an hour or so...


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> Will there be fart credit trading?
> 
> I missed out on the carbon rort and want to get on the ground floor with this one.




I don't think we'll get credit for not farting, but just have to pay. 

Maybe individual carbon credits will be a thing if we plant a tree or capture and store farts somehow? 

I dearly hope I am wrong but I saw something posted somewhere that a bank was starting to look at charging us a CO2 price according to our ATM withdrawals and purchases. I really hope Dan Murphy's is a capture and storage bank.


----------



## Sean K

The Netherlands have a 'nitrogen minister'?? 

I wonder how much the temperature will change by the Dutch closing down 3000 farms?









						Up to 3,000 ‘peak polluters’ given last chance to close by Dutch government
					

State attempts to push through plans to shut hundreds of farms to cut nitrogen oxide emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Sean K

Who was the guy that wrote the Population Bomb and we wouldn't be able to feed the World by 2000, or something.

Was it his ilk saying global warming was going to mean end of crops and we're all going to starve too?

Just how many global warming predictions of catastrophe are actually coming true?

Even the reef is in it's best shape since records started.


----------



## mullokintyre

Sean K said:


> Who was the guy that wrote the Population Bomb and we wouldn't be able to feed the World by 2000, or something.
> 
> Was it his ilk saying global warming was going to mean end of crops and we're all going to starve too?
> 
> Just how many global warming predictions of catastrophe are actually coming true?
> 
> Even the reef is in it's best shape since records started.
> 
> View attachment 150162



Paul Erlich was the man who wrote the book.
The Conversation is  still giving him oxygen, and  says the Jury is out.
For some reason , some soothsayers who get it wrong keep getting a gig (thinking of  Tim Flannery among others).
Mick


----------



## basilio

macca said:


> Grass needs CO2 to grow, cow eats grass which has CO2 in it, cow removes nutrients and passes CO2, CO2 sinks to ground, grass uses it to grow, cow eats grass which has CO2 in it, cow removes nutrients and passes CO2, co2 sinks to ground, grass uses it to grow.................................
> 
> The world has gone mad




If that was the case  you'd be right.
It isn't the case so you are badly mistaken
The biggest CC environmental impact of cows is the emissions of millions of tons of methane through cow farts.

One of the most important ways of reducing this emission is  stopping cows from farting methane
It can be done.  Austtalia  is leading the way .Check it out


----------



## macca

basilio said:


> If that was the case  you'd be right.
> It isn't the case so you are badly mistaken
> The biggest CC environmental impact of cows is the emissions of millions of tons of methane through cow farts.
> 
> One of the most important ways of reducing this emission is  stopping cows from farting methane
> It can be done.  Austtalia  is leading the way .Check it out




I am quite aware of methane reducing food additives that are becoming available, I don't wait for the latest lefty diatribe I actually do my own research.

I find it quite amusing how for years the CC warriors have been screaming the place down about CO2.

Now that it has become obvious to those who actually think for themselves that CO2 is result of a warming period not the cause of it, they have switched over to methane as the new bad guy.

I wonder what the next villain will be when global cooling becomes obvious over the next decade and millions find it very hard to grow enough crops.

North America has had a very bad annual crop and winter is returning very early, again, food shortages ahead


----------



## macca

Methane, well if we are going to tax cows for farting what about Vegans 💩

17 Tips to Stop Farting So Much on a Vegan Diet​Got vegan farting problems? Well, I’ve actually experienced it myself, so I feel your pain. But it doesn’t have to be so bad. There are many quick adjustments you can make to your vegan diet to stop farting so often.






						17 Tips to Stop Farting So Much on a Vegan Diet – I Am Going Vegan
					






					www.iamgoingvegan.com


----------



## mullokintyre

I did not see the following mentioned in any of the MSM.
From Weatherzone


> Perisher Valley just registered Australia’s equal lowest summer temperature on record after plunging to -7ºC early this morning.
> An unseasonably cold air mass combined with clear skies and light winds allowed temperatures to dive across southeastern Australia on Thursday night.
> Sub-zero temperatures were recorded in parts of NSW, Vic and the ACT early on Friday morning, with the mercury also dipping as low as 1.5ºC in SA and 8.2ºC in Qld. These temperatures were about 5 to 10ºC below average for early summer.
> The coldest place in the country on Friday morning was the mainland Alps, where several weather stations cooled below -4ºC.
> Perisher Valley’s low of -7.0ºC just after 5:30am on Friday was the equal lowest summer temperature on record in Australia. The same temperature was observed at Perisher in January 1979 and at Charlotte Pass in December 1999.



No alarming headlines from the ABC,  no  stories about which animals are about to presish permanently.
There were no emergency Cold Snap warnings from the BOM, or any any of those links about what will happen if we don't limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.
Nah, didn't rate a mention. 
Does not fit the narrative.
Mick


----------



## Sean K

mullokintyre said:


> I did not see the following mentioned in any of the MSM.
> From Weatherzone
> 
> No alarming headlines from the ABC,  no  stories about which animals are about to presish permanently.
> There were no emergency Cold Snap warnings from the BOM, or any any of those links about what will happen if we don't limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.
> Nah, didn't rate a mention.
> Does not fit the narrative.
> Mick



 It was a very very cold November across Australia too. Somewhere near the coldest. But, that's still not the 'climate' so to speak, it's weather.  Although, I'm not sure where it starts to blur. Still, didn't hear much about one of the coldest Novembers on record from the ABC either.


----------



## macca

Sean K said:


> It was a very very cold November across Australia too. Somewhere near the coldest. But, that's still not the 'climate' so to speak, it's weather.  Although, I'm not sure where it starts to blur. Still, didn't hear much about one of the coldest Novembers on record from the ABC either.



Channel 9 have given this some airtime

Victorians have shivered through the lowest summer temperature ever recorded this morning, with snow falling across large parts of the state's alps.
The mercury dipped to -5.4 degrees at Mt Hotham by 5am, officially marking the chilliest summer day in the state since records began.
In sad news for anybody hoping to enjoy the summer sunshine, the frosty conditions are set to continue for some time yet.









						Victoria shivers through lowest summer temperature on record
					






					www.9news.com.au


----------



## Sean K

macca said:


> Channel 9 have given this some airtime
> 
> Victorians have shivered through the lowest summer temperature ever recorded this morning, with snow falling across large parts of the state's alps.
> The mercury dipped to -5.4 degrees at Mt Hotham by 5am, officially marking the chilliest summer day in the state since records began.
> In sad news for anybody hoping to enjoy the summer sunshine, the frosty conditions are set to continue for some time yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victoria shivers through lowest summer temperature on record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.9news.com.au




Does the global warming hypothesis support record cold weather? I know it's an El Nina but I thought that was just more rain. And, I think global warming hypothesis has changed from 'no more rain or snow' to more extreme weather events, like more severe droughts and floods. But, record cold?

Maybe there's some theory that the warmists have come up with that explains this cold is due to global warming in another way. Maybe an Antarctic vortex sending cold north is responsible somehow.


----------



## orr

Sean K said:


> Does the global warming hypothesis support record cold weather?



Yeah it does.
Along with a few other observed facts;  the consequences to arctic ice sheet, the almost 3 decade shrink of the Greenland ice sheet, the effects on global glaciers, ocean acidification.... I could go on .... but why bother.

Is getting a bit easier to find mamoth tusks?
And ahh I wonder why they're extinct?


----------



## Sean K

orr said:


> Yeah it does.




Ah, I've done a quick google and there's quite a few article on green sites saying it is because of a Polar Vortex. Warming causes cold, got it.


----------



## IFocus

Sean the trend is pointing to higher temps but certainly doesn't rule out extreme lower temps along the way unless you get enough to change the trend.

Given there is more energy in weathers systems and growing don't know if that translates to colder events as well.

Would urge you to read up on sea ice for both poles and glacier melts, basically we are f%$ked.

Also read up on ocean warming trends and the delay in the really nasty stuff due to oceans being the earths heat sinks and the lag in absorption  and tipping points again we are f%$ked.

Merry Xmas.


----------



## wayneL

Re colder temps.

Heresy, I tells ya.


----------



## Sean K

IFocus said:


> Sean the trend is pointing to higher temps but certainly doesn't rule out extreme lower temps along the way unless you get enough to change the trend.
> 
> Given there is more energy in weathers systems and growing don't know if that translates to colder events as well.
> 
> Would urge you to read up on sea ice for both poles and glacier melts, basically we are f%$ked.
> 
> Also read up on ocean warming trends and the delay in the really nasty stuff due to oceans being the earths heat sinks and the lag in absorption  and tipping points again we are f%$ked.
> 
> Merry Xmas.




Yes, I have been reading up on this stuff over several years but the goal posts have been changing from the climate scientists. It was only a couple of years ago that there was going to be 'end of snow'.

These types of claims, along with 'even the rain that falls won't fill our dams' have been horribly incorrect and caused massive investment in white elephant desalination plants and resulted in tourism and property valuations being decimated on the slopes.

I daresay that the recent damages we've suffered with flooding has been due in part to water not being released from the dams earlier due to the fear that there was not going to be any replenishment from normal cycles of dry and wet. The water management bodies allowed Wivenhoe and the Hume to go to almost overflowing before releasing water.

And let's also consider that large sections of the Great Barrier Reef is in the best condition it has been since records have been kept.

The catastrophism surrounding the short-medium term predictions have almost gone beyond the 'boy who cried wolf' idiom. IMO, it's causing a greater rush to renewables that might be necessary and damaging our economies and energy security to almost beyond repair making us extremely vulnerable to potential security shocks and damaging the lives of people who can't afford the financial pain we're coping - and it's only just starting.

The transition to RE has just been managed horribly across the entire planet at all levels.


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> Re colder temps.
> 
> Heresy, I tells ya.





I got to about the 15 min mark Wayne and I still didn't know what she was trying to get on about. Conclusion?


----------



## Sean K

Anyone watch Tony Heller's stuff on You Tube?



			https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller/videos


----------



## IFocus

Sean K said:


> Yes, I have been reading up on this stuff over several years but the goal posts have been changing from the climate scientists. It was only a couple of years ago that there was going to be 'end of snow'.
> 
> These types of claims, along with 'even the rain that falls won't fill our dams' have been horribly incorrect and caused massive investment in white elephant desalination plants and resulted in tourism and property valuations being decimated on the slopes.
> 
> I daresay that the recent damages we've suffered with flooding has been due in part to water not being released from the dams earlier due to the fear that there was not going to be any replenishment from normal cycles of dry and wet. The water management bodies allowed Wivenhoe and the Hume to go to almost overflowing before releasing water.
> 
> And let's also consider that large sections of the Great Barrier Reef is in the best condition it has been since records have been kept.
> 
> The catastrophism surrounding the short-medium term predictions have almost gone beyond the 'boy who cried wolf' idiom. IMO, it's causing a greater rush to renewables that might be necessary and damaging our economies and energy security to almost beyond repair making us extremely vulnerable to potential security shocks and damaging the lives of people who can't afford the financial pain we're coping - and it's only just starting.
> 
> The transition to RE has just been managed horribly across the entire planet at all levels.




Yes unfortunately politics has crept in not just from politicians (starting with the Republicans US in the 80,s) but also among so called climate scientists (is there anyone who now isn't?).

Much of the immediate dooms day stuff is various people trying to hurry up the process's of change (Tim Fannery an example?) the actual science is sound, understanding it is simple particularly if you have work with and around gases and understand measurement and statistics but messing with the timing has done harm.
Safe to say it has given anti climate groups (talking about vested interests with seriously large amounts of money backing this) plenty of ammunition to sow doubt.

With climate and weather clearly there are variations and its not a straight line but the over all trend is dramatic and clear.

WA is a good example.

As a side comment I am surfer (also from a farming family )and have long followed weather patterns here in WA along two generations before me.

In WA climate change is really in your face the bumper yield crops grown today in WA wouldn't have been possible 50 years ago with the same rain fall patterns seen today, its advances in farming  technology that has allowed for the record crops.

The fall in run off to WA south western water reserves is extreme and without desalination plants Perth would run out of water.

As the head of the WA state run Water Corp has said no one in her department doubts that climate change is real.

It could be argued that WA is merely an example of variation in weather patterns and the east coast flooding confirms that.

If anything the east coat flooding is more likely an early indication of more energy in weather systems hence a more severe La Nina time will tell.
 BTW surfing forecasters (Swellnet is pretty good) predicted the events unfolding on the east coast around 6 months out the NSW Premier apparently didn't get told when he said no one could have predicted this, politics eh.

My take on the whole thing is I think its all to late particularly if the loss of ice and glaciers continues at the same rate (which means expediential rate sooner).

The changes to RE is certainly messy, if you follow Smurfs and SP's commentary the lack of proper engineering is painful to watch but such environments create change for the better and major advances and hopefully break outs in new means of energy putting to bed once and for all the need for fossil fuels safe nuclear at all sizes would be great.


----------



## Sean K

IFocus said:


> Yes unfortunately politics has crept in not just from politicians (starting with the Republicans US in the 80,s) but also among so called climate scientists (is there anyone who now isn't?).
> 
> Much of the immediate dooms day stuff is various people trying to hurry up the process's of change (Tim Fannery an example?) the actual science is sound, understanding it is simple particularly if you have work with and around gases and understand measurement and statistics but messing with the timing has done harm.
> Safe to say it has given anti climate groups (talking about vested interests with seriously large amounts of money backing this) plenty of ammunition to sow doubt.
> 
> With climate and weather clearly there are variations and its not a straight line but the over all trend is dramatic and clear.
> 
> WA is a good example.
> 
> As a side comment I am surfer (also from a farming family )and have long followed weather patterns here in WA along two generations before me.
> 
> In WA climate change is really in your face the bumper yield crops grown today in WA wouldn't have been possible 50 years ago with the same rain fall patterns seen today, its advances in farming  technology that has allowed for the record crops.
> 
> The fall in run off to WA south western water reserves is extreme and without desalination plants Perth would run out of water.
> 
> As the head of the WA state run Water Corp has said no one in her department doubts that climate change is real.
> 
> It could be argued that WA is merely an example of variation in weather patterns and the east coast flooding confirms that.
> 
> If anything the east coat flooding is more likely an early indication of more energy in weather systems hence a more severe La Nina time will tell.
> BTW surfing forecasters (Swellnet is pretty good) predicted the events unfolding on the east coast around 6 months out the NSW Premier apparently didn't get told when he said no one could have predicted this, politics eh.
> 
> My take on the whole thing is I think its all to late particularly if the loss of ice and glaciers continues at the same rate (which means expediential rate sooner).
> 
> The changes to RE is certainly messy, if you follow Smurfs and SP's commentary the lack of proper engineering is painful to watch but such environments create change for the better and major advances and hopefully break outs in new means of energy putting to bed once and for all the need for fossil fuels safe nuclear at all sizes would be great.




I didn't realise WA had been using it's desal plant. Has there been any push to build some extra dams to capture water during the wet for the dry, or has it not been considered due to being hoodwinked by the likes of Flannery who said it'd never rain again? I thought the SW of Australia, along with much of the World, was getting greener due to the extra CO2 according to NASA? Isn't that one of the additional reasons for bumper crops, along with fertalisers etc?


----------



## wayneL

Sean K said:


> I got to about the 15 min mark Wayne and I still didn't know what she was trying to get on about. Conclusion?



It is incredibly boring (I can almost sense the host of the video start to nod off, but it was mostly about cycles, solar, revolutions, wobbles and whatnot.

The meat of her arguement of course comes well into the video.

A very quick summary, more warming may come but there could be a cold cycle first.


----------



## IFocus

Sean K said:


> I didn't realise WA had been using it's desal plant. Has there been any push to build some extra dams to capture water during the wet for the dry, or has it not been considered due to being hoodwinked by the likes of Flannery who said it'd never rain again? I thought the SW of Australia, along with much of the World, was getting greener due to the extra CO2 according to NASA? Isn't that one of the additional reasons for bumper crops, along with fertalisers etc?





WA has 3 desal plants running at full capacity 35% of total water supply info here, streamflow measured from 1911 scroll down to the chart here, crops are due to being planted now totally by GPS allowing exactly the right amount of grain and fertilizer per square mm (I kid you not) and then spraying the crops (same accuracy) during the growing season etc also with greater control of pesticides and weedicides.

Gear for all this now in the millions so many places are in the 20K acres + talking to some one the other day 3K acres cropping said he  was to small sold up to the neighbor 25k acres

Edit 2 desal 3rd on the way


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> WA has 3 desal plants running at full capacity 35% of total water supply info here, streamflow measured from 1911 scroll down to the chart here, crops are due to being planted now totally by GPS allowing exactly the right amount of grain and fertilizer per square mm (I kid you not) and then spraying the crops (same accuracy) during the growing season etc also with greater control of pesticides and weedicides.
> 
> Gear for all this now in the millions so many places are in the 20K acres + talking to some one the other day 3K acres cropping said he  was to small sold up to the neighbor 25k acres
> 
> Edit 2 desal 3rd on the way



I guess that's why our water is pricey


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> I guess that's why our water is pricey




I imagine a big part of it, ground water makes up about 36% (hard to believe we still have any) so pumping / treatment costs would add a little more.

The real cost of wasting water is power and chemicals water doesn't actually leave the system.


----------



## IFocus

Further to my mention of surfing forecasters one of the better ones Craig Brokensha (surfers pay for his forecasts) over on Swellnet talks about the coming forecast and also note the link to his explanation re the colder weather.  

Craig is an avid surfer, snow boarder, photographer and all round adventureist.  









						Get Your MJO On | Swellnet Analysis | Swellnet
					






					www.swellnet.com
				












						Why So Cold? | Swellnet Analysis | Swellnet
					






					www.swellnet.com


----------



## mullokintyre

IFocus said:


> Further to my mention of surfing forecasters one of the better ones Craig Brokensha (surfers pay for his forecasts) over on Swellnet talks about the coming forecast and also note the link to his explanation re the colder weather.
> 
> Craig is an avid surfer, snow boarder, photographer and all round adventureist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get Your MJO On | Swellnet Analysis | Swellnet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.swellnet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why So Cold? | Swellnet Analysis | Swellnet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.swellnet.com



And there in lies the problem.
Craig may be a great surfer, snowboarder photographer and all round adventurist, but what credence can we give his views?
When we are constantly urged to listen to "The Science"(TM), what does he offer in that respect?
When one of the most influential figures in Climate Alarmism, the teenager Greta  Thunberg, has not even finished high school, much less taken any undergraduate studies in the subject,  it shows  why so many people are skeptical about so many of these constantly more alarming  forecasts. Flannery technically has no climate science quals, he is a paleantologist and mammalogist, but is diametrically opposed to another Geologist , Ian Plimmer.
Both could be wrong, but it is unlikely both are right.
People on both sides of the debate will pick and choose which to believe, but thats the way the world works.
Mick


----------



## basilio

mullokintyre said:


> And there in lies the problem.
> Craig may be a great surfer, snowboarder photographer and all round adventurist, but what credence can we give his views?
> When we are constantly urged to listen to "The Science"(TM), what does he offer in that respect?
> *When one of the most influential figures in Climate Alarmism, the teenager Greta  Thunberg, has not even finished high school, much less taken any undergraduate studies in the subject,  it shows  why so many people are skeptical about so many of these constantly more alarming  forecasts.* Flannery technically has no climate science quals, he is a paleantologist and mammalogist, but is diametrically opposed to another Geologist , Ian Plimmer.
> Both could be wrong, but it is unlikely both are right.
> People on both sides of the debate will pick and choose which to believe, but thats the way the world works.
> Mick



Excellent point Mull.  In fact Greta Thunberg echoes your sentiments.  She never claims listen to me. It is always hear the climate scientists. And yes you can attempt to balance whatever you want by offsetting Ian Plimmer and  Tim Flannery. 

What you won't change is the physical  reality of a rapidly warming climate.  The melting of the ice caps.  The  record temperatures and  out of control fires in Siberia, far north Canada and the Arctic Circle.

And when your looking for scientists who somehow deny  human caused CC or question its impact there just isn't anywhere near the tens of thousands of climate scientists who will demonstrate what is happening and where we are going. And it is not something happening in the future any more.









						Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## Sean K

Someone got paid to do this study.


----------



## IFocus

mullokintyre said:


> And there in lies the problem.
> Craig may be a great surfer, snowboarder photographer and all round adventurist, but what credence can we give his views?
> When we are constantly urged to listen to "The Science"(TM), what does he offer in that respect?
> When one of the most influential figures in Climate Alarmism, the teenager Greta  Thunberg, has not even finished high school, much less taken any undergraduate studies in the subject,  it shows  why so many people are skeptical about so many of these constantly more alarming  forecasts. Flannery technically has no climate science quals, he is a paleantologist and mammalogist, but is diametrically opposed to another Geologist , Ian Plimmer.
> Both could be wrong, but it is unlikely both are right.
> People on both sides of the debate will pick and choose which to believe, but thats the way the world works.
> Mick




The 1st rule of science to to avoid belief (actually best to avoid full stop for most things and save it for religion)  

My mention of Craig (wasn't for climate change per say) more for anyone interested for the reasons for the colder weather, Craig gives quite a detailed summary broken down for us lesser learned beings regarding weather / climate the how's and whys if you read through his stuff its very good, honest and technical describing all the interactions. Its goes well beyond what you will see in mainstream.

Again he is forecasting weather  but comments from time to time on what impact climate change may or may not be impacting.

He doesn't push climate change but I think it was him that put me onto the rate and extent of ice loss around the world there is quite a number of people looking at it and doesn't get mainstream reporting maybe because it so dire.

Craig's surfing forecasts are a paid subscription (surfers hate paying for anything so he has to be good eh) and its not all about weather.

I am to miserable so don't subscribe. 

Forecasting surf requires knowledge of weather patterns and oceans behavior often a swell is made up of multiples of swells / directions / swell periods / fetch /  wind directions /  distance / ocean floor shape / depths / ocean temps / on and on.
The discussions onsite are very good for the bits you can see.

As for Greta and others to me its important to strip out the politics around science and climate change avoid "personalities or talking heads" look at the numbers they speak for them selves IMHO and they are not good.


----------



## mullokintyre

IFocus said:


> The 1st rule of science to to avoid belief (actually best to avoid full stop for most things and save it for religion)
> 
> My mention of Craig (wasn't for climate change per say) more for anyone interested for the reasons for the colder weather, Craig gives quite a detailed summary broken down for us lesser learned beings regarding weather / climate the how's and whys if you read through his stuff its very good, honest and technical describing all the interactions. Its goes well beyond what you will see in mainstream.
> 
> Again he is forecasting weather  but comments from time to time on what impact climate change may or may not be impacting.



And I will ask again, what are his qualifications for forecasting weather? 
You obviously put a lot of faith in his ability to forecast and explain weather and climate, but others who are more skeptical have similar levels of faith. 
Mick


----------



## wayneL

...and probably 80% at what is termed climate science IS religion.


----------



## IFocus

mullokintyre said:


> And I will ask again, what are his qualifications for forecasting weather?
> You obviously put a lot of faith in his ability to forecast and explain weather and climate, but others who are more skeptical have similar levels of faith.
> Mick




Look him up its not hard.

His results actually count more than his qualifications worked with some seriously high intellects in my time they were actually fu&king useless at there day job.


*"When did you start pursuing your career and how long did it take to become successful? *Two and a half years into an Engineering double degree at Adelaide University, I realised that it wasn’t for me and I needed a change.

I was surfing a lot during those years at Adelaide University, and I was naturally interested in the ocean, waves and other physical aspects of the coastal environment. I looked into whether there were any Oceanography courses on offer in Adelaide, and Flinders University offered exactly what I was looking for.

I transferred University’s at the start of 2006, *enrolled in the Ocean and Climate Sciences degree and did Honours in 2008.* During those years at Flinders University I would go on surfing trips all around the South Australian coastline, documenting my travels with a camera.

When back home I would upload a small blog like post to a forum detailing my trip, the waves I surfed and commenting back and forth with other forum posters. One of those posters was my current boss and owner of Swellnet, Ben Matson."









						Swellnet’s Surf Forecaster: Craig Brokensha
					

I grew up in the North Eastern suburbs of Adelaide, 45 minutes away from the anything that resembled a wave, and 1.5 hours away from the more consistent surf surrounding Victor Harbor. As a result,…




					careerconfessions.wordpress.com


----------



## Sean K




----------



## IFocus

Sean K said:


> View attachment 150891






That's pretty funny but sort sums up the problem or the general lack of understanding about renewables and what's hard.

The things listed actually are not the issue its more the infrastructure requirements around fault conditions, transmission etc then there is storage that's where the rubber hits the road IMHO.


----------



## Sean K

IFocus said:


> That's pretty funny but sort sums up the problem or the general lack of understanding about renewables and what's hard.
> 
> The things listed actually are not the issue its more the infrastructure requirements around fault conditions, transmission etc then there is storage that's where the rubber hits the road IMHO.




Agree, that's just the surface of it. To achieve what Labor want to achieve in 7 years in not possible. What the Greens want to achieve would put us back into caves. In the meantime, the big emitters are failing dismally to reduce emissions and China and India have a free pass until 2050, at least. Their increased emissions alone will dwarf the rest of the World in the next decade. Meanwhile, the developing World will keep heating their mud huts with dung, which will kill them much earlier than any increase in global temperature and leave them living in abject poverty.


----------



## mullokintyre

mullokintyre said:


> According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.
> 
> So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
> I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
> Mick



The idea of just reclassifying energy sources as renewable to get by some of the problems seems to be catching on.
From Cleveland.com


> COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that broadly expands the ability to drill for oil and gas in state parks and also legally redefines natural gas as a source of “green energy.”
> A 2011 state law gave state agencies the authority, if they choose, to lease out state lands for oil and gas exploration and production. The bill signed by DeWine on Friday would change that language to say a state agency “shall” accept a lease that meets certain conditions, instead of saying it “may” do so. In other words, it forces an agency to grant the lease application from oil and gas drillers.
> The term green energy typically refers to energy derived from the sun and wind, not fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel released by digging into the earth that acts as a greenhouse gas via leakage during transport and when it’s combusted. Its main component is methane, a potent heat-trapping gas.
> “Characterizing natural gas as green energy is regressive and a fallacy,” said Cinnamon Carlarne, the Robert J. Lynn Chair in Law at the Ohio State University. “Natural gas is not green energy. The labelling is a little bit Orwellian.”
> 
> DeWine said in a statement the legislation doesn’t “fundamentally change the criteria and processes” established in 2011. Additionally, he said his administration wouldn’t allow for any new surface use access in state parks. However, this could leave the door open to accessing minerals underneath state lands via surfaces of adjacent properties.
> 
> While natural gas produces a smaller carbon footprint than fuels like coal or oil, it produces a much heavier methane footprint, Carlarne said. DeWine’s policy against surface drilling is a positive, but fails to address the climate change or pollution problems with state policies expanding gas drilling.
> 
> Neil Waggoner, an advocate with the Sierra Club, largely agreed. He said the legislation will unmistakably expand drilling for resources in state parks.



Mick


----------



## Sean K

Another step towards a personal carbon budget where our purchases and lifestyle incur a carbon tax that we need to offset, or reduce our breathing, burping and farting.


----------

